Masks

Away With The Fairies · 28-06-2020 09:40AM

Yes: valved

is_that_so wrote: »

My view all along is that it is a personal responsibility, i.e. you. It is an advisory and people choose to interpret that as they see fit. We really have no control over what other people will do and we pay them no heed in normal times so why bother now.

I'm off to the shop in the nip because it's not law to wear clothes and when refused I'll just cry about my freedoms and discrimination.

is_that_so · 28-06-2020 09:42AM

No: other

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

I'm off to the shop in the nip because it's not law to wear clothes and when refused I'll just cry about my freedoms and discrimination.

Good luck with that! Extremes make no case for anything!

jackboy · 28-06-2020 09:46AM

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

So not wearing a mask is now seen as discrimination.

Some people cannot wear a mask for health reasons. If one of these are refused entry to a business then yes this could be seen as discrimination.

Tork · 28-06-2020 09:46AM

Yes: to protect others

is_that_so wrote: »

Yeah I see the same thing and I worry about myself, not them. Your two examples were permanent and generally seen as a good thing so they were hard to sell. Mask wearing is temporary.

So what? We're in the middle of a pandemic. If they find a vaccine or the infection rates drop right off, we can stop wearing them. The mask message is clearly falling on deaf ears as are the messages about social distancing. I described what I saw yesterday and that was just one outing. People are starting to behave like it's February all over again.

ExMachina1000 · 28-06-2020 09:47AM

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

Tork wrote: »

So what? We're in the middle of a pandemic. If they find a vaccine or the infection rates drop right off, we can stop wearing them. The mask message is clearly falling on deaf ears as are the messages about social distancing. I described what I saw yesterday and that was just one outing. People are starting to behave like it's February all over again.

You would wonder why no legislation was formed and passed making wearing mandatory. Just didn't happen

is_that_so · 28-06-2020 09:49AM

No: other

Tork wrote: »

So what? We're in the middle of a pandemic. If they find a vaccine or the infection rates drop right off, we can stop wearing them. The mask message is clearly falling on deaf ears as are the messages about social distancing. I described what I saw yesterday and that was just one outing. People are starting to behave like it's February all over again.

Again with the worrying about other people, stay away from them. But it's not February and they understand that. I see people making an effort to observe social distancing all the time. I can't see the mask wearing going much further than the final phase. If it's still policy in September we are doing something wrong.

is_that_so · 28-06-2020 09:53AM

No: other

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

You would wonder why no legislation was formed and passed making wearing mandatory. Just didn't happen

It is in legislation under the emergency powers granted for this. It also requires regulations.

sheepsh4gger · 28-06-2020 09:56AM

This is going to be fun:

I remember finding a gas mask in school when I was a kid and it was scary as hell.

The charcoal also removes any smells from the air which is great.

ExMachina1000 · 28-06-2020 10:03AM

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

is_that_so wrote: »

It is in legislation under the emergency powers granted for this. It also requires regulations.

Those emergency powers are still active?

Arrival · 28-06-2020 10:06AM

jackboy wrote: »

Some people cannot wear a mask for health reasons. If one of these are refused entry to a business then yes this could be seen as discrimination.

If you've such a bad health condition that a bit of fabric over your face for 15-30 mins would cause much of an issue you really shouldn't be going near a supermarket or on public transport to avoid this virus as much as possible. I've bad asthma and have no issues wearing one, people are being way too soft and playing up their difficulties to be stubborn and seen to be complaining about something

sheepsh4gger · 28-06-2020 10:07AM

Tork wrote: »

My observations any time I go into a shop suggest that very few people are wearing masks and aren't taking that responsibility.

I can't wait until people go to town with this, reminds me of this clip:

jackboy · 28-06-2020 10:09AM

Arrival wrote: »

If you've such a bad health condition that a bit of fabric over your face for 15-30 mins would cause much of an issue you really shouldn't be going near a supermarket or on public transport to avoid this virus as much as possible. I've bad asthma and have no issues wearing one, people are being way too soft and playing up their difficulties to be stubborn and seen to be complaining about something

I’m talking about people who have received medical advice not to wear a mask.

Away With The Fairies · 28-06-2020 10:11AM

Yes: valved

jackboy wrote: »

Some people cannot wear a mask for health reasons. If one of these are refused entry to a business then yes this could be seen as discrimination.

There's advice for people with asthma, COPD and lung issues
https://creakyjoints.org/living-with-arthritis/coronavirus/managing-symptoms/difficulty-breathing-face-mask-asthma-lung-disease/

sheepsh4gger · 28-06-2020 10:11AM

jackboy wrote: »

I’m talking about people who have received medical advice not to wear a mask.

I think 99% of those who claim they can't wear masks for health reasons lie.

Seanergy · 28-06-2020 10:14AM

Yes: valved

Tork wrote: »

My observations any time I go into a shop suggest that very few people are wearing masks and aren't taking that responsibility. Sometimes stronger measures need to be taken. Would people really be going shopping with their bags for life if the shops weren't charging 22c for the single use ones? Would we really have no smoking in pubs?

Seeing we are talking about masking our airwaves(air) to prevent droplets(water) being expelled I thought it relevant to refer to both with regard to responsibilities.

Air and water are the first responsibilities that are placed in our hands even though it may not be taught to us that way. Human beings cannot produce air and water, they are simply greater than us, we have no choice but to accept them. Yes we produce both and modify both as we use them but only after they are initially recieving. Should we refuse either we would die.

Whilst not a legal binding contract our acceptance of these substances determines our ability to live. We are free to act wrecklessly towards these free life giving and sustaining elements should we choose. Likewise are are free to display gratefulness and with a sense of duty preform a gratitudional act in lieu of zero charge's for these elements and play a role how we shape the air and water that our bodies use.

Not only are we living in a world of rampant rights without duties we are swarmed by selfish people who give no real consideration to others or the enivornment, unless they have to pay for it.

What's the point of teaching science in school if we can't communicate to children who they alter air and water when they use them. Drives me nearly as mental as those urinal tablets, useless.

Away With The Fairies · 28-06-2020 10:14AM

Yes: valved

jackboy wrote: »

I’m talking about people who have received medical advice not to wear a mask.

The medical advice given would probably be to stay at home.

Tork · 28-06-2020 10:16AM

Yes: to protect others

is_that_so wrote: »

Again with the worrying about other people, stay away from them. But it's not February and they understand that. I see people making an effort to observe social distancing all the time. I can't see the mask wearing going much further than the final phase. If it's still policy in September we are doing something wrong.

Even if I live like a hermit and avoid the shops, it isn't going to stop other people possibly spreading the virus to each other and kicking this thing off again.

I have been observing people every time I go out and it is obvious that there is a significant minority who aren't observing social distancing. I've also been near people coughing and sniffling in shops and who didn't make an effort to cover their mouths or sneeze into their sleeve. Tony Holohan expressed concern about the rise of the virus in young people. They are definitely not keeping to the rules from my observations and it's no surprise that the rates are rising in that demographic.

Seanergy · 28-06-2020 10:19AM

Yes: valved

If Doctor's are throwing out medical advice like that, maybe the advice needs to change to okay you physically should nto wear a mask but you are to wear a faceshield, like they do in Singapore.

Screen-Shot-2020-06-27-at-18.45.45-e1593280097935.png

Screen-Shot-2020-06-27-at-18.45.45-e1593280097935.png

everlast75 · 28-06-2020 10:22AM

How is the argument against having to wear masks any different to the argument against the smoking ban?

jackboy · 28-06-2020 10:26AM

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

The medical advice given would probably be to stay at home.

Yeah it’s not going to be an issue in the vast majority of cases. However, it just takes one case in court to change the country.

Medical advice is just advice, up to the individual. But if a business interferes with an individual following medical advice then there may be an issue. Then it will be up to a court to decide.

Tork · 28-06-2020 10:37AM

Yes: to protect others

Businesses are unlikely to enforce the rule because it'd be commercial suicide. The leadership on this needs to come from higher up.

Seanergy · 28-06-2020 10:37AM

Yes: valved

everlast75 wrote: »

How is the argument against having to wear masks any different to the argument against the smoking ban?

Not much and the the main unseen/unheard lobbiyist's who are anti masks that are at work in the background are probably the same lobbisist's that were against the smoking ban in 2004, the pubs, restaurants and the failte Ireland crowd.

Hopefully the transition from public transport to other public spaces where are is shared will not as long as it did for the smoking ban.

Smoking ban started in buses and in public buildings in 1988 and only in 2004 did it cover cover public buildings, hospitals, shops, pubs, restaurants, and anywhere people worked.

seefin · 28-06-2020 10:46AM

Yes: valved

Seanergy wrote: »

If Doctor's are throwing out medical advice like that, maybe the advice needs to change to okay you physically should nto wear a mask but you are to wear a faceshield, like they do in Singapore.

If there isnt significant uptake in mask wearing, then maybe they should recommend face shields instead- they apparently protect yourself rather than others. Am getting annoyed ,wearing mask to protect the ignorant assholes who invade my space in supermarkets . Why dont they recommend face shields for everyone? Those that dont wear them , its at their own risk

Seanergy · 28-06-2020 10:46AM

Yes: valved

Tork wrote: »

Businesses are unlikely to enforce the rule because it'd be commercial suicide. The leadership on this needs to come from higher up.

Some lovely footage on RTE of exactly this. Some pub/restaurant owners who came out strong against smoking ban on grounds of commerical suicide pre ban only to admit a bit down the road post ban that it wasn't a bad thing and they wouldn't go back.

Whilst the two are very different, pubs and restaurants and anti mask industrial lobbitist's don't realise that it's mask up time or shut down time. masklessly chancing their arm to wring the last out of the summer to make up for lost revenue pre flu season is reckless and will backfire.

ExMachina1000 · 28-06-2020 10:48AM

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

Seanergy wrote: »

Not much and the the main unseen/unheard lobbiyist's who are anti masks that are at work in the background are probably the same lobbisist's that were against the smoking ban in 2004, the pubs, restaurants and the failte Ireland crowd.

Hopefully the transition from public transport to other public spaces where are is shared will not as long as it did for the smoking ban.

Smoking ban started in buses and in public buildings in 1988 and only in 2004 did it cover cover public buildings, hospitals, shops, pubs, restaurants, and anywhere people worked.

The smoking ban was legally enforced.
There was legislation drafted, debated and passed then sent to the president to sign off on as per the constitution.

"Mandatory " masks not so much

Sconsey · 28-06-2020 10:54AM

No: other

Tork wrote: »

Businesses are unlikely to enforce the rule because it'd be commercial suicide. The leadership on this needs to come from higher up.

I don't think it would be quite be suicide. It would definitely be a gamble though....

If a supermarket chain announced that face coverings were now mandatory I would go out of my way to use that supermarket. Potentially they might allow more people in at one time reducing the queuing time outside. That might encourage more people to use them too.
On the other hand, large numbers of their existing customers might say 'feck it' and go elsewhere.

It would be a gamble right now but there is a chance it could pay off. Going by the comments on here there appears to be a good number of people that would prefer to shop where masks are mandatory.

ShadowTech · 28-06-2020 11:13AM

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

I really don't understand, we get up in the morning, we put on clothes. In winter, we wear extra layers. How is a mask so difficult for some people?

There's a pretty big difference between a mask and a shirt and trousers. A mask covers our primary form of both verbal and non-verbal communication. A mask is objectively more intrusive than clothing.

Furthermore, the meta analysis that was commissioned by the WHO to examine the efficacy of social distancing, eye protection, and masks found that the benefits of mask use by the general public has low confidence intervals (with the exception of the use of N95 masks). Obviously they did recommend using them in some situations but this was more in the mindset of "something is better than nothing" rather than strong confidence of the efficacy. There is also still a lack of consensus on the need for face coverings; Norway's health agency does not recommend them currently as their case numbers are too low to warrant their use (they suggest 200,000 people would have to wear masks consistently to stop one new infection given their low numbers). Our case numbers are pretty similar to theirs.

I personally do not want to wear a mask as I find the experience uncomfortable, claustrophobic, and socially alienating. I would be willing to do so if there was strong scientific evidence that this would have a meaningful impact given our situation here, but I will not willingly sign up for more restrictions without strong evidence of efficacy.

Seanergy · 28-06-2020 11:32AM

Yes: valved

seefin wrote: »

If there isnt significant uptake in mask wearing, then maybe they should recommend face shields instead- they apparently protect yourself rather than others. Am getting annoyed ,wearing mask to protect the ignorant assholes who invade my space in supermarkets . Why dont they recommend face shields for everyone? Those that dont wear them , its at their own risk

If the ignorant actions of others around you who will not abide practical sommon sense during a pandemic let alone advice by authority are causing you stress(which has been proven to shorten your life and encourage disease) upgrade your cloth face covering to a mask with a higher protective level and or wear a faceshield.

If Authority aren't going to genuienly try to achieve a group effort to masking then heed not their advice to wear a lesser form of protection and reserve protective masks supplies for HCW's.

We are past recommending, it simply cannot work on the subject of facecoverings, be they cloth masks or plastic shields due to factors well documented throughout thread.

Seanergy · 28-06-2020 11:47AM

Yes: valved

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The smoking ban was legally enforced.
There was legislation drafted, debated and passed then sent to the president to sign off on as per the constitution.

"Mandatory " masks not so much

Smoking ban on buses had a 94% comliance within a year, 95% within 3 years and it's probably even higher now.

Let's face it, it's not all about public trasnsport, publican's are fighting the masks tooth and nail in the background.

32,000 workplace smoking ban inspections carried out within 3 years with just 35 prosecutions.

You keep insisting that it needs to be legally enforced but maybe it is just about making it Mandatory. The bus driver who used to say put out that fag, didn't he? as did other people on the bus, didn't they?

Seanergy · 28-06-2020 12:04PM

Yes: valved

ShadowTech wrote: »

There's a pretty big difference between a mask and a shirt and trousers. A mask covers our primary form of both verbal and non-verbal communication. A mask is objectively more intrusive than clothing.

Furthermore, the meta analysis that was commissioned by the WHO to examine the efficacy of social distancing, eye protection, and masks found that the benefits of mask use by the general public has low confidence intervals (with the exception of the use of N95 masks). Obviously they did recommend using them in some situations but this was more in the mindset of "something is better than nothing" rather than strong confidence of the efficacy. There is also still a lack of consensus on the need for face coverings; Norway's health agency does not recommend them currently as their case numbers are too low to warrant their use (they suggest 200,000 people would have to wear masks consistently to stop one new infection given their low numbers). Our case numbers are pretty similar to theirs.

I personally do not want to wear a mask as I find the experience uncomfortable, claustrophobic, and socially alienating. I would be willing to do so if there was strong scientific evidence that this would have a meaningful impact given our situation here, but I will not willingly sign up for more restrictions without strong evidence of efficacy.

Actually the trousers cover my primary form

Cop on, our true primary form of communications is actions not words.

Your mingeling words from the WHO to shape your argument to rectify your personal feelings to yourself. You go on to make out that your willing to make a sacrafice when the evidence gets stronger, sorry but seen this behavioural attitude countless times in thread already, weak excuses for selfish people.

Masks

Comments