Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

1163164166168169174

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,862 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    I started to understand you after reading your first post, chip

    Like the guy who goes out surfing when weather warnings are in place and puts the voluntary lifeboat people in danger having to rescue them, it happens

    No law against it but hey those kind of gloamers should think of others some time.

    But Lookit , that would never happen to you as you’re more than capable…

    Its a tough station for sure… we’ll sled on.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,182 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    It's not always clear from posts on the thread, if only about the present or the entire pandemic is being discussed.

    The point also is that the state is entitled to mandate that you must wear one, should it deem it necessary. And it is doing so for public health reasons - not for the risk to you alone but also the risk to others. This is a misconception repeated constantly on the thread, that people were mandated to wear masks to protect themselves.

    Post edited by odyssey06 on

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If you're comparing wearing a mask with surfing in a storm then perhaps risk assessment is not your strong point.

    I can see why you might need some help/guidance.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,505 ✭✭✭fun loving criminal


    Which is completely fine if you stay at home when you're sick.

    Except people clearly aren't staying at home when sick. It is not ok to go out coughing and spluttering and spreading germs.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,182 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    The point is that the people who took those risks and had to be rescued or worse - were beyond rescue, all thought exactly the same as you did. It is the obviously the attitude that is being compared not the exact physical circumstance, unless you are determined to misunderstand the comparison.

    If you'd asked them why they were going out when there were warnings, they would have answered:

    I don't want anybody telling me what to do. I am more than capable of assessing risk and making my own choices in life.

    The reason why the government stepped in with masks (and other measures) is because them getting the assessment wrong was impacting too many other people.

    The excuses in their head were...

    It's not my fault if others get sick.

    It's not covid it's just X.

    I won't be in the shops \ close to anyone on the bus long enough to infect someone even if I do have it.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,862 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    I think you credit those folk with too much common sense Mr O.



  • Registered Users Posts: 439 ✭✭Spiderman0081


    Which would explain the mass hysteria, covid certificates, 2km limits, police checks, masking children, closing schools, and most reasonable of all, letting people die alone.



  • Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No, he quite literally did just compare surfing in a storm to wearing a mask. Probably the worst comparison I've seen yet... And that's saying something.


    Nobody got the assessment wrong. A respiratory illness spread. It's been happening for centuries.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,182 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Its obvious it was not a literal physical comparison - absurd to even suggest it. And this is a deflection tactic to avoid engaging with the core point about people getting risk assesments wrong.

    Apparently you dont care a jot if hospitals are overwhelmed and millions die.

    But those tasked with responsibility for public health and hospitals cant just shrug their shoulders and let huge numbers of citizens die.

    They didnt act like that for threat on the scale of spanish flu or for covid.

    Hence why every major health authority in the world responded as they did with measures such as masks when faced with a new highly infectious and severe enough to overwhelm hospitals as it did in Wuhan and Italy.

    Even then millions died.

    If you think nobody got the assessment wrong then you think governments shouldnt have implemented any restrictions whatsoever. Luckiky the people on charge decided otherwise. And acted with responsibility.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,479 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    Just posted again on this on the Booster thread ....

    Maybe have a read to get some context .

    Not the gotcha you think it is .



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Who got the risk assessment wrong? The illness was extremely mild for the vast majority so we didn't get the assessment wrong at all. Most of us were spot on in our assessment.

    Millions have died of flu over the centuries. Maybe you think we all got the risk assessment wrong for centuries? You know better? Maybe you think we shouldn't leave our houses without masks?


    But also, perhaps the most important point is that the poster was referring to the present, not the past.

    So your little rant about the past doesn't have much relevance.


    The situation right now is that you can wear a mask if you want. But that's all you are entitled to. I don't wear one and I am comfortable with my risk assessment.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,862 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    Correct!

    The analogy was an illustration of attitude by folk who don’t like being told what to do.

    They tend to think solely of themselves and not how their actions can affect others.

    They tend to be selfish people who seem to think that they are ‘experts’ on everything and vigorously object

    to being,as they tend to see it, told to do anything by the State, irrespective of the issue.



  • Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm actually a little disturbed that a post like this even managed to get 3 likes...

    Why on earth do you want people to tell you what to do? Can you not make any decisions for yourself?

    No wonder we've no accountability in this country. Just kick it upstairs and wait for someone else to deal with it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,862 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    Referring to your top quote I never suggested that…..please don’t put words in my mouth.

    Your second quoted post is pure rubbish.

    we all go to doctors, dentists, electricians, accountants, police who “tell us” what we can do in various situations.

    We seek advice from people who are better qualified than us in certain scenarios,who have more information, more training, more knowledge in certain fields than we have.

    There are folk of course who don’t like authority and for some warped reason think they know more than the ‘experts’.

    You’ll find them in boozers most nights and populating social media sites.

    But Lookit… we can carry on.



  • Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm more than happy to take advice on board but I don't appreciate being told what to do which is what you said.


    To try get this back on topic, I've looked at the global data and it's impossible to see any meaningful difference that mask mandates made.

    I've looked into studies for and against masks and nothing to suggest they made any meaningful difference.

    I see with own 2 eyes thousands of cases every day with a mask mandate in place.


    And I came to the conclusion that Id rather not wear a mask because I don't think they make any worthwhile difference.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,862 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar




  • Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You can Google and find plenty of studies showing that masks didn't have a meaningful impact, particularly the most common cloth masks.

    Even from your own article:. The World Health Organisation says: "the use of a mask alone is not sufficient to provide an adequate level of protection against COVID-19."


    How do you think a tiny island like this had 25K cases a DAY with a mask mandate?

    Why don't we have a higher number now that the mask mandate is finished?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,182 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Those earlier studies you are mentioning are not relevant to the mask mandates. If they are the studies previously cited e.g. they showed that cloth masks should not be relied upon by healthcare workers as direct protection against infection. Nobody is disputing that.

    Similarly, the sentence you have cherry picked out of the WHO is about direct protection to the wearer.

    The WHO recommend masks to suppress transmission.

    So if you accept their bona fides in that regard and citing them as an authority, your must accept the bona fide of that statement.

    You continually misrepresent the mask mandates as a personal decision re: personal protection.

    It was never about that.

    It was about suppressing transmission from the mask wearer to others.

    Similarly so we had 25,000 cases a day. Could we have had more? Yes.

    Our case count now cannot be directly compared due to different levels of vaccination, prior infections, and level of testing.

    We need to also consider the possibility that cloth \ surgical masks, while not directly protecting against infection, do offer a different kind ie reduced viral load exposure so that if infected, the infection could be milder.

    https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/07/418181/one-more-reason-wear-mask-youll-get-less-sick-covid-19

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭darconio


    I really don’t understand : I should wear a mask because, if I am infected, I could potentially pass it to somebody else when I cough/sneeze/open my mouth. Ok fair enough: I am not infected, I am not coughing/sneezing on other people’s face, I still should wear one because if not I am selfish. I am selfish because I could pass something I don’t have to somebody vulnerable that is wearing a mask (because if he isn’t then he is selfish according to the above rule of self-assessment) and probably on his/ 5th dose of the vaccine that is supposed to protect him/her from the infection, we have already established that the rest of the population is either unaffected or only in a irrelevant way. But this was working only in certain venues and in certain situations, you could sit at the table and talk freely to anybody around, but not if you stand up and walk to the toilets, you could board a packed airplane and remove your mask while eating and drinking, an hanging panel of plexiglass in certain situation is like wearing a hazmat suit: I mean are we still talking about mandating mask wearing to protect the general population from respiratory virus or just the vulnerable? What kind of mask? Do they need to be used 24/7 or only in certain settings/situations? How often do they need to be changed? Have they considered the damaged caused by breathing your own dirt for a prolonged time?

    I’ll gladly do my own risk assessment and don’t wear a mask, if you are part of those categories that could be affected by a respiratory virus, please do the same and wear 1, 2, 3 mask, safety glasses, gloves, hazmat suit, don’t leave the house, but don’t think, even for 1 second, that I should do the same to protect you.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭Sconsey


    LOL...you are back to your 25k cases a day 'evidence'...I thought you finally understood how moronic that particular argument is, I guess not :)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,458 ✭✭✭facehugger99


    It's not even about protecting people, it's about making them feel safe.


    One thing Covid showed is that feelings outweighed facts on almost every issue - masks included. A combination of media-induced hysteria and a cowardly government, desperate to demonstrate they were doing 'something' lead to all the covid-theatre nonsense we have seen over the last few years.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,182 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Your entire post is a series of falsehoods.

    Hysteria? There was some hysteria on this thread from the "masks will kill you" brigade... hysteria seems to be a slogan now, thrown in as a mantra, without foundation. It seems to be shorthand for "somebody somewhere is showing the slightest bit of concern about covid". This appears to count as hysteria with some posters.

    The thread is full of the evidence presented for mask mandates, it was this evidence - following the facts - that lead every major health authority in the world to recommend masks and mask mandates. Now maybe you disagree with the evidence or the benefits but to state it was done purely as theater is without merit or foundation. You haven't even tried to support this with evidence. It could be dismissed without evidence therefore - but in this case, the evidence is there.

    It was always about trying to protect people and reduce the strain on the hospital services which we all rely on. Measures such as masks were about bringing down the R number of the virus.

    Post edited by odyssey06 on

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,123 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Genuinely thought mask mandates were coming back with all the pressure on the govt that was applied in the last few weeks. I think if they can resist up until now they can resist any calls in the future



  • Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Think the last paragraph sums it up. It's up to us all to do our own risk assessment now.

    Seems like roughly 95%+ have decided against wearing a mask.

    There is still some that will push the agenda to bring them back but getting told no several times should dishearten them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,862 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    What this thread really proves is there is a strong cohort out there who adopt the stance of ‘Im not going to be told what to do by anyone”.

    There seems to be an inherent built in attitude to not accept advice from those eminently qualified but put forward their own unsubstantiated conspiracy type arguments as to why they won’t comply.

    What is the big deal in wearing a mask in certain situations one has to ask?

    Most sensible folk look at the evidence, look at the qualifications of those giving the guidance, look a what other similar jurisdictions have adopted and make their considered decisions.

    There will be always outliers who rear up with some misguided, un researched, unqualified rubbish as instanced by this thread.

    Luckily it would appear most normal folk seem to have a bit of sense.



  • Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    There is still advice to wear masks. Most people just aren't.

    You might find that upsetting.

    But all you can do is wear your own mask and let others carry on without them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,862 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    Not upsetting at all, not in the slightest.

    Its the mindset of those who try to ignore the advice from qualified practitioners to do a simple proven task has me puzzled.


    Lookit, I suppose every State has its problems… we are where we are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,213 ✭✭✭Mic 1972


    there is no evidence that masking prevents infection of a respiratory disease. It's up to you if you want to keep masking obviously



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,182 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    There is abundant evidence on the thread - from case studies of masked wearers not getting infected to lab studies on masks reducing droplets to comparitive studies of schools in US, Bangladeshi villages and Australian cities.

    To state there is no evidence at this stage is completely without merit or foundation.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Here is what the verified HSE expert said on boards a few years back. Probably explains best why masks serve their purpose in a medical setting but have absolutely no worthwhile benefit in the community.


    Face Masks:

    A lot of conflicting things have been said about face masks. The bottom line is that most of the face masks people are purchasing aren’t of any use and even if they were members of the public don’t know how to use them appropriately in order to gain effective protection.

    For this reason I would say that buying face masks is ineffective UNLESS you have been advised on which ones to purchase and how to put them on, fit them and take them off. There is going to be a huge shortage of face masks for medical staff in Ireland soon.

    The only face masks which are worth getting are surgical masks or ones rated as either N95/FFP2 or N99/FFP3. Simply put these two ratings mean they stop 95 or 99% of particles above a certain size IF put on properly but almost certainly the vast majority of you with these masks aren’t getting any protection from them.

    So, now that I’ve told you that in all the panic you’ve probably bought masks which won’t screen out viruses AND even if they did you don’t know how to wear them properly so as to protect yourself AND even if you get that bit right the way you put them on and off will spread infection.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,182 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Again you continue to deliberately misrepresent out of date information / out of context info in a misleading manner.

    That information relates to direct protection by the wearer from an infected person.

    Mask mandates were about masks as barriers on an infected person.

    You continually ignore this point when challenged on it.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,004 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Ignore the mountains of evidence and continue living in your pandemic fantasy so.

    Is there a mask in the room with you right now?



  • Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So masks let things in but know not to let them out... ?

    It's not outdated information. Masks haven't changed.



  • Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,756 ✭✭✭jackboy


    That’s probably from the time when the experts were asked to go on the media to say masks don’t work, as there was a shortage for healthcare workers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,004 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    The scientific evidence doesn't match what the expert says, now, I'm sure if looked into, the context would mean that the expert wasn't saying that at all and that you're leaving out stuff to suit your fantasy, but based on the snippet you posted, I would disagree with the expert.

    Do you disagree with the mountains of scientific evidence?

    The poster has spent almost 3 years getting everything wrong about the pandemic, it's highly unlikely that it will change now.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,182 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    It is out dated information taken out of context.

    For one thing that was from a time when it was unclear how much spread was fomite / surfaces versus respiratory droplets. It over states the concern re touching masks risk. It is now established primary spread is respiratory.

    Surgical masks for example block both on the way in and out - but imperfectly. A health care worker giving close contact care to an infected person is still going to be at high risk of infection. That is reflected in the advice you quoted.

    Mask mandates were primarily about containing the droplets at source because eg surgical masks are more effective at blocking the larger droplets expelled rather than directly protecting against inhaling smaller particles.

    "Masks may be more effective as a 'source control' because they can prevent larger expelled droplets from evaporating into smaller droplets that can travel farther."

    https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

    This study assesses the evidence for masks as PPE versus 'source control' along similar lines

    https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2014564118

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,765 ✭✭✭✭elperello



    Our Constitution and our civil liberties are in good shape in Offaly and the other 25 counties.

    We are fortunate to live in one of the most stable democracies in the world.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,657 ✭✭✭walus


    In this interview Dr.Margery Smelikinson and Dr. Leslie Bienen discuss efficacy of face mask:

    They are discussion several studies that prove and disprove the usefulness of masks in controlling the spread of covid -19.

    According to them, the more thorough studies that are based on randomised controlled trials did not find masks very effective in reducing transmission levels. They suggest that the media are cherry picking the low quality studies to promote masks and mask mandates.

    In one of the study they masked 6 year old and unmasked 5 year old school kids, and found no significant differences in covid transmission.

    ”Where’s the revolution? Come on, people you’re letting me down!”



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,182 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    It's the same misrepresentation we've seen before such as the Danish study into e.g. cloth and surgical masks being worn as PPE.

    So they are deliberately misrepresenting that study if they are using it to argue against mask mandates when the study expressly declared it could not be used to make any such conclusions.

    If they are talking about "controlling the spread" and referencing that study, they are being entirely dishonest.

    They talk about flu, so if they are referencing studies into flu and masks, they are almost certainly referring to the study in the use of cloth masks as PPE by healthcare workers. Again, not relevant to mask mandates.

    And they talk about RSV, when it is known that RSV particles are smaller than covid particles and so most masks will not be as effective against it.

    I'd like to see the real details of this school study, they use the phrase "voodoo doll of masking", so I don't take a single thing they say as being reliable on face value.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So you disagree with a scientist of infectious diseases who specialises in COVID and flu?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,182 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    They are using phrases like voodoo doll and citing studies which explicitly stated they should not be using to draw conclusions re mask mandates.

    I dont just merely disagree with them. They are engaged in deliberate misrepresentation. They are not giving an honest presentation.

    Their opinions are contrary to the advice of every major health authority in the world. So if you are swayed by credentials their opinions are contrary to the scientific consensus.

    Oh and one of them is a vet.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    She is a scientist of infectious diseases who specialises in COVID.

    Any conspiracies as to why she'd engage in misrepresentation?

    By the way, you seem to use the word "misrepresentation" on a daily basis when people have different opinions.


    Perhaps you should reach out to this infectious disease scientist and tell her that you know more.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,182 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Citing the danish study as evidence versus mask mandates when it did not study them is misrepresentation. To cite it and not qualify your remarks are clearly not the actions of someone giving an honest fair balanced assessment of the evidence. It is not simply a difference of opinion. I dont know more but I know a dishonest presentation when I see one.

    I have no idea what her agenda is but given that the CDC, WHO, ECDC are stacked with infectious disease specialists and it is their advice re masks that was followed... if you are getting into an argument from authority you have lost in a landslide. And one of them is a vet ffs!

    So clearly in terms of collective expertise the CDC etc know more and that is who I rely on for subject matter expertise.

    So if you still somehow believe all of those authorities are wrong and this one specialist is right then you are the one who will have to resort to conspiracies.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,004 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    You keep asking this question of various people while living in a fantasy land ignoring and running away continually from the mountains of evidence available.

    If an expert is disagreeing with mountains of evidence, then they need to bring their own backed evidence instead, to save you the trouble of asking stupid questions in the future, people will disagree with them and they will be putting their "expert" credentials at risk.

    The examples you've been cheerleading are either misrepresenting evidence or you continually misrepresent what they say (pathetically referring to comments from the beginning of the pandemic).

    I posted multiple studies showing how masks work unequivocally, peer reviewed and backed by numerous experts, do you disagree with them the mountains of evidence?



  • Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The reason I am forcing yous to admit yous disagree with experts is because the pro side frequently say to listen to the experts. It seems that only counts when it's the experts who agree with you though which is interesting.

    I'm happy to listen to experts on both sides but a lot of those cheerleading for masks have ass covering agendas.

    There are lots of experts and studies out there against masks. I haven't seen anything convincing that cloth masks stuffed in someone's pocket for a week are in any way effective against respiratory illnesses.

    I tend to focus more on data. And there is nothing there to suggest mask mandates reduced cases or deaths to any meaningful extent.


    It's all in the past now anyways. We've had no mandate for almost a year and everything is grand. That should mean we'll never see those silly things mandated again.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,004 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    That's not what you've been doing though for the past 3 years, to claim otherwise is quite funny.

    Do you disagree with the mountains of evidence provided in multiple studies?



  • Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Do you disagree with the mountains of evidence against masks?

    If they are so effective, why does the government no longer mandate them?

    Hospitals are under pressure every year. Surely it would be a dream come true if they've found a solution?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,144 ✭✭✭xhomelezz


    He posts that argument every few weeks and in the meantime Kirk jumps in with his genuine question

    " Do you think mask mandate is on the way? "

    I guess there's a pattern somewhere..



  • Advertisement
Advertisement