Masks

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I am far from denying science or evidence. Im all science and evidence. What else is there?

I'm just not mixing science with children's logic and fetching conclusions from thin air. I'm science all the way.

No you are not, you place your faith in what you are calling 'emperical evidence' that there has not been any community transmission in shops. In other words you have 'no evidence'. Menawhile you ignore the science backed evidence that masks can make a difference in helping reduce the spread of the virus.

'Emperical evidence' versus scientific research.

You are all science and evidence Emperical Evidence.

political analyst wrote: »

Respecting each other's personal space is not a difficult substitute for mask-wearing.

If mask-wearing works then why is the government not letting buses be run with all seats filled?

One could just as easily say, if respecting each other's personal space is so effective and consistently applied why is the government (and many others) asking us to wear masks?

No one measure is 100% effective all of the time, including masks. It is only a strawman argument to position it thus.
If you could re-watch CCTV of supermarket interactions in June, would you find that the 2m distancing was respected all of the time?
Does that mean we should have free for all on number of people in supermarkets and abandon all distancing?

Plus there is growing evidence as noted on the thread that droplets can (a) travel further than 2 metres and (b) suspend in the air.

political analyst wrote: »

Respecting each other's personal space is not a difficult substitute for mask-wearing.

If mask-wearing works then why is the government not letting buses be run with all seats filled?

political analyst wrote: »

Then why is social distancing still in force on buses even though all passengers who are not children and who don't have breathing difficulties are required to wear masks?

If social distancing works then why are we washing our hands? if washing hands works then why are we avoiding crowded places?

Stupid questions get stupid responses.

Hunky Monster wrote: »

It's about as lethal as the flu.

Blatantly false statements are pretty reckless tbh.

From one review paper of H1N1 pandemic: There was also substantial heterogeneity among the 37 risk estimates based on symptomatic cases, ranging from 0 to 1,200 deaths per 100,000 [I2=99.98%]. Most of the estimates in this category fell in the range of 5 to 50 deaths per 100,000 cases

Going off a CFR of 0.6%, that's 600 fatalities per 100,000 cases. So SARS-CoV-2 is anywhere from 12 to 120 times more likely to kill an infected person.

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Rubbish. About 650,000 people die of influenza every year (and that's a low estimate as they're generally NOT reported the same way Covid19 is) Oh, and there's this thing called the FLU VACCINE.

So far there's what, 750,000 "deaths" from Covid19 this year, we all know how hugely inflated those figures are and how they're reported.

Complications from both:

COVID-19: Lasting damage to the lungs, heart, kidneys, brain and other organs is possible after a severe case of COVID-19.

Flu: Influenza complications can include inflammation of the heart (myocarditis), brain (encephalitis) or muscles (myositis, rhabdomyolysis) tissues, and multi-organ failure.

So yeah, I stand by what I said, it's about as deadly as the flu.

You're making up stuff here tbh. Accepting one set of numbers while ignoring others. Do you think the north Italian hospitals were faking all those bodybags? Even the shambolic Chinese building hospitals in a week? How many dozens of research papers do you need to accept reality?

And the existence of the flu vaccine is another reason why pandemic plans were not prepared for a much more lethal and equally virulent disease, as it was assumed a specific vaccine would work (which it did). The seasonal vaccine is basically a guessing game using 3 likely strains to target flu.

As for the stats involving flu, there's all manner of problems where flu numbers were exaggerated at the start of the pandemic. Washington state in the US is a particular example of this. There is no evidence for a widespread underreporting of influenza cases, if anything it's the opposite since the 2009 pandemic.

i_surge wrote: »

So many flaws in all that. Nonsense.

Can I ask why do you need to lie to yourself that is just a flu? What is the motivation? What are you trying to convince people of?

We all have different coping mechanisms I suppose.

All of the damaged the poster listed as being caused by Flu, are also documented as affecting patients with Covid. The huge difference with Covid is while 80% of cases are mild, 20% are not. That 20% ranges from death to severe, up to and including hospitalisation. Flu does not usually cause this much, seemingly permanent damage in the numbers that Covid appears to. The extreme measures being deployed all over the world aren't being rolled out for the craic.

Sconsey wrote: »

If social distancing works then why are we washing our hands? if washing hands works then why are we avoiding crowded places?

Stupid questions get stupid responses.

If we can get the virus through the eyes and ears and by touching it on surfaces why don’t we implement ear plugs, goggles and gloves as a mandatory requirement also.

And the sad part is if it was announced later this week people would rush out and get geared up.

odyssey06 wrote: »

Because you don't emit infectious droplets of the virus from your eyes or ears in any significant amounts.
Because this is a respiratory virus and the primary way an infected person expels infectious droplets is through their mouth and nose.
You can sanitise your hands if you have come into contact with the virus. Hence the surge in sales of hand sanitiser and their installation in shops, hospitals etc.
You can't sanitise your respiratory system if you have inhaled the virus.

It's amazing people still need to be told this. One would say after few months of living with covid, they would know at least basics by now

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Some people can't seem to get their heads around the concept that the mask is primarily about preventing you infecting others...

It was ok to infect others as you put it for five months though......

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Some people can't seem to get their heads around the concept that the mask is primarily about preventing you infecting others...

I know, probably the biggest problem since this thread started.

lucernarian wrote: »

Then there's all the people using vented masks which are horrifying given that they do not filter exhaled air whatsoever, and gives a false sense of security

That's the issue you should rise up with government and HSE, so they'll update their info on masks. It was said here many times over the last couple months. And all the mask Nazis, as we are being called by many, know it well. Valved ones are no good for this purpose.

joeguevara wrote: »

Is your argument really if you were permitted to infect someone 5 months ago you should be able to continue infect them now?

St what stage in your opinion when medical advice is updated because of new scientific information and evidence should new types of mitigation such as masks be required.

That’s not the argument at all. Remember not everybody has this virus and to treat everyone you meet in your daily life as a spreader is not for me.

Let’s get back to March April May when we had peak community transmission and no mandatory masks

Can you or any of the hardline pro mask brigade name for us just one supermarket cluster or one supermarket that had to close because of covid 19 ??

There should have been many many outbreaks in these environments but there wasn’t....

Scientific evidence can be interpreted as suits. Real life information can tell us different things also.

joeguevara wrote: »

It is incredible when people refuse to wear a mask citing the fact that the government said they weren't necessary or helpful but refused to follow the same people who have updated their advice because of updated information.

Bring willing to change one's mind when new evidence comes along seems to be a character flaw for some

Spiderman0081 wrote: »

I think what people find hard to grasp is that it is only recently the effectiveness of masks has become apparent. Dr.Fauci for example, after 40 years of studying such viral diseases, has only realized in the spring of 2020 that masks help.

Fauci also had to re-learn then something known to the Obama Administration in 2014, that funding groups involved in gain-of-function studies was probably not a wise idea.

It's possible that the message wasn't given sooner because there were no masks out there for people to use, and they were needed in hospitals etc first.