Sconsey wrote: » 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.
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.
CalamariFritti wrote: » 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.
joeguevara wrote: » How about you stop using words like 'impose masks'. They aren't asking you to have them anally inserted or like a ned Kelly hemet. Its while you are in enclosed places where it is difficult to socially distance. For most probably about 30 mins to an hour a day'.
Sconsey wrote: » Nope, read my whole post and you will see I said we don't know either way. Based on that I would advocate erring on the side of caution and wearing a mask.
Sconsey wrote: » Now you have your head burried in the sand, if you choose to ignore a flood of scientific evidence then you may as well just keep making up your own 'facts'.
CalamariFritti wrote: » Mother of Lord. I was just repeating your argument to put it against the fact that the numbers came down. I am not contradicting myself.
Overheal wrote: » So it will take how many dead Irish to make you take it seriously>?
Sconsey wrote: » So you are back to your position that you do know what happened in shops in terms of virus transmission? even though nobody else knows?
CalamariFritti wrote: » I get that and I'd even go along with that only for the fact that we have driven numbers down to single digits with supermarkets open and no masks.
CalamariFritti wrote: » I have seen models not facts.
GT89 wrote: » Except they won't be dead from cv19 they'll be dead from other illnesses which will be falsely put down as cv19. The overwhelming vast majority of cv19 deaths have had underlying illnesses so it is iffy to say they died of cv19.
Sconsey wrote: » So nothing else happened? no lockdown, no restrictions on travel, interactions with people outside your own household, none of that had anything to do with the reduction in figures? Now that we are opening up we need to take sensible precautiouns. I wonder do you ever look at the weather forecast? If you don't trust scientific models (many different models all saying the same thing) then I give up.
YellowBucket wrote: » Retail took some of the most serious precautions and supermarkets are are generally big, specious, well ventilated spaces due to food hygiene norms. Those two factors are why they weren’t transmission locations. My local SuperValu has had strictly managed entry to ensure minimal numbers in store, constant announcements about social distancing and the need to enforce restrictions on entry at busy times, messages about not congregating around the displays in the aisles, asking people to bring a list, complete their shopping quickly and leave the store immediately when done. They’ve had hand sanitisers and trolley and basket handle wipes and now even full push through trolly sanitisers. Now mask wearing is basically 100% So in general it’s been retail that’s been doing an exemplary job on this since March. Any community spread is happening where people are letting their guard down and that’s never been supermarkets. I’m still seeing stupid stuff like a locally owned cafe chain that has those thermos milk jugs sitting out being handled by hundreds of people. Things like that need to be just copped onto a bit. It’s fairly obvious where you get risks of multiple contacts. Same place also had empty sanitisers at doors. I would also question the use of liquid alcohol in the sanitizer sprays - im seeing that a lot recently and it’s both nasty on your hands and I would doubt it’s as effective as you can’t spread it around. Ive started carrying my own again as I can’t trust those devices not to be full of just liquid alcohol stuff which really dries my skin.
CalamariFritti wrote: » I look at the weather forecast but I don't trust it as fact. Models are not facts, they are educated predictions. They have been spectacularly wrong. The droplet models all leave out the fact that we don't know anything about what a dangerous concentration level is and how long it stays dangerous etcpp.
Sconsey wrote: » Why are you looking at the weather forecast then if you don't trust it? of couse they are wrong the occasional time but in general they are right. It seems like you are arguing that we should not wear masks, on the off chance that all the models are wrong?
joeguevara wrote: » So what you are saying is that you don't care if they die as they were already sick.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Well he already said he wouldn't wear a mask because "I don't really care about the vulnerable tbh" so I think we can take that as read.
weldoninhio wrote: » I don't know about America, but I can freeball/go commando here in Ireland without censure.
namloc1980 wrote: » There's a strong correlation between non mask wearers and conspiracy theorists.
Overheal wrote: » Not being that clever. Try and do your shopping nude and tell me how you get on with that.
odyssey06 wrote: » Or, more mundanely, try walking in to your local Tesco wearing no shirt, or no shoes or with your pet dog or smoking a cigarette or with a bottle of beer open in your hand and see how you get on.
Boggles wrote: » Challenge accepted. Now where do I get a dog.
odyssey06 wrote: » You have to sing this song also:
CalamariFritti wrote: » No I am arguing against masks because we seem to have done pretty well without them and they seem a token gesture. Now I will not make a connection there just yet because it wouldn't really make any sense - even when I don't like masks I'm not that anti biased - but it appears that cases started rising right after we made masks mandatory. Weird isn't it?
MadYaker wrote: » So cases still rise after the gov advised masks, in your head this makes masks useless so we just shouldn't bother? You don't think cases rising might have anything to do with us moving out of lockdown?
