Scotland and face masks - how when there are none?

neilmcl

ToxicWomble said:

As far as I aware, the wearing of any mask that isn’t the full medical grade (N95) or better does little or nothing to protect the wearer.
Surgeons only wear the mask they do to prevent them passing germs to patients - not the other way round.

Again, it's not about protection for the wearer, it's about limiting the spread of the virus from an infected person. It's long been recognised, clinically, that infected persons in the community would benefit others by wearing face masks when symptomatic. For years now the first thing hospitals would do with a patients coming into an A&E with suspected Flu symptoms, regardless of why they were there, would be to stick a face mask on them and try and isolate them in a separate area.

I'm on record here saying that wearing a mask for protection is pretty much useless and may well increase the risk of infection but I can see the benefit to reduce the spread if everyone was wearing some sort of covering in enclosed public spaces where a cough or sneeze could spread the virus to a quite wide area.

Thrugelmir

Poster_586329 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Plenty of unsuitable counterfeit product circulating out of China. 

I can see 3M N95 masks for sale on Chinese sites.   Do you reckon they're fake then?   I guess there's no way of knowing but they might not be?

Counterfeit goods are nothing new. Where's profit to be made they'll be a manufacturer. China cares little for IP.  Some 9,000 companies have sprung up that previously didn't supply such PPE. None of which has been certified as meeting the required specification. Easy to label something as a well known brand or produce a false certificate. 

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir said:

Poster_586329 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Plenty of unsuitable counterfeit product circulating out of China. 

I can see 3M N95 masks for sale on Chinese sites.   Do you reckon they're fake then?   I guess there's no way of knowing but they might not be?

Counterfeit goods are nothing new. Where's profit to be made they'll be a manufacturer. China cares little for IP.  Some 9,000 companies have sprung up that previously didn't supply such PPE. None of which has been certified as meeting the required specification. Easy to label something as a well known brand or produce a false certificate. 

Here's what I was looking at!:

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000960026618.html

unholyangel

cognoscenti said:

unholyangel said:

cognoscenti said:

unholyangel said:

Have you actually read the guidance they published? Or just some daily rags take on it? You don't need to respond to that, I already know the answer as the guidance specifically tells you by face covering, they do not mean surgical or medical grade masks.

The guidance was actually to remind those currently wearing face coverings that the evidence supports them being of limited use, it does not mean they will not get the virus or that they should not adhere to social distancing or that they should not wash their hands thoroughly or that they should be venturing outside unless its essential. 

Guidance in post above for anyone who wants a read.

Yes I read it thank you very much and that was why I posted.
Again, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Sturgeons' suggestion is in any way beneficial.
That's why the guidance is worded as it is, with "may be" being the go-to phrase of choice.
"May be beneficial" means nothing when no research or evidence supports that statement.

So if you read it, surely you also read the paragraph that says:

By face coverings we do not mean the wearing of a surgical or other medical grade mask but a facial covering of the mouth and nose, that is made of cloth or other textiles and through which you can breathe, for example a scarf.

Also I wouldn't say there is no research or evidence that supports it. There is actually some evidence that shows it can be helpful in preventing the spread of infection, but as the guidance says....it's only in very limited circumstances. If someone is still constantly touching their face or touching items in a supermarket before removing the mask, it's probably just going to increase their chances of catching it - as they'll be transferring the virus into easy reach of their respiratory system. 

Again there is no evidence whatsoever to support her saying that.
None.
Feel free to find some and post it since you're saying there is such a thing.

What you would or would not say does not match reality because some experts are baffled why Nicola has said this too.
Like Prof. of the Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases at Nott'm Uni, Dr Keith Neal, who said it was " impossible to know why this has been suggested now given there has been no change in the evidence".
Or our own deputy chief scientific advisor who just this afternoon has said that the evidence is weak and benefits minimal.

I'm not having a go at Nicola Sturgeon as such and I don't want to appear argumentative to those suggesting benefits of wearing face coverings in more general use.
The point is that this has been said without any supporting research or evidence whatsoever.

I don't for one moment doubt that if Boris had made such a suggestion there would be numerous threads all ripping him apart because of the reasons I suggest Sturgeon is wrong.
Well regardless of whose suggestion it was it is bad advice which, we have been repeatedly warned, can lead to a sense of false security.
That is not good for the public.

Ask and ye shall receive
https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h694

I can find more - but one is suffice to demonstrate it does exist and I also stress that none of it is conclusive or extensive.

But the take away from it is: if you don't want to wear a mask, then don't. No ones forcing you to. 

PixelPound

There are two aspects to masks/face-coverings - protecting the wearer from catching the virus, this is N95 or N99 level, and to prevent the wearer from spreading the virus. The mass wearing of masks etc has never been about stopping you catch it, but it's about stopping the spread, i.e. those who have it but no symptoms yet are not spreading it to others - for this anything like diy masks or face coverings would do. This along with social distancing, hand-washing etc means people with it are less likely to spread it, keeping the "R0" figure down.

The counter point is that it can increase risk, by giving a false sense of security, so people are less cautious, in distancing, washing etc. In addition there is the problem of mask re-use whereby they can have the virus or bacteria on the surface and paper ones become less effective. 

whizzywoo

In all this discussion on masks no one has mentioned hayfever.

I suffer badly from hayfever each year, even after taking the various medications available.  A sneeze will often catch me unawares and so quickly I do not have time to get a tissue out or get my arm up to my face.  Hayfever sneezes can be very explosive and certainly travel much further than 2 metres.

Therefore I have sewn myself several cotton face masks, all three layers thick and which can be washed at 60 degrees centigrade and can be ironed with a very hot iron.  There are umpteen articles about how to make these all over the internet.

Before going out I wash my hands thoroughly and put on the face mask using the elasticated loops.  I am quite successful now at never touching it again until I get home.  When I get home I take it off carefully using one elastic loop and put it straight into the drum of the washing machine ready for the next hot wash.

I know the mask won't stop me catching Covid19 but I hope it will stop me spreading the virus in case I am asymptomatic.

I don't live in Scotland.

GoBoldly

You may remember a re-enactment video of the virus being spread in a supermarket.

I wonder what it would look like if the carrier had been wearing a mask

dwsjarcmcd

Accepting the debate about the merits or otherwise of face coverings, my simplistic view is that Germany has been very effective at managing this, and therefore if they are making it mandatory then it's worth listening to and will probably become a condition of any loosening of the current lockdown.  Any benefit however small is surely worth doing?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52439926

Fire_Fox

cognoscenti said:
Yes I read it thank you very much and that was why I posted.

Again, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Sturgeons' suggestion is in any way beneficial.
That's why the guidance is worded as it is, with "may be" being the go-to phrase of choice.
"May be beneficial" means nothing when no research or evidence supports that statement.


What you would or would not say does not match reality because some experts are baffled why Nicola has said this too.
Like Prof. of the Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases at Nott'm Uni, Dr Keith Neal, who said it was " impossible to know why this has been suggested now given there has been no change in the evidence".
Or our own deputy chief scientific advisor who just this afternoon has said that the evidence is weak and benefits minimal.

I'm not having a go at Nicola Sturgeon as such and I don't want to appear argumentative to those suggesting benefits of wearing face coverings in more general use.
The point is that this has been said without any supporting research or evidence whatsoever

The lack of evidence was not why you posted. Your thread title is "Scotland and face masks how when there are none?" and the only question in your OP was " ... so where are these masks going to come from?"

If you or these experts had bothered to watch Nicola Sturgeon's press briefing you would know what she actually recommended, what she said about the evidence base, and what were her reasons for making a very limited recommendation at this point in time.

cognoscenti

unholyangel said:

cognoscenti said:

unholyangel said:

cognoscenti said:

unholyangel said:

Have you actually read the guidance they published? Or just some daily rags take on it? You don't need to respond to that, I already know the answer as the guidance specifically tells you by face covering, they do not mean surgical or medical grade masks.

The guidance was actually to remind those currently wearing face coverings that the evidence supports them being of limited use, it does not mean they will not get the virus or that they should not adhere to social distancing or that they should not wash their hands thoroughly or that they should be venturing outside unless its essential. 

Guidance in post above for anyone who wants a read.

Yes I read it thank you very much and that was why I posted.
Again, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Sturgeons' suggestion is in any way beneficial.
That's why the guidance is worded as it is, with "may be" being the go-to phrase of choice.
"May be beneficial" means nothing when no research or evidence supports that statement.

So if you read it, surely you also read the paragraph that says:

By face coverings we do not mean the wearing of a surgical or other medical grade mask but a facial covering of the mouth and nose, that is made of cloth or other textiles and through which you can breathe, for example a scarf.

Also I wouldn't say there is no research or evidence that supports it. There is actually some evidence that shows it can be helpful in preventing the spread of infection, but as the guidance says....it's only in very limited circumstances. If someone is still constantly touching their face or touching items in a supermarket before removing the mask, it's probably just going to increase their chances of catching it - as they'll be transferring the virus into easy reach of their respiratory system. 

Again there is no evidence whatsoever to support her saying that.
None.
Feel free to find some and post it since you're saying there is such a thing.

What you would or would not say does not match reality because some experts are baffled why Nicola has said this too.
Like Prof. of the Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases at Nott'm Uni, Dr Keith Neal, who said it was " impossible to know why this has been suggested now given there has been no change in the evidence".
Or our own deputy chief scientific advisor who just this afternoon has said that the evidence is weak and benefits minimal.

I'm not having a go at Nicola Sturgeon as such and I don't want to appear argumentative to those suggesting benefits of wearing face coverings in more general use.
The point is that this has been said without any supporting research or evidence whatsoever.

I don't for one moment doubt that if Boris had made such a suggestion there would be numerous threads all ripping him apart because of the reasons I suggest Sturgeon is wrong.
Well regardless of whose suggestion it was it is bad advice which, we have been repeatedly warned, can lead to a sense of false security.
That is not good for the public.

Ask and ye shall receive
 BMJ link removed but is available in OP

I can find more - but one is suffice to demonstrate it does exist and I also stress that none of it is conclusive or extensive.

But the take away from it is: if you don't want to wear a mask, then don't. No ones forcing you to. 

Thank you so much for posting a confirmatory BMJ report which very clearly says, more than once, that there is no evidence in support of face coverings outside a clinical area.
"The use of reusable cloth masks is widespread globally, particularly in Asia, which is an important region for emerging infections, but there is no clinical research to inform their use and most policies offer no guidance on them."

Fire_Fox said: The lack of evidence was not why you posted. Your thread title is "Scotland and face masks how when there are none?" and the only question in your OP was " ... so where are these masks going to come from?"

If you or these experts had bothered to watch Nicola Sturgeon's press briefing you would know what she actually recommended, what she said about the evidence base, and what were her reasons for making a very limited recommendation at this point in time.

You're trying to suggest that you know why I posted?
Amazing.
Nicola Sturgeon has done a Trump on you suggesting something which could be at least equally as dangerous as it is beneficial and for which there is no supporting evidence, but you don't seem to care about that.


If you could be less unpleasant instead of your unnecessary "if you or these experts had bothered..." my response might not have been so abrupt.