438

Lockdowns and face masks ‘unequivocally’ cut spread of Covid, report finds (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by merridew@feddit.uk to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] merridew@feddit.uk 48 points 1 year ago

"When looking at the use of face masks and mask mandates, studies consistently reported the measures were an effective approach to reduce infection. The evidence further indicates higher-quality respirator masks (such as N95 masks) were more effective than surgical-type masks."

[-] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 year ago

Prof Christopher Dye, professor of epidemiology at the University of Oxford, said: “The next thing is Disease X as WHO (World Health Organization) has called it

Twitter rebranding as the next pandemic, classic Enron

[-] Zaphod@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 1 year ago

This is news? I thought we already knew that loke one year or more ago...

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 year ago

We've basically known it since germ theory, or maybe before. Still, it doesn't hurt to have the study to point crazy people to. They won't believe it, but it at least ensure anyone else reading might not trust them.

[-] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago

Remember when early in the pandemic the news and the CDC was saying masks won't help?

[-] barrbaric@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago

Yep, they lied to people in an attempt to save the supply of masks for people in health care because there weren't enough stockpiled. And they wonder why people don't trust them anymore.

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

I remember it as saying they won't be perfect and won't help enough, and also that people in critical positions (Healthcare specifically) needed them and the supply was limited. I don't think I ever heard from an official source that they wouldn't help, but I've heard many people say they said that.

[-] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Here is an overview of how the government's recommendations changed over time. They were explicitly advising against wearing face masks and saying they don't work. Ex:

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams tweets that wearing a face mask will not prevent the public from contracting the novel coronavirus.

“Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS!” he wrote in a tweet that was later deleted. “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus

[-] Swarfega@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago

No shit Sherlock

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

it's always good to verify your hypothesis even if it's seemingly obvious. Just because something seems like it's logical and how it should be doesn't mean it is.

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] eierkuchen@beehaw.org 16 points 1 year ago

No shit, sherlock! I'll inform pikachu right away. Brb.

[-] Misconduct@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago

I still wear mine. I'll probably always wear it when I'm sick in the future. Never realized how easy it was not to be nasty and spread illnesses around

[-] barrbaric@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago

So we're bringing them back, right? anakin-padme-4

[-] slimarev92@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

No shit.

[-] Florn@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago

shocked-pikachu

[-] Auzy@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You mean the right wing extremist crazies who exaggerate everything from EV fires to being unable to breathe in masks were wrong?

Huge shocker. They definitely seemed so confident

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Interesting, although I'd like to see a comparison with countries like Sweden who made advisories instead of compulsion

I had a very enjoyable lockdown, no planes, no cars, had a dog so could go out, and I enjoy solitude, but those in not so good domestic situations or extroverted types must have found it tough.

[-] Arcturus@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sweden was a bit of an outlier though. Most younger Swedes live alone. And they tend to follow government advisories. New Zealand's strategy was stellar, particularly early on in the pandemic. You could do what you want. I remember we were out having concerts as if there was no pandemic, thanks to the zero COVID strategy. But by late-Delta, early-Omicron, zero COVID could not longer be sustained, and it was clear only mitigations would stick. The government hoped to eliminate it like they did the other times, but it was just impossible then, people had become complacent. But yes, on the healthcare-side and economic-side, NZ fared better than Sweden.

[-] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Thanks, I'd forgotten how well NZ had done. I wonder if the SARS epidemic made them better prepared compared to Europe.

The only pandemic threats I recall in the UK was bird and swine flu.

[-] Arcturus@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I'm sure that played a part of the early response. But then we were also lucky that, it didn't initially spread on our shores early on. So the initial first lockdown, and a few subsequent ones, were short and sweet. But then the later ones, we got a bit complacent. It was also when the conspiracies and anti-vax movement was taking off...

[-] theletterd@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Probably more lockdowns than facemasks (at least how people were using them)

[-] demlet@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You mean my cloth mask and beard might not have been so effective?

(I like to think at least I was protecting other people a little...)

[-] Powerpoint@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

It's better than nothing as long as you were wearing it correctly and kept time exposure as low as possible. N95 would've been best of course

[-] GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk 6 points 1 year ago

Masks were mostly effective at stopping someone infecting others.
Only properly sealed N95+ masks would really be effective on the receiving end.

And sadly, that meant that the (non-exempt) selfish bastards who refused to wear them still spread it around.

So you were definitely protecting other people, and did a great job :)

[-] chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

My company's owner (were an MSP, maybe 30-40 employees back then) somehow got a backdoor deal on some N95 masks for us at the company, and we had a lot of work from home too. I'm not sure they were quite as good as official ones, but they were still pretty good until more masks became available.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Cloth masks still work to slow down particles coming out of you so they don't spread as far, so it's still helpful to prevent spread. It just doesn't filter things that well, so anything you're breathing in is still just as likely to infect you. It's a good safety measure, particularly if everyone is wearing one. It doesn't work well if everyone except the infected person is.

[-] midgephoto@photog.social 2 points 1 year ago

@theletterd @merridew
There's cutting, and there's deflecting.
A demographic shift is observed in the USA, related to political stupidity and preference on mask wearing.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

you mean wearing it under your nose and pulling on it when talking makes it less effective?

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 11 points 1 year ago

No, really? Wow.

I'm so glad they conducted a study, that was money well spent that was.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 9 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Measures taken during the Covid pandemic such as social distancing and wearing face masks “unequivocally” reduced the spread of infections, a report has found.

Experts looked at the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) – not drugs or vaccines – when applied in packages that combine a number of measures that complement one another.

Prof Sir Mark Walport, the foreign secretary of the Royal Society and chairman of the report’s expert working group, said: “There is sufficient evidence to conclude that early, stringent implementation of packages of complementary NPIs was unequivocally effective in limiting Sars-CoV-2 infections.

Additionally, the report found that in school settings, closures and other distancing measures were associated with reduced Covid-19 cases, but the effectiveness varied depending on a range of factors, including adherence and pupils’ ages.

For the future, the report recommends establishing international protocols for conducting clinical trials and observational research on NPIs in advance of further pandemics.

The report draws together the findings of six expert-led evidence reviews, published in a special themed issue of the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A.

The original article contains 695 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Eheran@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Unequivocally - never heard that word. It means clearly or definitely.

[-] rmuk@feddit.uk 9 points 1 year ago

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

My knowledge has been enbiggened.

[-] lobut@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

Those of you that may be a bit lost on the reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4qP42Aqpbg (Simpsons)

[-] AmosBurton_ThatGuy@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

Cromulent - never heard that word. It means acceptable or adequate.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Reminds me of a birthday card with George W. Bush on it. It said "I unequivocally wish you a happy birthday!" on the front and "Uh, unless 'unequivocally' means 'don't.'" on the inside.

[-] TheBroodian@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago

shocked-pikachu

[-] Player2@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago

🤯

load more comments

this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023

438 points (97.4% liked)

United Kingdom

4060 readers

63 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk