Coronavirus - Part Two.

[Baron99 801]

Have you all received your letter from SCC's Director of Public Health, Greg Fell?  They can't say that many have been missed out, as well as being in English, there are contact details set out in 10 other languages. 

 

The document still states you should maintain the 2m distance, whenever you can; continue to wash your hands & "Continue to use face coverings if in a crowded indoor public space (if able to do so) and when you can't keep a safe distance from others."

 

And "Covid-19 loves the 3Cs.  You are most at risk in:

Crowded gatherings

Confind spaces

Close contact." 

 

There, perfectly clear.  You've be told. 

Edited August 5, 2020 by Baron99

[redruby 279]

10 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Just want to pick up one point. 

 

"Normal" will only return until there is a proven vaccine which could be months, years or decades away.   Wearing a mask will make no difference to that timeline.  

 

Masks were about reducing speed of the outbreak and avoid swamping health services .  For all I very much support their use - I think it's important that people remember that masks don't mean immunity the virus.  

 

We all need to accept that is is our "normal" now and will be for some time. 

Yes. Unfortunately the benefits of face coverings are modest and I’m pretty sure were only made mandatory in certain settings for the government to seen as doing something and as an attempt to give people more confidence to get out and about more to kickstart the economy.  Whist I’m not anti face covering, I do think many people massively overestimate their benefits.  

[Pettytom 1]

26 minutes ago, redruby said:

Yes. Unfortunately the benefits of face coverings are modest and I’m pretty sure were only made mandatory in certain settings for the government to seen as doing something and as an attempt to give people more confidence to get out and about more to kickstart the economy.  Whist I’m not anti face covering, I do think many people massively overestimate their benefits.  

There is quite a lot of evidence accumulating that the use of face coverings does make a significant difference. They aren’t a solution alone, but allied with social distancing and hand washing, they are useful.

 

Some studies have suggested that everyone wearing a face covering would be more effective than another lockdown in slowing the spread of the virus.

 

Here is a Sky news article, with plenty of links to follow, if you are interested in the latest research:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/coronavirus-what-does-the-science-actually-say-about-face-masks-11931121

[Dardandec 32]

17 hours ago, Halibut said:

It's remarkable that someone with an apparent interest can be so ill-informed. The short answer to that that question is no.

Ill-informed? I use this gov site for testing information - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-getting-tested "Who can be tested? Anyone with symptoms can get a coronavirus test, whatever their age."Maybe you should contact them and tell them they are ill informing people.

 

I get the "tell them you have a cough to get one" how many people do you know who voluntarily got tested with no symptoms?  Could it potently take a test away from someone who does really need one? If it was negative do I need to get it done again tomorrow as I might be asymptomatic then? You are obviously an expert in this field, educate me.

[apelike 10]

45 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

There is quite a lot of evidence accumulating that the use of face coverings does make a significant difference. They aren’t a solution alone, but allied with social distancing and hand washing, they are useful.

I agree with redruby on that one. I think your summary is a bit OTT as it states it may make a marginal difference. It also states in one bit that by wearing one there is just a 3% chance of catching covid 19 and yet it also states in another that social distancing can limit the chance of catching it to under 3%, so something here is not quite right unless it means 3% of 3% or a 0.0009% diference.

Edited August 5, 2020 by apelike

[Dardandec 32]

43 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

There is quite a lot of evidence accumulating that the use of face coverings does make a significant difference. They aren’t a solution alone, but allied with social distancing and hand washing, they are useful.

Exactly, all the measures in place will make a massive difference but everyone has to do it. Imagine everyone has a gun and can shoot anyone they want. Suddenly the government says you can have a gun but you can't shoot anyone. If everyone stopped shooting, no one will die, but it only takes one person to carry on shooting.

[Pettytom 1]

1 hour ago, apelike said:

I agree with redruby on that one. I think your summary is a bit OTT as it states it may make a marginal difference. It also states in one bit that by wearing one there is just a 3% chance of catching covid 19 and yet it also states in another that social distancing can limit the chance of catching it to under 3%, so something here is not quite right unless it means 3% of 3% or a 0.0009% diference.

You are incorrect. The article is clear that face coverings make a significant difference to infections 
 

Try following a few of the links in the article.

 

There are plenty of other studies that support the use of face coverings. UCLA have done a particularly good study. I’ll leave you to find it and read it.

1 hour ago, Dardandec said:

Exactly, all the measures in place will make a massive difference but everyone has to do it. Imagine everyone has a gun and can shoot anyone they want. Suddenly the government says you can have a gun but you can't shoot anyone. If everyone stopped shooting, no one will die, but it only takes one person to carry on shooting.

If you’ve ever seen the urinating analogy, you’ll get the need for masks. 
 

 

[catmiss 12]

1 hour ago, Pettytom said:

You are incorrect. The article is clear that face coverings make a significant difference to infections 
 

Try following a few of the links in the article.

 

There are plenty of other studies that support the use of face coverings. UCLA have done a particularly good study. I’ll leave you to find it and read it.

If you’ve ever seen the urinating analogy, you’ll get the need for masks. 
 

 

Does wearing a Tenna Lady give me extra protection?

[apelike 10]

1 hour ago, Pettytom said:

You are incorrect. The article is clear that face coverings make a significant difference to infections 
 

Try following a few of the links in the article.

OK here goes>>>

 

Quote:

"An international report published in The Lancet, which analysed data from 172 studies in 16 countries, found that by wearing a face mask there is just a 3% chance of catching COVID-19."

Trouble is there is no mention of what the rate would be if a mask was not worn and unless we know the stats are basically meaningless especially as we already know that the percentage of people who have caught it.

 

 Stats from the ONS.

"At any given time between 25 May and 7 June 2020, we estimated that an average of 0.06% of the community population had COVID-19 (95% confidence interval: 0.02% to 0.12%); this equates to an average of 33,000 people in England (95% confidence interval: 14,000 to 68,000).

 

Quote by the WHO:

"It says there is no evidence that wearing one - whether medical or other types - by healthy persons in the wider community can prevent them from being infected with respiratory viruses, including the coronavirus."

 

Quote by Dr.Richard Stutt of Cambridge Plant Sciences

"If widespread face mask use by the public is combined with physical distancing and some lockdown, it may offer an acceptable way of managing the pandemic and re-opening economic activity long before there is a working vaccine." So no scientific study just a maybe about the combination and not mask specific.

 

So which links state that face coverings make a significant difference to infections as I can't see that in print. Until we have proper scientific evidence put forward that they reduce the spread of coronavirus significantly then its not factual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[redruby 279]

3 hours ago, apelike said:

OK here goes>>>

 

Quote:

"An international report published in The Lancet, which analysed data from 172 studies in 16 countries, found that by wearing a face mask there is just a 3% chance of catching COVID-19."

Trouble is there is no mention of what the rate would be if a mask was not worn and unless we know the stats are basically meaningless especially as we already know that the percentage of people who have caught it.

 

 Stats from the ONS.

"At any given time between 25 May and 7 June 2020, we estimated that an average of 0.06% of the community population had COVID-19 (95% confidence interval: 0.02% to 0.12%); this equates to an average of 33,000 people in England (95% confidence interval: 14,000 to 68,000).

 

Quote by the WHO:

"It says there is no evidence that wearing one - whether medical or other types - by healthy persons in the wider community can prevent them from being infected with respiratory viruses, including the coronavirus."

 

Quote by Dr.Richard Stutt of Cambridge Plant Sciences

"If widespread face mask use by the public is combined with physical distancing and some lockdown, it may offer an acceptable way of managing the pandemic and re-opening economic activity long before there is a working vaccine." So no scientific study just a maybe about the combination and not mask specific.

 

So which links state that face coverings make a significant difference to infections as I can't see that in print. Until we have proper scientific evidence put forward that they reduce the spread of coronavirus significantly then its not factual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, this. 
 

In addition, I think that incorrect face covering use may well pose an ADDITIONAL risk.  Lots of people pull the masks on and off their face without sanitising their hands for example. And reuse an unclean covering.

 

Regardless of their effectiveness, I wish people would be more responsible and stop littering with discarded disposable face masks. 

 

[melthebell 864]

Redruby, apelike why do you think not wearing one is safer than wearing one? It's OK poopooing the stats for wearing one but harder to justify the safety aspect of not wearing one

[Pettytom 1]

6 hours ago, apelike said:

OK here goes>>>

 

Quote:

"An international report published in The Lancet, which analysed data from 172 studies in 16 countries, found that by wearing a face mask there is just a 3% chance of catching COVID-19."

Trouble is there is no mention of what the rate would be if a mask was not worn and unless we know the stats are basically meaningless especially as we already know that the percentage of people who have caught it.

 

 Stats from the ONS.

"At any given time between 25 May and 7 June 2020, we estimated that an average of 0.06% of the community population had COVID-19 (95% confidence interval: 0.02% to 0.12%); this equates to an average of 33,000 people in England (95% confidence interval: 14,000 to 68,000).

 

Quote by the WHO:

"It says there is no evidence that wearing one - whether medical or other types - by healthy persons in the wider community can prevent them from being infected with respiratory viruses, including the coronavirus."

 

Quote by Dr.Richard Stutt of Cambridge Plant Sciences

"If widespread face mask use by the public is combined with physical distancing and some lockdown, it may offer an acceptable way of managing the pandemic and re-opening economic activity long before there is a working vaccine." So no scientific study just a maybe about the combination and not mask specific.

 

So which links state that face coverings make a significant difference to infections as I can't see that in print. Until we have proper scientific evidence put forward that they reduce the spread of coronavirus significantly then its not factual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My apologies. I thought that the article linked to the research published in the Lancet directly 

 

Here is a link to the actual research. Do bear in mind the ethical difficulties of studying something like this in the current conditions. That, inevitably leads to uncertainty of data.

 

Nevertheless, the authors of this report are clear about the benefits of social distancing and all kinds of face coverings.

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

 

Access is free.