Masks

MadYaker · 04-08-2020 09:48AM

Yes: surgical

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

That evidence at best is inconclusive. It is a simple statement of fact that in countries where masks are now mandatory that the number of cases has increased. How can you then argue the exact opposite when we can see this before our eyes?

Masks reduce transmission they don’t eliminate the virus. People still die in car crashes so I guess you think seat belts are useless and never wear them?

In Hong Kong they’ve had 38 deaths from coronavirus and only 3,500 cases and they never had a lockdown. 14 million people in an area the size of west Clare. They all wear masks all the time. But you think they’re useless?

Sconsey · 04-08-2020 10:08AM

No: other

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

If you’ve latched into the idea of wearing a mask go ahead and wear one. They are shown to be ineffective for several reasons but if it makes you fell better and you refuse to observe the reality around you then continue being a servile compliant little boy and do exactly what your told all the time without questioning anything because it makes you popular on Twitter, boards, Reddit whatever but don’t try and force your hang ups on me.

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.

one armed dwarf · 04-08-2020 10:10AM

No: other

The key to keeping ICU admissions low it so keep cases under control, it's not as if keeping an eye on one number loses sight of the other. The contagiousness and likelihood of severe illness makes the two inextricable until we have better mitigations for this thing.

It's not whataboutery or hysteria to look at other countries, it's the same virus. We aren't that special.

xhomelezz · 04-08-2020 10:27AM

Yes: valved

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?

Think we should just all give him a hug. No masks required and few coughs welcome

weldoninhio · 04-08-2020 10:36AM

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

Overheal wrote: »

It is wrong and immoral to make you wear underwear in public?

I don't know about America, but I can freeball/go commando here in Ireland without censure.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 04-08-2020 10:42AM

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.

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?

v638sg7k1a92bx · 04-08-2020 10:46AM

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?

Do not confuse the truth with the opinion of the majority.

joeguevara · 04-08-2020 10:47AM

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?

That's a very longwinded title for a peer reviewed article outlining the evidence that you said that you had. I'm going to download it now and enjoy reading it. Many thanks for finally providing it.

Sconsey · 04-08-2020 10:51AM

No: other

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?

LOL, so your argument against masks is that everybody cannot understand the conclusions of the medical and scientific experts? we are too dumb to understand what they are saying and we must be mis-interpreting them.

But not you, you can read between the lines and come up with the exact opposite of what they are saying and assume to present that as evidence?

Laughable, really is laughable.

Sconsey · 04-08-2020 10:52AM

No: other

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

Do not confuse the truth with the opinion of the majority.

I looking at facts. You are not.

jimmycrackcorm · 04-08-2020 10:56AM

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?

I wonder if the poster would put their money where their mouth is and insist, the next time they have surgery, that the surgeon doesn't need to wear a mask.

Hrududu · 04-08-2020 11:02AM

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.

Ah but sure like they’re just people on the telly. People down here in Borris on Ossary aren’t falling over in the streets and none of my family have caught it. Clearly this means it’s being blown out of proportion. /s (and I hate the need to add the /s but sure look these are strange times)

CalamariFritti · 04-08-2020 11:11AM

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?

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 · 04-08-2020 11:22AM

No: other

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.

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 percentage 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. Unless you can point to a breakdown of community transmission soures maybe? No thought not.

Why the hell are you making stuff up to justify not wearing a mask in public indoor spaces? what is wrong with you?

CalamariFritti · 04-08-2020 11:25AM

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.

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.

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?

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.

Stark · 04-08-2020 11:25AM

No: other

Just saw a bunch of supermarket workers got infected in Newcastle, co. down in the last few days

Mr E · 04-08-2020 11:29AM

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

... then continue being a servile compliant little boy.

Mod: Less of this please. Make your point without the petty name calling.

odyssey06 · 04-08-2020 11:30AM

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.

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 · 04-08-2020 11:32AM

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.

You're deflecting. What about supermarkets then?

LeeroyJ. · 04-08-2020 11:33AM

No: I don't care enough

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.

MadYaker · 04-08-2020 11:36AM

Yes: surgical

CalamariFritti wrote: »

You're deflecting. What about supermarkets then?

Proper social distancing and tightly controlled capacity worked. That won’t be possible now with everything open and way more people out and about.

odyssey06 · 04-08-2020 11:37AM

CalamariFritti wrote: »

You're deflecting. What about supermarkets then?

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?

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.

CalamariFritti · 04-08-2020 11:40AM

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.

People are still distancing. Tightly controlled capacity was in place all of 2 or 3 weeks in my town. And its the same number of people who need to shop for groceries. The only thing i could think that might actually cause an increase in traffic is that people may have organised their shopping in March April to a once a week and maybe they now go like they used to. But I'm now in speculation territory.

Sconsey · 04-08-2020 11:43AM

No: other

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.

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.

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.

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 · 04-08-2020 11:43AM

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?

If you want to argue with me please stop the nonsense. I clearly said 'supermarkets and later shops'.

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.

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.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 04-08-2020 11:43AM

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.

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.

joeguevara · 04-08-2020 11:46AM

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.

Jaysus its taking you way more than 5 minutes to have that think. How about wear a mask until the advice changes.

LeeroyJ. · 04-08-2020 11:47AM

No: I don't care enough

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.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-mask-advice-was-because-doctors-shortages-from-the-start-2020-6?r=US&IR=T

"Fauci said US government held off promoting face masks because it knew shortages were so bad that even doctors couldn't get enough"

This was very likely the reason everywhere. Everyone that every worked in any part of medicine knew that mask help protect with a respiratory disease.

CalamariFritti · 04-08-2020 11:48AM

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.

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.

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.

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. And where potentially 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.

Sconsey · 04-08-2020 11:50AM

No: other

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.

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.

Are you starting to contradict yourself? a few minutes ago you said nothing much happened in supermarkets, now you are saying you don't know what happened.

Masks

Comments