robinph wrote: » What is your alternative way to slow the spread down if these people are clearly entering the country anyway, people are going back to work, people are going back to shops and people are interacting with each other more than they were for several months.
Graham wrote: » The common alternative approach appears to be stomp feet while proclaiming huffily "I'm not wearing a mask because look what they're doing....".
Hunky Monster wrote: » How many people have been fined/gone to jail.
Graham wrote: » None yet. I'd guess our non-mask heroes cover up and slink off before it gets to the stage where further action is required.
Hunky Monster wrote: » Good. I love a bit of slinking off. Fair play to you though, thinking you’re saving the world.
Graham wrote: » Not at all but I've no problem playing a tiny part in the fight against covid by wearing a mask.
growleaves wrote: » But do you have a problem if someone casually tells you that the theory of masks is an unvalidated scientific hypothesis? There's no reason, in theory, for anyone to get emotional when they're told that something they've accepted and agreed to believe in is strictly speaking not proven. Yet it happens all the time.
growleaves wrote: » But do you have a problem if someone casually tells you that the theory of masks is an unvalidated scientific hypothesis?
Prove its unproven.
growleaves wrote: » Is that supposed to be a joke?
joeguevara wrote: » No, because there is proof that masks reduce trnasmission of the virus. So if someone goes around spouting sh1te saying that its unproven, they must be able to back that up. Its not rocket science. If someone is going to say bs they need to be called out on it.
We also demonstrated the efficacy of surgical masks to reduce coronavirus detection and viral copies in large respiratory droplets and in aerosols (Table 1b). This has important implications for control of COVID-19, suggesting that surgical face masks could be used by ill people to reduce onward transmission.
The use of face masks was protective for both health-care workers and people in the community exposed to infection, with both the frequentist and Bayesian analyses lending support to face mask use irrespective of setting. Our unadjusted analyses might, at first impression, suggest use of face masks in the community setting to be less effective than in the health-care setting, but after accounting for differential N95 respirator use between health-care and non-health-care settings, we did not detect any striking differences in effectiveness of face mask use between settings.
The study provides direct evidence on the effectiveness of widespread community use of face masks from a natural experiment that evaluated the effects of state government mandates in the US for face mask use in public on COVID-19 spread. Fifteen states plus Washington, D.C., mandated face mask use between April 8 and May 15. Using an event study that examined daily changes in county-level COVID-19 growth rates, the study found that mandating public use of face masks was associated with a reduction in the COVID-19 daily growth rate. Specifically, we found that the average daily county-level growth rate decreases by 0.9, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0 percentage points in 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, and 21 or more days after signing, respectively.
Hunky Monster wrote: » There must have been some serious studies done in the last 3 months since the CDC, WHO and all governments told us they were of absolutely no use whatsoever.
Hunky Monster wrote: » How many people have died from catching the virus in centra?
joeguevara wrote: » For a virus that is less than 8 months. You come across like a kid who says they are going to tell their teacher to fcuck off but we all know that the minute you are challenged you are going to skulk away.
Snow Garden wrote: » Whats your threshold number?
Hunky Monster wrote: » I haven’t worn a mask yet and will continue that way.
namloc1980 wrote: » Michael Healy-Rae said he won't be enforcing face masks in the shop/petrol station he owns in Kerry as he says it is not the role of retail outlet owners to enforce the law. I wonder does he enforce the law on the sale of alcohol and tobacco products??
growleaves wrote: » Okay here is the absence of proof you asked for:
growleaves wrote: » The burden of proof is on whoever is affirming a theory. Saying "X is not definitely proven" is not BS. Like I said, people get emotional at hearing unremarkable statements that seem to go against what they have accepted.
joeguevara wrote: » No. Firstly its not a theory. Its a fact that masks reduce transmission. You said that that this is not proven, which in itself is ridiculous. But lets go with it. Show me what you are basing your belief that masks do not reduce transmission. As you previously could not do that, i am assuming what you are saying is that you have no basis for saying that masks don't reduce transmission.
growleaves wrote: » I recall reading a study re influenza that said that masks "might reduce transmission". One of the studies posted above by another poster said research "lends support" to the conclusion. This qualifying language is used for a reason, and rightly so since scientific researchers have to be careful and they are trying to discover the truth not reach a satisfying conclusion.
Does it not seem fairly logical to you no?
