ednwireland wrote: » so why wasnt it amended 2 weeks ago ? or is it the penalties that need the dail to sit ?
Deleted User wrote: » it is more appropriate to say you have a face covering rather than a mask as it does not afford anything like the same degree of protection for the wearer or the public.
Franklin Deep Prisoner wrote: » Aye, the new laws are still outstanding
Graham wrote: » Much more protection that no mask, whatever you decide to call it.
screamer wrote: » I’ll be very happy to see no one allowed into shops without a mask. Some of the replies on this thread show that people do 0 research and just jump to conclusions and ranting absolute nonsense. I’ll be wearing my mask as usual to protect me. I don’t see the big deal at all, like in a swimming pool you have to wear a hat, that’s the rule no exceptions. This refusal to wear a mask just seems like stubbornness for the sake of it.
CalamariFritti wrote: » And its about as useful as the hat in the swimming pool, very fitting analogy.
This refusal to wear a mask just seems like stubbornness for the sake of it.
Deleted User wrote: » They do protect others
gmisk wrote: » You do know a hat in a swimming pool is extremely useful though right?.....it helps stop hair from clogging up the filtration system in the pool....and it protects the wearer from getting a tonne of chlorine on their hair (as well as sun damage if outside) not to mention chlorine getting into their ears, leading to infections etc.
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » But it doesn't stop your hair from getting wet or other people's hair from getting wet or stop other people from getting ear infections. Masks are show to be ineffective for several reasons. Yes technically they reduce transmissions but it's a pointless exercise due to the very low probability of infection and extremely low chances of death even if you do contract the virus. So yes in theory if you were statistically unlikely to be in close proximity to someone who had the virus then the chance of infection could be reduced if in the right circumstances but you are just as likely to contract the virus some other way. The cost of wearing a mask in terms of environmental, societal, economic and the impact on social interactions greatly outweighs the very small benefits of reduced transmissions (which is still not clear) when you are just as likely to contract the virus some other way. It's a lot of effort for a tiny gain i.e. the juice is not worth the squeeze.
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » Masks are show to be ineffective for several reasons. Yes technically they reduce transmissions but it's a pointless exercise due to the very low probability of infection and extremely low chances of death even if you do contract the virus. So yes in theory if you were statistically unlikely to be in close proximity to someone who had the virus then the chance of infection could be reduced if in the right circumstances but you are just as likely to contract the virus some other way.
Away With The Fairies wrote: » You didn't catch the virus already, did you? Another poster linked to something in the main thread about a study of patients and even mild patients showing brain damage.
ExMachina1000 wrote: » Wore a mask for 5 hours straight yesterday while working. At the end of the day my eyes where stinging for some reason. I'm ok today though. Didn't catch covid either so that's also a plus
joeguevara wrote: » And that is a load of emotive words with a few clichés thrown in with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Not one actual piece.
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » Yes technically they reduce transmission.
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » Nothing emotive about it. Simple statements of fact.
odyssey06 wrote: » Ineffective but they reduce transmissions? We'll just leave that massive contradiction hanging there for consideration.
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » The cost of wearing a mask in terms of environmental, societal, economic and the impact on social interactions greatly outweighs the very small benefits of reduced transmissions (which is still not clear) when you are just as likely to contract the virus some other way. It's a lot of effort for a tiny gain i.e. the juice is not worth the squeeze.
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » I'm sorry if you don't like the answers but that's the reality. If you wanted to dig a giant hole you can use a shovel and spade which would work and technically you are making progress but it is a lot of time and energy for very little gain. That is what you are doing when you a wearing a mask. Wear a mask if it makes you feel better but the difference you are making is insignificant in the wider context.
xhomelezz wrote: » Well government finally sorted all your doubts. You have to wear one in retail from Monday. That's a simple fact. Hopefully followed and supported by nice fine on the spot, if you don't wear one.
Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: » it is a lot of time and energy for very little gain. That is what you are doing when you a wearing a mask.
robinph wrote: » What are the environmental, societal and economic costs of wearing a mask? Re the environment, if people take their own rubbish home with them and dispose of it properly then wheres the problem? Probably more waste generated from takeaway coffee chains suspending re-usable cups usage for the last few months. The impact on society could potentially be down to deaf people who need to lip read not being able to communicate properly, but in that case asking someone to remove their mask would be the solution, don't think it's an insurmountable task to make people aware of the need to do such things. The economy is surely going to be doing better if more people are able to get out and about and into shops and places of work and spending money? There is also a new cottage industry of people sewing together masks for people, that on it's own isn't going to save the world economy but it does get some people who might otherwise have zero income able to earn again.