Scotland and face masks - how when there are none?

cognoscenti

GoBoldly said:

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

I would be far more interested in proper research into how the virus is actually transmitted rather than with mock-ups which in reality mean little.
There is much noise at the moment regarding the washing of all packaging etc., so without research how do you or I know that this i.e. spread by touch rather than droplet is not the major mode of infection?
That would, you must admit, make more sense of the number of infections in care homes - unless you can seriously believe that staff have knowingly coughed and sneezed the number of infections seen since this was a known method of transmission since very early on.

Undervalued

cognoscenti said:

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.

Play nicely children!

unholyangel

cognoscenti said:

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.

No they didn't say there was no evidence about the effectiveness of masks, they said there was no clinical research to inform (the users of masks) on the proper use of masks. 

They also state:

Of the nine trials of facemasks identified in community settings, in all but one, facemasks were used for respiratory protection of well people. They found that facemasks and facemasks plus hand hygiene may prevent infection in community settings, subject to early use and compliance. 

But if you're claiming the only evidence is within a clinical setting, then de facto you accept there is evidence as to the effectiveness of masks. 
Masks were recommended for healthcare staff - because they're working in confined spaces in close proximity to potentially infected people. If you accept that it offers them protection, then it naturally follows it would offer the public the same benefit in the same type of situation (enclosed spaces within proximity to potentially infected persons). 

Also, the reason there is so little research available on masks in community settings is because to have an accurate trial, you'd have to know who is infected and control every movement they make, every step they take. A reliable experiment is one with only one variable. The more variables you introduce....the less you can say for certain what actually influences the result. 

You'd have to have multiple scenarios of infected wearing mask and introducing them to non-infected, non-infected wearing a mask around infected people but you'd also need something to compare it to.....for example an infected person without a mask introduced to non-infected and also non-infected without a mask introduced to infected. You'd have to have them washing their hands & using mask, not washing hands, not using mask properly etc. 

I'm sure you see the potential difficulties that would present. 

unholyangel

Put it this way OP, there may be very limited evidence that they are effective. But what evidence is there that they are not? 

Absence of evidence not being evidence of absence. 

neilmcl

cognoscenti said:

GoBoldly said:

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

I would be far more interested in proper research into how the virus is actually transmitted rather than with mock-ups which in reality mean little.
There is much noise at the moment regarding the washing of all packaging etc., so without research how do you or I know that this i.e. spread by touch rather than droplet is not the major mode of infection?
That would, you must admit, make more sense of the number of infections in care homes - unless you can seriously believe that staff have knowingly coughed and sneezed the number of infections seen since this was a known method of transmission since very early on.

It's been clear from the outset that the main transmission route is from touching surfaces hence the clear guidance regarding hand hygiene, however even you can admit if everyone in a public setting is wearing a face covering than the amount of virus hitting these surfaces isn't going to be that high and therefore the spread is likely to be reduced.

[Deleted User]

Eh, I thought it had been clear from the outset that the main transmission route was by breathing in droplets which are coughed/exhaled by an infected person.  (And may also be aerosolized).  Check out this video about the super-spreader in Ecuador:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdgrtko-EEA

neilmcl

Poster_586329 said:

Eh, I thought it had been clear from the outset that the main transmission route was by breathing in droplets which are coughed/exhaled by an infected person.  (And may also be aerosolized).  Check out this video about the super-spreader in Ecuador:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdgrtko-EEA

I don't need to check out that video. PHE and the NHS (as well as the majority of public health bodies around the world) have maintained from the outset that the main route of transmission was via hand to face, hence the uppermost requirement of hand washing and social distancing.

KxMx

I wear a homemade mask with filter in the supermarket. 

It does not lead to any complacency on my part ; in fact it makes me hyper aware of the need to be careful with touch etc. 

[Deleted User]

neilmcl said:

Poster_586329 said:

Eh, I thought it had been clear from the outset that the main transmission route was by breathing in droplets which are coughed/exhaled by an infected person.  (And may also be aerosolized).  Check out this video about the super-spreader in Ecuador:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdgrtko-EEA

I don't need to check out that video. PHE and the NHS (as well as the majority of public health bodies around the world) have maintained from the outset that the main route of transmission was via hand to face, hence the uppermost requirement of hand washing and social distancing.

neilmcl said:

Poster_586329 said:

Eh, I thought it had been clear from the outset that the main transmission route was by breathing in droplets which are coughed/exhaled by an infected person.  (And may also be aerosolized).  Check out this video about the super-spreader in Ecuador:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdgrtko-EEA

I don't need to check out that video. PHE and the NHS (as well as the majority of public health bodies around the world) have maintained from the outset that the main route of transmission was via hand to face, hence the uppermost requirement of hand washing and social distancing.

"From the beginning, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have said that SARS-CoV-2 is a respiratory virus, and as such, it is mainly transmitted between people through "respiratory droplets" when symptomatic people sneeze or cough. This idea, that large droplets of virus-laden mucus are the primary mode of transmission, guides the CDC's advice to maintain at least a 6-foot distance between you and other people. The thinking is that gravity causes those large droplets (which are bigger than about .0002 inches, or 5 microns, in size) to fall to the ground within a distance of 6 feet from the infected person."

https://www.livescience.com/how-covid-19-spreads-transmission-routes.html

neilmcl

Poster_586329 said:

neilmcl said:

Poster_586329 said:

Eh, I thought it had been clear from the outset that the main transmission route was by breathing in droplets which are coughed/exhaled by an infected person.  (And may also be aerosolized).  Check out this video about the super-spreader in Ecuador:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdgrtko-EEA

I don't need to check out that video. PHE and the NHS (as well as the majority of public health bodies around the world) have maintained from the outset that the main route of transmission was via hand to face, hence the uppermost requirement of hand washing and social distancing.

neilmcl said:

Poster_586329 said:

Eh, I thought it had been clear from the outset that the main transmission route was by breathing in droplets which are coughed/exhaled by an infected person.  (And may also be aerosolized).  Check out this video about the super-spreader in Ecuador:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdgrtko-EEA

I don't need to check out that video. PHE and the NHS (as well as the majority of public health bodies around the world) have maintained from the outset that the main route of transmission was via hand to face, hence the uppermost requirement of hand washing and social distancing.

"From the beginning, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have said that SARS-CoV-2 is a respiratory virus, and as such, it is mainly transmitted between people through "respiratory droplets" when symptomatic people sneeze or cough. This idea, that large droplets of virus-laden mucus are the primary mode of transmission, guides the CDC's advice to maintain at least a 6-foot distance between you and other people. The thinking is that gravity causes those large droplets (which are bigger than about .0002 inches, or 5 microns, in size) to fall to the ground within a distance of 6 feet from the infected person."

https://www.livescience.com/how-covid-19-spreads-transmission-routes.html

Yes, that's one way the virus transmits but the way most people have been picking up the virus is via their hands (I notice that you didn't go on to quote the bit about contract transmission), hence yet again I'll repeat the primary advice right from the beginning is to wash your hands.