Masks

Spiderman0081 wrote: »

Hehe. The lack of oxygen is apparent

Who is forcing you to run 10 miles with mask on?

Spiderman0081 wrote: »

Hehe. The lack of oxygen is apparent

Must be your altitude Spiderman cos it isn't your mask?

Graham wrote: »

Where do you shop that requires you to run 10 miles to fill your trolley?

Think he couldn't find his motorbike..

Jim_Hodge

Spiderman0081 wrote: »

Try going for a ten mile run with a mask on. No wait don’t, every doctor in the world would advise against it. I wonder why

That's a bizarre reply. Just more nonsense from you.

Graham wrote: »

Where do you shop that requires you to run 10 miles to fill your trolley?

So if something doesn't cause immediate effects then it must cause no effects - ok, and that's fairly typical of the thinking today.
Wearing a mask for an hour every day won't harm most (not in the short-term anyway).
The post being discussed was about someone experiencing health effects due to having to wear a mask all day, probably over weeks/months at this stage.

It is comparable to smoking (as being another thing that obstructs breathing).
Smoking once a day may not harm most people, but it would harm some, and is probably better avoided completely.
Smoking all day for a few days/weeks won't kill a person, but long term, guaranteed they'll have respiratory issues - and covid is and will be a long-term phenomenon, in case that's not clear to people yet.

Spiderman0081 wrote: »

I live in Stockholm. Went to the shop to buy fruit for my sons lunch. Dropped the kids off at school today. Went for breakfast. Drove my motorbike into the city centre to have coffee with my girlfriend. Went into two watch shops. Drove back home. Met my neighbors when I was parking my bike. Went back to the school to pick up the kids. Went home. I did not see one person wearing a mask.
Does everyone’s right not to wear a mask in Stockholm trump everyone else’s right not to catch a deadly virus if no one is wearing a mask. I’m confused.

I've seen the Swedish figures for covid-19 fatalities.
They are worse than ours even accounting for our screwups in nursing homes.
Thousands of unnecessary deaths.
I wouldn't be taking their advice on anything related to covid-19.
They are wrong on masks.

There's a whole thread on the forum about Sweden.
This is about masks.

Loafing Oaf

eleventh wrote: »

So if something doesn't cause immediate effects then it must cause no effects - ok, and that's fairly typical of the thinking today.
Wearing a mask for an hour every day won't harm most (not in the short-term anyway).
The post being discussed was about someone experiencing health effects due to having to wear a mask all day, probably over weeks/months at this stage.

It is comparable to smoking (as being another thing that obstructs breathing).
Smoking once a day may not harm most people, but it would harm some, and is probably better avoided completely.
Smoking all day for a few days/weeks won't kill a person, but long term, guaranteed they'll have respiratory issues - and covid is and will be a long-term phenomenon, in case that's not clear to people yet.

I'm sure you'll be able to back this up with peer-reviewed research

eleventh wrote: »

So if something doesn't cause immediate effects then it must cause no effects - ok, and that's fairly typical of the thinking today.
Wearing a mask for an hour every day won't harm most (not in the short-term anyway).
The post being discussed was about someone experiencing health effects due to having to wear a mask all day, probably over weeks/months at this stage.

It is comparable to smoking (as being another thing that obstructs breathing).
Smoking once a day may not harm most people, but it would harm some, and is probably better avoided completely.
Smoking all day for a few days/weeks won't kill a person, but long term, guaranteed they'll have respiratory issues - and covid is and will be a long-term phenomenon, in case that's not clear to people yet.

Masks are comparable to smoking? No they are not.
Statement without any foundation or merit.
Do masks come with nicotine tar and cancer causing substances?
You can write this utter crap but don't expect it to convince anyone.

All our dentists would be dead if this nonsense had any foundation.
There isn't a single iota of truth in anyting you have written.
You are talking nonsense.
Stop spreading fake news.

Hand in Your Pants

Graham wrote: »

nope

A doctor based in Dublin, Ireland, made a video showing him wearing six face masks to set the record straight on masks and their impact on oxygen levels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5npQivAmcE

Doctor is measuring oxygen level incorrectly.

Spiderman0081

odyssey06 wrote: »

I've seen the Swedish figures for covid-19 fatalities.
They are worse than ours even accounting for our screwups in nursing homes.
Thousands of unnecessary deaths.
I wouldn't be taking their advice on anything related to covid-19.
They are wrong on masks.

There's a whole thread on the forum about Sweden.
This is about masks.

I thought I was talking about masks. Ok I’ll go back to the Sweden forum. I didn’t mean to make noise in the church

eleventh wrote: »

The post being discussed was about someone experiencing health effects due to having to wear a mask all day, probably over weeks/months at this stage.

Like medical professionals the world over?

It's odd that they manage ok don't you think.

odyssey06 wrote: »

Masks are comparable to smoking? No they are not.
Statement without any foundation or merit.
Do masks come with nicotine tar and cancer causing substances?

I said they were comparable not "the same as" !

Spiderman0081 wrote: »

I thought I was talking about masks. Ok I’ll go back to the Sweden forum. I didn’t mean to make noise in the church

Looks like you just popped by to inform us you living in Stockholm, good for you. So you were pointed to Sweden thread.

Graham wrote: »

Like medical professionals the world over?

It's odd that they manage ok don't you think.

Didn't nurses and doctors have a higher incidence than the general population. Remembering back to March/April now. Mask wearing when the general population wasn't back then didn't seem to protect much.

eleventh wrote: »

I said they were comparable not "the same as" !

Yeah, poster didn't say they are the same as. God you would have to be in some outer space to say that. But just looking at my cigarette and my mask and have serious problem to compare them

Will need some guidelines..

eleventh wrote: »

Didn't nurses and doctors have a higher incidence than the general population. Remembering back to March/April now. Mask wearing when the general population wasn't back then didn't seem to protect much.

Of not being able to breath?

No, I don't think so.

Hand in Your Pants

robinph wrote: »

And incase you missed it, why does your desire to not wear a mask trump my right to live?

His right not to wear a mask absolutely trumps your 'right to live' as you call it. Your responsibility to protect yourself on the basis of your particular understanding of the virus, your understanding of the nature of transmission, and your understanding of the efficacy of masks is your business alone. Otherwise we would all be subject all of the time to the whims of hypochondriacs everywhere.

Hand in Your Pants wrote: »

His right not to wear a mask absolutely trumps your 'right to live' as you call it.

No, it really doesn't. Morally or legislatively.

saneman

eleventh wrote: »

I said they were comparable not "the same as" !

Yeah, you did.

You compared inhaling fumes/particles to something that can prevent inhaling of fumes/particles...

eleventh wrote: »

Didn't nurses and doctors have a higher incidence than the general population. Remembering back to March/April now. Mask wearing when the general population wasn't back then didn't seem to protect much.

You're changing the goalposts here in a dishonest manner.
You were talking about long term effects of general mask wearing.
An allegation clearly and very obviously demonstrably false by the example I cited.
I talked about healthcare staff as an example of people who have worn masks for decades during their duties. Where are these supposed health effects you are alleging?
Truth is they don't exist cos you are spreading fake science.

As for covid-19?
They were on the wrong people.
They should have been on the patients as well as the staff.
It's been clearly shown that most masks are more effective at reducing transmission by stopping an infected patient spreading it via droplets - than at actually directly protecting a wearer from the virus.
That's the reason so many health staff got infected in March, early April.
And why cases suddenly dropped in late April to May when the masks were used to prevent transmission.
It's the reason those countries which adopted masks early such as th Czech Republic had far fewer cases than places like Ireland which got it wrong at the start.

Hand in Your Pants wrote: »

His right not to wear a mask absolutely trumps your 'right to live' as you call it. Your responsibility to protect yourself on the basis of your particular understanding of the virus, your understanding of the nature of transmission, and your understanding of the efficacy of masks is your business alone. Otherwise we would all be subject all of the time to the whims of hypochondriacs everywhere.

Are you having some pr exercise here?

robinph

Spiderman0081 wrote: »

Try going for a ten mile run with a mask on. No wait don’t, every doctor in the world would advise against it. I wonder why

Pah, 10 miles is hardly worth getting out of bed for.

How about 22 miles?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/doctor-face-mask-oxygen-running-tom-lawton-yorkshire-a9633916.html%3famp

robinph

Hand in Your Pants wrote: »

His right not to wear a mask absolutely trumps your 'right to live' as you call it. Your responsibility to protect yourself on the basis of your particular understanding of the virus, your understanding of the nature of transmission, and your understanding of the efficacy of masks is your business alone. Otherwise we would all be subject all of the time to the whims of hypochondriacs everywhere.

My right to life is also protected by various other things, such as the requirement for you to follow traffic laws, or manufacturers having to comply with health and safety laws or chemical companies having to not contaminate the water supply, or people having to not drive drunk. Loads of laws which are for the benefit of people other than those who are being restricted by those laws

Nothing at all unusual about the government mandating something for you to do that is solely for the reduction in risks to others.

pjohnson

I wonder are some of these having issue with wearing a mask trying to deepthroat or consume the mask?

Maybe masks just need much much clearer instructions.

robinph wrote: »

Pah, 10 miles is hardly worth getting out of bed for.

How about 22 miles?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/doctor-face-mask-oxygen-running-tom-lawton-yorkshire-a9633916.html%3famp

They could set up a mask-wearing olympics, in a similar vein to those All you can eat contests they have in the US.
Extreme behaviour of individuals.

If they really want to test things, get a random sample of 100 mask-wearers off the street, see how they do running 1km or so. Have a control group of non-masked do the same. Repeat the test over time.

eleventh wrote: »

They could set up a mask-wearing olympics, in a similar vein to those All you can eat contests they have in the US.
Extreme behaviour of individuals.
If they really want to test things, get a random sample of 100 mask-wearers off the street, see how they do running 1km or so. Have a control group of non-masked do the same. Repeat the test over time.

You've given the game away by your "extreme behaviour" line.
Utterly absurd irrelevant and false comparison to the wearing of masks in everyday duties, shopping or on transport.
It's like using running a marathon as the basis for the long term effects of a daily jog.

To show how ridiculous your comparison is...
Let's have a control group of people of runners.
(a) Some are dressed in running shoes, shorts and a vest.
(b) Some are in tuxedos and dress shoes.
(c) Some are carrying a backpack and holding up an umbrella.
We could reasonably expect (a) to be fastest.

Does it tell us anything about the long term health effects of wearing a tuxedo and dress shoes?
Nope. Of course it doesn't.
Because it's a false comparison.

eleventh wrote: »

They could set up a mask-wearing olympics, in a similar vein to those All you can eat contests they have in the US.
Extreme behaviour of individuals.

If they really want to test things, get a random sample of 100 mask-wearers off the street, see how they do running 1km or so. Have a control group of non-masked do the same. Repeat the test over time.

Sry, back to image posting