Graham wrote: » I don't think anyone finds them particularly comfortable, nor do they relish the thoughts of wearing them all day where required. I guess you console yourself with the fact that a ventilator is even more uncomfortable for yourself or those around you.
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.
robinph wrote: » One you show symptoms before you are infectious, the other you don't.
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?
odyssey06 wrote: » 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: » 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?
Hunky Monster wrote: » It's about as lethal as the flu.
lucernarian wrote: » 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.
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.
givyjoe wrote: » 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.
Pitch n Putt wrote: » 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.
xhomelezz wrote: » 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...
Pitch n Putt wrote: » It was ok to infect others as you put it for five months though......
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
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.
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.
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.
joeguevara wrote: » Does this mean that we should only follow historical advice. If the updated evidence and advice is the same in 40 years will they follow it then? If people are going to cite medical studies as the reason for not wearing a mask why pick an outdated one?
