Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

1…457910…289

Comments

  • #182
    Sconsey
    Registered Users Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Sconsey


    Pitch n Putt wrote: »
    Cmo states differently.

    Private house gatherings been his latest source of transmission.

    Cases are going to happen if you want to live along side this virus.

    That’s Inevitable

    Cases are just cases once hospital admission is stable there is no need for this over cautious restrictive approach.

    It’s delaying the natural spread of the virus through society.

    Leading to long drawn out economic destruction.

    Admitedly I am reading between the lines here, but based on what you have posted now it looks like you might have a problem with masks because they are actually slowing down the spread of the virus? It seems like you are advocating a 'natural spread of the virus through society' and masks may be preventing that?
    You should just come out and say that if that is your thinking.


  • #183
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Pitch n Putt wrote: »
    It’s delaying the natural spread of the virus through society.

    That is the point.

    Delighted to see you accept that it's working.


  • #184
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Pitch n Putt wrote: »
    Very simple really

    Maybe perhaps hospitals are where maximum exposure is/was

    Maximum exposure is not running in to a shop for two minutes to pay for fuel etc.

    I thought you may have understood this by now.


    So you believe masks do work to reduce transmission and 'viral load' exists yes.

    Great you now understand this and it's all settled.

    Not really too hard to understand eh?


  • #185
    Seanergy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,446 ✭✭✭Seanergy


    Pitch n Putt wrote: »
    Would be no longer mandatory for public as frontline workers would take priority and rightly so.

    You actually believe face coverings would no longer be mandatory for the public if in the future their is a shortage of masks for frontline HCW's?

    Please explain your logic.


  • #186
    Seanergy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,446 ✭✭✭Seanergy


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Wait til the muggings increase, as scummers realise that disguising your identity is now normal.

    I reckon me ma would prefer some twat snatched her purse than gave her covid.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Pitch n Putt
    Registered Users Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Pitch n Putt


    Graham wrote: »
    That is the point.

    Delighted to see you accept that it's working.

    What’s the purpose of continuing like this with masks restrictions etc when 99% of people who get it barely know they have it and are recovered in a week.

    Maybe you and a few more here want to live like this indefinitely but I and millions more in this country have no desire to exist like this.


  • #188
    Pitch n Putt
    Registered Users Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Pitch n Putt


    Seanergy wrote: »
    You actually believe face coverings would no longer be mandatory for the public if in the future their is a shortage of masks for frontline HCW's?

    Please explain your logic.

    Lad that was the excuse the pro maskers used when mask weren’t mandatory during peak transmission of March ,April ,May

    The pro maskers claimed it was due to supply shortages.


  • #189
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Pitch n Putt wrote: »
    What’s the purpose of continuing like this with masks restrictions etc when 99% of people who get it barely know they have it and are recovered in a week.

    You're making up statistics?

    It doesn't help your point you know.


  • #190
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Pitch n Putt wrote: »
    Lad that was the excuse the pro maskers used when mask weren’t mandatory during peak transmission of March ,April ,May

    The pro maskers claimed it was due to supply shortages.

    100%. They were saying you could use any oul scarf/T-shirt etc. No shortage of them.


  • #191
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Pitch n Putt wrote: »
    The pro maskers claimed it was due to supply shortages.

    Probably because of the supply shortages.

    Is there some conspiracy theory I'm unfamiliar with?


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Graham wrote: »
    Probably because of the supply shortages.

    Is there some conspiracy theory I'm unfamiliar with?

    The great Irish scarf famine. I remember it well.


  • #193
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 27,793 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Pitch n Putt wrote: »
    What’s the purpose of continuing like this with masks restrictions etc when 99% of people who get it barely know they have it and are recovered in a week.

    Please provide a source for this claim as it appears to be utter nonsense.
    And when I say source I dont mean a crank on youtube.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • #194
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    In fairness quite a lot of people struggle with basic percentages.

    Up to midnight 08/09/2020

    Total number of confirmed cases 30,164
    Total number of cases hospitalised 3,435

    A shade under 11.5%


  • #195
    Pitch n Putt
    Registered Users Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Pitch n Putt


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    Please provide a source for this claim as it appears to be utter nonsense.
    And when I say source I dont mean a crank on youtube.



    However, early estimates predict that the overall COVID-19 recovery rate is between 97% and 99.75%.

    Source WebMD surely as trust worthy as Wikipedia


  • #196
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 27,793 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Pitch n Putt wrote: »
    However, early estimates predict that the overall COVID-19 recovery rate is between 97% and 99.75%.
    Source WebMD surely as trust worthy as Wikipedia

    What is this post about.
    It bears no relation to your previous claim that 99% of people barely even know they have had it.
    This is a deliberate abuse of statistics which you are now twisting to a totally different meaning.
    The recovered includes people who were hospitalised and discharged, which you must be aware of when you posted that figure.

    I repeat - your claim is utter nonsense without foundation.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • #197
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    What is this post about.
    It bears no relation to your previous claim that 99% of people barely even know they have had it.

    Shhhh, we're trying to gloss over that ;)


    The MO is; make a false claim, fail to substantiate it, scurry onto the next claim and hope nobody notices.


  • #198
    dwayneshintzy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,343 ✭✭✭dwayneshintzy


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    100%. They were saying you could use any oul scarf/T-shirt etc. No shortage of them.
    Out of interest, have you been asked to produce your fraudulent doctor's note for not wearing a mask yet?


  • #199
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    s1ippy wrote: »
    Thanks so much, vast majority of fellow citizens.

    To people with underlying conditions who may have poor outcomes from covid, it means a great deal to be able to move around in public and be less at risk because of the actions of everyone around them. You're protecting yourselves from adverse effects of the virus too, but plenty choose not to bother themselves or want to make some sort of stand. Moreover, if you're not putting yourselves at risk of infection you'll be less of a risk to everyone else generally. So nice one for being selfless enough to go to the trouble of buying and wearing the mask.

    THIS. I add my thanks to S1ippy's, to everyone who feels they may not need to wear a mask, but does so anyway, in order to protect others.

    Mask-3.png


  • #200
    Seanergy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,446 ✭✭✭Seanergy


    Pitch n Putt wrote: »
    Lad that was the excuse the pro maskers used when mask weren’t mandatory during peak transmission of March ,April ,May

    The pro maskers claimed it was due to supply shortages.

    How can anyone take you seriously when you are unable to answer a straight question to the claims you spew in previous posts?

    BTW masks have never been mandatory, your going to have to start distinguishing between masks and face coverings.


  • #201
    Pitch n Putt
    Registered Users Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Pitch n Putt


    Seanergy wrote: »
    How can anyone take you seriously when you are unable to answer a straight question to the claims you spew in previous posts?

    BTW masks have never been mandatory, your going to have to start distinguishing between masks and face coverings.

    Similar to all the claims from the pro mask side.

    Two sides to every story.

    Face coverings are completely useless as the variation of fabrics used in their production renders them nothing but an optical means.

    I could make one from a sieve and put it on ...

    Would that be any addition in reducing anything??

    No it wouldn’t

    Surgical masks are surgical mask for a reason.

    But we hadn’t them in the beginning so nothing was mentioned about masks etc until supplies were secured

    Secured for a kings ransom I might add.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Pitch n Putt wrote: »
    Similar to all the claims from the pro mask side.

    Two sides to every story.

    Like the fact 1% is nothing like 11.4%?

    What's the 'other side to that?


  • #203
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    dwayneshintzy wrote: »
    Out of interest, have you been asked to produce your fraudulent doctor's note for not wearing a mask yet?

    No, haven't even seen a Garda checkpoint ensuring that the law is being adhered to. They had them previously to make sure people stayed within the 2km/5km, but haven't seen one of them on mask patrol. It's almost as if they have better things to be doing.


  • #204
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Tired332 wrote: »
    If this really was a deadly pandemic we wouldn't need to be rushing to test everybody to prove it exists. People would actually be sick . Hospitals would be full. People you actually know would be dead. None of that exists in reality, but instead only on your television , and newspapers. Healthy people locked up suppressing their immunity for the past 7months and now we are coming into winter( ?flu season) .Every other year the flu killed people where was the big pandemic then.

    Edit: yes I wear a mask , but I do not think it makes a difference as it harbour more germs.

    People I know are dead.


  • #205
    Seanergy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,446 ✭✭✭Seanergy


    Pitch n Putt wrote: »
    Similar to all the claims from the pro mask side.

    Face coverings are completely useless as the variation of fabrics used in their production renders them nothing but an optical means.

    I could make one from a sieve and put it on ...

    Would that be any addition in reducing anything??

    No it wouldn’t

    At this point your just spewing, you have been asked questions regarding your statements but you chose to ignore them and bull on with more statements.

    What you have said regarding face coverings is absolute horse.

    If you put a modified sieve on your head at least we would have a chance of straining some of the bull, btw it would not be called a face covering it would still be referred to as a sieve, oh look that lad with a sieve on his face.


  • #206
    moonage
    Registered Users Posts: 794 ✭✭✭moonage


    Graham wrote: »
    In fairness quite a lot of people struggle with basic percentages.

    Up to midnight 08/09/2020

    Total number of confirmed cases 30,164
    Total number of cases hospitalised 3,435

    A shade under 11.5%

    You forgot to factor in the vast number of people with no or mild symptoms who were positive but never got tested so aren't included in the confirmed "cases".

    This will drive the infection/hospitalistion rate closer to 0% than your fanciful 11.5%.


  • #207
    moonage
    Registered Users Posts: 794 ✭✭✭moonage


    Sconsey wrote: »
    There is a pile of research out there that says mask reduce the risk of spreading the virus, that is proven not speculation.

    Could someone link to the two or three strongest pieces of research that prove that masks reduce the spread of the virus.


  • #208
    Elmer Blooker
    Registered Users Posts: 6,028 ✭✭✭Elmer Blooker


    moonage wrote: »
    Could someone link to the two or three strongest pieces of research that prove that masks reduce the spread of the virus.
    Expect a link to a 'recent study' by the John Hopkins Centre. :P


  • #209
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 27,793 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    moonage wrote: »
    You forgot to factor in the vast number of people with no or mild symptoms who were positive but never got tested so aren't included in the confirmed "cases".
    This will drive the infection/hospitalistion rate closer to 0% than your fanciful 11.5%.

    So what you are also forgetting is that you have excluded people who were sicker than that but didn't reqiure hospitalisation. Mild symptoms does not mean no hospitalisation.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • #210
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    moonage wrote: »
    You forgot to factor in the vast number of people with no or mild symptoms who were positive but never got tested so aren't included in the confirmed "cases".

    This will drive the infection/hospitalistion rate closer to 0% than your fanciful 11.5%.

    Would I be correct in assuming you'll be unable to back-up that claim too?


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Agreed
    My father in law was 89 and had underline heart condition for 25 years. His heart wouldn't have given out if he didn't have Covid-19. He might have died weeks or years later of natural cause but for catching Covid-19.

    His death was most definitely caused by Covid-19.

    My condolences to you and your family. My mother was a resident in a nursing home for over 3 and a half years, due to slowly progressing dementia. She was considered to be in very good physical health for her age (81). She died 20 days after showing her first symptom (a cough) back in April. I have no reason to believe she wouldn't have lived for quite a while longer, only for coming into contact with Covid19.


Advertisement