FFP2 block out about 95% of aerosols , FFP3 99%, and so the latter is better, but the former is much better than the average crappy mask, especially if viral load and the like factor in. To my mind it only applies to environments where, say, the elderly potentially 'have to' go, like super markets and transport. There is an aspect of community spirit to doing your best by others in those environments.

If you're in the business of highlighting logic also get on with having the boostere, because it's a very similar argument. The latest studies combined with those prior demonstrate that getting the booster jab is bound to put you and your immunity in a much better position against new variants than not bothering.

This isn't an argument about getting vaccinated, as I get that the odd person just won't come what may. It's more that if you're going to go down the vaccination route it's best to do so in a way that is effective and rational. As those of various schools of thought have pointed out, many of us are bound to catch covid anyway (indeed many of us have), which in turn will provide additional immunity. It's all about putting yourself, others and the NHS in the best position possible should that happen.

Edited by BlueJay (08 Dec 2021 5.20pm)

That isn't what he stated. He said it reduces the risk of contracting C19. Which is wrong. The rest of your post is irrelevant. Like most of your posts. Loads of waffle about other stuff.

Certainly. By virtue of going to school it's all but impossible that kids will be able to be avoid the virus. I'm talking more for those who either due to old age, immune issues of whatever find themselves shying away from the busiest of venues, but finding themselves still having to do shopping or travel on public transport. I'm fine with doing my bit to limit their exposure. It may be a case of dodging bullets for them, but it's such a basic step of consideration to take that it isn't a hard decision for me, as I'm not bothered about the politics this way or that. Quality masks provably make a vast difference. Of course many don't wear them, but I can only really control my own input into others lives, not hide behind plausible deniability of negative outcomes if I don't bother.

It's surprising the distance a virus can travel, and it's not like people go shopping in a conga line, so I'm not sure that social distancing is the key step in these environment, as people tend to do it anyway. Nobody knows when they're going to be contagious and so in essential environments I'm in, in a fleeting way, it's a sensible step. Clearly in pubs, restaurant and the like people are opting into that space and so realistically no significant allowances can be made for those same vulernable people. It's up to them if they wish to enter them. They may be safe (much more likely if they're vaccinated) or they may not. In all likelihood, either way it won't take them long to find out!

I engage in a balanced approach that takes no time or effort, so I don't see a problem with it.

Oh contrare. Study…

[Link]

‘As high as the risk of infection is without mouth-nose protection, medical or FFP2 masks protect effectively. The Göttingen study confirms that FFP2 or KN95 masks are particularly effective in filtering infectious particles from the air breathed - especially if they are as tightly sealed as possible at the face. If both the infected and the non-infected person wear well-fitting FFP2 masks, the maximum risk of infection after 20 minutes is hardly more than one per thousand, even at the shortest distance. If their masks fit poorly, the probability of infection increases to about four percent. If both wear well-fitting medical masks, the virus is likely to be transmitted within 20 minutes with a maximum probability of ten percent. The study also confirms the intuitive assumption that for effective protection against infection, in particular the infected person should wear a mask that filters as well as possible and fits tightly to the face.’

Now unless they’re plancks, I’d rather trust their scientific approach and output than your inane ramblings.

And I clarified, in bold - it doesn’t stop you getting the virus. I said it decreased the chance of you getting a high viral load. Which is rather important.

Masks DO offer protection because the virus travels within particles. Moist. Aerosols. Droplets. It doesn’t just pop out of your lung independently and fly around like a drone weaving it’s way through mask fibres like Han Solo on acid.

The virus you inhale hitches a ride within delicious infected droplets. And guess what, the larger the droplets you inhale, the more virus. Bad. Guess what? the aforementioned masks block larger droplets and aerosols. This means the ones that do get through have less virus. Good. This also means you’re less likely to get a high viral load. Even better. Literally basic biology

That is why your point around masks not blocking the virus is entirely incorrect in the context you’ve stated, because the virus is hitching a ride within much larger particles which can be blocked by things other than biohazard suits. Larger than gases and odours.

Finally - real world data won’t reflect the study. Why? Because I’d wager at least 50% of people either aren’t wearing masks, or are wearing woefully s*** ones. Plus, I highly doubt they’re worn correctly in most cases, washed or changed regularly and so on. Each trip I make on public transport confirms this assumption.

Wear a mask when appropriate, the science backs it up, it blocks aerosols - especially the large meteorite f***ers with high viral concentrations. It won’t block them all and it certainly won’t block an actual, microscopic virus. But it will decrease the chance of you getting a high viral load, or transmitting it to someone else. Significantly.

It is clear who is the planck in this debate.

You specifically just said to me, to a perfectly sensible message to you "The rest of your post is irrelevant. Like most of your posts. Loads of waffle about other stuff." I'm not sure that following faux outrage at a reply in kind holds much weight. I'm not 'defending a poster' at all, I was offering a view. I'm not going to get baited into a pointless argument so that's the end of that .

Logically the better the mask the less likely someone would be to pass it on. So yes preferably FFP3 though FFP2 would certainly make some positive difference. Anyway, beyond basically two limited shared environments there's not really a need for endless discussion about masks anyway. It's a 'get on with it' that takes two seconds and no effort.

I would say that boosters are looking to be a far more significant factor at this time in how we cope over the next couple of months. Hopefully you'll book yourself in for it. That would be a rational step in your vaccination saga.

Edited by BlueJay (09 Dec 2021 12.32am)