Coronavirus

[Anastasius]

To be effective, an FFP3 mask has to be properly fit-tested. In addition, NHS staff working with infected patients have to wear full PPE, which includes eye protection (a face shield, goggles or a visor), a filtering facepiece respirator, a fluid repellent gown and gloves. It really is much more than the ill-fitting cloth face masks that some people are wearing out in public.

We're talking about wearing a mask to prevent breathing in the virus. So references to gowns etc is irrelevant in this context. Actually putting on an FFP3 or FFP2 mask properly is not as hard as you make it out to be.

[Dave2002]

This article about Cuba’s response is interesting -

https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-response-why-cuba-is-such-an-interesting-case-135749

[Anastasius]

....
I also don’t go with the guilt line of not infecting others, as that assumes taking the point of view of just one person who might be responsible for the illness of others. Knowingly and deliberately infecting others would be unreasonable, but if there is no certain knowledge, then forcing everyone to wear masks which may very well be ineffective anyway also seems unreasonable, and possibly pointless.

If you can categorically say that wearing a mask is utterly pointless then your point is valid. But if you can't then surely any 'sensible' person would take the opportunity to (a) stop infecting others (especially as said 'sensible' person' is asymptomatic) and (b) minimise the possibility of inhaling the virus.

[Anastasius]

This article about Cuba’s response is interesting -

https://theconversation.com/coronavi...ng-case-135749

Yup.especially this bit "the government announced a ban on tourist arrivals,". The UK, on the other hand, simply waves alighting passengers through with nary a check.

[LMcD]

If you can categorically say that wearing a mask is utterly pointless then your point is valid. But if you can't then surely any 'sensible' person would take the opportunity to (a) stop infecting others (especially as said 'sensible' person' is asymptomatic) and (b) minimise the possibility of inhaling the virus.

'Wearing a mask is utterly pointless'. There, I've said it in a categorical way and I shall believe it to be true in my particular case until the medical professionals tell me in an equally categorical way that I need to wear a mask regardless of my state of health. Thankfully we live in a country where we're still free to make our own decisions when the authorities don't tell us what to do in specific circumstances.

[Dave2002]

If you can categorically say that wearing a mask is utterly pointless then your point is valid. But if you can't then surely any 'sensible' person would take the opportunity to (a) stop infecting others (especially as said 'sensible' person' is asymptomatic) and (b) minimise the possibility of inhaling the virus.

No. Firstly the proportion of asymptomatic people is possibly low, though we don’t know. Secondly, we don’t normally take precautions against things which may be relatively unlikely, for the benefit of others. Thirdly - we do take “measured” risks. If (under normal circumstances) I drive to the shops, I and others accept that there is a chance I will have an accident, but the probability is fairly low on any one day. If I go on a plane or a train, there is also a risk that there will be an accident. We accept those risks, as otherwise we’d get very little done.

What we normally do, or try to do, is to balance risks against desired outcomes. Of course our risk assessments may change, based on various factors, such as new information.

[LMcD]

No. Firstly the proportion of asymptomatic people is possibly low, though we don’t know. Secondly, we don’t normally take precautions against things which may be relatively unlikely, for the benefit of others. Thirdly - we do take “measured” risks. If (under normal circumstances) I drive to the shops, I and others accept that there is a chance I will have an accident, but the probability is fairly low on any one day. If I go on a plane or a train, there is also a risk that there will be an accident. We accept those risks, as otherwise we’d get very little done.

What we normally do, or try to do, is to balance risks against desired outcomes. Of course our risk assessments may change, based on various factors, such as new information.

I reckon that, to adapt a phrase from WW2, if the virus has got my name on it it will eventually find me, at which point I shall console myself with the thought that I've had a pretty good life. Until or unless that happens, I shall continue to do nothing that will increase the risk that I pose to myself or others. Happily I lack the skill or courage to inject myself with disinfectant.

[oddoneout]

I am struggling to understand the naivety being shown by some people here regarding masks.

Option 1 - The aerosol stays in the air for long enough for you to walk into it if you are following a person with Covid-19. That person could also be asymptomatic and not wearing a mask. Neither are you. Take a good lungful then in that case but please, after you've caught it, don't infect anyone else.

Option 2 - The aerosol stays in the air for long enough for you to walk into it if you are following a person with Covid-19. That person could also be asymptomatic and not wearing a mask. But you are wearing an FFP3 or even an FFP2 mask. You walk through the cloud with minimal risk.

Read this if you're still not convinced. He is also an MD. https://www.linkedin.com/content-gue...L3Y8ujCYquk68k

Bottom line - you're call. But please don't infect anyone else.

As far as I can see the differing views on face masks expressed here are not the result of naivety but a reflection of the lack of complete consensus among scientists et al. Individuals have read articles and reached their own conclusions, which may or may not align with yours, and which will govern how they choose to proceed regarding wearing or otherwise.

[Flay]

'Wearing a mask is utterly pointless'. There, I've said it in a categorical way and I shall believe it to be true in my particular case until the medical professionals tell me in an equally categorical way that I need to wear a mask regardless of my state of health. Thankfully we live in a country where we're still free to make our own decisions when the authorities don't tell us what to do in specific circumstances.

Medical professionals in other countries are advocating simple masks in the hope that it will reduce the spread from asymptomatic carriers to others. Hong Kong is a good example. But you may feel free to infect others, who may die (in a most unpleasant manner, and alone save for medical staff) as a result. The disease is absolute hell for about 10%, and purgatory for many others. I have a previously well niece just discharged after a week in hospital. She narrowly missed kidney shut-down, and at present can barely summon the breath and energy to manage a flight of stairs.

No. Firstly the proportion of asymptomatic people is possibly low, though we don’t know. Secondly, we don’t normally take precautions against things which may be relatively unlikely, for the benefit of others.

No we don't know yet. That's why we should be careful.

And yes we do take precautions to avoid harming others in unlikely circumstances, which is why I try to drive carefully and attentively.

[Dave2002]

Happily I lack the skill or courage to inject myself with disinfectant.

Perhaps the originator of that idea should try it himself!

[Anastasius]

'Wearing a mask is utterly pointless'. There, I've said it in a categorical way and I shall believe it to be true in my particular case until the medical professionals tell me in an equally categorical way that I need to wear a mask regardless of my state of health. Thankfully we live in a country where we're still free to make our own decisions when the authorities don't tell us what to do in specific circumstances.

No-one is saying that wearing masks is mandatory. This particular line of discussion was spawned by JohnB's assertion that wearing masks to protect yourself was pointless. Which is just plain wrong.

[LHC]

No-one is saying that wearing masks is mandatory. This particular line of discussion was spawned by JohnB's assertion that wearing masks to protect yourself was pointless. Which is just plain wrong.

Another article on mask wearing, which appears to be evidence-based:

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/610336/

This once again confirms that masks are unlikely to offer much protection to individual members of the public, because of the difficulties in ensuring a proper fit. The main benefit is to the community at large as they reduce the chances of people infecting others.

"Masks can be worn to protect the wearer from getting infected or masks can be worn to protect others from being infected by the wearer. Protecting the wearer is difficult: It requires medical-grade respirator masks, a proper fit, and careful putting on and taking off. But masks can also be worn to prevent transmission to others, and this is their most important use for society."

Until an effective vaccine is available, I think it would be reasonable to ask people to wear masks in high risk locations, such as on public transport and in shops, to reduce transmission, but there seems little point in wearing them when out in the open.

[LHC]

The latest WHO advice on masks also advises against their use in public settings:

"the wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks."

https://www.who.int/publications-detail/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-during-home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak

[Beresford]

I found today's Science in Action programme on the BBC world service very informative about the origins of this particular coronavirus, and why scientists, including those in a Wuhan lab, have been forecasting for the last 15 years that the next pandemic would be a coronavirus type, and originate from the bush meat market in China, via bats.
It also debunks conspiracy theories, and shows how several "presidents" have mistakenly tried to play down the outbreak, for political purposes.
It describes why HIV Aids, a related group of viruses, has by no means gone away, and there is still no vaccination available against it.
The programme is very well presented.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cszh06

[DracoM]

<cmscom@parliament.uk>

Culture, Media & Sport Committee
On Disinformation about virus.

Evidence hearing session.