Face coverings need to be mandatory if we want to lower the infection rate

[Redolent]

80-90% of people need to be wearing them for them to have a significant impact in lowering transmission of coronavirus. Once you’re down to 30-40% of people wearing them, there’s almost no benefit - according to modellers at UC Berkeley.

Study here: www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/masks-covid-19-infections-would-plummet-new-study-says

I don't think they should be made compulsory outdoors where it is possible to socially distance. Not necessary, would make exercise very difficult, and would confine many people to their homes (when the benefits of sunlight and exercise are considerable).

However I do think they should be used much more on crowded public transport like tubes and buses and in supermarkets.

I wear one in the supermarket and although I see a few other people in masks most others don't which I find surprising. I feel a bit weird doing it as most people aren't, so I wonder whether some people feel too self conscious to wear one?
I think that if they are not made compulsory they should at least be much more heavily encouraged. If as many people who can wear them, that means that the people who genuinely can't don't need to.
Once you get a critical mass of people wearing masks, it will become the norm and then even more people do it.

I really think masks should be encouraged in shops, schools, public transport, etc. I live in Japan and although it’s not officially mandatory, I’d say at least 90% of people I see outdoors are wearing them. Just regular disposable surgical masks or handmade cotton masks.

Yesterday, 34 new cases of coronavirus were recorded in the whole country. Just 12 deaths. Japan has almost twice the population of the UK and the cities are extremely crowded. We haven't even had full lockdown. Most shops, cafes and restaurants have remained open, albeit with limited opening hours. I’m pretty sure Japan recorded it’s first case of coronavirus before the UK.

I’m not saying this disparity is solely down to using masks - I’m sure there are other factors at play, such as a healthier population, more sunlight and a diet higher in vitamin D, the BCG vaccine strain, etc. But surely masks must play a large role?

Why would the whole world need to know your diagnosis

Because I live in a rural area where I know 90 percent of people. There are a limited number of acceptable reasons, i.e sensory issues due to autism, breathing issues, ptsd etc. People will ask why. Given I run, don't have asthma or any related breathing problems, don't have sensory issues...I can't think of an acceptable half truth. In a city, it would probably be fine, not here. People know me well enough to rule out most possible reasons and are nosy enough to ask. Their current coronavirus behaviour makes me confident of that.

I’m sure there are other factors at play, such as a healthier population, more sunlight and a diet higher in vitamin D, the BCG vaccine strain, etc. But surely masks must play a large role?

I'd say mask wearing would definitely be at the bottom of that list.

@ITonyah

Yes, I’m sure it’s not even close to being the main reason but interestingly, as soon as people became aware of what was going on in China, everyone started wearing masks and the flu rates suddenly dropped drastically. There was little to no social distancing in early February. I think that shows that regardless of the health of the population, behaviour such as mask wearing can have an effect on the transmission of respiratory diseases.

However, I’m certainly no expert so I’m sure someone more knowledgeable than me will come along soon to comment.

I don't disagree, I just don't trust the idiotic british public to use them properly!

The idiotic American public is mostly managing. It's not that hard.

Masks for the public has problems.

The surgical type you see people wear in shops etc work in the hospital environment because the wearer has been properly trained. They need to change it when necessary, wash hands frequently etc etc otherwise it becomes useless. It is purely meant to stop the wearer pass on viruses to the person standing in front of them (because in a hospital they'd be operating on them as an example).

The public haven't been trained and don't use them properly. This can even lead to the situation being worse than with no mask. The evidence shows there may be a slight net benefit to everyone wearing them, but the evidence is really weak.

Honestly, do we really need them? Infections are dropping (albeit slowly), hospitals are more able to cope. I’m not convinced it’s spreading like wildfire as the media would quite have us believe:

There are very few cases in my town; the odds of me getting infected in a supermarket are I would guess very very minimal.

People are fearful of walking past each other in the street- that’s just ridiculous!

@Myfriendanxiety

I suppose that is one way to look at it. But you can make one out of an old sock. Just maybe to wear during your weekly shop or when you take the bus. The scientists may not all have the evidence in, but the professor at Oxford University did seem to suggest it was a relative no-brainer. I am sure there are a minority of people who wouldn't able to wear them easily - people with PTSD, autism spectrum disorders - who the government could exempt. And I am not sure it need necessarily be compulsory if you want to take a walk in a field miles from anyone.

www.channel4.com/news/should-you-be-wearing-a-face-mask

If I was sat on public transport I would consider it, but I get food delivered (hello fresh box) and use our local outdoor market where everyone is 2m apart and sensible. I am lucky I guess to live in a village near a small town and so maybe I would feel differently in a more densely populated city.

I tend to agree with anxiety

Apparently you've got more chance of being stung by a bee than walking past someone with CV19 in our local town.

@ITonyah given that today we had to turn back on our daily walk because of a huge swarm of bees on the footpath I would say that is definitely true here!

A number of countries in Europe are making it compulsory on public transport.

I think home made face coverings are generally a good idea for places where it's difficult to socially distance but I don't think they should be compulsory.

Having seen how some people have behaved towards others over things like the exercise rules and essential shopping, I don't think it's a good idea to give them something else to get worked up about.

This is even more important if you consider that there are lots of people who can't wear a face covering because of long term health issues, disability, sensory issues etc. I'm sure if it was mandatory there would be exemptions but some people won't stop to think about this. If they did, they would probably conclude that 'these people' were among 'the vulnerable' and shouldn't go out anyway.

I have become increasingly horrified by some people's attitudes towards disabled and older people and those with long term conditions over the course of this pandemic. Probably those attitudes have always been there but people now have a green light to express themselves because 1.8 million people have been told to get in the fucking cupboard for months so as not to be a burden on the NHS. Even moreso now it looks like they'll be strongly encouraged to stay in the fucking cupboard for a few more months so as not to be a burden on the economy.

So I don't think we should be doing anything else to disadvantage disabled people or single them out for attention. Nobody should have to show a special letter before being allowed on a bus or into a shop without a mask.

Also, we're in danger of fixating on masks as The Thing, just as we did with ventilators and ICU capacity, and with the raw number of daily tests and with lockdown and with antibody tests and with the app ...

There isn't any one thing that can fix this, we need a properly integrated strategy and the government are not doing this. They are playing pick-and-mix, adopting tools which look like they'll be popular, or which look high-tech and sexy, or which will make their mates lots of money, but there's no joined up thinking. There is no strategy.

Pushing for mandatory masks risks once again letting the government off the hook for their lack of any coherent strategy to contain the virus.

The danger is that people are told to go back to work in environments where distancing is not possible because face coverings are considered an acceptable alternative. Or that it's fine for people to cram onto overcrowded buses and tubes again because face coverings. Or that we can let everyone in the supermarket at once because they should all be wearing masks anyway.

There is some evidence that home made face coverings can help prevent the spread of the virus but they cannot replace finding, testing, isolating and caring for every case, tracing and quarantining every contact, and having robust systems for identifying and containing new clusters. Those are the things we need to put in place if we are to come out of lockdown as safely as possible. I'm not seeing anything of that in the new 'stay alert' and 'covid-secure' guidance.

Sadly in the UK it’s still somewhat a marker of bravado to not be wearing one...

Don’t think that’s the case - more that the government,ent,until a few days sfo, has been pretty anti mask

@Aridane I agree with you, sadly. I don't understand the attitude to masks at all. Other countries require the wearing of masks to slow the spread of infection, so why ever wouldn't it be worth wearing one? It's not to protect ourselves but to protect other people from catching it if we're carrying the virus without realising.

My DD2 and I caught the virus from someone carrying it without realising it, that much is certain, and I've been unwell for 12 weeks now.

It isn't a guaranteed protection, but there isn't a way of achieving this anyway.

The infection rate is falling without masks though?

So masks supposedly mean that asymptomatic people may spread the virus less...

Yesterday I watched a man in a queue for coffee. He started the conversation with the server with his mask on, but clearly couldn't make himself heard properly (server was standing well back from the door), so put his hand fully in front of his mask, pulled it down and carried on the conversation. When he'd paid (which he did using his phone), and before picking up his coffee, he replaced the mask (hand over the front again).

So now whatever germs are on the mask are all over his phone, his cup, his hands and therefore anything he touches before he washes them. So how, exactly, is him wearing a mask protecting anyone?

I do believe masks can be effective but only when used correctly, and I'm sure in the majority of cases, they will transfer more virus germs than they retain.

80-90% of people need to be wearing them for them to have a significant impact in lowering transmission of coronavirus. Once you’re down to 30-40% of people wearing them, there’s almost no benefit

There is a huge flaw in this type of thinking.

It's true that the more people who wear a face covering the better and it's probably true that if a certain high percentage of people wear them this will create a tipping point in the effectiveness of face coverings as one tool to reduce the overall rate of transmission.

There is still lots of benefit even if only 30-40% of people wear a face covering. Even if only one person wears one, if they turn out be the person who's infectious but asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic then there will be a benefit to them wearing a face covering because they will reduce the risk of passing it on to someone else.

We've all got used to looking at the big numbers, both nationally and internationally, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that all those big numbers are a collective result of each individual with the virus infecting another individual or a few individuals.

@ReviewingTheSituation I get what you're saying, but clearly other countries have required the wearing of masks. Is it the case that British people are incapable of learning how to wear them? That's very sad.

Although I think this is more the result of the government opening things up too soon.

It's not that we can't wear them, but we clearly can't listen to what we're told, and therefore people don't think about why they're wearing them, and the implication. That man in my example was clearly more likely to spread the virus by wearing his mask (in the way that he was).

We, as a nation, are not doing what we're told. We're not adhering to the 'only meet 1 person' or the 'only meet in parks, not in your garden' because we don't think about WHY we are being asked to do so. We also don't think about WHY we are wearing masks, and the wider implications.

(Before I get shouted at for tarring everyone with the same brush, clearly some of us are following the rules. I'm DESPERATE to see someone other than DH, but I know why fewer contacts is better. But there are a LOT of people meeting in groups etc and thinking it doesn't matter).

I live in Sheffield Hallam. For the last 7 weeks everywhere Ive been Ive seen people (not all but many) wearing face masks. After the announcement by Johnson to cover you face when out, I have only seen a couple of people wearing them! Ultimately people do not trust him.

We, as a nation, are not doing what we're told. We're not adhering to the 'only meet 1 person' or the 'only meet in parks, not in your garden' because we don't think about WHY we are being asked to do so.

Well yes, why are we? The problem is these rules don't actually make any sense. WHY is it more risky to meet someone in my garden than it is to meet them in the park?

And what do either of those situations matter if we are all also being actively encouraged to go back to work in environments where social distancing is not possible and lots of us will need to use public transport to get there?

Where is the joined up thinking? What's the overall strategy?

@LangClegsInSpace Completely agree with your posts

Its like a plot from Years and Years!