Masks

_Kaiser_ · 25-07-2020 02:42PM

Graham wrote: »

On March 22nd we had around 900 cases. Here's what it looked like in the weeks that followed.

906
2,615
4,994
9,648
15,244
19,255

I can't honestly believe there are people arguing for us to do a Florida on it.

And again... meaningless. Yes we had lots of cases, but let's look deeper:

- How many of those were so severe as to require hospitalisation? (3344 - 438 needing ICU care)
- How many recovered?
- How many are still in treatment?
- How many died? (1763) How many of those had underlying conditions, or were attributed to CV-19 incorrectly?

Every death is a genuine tragedy for the person and family involved BUT when you step back and look at it, really it's thankfully very low compared to the number of cases, or indeed the initial predictions in Feb/March

Away With The Fairies · 25-07-2020 02:43PM

Yes: valved

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

No need, because I am not at any significant risk to need to do anything beyond good hygiene and social distancing - and as I don't generally hug random people in supermarkets, or get so close to them that even in normal circumstances it'd be odd, that level of risk is virtually zero.

And as I've said before, life IS risk. Virtually everything we do carries some chance that something may go wrong. But we don't generally worst-case preparations before we engage in those things. If we did we probably would never leave the house at all.

You can exhale small viral particles that stay in the air after you're gone. You very much have a need to wear mask like the rest of us.

Graham · 25-07-2020 02:44PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

And again... meaningless. Yes we had lots of cases, but let's look deeper:

- How many of those were so severe as to require hospitalisation? (3344 - 438 needing ICU care)
- How many recovered?
- How many are still in treatment?
- How many died? (1763) How many of those had underlying conditions, or were attributed to CV-19 incorrectly?

Every death is a genuine tragedy for the person and family involved BUT when you step back and look at it, really it's thankfully very low compared to the number of cases, or indeed the initial predictions in Feb/March

you're saying you shouldn't have to wear a mask because 1,700 deaths is an acceptable alternative.

See previous answer

Graham wrote: »

You'll excuse me if I'm pleased that the choice has been taken out of your hands

Boggles · 25-07-2020 02:45PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Again, what resurge? It's a POSSIBILITY but by no means a certainty.

A possibility that is negated further by mass mask usage plus the other public health measures.

This isn't very difficult understand.

You are just being cranky at this stage, but the important thing is you are wearing a mask.

So ranting and raving online about them is literally just a waste of everyone's time.

Away With The Fairies · 25-07-2020 02:50PM

Yes: valved

GazzaL wrote: »

I've answered this question so often, I could have trained a parrot.

If someone is wearing a mask incorrectly, fidgets and touches their mask and their face, they are at higher risk of infecting themselves than someone who isn't wearing any mask and doesn't touch their face.

This is in the WHO guidelines. Why do so many pro-mask people on here have no regard for the WHO guidelines?

If most of us are wearing masks and our masks are catching our viral particles, well there's very little viral particles to pick up on hands and people can fidget away.

So if you mask up, the person you're so concerned about fidgeting with their mask has their risk reduced.

_Kaiser_ · 25-07-2020 02:51PM

Graham wrote: »

you're saying you shouldn't have to wear a mask because 1,700 deaths is an acceptable alternative.

See previous answer

I'm saying that you can't just pick numbers selectively to justify your argument.

After all this is a deadly virus, right? People were always going to die from it. That's reality, even if it makes you uncomfortable.

But thankfully - the fatalities are a LOT lower than predicted among the general population and that is indeed very much thanks too to the actions of people in the last few months.

And we are winning. The numbers are at minimal levels, the numbers still in ICU are massively reduced... and all without the need to force masks on people, but now in such a way (it's mandatory but it's not, in some public places but not others) as to be little more than a placebo really.

I have yet to see ANY argument put forward for why masks are a PROPORTIONAL response at this time and with the trend in the numbers over the last several weeks.

Is it because there isn't one? Beyond that based on fear?

Boggles · 25-07-2020 02:55PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I have yet to see ANY argument put forward for why masks are a PROPORTIONAL response at this time and with the trend in the numbers over the last several weeks.

There has, you are ignoring them.

I know you have just wandered into the thread, but the anti science internet tough guy routine smeared in ignorance has been done to death.

It's boring.

But you are wearing a mask, that's all that is important.

Even Donald is now, sort of.

Graham · 25-07-2020 02:59PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I'm saying that you can't just pick numbers selectively to justify your argument.

You appear to understand the virus is still spreading.

You've got the principle of exponential increases that previously saw infection levels jump from their current levels to 20,000 cases in 5 weeks.

I assume you remember we had to lock down the economy as a result of the previous increase in cases.

You appear to grasp the theory that a mask prevents/limits transmission.

You'd rather ignore all of that because a mask makes you a bit sweaty while you do the shopping?

_Kaiser_ · 25-07-2020 02:59PM

Boggles wrote: »

There has, you are ignoring them.

I know you have just wandered into the thread, but the anti science internet tough guy routine smeared in ignorance has been done to death.

It's boring.

But you are wearing a mask, that's all that is important.

Even Donald is now, sort of.

Didn't I cover your "internet tough guy" accusation earlier? It's boring alright and the rest of this post smacks of someone unable to make a coherent argument without childish nonsense.

Wear your mask. Do what you need to stay healthy. But try to stop projecting your fears onto others who are looking at the situation for themselves rather than just blindly accepting the narrative - good advice for most things you read on social media by the way.

But sincerely - stay safe regardless.

Boggles · 25-07-2020 03:02PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Wear your mask. Do what you need to stay healthy.

Absolutely, like your good self I am also wearing a mask.

What exactly is your problem again?

Oh right, you are cranky.

_Kaiser_ · 25-07-2020 03:05PM

Graham wrote: »

You appear to understand the virus is still spreading.

You've got the principle of exponential increases that previously saw infection levels jump from their current levels to 20,000 cases in 5 weeks.

I assume you remember we had to lock down the economy as a result of the previous increase in cases.

You appear to grasp the theory that a mask prevents/limits transmission.

You'd rather ignore all of that because a mask makes you a bit sweaty while you do the shopping?

You just keep missing the key word - proportionality

Also, you're assuming that prediction/modelling = facts that must come to pass. This is not the case. WE MAY see a resurgence (and I'm sure we'll see spikes/troughs either way, as well as plenty of false positives when schools reopen and flu season kicks in), but there is thankfully no sign (yet) that this is a certainty.

Again.. the country has been (almost) fully reopened for a month-ish. Where's the surge? Where's the dozens or hundreds of cases and unfortunate deaths? It hasn't happened. Isn't this a GOOD thing?

I genuinely am starting to think that people have been flooded with so many numbers, reports and analysis that a sense of perspective is being lost.

Graham · 25-07-2020 03:08PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Also, you're assuming that prediction/modelling = facts that must come to pass.

No predictions/models involved, they were actual figures from earlier this year (first wave).

When it comes to proportionality, wearing a mask strikes me as a no brainer in the cost/benefit considerations.

GazzaL · 25-07-2020 03:10PM

Graham wrote: »

Compared to not wearing a mask at all?

I know you'd really really like to ignore that flaw in your logic but go on, at least attempt an answer.

If someone is wearing a mask incorrectly, fidgets and touches their mask and their face, they are at higher risk of infecting themselves than someone who isn't wearing any mask and doesn't touch their face.

Boggles · 25-07-2020 03:16PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Again.. the country has been (almost) fully reopened for a month-ish. Where's the surge?

Face masks must be working so.

What's the exact time period for a "surge" out of interest?

_Kaiser_ · 25-07-2020 03:16PM

Graham wrote: »

No predictions/models involved, they were actual figures from earlier this year (first wave).

When it comes to proportionality, wearing a mask strikes me as a no brainer in the cost/benefit considerations.

OK here's an example

https://www.laoistoday.ie/2020/07/18/coronavirus-two-further-deaths-and-21-new-cases-as-laois-continues-covid-free-streak/

Yet again, there has been no new cases recorded in Laois as the length of time without a new case in the county is now almost four weeks, longer than any other country in the country.

The last new case recorded in Laois was on June 20, making it 25 since a new case was recorded as the stats in this instance are accurate up until Wednesday, July 15.

25 days (up to July 15th) without a new case in Laois. As of today there has been 267 cases total since this all started out of a population of 84697 (per 2016 census - quite probably more now)

How on earth are mandatory masks a proportional response in that case?

Graham · 25-07-2020 03:16PM

GazzaL wrote: »

If someone is wearing a mask incorrectly, fidgets and touches their mask and their face, they are at higher risk of infecting themselves than someone who isn't wearing any mask and doesn't touch their face.

So it's the touching the face that's the issue.

i.e. nothing to do with a mask worn incorrectly or not.

The difference being, someone wearing a mask is less likely to spread the virus.

Graham · 25-07-2020 03:19PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

25 days (up to July 15th) without a new case in Laois. As of today there has been 267 cases total since this all started out of a population of 84697 (per 2016 census - quite probably more now)

How on earth are mandatory masks a proportional response in that case?

Because people move in/out of Laois and unless I'm mistaken, residents of Laois have not suddenly become immune to coronavirus.

Now if you're suggesting Laois could close its borders and remove a requirement for masks, that might work.

I'd suggest the masks are a less drastic approach.

_Kaiser_ · 25-07-2020 03:21PM

Graham wrote: »

Because people move in/out of Laois and unless I'm mistaken, residents of Laois have not suddenly become immune to coronavirus.

Now if you're suggesting Laois could close its borders and remove a requirement for masks, that might work.

I'd suggest the masks are a less drastic approach.

Using your argument then in fact it makes even LESS sense because you are right - Laois is a commuter county with a lot of those people in and out of Dublin, Kildare and Offaly every day.

And yet STILL the numbers are minimal. Hmm.. maybe it's not as widespread in the community after all?

Graham · 25-07-2020 03:21PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Using your argument then in fact it makes even LESS sense because you are right - Laois is a commuter county with a lot of those people in and out of Dublin, Kildare and Offaly every day.

And yet STILL the numbers are minimal. Hmm.. maybe it's not as widespread in the community after all?

Let's keep it that way by wearing masks

_Kaiser_ · 25-07-2020 03:23PM

Graham wrote: »

Let's keep it that way by wearing masks

.. Or maybe it proves that masks aren't as essential after all? Bearing in mind that even without them, those numbers were achieved

Anywho.. I'll leave it there.

Graham · 25-07-2020 03:27PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

.. Or maybe it proves that masks aren't as essential after all? Bearing in mind that even without them, those numbers were achieved

Anywho.. I'll leave it there.

Or it proves lockdown works. Personally, I'd prefer the masks.

Feel free to opt for a self-imposed lockdown with no mask. :pac:

_Kaiser_ · 25-07-2020 03:29PM

Graham wrote: »

Or it proves lockdown works. Personally, I'd prefer the masks.

Feel free to opt for a self-impose lockdown with no mask. :pac:

No need, because..

1) I'm not and haven't been sick
2) I believe the level of risk to/from me or others around me (given where we are now overall) is low and manageable without masks. Obviously I'll re-evaluate that if the time comes and it's warranted
3) I'm not living in fear of the virus or drowning in the stats/reports every day

But each to their own.. enjoy the rest of your day

Overheal · 25-07-2020 03:38PM

No: I don't care enough

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

No need, because..

1) I'm not and haven't been sick
2) I believe the level of risk to/from me or others around me (given where we are now overall) is low and manageable without masks. Obviously I'll re-evaluate that if the time comes and it's warranted
3) I'm not living in fear of the virus or drowning in the stats/reports every day

But each to their own.. enjoy the rest of your day

On the contrary if you’re sweating and losing concentration in 66 F cool summer weather then you should consult a GP.

Graham · 25-07-2020 03:38PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

No need, because..

masks are mandatory?

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

enjoy the rest of your day

You too. Stay safe

Postgrad10 · 25-07-2020 03:43PM

Yes: other

Sleety_Rain wrote: »

Anybody know where you can buy a shield mask in Dublin?

Some pharmacies will give you one.

odyssey06 · 25-07-2020 04:02PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

.. Or maybe it proves that masks aren't as essential after all? Bearing in mind that even without them, those numbers were achieved
Anywho.. I'll leave it there.

I think you'd be hard pressed to 'prove' that any single measure is essential by the standards you are demanding of masks.
All we can say is that the evidence in their favour is good enough to convince the CDC and WHO that they have a role to play in reducing the spread of the virus and the R factor.

That evidence being:
* Scientific trials showing how droplets are contained by masks and face coverings
*Actual cases were infected people such as flight passengers and hair dressers who did not infect anyone and were wearing masks
* The before and after from countries which adopted mask wearing policies
* The lower cases from the countries which adopted masks from the get go

Also, their economic impact is negligible compared to the other measures.

odyssey06 · 25-07-2020 04:12PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Again, what resurge? It's a POSSIBILITY but by no means a certainty. Right now.. a month on from the widest reopening in the country yet, the numbers continue to be minimal and stable. This is a GOOD thing.
And all without forcing people to wear masks...
It can be used to explain away or justify almost anything which is a dangerous precedent to set really.

I find it ironic that in the same post you wrote a blank cheque to defend any opposition to your argument. Nothing is certain can be used to explain away or defend almost position, which is a dangerous precedent to set really.
We deal with possibilities and probabilities.
We could end all covid-19 restrictons tomorrow with that argument.

GazzaL · 25-07-2020 05:19PM

Graham wrote: »

So it's the touching the face that's the issue.

i.e. nothing to do with a mask worn incorrectly or not.

The difference being, someone wearing a mask is less likely to spread the virus.

Again trying to whitewash WHO guidance. If you choose to wear a mask, you must wear it correctly or you increase your risk of infection. The pro-mask crowd on here are HIGHLY irresponsible.

odyssey06 · 25-07-2020 05:26PM

GazzaL wrote: »

Again trying to whitewash WHO guidance. If you choose to wear a mask, you must wear it correctly or you increase your risk of infection. The pro-mask crowd on here are HIGHLY irresponsible.

It's highly irresponsible not to wear a mask - as it reduces your risk to others, as per WHO guidance.
Do you agree?

Therefore, in line with WHO guidance, we must conclude that your chances of infection are reduced in a supermarket of mask wearers versus a supermarket of non mask wearers.
Even if you are fidgeting with your mask (and you should not be, but let's compare), as long as the mask is covering your mouth and nose, there will be less droplets for you to be at risk of infection from.

robinph · 25-07-2020 05:30PM

No: I don't care enough

GazzaL wrote: »

Again trying to whitewash WHO guidance. If you choose to wear a mask, you must wear it correctly or you increase your risk of infection. The pro-mask crowd on here are HIGHLY irresponsible.

What is the risk to yourself from touching your face?
How does that risk compare to touching your face whilst wearing a mask?
How does it then compare to the risk when touching your face when wearing a mask incorrectly?

Now how does any of those potential levels of risk compare to the risk to other people if you are already unknowingly infected and are wearing a mask, or are not wearing a mask?

Remind us all again, who is being protected by you wearing a mask? Is it there to protect you or those around you?

Masks

Comments