"FFP2 etc. PPE masks are designed and intend to protect the wearer.

Face coverings aren't intended to protect the wearer. Face coverings protect everyone else. Face coverings are supposed to limit the degree to which an infected wearer passes it on to everyone else.

It's no great surprise that something intended to do one job isn't very effective at the opposite."

Actually, unless fitted with a release valve, they filter both inhaled and exhaled breath.

"surgical" facemasks failed both tests. Home made face coverings fail both also.

Given that the majority of "face coverings" fit dismally, and the amount of people going-around wearing them with the nose exposed, or around their chins with both nose and mouth exposed, or not at all, I wear a [properly fitted] FFP2.

I also have a selection of full face-masks with replaceable filters, to P3 standard. The blood-test facility is not happy at me wearing those, but since there are a dozen people in an unventilated room, sitting one metre apart, they can stay unhappy.

You wear what you like.

Originally Posted by: Swygart25604

What I want to know is why am I getting harrangued for a blatant failure of public policy by one of its employees???

Was it the HSE inspector or someone else?

Originally Posted by: biker1

It is curious isn't it, that so many people are refusing to wear something that protects other people, rather than themselves?

Not really - society has long pandered to the whims and rights of the individual. Just because we now have a pandemic it will take many years of throwing people off planes, barring customers from technology shops and punching other bus users to change society.

What point is a face covering when the "celebrity" entitled jet world wide on a frequent basis and then head out without following the rules (anyone keeping count of the party failings against regulation - think the recent Blair & Corbyn examples have Labour in the lead even with the Cummings trip). One even has a range of clothing expressing their disdain for the rest of us "Sorry I dont que Hun" emblazoned across the front.

Too true, Roundtuit. Sad isn't it, that just for a while during the lockdown we got a glimpse of how better society could be? Now that restrictions have been lifted (albeit briefly from the way things are going), it's back to the usual attitudes. I blame Maggie Thatcher for starting the 'me, me' mindset (but then I blame her for most things wrong with Britain these days).

Agree with the poor example being shown with so many famous people, POTUS being the main one. Mass rallies, with no social distancing and not many masks in sight. I don't know how he sleeps at night. 

Originally Posted by: biker1

POTUS being the main one. 

Have you seen he's apparently been told about a study that found that 85% of people with covid reported that they had sometimes worn a face covering, and interpreted that as being that 85% of people that wear a face covering will get covid?

Originally Posted by: biker1

It is curious isn't it, that so many people are refusing to wear something that protects other people, rather than themselves? Says a lot about their attitude to personal responsibility and their respect for other people. I see that Liam and Noel Gallagher are refusing to wear masks. What does that tell us about them that we didn't already know? *rseholes with attitude.

If you'd seen the results of tests on both "surgical" facemasks and "face coverings", you would not be that interested in putting your faith in them!

An FFP2 mask protects from inhaling virus and also exhaling, to a greater extent than the two previous examples. They don't wear "surgical" facemasks in areas of high likelihood of infection in hospitals (although the govt spend £30 million buying a load for that purpose!)

I'm 70, my faith in humanity is at a very low ebb. My faith in politicians does not exist; at all.

Re post #681, news from across the Pond, it looks like OSHA is being a little tougher than the HSE "Factory Inspector(s)".

OSHA inspectors have removed 634,515 workers from COVID-19 hazards during the coronavirus pandemic.

Also announced slightly over $1.2m in fines for COVID violations. OSHA fines tend to be quite small and I didn't check how many there were to total this figure.

Originally Posted by: N Hancock

What i dont understand is why there has been no tv advert campaign on their correct use.

Instructions for care and use are the remit of a market supplier.

When HMG let the craft folk loose and the myriad to purchase from internet auction sites any concept of a standard let alone including instructions went out the window.

Despite the link being via "The Wail" YouGov in a poll confirms what you are saying

Edited by user 23 October 2020 20:59:00(UTC)  | Reason: Samsung autocorrect

UK decision to apply a temporary reduction in VAT on PPE so it's for the UK to decide whether or not to extend this.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-zero-rating-for-personal-protective-equipment/vat-zero-rating-for-personal-protective-equipment

Given that there was not consultation before the decision to go zero rated, we can probably expect an announcement to extend the freeze in the next few days.

For the Breixiteers it's surely a no brainer. Easy to get some of the press to sell this as the UK breaking free whilst completely ignoring the fact that the EU encouraged Member States to consider such exemption.

However, we do pay VAT on most "essentials" thought often at a reduced rate. Bread, fuel etc. Sales taxes came into effect in Britain long before the UK existed and have always attracted negative attention!

Reported

Originally Posted by: peter gotch

UK decision to apply a temporary reduction in VAT on PPE so it's for the UK to decide whether or not to extend this.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-zero-rating-for-personal-protective-equipment/vat-zero-rating-for-personal-protective-equipment

Given that there was not consultation before the decision to go zero rated, we can probably expect an announcement to extend the freeze in the next few days.

For the Breixiteers it's surely a no brainer. Easy to get some of the press to sell this as the UK breaking free whilst completely ignoring the fact that the EU encouraged Member States to consider such exemption.

However, we do pay VAT on most "essentials" thought often at a reduced rate. Bread, fuel etc. Sales taxes came into effect in Britain long before the UK existed and have always attracted negative attention!

Basic bread is zero-rated!

Domestic heating fuels are 5%, whilst transport fuels are 20%.

The temporary exemption for PPE only implements VAT changes for businesses and individuals purchasing personal protective equipment used for protection from infection.

  Thanks John, I was wondering what it was. Surely every safety ninja needs one of these

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

COSHH - see post 641 in this thread.

Can you demonstrate an adequate level of protection from your devices that would stand up in a court of law in the event of a claim? There are no standards for face coverings, some have exhaust vents actually blowing exhaled air on to others and that is if they actually get them covering nose and mouth simultaneously.

When you read the regulations you will see that exemptions do not require a medical opinion - this was very deliberate not only in protection of the rights of the individual but recognising accessing medical appointments for critical care was already an issue without adding unecessary administration to overloaded systems.

A recent TV article on juvenille mental health showed people waiting nearly two years to get their first assessment, long before some jobsworth started incorrectly demanding a doctors note so they can board a bus.

Even if someone catches Covid at your workplace you would be hard pressed to definitvley prove the source as a particular employee not wearing a mask. Your assumption forgets all the interactions every employee can have outside of working hours any of which can inflict the termoil described.

ALARP can include employees not wearing masks - you have reasonably requested and they have reasonably refused - document it as a consideration of the employees mental well being and move on.

As I understand it, the virus is 2 microns in size.  FFP masks are sesigned to filter out objects that are 6 microns and above..BUT, the virus doesn't transfer on its own - it does so on the back of dust or water particles - which are 6 microns.. Hence the effectiveness of masks to filter out the virus....

Heres some proper research - as opposed to someones gut reaction / opinion, which is currently being driven by people getting tired of the situation and the rules  - and why masks are widley used to protect in other circumstances - on the effectiveness of different masks against SARS - (so not COVID, but a similar virus spread the same way as COVID..)

https://msphere.asm.org/content/5/5/e00637-20

What it shows is the very real impact of even a basic face covering.  Clearly these are laboratory conditions and dont take into account all of the variables inherent in real life - but managing a reduction of up to 80 -90% transmission from mask wearing alone, when youve already exhausted the other options is an easy, quick win that ought to be taken up..

We have advised that anyone who has an issue / problem with wearing a mask can wear a face shield.   Although a face shield isnt as fitted it is a solid object that wont permit the direct passage of water droplets carrying the virus..  

Should one persons "Human Right" not to wear the face covering or shield overshadow the rights of the majority to work in a (COVID) safe environment ?  

Originally Posted by: A Parfrey

As I understand it, the virus is 2 microns in size.  FFP masks are sesigned to filter out objects that are 6 microns and above. Should one persons "Human Right" not to wear the face covering or shield overshadow the rights of the majority to work in a (COVID) safe environment? 

Your discorse starts from a poor position - not all face coverings are equal, nor has every in-use variant been tested and as you concur this American published paper is based upon laboratory not real world testing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54693622 Why should the vulnerable be thrown on the scrap heap to suit mob mentality? They have more than "Human Rights". Whilst you may wish to argue one act overturns the provisions of another be wary - you are just about to take that first step back to a very dark period in history. Today face coverings, tomorrow the obese, the day after.....

Quote:

When can a public authority interfere with a qualified right?

A public authority can only interfere with a qualified right if it’s allowed under the law. It must also show that it has a specific reason set out in the Human Rights Act for interfering with your rights. The Act calls these reasons a legitimate aim.

Examples of legitimate aims include:

• the protection of other people’s rights
• national security
• public safety
• the prevention of crime
• the protection of health.

The interference must be no more than what's absolutely necessary to achieve one of the aims in the Act. The Human Rights Act says the interference must be necessary in a democratic society.

Of course, facial coverings are not PPE and so do not have to comply with a specific standard, nor is there any requirement for training in their correct use. Perhaps there is a case for a standard for SPE (social protective equipment as opposed to personal protective equipment). Having said this, I wonder how the person claiming to be unable to wear a facial covering would respond if they had to wear a mask to protect themselves against a toxic vapour that, if inhaled, would kill them. Would they still claim that their 'human rights', even if it would kill them?

In my area, we are apparently about to move up to tier 2 by the weekend, if not before, so that will be even more excuse for our GP practice not to see anybody. They really have been snowflakes throughout this whole business, but are quite happy for district nurses to carry on seeing patients in their own homes, and hospital doctors and nurses to see and examine people. Apparently, the practice nurses are not allowed to listen to someone's chest now, despite having been close looking in ears. Quite ridiculous, and frankly shameful.

Since we are about to move up a level, looked into the further restrictions involved. What I can't understand is what effective difference these additional restrictions will have on transmission rates. The usual confusing mess from government that you could drive a bus through. If they are going to make a real difference to infection levels, they'll have to do a lot better than they have been doing.

I also can't understand the mentality of the increasing number of people protesting about restrictions. If it was a case of campaigning for more support during all of this, they might have a point, but when they start banging on about personal freedom, and calling the virus a hoax, I see red. Perhaps these people could help out on COVID wards, after all they think they have nothing to be afraid of.

Biker you are right to question Tier 2

Existing in the greater burough of Burnham we have had extended restrictions since coming out of the first national lock down and are currently lodged at Tier 3 in the English system without any supposed improvement in numbers.

All the while the three amigos battle to see who can come up with the most eye wateringly ludicrous controls without realising how fatigued the populace and businees is with the constant churn of  restrictions.

Absolute classic this week was the metro mayor having a rant at a supermarket chain for their failure to enforce the wearing of face coverings seemingly forgetting that role of mayor is also that of Police & Crime Commissioner.

The children themselves may well be at near-zero risk....the people they contact are not.

If there was a chance of an independent enquiry after this [present manifestation of] this disease ends [average 6-month period of antibody presence, then back to square one] then the role being played in the rapidly-increasing death rate, in the second time around, would doubtless point several fingers towards the policy of allowing super-spreaders to continue doing what they do best...I doubt their mental health is suffering much, they chatter to their mates online all the time, and they have online education (doubtless second best, but in difficult times eh?)

Death rate yesterday = 310. A 51.2% increase compared to the previous week.

Possibly you too are an ardent believer in killing-off the poor/sick/elderly? Just like our present govt.

Firstly the survival rate is not likley to be 99.96%. And I can provide evidence of this with very simple maths. Peru currently has 34,000 deaths so far. Assuming the whole 33m population was infected that gives a survival rate of 99.90% which is worse than your 99.96%. And we have to assume nobody else is going to die in Peru, which seems unlikely.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

- Gives you an idea of how deadly the virus has been so far. 19 countries have already lost more than 1 person out of every 2000 to this virus, and we are probably only halfway through. you 99.96% would kill 3.12m people (worldwide) and we are over a third of the way there already, with under reporting. Do you really believe a third of the world is already infected? If we follow Peru's model it could be as high as 7.8m.

Exemptions to a law are not the same as the "right to not wear a face covering". They are reasons that the government decided they would allow people not to wear a face covering, that is all. The people protesting are not the same people that have an exemption, let's not pretend they are.

Can you link to the "vast amount of science" papers that say masks are not effective? I will link a respected sources below below that say they are.

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3021

 - From the British Medical Journal

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7494435/

- is an interesting read debunking those that say masks are not effective

https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-c-facemasks.pdf

- is waiting on peer review, but is a good review point for the scientific consensus

Children are not "zero risk" they are extremely low risk. We don't yet know the long term implications of being infected. The damage it could do to society to let the virus run havoc is far more than the inconvenience of one year of disruption. If you are so concerned about the children then I question your views on masks. South Korea put masks in place much earlier on (along with most of S.E Asia) as they had previous experience of a SARS epidemic. They haven't had to resort to huge lockdowns because they have the virus under control. Masks save lives, it is as simple as that.

Sorry can't edit - that should be easier to read

Page 9 and 10 of the above report are of interest as it is about protection of others.

Chris