Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Hancock on masks in offices 11:25 - Jul 15 with 2240 viewssparks

Is there a shred of scientific basis to his assertions? They sound entirely pragmatic and economic to me- but he asserts otherwise...


The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it. (Sir Terry Pratchett)
Poll: Is Fred drunk this morning?

0
Hancock on masks in offices on 11:31 - Jul 15 with 1775 viewsDanTheMan

I swear before a few months ago I saw something that said the exact opposite, prolonged exposure increases the likelihood of spreading it.

I would have thought if anything we have it the wrong way around.

Poll: FM Parallel Game Week 1 (Fulham) - Available Team

0
Hancock on masks in offices on 11:34 - Jul 15 with 1756 viewsMullet

Hancock on masks in offices on 11:31 - Jul 15 by DanTheMan

I swear before a few months ago I saw something that said the exact opposite, prolonged exposure increases the likelihood of spreading it.

I would have thought if anything we have it the wrong way around.


There was a study I shared which argued just that, it's why I haven't been able to train essentially. Sweaty, close contact, lack of ventilation make it the worst possible environment according to the science to avoid transmission.

Hancock is a sock-puppet with the horse-racing lot and Cummings holding a timeshare over who gets to put their hand up his jacksie.

Poll: If Cook had the full season where would we have finished?
Blog: When the Fanzine Comes Around

0
Hancock on masks in offices on 11:35 - Jul 15 with 1752 viewshomer_123

Certainly WHO have changed their tune since the outbreak about the benefits of wearing masks.

Pretty sure there is also a number of 'newer' studies that have shown that wearing them reduces the 'spread' - lady on R4 this week from Edinburgh Uni explained the above and that many in the scientific community who didn't support the wearing of masks now do.

That said, it does feel like popping a condom on after the event.

Ade Akinbiyi couldn't hit a cows arse with a banjo...
Poll: As things stand, how confident are you we will get promoted this season?

1
Hancock on masks in offices on 11:42 - Jul 15 with 1703 viewssparks

Hancock on masks in offices on 11:31 - Jul 15 by DanTheMan

I swear before a few months ago I saw something that said the exact opposite, prolonged exposure increases the likelihood of spreading it.

I would have thought if anything we have it the wrong way around.


It is absolutely correct that prolonged exposure increased the likelihood.

His argument appears to be that, in an enclosed office environment, the difference made by masks is insignificant, so don't bother. Which begs the question- why is it worth it for fleeting contact in shops, when we are clearly far more exposed in the office in any event. Or, indeed, in schools...
[Post edited 15 Jul 2020 11:43]

The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it. (Sir Terry Pratchett)
Poll: Is Fred drunk this morning?

0
Hancock on masks in offices on 11:45 - Jul 15 with 1690 viewsjeera

Hancock on masks in offices on 11:42 - Jul 15 by sparks

It is absolutely correct that prolonged exposure increased the likelihood.

His argument appears to be that, in an enclosed office environment, the difference made by masks is insignificant, so don't bother. Which begs the question- why is it worth it for fleeting contact in shops, when we are clearly far more exposed in the office in any event. Or, indeed, in schools...
[Post edited 15 Jul 2020 11:43]


Is he accepting that office workers will spread it among themselves and thinks it should be contained in that group and not spread to others when they go out into the world?

Nice. A Covid cesspit office. What could be more appealing?

Poll: Xmas dinner: Yorkshires or not?

0
Hancock on masks in offices on 11:46 - Jul 15 with 1682 viewssparks

Hancock on masks in offices on 11:45 - Jul 15 by jeera

Is he accepting that office workers will spread it among themselves and thinks it should be contained in that group and not spread to others when they go out into the world?

Nice. A Covid cesspit office. What could be more appealing?


Go back to work you lazy gits. Get in those offices.

The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it. (Sir Terry Pratchett)
Poll: Is Fred drunk this morning?

0
Hancock on masks in offices on 11:49 - Jul 15 with 1666 viewsFixed_It

Hancock on masks in offices on 11:34 - Jul 15 by Mullet

There was a study I shared which argued just that, it's why I haven't been able to train essentially. Sweaty, close contact, lack of ventilation make it the worst possible environment according to the science to avoid transmission.

Hancock is a sock-puppet with the horse-racing lot and Cummings holding a timeshare over who gets to put their hand up his jacksie.


Interestingly, as guidance currently stands (until the wind changes direction or something), students returning to school in September will not be allowed to wear face masks, nor will their teachers.
Anyone would think the government are simply making it up as they go along...

Ready! Steady! Cook!
Poll: Club v. Country - which comes first for you?

0
Hancock on masks in offices on 11:49 - Jul 15 with 1661 viewsDanTheMan

Hancock on masks in offices on 11:42 - Jul 15 by sparks

It is absolutely correct that prolonged exposure increased the likelihood.

His argument appears to be that, in an enclosed office environment, the difference made by masks is insignificant, so don't bother. Which begs the question- why is it worth it for fleeting contact in shops, when we are clearly far more exposed in the office in any event. Or, indeed, in schools...
[Post edited 15 Jul 2020 11:43]


Maybe it's that the masks will do most good then, potentially stopping some infection spreading from being out and about but that in offices it's just gonna happen anyway so screw it.

Which... well it's an interesting way of doing this.

Poll: FM Parallel Game Week 1 (Fulham) - Available Team

0
Login to get fewer ads

Hancock on masks in offices on 11:52 - Jul 15 with 1638 viewsStokieBlue

Am really not keen on wearing a mask in the office for 9 continuous hours but if it helps then it will have to be done.

Although I suspect we are still a while from most offices getting back up to full swing.

SB

Avatar - IC484 - Horsehead and Flame Nebulae

2
Hancock on masks in offices on 11:54 - Jul 15 with 1635 viewsjeera

Hancock on masks in offices on 11:49 - Jul 15 by Fixed_It

Interestingly, as guidance currently stands (until the wind changes direction or something), students returning to school in September will not be allowed to wear face masks, nor will their teachers.
Anyone would think the government are simply making it up as they go along...


Not allowed?

Is that legal under the circumstances? To force someone into a situation they may not be comfortable with and then force them to accept any potential outcome with no personal choice for protection?

Poll: Xmas dinner: Yorkshires or not?

0
Hancock on masks in offices on 11:54 - Jul 15 with 1633 viewssparks

Hancock on masks in offices on 11:49 - Jul 15 by DanTheMan

Maybe it's that the masks will do most good then, potentially stopping some infection spreading from being out and about but that in offices it's just gonna happen anyway so screw it.

Which... well it's an interesting way of doing this.


It looks like the typical government / public sector tick box exercise to me. Have a list of measures which make it look like something is being done properly, but actually ignore or gloss over the fiddly bits.

Do a risk assessment, keep people apart, clean stuff - TICK

Worry about the time spent in a confined space factor in addition to distancing - Meh.

The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it. (Sir Terry Pratchett)
Poll: Is Fred drunk this morning?

1
Hancock on masks in offices on 11:57 - Jul 15 with 1613 viewsBlueBadger

Hancock on masks in offices on 11:54 - Jul 15 by sparks

It looks like the typical government / public sector tick box exercise to me. Have a list of measures which make it look like something is being done properly, but actually ignore or gloss over the fiddly bits.

Do a risk assessment, keep people apart, clean stuff - TICK

Worry about the time spent in a confined space factor in addition to distancing - Meh.


What it actually is is bog-standard Tory party lip-service to peoples' well being. Make the right noises but do the bare minimum. Then blame everyone else.
[Post edited 15 Jul 2020 11:58]

I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
Poll: What will Phil's first headline be tomorrow?
Blog: From Despair to Where?

0
Hancock on masks in offices on 12:12 - Jul 15 with 1580 viewsSteve_M

Hancock on masks in offices on 11:35 - Jul 15 by homer_123

Certainly WHO have changed their tune since the outbreak about the benefits of wearing masks.

Pretty sure there is also a number of 'newer' studies that have shown that wearing them reduces the 'spread' - lady on R4 this week from Edinburgh Uni explained the above and that many in the scientific community who didn't support the wearing of masks now do.

That said, it does feel like popping a condom on after the event.


On the latest WHO guidelines, this is quite informative (and to anyone on Twitter interested in this, then Kucharski is worth following):


Poll: When are the squad numbers out?
Blog: Cycle of Hurt

0
Hancock on masks in offices on 12:18 - Jul 15 with 1555 viewsElderGrizzly

Hancock on masks in offices on 11:42 - Jul 15 by sparks

It is absolutely correct that prolonged exposure increased the likelihood.

His argument appears to be that, in an enclosed office environment, the difference made by masks is insignificant, so don't bother. Which begs the question- why is it worth it for fleeting contact in shops, when we are clearly far more exposed in the office in any event. Or, indeed, in schools...
[Post edited 15 Jul 2020 11:43]


Its why France are introducing them for ALL enclosed public places (such as offices, pubs, restaurants) as of the end of July, not just shops as of now.

Spikes in cases from places where longer term exposure to each other without masks is an issue in France
0
Hancock on masks in offices on 12:19 - Jul 15 with 1550 viewsSteve_M

Hancock on masks in offices on 11:49 - Jul 15 by DanTheMan

Maybe it's that the masks will do most good then, potentially stopping some infection spreading from being out and about but that in offices it's just gonna happen anyway so screw it.

Which... well it's an interesting way of doing this.


I think there's certainly an element of that, non-medical fabric masks work best for short periods of time where interactions with other people are brief so are sensible in shops and public transport (whether that is the case for trains and flights of 3+ hours is another question).

Much harder to avoid spreading the virus within an office environment even with a reduction in people (my employer reckon we can accommodate 75% of usual headcount and I presume that involves re-purposing meeting rooms etc) but masks don't necessarily eliminate the bigger risks - door handles, kitchen areas, printers used by many people.

It's also the case that wearing a mask all day isn't desirable, people will take it of to talk on the phone, eat, drink and all of that reduces the benefits of wearing one in the first place.

Given the efforts many companies made to get staff WFH effectively, it's hard to see what benefit there is of rushing people back to work who don't need to be there. Certainly not until after we know if there is a second spike this year.

Poll: When are the squad numbers out?
Blog: Cycle of Hurt

2
Hancock on masks in offices on 12:24 - Jul 15 with 1530 viewsMullet

Hancock on masks in offices on 11:49 - Jul 15 by Fixed_It

Interestingly, as guidance currently stands (until the wind changes direction or something), students returning to school in September will not be allowed to wear face masks, nor will their teachers.
Anyone would think the government are simply making it up as they go along...


Yeah that's going to be revised isn't it?

Poll: If Cook had the full season where would we have finished?
Blog: When the Fanzine Comes Around

0
Hancock on masks in offices on 12:26 - Jul 15 with 1524 viewsBluebell

How are people supposed to answer the phone wearing one. It's bad enough listening to people mumbling as it is without the added difficulty of mask wearing.

It all seems to me like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
2
Hancock on masks in offices on 12:32 - Jul 15 with 1502 viewsfarkenhell

You lot are all missing the point! The procedure is:

- Minister states "We are not going to introduce..."
- 2 days later, official announcement to the contrary

Wait for announcement tomorrow or Friday. Masks must be worn in all offices - as from 2021.
2
Hancock on masks in offices on 13:18 - Jul 15 with 1415 viewsjeera

Hancock on masks in offices on 12:26 - Jul 15 by Bluebell

How are people supposed to answer the phone wearing one. It's bad enough listening to people mumbling as it is without the added difficulty of mask wearing.

It all seems to me like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.


One would assume it can't be beyond human capability to overcome things like that surely.

Maybe those who have to use phones can be screened in booths?

We can send crafts to the outer reaches of our Solar system so we should be able to come up with a plan regarding using telephones relatively risk-free.

(I say 'we' loosely, meaning humankind, as if the world were populated by only people like me, we'd still be in caves).
[Post edited 15 Jul 2020 13:53]

Poll: Xmas dinner: Yorkshires or not?

0
Hancock on masks in offices on 13:28 - Jul 15 with 1402 viewsstonojnr

Hancock on masks in offices on 11:42 - Jul 15 by sparks

It is absolutely correct that prolonged exposure increased the likelihood.

His argument appears to be that, in an enclosed office environment, the difference made by masks is insignificant, so don't bother. Which begs the question- why is it worth it for fleeting contact in shops, when we are clearly far more exposed in the office in any event. Or, indeed, in schools...
[Post edited 15 Jul 2020 11:43]


its simply really that companies are forced by law to provide safe work environments for their employees, and employees are legally protected and can refuse to work in environments if the company doesnt properly comply.

that means if somebody working in an office (or a supermarket) contracts covid 19 in that office whilst wearing an inadequate face mask the company legally had to provide to provide a safe working environment, the company is legally liable, if you contract covid 19 in a supermarket as a private individual wearing an inadequate face mask you provided yourself,thats not the supermarkets legal problem.

so I think you will see the government through the likes of Hancock make increasingly contradictory statements on the need & benefits for masks in office environments vs what they say is the absolute benefits of face coverings in shops (and note that a face covering isnt a face mask in a legal sense) iuntil such time the goverment lawyers can think up a way of ensuring companies arent on the liability hook for not providing adequate protection.

think of it like asbestos work environments, no company can just buy a box of masks for 20quid of Amazon and say here you go youll be fine with these, they are legally obliged to train their employees properly and provide all the adequate approved safety gear for handling asbestos in their work environment
1
Hancock on masks in offices on 13:33 - Jul 15 with 1386 viewsEly_Blue

Hancock on masks in offices on 11:42 - Jul 15 by sparks

It is absolutely correct that prolonged exposure increased the likelihood.

His argument appears to be that, in an enclosed office environment, the difference made by masks is insignificant, so don't bother. Which begs the question- why is it worth it for fleeting contact in shops, when we are clearly far more exposed in the office in any event. Or, indeed, in schools...
[Post edited 15 Jul 2020 11:43]


This is exactly what I have been saying, it makes no sense to make it mandatory to wear a mask in a shop where you are constantly on the move and as you say making a fleeting visit but not in other indoor environments where you are mostly stationary for much longer periods such as offices, schools, pubs, restaurants, gyms, cinemas etc

Poll: Will you still buy a Season Ticket for next year in league 1

0
Hancock on masks in offices on 13:36 - Jul 15 with 1380 viewssparks

Hancock on masks in offices on 13:28 - Jul 15 by stonojnr

its simply really that companies are forced by law to provide safe work environments for their employees, and employees are legally protected and can refuse to work in environments if the company doesnt properly comply.

that means if somebody working in an office (or a supermarket) contracts covid 19 in that office whilst wearing an inadequate face mask the company legally had to provide to provide a safe working environment, the company is legally liable, if you contract covid 19 in a supermarket as a private individual wearing an inadequate face mask you provided yourself,thats not the supermarkets legal problem.

so I think you will see the government through the likes of Hancock make increasingly contradictory statements on the need & benefits for masks in office environments vs what they say is the absolute benefits of face coverings in shops (and note that a face covering isnt a face mask in a legal sense) iuntil such time the goverment lawyers can think up a way of ensuring companies arent on the liability hook for not providing adequate protection.

think of it like asbestos work environments, no company can just buy a box of masks for 20quid of Amazon and say here you go youll be fine with these, they are legally obliged to train their employees properly and provide all the adequate approved safety gear for handling asbestos in their work environment


I disagree with some of what you say there. From a liability perspective, failing to provide protective equipment when it is appropriate, is just as problematic as providing poor equipment or failing to enforce its use- irrespective of any particular government guidance. I agree that the presence or otherwise of formal guidance could make certain arguments simpler- but if there is good evidence now to say that people in offices would be reaosnably protected by cheap masks, then the obligation probably arises irrespective of government guidance.

Importantly- proving you got covid at work rather than elsewhere will be extremely difficult in any event.

Of course, the government could legislate tomorrow to the effect that Employers may not be held liable for Covid transmission in the workplace, if they so chose.

The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it. (Sir Terry Pratchett)
Poll: Is Fred drunk this morning?

0
Hancock on masks in offices on 13:38 - Jul 15 with 1374 viewsEly_Blue

Hancock on masks in offices on 12:19 - Jul 15 by Steve_M

I think there's certainly an element of that, non-medical fabric masks work best for short periods of time where interactions with other people are brief so are sensible in shops and public transport (whether that is the case for trains and flights of 3+ hours is another question).

Much harder to avoid spreading the virus within an office environment even with a reduction in people (my employer reckon we can accommodate 75% of usual headcount and I presume that involves re-purposing meeting rooms etc) but masks don't necessarily eliminate the bigger risks - door handles, kitchen areas, printers used by many people.

It's also the case that wearing a mask all day isn't desirable, people will take it of to talk on the phone, eat, drink and all of that reduces the benefits of wearing one in the first place.

Given the efforts many companies made to get staff WFH effectively, it's hard to see what benefit there is of rushing people back to work who don't need to be there. Certainly not until after we know if there is a second spike this year.


But if you have ever had to carry out a risk assessment based on likelihood of risk and severity then you will know that any measure you can put in place to reduce or remove the risk will reduce the multiplied factor and whilst you are right regarding door handles and printers etc in offices then the extra measure of masks will be in addition to the guidance on hand washing etc that are already there?

Poll: Will you still buy a Season Ticket for next year in league 1

0
Hancock on masks in offices on 13:49 - Jul 15 with 1340 viewsvapour_trail

Hancock on masks in offices on 12:18 - Jul 15 by ElderGrizzly

Its why France are introducing them for ALL enclosed public places (such as offices, pubs, restaurants) as of the end of July, not just shops as of now.

Spikes in cases from places where longer term exposure to each other without masks is an issue in France


What about schools? That’s doesn’t feel workable.

Our primary have said no masks and no social distancing in sept. Haven’t heard from the secondary yet.

Trailing vapour since 1999.
Poll: Should Gav and Phil limiti the number of polls?

0
Hancock on masks in offices on 14:01 - Jul 15 with 1311 viewsjeera

Hancock on masks in offices on 13:49 - Jul 15 by vapour_trail

What about schools? That’s doesn’t feel workable.

Our primary have said no masks and no social distancing in sept. Haven’t heard from the secondary yet.


Wrong thread!
[Post edited 15 Jul 2020 14:02]

Poll: Xmas dinner: Yorkshires or not?

0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2024