NWR new zero tolerance covid thread

Do we yet have any useful data on what degree of protection masks give to the wearer? (How much would it flatten the curve if there were 90% adoption?) Or is your suggestion mostly aimed at the unwittingly infected?

My uncle (80) died a couple of days ago from Covid, despite being double jabbed and a mask-wearer (bleeding in the kidney area appears to be the precise mechanism of this throughly versatile disease). Mind you, it could be said that he'd lost the will to live following the death of his wife a few months back. [I don't say this to undermine your advice, though!]
 
Do we yet have any useful data on what degree of protection masks give to the wearer? (How much would it flatten the curve if there were 90% adoption?) Or is your suggestion mostly aimed at the unwittingly infected?

My uncle (80) died a couple of days ago from Covid, despite being double jabbed and a mask-wearer (bleeding in the kidney area appears to be the precise mechanism of this throughly versatile disease). Mind you, it could be said that he'd lost the will to live following the death of his wife a few months back. [I don't say this to undermine your advice, though!]
How grim, Alex, I'm sorry to hear that.
 
I've had a text this morning to say I've been in contact with someone who has the virus. So I've booked a walk-in test for this lunchtime.

As it happens, I have a stinking cold and a cough. It doesn't feel like anything serious and I don't have a temperature. Here's hoping.
 
Do we yet have any useful data on what degree of protection masks give to the wearer? (How much would it flatten the curve if there were 90% adoption?) Or is your suggestion mostly aimed at the unwittingly infected?

My uncle (80) died a couple of days ago from Covid, despite being double jabbed and a mask-wearer (bleeding in the kidney area appears to be the precise mechanism of this throughly versatile disease). Mind you, it could be said that he'd lost the will to live following the death of his wife a few months back. [I don't say this to undermine your advice, though!]
Oh sorry to hear that Alex - grim news indeed.

To your point - I think there is really no ambiguity around the point that masks make you far less likely to transmit the disease. My understanding is that we can be quite certain that most people catching covid now are primarily doing so from unmasked people who are close to them indoors. Ask to how protective masks are to the wearer - I haven't seen a conclusive study, but neither have I been looking for one.

If one were to think about this purely selfishly, the main reason to wear masks is to encourage other people to wear masks. Social proof is one of the strongest motivators of human behaviour. Certainly, my anecdata show that after I enter a train carriage wearing a mask, *some* people choose to put masks on, and none choose to take them off.
 
Oh sorry to hear that Alex - grim news indeed.

To your point - I think there is really no ambiguity around the point that masks make you far less likely to transmit the disease. My understanding is that we can be quite certain that most people catching covid now are primarily doing so from unmasked people who are close to them indoors. Ask to how protective masks are to the wearer - I haven't seen a conclusive study, but neither have I been looking for one.

If one were to think about this purely selfishly, the main reason to wear masks is to encourage other people to wear masks. Social proof is one of the strongest motivators of human behaviour. Certainly, my anecdata show that after I enter a train carriage wearing a mask, *some* people choose to put masks on, and none choose to take them off.
I largely agree but I’m not so sure it’s that clear cut data wise. Mask observance in France is very high and mandated indoors yet their current hospitalisations are 50% higher (8k vs 12k) and their ICU occupancy is double ours (1k vs 2k). Surely if they were so effective France would see much smaller numbers than us? There does seem to be a randomness to data that is very difficult to quantify.
 
I largely agree but I’m not so sure it’s that clear cut data wise. Mask observance in France is very high and mandated indoors yet their current hospitalisations are 50% higher (8k vs 12k) and their ICU occupancy is double ours (1k vs 2k). Surely if they were so effective France would see much smaller numbers than us? There does seem to be a randomness to data that is very difficult to quantify.
This has been discussed up the thread although I'm not sure that any of the postulated explanations (eg. they stay in longer, or come in sooner, or many cases are not tested) for this were ever shown to be the case.
 
This has been discussed up the thread although I'm not sure that any of the postulated explanations (eg. they stay in longer, or come in sooner, or many cases are not tested) for this were ever shown to be the case.
Ah sorry I'm just skimming this thread now. But yes it does seem strange. I think Covid-19 just doesn't quite act in the way we hope and model it will. Annoyingly!
 
Further to my son's PCR test we have now received a second result for the same test from yesterday. The first was negative and the second positive. WTF? He has now had a second test and we wait for the dual results presumably.
 
Further to my son's PCR test we have now received a second result for the same test from yesterday. The first was negative and the second positive. WTF? He has now had a second test and we wait for the dual results presumably.
It sounds like the first test did not pass quality control hence they ran it again. If your son had 3 postive results from antigen test and one uncertain result from PCR test, it's rather unlikely your son hasn't got it.
No test is perfect (less perfect is how samples are taken and handled), even we say PCR test is the gold standard, it just means that it's the best available and hence we use it as standard.

In early 2020, WHO suggested two negative PCR test can clear the patient. This guideline was not followed in most of Western countries after the number turned too high, for practical reason, but you get an idea.
 
On masks I just read this lancet study

And a Nature study supported by the Zoe app.


I took heart at 62% reduced risk even with various adjustments for social distance and risk areas.

There’s also a Bangladeshi study but can’t find the link atm. The reduced risk for N95etc masks over cloth were big, but reduced risk all around.

I think mask wearing is really a numbers game. If we all wear them in crowded areas numbers will reduce over all. It maybe that you’re unlucky anyway.
 
Further to my son's PCR test we have now received a second result for the same test from yesterday. The first was negative and the second positive. WTF? He has now had a second test and we wait for the dual results presumably.
Sounds par for the course. I've heard of people getting results evn though they'd not sent their sample in, so it only seems fair to get two results if you do!
 
And a Nature study supported by the Zoe app.


I took heart at 62% reduced risk even with various adjustments for social distance and risk areas.
That's really interesting!
 
That's really interesting!
Interested in the social distance v mask wearing. Adjusted reduced risk of COVID is 31% v 62%. Masks are twice as good as social distance. Seems odd.
The advice has been to wear masks if you can’t socially distance, maybe it should be the other way around.

I’m sure someone with a science based background will let me know if I’m wrong. Please!
 
It sounds like the first test did not pass quality control hence they ran it again. If your son had 3 postive results from antigen test and one uncertain result from PCR test, it's rather unlikely your son hasn't got it.
No test is perfect (less perfect is how samples are taken and handled), even we say PCR test is the gold standard, it just means that it's the best available and hence we use it as standard.

In early 2020, WHO suggested two negative PCR test can clear the patient. This guideline was not followed in most of Western countries after the number turned too high, for practical reason, but you get an idea.
Thanks Po!
 
On masks I just read this lancet study

And a Nature study supported by the Zoe app.


I took heart at 62% reduced risk even with various adjustments for social distance and risk areas.

There’s also a Bangladeshi study but can’t find the link atm. The reduced risk for N95etc masks over cloth were big, but reduced risk all around.

I think mask wearing is really a numbers game. If we all wear them in crowded areas numbers will reduce over all. It maybe that you’re unlucky anyway.
"In conclusion, within a large population-based sample of individuals in the US, we demonstrated a significantly reduced risk of predicted COVID-19 infection among individuals living in communities with a greater social-distancing grade at 14 days either in regions or time periods experiencing either epidemic slowing or growth. Among participants who lived in a community with poor social distancing, wearing a face mask was associated with reduced risk. These findings provide additional support for the efficacy of nonpharmaceutical interventions in reducing COVID-19 incidence and spread...".

So mask wearing confers reduced risk of Covid infection and transmission for and by the wearer.
 
Last edited:
It may be likely that those more disposed to wear a face mask are inherently less disposed to take other risks, and so socially distance more than is typical in their communities.
So we should all act like them, wear a mask and socially distance.
At least that’s my take out.
I think the researchers factored in the additional social distance but I got lost in the stats, I admit.
Extract from the report
“Furthermore, among individuals living in communities with poor social distancing, individuals who reported wearing face masks ‘always’ outside of the home had a 62% reduced risk of predicted COVID-19 compared to individuals who wore face masks none of the time.”

I think that as masks are at least as much about protecting others as ourselves, there’s always a herd behaviour thing. People see a mask and stay away a little. Also next time they think about wearing one themselves.
 
Interested in the social distance v mask wearing. Adjusted reduced risk of COVID is 31% v 62%. Masks are twice as good as social distance. Seems odd.
The advice has been to wear masks if you can’t socially distance, maybe it should be the other way around.
You are right. From my understanding it should have been the other way round. Social distancing doesn't work if the room you are in is full of virus-containing aerosols, and I don't think we knew that initially. Also I think we overestimated the importance of hand cleanliness initially, so there were concerns about touching masks. Then there was the PPE shortage, which was another reason for the reluctance to advise mask-wearing. But with the knowledge we have know, I think mask-wearing should be at least strongly recommended, if not mandatory in many situations.
Do we yet have any useful data on what degree of protection masks give to the wearer?
I don't have the figures to hand, but they can give significant protect. The extent to which it protects depends entrirely on the quality of the mask - the material and the closeness of fit around the edges.

I have seen data concerning the percentage of particles that gets through/around the different styles of mask. Also there was a study showing that hospital staff in non-Covid wards (who wore surgical masks) had a much higher rate of Covid-infection than those on Covid wards (who wore high-grade masks, FFP2 and FFP3 I believe). I can think of a number of reasons why that result might not be mask-related, but the study was taken to demonstrate the effectiveness of masks, so maybe other factors were controlled for in the analysis? As I understand it, surgical masks are intended to protect others, while FFP2 and FFP3 masks are intended to protect the wearer.
 
Top