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

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Holliday42333  
#1 Posted : 27 November 2020 09:26:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

I can't find it now, but there were discussions regarding the use of visors only as face coverings in non-medical settings.

The Law does not specify the type of face covering however the gudance has now been made more explicit with the following text 

Face visors or shields

A face visor or shield may be worn in addition to a face covering but not instead of one. This is because face visors or shields do not adequately cover the nose and mouth.

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

thanks 1 user thanked Holliday42333 for this useful post.
Alan Haynes on 27/11/2020(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#2 Posted : 27 November 2020 09:47:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

I think the Scottish legal definition of a Face covering excludes visors but in England it down to guidance but this came out late and thousands of people think that visors are good enough and I can’t imagine anybody enforcing that rule now. Here’s a hypothesis: if we had applied the face covering rule properly perhaps we wouldn’t  be having this lockdown “hokey cokey”-in-out shake it all about!

Holliday42333  
#3 Posted : 27 November 2020 09:50:36(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post

I think the Scottish legal definition of a Face covering excludes visors but in England it down to guidance but this came out late and thousands of people think that visors are good enough and I can’t imagine anybody enforcing that rule now. Here’s a hypothesis: if we had applied the face covering rule properly perhaps we wouldn’t  be having this lockdown “hokey cokey”-in-out shake it all about!

Quite right.  The guidance I pasted only came out yesterday.  Until then the wwording was such that visors were unlikely to meet the description but is was by no means as specific as it is now.

Unfortunately there is now a whole marketplace and widspread use of visors as primary face covering.

stevedm  
#4 Posted : 27 November 2020 10:42:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

below is the video simulation for sneezing with a face shield and a mask...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEy1cF2pMdM&feature=youtu.be

biker1  
#5 Posted : 27 November 2020 11:05:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Originally Posted by: stevedm Go to Quoted Post

below is the video simulation for sneezing with a face shield and a mask...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEy1cF2pMdM&feature=youtu.be

That's pretty worrying isn't it? But does this take account of different types of mask, how well fitted etc? Visors seem to be pretty much similar, and I've never been convinced of their effectiveness. However, they seem to have gained an acceptance in public that no-one questions. I would have like to have seeen a comparion with wearing neither, unless I missed something, as I think this would be even more revealing.
stevedm  
#6 Posted : 27 November 2020 11:34:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

it is part of the ongoing research from CDC/WHO/ ECDC...but thier line has always been mask only no face visors..so I think it centres around validation of that rather than detailed research..I will check :)

Holliday42333  
#7 Posted : 27 November 2020 11:38:30(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

But who is going to tell the general population who are not monitoring changes in current guidance?

(Probably not paying much attention to any of the guidance at any time)

stevedm  
#8 Posted : 27 November 2020 12:09:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

again it is getting more of a popularity contest rather than anything to do with health protection...

A Kurdziel  
#9 Posted : 27 November 2020 12:32:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

“how well fitted” is an irrelevance. The general public are not going to get themselves face fit tested before putting on a face covering. They going to be wearing them for far longer than you would wear RPE, and they will fiddle them, take them on and off to eat and drink etc. They are what they are. The evidence is that they may limit the spread of the virus but how effectively is not really clear.

The is no evidence that face shields have any significant effect on reducing the spread of the virus, but the decision was taken in England to allow their use. It was a political decision just like the decision to allow pubs and other hospitality venues to remain open.

andybz  
#10 Posted : 27 November 2020 13:09:56(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
andybz

My recollection of events was that the UK government was reluctant to mandate the use of face coverings because they were concerned that the overall reduction in risk in the real world was very little. But the general population seemed to want something tangible that they could do and so the government agreed to include them in the mix of controls. I don't recall visors ever being included in any guidance, but I may be wrong.

I have not seen any assessment that addresses the real world use of face coverings. I have certainly observed that people put on masks and felt they could then do whatever they wanted. It was this type of behavioural change that was one of the government's original concerns.

The video link from Stevedm is another example of an incomplete assessment. A face mask may catch virus particles when you exhale or sneeze, but they are still there with you. Every time you exhale you will dislodge some of the previously captured particles. This suggests to me that a face mask may have some positive benefit over a very short duration but if you keep it on for any length of time that this is significantly reduced.

More worringly to me is the medical profession does not seem to have realised this. Twice this week on TV news I have seen articles talking about PPE in hospitals and showed doctors/nurses wearing standard surgical masks to supposedly protect them from COVID.

biker1  
#11 Posted : 27 November 2020 14:26:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post

“how well fitted” is an irrelevance. The general public are not going to get themselves face fit tested before putting on a face covering. They going to be wearing them for far longer than you would wear RPE, and they will fiddle them, take them on and off to eat and drink etc. They are what they are. The evidence is that they may limit the spread of the virus but how effectively is not really clear.

The is no evidence that face shields have any significant effect on reducing the spread of the virus, but the decision was taken in England to allow their use. It was a political decision just like the decision to allow pubs and other hospitality venues to remain open.

I wasn't suggesting for one minute that people would get face fit tests; what I was referring to was really about whether they were worn properly, and whether the material was suitable for the purpose. I see many people who don't have their noses covered properly, or not at all, or the mask doesn't cover their chins. Clearly, worn like this they will be of very limited use. Many people also hang them around their necks when not in use, where it will continue to get contaminated but without offering any protection to others. Some of the masks I see look very trendy, but whether the material is fit for purpose is another matter.
A Kurdziel  
#12 Posted : 27 November 2020 14:31:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

 

“Every time you exhale you will dislodge some of the previously captured particles.” Not convinced about that. Firstly, the face covering is intended to capture droplets containing the virus particles not he particles themselves. The virions are so small that they would pass straight through any sort of fibric. Once captured there is an assumption that the droplet’s characteristics would change; essentially the wet bit of the droplet would be dried out as it attracted to the fibres of the cloth and the remaining virus particles would start to degrade as they dry out. It is unlikely they they would be dislodged. This is of course an assumption because the viruses are so small that we cannot visualise them in real time but that is the sort of assumption that people are making based on decades of experience of dealing with various types of viruses.

thanks 1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
Kate on 30/11/2020(UTC)
andybz  
#13 Posted : 27 November 2020 14:39:45(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
andybz

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post

 

“Every time you exhale you will dislodge some of the previously captured particles.” Not convinced about that. Firstly, the face covering is intended to capture droplets containing the virus particles not he particles themselves. The virions are so small that they would pass straight through any sort of fibric. Once captured there is an assumption that the droplet’s characteristics would change; essentially the wet bit of the droplet would be dried out as it attracted to the fibres of the cloth and the remaining virus particles would start to degrade as they dry out. It is unlikely they they would be dislodged.

You could be right, and that would certainly mean face coverings have some value. We were told that the virus can survive for hours on fabric and days on hard surfaces. Analyses of face masks I have seen only seem to cover seconds or a couple of minutes.

Roundtuit  
#14 Posted : 27 November 2020 15:06:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Whilst they may have revised guidance they have not updated the LAW.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020 - still defines as a covering for nose and mouth.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 30/11/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 30/11/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#15 Posted : 27 November 2020 15:06:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Whilst they may have revised guidance they have not updated the LAW.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020 - still defines as a covering for nose and mouth.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 30/11/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 30/11/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#16 Posted : 27 November 2020 16:49:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Just catching up on the days news to see two of West Midlands finest on video proving the police do not understand the law.

Roundtuit  
#17 Posted : 27 November 2020 16:49:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Just catching up on the days news to see two of West Midlands finest on video proving the police do not understand the law.

John Murray  
#18 Posted : 28 November 2020 12:00:18(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

Just catching up on the days news to see two of West Midlands finest on video proving the police do not understand the law.

That's why I keep a list of the things we can [still] legally do in these covid-days in my car....apparently, according to the police, I am not allowed out and must stay inside wrapped in cotton-wool.

John Murray  
#19 Posted : 28 November 2020 12:06:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Originally Posted by: andybz Go to Quoted Post

My recollection of events was that the UK government was reluctant to mandate the use of face coverings because they were concerned that the overall reduction in risk in the real world was very little. But the general population seemed to want something tangible that they could do and so the government agreed to include them in the mix of controls. I don't recall visors ever being included in any guidance, but I may be wrong.

I have not seen any assessment that addresses the real world use of face coverings. I have certainly observed that people put on masks and felt they could then do whatever they wanted. It was this type of behavioural change that was one of the government's original concerns.

The video link from Stevedm is another example of an incomplete assessment. A face mask may catch virus particles when you exhale or sneeze, but they are still there with you. Every time you exhale you will dislodge some of the previously captured particles. This suggests to me that a face mask may have some positive benefit over a very short duration but if you keep it on for any length of time that this is significantly reduced.

More worringly to me is the medical profession does not seem to have realised this. Twice this week on TV news I have seen articles talking about PPE in hospitals and showed doctors/nurses wearing standard surgical masks to supposedly protect them from COVID.

Standard surgical masks do not protect the wearer much, they are mainly to protect others *from* the wearer.

Thise in high-risk areas of the local hospital wear FFP3 facemasks, non-valved, and clear plastic face-shields. 

chris.packham  
#20 Posted : 28 November 2020 13:38:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Actually quite a few have now moved over to positive pressure hoods providing filtered air. These are far more effective than the masks and certainly more comfortable if worn for long periods. I personally have worn one for a full shift with no discomfort. They also do not rely on a skin/mask seal which is problematic in itself and can cause skin problems if the masks are worn frequently for longer periods.

thanks 1 user thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
stevedm on 29/11/2020(UTC)
stevedm  
#21 Posted : 29 November 2020 11:35:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

I am beging to think I only post on here because it is like watching a train crash...you are mixing uses again...when we are donning PPE for aerosol generating procedures it is full PPE to protect the wearer....nsd there is a scale of PPE for that from maks (including good hygiene pracrices ) to air fed hoods...using face masks in the public setting is for protecting others not the wearer...and face visors have always only been an addition measure not the sole thing...

chris.packham  
#22 Posted : 29 November 2020 13:45:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Steve - I think one of the problems is that of terminology. When someone talks or writes of face mask is it clear what they are referring to? This is why for me we should use the expression 'facial covering' when referring to this, i.e. protecting others, as opposed to 'mask' which, ideally, we would limit to personal protective equipment. After all facial coverings can take a variety of forms, most of which would not fit easily into the concept of 'mask'. A problem for me is that for facial coverings there is no 'standard' as opposed tp masks as PPE. So we have no idea how effective a particular covering might be. Several studies have shown that their effectiveness can vary substantially, from virtually nothing to reasonably effective. A limitation then is what happens when someone who is positive, but perhaps asymptomatic, sneezes. (After all, if known to be positive should they not be isolating and therefore not need a facial covering?) Does this mean that the effectiveness of the mask is now compromised, or to what extent has this happened. How often should a facial covering be replaced and then washed for reuse? How should the washing be done? And what about safe disposal? There are so many questions and few comprehensive answers1U3h. I am still waiting for that comprehensive, peer-reviewed study that looks at all these questions and comes up with guidance that I can have real confidence in.

thanks 2 users thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 30/11/2020(UTC), stevedm on 30/11/2020(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#23 Posted : 30 November 2020 09:26:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

As you said Chris face coverings protect the public while face masks protect the user, and the two things can be mutually exclusive. Positive face hoods are very effective at protecting users as they blow the air away and keep nasties at bay. This same mechanism will then, of course, increase the spread of the virus blowing it further from the user if the user is infected.  

achrn  
#24 Posted : 30 November 2020 12:36:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

These are currently on auction: https://bid.mod-sales.co...c-491d-918d-ac8000f3759b

I wonder how well received I'd be in Sainsbury's in one of them?

Possibly more actually relevant to the discussion, I see excess Covid PPEish is already arriving on surplus sites: https://bid.mod-sales.co...9-450b-a47d-ac7d00c171d3

thanks 1 user thanked achrn for this useful post.
peter gotch on 30/11/2020(UTC)
chris42  
#25 Posted : 30 November 2020 14:31:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

I think I should direct my dentist to that site as they want to charge me £40 for the PPE they have to wear when they replace a filling that fell out last week. (mind you I was charged £35 for them to confirm the filling had indeed fallen out). I had to sign in advice that I was willing to pay the extra £40.

Chris

chris.packham  
#26 Posted : 30 November 2020 15:20:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

AK - Agreed. I think you would only wear the positive pressure hood when in the front line, i.e. where there are already those who are infected and you need the ultimate in protection. I cannot really see me walking down the street in one!

biker1  
#27 Posted : 30 November 2020 16:01:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post

I think I should direct my dentist to that site as they want to charge me £40 for the PPE they have to wear when they replace a filling that fell out last week. (mind you I was charged £35 for them to confirm the filling had indeed fallen out). I had to sign in advice that I was willing to pay the extra £40.

Chris

Presumably a private dentist, surely not NHS?
achrn  
#28 Posted : 30 November 2020 16:27:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

I see that curse of Roundtuit has transmogrified - no longer does every 'thank' that anyone gives Roundtuit get duplicated. 

Now all the 'thank's given to anyone are given to Roundtuit.  As I read up the thread, Holiday42333, A Kurdziel, chris.packham (twice) and I have been 'thank'ed, and every one is labelled "n users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post".

In fact, it looks like every 'thank' in every thread, has been taken away from the recipient and granted to Roundtuit!

Edited by user 30 November 2020 16:28:18(UTC)  | Reason: spalling

thanks 4 users thanked achrn for this useful post.
Alan Haynes on 30/11/2020(UTC), chris42 on 30/11/2020(UTC), Roundtuit on 30/11/2020(UTC), Kate on 01/12/2020(UTC)
Alan Haynes  
#29 Posted : 30 November 2020 16:43:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Alan Haynes

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post
I think I should direct my dentist to that site as they want to charge me £40 for the PPE they have to wear when they replace a filling that fell out last week. (mind you I was charged £35 for them to confirm the filling had indeed fallen out). I had to sign in advice that I was willing to pay the extra £40.Chris
I assume your dentist is treating you as a Private patient. If not .... pay the £40, get a receipt, and then complain to your local CCG, ( Clinical Commissioning Group) . . See :- https://www.healthwatchp...lth-service-dental-care/

Edited by user 30 November 2020 16:48:09(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 2 users thanked Alan Haynes for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 30/11/2020(UTC), chris42 on 30/11/2020(UTC)
chris42  
#30 Posted : 30 November 2020 17:53:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Yes, Private as you are more likely to find a Dodo than an NHS dentist with an opening. Last time I tried, the closest one that might have a space was about 60 miles away!

Since when though does two FPP2 masks cost £40, as the visor can be cleaned and re used.

The bit that got me the most was that we are all trying to minimise contact with others. However, I had to have an assessment before the filling (Thursday), so two visits. In reality if the filling came out there are only two options, 1 a new filling or 2 take the tooth out, so give me an appointment that would cover either option.

How long will it be before others catch on to charging for the PPE or hand gel and other measures. I guess someone has to pay and eventually it will be us. I guess my dentist is just open about it.

I can see it now

Your trolly was professionally cleaned by one of our executive cleaners and is guaranteed to be virus free until you touch it or a maximum of 20 seconds after it was done (whichever comes first). There will be a charge on exit of £3.50 for this service. If you wish for your food and other purchases to have not been sneezed on by our staff (and you would like them to wear their face covers properly) this is an additional service which we can negotiate the cost. It will be based on a single visit, weekly deal or monthly direct debit. You will then only have to wear your gold standard badge every visit to ensure this premium service.

Chris

thanks 2 users thanked chris42 for this useful post.
Kate on 01/12/2020(UTC), biker1 on 02/12/2020(UTC)
John Murray  
#31 Posted : 30 November 2020 20:30:59(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

That's why private health care is so expensive....they're all ripping you off or defrauding you!!

If you are insured, you can let the insurance con-pany fight it out with the dental con-pany.

As an "extremely-clinically-vulnerable" person...I get free dental care (and extractions at a hospital/place with resus facilities). Sorted.

And they just sent me 4 months of VitD, for free.

Roundtuit  
#32 Posted : 30 November 2020 21:13:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
I see that curse of Roundtuit has transmogrified
Hands up guvnor not me - I do not even see this phenomenon Brian at HQ has been working hard and thinks last Friday solved the issue.? Obviously not My profile shows thanks I know I have given and thanked posts i know were acknowledged. As to dentists it is not only the PPE but cleaning down rooms between patient's - mine is operating at 1/3 capacity to be "Covid secure" so effectively four treatment rooms closed for two in use. It is taking them 60 minutes to recycle a room - pre-Covid in an individual room appointments were every 20 minutes.
Roundtuit  
#33 Posted : 30 November 2020 21:13:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
I see that curse of Roundtuit has transmogrified
Hands up guvnor not me - I do not even see this phenomenon Brian at HQ has been working hard and thinks last Friday solved the issue.? Obviously not My profile shows thanks I know I have given and thanked posts i know were acknowledged. As to dentists it is not only the PPE but cleaning down rooms between patient's - mine is operating at 1/3 capacity to be "Covid secure" so effectively four treatment rooms closed for two in use. It is taking them 60 minutes to recycle a room - pre-Covid in an individual room appointments were every 20 minutes.
chris42  
#34 Posted : 01 December 2020 09:58:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
I see that curse of Roundtuit has transmogrified

Hands up guvnor not me - I do not even see this phenomenon .

Roundtuit

If you look at post #29 above, you will see that both A Kurdziel and myself, both thanked Alan. However just to the left of where our names appear. It reads “2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post”

Bet your IOSH "thanked” stats look good though, haha.

Chris

Brian Hagyard  
#35 Posted : 01 December 2020 09:59:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
I see that curse of Roundtuit has transmogrified
Hands up guvnor not me - I do not even see this phenomenon Brian at HQ has been working hard and thinks last Friday solved the issue.? Obviously not ] Today the IOSH Forum Pinky - Tomorrow the World!
A Kurdziel  
#36 Posted : 01 December 2020 10:04:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
I see that curse of Roundtuit has transmogrified

Hands up guvnor not me - I do not even see this phenomenon Brian at HQ has been working hard and thinks last Friday solved the issue.? Obviously not My profile shows thanks I know I have given and thanked posts i know were acknowledged. As to dentists it is not only the PPE but cleaning down rooms between patient's - mine is operating at 1/3 capacity to be "Covid secure" so effectively four treatment rooms closed for two in use. It is taking them 60 minutes to recycle a room - pre-Covid in an individual room appointments were every 20 minutes.

Almost miss the echo

Almost miss the echo

Alan Haynes  
#37 Posted : 01 December 2020 19:42:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Alan Haynes

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post
Yes, Private....... Since when though does two FPP2 masks cost £40, as the visor can be cleaned and re used...........Chris
Spoke to my NHS dentist today as he was fixing my teeth (New bridge etc etc) His practice charges £10 for the PPE used in a sessions he says that's what it costs them. Sounds like your dentist has found a nice little "earner"
achrn  
#38 Posted : 01 December 2020 19:47:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Aha! Thanks back in place, and I think Roundtuit managed to say something only once this morning.

Thank you mysterious IOSH technical elves.

Users browsing this topic
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.