Relaxation of restrictions

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

No, they didn't. They pushed the lie that masks were useless, or even made things worse. A lot of people still believe that. It's clearly absolute bullsh1t.

Yawn.......... The World Health Organisation advises people should wear a mask only if they are ill with Covid-19 symptoms, especially coughing, or looking after a person with the virus.

“If you are not ill or looking after someone who is ill, then you are wasting a mask,” its guidance bluntly states.

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

No, they didn't. They pushed the lie that masks were useless, or even made things worse. A lot of people still believe that. It's clearly absolute bullsh1t.

This is completely untrue. Can you back up this claim please.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

This is completely untrue. Can you back up this claim please.

Of course she can't.
Who is "they" for a start.

Left loons were sh1tting on about fronliine folk short of PPE, now it's we all should be wearing masks. Can't please the fookers.

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

So supply needs to catch up with demand. If we all need to wear masks, then they need to step up production of masks, clearly. There's no excuse for a shortage now - we've had months to get ready for this. There are plenty of people who have been laid off from making clothes and whatnot - why don't they switch to making masks, like the firm in the North who switched from sportswear to scrubs and masks? Added bonus of keeping more people in work.

Because everyone in essentially the whole world is going to want the masks. That's quite a big demand, requiring quite a big supply. The masks have to meet specific requirements to be useful to protect against the virus aswell.

scamalert

Ace2007 wrote: »

, and maybe more restrictive measures are needed

Maybe saying that more 20 year olds have died - would that get attention,

This sums up what a miserable **** you are.

To make fake stats because we arent down enough shows that this entire crap is failing, and not working, yet your so miserable that you'd want more measures in, even if it was based on total BS :cool:

Augeo wrote: »

They always said that.

They most certainly did not. They stated quite clearly that they were of little benefit unless you were sick. Which then magically made them suddenly beneficial. It seems the HSE page has been updated since then.

Now the HSE page reads:

Face masks

Wearing a mask is unlikely to be of any benefit if you are not sick.

If you do need to wear a mask, here is how to use one properly.
How to put on and wear a face mask properly

So a bit of change from before. Though still the magical unlikely benefit is in play, but now they're informing people how to wear one. I can see it coming, bit by bit. Finally. Well the authorities have hardly been ahead of most of this crisis. Playing catchup, spreading some useless info, even dangerous info and just following the WHO, mostly so the usual high up civil service passing the responsibility to someone else.

bladespin

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

No, they didn't. They pushed the lie that masks were useless, or even made things worse. A lot of people still believe that. It's clearly absolute bullsh1t.

Standard masks are for containment, that's about it, it's a useful way of slowing the spread, would you happily stand side by side with a person who had Covid-19 but who was wearing a mask?

High filtration masks are only needed if you're in a 'concentrated' area, ie spending a lot of time in very close proximity to infected/possibly infected people, hence the need in medical (very clearly from the recent news). But you most definitely do not need one for a trip to the shop, or in an open working environment.

I can say this quite happily as someone who regularly works in bio hazard areas (which can contain nasties that would make Covid look like a runny nose).

Ace2007 wrote: »

For how long?
What if you are living alone - would you continue to have no contact with your family - not meeting them in person etc?

What if you were in your 90's, would you be like i want to live my life and see my friends while i can still can?

Your making huge assumptions about a cohort of the population that you really have no idea.

My point is quite simple, you shouldn't be asking another cohort of the population to do something that you aren't prepared to do yourself. i.e. vulnerable should say in until a vaccine becomes available - be that 6 months or 18, while i get on with my life as i want to go to the pub.

So we should all be locked down in solidarity? What a childish, simplistic notion. If a 90-something wants to take the risk of going out and about, they can, just once they don't complain or try to sue anyone when they get sick.

As someone said earlier in the thread, we are ALL doing our part now to protect the vulnerable, so why can't they do theirs and stay in for their own good?

I say this as someone who is fairly high risk. I would never expect the whole world to stop just because of me - it's the height of selfishness and narcissism. If I'm high risk then it's up to me to protect myself, or take the risk. I certainly wouldn't want everyone to stay in, economy in tatters and lives being ruined, just so I felt like everyone was in the same boat.

castletownman

It just shows how mollycoddled we have become as a nation, that some people are reluctant to start lifting restrictions because they think those in the vulnerable bracket wouldn't be adult enough to keep themselves cocooned if necessary.

Yes the likes of pubs, concerts, restaurants or sporting events aren't essential pursuits, but they generate revenue. But if someone who is vulnerable attends one of the above (when "normal" order is restrained), contracts Covid and dies, then they should be treated as being careless rather than everyone else being guilt-tripped.

Ace2007

scamalert wrote: »

This sums up what a miserable **** you are.

To make fake stats because we arent down enough shows that this entire crap is failing, and not working, yet your so miserable that you'd want more measures in, even if it was based on total BS :cool:

Sorry i meant 23 year olds - which is fact.

Augeo wrote: »

Yawn.......... The World Health Organisation advises people should wear a mask only if they are ill with Covid-19 symptoms, especially coughing, or looking after a person with the virus.

“If you are not ill or looking after someone who is ill, then you are wasting a mask,” its guidance bluntly states.

So of no benefit, even a waste in reducing risk among the community, a community that harbours a large enough percentage of asymptomatic infected, but again magically transforms into a risk reducer in someone with the virus and those looking after them? Fierce fancy smart masks these are.

Deleted User wrote: »

I have no doubt that the messaging re. face masks is only down to supply. If we all wear them, then there won’t be enough for front liners. As soon as there is enough supply, the advice will change and they will be mandatory, at least in environments where social distancing is difficult

Augeo wrote: »

They always said that.

Wibbs wrote: »

They most certainly did not. They stated quite clearly that they were of little benefit unless you were sick. Which then magically made them suddenly beneficial. It seems the HSE page has been updated since then.

Now the HSE page reads:

Face masks

Wearing a mask is unlikely to be of any benefit if you are not sick.

If you do need to wear a mask, here is how to use one properly.
How to put on and wear a face mask properly

So a bit of change from before. Though still the magical unlikely benefit is in play, but now they're informing people how to wear one. I can see it coming, bit by bit. Finally. Well the authorities have hardly been ahead of most of this crisis. Playing catchup, spreading some useless info, even dangerous info and just following the WHO, mostly so the usual high up civil service passing the responsibility to someone else.

I really can't see what you are trying to say here. The message from the beginning was that surgical masks etc had to be kept for frontline workers.
Wearing a mask is beneficial if you're sick as it stops/lessons your droplets infecting others. They never said otherwise.

Augeo wrote: »

Yawn.......... The World Health Organisation advises people should wear a mask only if they are ill with Covid-19 symptoms, especially coughing, or looking after a person with the virus.

“If you are not ill or looking after someone who is ill, then you are wasting a mask,” its guidance bluntly states.

Yes, the key word here being WASTING.

When masks are in short supply, then people panic buying them is obviously going to result in problems for medical staff and those at highest risk. That doesn't mean wearing a mask is useless or dangerous, it means that those who need them more should get priority.

Why is it so hard to grasp? Are you so Western centric that you think all the Asian countries who insist people wear masks if they're out in public are doing it for the craic?

Ace2007 wrote: »

Sorry i meant 23 year olds - which is fact.

The percentage of people dying from this under the age of 40 is miniscule. This was shown yesterday on this very thread. It sounds like you want to engage in scaremongering in order to continue with the restrictions.

Ace2007

castletownman wrote: »

It just shows how mollycoddled we have become as a nation, that some people are reluctant to start lifting restrictions because they think those in the vulnerable bracket wouldn't be adult enough to keep themselves cocooned if necessary.

Yes the likes of pubs, concerts, restaurants or sporting events aren't essential pursuits, but they generate revenue. But if someone who is vulnerable attends one of the above (when "normal" order is restrained), contracts Covid and dies, then they should be treated as being careless rather than everyone else being guilt-tripped.

Not to put you on the spot, but would you be against a healthcare worker in a COVID 19 setting, attending the likes of pubs, concerts, restuarants? After all if everyone was to do social distancing it would reduce the chances of anyone getting the virus - whether they are 95, or 15.

Ace2007

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The percentage of people dying from this under the age of 40 is miniscule. This was shown yesterday on this very thread. It sounds like you want to engage in scaremongering in order to continue with the restrictions.

What is your definition of miniscule?
2.5% of those who have died in Ireland are under the age of 45.

Wibbs wrote: »

So of no benefit, even a waste in reducing risk among the community, a community that harbours a large enough percentage of asymptomatic infected, but again magically transforms into a risk reducer in someone with the virus and those looking after them? Fierce fancy smart masks these are.

But no one said they were of no benefit?
Who said they were of no benefit.
Be specific and provide a link, with a quote.

bladespin wrote: »

Standard masks are for containment, that's about it, it's a useful way of slowing the spread, would you happily stand side by side with a person who had Covid-19 but who was wearing a mask?

And I was wearing one too? Significantly happier than not.

High filtration masks are only needed if you're in a 'concentrated' area, ie spending a lot of time in very close proximity to infected/possibly infected people, hence the need in medical (very clearly from the recent news). But you most definitely do not need one for a trip to the shop, or in an open working environment.

The contact tracing of the first known Covid patient in Germany demonstrated that they infected someone after the passing of a salt shaker. Another was infected in a lift. In the SARS outbreak studies found masks to be "strongly protective" in the community and recommended their use.

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Yes, the key word here being WASTING.

When masks are in short supply, then people panic buying them is obviously going to result in problems for medical staff and those at highest risk. That doesn't mean wearing a mask is useless or dangerous, it means that those who need them more should get priority.

Why is it so hard to grasp? Are you so Western centric that you think all the Asian countries who insist people wear masks if they're out in public are doing it for the craic?

No, the following are the key words "The World Health Organisation advises people should wear a mask only if they are ill with Covid-19 symptoms, especially coughing, or looking after a person with the virus."

is_that_so

Augeo wrote: »

Yawn.......... The World Health Organisation advises people should wear a mask only if they are ill with Covid-19 symptoms, especially coughing, or looking after a person with the virus.

“If you are not ill or looking after someone who is ill, then you are wasting a mask,” its guidance bluntly states.

This is not a topic on which you can win with evidence or official guidance. Some people very strongly support the wearing of masks and believe we all should. In the absence of mandatory instructions it's really each to their own.

bladespin wrote: »

Standard masks are for containment, that's about it, it's a useful way of slowing the spread, would you happily stand side by side with a person who had Covid-19 but who was wearing a mask?

High filtration masks are only needed if you're in a 'concentrated' area, ie spending a lot of time in very close proximity to infected/possibly infected people, hence the need in medical (very clearly from the recent news). But you most definitely do not need one for a trip to the shop, or in an open working environment.

I can say this quite happily as someone who regularly works in bio hazard areas (which can contain nasties that would make Covid look like a runny nose).

You're missing the point.

A mask could be the difference between someone coughing near you resulting in infection or not. I'm sure everyone realises they're not 100% effective, but they do reduce risk and ease the mental strain of worrying every time you leave the house.

I live in London. I left the house at 6.30 this morning to go for a light jog/walk within 1km of my home. Do you know how many people I came across in half an hour? Over 50. Not counting those on the road on bikes or in cars. Fella walking a dog came round the corner and coughed in my face, basically, nothing covering his mouth. I go to the shop as soon as it opens at 7am and there are always at least 10 people in there. It just takes one cough or unexpected sneeze and that could be it - infected.

It might be pointless to wear a mask if you live in the arse end of Cavan and are only likely to meet cows on your walk. If you live in a densely populated urban area, it's not pointless at all.

Wibbs wrote: »

And I was wearing one too? Significantly happier than not. ..................

Wearing a non surgical mask won't reduce your chance of catching Covid19, regardless of your happiness level.
But that does highlight a point, folk wearing non surgical masks feel they are protected when they actually aren't and are more likely to not follow the 2m guidance etc etc etc.

Augeo wrote: »

No, the following are the key words "The World Health Organisation advises people should wear a mask only if they are ill with Covid-19 symptoms, especially coughing, or looking after a person with the virus."

Good God. Some people are really, really bad at reading between the lines.

Did it not occur to you that the word 'waste' in there is a clue to their thinking when giving this advice?

showpony1

Hooked wrote: »

This is exactly my thinking!

We can't go on with 'lockdown' for months on end. A vaccine could be 1.5 years away.

People need to learn to live with the virus, stay in tight family groups. No stranger interaction. 2M distance at work, shopping, everywhere. Practice good hygiene. Use common sense. Limit the spread. INDEFINITELY! Big sporting events and pubs/air travel are going to need a different approach.

You don't refuse to drive in case someone crashes into you - or because you hit someone. You drive, adhering to the rules of the road and use common sense!

Living with Covid-19 should be the same. Adapt & carry on with new ways of doing things.

By 5th May - we'll have had near 2 months to build "capacity". Time to get us back to work and living somewhat 'free' lives.

i think most in their 20s/30s would rather die than not interact with anyone but tight family groups indefinitely or for 1.5 years.

bladespin

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

You're missing the point.

A mask could be the difference between someone coughing near you resulting in infection or not. I'm sure everyone realises they're not 100% effective, but they do reduce risk and ease the mental strain of worrying every time you leave the house.

I live in London. I left the house at 6.30 this morning to go for a light jog/walk within 1km of my home. Do you know how many people I came across in half an hour? Over 50. Not counting those on the road on bikes or in cars. Fella walking a dog came round the corner and coughed in my face, basically, nothing covering his mouth. I go to the shop as soon as it opens at 7am and there are always at least 10 people in there. It just takes one cough or unexpected sneeze and that could be it - infected.

It might be pointless to wear a mask if you live in the arse end of Cavan and are only likely to meet cows on your walk. If you live in a densely populated urban area, it's not pointless at all.

I'm currently working at a customer site, a factory with over a thousand people, I'm not wearing a mask, I know I don't need one.

is_that_so wrote: »

This is not a topic on which you can win with evidence or official guidance. Some people very strongly support the wearing of masks and believe we all should. In the absence of mandatory instructions it's really each to their own.

I'm not trying to win anything, I'm posting what the official guidance was.
Folk seem to reckon it was something different to what it actually was.

Lunchbrunch

Some people just agree with whatever the people in authority say, you can't argue with them, logic goes out the window. The emotional need to agree with those in authority is greater than the desire to think for themselves.

Augeo wrote: »

But no one said they were of no benefit?
Who said they were of no benefit.
Be specific and provide a link, with a quote.

Clearly you didn't read my post and link to the current HSE advice. Wearing a mask is unlikely to be of any benefit if you are not sick.

Unless you just want to uselessly argue petty semantics that's telling people not to bother as they're "unlikely to be of any benefit". But again are a benefit in a clinical setting.

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Good God. Some people are really, really bad at reading between the lines.

Did it not occur to you that the word 'waste' in there is a clue to their thinking when giving this advice?

Some people are incredibly bad at reading the actual lines as they are trying to read between them. Good God :pac: