Seanergy wrote: » 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 wrote: » 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.
ExMachina1000 wrote: » You are suggesting that the public police it themselves? No legislation with legal enforcement ie Gardai and fines =no mandatory wearing of masks
ShadowTech wrote: » The efficacy is questionable. That is the reason that the WHO waited so long to give advice and it is the reason that even within Europe there is not consensus.
Seanergy wrote: » No, I am not suggesting that, but some of the public won't be shy and will pull people up on it. I have pulled heads for polluting the air with tobacco smoke in communaly shared/confined air spaces like on transport numerous times. If you could just answer my questions please. Lets go back to 1988 when smoking was first introduced on buses. Who enforced it? This is pre mobile phone era. Generally the smoking happened on the top deck, right? Was it not the bus driver who used to say put out that fag as did other people on the bus?
ShadowTech wrote: » There's no need to make personal attacks. Keep you "selfish people" crap for someone who is trying to pick a fight with you. A poster asked a question about why some people are reticent to wear masks. I answered from my perspective and backed this up with relevant sources that support waiting before creating more impositions on our society. The efficacy is questionable. That is the reason that the WHO waited so long to give advice and it is the reason that even within Europe there is not consensus.
ExMachina1000 wrote: » No government legislation = no mandatory wearing of masks. That's the long and short of it
31A. (i) any other measures that the Minister considers necessary in order to prevent, limit, minimise or slow the spread of Covid-19;
Seanergy wrote: » You have posted that at least 10 times already, seems to be your go to answer to conversation.
Away With The Fairies wrote: » The real reason the WHO waited so long is that they didn't want people buying masks and leaving healthcare workers short of PPE. That supply has been sorted for the healthcare workers, so they magically work now for us ordinary folks.
ShadowTech wrote: » That was definitely a contributing factor. As I've said, I've read the paper the WHO commissioned and the stats are clear that the confidence intervals were not high for masks. As I have an aversion to them and given our low numbers I will not be running to the shop to buy one anytime soon. If our numbers start to rebound (or further studies show much higher efficacy for the general public for coverings other than N95s) I will be changing my tune as even low efficacy is meaningful when numbers are high. BTW, before I'm accused again of somehow being morally destitute, I was very much in favour of making masks required when we had hundreds of cases per day. At that time we didn't know what we were dealing with or how effective any measure other than isolating would be and throwing everything we had at this made sense. We are in a totally different position now. I can only speak for myself but if we started going in the wrong direction again I'd do what needs to be done. I simply believe we should tailor our response to be as unobtrusive as possible.
seefin wrote: » If no shortage now, is it ok to wear n95 masks ? Are they the only ones that also protect the wearer?
Away With The Fairies wrote: » Another positive to another option we have and using face shields, looks like you can enjoy going out for a coffee or a meal.
Jim_Hodge wrote: » As I said elsewhere, I'll probably end my days drinking through a straw anyway but for now I'm not inclined to go out and but a coffee or tea to by drunk through a straw.
Away With The Fairies wrote: » It doesn't look hard to get food and drink under the face shield. Here's another one as an option.
stephenjmcd wrote: » oh come off it, you actually think anyone will do that ?? That post does nothing but prove your on the wind up here.
Jim_Hodge wrote: » Your wearing a mask only when we get to increasing cases is very much a case of closing the door after the horse has bolted.
Away With The Fairies wrote: » Why wait until the numbers increase? You could be exposed without even knowing and you're happy to go around spreading it. It's about keeping numbers low now, not increasing numbers.
Away With The Fairies wrote: » I do have one of these hats and I use it. Does it look weird for using in Ireland? I really couldn't give two fcuks how I look wearing it.
stephenjmcd wrote: » Again proving your a wind up merchant.
Away With The Fairies wrote: » I guess I don't fit in wearing a hat like that in Ireland, is that the problem with it?
ShadowTech wrote: » That was definitely a contributing factor. As I've said, I've read the paper the WHO commissioned and the stats are clear that the certainty of evidence was not high for masks. As I have an aversion to them and given our low numbers I will not be running to the shop to buy one anytime soon. If our numbers start to rebound (or further studies show much higher efficacy for the general public for coverings other than N95s) I will be changing my tune as even low efficacy is meaningful when numbers are high. BTW, before I'm accused again of somehow being morally destitute, I was very much in favour of making masks required when we had hundreds of cases per day. At that time we didn't know what we were dealing with or how effective any measure other than isolating would be and throwing everything we had at this made sense. We are in a totally different position now. I can only speak for myself but if we started going in the wrong direction again I'd do what needs to be done. I simply believe we should tailor our response to be as unobtrusive as possible. Edited to correct an error on my part. I originally wrote "confidence intervals" when I should have written "certainty of evidence" as defined in the WHO-commissioned paper published in Lancet which was the basis for their advice.
[Deleted User] wrote: »
