Masks

ExMachina1000 · 28-06-2020 12:06PM

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

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?

You are suggesting that the public police it themselves?

No legislation with legal enforcement ie Gardai and fines =no mandatory wearing of masks

ShadowTech · 28-06-2020 12:37PM

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.

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.

Seanergy · 28-06-2020 12:41PM

Yes: valved

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

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?

railer201 · 28-06-2020 12:43PM

Yes: valved

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

The HSE and the Government are talking a lot about 'individual responsibility' at the moment with regard to the wearing of face coverings. 'Pass the Parcel' in other words, it's over to us as individuals to act in a collective way and wear face coverings.

I think collective mask wearing will happen 'en masse' , particularly if we get another exponential increase in Covid-19 cases and it finally dawns on people it's either masks or a good chance of winding up in a box.

Seanergy · 28-06-2020 12:45PM

Yes: valved

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.

That is not the reason the WHO waited to give advice, they were concerned with supply.

ExMachina1000 · 28-06-2020 12:47PM

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

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?

No government legislation = no mandatory wearing of masks.

That's the long and short of it

Away With The Fairies · 28-06-2020 12:48PM

Yes: valved

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.

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.

Seanergy · 28-06-2020 12:49PM

Yes: valved

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

No government legislation = no mandatory wearing of masks.

That's the long and short of it

You have posted that at least 10 times already, seems to be your go to answer to conversation.

is_that_so · 28-06-2020 12:57PM

No: other

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

No government legislation = no mandatory wearing of masks.

That's the long and short of it

As I said it's in the Emergency powers of the 1947 Health Act and covered by the Health (Preservation and Protection and other Emergency Measures in the Public Interest) Act 2020. This is the catch-all below. Now mandatory mask wearing on public transport still needs regulations to be altered so I suppose you're half-right in the sense that it hasn't come into force yet.

31A.
(i) any other measures that the Minister considers necessary in order to prevent, limit, minimise or slow the spread of Covid-19;

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/act/1/enacted/en/print#sec10

seefin · 28-06-2020 01:03PM

Yes: valved

If no shortage now, is it ok to wear n95 masks ? Are they the only ones that also protect the wearer?

ExMachina1000 · 28-06-2020 01:08PM

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

Seanergy wrote: »

You have posted that at least 10 times already, seems to be your go to answer to conversation.

You can talk about it until the cows come home. Makes no odds.

No legislation equals no mandatory wearing of masks

ShadowTech · 28-06-2020 01:12PM

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.

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.

Jim_Hodge · 28-06-2020 01:17PM

Yes: homemade

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.

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 · 28-06-2020 01:22PM

Yes: valved

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.

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.

sheepsh4gger · 28-06-2020 01:24PM

seefin wrote: »

If no shortage now, is it ok to wear n95 masks ? Are they the only ones that also protect the wearer?

The filters need to be rated for viruses. It has to do with particle size. Industrial masks are the best choice for civilians. You can get a mask meant for say construction workers.

Away With The Fairies · 28-06-2020 01:55PM

Yes: valved

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 · 28-06-2020 02:00PM

Yes: homemade

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.

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 · 28-06-2020 02:07PM

Yes: valved

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.

It doesn't look hard to get food and drink under the face shield. Here's another one as an option.

Jim_Hodge · 28-06-2020 02:11PM

Yes: homemade

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.

I wish you'd keep this to one thread rather that repeating everything.

So...you have obviously never worn a face shield nor tried to drink with one on (without a straw); virtually impossible. And it is not recommended to eat with one on, due frequently touching the shield in the process and the sheer awkwardness of it.

stephenjmcd · 28-06-2020 02:12PM

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.

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 · 28-06-2020 02:14PM

Yes: homemade

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.

Jeez H ...just looked at that image. Are you serious? That's a gag. Look at the person whose arm is wedged inside the shield.

Away With The Fairies · 28-06-2020 02:21PM

Yes: valved

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.

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.

ShadowTech · 28-06-2020 02:24PM

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.

I do understand the point you're both making but the issue is this: if our numbers are very low as they are now and the efficacy of a restriction is also low then the usefulness of the restriction at this point in time is vanishingly low. This is exactly the point of the Norwegian health authority when they say it would require 200,000 people to wear a mask to potentially stop 1 person from contracting Covid at this point in time. Norway currently has similar numbers of cases and a similar sized population to ourselves so it is a relevant comparison.

I think the crux of the issue is that if you don't feel any imposition from wearing a mask then its not a big deal to you so even with low effectiveness why not just wear it? But if you do feel that it is an imposition then you only want to add masks as an additional restriction if it will be meaningfully effective.

I mean, there are a whole variety of restrictions we are removing right now that if we kept in place would keep risk at a lower level. The whole point is to find the lowest number of restrictions and impositions to keep numbers low and allow the health service to cope.

stephenjmcd · 28-06-2020 02:25PM

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.

Again proving your a wind up merchant.

You actually think people in Ireland or anywhere for that matter are going to walk around or go for a meal out with a hat and a hanging down shield. Come off it will you

Away With The Fairies · 28-06-2020 02:29PM

Yes: valved

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Again proving your a wind up merchant.

I guess I don't fit in wearing a hat like that in Ireland, is that the problem with it?

Tokyo · 28-06-2020 02:31PM

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.

Mod: You wear a face shield - great. Let's move on, shall we?

stephenjmcd · 28-06-2020 02:32PM

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?

look at the rest of my reply please before picking out a line.

I wont be replying further because at this stage I know your on a wind up.

Seanergy · 28-06-2020 05:54PM

Yes: valved

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.

So you read the Lancet paper that just happens to be the same paper Leo Vardakar cited as his new evidence when in conversartion with Pat Kenny on national tv.

That was not the basis for WHO changing their advice and that paper is weaker than the WHO's own 2019 NPI publication which puts quality of evidence for mask wearing on par with hand washing.

Many of the NPI's in that publication were introduced here yet they have a lower quality of evidence. But you preformed them without questioning the low efficacy of them, didn't you?

Another lockdown will not be unobtrusive, but masks will. Sounds like Falite Ireland/hopsitality BS2ME

Seanergy · 28-06-2020 09:41PM

Yes: valved

https://twitter.com/NiamhLQB/status/1277334316377399297

fr336 · 28-06-2020 11:13PM

Yes: surgical

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Damn it i was just coming to post that how did you find it! Funny post

Masks

Comments