Free UK Face Mask Exemption Cards Download Yours Now

a reply to: Fisherr

In both cases the surrounding areas are protected.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

For starters they’re detrimental to health and exacerbate mild symptoms from Covid.

Source

“Face masks make breathing more difficult. For people with COPD, face masks are in fact intolerable to wear as they worsen their breathlessness.[5] Moreover, a fraction of carbon dioxide previously exhaled is inhaled at each respiratory cycle. Those two phenomena increase breathing frequency and deepness, and hence they increase the amount of inhaled and exhaled air. This may worsen the burden of covid-19 if infected people wearing masks spread more contaminated air. This may also worsen the clinical condition of infected people if the enhanced breathing pushes the viral load down into their lungs.”

“While impeding person-to-person transmission is key to limiting the outbreak, so far little importance has been given to the events taking place after a transmission has happened, when innate immunity plays a crucial role. The main purpose of the innate immune response is to immediately prevent the spread and movement of foreign pathogens throughout the body.[6] The innate immunity’s efficacy is highly dependent on the viral load. If face masks determine a humid habitat where the SARS-CoV-2 can remain active due to the water vapour continuously provided by breathing and captured by the mask fabric, they determine an increase in viral load and therefore they can cause a defeat of the innate immunity and an increase in infections. This phenomenon may also interact with and enhance previous points.“

The masks likely aggravate virus symptoms, improve breeding habitat, reduce immune response and increase viral load and contamination. I shouldn’t be made to wear a mask if it is at detriment to my health.

Unless of course you disagree with the oldest running medical journal in the world.

Thoughts?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
But asking people to stop killing people and burning down property and homes is a violation of peoples rights.

Other side of the coin and all that.

Asking people to do it for the good of all while leaders are letting people destroy lives. Seems a bit hypocritical doesn't it?

a reply to: Grenade

One Doctor's opinion published in BMJ.
It's not an Editorial or the official opinion of the 'oldest running medical journal in the world'.

As with most things relating to this pandemic there are 'experts' expressing all sorts of contradictory opinions.

Some 'experts' back their opinions up with statisitcs, case studies, scientifically gathered data and analysis etc......the 'expert' you quoted didn't.

Now that doesn't automatically invalidate what he has said but I'd recommend weighing up his opinion against those of 'experts' who do supply such information.

a reply to: Freeborn

The points raised seem logical and reasonable enough to me.

Please if you have evidence which invalidates these concerns I’d love to see it.

a reply to: Grenade

Apologies. the 'expert' does supply some references at least.

But this IS from an Editorial in BMJ;

Much remains unknown about the usefulness of population level mask wearing in the context of the covid-19 pandemic. Use of masks in healthcare settings is clearly essential to protect frontline workers, whereas the evidence supporting masks in non-clinical settings is both limited and of variable quality. Nonetheless, unlike stringent isolation and social distancing measures, which have substantial societal and economic costs, mass manufacture and use of cloth masks is cheap and easy, and may even facilitate economic activity.

Greenhalgh and colleagues argue that, given the gravity of the pandemic, indirect evidence of benefit combined with the low risk of harm should outweigh the absence of direct evidence supporting mask wearing by the general public.2 We agree. As we prepare to enter a “new normal,” wearing a mask in public may become the face of our unified action in the fight against this common threat and reinforce the importance of social distancing measures.

So, to use your phrase;
'Unless of course you disagree with the oldest running medical journal in the world'.

www.bmj.com...

As I said, no definitive proof they do work.....but the possible benefits far outweigh the slight inconvenience and the ridiculous alleged invasion of civil liberties.

originally posted by: and14263

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: and14263

rules that go against science

Can you link to some evidence and proof that this is the case?

Can you link me to some specification from the UK government that states exactly which type of face covering to wear and why? Because at the moment I am complying with the rules if:

1) I wear a mask with an exhalation valve that lets out water vapour from my exhaled breath

and

2) I wear a mask with large gaps between fibres which achieves the same as point 1

All their illogical advice states is to cover your face.

Guess again Sherlock.

UK Government: Face Coverings

"In the context of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, a face covering is something which safely covers the nose and mouth. You can buy reusable or single-use face coverings. You may also use a scarf, bandana, religious garment or hand-made cloth covering but these must securely fit round the side of the face."

a reply to: Grenade

So you are suggesting that it's a good idea for those with a disease who's symptoms include uncontrollable coughing and spraying mucus while doing so, to be allowed mingle in public without something covering their face.

Their condition is so serious that its "impossible" to wear a face covering they should be staying indoors, they are very much in the at-risk population.

So how about this then ? If its impossible for you to wear a fabric mask due to condition such as COPD that prevents you from doing so. Wear a plastic face shield instead so at least the phlegm doesn't hit anyone in the face during a coughing seizure.

a reply to: TheResidentAlien

No I’m showing you an article from a reputable source which suggests face masks may do more harm than good.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

For starters they’re detrimental to health and exacerbate mild symptoms from Covid.

Source

“Face masks make breathing more difficult. For people with COPD, face masks are in fact intolerable to wear as they worsen their breathlessness.[5] Moreover, a fraction of carbon dioxide previously exhaled is inhaled at each respiratory cycle. Those two phenomena increase breathing frequency and deepness, and hence they increase the amount of inhaled and exhaled air. This may worsen the burden of covid-19 if infected people wearing masks spread more contaminated air. This may also worsen the clinical condition of infected people if the enhanced breathing pushes the viral load down into their lungs.”

“While impeding person-to-person transmission is key to limiting the outbreak, so far little importance has been given to the events taking place after a transmission has happened, when innate immunity plays a crucial role. The main purpose of the innate immune response is to immediately prevent the spread and movement of foreign pathogens throughout the body.[6] The innate immunity’s efficacy is highly dependent on the viral load. If face masks determine a humid habitat where the SARS-CoV-2 can remain active due to the water vapour continuously provided by breathing and captured by the mask fabric, they determine an increase in viral load and therefore they can cause a defeat of the innate immunity and an increase in infections. This phenomenon may also interact with and enhance previous points.“

The masks likely aggravate virus symptoms, improve breeding habitat, reduce immune response and increase viral load and contamination. I shouldn’t be made to wear a mask if it is at detriment to my health.

Unless of course you disagree with the oldest running medical journal in the world.

Thoughts?

The opinion in the response concludes with this.

. It is necessary to quantify the complex interactions that may well be operating between positive and negative effects of wearing surgical masks at population level. It is not time to act without evidence

Since its was published in April and we have a lot more evidence about the transmission of covid 19 since then that is exactly what has happened.

Edit: edited to clarify the link is a response to an article not an actual article or opinion of the publication.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: TheResidentAlien

No I’m showing you an article from a reputable source which suggests face masks may do more harm than good.

It's a response to an article. Not a article or opinion of the publication.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The reference publications are listed on the link I provided. Again other than your own conjecture I’ve yet to see this evidence refuting the claims made. All of them are pretty much common sense.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

The reference publications are listed on the link I provided. Again other than your own conjecture I’ve yet to see this evidence refuting the claims made. All of them are pretty much common sense.

It's a letter to the editor from back in April which you were trying to pitch as the opinion of the publication.

Our understanding of covid 19 transmission had moved on a bit since then.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So provide the evidence refuting the points raised. How have we moved forward in our understanding.

a reply to: Grenade

You're showing me an opinion piece from one publication that suggests that a SMALL number of already sick people could get sicker if they wear a mask.

And I'm suggesting that they contain their fluids, infected or otherwise from getting in the face of others by an alternative means if need be.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

So provide the evidence refuting the points raised. How have we moved forward in our understanding.

From BMJ, and I assume you don't want to disagree with the oldest running medical journal in the world

www.bmj.com...

a reply to: ScepticScot

As we discussed in an older thread can you remind me how the infection and death rates are looking in a country like Sweden who didn’t make face coverings mandatory?

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

As we discussed in an older thread can you remind me how the infection and death rates are looking in a country like Sweden who didn’t make face coverings mandatory?

Does your rapid switching of direction confirm that you now acknowledge that you used a letter to the editor from April as an argument against face masks?

Sweden isn't the topic but worth mentioning it has far higher death rate than any of its neighbours and has one of the highest death rates in the world.

It's infection rate has dropped over summer when we would expect it to. other countries comparative rates have increased as they have reduced restrictions.

As I said in previous threads swedens approach may turn out to be better in long run but evidence seems against it at moment.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Rather than batting my head against a wall trying to convince you to remove blinkers I tried a new approach.

My points still stand, the jury is still out on wether face masks are effective at controlling the spread of the virus.

What is perfectly clear is that they are detrimental to health and help cultivate the virus due to accumulation on the garments.

It’s common sense that re-breathing through a respiratory restrictive device is unhealthy, to what extent I’m not sure.

Either way I won’t be wearing one, nor will I be or my children be accepting the vaccine.

I hope that’s ok with you.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

Rather than batting my head against a wall trying to convince you to remove blinkers I tried a new approach.

My points still stand, the jury is still out on wether face masks are effective at controlling the spread of the virus.

What is perfectly clear is that they are detrimental to health and help cultivate the virus due to accumulation on the garments.

It’s common sense that re-breathing through a respiratory restrictive device is unhealthy, to what extent I’m not sure.

Either way I won’t be wearing one, nor will I be or my children be accepting the vaccine.

The jury is still out but the weight of evidence is now that they are effective at reducing transmission. I don't think your view of what is common sense trumps the actual evidence.

You don't have to wear a mask. Just don't use public transport , enter shops etc.

ETA _ describing others as having blinkers when you are the one referencing a letter from April as evidence seems slightly ironic.