Masks

robinph · 11-08-2020 12:35PM

No: I don't care enough

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.

If you can show proof that the virus is actually spread by looking at people funny, or by wearing blue socks then let us know and we'll stop wearing masks. Otherwise wearing a mask over our faces fits the evidence for how it's transmitted until you are able to show an alternative theory.

growleaves · 11-08-2020 12:36PM

Does it not seem fairly logical to you no?

It does seem logical to me yes, and compelling, but science can be counter-intuitive and there could be a reason why it's wrong.

The very simple cause-and-effect relationships implied by of a lot of these restrictions make them easy to understand and accept but doesn't mean they are def true.

Tork · 11-08-2020 12:37PM

Yes: to protect others

I thought I'd share this again. It's from Thorax which is published by the British Medical Journal. A study of how far droplets travel when using masks and no mask.

F1.large.jpg

robinph · 11-08-2020 12:37PM

No: I don't care enough

Scientific theories do not mean that they don't know how something happens or that something isn't based on facts.

odyssey06 · 11-08-2020 12:41PM

growleaves wrote: »

It does seem logical to me yes, and compelling, but science can be counter-intuitive and there could be a reason why it's wrong.
The very simple cause-and-effect relationships implied by of a lot of these restrictions make them easy to understand and accept but doesn't mean they are def true.

Studies have definitively shown that masks reduce droplets produced... but how to show that actually reduces transmission?
Given that this is a new virus, it's hard to reach the bar of definitively true without conducting unethical and dangerous experiments on un-vaccinated subjects.
The same could be said about any of the individual measures and restrictions since March.

I think the evidence as presented by the CDC is compelling enough that it is something that should be done \ worth doing.
We don't have the time \ luxury to wait to be 100% certain on this.

ginoginelli · 11-08-2020 12:41PM

Yes: surgical

joeguevara wrote: »

I do think legislation puts a fine on the owner for serving underage people tobacco and alcohol. It would be so much easier if there was something similar with masks and then they have an obligation.

Exactly. If the shop was fined I bet they would have no problem enforcing it very strictly.

Also, change the fine to the people not wearing to an on the spot one of 50 or 100 euro.

These 2 obvious measures would bring us up to almost 100 percent compliance.

dwayneshintzy · 11-08-2020 12:41PM

Yes: to protect myself and others

Where are the studies that mask usage for the general public is of absolutely no benefit/actively harmful?

bush · 11-08-2020 12:45PM

No: other

Some people really do have a hard on for masks

Jim_Hodge · 11-08-2020 12:46PM

Yes: homemade

Diabhalta wrote: »

hilarious

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AASp25qWIUk

Far from funny. He's just a gobs#@#@#.

namloc1980 · 11-08-2020 12:50PM

Yes: surgical

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I haven’t worn a mask yet and will continue that way.

The hero we need at this time.

MadYaker · 11-08-2020 12:52PM

Yes: surgical

growleaves wrote: »

It does seem logical to me yes, and compelling, but science can be counter-intuitive and there could be a reason why it's wrong.

The very simple cause-and-effect relationships implied by of a lot of these restrictions make them easy to understand and accept but doesn't mean they are def true.

No but we’re in uncharted territory here. Nothing is certain and everything we do is the best guess because that’s all we’ve got. We can’t do nothing we have to mitigate this somehow.

Loafing Oaf · 11-08-2020 12:59PM

No: I don't care enough

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I haven’t worn a mask yet and will continue that way.

Seanachai · 11-08-2020 01:15PM

bush wrote: »

Some people really do have a hard on for masks

I don't think it's really about the masks for some, it's more about the satisfation of seeing dissenting people follow their virtues. I've seen two mask incidents in stores already, one where a security guard wouldn't back down when a woman claimed an exemption and the manager had to tell him to leave her be. Another where a security guy refused entry to somebody who also claimed an exemption.

It could just be because the guards haven't been fully informed yet, I could see somebody with medical proof suing eventually.

dwayneshintzy · 11-08-2020 01:20PM

Yes: to protect myself and others

Seanachai wrote: »

I don't think it's really about the masks for some, it's more about the satisfation of seeing dissenting people follow their virtues. I've seen two mask incidents in stores already, one where a security guard wouldn't back down when a woman claimed an exemption and the manager had to tell him to leave her be. Another where a security guy refused entry to somebody who also claimed an exemption.

It could just be because the guards haven't been fully informed yet, I could see somebody with medical proof suing eventually.

Sorry but I'm not really following what you mean here......satisfaction on whose part?

joeguevara · 11-08-2020 01:20PM

bush wrote: »

Some people really do have a hard on for masks

Thats like saying people have a hard on for washing their hands or not coughing in someones faces. Do you get aroused when you don't wash your hands?

robinph · 11-08-2020 01:39PM

No: I don't care enough

odyssey06 wrote: »

Studies have definitively shown that masks reduce droplets produced... but how to show that actually reduces transmission?
Given that this is a new virus, it's hard to reach the bar of definitively true without conducting unethical and dangerous experiments on un-vaccinated subjects.
The same could be said about any of the individual measures and restrictions since March.

I think the evidence as presented by the CDC is compelling enough that it is something that should be done \ worth doing.
We don't have the time \ luxury to wait to be 100% certain on this.

You can get very close to that proof from cases where people in the same workplace wearing masks or not have been found to be infected at vastly different rates. Those wearing masks still got infected but not enough to get ill or have passed it then on to their families.

Not going to get proper studies on that for a good while yet, so in the meantime I'm happy to stick with the logical answer that wearing masks makes sense to reduce transmission and infection.

If it doesn't then who cares?

extra gravy · 11-08-2020 01:45PM

bush wrote: »

Some people really do have a hard on for masks

Some of us don't want ourselves or others to get infected and possibly end up in icu. Do you have a "hard on" for ventilators?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 11-08-2020 01:46PM

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

bush wrote: »

Some people really do have a hard on for masks

They’re addicted to the hype and terror around coronavirus. They’ve completely lost their mind when it comes to the survival rate which is 98/99% and of those 1/2% were old/vulnerable people.

You agree to wear mandatory masks today you’re agreeing to that for the rest of their lives or until they’re FORCED to take a vaccine.

No thanks.

Tork · 11-08-2020 01:47PM

Yes: to protect others

joeguevara · 11-08-2020 01:49PM

Hunky Monster wrote: »

They’re addicted to the hype and terror around coronavirus. They’ve completely lost their mind when it comes to the survival rate which is 98/99% and of those 1/2% were old/vulnerable people.

You agree to wear mandatory masks today you’re agreeing to that for the rest of their lives or until they’re FORCED to take a vaccine.

No thanks.

So you have a hard on for old and vulnerable people getting sick and/or dying? Is it the ventilator that gets your juices going or is it the fighting for breath?

extra gravy · 11-08-2020 01:50PM

Hunky Monster wrote: »

They’re addicted to the hype and terror around coronavirus. They’ve completely lost their mind when it comes to the survival rate which is 98/99% and of those 1/2% were old/vulnerable people.

You agree to wear mandatory masks today you’re agreeing to that for the rest of their lives or until they’re FORCED to take a vaccine.

No thanks.

You'd fit in well over in the States where many are more interested in their so called individual freedoms rather than doing something mildly inconvenient for the common good. Luckily, the majority of the population here aren't that selfish.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 11-08-2020 01:53PM

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

Tork wrote: »

“We do not recommend masks, gloves or other protective measures for the general public” - Dr.Tony Holahan.

We do not recommend the use of masks for the general public as per WHO recommendations due to risks and other unintended consequences” - Dr.Tony Holahan.

“The advice we have from the WHO is to not make masks mandatory” - Simon Harris.

I’ll post the videos of all this if someone doubts me.

Tork · 11-08-2020 01:54PM

Yes: to protect others

When did they say these things?

dwayneshintzy · 11-08-2020 01:54PM

Yes: to protect myself and others

Hunky Monster wrote: »

They’re addicted to the hype and terror around coronavirus. They’ve completely lost their mind when it comes to the survival rate which is 98/99% and of those 1/2% were old/vulnerable people.

You agree to wear mandatory masks today you’re agreeing to that for the rest of their lives or until they’re FORCED to take a vaccine.

No thanks.

I posted some studies earlier that argued for the efficacy of masks. You've claimed that they're of no benefit whatsoever. Asked previously but will ask again; have you studies that back that up which we can get a look at?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 11-08-2020 01:55PM

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

joeguevara wrote: »

So you have a hard on for old and vulnerable people getting sick and/or dying? Is it the ventilator that gets your juices going or is it the fighting for breath?

Older/vulnerable people should be supported and cocoon. They should be encouraged to wear masks out and about and cocoon where necessary.

The rest of us need to get back to normal.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 11-08-2020 01:56PM

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

Tork wrote: »

When did they say these things?

Daily press briefings.

joeguevara · 11-08-2020 01:56PM

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Older/vulnerable people should be supported and cocoon. They should be encouraged to wear masks out and about and cocoon where necessary.

The rest of us need to get back to normal.

So its the cocooning that gets your juices going. Does them fighting for breath add to it for you?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 11-08-2020 01:57PM

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

joeguevara wrote: »

So its the cocooning that gets your juices going. Does them fighting for breath add to it for you?

Good lad. You can either argue my points or try and belittle me for a few measly thanks and internet points. You decide.

Stark · 11-08-2020 01:58PM

No: other

Got to experience close to the hell that was isolation for weeks on end in March/April/May. Have no desire to inflict the experience on a large section of society for the long haul because I'm too selfish to wear a face covering for small parts of the day. You can tell a lot about a society/individuals by the way in which they treat their elderly and vulnerable.

Tork · 11-08-2020 01:58PM

Yes: to protect others

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Daily press briefings.

I aim not denying they said these things. I want a ballpark date.

Masks

Comments