Hunky Monster wrote: » wake up.
this is an undeniable FACT
it is written in stone.
Hunky Monster wrote: » have a look at what's in store for us all if you don't wake up.
bush wrote: » I wear masks at work. We have been given 2. Honestly if I take a drink or adjust my mask or whatever I don't wash my hands mevermind change masks. Who could be bothered to do that?
BattleCorp wrote: » People who want to wear them correctly and minimise the risk of spreading COVID-19.
howareyakid wrote: » I have a question about reusable cotton masks: If in a workplace or if out and about in an environment whereby you might have to take off your mask/face-covering numerous times e.g. to eat, drink etc.; can you put back on the same mask again or do you need to get another one? To date, I've been putting my mask into a plastic bag and into my pocket and reusing it. I sanitise my hands after touching mask and try to only touch it by the ear-loops. It's recently came to my attention that this may be wrong, however, in terms of the need to use multiple plastic bags and having multiple masks/coverings so that as soon as one takes off one, it won't be used again until washed. In that case, one would need quite a few masks/face-coverings per day I guess. I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts/advice on correct mask use.
bush wrote: » Do you wear a mask for 8 hours a day?
zerosugarbuzz wrote: » I have been wearing one from the beginning but do think its less important now than it was in March, still wearing it though,
RoYoBo wrote: » Coronavirus aside, I'd be worried about cross-contamination, given your job in food preparation. I thought that frequent hand-washing was a must in those circumstances to comply with health regulations? And not touching your face, nose or mouth, with or without a mask? I'm probably just being naive, but it's another reason for me not to eat out ...
smurfjed wrote: » Sorry but the HEALTH PASSPORT IRELAND concept is presently useless as most countries want a test conducted within 72 hours prior to arrival, plus these tests are only valid at the moment of the test.
patnor1011 wrote: » It may be offered or eventually ordered as a means to track vaccination as soon as they proclaim some of them working and move to mass vaccination.
Boggles wrote: » It is more important now. Forget March, if we were all wearing them in early February we wouldn't have had the infection rate we did. As for people recommending against their use, it was a pretty transparent lie, probably noble at the start, but to keep it up long after supply issues were gone was silly in the extreme.
joeguevara wrote: » Everything he says is correct. I never thought I’d do this as a person who advocates wearing masks, but this guy should not be putting out videos as he does more harm than good. If I was anti mask the first thing I’d point out is this guy is not a medical doctor. He uses DR but is a doctor of Philosophy from Bolton university teaching bioscience in nurse education. He has no expertise in viruses and his main role is development of multimedia resources for nurses. The fact that his videos could be used as expertise makes it easier for others to denigrate it. This guy is basically a fraud (with decent facts).
_Kaiser_ wrote: » Infection rates/new cases mean nothing. Outcome of cases is the important details and those are overwhelmingly positive. The risk to the majority of the population is minimal. But if we want to focus on cases, masks didn't stop the numbers dropping between May and July, nor have they stopped them increasing since. Plus they're not used properly by many people anyway so they are at best ineffective. "But, it's to stop others catching the virus from you". Grand.. I'm not sick, haven't been sick, live alone, and because I have a full time job from home I don't generally go out much during the week anyway. Why should I be legally forced to wear a mask that is nothing more than a placebo for most (assuming they care at all at this stage) If you're at risk because of age or existing medical conditions or lower immunity then absolutely mask up. If you're fearful of catching the virus then work away, but forcing this measure on everyone in a scenario where almost no one is dying at this point, few need hospitalisation and even fewer need ICU care is becoming increasingly untenable as the days roll by.
saneman wrote: » I'd say what you're doing is fine insofar as your sanitising your hands regularly when wearing/adjusting your mask and avoid touching the fabric. It's about minimising risk, it will never be zero. I use the same mask during the day when in similar situations to what you mention (with a spare available should it be needed). If i need to take off my mask I hang it from a belt loop using one of those cheap aluminium carabiners. I handle it using ear loops only, without the need to touch the fabric. The ones I use have a nose wire & the fit doesn't need to be adjusted, I wear glasses and haven't had any issues.
Seanergy wrote: » Masks key to reducing Covid-19 deaths in Ireland, say US experts. IT article link.
moonage wrote: » What is the legal situation regarding someone who is exempt from face covering "because of a physical or mental illness or a disability, or because it would cause you severe distress". Do they have to have documentation from a doctor? If not, do they have to have to state what their illness/disability is? In the UK people with exemptions do not have to prove it. Is it the same here?
Hunky Monster wrote: » As far as I know a Gard can’t ask you what your illness is. I know in the UK it’s something like 10k in damages are awarded if the police insist on knowing your medical issues.
Hunky Monster wrote: » As far as I know a Gard can’t ask you what your illness is.
Graham wrote: » Where did you discover that from? I wouldn't mind taking a look at the official position.
joeguevara wrote: » There is no definitive position but, my post above is my best interpretation. Another analogy is if you are absent from work, your employer can require evidence that you were will but not of the exact illness. This idea you can blankly refuse to provide adequate information is simply not true.
