Masks

I have started wearing a mask in shops in last few weeks, relatively young no underlying illnesses Have noticed more and more people wearing them and I honestly dont mind them. Feel a bit more protected too while wearing it.
Although i must admit I got a nice black one from amazon wouldnt like to wear one of those medical ones i still have to look cool I must check if i can get a bane style mask :cool:

seefin wrote: »

He is really annoying me now. Paddy you have an overinflated opinion of your sense of humour.

It's annoying that the block user option in boards doesn't seem to have any affect on the mobile site. I know he's sitting there chucking as he types. I used to post stuff like that when I was about 12 but I grew out of it after a week.
At least he's making himself happy.

Irish_peppa wrote: »

I have started wearing a mask in shops in last few weeks, relatively young no underlying illnesses Have noticed more and more people wearing them and I honestly dont mind them. Feel a bit more protected too while wearing it.
Although i must admit I got a nice black one from amazon wouldnt like to wear one of those medical ones i still have to look cool I must check if i can get a bane style mask :cool:

Remember though its not your mask that is really protecting you from droplets... it is the maskson the other people that protect you from their droplets.

Paddygreen wrote: »

We need a solution revolution guys. Masks are great and I love them but we can’t stop there. Eyeballs are vulnerable incubation points for CV, warm, moist, a perfect spot for a very frightening virus to land and set up shop. Visors don’t cut it, too much space around the visor for the virus to get in, a bit like building a chocolate fence around a five year old, they give people a false sense of security. Goggles guys, we need goggles, goggles beat visors hands down. The terrifying virus can also hitchhike on people’s cloths, high time people started wearing disposable overalls.

All citizens to wear orange overall jump suits with mask , goggles and ear muffs for unspecified length of time once you leave your front door. . Sure it’ll be only lovely. Expect zero resistance from the docile citizens.

When should we start seeing the effect of the national mask mandate on the daily case figures? It's heading up for 2 weeks now right, which is usually the timeframe where we start to see the effects of measures?
Will be exciting to see the drop now we've started to try to deal with the Tesco/Lidl/Supervalu/Penneys crisis.

Frankx wrote: »

What crisis is that?

setanta1984 wrote: »

Will be exciting to see the drop now we've started to try to deal with the Tesco/Lidl/Supervalu/Penneys crisis.

setanta1984 wrote: »

When should we start seeing the effect of the national mask mandate on the daily case figures? It's heading up for 2 weeks now right, which is usually the timeframe where we start to see the effects of measures?
Will be exciting to see the drop now we've started to try to deal with the Tesco/Lidl/Supervalu/Penneys crisis.

Only someone looking to shoot down mask policy would be so impatiently hungry for data. As mentioned throughout this thread, mask wearing is sporadic at best, there has not been a cohesive clean blanket attempt at masking yet so data will reflect this.

If you want to observe what a drop in numbers looks like when blanket masking takes place, look at drop within 2 days(not 2weeks) of mandatory masking of health care workers.

ps there is no data avaiable from the Health Protection Surveillence Center for supermarkets. No data does not equate to zero transmission, now let that graph sink in and cop on.

timetogo1 wrote: »

They lose either way. I know people who are avoiding places that don't seem bothered about clients wearing masks. I can't avoid supermarkets but I can avoid other shops.
So any non essential shopping I do, I do online and will keep doing it like that until the virus is gone or we're sure of not catching it in a shop. I know the risk is low. It's really low if I shop online.

It is an opposite - Any shop that will force me to wear mask i will be avoiding.

Frankx wrote: »

I don't like them and was dismayed when they came in

It's weird now watching the ones that don't wear them

The naked faces on them lol, they literally are freaks at this point.

What did I do? Is this what happens on here when people raise awareness?

Just trying to be a good citizen by encouraging others to listen to the experts. That’s all I have ever done. If that’s my crime then guilty as charged.

I think the reason so many are wearing them now is because of peer pressure or the herd mentality. People who don’t actually care wear a mask anyway because they feel self conscious if they’re the only person not wearing one.

Seanergy wrote: »

Only someone looking to shoot down mask policy would be so impatiently hungry for data. As mentioned throughout this thread, mask wearing is sporadic at best, there has not been a cohesive clean blanket attempt at masking yet so data will reflect this.

What a cop out - so there has been no change in behaviour since this was mandated 2 weeks ago? What was the point of the mandate so?
Is that an admission that the governments big announcement to mandate (and eventually make it written in law) mask wearing when shopping is expected to have no affect at all on the case numbers? And you wonder why some question if that is a proportionate measure?

Seanergy wrote: »

If you want to observe what a drop in numbers looks like when blanket masking takes place, look at drop within 2 days(not 2weeks) of mandatory masking of health care workers.

ps there is no data avaiable from the Health Protection Surveillence Center for supermarkets. No data does not equate to zero transmission, now let that graph sink in and cop on.

It's almost as if certain settings require different measures. Your graph points out that people providing close contact care to ill or vulnerable people should wear masks (and not just any old cloth, medical grade protection) - absolutely nobody would challenge this.
The question is about proportionate measures - the fact that we don't have the equivalent data imo shows that shopping etc. is not a big enough risk to require this country to make it against the law (eventually) to go to tesco or buy petrol without masks.

I'm pretty surprised that with all the championing of the mandatory masks decision, people don't actually expect it to be reflected in case numbers?

setanta1984 wrote: »

I'm pretty surprised that with all the championing of the mandatory masks decision, people don't actually expect it to be reflected in case numbers?

It will be reflected in the case numbers.. but without a control group how do you say we had X less cases for specific reason Y?
For any measure?

It was reflected in case numbers in US states as they could compare v US states who did not adopt masks.