To mask or not to mask

[Cockney Sparrow]

I thought I'd seen a (BBC TV) news report on a recent study:
Nature (Journal) 9 September 2021
"Face masks protect against COVID-19. That’s the conclusion of a gold-standard clinical trial in Bangladesh, which backs up the findings of hundreds of previous observational and laboratory studies…….”

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y

........... Judging by my recollection of the news report, there is evidence its beneficial and not a specious gesture...... ?

Most of us accept the case for mask wearing in (name your criteria) circumstances. Thought I would quote the evidence base again. I recalled a cry of "Nonsense" when Javed announced they would keep a mask wearing requirement as a power they could use in future. And I speculated it was bulge eyed Sir Desmond Swayne (reminds me of Rick Mayal).

Swayne was interviewed on this morning's "Broadcasting House" achnowledging his expostulation, and making a string of statements in support of his anti-mask view. Followed by a doctor (palliative care specialist) who went on to explain all of his assertions were wrong "if you wear a mask, there is less chance of infecting someone else with covid" (which we know).

And of course we can have it, shed it, but have no symptoms (points obvious to many of us, I know). Nature:
"People infected with the Delta variant generally do not have COVID-19 symptoms until two days after they start shedding the coronavirus"

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02259-2

The programme had other matters of interest - Van Tam suggests witholding data from the EU until they agree vaccines used in UK trials qualify for recognition in the EU entry/movement criteria (Observer front page, apparently). In the discussion of the newspapers, ex-BBC but present Tory MP comments on the anti-BBC campaign. He defends the BBC but points out a fatal weakness which doesn't help is the inability of its upper echelons to ever admit a previous decision might need to be changed, or heavens above, was wrong.

[Bryn]

…though with much less frequency than those being infected with Covid-19.

Indeed, in the U.K., there were fewer than 5 deaths per day, on average. resulting from road traffic collisions in 2020, less than a quarter of whom were pedestrians.

[Andrew]

Indeed, in the U.K., there were fewer than 5 deaths per day, on average. resulting from road traffic collisions in 2020, less than a quarter of whom were pedestrians.

To be a little pedantic, I did say "run over" not "killed" in a vehicle collision, in an attempt to draw an analogy between catching Covid-19 but not dying from it, in the same way that one can be injured in a car collision, but not necessarily die as a result.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

To be a little pedantic, I did say "run over" not "killed" in a vehicle collision, in an attempt to draw an analogy between catching Covid-19 but not dying from it, in the same way that one can be injured in a car collision, but not necessarily die as a result.

If we’re going down the pedantry route, very few road accident victims actually go under the wheels. Usually the unfortunate pedestrian is thrown in the air, receiving serious injuries from the impact.

[Petrushka]

To be a little pedantic, I did say "run over" not "killed" in a vehicle collision, in an attempt to draw an analogy between catching Covid-19 but not dying from it, in the same way that one can be injured in a car collision, but not necessarily die as a result.

The road accident analogy is nonsense in this context. There are many mitigations put in place to reduce the risk as much as is practically possible both in the vehicle itself and pedestrian behaviour. There is, however, no accounting for human stupidity or carelessness. Road accidents do not usually physically affect those outside the scope of the accident itself (emotionally is a different matter, of course) but Covid can be spread exponentially. You may unknowingly spread the disease and this may, unknown to you, result in serious illness or death.

It is to help reduce this risk of spread and help our fellow citizens that the minor inconvenience of wearing a mask in crowded places indoors and on public transport seems the right thing to do.

[Andrew]

The road accident analogy is nonsense in this context. There is, however, no accounting for human stupidity or carelessness.

I freely admit to editing your post, but read in a "pre-Covid-19" state of mind your remarks would equally apply to most of the drivers I encounter every day on the highways and byways of North London!

[Pianoman]

It is to help reduce this risk of spread and help our fellow citizens that the minor inconvenience of wearing a mask in crowded places indoors and on public transport seems the right thing to do.

I think it's a losing battle...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/19/to-mask-or-not-to-mask-opinion-split-on-london-underground

[Dave2002]

I think it's a losing battle...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...on-underground

Plonkers - most of them!

[Pianoman]

Plonkers - most of them!

Lol - you tell ‘em !

[Prommer]

From a brief analysis of this board, the more posts you have written here, the more likely you are to be masking up from here till 2030.

[Andrew]

From a brief analysis of this board, the more posts you have written here, the more likely you are to be masking up from here till 2030.

Which is why I'm rarely here..........

[cloughie]

Which is why I'm rarely here..........

Is the mask raid over yet?

[kernelbogey]

I think it's a losing battle...

On a train from Southampton to London this morning I would say that fewer than 5% of passengers were wearing a mask.

[Cockney Sparrow]

From a brief analysis of this board, the more posts you have written here, the more likely you are to be masking up from here till 2030.

Many, I would guess most of us, are retired and can choose to avoid the London Tube, crowded trains/buses. There are, of course those who have little choice but to use those forms of transport through economic necessity and are impacted by those who are deciding for themselves that they pose no risk of passing on asymptomatic covid infection.

Also, from my point, I don't know where the freedom lovers have been, or what they've been doing in the daredevil covid stakes. Given their happy go lucky approach to their (and my) safety, I can only conclude I need to avoid such places as much as possible.

I'm reading in The Times that Johnson is refusing to rule out another lockdown as he can't rule out overload of the NHS capacity in dealing with high Covid ITU cases. ITU and other Covid hospitalisations mostly coming from the unvaccinated - with our vaccine refuser rate appearing stuck at a subbornly significant level. I suppose folk will run to the NHS when they need help, risking the lives of medical workers from contact, tying up the limited ITU resources, denying non-Covid care to others on waiting lists, or in other emergency situations. But that's alright, because Johnson has given the people the freedom. We see government ministers and their acolytes are happy not wearing masks, but I doubt any of them will be using the Tube twice a day - but you (the rest of us - go ahead)..

Next, we'll be told there is no crisis (Scotland hasn't had to draft in military help to its overloaded ambulance service) covid ITU case rates aren't running at very high rates (and winter isn't here yet)...........there is no crisis look here's a video of an empty hospital ward (aka as unstaffed - heard of Nurse shortage from 2019 and before?).

[muzzer]

I share this pessimism, overall. It’s not that the stats are bad, it’s that people are selfish. It’s not asking much to mask up in high risk situations like tube trains and indoor gatherings. And it’s not asking much to get jabbed. Twice. We’re in a better place then we were 6 months ago, yet people behave as if overnight Covid has gone. May providence help them in the coming winter of fuel and food shortages backed by inflation and unemployment.