UKC

I can see it's happening again I can see that it will be more difficult this time.

Today's headline in the Mail calls for not going back to mask wearing. Farage has been online stoking it up by calling for his supporters not to go back to masks. The old nonsense and lies are being pedaled again, whether by genuine conspiracy weirdos, bots or armchair material scientists or simply the JHB-types, who 'dont like being told what to do' or 'dont like having my civil liberties' being removed, for wearing a harmless mask when in crowded places.

Meanwhile, the NHS is in the worst condition its ever been, we have striking medics and people waiting hours for ambulances, waiting hours in corridors, staff on are their knees, patients are dying needlessly already.

Considering partygate, Hancockgate, the state of the economy I don't approve of a full lockdown again. It would be too damaging to the country in many ways. Social distancing will be hard to sell to the masses too given Johnson's behaviour. 

Mask wearing though, even though I hate the bloody things on an environmental level (that's just folks being shit again) I just dont see an argument against them. They work, this is clear, to what extent, this is still debatable. But they are a cheap way of preventing some spread of COVID, plus the other nasties going around at the moment. If nothing else, it might stop a few people being hospitalised, and most folks will have masks left over from last time - we certainly do - so its a free intervention.

So why would the Heil and Farage be doing this again - do they want to destroy lives, whether this is over stretched medical staff or a few more elderly COVID deaths? It angers me that they seem to want to divide the country again (havent they done enough already?) Farage, I can understand - he probably has a SM writer who just spouts divisive crap, to which he never responds or gets held accountable and like the attention - he could have a positive impact on people's lives for once by urging his followers to take sensible, easy precautions, but no.

The Fail I am more puzzled by. Yes, they like to divide, but do they have an agenda which I havent seen. Do they want to help break the NHS? I dont get it.

In either case, what they and their supporters dont again acknowledge is that given the state of the NHS, it wouldnt take much for us to be at breaking level, if we arent already, and we may end up with a situation where we are all forced to work at home again (the weirdo libertarians hate this, for some reason), that shops and business are forced to close and we end up in lockdown-III, which could irreparably damage the economy.

What a country we have become.

The Mail, Farage and the like are just playing to their supporters. 

This is caused 100% by the NHS workers going on strike, nothing at all to do with government management of the NHS, the worse things get the more blame the NHS workers will be given. 

Basically we are screwed. 

What, you want to wear a nappy on your face, don't you know its as effective as trying to catch a fart in your trousers and it's damaging to your health because they block oxygen and force you to re breath your own CO2. (gloss over the fact that covid can get through them but oxygen can't) 

See above, playing to their respective audiences, the angry man and woman who think everything is the fault of the striking workers / immigration / Europe (delete as applicable) 

See above about the angry man and woman, I purposely only use 2 genders. 

The tone of the country comes down from our leaders, in other words we have no chance. 

1. Why are you reading the Daily Mail

2. I was also thinking that I'd wear a mask for some situations at the moment (I have washable high grade ones provided by work so these are eco friendly) and lead by example?

3. I don't think you are wrong about the state of the country but why have a rant, just wear a mask if you want

I don't, the headline has been on the BBC

I have loads and also high performance ones which I will start to wear as appropriate.

I was venting in the only place in know is inhabited by normal, sensible, considerate people.

I'll rant. Mr Far Rage. I don't follow him but my phone still pings whenever he vents his bile (why does this happen? I have no idea). He daily bemoans what he calls "Broken Britain" which is rich as a) He broke it, and b) he keeps breaking it further.

We need a concerted effort at the next election to elect a better group of people. Shame we've got to wait 20 months or so.

Interesting how the Republicans are breaking into self interested factions trying to elect a new speaker.

We certainly do, the question is who to vote for? 

Anyone would be better than the current shower but who will be best? 

I'm seriously considering Green myself, round our way they are normal people from humble backgrounds who put a massive amount if time and effort in to the betterment of the local community. 

I'd sort that out if I were you.

Their owners probably do, yes. So it can be replaced by private care. This campaign has been going on foe a long time.

It's insane. I'm convinced he's a shill of some kind, probably Russian.

I never stopped wearing masks, regardless of how little protection they give some is better than none.

Off to the theatre tonight and will probably  go mask free in the auditorium where I am only close to a few people, but will mask up going in/out where you can be elbow to elbow with lots of people.

Isn't the risk when you are in close proximity to someone for ten minutes or so? Or is that just covid?

As said elsewhere the Mail tells its readers what they want to hear.

I see no problem with using masks. They don't impede or reduce the oxygen in the blood and they help to reduce the spread of bugs, it might not be by much but given the state of the NHS anything we can do to help reduce the possible burden must be a good idea.

Dave

just out of curiosity, i do see the occasional person still wearing a mask while out.

how does it feel looking around and realising you are probably the only person with one on?

That's not a criticism by the way, just a genuine question,  are you wearing it to protect yourself?  or wearing it to protect others?


 

I wear a mask on the train. I realised all the "but it's no worse than a cold or flu now" made me think "yeah, but having a cold or flu is shit, so if wearing a mask stops me catching them, too, then I'll wear a mask". I don't give a shit what anyone else thinks. No one else seems to be bothered by me wearing a mask.

And, yes, since I've had some low grade infection lurking for some time, protecting other people from me is also on my mind.

This brings up the obvious question. Why didn't you wear a mask before Covid?

I generally believe masks should be used where you know there are vulnerable people. NHS, old peoples homes etc. Same question as above, why didn't we do this before Covid? I guess it was just too alien for us.

On public transport, I have some other major hurdles to tackle first. I'm a nail biter and I rub my eyes a lot. Now you could say, well don't do that, but I'd literally have to tell myself:

"don't bite your nail, don't rub your eye" over and over in my head.

The second i relax, dammit, I'm rubbing my eyes again.

I'd need to wear a mask, gloves and goggles. I'm not doing that. Even with gloves I might still rub my eyes without thinking. Maybe I should think of wearing a straight jacket. That would get some looks.

On balance, I'll wear a mask around vulnerable people, otherwise I'll not bother unless legally required but will try and remember to keep my hand in my pockets when on public transport. And use hand sanitiser.

Because we didn't know better. Asian people certainly did wear masks in public places before Covid, and we used to view that as an eccentricity. But we've now learned.

Makes restrict nail biting and I started wearing makeup in the first lockdown, as rubbing your eyes with maskara makes you look awful.

Properly fitted FFP2 and better masks work against COVID.  FFP3 provide basically 100% protection even only to the wearer.

Fabric masks are nothing but a virtue signal.  They work against diseases that spread through droplets.  COVID mostly doesn't, it's airborne.

I'm just not that committed to the cause I'm afraid

I think it's a security blanket, with people no longer social distancing its a way of putting distance between myself and users to help ease my anxiety.

(I most probably caught covid at the supermarket during lockdown and have been existing with long covid for almost two years now)

We don't know for certain where I caught covid, but it was certainly after far less contact than that. 

Asians often did. 

To me there are two things:

1. If you've got a communicable disease you should stay at home as far as is feasible.  The sick leave system (including the level of statutory* and provision for self employed) should be designed to enable this.  The "presenteeism culture" we have in the UK is just silly; it's better that one employee takes a week off than the whole office works unproductively for a month as "the bug goes round".

2. If you do have to go out while you know you have a communicable disease, e.g. to buy food or medication, then put a well fitting min. FFP2 mask on to avoid spreading it to others.  These should be free to encourage their use.

To me universal masking with flimsy pieces of ill fitting fabric is just virtue signalling.

* I think statutory should be the furlough rate, not the pittance it is now.

Think you answered your own question pretty well. We're now accustomed to it.

I use an FFP2 mask that fits very well.

It's really not debatable. Cloth masks do near as matters nothing, especially in the way we were told to wear them. 

N95's actually do filtration, and make a difference, but were never mandated. 

The whole thing was theatre that I am convinced didn't save a single life throughout the pandemic, while causing a ton of litter, and just made life a little more crap. 

Mask mandates should not come back in any form. Government can make N95's available to all vulnerable people who wish to wear them. That would make sense to me. 

Everyone wearing bits of dirty cotton over their mouths? Total nonsense. 

2020 was a weird time in history where the concept of personal responsibility was completely ditched. We can't go back to that. It's an unhealthy mindset. 

well, you're certainly entitled to spout what we are entitled to call rubbish

I have FFP2 which I wear.

I dont want to get dragged in to a massive back and forth with this but are you claiming that they offer nothing? Fine, I get that one placed over the mouth and not the nose will be useless but if I sneezed on you with a flimsy mask, even a sock, placed over my mouth, some of the badness will be contained within the sock and/or mask?

Being airborne, are you saying that COVID is not held in droplets and somehow break free of its spittly prison, by somehow erecting a separate propulsion system which can make each virus totally self sufficient and independent?

I dont doubt that FFP masks are better but standard masks should somehow offer some protection.

Surgical masks are not (or at least werent when I was regularly visiting) FFP standard, and they are worn to protect an open wound from breathable particles.

They offer very, very little against COVID.  The risk compensation that occurs as a result of wearing them may make them worse than nothing.  I certainly recall that very thin ones e.g. Buffs are actually worse than nothing because of the way droplets collect on them.

They may have an effect against flu, but a small one.

No.  COVID is similar to measles (and similarly highly contagious) - it doesn't massively hang around in droplets which fall to the floor quickly and can be caught in a multilayer fabric mask, what it does is float around as much smaller aerosols - still within droplets, but ones way too small to be caught by a fabric mask.

If you can smell things through a mask, odds on COVID can get through it too.

(As an aside, 2m social distancing is based around the droplet theory and that these would fall to the floor within 2m - we now know it has almost no value, and that changing cleaning the air indoors using filters etc has far more value - one thing that is surprising is that this is being so roundly ignored at a Governmental level given that HEPA filtered air cleaners are such a cheap solution and one that doesn't involve the discomfort of a mask!)

Not an awful lot.

Surgical masks are as you say designed to prevent droplets or even bits of spittle falling onto a patient.  They help against COVID very slightly - certainly more than fabric - but are not super-effective.  One thing they do do is to direct exhaled breath sideways (as they never fit tightly) which is sensible in terms of what they're designed for, but on a plane where people sit alongside each other (for instance) may actually be negative.

My last several FBCs have consistently shown a white blood cell count below the normal (last one 2.32, normal is 4 to 11) and on a gradual downward trajectory.  If many people think like you, that I'm just virtue signalling when I wear a mask, then that perhaps explains the occasional hostility I'm met with.  

Re: surgical masks.  Can you provide any evidence to their effectiveness?  The only stuff I can find shows that surgical masks are between 50 and 75% effective, which means if two people are wearing them and one has Covid, the risk of transmission reduces by over 90%. Lots of research says similar. 
 

So far, it does look like I, together with various scientists, are in the minority though. 

Did you mean to say "virtue signalling"? It seems a strange choice of words when there are people - even just on this thread - doing it quite specifically because they think it'll help protect them, or those around them.

Whether or not they are correct, that is not "virtue signalling".

Why don't you wear an effective mask, i.e. FFP2 or better?  I respect people who do (you can easily recognise them), because I know they understand the issue and are actually protecting themselves and others.

Seriously, simple fabric masks are near pointless against COVID, it is bringing you a false sense of security if you genuinely believe in it, and often are just either virtue signalling or utter misunderstanding of the issues based on things that were said very early on.

I'm not hostile to mask wearers, I have never said anything to anyone in person about it as it's not really any of my business in that context, but every time I see an FFP2 I have a level of respect, but every time I see a bit of cloth I think "it's a shame that person is misinformed as they're still very much at risk".

I should probably have said "misunderstanding or virtue signalling".  One or the other.

If you want to mask to bring yourself and others benefits against COVID, you should wear FFP2 masks as a minimum.  They are proven to work.  FFP3 gives the wearer near 100% protection even if they work with COVID patients all the time.

The challenge is that some of the evidence is quite old and refers to when we thought it was mostly large droplets and fomites.  I don't doubt that a surgical mask is considerably better than nothing (or pointless pieces of cloth), but the gold standard is FFP2 minimum, or FFP3 for near 100% protection.

With Covid transmission predominantly as an aerosol, cloth masks are worse than pointless.

a) They give a false sense of safety.

b) If you have covid can make your infection worse.  Because the mask get damp with small water vapour from breath, which can absorb some virus which in turn is then taken down deeper into the lungs.

Can you point us to some metastudies that demonstrate the airborne or micro aerosol nature of transmission? I remember long arguments that covid wasn't truly airborne, unlike other viruses, because it cannot survive outside an aerosol droplet.

The 2m thing was only ever a probabilistic reduction measure, not a guaranteed prevention. Just like many masks.

Would that be the almost 10% of the entire NHS budget which is currently being spent dealing with type 2 diabetes.

I can't believe though that people are still arguing over masks

Where one if you want to, don't wear one if you don't want to.

But don't berate those who feel different to you 

I will berate those (like the Farage specimen) who push an anti-mask agenda for clicks.

Why is he wading in?

He isn't a public health expert.

He is an agitator. He gets off on causing chaos and as I suggested (above) a shill.

Here's one:

https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj-2021-068743

but if you use Google there are loads.

The Mail and its readership probably see mask wearing as being symbolic of woke leftie snowflakery, conveniently forgetting that they are actually a practical precaution against infection. A simple piece of elasticated cloth has become symbolically political thanks in no small part to the right wing media, who have studiously shifted protecting self and others into a violation of civil liberties. 

Sensible precautions like this, public reactions to emergency situations and normal civilised behaviour are purposely distorted, polarising left and right still further, like global warming vs denialism, tolerance of others who are different vs racism and trading with our nearest neighbour vs Brexit. It is conservatism on steroids, presided over by the Daily Mail, The Sun and Murdoch's arsewipe publications, who will employ anything, any symbol, to justify giving the left a good kicking. Thus strengthening the UK's political monoculture.

But libertarian zombies are too thick to realise they are aiming a shotgun at their own feet, and what they are being encouraged to do, say and think by their chosen rag will be spectacularly damaging to everything they claim to hold dear - pride in their own country and its economy.

I make no apologies for banging on about our shitty media because it is they who are, at the very least, responsible for the laughing stock on the International stage this country is becoming.

[rant over] 

The likes of the Mail, the Torygraph, and Farage run down things like the NHS, public health initiatives, health & safety laws, and environmentalism for the simple reason that they/their owners have investment portfolios that are negatively impacted by all of these things.

For example, it’s been pointed out (I think in Private Eye) that the right wing press pushed for people to stop working remotely and get back to the office because the ownership of these papers, radio stations and TV channels had investments linked to the high street. People working from home buy less newspapers, sandwiches, and overpriced coffees, and shares in high street property and businesses plummet.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the same media moguls have a few shares in private medical companies that are currently held back in their rampant profiteering by that nasty publicly owned NHS. 
 

Do you know why your white blood cell count is so low?

I note the summary gives 'certainty grade' as 'very low' for all factors, and finds only three of 18 studies to be of 'high methodological quality'.

It also appears to be examining transmission within enclosed spaces, and proposes a number of mechanisms, none of which appear to address the issue of whether the virus is truly airborne, or survives outside an aerosol droplet.

That transmission can occur >2m, due to air movement, or enforced emission of respiratory droplets, is not at all surprising.

"Conclusion This rapid systematic review found evidence suggesting that long distance [>2m] airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 might occur in indoor settings such as restaurants, workplaces, and venues for choirs, and identified factors such as insufficient air replacement that probably contributed to transmission. These results strengthen the need for mitigation measures in indoor settings, particularly the use of adequate ventilation."

If anything, that metastudy reinforces my feeling that using a mask in enclosed spaces is a reasonable, practical, preventive measure.

I'm not arguing it isn't.  I'm just suggesting that if you want it to be effective (and what's the point otherwise bar virtue signalling?) then you should choose a mask of minimum FFP2 standard and not just a flimsy piece of poorly fitted fabric.

The whole thing at the start about making your own out of old T-shirts and the likes was just to stop people buying up all the FFP2s and FFP3s the healthcare workers would need.  There's loads there now, any DIY store has them for working in dusty environments for one.

Quite possible

Any evidence?  This suggest the opposite:

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/researchers-propose-humidity-...

“Researchers propose that humidity from masks may lessen severity of COVID-19”

I think we are touching on a crux issue. No doubt that the best protection for an individual is FFP2 etc., but the reality is most people who really need them (ie my mum, cancer) simply will not. She does wear a surgical mask though (mainly when she catches the bus). And the scientific consensus is that if we all wore surgical masks this would significantly help reduce transmission and massively benefit vulnerable people. But many folk can’t be arsed, and it appears to me that many of ‘can’t be arsed’ people cite gobbledegook as their rationale, when I reckon it’s nothing more than selfishness  

Agree on the homemade botched coverings made out of curtains.

Here...

https://journals.lww.com/md-journal/fulltext/2022/02180/the_foegen_effect__...

...counties with mask mandate had significantly higher case fatality rates than counties without mask mandate, with a risk ratio of 1.85...These findings suggest that mask use might pose a yet unknown threat to the user instead of protecting them...

The cause of this trend is explained herein using the “Foegen effect” theory; that is, deep re-inhalation of hypercondensed droplets or pure virions caught in facemasks as droplets can worsen prognosis and might be linked to long-term effects of COVID-19 infection. While the “Foegen effect” is proven in vivo in an animal model, further research is needed to fully understand it.

Been a long time since someone has posted a paper that bad…. Well done.

In reply to everyone else:

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/fogen-effect-masks-big-...

The Fögen Effect, an idea put forward by a doctor with no other published research, who supports the Great Barrington Declaration and who named the effect after himself? Sounds like he did a flawed analysis, better analysis of the same or similar data shows masks can help reduce covid transmission:

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/scientific-evidence-shows-mask-weari...

Personally I would like to see the state provide and fit test FFP3s or similar to everyone diagnosed as CEV, then they can go out as they wish and don't have to worry about who does what.

It's not a problem for pretty much any normal person to wear a mask if the alternative is catching covid (again).

But if Farage and DM readers don't want to do so, well I look forward to the next Darwin awards.

T.

The answer to your question is do dependent on your current MP. If they are Tory, vote for whoever came 2nd last time. If they are not Tory, vote for the incumbent. Not ideal but there's little point in selecting to vote green if that allows the Tory back in. 

I wish we had PR, but we don't and until we do we have to vote tactically.

and the Swedes?..

Are you assuming that for any "normal person". the result from catching covid is death?

your reference to the Darwin awards suggests you do believe so.

Realistically for the vast majority of people,  covid is very certainly not death.

“On his website, Dr. Fögen refers to the public health measures against COVID-19 as “immoral” and “illegal,” and he has published a layman’s version of his paper on the website of the Brownstone Institute, an offshoot of the Great Barrington Declaration which frequently opposes COVID-19 mitigation measures”

Sounds completely above board 🙄

I was idly pondering why all the anti vax idiots seemed to be crawling out of the woodwork on youtube and twitter again.

I was thinking the other day, the common thread that links anti Vax, climate sceptics, and brexiteers is that they do not like the idea of doing something for the good of someone else, free gratis. Collective action is what they rail against, for reasons I can't fathom.

Interesting that Petrafied just said “mask” and from that you jumped to the conclusion that means a cloth mask, cast doubt on their stated motives, and imply that the you have no respect for them.

I think they feel they've failed in life, can't accept that that's probably due to choices they've made and need to scapegoat 'others' - the woke, the left, immigrants, the RNLI who should be machine-gunning rubber dinghys  to 'protect the country', scientists who point out the inconvenient truths about climate change, the WEF (whatever that is), etc.

They don't have any constructive ideas to improve 'broken Britain', they just want everyone else to feel as bitter, miserable and hopeless as they do. Collective action to improve things for others, (even if it improves things for them as well), just gets them angrier and angrier.

Go back one more, it was in direct reply to a posting I made specifically about fabric masks.

Ah, correlation and causation...

I am currently in Japan, thankfully temporarily, for work with my wife and baby where mask wearing is huge and I hate it. If I'm with my son indoors anywhere you feel that you're being judged when you lower your mask to smile at him and he also can't see other people's faces. Seeing faces is crucial for the development of babies brains and I do think that there is risk that Japanese children are going to struggle to fully develop as they are being deprived of a wide range range of faces and expressions to interact with. Wearing masks temporarily when Covid was new and unknown seemed proportionate. Now that we have vaccines it isn't. While I largely adhere to the rules while in Japan there's no way that I'm wearing one in the UK for Covid again (as a guest you should abide by the rules even if they are stupid, if its your own country rebelling is more appropriate if the rules are harmful). Also, they make my glasses steam up which is annoying although a much more minor concern

Sorry, but I had to make the racist comment...

"Seeing faces is crucial for the development of babies brains and I do think that there is risk that Japanese children are going to struggle to fully develop as they are being deprived of a wide range range of faces and expressions to interact with."

So where do they see a range of expressions normally, in non-Covid times? Foreigners? (I'll duck chairs being thrown at me).

"Also, they make my glasses steam up which is annoying although a much more minor concern"

Thus go and quickly get some contact lenses, since they don't readily steam up.

Sorry. I'll enter acceptable behaviour mode in about an hour...

I guess blind people just struggle to develop then

There’s certainly not a single shred of correlation to show the benefit between countries with no masks mandate, face covering mandates and decent mask mandates and infection rates…

You want evidence??!! This is an internet forum.........

Not everyone can wear contact lenses.

My hubby has a cracked lense and was told by several opticians they were unsuitable. Also contact lenses don't give as accurate a perscriptions for those with bad eyesight, and they arent really practical for those that only use glasses for reading either.

Totally agree though that steamy glasses are a poor excuse. Well fitting masks with a good nose seal can be worn with them.

Well, yes they do. It's rather sad.

I have a worse excuse but it used to drive me insane.

I one week beard. I typically shave every 2 weeks. Saves time. I like time.

But a one week fuzz with a mask is the itchiest thing one can experience. I discovered this when walking around a garden center. I had to go home as I couldn't cope with the itching. Lesson learnt.

It is impossible to prove either way, as you'd need two countries that had all other measures matching to verify anything either way. Countries which didn't go down the mask route were often more disciplined in avoiding each other anyway or didn't have congestion like on the underground to deal with. 

Strangely people have worn fp2/3 masks(not surgical masks) for years to avoid infection, or when working in dusty, hazardous environments and their equipment's claims about block particles down to X size holds true, otherwise thousands would be dead from all sorts of things. 

The choice is yours, for me I'd rather not be laid on a ventilator regretting not doing more, especially when a mask has no impact on daily life. 

Common sense would suggest they do. Do you cover your mouth with your hand when you cough, your nose when you sneeze? Why? 

Still remember being in Spain, who at the time had one of the most strict mask mandates of any EU country..

Was Jan 2022. 

Had to wear them indoors and outdoors in public. 

They'd not even let me into a shop unmasked to buy a mask, which was one of the more confusing moments of my life. I even put my tshirt over my face, but they'd not let me in. Luckily some Spanish person, obviously taking pity on me and the absurd situation I was in, went in and bought one for me. 

And at one point I was refused access to a restaurant because while I had my COVID passport, and could show them it, I didn't have my ID with me so no entry. 

They were very 'on it' in regards to COVID measures. Police everywhere enforcing it too. 

And during that January, their case numbers were roughly double what they were in the UK. 

The UK had not had a mask mandate for around 5 months at that point, IIRC. 

I don't know how anyone can come to the conclusion that masks as mandated (cotton), were of any use whatsoever. 

Measures that actually would have been beneficial to stopping the spread of COVID, like encouraging people to be outdoors in the fresh air for as much of the day as possible, were actually discouraged at the height of COVID. Instead we were all told to stay in our poorly ventilated homes, and only go outside for a jog once a day. 

Even people on this forum, promoted that nonsense heavily. I remember being told how going to touch some rocks in the middle of nowhere (rocks that are hard to touch, by design) would kill grandma..

All of this, despite one of the lessons learned from the Spanish flu (100 odd years ago) being that open air hospitals massively reduced infections between patients and medical staff. 

It bothers me that there's no real effort being made to not make these same mistakes again. Politicians, journos, and scientists are both too proud, and too scared, to admit 'Okay, we gave really bad advice here..'

Hopefully we will learn the correct lessons from this pandemic eventually. Probably when the current crop of scientists, journos and politicians die off or retire, and some proper objective work can be done on the pandemic response. 

There is plenty of evidence of cloth mask effectiveness (ie a lot better than nothing) they are just nothing like as effective as fitted FFP2 upwards (which provide excellent protection for the wearer as well, so any vulnerable person should be wearing one until covid/flu levels drop).

The majority of covid transmission is likely aerosol (and although good ventilation and suitable filter units significantly reduce risk sadly we have done little in the UK to act on this), but having someone infected cough in ones face is way worse, as the viral load is a lot higher with large droplets, and this led to an unusually large number of deaths of youngish medical staff in China at the start of the pandemic. Cloth masks cut that particular risk a lot but won't cut aerosol risk so much.

It's also incredibly depressing so many journals will publish shit that would not even pass a basic peer review (including the BMJ) and that the more responsible journals (especially the BMJ) dont link clear warnings when particular papers are clearly being misused on a large scale

It's sad but inevitable that some forum members who should know better still fall for such stuff, thanks presumably to social media spreading misinformation like a virus and a human need for confirmation of what we believe, irrespective of actual evidence.

.

When does this even happen? I have gone all my life without having anyone cough in my face. 

Only time it's ever happened to me, has been toddlers or young kids. And they were family, not strangers. Kids were also exempt from masks anyways. 

And whoever these alleged rogue coughers are.. If they're inconsiderate enough to cough in someones face, would they have ever been considerate enough to wear a mask? 

It's not hard is it....wearing a mask reduces the risk to others from yourself if you are infected.....there is a smaller percentage mitigation that it also gives some protection to yourself.

Sadly there are a lot of selfish, self centred nobheads who can't hack a little bit of hardship without crying about how hard done to they are....

It's been nearly three years since I last looked at this, but DARPA did a lot of research initially on transmission mechanisms, and discovered that aircraft filters improved the situation a great deal. Also there was some work on hotel A/C as a means of transmission, but I don't remember the details unfortunately.

I think there's some good evidence for aerosols as the main means of transmission. If so, 2m doesn't really help much as it only works well for larger droplets.

Indeed

Indeed. Individual responsibility - which also includes staying at home/avoiding contact when ill.

Causation isn't necessarily correlation. It depends what other mixing occurs.

I can guarantee you that if I have covid and you don’t breath my exhaled air, or transfer the virus by touch, you won't catch covid from me, how you achieve these measures is the debate, barriers, distancing etc.. tried and tested measures. 

Note, spanish flu wasn't spanish, it was just the first country that identified it and it was christened such.

It’s almost like hands/tissues/elbows never existed. Who’s ever wandered around any enclosed public space coughing and sneezing out loud?! 

Standard joke that some countries have been practicing social distancing for decades, an advancement of blokes at the urinals! 

Good that you recognise that the covering of the mouth and nose reduces virus transmission. 😀 

Maybe as part of society that extends towards no becoming a victim yourself and stretching health services? 

The Spanish rules in the summer of 2022 were some of the most idiotic I’ve come across.

Masks on an airplane, but not in the airport.

Staff in masks at restaurants, drunk diners unmasked.

Masks in pharmacies, but not other shops.

I’m grateful my Spanish vocab is limited to “Ola?” and “Gracias?” so if anyone said anything about my lack of compliance I was completely oblivious.

And all this in the middle of summer (was 40+ at the time)… Madness…

It’s inevitable that the first proper winter we do with no precautions won’t be pretty as there’s plenty of people who should have died/ been hospitalised from respiratory virus over the past 3 years, but haven’t.

If we mask up now we’re just kicking the can down the road and damaging the economy at the same time.

Yes that’s never been in doubt, so why don’t you recognise that those measures are equally (arguably more - immediate removal of nasal excrement from the face of the wearer) effective than a cloth mask?

Pretty easily explained as given the vaccination success we had decided to let Omicron run free and had higher immunity and our peak was hence before a not dissimilar sized Spanish peak.

Simply because mearly all the scientific studies show some impact for cloth masks but by 2022 FFP2 masks were easily available and much more effective.

This was known in early 2020 and yet many governments were paranoid about the very low outdoor risk, especially so when social distanced (Sweden being a notable exception) the evidence grew and grew as non socially distanced protests led to no major outbreaks. Being in a poorly ventilated home is only an issue when someone infected enters. It's a tragedy so many suffered from lack of human contact when they could have met outdoors safely when social distanced.

I'd say most people paying attention and trying to be dispassionate on here were OK and those who were not OK were probably worried for themselves, family and friends and so I'd forgive them. I find it harder to forgive those who peddaled clear lies.

We didn't know contact risks were so low until mid to late spring 2020. It's reasonable to take precautionary principles.

Covid isn't the Spanish Flu and the lessons from that were applied from the start in nearly every western nation.

Correct for politician and journo covid deniers but at much lower but still expected levels (given egos) otherwise.

More effective, that doesn't render a mask ineffective.

No but I’m not, or ever have, argued that you shouldn’t wear a mask. You should do what you think works best for you. If sneezing in to a mask and keeping it in your face while you finish your shopping is what you want to do, you crack on. I’ll sneeze in to a tissue and throw it away, or put it in my pocket for later disposal. Because that’s what I think is a) healthier for me and b) better for the environment. Might be wrong 🤷🏻‍♂️

Really? I can think of at least a dozen occasions, one in particular being at a theatre when someone literally coughed in my face with no apology. You are very lucky.

I do fail to see how wearing a mask is "damaging" the economy. I would imagine mask sellers would be cock-a-hoop. Does a mask prevent you going to work? no. Does a mask prevent you from going in a shop? no. Does a mask prevent you from spending money? no. I imagine the economy would be rather harder hit by folks going off sick.

I doubt we will mandate for masks, but as a personal choice I would probably wear one if the need arose.

A minor inconvenience, which helped prevent the vulnerable from dying early is "kicking the can down the road"? What a miserable worldview.

When masks were mandatory, I would avoid going anywhere that required a mask if I could at all help it. I'm sure I wasn't the only one.

That doesn’t mean you wouldn’t spend money, it probably means you’d just consume different products and services. You might even spend more on a premium no-mask service (strange that someone would pay more to increase their risk of illness but there you go) so increasing profits for that business. The damage to the economy might very well be minimal, even if you ignored the effect of improved health. 

And this thread proves my point perfectly 😐

People die. Old and vulnerable people die (frequently) of respiratory viruses every year.

There is an equilibrium (which was achieved before Covid) whereby we have seasonal illnesses and they kill some people. Others survived and the NHS could cope with with this baseline level of illness and death each winter.

Covid and the restrictions threw this equilibrium out. Pretty much no one died of flu. That’s not a usual or good place to be in. Many of the people who would have died over the past 3 years from flu will still be alive and still vulnerable to dying.

When restrictions are lifted there will be an above average percentage of the population who are going to be extremely vulnerable to respiratory viruses.

I’ve made this argument countless times, but if you want to protect these people then Covid restrictions must be permanent (I.e. we must permanently change the equilibrium around winter infection of respiratory viruses). However I don’t see how that is at all desirable.

No I just did less.

I definitely spent a lot less during Covid. Didn't most people?

What would these premium no mask activities be? I'm intrigued.

I don’t go the theatre, restaurants, the pub or any shop other than a supermarket if I have to wear a mask.

It’s just Waitrose and Amazon for me. I’m sure many others are the same.

If I wfh then I spend even less. 

Masks trash the economy if I’m anything to go by. 

Fixed that for you. 

I did too, unless it was for only a short period e.g. doing a food shop.  For instance I didn't go to the cinema, because sitting for 2-3 hours with a mask on would spoil the enjoyment of that.  I also didn't use public transport at all for the majority of the first year and a bit.

I understood the need for them (though also the relative ineffectiveness of fabric ones), but preferred to remove myself from high risk situations than to wear one.

Pubs never bothered me as you only had to wear one when walking round.  You can't eat or drink with a mask on.

But otherwise, yes, I avoided places where one would be needed throughout as it's just not pleasant.  Some people go on about "but it's a tiny ask to wear one at all times" but I wonder if that's individual perception, I don't wear any jewellery or tight clothes either (I particularly hate wearing jeans), and while I need glasses to drive I pretty much only wear them for that as I hate wearing them and don't get on with contacts.

A well ventilated private box at the theatre perhaps for one?

This doesn’t disprove my point. What would is if you had saved money at a far higher rate and never spent it. Which you may well have, but most people saved a lot in lockdown and then spent it. Note that masks =/= lockdown unless you want them too. 

Worthwhile pointing out that most economies are back in growth after the first phase of the pandemic. What trashed our economy isn’t mask wearing. 

Personally I made quite a lot of charitable donations and replaced most of my outdoor gear.  I guess that's still into the economy, though, and probably better than chucking it over the bar in the pub.

I missed that opportunity. 

It was still broken. Now it's fixed!

I’m not sure someone who refuses to leave their house is best placed to comment on how busy shops and theatres are. If you hadn’t made a choice to put your life on hold you would have seen that even when masks were required shops and pubs were still often packed.

Strange that you pour scorn on anyone who agreed with lockdowns or who wears a mask, and yet you voluntarily locked yourself down above and beyond what was required of you. I must admit I didn’t see that twist coming.

One day you'll be older and more vulnerable, or perhaps not old, just under going some other treatment that makes you vulnerable. 

So you avoid going places because of masks while on the otherside people avoid going places because they don't belive people will wear masks. So it evens out. Are anti-mask people restrictin themselves any different from others restricting themselves?

So you chose not to have the slight inconvenience of wearing a mask but in your view wearing masks damaged the economy.

It's clear as day that the problem here isn't the mask....it's the wearer (or non wearer). AKA....you!

So you restrrict your own life for a simple thing that is easy to do? I think the trashing economy thing doesn't hold water. That would be like saying that the motorcycle industry collapsed once people were required to wesar helmets.

I don't go to theatres, pub etc because people don't wear masks. Masks allow people to go out in society if my experience is anything to go by.

The other curious thing here is that it seems from your perspective you are deliberately trashing the economy because you won't wear a mask.

Yes! You simply changed your consumption choices. To be fair/nitpicking, a charity donation may simply be a transfer of cash, which isn’t in itself productive, but the person receiving it may be more likely to spend the money or otherwise become more economically active. That’s quite a different thing from not spending the money at all, or not spending it for a very long time. 

During lockdowns, obviously yes. Other than that, nope. I put a mask on where required and got on with my life. What were you avoiding that was worth delaying a return to normal activities?

This is what I find weird about the anti-mask lot. Everybody getting ill and dying or hospitalised or off work will not do the precious economy any favours at all, swathes of people staying away from public spaces for fear of contracting a virulant disease is not going to help the precious economy. Yet a simple piece of cloth (of a suitable and useful type) is soooo damaging to our economy because they don't want to wear one, for... reasons. Having seen how packed places were back when masks were manditory I would say they were in the minority

I never said wearing a mask damages the economy.

I think putting mandatory requirements on people will change their habits which can have an effect on the economy.

If I can spend my Saturday lunch in the pub, or go for a walk, I'd probably mix it up and go to the pub one week and go for a walk another week.

If going to the pub meant I had to wear a mask and going for a walk didn't, I'd choose the walk every single time.

Why? Because I like to spend my time doing what I enjoy when I can. If the goal posts change by making things mandatory it will change what I enjoy.

I think an odd course of action would be to do what I always did before even if I now enjoy it less than alternatives. 

I'm also not entirely sure what you're complaining about. If I choose to do activities that don't require a mask then I'm doing more to prevent the spread of Covid than those that choose to sit in a cinema wearing a mask. 

If my choices upset you, I have to say, I don't really care.

It's interesting you mention that.  One key reason I have no interest whatsoever in motorcycling is that it's necessary to wear a full face helmet to be safe enough (and I'd think it necessary whether it was legally required or not), but that helmet is grossly uncomfortable and horribly claustrophobic to me.

I think people who say wearing a mask is a "simple thing" just don't understand the sensory experiences of others.  There is absolutely no enjoyment for me whatsoever in anything done while wearing a mask, so I removed all the unnecessary things from my life where a mask was required and put up with wearing one for the things that couldn't be avoided, like picking up bread and milk.

Why don't you deal with yourself by wearing an FFP3 mask or P100 elastomeric respirator, then?  That protects you effectively to 100% regardless of what others do.

I'm not sure how you'd propose people wore a mask in a pub, though, how do you think they would drink their beer?  A straw?  Clearly pubs are always going to be COVID hotspots.  And don't say "take it off, drink and put it back on" because each time you handle it you're spreading stuff.

I'm not required to partake in any area of the commercial economy other than to do my job (but could change it) and purchase necessary food and utilities, so I'm not totally sure why you think my choices are invalid there.

The gross discomfort and claustrophobia of wearing one.  I really, really hate it.  Nothing done with one in place is enjoyable, thus there's no point in me doing any activity for enjoyment which requires one to be worn, so I found different things to enjoy instead, such as spending more time outdoors.  Obviously I wore one for necessary activities like shopping (something which, mask or not, I really don't enjoy so get over with as quickly as possible, and I didn't want to take delivery slots off people who were at higher risk if they had to go out).

I don't get why people don't understand that the sensory experiences of others can totally differ from their own.  It's sanctimonious beyond belief.

Clearly true, but I’m not sure the experience of finding jeans or glasses intolerable really generalises very much.

I think you are right but I think it is worth considering whether the effect is positive or negative effect or large or small.

Things that spring to mind to me are manditory car seat belts, helmets for motocyclist and the ban on smoking in pubs.

Both things that at the time some people said would be damaging (car seat belts especially as many people said it would trap you in the car)

With regard to the smoking ban in pubs: This was reported by ASH (admittedly quite partisan)

between March 2007 and March 2008, the number of premises with licenses to sell alcohol increased by 4,200.

And following the introduction of the smokefree laws, more people reported that they went to the pub more often than reported they went less often.

https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/15-years-after-the-smok...

Whether we mandate for masks or not is a debate dictated by the danger from disease and whether some of the frankly ridiculous manner of wearing masks does any good, but restriction of freedom is not a good argument for such a small thing.

"Not liking tight stuff on your body" is a fairly common sensory issue.  Autism very often comes with it, which is why that was one of the exemption categories.

Stop saying that.  It isn't a small thing for many of us.

What type of mask do you wear, if I may?

How do you feel it compares with the risks of covid for those who are vulnerable? After all, the UK’s hospitals are not currently full of people suffering from tight clothing. 

What we were talking about is whether the choice not to go somewhere because one won't wear a mask is damaging to the economy. I am happy to wear a mask and have done so on many occasions I have also avoided places due to people not wearing masks as I considered the risk too high. That was my choice and they didn't get my custom on those occasions which was my only point. I take your point that wearing a mask where you need to consume drink or food is a bit of a nonsense but that was only a small part of the overall argument of whether not wearing a mask because it restricts ones freedom is a valid argument.

Did you say that mask wearing would trash the economy? Another user did. I am not sure what your choices are in order to comment on their validity or not.

So there's two choices to protect them:

1. Everyone wears an average mask.

2. They wear a quality, genuinely protective mask like an FFP3 or elastomeric.  These are good enough to provide near enough 100% protection even as a "one way" mask, they're what are worn on COVID wards and when treating patients with far worse than that.

(Potentially 3. everyone wears an FFP3, but that's not happening due to the cost)

It seems pretty obvious that number 2 is the better of those two.  They don't have to stress about what others do, and either way they're going to be wearing a mask, so why not just wear a high quality one and not worry about others?  Plus they can wear a valved mask which is less uncomfortable, as they're just protecting themselves.

The one thing I would say is that anyone who is diagnosed as vulnerable should be issued with FFP3 masks and a fit testing service for free on the NHS.

Ah, no, I didn't.  I was just backing them up in being another person who did what they did, i.e. I chose to avoid places where wearing a mask was necessary in preference to wearing one.

If I may, is this for a health reason that's specific to you? If that's the case, it must suck and I would hate for it to be me. If it was me, however, I wouldn't expect people to wear masks for my benefit, I would find things to do that avoid the need for masks (as I did when it was compulsory).

 > Things that spring to mind to me are manditory car seat belts, helmets for motocyclist and the ban on smoking in pubs.

All positive things in my view. 

As I've said before, any NHS building treating people or visitors to old people homes etc compulsory masks makes sense to me.

But the pub, cinema, restaurant etc the government should not be getting involved. If someone wants to open a mask only cinema, crack on. If it's popular then great.

Do you believe that smoking in pubs should be allowed back, drink driving should be allowed, that car seat belts should not be manditory, that the highway code should be thrown out. Many things restrict our freedom. If COVID had been more deadly over a broad spectrum of people (like say Bubonic plague) would you be against public health measures to reduce its impact? That is the real issue. Obviously some think the current risk from COVID is minor and perhaps they are right, but that is a seperate argument from the public health argument. So as an analogy I could argue that I should be able to drink and drive because I believe I drive better drunk. This is the same in my view as saying I don't have to adhere to puyblic health measures because I don't think I will get very ill.

It isn't about whether I as an individual wear a mask it is about whether as a society we accept restrictions on our freedoms for the general good.

Edited as it should be a friendly debate.

Yeah, hospitals and doctors' waiting rooms are full of sick people, so it does make sense to have something that prevent them sharing whatever they've got with each other.  Similarly if you know you have COVID and can't avoid popping to the shop put one on, but in that case you shouldn't be going to the cinema or pub anyway!

Why is mask wearing a general good?

That's a lot in one go.

I'm neutral on smoking in pubs.  Drink driving should definitely not be allowed (though I'm less bothered about drink cycling or e-scooting as they're only likely to hurt themselves and that's their own problem).  Car seat belts should not be mandatory to wear, but should be mandatory to be fitted in all cars so everyone has the opportunity to choose to wear one, and I would choose to do so just as I choose to wear a cycle helmet (and yes, I'm opposed to requiring those by law too).  The Highway Code?  No, of course not, the roads only work because of basic rules, it's nothing like mask-wearing, it has as much to do with making the roads flow as safety.

Well, it's not really.  If you have some people who are vulnerable to something but most people not, then you concentrate the protection on those who are.  So you put FFP3s on people who are CEV, not crap fabric masks on everyone.  Or you provide lifts/ramps for disabled people on e.g. railway stations, but you don't remove the stairs.

I don't wear one now.  If I was CEV (i.e. likely to get seriously ill if infected), you can bet that it would 100% be an FFP3 or elastomeric, because I'd not want the stress of worrying about what others did nor to impose upon them to do something about my condition when I can do something about it myself.

What you're doing is the same as a good many of the pure virtue signallers - using it to push a collectivist agenda, not simply dealing with the practicalities of ensuring your own safety.

Do you dispute that it reduces the viral load?

This is surely a positive.

Following this thread with (jaded) professional interest.

Edit: If someone with covid coughed in your face, would you move your head out of the way?

Let me be clear here. My post was in response to someone who wouldn't go somewhere that required masks and used this as an argument for it damaging the economy. My response was to suggest that the opposite could be equally true.

For myself last year I kept away from many social occasions and public places due to the risk of contracting COVID. Since my father died in September and I no longer have to consider my duty to him I have relaxed for the following additonal reasons... There is less chance in my understanding of becoming seriously ill due to COVID (yes there is a chance of course and I could still get ill). I have had my vaccines and been in contact with people with COVID and not (to my understanding contracted it). The government has lifted restrictions.

My own feeling is that the government won't make masks manditory and I have found my KF94 masks to be quite effective in short period situations (up to an hour). I take my own responsibility for wearing one. this is based on risk to myself or risk to others (in other words I wear one in hospital situations or in the presence of vulnerable people).

Have you not been reading this thread?

I think you missed the edit

To be honest even if they were made mandatory again compliance would be through the floor.  Unfortunately the conduct of Boris and his cronies, partying away while we stayed at home, has destroyed any real authority they have on the matter.

I’m not disputing anything. 

But why is lower viral load from respiratory viruses a good thing?

I understand that it reduces the harm of viral infections, but why is this a good thing?

Probably did, sorry.  But I think the overall view of mine stays about the same - if we can protect vulnerable people directly (and we can with a combination of FFP3 masks and vaccinations) then there's no need to impose on the rest of the population.

It would perhaps help if there was a bit of education on what different mask types are capable of.  There is very little point in most of the fabric masks I seem to still see on older people.  Yet I suspect those people have no clue about just how pointless that type of mask is, so may well be risk-compensating and so be MORE likely to get infected.

I saw you mention KF94 in another post, those are reasonably good, not as good as FFP3 but do provide decent protection to the wearer for shortish periods.

Oh FFS. I asked someone what their reasons were. How on earth is is “sanctimonious beyond belief” to seek to understand what someone’s concerns are?

If I didn’t understand that other people can have different experiences I wouldn’t have bothered asking about their different experiences. 

I am not trying to virtue signal. I am asking where does personal freedom end and public concern begin? Do we as individuals get to be the final arbiters of what is good for society? I would argue it is a mutual process. We accept a lot of restrictions and the more people we have in society the more restrrictions will grow. These restriction are not to curb our freedoms but to enable a general level of freedom for all.

lets imagine the world had a population of 100 people.

should 1 person. wear a mask capable of saving their lives.

or should 99 wear one that isnt?

that really is the mask debate in a nutshell.

I agree with you here.

Though i would argue that the restrictions during COVID were more designed to prevent the collapse of the health service (look how well that went) rather than protect the vulnerable.

Yup. Totally agree here

that was my option as well.

to be honest,  anyone who says. masks are a minor inconvenience is more than welcome to spend a week in my. sensory overloaded life
i cant even fasten the top button of a shirt without being convinced i am choking.
the chance of me wearing a mask for anything more than the absolute minimum of time is very slim.

luckily i live my life outdoors,  i am rural,   and i have a understanding partner who will happily go into shops. etc when we need something. 

 

Restrictions on individual behaviour should only exist where they are for the public good AND where it isn't reasonable to protect individuals who wish to be protected instead.

I suspect we're politically quite different.

How would you feel if lead climbing was to be banned to protect people, because toproping is safer?  I do find it odd how many people on a climbing forum lack a belief in the principles of individual responsibility for onesself.

You avoided the need for masks due to a taste issue - you don’t like them. You’re conflating this with a health issue and saying that the resulting behaviour change is equivalent. But they aren’t, and in doing so you are saying both that sick people have fewer rights to engage in society, and well people have fewer responsibilities towards the sick. This is entirely consistent with the general tenor of your posts on this and other topics.
 

This does ignore problems like damaged immunity from covid and any long term risks, and it also ignores the idea that there will be a chain of infections which could be broken with more responsible behaviour. 

Yes, I agree, and despite Boris's misdeeds I did agree with them broadly at the time for that reason.

Unfortunately the NHS is dying of something rather more serious than a virus - chronic underfunding and a ruling party that would rather it went away so their mates in the US commercial sector could step in.

Risk specifically to the individual is their own matter and nobody else's.  One of my fundamentals is that the law exists to protect people from the bad actions of others, not from themselves.

Yes, that includes the likes of health and safety law - it exists to provide a level playing field, so a company can't undercut other companies by cheaper unsafe practices and so a company can't pressure an employee into acting unsafely when they'd choose not to but would lose their job if they didn't.

I oppose laws that exist only to protect an individual on a pretty much blanket basis, e.g. I oppose mandatory cycle helmets even though I choose to wear one.

Assuming you aren’t exaggerating, there were always exemptions for anyone who would experience “severe distress” from wearing a mask.

I think this is the most honest anti-masking post! Admitting that you dislike altering your behaviour for others’ welfare absolutely beats the posters wittering on about “the economy”. 

But public health risks are both individual and collective. Your bad actions can absolutely hurt others as well as risking yourself. 

I will alter my behaviour for others when this is necessary.  As one-way masking with a quality FFP3 or elastomeric mask works well (better than that, it's *more* effective than two-way masking with rubbish like fabric masks), it's not necessary in this context.

If this *didn't* work I'd return to what I did during the main COVID period and reduce my use of places where a mask might be sensible.  But the thing is *it does*.

The choice is between "everyone wears a crap mask" and "a few people wear really good masks" (you're just not going to get everyone in FFP3s).  In both scenarios the CEV person is wearing a mask.  The latter is clearly better.

In some contexts.  Not in this one, where the CEV person can just wear a quality mask and get on with their day with no need to worry about others.

Issues relating to both autism and claustrophobia were clearly covered under the exemptions to the mask rules so if you are saying you have those conditions then you were never required to wear a mask.

I'm not diagnosed autistic but there's a good chance based on observed behaviour that I actually am slightly (my nephew who is diagnosed is a good guide, we keep seeing traits in him that are also there in me or were as a kid, though his is slightly more severe).

Regarding claustrophobia it was about "extreme distress", wasn't it?  I don't think I'd say one causes extreme distress, it's just quite unpleasant.

Either way I actually did adjust my behaviour - avoiding places where they were needed and putting up with it for short periods e.g. in shops.  However, I don't see a case to do that forever when there are other options which don't impose on wider society.  Getting FFP3 masks for those who are CEV for instance is now quite easy, at the height of 2020 it wasn't.

One thing that seems to have happened is a level of "COVID induced agoraphobia", i.e. people who were so imposed on by the "my mask protects you, yours protects me" thing that they fear even walking down the street because others aren't wearing one even if they wear an effective respirator.  I'm not sure how we counter that?  Time for some new public information films maybe?

Edit: another thing we need to do is look at cleaner air in buildings, e.g. better ventilation and HEPA filters.  That again is no imposition on individuals.

Universal masking was an emergency measure.  You impose emergency measures then you look to find ways out, you don't just accept them forever.

You were in the minority though, with a clear medical condition that causes you unusually strong responses. The law always allowed exceptions for people like yourself.

For the vast majority of the population this is not a valid argument. Personally I find wearing a mask far less uncomfortable than badly fitting dress shoes, or wired bra - both of are seen as essential daily work wear for many women.

I can't comment on the latter because I'm not a woman, but there's no need for anyone to wear badly fitting shoes, buy some that fit.

And no you don't need to wear heels for work.  Lots of women do, but I don't recall the last time I even looked at someone's feet in an office, nobody would give a monkey's if you wore smart flats.

And for those who also have sensory difficulties? I’m surprised you say people can “just” wear a mask given your objection to people saying mask wearing is a simple thing. 

Many business roles expect women to wear heels, these almost by definition put the aesthetics over comfort.

The options, short of a CEV person choosing to take the risk or somehow managing to get absolutely everyone in FFP3s (not going to happen), are:

1. Universal masking

2. One way masking by CEV people

There isn't one in which the CEV person is fully protected but doesn't themselves wear a mask.

definitely not exaggerating.  and yes there where exceptions,  didn't stop people giving me a hard time though. because it was "just a little mask"

In 2023, which business roles require a woman to wear heels with no smart flat option?  That surely sits alongside those blokes who think they have to wear pointy toed brogues and carry trainers to walk the hundred yards from the Tube station (I myself have a comfortable pair of black leather Clarks which I could happily walk an endurance event in and nobody has ever said a thing about them).

I'd be unsurprised if some old dinosaur like the likes of Lord Sugar did something like that, but I'd not work for him if it was the last job on earth.

Generally in offices women have far more choices of dress than men.

So what are you suggesting, that we all have to wear masks in public indefinitely?

That the entire population should have a reduced quality of life, by not being able to interact socially the same way, ever again.

So we don't get to recognise identity or emotional expression in public again. My kids will never experience the social openness that we got to enjoy.

I don't think you appreciate the magnitude of what you are asking when you want the world to cover their faces in public forever.

I wasn’t saying there was, I was just surprised at how blasé you were sounding about people “just” wearing masks given your earlier comments.

I have been reading the thread. I still don’t follow the logic.

Masks undoubtedly reduce deaths from respiratory viruses. Why is this a good thing?

Hypothetically fast forward 10 years and we’re all masked up. Are the old and vulnerable dying more or less from respiratory viruses?

I suspect on average they’re living slightly longer, but getting more severe disease when they do catch something requiring more intensive medical intervention I.e. at a population level they’ve got weaker immune systems, but they catch diseases less frequently.

We’re just seeing the inevitable consequence of a winter with no restrictions. If we mask up this winter, we’ll need to do the same next winter and the next. There will always be a catch up in mortality that’s required to correct things.

A woman: “We have to conform to a variety of dress codes that are often uncomfortable.”

A man: “Let me tell you about this…”

If anything, pubs bothered me the most because it showed what a nonsensical joke mask policy was in general. 

Sit down, with 6 mates from different households, get drunk and shout in each others faces from a foot away for 6 hours while unmasked... All good. You're safe. Good citizen. 

Go for a piss, an activity that culturally is expected to be silent, and you won't talk to anyone? Mask on boyo, or the cough gunna get ya. Don't dare take yer mask off, or granny gets it! 

I agree with your first statement. However given that it is not certain exactly who will or will not be adversely affected then it isn't reasonable to only protect vulnerable individuals.

In interesting point. Is a lead climber going to adversely effect anyone other than another climber? On the public good front I recall Typhoid Mary Mallona carrier of typoid who worked as a cook and was believed to have effected between 51 and 122 people and three confirmed deaths.

I fully believe in people taking individual responsibility for themselves but we also have a duty to take reasonable responsibility to those around us. For instance one might take individual responsibility for driving at 70 mph around country lanes but that has a possible devastating effect on other road users. Again with the drink driving. One might take personal responsiblity for driving while drunk and accept that one might get arrested or crash the car but that doesn't absolve one from the responisbility to others. The mask thing is this, irregardless of whether they are mandated or not. Clearly you don't think the risk of serious illness is great for most people, and I would tend to agree, the new strains while easily spread don't seem to carry the same risk as earlier strains. Which is why I don't think masks will be mandated. However my argument is that if a more deadly strain came in then masks are a less onerous protection measure than say a lockdown. The fly in the oinment of any useful function of masks is unclear advice on what consitutes an effective mask and public compliance. To conclude arguing against masks for lack efficiency is one thing arguing against masks as personal choice is another, arguing gainst masks as representing the crashing of society is really not valid (I am not saying you argue this but others have implied as much). Any mask wearing is a temporary measure as evidenced by how other restrictions have come and gone.

Let’s see where we are at with improved ventilation, cleaner air, better vaccines, treatments for long covid etc. To imagine that the risks we face now and in the future will be the same is silly. 

Personally I try to reduce my social interactions when in the supermarket or on the train… 

Does anybody remember laughter?

This… is not what anyone in here is asking. 

I'm going to have to correct you here.

There are rules.

You can talk to the guy in the toilets provided you are doing the same thing.

Both using the urinal, that's fine and above board.

Wash your hands whilst talking to a guy at the urinal and you're in trouble.

If the nhs had spare capacity to cope then I'd be quite happy to see those spare slots fill up with anti vaxers, anti mask wearers.... but the nhs doesn't and otherwise sensible people will have their operations etc cancelled to so the nhs can cope. 

ONLY if your both facing directly forward looking at the wall.

Yes, agreed

Wow!

youtube.com/watch?v=qJmgLqQ-uog&

Their choice, their health.. their risk.

It's like if you choose to drive like an idiot. 

Are you saying the increased deaths from respiratory viruses is a good thing?

Unlikely in the extreme. And well you just don't know do you? We might have a more deadly virus circulating by then.

I am not sure how you arrive at all this, you suspect (but don't know, perhaps we have turned the corner on living longer?) They've got weaker immune systems but don't get ill as much seems a contradiction. In truth everyone dies. That is a fact. Something will kill you.

I see this as a fallacy, but as I said above I do wonder what you would do if a more lethal disease came along? Let's say one that took out 40% of the population. Would you say we shouldn't have restrictions? To make it clear I am not advocating mandating for masks in the current climate. I am merely saying that arguing against masks on purely aesthetic reasons is not a valid argument, neather is an economical one given that it is lesser than having yet more lockdowns.

Ah, yes, I worded that badly.  What I meant to say was "just them", i.e. they can wear an FFP3 with no need for anyone else to wear one if they don't want to.  Of course anyone who does want to can, that's their choice.

But you wouldn't want to see all drivers who drive like idiots in a hospital beds surely.

Or if you would, which other risk takers do you want to have an accident and end up in hospital? Climbers maybe?

Fair point.  The fix of course is that any business that does require women to wear heels should pack it in.  And at the same time pack in requiring men to wear ties, because they're probably the same businesses at that as well.

However I've not, during my career of mostly office based work, ever worked in an office where there was such a requirement (to wear heels), and only my first one required a tie for men, and generally in most of them the female dress code has been far wider-ranged than the male one where trousers, shirt, leather type shoes and if you're cold a jacket have been necessary.

You wouldn't need restrictions. I wouldn't be leaving the house without a zorb ball if the death rate was 40%.

I think that's rather harsh, I don't wish to see anyone in hospital for any reason.

However, if people wish to take choices on their own safety that may, if they go wrong, result in that, then that's their choice and not mine or anyone else's.

(I sometimes wonder if public health does discredit itself by trying to do a bit much to protect individuals from themselves who simply don't want that intervention, then when it comes along to deal with something serious people just think it's the nanny state again - most of it I'd leave to the individual with the information they need to choose, e.g. I'm in favour of showing calories on things, but I'm not in favour of e.g. the "sugar tax" unless it's proven that that's going to cover additional costs to the NHS of drinking fat Coke a bit much that wouldn't occur if it was diet Coke).

FWIW I do wonder if some people in here would see mountaineering (the proper dangerous big mountains with snow kind, not just single pitch at Stanage) banned...or if they wouldn't, then there's an element of hypocrisy in their arguments in favour of the contexts of public health that exist to protect people against themselves.  You might choose to go up some mountain in the Himalayas because you enjoy it, I might choose to drink fat Coke and eat burgers because I enjoy it, both could kill us prematurely.

Wait until you hear about unwritten rules and expectations and the way those impact on women’s lives! And you know what, as men we can come to a basic understanding of this stuff by actually listening to women or reading books by them. 

I think what you’re failing to see if you’re advocating measures to shift mortality (masks).

If you mask up one winter to protect someone vulnerable to respiratory viruses you’ll need to do the same next winter (unless you plan to euthanise them in the summer) as the vast majority of them aren’t going to stop being vulnerable. 

There'll still be somebody calling out conspiracy

To be honest it makes me quite angry when people invoke conditions and disabilities they don’t have to justify their expectations of how others treat them. Claustrophobia is more than something being “just quite unpleasant”.

I think that’s colouring my interpretation of the rest of your post so I’m just going to leave it there. 

You're ranting like an unhinged eugenics fascist now. Probably best reel it in before you get banned or someone opens a file on you 😉

You are saying a shift in mortality but you are only speculating this. Do you have any evidence that this would be the case? It depends if in the meantime the virus mutates into a less lethal or virulant form then the risk goes away or it could increase, we don't know so we are not talking about a definite permanent situation. After all we don't fall dead from Spanish flu these days. You seem to be arguing that we should just let a virus rip through the population and suffer a short period of potential devastation, it comes over as "lets let all our vulnerable people die (or stick them in gettos for their own good) so we can all party."

Also you are assuming that we are only protecting vulnerable people rather than having half the workforce off work due to illness. So you are running a business and masks mean you can keep a viable staffing level or you have a large percentage of your work force off and you cannot deliver.

If I got Spanish flu at my age (early 30s) without any prior immunity there’s a very high probability I’d die. The fact I caught it as a baby and became immune means that I may well have caught it this year and not noticed.

Can we agree on that much?

However you seem to assume that it will become milder over time (although no evidence has supported this) and therefore masks will buy these people time.

It might become less virulent or it might become more virulent. We don’t know, but the historic data suggests that there will be no significant changes.

And yes I am arguing that we should let the virus spread naturally to reduce the amount of mortality shift to next winter and minimise the pressure on healthcare then.

I don’t follow the argument about loads of people getting ill and not being able to work. Covid is endemic now. If we don’t mask this winter it will circulate throughout the population like any other virus. We haven’t seen any evidence of abnormal illness patterns amongst the majority of the population.

Do you regard the 'flu vaccine program as a good thing or a bad thing?

Claustrophobia is a fear of enclosed spaces or similar - that is literally what the word means, it says nothing of its severity.  People have totally different levels of fear.  For instance some people suffer arachnophobia to the extent they won't go near a spider or can't sleep if they even think there might be one there, while others suffer it to the extent that they'll quickly get one in a glass and chuck it out of the window but still feel better once it's gone.

So I think you've totally misinterpreted me.

I certainly have a level of claustrophobia - I find caving abjectly terrifying and would have a similar but much lesser "enclosed spaces" issue with a motorcycle helmet (or mask) - but it isn't debilitating, just unpleasant.

Nope, my tolerance for anti vaxers disappeared many moons ago. I just feel sorry for their kids, it's not their fault they have hopeless parents. 

I have sympathy for over worked healthcare staff who will need to look after people who didn't take sufficient care of themselves. 

I don't wish to see anyone ill, I'm just fresh out of sympathy, caring, empathy, or giving a f%^& about anti vaxers etc.. 

Best ban climbing, then.  And cycling, because that's had a few attempts on my life whereas COVID appears to have had none bar a very unpleasant single day of "flu".

There lies a very slippery slope indeed just past the idea of deciding on peoples' behalf what level of risk they should and shouldn't accept.

Edit: sorry that wasn't what you were saying - but in my view some people in this thread basically are.

(I do have sympathy for them, yes, but more for the mess the NHS is in leading to overwork etc - if you become a doctor or nurse you're going to deal with sick people of various types, if that's not your thing it's probably not the career for you).

A better fitting around the nose will reduce that. If your mask is forcing breath up to your glasses, it's not fitted properly, or doing the job it's supposed to be doing.

Well that’s actually an interesting question. At least someone’s got a brain.

Historically flu killed a lot more people than it does today.

Didn’t they used to colloquially call it “the winter mercy”, or something like that, as the deaths used to be relatively painless?

I don’t know is my honest answer. An individual taking a flu vaccine is imposing nothing on others at a practical level (except for a modest requirement on the taxpayer to pay for the jabs). Presumably it mitigates the worst of bad flu seasons allowing us to have less maximum healthcare capacity. People also live longer so that’s a plus if they’ve got a good quality of life. At the same time the very elderly just living imposes huge costs on the rest of society. 

Interesting question. I don’t think the answer is clear cut.

Away from the most serious phase of all this, I'm very much pro vaccine (I've had 4 COVID vaccines and I have flu vaccine each year) but I don't think, at this stage, that it should be mandated to have them any more, though it should be encouraged and ideally taxpayer funded, though I don't mind paying a tenner for one if people prefer, as I can afford to do so.

Oh I’m the same. I’ve had 3 jabs.

Why wouldn’t you increase your immunity if you had a chance?

Sport has many proven mental and physical health benefits, name one benefit of being an anti vaxer conspiracy theorist? 

Not necessarily as this from the 1918 pandemic shows:

The anomalously high death rate amongst young adults has been ascribed to the over-reaction of their immune response systems: a cytokine storm. But the immune response system of a 28-year old is not significantly different from that of an 18-year old, so there has to be another explanation. Some simple arithmetic provides a clue. Subtract 28 from 1918 and you get 1890. This was the year of the Russian Flu pandemic. In contrast with the H1N1 strain of 1918, the Russian Flu strain was H3N8. Virologists have discovered that childhood exposure to a previous influenza pandemic is imprinted on the immune system, and affects future response to a different pandemic strain. For those people who were young around the time of the Russian influenza pandemic of the winter of 1889–1890, childhood exposure to H3N8, rather than the H1N1 strain, would have dominated their antibody response. This early exposure would explain their much higher vulnerability to the H1N1 pandemic of 1918. They would have had much lower immunity against secondary infection with a wide range of bacterial pathogens such as cause most influenza-related mortality (Worobey et al., Reference Worobey, Han and Rambaut2014). Pandemic strains circulate as the primary seasonal flu for some years after a pandemic, so those born after a pandemic can still be exposed to the strain, as those born before.

I make no assumptions but if we are wearing masks in the future it will be because there is a threat

Which historic data is this?

So cause failure of healthcare now? How does that help?

If people were get ill from a virulant disease COVID or something new would you prefer that workforce to wear masks and reduce the number off work or would you prefer the workforce to have a staff collapse? Simple.

you seem very opinionated.   quite angry to be honest

does someone who has had many vaccinations but not the covid one  become an anti vaxer?
does someone who has not had that vaccine  automatically become a conspiracy theorist?

i now many many people who do not believe in any conspiracies at all.     have had multiple vaccinations throughout their lives,  but not the covid one.

to he honest,  most of the people i know, in my age range took the vaccines simply because it was the only way they could go on holiday.  while i appreciate you may know people who did it to save grannies life,  or for the general public good,  i can only comment on the people i have spoken with.


 

I agree with all of that bar this...

While it is true it seems to reduce old people to nothing more than a cost to society, which I find mean spirited and dismissive

Fair point, but again where do you draw the line.  Do you refuse to treat people who have just glugged a bottle of paracetamol because their wife has just left them?

As such I oppose any suggestion of considering whether a given poor life choice means you shouldn't receive medical treatment.

(Answer: Clearly you treat them if you can)

i asked it in the context of something being approved / disapproved of if it delays death by a few years for those otherwise more vulnerable people. Ver y similar to the covid vaccine.....

It did, but generally health was poorer, so a decent dose of "flu" was the straw that broke an already ill camel's back. When the flu vaccine was introdiced, it did reduce th death rate for a few years, but it came back up to "normal levels" pretty quickly.

A very long time ago!

Indeed not; there are many other variables in play. Being now of an age where I get the flu jab i'm still not sure whether i regard it as a good thing or not, but having had a very unpleasant dose of Covid last year despite being fully vaccinated, I tend towards it being a good thing, as I didnt want to think too long about the consequences of the dose of covid i had if i hadnt been vaccinated (quite close to hospitalisation, 2 weeks utterly bedridden, lost 11kgs and it took many months to regain any sort of basic fitness). The healthcare peaks are an odd one; before flu vaccines, the spread of deaths across wintertime was reasonably even, but now, with much more variable weather (especially temperature), there are more marked spikes (I was for a few years the FC ofthe UK's largest coffin manufacturer......) within smaller cold snaps. In november this year the mild temps will have suppressed deaths, but the cold spell in dec. will have seen them spike significantly.

The diagnostic criteria for a specific phobia, which includes claustrophobia, requires that contact with the feared stimuli is endured with intense fear or anxiety and that there is clinically significant distress or impairment to functioning. I.e. debilitating rather than finding something “just unpleasant”.

No, they have problems that need support, help.

most anti vaxers just think they are cool to be wayward etc.. 

No anger, frustrated that folk can be dupe, dum, uneducated, etc.. to believe in various conspiracy stuff. 

I am not making a medical diagnosis, I am using a word as it is used in everyday vernacular.

That’s ‘dumb’ 🥲

I'm a secondary teacher. I remember clearly a child running up to me and coughing in my face in spring 2021 and shouting "you've got the 'Rona now! Ha ha!" The spring and summer terms after the jan-feb 2021 lockdown was a really tense and unpleasant time in many schools. Mask wearing was asked for from kids originally when we first went back in, and almost immediately undermined by comments from a minister. 

This is all I came on to say. I think it is pretty clear there is no evidence other than anecdotal that masks would damage the economy. Given the choice of a lockdown or masks, masks are obviously the easier alternative, aside from do nothing.

The effectiveness of masks is dependant upon the type of mask, the material it is made from and how it is worn. It is also dictated by compilance and you have already stated that you have no wish to comply.

Therefore... On an individual basis masks can work and work reasonably well. On a collective basis this less likely due to the above mentioned lack of compliance etc. At this stage I don't not believe mandating for masks in the current climate would be effective (the latest strains from what I have read show a tendancy to be less serious), though i would wear a mask myself in certain circumstances. Mainly because I don't like getting ill, its lousy and inconvinient.

Most of the arguments you have put forward seem to stem from a desire for personal choice rather than any sound medical basis. That is all

I have a rule that owners of patients have to wear a mask when in my surgery. This is because inevitably those people are sometimes as little as 15 Cm away from me when holding an animal, and certainly one of those rooms is very small (even though it has a fan in there, I do not use it too much for other reasons). I am the only vet, and I cannot afford to be off work for ten days or so (which is the length of time that each of my staff, who has had Covid has been off; and currently one member has been off for a fortnight with flu).

Several people who have said that they are exempt from wearing a mask, when I have said that they will have to stay outside of the room as I don't want to have any increased risk of contagion, have said "Oh, I'll wear a mask then". They then come in the room, with a mask, and they do not have any complaint or difficulty with the mask. In fact they concentrate on their animal, and what I advise about the diagnosis etc.

I am not saying that you personally, and others do not have a real problem with masks. What I am saying is that in most cases, I was not anticipating the exempt wearer to don a mask, and come in. Some owners have indeed stayed outside, as was the case in the height of problems for all.

My rule is not to be discriminatory against those who are exempt. It is to reduce the chances of me getting an infectious agent, being off work and costing me a hell of a lot of money, due to lost revenues.

Find me another vet, and the protocols may change.

Why though? What was the extra risk factor they perceived in a covid vaccine? 

We had mask mandates throughout every single lockdown, minus the first one. And the only reason we didn't have them during the first one, was because of the PPE shortage. 

It took a while for the government to figure out that they could just tell people to make masks out of tshirts and stuff and people would fall for it, and not moan about lack of PPE supplies. 

That's literally the only reason cotton mask mandates exist. PPE shortage, and government arse covering. 

Not because they're effective. They were, as might be expected with the way they cover peoples mouths, a silencing tactic. 

So yeah, bit of a false dichotomy there. Masks have never prevented a lockdown. They have seemingly had zero impact on spread. If I showed you all a graph of COVID cases over time, with the dates removed, no one here would be able to put a pin on the line where the mask mandates started or stopped. 

It's the same with all COVID measures in general. Anyone remember these stories:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/16/englands-covid-unlocking-a-th...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/18/uk-covid-cases-could-hit-2000...

These were both in response to Boris announcing a dropping of all restrictions and mask wearing, in summer 2021. 

1200 'experts', and one of the key people in UK COVID response early on, all said that it would result in an explosion of cases and that it would be a 'threat to the world'. 

Who remembers what actually happened when we unlocked. 

Cases immediately cratered from around 90,000 a day to about 15,000 a day. They stayed low for months on end, until Omicron appeared. 

With zero restrictions. 

Weren’t Scotland’s significantly higher than England with a mask mandate too?

People can still talk with masks on, they don't silence people.  

This claim does not support your point.

Not surprising, as cases vs time is a really difficult dataset to interpret in terms of effects, because you're looking at an exponential process (in both growth and decay) on a linear plot of the result.  What you need to look at is a time-series plot of the rate constant underlying that process. Lots of corrections can be found in that, although there is no valid null hypothesis for masks which makes proving it one way or the other from the cases data fools errand. 

This claim does not support your point.

Rather than making up convincing sounding polemic, we could look to what the experts have to say.   e.g.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7510705/

The filtration effectiveness of cloth masks is generally lower than that of medical masks and respirators; however, cloth masks may provide some protection if well designed and used correctly. Multilayer cloth masks, designed to fit around the face and made of water-resistant fabric with a high number of threads and finer weave, may provide reasonable protection. Until a cloth mask design is proven to be equally effective as a medical or N95 mask, wearing cloth masks should not be mandated for healthcare workers. In community settings, however, cloth masks may be used to prevent community spread of infections by sick or asymptomatically infected persons, and the public should be educated about their correct use.

A rather unsurprising conclusion that decent cloth masks (not t-shirt based ones) are somewhere between "no masks" and "proper masks" in efficacy. 

But with a massive vaccine program roll out and the end of winter, both of which we know take major chunks out of the spread of the virus.

This all feels more than a bit disingenuous to me.  Cherry pick things and present them with a partial context to support a particular view.

It think cloth masks helped a bit but were never a major factor.  I still think that the big missed opportunity was more use of ventilation and HEPA filtration (I posted on HEPA back in the first weeks of the pandemic), and it's something of a criminal shame we lost out FFP2/3 stockpile before the pandemic and then spaffed money up the wall on dodgy purchase routes that produced sub standard gear only fit for burning in a power plant.

I think you missed the rest of my post.

who is to say they perceived a risk?

perhaps they just assessed their whole circumstances and decided that the vaccine would not help them at all.

who knows.  i dont make assumptions on why people do/dont. do things.

It's fair enough if you didn’t ask them. I do ask people in that situation and all who responded (most of them) had been influenced by misinformation, especially on cardiac risks or issues around pregnancy.

This "safe and effective" vaccine, did not prevent transmission, hospitalization or death.

Pfizer was given legal indemnity for the vaccine.   You can't sue them for harm suffered.

The (Pfizer) trial was far to short term and ignored a potential mortality signal.  

When the trial ended after a few months, there had been 21 deaths in the intervention group and 17 in the control group. 

That is the wrong way round.

I totally disagree.

I have an open face helmet for my small bike, with a lift-up visor that covers the face fully when I'm moving.

I also have another helmet for my bigger (and faster) bike - full face only when the lift-up visor/chin cover is down (and clipped into position). Has the advantages of an open face whilst stationary/ slow moving, but the advantages of a full face when on the move.

As for grossly uncomfortable - what about your climbing helmet ?

Really sad to see you going down this rabbit hole. Few vaccines achieve 100% on any of those factors but they can substantially reduce transmission, hospitalisation and death.

In the link below, estimates of UK reduction are: over 100k deaths; over a quarter of a million hospitalisations; and over 24 million infections.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/covid-19-vaccine-surveillance-report-pub...

Source?

Here is an earlier AP report on why this is almost certainly misinformation 

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-964291665925

Hubby is self employed, third vaccine made him sufficiently ill to take time off work and lose money. He was understandably reluctant to have a fourth.

I in contact feel very strongly that a few days of feeling dreadful post vaccine is a small price to pay for increased protection. Not least because of the amount of work/money you potentially loose if you become ill with covid itself.

The solution was me booking his vaccine for a Saturday morning and pretty much blackmailing him to have it. Not everyone has such strong willed family.

All I can say is that I feel very very sorry for your husband.

Myself and my partner share a loving, respectful relationship where neither of us have ever felt the need to bully or blackmail the other.

Really sad to see you going down this rabbit hole.

It is not my rabbit hole.  It was, and is, government and pharma PR that the vaccine did reduce transmission, hospitalization and deaths.

...vaccines ... can substantially reduce transmission, hospitalisation and death.

But the trial offered no evidence for this!

Would the death rates of 21 in vaxxed vs 17 in un-vaccinated not give you any cause for concern?

https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/no-all-cause-mortality-benefit-in-pf...

Interesting, I didn't know they were allowed.  You don't see them often.

Doesn't go across my face or eyes.  Though I have spent out quite significantly for a very lightweight and well ventilated model (forget what they are without going and looking, though the climbing one is made by Petzl) for both my climbing and cycling helmets, my first climbing helmet was a classic plastic Black Diamond Half Dome and I hated it.

What I dislike even more is wearing a hood, I pretty much never do even if tipping it down.

Only in crackpot land.

It slowed transmission early on before new variants and whilst initial antibody levels were high - that is when hospitals were at peak pressure. Unexpected but welcome.    Subtle but there in the data.

It directly reduced the probability of going to hospital and of dying by about 10x across all age ranges.  That's really clearly evidenced.

Do you know what the expected noise is on a number like 17 or 21?  Do you know why I'm asking?  If not, I think you need to go and educate yourself on small number statistics, the Poisson distribution and things like a T-test.  Doing a quick test, the difference in deaths you give has a significance (assuming both groups are the same size) of 0.64 standard errors, or f**k all in scientific parlance.

So, a trial carried out at a time of low Covid prevalence with seasonal conditions at their best for reducing spread, and at a time when vulnerable people were still actively shielding (one imagines more so in those doing a vaccine trial...) and with a mostly non-vulenrable cohort showed no statistically significant difference in deaths from non-Covid causes between those who got vaccinated and those who didn't. 

It's distressing that two people have liked your post because looked at from a data driven perspective and an undergraduate scientific methods, your interpretation is arse about face.

He is a big boy and more than able to say no if he feels strongly enough.

Regularly visits his mum with end stage COPD and at the time was traveling into London on the underground, both IMO strong reasons to accept the vaccine when offered.

Had he had any kind of argument about health risks, rather than simply not wanting to (potentially) take a day off sick I would have been more supportive of him.

You will be glad to hear that he is still holding his ground and refusing a free flu jab.

(As luck would have it he had minimal reaction to the vaccine, I however felt like death for 48hrs and took over a week to get my mojo back)

So far, no observational studies have found that Covid-19 vaccines increase all-cause mortality. With such consistent findings across several countries, at least we have some level of certainty that Covid-19 vaccines don’t increase all-cause mortality, at least not at this point in time.

In sum, in the 6-month RCT of Pfizer’s Covid-19 mRNA vaccine, 21 and 17 deaths occurred in the vaccine and placebo groups, respectively, and the statistical significance of this wasn’t reported.

But computing the unadjusted risk ratio myself shows that this difference is not statistically significant.... observational studies did find a benefit, which at least reassures us that Covid-19 vaccines don’t increase all-cause mortality.

For clarity this is from the link you posted

I wear a surgical type mask for situations where exposure to others is such that the risk is low, and a FFP2 for those where I deem it higher.  Mostly I just try to avoid people as much as possible - that's nothing to do with my illness though.

Depends on whether you consider surgical masks as simple fabric I guess.  I do and peer reviewed papers I found on Google scholar suggested that they offered pretty reasonable protection.   You sound pretty arrogant and condescending to me.  Thoroughly unpleasant.  Consistent though.

It slowed transmission early on before new variants and whilst initial antibody levels were high - that is when hospitals were at peak pressure. Unexpected but welcome.    Subtle but there in the data.

Source?

It directly reduced the probability of going to hospital and of dying by about 10x across all age ranges.  That's really clearly evidenced.

What evidence is that?

Is there any evidence to say vaccines reduce transmission? I was called out on here for questioning the veracity of that when it was being pronounced in the media during the 'vaccine drive'. This was gradually rolled back upon.

There must be longer term studies at this point providing a more confident conclusion one way or the other?

The link you have provided is a little concerning on two levels: a) the estimates are necessarily model based - is the model good, are the inputs sound? b) it is effectively government sourced so some element of bias must be considered when looking at it.

Table 1, page 7 of the linked report makes clear there is low confidence in infection reduction data which appears to be the primary mechanism for transmission reduction i.e. you don't get it, you can't pass it on. Only one study is cited around transmission reduction between household contacts, but the report makes clear this is problematic due to a self-selecting cohort i.e. those ill enough to request a test thus mild and/or asymptomatic cases were excluded.

The picture may well be clearer now as that was in September 2021...

Breath out heavily in each of a surgical mask and a "covid era" fabric mask.  Pay close attention to your ears.

They're not alike.  The surgical mask re-directs a lot of exhaled air behind the wearer, typically towards the ears.  A covid era cloth mask does more filtering and less redirection.

Which is better is going to depend significantly on how they're used.  I struggle to see a scenario where either is both necessary and appropriate given availably of FFP2/3.

In lieu of playing chess with pigeons, I'm just going to link Offwidth's post up-thread.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/masks_nhs_and_the_covid_wars-75...

As you appear to have missed it in their post, I'll quote one line from the report.

"There is evidence that vaccines prevent infection and transmission. "

The way I see it, you have a choice.

Option A - apologies for posting outright lies on the subject of vaccination

Option B - explain why you disagree with the government report.

I was amused to find that the one link he supplied to support his argument actually refuted it on further reading

Following a maze of links to try and find where your evidence comes from and get to

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/...

Looking at Table 1. Summary of evidence on vaccine effectiveness against different outcomes
Delta...

The table has columns for infection, hospitalisation and mortality with %age reductions, these are rated as low confidence. Little evidence is available at present and results are
inconclusive.

Where else could your evidence be?

The pink in that table indicates low confidence in the validity of the specific percentage values, not a low confidence in the evidence that vaccines give some months of protection against infection ( hence transmission).

The 1200 'experts' and Ferguson had not somehow missed the fact we'd had a vaccine programme going for 6 months when they made their predictions of 200k cases a day, and England being a 'danger to the world'.. 

The vaccine programme was basically done (with at least one dose) at that point. That was Boris's justification for ignoring the 'experts' and I am glad he did. Probably the only useful thing he ever did. 

And to the person who mentioned Scotland having more cases with masks, than England without masks. That is correct, and pretty much the best parallel a country could hope for as Scotland was pretty much in lockstep with the rest of the UK in regards to COVID, culturally very similar, and about the only difference at that time was masks vs no masks. 

Also, I am not cherry picking anything. I am just not confusing the blatantly obvious, with crap modelling that all the 'experts' liked to rely on. Modelling that, in the few times it actually got put to the test by our politicians (as in they were told to lockdown by 'experts', and grew some balls and didn't), was proven utterly wrong and incapable of predicting anything at all. 

They were, and still are, telling us the sky is green and water is dry. And hiding behind opaque 'modelling' to try and justify it. 

They've burned a bridge with me, frankly. Good luck getting me to listen if there's ever another pandemic. They've proven themselves worthless. No, worse than worthless. Damn right dangerous. 

Really there should be a proper (potentially criminal) investigation into the entire thing.

Did you actually read that article? Its conclusions are pretty well exactly the opposite of what you seem to claim they are.......I.e.  It says, with evidence, that those death rates inthe 2 groups are not in the slightest concerning........

Disagree. I will say the wording is a little ambiguous but when coupled with the breakdown in the individual sections it is clear that the 'confidence level' stated is not related to the uncertainty coverage factor on the stated percentages. There is no stated uncertainty in fact.

Surgical masks are categorically not simple fabric, no.  They're made of various forms of plastic.  They are certainly more effective than a fabric mask (being actually designed to reduce transmission by way of directly exhaled droplets), though considerably less effective than an FFP2 or better.

Generally masks come in a few main categories:

1. Fabric single layer, e.g. a Buff.  Totally pointless; only useful for keeping your mouth warm in winter if you like to wear one for that as some people do.  If you can see through a fabric (you can with a Buff) it provides no protection whatsoever, and I've seen suggestions that a Buff may be worse than nothing because droplets accumulate on it.

2. Fabric multilayer (typically 3 layer with as fine woven fabric as possible).  A bit more effective against droplet-spread diseases like colds, but still not much use and mostly of psychological benefit (and as such may be negative through risk compensation).

3. Blue surgical type.  Quite effective against droplets (as that's what they're designed for), provide some protection against airborne disease but quite leaky so not perfect.  Better than nothing but nowhere near optimal.

4. FFP2/FFP3 respirator.  If fitted properly provide very good protection, or almost 100% protection in the case of FFP3.  More expensive, but certainly what I'd be wearing if I was likely to be seriously ill if I caught it, much as I don't like masks very much.  If fitted badly still a bit better than blue surgical.

5. Elastomeric, positive-pressure masks and the likes.  100% protection but a bit big and clumsy, though you do see some people wearing them.

The many studies out there showing a reduced risk of catching Covid in the weeks and months following a vaccination.  Hint: Reduced risk > fewer people catching covid.  If someone doesn't have Covid they can't transmit Covid.  At a societal level, transmission is reduced following a synchronised wave of vaccination.  

But the real issue here is that you wrote:

Your use of quote marks suggests you disagree with the evidence on vaccine safety - based apparently one one article egregiously misrepresenting selectively quoted data from one study.

Your denial that it presented hospitalisations and deaths is laughable in the extreme.  Do you think there's some global cabal preventing all governments and national medical bodies form publicly exposing that the vast gobs of data from the last few years are all fabrications and lies?  

Nonsense.