Masks

patnor1011

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

I got to meet an anti-masker in real life. They asked me (like I was thick) to think logically, how is this spread and hand washing is the most important thing in stopping the spread. I told them that the virus doesn't leave the hands.

Well, I think it's very important to keep your distance from people like this to stop the spread and I very much can think logically and because of that, and because of the virus leaving a person's mouth and nose, I know that covering up is probably the most important thing.

I can't believe these people are actually out there.

Controversial things tends to bring out confrontation and give platform to everyone. From people who are convinced this is all out powergrab to people who are convinced we all should sit in home and go out only in full hazmat suit till "virus dies" or some miracle vaccine becomes available. Truth is usually lost somewhere in the middle of all of that.

Seanergy

Yes: valved

patnor1011 wrote: »

Every dunnes till and cashier are pretty much covered with plexi glass. Much more protected than any other shopper walking the shop with visor on. You need to calm down a bit or if you do not like it shop somewhere else.

Absolutely under no circumstances tell me to calm down.

Also don't muddy the conversation by introducing a comparitive with any other shopper with a visor on to staff who have been excused by the HSE from wearing face coverings because they are somewhat behind a sheet of perspex.

Pretty much covered does not cut it.

Tokyo

patnor1011 wrote: »

There was a time before when this happened. First it was papers then for better convenience they got yellow star. Usually SS issued these. History repeats itself it seems.

Mod: Stop trying to Godwin the thread. I think we can safely say that one of these things is not like the other.

RoYoBo

Yes: valved

joeguevara wrote: »

Do you honestly think that. If you are maskless you could also be declaring I could try and reduce transmission but I don’t want to. And Fcuck you for questioning me, I am God. Or your one too.

You are misreading what I'm saying. I am not at all arguing that there is no need for a letter of exemption - quite the opposite! I am arguing against the notion that a letter of exemption breaches confidentiality in any way.

If you are maskless, offering proof of your justification via a letter gives away no more about your health issues than the fact that you are obviously maskless. What it will do is highlight those who don't want to and are saying, as you put it,
Fcuck you for questioning me, I am God

RoYoBo

Yes: valved

patnor1011 wrote: »

I know, right? Yet some of the posters here do not think that is enough and demand proof or something. They think that if you are not able to prove that mask will actually kill you they are ready to accuse you that you are trying to kill them (or vulnerable and old people we all have duty to protect whether they want it or not).

My argument is not about going maskless being enough to prove an exemption. It is about being able to back up what you are declaring via an exemption, which will not breach your confidentially any more than your not wearing a mask in the first place.

It would be great if people were honest and had the integrity to declare the truth or abide by the law without having to support it, but that's not the way the world works. How many people would tax their cars,buy train tickets, park in a disabled space or anything similar if they weren't obliged to provide proof?

RoYoBo

No: I don't care enough

RoYoBo wrote: »

If you are maskless, offering proof of your justification via a letter gives away no more about your health issues than the fact that you are obviously maskless. What it will do is highlight those who don't want to and are saying, as you put it,
Fcuck you for questioning me, I am God

The major flaw in your logic of course is that you are forgetting there are people who wont wear a mask as they are anti-mask etc so the fact someone isn't wearing a mask does in no way mean they have a disability.

In fact I'd imagine the number of people who cant wear masks is tiny and most not wearing them are doing so on purpose.

Children have been (wrongly) exempt from masks but its great to see a good proportion of them are wearing them in shops etc so Id imagine a lot of people who could technically be exempt from a mask are still wearing them for the common good.

RoYoBo

Yes: valved

Nickolas White Petroleum wrote: »

The major flaw in your logic of course is that you are forgetting there are people who wont wear a mask as they are anti-mask etc so the fact someone isn't wearing a mask does in no way mean they have a disability.

In fact I'd imagine the number of people who cant wear masks is tiny and most not wearing them are doing so on purpose.

Children have been (wrongly) exempt from masks but its great to see a good proportion of them are wearing them in shops etc so Id imagine a lot of people who could technically be exempt from a mask are still wearing them for the common good.

There is no flaw in my logic - I am stating that proof IS necessary for that very reason. Which is why I said in the unquoted part of my post that it would be nice if people were honest but that the world doesn't work that way. Hence the need to back up your maskless declaration with proof. Such proof does not need to include anything that breaches confidentiality. That is the only reason I posted.

This issue of proof will have to be resolved one way or another as there will always be people who opt to 'get away' with something they want/don't want to do. Take the example of disabled parking, even if a person is very clearly in that category, if they don't have a badge, they are not entitled to park in designated spaces. The badge gives no details of their disability and a letter of exemption for the tiny minority who can't wear a mask is exactly the same.

RoYoBo

No: I don't care enough

RoYoBo wrote: »

There is no flaw in my logic - I am stating that proof IS necessary for that very reason. Which is why I said in the unquoted part of my post that it would be nice if people were honest but that the world doesn't work that way. Hence the need to back up your maskless declaration with proof. Such proof does not need to include anything that breaches confidentiality. That is the only reason I posted.

This issue of proof will have to be resolved one way or another as there will always be people who opt to 'get away' with something they want/don't want to do. Take the example of disabled parking, even if a person is very clearly in that category, if they don't have a badge, they are not entitled to park in designated spaces. The badge gives no details of their disability and a letter of exemption for the tiny minority who can't wear a mask is exactly the same.

Apologies we are in agreement so, I misinterpreted your post.

saabsaab

Yes: homemade

It might be a good idea to have an official badge with a photo that could be worn for those who can't wear a mask for medical reasons. Like disabled parking badge. Easy to see no need to question. Badge or mask.

weldoninhio

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

Hand in Your Pants wrote: »

Anti-maskers are selfish morans. Sure don't wear your mask but you don't get leave your house, all kids to get jab before going to school otherwise we take them off you, track these morans and publically shame them, bring in curfew if necessary, at the end of the day these morans are spreading the disease through sheer ignorance and low iqs

Your calling people morons would carry more gravitas if you could spell it.

patnor1011

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

saabsaab wrote: »

It might be a good idea to have an official badge with a photo that could be worn for those who can't wear a mask for medical reasons. Like disabled parking badge. Easy to see no need to question. Badge or mask.

A badge to wear? Like so that people with covid phobia can steer away from them from afar?
I think that not having a mask on is badge visible enough. No need to have any other identificators as it is none of your business to inquiry about why they do not have it on anyway. People who are entitled to do this check can request details, not you - now mater how "concerned member of public" you are.

saabsaab

Yes: homemade

patnor1011 wrote: »

A badge to wear? Like so that people with covid phobia can steer away from them from afar?
I think that not having a mask on is badge visible enough. No need to have any other identificators as it is none of your business to inquiry about why they do not have it on anyway. People who are entitled to do this check can request details, not you - now mater how "concerned member of public" you are.

It is my business or anybody else's. The owner of a shop or other can not take the risk and should be easily able to stop those without masks from entering.

MadYaker

Yes: surgical

saabsaab wrote: »

It might be a good idea to have an official badge with a photo that could be worn for those who can't wear a mask for medical reasons. Like disabled parking badge. Easy to see no need to question. Badge or mask.

Around where I live anyway almost everyone in shops and shopping centres is still wearing them so I don't think this is necessary or realistic. Lack of mask wearing in shops etc isn't contributing to the current rise. It's still people having parties and now kids back at school.

saabsaab

Yes: homemade

MadYaker wrote: »

Around where I live anyway almost everyone in shops and shopping centres is still wearing them so I don't think this is necessary or realistic. Lack of mask wearing in shops etc isn't contributing to the current rise. It's still people having parties and now kids back at school.

We can't be sure what is leading the current rise but extra mask wearing can only be helpful.

Pitch n Putt

saabsaab wrote: »

We can't be sure what is leading the current rise but extra mask wearing can only be helpful.

Said who ?

Perhaps the initial mask wearing push has had an effect on the increase in cases.

Nobody knows.

It’s all guesswork.

Needs to be returned to an optional decision whether to wear masks or not.

odyssey06

saabsaab wrote: »

We can't be sure what is leading the current rise but extra mask wearing can only be helpful.

Yep, and masks are about containing the outbreaks to clusters and limiting community transmission.

saabsaab

Yes: homemade

Pitch n Putt wrote: »

Said who ?

Perhaps the initial mask wearing push has had an effect on the increase in cases.

Nobody knows.

It’s all guesswork.

Needs to be returned to an optional decision whether to wear masks or not.

WHO. The advice below


https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks

Graham

saabsaab wrote: »

We can't be sure what is leading the current rise but extra mask wearing can only be helpful.

Pitch n Putt wrote: »

Said who ?

The medical profession at large.

Science.

The laws of physics.

Common sense telling you that your spit is going to be stopped by a mask.

moonage

saabsaab wrote: »

It might be a good idea to have an official badge with a photo that could be worn for those who can't wear a mask for medical reasons. Like disabled parking badge. Easy to see no need to question. Badge or mask.

You don't have to have a medical reason to be exempt.

You're also exempt if wearing it causes "severe distress", which is handy.

We're being made to wear them for the optics and to keep the fear heightened, rather than for health benefits. Wearing them is a sign of compliance and submission and is priming us for the new normal.

If the death rates and hospitalisation rates continue to remain low into the future, hopefully more and more people will see through all the nonsence and stop wearing them. Of course, people can wear them if they want but it must cease to be mandatory.

Graham

saabsaab wrote: »

It might be a good idea to have an official badge with a photo that could be worn for those who can't wear a mask for medical reasons.

I feel sorry for the tiny minority that genuinely can't wear a mask for medical reasons.

They're being done an incredible disservice by the 'face-mask-is-all-hurty-against-my-human-rights' brigade.

moonage

Nickolas White Petroleum wrote: »

Children have been (wrongly) exempt from masks but its great to see a good proportion of them are wearing them in shops etc so Id imagine a lot of people who could technically be exempt from a mask are still wearing them for the common good.

I find it very disturbing seeing small children forced to wear masks. I suppose the indoctrination has to start young.

Here's a jolly/creepy little song encouraging kids to wear masks:

Graham

moonage wrote: »

I find it very disturbing seeing small children forced to wear masks.

So disturbing you went searching for a Youtube video of children wearing masks?

suicide_circus

saabsaab wrote: »

It might be a good idea to have an official badge with a photo that could be worn for those who can't wear a mask for medical reasons. Like disabled parking badge. Easy to see no need to question. Badge or mask.

A yellow star perhaps?

Graham

wasn't funny when it was posted 2 pages back either

odyssey06

There's a lot of questions on the main thread about whether "the virus is weakening" as we are seeing cases increase with less % hospitalisations. There is nothing solid on that at a genetic level, and it has been looked at.

It could all just be down to more testing.

In the context of this thread, just mentioning it could be due to lower viral load because of the use of the masks, which has been seen in other viruses to weaken the impact on those infected.

saabsaab

Yes: homemade

odyssey06 wrote: »

There's a lot of questions on the main thread about whether "the virus is weakening" as we are seeing cases increase with less % hospitalisations. There is nothing solid on that at a genetic level, and it has been looked at.

It could all just be down to more testing.

In the context of this thread, just mentioning it could be due to lower viral load because of the use of the masks, which has been seen in other viruses to weaken the impact on those infected.

Yes, the less virus you take on the better your chances.

railer201

Yes: valved

odyssey06 wrote: »

There's a lot of questions on the main thread about whether "the virus is weakening" as we are seeing cases increase with less % hospitalisations. There is nothing solid on that at a genetic level, and it has been looked at.

It could all just be down to more testing.

In the context of this thread, just mentioning it could be due to lower viral load because of the use of the masks, which has been seen in other viruses to weaken the impact on those infected.

We're hearing more and more about this in the media - that masks protect the wearer also, now appears to becoming an accepted fact. This is all to the good as it gives a more direct incentive for people to wear them, as it's not all about protecting the other person - it's about me too.

Not that personal opinions matter much, but just like Wibbs I have never come across any filter material that works in one direction only. If a cloth face mask stops the virus in one direction, then it will also stop it in the opposite direction, at least enough to reduce the viral load and hence the severity of the infection.

Good news

CalamariFritti

What's the story actually with the masks law? Is there an expiry date on it? Or is this going to go on forever or in other words until the government thinks the general opinion tide has turned? Genuine question.

brianhere

All measures taken recently are intended to be permanent, don't be like the publicans and be strung along with a hope they will be opened this week and then the next week etc! That's why they call it the new normal.

After all look at it another way, there are always going to be infectious diseases, and the vast majority of them have hugely greater fatality rates than this Covid which has been proven to be a very mild disease. So once you have established the principle of destroying social and commercial life in the country for a very mild infectious disease, then that principle will carry you forward ad infinitum with respect to all the other diseases.

If you are looking for a bit of info on this you can get some here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/mj7cq1f2z16sx34/Communism%20is%20the%20Virus.pdf .

saabsaab

Yes: homemade

brianhere wrote: »

All measures taken recently are intended to be permanent, don't be like the publicans and be strung along with a hope they will be opened this week and then the next week etc! That's why they call it the new normal.

After all look at it another way, there are always going to be infectious diseases, and the vast majority of them have hugely greater fatality rates than this Covid which has been proven to be a very mild disease. So once you have established the principle of destroying social and commercial life in the country for a very mild infectious disease, then that principle will carry you forward ad infinitum with respect to all the other diseases.

If you are looking for a bit of info on this you can get some here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/mj7cq1f2z16sx34/Communism%20is%20the%20Virus.pdf .

I doubt it is regarded as 'proven to be a very mild disease' jury is still out on the after effects. Probably not as bad as might have been look at all the effort that was taken to achieve this.