timetogo1 wrote: » What's your definition?https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
dalyboy wrote: » Ahh , so more links to modelling and half assed “studies”. I forgot that the word science was redefined recently. My bad
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 ?
paw patrol wrote: The science is that against the virus the masks are not effective.
dalyboy wrote: » Rough breakdown of science in my understanding. Observe a phenomenon Hypothesis Test your variables Come to a SOLID conclusion as to the cause and effect. From what I can see based on my understanding is so called science has not gone past the hypothesis stage of an experiment. Would you agree ?
rob316 wrote: » Had fitting work to do in a retail environment today, started wearing a mask, found it quite uncomfortable and kept fogging up my glasses. Swapped out for a visor, far better, couldn't even feel it on me. Think if I'm just running into the shop, mask is fine but for anything longer I'll wear the visor.
Overheal wrote: » You have to adjust the nose of your mask behind the bridge of your glasses and also crack a bit of a vent at your chin, that humid airflow then gets redirected toward your neck
rob316 wrote: » Cheers I'll look for something better instead of glorified Y fronts though!
Coillte_Bhoy wrote: » So you've gone through those 70 linked studies in just over 45 mins? Not bad going, well done. Thats your credibility shot up in my eyes anyway
Sconsey wrote: » 11:45 I pointed him to the link 11:57 he declares it all rubbish and not his kind of science He could not have even read the titles of the papers let alone any of the content.
j@utis wrote: » The only way masks can work in public closed places is to put people off visiting them places which will result in more social distancing which in turn is the most effective tool against this virus. Since "retail therapy" has turned into "retail nightmare" I haven't really put my foot into any shop, cafe etc place, unless it's a question of life or death [so very unlikely]. And I'm not the only one. On the other hand, if supermarkets are considered being very low risk in catching the virus, wearing mask while doing your grocery shop will make next to no difference [I work in one and observe great amount of people wearing masks incorrectly or constantly fidgeting around their face -what's the point???]. Public transport is different story because you're stationary sharing the same space with other people for prolonged period time, so yeah, mask yourself up there, that includes cafes, restaurants, pubs, theaters, every where you're place put [best is to avoid those places, let them go out business who cares, all we care about is that virus is dead [sarcasm warning]].
rob316 wrote: » I was hoping it would reduce the amount of social distancing if its proven to be working, allowing businesses to get back to more normal levels. Social distancing will need to be reduced by the holiday season, or retail will be finished.
odyssey06 wrote: » Remembers masks apply to all retail, not just supermarkets - supermarkets may be on the lower end of the risk for retail as they tend to be large airy spaces. Think of old bookstores, clothes shops, charity shops etc.
GT89 wrote: » So why not just make masks mandatory in shops under x square ft.
Overheal wrote: » It creates an unfair market in favor of big box stores. The Spanish have this the simplest, have masks everywhere instead of creating a tapestry of exclusions and loopholes and yeahbut's.
GT89 wrote: » So if it favours larger shops not to have mandatory you're basically admitting people don't like wearing them and if masks were not mandatory in certain shops people might prefer to visit a shop where they didn't have to wear a muzzle mask.
odyssey06 wrote: » There's too many variables - size, level of ventilation, how much space is there between aisles etc etc for us to come up with X. It's probably a curve of risk not a cliff. Masks are mandatory on public transport, but with a lot more time and analysis - neither of which we have capacity for right now - we could probably figure out which particular vehicles are the highest \ lowest risk. Ditto for retail.