odyssey06 wrote: » 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?
setanta1984 wrote: » we got that level after 2 months of all retail being open.
harr wrote: » For those who say they won’t wear a mask and currently don’t , what will happen when it becomes law in a week or two ? Will people run the risk of getting fined or will you wait till it’s legally enforced ?
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:
setanta1984 wrote: » 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?
bazermc wrote: » I had a good laugh at the guy today in my local Aldi. He had this T-shirt pulled up over his face and nose. Won’t mind but they had tonnes of actual masks for sale.
Graham wrote: » If that's self inflicted, they'd come around quick enough. For those that can't wear a mask for legitimate medical reasons, €20 on top of the PUP to cover deliveries or an hour during the day where they are permitted to enter shops unmasked.
Frankx wrote: » The case for wearing masks Does it take account of the fact that people are not using them properly, playing around with them and touching items in shops
joeguevara wrote: » People wear seatbelts incorrectly e.g. under shoulders or not clicked in etc. Does incorrect usage mean seatbelts should not be used?
WAW wrote: » Are you seriously equating the wearing of seat belts to the wearing of face coverings?
joeguevara wrote: » The poster that I replied to made an assertion of not wearing masks due to people wearing them incorrectly. But to break it down masks save lives. Seatbelts save lives. Wear both. I’m actually fcuking sick of discussing this with morons who have no clue and thinking that they no better than world experts or think their debates are intellectual.
Frankx wrote: » Incorrect seatbelt usage doesn't endanger others in the same way Also incorrect seatbelt usage is way lower statistically than incorrect mask usage
WAW wrote: » How are people who disagree with you morons? There is so much conflicting 'evidence' on everything to do with this virus. Whilst I appreciate it can sometimes be frustrating when someone disagrees with us, it's nosensical to brand people morons because they have a different view and IMO, a right to that view. There's very little incontrovertible fact around this virus. There are no experts really at this point. Many esteemed medical professionals still disagree on many aspects. You're not an expert either yet you choose to reply as though you're omniscient about this virus and people who take a different view are branded morons. Don't you see anything off with that standpoint? Not to put too fine a point on it but you spelled 'know' as 'no'. Somebody could easily call you a moron for that, if they chose to be picky and rude.
xhomelezz wrote: » That pretty much sums it up.
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » You should have told that to the WHO 3 months ago
