COVID-19: are you wearing a mask?

[DavidGrahamJones]

so probably nothing to do with masks.

Belgium scrapped mask wearing in September and compulsory rule withdrawn October 1st.

As for Spain, although they had strict rules there are several commentators who are suggesting that not only were the rules confusing but there was a lot of "cheating". People not wearing them properly (below nose even just covering chin), and lots of reasons to remove them like smoking, drinking, eating and making one self understood.

I suspect a lot of "cheating" has gone on in the U.K. as well.

 

[bulkbiker]

Belgium scrapped mask wearing in September and compulsory rule withdrawn October 1st.

As for Spain, although they had strict rules there are several commentators who are suggesting that not only were the rules confusing but there was a lot of "cheating". People not wearing them properly (below nose even just covering chin), and lots of reasons to remove them like smoking, drinking, eating and making one self understood.

I suspect a lot of "cheating" has gone on in the U.K. as well.

Or it could be that they are simply ineffective?
Why blame the population? that's a sneaky government trick.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

Why blame the population? that's a sneaky government trick.

It's not the government saying that it's the population, it's some commentators that are suggesting it. The effectiveness of wearing masks has been researched for decades so I wonder why that is at question? Also mask wearing isn't effective if people have them dangling off their chin or not even covering the nose or mouth. The eyes are also considered to be an entry point.

 

[bulkbiker]

The eyes are also considered to be an entry point.

So a mask won't help you there.

It's not the government saying that it's the population

You haven't listened to Matt Hancock much then.. (not that I blame you for that)... we're all out there "killing granny" .

 

[Member496333]

Why blame the population? that's a sneaky government trick.

It's straight from any government crisis playbook. When something doesn't work, simply blame nonconformity and then double down. They've been doing the same with dietary advice since 1980 and still going strong. Tried and tested strategy of chicanery and manipulation.

In my opinion.

 

[Member496333]

The effectiveness of wearing masks has been researched for decades

That does beg the question of why then were government - under the guidance of SAGE and WHO - advising people to not wear masks earlier in the year?

 

[HSSS]

That does beg the question of why then were government - under the guidance of SAGE and WHO - advising people to not wear masks earlier in the year?

Because of shortages and wanting the limited supplies preserved for medics?

 

[Member496333]

Because of shortages and wanting the limited supplies preserved for medics?

Which in turn begs the question - if WHO, SAGE and the government are capable of lying to the entire nation, who is telling the truth now? The BBC?

 

[hankjam]

Which in turn begs the question - if WHO, SAGE and the government are capable of lying to the entire nation, who is telling the truth now? The BBC?

Why the BBC?

 

[Member496333]

Why the BBC?

Synonymous with the mainstream media. BBC used as an example because they're doom mongering propagandists who pump one side of the story 24/7 while largely glossing over the other. We already know there's scientific opinion on both sides of the fence, so if we agree that government are willing to lie and risk hundreds of thousands of lives by saying masks aren't effective, then that only leaves the major news outlets to trust.

 

[HSSS]

We already know there's scientific opinion on both sides of the fence, so if we agree that government are willing to lie and risk hundreds of thousands of lives by saying masks aren't effective, then that only leaves the major news outlets to trust.

we are doomed

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

That does beg the question of why then were government - under the guidance of SAGE and WHO - advising people to not wear masks earlier in the year?

It's a good question and it's possible that in the very beginning (when was that, personally I'd say February which is when my friend in Singapore told me to wear a mask) it might have had something to do with having enough for the NHS. It might have . . . . . . I've been screaming at the telly since then as well. I've been struggling to find a reason why, when certain countries have experienced decades of dealing with pandemics and epidemics, we weren't doing what they were doing.

The WHO is especially strange, they waited until June 5th to advocate mask wearing . . . . in public as well as inside. The U.K.'s response has been shambolic to say the least. Perhaps there's a world wide conspiracy to cut populations, starting with those who have some degree of old age, frailty or underlying health condition.

 

[bulkbiker]

Perhaps

I'd say it's fairly certain.. there's no "perhaps" about it.

Hence the preponderance of DNR orders.

 

[hankjam]

Synonymous with the mainstream media. BBC used as an example because they're doom mongering propagandists who pump one side of the story 24/7 while largely glossing over the other. We already know there's scientific opinion on both sides of the fence, so if we agree that government are willing to lie and risk hundreds of thousands of lives by saying masks aren't effective, then that only leaves the major news outlets to trust.

Sorry, could you remind me what the other side of the story is?
Thank you.

 

[bulkbiker]

Sorry, could you remind me what the other side of the story is?
Thank you.

the link in post 317 is one example..

 

[Member496333]

Sorry, could you remind me what the other side of the story is?
Thank you.

For every study that says masks have merit, there's another that says they don't, and even some that say they are a detriment overall. So scientific opinion is very much divided and is far from settled. Just like most things, including diet.

There has actually recently been a Danish clinical trial (the gold standard) conducted that should tell us more, but at the moment it seems to be being blocked from publication. Hopefully it will be released soon.

 

[Mr_Pot]

Ordinary masks and face coverings are to protect others by reducing the distance that the virus is projected when coughing, sneezing, talking etc. I was surprised that trying very hard I couldn't blow out a candle from 3" away while wearing a cheap mask, so I think they must be of some benefit. I only wear a mask when shopping or visiting indoors so it is hardly a big deal to comply.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

So a mask won't help you there.

Never said it would, I have a visor and I wear glasses.

You haven't listened to Matt Hancock much then.. (not that I blame you for that)... we're all out there "killing granny" .

Good grief NO! As for my reference to commentators rather than government I was talking about Spain.

As for the U.K. government, they have told so many lies that I wouldn't trust them with a barge pole.

 

[hankjam]

the link in post 317 is one example..

Thank yo for the link.

With such an emotive first paragraph I have to admit it set my teeth on edge.
Really needed an editor, first half could have been cut back a lot.

Put the case against masks well but I think really over did it for the conclusion.

"It should be readily apparent by this time that all of the lockdowns, masking, distancing, closures, etc. have had no effect on the virus. It is time to reverse course."

"This goes completely against the principles on which the United States of America was founded. We have lost the meaning of “Land of the Free, Home of the Brave” to “Land of the Imprisoned, Home of the Afraid.”"

It could be suggested that the United States haven't really tried any of these measures or with any degree of central coordination and things don't seem to be getting any better....

or am I just following the wrong news.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

For every study that says masks have merit, there's another that says they don't,

I think the ratio of one to one is inaccurate.

A meta analysis of 172 studies across 16 countries and six continents funded by the W.H.O. and printed in The Lancet (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext) What they found was the following:

The findings of this systematic review of 172 studies (44 comparative studies; n=25 697 patients) on COVID-19, SARS, and MERS provide the best available evidence that current policies of at least 1 m physical distancing are associated with a large reduction in infection, and distances of 2 m might be more effective. These data also suggest that wearing face masks protects people (both health-care workers and the general public) against infection by these coronaviruses, and that eye protection could confer additional benefit. However, none of these interventions afforded complete protection from infection, and their optimum role might need risk assessment and several contextual considerations. No randomised trials were identified for these interventions in COVID-19, SARS, or MERS.

The bulk of these 172 studies seem to suggest, social distancing and mask wearing plus eye protection is beneficial. Is there 172 studies saying the opposite?

I'm open open to what the science says, not the government, the science and at the moment the science seems to support wearing face coverings to at least reduce the risk.