Masks

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 If people are going to cite medical studies as the reason for not wearing a mask why pick an outdated one?

I am just stating that it is very strange one of the most distinguished experts in this field was completely unaware of the effectiveness of masks. Covid-19 is just one of many viral infections. It’s a new strain but nothing new in his field in how it behaves.

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.

I think they did drop the ball and took longer than they should e.g. see how the Czech Republic handled things.

In their defence...
They were approaching it from the perspective of masks as PPE.
And trying to safeguard supplies of PPE for health care workers.
As in, focused on masks in terms of stopping the wearer from getting infected.

There was a lot of mis-information \ confusion in the early data from China, who tried to present this as spread through contact \ surfaces and downplay person to person droplets transmission.

There was also uncertainty about asymptomatic carriers and how infectious they are.
Subsequent research shows that viral load in some carriers peaks towards the end of asymptomatic phase.
Masks\coverings are especially important for asymptomatic people who do not feel sick and stay at home. It's a different question to the early focus on health staff PPE.

There is now abundant data from 'natural experiments' of real world case studies and Asian countries where masks were used to convince health authorities.

It is only now that we have the quantity of masks, that we have the knowledge of infectious droplets being produced from asymptomatic people that we have seen general policies on masks being rolled out in Western countries.

GT89 wrote: »

Where was the spread of covid 19 in supermarkets when we had the supermarkets packed full of absolute retards buying bog roll. The week leading up to lockdown

Probably the same place it was when there was thousands marching on the street for BLM.

xhomelezz wrote: »

Supermarkets....always supermarkets, favourite argument. Think we should all move there and stay, cuz by some it looks like the safest place to be

And now the BLM card :pac:

GT89 wrote: »

Where was the spread of covid 19 in supermarkets when we had the supermarkets packed full of absolute retards buying bog roll. The week leading up to lockdown

Where was the spread of Covid 19 in nightclubs? in churches? in gyms?in pubs? ... by your logic they are all safe right?

The fact is we don't know where all the community transmission occurred but we can make some good guesses. Supermarkets do not have some miracle Covid-repelling properties as far as anyone is aware...except you maybe.

Pitch n Putt wrote: »

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.

Nope, and likewise you cannot name a single supermarket where it did not happen. So neither of us know for sure where it is happening really do we? you don't, I don't, NEPHT don't. So let's take some simple precautions and quit whinging like a child.

is_that_so wrote: »

That we have so few cases directly linked to them and the very fleeting nature of interactions suggests they are much lower risk and over the 5 months of shopping we've not seen a huge rise in cases from that source.

Its almost like people behave differently in a pub compared to a supermarket.


Who could have possibly known that!

Sconsey wrote: »

Nope, and likewise you cannot name a single supermarket where it did not happen. So neither of us know for sure where it is happening really do we? you don't, I don't, NEPHT don't. So let's take some simple precautions and quit whinging like a child.

Whinging like a child :rolleyes:


Your right with a 100 % of everything you said and how dare anyone go against your thoughts.


What a child you are.

Sconsey wrote: »

Lower risk than what? how much risk is acceptable to you?

Risk is based on personal evaluation. If you're terrified that COVID is everywhere outside your door, that's the risk. Crossing a road is a risk but we do so by factoring in certain data, what we can see and what we have been taught. A supermarket is a location where the behaviour is very predictable and add in the "COVID rules" we have patterns to work with and a risk we can evaluate. I've never found that risk to be high, based on how I shop and observing the current rules. I see most others doing the same thing so low risk in my book.

Pitch n Putt wrote: »

Whinging like a child :rolleyes:


Your right with a 100 % of everything you said and how dare anyone go against your thoughts.


What a child you are.

So you can show there was no spread in supermarkets? please do share.

jackboy wrote: »

We massively reduced the infection rate while the supermarkets were busy and no one was wearing masks. We have proven there is not significant spread of the virus in supermarkets. Many supermarkets were wedged during that time with loads of them not controlling the amount of customers.

Do you have to make stuff up now? Which supermarkets were wedged? Any one I was at, restricted the amount of people going in and they're still not normal. I'm sure therell be one of two of the usual suspects to back you up but I don't remember any posters here saying supermarkets were operating normally.

is_that_so wrote: »

Risk is based on personal evaluation. If you're terrified that COVID is everywhere outside your door, that's the risk. Crossing a road is a risk but we do so by factoring in certain data, what we can see and what we have been taught. A supermarket is a location where the behaviour is very predictable and add in the "COVID rules" we have patterns to work with and a risk we can evaluate. I've never found that risk to be high, based on how I shop and observing the current rules. I see most others doing the same thing so low risk in my book.

You taking risks crossing the road is your own decision and you are risking your own life. Not the same when it comes to the spread of Covid.

Not all supermarkets are alike, some are well ventilated, some are not, some are full of morons some are not. They are a shared space, if you want to share the space take some responsibility and wear a mask.

jackboy wrote: »

The massive reduction in cases while all the supermarkets were open with no mask wearing is the proof.
It’s not rocket science. We know where spikes in cases come from, certain factories, pubs, nightclubs, house parties, hospitals, public transport. If we focus on these and a small Handful of other settings we will keep infection rates reasonably low.

Thats not proof that community transmission in retail didnt happen.

Masks are about keeping those spikes in known clusters where tracing is possible.

Masks in transport and retail are about disrupting the infection from spreading into the community in settings where we dont know who has been in contact with who.

odyssey06 wrote: »

Thats not proof that community transmission in retail didnt.

It is proof there was not significant community transmission in retail. That is clear.