After our live interview on GB News on our findings of the UKHSA review, one of the two anchors, Philip Davies MP, received the following communiquè from the UKHSA:
Dr. Renu Bindra, Deputy Director of Public Health Clinical Response at UKHSA, said:
“The current evidence on face coverings suggests that all types of face coverings are, to varying extents, effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses in both healthcare and community settings. N95 respirators are likely to be the most effective, followed by surgical masks, and then non-medical masks, although optimised non-medical masks made of two or three layers might have similar filtration efficiency to surgical masks.
“The evidence specific to COVID-19 is still limited and does not allow for firm conclusions to be drawn for specific settings and types of face coverings. However, there is no evidence to suggest that face coverings and masks would be less effective at preventing the transmission of COVID-19 than any other similar respiratory infection.”
BACKGROUND
Throughout the pandemic, UKHSA published several rapid evidence reviews and a statement from an expert panel informed by review-level evidence (available here).
In the most recent version, review (update 2), studies were assessed by experienced reviewers using a risk of bias tool, which can be applied to most study designs (observational and interventional). In all three evidence reviews of the effectiveness of face coverings, all biases the reviewers felt were present were detailed in the supplementary tables and limitations were reported throughout, as well as in the conclusions and main messages.
In the overview of evidence conducted for the expert panel, reviews were assessed using AMSTAR 2, and key findings were given a confidence rating by combining the overview of evidence with expert knowledge and experience.
The most recent ‘Living with COVID-19’ guidance states that COVID-19 should be managed like other respiratory infections and only recommends face coverings for those with symptoms of a respiratory infection, who have a high temperature or feel unwell and are unable to avoid contact with others.
We appreciate John McCarthy’s comment: “Why do you waste your time on such nonsense?“
However, we take officialdom and responsibility seriously. So we read and reread Dr. Bindra’s message to make sense of it – but we were defeated, much like Mr. McCarthy foresaw.
Let’s start off in order of nonsense. The first statement says:
The current evidence on face coverings suggests that all types of face coverings are, to varying extents, effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses in both healthcare and community settings. N95 respirators are likely to be the most effective, followed by surgical masks, and then non-medical masks, although optimised non-medical masks made of 2 or 3 layers might have similar filtration efficiency to surgical masks. (emphasis added)
In contrast, our Cochrane review reports:
We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI… ‘The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.’ (emphasis added)
As the source of Dr. Bindra’s statement is not cited, we are at a loss to explain the source of such certainty.
However, here comes the bizarre bit. On April 14th, the Daily Telegraph reported: “A rapid review report published by the UKHSA investigated if high-quality masks, such as the N95, KN95 and FFP2 coverings, protect clinically vulnerable people in the community from catching Covid.”
The UKHSA rapid Review reported:
The purpose of this rapid review was to identify and assess the available evidence for the effectiveness of N95 and equivalent face masks as wearer protection against coronavirus (COVID-19) when used in the community by people at higher risk of becoming seriously ill from COVID-19 (search date: up to September 26th 2022). The review did not identify any studies for inclusion, and so could provide no evidence to answer the research question. (emphasis added)
And then Dr. Aodhán Breathnach, a Consultant Global Health Microbiologist at UKHSA and a Consultant Medical Microbiologist at St George’s University Hospitals recently published a study which found masks in hospitals had little impact on Covid transmission in the Omicron wave. He told the Telegraph: “In my view, there is no good evidence that N95 masks work any better than surgical masks.”
So what were Dr. Bindra’s statements based on?
The second paragraph of the statement is even more peculiar:
The evidence specific to COVID-19 is still limited and does not allow for firm conclusions to be drawn for specific settings and types of face coverings. However, there is no evidence to suggest that face coverings and masks would be less effective at preventing the transmission of COVID-19 than any other similar respiratory infection.
If the evidence relating to Covid is limited, it is because governments, public health bodies, foundations and so on refuse to carry out good quality studies to answer the question.
There is also a subtler point: the statement assumes SARS-CoV-2 transmission is different from that of all the other respiratory agents. However, we do not know this because good quality investigations based on molecular epidemiology methods have not been carried out on the transmission of other agents such as rhinoviridae, influenza or human metapneumovirus.
Dr. Bindra’s Background continues the series of puzzling contradictions:
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, UKHSA published a number of rapid evidence reviews and a statement from an expert panel informed by review-level evidence (available here).
The link takes us to a page where the evidence of “face coverings” is out of date. The first review in the list is September 2021, which contains no convincing evidence of anything, as we have pointed out, study by study.
In the most recent version of the rapid evidence review (update 2), we pointed out that no included observational study had a protocol, analyst blinding or gave a clear definition of COVID-19.
In the overview, evidence was given a confidence rating by combining the overview of evidence with expert knowledge and experience. This is expert-level spin, as expertise is at the bottom level of evidence as it is opinion. A perusal of the panel report shows that it met three times: “The panel met three times on March 1st 2021, April 21st 2021 and May 12th 2021.” The conclusions are out of date, although the UKHSA website reports it was updated to March 31st 2023.
Perhaps the most ludicrous statement is: “It should also be noted that the most recent ‘Living with COVID-19’ guidance specifically states that COVID-19 should be managed like other respiratory infections and only recommends face coverings for those with symptoms of a respiratory infection, who have a high temperature or feel unwell, and are unable to avoid contact with others.”
It is in direct contradiction to what is in paragraph one, in which the claim that all types of face coverings are, to a greater or lesser extent, responsible for lowering the risk of infection.
So what can we conclude? The UKHSA statement is an opinion; it is poorly thought through, and it certainly isn’t based on the evidence. It is based on evangelism which is eroding what is left of trust in science.
When it comes to informing public health, who should we then trust?
Dr. Carl Heneghan is the Oxford Professor of Evidence Based Medicine and Dr. Tom Jefferson is an epidemiologist based in Rome who works with Professor Heneghan on the Cochrane Collaboration. This article was first published on their Substack blog, Trust The Evidence, which you can subscribe to here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
On the one hand I appreciate the ongoing scrutiny from scientists of the evidence and debunking of the alleged necessity for these damned face nappies but on the other hand I feel the topic can be put to bed because the jury’s in that they don’t work and they’re harmful, but more so, no mandates of the hated rags will ever return. Yeah I know, easy for me to say when I no longer have to do battle with the horrific NHS, no longer ‘evidence-based’ but more ‘evidence-averse’, but can anyone see national mask mandates returning, and would enough people even comply anyway in order to make it worth it? I just think, whatever funky name they want to stick on the next scariant, or whatever fake plandemic they want to concoct in the future, nobody other than a hardened few will play ball. Not regarding sodding masks anyway!
I agree.
I think a lot of the drive from the writers comes from their immense frustration and deep anger that science and public health, which they no doubt practice with sincerity and rigour, is being besmirched by liars and charlatans, to the point where trust in public health will be destroyed.
I just can’t see governments anywhere ( with the obvious exception of China ) resurrecting things like mass testing, lockdowns, muzzles or anti-social distancing and expecting everyone to just obediently jump onboard and play along like before. In fact, the more you think about what people complied with since March 2020 the more absurd and surreal it all seems. I’m confident leaders just would not have the audacity. No, they’re moving onto the next phases in their totalitarian plans, such as 15-minute cities, CBDCs, the WHO Treaty, mRNA/insects in the food supply, as well as our food supply being attacked and decimated, and on and on it goes. So I really hope we still aren’t reading articles on here about lockdowns and masks in 1+year from now because they’re done and dusted, never to return. We’ll have bigger fish to fry in terms of what authoritarian governments have planned for us and it can be summed up in one word, control.
Yup, totally agree, but also see where the professors are coming from. They are clearly furious and quite rightly.
I just can’t see governments anywhere ( with the obvious exception of China ) resurrecting things like mass testing, lockdowns, muzzles or anti-social distancing and expecting everyone to just obediently jump onboard and play along like before.
I can still see the day after Boris the Bounceable was talked into reinstating the indoor mask mandate in November 2022. At first, I was very much shocked and depressed about this which then slowly turned into defiance — I will not wear such a thing again unless under the influence of direct force. On the next day, when I – as usual – crossed through the local shopping mall on my way to the pedestrian zone, I found myself the sole human being among masses of faceless entities hastily shuffling about as if I had suddenly been teleported to Lovecraft’s Innsmouth shortly before dusk.
Should the powers which laugh about us ever chose to reinstate the mask mandate again, I’ll expect the exact same thing to happen.
I was thinking of small rubber bouncing ball (called a Flummi in German) for children to play with. One takes it in one hand, throws it violently onto the floor and then, it starts to bounce wildly and randomly through the room as it’s being reflected by walls, ceiling and floor, possibly destroying or throwing over all kinds of smaller objects it happens to hit. That’s very similar to how the SAGEs had employed The Boris[tm] throughout the so-called pandemic.
I’m free of this particular shop because Superdrug has actually managed to solve the aftershave supply problem which hit them some time late in summer 2022. Superdrug employees are sometimes a bit difficult because they’re usually female and very young but at least, they’re unmuzzled, be it only to show off their make up.
Oh, that’s alright then. You do make me laugh!
But I’m old-school and been around the sun too many times..
“Superdrug employees are sometimes a bit difficult because they’re usually female…” Good job I’m not one of those easily offended radical feminists isn’t it?
I’m older than you (heading for 51 in October).
The and very young was an important part of that. Due to me being an autist, I have little to no intuitive people handling skills, only what I’ve managed to gather by trial-and-error, and I lack a clear procedure for handling female people who are past being girls but haven’t really become woman so far, either. If in doubt, I usually try smiling at them and being generally friendly, polite and harmless. But this apparently frequently comes with certain side-effects on the female mind I don’t necessarily want to cause and which seem highly inappriopriate (to me at least) when dealing with teenagers below 18 one encounters in some job function.
I can usually balance this somehow, but its decidedly easier with people who have already settled in a firm part-of-a-couple mode of operation.
Excellent. Spot on Mogs.
Unfortunately.
It is abundantly clear that no evidence/nothing recommends the use of masks in connection with respiratory viruses. (I’d recommend them if you’re dealing with asbestos, open wounds, pesticides and suchlike.)
BUT: I think the main point of masking was humiliation and terrorisation: the truly sickening campaign to scare us the little people into obedience and compliance. That was the main harm, to which quite a few of the people I pass outdoors are pitiably still in thrall.
There is also the various serious harm (or benefit?) that no rational person is going to trust senior officials, politicians and random credentialised “scientists” spouting authoritatively about anything. A self-inflicted harm on them, maybe a unintended benefit for the rest of us.
I have deep respect now for Heneghan and Jefferson, Norman Fenton and co, Simon Woods, and a few other statisticians, clinicians, and mathematicians who spoke out, seemingly at some detriment to themselves. And no little contempt for the others.
I agree that it is abundantly clear, as it has been for a long time, and yet I still read comments from people relaying their experiences on here of NHS establishments enforcing the damned things. It’s not just a ludicrous insult to the whole concept of evidence-based practice but if medical/healthcare personnel are still bullying and threatening people ( ”no mask no treatment” ) into covering their face for absolutely no justifiable reason then it’s just plain sinister and a flagrant abuse of power and a person’s human rights.
I agree, I would love to forget about all of this but the turkeys in charge would happily impose the same again if the opportunity arises.
I disagree, in a qualified manner. Despite the dropping of the mask mandate in the UK, and 99.99% of people in streets and trains not wearing them, masks are still required in some locations, notably if you visit elderly relatives in hospital or if you are supplying dental treatment. No mask, no visit. I met both these situations last month. Having travelled 200 miles to visit the relative, it seemed pointless to fall at the last hurdle, literally within waving distance of the relative, when “invited” to wear a mask by a pretty nurse offering me one. Somehow, I got the feeling that citing the Cochrane Report wasn’t going to get me anywhere, and I thought about but discarded the idea of flouncing out in a huff, unmasked, so for the first time ever I put one on to get past the nurse. I then joined the other visitor and another relative, neither of who were were wearing masks, so I used mine as a neck-warmer for the remainder of the visit. as did the others. Nobody said a word about it. I must have had the mask on for all of ten seconds. I get the impression that some NHS bureaucrat dictates that visitors must be thus “invited” (in order to comply with “the rules” and tick the boxes) but everybody realises that this is all just a charade and a boost for mask manufacturers and transporters.
Meanwhile, at the dentist there is no communication. I can’t reliably hear her without an element of lip-reading, and I can’t coherently speak owing the plethora of material in my open mouth and the anaesthetic drool. (The receptionist takes the card swipe, but is mostly hidden and inaudible behind the 2020-style plastic screens.)
So my GP is due to give me a steroid joint injection, and warns me by letter that there is some evidence that catching COVID in the weeks afterwards can increase the complications of COVID.
I can’t comment on the veracity of that (as compared to the well-documented risks of multiple mRNA boosters), but he recommends wearing a mask in the waiting room and spending as little time there as possible. As if that will stop me catching out as soon as I walk out and go to TESCO, even if he hasn’t read the Cochrane review.
What happened to simple logic in my profession?
Steroids (assuming we’re talking about corticosteroids rather than anabolic) suppress the immune system, which is why they are used to treat autoimmune disorders like rheumatoid arthritis. So it may make you more prone to catching stuff, though my understanding about what puts the non-frail in serious danger from covid is an immune system overload which I would think is less likely if you’re on steroids.
In my GP career I did hundreds of steroid injections for musculo-skeletal problems, and never saw any suspicious decreases in general immunity. Of course, problems with COVID spike protein may be different, or someone might have clocked an issue common to many respiratory viruses. But I ain’t going to lose sleep about it.
Was there ever any simple logic in our profession?
I look back now and see us medical students and doctors as the pawns of Big Pharma and other multinational companies (eg the “fat is bad” hoax).
I just remember desperately trying to remember all the “facts” we were taught, and regurgitate them as accurately as possible in order to get my MB BS.
I should have said “eating fat is bad”.
Amen to that Dr G (the other Dr G!). I did kick against the pricks as far as I could – being an independent GP contractor helped – but I think one needs to sit outside the profession for a while to gain perspective on how professions are, to a degree, blinkers.
It certainly becomes easier to be a dissenter as one nears the end of one’s career. I have also achieved greater professional independence, so feel quite comfortable saying what I believe.
Just ask why the UKHSA is doing this.
Easy answer.
Like all other “Government health bodies” they do what they’re told.
But who are “they” exactly?
It’s all about control of the plebs
Further to my post above about what our totalitarian-loving, control-hungry governments have in store for us, here is Jessica Rose’s latest, which is an excellent read. She attempts to make sense of the last three years and writes about where she thinks this is all going which includes; Covid, Trans extremists, climate change, CBDC and the pandemic Treaty.
”Social media is rank-stank-full of nothing much more than the 5 parts posted below. From trans ‘movements’ to CBDCs, they are all inextricably linked to the fourth part: the WHO/UN (ghates’)-driven descriptive plan to destroy sovereignty of self and nation. This fourth part: the PANDEMIC PREPAREDNESS TREATY, is something you need to prioritize reading about. I mean, the most important thing that you need to do today is to read about this Treaty. Don’t just think about it: do it. If this ‘Treaty’ goes through, it’s over.
The bottom line here is the COVID thing was the set-up. It was the first round to test compliance levels. It was the scene-setting for the next step designed to normalize the abnormal. Myocarditis in kids: sure! Healthy young adults dropping dead: no problem! Gagging your face with surgical masks: I was born with it! Having to show papers to eat out: perfectly fine!
It worked VERY WELL. People are still walking around outside with masks. There are so many out there still, absolutely unaware that the whole thing was a farce. They are still completely unaware that viruses – when left the hell alone – are an essential part of our existences. 8% of our genome are retroviruses. They are not to be eliminated. Anyone who claims to have a desire to eliminate viruses has no idea about biology and is doing nothing but putting sheer ignorance on display. It is up to us to point at it and them, and laugh.”
I’m glad she mentions pointing and laughing at the tit-heads wearing masks because that’s what I’ve always done.
https://jessicar.substack.com/p/making-sense-of-the-past-3-years
Mogs, I have posted three good links in the NR. Do have a read.
Sorry! I was asking a dumb Q & I think i’ve solved it after having a strong cup of tea and a sit down in a darkened room but I haven’t got the “skills” to deleted the Fook!&g comment.
Thanks for the link and Jessica is spot on.
Drs Tess Lawrie and Mike Yeadon are saying much similar.
Thanks hux, read your links. The third one is just mind blowing isn’t it? Especially when you consider the fact this tech exists or is currently in development. And much like Jess Rose is saying, the intention is obviously to dehumanize us by multiple means. Yes it was one of the U.S cities ( think New York ) where I’ve seen these new robot dogs being used but I think they’re more prevalent then I knew! Speaking of which, watch this 3min video. I think this is as clever as it is creepy, like something out of an episode of Black Mirror. Very impressive tech though, but how long before the headset becomes an implant?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a43044989/australian-army-uses-telepathy-to-control-robot-dogs/
The third one is indeed mind blowing. Despite our darkest imaginings I don’t think we have fully perceived the degree of threat we face.
The Expose has just put up some horrific info on the Deagel population figures and all broken down by country. If the Deagel figures are correct something massive is on its way. It cannot be a virus because Dr Mike Yeadon has thoroughly taken that Jackanory apart. Nuclear?
Actually, nuclear is far too indiscriminate so I don’t believe that is likely.
When are the bloody plebs going to wake up?
Thanks for the robo
link.
I notice towards the end of the Aussie dog vid the commentator uses the terms:
‘Military practitioner’ and ‘War specialist.’
Soldiers are now redundant then?
They can’t row back on it now. It was a central plank of what passed for the government ‘approach to Covid’. It would be like saying that staying 2m apart but moving through the same space, breathing the same air is also useless (oh yes it is…), and then what have we got left, hand washing..?
I don’t get this article at all. What evidence is UKHSA ignoring?
Bindra writes:
“The evidence specific to COVID-19 is still limited and does not allow for firm conclusions to be drawn for specific settings and types of face coverings. However, there is no evidence to suggest that face coverings and masks would be less effective at preventing the transmission of COVID-19 than any other similar respiratory infection.”
For some reason Heneghan and Jefferson thinks this is undermined by:
The purpose of this rapid review was to identify and assess the available evidence for the effectiveness of N95 and equivalent face masks as wearer protection against coronavirus (COVID-19) when used in the community by people at higher risk of becoming seriously ill from COVID-19 (search date: up to September 26th 2022). The review did not identify any studies for inclusion, and so could provide no evidence to answer the research question.
But the two paragraphs seem to support each other. Both say there aren’t many studies on masks in the specific context of Covid.
They then go on to write:
There is also a subtler point: the statement assumes SARS-CoV-2 transmission is different from that of all the other respiratory agents.
Presumably the statement in question is: ” However, there is no evidence to suggest that face coverings and masks would be less effective at preventing the transmission of COVID-19 than any other similar respiratory infection.” But this makes no assumptions whatsoever about whether Covid transmission is different from other respiratory agents. It just says we can’t assume they are different.
Then there is some dispute as to what evidence is convincing. This is a fascinating and deep philosophical discussion but doesn’t imply the UKHRSA is ignoring anything.
Then they write:
Perhaps the most ludicrous statement is: “It should also be noted that the most recent ‘Living with COVID-19’ guidance specifically states that COVID-19 should be managed like other respiratory infections and only recommends face coverings for those with symptoms of a respiratory infection, who have a high temperature or feel unwell, and are unable to avoid contact with others.”
It is in direct contradiction to what is in paragraph one, in which the claim that all types of face coverings are, to a greater or lesser extent, responsible for lowering the risk of infection.
Why is this a contradiction? Face masks may lower the risk of infection but if prevalence is low it is perfectly logical to only wear them in specific contexts.
I take it English is not your first language?
So what is the evidence that the UKHSA published that they then ignored?
Why do you assume the title was chosen by Heneghan and Jefferson?
There would only be a need for evidence specific to Covid 19 if it behaved differently to other respiratory diseases.
Otherwise you can say: masking doesn’t work against respiratory diseases. Covid 19 is just another respiratory disease. Therefore masking doesn’t work against Covid 19.
True. So what?
Both UKHSA and the authors in their Cochrane review argue that evidence for other respiratory diseases is also evidence for Covid. However, they differ on their assessment of the evidence for other respiratory diseases so they come to different conclusions about Covid. Also the UKHSA is not so confident about the link – it argues “no evidence of difference” while the Cochrane review has no reservations in lumping Covid in with all other respiratory disease in one metanalysis.
However, there is no evidence to suggest that face coverings and masks would be less effective at preventing the transmission of COVID-19 than any other similar respiratory infection.
That’s a clear case dismissed statement as it doesn’t really mean anything but is worded in such a complicated way that people hopefully won’t notice this. Ie, as worded, this statement is consistent with As with all other respiratory diseases, the effectiveness of Chinese mummery against COVID is zero. If Chinese mummery has no effect on such infections, its effect against COVID isn’t less than its effect against influenza, as it’s zero in both cases.
The moment someone is caught red-handed making a statement like this, anything else the person may have said in the same context can be discarded. Should it happen to be true, dishonesty was accidentally unnecessary or it got overlooked.
Well done.
But in the preceding sentence they claim that there is evidence that face coverings and masks prevent transmission in similar respiratory infections. I am sure you don’t agree with that conclusion but that is a separate debate. The point is that the preceding sentence makes the sentence you quote perfectly sensible. To paraphrase it:
We have evidence that X works in context Y. We don’t have evidence that it works in the similar context Z but there is no reason to suppose X would not work.
What is inconsistent about that?
But in the preceding sentence they claim that there is evidence that face coverings and masks prevent transmission in similar respiratory infections.
He doesn’t. In it’s simplest from, the preceding statement just means There is no proof that any form of Chinese mummery reduces transmissions of respiratory infections in either healthcare or community settings. A slightly more complicated rendering of it could be While there is no proof for a reduction of transmissions of … by Chinese Mummery, some available statisics made Dr Bindra believe that they really should have such an effect, although it cannot be quantified. He also believes that Complicated & Expensive Chinese Mummery ought to be more effective than Simple & Cheap Chinese Mummery.
He also specifically refers to all types of face coverings, so, if in doubt, put your underpants over your head like Trisha Greenalgh once did, Dr Bindra believes this will offer some amount of protection of someone against something. After all, Greenalgh didn’t die yet and it cannot be ruled ought that she would have had hadn’t she precautionarily face-underpanted herself.
Well..colour me surprised. The fact that the UKHSA ignore evidence that doesn’t support their propaganda isn’t news to anyone..surely? Not only do masks not ‘work’ the latest studies show that they are also more likely to harm people’s health…
They UKHSA also ignore the fact that for eighteen months+ their own data has shown that the waning efficacy of the vaccine means that the quacksinated go into vaccine debt and are more likely to test positive than someone who hasn’t been vaccinated ..they don’t acknowledge this fact either….
So what? We know they are ‘enablers’ now..June Raine said so clearly..they are also mainly funded by BigPharma….why would anyone expect them to tell the truth?
If you can access Twitter have a look at Professor Norman Fenton….
“The MHRA is not fit for purpose. This is a slide from a recent talk by June Raine (CEO of MHRA). It supposedly shows the number of Yellow Card reports (of adverse reactions to drugs/vaccines) per 100K of the population by region.
2. Can it possibly be correct that the number of reports DECREASED in 2021 – the year the covid vaccines were introduced? The slide suggests about 43 reports per 100K UK population in 2021. That’s about 2,800 total reports for the whole UK.
3. Yet, we know from other MHRA reports that between Jan 2021-March 2023 there were 474,018 separate Yellow Card reports with covid vaccine adverse events..”
These people can’t even lie straight in bed!!
Masks will/may work for surgeons to stop their spit dropping into a patient that is being operated on. Face masks are not designed to stop or trap airborne viruses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3dnkbKoj4A&t=35s
Stephen Petty – On the effectiveness of masks
Crikey, I’ve gotten to 63 years old without a mask to protect me most of that time.
I don’t need a Cochrane review or any other bit of paperwork to tell me that a piece of cloth across the face to protect against a so-called virus is not necessary.
Psychopaths running the show must be chortling away to themselves that they’ve fear-mongered so many of the masses into falling for this rubbish.
Here’s the deal… Standing in a room with a gang of other people, we’re all breathing in and out the same air, it’s going to be mixed up, that’s the way it is.
If this worries you, get a hazmat suit and lock yourself into room somewhere, and leave the people who want to get on with life alone.