Coronavirus **support** thread
1 lurker |
161 watchers
Jul 2020
8:49pm, 1 Jul 2020
2,840 posts
|
um
I assume so, since they mentioned schools staying open for key workers.
|
Jul 2020
10:57pm, 1 Jul 2020
508 posts
|
JR
fetch - Aren't we told though that a mask is not to protect us as it doesn't stop the virus coming through only for protecting others by stopping virus getting out? Surely that must mean some virus could get through and then trap it on our face? Which has been my point all along. If it doesn't protect you logic would say it therefore has to mean the virus can get through - otherwise wearing a face coverig/mask would protect you!
|
Jul 2020
11:05pm, 1 Jul 2020
12,016 posts
|
Markymarkmark
JR, I think the point is that if a mask isn't specifically designed to protect you, there's no significant evidence that it does. Cloth masks and disposables catch most of what people cough or sneeze out. There's no real suggestion from the medical or scientific side of things that they will stop anything getting in if you're unlucky enough to be so close to someone breathing it through your mask from the other side! |
Jul 2020
11:46pm, 1 Jul 2020
8,728 posts
|
simbil
As I understand it, cloth masks don’t stop the tiny particles getting in or out. They do stop some of the airborne droplets from getting out though which will reduce but not eliminate how much viral load is spread around. So an infected person in a mask will likely infect fewer people than they would without a mask. This is something that has an effect on a population wide scale. None of it is very meaningful if looking at it from a purely personal viewpoint. |
Jul 2020
12:01am, 2 Jul 2020
4,226 posts
|
run free
Feel so sad for the indigenous communities in Brazil who are being allowed to die from Covid19 The charts on the FT provide a good summary of what is happening: ft.com |
Jul 2020
12:04am, 2 Jul 2020
18,274 posts
|
Serendippily
And viral load appears to be important. If a mask makes the transmission volume equivalent to a whisper not a shout it may also make anyone you infect a mild case not something more severe. But all this is immaterial if you are not in close contact for any significant period
|
Jul 2020
12:22am, 2 Jul 2020
12,474 posts
|
Badger
Masks are not very different in opposite directions, unless you are using a vented mask with a one way valve (not appropriate for COVID, either way). If the wearer is ill, they help by filtering droplets, and decelerating them, so that anything exhaled during breathing, speaking & especially coughing & sneezing, is reduced in quantity & slowed down so it does not travel anywhere near as far, reducing the dose to those around you. Higher quality masks will do that more efficiently, and that will work both ways. If the wearer is coughed on by someone, they won't be any worse off than if they weren't wearing a mask, and might be better off. If enough people are wearing masks, it'll cut the spread. Countries with a tradition of mask wearing when ill have very low numbers - Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea - and it's not the only difference from here, but it's a simple enough practice we can all do, unlike tracking & tracing, where we really do need a state-wide working system to make much difference. |
Jul 2020
12:30am, 2 Jul 2020
2,400 posts
|
Canute
As Badger implies, there is quite strong evidence that wearing masks reduces the level of transmission of the virus in the community. There good evidence that masks reduce droplet spread. They is a good summary of the evidence in non-technical language here: ucsf.edu My own view is that if masks reduce community transmission it is in the interests of all of us to wear a mask in circumstances where we are near enough to others that we might spray them with droplets (eg when talking loudly), especially for sustained periods – 15 minutes is the rule of thumb; during shorter exposures there is likely to be a lesser risk, but not zero. The risk is increased in enclosed spaces. Reducing community transmission is crucial for minimising damage to the economy and for our general well-being. In most circumstances the likely advantages to the well-being of the community outweigh the inconvenience. |
Jul 2020
7:29am, 2 Jul 2020
23,323 posts
|
Lizzie W
Mr W is getting on fine with teaching in a mask - 2ndry, so less reliance on seeing the mouth than with younger kids, and he has expressive eyes & gestures anyway. No students with known hearing issues, but several non-native speakers.
|
Jul 2020
8:11am, 2 Jul 2020
16,840 posts
|
Bazoaxe
I know that the need for a mask is still scientifically unproven (*). However in my simple mind the mask must reduce the flow and thus reduce the risk of the virus spreading. I presume though its not possible to completely eliminate that risk but the medical visors might go some way towards that. I do struggle with the 15 minute thing though. Surely if I spend 10 minutes close to someone I have a decent chance of being infected. Still a chance even if I spend only minute, albeit its a lower likelihood. (*) I read somewhere that the benefits of a parachute are also scientifically unproven as they have for obvious reasons not been able to run tests where people jump out a plan without a parachute to see what happens and prove its the parachute that helps the jumper land safely !!! |
Related Threads
-
Coronavirus discussion thread
Jan 2025
-
Long Covid
Apr 2022
-
Children off school, check in here for support.
Mar 2021
-
Working From Home
Jan 2021
-
How to occupy yourself during lockdown
Jun 2020
-
What are you missing at the moment?
Jun 2020
-
Coronavirus. Antibody testing. Priority post box.
May 2020
-
Hey Fetchies how are you?
May 2020
-
Silver Lining!
Apr 2020
-
Coronavirus Regulations UK: What is permitted and prohibited
Apr 2020