Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Masks

1…188189191193194…328

Comments

  • #5702
    Tokyo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,656 ✭✭✭✭Tokyo


    Mod. Opposing points of view are welcome. However, I just deleted 35 posts of ridiculous strawman arguments involving muzzles, the Nazis, and everything else in between.

    @Away With The Fairies, @GT89 - you both definitely need a break from the thread. Take 48 hours off.


  • #5703
    harr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭harr


    Can I ask what exactly the rules are from this morning, I do wear a mask myself but I have seen a number of smaller shops now have signs up asking all customers to wear masks as it mandatory from today and have seen two customers at local garage being asked to wear them.
    Is it now mandatory but it just can’t be enforced legally till legalisation is written ?


  • #5704
    xhomelezz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,020 ✭✭✭xhomelezz


    Yes: valved
    harr wrote: »
    Can I ask what exactly the rules are from this morning, I do wear a mask myself but I have seen a number of smaller shops now have signs up asking all customers to wear masks as it mandatory from today and have seen two customers at local garage being asked to wear them.
    Is it now mandatory but it just can’t be enforced legally till legalisation is written ?

    Think that's exactly how it is. Mandatory in the shops from today. But saw big uptake on masks in shops in my area since last Thursday. I can imagine enforcement will be similar to the rules on public transport, but we have to wait what they gonna come up with.


  • #5705
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend
    Back to work today. Just on first bus. No mask no problem. Driver said nothing. 4 on the bus, 2 with masks and 2 without. Bus 2 will be the exact same as it’s the same bus and driver that changes route when we get to the last stop on this route. No one has dropped dead yet.


  • #5706
    leanin2019
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 168 ✭✭leanin2019


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Back to work today. Just on first bus. No mask no problem. Driver said nothing. 4 on the bus, 2 with masks and 2 without. Bus 2 will be the exact same as it’s the same bus and driver that changes route when we get to the last stop on this route. No one has dropped dead yet.

    No one has dropped dead on your bus yet, and probably won't. But they might pass the virus to somebody vulnerable with an underlying condition.

    Sure, they might be over 70, but they could have lived another ten years, and now they could die within weeks.

    Because of great citizens like yourself.

    Well done.


  • Advertisement
  • #5707
    ben.schlomo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,614 ✭✭✭✭ben.schlomo


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Back to work today. Just on first bus. No mask no problem. Driver said nothing. 4 on the bus, 2 with masks and 2 without. Bus 2 will be the exact same as it’s the same bus and driver that changes route when we get to the last stop on this route. No one has dropped dead yet.

    Where was it suggested people would drop dead on PT? I'd be interested in reading the article.


  • #5708
    odyssey06
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,664 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Back to work today. Just on first bus. No mask no problem. Driver said nothing. 4 on the bus, 2 with masks and 2 without. Bus 2 will be the exact same as it’s the same bus and driver that changes route when we get to the last stop on this route. No one has dropped dead yet.

    "No one has dropped dead yet."
    The understanding of respiratory viruses in general, and covid-19 in particular, is strong here.

    Did anyone drop dead on a bus before we brought in the smoking ban?
    Did anyone drop dead during the period it was introduced?
    Did it still make sense to introduce it?
    Yep.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • #5709
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,316 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Back to work today. Just on first bus. No mask no problem. Driver said nothing.
    North or South side? I'm seeing drivers not asking people to wear a mask when they're driving north of the Liffey.


  • #5710
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    No: other
    the_syco wrote: »
    North or South side? I'm seeing drivers not asking people to wear a mask when they're driving north of the Liffey.
    Unions have said that drivers are not going to police it.


  • #5711
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend
    the_syco wrote: »
    North or South side? I'm seeing drivers not asking people to wear a mask when they're driving north of the Liffey.

    North county


  • Advertisement
  • #5712
    Bacchus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,758 ✭✭✭Bacchus


    Yes: valved
    Does anyone know what the requirement is for children in shops with respect to wearing masks? Are under 4s for instance exempt?


  • #5713
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,080 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    "No one has dropped dead yet."
    The understanding of respiratory viruses in general, and covid-19 in particular, is strong here.

    Did anyone drop dead on a bus before we brought in the smoking ban?
    Did anyone drop dead during the period it was introduced?
    Did it still make sense to introduce it?
    Yep.

    He used to pretend to work for HSE at the start which makes his ramblings much funnier. Need to take the act with a pinch of salt thankfully.


  • #5714
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,275 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    GDY151


    Bacchus wrote: »
    Does anyone know what the requirement is for children in shops with respect to wearing masks? Are under 4s for instance exempt?


    Under 13s are exempt.


  • #5715
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend
    Bacchus wrote: »
    Does anyone know what the requirement is for children in shops with respect to wearing masks? Are under 4s for instance exempt?

    Under 12s don't need to wear one.


  • #5716
    Jim_Hodge
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,134 ✭✭✭✭Jim_Hodge


    Yes: homemade
    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Back to work today. Just on first bus. No mask no problem. Driver said nothing. 4 on the bus, 2 with masks and 2 without. Bus 2 will be the exact same as it’s the same bus and driver that changes route when we get to the last stop on this route. No one has dropped dead yet.

    Aren't you a wonderful person! I'm sure everybody in work will welcome you back with open arms when you tell them that story and cheer their very own warrior for the cause of freedom.


  • #5717
    paw patrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,312 ✭✭✭paw patrol


    No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend
    Away With The Fairies wrote: »
    The virus is very small, it cannot move by itself, it hitches a ride on respiratory droplets and that's how it gets passed on between people. You block respiratory droplets from leaving an infected person and the virus doesn't get passed on. So masks and other face coverings are very helpful.


    this sounds great but the reality is that the droplets are "aerosoled" and get through the masks. The science is that against the virus the masks are not effective.

    If it makes you happy to wear one fire ahead. If you want insist others wear one ,fire ahead enforce your will on others. But don't say you are doing it due to "science" cos that would be a falsehood.



    It is amazing who zealous the average punter has become during covid19. the fear and panic has made them lose reason and turned them on any citizen who says they are no convinced or satisfied with the state.


  • #5718
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,500 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    paw patrol wrote: »
    The science is that against the virus the masks are not effective.

    Cool, link to this science when you a get chance please.


  • #5719
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,321 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Yes: other
    paw patrol wrote: »
    this sounds great but the reality is that the droplets are "aerosoled" and get through the masks. The science is that against the virus the masks are not effective.

    If it makes you happy to wear one fire ahead. If you want insist others wear one ,fire ahead enforce your will on others. But don't say you are doing it due to "science" cos that would be a falsehood.
    Actually the science is pretty solid on the filtration of aerosols and droplets and masks. Surgical grade and above masks significantly attenuate aerosolised droplets reaching out from and to people. There is pretty much zero scientific debate on that front. Medical staff wouldn't use them if there weren't. The science of filtration is well understood and across different fields and industries. What debate there is would be around cloth masks and various materials and how successful they are at mitigating risk and the degree they do so. That said the same science tells us to practice respiratory hygiene by coughing into the sleeve of a shirt or hankie which mitigates risk, so wearing a hankie on one's face should be as good or better in such cases. Better, because the number of people I've observed even in this crisis not bothering to cover their mouth when they cough is a concern.

    Secondly there is a major difference between how viruses propagate. Truly airborne viruses don't require droplets to move around so require much higher standards of filtration all the way up to clean air feeds. Others can't survive in an infectious form like that. As it stands Covid19 strongly appears to be the latter type. If it weren't infection rates in a population with no immunity would be much higher than they are.

    No zealotry required either. Basic common sense and logic should demonstrate wearing any filter that covers the respiratory pathways will lower the risk of transmitting or catching a respiratory virus.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #5720
    paw patrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,312 ✭✭✭paw patrol


    No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend
    Boggles wrote: »
    Cool, link to this science when you a get chance please.


    I could but i doubt it's a productive use of my time tbh. 99% of people on boards are not for changing their views even if jesus rose from the dead and stood on front of them.


    i hope you appreciate I'm not walking around with references tattoo to my arm in case the thought police demand sources off me.

    But against by better judgement here goes one off top of my head -


    2015 - a cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

    you can find it on ncbi.


  • #5721
    paw patrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,312 ✭✭✭paw patrol


    No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Actually the science is pretty solid on the filtration of aerosols and droplets and masks. Surgical grade and above masks significantly attenuate aerosolised droplets reaching out from and to people. There is pretty much zero scientific debate on that front. Medical staff wouldn't use them if there weren't. The science of filtration is well understood and across different fields and industries. What debate there is would be around cloth masks and various materials and how successful they are at mitigating risk and the degree they do so. That said the same science tells us to practice respiratory hygiene by coughing into the sleeve of a shirt or hankie which mitigates risk, so wearing a hankie on one's face should be as good or better in such cases. Better, because the number of people I've observed even in this crisis not bothering to cover their mouth when they cough is a concern.

    Secondly there is a major difference between how viruses propagate. Truly airborne viruses don't require droplets to move around so require much higher standards of filtration all the way up to clean air feeds. Others can't survive in an infectious form like that. As it stands Covid19 strongly appears to be the latter type. If it weren't infection rates in a population with no immunity would be much higher than they are.


    agreed. I myself have PPF3 grade masks I got in Feb which I believe are effective.
    I meant in the context of the masks we are debating, the general cloth rags that i'm being brow beaten into wearing or risk being a social pariah.
    perhaps i should have made that clear.


  • Advertisement
  • #5722
    Sconsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,611 ✭✭✭Sconsey


    No: other
    paw patrol wrote: »
    this sounds great but the reality is that the droplets are "aerosoled" and get through the masks. The science is that against the virus the masks are not effective.

    If it makes you happy to wear one fire ahead. If you want insist others wear one ,fire ahead enforce your will on others. But don't say you are doing it due to "science" cos that would be a falsehood.


    It is amazing who zealous the average punter has become during covid19. the fear and panic has made them lose reason and turned them on any citizen who says they are no convinced or satisfied with the state.

    Sure, even the N95 masks have mixed capabilites at keeping out aerolized particles. But that does not mean masks are ineffective. They block droplets which can be carrying the virus.

    I could link you here to 70 published papers suggesting masks are effective at reducing the risk of spreading the virus. These are not a 'falshood' as you call it, I would be willing to bet the hundreds of authors are more scientifically qualifed than you are so I will be going with their opinions over yours.

    Then I was going to pull out some relevant links to more scientific studies in this article but really you would be well served to read the article from start to finish, it could change your view.


  • #5723
    timetogo1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 892 ✭✭✭timetogo1


    No: I don't care enough
    paw patrol wrote: »
    I could but i doubt it's a productive use of my time tbh. 99% of people on boards are not for changing their views even if jesus rose from the dead and stood on front of them.


    i hope you appreciate I'm not walking around with references tattoo to my arm in case the thought police demand sources off me.

    But against by better judgement here goes one off top of my head -


    2015 - a cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

    you can find it on ncbi.

    Just saying "I'm not able to back up my ramblings with any credible sources" is enough of an answer without all the waffle. It means exactly the same thing.

    From that NCBI study comparing cloth masks to medical masks it concludes "However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated."

    Grand so. I don't think anybody is recommending cloth masks for Health Care Workers. They will stay with the medical masks I presume.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/


  • #5724
    dalyboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭dalyboy


    timetogo1 wrote: »
    Just saying "I'm not able to back up my ramblings with any credible sources" is enough of an answer without all the waffle. It means exactly the same thing.

    Have you ever heard of shifting the burden of proof fallacy. The burden of proof lies with the pro mask wearers on this issue. So far hear say and hunches are all that’s offered by pro side. Simple question , where is the SCIENCE behind the claims they protect against the virus ?


  • #5725
    Sconsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,611 ✭✭✭Sconsey


    No: other
    dalyboy wrote: »
    Have you ever heard of shifting the burden of proof fallacy. The burden of proof lies with the pro mask wearers on this issue. So far hear say and hunches are all that’s offered by pro side. Simple question , where is the SCIENCE behind the claims they protect against the virus ?

    Just two posts back for starters.


  • #5726
    odyssey06
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,664 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Still confused about masks? Here's why the CDC in America changed their stance on mask...
    There are several strands of evidence supporting the efficacy of masks:
    • One category of evidence comes from laboratory studies of respiratory droplets and the ability of various masks to block them. An experiment using high-speed video found that hundreds of droplets ranging from 20 to 500 micrometers were generated when saying a simple phrase, but that nearly all these droplets were blocked when the mouth was covered by a damp washcloth. Another study of people who had influenza or the common cold found that wearing a surgical mask significantly reduced the amount of these respiratory viruses emitted in droplets and aerosols.
    • But the strongest evidence in favor of masks come from studies of real-world scenarios. “The most important thing are the epidemiologic data,” said Rutherford. Because it would be unethical to assign people to not wear a mask during a pandemic, the epidemiological evidence has come from so-called “experiments of nature.”
    • A recent study published in Health Affairs, for example, compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. The first five days after a mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 percentage-points compared to the five days prior to the mandate; at three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by 2 percentage-points.
    • Another study looked at coronavirus deaths across 198 countries and found that those with cultural norms or government policies favoring mask-wearing had lower death rates.
    • Two compelling case reports also suggest that masks can prevent transmission in high-risk scenarios, said Chin-Hong and Rutherford. In one case, a man flew from China to Toronto and subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. He had a dry cough and wore a mask on the flight, and all 25 people closest to him on the flight tested negative for COVID-19. In another case, in late May, two hair stylists in Missouri had close contact with 140 clients while sick with COVID-19. Everyone wore a mask and none of the clients tested positive.

    https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

    #WhyYouShouldWearAMask

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • #5727
    timetogo1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 892 ✭✭✭timetogo1


    No: I don't care enough
    dalyboy wrote: »
    Have you ever heard of shifting the burden of proof fallacy. The burden of proof lies with the pro mask wearers on this issue. So far hear say and hunches are all that’s offered by pro side. Simple question , where is the SCIENCE behind the claims they protect against the virus ?

    There are tonnes of studys. A quick google finds plenty of proper articles showing the testing and effectiveness of masks.

    e.g. the stuff that Sconsey posted a few posts back.
    And stuff like this - http://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf

    Even the one that Paw Patrol referred to, to back up not using a mask was a comparison of medical masks vs cloth masks. Great, we won't ask the medical professionals to use the same type masks that we use while going to the shop.


  • #5728
    dalyboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭dalyboy


    Sconsey wrote: »

    Just two posts back for starters.

    Ahh , so more links to modelling and half assed “studies”. I forgot that the word science was redefined recently. My bad


  • #5729
    timetogo1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 892 ✭✭✭timetogo1


    No: I don't care enough
    dalyboy wrote: »
    Ahh , so more links to modelling and half assed “studies”. I forgot that the word science was redefined recently. My bad

    What's your definition?
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science


  • #5730
    bodhrandude
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,863 ✭✭✭✭bodhrandude


    Yes: surgical
    Of course wearing masks cuts the risk, but unless you've got goggles too the eyes are still exposed and c19 droplets can still enter through there. I just thought I would point that out.

    If you want to get into it, you got to get out of it. (Hawkwind 1982)



  • Advertisement
  • #5731
    timetogo1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 892 ✭✭✭timetogo1


    No: I don't care enough
    bodhrandude wrote: »
    Of course wearing masks cuts the risk, but unless you've got goggles too the eyes are still exposed and c19 droplets can still enter through there. I just thought I would point that out.

    Can you imagine the heads exploding if some of the guys on this thread were asked to wear a visor.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement