Gareth O'Callaghan nails what many of us are thinking...

odyssey06

weldoninhio wrote: »

It might seem obvious to you, but according to the qualified, independent scientist in post 10, masks are rendered useless if not used optimally, especially cloth masks. But i'm sure your qualifications vastly outstrip his.

Useless as PPE.
His qualifications are neither here or nor there when he is asking the wrong question.

But, if you want an argument from authority, the qualifications of the CDC and ECDC staff who recommended wearing masks in enclosed public setting vastly outsrips his.

weldoninhio

odyssey06 wrote: »

Useless as PPE.
His qualifications are neither here or nor there when he is asking the wrong question.

But, if you want an argument from authority, the qualifications of the CDC and ECDC staff who recommended wearing masks in enclosed public setting vastly outsrips his.

He's stated all of the studies done re the effectiveness of mask. 12 of them in total. All proving the ineffectiveness of masks outside a surgical setting. Have CDC and ECDC been doing their tests in secret and not sharing the results???

odyssey06

weldoninhio wrote: »

He's stated all of the studies done re the effectiveness of mask. 12 of them in total. All proving the ineffectiveness of masks outside a surgical setting. Have CDC and ECDC been doing their tests in secret and not sharing the results???

Effectiveness of masks at what though? What questions were the studies asking?

Here's a sample of some of the studies referenced in the link on Post #10.
They have nothing to do with being asked to wear masks in enclosed public places to limit droplets produced from an infected person.

* Assessment of N-95 Facemask for Use in COVID-19 Pandemic in Case of Shortage of Personal Protective Equipment
* Verification of Alternative Do-it-yourself Equipment Respirators for the COVID-19 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
* Effects of a N95 Respirator vs Cloth Mask on Exercise Capacity During Treadmill Exercise.
* A medical records based study for the impact of wearing medical masks on oxygen saturation in adult surgical patients after general anaesthesia during novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) pandemic
* Comparing the user seal check and fit test between two types of N95 respirators

weldoninhio

odyssey06 wrote: »

Effectiveness of masks at what?

Here's a sample of some of the studies you are citing.
They have nothing to do with being asked to wear masks in enclosed public places to limit droplets produced from an infected person.

* Assessment of N-95 Facemask for Use in COVID-19 Pandemic in Case of Shortage of Personal Protective Equipment
* Verification of Alternative Do-it-yourself Equipment Respirators for the COVID-19 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
* Effects of a N95 Respirator vs Cloth Mask on Exercise Capacity During Treadmill Exercise.
* A medical records based study for the impact of wearing medical masks on oxygen saturation in adult surgical patients after general anaesthesia during novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) pandemic
* Comparing the user seal check and fit test between two types of N95 respirators

I refer you to the video in post 10. :rolleyes:

odyssey06

weldoninhio wrote: »

I refer you to the video in post 10. :rolleyes:

I copied the links from the article in post 10. Same author as the video.

weldoninhio

odyssey06 wrote: »

I copied the links from the article in post 10. Same author as the video.

This recent crop of trials added 9,112 participants to the total randomised denominator of 13,259 and showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.

Only one randomised trial (n=569) included cloth masks. This trial found ILI rates were 13 times higher in Vietnamese hospital workers allocated to cloth masks compared to medical/surgical masks, RR 13.25, (95%CI 1.74 to 100.97) and over three times higher when compared to no masks, RR 3.49 (95%CI 1.00 to 12.17). 4

odyssey06

weldoninhio wrote: »

This recent crop of trials added 9,112 participants to the total randomised denominator of 13,259 and showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.
Only one randomised trial (n=569) included cloth masks. This trial found ILI rates were 13 times higher in Vietnamese hospital workers allocated to cloth masks compared to medical/surgical masks, RR 13.25, (95%CI 1.74 to 100.97) and over three times higher when compared to no masks, RR 3.49 (95%CI 1.00 to 12.17). 4

That's a study on the use of cloth masks as PPE by hospital workers.
From 2015.

"Owing to a very high level of mask use in the control arm, we were unable to determine whether the differences between the medical and cloth mask arms were due to a protective effect of medical masks or a detrimental effect of cloth masks."
"Another limitation of this study is the lack of a no-mask control group and the high use of masks in the controls, which makes interpretation of the results more difficult."

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

To include that in reference to use of masks by general public in covid-19 is extremely dodgy at best.

LeBash

LeBash wrote: »

We spend billions in this country trying to prevent people from dying.

While I'm not particularly worried about the virus because I'm a pretty healthy person, I do worry about my grandmother who has COPD, my uncle who is recovering from cancer and when I think about that I am guessing most healthy people have someone in their life who is at very high risk. Because of that, i wear a mask.

What is the actual problem with wearing a mask? Genuinely I have no idea why a tiny minority are up in arms about it. Is it because it costs money?

Did you wear the mask last year? If not, why?
Your at risk family members were still at risk of colds, flu's and other illnesses that perhaps a mask could prevent the spread of.

plodder

weldoninhio wrote: »

He's stated all of the studies done re the effectiveness of mask. 12 of them in total. All proving the ineffectiveness of masks outside a surgical setting. Have CDC and ECDC been doing their tests in secret and not sharing the results???

That is absolutely not what he is saying. He may be complaining about the lack of evidence of effectiveness, which is a completely different thing.

Things like this are difficult to prove but a measure like this (a bit like installing the app) may have only a small effect in practice, but they are basically cost-free and harmless and probably do have a positive effect. That should be good enough for anyone.

odyssey06

Deleted User wrote: »

Did you wear the mask last year? If not, why?
Your at risk family members were still at risk of colds, flu's and other illnesses that perhaps a mask could prevent the spread of.

The risk here is totally different due to the severity of covid-19 impact over those other illnesses, lack of vaccine, and the evidence of presymptomatic spread of covid-19.

Edit - There are also indications covid-19 relies more heavily than influenza, adenoviruses, or rhinoviruses on droplets

RocketRaccoon

Folks, discussing anything covid related with weldoninhio is absolutely pointless. He has shown over the last few months that he will just do his own thing despite government guidelines and normal common sense.

Kaizer Sosa

I was listening to an interview on secondcaptains recently by an Irish author called Peter Geoghegan who wrote Democracy for Sale. It was a very interesting conversation but one of the focal points of the discussion was the work of conservative think tanks in making - what at some point - were fringe/lunatic ideas mainstream. These think tanks have very little transparency in terms of who funds them but nearly all put forward agendas/ideas which benefit the owners of capital. The likes of facebook and twitter has advanced the cause of these think tanks in that it's now far more efficient than ever in getting these ideas out there and skewing the publics view to further extremities of the political spectrum.

For example, things like Brexit were spawned by some of these think tanks. However, now you have people that consume and spread these ideas but have no idea of their genesis. Anyway, this anti-mask movement feels like one of these ideas. Probably an online movement funded by business to get people back to work or using businesses where mask-use is impossible like bars/restaurants.

odyssey06

Kaizer Sosa wrote: »

Probably an online movement funded by business to get people back to work or using businesses where mask-use is impossible like bars/restaurants.

In a general sense you may be right and there might be an element of that here.

But with masks there are also some specific factors :-
* The WHO and therefore our early medical advice was based on what China was reporting which is that covid-19 was primarily spread by contact \ touch \ surfaces and downplayed risk of person to person transmission. This has led to early warnings about don't touch the mask forgetting about the risk from inhaling infected droplets.
* The lack of PPE meant that Western governments downplayed their benefits as they wanted to retain stocks for healthcare workers
* People can't seem to get their heads around the main purpose of wearing them which is to stop you infecting others NOT protecting you directly. So there is an element of needing everyone to play part rather than looking out for #1

CrankyHaus

Kaizer Sosa wrote: »

I was listening to an interview on secondcaptains recently by an Irish author called Peter Geoghegan who wrote Democracy for Sale. It was a very interesting conversation but one of the focal points of the discussion was the work of conservative think tanks in making - what at some point - were fringe/lunatic ideas mainstream. These think tanks have very little transparency in terms of who funds them but nearly all put forward agendas/ideas which benefit the owners of capital. The likes of facebook and twitter has advanced the cause of these think tanks in that it's now far more efficient than ever in getting these ideas out there and skewing the publics view to further extremities of the political spectrum.

For example, things like Brexit were spawned by some of these think tanks. However, now you have people that consume and spread these ideas but have no idea of their genesis. Anyway, this anti-mask movement feels like one of these ideas. Probably an online movement funded by business to get people back to work or using businesses where mask-use is impossible like bars/restaurants.

He's dead right. Only, it's not just Conservative think tanks pushing fringe/lunatic ideas into the mainstream with no accountability or transparancy. We get plenty from the other side of the spectrum, probably more so here in Ireland in fact.

i_surge

weldoninhio wrote: »

It might seem obvious to you, but according to the qualified, independent scientist in post 10, masks are rendered useless if not used optimally, especially cloth masks. But i'm sure your qualifications vastly outstrip his.

You are some sucker for framing bias, more than once.

i_surge

weldoninhio wrote: »

This recent crop of trials added 9,112 participants to the total randomised denominator of 13,259 and showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.

Only one randomised trial (n=569) included cloth masks. This trial found ILI rates were 13 times higher in Vietnamese hospital workers allocated to cloth masks compared to medical/surgical masks, RR 13.25, (95%CI 1.74 to 100.97) and over three times higher when compared to no masks, RR 3.49 (95%CI 1.00 to 12.17). 4

If this is all to say that simple cloth masks aren't that great, I agree but there is no argument against wearing masks unless you deny that it is airborne.

weldoninhio

i_surge wrote: »

If this is all to say that simple cloth masks aren't that great, I agree but there is no argument against wearing masks unless you deny that it is airborne.

As the expert has stated, unless they are used perfectly they are useless. And even if used perfectly it would take 200,000 people using them perfectly to avoid 1 case.

LeBash

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Did you wear the mask last year? If not, why?
Your at risk family members were still at risk of colds, flu's and other illnesses that perhaps a mask could prevent the spread of.

I didnt but the symptoms of a flu or cold take from hours to an outside of 4 days to hit. So I was assuming I was OK to be honest.

I only asked the reason behind others not wearing it.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that if we put a barrier in place between 2 people then we reduce the risk spread. It may not be 100% affective but neither are condoms and we use them. So what is the actual problem?

odyssey06

weldoninhio wrote: »

As the expert has stated, unless they are used perfectly they are useless. And even if used perfectly it would take 200,000 people using them perfectly to avoid 1 case.

I keep pulling you up on this point and you keep using evasive language.
Used as PPE to protect the wearer?
Or used to contain the droplets from an infected person?
Can you find me an article where your expert states the latter?

And regardless, here's an expert (Trish Greenhalgh is a Professor of Primary Care Health Sciences) who also completely disagrees with your expert.
So we have independent qualified expert AND almost all the major health authorities in the world backing masks.

Infection control standards designed for health care workers are not directly relevant to the general public. The infected particles on a health care worker's mask are likely to come from patients, and in this situation the health care worker is (hopefully) uninfected and therefore vulnerable. In contrast, if a member of the public is wearing a cloth face covering, they are the most likely source of any infectious particles on it. The more infectious particles that are caught in that covering, the fewer will have been aerosolised to infect others.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.13415

TheChizler

LeBash wrote: »

It doesn't take a genius to work out that if we put a barrier in place between 2 people then we reduce the risk spread. It may not be 100% affective but neither are condoms and we use them. So what is the actual problem?

If you're both wearing a condom and physically distanced from your sexual partner you're not likely to get an STI, but it's not the condom doing the hard work there.

odyssey06

TheChizler wrote: »

If you're both wearing a condom and physically distanced from your sexual partner you're not likely to get an STI, but it's not the condom doing the hard work there.

A cough or sneeze can expel droplets up to 8 metres.
That's why a barrier is needed.
I'll leave you to think about how that compares to your scenario, but perhaps keep your thoughts on it to yourself as some people read this forum in work.

i_surge

The equivalent argument would be...condoms can fail and some wear them incorrectly therefore never use them.

Strumms

TheChizler wrote: »

If you're both wearing a condom and physically distanced from your sexual partner you're not likely to get an STI, but it's not the condom doing the hard work there.

PPE and social distancing when BOTH used vigorously are the solution to covid spread... therefore.... masks/visors and keeping your distance, it’s key, it’s common sense, it’s caring.

3xh

odyssey06 wrote: »

A cough or sneeze can expel droplets up to 8 metres.
That's why a barrier is needed.
I'll leave you to think about how that compares to your scenario, but perhaps keep your thoughts on it to yourself as some people read this forum in work.

I saw the report out yesterday where they suggested a sneeze spreads it 8 metres. Now that figure is being used as further justification for masks.

Once again, the goalposts change in this never ending argument to support and validate the wearing of masks.

TheChizler

Who doesn't sneeze into their arm or a tissue? Disgusting people I wouldn't trust to do anything right with regards to the virus, that's who.

irishblessing

TheChizler wrote: »

Who doesn't sneeze into their arm or a tissue? Disgusting people I wouldn't trust to do anything right with regards to the virus, that's who.

Young kids, that's who. And they're all going back into their primary schools with very little to no social distancing and no mandatory mask measure. In light of children aged 10 and older show to contract and spread the virus at least as well as adults do. And then they're going back into their homes, in which adults go back into their workplaces...

odyssey06

3xh wrote: »

I saw the report out yesterday where they suggested a sneeze spreads it 8 metres. Now that figure is being used as further justification for masks. Once again, the goalposts change in this never ending argument to support and validate the wearing of masks.

The goalposts haven't changed.
More data is available therefore advice changes.

You want the science to be 100% right as it was on 12th March?
That doesn't happen.
This is a fast moving pandemic, still breaking out.

You want researchers and scientists to ignore new data?

3xh

odyssey06 wrote: »

The goalposts haven't changed.
More data is available therefore advice changes.

You want the science to be 100% right as it was on 12th March?
That doesn't happen.
This is a fast moving pandemic, still breaking out.

You want researchers and scientists to ignore new data?

Funny you mention ‘new data’. After searching more about this just now, it shows the 8 metres was known about already back in March, odyssey06. Which means research on viral transmissions would already have taken place before.

Personally, I hadn’t heard of it but it was known and talked about by researchers and scientists.

I’ll guess you still don’t find that strange and can’t think why the experts/media/politicians didn’t push it but pushed the 2 metres distance.

So, if the accepted rule is increased to 8m are you going to try educate and then excoriate those who get within 8m of you?

Don’t forget, masks were only recommended in the past few weeks with a recommended distance of 2 metre spacing between people. Yet the experts knew without a mask, droplets could disperse 8 metres.

3xh

irishblessing wrote: »

Young kids, that's who. And they're all going back into their primary schools with very little to no social distancing and no mandatory mask measure. In light of children aged 10 and older show to contract and spread the virus at least as well as adults do. And then they're going back into their homes, in which adults go back into their workplaces...

And yet here is the link to the HSE themselves that recommend 13yr olds or older wear a mask. So which is it, irishblessing?

Don’t get me wrong, wear what you want and have fun making nice colourful cotton masks with any children you may have but for every guideline you can show from an expert, there’s another expert contradicting a previous given.

The HSE, however, appear to have the widespread support of the population to date. You wouldn’t be advocating implementing your own ideas and best practices on all this Covid stuff?

https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/coronavirus/face-masks-disposable-gloves.html

odyssey06

3xh wrote: »

Funny you mention ‘new data’. After searching more about this just now, it shows the 8 metres was known about already back in March, odyssey06. Which means research on viral transmissions would already have taken place before.
Personally, I hadn’t heard of it but it was known and talked about by researchers and scientists.
I’ll guess you still don’t find that strange and can’t think why the experts/media/politicians didn’t push it but pushed the 2 metres distance.
So, if the accepted rule is increased to 8m are you going to try educate and then excoriate those who get within 8m of you?
Don’t forget, masks were only recommended in the past few weeks with a recommended distance of 2 metre spacing between people. Yet the experts knew without a mask, droplets could disperse 8 metres.

Well new data takes time to 'bubble up' to health authorities and then into government and then laws.

Masks have been recommended since May in enclosed public places but not mandated.

In March:
Did we have the masks?
Did we have the knowledge re: relative transmission by droplets \ smaller particles \ contact and surfaces?
Did we have the knowledge re: presymptomatic transmission?

Is it strange?
I have posted on this thread and masks thread that in Ireland we were very slow to come around on masks and praised the Czech response.
And some of that was undoubtedly due to health authorities wanted to protect insufficient stocks of them.
It took the nurses union badgering the HSE to get them to change their rules on when masks were permitted in health settings i.e. as staff wanted to wear them more.
Infections in health care staff dropped dramatically after that.

How does that have any bearing on whether we should be complying with the law and wearing masks in enclosed public spaces?
Well, better late than never.