Wibbs wrote: » Precisely nobody is suggesting that. So again, wind up, or bull headed resistance.
paddy19 wrote: One of the better articles on masks I have read.
Coronavirus is not a reason for us to accept arbitrary impositions or abandon our traditions of rational discourse. Britain's record in these matters is one of our great strengths its preservation allows us to deal better with crises, especially crises like coronavirus, where there is much more to consider than just the virus itself.
Away With The Fairies wrote: » My local chemist did have masks but it was 8 euro for a pack of 4, so I walked out without them. I can make my own but I don't want to see places charging such crazy prices. Not for face masks.
paddy19 wrote: » No wind up, no bull headed resistance. Genuine request to understand what precisely people are suggesting. I'm not sure there is any agreement on what "wearing masks" actually means. 1. Who? Children, what age do they start 2. What type? Homemade, surgical, reusable. 3. When: Walking, running, working, sunbathing, golfing, sports.... 4. Where: Indoors, outdoors, in car, where 2M is not possible, 5. Why: I assume when we have peer reviewed data that shows masks work. 6. For how long: Forever, until Convid is gone, flu season.
prunudo wrote: » Have to say, these are all the concerns I have when I see people advocating mask wearing. Fair enough in a busy area but are we not allowed breathe in fresh mountain or sea air for fear of tut tutting from someone who spots you without a mask. Personally think it should be advisory and not mandatory.
Wibbs wrote: » I don't think anyone has been mandating for masks while breathing in mountain or sea air P. That's a wild exaggeration and extrapolation. It's about enclosed public spaces, like shops, public transport, workspaces were distancing is impossible. And in those settings it can't be advisory, because advice is rarely enough taken up completely enough and in those enclosed public spaces it'll need to be near complete adherence to have the fullest effect. Plus there's a section of the population that have a deep, if odd, objection to masks and no amount of evidence for their efficacy will sway them. The poster you quoted a perfect example of this.
Boggles wrote: » Germany's states make face masks compulsory I imagine we will see other countries now roll in behind them.
prunudo wrote: » And that sort of confirms my previous concern, language matters. The headline makes it sound like the country has made it, that they be worn all the time. Its only when you read the article you see that its only in certain circumstances.
Boggles wrote: » It certainly does, what language did you see that said "they be worn all the time"? From me or the article? Or are you just trying to have an argument no one is actually having?
prunudo wrote: » Headline says compulsory. Not having an argument, just posting my observation that language matters and the media need to be conscious of this.
Boggles wrote: » They are compulsory in certain settings. Sorry what is your problem again? I mean it should be obvious they are not compulsory when you eat, should that be in the headline too?
Jim_Hodge wrote: » Such are headlines and why articles always follow headlines. Hence why we read the article. :rolleyes:
trapp wrote: » There's something desperately sad about hiding ourselves behind masks, hiding our smiles, losing that openness and warmth people have for each other.
prunudo wrote: » No need to be a smart arse. I was simply concerned by the language in the headline and the fact it implies the use of masks is far more strict than it really is.
Scientists, TDs call for change in policy on wearing face masks in public Government urged to back measure as new evidence suggests use of basic masks in social settings can prevent spread of Covid-19
Wibbs wrote: » 3/4) Indoors in publicly shared spaces where distancing is impossible. 6) Until herd immunity/vaccine/effective treatments come along for Covid19. I don't think anyone has been mandating for masks while breathing in mountain or sea air P. That's a wild exaggeration and extrapolation. It's about enclosed public spaces, like shops, public transport, workspaces were distancing is impossible.
prunudo wrote: » No need to be a smart arse.
dfx- wrote: » Interesting report with Kobe University on BBC last night on how Japan is relying on the use of masks. Everyone complying with mask wearing in supermarkets, but not keeping their distance. Total reliance and belief amongst the population on everyone wearing a mask being enough. And despite the mask wearing, Japan is seeing a sharp rise in cases, so it's not blocking it there. Singapore spike in infections despite an app, South Korea seeing reinfections or "reactivation" and Japan relying on masks. The Far Asian coutnries were the specialists I thought.
ek motor wrote: » Posted this is the main thread, probably more suited to this one !Austria made wearing masks compulsory in supermarkets and public transport on April 6th. New infections dropped 90% after this. (source - Dr. John Campbell's latest video) Both Slovakia and Czech Republic have made mask-wearing in public compulsory. Both countries have a much lower number of cases and related deaths than ourselves, despite all of these countries being more populous.
Wibbs wrote: » Nobody is suggesting it's the only risk reducer, merely that it is a risk reducer. Seat belts reduce the risk of injury and death, this doesn't mean people should drive around like they're in bumper cars. Masks should be in the suite of risk reducers like distancing, hand washing, quarantine, border checks, contact tracing and testing. They're part of a cumulative risk reduction strategy.
riffmongous wrote: » It's a very misleading statement imo.. if you look at the graph of new cases, I would say the data has already taken on the decreasing curve and cases would have continued to decrease anyway Another graph that would cast doubt on that is this reconstructive-estimate of the reproductive number r0, first it's already decreased below 1 by the time of the introduction of the mask requirement, 2nd it's actually very hard to see any change in the rate afterwards. Not to saw masks have no effect now either, just that it's very hard to say what that effect is from the data and it's certainly not just down to masks