Masks

madcabbage wrote: »

Once you’ve your nose and mouth covered in some shape or form you should be ok. Masks, scarfs, buffs, face shield etc

Sound, it says cloth covering on HSE website as well just wanted to double check as I've seen more masks than anything else while out.

2 cops in my local supervalu yesterday without masks. Surely they should be leading by example even if it isn't law.

GazzaL wrote: »

Utter nonsense. The same store attendants would have been safely dealing with the public throughout the pandemic and probably don't feel like the risk level has dramatically changed since Sunday night, despite the lies and bull**** from the mask nazis.

Up until a few weeks ago that could have been ok because there might have jut been two or three people in at a time.

Now it is back to normal and is full of people.
There were 12 people in the queue snaking around the shop and they have had to recently put up big signs to tell people which way to go because I have discovered Irish people can't fooking follow a one way system and are forever either turning back into the queue or queuing from the wrong side.

Yeah everything is lies and bullshyte, of course except the shyte you believe in. :rolleyes:
The risk levels are increasing exactly because of people like you who of course no better than multiple governments around the world that have faced even worse epidemics than Covid19 and found masks to be good way of alleviating transmission.

moonage wrote: »

We're being forced to wear them for psychological reasons.

It's behavioural science rather than medical science that is driving this—in order to keep fear levels high and sustain the hysteria.

FFS.
Yeah that is why surgeons wear mask in ORs.
It is all for psychological reasons.

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

One example.

The petrol station and shop I was in this morning wasn't letting anybody in without a mask. Guy was at the pumps telling people before they got fuel and plenty of signage on it.
All other shops here were insisting on masks.

Well it is good that that is what you are finding because I am finding the opposite.

GazzaL wrote: »

Many pubs are already open. No masks required in them though. You can take your time and eat and drink to your heart's content without a mask, but if you don't wear a mask while spending 60 seconds popping in and out of a shop to pay for petrol you'll be judged by the same people who were banging on about staying in lockdown until there wasn't a single case of COVID-19 left in the world.

It wasn't 60 seconds you ...
I was in the queue for 10 minutes.

By fook you must be great altogether that you can run into the shop jump the queues and fling the money at the attendant.
Then again looking at your attitude you probably are the type that would try jump the queues.

The more I see of and hear from some Irish people the more I reckon we have just as many halfwits as the UK and US that we continually laugh at for their political failings.
Why can't they develop a virus that removes those types of people and do so all a favour.

timmy_mallet wrote: »

Er, have any of you read that report that the WHO are using? Masks can reduce in specific scenarios, like the one you mention. In shops, for eg, the evidence points towards them being a 'placebo', by encouraging people to socially distance.

And hilariously this placebo is counterproductive as people wearing masks inevitably believe they are protected against transmission and often break the 2M distance rule

timmy_mallet wrote: »

Not sure which part of the restaurant observation you're disputing? If it's just the cluster, then fair enough, but given there isn't one, and we're Wednesday, all evidence is pointing towards none.

I don't have to prove to you there were 0 cases of customer transmission during lockdown w/o masks. You're labouring the point. If the CMO and HSE etc can prove there was one, then fine, but they can't. Again, all points towards 0. Happy to be corrected if you have the evidence of transmission though... do you?

Yeah I thought so, it is the same old sh1te. The burden of proof is on the person making the statement (or in this case making up the facts). You are the one saying there were zero cases, for that to be a credible statement you would have to know where all cases came from...you are just making it up as you go along,

moonage wrote: »

We're being forced to wear them for psychological reasons.

It's behavioural science rather than medical science that is driving this—in order to keep fear levels high and sustain the hysteria.

Of course, its obvious. Am I the only one to notice that the 'wear a mask' campaign didn't begin in earnest until June 8th when the first restrictions were lifted and people were becoming more relaxed.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Indeed, I guess this begs the question of whether restaurants and bars should be reopening at all...

Yeah. The restaurants and bars should be closed indefinitely, sure it’s only going to be hundreds of thousands of jobs directly and indirectly effected by that action.

The magic tree in the garden of Leinster house will fund the closures.

Tork wrote: »

So what is the answer? We either take steps to try and stop the virus spreading in the community or we don't.

We can’t “stop the virus”. By its very nature a virus can only be managed. What we are doing at the moment is managing it and at the same time trying to have a semblance of an existence both socially and economically.

If we push things much further with restrictions it’s going to be counterproductive as we need an economy to financially survive and pay for our services.

Not being smart but where did you get the idea that this virus could be stopped ?