A&H

Masks

I'll let the science and logic work for me ...
And all the science (every study I can find, that was ever ever published) shows that masks do reduce the amount of virus transmission. Now, different studies vary as to exactly how much reduction but there isn't a single study that shows they have no effect whatsoever on the movement of airborne droplets or particles.

In several different searches of the medical literature, I wasn't able to find a single study that shows masks cause a quantifiable or scientifically measurable increase in risk. Some people talk about a theoretical risk of modified behaviour or problems from incorrect mask use but again, this is just a presumption - no-one has presented any actual evidence to demonstrate it.

As for logic - that would dictate that even a small reduction of risk is better than no reduction at all.

The most comprehensive study of the efficacy of masks that I've seen, was published by Oxford University just a couple of weeks back. It was based on a study of data from all around the world and its conclusion was that masks work and should be used.


Incidentally, saying that for masks to be effective, they'd therefore have to prevent breathing is also illogical (and scientifically incorrect). Air molecules measure approximately 0.3 nanometers, coronavirus particles have a diameter of 80-120 nanometers and respiratory droplets would be even bigger.

IMG_20200804_094917.png
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
And all the science (every study I can find, that was ever ever published) shows that masks do reduce the amount of virus transmission. Now, different studies vary as to exactly how much reduction but there isn't a single study that shows they have no effect whatsoever on the movement of airborne droplets or particles.

In several different searches of the medical literature, I wasn't able to find a single study that shows masks cause a quantifiable or scientifically measurable increase in risk. Some people talk about a theoretical risk of modified behaviour or problems from incorrect mask use but again, this is just a presumption - no-one has presented any actual evidence to demonstrate it.

As for logic - that would dictate that even a small reduction of risk is better than no reduction at all.

The most comprehensive study of the efficacy of masks that I've seen, was published by Oxford University just a couple of weeks back. It was based on a study of data from all around the world and its conclusion was that masks work and should be used.


Incidentally, saying that for masks to be effective, they'd therefore have to prevent breathing is also illogical (and scientifically incorrect). Air molecules measure approximately 0.3 nanometers, coronavirus particles have a diameter of 80-120 nanometers and respiratory droplets would be even bigger.

View attachment 4427
Some Of the world's leading scientists on facebook and twitter have published statements as fact in the form of meme's to dispute this evidence! I'll stick with them thank you very much... 🤷‍♂️
 
And all the science (every study I can find, that was ever ever published) shows that masks do reduce the amount of virus transmission. Now, different studies vary as to exactly how much reduction but there isn't a single study that shows they have no effect whatsoever on the movement of airborne droplets or particles.

And at no stage did I say they did.

In several different searches of the medical literature, I wasn't able to find a single study that shows masks cause a quantifiable or scientifically measurable increase in risk. Some people talk about a theoretical risk of modified behaviour or problems from incorrect mask use but again, this is just a presumption - no-one has presented any actual evidence to demonstrate it.

As for logic - that would dictate that even a small reduction of risk is better than no reduction at all.

The most comprehensive study of the efficacy of masks that I've seen, was published by Oxford University just a couple of weeks back. It was based on a study of data from all around the world and its conclusion was that masks work and should be used.


Incidentally, saying that for masks to be effective, they'd therefore have to prevent breathing is also illogical (and scientifically incorrect). Air molecules measure approximately 0.3 nanometers, coronavirus particles have a diameter of 80-120 nanometers and respiratory droplets would be even bigger.

View attachment 4427

Not really sure what your point is in posting all that above in response to my post to be honest?

I merely stated that wearing a mask whilst playing football is a dumb idea, and nothing scientifically available refutes that.

Keep it relevant ...
 
Not really sure what your point is in posting all that above in response to my post to be honest?

I merely stated that wearing a mask whilst playing football is a dumb idea, and nothing scientifically available refutes that.

Keep it relevant ...
Nothing scientifically available refutes that our dribble on this forum is a not great idea either but we still go on about our business ;)
 
Umm, no. You can argue it is overkill, but sports in the US have pretty clearly demonstrated that regular testing is not alone a panacea. Depsite regular testing, last weekend 20% of baseball games were not played because of infections within teams. There is a time lag in testing results (maybe you have better timing there than we do) and there can be infections that get passed on. While I agree it makes sense not to require masks for those currently playing (as an acceptable, necessary risk if games are realistically going to be played), based on everything I've read, it seems the smarter approach would be to mandate that everyone not playing be wearing a mask. If I were a 4O I would absolutely wear one (and I would get an N95 mask that is better than the ones I currently have at protecting the wearer).
I get what you mean. I maybe worded my post in the wrong way.
I think my point is - why is the 4th official the only one singled out in the technical area to wear a mask? What risk do they pose that no one else in the technical area poses?
 
It's been insane that the Govt. held off mandating the use of masks indoors for so long. It was a no-brainer... just another UK corona-calamity
That said, no value in wearing them outdoors... I ain't interested in minuscule risk
 
Not really sure what your point is in posting all that above in response to my post to be honest?

I merely stated that wearing a mask whilst playing football is a dumb idea, and nothing scientifically available refutes that.

Keep it relevant ...
I apologise - I thought you were implying that mask-wearing in general is overkill, not just while playing. Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent.
 
Very true. But why have the 4th officials in the EPL and now SPFL had to wear one when everyone around them doesn’t have one? Everyone’s apparently been tested so no one there has it. For me it reinforces that masks are ultimately for show, without bringing many benefits.

Yep I agree. Inconsistencies everywhere - PL 4Os wore masks and didn't handle subs boards but DO hold up added time board, EFL 4os DO do Subs board, added time and did not wear masks.

Another one that got me - Wolves official, in a mask and ski goggles - he was NOT physio/doctor and apart from those two was the only one wearing a mask on Wolves bench, but there he was in the middle of a group goal celebration, actually urging others to join in - masked or not!

I DO get that guidelines should be in place but like you, think some are just for 'show'. As I've said before players didn't do pre match handshake in the PL but do have physical contact during the game and hug afterwards and of course after a goal is scored.
 
At least now we should wear masks when we go out

Who said that?

So many studies/theories - but the one I'm holding on to was a member of government advisory panel - heard her myself btw, so not a rogue internet post!, when she said she believed that government changed the stay at home advice, to stay alert after the panel told the government about a study in China of 70,000 cases that revealed only ONE had contracted the virus outside - after having a length face to face conversation with the 'infector'.

Now I know that, as has been said above, there are multiple theories/opinions but common sense would tell me, along with this study, that if it were caught easily or even with a bit of difficulty outside the number of cases would be so much higher.

Obviously this isn't meant to be taken as 'advice' and its about what everyone is happy with personally, but do think myself, that wearing masks outside, 5 months into a pandemic, where cases are falling seems a little pointless, but just to re-emphasise - each individual should make up their own mind.
 
Who said that?

So many studies/theories - but the one I'm holding on to was a member of government advisory panel - heard her myself btw, so not a rogue internet post!, when she said she believed that government changed the stay at home advice, to stay alert after the panel told the government about a study in China of 70,000 cases that revealed only ONE had contracted the virus outside - after having a length face to face conversation with the 'infector'.

Now I know that, as has been said above, there are multiple theories/opinions but common sense would tell me, along with this study, that if it were caught easily or even with a bit of difficulty outside the number of cases would be so much higher.

Obviously this isn't meant to be taken as 'advice' and its about what everyone is happy with personally, but do think myself, that wearing masks outside, 5 months into a pandemic, where cases are falling seems a little pointless, but just to re-emphasise - each individual should make up their own mind.
That only deals with the question of whether masks help prevent the wearer from catching the virus. The main reason for wearing a mask is to prevent the wearer from passing on an infection to others (it's why surgical masks were invented in the first place) especially given what is now known about asymptomatic transmission.

If there is any kind of benefit in reducing the risk of catching the virus as well (and some of the more recent studies say there is) that's just an additional bonus.
 
Last edited:
Inside I can see the benefit Peter, but with social distancing any contact outside within 2 metres is very brief.

From what I have read and heard, outside plus social distancing and the risk is very small - therefore see no point in wearing a mask.
 
Wearing a mask whilst running for 90 mins is not comfortable or practical. Its not expected and its not going to happen.

Its extremely unlikely that you will catch covid during a football match. There is a very small possibility that you will of course, and if that worries you then don't referee until you feel safe. Thats perfectly fine and its personal choice.

Its 25 degrees tonight and I've got my first game back. Nobody will be wearing a mask. Nobody who is uncomfortable with being involved in football without a mask will be there either.

Let's get the game on and get it on safely. Not 100% safe because that's not possible, lets just all do that right things to keep the risks at the incredibly small level that they currently are.
 
With masks if you are not forced to wear them there are a lot of common sense that can be applied on when to or when not to wear them. But as far as regulations, unfortunately, the authorities would have to paint everyone with the same brush because of a minority idiots. Here is an example.

Here is Aus. Victoria is going through a second wave much worse that the first one. Not long ago two young girls held an illegal party in Victoria (presumbily where they contracted the virus) then travelled to Queensland via NSW because Victorians were banned to travel to Queensland. They started a cluster of infection in Queensland. Further idiocy, they destroyed their phones (becuse it could have linked them to criminal activities) so their whereabouts could not be traced.
 
Low division grassroots open age. I had a player come on with a mask on. Looked like a snood going all around his neck but it was a mask and worn as a mask. I let him play with it. Has anyone else had this?

I would say you were right in law to allow him to play with it... "Non dangerous protective equipment, for example headgear, facemasks and knee and arm protectors made of soft, lightweight padded material is permitted as are goalkeepers' caps and sports spectacles."
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
I would say you were right in law to allow him to play with it... "Non dangerous protective equipment, for example headgear, facemasks and knee and arm protectors made of soft, lightweight padded material is permitted as are goalkeepers' caps and sports spectacles."

I disagree. If it's not recognised/bespoke "safety" equipment then it falls outside of Law 4, is not necessary for playing football, and should be removed. The "facemasks" part of the law which you've quoted above, for me, refers to the medical type, as seen worn by top players who are protecting an injured jaw/nose/cheekbone etc.

I once had a player tried to walk onto the pitch on a really cold day wearing a snood. He was told to remove it.
 
Back
Top