Masks

timetogo1 · 14-07-2020 09:22AM

No: I don't care enough

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I don't get it why some people here have such a longing for masks. We have been in supermarkets without masks for months - nothing happened. We have now been in smaller shops for quite some time - nothing happened.

Really? We've severely restricted business and our day to day lives for the last few months. Schools closed, older people couldn't visit or be visited, 1000's of people became unemployed.
Nothing happened????? Do you want the country / countries to stay like this forever?
If everybody wearing the masks made it a tiny bit less likely to reduce the chance of spreading the disease it might be enough to get the damn r number to a low enough level so that the virus dies out.

None of the measures we've done over the last few months are extremely effective. They all have some level of effectiveness. The cumulative effect of all of these slightly effective measures may add up to an effective measure.

I don't have a longing for masks. Nobody does and to say that people do, is childish. If we had a longing for masks we wouldn't be waiting for a pandemic to start wearing them.

CalamariFritti · 14-07-2020 09:58AM

This virus is not going to die out. All scientists have said this pretty much from day one. We will not be able to eradicate it.

When I say 'nothing happened' I meant we didnt get any significant number of infections from supermarkets and shops. Without masks. And we've been in there all along in the case of supermarkets and as soon as we could in case of other shops.
More importantly the staff have not gotten infected. And they were in there amongst us all day long stacking shelves handling our goods and money. So clearly the actual risk is blown a bit out of proportion in those settings. Which is not me saying there isn't any risk in other scenarios.

And a 'tiny bit less likely' is not enough to turn over society. Not in my opinion anyway.

gmisk · 14-07-2020 10:00AM

CalamariFritti wrote: »

This virus is not going to die out. All scientists have said this pretty much from day one. We will not be able to eradicate it.

When I say 'nothing happened' I meant we didnt get any significant number of infections from supermarkets and shops. Without masks. And we've been in there all along in the case of supermarkets and as soon as we could in case of other shops.
More importantly the staff have not gotten infected. And they were in there amongst us all day long stacking shelves handling our goods and money. So clearly the actual risk is blown a bit out of proportion in those settings. Which is not me saying there isn't any risk in other scenarios.

And a 'tiny bit less likely' is not enough to turn over society. Not in my opinion anyway.

There is a world of difference though between a large supermarket with limited numbers, and a packed bus or dart.
I think it makes perfect sense on public transport but not really needed atm in supermarkets

odyssey06 · 14-07-2020 10:07AM

gmisk wrote: »

There is a world of difference though between a large supermarket with limited numbers, and a packed bus or dart.

It is a reasonable objection though to a general policy of masks in shops - unless it's small shops that don't have the physical space to afford much social distancing.

CalamariFritti · 14-07-2020 10:07AM

gmisk wrote: »

There is a world of difference though between a large supermarket with limited numbers, and a packed bus or dart.

Yes there is. There are scenarios that are more risky than others. I will not deny that.

Im not anti-mask. All I'm calling for is a bit of sobriety and rationale in the discussion. Some people are calling for masks everywhere and I think thats massive overkill. Especially in settings that have shown to be harmless.

gmisk · 14-07-2020 10:16AM

odyssey06 wrote: »

It is a reasonable objection though to a general policy of masks in shops - unless it's small shops that don't have the physical space to afford much social distancing.

I would agree if a large space and limited number I don't think mandatory masks necessary. But if not social distancing or small shop they really need to be.

ginoginelli · 14-07-2020 10:31AM

Yes: surgical

odyssey06 wrote: »

It is a reasonable objection though to a general policy of masks in shops - unless it's small shops that don't have the physical space to afford much social distancing.

Indoor spaces over a prolonged period are one of the most dangerous times for these viruses. Now with with the increasing evidence of aerosol transmission scoical distancing isnt enoughto keep people safe.

Masks are essential in these conditions.

alentejo · 14-07-2020 10:39AM

I would be against masks in shops as a black and white rule. Might suggest that if a shop for plus 15 minutes, you would be required to use them.

Most times, I am at a garage, coffee shop news agent etc and am simply popping in to buy something. The rational behind this rule is that it is more likely to be used by the masses for larger shopping events and times when you need to be indoors etc. I suspect that it would be near impossible to police a wearing of masks in all indoor environments esp for times when people are very briefly in an indoor environment.

Two other items, very clear guidance will be required for eating / drinking in pubs and restaurants etc.

Government would be required to very clearly indicate why this is necessary and give a simple explanation as the the U turn on this guidance.

ednwireland · 14-07-2020 10:41AM

No: other

CalamariFritti wrote: »

There is now evidence that the aerosols might stay in the air for longer than they thought and that there is no proof they cant infect people. Under lab conditions.

Very different.

Deleted User wrote: »

If I had Covid-19 and was standing next to you, would you prefer if I wore a mask or no?

ginoginelli wrote: »

Indoor spaces over a prolonged period are one of the most dangerous times for these viruses. Now with with the increasing evidence of aerosol transmission scoical distancing isnt enoughto keep people safe.

Masks are essential in these conditions.

thats why weve seen huge clusters of cases in shops Dont get me worng not arguing against masks)
but if this thing hangs in the air and is viable for hours how come we havent seen clusters of case from people doing there regular shopping ?
or huge numbers of shop assistants getting it ?

really i want to know as if this ais a primary transmission scenario they would be the most at risk surely.
actually i think the real problem is the press is publishing prelimenary results not peer reviewed papers and then everyone panics that now the virus can be detected after hours in aerosol in the air, no mention if its viable after that time, remember we were catching it off surfaces 3 months ago same thing no test to see if a viable virus survived.

i think the reporting of this"science" is very dubious, i doubt the science is, its just that its nowhere near complete.

Boggles · 14-07-2020 11:03AM

ednwireland wrote: »

seen clusters of case from people doing there regular shopping ?
or huge numbers of shop assistants getting it ?

Low instances of the virus and shops limiting numbers.

Dunnes for instance had a one person per trolley rule.

Report from the states.

https://www.supermarketnews.com/issues-trends/ufcw-over-11500-grocery-workers-affected-first-100-days-pandemic

The UK are going to trial a blanket test of shop workers, taxi drivers, etc this week.

skelly22 · 14-07-2020 11:33AM

CalamariFritti wrote: »

This virus is not going to die out. All scientists have said this pretty much from day one. We will not be able to eradicate it.

When I say 'nothing happened' I meant we didnt get any significant number of infections from supermarkets and shops. Without masks. And we've been in there all along in the case of supermarkets and as soon as we could in case of other shops.
More importantly the staff have not gotten infected. And they were in there amongst us all day long stacking shelves handling our goods and money. So clearly the actual risk is blown a bit out of proportion in those settings. Which is not me saying there isn't any risk in other scenarios.

And a 'tiny bit less likely' is not enough to turn over society. Not in my opinion anyway.

Mask-wearing won't even be up for debate for much longer. Their use will soon be mandatory in all retail scenarios and, shortly thereafter, in all outdoor settings. "Gradualism", the approach that has clearly been adopted.

ShyMets · 14-07-2020 11:38AM

skelly22 wrote: »

Mask-wearing won't even be up for debate for much longer. Their use will soon be mandatory in all retail scenarios and, shortly thereafter, in all outdoor settings. "Gradualism", the approach that has clearly been adopted.

I agree we'll see them in a retail setting sooner rather then later. I'm not convinced we'll see them mandatory outdoors anytime soon.

It would be almost impossible to police

skelly22 · 14-07-2020 11:50AM

ShyMets wrote: »

I agree we'll see them in a retail setting sooner rather then later. I'm not convinced we'll see them mandatory outdoors anytime soon.

It would be almost impossible to police

Not when you stick extortionate fines of EUR2.5K and/or 6 months imprisonment for non-compliance!

ShyMets · 14-07-2020 11:57AM

skelly22 wrote: »

Not when you stick extortionate fines of EUR2.5K and/or 6 months imprisonment for non-compliance!

How about if someone is sitting on a parkbench or outside a cafe eating a sandwich or drinking a coffee. They'll obviously have removed their mask to do this. Should they be fined

skelly22 · 14-07-2020 12:28PM

ShyMets wrote: »

How about if someone is sitting on a parkbench or outside a cafe eating a sandwich or drinking a coffee. They'll obviously have removed their mask to do this. Should they be fined

Absoutely not. I suppose we won' t know till we see the wording of the law.

Patrick2010 · 14-07-2020 12:55PM

skelly22 wrote: »

Not when you stick extortionate fines of EUR2.5K and/or 6 months imprisonment for non-compliance!

Thats never going to happen, everyone knows that. But if it was a 100 euro on the spot fine then people might take notice.

Tork · 14-07-2020 12:56PM

Yes: to protect others

Maybe being fecked off the bus/tram/train every time they don't wear one might help the message sink in too.

skelly22 · 14-07-2020 12:58PM

Patrick2010 wrote: »

Thats never going to happen, everyone knows that. But if it was a 100 euro on the spot fine then people might take notice.

Like I said, we haven't seen the wording of the law yet, I'm just presuming it'll be similar to that currently in existence for public transport.

Patrick2010 · 14-07-2020 01:02PM

Can you see anyone on a bus getting a 2,500 fine?

CalamariFritti · 14-07-2020 01:08PM

skelly22 wrote: »

Mask-wearing won't even be up for debate for much longer. Their use will soon be mandatory in all retail scenarios and, shortly thereafter, in all outdoor settings. "Gradualism", the approach that has clearly been adopted.

Well thankfully because you say so won't make it so.

All indoor settings blankly would be massive overkill, all outdoor settings would be insanity.

And this is why I am so vehemently against it. Sorry nothing personal but its because of people like you.

Advocating for something without thinking it through, without thinking about the rationale and most importantly not thinking about the consequences.

We as a society love bullsh1t, we just do. Just look at the security theatre in airports. 20 years after 9/11 with scanners that can see your microbes we still have to take shoes and belts off and are not allowed to bring a bottle of water. Not in the same ballpark but you'll get my drift.

Once it becomes the done thing and a whole industry evolves around it its very hard to turn back.

And because of that tendency I am very much afraid of the whole masks debate. There will be the kind of people who will argue reducing risk by a tiny bit justifies everything and before you know it we are all running around with masks everywhere ten years going with no virus in sight.

Sorry, but fvck that. We need sobriety and rationale not hysteria and 'reducing risk by a tiny bit justifies everything'.

ShyMets · 14-07-2020 01:10PM

skelly22 wrote: »

Like I said, we haven't seen the wording of the law yet, I'm just presuming it'll be similar to that currently in existence for public transport.

I would have thought that any law making face coverings mandatory in enclosed spaces (i.e not public transport) wouldn't require a fine on the person not wearing a mask. Instead the law should state that the owners/managers of the premises will be fined if people are found to be in there premises not wearing a face covering.

Mind you that could be a legal nightmere.

odyssey06 · 14-07-2020 01:11PM

CalamariFritti wrote: »

And because of that tendency I am very much afraid of the whole masks debate. There will be the kind of people who will argue reducing risk by a tiny bit justifies everything and before you know it we are all running around with masks everywhere ten years going with no virus in sight.

I can't see that happening so here I don't buy the 'slippery slope' argument. Alongside the civil liberties objections, our governments are too attached to CCTV for that to happen and incapable of that level of sustained enforcement.

So let's approach each area of mask wearing on its merits.

otnomart · 14-07-2020 01:12PM

I am firmly in the mask camp, have been wearing it in shops since I first managed to find them (early April).
After lockdown ended, I have been wearing it also in public transport and when walking in busy areas / with narrow pavements where it is difficult to distance.

Good to see evidence-based articles like this one, in support of mask wearing.

"A range of new research on face coverings shows that the risk of infection to the wearer decreases by 65%, says Dean Blumberg, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California, Davis Children’s Hospital."

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/experts-a-mask-cuts-your-coronavirus-risk-by-65/

timetogo1 · 14-07-2020 01:37PM

No: I don't care enough

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Once it becomes the done thing and a whole industry evolves around it its very hard to turn back.

And because of that tendency I am very much afraid of the whole masks debate. There will be the kind of people who will argue reducing risk by a tiny bit justifies everything and before you know it we are all running around with masks everywhere ten years going with no virus in sight.

Rubbish. The virus will go away or will be more manageable (i.e. people won't die from it).
Rolling back from wearing masks will not be hard. Can you elaborate on why you think this is incorrect.

CalamariFritti · 14-07-2020 02:21PM

timetogo1 wrote: »

Rubbish. The virus will go away or will be more manageable (i.e. people won't die from it).
Rolling back from wearing masks will not be hard. Can you elaborate on why you think this is incorrect.

I already did in the part you didnt quote. Its not a crazy worry in my opinion.

Edit: It may sound like hyperbole but it wasn't intended to be. I could really see that happening. Especially if a vaccine will not deliver that big bang 'its all over' moment which is not unlikely.

skelly22 · 14-07-2020 02:47PM

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Well thankfully because you say so won't make it so.

All indoor settings blankly would be massive overkill, all outdoor settings would be insanity.

And this is why I am so vehemently against it. Sorry nothing personal but its because of people like you.

Advocating for something without thinking it through, without thinking about the rationale and most importantly not thinking about the consequences.

We as a society love bullsh1t, we just do. Just look at the security theatre in airports. 20 years after 9/11 with scanners that can see your microbes we still have to take shoes and belts off and are not allowed to bring a bottle of water. Not in the same ballpark but you'll get my drift.

Once it becomes the done thing and a whole industry evolves around it its very hard to turn back.

And because of that tendency I am very much afraid of the whole masks debate. There will be the kind of people who will argue reducing risk by a tiny bit justifies everything and before you know it we are all running around with masks everywhere ten years going with no virus in sight.

Sorry, but fvck that. We need sobriety and rationale not hysteria and 'reducing risk by a tiny bit justifies everything'.

Never said I was advocating it. And I agree 100% with your post just so there's no confusion. I just posted what I believe will happen, based on what I've seen (and heard) up to now.

CalamariFritti · 14-07-2020 02:52PM

Sorry for the confusion

Seanergy · 14-07-2020 03:11PM

Yes: valved

First 2 video's here will show you how to make a mask using a heat sealer.

The iron technique posted earlier inthread was too hit and miss for me, I made some great masks using it which I still use, excellent technique to know but looking for more consistency.

If this does not satisfy me I may entertain(autumn project) modifying the replaceable telfon plates from a sandwich toaster as my mask heat press.

Obviously one can sew non woven fabrics but take a leaf out of the history books and the rub the wax from a candle into the needle holes from time to time if you do.

The last video here will show you how to make a mask pleat board, will speed up the process of pleated mask making no end.

skelly22 · 14-07-2020 03:12PM

Patrick2010 wrote: »

Can you see anyone on a bus getting a 2,500 fine?

In theory - No. It obviously sounds ridiculous without me having to point it out. But it's the law.

Seanergy · 14-07-2020 03:17PM

Yes: valved

Anyone here made the Montana 3d printer mask's or similar?

https://www.makethemasks.com/

Masks

Comments