nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Masks

fr336

How many people on Boards have a mask and if so are you wearing them for essential trips? And this late in the day where can you get one that is going to be half decent and not from a suspect seller who could have done anything to it?

Find more posts tagged with

shop

mask

covering

covid

facemask

Comments

polesheep

tom1ie wrote: »

Jesus Christ what a short sighted outlook.

Can you explain the supermarkets?

Do you think people in pubs and restaurants will eat and drink through masks?

McGiver

polesheep wrote:

Is it bringing the house down?

It could if you don't react appropriately.

Testing, tracing, distancing, masks, quarantine on international travel dynamically aligned with the situation worldwide. Irish Gov have been proven to be unable to do any of that properly. Do you think the new gov will manage better? I'm not sure at all.

Masks are not mandatory from tomorrow in Czechia. But they have been reintroduced in cities with outbreaks.

Back to you.

polesheep

McGiver wrote: »

It could if you don't react appropriately.

Testing, tracing, distancing, masks, quarantine on international travel dynamically aligned with the situation worldwide. Irish Gov have been proven to be unable to do any of that properly. Do you think the new gov will manage better? I'm not sure at all.

Masks are not mandatory from tomorrow in Czechia. But they have been reintroduced in cities with outbreaks.

Back to you.

Everything I have said is based on our low rate of infection. We don't have outbreaks.

tom1ie

polesheep wrote: »

Can you explain the supermarkets?

Do you think people in pubs and restaurants will eat and drink through masks?

Why not put in an extra measure to try and suppress the virus?
It’s better to be proactive than reactive no?

No I don’t think people will eat and drink through masks in pubs, but bar staff should be wearing masks for sure.

How do we know cases in supermarket staff aren’t higher than general public? Do we have a study to prove disprove this? Genuine question.

tom1ie

polesheep wrote: »

Everything I have said is based on our low rate of infection. We don't have outbreaks.

Yet.

McGiver

Assetbacked wrote:

I'm glad the vast majority of people in the general public are not as hysterical as those in this thread.

Do you have any rational contribution?

Stark

I think on average I've been far less hysterical than the general public. I was the one telling everyone we needed to find ways to "live with the virus" and not lose our **** over the neighbour going for a 2.2km walk or freak out passing someone in the street a couple of months ago. I just find it frustrating that we now know that there's an extremely pragmatic and effective way to keep infections down that has **** all impact on our daily lives and all the people who were happy to see us live under house arrest are now losing the rag.

ShyMets

Stark wrote: »

I think on average I've been far less hysterical than the general public. I was the one telling everyone we needed to find ways to "live with the virus" and not lose our **** over the neighbour going for a 2.2km walk or freak out passing someone in the street a couple of months ago. I just find it frustrating that we now know that there's an extremely pragmatic and effective way to keep infections down that has **** all impact on our daily lives and all the people who were happy to see us live under house arrest are now losing the rag.

Its really, really irritating when some people refuse to adopt a very simple measure, only in certain circumstances, which can have such a positive benefit.

I really dont understand the mentality

whiskeyman

This debate will be even more prevalent as the Autumn and Winter months as common colds and flu kicks in.
Would you be happy seeing someone coughing and sneezing in a shop with no mask?
The sooner masks are normalised the better.
It may obviously help reduce spread of the cold and flu also during that time of the year.

polesheep

tom1ie wrote: »

Why not put in an extra measure to try and suppress the virus?
It’s better to be proactive than reactive no?

No I don’t think people will eat and drink through masks in pubs, but bar staff should be wearing masks for sure.

How do we know cases in supermarket staff aren’t higher than general public? Do we have a study to prove disprove this? Genuine question.

Yes, it is known that only around twenty supermarket staff have tested positive out of 8,000 or more. It was posted much earlier by a number of posters. I think Is-that-so linked to it.

odyssey06

whiskeyman wrote: »

This debate will be even more prevalent as the Autumn and Winter months as common colds and flu kicks in.
Would you be happy seeing someone coughing and sneezing in a shop with no mask?
The sooner masks are normalised the better.
It may obviously help reduce spread of the cold and flu also during that time of the year.

Yep, in the context of the coronavirus, it becomes even more important to reduce the spread of other respiratory viruses - to not overwhelm the testing \ contact tracing \ health service in general.

polesheep

Stark wrote: »

I think on average I've been far less hysterical than the general public. I was the one telling everyone we needed to find ways to "live with the virus" and not lose our **** over the neighbour going for a 2.2km walk or freak out passing someone in the street a couple of months ago. I just find it frustrating that we now know that there's an extremely pragmatic and effective way to keep infections down that has **** all impact on our daily lives and all the people who were happy to see us live under house arrest are now losing the rag.

We've brought infections down without mandatory masks. Why shouldn't we be able to keep them down without mandatory masks?

polesheep

tom1ie wrote: »

Yet.

We also don't have the tallest building in the world 'yet'. So what? 'Yet' may never happen.

ninebeanrows

polesheep wrote: »

We've brought infections down without mandatory masks. Why shouldn't we be able to keep them down without mandatory masks?

That's kind of illogical, as we get back to being in closer contact with each other we need artificial barriers to replace social distance. The mask is such instance.

However, there is hysteria around masks as most public transport is still mostly empty and sitting wearing a mask on an empty bus Is pointless

Common sense is what we need

Stark

polesheep wrote: »

We've brought infections down without mandatory masks. Why shouldn't we be able to keep them down without mandatory masks?

Because I don't want to go back to house arrest again.

polesheep

Stark wrote: »

Because I don't want to go back to house arrest again.

We never had house arrest. I hated the restrictions, but they could not be compared to house arrest.

Wibbs

Assetbacked wrote: »

I'm glad the vast majority of people in the general public are not as hysterical as those in this thread.

I'm glad we didn't face something like a new strain of smallpox that kills a third it infects, because the behaviour of the general public not just around masks and the delay in or lack of leadership would have been an absolute disaster in that case.

It's not stupidity in the general public. Of course you get the dribbling morons anywhere, but it's far more complex than that. The herd thinking being a big one, another being the natural need for stability and normalcy and the positive tendency in people not to panic and to ignore things that may affect that normal routine. The ones drowning themselves in dettol panicking and preparing for the end of days are a neurotic minority thankfully.

Though it's a pity in some ways we couldn't turn that on in the general population in the rare cases of contagion like this, because normal life and stability and routine is how they spread. That's how they evolved to spread. And everyone except for the social phobics and the like are desperate to return to normal and return to their lives.

As for masks: This is a respiratory illness. The clue is in the name. You can only become infected through the respiratory system(the eyes possibly but the jury is well out on that route). It isn't a hand virus or arse virus or elbow virus. Social distancing helps reduce risk because it keeps your respiratory gunk from my respiratory gunk. Hand washing helps reduce risk because it keeps your respiratory gunk left on surfaces from transferring to my respiratory bits and bobs by way of me picking my nose after handling that surface. Gloves do nada. Masks help reduce risk at source in both healthy and infected. Believing they don't is akin to believing condoms don't reduce risk of pregnancy. It's pretty basic and understandable stuff. Put it this way; if it were a hand virus only an idiot would suggest gloves were of no value.

But like I reckoned many pages ago, most resist mask wearing almost entirely because they don't want to look foolish or out of place with a sideorder of our government putting out mixed messages and nothing will really shift this idea in Ireland unless the government grows a pair and legislates for it. We won't have a grassroots movement here and haven't. It's not an Irish thing culturally. Until then this debate will go back and forth between "I'm not wearing one cos I'd look thick and ye're all hysterics" and "you're killing people by not wearing one". Rinse and repeat.

odyssey06

polesheep wrote: »

We've brought infections down without mandatory masks. Why shouldn't we be able to keep them down without mandatory masks?

How did we bring the infections down?
Can those measures continue indefinitely?
If not, your post is illogical, as it implies that they can.

Wibbs

polesheep wrote: »

We've brought infections down without mandatory masks. Why shouldn't we be able to keep them down without mandatory masks?

By shutting down the country and most businesses and restricting movements and gatherings of people. That's how infections came down. Now we are reopening the country and many businesses and allowing movement and more gatherings of people. The direct opposite of what reduced the infection rate, but the virus is still out there contained in pockets for the moment. And I hope it stays that way.

OK I reduce the flow of water in my bath by turning the tap down, if I open the tap up again does the water flow magically stay reduced? Of course not. This is really simple stuff. It's not rocket surgery, yet some can't seem to join the obvious dots.

tom1ie

polesheep wrote: »

We also don't have the tallest building in the world 'yet'. So what? 'Yet' may never happen.

Are you from Texas? You sound like a Texan just before cases started going up.
Or maybe it’s a Florida accent.......

tom1ie

odyssey06 wrote: »

How did we bring the infections down?
Can those measures continue indefinitely?
If not, your post is illogical, as it implies that they can.

I don’t think he’s ever gonna figure this out tbh.

Tork

polesheep wrote: »

We never had house arrest. I hated the restrictions, but they could not be compared to house arrest.

Does it matter what label was put onto these restrictions. Everybody knows what they were and very few want to return to them.

Nobody wants this virus to make a comeback but it easily could. It's still as infectious as it ever was and it was only kept under control because of the extreme measures taken to keep people away from each other. These cannot continue indefinitely so we've moved onto Plan B.

iamwhoiam

polesheep wrote: »

We've brought infections down without mandatory masks. Why shouldn't we be able to keep them down without mandatory masks?

We brought the infection rate down because pubs were closed as were restaurants , public transport was nearly empty , hair dressers were closed as were clothes shops . If we want these to stay open then we compramise by wearing masks . Its very simple and not rocket science

[Deleted User]

polesheep wrote: »

We've brought infections down without mandatory masks. Why shouldn't we be able to keep them down without mandatory masks?

History would show that without some forms of restrictions, the virus grows. You have to all the way back to February 2020 to see this, but it did happen.

polesheep

Deleted User wrote: »

History would show that without some forms of restrictions, the virus grows. You have to all the way back to February 2020 to see this, but it did happen.

I can't disagree with that, but why introduce a new restriction? We have gone beyond flattening the curve. If cases pick up we can take a step or two back and we have the hospital capacity to cope.

tom1ie

polesheep wrote: »

I can't disagree with that, but why introduce a new restriction? We have gone beyond flattening the curve. If cases pick up we can take a step or two back and we have the hospital capacity to cope.

Let’s be proactive for once and take a simple step to curtailing the spread.
Wear a ****ing mask when in enclosed spaces.
It’s SO simple!!!!

[Deleted User]

polesheep wrote: »

I can't disagree with that, but why introduce a new restriction? We have gone beyond flattening the curve. If cases pick up we can take a step or two back and we have the hospital capacity to cope.

It's not a new restriction. It's a different less impactful restriction that would hopefully mean that the more severe lockdown measures wouldn't have to be reintroduced. The country is largely in the same position as it was in February so going back to normal while it's active will likely result in a big spike and a return to shlt.

In Vietnam, I work masks for some of Feb, all of March, and all of April. Then I went back to work in May and the masks dropped off quickly after that. Haven't worn one in at least a month. No one does anymore. This country was far more successful and imposed far fewer restriction on day-to-day life. And I think a lot of it had to do with masks being everywhere. You were a pariah if you didn't have one on.

It's just so much easier to do masks for a while if you want life to go back to normal. The West can't take the more extreme measures that are very effective but it can do masks.

dfx-

Wibbs wrote: »

But like I reckoned many pages ago, most resist mask wearing almost entirely because they don't want to look foolish or out of place with a sideorder of our government putting out mixed messages and nothing will really shift this idea in Ireland unless the government grows a pair and legislates for it. We won't have a grassroots movement here and haven't. It's not an Irish thing culturally. Until then this debate will go back and forth between "I'm not wearing one cos I'd look thick and ye're all hysterics" and "you're killing people by not wearing one". Rinse and repeat.

Did you not also reckon that everyone would abide by the rules once it was dictated by the Government? Because we love to follow the rules. It isn't the case. The culture of mask wearing and mask discipline in the real world, outside this thread, just isn't there, regardless of the pointless country comparisons.

It is a hand virus when you touch your face 20 times. Or can we restart shaking hands?

polesheep

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's not a new restriction. It's a different less impactful restriction that would hopefully mean that the more severe lockdown measures wouldn't have to be reintroduced. The country is largely in the same position as it was in February so going back to normal while it's active will likely result in a big spike and a return to shlt.

In Vietnam, I work masks for some of Feb, all of March, and all of April. Then I went back to work in May and the masks dropped off quickly after that. Haven't worn one in at least a month. No one does anymore. This country was far more successful and imposed far fewer restriction on day-to-day life. And I think a lot of it had to do with masks being everywhere. You were a pariah if you didn't have one on.

It's just so much easier to do masks for a while if you want life to go back to normal. The West can't take the more extreme measures that are very effective but it can do masks.

Why is no one wearing masks now?

xhomelezz

polesheep wrote: »

I can't disagree with that, but why introduce a new restriction? We have gone beyond flattening the curve. If cases pick up we can take a step or two back and we have the hospital capacity to cope.

Why would we wait FFS? It's the same approach like at the start of pandemic. Ah sure it's just a flu, nothing to worry about.. Where did we ended up? Over 1700 deaths and counting, big damage to economy, unemployment. I don't want to be taking any steps back, if possible. It's easier to wear the mask to keep numbers as low as possible till there is vaccine, or effective treatment, while we enjoy free movement and all other things. Simple logic, but only works when majority wears them.