Face masks for Secondary Pupils in classrooms

[FatPatty]

I can’t see this being reported anywhere but the Daily Fail are reporting masks to be worn in Secondary schools for first few weeks back.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9287275/Secondary-school-pupils-wear-face-masks-lessons-weeks-school-return-March-8.html

Come on, we do know that this is a central issue for U4T.

@Tisforptarmigan

I think that it is awful.

The sooner we ditch masks the better. Especially for children.

Yeah no idea why anyone thinks I shouldn't come on here or I'm part of some mysterious group - I'm a long tem poster; I'm a normal person with two kids. I live in Scotland and I don't like masks on kids, especially very young ones. I have a lot of concerns about development issues and since they are a new policy, no one can know those long term. So other posters being rude and aggressive or telling me I'm low IQ or whatever just makes them sound silly. As for the 'precious darling' comment - get lost. It's not a minor inconvenience for him. Adults who force children to do something they are uncomfortable with are weird, to say the least.

No one said you shouldn't come on here; you yourself suggested that you didn't want to. Completely up to you, isn't it.

We all do things for health reasons that we wouldn't do in normal circumstances, like letting people jab us with sharp objects for example. It makes sense if it is a vaccine that might save your life (or indeed someone else's by reducing your chance of passing on infection).

Masks are one of those things that in the East are seen as a courtesy to other people as it makes spread of infections less likely.

They are needed right now in schools by common scientific consensus.

There are choices around that; you don't have to send children back to school if you want to continue home educating them and you could probably do that without deregistering for at least the weeks up to Easter, though you would probably end up arguing your care with the authorities and might be fined. But there are choices.

I don't know if we will need masks medium or long term at this stage. Maybe, who knows.

The vast majority strongly support or support masks in secondary schools according to yougov polling.

Only 6% strongly oppose.

Normal people agree that masks in schools are a good idea.

@noblegiraffe

Interesting that the journal article linked to isn't about masks and yet grand claims are being made that masks are ineffective without links.

Google the Danish study, if you are interested.

Google the Danish study, if you are interested.

This one?:

"DANMASK-19, the first trial of mask use during covid-19, was “negative.” Masks didn’t work. We knew this before the trial was published because we were told so on social media. The authors were reported by the media to be struggling to find a major journal for their trial.1 Journals weren’t proving brave enough to publish the study, said the authors, and they didn’t make a preprint available.

When the mythical trial was finally published last week in the Annals of Internal Medicine we didn’t need to read it. We already knew its damning verdict on mask wearing. Social media told us as much. Eminent professors of evidence based medicine, Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, confirmed this in an article for the Spectator.2

Except that if you read the published paper you find almost the exact opposite.345 The trial is inconclusive rather than negative, and it points to a likely benefit of mask wearing to the wearer —it did not examine the wider potential benefit of reduced spread of infection to others—and this even in a population where mask wearing isn’t mandatory and prevalence of infection is low. This finding is in keeping with summaries of evidence from Cochrane."

www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586

@noblegiraffe

Interesting that the journal article linked to isn't about masks and yet grand claims are being made that masks are ineffective without links.

I also would have thought that no evidence for asymptomatic spread is the grander claim than face masks don’t protect you. This is uncontroversial.

The current argument for face masks is that they protect others.

Quick google

Nature article in favour of mask wearing www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

summary: most scientists are confident that they can say something prescriptive about wearing masks. It’s not the only solution, says Gandhi, “but I think it is a profoundly important pillar of pandemic control”. As Digard puts it: “Masks work, but they are not infallible. And, therefore, keep your distance.”

US CDC government health site
www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
"Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The prevention benefit of masking is derived from the combination of source control and personal protection for the mask wearer."

www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use as source control to reduce community transmission: Nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct particles of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period postinfection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (45, 46, 141); nonmedical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.

It is a bit of a consensus situation.

The Nature article is very thoughtful - it says that there are ethical concerns in doing randomised control trials (basically because there is so much consensus that masks help)

"“If this was a gentler pathogen, it would be great,” says Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, California. “You can’t do randomized trials for everything — and you shouldn’t.” As clinical researchers are sometimes fond of saying, parachutes have never been tested in a randomized controlled trial, either."

Usedupusername You previously claimed We already know it does not protect the wearer.

But then you suggested that I read the Danish study, which appears to show that it does protect the wearer.

Are you going to retract your original claim because of the study that you pointed me to?

[quote noblegiraffe]Google the Danish study, if you are interested.

This one?:

"DANMASK-19, the first trial of mask use during covid-19, was “negative.” Masks didn’t work. We knew this before the trial was published because we were told so on social media. The authors were reported by the media to be struggling to find a major journal for their trial.1 Journals weren’t proving brave enough to publish the study, said the authors, and they didn’t make a preprint available.

When the mythical trial was finally published last week in the Annals of Internal Medicine we didn’t need to read it. We already knew its damning verdict on mask wearing. Social media told us as much. Eminent professors of evidence based medicine, Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, confirmed this in an article for the Spectator.2

Except that if you read the published paper you find almost the exact opposite.345 The trial is inconclusive rather than negative, and it points to a likely benefit of mask wearing to the wearer —it did not examine the wider potential benefit of reduced spread of infection to others—and this even in a population where mask wearing isn’t mandatory and prevalence of infection is low. This finding is in keeping with summaries of evidence from Cochrane."

www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586[/quote]
Why are you linking to an editorial?

Here’s the study: www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817

It doesn’t point to a benefit, and the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. This is for wearer mind. There could be a source control benefit, but this not proven either way.

@herecomesthsun

Come on, we do know that this is a central issue for U4T.

Worth reporting spammers, MNHQ have dealt with at least one from this thread.

@Nith

I read somewhere that anti-fogging stuff is either bad for or doesn't work on glasses that have a coating. Is that right?

@Nith I’m not sure what you mean by coated but the lenses in my glasses are thinned and have anti glare, I bought some anti-fog wipes from Amazon and they work great! The package says each time you wipe will last 48 hours but I’m finding I have to use it every morning when I get to work but it does last the work day so I am pleased with them

@herecomesthsun

No one said you shouldn't come on here; you yourself suggested that you didn't want to. Completely up to you, isn't it.

We all do things for health reasons that we wouldn't do in normal circumstances, like letting people jab us with sharp objects for example. It makes sense if it is a vaccine that might save your life (or indeed someone else's by reducing your chance of passing on infection).

Masks are one of those things that in the East are seen as a courtesy to other people as it makes spread of infections less likely.

They are needed right now in schools by common scientific consensus.

There are choices around that; you don't have to send children back to school if you want to continue home educating them and you could probably do that without deregistering for at least the weeks up to Easter, though you would probably end up arguing your care with the authorities and might be fined. But there are choices.

I don't know if we will need masks medium or long term at this stage. Maybe, who knows.

My kids are in Scotland. The rules are different and you don't get fined. But they'll be in school when they are allowed to be. At the moment ours are behind England.

Why are you linking to an editorial?

More than you linked to, right?

If you look at the study (bet you didn't) it says "The most important limitation is that the findings are inconclusive, with CIs compatible with a 46% decrease to a 23% increase in infection. Other limitations include the following..."

I.e. the study does not show that masks do not protect the wearer and they don't claim that. Despite your assertion.

Here's a different analysis of the Danish data:

blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/24/covid-19-controversial-trial-may-actually-show-that-masks-protect-the-wearer/

"The results of DANMASK-19 do not argue against the benefit of masks to those wearing them but actually support their protective effect. If we step outside the statistical straitjacket of NHST, with its inappropriate focus on the null hypothesis and the dichotomania surrounding P = 0.05, it can be shown that these data best support an 18% reduction in infections among mask wearers and find as much evidence for a 33% reduction as for no effect. [8]

Bayesian analysis of the DANMASK-19 trial alone shows an 81% probability of fewer infections among those encouraged to wear a mask and a 35% probability that mask wearers will avoid more than five infections/1000 individuals. Similar results are achieved with a Bayesian analysis that combines the DANMASK-19 results with prior knowledge about masks, expressed as the relative risk observed in the Cochrane review of older randomised trials of masks (RR 0.91 95%CI [0.66, 1.26]). "

@Snowwaiting

I’m a bit worried about my 12 year old - he’s very shortsighted - needs glasses all the time and his glasses steam up as soon as he puts a mask on - no idea how he’s going to cope all day . In principle I’m fine with masks .

try putting some micropore tape along the top of the mask to create a seal. It's the only thing that has worked for me. The cloths etc just make them fog differently, and my glasses are too narrow/too sensitive to a strong prescription to move them lower over the mask.

@Nith

I read somewhere that anti-fogging stuff is either bad for or doesn't work on glasses that have a coating. Is that right?

yeah none of them have worked for me. Immediately after wiping they seem to but it barely lasts. Then the fog you end up getting is different to usual and actually worse!

@Fiddlersgreen would you mind just posting a link to the wipes you have? Or the brand they are? Thanks!

If you look at the study (bet you didn't)

No need to be rude 🙄

it says "The most important limitation is that the findings are inconclusive, with CIs compatible with a 46% decrease to a 23% increase in infection. Other limitations include the following..."

It said possible, but not conclusive. But I see you glossed over the part that says ‘not statistically significant’. But it is the only real-world study with a control group, and it failed to show a significant difference.

The BMJ article is actually quite controversial judging from the comments on it, and the ‘may’ in the title says it all really. Yes, it may. It also may not.

I need more than that to support universal masking, and you should too.

I think this rebuttal by an epidemiologist to the BMJ to a previous article you linked is quite prescient:

The tone of the “fact checking piece” in which the findings of the Danish study apparently support mass masking and that they have a “small protective effect” with a more conventional interpretation labelled as “misleading” turns usual scientific practice on its head, and is outside the a priori rules set up by the researchers themselves in the trial protocol. The pointing to observational evidence to contradict trial results is another subversion of usual epidemiological practice [7]. While this may seem banal and trivial, we see it as an indication of the subtle distortion of results and the politicisation of evidence in the covid-19 era

www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586/rr-7

No need to be rude

You are spreading misinformation during a global health crisis. That certainly deserves a robust response.

You claimed "We already know it does not protect the wearer"

And when asked to justify this claim, you suggested I google a study (you didn't link to it) that does not support this statement.

Why did you do that?

Perfectly normal in Japan and in many other Asian countries. ALL DAY!

How is sharing studies from reputable journals spreading misinformation? (Hint: it’s not).

Much of the current guidance on face masks is rooted in source control (I.e. protecting others).

Perhaps you’d like to take this ‘misinformation’ up with your own government, since this is what they say about it:

The best available scientific evidence is that, when used correctly, wearing a face covering may reduce the spread of coronavirus droplets in certain circumstances, helping to protect others

Because face coverings are mainly intended to protect others from coronavirus (COVID-19) rather than the wearer, they are not a replacement for social distancing and regular hand washing. It is important to follow all the other government advice on coronavirus (COVID-19), including staying safe outside your home. If you have recent onset of any of the most important symptoms of coronavirus (COVID-19)

www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own

And when asked to justify this claim, you suggested I google a study (you didn't link to it) that does not support this statement

It absolutely does. The Danish face mask study showed no benefit to the wearer. What do you think ‘no statistical significance’ means?

Maybe there is a benefit. But you’d have to look at another study to find it, since this ain’t it.

Protip: misinformation does not equal ‘stuff I don’t like’

@Tippexy

Perfectly normal in Japan and in many other Asian countries. ALL DAY!

I lived in Japan for many years. It’s absolutely not normal for healthy people to wear masks.

Sick people wore masks. That’s totally normal. And I’d be supportive of sick people wearing masks in the UK, too. But not universally.

How is sharing studies from reputable journals spreading misinformation?

You didn’t. You made a confident claim that you did not evidence. When picked up on this you then suggested I Google a study which still doesn’t back up your claim.

It is an inconclusive study. It doesn’t support your claim that masks don’t protect the wearer. It says ‘they might, they might not’.

Herecomes linked to studies that show that they do.

Can't believe this discussion is still happening. What on earth do you think SAGE and other panels for different countries all over the world do? Just sit around randomly making stuff up?

Anyway it is happening. That is it. Done deal. Hopefully won't be for too long. Review in April but I can imagine will last until May/June. Depends on cases in the community.

I lived in Japan for years too. It's perfectly normal for healthy people to wear masks in the hayfever season. I was also there during the SARS epidemic, and although SARS wasn't an issue in Japan, quite a lot of healthy people chose to wear masks as a preventative measure. It's perfectly normal and no big deal in Japanese culture, though there are Japanese anti-maskers, just as there are British ones. Some people will always think they know better than the scientists, wherever they happen to be from.