Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

32 Pages«<1819202122>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
CptBeaky  
#761 Posted : 03 November 2020 12:24:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

The fact the some people are unable to wear masks just shows the need for those that are able to take it more seriously. It is the same as vaccines, 90% compliance is nearly as effective as 100% due to the lack of opportunities for the disease to spread to those that have no protection.

thanks 1 user thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
flysafe on 03/11/2020(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#762 Posted : 03 November 2020 12:37:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

The issue I have with exemptions is that there is no way to police them. They are often described as medical exemptions but that is not always true. In many cases the exemption is due to things like anxiety about wearing a face covering. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54779697 for an example for an exemption that is not a simple medical one.

The government allowed for the exemption but did not establish any sort of mechanism for ensuring compliance. At a meeting, this morning a colleague told us of a student who had a broken nose and could not use the official mask he had been given. He assumed that this mask was the same as all other masks, but he was able to find an alternative and was happy to wear that. No need for a heavy handed approach every time  

thanks 1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
flysafe on 03/11/2020(UTC)
CptBeaky  
#763 Posted : 03 November 2020 12:59:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: SLord80 Go to Quoted Post
1. There has only been one gold standard study on face masks, McIntyre 2015.

I assume you mean MacIntyre 2015 https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h694.abstract

I am sorry, but I can't read it, as I don't have a subscription to the BMJ. If you can link to a free copy, or could post the conclusions that would be most helpful. The abstract (and funding) suggest that this a paper is about face masks, not face coverings. It does mention "The use of reusable cloth masks is widespread globally... but there is no clinical research to inform their use and most policies offer no guidance on them.", which maybe the part you are on about. But given that this paper is 5 years old, and we are now publishing papers on the efficacy of these sorts of masks it seems irrelevant. Also take into account that the paper was funded by 3M, it is possible (again I can't read the paper, so I don't know) that this paper is comparing FFP2 or 3 masks with the aforementioned disposable cloth coverings. 

Do you have a single peer reviewed paper on the inefficacy of face coverings with regards to COVID-19? I am sure one or two must exist, but I can't find them.

Holliday42333  
#764 Posted : 03 November 2020 13:33:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

Originally Posted by: SLord80 Go to Quoted Post
We are not experiencing any excess deaths at all at present yet we’re heading into lock down, which will literally be the end of many small businesses. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Could you provide a link to the statistics you are infering this from as they do not match the Office for National Statistics.  The data published today which, runs until October 23rd, records that compared to the average overall deaths for this particular week, there are 10.6% more deaths than the 5 year average.

I'm not statistician but that looks like a statistically significant number of excess deaths to me.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending23october2020

Roundtuit  
#765 Posted : 03 November 2020 13:58:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post
They are often described as medical exemptions

Society wants to perceive "medical" exemption as it is incapable of processing hidden disabilities and personal anxieties when seeing the world from their own personal view point.

4.(1) For the purposes of regulation 3(1), the circumstances in which a person (“P”) has a reasonable excuse include those where— (a) P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering— (i) because of any physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability, or (ii) without severe distress;

Just as with stress what constitutes "distress" will vary from person to person as will what constitutes a "reasonable excuse" - not a medical exemption.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 03/11/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 03/11/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#766 Posted : 03 November 2020 13:58:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post
They are often described as medical exemptions

Society wants to perceive "medical" exemption as it is incapable of processing hidden disabilities and personal anxieties when seeing the world from their own personal view point.

4.(1) For the purposes of regulation 3(1), the circumstances in which a person (“P”) has a reasonable excuse include those where— (a) P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering— (i) because of any physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability, or (ii) without severe distress;

Just as with stress what constitutes "distress" will vary from person to person as will what constitutes a "reasonable excuse" - not a medical exemption.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 03/11/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 03/11/2020(UTC)
Holliday42333  
#767 Posted : 03 November 2020 14:30:45(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post
They are often described as medical exemptions

Society wants to perceive "medical" exemption as it is incapable of processing hidden disabilities and personal anxieties when seeing the world from their own personal view point.

4.(1) For the purposes of regulation 3(1), the circumstances in which a person (“P”) has a reasonable excuse include those where— (a) P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering— (i) because of any physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability, or (ii) without severe distress;

Just as with stress what constitutes "distress" will vary from person to person as will what constitutes a "reasonable excuse" - not a medical exemption.

You are absolutely right Roundtuit and the case in the BBC news article is a tragic and heartwrenching case in point.

Unfortunately where we do disagree slightly is the societal reason why those with a perfectly good 'reasonable excuse' are having difficulties.  For every genuine case, I would opinion there are a rather large and obvious number of people using this exemption as a loophole to ingnore wearing masks for their own agenda.  In fact a few weeks ago an anti-Government Control protester outside my local supermarket was handing out exemption badges to anyone who would have them and having a jolly successfull time of it too.

Edited by user 03 November 2020 14:31:28(UTC)  | Reason: Spelling etc

flysafe  
#768 Posted : 03 November 2020 14:36:36(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
flysafe

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: flysafe Go to Quoted Post
it is no hardship in the great scheme of things

There is always a different perspective https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54779697

Agreed but genuine exemptions are the exception and should be understood not vilified, but unfortunately many without genuine exemptions are taking advantage as it fits their narrative. 

Roundtuit  
#769 Posted : 03 November 2020 15:38:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

So what does constitute a "genuine exemption"?

If by law you cannot question, and they do not need to prove, how have you legitimately determined they do not hold a reasonable excuse?

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 03/11/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 03/11/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#770 Posted : 03 November 2020 15:38:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

So what does constitute a "genuine exemption"?

If by law you cannot question, and they do not need to prove, how have you legitimately determined they do not hold a reasonable excuse?

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 03/11/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 03/11/2020(UTC)
John Murray  
#771 Posted : 03 November 2020 16:19:07(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

So what does constitute a "genuine exemption"?

If by law you cannot question, and they do not need to prove, how have you legitimately determined they do not hold a reasonable excuse?

It's quite simple.

You tie a block of concrete to a person and throw him/her/whatever into deep water.

If the person floats, they are not exempt and must wear a mask.

If they sink, they are exempt, but don't need one anyway.

thanks 1 user thanked John Murray for this useful post.
biker1 on 09/11/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#772 Posted : 03 November 2020 16:22:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Trial by ducking is still "asking" for proof.

Roundtuit  
#773 Posted : 03 November 2020 16:22:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Trial by ducking is still "asking" for proof.

Holliday42333  
#774 Posted : 03 November 2020 18:37:51(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

You don't have to spend much time searching social media platforms for people actively boasting they are using the exemption outside of its intent and encouraging others to do so as well.

Completely and totaly undermines those with a genuine reason.

Roundtuit  
#775 Posted : 03 November 2020 20:30:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Humans are pre-programmed to subvert rules.

Latest pronouncement given pubs are not allowed to serve takeaway alcohol over the English lockdown some smartie has spotted that if the drink is pre-ordered on-line than that does not breach these latest regulations.

You can almost smell the breath of Besos et al over our politicians shoulders.

Given such inventivness why are Fox and Barnier still trying to negotiate a trade agreement?

Roundtuit  
#776 Posted : 03 November 2020 20:30:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Humans are pre-programmed to subvert rules.

Latest pronouncement given pubs are not allowed to serve takeaway alcohol over the English lockdown some smartie has spotted that if the drink is pre-ordered on-line than that does not breach these latest regulations.

You can almost smell the breath of Besos et al over our politicians shoulders.

Given such inventivness why are Fox and Barnier still trying to negotiate a trade agreement?

CptBeaky  
#777 Posted : 04 November 2020 07:59:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: SLord80 Go to Quoted Post
1. There has only been one gold standard study on face masks, McIntyre 2015.

I assume you mean MacIntyre 2015 https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h694.abstract

I got in contact with Ms MacIntyre - the author of the paper. Below is the e-mails sent

Good afternoon,

 My email -

I am really sorry to bother you at what is probably a really busy time for you. As you can see I am a H&S professional. Currently there is a debate in a H&S forum in the UK as to the efficacy of face coverings. The person arguing against their use is quoting your paper (in the title). Are you able to confirm that is your conclusion, based on the current pandemic, that face coverings are not an effective method of transmission spread?

Her response

No, it is not my conclusion. I believe an effective cloth mask can be designed

Please see

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e042045

 

thanks 2 users thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
peter gotch on 04/11/2020(UTC), aud on 05/11/2020(UTC)
peter gotch  
#778 Posted : 04 November 2020 11:05:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Thanks Cpt.

Interesting reading.

Not particularly surprising that putting a cloth mask in a washing machine is generally more effective in decontaminating a cloth mask than the worker washing it by hand.

If we were to follow the suggestion that the risk of contamination when removing a mask is such as to negate the value of using a mask, we would be in a right pickle - it would suggest that it's not sensible to wear Respiratory Protective Equipment when e.g. exposed to asbestos or other respiratory risks.

However, we have know about the problems with potential contam ination when donning, using or removing RPE for decades - hence why effective training and supervision has always been part of the recommended protocols and also just another reason why PPE should always be considered one of the last lines of defence. Too many reasons why PPE can be limited in its protection at the sharp end.

A few decades ago, RPE was classified by its "Nominal Protection Factor" until research showed that the difference between NPF (calculated by the protection given to highly conversant users in laboratory conditions) and Actual Protection Factor was very significant, sometimes by a reduction in protection of 10 fold.

chris.packham  
#779 Posted : 04 November 2020 11:34:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Take a look at https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-c-facemasks.pdf

khaV

chris42  
#780 Posted : 04 November 2020 12:00:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post

Thanks Cpt.

Interesting reading.

Not particularly surprising that putting a cloth mask in a washing machine is generally more effective in decontaminating a cloth mask than the worker washing it by hand.

If we were to follow the suggestion that the risk of contamination when removing a mask is such as to negate the value of using a mask, we would be in a right pickle - it would suggest that it's not sensible to wear Respiratory Protective Equipment when e.g. exposed to asbestos or other respiratory risks.

However, we have know about the problems with potential contam ination when donning, using or removing RPE for decades - hence why effective training and supervision has always been part of the recommended protocols and also just another reason why PPE should always be considered one of the last lines of defence. Too many reasons why PPE can be limited in its protection at the sharp end.

A few decades ago, RPE was classified by its "Nominal Protection Factor" until research showed that the difference between NPF (calculated by the protection given to highly conversant users in laboratory conditions) and Actual Protection Factor was very significant, sometimes by a reduction in protection of 10 fold.

Yes, an interesting read.

Oddly on a morning TV program the other day it said there had been a study that indicated that hand washing washable face coverings was better than machine washing, Temp didn’t make any real difference and that Non-Bio was better than biological detergent.

Don’t know the name of the program (think it is called “Morning Live”) but it was on BBC1 at 9:15am and is a new program. So that has gone out to the nation.

Chris

biker1  
#781 Posted : 04 November 2020 12:19:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

I tend to apply a common sense (there's that phrase again!) approach. When I've used a mask, I hang it up somewhere out of the way for a period of time if I'm not going to wash it right away. This is from the point of view that there is a slim chance of it being contaminated, principally from me, although I might get other indications if this was the case! The virus will only survive for a limited period of time, so I reason that this is better than simply sticking it back in your pocket (or leaving it draped around your neck as I see many people do).

thanks 1 user thanked biker1 for this useful post.
aud on 05/11/2020(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#782 Posted : 04 November 2020 13:34:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

“Oddly on a morning TV program the other day it said there had been a study that indicated that hand washing washable face coverings was better than machine washing, Temp didn’t make any real difference and that Non-Bio was better than biological detergent.” Has that been published on as per reviewed journal or is it just guess work?

The issue with hand washing is that is so variable- one person will scrub it hard while another gently dunk it. The water temperature will vary with one person using water that is scalding and another using tepid water.  I can’t imagine an enveloped virus enjoying a hot wash  with any sort of detergent but that’s me joining in the guessing game!

Roundtuit  
#783 Posted : 04 November 2020 14:06:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

In the CWA document for community face coverings cleaning is addressed in 5.6 as follows:

The community face coverings specified as reusable shall withstand the number of cleaning cycles claimed by the producer (at least 5 cleaning cycles) with a minimum washing temperature of 60°C. For cleaning, only products shall be used which do not present any health risk, e.g. by leaving behind hazardous substances at the end of the process. For this reason it is recommended to use standard detergent and to not use fabric softener. The community face coverings shall not be dry cleaned as this process leaves substances in the fabric which are hazardous to health.

and from the recent Which? report:

Almost all of the face coverings we tested proved more effective at filtering particles after five hot washes, due to the fibres compressing. This shrinkage effect was at a micro level, ................., although some became slightly less breathable.

All the guidance mirrors comments normally associated with PPE/RPE to regularly monitor for wear & tear and to dispose of damaged items

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 04/11/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 04/11/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#784 Posted : 04 November 2020 14:06:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

In the CWA document for community face coverings cleaning is addressed in 5.6 as follows:

The community face coverings specified as reusable shall withstand the number of cleaning cycles claimed by the producer (at least 5 cleaning cycles) with a minimum washing temperature of 60°C. For cleaning, only products shall be used which do not present any health risk, e.g. by leaving behind hazardous substances at the end of the process. For this reason it is recommended to use standard detergent and to not use fabric softener. The community face coverings shall not be dry cleaned as this process leaves substances in the fabric which are hazardous to health.

and from the recent Which? report:

Almost all of the face coverings we tested proved more effective at filtering particles after five hot washes, due to the fibres compressing. This shrinkage effect was at a micro level, ................., although some became slightly less breathable.

All the guidance mirrors comments normally associated with PPE/RPE to regularly monitor for wear & tear and to dispose of damaged items

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 04/11/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 04/11/2020(UTC)
biker1  
#785 Posted : 04 November 2020 14:51:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Are we all on the edge of our seats waiting for the results of the US election? No?. Early indications are that Biden is slightly ahead, but Trump seems to assume he's already won, and is going to try and curtail any more votes (how unusual for him to interfere with democracy!). What does baffle me is how anyone with more than two brain cells can vote for Trump. His lies and misleading statements, his rejection of science when it suits him, his vicious use of Twitter that would have anyone else sued for libel, his erosion of democracy, his suspect financial dealings, his irresponsible attitude to the pandemic; all point to someone unfit to run a kindergarten let alone the most powerful nation on earth. If he does win, which I have a nasty feeling he will, goodness knows where the USA will be in another four years. Never mind a wall separating them from Mexico, I think there should be a wall around the USA.

biker1  
#786 Posted : 04 November 2020 16:44:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

I see in the news that the panic buying and hoarding has kicked off again. I would have thought the supermarkets would have learned from the first 'lockdown', and as soon as the second one was announced, put buying limits on the usual suspects. Whilst I am sure that the majority of people in this country are fairly responsible and trying to do the right thing, it only takes a small number of idiots to cause a crisis, and we do seem to have more than our fair share of them these days.

Holliday42333  
#787 Posted : 04 November 2020 16:48:25(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

The face covering guidance has been updated today (although the update is very inconsequential)

https://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

What I hadn't really paid attention to before was that the use of visors doesn't really appear to meet the guidance.  Other than the images of healthcare professionals wearing visors over FFP3 masks it has just made me wonder where this belief that visors are suitable as a face covering.  This is particularly apparent as they seem to be getting smaller and flimsier at time progresses

chris42  
#788 Posted : 04 November 2020 16:59:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Go to Quoted Post

Other than the images of healthcare professionals wearing visors over FFP3 masks it has just made me wonder where this belief that visors are suitable as a face covering.  

It is so the eyes are protected from droplets (also hair dressers)

Chris

Holliday42333  
#789 Posted : 04 November 2020 17:19:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Go to Quoted Post

Other than the images of healthcare professionals wearing visors over FFP3 masks it has just made me wonder where this belief that visors are suitable as a face covering.  

It is so the eyes are protected from droplets (also hair dressers)

Chris

I understand this is why visors are worn, its why people have adopded this instead of mask type face coverings I don't understand in terms of interpretation of the guidance.  There is just no wording in the guidance that even comes close to visor use as a face covering.
chris42  
#790 Posted : 04 November 2020 19:04:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Ah I thought you were questioning the mask and visor in hospitals, my bad. I have pointed out to people I sort of know that shields did not count. Their response was that they had a problem with face coverings and that something was better than nothing. I also pointed out that they should come around the sides and that they should not be at 45 degrees to their face, but same answer.

Chris

Roundtuit  
#791 Posted : 04 November 2020 20:57:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Go to Quoted Post
What I hadn't really paid attention to before was that the use of visors doesn't really appear to meet the guidance.
 So lets ignore guidance where there is ACTUAL regulation

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020: “face covering” means a covering of any type which covers a person's nose and mouth;

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Regulations 2020: "face covering” means a covering of any type (other than a face shield) which covers a person's nose and mouth

Both regulations contain the same defence of "Reasonable Excuse" that seemingly now translates as "exemption, medical exemption or exception" depending upon who we are talking to.

The BIG difference is that whilst it is permissable for someone unable to wear a "mask" in England could choose to protect others with a visor under Scottish regulation it is a mask or other item BUT NOT a visor.

Chris42 there is NO requirement for it to "wrap" around the face such considerations fall under the design of PPE visors under harmonised European Standards.

The guidance remains VERY specific that face coverings are NOT PPE/RPE/Medical Devices.

For health care we are discussing actual PPE/RPE

For hairdressers/tattoo artisits/beauticians there was separate guidance that close contact activity a mask AND visor must be worn, solely a visor being considered unacceptable.

Edited by user 04 November 2020 21:06:08(UTC)  | Reason: FFS

Roundtuit  
#792 Posted : 04 November 2020 20:57:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Go to Quoted Post
What I hadn't really paid attention to before was that the use of visors doesn't really appear to meet the guidance.
 So lets ignore guidance where there is ACTUAL regulation

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020: “face covering” means a covering of any type which covers a person's nose and mouth;

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Regulations 2020: "face covering” means a covering of any type (other than a face shield) which covers a person's nose and mouth

Both regulations contain the same defence of "Reasonable Excuse" that seemingly now translates as "exemption, medical exemption or exception" depending upon who we are talking to.

The BIG difference is that whilst it is permissable for someone unable to wear a "mask" in England could choose to protect others with a visor under Scottish regulation it is a mask or other item BUT NOT a visor.

Chris42 there is NO requirement for it to "wrap" around the face such considerations fall under the design of PPE visors under harmonised European Standards.

The guidance remains VERY specific that face coverings are NOT PPE/RPE/Medical Devices.

For health care we are discussing actual PPE/RPE

For hairdressers/tattoo artisits/beauticians there was separate guidance that close contact activity a mask AND visor must be worn, solely a visor being considered unacceptable.

Edited by user 04 November 2020 21:06:08(UTC)  | Reason: FFS

biker1  
#793 Posted : 06 November 2020 12:33:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Latest news reports indicate that Trump is losing it, and I'm not talking about the election. His latest rant, blaming everyone imaginable, has even been refused by the TV networks. I think there is a hidden agenda, apart from his lust for power. If he loses the election, there is a good chance he could end up in prison - dodgy dealings, tax evasion, the whole Russia thing, arguably treason from the way he has failed to address the pandemic, not to mention the chances of being sued for libel for the despicable things he has put on Twitter. His only protection is to stay president.

SLord80  
#794 Posted : 07 November 2020 18:50:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: SLord80 Go to Quoted Post
1. There has only been one gold standard study on face masks, McIntyre 2015.
I assume you mean MacIntyre 2015https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h694.abstract
I got in contact with Ms MacIntyre - the author of the paper. Below is the e-mails sent Good afternoon,My email -I am really sorry to bother you at what is probably a really busy time for you. As you can see I am a H&amp;S professional. Currently there is a debate in a H&amp;S forum in the UK as to the efficacy of face coverings. The person arguing against their use is quoting your paper (in the title). Are you able to confirm that is your conclusion, based on the current pandemic, that face coverings are not an effective method of transmission spread? Her responseNo, it is not my conclusion. I believe an effective cloth mask can be designedPlease seehttps://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e042045
Here conclusions are in the paper, that can’t be changed. The study you’ve quoted actually concludes that HCW who hand wash their masks are at higher risk, and those that have it washed via hospital laundry are protected. This is essence proves the point, vast majority of the public are not washing their masks in the laundry, but I also link some more research, as you did ask earlier. Here you go: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002 N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. https://www.cambridge.or...6EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05 None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein. https://onlinelibrary.wi...j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection. https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567 We identified six clinical studies … . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism. https://academic.oup.com...ticle/65/11/1934/4068747 Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant. https://jamanetwork.com/...jama/fullarticle/2749214 Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. ... Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza. https://onlinelibrary.wi.../epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381 A total of six RCTs involving 9,171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza. No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions. Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. Is this enough evidence for you? Now do you understand why people, experts, professionals and even lay persons don’t wear masks? It is nothing to do with being selfish, as some on this forum have proclaimed, it’s simply not evidence based.
SLord80  
#795 Posted : 07 November 2020 18:55:07(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
Latest news reports indicate that Trump is losing it, and I'm not talking about the election. His latest rant, blaming everyone imaginable, has even been refused by the TV networks. I think there is a hidden agenda, apart from his lust for power. If he loses the election, there is a good chance he could end up in prison - dodgy dealings, tax evasion, the whole Russia thing, arguably treason from the way he has failed to address the pandemic, not to mention the chances of being sued for libel for the despicable things he has put on Twitter. His only protection is to stay president.
Very risky slandering the former president, it’s clear as day you sit and watch the news and just believe everything they tell you with these comments about the president and your stance on Covid19.
John Murray  
#796 Posted : 07 November 2020 19:29:48(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

I’ll wear a mask thanks. It’s called “reducing the viral load”. Most people will do the same. You can carry-on trolling the forum. As for the previous president: I expect he’ll eventually crawl away somewhere...or be taken away
thanks 2 users thanked John Murray for this useful post.
flysafe on 09/11/2020(UTC), biker1 on 09/11/2020(UTC)
SLord80  
#797 Posted : 07 November 2020 19:48:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: John Murray Go to Quoted Post
I’ll wear a mask thanks. It’s called “reducing the viral load”. Most people will do the same. You can carry-on trolling the forum. As for the previous president: I expect he’ll eventually crawl away somewhere...or be taken away
Oh is that what’s it’s called is it John? Really? It’s a shame there wasnt ANY evidence of that in another of the above links. Is that just something you’ve heard somebody say on the news and now your copying it? Aww that’s cute. I’m so glad you said I was ‘trolling’ Because, you see, this is what happens when sheeple get presented with peer reviewed scientific evidence that doesn’t support their own opinion on a matter, you call it trolling, you still continue to deny it. You turn to name call. You mind literally does not have the ability to comprehend that you might actually be wrong, so you get all defensive. Have a long hard think about that. It just shows how ingrained your opinion is, it cannot be changed, even when it’s slapping you in the face, you still can’t see it. On another note: https://www.dailymail.co...going-NHS-hospitals.html Let’s lockdown the lives of 565,000 people because there are FOUR people in hospital. That’s seems logical, right? It’s a shame some people are so happy to bow down and simply give up basic human rights that many before us fought so hard for. Right to see your child Right to liberty Right to privacy Right to provide for yourself and your family. Thankfully, there are experts out there, tens of thousands of them who can see through the nonsense we are being fed. It was also nice to see 38 MPs voted against the lockdown, with some publicly stating they will have no say in the tyranny and outright abuse that is currently ongoing.
Roundtuit  
#798 Posted : 07 November 2020 21:53:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Greta Thunberg comment to POTUS Trump seems very apt to a certain single thread respondent.
Roundtuit  
#799 Posted : 07 November 2020 21:53:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Greta Thunberg comment to POTUS Trump seems very apt to a certain single thread respondent.
Roundtuit  
#800 Posted : 07 November 2020 22:01:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: SLord80 Go to Quoted Post
Very risky slandering the former president
Even with the declarations very premature to name Trump the former president 77 days of retribution and counting. Slander and libel have legal precedent none of the observations fall in to such a category.
thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
biker1 on 09/11/2020(UTC), biker1 on 09/11/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#801 Posted : 07 November 2020 22:01:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: SLord80 Go to Quoted Post
Very risky slandering the former president
Even with the declarations very premature to name Trump the former president 77 days of retribution and counting. Slander and libel have legal precedent none of the observations fall in to such a category.
thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
biker1 on 09/11/2020(UTC), biker1 on 09/11/2020(UTC)
John Murray  
#802 Posted : 08 November 2020 11:28:44(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Thankfully, I have the advice of epidemiologists, immunologists and microbiologists, at one of the best cardio-thoracic hospitals in Europe. I’ll ignore you; you are a troll with little connection to reality. Suggest you try trolling zerohedge, all your mates are there. Viral load: Look it up. Keep wearing facemasks/coverings folks. They do little harm. Trolls don’t like them, so they must be good!
thanks 1 user thanked John Murray for this useful post.
flysafe on 09/11/2020(UTC)
chris.packham  
#803 Posted : 08 November 2020 12:05:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

If your 'peer reviewed' evidence is based on what is in the Daily Mail I think I will ignore it in preference to what I find in the many peer-reviewed, scientific publications specialising in matters relevant to the prevention of infection by this particular coronavirus and based on properly conducted studies. Yes, some of the 'official' evidence can be confusing, but the real evidence is not and does not bear our some of the spurious claims that are appearing in the media.

thanks 1 user thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
flysafe on 09/11/2020(UTC)
peter gotch  
#804 Posted : 08 November 2020 12:12:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Chris, I too would be very reluctant to rely on the Daily Mail for authoritative advice.

Thought SLored might have got SoBored, but obviously not and continues to be highly selective in their choice of sources and might have done some Googling, as what they have posted looks like a clear cut and paste.

Here’s one source I found

https://sites.google.com/site/completewalker/covid-19/mask

One study mentioned by SLord comes to the following conclusions:

Conclusions and relevance: Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

The Google source above also quotes this one:

Assessment of a Respiratory Face Mask for Capturing Air Pollutants and Pathogens Including Human Influenza and Rhinoviruses

S Steve Zhou , Salimatu Lukula , Cory Chiossone , Raymond W Nims , Donna B Suchmann , M Khalid Ijaz  

Background: Prevention of infection with airborne pathogens and exposure to airborne particulates and aerosols (environmental pollutants and allergens) can be facilitated through use of disposable face masks. The effectiveness of such masks for excluding pathogens and pollutants is dependent on the intrinsic ability of the masks to resist penetration by airborne contaminants. This study evaluated the relative contributions of a mask, valve, and Micro Ventilator on aerosol filtration efficiency of a new N95 respiratory face mask.

Methods: The test mask was challenged, using standardized methods, with influenza A and rhinovirus type 14, bacteriophage ΦΧ174, Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), and model pollutants. The statistical significance of results obtained for different challenge microbial agents and for different mask configurations (masks with operational or nonoperational ventilation fans and masks with sealed Smart Valves) was assessed.

Results: The results demonstrate >99.7% efficiency of each test mask configuration for exclusion of influenza A virus, rhinovirus 14, and S. aureus and >99.3% efficiency for paraffin oil and sodium chloride (surrogates for PM2.5). Statistically significant differences in effectiveness of the different mask configurations were not identified. The efficiencies of the masks for excluding smaller-size (i.e., rhinovirus and bacteriophage ΦΧ174) vs. larger-size microbial agents (influenza virus, S. aureus) were not significantly different.

Conclusions: The masks, with or without features intended for enhancing comfort, provide protection against both small- and large-size pathogens. Importantly, the mask appears to be highly efficient for filtration of pathogens, including influenza and rhinoviruses, as well as the fine particulates (PM2.5) present in aerosols that represent a greater challenge for many types of dental and surgical masks. This renders this individual-use N95 respiratory mask an improvement over the former types of masks for protection against a variety of environmental contaminants including PM2.5 and pathogens such as influenza and rhinoviruses. 

So the first of these studies quoted by SLord says that there is no statistically significant difference in the effectiveness of N95 and surgical masks in protecting against e.g. influenza.

It is NOT a comparison between using masks designed to standards and EITHER home made masks OR no mask at all.

In contrast, the second study is quite clear in its conclusion that wearing a mask designed to standards, whether N95 or surgical protects against pathogens.

BUT, further, the use of masks by the public is NOT for their own protection but to protect OTHERS. They are NOT “personal protective equipment”.

AND, this “community protective equipment” should still be just an additional layer of protection which is less important than social distancing and hygiene practices.

P

Edited by user 08 November 2020 12:14:34(UTC)  | Reason: Formatting issue with cut and paste

thanks 3 users thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
flysafe on 09/11/2020(UTC), biker1 on 09/11/2020(UTC), John Murray on 09/11/2020(UTC)
SLord80  
#805 Posted : 08 November 2020 12:58:52(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: John Murray Go to Quoted Post
Thankfully, I have the advice of epidemiologists, immunologists and microbiologists, at one of the best cardio-thoracic hospitals in Europe. I’ll ignore you; you are a troll with little connection to reality. Suggest you try trolling zerohedge, all your mates are there. Viral load: Look it up. Keep wearing facemasks/coverings folks. They do little harm. Trolls don’t like them, so they must be good!
But yet you ignore all of the literature out there that goes against your personal beliefs or that or people you know personally. So close minded and you don’t even realise it. Again John, I’m not a troll. As you can see, I’ve linked many highly renowned professionals, I mean, Professor Carl Heneghan is publicly against most of the draconian measures, he is the director of evidence based medicine at oxford university. I take it, he’s just another troll? Regarding the daily mail link, if you had read it you would’ve realised the information used was referenced- NHS England. So yeah, pretty good source of information. Interestingly, you all just ignore the facts: 4 people in hospitals with positive covid Tests (as of October 29th) 565,000 in the county. Are you telling me this is proportionate, reasonable and necessary?
biker1  
#806 Posted : 09 November 2020 10:53:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Originally Posted by: SLord80 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
Latest news reports indicate that Trump is losing it, and I'm not talking about the election. His latest rant, blaming everyone imaginable, has even been refused by the TV networks. I think there is a hidden agenda, apart from his lust for power. If he loses the election, there is a good chance he could end up in prison - dodgy dealings, tax evasion, the whole Russia thing, arguably treason from the way he has failed to address the pandemic, not to mention the chances of being sued for libel for the despicable things he has put on Twitter. His only protection is to stay president.
Very risky slandering the former president, it’s clear as day you sit and watch the news and just believe everything they tell you with these comments about the president and your stance on Covid19.

You have a different perspective on the performance and characteristics of Trump? When criticism of him is coming from all quarters, even amongst his party, and not forgetting his niece, and his pronouncements on many things are on record, I think I am entitled to draw some conclusions. I do find it a bit rich to be accused of slander considering Trump's posts on Twitter, when even the platform has had to issue content warnings.

biker1  
#807 Posted : 09 November 2020 11:13:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

I can only assume that SLord80 is one of the growing mob of protestors against lockdowns, who crowd together with no masks and no social distancing. Presumably, they are hoping for herd immunity to happen, assuming that they believe the virus is real, which many of them seem to have a problem with. The research cited has been misinterpreted, as this poster seems to miss the point that mask/face coverings are to help protect other people, not the wearer. Presumably, the 'catch it, bin it, kill it' slogan adopted by the NHS for colds and flu is wrong as well? Are the restrictions draconian? Well, yes and no. They do represent significant restrictions on normal human activity, but fall short of what could be termed a total lockdown. Tens of thousands of experts disagreeing? This poster seems to be an expert on exaggeration. 

chris42  
#808 Posted : 09 November 2020 11:27:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Go to Quoted Post
What I hadn't really paid attention to before was that the use of visors doesn't really appear to meet the guidance.
 So lets ignore guidance where there is ACTUAL regulation

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020: “face covering” means a covering of any type which covers a person's nose and mouth;

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Regulations 2020: "face covering” means a covering of any type (other than a face shield) which covers a person's nose and mouth

Both regulations contain the same defence of "Reasonable Excuse" that seemingly now translates as "exemption, medical exemption or exception" depending upon who we are talking to.

The BIG difference is that whilst it is permissable for someone unable to wear a "mask" in England could choose to protect others with a visor under Scottish regulation it is a mask or other item BUT NOT a visor.

Chris42 there is NO requirement for it to "wrap" around the face such considerations fall under the design of PPE visors under harmonised European Standards.

The guidance remains VERY specific that face coverings are NOT PPE/RPE/Medical Devices.

For health care we are discussing actual PPE/RPE

For hairdressers/tattoo artisits/beauticians there was separate guidance that close contact activity a mask AND visor must be worn, solely a visor being considered unacceptable.

Yes, you are correct it is not in law, but I never said it was. I did mention hairdressers and the guidance for close contact services given by the government has the following. (my underlining)

“Clear visors cover the face (and typically provides a barrier between the wearer and the client from respiratory droplets caused by sneezing, coughing or speaking). Visors must fit the user and be worn properly. They should cover the forehead, extend below the chin, and wrap around the side of the face. Both disposable and re-usable visors are available. A re-usable visor must be cleaned and disinfected between each client using normal cleaning products.”

So, I take it that if you are going to use a visor then it should meet the above requirements. Not a huge leap of faith on my part I don’t think.

Of course, that is providing we H&S people have not decided to just ignore all guidance, just because it is not enforceable.

Chris

Users browsing this topic
32 Pages«<1819202122>»
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.