Widespread mask-wearing could prevent COVID-19 second waves - study

[snoop1130]

Widespread mask-wearing could prevent COVID-19 second waves - study

By Kate Kelland

 

FILE PHOTO: A member of aircrew is seen wearing a protective face mask at Heathrow Airport, as Britain launches its 14-day quarantine for international arrivals, following the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), London, Britain, June 8, 2020. REUTERS/Toby Melville

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Population-wide face mask use could push COVID-19 transmission down to controllable levels for national epidemics, and could prevent further waves of the pandemic disease when combined with lockdowns, according to a British study on Wednesday.

 

The research, led by scientists at the Britain's Cambridge and Greenwich Universities, suggests lockdowns alone will not stop the resurgence of the new SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, but that even homemade masks can dramatically reduce transmission rates if enough people wear them in public.

 

"Our analyses support the immediate and universal adoption of face masks by the public," said Richard Stutt, who co-led the study at Cambridge.

 

He said combining widespread mask use with social distancing and some lockdown measures, could be "an acceptable way of managing the pandemic and re-opening economic activity" before the development of an effective vaccine against COVID-19, the respiratory illness caused by the coronavirus.

 

The study's findings were published in the "Proceedings of the Royal Society A" scientific journal.

 

At the onset of the pandemic, scientific evidence on the effectiveness of face masks in slowing transmission of respiratory diseases was limited, and there was no data on COVID-19 since it was a previously unknown disease.

 

But, prompted by some new research in recent weeks, the World Health Organization said on Friday it now recommends that everyone wear fabric face masks in public to try to reduce disease spread.

 

In this study, researchers linked the dynamics of spread between people with population-level models to assess the effect on the disease's reproduction rate, or R value, of different scenarios of mask adoption combined with periods of lockdown.

 

The R value measures the average number of people that one infected person will pass the disease on to. An R value above 1 can lead to exponential growth.

 

The study found that if people wear masks whenever they are in public it is twice as effective at reducing the R value than if masks are only worn after symptoms appear.

 

In all scenarios the study looked at, routine face mask use by 50% or more of the population reduced COVID-19 spread to an R of less than 1.0, flattening future disease waves and allowing for less stringent lockdowns.

 

Experts not directly involved in the latest British study were divided over its conclusions.

 

Brooks Pollock, a Bristol University infectious disease modelling expert, said the likely impact of masks could be much smaller than predicted. Trish Greenhalgh, an Oxford University professor, said the findings were encouraging and suggested masks "are likely to be an effective population measure".

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-06-10

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[bkk6060]

If everyone wore a good quality mask, made a semi attempt at distancing, and washed/used hand sanitzer, I bet it would slow things down quite a bit.  

The shame on some people and stubborn countries out there who still don't believe it. 

[Bender Rodriguez]

those masks are a courtesy, when people are sick, to not spread that much... thai people never cared until they were scared into this panic...

 

are we still playing this dis-information game ?

 

low vitamin D status found in sick & death from covid19(20)

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=low+vitamin+D+status+found+in+sick+%26+death+from+covid19

[Syduan]

I wonder how much Gates paid them for this report.

[utalkin2me]

Masks work. Who would have ever thunk it. 

[connda]

19 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The research, led by scientists at the Britain's Cambridge and Greenwich Universities, suggests lockdowns alone will not stop the resurgence of the new SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, but that even homemade masks can dramatically reduce transmission rates if enough people wear them in public.

From the same universities whose doom-and-gloom fear-promoting models were magnitudes off from reality?  Right.

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, connda said:

From the same universities whose doom-and-gloom fear-promoting models were magnitudes off from reality?  Right.

No you maybe referring to Imperial College

[mommysboy]

If it makes people feel better, then I guess there's no harm in it.

 

I certainly think N95 masks should be issued to the elderly and vulnerable.  But then again they shouldn't really be out and about much.

[Donga]

The amount of BS from authorities and experts from this pandemic is breathtaking. From Imperial College estimates of 510,000 UK deaths, the denial that heat, humidity and Vitamin D have a role in reducing the impact (UK have recently changed their protocol for elderly with Vitamin D) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200512134426.htm and the big one, face masks.

So blindingly obvious that two people wearing masks in conversation are safer than two not wearing masks. What's more, been statistically proven and by scientific transmission studies - earlier dismissed, but now being recognised.

How many lives, particularly in Europe? How many people worldwide have lost their jobs, many in countries hardly effected by CV-19 but decimated by tourism, through "experts" incompetence and sometimes driving their own agendas. WHO is culpable but so are many others in their patronising view that masks are not 100% safe and can create a false sense of security.

Mainstream media are largely quiet in examining  the impact of these huge calls, easier to roam around the world and report the worst of the current spikes. Such a tragedy and hope people learn.

[natway09]

Reported by me at least 12 weeks ago

two people 1 metre apart, one cotaminated person coughs,

with both wearing masks 89% chance of not catching, witout masks, 17% approx.

All the Trump like folks who insist they give no protection are just in denial

 & are dangeous

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

10 minutes ago, natway09 said:

 

All the Trump like folks who insist they give no protection are just in denial

 & are dangeous

 

 

They'll be marching on their local statehouses carrying their automatic weapons complaining that mask wearing and restrictions on large crowd gatherings infringe on their constitutional rights -- right up until they're carted off by ambulance to the local hospitals.

 

[phantomfiddler]

One thing about wearing a mask that no-one will dispute, it will highly increase the amount of looting while simultaneously decreasing the chances of being recognized and apprehended ????

[DB58]

4 hours ago, natway09 said:

Reported by me at least 12 weeks ago

two people 1 metre apart, one cotaminated person coughs,

with both wearing masks 89% chance of not catching, witout masks, 17% approx.

All the Trump like folks who insist they give no protection are just in denial

 & are dangeous

 

Source please? I would like to read that study and it’s peer review.

[utalkin2me]

If you are one of these who still refuse to wear a mask and insist you are correct, first of all, much of that "muck" at the beginning about "the virus is smaller than the mask filters" is complete rubbish. That may be true if the virus was floating alone in the air, which it never does. It will always be associated with droplets. 

 

Second, well, there is just no denying this: 

 

Wear a goddamn mask. 

 

 

[dastakantattaka]

Then why do medical staff get infected nonetheless and in large numbers?

Edited July 8, 2020 by dastakantattaka

[dastakantattaka]

On 6/11/2020 at 6:55 AM, Donga said:

So blindingly obvious that two people wearing masks in conversation are safer than two not wearing masks.

If, and only if:

 

a) one of them is infected in the first place

b) the one infected is the one wearing a mask

[Opl]

10 minutes ago, dastakantattaka said:

If, and only if:

 

a) one of them is infected in the first place

b) the one infected is the one wearing a mask

but:

a) how do you know if someone wearing / not wearing a mask is/ isn't infected ?

b) how do you know you are spreading the virus if you don't know you are infected?

[Eric Loh]

If radical right Judge Jeanine folded like an accordion to finally admit to wearing mask to prevent being infected with COVID-19, deniers take heed or they may be the next victim or worse when their family catches the virus. Can’t understand why is a simple task of wearing a mask is so intensely objected by ever Trumper. Like sheep going down the cliff with him. 

https://trofire.com/2020/07/07/fox-news-viewers-freaked-out-because-judge-jeanine-wore-a-mask/

[dastakantattaka]

On 7/8/2020 at 6:12 AM, Opl said:

but:

a) how do you know if someone wearing / not wearing a mask is/ isn't infected ?

b) how do you know you are spreading the virus if you don't know you are infected?

 

1) I don't. But that's not my point. My point was "if, and only if"

2) I don't. But that's not my point either. However, one way is to look at one's symptoms. Even if one is infected, but exibits no symptoms and isn't coughing and sneezing to, spitting in others' faces -- a risk, if exists at all, should be minimal, even if that infected isn't wearing a mask.

Edited July 9, 2020 by dastakantattaka

[dastakantattaka]

On 7/8/2020 at 6:21 AM, Eric Loh said:

If radical right Judge Jeanine folded like an accordion to finally admit to wearing mask to prevent being infected with COVID-19, deniers take heed or they may be the next victim or worse when their family catches the virus. Can’t understand why is a simple task of wearing a mask is so intensely objected by ever Trumper. Like sheep going down the cliff with him. 

https://trofire.com/2020/07/07/fox-news-viewers-freaked-out-because-judge-jeanine-wore-a-mask/

Because wether or not you wear it, even if you wear it 24/7, you will catch the virus sooner or later.

 

 

Therefore, one should focus on his immune system rather than rely on a piece of cloth.

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by dastakantattaka

[johnpetersen]

6 minutes ago, dastakantattaka said:

Because wether or not you wear it, even if you wear it 24/7, you will catch the virus sooner or later.

 

 

Therefore, one should focus on his immune system rather than rely on a piece of cloth.

 

That's like saying you are going to be shot by a bullet sooner or later. If you're in a battlefield, yes. If not, not so much.

[candide]

3 hours ago, dastakantattaka said:

Because wether or not you wear it, even if you wear it 24/7, you will catch the virus sooner or later.

 

 

Therefore, one should focus on his immune system rather than rely on a piece of cloth.

 

One doesn't exclude the other. Wear masks until a better solution is available (i.e. vaccine). It makes perfect sense.

[bert bloggs]

3 hours ago, dastakantattaka said:

Because wether or not you wear it, even if you wear it 24/7, you will catch the virus sooner or later.

 

 

Therefore, one should focus on his immune system rather than rely on a piece of cloth.

 

So you reckon all 7 billion people in the world will eventually catch it? what planet are you on ,in all my years on this earth ive never caught flu, so why should i catch this?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, bert bloggs said:

So you reckon all 7 billion people in the world will eventually catch it? what planet are you on ,in all my years on this earth ive never caught flu, so why should i catch this?

Regardless of how many years you’ve been on earth, not having yet caught flu is absolutely no indication that you will not eventually catch it.

 

Oh, and Coronavirus is not the flu.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, dastakantattaka said:

Because wether or not you wear it, even if you wear it 24/7, you will catch the virus sooner or later.

 

 

Therefore, one should focus on his immune system rather than rely on a piece of cloth.

 

1. Wearing a mask reduces the probability of catching the virus.

The game play is to maintain a reduced probability until a vaccine is available and/or herd immunity* is such that the infection rates drop to the point were infection itself becomes a minor probability.

 

*Herd immunity for this disease has not yet been demonstrated.

 

2. I’m not at all sure what you are on about wrt ‘immune system’. How one becomes naturally immune to a disease that one has ever had is a mystery?

 

Maybe you are thinking about vaccination.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Chomper Higgot

[bert bloggs]

59 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Regardless of how many years you’ve been on earth, not having yet caught flu is absolutely no indication that you will not eventually catch it.

 

Oh, and Coronavirus is not the flu.

 

I know its not flu , but that is very infectious as well ,have all 7 billion people on the planet had it? no so why should all 7 billion ?catch Covid.