Poll: Do you still wear a mask in shops?

[Julian]

I thought this might be interesting.

Note that I am specifically asking about shops since I suspect attitudes might differ vs for instance public transport.

- Julian

[Lootman]

I voted sometimes. One thing that has changed now that there is no mandate, is that I wear a mask only to protect myself, and not to protect others which was the government's original idea.

So I might wear a mask with an exhaust valve, which does a good job of protecting me but not of protecting others. I figure that if others are worried then they would do the same thing as me.

But unless the shop is crowded, I won't bother with a mask at all. In the last 2 weeks I think the only place I have worn one is on a busy train.

[doug2500]

I'll only wear one now if the shop specifically asks me too, for myself I wouldn't bother now.

My local shop still wants people to, I don't really know why but don't care enough to be bothered.

[Julian]

I voted sometimes. One thing that has changed now that there is no mandate, is that I wear a mask only to protect myself, and not to protect others which was the government's original idea.

So I might wear a mask with an exhaust valve, which does a good job of protecting me but not of protecting others. I figure that if others are worried then they would do the same thing as me.

But unless the shop is crowded, I won't bother with a mask at all. In the last 2 weeks I think the only place I have worn one is on a busy train.

I'm very similar wrt shops although I am definitely still 100% masking when on public transport (which is why I put in that sentence to emphasise that this poll was strictly related to shops).

I've also had the same thoughts as you re exhaust valves. In the very early days when it was all about protecting each other I was always pretty annoyed to see people with exhaust-valve masks(*) but now I take the attitude that if I were to have a really good and comfortable FFP3 mask that relied on an exhaust valve to make it easier to breath then I would wear it. As it happens I don't have such a mask and the days of buying all sorts of different high-end masks in a quest to find "the one" is over at least for now.

Then again, maybe that last sentence above is the wrong attitude. There has been so much talk about "when not if" re the next pandemic that maybe now might be exactly the right time, when things are calmer and no one is gouge-pricing masks anymore (or at least not so much), to embark on another find-the-perfect-mask mission so that I have a really comfortable and protective FFP3 mask (or ideally exceeding FFP3 minimum specs) identified, purchased and ready to use.

- Julian

(*) I remember being annoyed when in the very early days when masks has started to be seen as important Rishi Sunak fell into that trap and was photographed wearing a mask with an exhaust valve - https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... k-18612157

[Itsallaguess]

I voted 'No'

I'm double-jabbed, and I've had Covid already as well, which was a relatively mild issue for me, and I consider the broader risk to me and others now to be low, given where we collectively are. I do maintain polite distances though, so it's not as though people are dancing in the aisles nowadays - even without masks I see a maintained sense of 'lets keep a bit of distance wherever possible', which can only be a good think, I think....

What I did want to also say though, is just what a difference it makes to be able to smile at people and see to be being smiled at whilst shopping, and whilst I fully understood the need for masks during the mandated periods (and I would of course wear them again if that were to re-occur), it's only really now that I'm enjoying seeing people's faces again that I'm appreciating just how dehumanising the long-term mask-requirements were from a mental health point of view.

Removing masks is a big step back towards normality for me, and that's a place that I'm very keen to get back to...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[pje16]

I don't and never did need a mandate
I have enough common sense

woud you like surgeon doing open heart surgery on you with no mask... just wondering

[Dod101]

I don't and never did need a mandate
I have enough common sense

woud you like surgeon doing open heart surgery on you with no mask... just wondering

The risks are not comparable so why would you raise that?

Dod

[Itsallaguess]

I don't and never did need a mandate

I have enough common sense

would you like surgeon doing open heart surgery on you with no mask... just wondering

The risks are not comparable so why would you raise that?

I thought the final question was such a clear indicator of the inaccuracy of the second statement that I didn't even think it warranted a reply to be honest...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[pje16]

I don't and never did need a mandate
I have enough common sense

woud you like surgeon doing open heart surgery on you with no mask... just wondering

The risks are not comparable so why would you raise that?

Dod

to demonstrate that breathing close to someone can spread germs - not rocket science

[Julian]

I don't and never did need a mandate
I have enough common sense

woud you like surgeon doing open heart surgery on you with no mask... just wondering

The risks are not comparable so why would you raise that?

Dod

to demonstrate that breathing close to someone can spread germs - not rocket science

A couple of points occur to me re the surgeon comment

- Are the surgical precautions more to do with avoiding viral or bacteriological infection? I genuinely don't know but as a lay person when I think of complications after surgery it is bacteriological infections that most immediately spring to mind e.g. the dreaded MRSA, as opposed to viral infection and in the context of the current pandemic we are talking about a viral infection.

- Even if we are talking about operating theatre acquired viral infection the patient is in a peculiar state in at least one way, they are cut open so any viral particles get to bypass the immune system's initial layer of defence, the external barriers such as skin that are actually fairly hard to breach and when they are breached certain elements of the immune system mount quite rapid and aggressive responses to try and wipe out a pathogen while it is still quite localised e.g. neutrophils and macrophages. Additionally, assuming that the patient is under a general rather than a local anaesthetic, I wonder whether there is any level of metabolic suppression there that might dull their immune response for the time they are in theatre. I don't know the answer to that one but it seems at least plausible to me and again this would not be the case for someone going out to do a supermarket shop (assuming they are not immunocompromised in which case I assume such people are exhibiting extreme caution to at least wear a mask or not be going out at all).

On the "breathing close to someone can spread germs" how does such a blanket statement translate to our daily lives? Are you saying that now people have finally realised this fact that we should never breathe close to anyone ever again without a mask for fear of spreading germs? Surely one also needs to factor in the likely danger from those germs and there is maybe where the crux of the disagreement arises in terms of assessment of personal risk from the currently circulating strains of SARS-CoV2 relative to an individual's SARS-CoV2 immunity gained from some combination of vaccines and/or natural infection.

Personally my take on this is that Omicron now seems to be so infectious and the prevalence in the UK so high that, for the way I live my life, I am almost certain to come into contact with it if I haven't already. I am triple vaccinated and a healthy 62 year old so I think my chances of dying from it are now very low. If I didn't believe that and felt the need to massively reduce my risk of infection then simply wearing a mask in shops (and public transport) would not in my view be sufficient right now, I would need to essentially go back into personal lockdown and not go to pubs, restaurants, other people's houses or invite people to mine. I am not willing to take those extra steps, not because I am thick(*) but because I do not believe that the danger of the virus is now sufficient to warrant such extreme measures and that due to the transmissibility and current pervasiveness of the virus nothing short of such extreme avoidance tactics would be sufficient to avoid my becoming infected. And as a final point, if I do (inevitably in my view) become infected I'd rather it happens now in case B-Cell and T-cell responses wane further in the coming months. (From all the data I have seen humoral antibody levels from my booster shot have already contracted to the point where my vaccinations give me effectively no extra protection against basic infection vs the unvaccinated, a fact that further strengthens my belief that short of going back into a draconian personal lockdown I am going to get infected anyway.)

- Julian

(*) Admittedly that's a purely personal opinion.

[servodude]

I don't and never did need a mandate
I have enough common sense

woud you like surgeon doing open heart surgery on you with no mask... just wondering

The risks are not comparable so why would you raise that?

Dod

to demonstrate that breathing close to someone can spread germs - not rocket science

A couple of points occur to me re the surgeon comment

- Are the surgical precautions more to do with avoiding viral or bacteriological infection? I genuinely don't know but as a lay person when I think of complications after surgery it is bacteriological infections that most immediately spring to mind e.g. the dreaded MRSA, as opposed to viral infection and in the context of the current pandemic we are talking about a viral infection.

- Even if we are talking about operating theatre acquired viral infection the patient is in a peculiar state in at least one way, they are cut open so any viral particles get to bypass the immune system's initial layer of defence, the external barriers such as skin that are actually fairly hard to breach and when they are breached certain elements of the immune system mount quite rapid and aggressive responses to try and wipe out a pathogen while it is still quite localised e.g. neutrophils and macrophages. Additionally, assuming that the patient is under a general rather than a local anaesthetic, I wonder whether there is any level of metabolic suppression there that might dull their immune response for the time they are in theatre. I don't know the answer to that one but it seems at least plausible to me and again this would not be the case for someone going out to do a supermarket shop (assuming they are not immunocompromised in which case I assume such people are exhibiting extreme caution to at least wear a mask or not be going out at all).

On the "breathing close to someone can spread germs" how does such a blanket statement translate to our daily lives? Are you saying that now people have finally realised this fact that we should never breathe close to anyone ever again without a mask for fear of spreading germs? Surely one also needs to factor in the likely danger from those germs and there is maybe where the crux of the disagreement arises in terms of assessment of personal risk from the currently circulating strains of SARS-CoV2 relative to an individual's SARS-CoV2 immunity gained from some combination of vaccines and/or natural infection.

Personally my take on this is that Omicron now seems to be so infectious and the prevalence in the UK so high that, for the way I live my life, I am almost certain to come into contact with it if I haven't already. I am triple vaccinated and a healthy 62 year old so I think my chances of dying from it are now very low. If I didn't believe that and felt the need to massively reduce my risk of infection then simply wearing a mask in shops (and public transport) would not in my view be sufficient right now, I would need to essentially go back into personal lockdown and not go to pubs, restaurants, other people's houses or invite people to mine. I am not willing to take those extra steps, not because I am thick(*) but because I do not believe that the danger of the virus is now sufficient to warrant such extreme measures and that due to the transmissibility and current pervasiveness of the virus nothing short of such extreme avoidance tactics would be sufficient to avoid my becoming infected. And as a final point, if I do (inevitably in my view) become infected I'd rather it happens now in case B-Cell and T-cell responses wane further in the coming months. (From all the data I have seen humoral antibody levels from my booster shot have already contracted to the point where my vaccinations give me effectively no extra protection against basic infection vs the unvaccinated, a fact that further strengthens my belief that short of going back into a draconian personal lockdown I am going to get infected anyway.)

- Julian

(*) Admittedly that's a purely personal opinion.

All good points Julian

The surgeon analogy really only holds up (at the moment) as a "proof" that there's a known use case where masks work
and it's not for the surgeon's benefit; it's to control the environment where the patient is acutely at risk
The surgeon talks to the patient in recovery without wearing a mask - as the acute risk has passed

The closest correlation with their use for COVID would really be the case where everyone (or as close as damn it) were wearing masks to protect the most vulnerable among them. Good vaccination coverage and the present strains being what they are means the acute risk that was present in normal everyday stuff isn't there anymore.

That said if it makes people feel better to wear masks then that's all good and they should take whatever steps that make them feel better
against something that's more infectious than measles though It does feel a bit more performative rather than practical

- sd

[88V8]

I am specifically asking about shops

Waitrose today, we did, but were in a minority. Even many of the staff have stopped, which I can understand, I wouldn't want to wear one all day.

However, as we haven't caught IT yet and don't want to, and it's no great imposition to wear our Airpops, that's what we are doing.

Heard someone on t'wireless comment that our vaccinations now give very little protection against catching IT, although they should still prevent us from becoming dead.

V8

[absolutezero]

Heard someone on t'wireless comment that our vaccinations now give very little protection against catching IT, although they should still prevent us from becoming dead.

And IT is now much less unpleasant an illness if you do catch it - vaccinated or not - mainly due to several mutations.
I won't bother you with the evolutionary biology lesson but what's happening is normal.

[scotia]

Noticeably fewer mask wearers at the shops today. Most wearers were elderly.

[Hallucigenia]

And IT is now much less unpleasant an illness if you do catch it - vaccinated or not - mainly due to several mutations.
I won't bother you with the evolutionary biology lesson but what's happening is normal.

Speaking as someone with a degree in genetics and others in related fields, I'd suggest you're the one that needs to go back to school.

You can only really say that with confidence if a disease kills people quickly before it's finished its transmission phase - but that's not generally true of Covid-19, most transmission happens before people even have symptoms. There's plenty of other "slow" infectious diseases that have got more severe with time - polio, Ebola, even the 1918 flu got more severe before it got milder. There is no guarantee of evolution towards "mildness" - see eg this Nature feature :
“There’s this assumption that something more transmissible becomes less virulent. I don’t think that’s the position we should take,” says [disease modeller] Balloux. Variants including Alpha, Beta and Delta have been linked to heightened rates of hospitalization and death — potentially because they grow to such high levels in people’s airways. The assertion that viruses evolve to become milder “is a bit of a myth”, says [evolutionary biologist] Rambaut. “The reality is far more complex.”
Or see this review which argues that so far SARS2 has become more severe, not milder, through time.

The intrinsic severity of omicron may be as severe as previous variants, according to eg the latest preprint from Harvard. The apparent "mildness" of omicron has far more to do with it spreading in a population that's mostly vaccinated and has had many of the most vulnerable killed off already.

Going back on topic, as someone who has a) worked on the mechanisms of infectious disease and b) has had some direct experience of long Covid - too right I'm fully-vaxxed and wearing an N95 mask in shops at the moment, given that

• about 1 in 25 people have Covid-19 in the UK at the moment and 96.5% of those are omicron BA.2 and sublineages
• And the BA.2 wave has been bad - at its peak a month ago there were more people in hospital than in lockdown2, albeit with about 60% of the deaths. But you still get all sorts of knock-on effects on other parts of the health system.
• As above, the intrinsic severity of omicron appears to be similar to that of previous variants
• Successive variants have been evolving towards more immune escape, and omicron has lots of immune-escaping features
• We don't know exactly how well vaccines will hold up, but the evidence suggests that some aspects of immunity fade on a timescale of months - the latest surveillance report suggests that even a booster only gives protection against symptoms for 4-5 months, but after 15 weeks it cuts a 18-64yo's chance of hospitalisation for respiratory illness by a third. But the protection against dying still seems to hold up in the 90's% for a couple of months at least.
• So the vaccinated may not have to worry too much about dying from Covid, but you've still got a decent chance of ending up in hospital with it, and that's before we get onto long Covid which should be the main focus now - it gets a bit messy as there's still no settled definition of long Covid, it's often quoted that 10-30% of Covid infections will lead to long Covid but eg this review found 54% (31%-67%) of Covid survivors had at least on symptom at 6 or more months.
• The effect of vaccination on long Covid is complicated but a UKHSA review reckons it maybe halves the risk - but you're still looking at a 10% chance or so of Covid "going long".
• Which means there's already a lot of people with long Covid which means a big long-term burden on healthcare - according to the ONS, "Long COVID symptoms adversely affected the day-to-day activities of 1.1 million people (67% of those with self-reported long COVID), with 322,000 (19%) reporting that their ability to undertake their day-to-day activities had been "limited a lot"."
• This study found that of the people who had been working before Covid put them in hospital, 17.8% were no longer working, and 19.3% "experienced a health-related change in their occupational status" ~6 months after leaving hospital.
• I can only speak for myself, I've got relatively mild long Covid and having been infected with the original variant 2 years ago mine is most obviously about loss of smell rather than brain fog etc. But just a lack of smell has had effects on my professional life and outside work - some of it is just stupid stuff like not being able to smell gas means I almost blew myself up in the kitchen once. And I still have some problems with concentration, tiredness and a shorter temper, but not too bad.
• But to be more specific, we know from the Biobank study that Covid can have lasting effects on the brain, reducing brain size, reducing grey matter, permanently damaging smell processing and also the bits of the brain involved in memory formation and personality.
• 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.
• I'll say again - after 15 weeks, vaccination only cuts your odds of it putting you in hospital by a third.

So yeah, given the current risks, wearing a mask in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation is a small inconvenience for me. I do vary a bit depending on the general prevalence, I have occasionally gone mask off for drinking in well-ventilated big spaces in the lulls between waves but generally if I'm drinking/eating around strangers, I'm happy to do so outside. There's no one magic bullet that stops this thing, it's just a question of layering several layers of partial protection, whichever are most appropriate at the time, to improve your odds - and just because you find it a bit boring, doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do. The virus does not get bored. And if you don't like masks, go for ventilation and filtration instead - it works.

[Lootman]

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.

That was only for those who had severe cases of Covid though, right?

After all it has been estimated that 70% of the population might have had Covid by now, and only a very small percentage of those have had severe cases and/or have lost cognitive function.

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

[Hallucigenia]

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.

That was only for those who had severe cases of Covid though, right?

"Severe" in the sense only of "needing to go to hospital" - the eligibility was "All patients admitted to Addenbrookes Hospital with COVID-19 between 10th March 2020 and 31st July 2020, who survived and consented to take part " - obviously there's a possibility that teaching hospitals end up with disproportionate numbers of the worst cases. Only about a third were on ventilation which is higher than the national average but still, most of them didn't need ventilation. And the requirement to survive 6 months reduced the numbers of men and older people a little bit...

After all it has been estimated that 70% of the population might have had Covid by now, and only a very small percentage of those have had severe cases and/or have lost cognitive function.

I imagine there's a lot of underreporting of people like me who haven't been crippled by it and are just muddling on - and in my case it happened before testing was widely available so I can't get through a lot of the gatekeeping which asks "have you had a positive test?" so I don't tick the right box. But even so, the fact that nearly 2 million people are currently on record as having long-term effects is a pretty significant cost for both the health system and the wider economy.

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

We're investors, balancing risk and "reward" (or in this case negative consequences) is what we do, and it will be different for everybody, as will the entry "cost", both financial and comfort etc. I can afford N95 masks and am comfortable wearing them in most circumstances, whereas if I was a burger flipper on min wage I would struggle to afford them, and if one was caring for a deaf person dependent on lip-reading then obviously there's a huge cost in communication, and one would probably not want a mask but depend more on ventilation/filtration.

So...it depends - but I do think that there's been a general effort to downplay the negative consequences of Covid infection, and that in turn affects people's assessment of the risk/reward, like it's some cryptocurrency or dotcom that can only go UP, UP, UP BABY!!!!!!!

[88V8]

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

[Lootman]

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.

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.

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?

[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.

Really? That's the complete opposite to me. I am No for all three.