The big Coronavirus thread

focuszing723

pblakeney said:

Moderna has concerns. Hopefully only Moderna. 🤞🤞🤞

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59426353

The head of drugmaker Moderna said he believes the Omicron variant is "highly infectious" and it is "highly possible" the effectiveness of vaccines is decreasing - adding that boosters may need a "double" dose to provide the best protection.

Chief executive of the COVID vaccine creator Stephane Bancel said the new strain is overtaking Delta in South Africa at a faster rate than previously seen.

"It took around four months for Delta to take over Beta, and it seems it's taking just a couple weeks for this new variant to take over Delta," he told CNBC.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-omicron-variant-highly-infectious-and-booster-jabs-may-need-double-dose-says-moderna-ceo-12482978
Let's hope the early reports of it being milder pan out.

kingstongraham

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

There's plenty of FFP2 masks available now, more expensive but might protect you if you think you need it.

I've bought some AirPop masks which apparently filter a lot better than cloth masks and are reuseable. If it seems like it makes sense to have the protection, I'll wear them more often.

I think if we were serious about masks being anything other than maybe making 10% difference, there would be proper protective masks available cheaply or free and we wouldn't just be wearing any old thing. Our main strategies are vaccines and testing - masks are a top up.

Ncovidius

It’s interesting to hear that Jenny Harries is saying “socialise as little as possible” over Christmas, but Boris has said not to worry, and carry on as you were. I wonder when BoJo will cave in and bring back the rule of six. I give it a week.

Ncovidius

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

It was noticeable from the BBC live reporting from a station in Liverpool this morning that the compulsory mask wearing message is either being ignored or hasn't got through to people. Of the people walking past in the background I would say around 70-80% weren't wearing masks. Even here where masks have been compulosry throughout I was in my local shop yesterday, which has generally been very good, and all 4 people in front of me in the queue weren't wearing masks (to be completely judgemental they all looked like the sort of people you would expect to refuse to wear one and probably aren't vaccinated either).

I'm not massively convinced of their effectiveness still and can't say I enjoy wearing one but I really can't get my head around why so many people won't put up with what feels like a very minor inconvenience.

Have noticed plenty of people mask up once they’re in the train.

I was on the tube last Friday ( the day of the reduced services and line suspensions / strikes ). The amount of compliance I noticed was encouraging. I reckon a good 80 percent of the people I saw were wearing coverings. I know it’s the tube, and the rules were never relaxed anyway, but it was interesting to see.

Ncovidius

The biggest hoof in the nuts is that the vaccines were rolled out, under restrictions, at a time when ( historically) the numbers of hospitalisations and deaths fell away anyway. The restrictions were lifted, in the summer months, when numbers of hospitalisations and deaths were expected to be lower. Now we’re going to see whether the vaccines are truly of as much use as the scientists would have us believe, or whether their apparent effectiveness, was actually just smoke and mirrors, caused mainly by conditions ( social and weather ). Stick in a new highly mutated strain, and we’re about to see the truth of the matter. If the vaccines really are as good as they’re being made out to be, we will see relatively acceptable hospitalisation and death figures. If they were being helped disproportionately by conditions, we’re in for a hell of a winter. Let’s go for the glass half full approach though.

First.Aspect

Ncovidius said:

The biggest hoof in the nuts is that the vaccines were rolled out, under restrictions, at a time when ( historically) the numbers of hospitalisations and deaths fell away anyway. The restrictions were lifted, in the summer months, when numbers of hospitalisations and deaths were expected to be lower. Now we’re going to see whether the vaccines are truly of as much use as the scientists would have us believe, or whether their apparent effectiveness, was actually just smoke and mirrors, caused mainly by conditions ( social and weather ). Stick in a new highly mutated strain, and we’re about to see the truth of the matter. If the vaccines really are as good as they’re being made out to be, we will see relatively acceptable hospitalisation and death figures. If they were being helped disproportionately by conditions, we’re in for a hell of a winter. Let’s go for the glass half full approach though.

Maths not your strong point then, I take it?

mully79

I spent an hour or so working elbow to elbow in a small space with someone who was positive for covid.
I subsequently havent become positive which leads to my question.
If my vaccine antibodies fought off the virus ( i did get a runny nose and felt a little tired) then does that refire my immune system ?

If that is the case then maybe a high vaccine take up coupled with a consistent covid presence may improve/extend immunity and explain the UKs stability compared to other EU nations.

First.Aspect

mully79 said:

I spent an hour or so working elbow to elbow in a small space with someone who was positive for covid.
I subsequently havent become positive which leads to my question.
If my vaccine antibodies fought off the virus ( i did get a runny nose and felt a little tired) then does that refire my immune system ?

If that is the case then maybe a high vaccine take up coupled with a consistent covid presence may improve/extend immunity and explain the UKs stability compared to other EU nations.

Yes and possibly.

joe2019

mully79 said:

I spent an hour or so working elbow to elbow in a small space with someone who was positive for covid.
I subsequently havent become positive which leads to my question.
If my vaccine antibodies fought off the virus ( i did get a runny nose and felt a little tired) then does that refire my immune system ?

If that is the case then maybe a high vaccine take up coupled with a consistent covid presence may improve/extend immunity and explain the UKs stability compared to other EU nations.

I spent a weekend living with my Covid positive daughter before she tested positive on her Sunday night test.

We stayed in all weekend so we know that she caught it at school.

Neither myself, my wife or our other daughter, who shares a bedroom with her, caught Covid.

oblongomaculatus

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

pangolin

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

The fact that his mate is an anti vaxxer and the article is by a former sage advisor should be red flags.

Surely the vast variety of masks on display and the complete incompetence of most of the public to wear them properly would render any number wrong in virtually all real world scenarios?

oblongomaculatus

Has anyone watched the virologist Chris Smith? He has the brilliant knack of explaining sometimes complex and technical aspects of viruses clearly, but without being patronising. He's usually on BBC News on Saturday mornings, but has been on today as well. He said something he also mentioned a few weeks ago - that Covid is expected, in time, to become just another of the many viruses that cause colds. It's so nasty now because it's new. There was a pandemic in the late 19th century of a flu like illness, which killed millions, now thought to have been a new coronavirus. It's still around today, but has long since lost its sting, causing only minor respiratory symptoms. Luckily, it seems, we won't have to wait a century or more for this to happen; the timescale is likely to be in the region of three to four years.

rjsterry

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

This article summarising various studies is already more than a year old. I really don't think it is in doubt that they are effective in reducing transmission. They are not a magic wand, nor are any of the other measures you mention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

They are mildy inconvenient/uncomfortable in the same way that most PPE is. Wearing them with glasses is tricky, but if that's the biggest challenge you face in the day, life is treating you well.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

This article summarising various studies is already more than a year old. I really don't think it is in doubt that they are effective in reducing transmission. They are not a magic wand, nor are any of the other measures you mention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

They are mildy inconvenient/uncomfortable in the same way that most PPE is. Wearing them with glasses is tricky, but if that's the biggest challenge you face in the day, life is treating you well.

No, you've got it all wrong: masks are dehumanising

DeVlaeminck

pangolin said:

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

The fact that his mate is an anti vaxxer and the article is by a former sage advisor should be red flags.

Surely the vast variety of masks on display and the complete incompetence of most of the public to wear them properly would render any number wrong in virtually all real world scenarios?

Yes I agree he isn't a neutral in this by any means - it would still be useful to know what type of masks were most effective though - I mean if I'm wearing one I would rather it works as well as practically possible.

It's like if you were taking up hill walking it'd be good advice to buy a coat - but beyond that some knowledge of say whether goretex was a more suitable material than waxed cotton or tweed would be better (might make an interesting thread?).

Anyway checked his Facebook and he'd actually copied an article from 17th July - it wasn't anything groundbreaking just suggested cloth masks were useless and the blue ones slightly less so - but the arguments weren't wholly convincing.

rjsterry

oblongomaculatus said:

Has anyone watched the virologist Chris Smith? He has the brilliant knack of explaining sometimes complex and technical aspects of viruses clearly, but without being patronising. He's usually on BBC News on Saturday mornings, but has been on today as well. He said something he also mentioned a few weeks ago - that Covid is expected, in time, to become just another of the many viruses that cause colds. It's so nasty now because it's new. There was a pandemic in the late 19th century of a flu like illness, which killed millions, now thought to have been a new coronavirus. It's still around today, but has long since lost its sting, causing only minor respiratory symptoms. Luckily, it seems, we won't have to wait a century or more for this to happen; the timescale is likely to be in the region of three to four years.

Let's hope it does, but we would be foolish to take it for granted. Plenty of pathogens have remained deadly for thousands of years. Serious illness from Covid normally sets in after the patient has been infectious for some time, so there's no direct evolutionary pressure for it to become less virulent.

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

This article summarising various studies is already more than a year old. I really don't think it is in doubt that they are effective in reducing transmission. They are not a magic wand, nor are any of the other measures you mention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

They are mildy inconvenient/uncomfortable in the same way that most PPE is. Wearing them with glasses is tricky, but if that's the biggest challenge you face in the day, life is treating you well.

No, you've got it all wrong: masks are dehumanising

He looks like just the sort of chap I'd like to abduct and leave in the middle of the highlands without a mobile phone. If he things masks are dehumanising, having wet feet will just about push him over the edge.

DeVlaeminck

I have wondered if it's possible to genetically engineer a more infectious version of the virus that is less harmful.

I did consider though even if possible what if that then mutated keeping the infectiousness but becoming increasingly harmful .

Pross

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

This article summarising various studies is already more than a year old. I really don't think it is in doubt that they are effective in reducing transmission. They are not a magic wand, nor are any of the other measures you mention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

They are mildy inconvenient/uncomfortable in the same way that most PPE is. Wearing them with glasses is tricky, but if that's the biggest challenge you face in the day, life is treating you well.

No, you've got it all wrong: masks are dehumanising

You have to admire people prepared to go on the record and confirm they are idiots rather than trying to pretend otherwise.

First.Aspect

DeVlaeminck said:

I have wondered if it's possible to genetically engineer a more infectious version of the virus that is less harmful.

I did consider though even if possible what if that then mutated keeping the infectiousness but becoming increasingly harmful .

What could possibly go wrong?

In short, no.

There are some helpful images online of the folded spike protein structure, to put into context just how large and complex these things are. The binding sites are similarly electrostatically and spatially complex. Determining these structures is possible, but designing these things from scratch is beyond synthetic chemistry. The best you could do would be to breed the virus in contact with human cells and let it mutate. This is pretty much what they think happened with Omicron - it resided for an extended period in an immunocompromised patient. The issue even with that is that there is no particular reason why you would make it less deadly at the same time. Hence the rush to find out for Omicron.

pblakeney

Pross said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

This article summarising various studies is already more than a year old. I really don't think it is in doubt that they are effective in reducing transmission. They are not a magic wand, nor are any of the other measures you mention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

They are mildy inconvenient/uncomfortable in the same way that most PPE is. Wearing them with glasses is tricky, but if that's the biggest challenge you face in the day, life is treating you well.

No, you've got it all wrong: masks are dehumanising

You have to admire people prepared to go on the record and confirm they are idiots rather than trying to pretend otherwise.

Just call him a snowflake.
That'll tip him over.

oblongomaculatus

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

This article summarising various studies is already more than a year old. I really don't think it is in doubt that they are effective in reducing transmission. They are not a magic wand, nor are any of the other measures you mention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

They are mildy inconvenient/uncomfortable in the same way that most PPE is. Wearing them with glasses is tricky, but if that's the biggest challenge you face in the day, life is treating you well.

Well, I doubt their effectiveness, for one. Some data on infection reduction, as a percentage is what I've been looking for, and failed to find, which as I said leads me to think it's a very low number. We might get some indication on that soon though, since the only restriction introduced so far is mandatory masks on pubic transport and in shops. If they are measurably effective, you'd expect, in two or three weeks, for infection rates to begin to drop, as significantly more people are now wearing them in those settings.

My scepticism is based on the size of the pores, which are visible if you hold them up to the light, v the size of the microscopic drops of water vapour that carry the virus in the air. I'd liken it to trying to catch damp sand with a tennis racquet. A few grains will stick to the strings, but the vast majority of it will fly straight through. Plus, as someone else has said, the way they are generally worn means what happens in the real world is likely to fall far short of laboratory testing.

And, as I said yesterday, personally I find them rather more than mildly inconvenient. The continual feeling of suffocation is most unpleasant.

surrey_commuter

oblongomaculatus said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

This article summarising various studies is already more than a year old. I really don't think it is in doubt that they are effective in reducing transmission. They are not a magic wand, nor are any of the other measures you mention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

They are mildy inconvenient/uncomfortable in the same way that most PPE is. Wearing them with glasses is tricky, but if that's the biggest challenge you face in the day, life is treating you well.

Well, I doubt their effectiveness, for one. Some data on infection reduction, as a percentage is what I've been looking for, and failed to find, which as I said leads me to think it's a very low number. We might get some indication on that soon though, since the only restriction introduced so far is mandatory masks on pubic transport and in shops. If they are measurably effective, you'd expect, in two or three weeks, for infection rates to begin to drop, as significantly more people are now wearing them in those settings.

My scepticism is based on the size of the pores, which are visible if you hold them up to the light, v the size of the microscopic drops of water vapour that carry the virus in the air. I'd liken it to trying to catch damp sand with a tennis racquet. A few grains will stick to the strings, but the vast majority of it will fly straight through. Plus, as someone else has said, the way they are generally worn means what happens in the real world is likely to fall far short of laboratory testing.

And, as I said yesterday, personally I find them rather more than mildly inconvenient. The continual feeling of suffocation is most unpleasant.

could you let us know how many people currentlyget infected in shops and public transport so we can measure the drop off.

If you feel like you are suffocating then you may have an underlying condition which means that your blood oxygen levels are low. You should get yourself tested.

rjsterry

oblongomaculatus said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

This article summarising various studies is already more than a year old. I really don't think it is in doubt that they are effective in reducing transmission. They are not a magic wand, nor are any of the other measures you mention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

They are mildy inconvenient/uncomfortable in the same way that most PPE is. Wearing them with glasses is tricky, but if that's the biggest challenge you face in the day, life is treating you well.

Well, I doubt their effectiveness, for one. Some data on infection reduction, as a percentage is what I've been looking for, and failed to find, which as I said leads me to think it's a very low number. We might get some indication on that soon though, since the only restriction introduced so far is mandatory masks on pubic transport and in shops. If they are measurably effective, you'd expect, in two or three weeks, for infection rates to begin to drop, as significantly more people are now wearing them in those settings.

My scepticism is based on the size of the pores, which are visible if you hold them up to the light, v the size of the microscopic drops of water vapour that carry the virus in the air. I'd liken it to trying to catch damp sand with a tennis racquet. A few grains will stick to the strings, but the vast majority of it will fly straight through. Plus, as someone else has said, the way they are generally worn means what happens in the real world is likely to fall far short of laboratory testing.

And, as I said yesterday, personally I find them rather more than mildly inconvenient. The continual feeling of suffocation is most unpleasant.

I don't mean this to sound snarky but this BMJ article was in the top 5 of my first Google.

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068302



If you genuinely find them that uncomfortable, shop around and try some alternatives as I would certainly agree that some are more comfortable than others.

pinkbikini

oblongomaculatus said:

And, as I said yesterday, personally I find them rather more than mildly inconvenient. The continual feeling of suffocation is most unpleasant.

If you're feeling like that from wearing a mask with pores that you can see through (as you observed) then you'd be best off going to see a doctor. That's definitely not normal.

Pross

oblongomaculatus said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

This article summarising various studies is already more than a year old. I really don't think it is in doubt that they are effective in reducing transmission. They are not a magic wand, nor are any of the other measures you mention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

They are mildy inconvenient/uncomfortable in the same way that most PPE is. Wearing them with glasses is tricky, but if that's the biggest challenge you face in the day, life is treating you well.

Well, I doubt their effectiveness, for one. Some data on infection reduction, as a percentage is what I've been looking for, and failed to find, which as I said leads me to think it's a very low number. We might get some indication on that soon though, since the only restriction introduced so far is mandatory masks on pubic transport and in shops. If they are measurably effective, you'd expect, in two or three weeks, for infection rates to begin to drop, as significantly more people are now wearing them in those settings.

My scepticism is based on the size of the pores, which are visible if you hold them up to the light, v the size of the microscopic drops of water vapour that carry the virus in the air. I'd liken it to trying to catch damp sand with a tennis racquet. A few grains will stick to the strings, but the vast majority of it will fly straight through. Plus, as someone else has said, the way they are generally worn means what happens in the real world is likely to fall far short of laboratory testing.

And, as I said yesterday, personally I find them rather more than mildly inconvenient. The continual feeling of suffocation is most unpleasant.

If they are not effective would you be happy for your dentist not to wear them or for medical staff not to wear one when operating on you?

joe2019

Pross said:

If they are not effective would you be happy for your dentist not to wear them or for medical staff not to wear one when operating on you?

Yes.

First.Aspect

joe2019 said:

Pross said:

If they are not effective would you be happy for your dentist not to wear them or for medical staff not to wear one when operating on you?

Yes.

I think you must be very stupid then, because you can't be sufficiently ill informed to explain this answer in any other way.

focuszing723

I was wondering if certain letters should be banned in public places from speech? F & P seem particularly dangerous (lots of projected airflow) when I recite the alphabet with my hand close to my face.

First.Aspect

Posh accents need to be encouraged. Posh people don't open or move their mouths much when they speak. It is definitely safer.