nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Masks

fr336

How many people on Boards have a mask and if so are you wearing them for essential trips? And this late in the day where can you get one that is going to be half decent and not from a suspect seller who could have done anything to it?

Find more posts tagged with

shop

mask

covering

covid

facemask

Comments

xhomelezz

joeguevara wrote: »

HOLD ON A SECOND - ARE YOU SAYING I SHOULDN'T BE USING LEECHES AND BLOODLETTING?

Jeez no, that's out of fashion. I'm stockpiling on chicken. Voodoo only now, it works friend of mine told me

joeguevara

xhomelezz wrote: »

Jeez no, that's out of fashion. I'm stockpiling on chicken. Voodoo only now, it works friend of mine told me

Ooooh fancy. Im sticking to my leech guy. He was there 3 months before your voodoo guy. Why would I change.

xhomelezz

joeguevara wrote: »

Ooooh fancy. Im sticking to my leech guy. He was there 3 months before your voodoo guy. Why would I change.

v638sg7k1a92bx

EagererBeaver wrote: »

The mandatory mask wearing in Spain came in AS A RESULT of the number of cases increasing. Their introduction and mandatory status is down to each autonomous community too, so it's not true to say it's been the case for weeks "in Spain".

That's not true. There have been spikes and increases in cases since masks have been mandatory. It is a simple statement of face that there is no direct correlation btw masks and a reductions in the number of cases.

Tork

Please provide us with some sources for this.

Overheal

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

That's not true. There have been spikes and increases in cases since masks have been mandatory. It is a simple statement of face that there is no direct correlation btw masks and a reductions in the number of cases.

Prove it.

robinph

.... And don't forget to include the details on what other things were being opened up and relaxed at the same times in Spain. Wouldn't want anyone to be trying to blame masks for an increase in cases that was actually down to bars reopening or anything like that.

robinph

Scotland has been wearing masks for several weeks now, but today Aberdeen is being locked down again to a certain level due to a spike in cases.

Is this spike in cases caused by:
a) people wearing masks
b) people hanging out in bars
c) pirates/ the spaghetti monster

odyssey06

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

That's not true. There have been spikes and increases in cases since masks have been mandatory. It is a simple statement of face that there is no direct correlation btw masks and a reductions in the number of cases.

There is, when its impact is assessed independent of other factors.
So there is a positive correlation.

You ignore the lessons of Japan, Czech Republic, and the difference in case growth in US states with masks versus without, as cited by the CDC in updating their advice.

Cases dropped in care and health settings in Ireland when general mask use policies were rolled out.

All these points have been raised and none have been rebutted by you.
The correlation is there and is why health authority after health authority is updating its advice to wear masks.

Tork

From the Thorax medical journal - you can see the droplets from speaking, coughing and sneezing through different mask types.

F1.large.jpg

xhomelezz

Overheal wrote: »

Prove it.

He did already. You missed that part, where he says THAT'S NOT TRUE

jobeenfitz

I'm sure most people don't like wearing masks. I don't. I don't worry too much about getting this virus but I will try not to. I'm on the train from Galway to Dublin, everyone I've seen is wearing a mask but ten to twenty percent have masks off mouth and nose.

Do we Irish lack intelligence? We are in an enclosed area with no windows. Why not wear mask properly, it's not a huge imposition IMO.

[Deleted User]

Tork wrote: »

From the Thorax medical journal - you can see the droplets from speaking, coughing and sneezing through different mask types.

Deep state something. Soros used Bill Gates' Photoshop licence to do that up.

OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE!

proceeds to call everyone tinfoil hatters

v638sg7k1a92bx

robinph wrote: »

Scotland has been wearing masks for several weeks now, but today Aberdeen is being locked down again to a certain level due to a spike in cases.

Is this spike in cases caused by:
a) people wearing masks
b) people hanging out in bars
c) pirates/ the spaghetti monster

You've just proved my argument. Likewise if cases fall, is that because of pirates or face masks because you can't have it both ways?

Tork

Tickers, what do you make of the image I posted above?

F1.large.jpg

joeguevara

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

You've just proved my argument. Likewise if cases fall, is that because of pirates or face masks because you can't have it both ways?

I don't think you come out of this well. You completely misunderstood the question and the what the correct answer was.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Tork wrote: »

Tickers, what do you make of the image I posted above?

What about it? Just because somebody shows you a scary photo you believe everything your told. As I said, coverings can reduce transmission for the most part are ineffective.

robinph

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

You've just proved my argument. Likewise if cases fall, is that because of pirates or face masks because you can't have it both ways?

Do a Google for "pirates global warming" and learn something.

Here is a link explaining the links to get you started:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fact-the-lack-of-pirates-is-causing-global-warming/

Tork

Is a scientific journal not good enough for you? https://thorax.bmj.com/content/early/2020/07/24/thoraxjnl-2020-215748

Jim_Hodge

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

What about it? Just because somebody shows you a scary photo you believe everything your told. As I said, coverings can reduce transmission for the most part are ineffective.

And so we should believe the unsubstantiated nonsense instead. You're clutching at straws with every post.

joeguevara

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

What about it? Just because somebody shows you a scary photo you believe everything your told. As I said, coverings can reduce transmission for the most part are ineffective.

So essentially you are saying that reduction of transmission is ineffective.

robinph

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

What about it? Just because somebody shows you a scary photo you believe everything your told. As I said, coverings can reduce transmission for the most part are ineffective.

Can you re-write this sentence into something that makes sense please.

joeguevara

robinph wrote: »

Can you re-write this sentence into something that makes sense please.

They said that reduction of transmission is ineffective. I will say that again, Tickers point is that reduction of transmission is ineffective.

v638sg7k1a92bx

joeguevara wrote: »

I don't think you come out of this well. You completely misunderstood the question and the what the correct answer was.

Not really because you cannot say face masks reduce cases and when people start wearing masks the number of cases increase, then the number of cases fall and same people will say that's because of mandatory face masks so which it because you can't have it both ways? It just proves that face masks are an ineffective measure because you can catch the virus anyway unless you stay inside and don't leave your house.

More people are wearing face masks and the number of cases increases therefore there is no direct correlation btw face masks and a decrease in the number of cases.

joeguevara

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

Not really because you cannot say face masks reduce cases and when people start wearing masks the number of cases increase, then the number of cases fall and same people will say that's because of mandatory face masks so which it because you can't have it both ways? It just proves that face masks are an ineffective measure because you can catch the virus anyway unless you stay inside and don't leave your house.

More people are wearing face masks and the number of cases increases therefore there is no direct correlation btw face masks and a decrease in the number of cases.

Kendrick Jolly Ibex you can get hit by a truck unless you don't leave your home. However the more steps you take when you leave the home not to get hit by a truck means you are less likely to hit get hit by one.

YOU LITERALLY HAVE STATED THAT REDUCTION OF TRANSMISSION IS INEFFECTIVE.

Tork

So you know better than scientists who are trying to find out how far droplets travel with and without facemasks? What science credentials do you have? A degree? Masters? PhD?

Also https://www.livescience.com/face-mask-visualization-droplets-covid-19.html

A dramatic new visualization shows exactly why it's a good idea to wear a face mask to prevent the spread of the new coronavirus.

Without a mask, droplets produced during coughing can travel up to 12 feet (3.7 meters), the visualization revealed, but with a mask, this distance is reduced to just a few inches in the best cases.

The simulation, which was described today (June 30) in the journal Physics of Fluids, also reveals that some cloth masks work better than others at stopping the spread of potentially infectious droplets.

"The visuals used in our study can help convey to the general public the rationale behind social-distancing guidelines and recommendations for using face masks," study lead author Siddhartha Verma, an assistant professor at Florida Atlantic University's College of Engineering and Computer Science, said in a statement.

v638sg7k1a92bx

robinph wrote: »

Can you re-write this sentence into something that makes sense please.

You can dig a giant hole with a shovel, you will make progress and we can prove scientifically that the shovel is having impact and removing dirt from the hole but the impact is minimal. That is your mask.

robinph

joeguevara wrote: »

They said that reduction of transmission is ineffective. I will say that again, Tickers point is that reduction of transmission is ineffective.

I thought that was what they were writing but couldn't believe it was what they actually meant as it is so profoundly idiotic.

Reducing the transmission of a virus that it's not possible to detect until after you've had it for a few days and so transmitting it to others in the meantime isn't an effective way of reducing the transmission?!?!?!

Not enough

emojis for this.

v638sg7k1a92bx

joeguevara wrote: »

Tickers you can get hit by a truck unless you don't leave your home. However the more steps you take when you leave the home not to get hit by a truck means you are less likely to hit get hit by one.

YOU LITERALLY HAVE STATED THAT REDUCTION OF TRANSMISSION IS INEFFECTIVE.

I fail to see the analogy.

joeguevara

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

You can dig a giant hole with a shovel, you will make progress and we can prove scientifically that the shovel is having impact and removing dirt from the hole but the impact is minimal. That is your mask.

It is very apt that you mention digging a hole. Because every type you argue, you are digging a hole. Unfortunately for you, your arguments dig a much bigger hole than your mythical shovel.