To think more people would be willing to wear masks if...

[Lovely1a2b3c]

they thought that masks protected them from others (rather than vice versa- which they do to a limited extent) AND that Covid-19 posed a personal risk?

Masks protect both the wearer and those they are around. In addition if everyone wears them then we are all protecting each other. There are probably a limited number of people who genuinely cannot wear masks for medical reasons but some countries have a very high compliance.

I think that if the government had said that masks protected people from the beginning rather than saying that they only protect other people AND if people realised that even 20/30 somethings can be very ill (not necessarily die in most cases, but definitely suffer a prolonged period of feeling really unwell) then more Brits would be willing to wear them.

I do acknowledge a TINY minority can't (my autistic 5 year old being one) but the amount of people who can't because of very lame excuses beggars belief. England is a very selfish nation compared many others.

One person’s ‘lame excuse’ another person’s massive problem.
I wish people would stop playing f’ing top trumps.

@WhattheFishappening

He's actually exempt and so he should be so he can still go out knowing that he doesn't need to wear one. Maybe a hidden Dissabilities badge could help if he'd wear one?

Unfortunately there is no way he would wear a badge!
The problem is, there are some people who will take this as an opportunity act like little vigilantes monitoring mask wearing.
The same type of person who seems to stalk car parks on the look out for people using the disabled spaces ‘who don’t look disabled’.

Oh I know what you mean and I do feel for him. We get abuse regularly in the car parks it's a never ending battle. The only other options are sunflower lanyard or cards he could hand to the uneducated morons who try to police it

goingtokick
I’ve just sent the link for the new sunflower face cover card to my friend.
That might work. She can show it on his behalf if asked.

I’ll happily wear a mask but my glasses steam up seemingly no matter what type of mask.
I've been wearing mine all morning and it was fine tucked under the bottom edge of the glasses.

I wonder if for some people that will find masks impossible or very hard wether a visor would be easier?

I had had vague thoughts about it for myself but I can't be arsed looking into it properly but also Iv had a couple of people specially make me one so as difficult as I find them I should just use the one they very kindly made for me.

It does mean I'll really think if I actually need or really want to go to x y or z because I struggle with both wearing a mask but also due to hearing loss understanding people as I can't see their mouths!

I went to a wedding in the Philippines at the end of February - I tried to get a handful of masks to take for the flights, couldn’t get any for love nor money, as there was a global shortage. There would have been absolutely no point in declaring masks compulsory wear then.

After spending far too much time on mumsnet today, my interest in protecting others is approaching zero.

Thanks for the advice on the glasses - but reluctant to put anything on them as they have a coating on them will try the glasses over the mask. My face is quite small so might try a child’s mask and see if it fits better - bet they have better designs too

That's the issue. People don't care about others, western countries such as the UK and America naturally have a "Me, me, me" mind set and don't care for others. It's just not the normal thinking in our cultures. Sad really.

@AlternativePerspective

Anyone who doesn’t want to wear a mask should spend a day wearing an oxygen mask to see what that’s like.

I really don’t like masks. For me they are a trigger (I hate that word) to last year when I had to wear an oxygen mask in ICU. I have a serious heart condition with the potential for breathing issues and so I could probably claim an exemption if I wanted to.

But having been on both a ventilator and oxygen in the past they are not experiences I am keen to repeat any time soon.

And it’s worth bearing in mind that quite a lot of people who are admitted to hospital with COVID end up needing oxygen through a mask and will be conscious for the process unlike a ventilator.

Exactly this ^^

@totallyyesno

I thought once you had removed it you had to dispose of it and wash your hands. No. We're not talking about protecting yourself from nursing Covid patients. The idea is that you make it slightly less likely that you breathe or cough on other people and they on you.

No, if you are taking the mask on and off, you are taking a risk because you are handling the potentially virus laden bit of cloth. Then touching things etc. The more you have to adjust it or remove it or touch your face, the less useful it becomes.

YANBU people are selfish twats at times.

YANBU.

I think there would be more willingness if it had been introduced in March or April.

I don't think there is any strong evidence that they protect the wearer though. People should not be lied to in order to get them to accept policy, especially when it moves from guidance into law. The government has already squandered enough trust during this pandemic.

@Blobby10 - The scientific stuff seems to ebb and flow depending on what rule the govt want to put in place next - now they are making masks compulsory, the WHO have decided this virus is airborne. Its all so confusing.

It is confusing because this a new disease and the science is moving very rapidly. On a recent press conference WHO said they were reviewing around 600 new research papers per day and they were of varying quality and frequently contradictory.

WHO published their revised guidance on face coverings on June 5. Up until then they were saying they did not have enough evidence to take a position for or against their use by the general public. Even in the new guidance they have stressed that there is still not much good quality evidence but they now have enough observational data to say they are potentially useful for situations where people cannot physically distance themselves. They describe them as a 'potential benefit for source control' - i.e. they catch the wearer's droplets. They say governments should take a risk based approach when considering policy and should weigh up a list of potential benefits and harms. They also give guidance on the type of face covering that will be most effective.

www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks

It's not quite accurate to say 'the WHO have decided this virus is airborne'. They have always known this was a possibility and in their first guidance package from January 10 they included recommendations for aerosol generating procedures and also for keeping indoor spaces well ventilated.

What has happened recently is a load of scientists wrote to them and said 'why are you ignoring airborne transmission?' WHO said they weren't, they were monitoring all the data and while they acknowledged there were some lab results showing it was possible, and some speculative discussion around some of the 'superspreading' events that have happened, the evidence was not yet there to support the view that this was a major transmission route, outside of AGP situations. They have just published a scientific brief giving an overview of what they know about all the different potential modes of transmission and there is not much change. Yes it's theoretically possible but no strong evidence that it's actually happening, they remain open to further emerging evidence but droplets and close physical contact remain the major routes of infection.

www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/transmission-of-sars-cov-2-implications-for-infection-prevention-precautions

@LangClegsInSpace

I don't think there is any strong evidence that they protect the wearer though. People should not be lied to in order to get them to accept policy, especially when it moves from guidance into law. The government has already squandered enough trust during this pandemic.

And to add - the government should absolutely not be telling people face coverings provide protection to the wearer when their guidance is that any old bit of cloth will do.

If there is any tentative emerging evidence that face coverings can protect the wearer I very much doubt this is based on a single layer of stretched sock or a thin, gappy bandana.

@WhattheFishappening

The casual observer (other shoppers/shop assistants etc) would have no idea he is autistic and will be seen by others as someone with purely selfish attitudes if he doesn’t wear one.

He's actually exempt and so he should be so he can still go out knowing that he doesn't need to wear one.

Some people will feel its a problem to them and they might even be exempt because other people acknowledge it is a problem to them. The fact of the matter is that it is still selfish to refuse to do something that makes you physically or emotionally uncomfortable (even due to autism) , when we're talking about preventing deaths.

Giving CPR is physically and emotionally difficult and uncomfortable, but I'd rather breathe directly into someone's mouth and potentially break their ribs to save their life.

I do think that if this virus was killing children instead of the (apparantly) invisible vulnerable and the old, everyone would be up in arms to protect the children in every way possible. It just how little valuable other peoples lives are if it doesn't affect them. But that's not fair at all.

Some people will feel its a problem to them and they might even be exempt because other people acknowledge it is a problem to them. The fact of the matter is that it is still selfish to refuse to do something that makes you physically or emotionally uncomfortable (even due to autism) , when we're talking about preventing deaths.

No, seriously, fuck this shit.

If enough people wear a face covering in indoor settings where they can't physically distance then there is some evidence that it can potentially help prevent some transmission. That's all. That is the sum of our collective current knowledge on cloth face coverings worn by the general public.

Masks probably help a bit so everyone who can wear one should do so, but they are not the be all and end all. Masks alone will not save you or prevent a second wave. It's completely disproportionate and discriminatory to berate disabled people for being unable to wear one.

People seem to get very hung up on single individual measures as The Thing. We saw this with lockdown and with the app (that never materialised) and now with face coverings.

In reality we need a fully integrated approach of case finding, testing, isolation, contact tracing, quarantine and decent medical care for people at all stages of illness. We need hand hygiene, respiratory hygiene, physical distancing and face coverings for when distancing is not possible.

We need all the things and we need enough people to comply with each of them to drive infections right down because the best way for everyone to be safe is to just not come in contact with someone who has the virus, whether they are 1 or 2m away, whether they are on the other side of the room, whether they are wearing a face covering or not.

There will never be 100% compliance with any of the measures for a variety of good and bad reasons and there doesn't need to be.

We need the measures to be good enough (we are still badly failing on some of the basics)
We need to use all the measures we have in an intelligent integrated way
We need a large majority to comply with each of the measures while acknowledging that not everybody can or will.

Wear a mask if you can. Keep your distance from anyone not wearing a mask because:

1. masks make no difference in situations where you can socially distance anyway

2. if they have a disability or health condition that prevents them from wearing a mask they will be silently thanking you for staying the fuck away from them and leaving them the fuck alone.

I do think that if this virus was killing children instead of the (apparantly) invisible vulnerable and the old, everyone would be up in arms to protect the children in every way possible. It just how little valuable other peoples lives are if it doesn't affect them. But that's not fair at all.

But don't most of us vulnerable/old relatives? My mum is a big motivating factor in my wearing a mask etc. CV19 would hit her badly.

@Isthisfinallyit

I do think that if this virus was killing children instead of the (apparantly) invisible vulnerable and the old, everyone would be up in arms to protect the children in every way possible. It just how little valuable other peoples lives are if it doesn't affect them. But that's not fair at all.

Yes I agree Isthisfinallyit.

@Lifeisgenerallyfun

I’ll happily wear a mask but my glasses steam up seemingly no matter what type of mask. I will definitely be keeping shopping On the internet so I can see.

Has anyone found a solution to this without covering your face in tape?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/newsbeat-53406105/how-to-stop-your-glasses-steaming-up-with-a-mask-on

I don't get why people are saying "there's no point now as it's too late".
Too late? So if there was a murderer in a room of 100 people and he'd managed to kill 10 of them you'd just say "ohh let him carry on it's too late to stop him now"?
It makes zero sense. Roughly 10% of the UK population have had coronavirus. Is it too late to stop the other 90% getting it?