Coronavirus

[LMcD]

Q: When is a shop not a shop?
A: When it's a sandwich shop, apparently.

[Dave2002]

In any case , it is quite clear that the new directive about use in shops is primarily economic.

... and has now led to new markets for "fashion accessories"!

[Serial_Apologist]

Q: When is a shop not a shop?
A: When it's a sandwich shop, apparently.

Maybe because what's in the middle falls between categories!

[cloughie]

Q: When is a shop not a shop?
A: When it's a sandwich shop, apparently.

Burger Mask anyone?

[Frances_iom]

I guess that if it continues, as many papers suggest, to next summer, then if theatres thought that some audiences might return, then wearing a face covering will I guess thankfully deaden any coughs but also the audiences willingness to come - if theatres are not included then the reasoning for their use in shops is patently economic as most shops have managed quite well to keep the 2m rule

[Cockney Sparrow]

Having been to the GP surgery a couple, of times, I was asked to wear a mask and we made some at home.

I will be restrained in my visits to shops etc for the present (probably longer) - essential visits (as I judge that) and I will wear a mask when close to others and in enclosed spaces - with the aim of helping others and also (it seems) myself***.

The point has been made we can wait for double blind studies and lots of counter argument / assessment but by then another wave of the pandemic may have passed. The WHO have endorsed mask wearing and countries versed in SARS and MERSE are doing much better than us – and wearing masks is the norm there.
The website below is not a formal research institute or a WHO guidance paper but I, trustit more than Michael Gove, I can understand the content and a good proportion draws on research (which is cited). Their conclusion is that a surgical mask (the blue type) is as effective as the super rated N95, and that if we are reserving those for health and care professionals, home made masks using the better mix of materials, whilst admittedly not as effective, are still worthwhile.

*** In particular, a study of flu infectivity found that masks do help to protect the wearer:

https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/n95-mask-surgical-prevent-transmission-coronavirus/

“Because people often don’t wear masks at home (even around sick people), researchers could defensibly randomly assign people to wear masks or not. They randomly assigned parents to wear no mask, a surgical mask, or an N95 mask ….Then they tracked how many parents got the flu.
About 16% of parents not wearing a mask got sick, compared to 8% in the surgical and N95 mask groups (called “P2” masks in Australia). Thus, masks seemed to work! But again, surgical masks were just as effective as N95 masks. And the effect size was fairly large—half the infection rate”.

Some particular pages on their website:
N95 Masks vs. Surgical Masks: Which Is Better at Preventing the Coronavirus? (Spoiler - Surgical is just as good).

https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/n95-mask-surgical-prevent-transmission-coronavirus/play

Can DIY Masks Protect Us From Coronavirus?

https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/diy-homemade-mask-protect-virus-coronavirus/

A list of posts on the topic of masks:

https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/category/masks/

[teamsaint]

Even if low grade masks do help lessen transmission in certain situations, which overall is far from proven, there are many situations in which they are of little use, or, badly used may actually have a negative effect. That is not to mention the very real possibility that a layer of complacency may be added to already mixed messages.

The environments in all the non supermarket shops that I have been in are well beyond any safety level that I require, and I am fairly cautious about the risks.
And on top of that, people with symptoms should be self isolating, we have track and trace, and in many areas very low incidence.
Doctors ? They arent seeing anybody round here, and pass prescriptions over in ways that are laughable in their overkill.

Masks may have a role to play. But this partiular compulsion is driven by economics, not by public health.

[Padraig]

Masks may have a role to play. But this particular compulsion is driven by economics, not by public health.

Wasn't that the big question right from the start, ts, economics or health? I made my own choice then, so I'll be wearing the mask.

[teamsaint]

Wasn't that the big question right from the start, ts, economics or health? I made my own choice then, so I'll be wearing the mask.

There is certainly a perception that there is a trade off. And there may be.
But my point was that the directive is driven by economics, not by an actual belief by those who took the decision that in fact there is a substantial health benefit. They have decided that more people will go out and spend if they put this rule in place.
Of course if people individually believe that there is, and make that choice, then that is well and good.

[LMcD]

Burger Mask anyone?

If I faure into McDonalds I'll be sure to wear one.

[Nick Armstrong]

If I faure into McDonalds I'll be sure to wear one.

Oh very good, LMcD

[Simon B]

My reading (neither more nor less than mere personal opinion - no need to shoot me down in flames should you disagree) is that there are two aspects behind the current position on masks:

1) The motive behind the political decision for compulsory mask wearing in some settings is indeed economic. I.e. from their p.o.v. it's safety theatre instituted in the hope that more people will be encouraged to get out there and spend/produce than will be deterred. Any "medical" benefit is incidental.

2) The science, or rather enough scientists to hold sway, have come down in favour of it for different reasons: Principally because anything that'll likely damp down the overall transmission rate by even a little bit is a good thing.

Given that epidemics are exponential phenomena - as amply demonstrated by the 3-day-doubling, 10-day-tenfold growth pre-lockdown - small changes in the exponent have a highly disproportionate effect on the final result. As long as any complacency, counterproductive use behaviour, etc doesn't result in a net dis-benefit, they're going to be in favour. Even if masks are 95% useless, that 5% will still make a big difference to the rate a 2nd wave takes off at from the base of currently low incidence...

[oddoneout]

There is certainly a perception that there is a trade off. And there may be.
But my point was that the directive is driven by economics, not by an actual belief by those who took the decision that in fact there is a substantial health benefit. They have decided that more people will go out and spend if they put this rule in place.
Of course if people individually believe that there is, and make that choice, then that is well and good.

I'm inclined to agree that the UK decision as driven by economics rather than concern for the welfare of the population(so what else is new), but for me that raises a couple of questions. Was that the case in other countries that have made mask wearing a requirement/law, and to what extent does it matter what drove the decision if there is a possibility of some benefit?

[johnb]

My reading (neither more nor less than mere personal opinion - no need to shoot me down in flames should you disagree) ....

How dare you attempt to curtail my God given right to start a flame war !

By the way, I agree with your analysis of the situation.

[johnb]

By the way, in view of today's death toll I've updated the table I posted a few days ago.

The hospital deaths reflect infections in the general community whereas the majority of non-hospital deaths probably occurred in care homes.

I find the non-hospital deaths worrying.

[B]Covid-19 confirmed deaths in England[/B]

Date		Total	England Hosp	Non-Hosp*
		UK	Only	Deaths	Deaths
04/07/2020	 67	 59	39	 20
05/07/2020	 22	 21	18	  3 (Sun)
06/07/2020	 16	 16	15	  1 (Mon)
07/07/2020	155	152	36	116
08/07/2020	126	121	42	 79
09/07/2020	 85	 82	22	 60
10/07/2020	 48	 48	22	 26
11/07/2020	148	147	38	109
12/07/2020	 21	 21	15	  6 (Sun)
13/07/2020	 11	 11	11	  0 (Mon)
14/07/2020	138	134	26	108	

* presumably mostly in care homes

Something is wrong with this.

For the last month there seems to be a discrepancy between the figures for Covid-19 deaths announced on a daily basis by the government (on the gov.uk website) and those that are released later by the ONS. Having said that the gov.uk figures are by date reported whereas those from the ONS by date registered or date of death. Even allowing for that it still seems that there is a discrepancy.

The gov.uk daily deaths appear to be higher (!) than those from the ONS whereas it should be the other way round as the ONS figures include all Covid-19 registered deaths whether or not there has been a positive test.

So either the gov.uk figures announced on a daily basis have been overstated (and possibly are still being overstated) or the ONS figures are understated or there is something else going on which I don't understand.

It could be to do with long reporting delays for non-hospital deaths that are included in the gov.uk figures and/or we know that the government published figures have in the past included duplicate countings, which have been periodically corrected and/or something else.

Anyway, I don't trust or understand the gov.uk figures I used in the above table so please disregard it.

Later Edit: The accuracy of the daily death figures from PHE (used in the above table) have now been called into question and their publication has been suspended while a review is undertaken. Please disregard the table as it is based on this inaccurate data.