Charles Babbage wrote: » The issue is not the absolute numbers it is the doubling in the last week. This is entirely the wrong direction. Given the time lag with Covid you cannot afford to be relaxed about going in the wrong direction.
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » But the numbers are extremely low nevertheless. This mass hysteria over approx. 30 people, how many people have recovered in the same time frame?
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » So can you say categorically that there is a correlation btw wearing masks and a reduction in cases?
joeguevara wrote: » On the one hand you say the word ‘Covidiot’ (which I can’t stand as a word along with all the other word de jour alla maskzis etc but have no issue calling someone who follows every recognised medical experts advice as a religious zealot or words to that effect. Interestingly I have a full back tattoo of jesus’s crucifixion (on the tatto thread if you want to have a look) but I am as far from religious as humanly possible. How are you comfortable calling someone a religious zealot for simply following advice and trying to do their best to reduce virus transmission but take grave offence to a word that could equally be used to describe someone from either side of the argument. What confuses me even more is you say that either me personally or at least someone who thinks mask wearing is appropriate is completely intolerant of general dissent and disagreement with your personal opinion is worrying. You are intolerant of the opinion of every medical expert who is in this field and have never even acknowledged that wearing a mask assists in decreasing virus droplets being spread by an infected person which even those who advocate not wearing a mask admit. I have never heard any person who thinks masks are ineffectual give one concrete positive reason for not wearing one and assisting in decreasing infection. As you admitted yourself that advice changes, so if there is no benefit for not wearing one in reducing transmission and wearing one may (may being if your expert reassess their understanding, whereas actual experts who are actually leaders in their field as opposed to a fella in a white coat from Arkansas, have shown empirical proof that it does reduce transmission) reduce transmission so wear one in the off chance. Again, the discussion which was the subject of your post about tension and arguments are from people demanding their god given rights not to wear a mask or someone who asks them not to infect others and an argument ensuing. Now, if you park all of the above for a second, when I read that over 46000 people from designated high risk countries have come in to Ireland in the last 3 weeks with no requirement to quarantine, it makes me wonder what the fcuck is the point of anything and just let it blitz and see how the chips fall. But then only worry about things that you can control and wear a mask, wash hands frequently, don’t be on crowds for long periods. And hope that I get to actually spend time with my parents rather than a fleeting visit because of their age and certain other things. I worry every time one of them goes to buy groceries and someone not wearing a mask coughs in their direction because they have more knowledge than the experts.
GT89 wrote: » I heard that masks are now mandatory in parts of Spain OUTDOORS not just shops and public transport sounds like hell on earth I'm sure there's probably some on here that would support such a riddiculous policy
McGiver wrote: » No - the schools have been closed! What a surprise.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » Complete side note, but is it just me or is Boards fooked yet again this weekend? Threads jumping back pages, errors etc? (on Touch and Desktop)
Overheal wrote: » 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 Maybe the Spaniards just aren't a bunch of snowflakes.
GT89 wrote: » So you suppkrt masks outdoors
Charles Babbage wrote: » Can you categorically that there is not?
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » Why are you asking me to prove a negative. You need to show the justification for face masks if you want people to use them.
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » Why are you asking me to prove a negative. You need to show the justification for face masks if you want people to use them. There is no co-relation btw wearing face masks and a reduction in the number of cases which is the whole argument behind wearing face masks.
Overheal wrote: » It's been shown. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2Na3gjzADw https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2020/05/04/cough-coronavirus-masks-kaye-pkg-vpx.cnn
davegilly wrote: » Every time I go into a shop and see some absolute fcuktard moron not wearing a face covering I get this urge to punch them square in the face. Science or not.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » Ok, let's analyse this... why is that? Is it because you genuinely feel that they are infected and putting you at risk? Is it that you feel they are "getting away" with something you aren't? Is it because "those are the rules"? If the first, were you masked up prior to 2 weeks ago? If not, why not?
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » A reduction in the number of cases or reduces transmission?
robinph wrote: » Over the last 5 days how many other people have those 30 been in close proximity to? What about the 30 who will test positive tomorrow? Have you already tracked down all the people who will tomorrow interact with the people who will test positive on Saturday? What about the people who they will interact with on Wednesday before they then test positive on Monday? Or people could just wear a mask and stop the majority of those transmissions happening in the first place.
one armed dwarf wrote: » I genuinely don't get this. The more who catch it, the more they can infect individually. That 30 cases per day figure can grow if there aren't any mitigations to keep it under check. It's not mass hysteria over 30 people, it's concern at the growth rate of that daily number and wanting to keep it at a low rate of reproduction. That's the whole point of this. It's an exercise in finding ways to prevent the daily figure from going out of our control. It's extremely easy to understand. Unchecked the virus rate of reproduction isn't linear! That is why the number doubling to another 'low' number is alarming in itself cause it is an indication of a possible trend. There is no point in waiting for that to happen before implementing small measures like wearing masks. And as far as other countries goes it is not wrong to look at data from them on this, it's not as if they got hit by a different virus than us. We know enough about how it spreads that it will have the same pattern of behaviour here given the same opportunity to do so Perspective!
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » 27 of those 30 were not communal infections i.e. masks made no difference. Next.
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » If people want to live in fear and assume the worst that they have the virus then go ahead and wear a mask if if makes you feel better but make no mistake that it is just a placebo effect because in most cases it’s not required and you are still exposed to the virus unless you lace up in a full suit.
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » or because people are wearing face masks and not spreading the flu?
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.
Away With The Fairies wrote: » I've seen the smartest kid in a shop today. About 5 years old, going around the shop with their parents wearing a face mask. When they got out to their car, their safe place, the kid took off their mask. 5 years old and can wear a mask inside a shop and didn't make a fuss and knows they can take it off outside the shop.
