nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Masks

fr336

How many people on Boards have a mask and if so are you wearing them for essential trips? And this late in the day where can you get one that is going to be half decent and not from a suspect seller who could have done anything to it?

Find more posts tagged with

shop

mask

covering

covid

facemask

Comments

tromtipp

If you have enough masks, sticking them in a 60 degree wash with towels and bedding should be fine. You can always iron them to be sure to be sure.

Low temperature washes don't kill bacteria (and probably not viruses) - the studies saying they're safe are always based on clothes being machine dried at high temperatures. If you air-dry, you need to wash hotter or iron.

GooglePlus

Just put all your masks in a pot and boil them, if the fabric can manage the temp. You'll kill anything on them and won't have to worry about chemicals.

odyssey06

WAW wrote: »

The medical professionals still disagree on many aspects and measures put forward to halt the spread of Covid. You've chosen to follow a particular set of experts but many people are listening to other experts, reading and finding out other information and arising at different viewpoints which makes more sense to them. It doesn't mean make them irresponsible 'Covidiots' ( another nasty, dangerous term used by the pitchfork wielding type).

How much of those differing experts quoted are recent though?
And while you have personal agency in your individual actions in a public health pandemic, the advice of a random expert on the internet does not trump that of the official agencies of the state you are in when it comes to your public conduct. As a citizen you have a primary responsibility there.

In the context of a new pandemic it is being a bit of a stubborn idiot to expect that:
(a) The advice issued at the outset would be complete
(b) To not be open to updated advice being issued as new information and evidence comes to light

I'm not entirely exonerating the experts.
I think they too readily believed the early information from China which tried to paint this as spread by surfaces\contact rather than droplets i.e. person to person.
I think the lack of masks also engendered a reluctance in them to consider the respiratory angle of this fully.

As more information comes to light on infection patterns, how the effect masks had in the reduction of cases here in health and care settings, on masks rollouts globally... surface\fomite transmission is a secondary aspect and droplets are the main area of infection.

This article was posted on another thread in the forum but makes the point that Japan, despite having a very old population profile and high density, has such a low case count and death count because it focused from the outset on places of airborne transmission's highest danger:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/why-arent-we-talking-more-about-airborne-transmission/614737/

tromtipp

I'm old enough to remember when that was the routine for cotton handkerchiefs, before tissues were invented. Most mask fabric would probably cope, but the elastic ear loops might not.

xhomelezz

This was just posted on reopening schools thread, have fun reading it..

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We have proof that masks don’t work. We flattened the curve and kept it flat for a couple of months without masks. Nobody was wearing them in supermarkets or anywhere and we weren’t all catching Covid.

In fact, since more started wearing masks, the numbers have began increasing. Very possibly due to incorrect mask usage and constant fidgeting at your face while wearing it.

I know a lot of people that hate wearing the mask so much that they just won’t go to places were masks are required.

The stats in Ireland show that kids won’t die of Covid anyways. Waste of time making their lives miserable with masks.

v638sg7k1a92bx

rubadub wrote: »

that sick days are down for blatantly obvious reasons that only a moron would not understand.

Do you mean that because pubs are closed that there are less people calling in sick or because people are wearing face masks and not spreading the flu? It’s actually not that obvious.

timetogo1

xhomelezz wrote: »

This was just posted on reopening schools thread, have fun reading it..

Similar stuff has been posted on this thread before. It's tiring seeing it again and again when it's so easily rebuffed, especially if you're capable of any kind of logical thinking.

v638sg7k1a92bx

timetogo1 wrote: »

Similar stuff has been posted on this thread before. It's tiring seeing it again and again when it's so easily rebuffed, especially if you're capable of any kind of logical thinking.

I don’t think it has been rebuffed. There is no correlation between masks and a reduction in the number of cases. Masks can reduce transmission but the chances of contracting this virus are extremely low and the chances of death are even lower. This is not the killer death virus we thought it could be. The vast majority of the population do not have the virus, less than 1%. So if nobody has the virus and if the point of wearing a mask is to prevent you from giving it to someone else, there is no point in wearing the mask if you don’t have the virus which 99% of the population do not have. We know that 9/10 new “cases”, since we don’t talk about deaths anymore, are non communal i.e. from people in the same home where people don’t wear masks anyway.

xhomelezz

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

I don’t think it has been rebuffed. There is no correlation between masks and a reduction in the number of cases. Masks can reduce transmission but the chances of contracting this virus are extremely low and the chances of death are even lower. This is not the killer death virus we thought it could be. The vast majority of the population do not have the virus, less than 1%. So if nobody has the virus and if the point of wearing a mask is to prevent you from giving it to someone else, there is no point in wearing the mask if you don’t have the virus which 99% of the population do not have. We know that 9/10 new “cases”, since we don’t talk about deaths anymore, are non communal i.e. from people in the same home where people don’t wear masks anyway.

I believe picture will do at this stage..

robinph

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

I don’t think it has been rebuffed. There is no correlation between masks and a reduction in the number of cases. Masks can reduce transmission but the chances of contracting this virus are extremely low and the chances of death are even lower. This is not the killer death virus we thought it could be. The vast majority of the population do not have the virus, less than 1%. So if nobody has the virus and if the point of wearing a mask is to prevent you from giving it to someone else, there is no point in wearing the mask if you don’t have the virus which 99% of the population do not have. We know that 9/10 new “cases”, since we don’t talk about deaths anymore, are non communal i.e. from people in the same home where people don’t wear masks anyway.

So wear a mask when out and about where you might interact with other groups and prevent yourself from being the person who spreads it from your family bubble to another. You might be at low risk from the virus, even the person who you pass it onto might be at low risk from the virus...you have no idea who else they might live with though and will then be exposed to thanks to you passing it around for the sake of covering your face with a bit of cloth.

v638sg7k1a92bx

xhomelezz wrote: »

I believe picture will do at this stage..

Is that because you cannot come up with a response so you post silly memes instead?

xhomelezz

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

Is that because you cannot come up with a response so you post silly memes instead?

Well, you keep posting silly things, so you get silly answers

Graham

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

Masks can reduce transmission

Correct.

That's the relevant part.

v638sg7k1a92bx

In that case, why not wear a full PPE suit?

v638sg7k1a92bx

If you think facts are silly then you’re welcome to keep posting silly comments.

Seanergy

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

I don’t think. There is no correlation between masks and a reduction in the number of cases.

Yes there is, look at the reduction in the number of cases when masks went on.

joeguevara

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

In that case, why not wear a full PPE suit?

Because my elbow doesn’t emit the infection and my knee isn’t vulnerable to ingest the virus. Whereas my mouth and nose are. And guess what a mask covers them. Do you know what doesn’t cover those areas and reduces transmission of the virus by 0%?....no mask.

xhomelezz

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

If you think facts are silly then you’re welcome to keep posting silly comments.

You didn't state any facts apart from some wild fantasies of yours. What really bothers me is, there are people like you who have kids, so obviously those kids are fed with this bs, like virus doesn't exist, masks doesn't work etc. And they'll go back to school with the same agenda, ah daddy said it's all bull... so they won't follow any measures, cuz daddy is the smartest one. And I'll have to send my kids into that kind of environment, brilliant isn't it. But I'm optimistic person, so I hope most of the people have common sense and you are just part of some minority which refusing to see reality. And of course I hope you are following all the guidelines given to you by HSE. So practice SD, wash your hands and wear a f... mask

xhomelezz

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

In that case, why not wear a full PPE suit?

See, that's a silly post..

odyssey06

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

I don’t think it has been rebuffed. There is no correlation between masks and a reduction in the number of cases. Masks can reduce transmission but the chances of contracting this virus are extremely low and the chances of death are even lower. This is not the killer death virus we thought it could be. The vast majority of the population do not have the virus, less than 1%. So if nobody has the virus and if the point of wearing a mask is to prevent you from giving it to someone else, there is no point in wearing the mask if you don’t have the virus which 99% of the population do not have. We know that 9/10 new “cases”, since we don’t talk about deaths anymore, are non communal i.e. from people in the same home where people don’t wear masks anyway.

The CDC disagree on masks and reduction in cases - they have seen the difference between US states with mask policies versus those without.

I don't know what you mean by 'killer death virus'. It's killed hundreds of thousands of people around the world. It's killed 1000+ people here and would have killed more but for a societal lockdown which cannot be sustained.

There is community tranmission still occurring in Ireland.
You don't know if you are in the % of the population who is infected right now.
Masks are about reducing the transmisson from that % to the rest.

moonage

Apparently, by wearing a mask I'm taking some responsibility for your health.

In that case, next time I'm in the supermarket I'll look into your trolley and will remove junk food, booze, fags etc. I protect you!

xhomelezz

moonage wrote: »

Apparently, by wearing a mask I'm taking some responsibility for your health.

In that case, next time I'm in the supermarket I'll look into your trolley and will remove junk food, booze, fags etc. I protect you!

Nice try

Seanergy

moonage wrote: »

Apparently, by wearing a mask I'm taking some responsibility for your health.

By wearing a mask your taking some responsibility for your breath.

Seanergy

Anyone seen the new COVID-19 SEX information campaign from the HSE and the Irish Pharmacy Union (IPU) yet?

Just wondering if it mentions masks? or is it just all handwashiing.

People should be washing their hands with soap and water for 20 seconds before and after sex.

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/have-sex-online-to-limit-spread-of-virus-advises-hse-39417584.html?__twitter_impression=true

Loafing Oaf

Seanergy wrote: »

Anyone seen the new COVID-19 SEX information campaign from the HSE and the Irish Pharmacy Union (IPU) yet?

Just wondering if it mentions masks? or is it just all handwashiing.

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/have-sex-online-to-limit-spread-of-virus-advises-hse-39417584.html?__twitter_impression=true

First time I read that sentence I didn't see the 'for':eek:

Dakota Dan

Overheal wrote: »

Also fair play to this chap who speaks to my favorite bugbear: people who complain about how hard to breathe it is in these masks.

So, he jogged outdoors in 102 F/ 38.9 C heat, 1 kilometer, wearing 10 masks - immediately after smoking a Black and Mild cigarillo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaMlNjzgj2E

Let’s bake him a bun.

joeguevara

Seanergy wrote: »

Anyone seen the new COVID-19 SEX information campaign from the HSE and the Irish Pharmacy Union (IPU) yet?

Just wondering if it mentions masks? or is it just all handwashiing.

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/have-sex-online-to-limit-spread-of-virus-advises-hse-39417584.html?__twitter_impression=true

The information campaign is for practicing safe sex. It’s explicit in it that the guidance is only to engage in sexual activity with your partner if you live in the same household. If you live in the same household you would not require to wear a mask. Wash your hands before and after. Then for everything else is online sex. So no mask required there. So is slightly disingenuous to suggest that new guidance doesn’t require a mask.

xhomelezz

Seanergy wrote: »

Anyone seen the new COVID-19 SEX information campaign from the HSE and the Irish Pharmacy Union (IPU) yet?

Just wondering if it mentions masks? or is it just all handwashiing.

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/have-sex-online-to-limit-spread-of-virus-advises-hse-39417584.html?__twitter_impression=true

I can imagine few masks to be used in this particular campaign

I get their point, but the way they deal with it is awesome. A bit of comedy show. There's basically no clear message on anything coming from the top. Advice, recommendation etc. No enforcement means mess as I can see, everyone does whatever they wish imo.

v638sg7k1a92bx

joeguevara wrote: »

Because my elbow doesn’t emit the infection and my knee isn’t vulnerable to ingest the virus. Whereas my mouth and nose are. And guess what a mask covers them. Do you know what doesn’t cover those areas and reduces transmission of the virus by 0%?....no mask.

But you hands and other parts of your body and clothing do. Using your logic there should be no need for full PPE in any circumstance. If medical experts agree that a PPE suit reduces transmission then you should be advocating for wearing PPE suits.

joeguevara

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

But you hands and other parts of your body and clothing do. Using your logic there should be no need for full PPE in any circumstance. If medical experts agree that a PPE suit reduces transmission then you should be advocating for wearing PPE suits.

I have dealt with your ludicrous assertion about full suits previously.

Whet are you talking scour hands and body. It’s your partner in your house. No mask is ever required for that. I don’t get you.