Cloth Masks Are Comfort Blankets according to SAGE committee member

[Bruce Stephens]

According to this report only FFP3 face masks protected the staff 100% against covid - this level of filterstion is what you need when handlijg asbestos. Not sure what the tweet above from the professor is based on. If you want real protection for yourself from the virus - I’d buy a certified version of these and nothing else.

That's the opposite direction.

The question that's usually meant in this context is wearing face coverings in order to reduce transmission from people wearing the face coverings. (That is, how much does it help if most people wear such inexpensive face coverings?)

But yes, what kind of mask is needed to protect the wearer is also important, so healthcare workers likely ought to be using FFP3 masks, and presumably people who are CEV ought to consider those more expensive masks as fewer other people may be wearing any kind of face covering.

 

[Lanny]

From an asthma point of view, I’ve found wearing a mask EXTREMELY difficult! Since having had covid in May 2020 & long covid symptoms since then where my asthma is the worse it’s ever been since childhood, every time I’ve had to go out for medical appointments & walking long hospital/health centre corridors I’m left gasping for breath with the mask making it much harder to breathe afterwards when catching my breath back: have to hold the cloth up an inch off my mouth just so it doesn’t get sucked into my mouth as I’m gasping for air!

I’ve had both vaccines now & would prefer not to wear a mask on the few times I need to go out, medical appointments, as I will still probably not go out much despite the lifting of restrictions!

 

[BlueArmy]

That's the opposite

I know Bruce - but today any protection we may have got from other people wearing masks is gone. Personally I’m moving to self preservation now, as the great British public will ditch masks today on mass.

 

[Pine Marten]

Anecdotally - I went out this morning to the docs for my annual HbA1c blood test etc., and most people in the street who had masks were wearing them around their chins. I put mine on when I went into the surgery, the staff were wearing them (reception staff are behind a screen), the chairs were socially distanced in the waiting area and I was escorted to the 'way out' door at the end.

At least the surgery is now open - when Mr Marten had to take a letter round the other week he had to ring the bell repeatedly to get someone to open the door.

 

[Leadinglights]

We have just been out to a couple of shops and a guesstimate was 50:50 people wearing masks.
My O H had a hospital appointment last week and none of the hand sanitiser stations were working with signs on them to say so.

 

[Eddy Edson]

If masks work, then please share your evidence of their impact on case numbers.

Cases soared after 24th July 2020 when masks were made mandatory - see graph. To convince me otherwise, I'd like to see a series of graphs showing how cases plummeted after their introduction.

It's a similar story with the screens indoors they brought in. They prevent free air movement and thus should also have never been introduced. If you are ill, you stay at home. If you cough or sneeze you do it into an arm or tissue.

https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/threads/covid-screens-to-be-removed-from-pubs-offices-and-restaurants-after-they-are-found-to-increase-transmission.94062/

You really can't look at one measure in isolation; it's the mix. And the devil is in the detail - eg compliance, exceptions. In Swiss Cheese terms, you have to cover all the holes - if one of your measures is deficient, the virus will get through.

For the UK last summer, I'd point to the lifting of international travel restrictions around that time. Most of the virus in the UK in later summer/autumn was apparently seeded by holiday makers returning from Spain then spreading through their households (according to the genomics).

 

[rebrascora]

If you imagine that the covid soaked particle is the size of a basketball, that's like throwing the ball at a net which has holes the size of Belgium and expecting the ball to stick in the net. You really are going to catch virtually nothing. If anyone believes otherwise and wants to continue wearing a mask, they are very welcome to do so but the Physics is crystal clear on this. Also, it's not my place to tell you not to wear masks.

I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion but having read your last post about debate, I realize that it is important to voice your own opinion and challenge others when it doesn't appear to be entirely accurate or logical. I therefore decided that I would like to present my thoughts and particularly to challenge your analogy above about the basket ball and Belgian sized net.

Firstly, most nets are quite thin and usually thinner/finer than the object they are trying to catch. In the case of a mask, you are looking at something more akin to a wall made of tubes rather than a net.
A multilayer mask means you have more than one wall of tubes, quite probably offset so there is much less chance of the particle negotiating several layers. I have no idea of the actual length those tubes might appear in relation to the particles it is trying to collect and I don't have time or inclination to work it out nor do I wish to make rash analogies about basket balls and or nets which would allow the country of Belgium to pass right through them, so I will leave it for the individual to work out or try to imagine.

You then have to consider that you can throw a basket ball reasonably straight but many of these particles will be moving quite haphazardly so more likely to make contact with the surface area of those tubes where they will likely stick rather than bounce off or slide through, because the fabric is absorbent.

All of these things make the picture you describe very different to the way I imagine it and to me it suggests that many more of the particles will be captured by the mask than your analogy suggests, particularly the larger denser ones and they will carry the biggest virus load and therefore, when the amount of virus needed to infect someone is more substantial than a single particle, the mask has to have a positive impact in protecting others.....

That's my take on it anyway and I will be continuing to wear a mask in shops etc for the foreseeable future. I also agree that the mask is a visual reminder that we are not out of the woods and still need to take precautions and now that we all possess masks it is a minimal inconvenience to use them.

 

[pm133]

And a response from another SAGE expert:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1416810639339794435

Like I said above Bruce, you can either have the background to make your own informed decisions or you do your best to pick the scientist you want to believe in and move on accordingly.

What is at the heart of my decision on masks?

I already know about the relative sizes of pore holes in various masks.
I already know that covid is airborne using water particles as a vehicle.
I already know that when you sneeze, breathe or cough, a massive range of particle sizes are emitted - not just droplets.
I already know that all sizes of water particles emitted during breathing, sneezing and coughing are bigger than the virus they carry.
I've known all of that for over a year and as far as I'm concerned those are indisputable facts with research to back them up.

Everything else flows from that.

How does covid know only to attach to droplets and not smaller particles? That makes no sense whatsoever.

How do you catch a basketball in a net with holes the size of Belgium? This in particular is the killer argument for me and I can't imagine that anyone is going to be able to easily punch a hole in it.

Responses such as "what harm can it do to wear masks" and "surely every little helps" and especially the flawed cheese slice model which every man and his dog has suddenly become a world-leading expert in, (the holes displayed in the cartoon are half a million times too small) are incredibly poor responses.

My conclusion is that masking up is pretty much useless but I respect others right to come to whatever other conclusion they want.

 

[pm133]

I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion but having read your last post about debate, I realize that it is important to voice your own opinion and challenge others when it doesn't appear to be entirely accurate or logical. I therefore decided that I would like to present my thoughts and particularly to challenge your analogy above about the basket ball and Belgian sized net.

Firstly, most nets are quite thin and usually thinner/finer than the object they are trying to catch. In the case of a mask, you are looking at something more akin to a wall made of tubes rather than a net.
A multilayer mask means you have more than one wall of tubes, quite probably offset so there is much less chance of the particle negotiating several layers. I have no idea of the actual length those tubes might appear in relation to the particles it is trying to collect and I don't have time or inclination to work it out nor do I wish to make rash analogies about basket balls and or nets which would allow the country of Belgium to pass right through them, so I will leave it for the individual to work out or try to imagine.

You then have to consider that you can throw a basket ball reasonably straight but many of these particles will be moving quite haphazardly so more likely to make contact with the surface area of those tubes where they will likely stick rather than bounce off or slide through, because the fabric is absorbent.

All of these things make the picture you describe very different to the way I imagine it and to me it suggests that many more of the particles will be captured by the mask than your analogy suggests, particularly the larger denser ones and they will carry the biggest virus load and therefore, when the amount of virus needed to infect someone is more substantial than a single particle, the mask has to have a positive impact in protecting others.....

That's my take on it anyway and I will be continuing to wear a mask in shops etc for the foreseeable future. I also agree that the mask is a visual reminder that we are not out of the woods and still need to take precautions and now that we all possess masks it is a minimal inconvenience to use them.

I can't stress this enough. I welcome any challenge to any point of view I might express. I'm quite happy to change my mind if you are persuasive and I never take offence. Unless I start getting called names of course.

I entirely understand about the real structure of fabric masks in real life.

I am using the basketball as a cartoon analogy in exactly the same way that others are using the cheese slice model because I'm not discussing this in a room full of research physicists or chemists. If I start talking about air pressure from breathing, pliable membranes, unstructured solids, cross-linking between polymeric substances, Graham's Law of Diffusion of gases through a solid, kinetics and non-linear fluid dynamics I'm going to lose pretty much everyone. That's my defence for using the basketball analogy. 🙂 It's not perfect, but show me a scientific model which is. We're still teaching school kids that electrons zoom around the atomic nucleus like planets around the sun despite 100 years of knowledge that they do no such thing.

In addition to this I am also saying that the bulk of your breath goes out the sides of the masks anyway because they are not sealed so there's a couple of arguments there to explain why we have so much covid spread despite a year of mandatory mask wearing.

As for you personally continuing to wear a mask?
I fully support your right to do this without others having a go at you for doing so.
It's entirely within your rights and I would never judge you for it. I know you aren't asking for validation but we're living in a world where insults are flying everywhere on this so I just wanted to say it.

I'm interested in seeing what happens with the ordinary public at large over the next few weeks. I genuinely don't know whether they'll ditch them en masse or keep them. I swing from one opinion to the other.

 

[rebrascora]

@pm133
But your analogy hugely over simplifies the argument and makes it more binary and therefore polarizing. It is not at all like throwing a basketball at a net the size of Belgium. It is much more complex which is why many top scientists cannot agree on the subject. You have said nothing to make me change my mind and in fact, your basket ball analogy convinces me that your arguments and judgements are not to be trusted no matter how much you know about particle physics.

 

[pm133]

According to this report only FFP3 face masks protected the staff 100% against covid - this level of filterstion is what you need when handlijg asbestos. Not sure what the tweet above from the professor is based on. If you want real protection for yourself from the virus - I’d buy a certified version of these and nothing else. My pack is on order.

Covid: Masks upgrade cuts infection risk, research finds

Wearing a high grade FFP3 mask can almost entirely protect health workers from Covid, research finds.

www.bbc.co.uk

As another poster said earlier, not everyone can wear masks for medical reasons.

I don't buy into the 100% protection thing as a general rule but there is clear evidence that they work better than surgical masks and they appear to protect the wearer.

It's not for me I have to say but those who can should absolutely be buying these.

 

[pm133]

@pm133
But your analogy hugely over simplifies the argument and makes it more binary and therefore polarizing. It is not at all like throwing a basketball at a net the size of Belgium. It is much more complex which is why many top scientists cannot agree on the subject. You have said nothing to make me change my mind and in fact, your basket ball analogy convinces me that your arguments and judgements are not to be trusted no matter how much you know about particle physics.

I'm not trying to change your mind or anybody else's.
I'm just giving my opinion as part of an exchange of ideas, taking on board alternative view points and having a look to see whether anything has changed my position.

I can't control how people feel about my posts and I can't control how they respond - that's on them.
I will say though that I really don't appreciate your last sentence about trust. In the context of any discussion this sort of thing isn't needed. You want to talk about polarising comments? That would be a good example.

 

[pm133]

We have just been out to a couple of shops and a guesstimate was 50:50 people wearing masks.
My O H had a hospital appointment last week and none of the hand sanitiser stations were working with signs on them to say so.

Interesting to hear about mask wearing percentages since the law changed.

At my local hospital, pre-covid it was near on impossible to ever find soap in the toilets.
I used to bring my own.

And we wonder why hospitals are breeding grounds for disease.

 

[pm133]

Sigh! Yet another interesting thread is starting to get a bit too personal for my liking so I'm going to bail.

No wonder people stop posting.
At this rate we're going to have nobody left on here. 🙂

 

[rebrascora]

Surely debate is all about winning people over to your argument or.... probably to a lesser degree, altering your own opinion. Trust is big part of that. If we say something which is clearly not true or inaccurate, then we lose credibility. That loss of credibility will mean that we have less trust in or respect for that person's opinion.
However expressing that loss of trust has clearly upset you and I apologize for my lack of sensitivity in doing so.

 

[Robin]

Surely debate is all about winning people over to your argument or.... probably to a lesser degree, altering your own opinion. Trust is big part of that. If we say something which is clearly not true or inaccurate, then we lose credibility. That loss of credibility will mean that we have less trust in or respect for that person's opinion.
However expressing that loss of trust has clearly upset you and I apologize for my lack of sensitivity in doing so.

Keir Starmer has come out in favour of masks. As he’s a barrister and well used to weighing up arguments for both sides, you’d like to think he’s done that in this instance, (and isn’t just saying it because he feels as the Opposition he’s got to oppose the Government stance!)

Covid: Lifting all restrictions at once is reckless, says Sir Keir Starmer

Boris Johnson has urged caution as most legal rules on social contact are lifted in England.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[pm133]

Surely debate is all about winning people over to your argument or.... probably to a lesser degree, altering your own opinion.

No not necesarily.
This isn't parliament.
It's a diabetes support forum and we're just discussing things outside our immediate health concerns.
It's an exchange of ideas. Some of which are varied in depth and breadth.

That has two benefits of which changing your mind is just one aspect.
The far more important benefit is geting two people with diametrically opposed ideas to understand where each other is coming from. Done without personal attacks and with respect, that doesn't cause polarisation, it leads people to an acceptance of others viewpoints. That is what I want when I discuss things with other people. If I'm not getting it I'm happy to find another tribe to talk to.

You bring up trust when you are talking about someone deliberately and wilfully spreading lies. It's not appropriate to be bringing that up in this discussion simply because you don't agree with my model or my reasoning. We simply disagree having put our points across respectfully and we move on.

I'm not upset. I'm just not interested in discussions which get personal.
Your apology is appreciated but I'm not sure you're really getting the point of what my issue with your comment was. I hope this post goes some way to explaining it and that we can move on without being pissed off with each other.

 

[Eddy Edson]

I think you can, when millions of people suddenly start doing something at the very same time that has never been done before. When so many people are doing the same thing at the same time, it's perfectly reasonable to expect some kind of effect (e.g change in case numbers), even just a flattening of case numbers, but when you see cases soaring after their implementation, that for me, is evidence enough that wearing masks has failed to do anything noticeable and worthy.

One can refer to scientific studies forever, but there is no substitute for actual real world hard evidence.

If the entire country stopped travelling, stop leaving their homes, stopped trading, stopped flying, stopped going to school, stopped going to work, stopped shopping, I am absolutely certain, we would see some effects from that sudden and widespread change in behaviour. Yet with the masks, this has never been proven to be the case.

I am not talking about opinions here, or taking sides, or being affiliated with another, it's just the way it is.

A lot of that is an artifact of the very low testing rates in the UK in the early days. Various modelling groups estimate that actual cases were 10X+ more than reported cases. So while It might look like there was an unprecedented increase in cases from late summer:



... actually the infection rate probably only got back up to the level of the early days after the stupid Christmas opening up, after the stupid late summer/autumn one.

You can see that in deaths, a metric with its own issues but a better reflection of actual infection rates:


Even with new variants (eg Kent), stupid relaxations, feeble compliance enforcement etc it took until early this year for things to get worse than the early days. And then things started to improve after re-tightenings early in the year, even before widespread vaxing.

All consistent with masks being an effective part of a mix of NPI's for reducing infection rates. But UK govt NPI policy and execution have been so bad, in general, that any individual measure has been a bit like sticking a finger in a crumbling dyke.

 

[Docb]

Much in what you say @Eddy Edson but I'm going to come back to my underlying thesis, that you can use the data to support whatever cause you want to promulgate. For example, the death data is confounded by the changes in definition about what should or should not be included that have been made over the period of the pandemic. Some will say that the changes reinforced the data, others will claim it makes the data unusable. Reality is that it changes some probabilities, with some being changed more than others.

Understanding what can be gained from studying the data requires a comfort with the concept of uncertainty and the ability to work with statistics. I've not seen anybody in the political arena who has shown any ability in this area. Opinion based on political dogma has ruled and to me that is the greatest failing in the way this thing has been handled.

 

[BlueArmy]

As another poster said earlier, not everyone can wear masks for medical reasons.

I don't buy into the 100% protection thing as a general rule but there is clear evidence that they work better than surgical masks and they appear to protect the wearer.

It's not for me I have to say but those who can should absolutely be buying these.

I agree, I don't tend to deal in absolutes, was just quoting the article itself. However, the finer level of filtration has to be better than wrapping your face in a old pair of pants which is what most people are doing. Incidentally, I got refused entry to a shop last week as I forgot my face mask as I was out having a run so pulled my t-shirt up to cover my mouth and nose knowing it provided as good a protection as what the others were wearing, and they wouldn't let me in. Not sure if it's because I looked like a sweaty bank robber or the person behind the till had a brain the size of an ants, likely the latter. Either way, this madness needs to end.

I agree, it's a comfort blanket which at best reduces the dispersion distance of a cough or sneeze. But if people were civilised and coughed or sneezed into their elbows or a tissue as you are supposed to anyway, it would be as effective as a face mask.