Scotland and face masks - how when there are none?

neilmcl

cognoscenti said:

Thanks to those realising at last that spread of the virus is from contact to face (yes, among others).
By now some of you have no doubt seen that touching the face including the eyes is a threat of infection - and masks/face-coverings for general use do not cover the eyes.
For obvious reasons.

This is why so many of the specialists in the field say that the wearing of facial coverings by the general public could be more of a danger than not wearing anything; it is human nature to touch our own heads and faces multiple times daily without realising the action has been performed.
Sixteen times an hour was the figure given by studies reported in Healthline which says that even medical professionals touched their face 19 times in two hours.
Ok so that's not UK research and because of demographics there might well be differences but still, it gives some idea.
 See Healthline.com " You Probably Touch Your Face 16 Times an Hour: Here’s How to Stop"


Hence my pessimism that recommending any facial covering in general use to prevent viral infection will have any benefit at all.
If even professional epidemiologists cannot agree, what chance us mere mortals - and are you willing to take that risk?

We've never said otherwise, which is why the advice about wearing face coverings has never been about preventing getting the virus it's always been about limiting the spread from the infected carrier. If everyone is forced to wear one, and lets face it that's just not going to happen here in the UK now, then there clearly is less chance of infection being spewed out all over the place when someone happens to cough or sneeze. 

cognoscenti

neilmcl said:

cognoscenti said:

Thanks to those realising at last that spread of the virus is from contact to face (yes, among others).
By now some of you have no doubt seen that touching the face including the eyes is a threat of infection - and masks/face-coverings for general use do not cover the eyes.
For obvious reasons.

This is why so many of the specialists in the field say that the wearing of facial coverings by the general public could be more of a danger than not wearing anything; it is human nature to touch our own heads and faces multiple times daily without realising the action has been performed.
Sixteen times an hour was the figure given by studies reported in Healthline which says that even medical professionals touched their face 19 times in two hours.
Ok so that's not UK research and because of demographics there might well be differences but still, it gives some idea.
 See Healthline.com " You Probably Touch Your Face 16 Times an Hour: Here’s How to Stop"


Hence my pessimism that recommending any facial covering in general use to prevent viral infection will have any benefit at all.
If even professional epidemiologists cannot agree, what chance us mere mortals - and are you willing to take that risk?

We've never said otherwise, which is why the advice about wearing face coverings has never been about preventing getting the virus it's always been about limiting the spread from the infected carrier. If everyone is forced to wear one, and lets face it that's just not going to happen here in the UK now, then there clearly is less chance of infection being spewed out all over the place when someone happens to cough or sneeze. 

There is no evidence of that though.
Probably because of the human factor; reaction after cough/sneeze = hand to face & even over whatever covering this residue will be transferred to where?

Again (since you do keep ignoring this, I don't know why) this is why the scientific community cannot agree.
But if you personally really do want to risk your life on a possibility that's fine by me.

unholyangel

Poster_586329 said:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/primarily

Thanks, but I know what primarily means. 

I also know how to read a sentence in it's entirety. 

The disease spreads primarily from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth, which are expelled when a person with COVID-19 coughs, sneezes, or speaks.

That is about them expelling the virus - not about the other person catching it. Same with your subsequent post with the word mainly. The other methods it may spread person to person that is not the "primary" or "main" reason of droplets being expelled in sneeze/cough/speaking is kissing, sharing a water container or toothbrush and potentially even coming into contact with fecal matter or blood if the virus is present in it (there have been studies showing it can be present but in a lower percentage of samples than ear/nose/throat samples). 

Thrugelmir

justwhat said:

ToxicWomble said:

 Maybe now people will have a semblance of sympathy for the government before jumping up and down shouting “scandal” at the lack of PPE -not quite as easy to get hold of as you thought is it ??

The .gov never ordered them in the quantities they needed.

Ever worked in global procurement ?  Not like asking Alexa and a guy from Amazon drops them off at your door the next day. 

gettingtheresometime

I have no idea whether masks are a good idea or not.

but given I can see masks having to be worn if you want to go on public transport etc I've got my mum to make me a couple.(plus it gives her something to do whilst she's self isolating 😂)

[Deleted User]

Arguing for reusable masks:

https://www.plasticwastehub.org.uk/news/the-environmental-dangers-of-employing-single-use-face-masks-as-part-of-a-covid-19-exit-strategy

[Deleted User]

It’s finally time you considered wearing a face mask

[Deleted User]

"Adding to growing evidence that the novel coronavirus can spread through air, scientists have identified genetic markers of the virus in airborne droplets, many with diameters smaller than one-ten-thousandth of an inch.

That had been previously demonstrated in laboratory experiments, but now Chinese scientists studying real-world conditions report that they captured tiny droplets containing the genetic markers of the virus from the air in two hospitals in Wuhan, China, where the outbreak started.

Their findings were published Monday in the journal Nature.

It remains unknown if the virus in the samples they collected was infectious, but droplets that small, which are expelled by breathing and talking, can remain aloft and be inhaled by others.

“Those are going to stay in the air floating around for at least two hours,” said Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech who was not involved with the Nature paper. “It strongly suggests that there is potential for airborne transmission.”

Dr. Marr and many other scientists say evidence is mounting that the coronavirus is being spread by tiny droplets known as aerosols. The World Health Organization has so far downplayed the possibility, saying that the disease is mostly transmitted through larger droplets that do not remain airborne for long, or through the touching of contaminated surfaces."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/28/health/coronavirus-hospital-aerosols.html

 

KxMx

Very interesting, now hopefully further research will focus on proving or disproving the infection ability of those droplets. It could even vary rather than be either/or. 

caretaker55

No evidence but how much research have they actually done? If a person coughs or sneezes they claim the droplets travel 2 metres or possibly more “correct” hence the 2 metre social distancing rule, now if a person wearing a mask coughs or sneezes then the droplets will surely be suppressed thus reducing the distance it travels therefore potentially reducing the spread. I’m not an instant expert on viruses by any means but anything no matter how small that reduces spread must be beneficial.