To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

Fandymo

Sconsey wrote: »

What exactly is an uncontrolled environment? are you saying if something like particle filtering is observed in a mask in a lab that does not mean the same would happen in a shop? does the shop do somethign to the mask when you pass through the entrance?

/Edit: By the way you seem to be complaining that these studies do not prove anything. Some of them clearly prove that masks filter out particles and others look at the data in relation to infections with and without mask mandates. On the one hand you have proof that mask reduce particle transmission and on the other hand you have data that shows less transmission when masks are worn. You can continue to bury your head in the sand if you want, but you will be doing it outside the shops and public transport.

An uncontrolled environment is a public place, like say a bus with no windows open, where subjects behave irrationally as all humans do, where a mask may be adjusted 2/3 times by hand without sanitising, where a mask is pulled from a pocket seconds before getting onto the bus. A normal everyday situation.

Sparkey84

https://www.wpr.org/surprisingly-controversial-history-seat-belts



"all were disputed by researchers BUT opposition remained fierce"

remind anybody of a current situation???

george santayana; those who can not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

Sparkey84

Fandymo wrote: »

An uncontrolled environment is a public place, like say a bus with no windows open, where subjects behave irrationally as all humans do, where a mask may be adjusted 2/3 times by hand without sanitising, where a mask is pulled from a pocket seconds before getting onto the bus. A normal everyday situation.

do you think research is only conducted in pretend situations?
of course there are variables like mask technique but the presence of a variable means the research is more difficult not that it is impossible.

odyssey06

Fandymo wrote: »

An uncontrolled environment is a public place, like say a bus with no windows open, where subjects behave irrationally as all humans do, where a mask may be adjusted 2/3 times by hand without sanitising, where a mask is pulled from a pocket seconds before getting onto the bus. A normal everyday situation.

Not sure what sort of ethical experiment you expect to be conducted in such an uncontrolled environment.

Public health advice for example to ban passive smoking in workplaces operated on the basis of
epidemiologic principles with lab based studies.
The advice re masks is similar.

Sparkey84

Fandymo wrote: »

An uncontrolled environment is a public place, like say a bus with no windows open, where subjects behave irrationally as all humans do, where a mask may be adjusted 2/3 times by hand without sanitising, where a mask is pulled from a pocket seconds before getting onto the bus. A normal everyday situation.

even if 5 in every 10 people wore the mask wrong and still left some bio material they might have left less and 5 people might have left none at all. that argument of if it is not perfect it is not worth having astounds me.

if you arrived to a chipper after closing really hungry and they offered you a half bags chips they had left would you actually throw it back and fu€k no id still be hungry unless its a full bag so the half bag is not worth eating.

an oversimplified example of the best being the enemy of the good but i hope you get the point.

Sparkey84

Sparkey84 wrote: »

even if 5 in every 10 people wore the mask wrong and still left some bio material they might have left less and 5 people might have left none at all. that argument of if it is not perfect it is not worth having astounds me.

if you arrived to a chipper after closing really hungry and they offered you a half bags chips they had left would you actually throw it back and fu€k no id still be hungry unless its a full bag so the half bag is not worth eating.

an oversimplified example of the best being the enemy of the good but i hope you get the point.

What conditions do you think need to be met for masks to no longer be mandatory on public transport, in shops, and in public places?

Sparkey84

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What conditions do you think need to be met for masks to no longer be mandatory on public transport, in shops, and in public places?

in my opinion, eradication of social transmission to a level where

1 at the very very least the r rate is less than 0.5

2 the numbers are low enough that contact tracing can fully keep up and people know for sure that they either are or are not a close contact

and

3 the numbers mush remain in a downward trend


we only have to get there once and the minor inconvenience of the masks can stop

Sparkey84

Sparkey84 wrote: »

in my opinion, eradication of social transmission to a level where

1 at the very very least the r rate is less than 0.5

2 the numbers are low enough that contact tracing can fully keep up and people know for sure that they either are or are not a close contact

and

3 the numbers mush remain in a downward trend


we only have to get there once and the minor inconvenience of the masks can stop

Thanks.

But if the R rate is at 0.5 and masks are scrapped and then the R rate goes up to 0.6 or 0.7 would they be made mandatory again?

Sparkey84

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Thanks.

But if the R rate is at 0.5 and masks are scrapped and then the R rate goes up to 0.6 or 0.7 would they be made mandatory again?

i have not read all your posts on this thread but the ones i have you come across as anti mask

based on that i would like to thank you for conceding the point that masks are effective. you did this by implying there could be a rise in r rate linked to masks being scraped.

to answer you question my opinion was low r rate AND downward trend not either or.

another issue to consider when masks are no longer mandatory some people will continue to use as they see needed as a precaution because they are just that clever.

Fandymo

Sparkey84 wrote: »

do you think research is only conducted in pretend situations?
of course there are variables like mask technique but the presence of a variable means the research is more difficult not that it is impossible.

Yet there hasn’t been any experiment/research that can specifically state 1) masks work 2) this is how effectively they work. Just a lot of control experiments under lab conditions which show they “may” work, evidence “suggests”, and a whole load of other synonyms related to guesswork and estimates.

The best argument pro-maskers have is that it might work and shure it’s not that much of an inconvenience. Why is there no mandated level of mask, if they work and are so effective? A scarf or flimsy old t-shirt over the mouth and nose is legal in Ireland. We’ve EU standards on how bendy a banana can be, but with a global pandemic we’ve no legal requirement for a minimum standard of a face covering??

I believe if there was anything concrete in mask-wearing then we’d have minimum standards, set in the legislation and these would be enforced at the sales stage. As it is, in my opinion, the government saw it as an easy way to appease a lot of vocal people with a stroke of a pen when there’s no evidence they make any difference whatsoever.

AlekSmart

Fandymo wrote: »

Have you got anything to show that wearing a mask in a public, uncontrolled environment such as public transport or shop is "proven to reduce the risk of transmission" of Covid-19, a peer reviewed study or the likes? I'd love to read up on it and what protection the different types of face covering (which is what we legally have to have, not a mask) provide to us.

Interesting point re what constitutes a "Mask".

The two Statutory Instruments I am aware of,both refer to the same definition.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/244/made/en/print

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/296/made/en/print

In these Regulations -“face covering” means a covering of any type which when worn by a person covers the person’s nose and mouth;

It can of course,be comforting to many,to be able to have a visible sign underlining how much "We are all in this together" and this is certainly a positive aspect for these people.

However,there is also increasing evidence of the Laws of Unintended Consequences,relating to these items,consequences which may well equal,or exceed the percieved benefits.

https://scitechdaily.com/covid-face-masks-are-a-ticking-plastic-bomb-3-million-thrown-away-every-minute/

Every minute of the day we throw away 3 million face masks. Many end up as potentially toxic micro- and nanoplastic or carriers for other toxicants in the environment, researchers warn.

Recent studies estimate that we use an astounding 129 billion face masks globally every month – that is 3 million a minute. Most of them are disposable face masks made from plastic microfibers.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6509/1314?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=TrendMD_1

Hospitals in Wuhan, the center of the COVID-19 outbreak, produced more than 240 tons of single-use plastic-based medical waste (such as disposable face masks, gloves, and gowns) per day at the peak of the pandemic, 6 times more than the daily average before the pandemic occurred (5). If the increases observed in Wuhan hold true elsewhere, the United States could generate an entire year's worth of medical waste in 2 months

Not exactly a warm fuzzy feeling scenario,but still very concerning indications of a New Variant Environmental Pandemic,which will not be cured by the products of Pfizer,Astra Zeneca or the 3M Corporation.

So perhaps,pulling one's string vest up to cover your Nose & Mouth,whilst not satisfying the requirements of some,may actually be having a far less destructive effect on the broader environment in which we live.

Sparkey84

Fandymo wrote: »

Yet there hasn’t been any experiment/research that can specifically state 1) masks work 2) this is how effectively they work. Just a lot of control experiments under lab conditions which show they “may” work, evidence “suggests”, and a whole load of other synonyms related to guesswork and estimates.

The best argument pro-maskers have is that it might work and shure it’s not that much of an inconvenience. Why is there no mandated level of mask, if they work and are so effective? A scarf or flimsy old t-shirt over the mouth and nose is legal in Ireland. We’ve EU standards on how bendy a banana can be, but with a global pandemic we’ve no legal requirement for a minimum standard of a face covering??

I believe if there was anything concrete in mask-wearing then we’d have minimum standards, set in the legislation and these would be enforced at the sales stage. As it is, in my opinion, the government saw it as an easy way to appease a lot of vocal people with a stroke of a pen when there’s no evidence they make any difference whatsoever.

there is evidence just go and read, try pubmed its great.

in regards to studies offering only maybe's
you really need to educate yourself on how they work.

if i say a howe roof truss is better than a pratt roof truss then it is an opinion

if a structural engineer builds two types of roof truss and tests them to destruction in small scale, gives an extrapolated plan to a builder based on his interpretation of the data then his opinion becomes "expert knowledge"

just on that note not one single randomised control trial has been performed on the use of parachutes. because we can not send up 5 with 5 without to see what happens.

we can not ethically deny masks to 50% of the country to prove more of that group will die. your comment about lack of empirical evidence is stupid, we have evidence of fair quality that a reasonable professional would trust.

Fandymo

Sparkey84 wrote: »

there is evidence just go and read, try pubmed its great.

in regards to studies offering only maybe's
you really need to educate yourself on how they work.

if i say a howe roof truss is better than a pratt roof truss then it is an opinion

if a structural engineer builds two types of roof truss and tests them to destruction in small scale, gives an extrapolated plan to a builder based on his interpretation of the data then his opinion becomes "expert knowledge"

just on that note not one single randomised control trial has been performed on the use of parachutes. because we can not send up 5 with 5 without to see what happens.

we can not ethically deny masks to 50% of the country to prove more of that group will die. your comment about lack of empirical evidence is stupid, we have evidence of fair quality that a reasonable professional would trust.

I’m sure you’d have people queueing up to get a pass from NPHET not to wear a mask as part of a study to see if they were effective. I’d sign up. It would be ethical as it would be my choice.

Sparkey84

Fandymo wrote: »

I’m sure you’d have people queueing up to get a pass from NPHET not to wear a mask as part of a study to see if they were effective. I’d sign up. It would be ethical as it would be my choice.

an ethics committee for a research paper will not allow you to sign up to such a situation even with your consent, they have to allow for foolishness. and can not condone high risk for the uninformed

im sure a few idiots would consent to driving drunk to study that impact, would not make it right

Sparkey84

for aleksmart


https://www.insider.com/people-selling-mesh-anti-masks-2020-7

you are right on the face covering law even in states some idiots sold these. i think a face covering is fine, just my opinion but if mouth and nose are covered and a cough sneeze is interrupted what harm the name of the item, mask scarf etx

odyssey06

Fandymo wrote: »

I’m sure you’d have people queueing up to get a pass from NPHET not to wear a mask as part of a study to see if they were effective. I’d sign up. It would be ethical as it would be my choice.

No it wouldnt. What about the other people in the public space. It would be similar to running a
study on passive smoking and only asking the smokers to volunteer.

You are obliged to wear a mask primarily to protect others - the mask is a barrier. Whatever PPE effect it has in proecting you is a bonus but not the main reason the law is there.

riclad

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449

Its not up for debate , masks if worn properly, stop you breathing in
droplets that can contain the virus.
they also filter out droplets from the person wearing them,
eg they slow the spread of the virus.

if everyone wore a mask when anywhere near other people
the no of people getting the virus in ireland will drop.
the virus enters the body thru the nose or the mouth
usually.
is not a situation ah sure it might work,
AT this point its a scientific fact
the mask acts as a barrier to stop you breathing in particles or droplets
which may contain the virus.
you do not need a medical degree to work out how a mask works,

no more than you need to be a doctor to work out why people wear condoms during sex,




if i had a shop i would close it rather than allow people to come in without wearing a mask.

i,m just waiting for some idiot to come on this forum and ask
why do i need to put on a seatbelt when i drive my car.
why do i need to pass a driving test .

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n432

all the medical evidence shows masks are effective,
in stopping the spread of cod19 ,
they protect the person wearing them and other people around them .

i understand there will be people who dont wear em unless they are inside a shop,
even if they are near people in a queue or at a bus stop.

society changes over time,

watch tv shows from the 70s,

people used to smoke everywhere,
pubs,cafes, at work, inside every building
then at some point experts realised the dangers of secondhand smoke.

at this point no one is debating is smoking bad for your health.


if you only wear a mask inside a shop,
but spend time near other people ,or members of the public,
you have a good chance of getting the virus

Seanergy

Nphet likely to consider lifting mask requirement as extra ‘vaccine bonus’

Proposals to further relax the mask-wearing requirements for vaccinated people are also likely to be considered by Nphet as part of a greater “vaccine bonus” for those who have the protection afforded by full immunisation for at least two weeks.

The change will also relieve pressure on the contact tracing system, allowing more resources to be focused on high-risk cases.

LINK

riclad

Maybe someone should tell the Gardaí to wear masks at all times when dealing with the public.
7 are now isolating because of contact with the woman
who went to dubai who had covid

mikekerry

riclad wrote: »

Maybe someone should tell the Gardaí to wear masks at all times when dealing with the public.
7 are now isolating because of contact with the woman
who went to dubai who had covid

They tested negative

AlekSmart

riclad wrote: »

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449

Its not up for debate , masks if worn properly, stop you breathing in
droplets that can contain the virus.
they also filter out droplets from the person wearing them,
eg they slow the spread of the virus.

if everyone wore a mask when anywhere near other people
the no of people getting the virus in ireland will drop.
the virus enters the body thru the nose or the mouth
usually.
is not a situation ah sure it might work,
AT this point its a scientific fact
the mask acts as a barrier to stop you breathing in particles or droplets
which may contain the virus.
you do not need a medical degree to work out how a mask works,

no more than you need to be a doctor to work out why people wear condoms during sex,




if i had a shop i would close it rather than allow people to come in without wearing a mask.

i,m just waiting for some idiot to come on this forum and ask
why do i need to put on a seatbelt when i drive my car.
why do i need to pass a driving test .

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n432

all the medical evidence shows masks are effective,
in stopping the spread of cod19 ,
they protect the person wearing them and other people around them .

i understand there will be people who dont wear em unless they are inside a shop,
even if they are near people in a queue or at a bus stop.

society changes over time,

watch tv shows from the 70s,

people used to smoke everywhere,
pubs,cafes, at work, inside every building
then at some point experts realised the dangers of secondhand smoke.

at this point no one is debating is smoking bad for your health.


if you only wear a mask inside a shop,
but spend time near other people ,or members of the public,
you have a good chance of getting the virus

That's good to know......:)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonydemarco/2020/11/19/worlds-most-expensive-protective-mask-keeps-jewelry-artisans-employed/?sh=6fb105a3591e

Seanergy

Extracts from the EAG meeting from this day last year, the 8th of April, 2020.

Massive amount of discussion on masks took place on this day last year. I will have to divide this post up into 2 parts or possibly, see how it goes, apologies regarding presentation of data, govt standard to sloppy scan/photocopy when putting data through retraction process. Shame this pure data did not enter part1 of this thread last year, here it is now.

First the updated draft IPC guidance, to catch up see #3649 #3409 #3385 etc.

Seanergy

2/2 continued...

Extracts from the EAG meeting from this day last year, the 8th of April, 2020.

Parachutes

Sparkey84 wrote: »

https://www.wpr.org/surprisingly-controversial-history-seat-belts



"all were disputed by researchers BUT opposition remained fierce"

remind anybody of a current situation???

george santayana; those who can not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

You want to wear masks forever so?

Sconsey

A popular mantra of the anti-maskers is that there have not been any outbreaks associated with shops so why should they have to wear masks when shopping. The obvious answer has always been the huge percentage of cases that are categorised as community transmission, we had no idea if shops were a component or how much of community transmission is happening in shops.

Now we do have a better idea:

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1380159937913978884

odyssey06

Sconsey wrote: »

A popular mantra of the anti-maskers is that there have not been any outbreaks associated with shops so why should they have to wear masks when shopping. The obvious answer has always been the huge percentage of cases that are categorised as community transmission, we had no idea if shops were a component or how much of community transmission is happening in shops.

I am a bit dubious about some of this retrospective contact tracing... are people really going to fess up to activities that breached the restrictions like going to a party or shebeen or haircut in someone else's gaff?
Probably going to say they were at home except for when they were in the shops...

Tork

Agreed, though I wouldn't absolve shop assistants and customers of blame. If I had a euro for every time I've seen masks being worn under noses, barely covering mouths or simply under the chin, I'd be very rich indeed.

AlekSmart

Tork wrote: »

Agreed, though I wouldn't absolve shop assistants and customers of blame. If I had a euro for every time I've seen masks being worn under noses, barely covering mouths or simply under the chin, I'd be very rich indeed.

I was initially suspecting this was an ecumenical issue,and after reading this,I bow low before divinity......:)

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolution

absolution
[ ab-suh-loo-shuhn ]

noun
1. act of absolving; a freeing from blame or guilt; release from consequences, obligations, or penalties.

2.state of being absolved.

3.Roman Catholic Theology.

a) a remission of sin or of the punishment for sin, made by a priest in the sacrament of penance on the ground of authority received from Christ.
b) the formula declaring such remission.

4.Protestant Theology. a declaration or assurance of divine forgiveness to penitent believers, made after confession of sins.

It's turning into the modern equivalent of Sackcloth & Ashes

Sparkey84

Parachutes wrote: »

You want to wear masks forever so?

no idea how you jumped to that conclusion.

we might get past needing masks if covid goes away, obviously.

equally as obvious; the need for seatbelts is unlikely to go away.

patnor1011

Sparkey84 wrote: »

no idea how you jumped to that conclusion.

we might get past needing masks if covid goes away, obviously.

equally as obvious; the need for seatbelts is unlikely to go away.

Problem with your reasoning or expectations is that covid is not going away. Not a chance.
It will end up like a flu and we will have sort of a lottery with vaccinations. They may work with certain strains to some degree abut we will never know which strain will hit us.
So if you think masks are here only till covid goes away then it means they are here forever. Not for me though.