For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 29
#1783439
JAFO wrote:
eltonioni wrote:Yes really. Your data i(the ones I can access) is ancient and/or lacks real day to day context.


Okay mate, whatever you say. The Royal Society one is dated 26th June and the German one is specifically about real day to day context.


eltonioni wrote:From today's HMG release. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... =immediate

Deaths in all settings
Daily 11


That's a month after all shops could reopen and 2-3 weeks since all that hand-wringing about crowds on beaches, in parks, protests, etc. Just saying. :whistle:

Image

So much for spikes because of street protests / parties / shops reopening / etc without everyone in masks.

All that's being said, as I keep repeating, is that the moment for mass mask wearing has been missed and now vulnerable people need to stay safe while others don't really need to do much except get back to what passes as normal for now.

Masks create a sense of irrational fear that prevents normality - just read up this thread to see it writ large. If anyone wants to wear a mask, just go ahead but don't let personal fears hold back the recovery of our wider society.

@johnm Make no mistake, we're not going to inflate our way out of this particular economic disaster. The government is coming for your pension pot, and quite possibly your kids inheritance if that's not enough, which it won't be if we put unnecessary barriers in the way.


@Flyin'Dutch' I'm fully aware of the data collection / publishing limitations. I just assume that everyone else is too so don't need to make any qualification on general quantums because it's not interesting to the discussion.



To answer the OP question; the criteria is are you over 70 or are you vulnerable, in which case wear an effective mask, not a placebo.
#1783443
If you are 24 and are an asymptomatic carrier wandering around enclosed spaces you may infect folk of any age and anyone of those could be hit hard and take up loads of NHS resources and die.

The risk of this and other diseases is greater amongst the old but we’ve seen the young hammered for reasons we don’t yet understand.

At this stage we need to be deploying all of the risk management tools at our disposal to ensure we get as much activity running as we can sensibly manage.
JAFO, Paul_Sengupta liked this
#1783451
Whatever anyone on here wants, it won’t happen just the way they want.
The virus is teaching us a lot about infectious processes.
It’s teaching us about how society interacts.
It’s also teaching us a lot about economics.

Existing theories in all fields are now found wanting.

We can only do what we have evidence, or faith, to support. And keep our (clean) fingers crossed.
johnm liked this
#1783466
Numbers and logic. Maybe not my strong point.

In the early days when there were presumably only a few spreaders around, we all seem to agree that this would have been a good time to wear face masks.

Now you can pick any data you like on the current situation, but I saw something recently for arrivals into Jersey with something like 4 positive tests in 2,800, all asymptomatic.

So if this data is even vaguely representative, in a population of 60m this gives us 86,000 asymptomatic spreaders, and it's being suggested the time for masks is past. :scratch:
johnm, Flyin'Dutch', JAFO and 1 others liked this
#1783475
From what I see on social media is that masks are a great alternative to shovel snow; masks cause snowflakes to melt.
Trent772 liked this
#1783485
@eltonioni - I normally agree with you but I'm struggling to follow your reasoning here.

You said there was little evidence, so I gave you evidence. You said my evidence was ancient or lacked day to day relevance, so I pointed out that it was just a few weeks old and concentrated on day to day relevance. You quoted that and then went off on some other points directed at other posters.

The OP was all about indoor settings and you start introducing how the outdoor protests don't appear to have affected the figures.

Of course it would have been better if we'd made masks mandatory in March - as some people said at the time - we may even have been able to sidestep much of the effects of lockdown but we can't go back and do that, all we can do now is what we can do now and taking any steps to limit the spread of the virus is still a good idea. Masks in shops are not the answer but they are part of the best answer we have. As @Charles Hunt points out, there may be tens of thousands of asymptomatic spreaders, if we can do something to limit how they spread the disease by wearing masks in enclosed spaces, in addition to the other measures in place, why wouldn't we?

I am starting to think that what you mean is: "I've made up my mind and I am not going to be swayed by inconvenient facts."
#1783531
I think I said this before....Common sense anyone?

If you are coughing and spluttering and unwell maybe you shouldnt be out and about, if you have to be then wear a mask at all times.

Otherwise :

Average house sized shop...You and the shopkeeper. Need a mask?
Average house sized shop...10 people in there. Need a mask?
Hanger of a supermarket, 11pm on Sunday. Need a mask?
Hangar of a supermarket, Friday afternoon before Bank holiday. Need a mask?

Is this really that hard to work out? Why do we need laws for this stuff?

I personally dont like masks. I like to see who Im with and their facial expressions, it makes communicating so much easier. I would prefer to be 2m from someone and see their face than 1ft away from them with both of us in a mask. I will wear a mask where I deem appropriate. If asked to wear one where I dont deem it appropriate, then I shall make the decision to stay and comply or leave depending upon how much I want to be there.

Regards, SD..
eltonioni liked this
#1783533
JAFO wrote:@eltonioni - I normally agree with you but I'm struggling to follow your reasoning here.

You said there was little evidence, so I gave you evidence. You said my evidence was ancient or lacked day to day relevance, so I pointed out that it was just a few weeks old and concentrated on day to day relevance. You quoted that and then went off on some other points directed at other posters.

The OP was all about indoor settings and you start introducing how the outdoor protests don't appear to have affected the figures.

Of course it would have been better if we'd made masks mandatory in March - as some people said at the time - we may even have been able to sidestep much of the effects of lockdown but we can't go back and do that, all we can do now is what we can do now and taking any steps to limit the spread of the virus is still a good idea. Masks in shops are not the answer but they are part of the best answer we have. As @Charles Hunt points out, there may be tens of thousands of asymptomatic spreaders, if we can do something to limit how they spread the disease by wearing masks in enclosed spaces, in addition to the other measures in place, why wouldn't we?

I am starting to think that what you mean is: "I've made up my mind and I am not going to be swayed by inconvenient facts."


I certainly don't find it easy to articulate a bunch of thoughts into a single sentence, mainly because some don't directly support the others, some are contradictory. That's the joy of discussion though, we can work through ideas and even hold dichotomies of truth (whatever that is ;)) I'll even change my mind sometimes.

All my points here are at population level so it's taken it for granted that we all appreciate and sympathise with individual tragedies. We don't need to keep clutching at our pearls and reaching for the smelling salts when death is mentioned, as rotten as it is.

I have two key concerns; health and society, the latter including the economy.

On health - unlike some I'm not and don't pretend to be an expert and I will bow to actual expertery once I've challenged it in my own mind. I have the same information that anyone else has on the Clapham Omnibus so I'll look for the big shiney things that I can see out of the window. What stands out to me is who's dying and why. The big ticket deaths are the disproportionately the old and the ill who are disproportionately catching it in healthcare settings - care homes, hospitals, etc. That's a pretty tight, if large, group which means that they can be targeted. IIUI we know how to reduce risk for those groups. 1. Hygiene through many means including masks, and 2. social isolation. Neither are nice changes to daily life but we're told that they are very effective at preserving it. They are also temporary - let's hope so anyway or we're in even bigger trouble. These people will benefit from social isolation and an effective respirator mask that protects themselves.

The points above about asymptomatic spreaders is a good one and sort of makes my point. Those people are not a worry which is a good job because they can not be targeted. Those people don't need masks or social isolation for themselves.

I'd hope we can broadly agree on the above synopsis, even if not on the many details I've glossed over.

Then there are the people we don't know about, me, you, the majority which is pretty much everyone who's not had an antibody test. It's a huge number of people - society at large.

So we quickly arrive at the effects on society, which the economy is an intrinsic part of.

As said a few times above, I'm completely relaxed about individuals choosing to wear a face covering. I occasionally do it. Legally mandating face coverings is a different matter though.

Warning: Here comes the slippery slope. :P Ironically, slippery slope arguments tend to be a slippery slope themselves, but just as stereotypes have a habit of outing truths, a slippery slope argument is a good way of checking ourselves from doing things that have worse impacts.

The reasoning behind face masks in shops is specious and the declining numbers don't support it. If the numbers did we would also impose face coverings any time we go out of our house. The disease is petering out in the general population, and has been since before lockdown on 23 March. It's a background matter.

If it's necessary to wear a mask in a shop, it should be necessary all the time everywhere outside the home - that's the only logical position to hold unless I've missed something.

So why not wear masks everywhere? It shouldn't need explaining but there is growing suspicion (evidence?) that in the UK using face coverings perpetuates fear, whether or not it should. I'd posit that this thread is evidence of that since normally sensible people seem to have taken this new version of Project Fear onboard, underscored with shaky but bias-confirming selective "evidence". We've seen that before on another, now banned topic.

So why not wear masks since March? Good question, but that bird flew ages ago. Without wanting (and probably failing) to be a complete smartarris back then I was banging on about people not taking this seriously enough while others some of who are now committed bedwetting mask advocates) were trying to work out how to flout guidance while staying legal. Smartarsery aside, it doesn't matter either way now - the bird is long gone.

If we accept that face masks create fear and put barriers in the way of a productive daily life it follows that legally mandating them increases fear and in its wake the obvious effects on society. That doesn't help anyone. I'd suggest that whether you think it matters is how it affects you personally, some options might be;

> If you are old or have underlying health issues you want belt and braces - everyone should wear a face mask dammit!!!!
> If you secretly think you might be vulnerable, probably best everyone wears a mask just in case.
> If you don't think it will ever affect you - get on that protest, go to a party, call up the swingers society and dig out the gimp masks and nurses outfit for a covid night!!

Most of us have a bit of each in varying proportions, and we have people we care about so when they see the opinion pieces by know-nothing opinion-mongers in the media banging on about masks for advertising clicks then yea, I can see why people think that masks might be worth a shot.

But the truth is that the disease has been dying out without masks. Heck, it was dying out without lockdown! The big question is, what's it worth to society to make it die out a teeny bit quicker?

That's a very potted version of lots of thoughts, some of which I'll acknowledge may be contradictory but to sum up, face coverings very much have a role. IMO that role is being a technically worthwhile N95 type mask used by people who are statistically vulnerable. The people around them should also take the same precautions that they should have been doing for months. Everyone else - go back to work, wear a mask if you like.



Apologies if that's disjointed and typo ridden - blame the iPad
#1783562
@eltonioni, it appears that we agree on some points but see others quite differently. I have been advocating the wearing of masks in places where social distancing is difficult since seeing the evidence of their effectiveness in April.

A couple of points of yours that I didn't quite grasp were:

eltonioni wrote:The points above about asymptomatic spreaders is a good one and sort of makes my point. Those people are not a worry which is a good job because they can not be targeted. Those people don't need masks or social isolation for themselves.

If it's necessary to wear a mask in a shop, it should be necessary all the time everywhere outside the home - that's the only logical position to hold unless I've missed something.


Asymptomatic spreaders don't really need masks for themselves but they do need them to protect the rest of us.

I don't think that masks are needed everywhere outside the home as the real risk is in enclosed spaces, particularly where distancing may be difficult.

I agree with you that it's a pity that this has to be mandatory but with the amount of sheer f#ckwittery in the population at large it could never be voluntary in England. If it causes fear in some people then I'm sorry, I can't worry about their particular brand of f#ckwittery.
kanga, AlanC, johnm liked this
#1783582
@JAFO I agree that we generally agree. There are a couple of detail points that you highlight which I think need questioning further.

JAFO wrote: Asymptomatic spreaders don't really need masks for themselves but they do need them to protect the rest of us.

That's the nub, who is "us"? My contention is simply that "us" is actually those now understood to be vulnerable to the disease, not everyone.

(Bearing in mind this is in the context of forcing the entire population to wear face coverings)


JAFO wrote: I don't think that masks are needed everywhere outside the home as the real risk is in enclosed spaces, particularly where distancing may be difficult.


Superficially a very fair point but if we dig deeper;
1. Is there an established "real risk" that masks can resolve? I'd say, in general not now, as per the above screed.
2. What are "enclosed spaces"? Who decides, how and why is totally arbitrary. Shops from month end, not offices since ever. Not restaurants and definitely not pubs. Not gyms next week.

I'd say that has become a political decision, not a public health decision. It's a placebo. Face masks in shops is a bit of red meat for know-nowt newspaper columnists and the interminably fearful who couldn't die of Covid 19 if their life depended on it.
#1783624
The flaws in @eltonioni arguments are broadly as follows:

The reduction in cases and their pattern is the result of successful lockdown and social distancing strategy and failures to manage the risk in care homes properly. The number of cases is still one or two orders of magnitude higher than most other European countries.

While statistically the majority of serious and symptomatic cases are amongst the old and vulnerable, that is true of most infectious diseases and we know that the virus can hit the young and fit hard but we don't yet know why.

It follows that as more activities open up there is a danger that the rate of cases will increase. To mitigate that we have a strategy, we keep things including our hands as clean as we can, we keep our distance where we can and wear a face covering where we are inevitably close to strangers, and they or us may be infected and not know it. In environments where test, trace and isolate can work effectively i.e. where people know each other, the risk is further mitigated.
Charles Hunt, kanga, JAFO and 1 others liked this
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 29