Poll: Do you still wear a mask in shops?

[Dod101]

And a recent study of those treated at Addenbrooke's during lockdown1 estimated that after 6 months they had a decline in mental capacity equivalent to ageing from 50 to 70, or about 10 IQ points.

Obviously the risk is there. But what percentage risk justifies mask wearing and all the rest? 1%? 2%? 10%?

You make wearing a mask sound like such an imposition.

Do you wear a cycle helmet?
Would you ride a motorbike with no helmet?
Or drive a car with no belt?

For me the answer to all three is yes.
But the chance of anything happening is minimal, whereas the chance of catching covid is not.

I guess for many readers, Hallucigenia is telling us something we'd rather not hear.

V8

Risk taker extraordinaire, quite apart from being a lawbreaker. I assume that you do not really mean that but if you did then the best of luck. And then you apparently use a face masK?

Dod

[Hallucigenia]

Helmets and seatbelts are required by law. Masks are not, the wearing of them is voluntary and so it is reasonable to ask what percentage risk would drive doing that.

Most of the world is doing away with face coverings, requiring testing, requiring proof of vaccination etc. so this relaxation of the rules is global in nature, not just British. But then there are a small number of nations, mostly in Asia, who are maintaining strict standards.

You seem very concerned with what governments tell you to do, whereas the Foolish way has always been to look at the evidence, take personal responsibility based on that evidence, and ignore the nanny state.

So who will turn out to be right? Hallucigenia and the South-East Asians? Or the rest? And how will we know when to ring a bell and declare a winner?

That's the kind of false dichotomy I abhor. It's not about "winners" and "losers" - are you a "winner" if you buy car insurance and then don't write off your car, or hedge your portfolio with some OTM options and then the market doesn't crash? Reducing your risk can still be a win, even if it "costs" you a bit in insurance premium or options. And different people will have different attitudes to risk (as we have already seen in this thread), and different attitudes to the "cost" of reducing that risk by eg wearing a mask. There's no "right" answer or magic formula for this stuff, just like in investing.

And some people wearing masks will be unlucky and get Covid, and some people who don't wear them will be lucky and not get Covid. But all things being equal, on average the mask-wearers should get fewer infectious diseases in general (not just Covid) than people who don't wear masks - as with all these things, the exact level of protection varies a bit depending on which study you look at, but to get an idea of the orders of magnitude we're looking at, here's one from the California Department of Public Health :


and a review by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists on how long it takes to receive an infectious dose (exact protocols unspecified but based on data from the CDC), El Pais has a prettier version - from what I can tell they've done it on the basis that if you assume you are in a situation where both unmasked leads to infection in 15 min, then you can calculate multipliers based on the technical properties of different masks and come up with times accordingly, so it's probably better to look at this one in terms of multipliers over unmasked rather than taking the times too literally :


So masks work - it's up to you whether the "cost" of wearing a mask outweighs the benefit you get from it in terms of increased protection from respiratory diseases.

[Lootman]

So masks work - it's up to you whether the "cost" of wearing a mask outweighs the benefit you get from it in terms of increased protection from respiratory diseases.

That is your point in a nutshell and, yes, wearing a mask will reduce your chances of catching infectious diseases in general. Not just Covid but also flu and the common cold.

But if the risk is perceived as very low at this point then it is reasonable for people to differ on whether to tolerate the constant hassle and irritation of a mask. With the older and more vulnerable perhaps tending to wear them, and the rest of the population not doing.

And that is the situation now in the UK and the rest of the world. No more mandates - just individual judgement. Seems reasonable to me. And what the poll tells me is that, as a demographic, about 40% here either always or usually wear a mask. The other 60% usually do not. I would say that is more cautious than the nation as a whole, but then this constituency skews older, and it is older folks whom I mostly see still wearing masks.

[servodude]

So masks work - it's up to you whether the "cost" of wearing a mask outweighs the benefit you get from it in terms of increased protection from respiratory diseases.

Probably a true reflection of the state of play given the situation now.

And, AND but, probably a damn site less true back in the days of "peak COVID risk" when the needle of motivation was very much swung towards the "mitigation of risk for society"

I remember reading a post from some fella on a social media site where he swore the government could "do themselves up the bum" if they thought he'd self quarantine after a trip abroad (might have been an Ozzie forum.. it's got that kind of tinge about it)
- that's the level of ignoramus you've got to deal with when it comes to policy; you've got to set it up so that even those that can't think towards the betterment of the group are pulling in the right direction (even if it's under duress and might cost you political good will)

Even here on the fool there were plenty of posts championing positions of utter drivel; with false equivalence and painfully egregious lack of comprehension.

So to recap - wear a mask if you feel like it now, not doing so is less (much less) likely to kill someone else than it was a couple of years back
- but don't give folk a hard time (or Paddington stare) if they're not wearing one; those days are gone

-sd

Literally wearing a mask as he's on a busy train with 80+% uptake at the moment.
Actually that's the weird situation at the moment:
- over here we wear them on transport exclusively (it's advised - and seeing as it's Friday that meant a 3hr lunch so I packed one )

My big kid will put one on at 4am getting in to an Uber with her pals after being in a club - which only makes sense if you look at the trip in complete isolation (and made sure they were N95+ level and correctly fitted like we'd do at work)
We really run the risk of the reasoning being lost; of this becoming like the gorillas with the ladder; "that's how things are done" is never a good enough explanation

Oh.. my stop I signed this earlier. Good weekend to everyone
EDIT: yup I did

[88V8]

Do you wear a cycle helmet?
Would you ride a motorbike with no helmet?
Or drive a car with no belt?

For me the answer to all three is yes.
But the chance of anything happening is minimal, whereas the chance of catching covid is not.

Risk taker extraordinaire, quite apart from being a lawbreaker. I assume that you do not really mean that but if you did then the best of luck. And then you apparently use a face mask?

I have cycled for more than 60 years and never worn a helmet.
I used to motorbike, mainly in London, and gave up a year after helmets because compulsory because they are dangerous in traffic due to restricted vision and hearing.
Seat belts are not required in cars made before 1965.

I make my own decisions about risk. When driving or riding I can mitigate risk by the way I ride or drive. The best way I can mitigate the covid risk is to wear a mask in suitable settings. Shops... a concert last Saturday. It just seems daft not to.

V8

[Dod101]

Do you wear a cycle helmet?
Would you ride a motorbike with no helmet?
Or drive a car with no belt?

For me the answer to all three is yes.
But the chance of anything happening is minimal, whereas the chance of catching covid is not.

Risk taker extraordinaire, quite apart from being a lawbreaker. I assume that you do not really mean that but if you did then the best of luck. And then you apparently use a face mask?

I have cycled for more than 60 years and never worn a helmet.
I used to motorbike, mainly in London, and gave up a year after helmets because compulsory because they are dangerous in traffic due to restricted vision and hearing.
Seat belts are not required in cars made before 1965.

I make my own decisions about risk. When driving or riding I can mitigate risk by the way I ride or drive. The best way I can mitigate the covid risk is to wear a mask in suitable settings. Shops... a concert last Saturday. It just seems daft not to.

V8

I cycled a huge amount when younger and never wore a helmet but a bit like not wearing a seatbelt, you are safe until you are not. I was driving from London to Scotland shortly before Christmas some years back and hit a patch of ice just north of Gretna on the M74. My car left the road and my car ended upside down on the verge. My seatbelt plus a well built car saved my life no doubt. I think these days I would probably wear a helmet whilst cycling.

At a concert? Probably not. It is not the probability of getting injured or catching Covid that is my concern but the consequences of doing so or not. These days the risk of dying from Covid is much reduced, but for example not wearing a seatbelt is just stupid bearing in mind that the consequences of not doing so are potentially catastrophic. The same may go for cycling and not wearing a helmet.

Dod

[pje16]

but for example not wearing a seatbelt is just stupid bearing in mind that the consequences of not doing so are potentially catastrophic. The same may go for cycling and not wearing a helmet.
Dod

Totally agreed
lots of people think they can ride and/or drive safely
It's NOT all about you
the other rider and drivers can do carzy things
and as Dod found out a patch of ice/oil can lead to horrendous accidents

Good to hear you were ok Dod

[redsturgeon]

My big kid will put one on at 4am getting in to an Uber with her pals after being in a club - which only makes sense if you look at the trip in complete isolation (and made sure they were N95+ level and correctly fitted like we'd do at work)
We really run the risk of the reasoning being lost; of this becoming like the gorillas with the ladder; "that's how things are done" is never a good enough explanation

The behaviour may make sense from the Uber drivers point of view.

I think it was monkeys although there is some doubt as to whether the experiment was ever carried out so gorillas/monkeys is all the same.

John

[Dod101]

but for example not wearing a seatbelt is just stupid bearing in mind that the consequences of not doing so are potentially catastrophic. The same may go for cycling and not wearing a helmet.
Dod

Totally agreed
lots of people think they can ride and/or drive safely
It's NOT all about you
the other rider and drivers can do carzy things
and as Dod found out a patch of ice/oil can lead to horrendous accidents

Good to hear you were ok Dod

I got out with a cut to my head. My wife was unscathed.

Dod

[servodude]

My big kid will put one on at 4am getting in to an Uber with her pals after being in a club - which only makes sense if you look at the trip in complete isolation (and made sure they were N95+ level and correctly fitted like we'd do at work)
We really run the risk of the reasoning being lost; of this becoming like the gorillas with the ladder; "that's how things are done" is never a good enough explanation

The behaviour may make sense from the Uber drivers point of view.

Indeed. It will mitigate the driver's risk a bit; possibly enough to make a difference; and would do more if the passengers wore more than token masks.
It's certainly not a bad idea - and I appreciate my earlier post was probably a bit more IPA influenced than usual
- I'm sure I had a point... it was probably something around the bigger picture about the things having shifted a bit

- sd

[dealtn]

Do you wear a cycle helmet?
Would you ride a motorbike with no helmet?
Or drive a car with no belt?

For me the answer to all three is yes.
But the chance of anything happening is minimal, whereas the chance of catching covid is not.

Risk taker extraordinaire, quite apart from being a lawbreaker. I assume that you do not really mean that but if you did then the best of luck. And then you apparently use a face mask?

I have cycled for more than 60 years and never worn a helmet.
I used to motorbike, mainly in London, and gave up a year after helmets because compulsory because they are dangerous in traffic due to restricted vision and hearing.
Seat belts are not required in cars made before 1965.

I make my own decisions about risk. When driving or riding I can mitigate risk by the way I ride or drive. The best way I can mitigate the covid risk is to wear a mask in suitable settings. Shops... a concert last Saturday. It just seems daft not to.

V8

So the answer to your 3 questions is in fact not yes to all three then? Confused?

[88V8]

Do you wear a cycle helmet?
Would you ride a motorbike with no helmet?
Or drive a car with no belt?

For me the answer to all three is yes.
But the chance of anything happening is minimal, whereas the chance of catching covid is not.

Risk taker extraordinaire, quite apart from being a lawbreaker. I assume that you do not really mean that but if you did then the best of luck. And then you apparently use a face mask?

I have cycled for more than 60 years and never worn a helmet.
I used to motorbike, mainly in London, and gave up a year after helmets because compulsory because they are dangerous in traffic due to restricted vision and hearing.
Seat belts are not required in cars made before 1965.

So the answer to your 3 questions is in fact not yes to all three then? Confused?

Nah... The first question is Do you... answer Yes, the second and third questions Would you... answer yes.
I would ride a motorbike if I were allowed to do so with no helmet, and an absence of belts would not prevent me from driving some of the more pedestrian pre-65 cars.

I also use a chainsaw with no protective clobber, I'm happy on the roof of the house, and I'll do treework beyond the top of a tall ladder. But those are all risks that I can mitigate. The only other way to mitigate covid is to refrain from breathing, which is not practicable unless I were really really quick in the shop.

V8

[pje16]

You must live a charmed life

[dealtn]

Do you wear a cycle helmet?
...

For me the answer to all three is yes.

I have cycled for more than 60 years and never worn a helmet.

This is my confusion, sorry if not clear.

I guess its possible you wear a cycle helmet but never when cycling?

[XFool]

but for example not wearing a seatbelt is just stupid bearing in mind that the consequences of not doing so are potentially catastrophic. The same may go for cycling and not wearing a helmet.

Totally agreed
lots of people think they can ride and/or drive safely
It's NOT all about you
the other rider and drivers can do carzy things

Indeed. But one of the strange observations one can make about other people - came to the fore in this pandemic - is that, for some people, everything always IS "all about them" !

[pje16]

Indeed. But one of the strange observations one can make about other people - came to the fore in this pandemic - is that, for some people, everything always IS "all about them" !

How true....
Not exacty the same but we nicknamed an arrogant guy at work WOMAL
World Owes Me A Living

[Hallucigenia]

So masks work - it's up to you whether the "cost" of wearing a mask outweighs the benefit you get from it in terms of increased protection from respiratory diseases.

That is your point in a nutshell and, yes, wearing a mask will reduce your chances of catching infectious diseases in general. Not just Covid but also flu and the common cold.

But if the risk is perceived as very low at this point

Well kinda the point of my first post was that the actual risk is rather more than the general perception of "very low", and that misalignment will cost us.

But I maybe didn't express it very well earlier but -

It's NOT all about you

Framing the question solely in terms of a personal decision about your own safety ignores the large numbers of people who are still not safe in many public spaces even if they themselves mask up. I've not got a fully formed view on how to handle the many vulnerable people whose freedom is restricted by the majority of people having the freedom to choose whether to mask, but the law is often called in to set a pecking order of freedoms - my freedom to murder people is less important than your freedom from being murdered, so murder is illegal.

But everyone should feel free to go into "essential" public spaces such as supermarkets, schools, pharmacies, opticians etc - and right now millions of our fellow citizens do not have that freedom, and that's not right. IANAL, but it feels like there's a legal basis for this - for 20 years there's been an obligation under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (and now the Equality Act 2010) for service providers to make "reasonable adjustments" to their operations and to the physical layout of their premises to accommodate the disabled.

The best way to protect the vulnerable is to suppress transmission in the wider population, but in the meantime we really need to make a priority (in fact it should have been a priority 2 years ago) of making those essential spaces safe for everybody. I don't have the data, and I don't have a fully formed view of how it would work but it feels like we need to mandate for all those spaces to have the capability of say 8 airchanges per hour and/or HEPA filtration will fewer airchanges within say 2 years, and in the meantime it's mandatory for masks to be worn in those essential spaces. And if you object to compulsory masks in some scenarios now - blame the leaders who should have been doing something about ventilation/filtration 2 years ago, the necessary changes should have been made by now.

And it doesn't just help with Covid, according to a RAND analysis, improving ventilation would have wider economic benefits from higher productivity etc :
We estimate that even a small improvement in ventilation rates of 1 l/s per person in European offices would be associated with a cumulative total increase in EU27+ GDP by 2050 of €25.5 billion, increasing to €180 billion by 2050 for a ventilation rate of 7 l/s per person
.

[Hallucigenia]

Another new preprint review on long Covid in the Lancet :

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4099429
196 studies were included, consisting of 120,970 participants (mean age: 52.3 years; 48.8% females) who were followed-up for a median of six months.The incidence of any long COVID symptomatology was 56.9% (95%CI: 52.2-61.6). General long COVID signs and symptoms were the most frequent (incidence of 31%), digestive issues the less frequent (7.7%). Higher percentage of females moderated the onset of any, neurological, general and cardiovascular long COVID symptomatology, whilst higher mean age was associated with higher incidence of psychiatric, respiratory, general, digestive and skin conditions. The incidence of long COVID symptomatology was different according to continent, age and follow-up length....

Long COVID is a common condition in patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, whether symptomatically or asymptomatically, and often regardless of the severity of the acute illness

[Lootman]

Long COVID is a common condition in patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, whether symptomatically or asymptomatically, and [/i]often regardless of the severity of the acute illness

'
How is it determined that a symptom experienced after having had Covid was actually caused by Covid, and therefore gets characterised as "Long Covid"?

How do the researchers know that it was Covid that caused the symptoms? Rather than say something else?

It seems to me that anyone who gets sick after having had Covid is now claiming to have Long Covid.

[Hallucigenia]

How is it determined that a symptom experienced after having had Covid was actually caused by Covid, and therefore gets characterised as "Long Covid"?

How do the researchers know that it was Covid that caused the symptoms? Rather than say something else?

Welcome to the first drafts of science - it's early days but these are exactly the questions that scientists are trying to figure out, as they say in the review :

October 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) defined the long COVID as “a condition that occurs in individuals with a history of probable or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, usually 3 months from the onset of COVID-19 with symptoms that last for at least 2 months and cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis”. The number of people living with long COVID is unknown, as well as the real incidence and which organs or systems are most frequently involved

So at this stage we can only proceed by first "stamp-collecting" patient histories to see what looks unusual and get a rough idea of what problems they're having, then you can start doing comparisons - "OK, it feels like smell is a problem, so lets test 1000 people who had Covid and 1000 people who didn't with lavender, acetone, Chanel No 5 etc etc to quantify whether there is a genuine problem with smell between the Coviders and non-Coviders, and if so, does it only affect certain smells?". And then if say you find that there's a statistically significant difference between Coviders and non-Coviders in the ability to smell say banana, which is an ester smell, then you would look into what you know about smelling esters to try and work out the mechanism by which Covid broke it.

But we're still in the early days of that process, so the tendency is to sweep anything that might be relevant into the long Covid tent, and then exclude it in subsequent research, otherwise you never quite know what you miss. In fact the lack of smell was something that took a while to be associated with the original Wuhan Covid because it seemed such a daft symptom that some doctors dismissed it, but in fact in the early days it was the most reliable sign you had Covid.