Sconsey wrote: » Any evidence to back that up, because there are pages and pages of evidence on this thread that contradict you. Proper peer-reviewed science versus your what? opinion? made up facts? maybe someone on Facebook posted someting? Can you list the several reasons you talk about, some evidence would also be helpful if you want to be taken seriously.As far as refusing to accept reality I think you are in the significant minority, the reality is you are ignoring facts for some unknown reason, maybe you are looking for attention?
Overheal wrote: » It is wrong and immoral to make you wear underwear in public?
Sconsey wrote: » Any evidence to back that up, because there are pages and pages of evidence on this thread that contradict you. Proper peer-reviewed science versus your what? opinion? made up facts? maybe someone on Facebook posted someting? Can you list the several reasons you talk about, some evidence would also be helpful if you want to be taken seriously.
Sconsey wrote: » Any evidence to back that up, because there are pages and pages of evidence on this thread that contradict you. Proper peer-reviewed science versus your what? opinion? made up facts? maybe someone on Facebook posted someting? Can you list the several reasons you talk about, some evidence would also be helpful if you want to be taken seriously. As far as refusing to accept reality I think you are in the significant minority, the reality is you are ignoring facts for some unknown reason, maybe you are looking for attention?
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » Here we go with the “peer reviewed” again. Every Internet forum turns into a bunch of diy scientists trying to interpret scientific papers asking for “peer reviewed” research as if they could understand what was in those papers. It must really annoy actual scientists. Aren’t you embarrassed holding yourself out to be a scientist?
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » Do not confuse the truth with the opinion of the majority.
Polar101 wrote: » That's just silly. You know the reason for mask wearing is not to protect yourself, but others from you. I feel that's the main reason the "freedom" argument doesn't work, because it's just freedom for yourself - but what about the freedom of others to be protected from you?
tom1ie wrote: » Just wondering how anyone can believe that when we see what it can do in Brazil USA Mexico etc when it’s allowed go unchecked.
CalamariFritti wrote: » That was just an exaggerating/hyperbole on my part to bring the point across. And I know that we're supposed to wear them just as much to protect others from us. But whether we wear them for that reason or for selfish reasons doesn't matter. I don't know why you would think that this invalidates my argument.Because the point still stands that nothing much happened in supermarkets and shops between March and July. Regardless of the reason we are wearing them now for.
Sconsey wrote: » It's been pointed out many many times already on this thread but may as well state it again....you have no clue what happened in shops and supermarkets between March and July. NEPHT don't know, the HSE don't know, the government don't know, I don't know and you don't know. A large percnetage of infections were classified as community transmission, meaning they don't know where those people caught it...could have been anywhere including shops. So no, the point does not stand, you have no idea what happened in terms of spread of the virus in shops between March and July.
Sconsey wrote: » Why the hell are you making stuff up to justify not wearing a mask in public indoor spaces? what is wrong with you?
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » ... then continue being a servile compliant little boy.
CalamariFritti wrote: » Because the point still stands that nothing much happened in supermarkets and shops between March and July. Regardless of the reason we are wearing them now for.
odyssey06 wrote: » Nothing much happened in a lot of shops in March, April and May. Because they were shut. Shopping centres only reopened in early to mid June.
CalamariFritti wrote: » You're deflecting. What about supermarkets then?
MadYaker wrote: » Proper social distancing and tightly controlled capacity worked. That won’t be possible now with everything open and way more people out and about.
CalamariFritti wrote: » Well I do know that whatever happened or didnt happen it got us down to single digit cases in July. I also know that retailers have reported minuscule number of staff affected throughout. Thats not quite the same as knowing nothing.
CalamariFritti wrote: » I am not making stuff up and I take objection to you saying there is something wrong with me. Is that what you do when you run out of arguments? Its the mask advocates that make up stuff. They are pointing out all the 'obvious' mask advantages when they start from the wrong point altogether. They are making the assumption that supermarkets were unsafe in the first place which they cannot prove at all. If you want to impose restriction you need to prove that its necessary. Its not me having to prove that its not. Which I have done anyway. I'm forthcoming that way.
odyssey06 wrote: » You didn't seem to know that lots of shops were shut in the months you cited and it's deflection to point that out to you?
odyssey06 wrote: » We don't know what happened in supermarkets. There's a huge number of cases in the bucket "community transmission". As other restrictions are eased, we need other sustainable (i.e. low cost low inconvenience) measures to reduce the risk in areas where community transmission is possible.
LeeroyJ. wrote: » https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/us/mask-protests-1918.html More than a century ago, as the 1918 influenza pandemic raged in the United States, masks of gauze and cheesecloth became the facial front lines in the battle against the virus. But as they have now, the masks also stoked political division. Then, as now, medical authorities urged the wearing of masks to help slow the spread of disease. And then, as now, some people resisted. Funny how we are having the same discussion here and there again. Some people just never learn.
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » 3 months ago we were told that face masks were not needed now we are being told to wear face masks. What changed in those 100 years that face masks weren’t needed and the changed again within 3 months? Excuse me while I take 5 mins to question/think about the advice being given which may be the wrong advice in another 3 months.
Sconsey wrote: » You don't know squat about what happened in supermarkets, you are making assumptions and passing it off as facts. As I said, the government, the contact tracers, the HSE don't know. But you do? Quit making assumptions and passing them off as fact.
Sconsey wrote: » If you aren't making it up then share the evidence please? where is the evidence that, of all the recorded community transmission, nothing much originated in supermarkets? I'll answer the question for you, there is no evidence either way, so you are wrong trying to present your assumption as facts and justification for not wearing a mask. So I stick to my statement that you are making it up and I am still wondering why you are making it up. There is ample evidence that wearing masks in enclosed public places will restrict the spread of the virus.
CalamariFritti wrote: » If you want to argue with me please stop the nonsense. I clearly said 'supermarkets and later shops'.So we don't know what happened in supermarkets. But we do know is the numbers came right down. Couldn't have happened much in supermarkets then.
CalamariFritti wrote: » So if loads of community transmission happened in supermarkets; how did the numbers come down then? Thats a little more than an assumption. You are making the assumption. The assumption that community transmission did happen in supermarkets. And on the back of that assumption you are advocating to impose masks on all of us. Well actually there is not. We have some lab models and some fancy animations. What we don't know is the most important thing. What concentration of those droplets is dangerous and what is not. We don't now where dangerous concentrations occur and where not. So we're making the assumption that they just are and we pass that off as fact. And yet I'm the one accused of making assumptions.
CalamariFritti wrote: » If you want to argue with me please stop the nonsense. I clearly said 'supermarkets and later shops'.
