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

To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

Options
1256257259261262289

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,493 ✭✭✭jackboy


    Masks will reduce the spread of these things, not eliminate the risk. So, is it also unmannerly to leave the house with a sniffle. If yes, for how long? Who decides on the extent to push these things to be considered mannerly.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭Don't Chute!


    No you have decided all of a sudden that it is unmannerly because you found this great new invention called a mask. Before Covid you never thought of it. Before Covid it was not unmannerly it was just real life. The fact that you have a new little toy to play with does not change that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,359 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


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



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭VG31


    German and Austrian state governments are planning on bringing back/expanding mask mandates.

    If you think Irish people are compliant Germany is a whole different level.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭Don't Chute!


    A world full of hypochondriacs constantly afraid of their own shadows and sanctimoniously judging everyone around them is not a world I want to live in.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 28,359 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Well none of us wanted to live in a world of covid.

    But your post almost sounds guilty like you know you should be wearing a mask. It gets to you.

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



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭Don't Chute!


    Not guilty at all, don’t know what you are talking about there. I won’t be wearing masks again and anywhere that asks me to will be losing my custom. I suspect I won’t be alone there.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭Don't Chute!


    Btw I don’t understand how your first sentence here relates to what I said.



  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,706 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Posts deleted

    The topic is masks - stick to it or you can expect to be banned from posting here



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,493 ✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Interested to hear what you would do if it were legally mandated? I'm sure we all hope they won't be mandated, and we know they are next to useless at preventing covid but this hasn't stopped our brave leaders in the past from silly laws



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If mask mandates work, why did we have huge waves of infections when they were in place?



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,359 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Define 'work'.

    In some places they were dropped, then brought back as the wave hit...

    They work by reducing transmission, viral load. Transmission doesn't only occur in places with masks. And even then, there's only so much masks can do if you have sustained close contact in the same space.

    The studies showed fewer cases where they were used, which is a reduction in the virus R number.

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



  • Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Assuming masks stop some amount of virus entering your nose and mouth - totally speculative - if you throw a 6 sided dice 100 times or an 8 sided one you are statistically almost certain to throw a 6.

    And which studies? The only one that was even vaguely in favour of masking was the Bangladeshi study. A Danish study showed no benefit.

    Again, if they work so well, why didn't they work? We had near 100% compliance in Ireland, yet had massive infection rates last winter.

    It doesn't matter what studies are produced, it's what happens in the real world that actually matters. And there were many studies that said smoking didn't cause lung cancer, and that x rays didn't cause fetal abnormalities.

    Considering masking is such a huge imposition on society, particularly for children and young adults, it should have very clear benefits that are demonstrable in the real world. No such benefits exist.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,359 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Droplets are thought to be the predominant method of transmission.

    They catch the large droplets as a barrier from someone wearing a mask.

    The smaller ones dissipate more quickly. So masks make distancing more effective.

     Cloth masks not only effectively block most large droplets (i.e., 20-30 microns and larger),9 but they can also block the exhalation of fine droplets and particles (also often referred to as aerosols) smaller than 10 microns3, 5 which increase in number with the volume of speech10-12 and specific types of phonation.13 Multi-layer cloth masks can both block 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles3, 14 and limit the forward spread of those that are not captured.5, 6, 15, 16 Upwards of 80% blockage has been achieved in human experiments

    The Danish one was a very limited study without mask mandates in place. Not directly relevant to mask mandates as the study expressly stated.

    The trial is inconclusive rather than negative, and it points to a likely benefit of mask wearing to the wearer—it did not examine the wider potential benefit of reduced spread of infection to others—and this even in a population where mask wearing isn’t mandatory and prevalence of infection is low. This finding is in keeping with summaries of evidence from Cochrane.

    https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/24/covid-19-controversial-trial-may-actually-show-that-masks-protect-the-wearer/

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



  • Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Droplets are NOT the primary method of transmission. This was debunked early on in the pandemic, but the WHO and others kept insisting on it.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00925-7



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,493 ✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Masks were never required in private homes or pubs, for obvious reasons, which is where most transmission occurs. COVID has been coming in waves, it'll go up and down regardless of what happens with mask mandates etc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,359 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Did you read the article you linked?

    On the science front, questions remain about how much of COVID-19 transmission is airborne

    Where does it say that droplets are not the primary method of transmission?

    The article does not debunk it and it is false and misleading to claim it does so.

    Further, nowhere does the article state that... and that lessens the case for mask mandates.

    On the contrary

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/health/239-experts-with-one-big-claim-the-coronavirus-is-airborne.html

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



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,493 ✭✭✭Red Silurian


    We trusted a lot of what the Chinese were saying at the time, probably wasn't the wisest of decisions in hindsight



  • Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Wow you are deeply embedded - it says it RIGHT IN THE SUBHEADING:

    Early in the pandemic, the World Health Organization stated that SARS-CoV-2 was not transmitted through the air. That mistake and the prolonged process of correcting it sowed confusion and raises questions about what will happen in the next pandemic.



  • Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Masks were required in pubs until 24th January 2022 - after we had experienced a massive infection wave and the government rightly recognised they were completely pointless. And are you suggesting we put cameras in everyone's home and force us to mask at all times? Because we are talking about the real world here, not some controlled experiment.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 28,359 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Eh, that's not what you were asked to show. And the subheading doesn't establish any of your previous claims.

    This is what the article says:

    On the science front, questions remain about how much of COVID-19 transmission is airborne

    This is what you are falsely claiming it disproves:

    Droplets are not the primary method of transmission

    You are deliberately misrepresenting the contents of the article with intent to mislead.#

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



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,204 ✭✭✭Spudman_20000


    Great to see some actual real questions being asked. Only took almost 3 years.

    Personally can't wait to see the "oodles of data" they produce to prove their effectiveness.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭Don't Chute!


    I won’t be wearing one. I fell for the fear and intimidation tactics once but won’t fall for it again.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,493 ✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Masks were never required in pubs, ok you had to wear it for the 5 minutes in the jacks but never when actually at a table drinking or eating, again, obvious reasons!

    I am in no way suggesting we should spy on people's personal homes but it's a fact that the main transmission locations were the home and the pub, places where mask mandates were not in place

    Fair enough but will you do that by actively breaking the law or just not go anywhere that requires a mask? Not judging, just wondering if you have a plan in this respect?



  • Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Masks were required in pubs and you were only allowed to take them off for drinking or eating. Another poster dismissed a Nature article on how the WHO failed to acknowledge that COVID was airborne. Jesus the denial is strong .... follow the science ... What a joke. Just be honest and admit it's a religious belief. Just like the Aztecs sacrificing their children for a good harvest or the Easter Islanders building those big heads. They said too that it worked despite the real world showing them it didn't.

    Literally millions infected last winter and people still claiming they work. Yeah, just like rosary beads and tinfoil hats work.

    It would be like claiming seatbelts work if thousands of people were launched through their front windscreens every year while wearing them.

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,989 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    They have nothing so they cling to "but droplets"...

    Completely failing to address simple fact that mask in this "but droplets" sense actually work for minuscule amount of time with hardly measurable benefit. The more you breath and cough and sneeze into it it just concentrate those magical virus laden droplets and they get pushed out with every subsequent breath cough or sneeze. But you know... Droplets...



  • Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Can't understand it. I think this best sums up the mentality :




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,989 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    I know. It is sometimes hard to follow simple logic. People these times talk about science instead of trying to think. I had mask on couple times last year when it was "mandated".

    Mask become wet within minutes from just breathing particularly when it is cold. When you sneeze or cough through such mask well... We all know what happens.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,469 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Writing for today's Indo, John Downing fears masks will be back in public places before long but he insists it's not all doom and gloom.

    'The combination of vaccinations and previous infections means we're going into this winter with a higher level of antibodies to protect us from the worst effects of Covid-19. Happily also, the hospitals have better medicines and more beds to care for people who are hit by the virus. The question of flu may be less positive.

    After two years of reduced contact and masking, our immune systems are more susceptible to infection in that sector. Some gloomy prophets suggest it could make for an explosive mix with the still-circulating Covid-19, even though the "ologists" insist that one is heading for the gate.'

    Do those people who think masks should still be mandatory not recognise the fact that restrictions have made us more likely to become seriously ill when we get the flu?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 28,359 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Where is it stated as a 'fact' that they are more likely to become seriously ill when we get the flu?

    There may be a concentration of cases that would otherwise have hit over the course of several years. Unclear how that is going to cause more serious illness. There were also many serious illnesses avoided in that period.

    A child who would have been exposed to flu at 4, now gets exposed at 5. How does that cause a more serious illness? Sounds like the opposite would be the case to me.

    There may be some limited protection from previous flu infection into the next year, which we don't have because flu was suppressed by masks and other restrictions - is that what is meant by 'more susceptible to infection'?

    But flu vaccines are rolled out annually because the strains year on year change so much, so this year on year protection must be limited.

    There was big uptake in flu vaccine last year, so that's a significant section of the population whose immune systems were challenged by a (weakened) strains of flu.

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



Advertisement