Hurrache wrote: » Not much of a choice is there, you won't be let in or served if you don't.
SleetAndSnow wrote: » Pretty much the way it has to be, I am also all for mask use. Just hoping it won't be another public transport situation. Most likely will be easier to enforce in shops though
Sconsey wrote: » Yeah you dont have to have somone monitoring the door, you could just tell them to leave when the approach they counter, at least for the smaller shops. Supermarkets already have a presence at the door so not too difficult to implement for them.
stephenjmcd wrote: » Most supermarkets seem to have moved away from that, well the ones near me have anyway. All have sensors and screens up saying how many in the store and a traffic light system
SleetAndSnow wrote: » https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1283411394155761665?s=20 Will be interesting to see how enforcement with this works
Morrison J wrote: » Genuinely good to see how much more proactive we're being in terms of mask wearing now. If only Holohan/Leo/Harris had it in them to do this 4 months prior.
timmy_mallet wrote: » What would that have achieved? Community spread was 0.
Morrison J wrote: » Saving lives and stopping the spread of the virus?
alentejo wrote: » I see mandatory masks for shops...... then it will be for offices...... then it will be for all outdoor activity......... might then make it mandatory for you to wear in your own house............. and we will spend years unravelling this..........
Stark wrote: » https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope Your scenario has never happened anywhere else where they've temporarily made masks mandatory for epidemic control purposes so don't see why it would happen here.
timmy_mallet wrote: » No. The community spread was 0.
YellowBucket wrote: » Sure we used them before in 1918 and that’s been long forgotten.
timmy_mallet wrote: » Imagine making a law based on 'well, it's better than doing nothing *shrug*'. Shocking. Any evidence of the safety of prolonged mask wearing? Can imagine that inhaling carbon dioxide constantly couldn't be good for you.
alentejo wrote: » Yes used in 1918 and there was a second wave in 1919! (Which was more deadly)
Elmer Blooker wrote: » For those with heart conditions, pulmonary hypertension and the shortness of breath associated with these conditions not getting enough oxygen is dangerous and life threatening. You don't have to be old to have these conditions btw.
Hurrache wrote: » A cross post from another thread to fight off the ignorance and misinformation...... Several doctors, who wear masks daily for years, have posted videos showing them putting on masks, testing their blood oxygen levels at different points, and showing no issue. One guy even wore several masks simultaneously without a problem.https://twitter.com/drjoshuawolrich/status/1281310674833063939
Morrison J wrote: » You do realize that wearing masks could've helped prevent community spread sky rocketing too right?
is_that_so wrote: » Staying at home actually did that.
Morrison J wrote: » It did. Forcing those who couldn't stay at home to wear masks obviously would've helped too.
odyssey06 wrote: » Any evidence whatsoever that wearing a surgical or cotton mask has triggered such a reaction? Regardless, those are all very high risk conditions for coronavirus. Suggest spaces where mask weaing is mandated are avoided by such individuals for obvious reasons.
YellowBucket wrote: » Yeah they also used them during that and there were a load of utterly irrational anti-mask protesters in the USA throwing massive hissy fits about and who likely helped to let it spread. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mask_League_of_San_Francisco
timmy_mallet wrote: » Evidence of 3x the amount of Carbon dioxide inhalation because of masks. This is far higher than the recommended amount of CO2 and is dangerous.
timmy_mallet wrote: » Like healthcare workers who wore medical grade masks and still managed to be 1/3, ONE-THIRD, 33% of the cases.
