I've seen that idea being tossed around, but are there any sort of studies showing that the increased face touching can indeed make the virus spread more than not wearing masks? It's a geniune question, I'd like to see studies related to that.

For me, it's not really obvious that more face touching (even if that happens in significant numbers across the population), causes the virus to spread more than it would have without face masks. Reason being that it seems like spread through surfaces is not as bad as through the air, so making the air cleaner seems better than making the surfaces cleaner to me.

I think the reason that various authorities advised against masks is political - there simply weren't enough and to direct the supply to clinical workers.

Which is damning in that they treated us like children who couldn't handle the truth and were also so unimaginative that they did not consider alternative face coverings.

The government communication in the UK has been lamentable. Confusing, inconsistent and patronising. On the other hand, we had idiots who stripped the supermarket shelves of toilet rolls and canned tomatoes for months despite being implored not to do so. If they had gone after the masks...

Yes we should not have taken masks that would go to the NHS but don't forget those masks should have been in government stockpiles well out of reach. How can we blame and punish the publics self control (or lack of it) when it's a government failure that caused the issue. Had we all bought masks and the state made them instead of redundant hospitals perhaps we would be in a much better place (less NHS casualties and physical/mental suffering).

All in all it just doesn't sit right with me to justify the government's decision without mentioning they were the ones that put us in the position where it had to be made.

There is now, and was then, plenty of evidence to suppose that enough people would not handle the truth responsibly, and would panic-buy masks rather than adopt alternatives.

Is the US government so impotent that it can't ask retailers to ship their supplies of masks to a commandeered warehouse? Of course some would go missing, but substantially all would arrive.

Quite the opposite: https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-federal-govt-fem...

That means they lied without purpose.

I personally think one aspect that doesn't get much attention is the matter of public education. At the arrival of the pandemic here in Germany the initial advice was to seriously implement hygiene rules: 1.) Wash hands thoroughly and often, 30 sec long, plenty of regular household brand hand soap, 2.) When coughing or sneezing, turn away from others and put your elbow in front of your face and 3.) Keep distance of minimum 1.5 meters and 4.) Limit contact with people outside your home environment wherever possible.

Assuming everyone followed this advice, at that particular moment we didn't need masks so much (most people were in lockdown anyway) and besides the fact that there were not enough medical masks to go around, there was more danger in using generic face coverings than not because the average Joe didn't know how to do so safely and the virus was not yet under any sort of control.

Around Mid-May, we had a different circumstance. The general public had taken the hygiene rules to heart and been in lockdown quite awhile and the sun came out - Spring sprang, the numbers went down (thanks to lots of cooperation from the general public) and that was when the public education effort went in to the next phase: To give official advice and instruction on how to properly handle face coverings in a way that they help instead of hinder.

Meanwhile everyone, even Grandparents, my mother, and some people's recalcitrant Uncles know how to use Skype and Zoom. We wash hands like surgeons, we can and do handle face coverings without making ourselves sick and I think, for a public education effort that started 5 months ago and was directed at 90 million people, that is simply huge. I try to remain wary of the impulse to judge what we did yesterday with what we know today.

That was a colossal mistake. Not only have they ruined their credibility in this pandemic but they've guaranteed that there will be panic buying during all future pandemics. It was a one-time weapon that provided marginal benefit and terrible long term consequences that go far beyond contagious diseases. Don't be surprised if anti-vaxxers use this incident for decades to come as proof that health authorities lie.

I've only heard what the state epidemiologists say but here's the Finnish study that the current recommendations are based on: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/report_little_or_no_benef...

With that said, Finland is re-evaluating face masks it as we speak so it may change.

> five of eight systematic reviews found no evidence that the use of masks would provide any benefit in controlling sources of infection or protecting healthy persons from exposure to respiratory infections

Unfortunately, that news article does not contain the links to those reviews. Maybe they are part of the full report, but I can't read Finnish.

According to this research in the Lancet, masks help but not as much as physical distancing.

2 m distance reduces risk by 10x face mask reduces risk by 6x eye protection by 5x There is some uncertainty in these figures

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Results

> The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.

Conclusions

> This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/

To be clear, this compared cloth vs. medical masks. There was no “unmasked” arm. So the caution was of the “given the choice, choose medical masks.” Also this measures auto-protective properties of mask wearing, not preventing spread to others.

You're getting downvoted because you provided zero evidence to backup a claim that seems pretty absurd. Touching your mask to adjust it is not the same as touching your nose, mouth, or eyes directly. Pretty much every reputable recommendation says to wash your hands after removing your mask, which avoids the contamination problem pretty well.

And to your point on Scandinavian countries, where are you getting that information? Here's Norway mandating that travelers from "red" countries wear a face mask until they get home [1] and planning to backpedal on their lax mask policies [2]. Here's Denmark backpedalling on their original mask policy [3]. Here's Iceland updating their policy because they also realized no face masks is a bad idea [4]. Basically, Scandinavian countries now recognize that their original policies were not that great.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/08/07/norway-cl...

[2] https://www.thelocal.no/20200806/norway-expected-to-announce...

[3] https://www.thelocal.dk/20200731/denmark-changes-face-mask-g...

[4] https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2020/07/31/when_to_u...

Thanks. I didn't know that they've started to backpedal. As for sources I had no idea it was such a controversial topic and something I thought was obvious (again, my point was just that an inefficient mask could be counterproductive) but here's the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control saying the same thing:

> There is a risk that improper removal of the face mask, handling of a contaminated face mask or an increased tendency to touch the face while wearing a face mask by healthy persons might actually increase the risk of transmission.

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COV...

I find it hard to believe that any experiments would back up that fact. Do people put their fingers in their eyes/nose/mouth when adjusting their masks ?

Surely having everyone wear a mask is more efficient than banning masks because a small fraction of mask wearers would catch covid when readjusting their masks.

I don't find it hard to believe at all. I see people fidget with their masks all the time. Here's the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control saying the same thing:

> There is a risk that improper removal of the face mask, handling of a contaminated face mask or an increased tendency to touch the face while wearing a face mask by healthy persons might actually increase the risk of transmission.

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COV...

I don't doubt some people could self contaminate, I just highly doubt that the risk of self contamination is anywhere close to the risk of regular contamination due to not wearing a mask.

The answer to "improper removal of the face mask" is "proper removal of the face mask" not "tell people not to wear masks"

> You touch your face more when adjusting the mask so if it's not efficient enough it may be a net negative.

Keep hand sanitizer in your pocket. Whenever you touch the mask, sanitize your hands. Both before you touch (in case you touched a COVID19 infected surface, you don't want to add COVID19 to the mask), and after you touch (in case your mask prevented COVID19 from entering your lungs, you don't want to contaminate other things anymore)

Problem solved. At my work, there's hand-sanitizer everywhere now. I don't even need to reach into my pockets anymore.

Or #2: don't touch your mask. Ever. That's how doctors/nurses do it. The hand-sanitizer crutch is what I do because I'm not as good as a doctor/nurse with my discipline. But I'm training myself to never touch the mask.

Yes, of course but that's the point. That people are unable follow correct mask usage and get sloppy, especially over time.

But why do you think that?

The more you practice something, the better you get at it. Assuming people to be 100% noobs at masks for months is a bit pessimistic.

It's easier today to use hand sanitizer with masks than months ago. In my experience anyway.

Have you seen people use masks in interviews and so on? They constantly fidget with it. At least 50%.

Most people are not medically skilled or trained. People fidget unconsciously and uncontrolled.

> Assuming people to be 100% noobs at masks for months is a bit pessimistic.

Or maybe it's realistic. Go read some hospital audits of mask wearing or handwashing. Have a look at any of the research showing that even staff who are trained to use it struggle to do it properly.

Because it's what the state epidemiologists of the Nordic countries are saying, and why they recommend against mask usage. I'm all for masks btw. All I said was that inefficient masks could be counterproductive due to that reason but apparently even that innocent suggestion is heresy here.

It's not heresy, it's just a banality that has been stated countless times before.

Not washing your hands properly can be counterproductive. Not being socially distant enough can be counterproductive.

If you're not even arguing against masks, what is your point?

Read the whole thread. It was a reply to:

> So...people need to just slap something over their two air exchanging orifices on their faces before leaving the house and contribute to the our greater health.

My point is that if the mask is inefficient it could be counterproductive due to fidgeting. See sibling comment about fleece masks that hopefully makes a better case since you can't agree the slightest that anyone would ever fidget with their mask.

Regardless, I don't agree that it's a banality considering the ECDC lists it as an important caveat when using face masks:

> There is a risk that improper removal of the face mask, handling of a contaminated face mask or an increased tendency to touch the face while wearing a face mask by healthy persons might actually increase the risk of transmission.

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COV...

> Read the whole thread.

Obviously I read the thread, otherwise I wouldn't have commented on what you wrote in it.

> Regardless, I don't agree that it's a banality considering the ECDC lists it as an important caveat when using face masks

It's a banality when in absolutely every thread on this subject at least one person states the totally obvious that doing something incorrectly could might potentially possibly may be worse than not doing it at all.

Not washing your hands properly or not being socially distant enough are not counterproductive, they are just unproductive. No-one thinks that less social distance gives you more protection, while wearing an inefficient mask may have the opposite of the desired effect. You're mixing up the "too much anything is bad for you" trope with a serious caveat that has caused whole countries to recommend against face masks.

I'm not mixing anything up, and you aren't fooling anyone any more.

You are using that "serious caveat" because it's the go to trope for anti-maskers seeking to pollute absolutely every fucking discussion on this subject.

I asked you to explain why you're posting anti-masker arguments if you are, as you claim, "all for masks" and all you've done is repeat the same anti-mask bullshit.

Next time I won't bother assuming possible good faith on the part of anyone spouting textbook anti-masker noise.

You know, it's possible to be for masks and still acknowledge it's not the perfect solution. You are the one pushing me into a corner of "either you're with us or against us".

The ECDC guidelines recommend face coverings but still recognise the caveats, but in your eyes they are heretics and anti-maskers for even mentioning it. You appear like a religious fanatic. Very sad to see and it completely kills any serious discussion about the topic.

The ECDC is not here, hammering on the same anti-mask arguments over and over again in every post, ignoring whatever anyone else says that counters it, you are.

Yeah, what a fool I am for discussing the topic at hand. You are the one polluting this thread with ad hominem attacks and overly defensive windmill fighting against imaginary anti-maskers. Again, read the thread before you decide to jump into a conversation next time.

It's not up to you who jumps into a thread or why or when, and when you jumped in it was not to discuss the topic, but to spout anti-mask noise that wearing a mask "may be a net negative", under the guise of 'Hey, I'm just innocently saying what "Scandinavian countries" are saying'.

When you were informed that Scandinavian countries are not taking an anti-mask stance, instead of holding your hands up that your argument was based on something false, you simply carried on making the same anti-mask point by fixating on something else (three sentences from a six page PDF) instead.

Like I said, you are not fooling anyone.