Masks

bush

No: other

ginoginelli wrote: »

I'm seeing a lot of people wearing a different type of visor. These ones barely go down to the mouth, so if the wearer raises his chin slightly basically the whole face is exposed.

Why the f#$% are the goverment even allowing these things? They offer little to none protection and give a false sense of security.

We are so behind in this country on covid preventive measures its embarrassing. Embarrassing and dangerous.

I've seen someone wear one of those it looks like they aren't wearing anything from a distance. How are they held in place? It just goes to show people will wear any old ****e to abide the rule.

3wayswitch

Yes: surgical

weldoninhio wrote: »

If handling stuff transmits it so contagiously that we can’t use cash, how come if I’ve a trolley load of stuff. I touch it to put it on the belt, the cashier touches it to scan it and I pack it. Why haven’t we all been pushed to self scan?? Bit of a contradiction there. I can’t touch your cash, it might be infected, but I’ll touch every single piece of shopping you’ve bought.

When you touch an item and put it in your trolley, you only touch it for a brief period of time before you put in into your trolley and then the cashier only touches it for a few seconds while scanning it. Presumably you have also sanitized your hands while going into the store which should make it safer for both of you to touch your items. The risk here is minimal.

With cash however there are a lot of unknowns. Has the person been holding their coins in the hands for the past 30 mins before coming into the store? Has the person been storing their cash somewhere where they should like their bra where it might get exposed to sweat? (yes I have seen this happen in person). One contaminated coin in a cash register could contaminate other coins which then get handed out to multiple people. While I wouldn't consider money to be a high risk source of infection, it's easy to see why it would be a higher risk than the items in your shopping trolley.

If a single life could be saved by asking people to try using their credit cards instead of cash, then I think it's worth it.

robinph

No: I don't care enough

bush wrote: »

I've seen someone wear one of those it looks like they aren't wearing anything from a distance. How are they held in place? It just goes to show people will wear any old ****e to abide the rule.

The visors are not great, but you can't accuse anyone wearing them of not doing their part. They are hardly wearing a visor for the good looks. Maybe a bit of education about wearing them a better, or why they can't wear a mask, but they are definitely not doing it for political reasons or because they don't care about the lives of others.

robinph

No: I don't care enough

3wayswitch wrote: »

When you touch an item and put it in your trolley, you only touch it for a brief period of time before you put in into your trolley and then the cashier only touches it for a few seconds while scanning it. Presumably you have also sanitized your hands while going into the store which should make it safer for both of you to touch your items. The risk here is minimal.

With cash however there are a lot of unknowns. Has the person been holding their coins in the hands for the past 30 mins before coming into the store? Has the person been storing their cash somewhere where they should like their bra where it might get exposed to sweat? (yes I have seen this happen in person). One contaminated coin in a cash register could contaminate other coins which then get handed out to multiple people. While I wouldn't consider money to be a high risk source of infection, it's easy to see why it would be a higher risk than the items in your shopping trolley.

If a single life could be saved by asking people to try using their credit cards instead of cash, then I think it's worth it.

Sweat isn't a vector for transmission so doesn't really matter, other than general ickyness factor.

But the lack of cash being used is a potential big problem as it excludes a lot of people from being able to do things if money becomes entirely virtual and every transaction has to be done electronically with a bank as the middle man every time.

bush

No: other

You can use cash if you want

robinph

No: I don't care enough

GT89 wrote: »

Tbh if there is a vaccine within the next year or so I will be highly suspect. Vaccines take a long time to develop. It will make me think that this came from a lab and released as a targeted bio weapon and the vaccine is to be realeased as part of a problem reaction solution.

Problem= Covid 1984
Reaction= lockdowns, masks, social distancing, fear, tensions and unrest
Solution= Mass vacination, cashless society and surveillance

They don't take a long time to develop, they take a long time to test.

Here is where different vaccines are up to in their testing process:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2020/aug/24/covid-vaccine-tracker-when-will-we-have-a-coronavirus-vaccine

weldoninhio

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

3wayswitch wrote: »

When you touch an item and put it in your trolley, you only touch it for a brief period of time before you put in into your trolley and then the cashier only touches it for a few seconds while scanning it. Presumably you have also sanitized your hands while going into the store which should make it safer for both of you to touch your items. The risk here is minimal.

With cash however there are a lot of unknowns. Has the person been holding their coins in the hands for the past 30 mins before coming into the store? Has the person been storing their cash somewhere where they should like their bra where it might get exposed to sweat? (yes I have seen this happen in person). One contaminated coin in a cash register could contaminate other coins which then get handed out to multiple people. While I wouldn't consider money to be a high risk source of infection, it's easy to see why it would be a higher risk than the items in your shopping trolley.

If a single life could be saved by asking people to try using their credit cards instead of cash, then I think it's worth it.

So you can sweat Covid now?? That’s a new one. Should we not ban exercise??

Tork

Yes: to protect others

Ooh I bet you loved it when this came up. We all know covid isn't spread by sweat and doesn't leak through the skin.

Did you or any of the other anti-maskers here go to the protest at the weekend? If not, why not? Looks like it was right up your street.

weldoninhio

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

Tork wrote: »

Ooh I bet you loved it when this came up. We all know covid isn't spread by sweat and doesn't leak through the skin.

Did you or any of the other anti-maskers here go to the protest at the weekend? If not, why not? Looks like it was right up your street.

Didn’t make it in, already had plans. Some friends were at it, said it was a great atmosphere. My GP made an excellent speech, watched it on FB.

Tork

Yes: to protect others

You can always go to the next one

Away With The Fairies

Yes: valved

bush wrote: »

I've seen someone wear one of those it looks like they aren't wearing anything from a distance. How are they held in place? It just goes to show people will wear any old ****e to abide the rule.

That's because HSE is saying it's ok. People don't know any different.

washman3

i_surge wrote: »

Multifactorial problem

It is known that deaths go down during recessions/depressions and this was the same. Fewer traffic and work accidents and so on.

So there are two sides to that see-saw.

Both traffic and workplace deaths are higher so far in 2020 than in 2019.
Another theory blown out of the water.
Total deaths from all causes so far in 2020 are nearly 700 less than 2019.
Still looking for somebody to explain.
Was there a Pandemic in 2019 that we did'nt know or were'nt told about...!!!

odyssey06

washman3 wrote: »

Both traffic and workplace deaths are higher so far in 2020 than in 2019.
Another theory blown out of the water.
Total deaths from all causes so far in 2020 are nearly 700 less than 2019.
Still looking for somebody to explain.
Was there a Pandemic in 2019 that we did'nt know or were'nt told about...!!!

46 people died in workplace accidents in 2019, and 150 in traffic accidents.
Those figures are dwarfed by:

Ireland's excess mortality for March to June was 1000 - 1300 deaths higher than expected.
Similar excess mortalities have been reported all across Europe.

You seem to have figures about total deaths from all causes for 2020 and a query about same.
Suggest masks thread is not the best place to look for answers other than to say that as we have maintained better hygiene practices, distancing, mask wearing since coming out of lockdown it could well be that that there are less other germs \ viruses etc out there circulating.

saneman

Yes: surgical

bush wrote: »

I've seen someone wear one of those it looks like they aren't wearing anything from a distance. How are they held in place? It just goes to show people will wear any old ****e to abide the rule.

The visor you're referring may be something like this:

https://8qw7vvsv2i-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/PR999-Easy-Fit-Face-Shield-9-600x600.jpg

There are valid medical reasons why someone may not be able to wear a mask. We can't know by looking, but the individual is at least making an effort.

washman3

odyssey06 wrote: »

Suggest masks thread is not the best place to look for answers other than to say that as we have maintained better hygiene practices, distancing, mask wearing since coming out of lockdown it could well be that that there are less other germs \ viruses etc out there circulating.

Explain why positive cases have rocketed since mask wearing has become mandatory in the last few weeks.
Was'nt mask wearing supposed to REDUCE the number of new cases.??

odyssey06

washman3 wrote: »

Explain why positive cases have rocketed since mask wearing has become mandatory in the last few weeks.
Was'nt mask wearing supposed to REDUCE the number of new cases.??

I think you already know the explanation if you have been paying any attention to the phased easing of restrictions in this country.
We're not in lockdown any more.

Also, our case count and death count dropped dramatically in late April when mask wearing was rolled out in general use in health and care settings.

dwayneshintzy

Yes: to protect myself and others

washman3 wrote: »

Explain why positive cases have rocketed since mask wearing has become mandatory in the last few weeks.
Was'nt mask wearing supposed to REDUCE the number of new cases.??

Is your contention that mask wearing is to blame for the increase in cases?

saneman

Yes: surgical

washman3 wrote: »

Explain why positive cases have rocketed since mask wearing has become mandatory in the last few weeks.
Was'nt mask wearing supposed to REDUCE the number of new cases.??

Yeah, but for some reason there appears to be a lot of resistance to the actual wearing of masks. Maybe that, tied with the initial easing of restrictions, & the issues arising in the meat factories would start to explain it.

I mean it's just a bit of fabric, you don't have to staple gun them to your face, they have ear loops...

robinph

No: I don't care enough

washman3 wrote: »

Explain why positive cases have rocketed since mask wearing has become mandatory in the last few weeks.
Was'nt mask wearing supposed to REDUCE the number of new cases.??

Can you explain the science behind your theory of how masks have increased transmission for us?

washman3

robinph wrote: »

Can you explain the science behind your theory of how masks have increased transmission for us?

Point out where i said mask wearing increased transmission.
You are the one suggesting this.
Read my post again.

washman3

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think you already know the explanation if you have been paying any attention to the phased easing of restrictions in this country.
We're not in lockdown any more.

Also, our case count and death count dropped dramatically in late April when mask wearing was rolled out in general use in health and care settings.

Mask wearing was rolled out in general use only a few weeks ago, certainly not April. Maybe it was in healthcare settings.
In shopping centres in late July only a minority were wearing masks.

robinph

No: I don't care enough

washman3 wrote: »

Point out where i said mask wearing increased transmission.
You are the one suggesting this.
Read my post again.

Here you go:

washman3 wrote: »

Explain why positive cases have rocketed since mask wearing has become mandatory in the last few weeks.
Was'nt mask wearing supposed to REDUCE the number of new cases.??

You can't have forgotten posting that already surely?

robinph

No: I don't care enough

washman3 wrote: »

Mask wearing was rolled out in general use only a few weeks ago, certainly not April. Maybe it was in healthcare settings.
In shopping centres in late July only a minority were wearing masks.

Hang on, are you now claiming that mask wearing has nothing to to with any current changes in the number of infections due to it being common among the general public only more recently?

Or are you sticking with wearing masks is the cause of the increase in infections?

washman3

robinph wrote: »

Hang on, are you now claiming that mask wearing has nothing to to with any current changes in the number of infections due to it being common among the general public only more recently?

Or are you sticking with wearing masks is the cause of the increase in infections?

Go on roundabouts all you like but the figures are there.
Mask wearing over the last few weeks has not decreased cases.
The cases have actually increased. I want you to explain that.
Forget this 'Meat Factory' bluff. All the meat factories were operating during the lockdown. And there were just as many house partys during the lockdown than there are now.
Nowhere did i claim that masks increased transmission.
But the evidence is there, cases are up. Explain why.!!

robinph

No: I don't care enough

washman3 wrote: »

Go on roundabouts all you like but the figures are there.
Mask wearing over the last few weeks has not decreased cases.
The cases have actually increased. I want you to explain that.
Forget this 'Meat Factory' bluff. All the meat factories were operating during the lockdown. And there were just as many house partys during the lockdown than there are now.
Nowhere did i claim that masks increased transmission.
But the evidence is there, cases are up. Explain why.!!

What has any of that got to do with masks then?

Did people wearing masks in shops suddenly cause outbreaks in meat factories? Did the wearing of masks cause more people to have parties? Did masks mean that authorities noticed more parties happening? Did the reduction in the number of pirates cause global warming?

You are the one bringing in other topics as a justification for not wearing a mask, you need to provide your reasoning behind those things to support your claim that masks are ineffective due to meat factories/ house parties/ pirates.

xhomelezz

Yes: valved

washman3 wrote: »

Point out where i said mask wearing increased transmission.
You are the one suggesting this.
Read my post again.

God, you suggesting connection between increase in cases and masks pretty clearly there.

washman3

saneman wrote: »

I mean it's just a bit of fabric, you don't have to staple gun them to your face, they have ear loops...

I know exactly what they are. Have been wearing them for years on end at work. Safely can say that i may know more about them than many here.
When i hear someone suggest that a piece of cloth covering your nose and mouth will prevent a virus one millionth of a millimeter from passing through, i don't know whether to laugh or cry. Forget about this 'virus in droplet guff..!!

The only mask that may be in any way viable is the surgical type used in operating theatres, but those are only effective in such environments, which are sterile and single use only. Do you ever see a surgeon wearing one walking around a hospital.
Would love to check and see what some of you folks round here were 'experts' on a year ago....;)

xhomelezz

Yes: valved

washman3 wrote: »

I know exactly what they are. Have been wearing them for years on end at work. Safely can say that i may know more about them than many here.
When i hear someone suggest that a piece of cloth covering your nose and mouth will prevent a virus one millionth of a millimeter from passing through, i don't know whether to laugh or cry. Forget about this 'virus in droplet guff..!!

The only mask that may be in any way viable is the surgical type used in operating theatres, but those are only effective in such environments, which are sterile and single use only. Do you ever see a surgeon wearing one walking around a hospital.
Would love to check and see what some of you folks round here were 'experts' on a year ago....;)

The virus is part of much bigger droplet..... expert

odyssey06

washman3 wrote: »

I know exactly what they are. Have been wearing them for years on end at work. Safely can say that i may know more about them than many here.
When i hear someone suggest that a piece of cloth covering your nose and mouth will prevent a virus one millionth of a millimeter from passing through, i don't know whether to laugh or cry. Forget about this 'virus in droplet guff..!!
The only mask that may be in any way viable is the surgical type used in operating theatres, but those are only effective in such environments, which are sterile and single use only. Do you ever see a surgeon wearing one walking around a hospital.
Would love to check and see what some of you folks round here were 'experts' on a year ago....;)

This canard has been raised and rebutted multiple times on the thread already.
Organisations such as the CDC and ECDC are recommending wearing masks to contain droplets - the below explains why.
Frankly when the leading health organisations in the world recommend something, you'll have to come up with much better refutations that shouting 'guff' and some nonsense about surgeons. We're talking about community transmission of an infectious respiratory disease, not a surgeon operating in a sterile environment.
The CDC are the experts, we are following the evidence they have put out to explain their recommendations.

The tiny virus particle argument is rebutted by the below linked article, which includes links to the referenced studies.
It's a red herring. Masks are not about suppressing 100% of the viral load and every virus particle but blocking the majority of the highly infectious droplets.
It's the droplets that travel furthest and hang longest in the air without dispersal.
The more viral load you are exposed to the more chance you have of being infected and infected with severe symptoms.

Other studies bear this out in more detail, demonstrating that wearing masks does three important things:

• One, they reduce the total mass and volume of droplets put into the environment.
• Two, they reduce the distance that droplets travel and make physical distancing a much more effective preventative measure.
• And three, wearing a face mask always reduces the total droplet mass relative to not wearing a mask, due to a combination of mask filtration (especially of larger droplets) and droplet evaporation (which is more effective for smaller droplets).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/10/ask-ethan-what-is-the-science-behind-wearing-a-mask/#3f3298695f3c
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0015044

Dubl07

Yes: other

Sconsey wrote: »

So we say once someone hits 80 they are a lost cause, good riddance to them. It doesn't suit your lifestyle to make a really small effort to support them. Occasionally wearing a mask is that big of an imposition to you. Thanks God you are in the vast minority.

And thankfully Covid scars the testes so he's less likely to reproduce when he contracts it. Darwin rocks.