IdleRich

IdleRich
Have you seen this survey from University of California Davis Children's Hospital which says that as well as protecting others wearing a mask reduces your own risk of being infected by sixty five percent?
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
It appears that a scientist from that university just asserted that that's the case; no study is linked. No idea how he can be so precise with those percentages.

Also no mention of the risks to oneself if one is infected (if the mask blocks droplets and virus particles, then they become aerosolised and reinhaled, increasing one's viral load and making one more likely to have a worse case and use medical resources).

And these figures are based on _ideal_ mask use which doesn't happen irl: by observation, most people depart from proper use by leaving the mask on too long, not keeping it clean, placing it on their chin, handling it improperly, not creating a tight seal etc. That's going to reduce the benefits or even make it a net negative.

Also: 'risk homeostasis'.

No mention of drawbacks like getting infections from stuff trapped on the material.

Unrelenting obsession with changing behaviour in the public sphere rather than getting people to wear masks indoors around the people that they are most likely to infect (which obv the proselytisers are not going to do, so they don't suggest it).

Why no mention of goggles? In the clinical setting, goggles are worn too. Is it because one doesn't feel like a martyr wearing goggles, just silly?

His comment contradicts SAGE, PHE and WHO because it doesn't assess their benefits (and disadvantages) in the round.

In any case, the prevalence is so low now that the benefits are minimal.

He also understates the crucial role of handwashing, which has a far better basis in the present and past stats.

Of course, all he made were a few conversational comments; it's not his fault the media have jumped on them to continue this ridiculous divisive debate that long ago departed from official medical advice.
 
Last edited:

IdleRich

IdleRich
in any case, the prevalence is so low now that the benefits are minimal.
Eh? There were more than 60k new cases in the US yesterday, how is the prevalence low? It looks as though it's increasing all the time.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
I knew you would say that. It's very difficult for people to accept evidence they don't like.
What evidence? He just plucks that figure out of thin air.

I'm waiting for our scientific bodies to say it's a good idea...but they don't (and it's not as if our govt would stand in their way).

Incidentally, early on in the crisis, I was trying to convince my friends to wear masks but I was at the stage in my understanding then that most others are at now.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
The main issue we were discussing was how serious the disease is or can potentially be. In the US - with little mask wearing - the rate of infection is rising faster than ever, the mortality rate (which you pegged as the most significant indicator) is also rising. It seems that by your own criteria the situation is more serious than you previously credited.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Sounds kinda low... depends how sociable you are I guess. If you do a half hour tube journey to work every day then it could easily be more than ten a day simply on your journeys if there is no social distancing.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
In fact I reckon if you're sitting on a tube there are as many as 7 seats within 2m of you... imagine if it's crowded and you're standing. Could be ten or twenty people within a couple of metres. If you travel for an hour (as I used to) then potentially could be four lots of twenty, that's 80 people, 160 a day counting the journey home. That's 800 a week on your transport, more in the office, at home, in the pub etc etc seems to me that in a few weeks the odds are against you.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
In v crowded situations, I would recommend masks but, yes, it's difficult to avoid...which is why I think London's pretty much over it
 
Top