Masks

GT89

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

Seanergy wrote: »

Common trend across Europe is mask wearing. It was said early on that masks will reduce the viral load and therefore reduce mortality was it not?

Well if mask wearing is effective why are cases up thought the idea of masks was to stop the spread of the virus. Secondly if mask wearing reduces viral loads and protects the induvidual from the virus then it shouldn't be mandatory if I want to not wear one and put myself "at risk" then that should my prerogative.

Ha Long Bay

GT89 wrote: »

Well if mask wearing is effective why are cases up thought the idea of masks was to stop the spread of the virus.

Secondly if mask wearing reduces viral loads and protects the individual from the virus then it shouldn't be mandatory if I want to not wear one and put myself "at risk" then that should my prerogative.

Are either of these questions actually genuine or are you just attempting to get a reaction?

They have both been answered multiple times already in this and other threads.

Hrududu

MadYaker wrote: »

No we weren't. You do this constantly. Just make up random events from the past that never happened to justify some nonsense point. Makes you sound like a nutter. Can you find a single headline from anywhere about people dropping dead in the streets from covid?

To be fair, and I’m not sure if the poster is thinking about the same thing I am. I don’t remember there being headlines or any legit reports of that happening. But it was one of those things flying around in the early days. People were sharing YouTube videos of people falling down in the street and saying it was people in China who had Covid. In fact if you go back to one of the earlier threads on here you will probably find posts from people who were convinced the videos were real and who were freaking out about it. I remember at the time some people questioning the veracity of the videos. But when this was in the early days there were definitely people online stirring the pot by sharing things like that.

Edit: Found an article discussing the videos and questioning the authenticity. I feel dirty as it’s the daily mail. But just an example that these things were going around at the time:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7923981/Coronavirus-Disturbing-videos-claim-people-collapsing-Wuhan.html

Away With The Fairies

Yes: valved

GT89 wrote: »

Well if mask wearing is effective why are cases up thought the idea of masks was to stop the spread of the virus. Secondly if mask wearing reduces viral loads and protects the induvidual from the virus then it shouldn't be mandatory if I want to not wear one and put myself "at risk" then that should my prerogative.

Did you hear about the mask protest last week? All those people that attended, that's the reason cases are going up.

bush

No: other

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

Did you hear about the mask protest last week? All those people that attended, that's the reason cases are going up.

No its not

Loafing Oaf

No: I don't care enough

wadacrack wrote: »

https://twitter.com/tinssoldier/status/1298101693247193089

After a woman with the coronavirus visited a Starbucks cafe north of Seoul this month, more than two dozen patrons tested positive days later.

:eek:

Can we call her a super-duper spreader?
What was she doing, going round sneezing on people?

GT89

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

Did you hear about the mask protest last week? All those people that attended, that's the reason cases are going up.

Where was the BLM spike in numbers then?

Away With The Fairies

Yes: valved

bush wrote: »

No its not

Maybe not those people at the protests. It's still early days for symptoms to show up.

But there's guaranteed more anti maskers around the country.

Away With The Fairies

Yes: valved

GT89 wrote: »

Where was the BLM spike in numbers then?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/black-lives-matter-protest-takes-place-in-dublin-1.4272820%3fmode=amp

A video from BLM protests in Dublin. What do you see on their faces?

GT89

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/black-lives-matter-protest-takes-place-in-dublin-1.4272820%3fmode=amp

A video from BLM protests in Dublin. What do you see on their faces?

They weren't all wearing masks. Plenty were not

Graham

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/black-lives-matter-protest-takes-place-in-dublin-1.4272820%3fmode=amp

A video from BLM protests in Dublin. What do you see on their faces?

Good to see so many wearing masks even back almost 2 months.

GT89

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

Zoom in can clearly see some not wearing muzzles
https://twitter.com/deric_tv/status/1267536903823396864?s=19

Away With The Fairies

Yes: valved

GT89 wrote: »

Zoom in can clearly see some not wearing muzzles
https://twitter.com/deric_tv/status/1267536903823396864?s=19

The majority of them were. The two protests cannot be compared. The majority of people at the BLM protests were wearing masks... And people at the anti-mask protest weren't.

Ha Long Bay

GT89 wrote: »

Zoom in can clearly see some not wearing muzzles
https://twitter.com/deric_tv/status/1267536903823396864?s=19

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

The majority of them were. The two protests cannot be compared. The majority of people at the BLM protests were wearing masks... And people at the anti-mask protest weren't.

Don't waste your time replying or taking them serious hopefully the bridge will collapse soon.

GT89

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

The majority of them were. The two protests cannot be compared. The majority of people at the BLM protests were wearing masks... And people at the anti-mask protest weren't.

But all it takes is a few people not wearing them to spread it by your logic. It wasn't only BLM no masks at any of Gemma and John Waters' protests either and no spike in numbers. It's not the majority it's literally about 50/50 in that photo.

Graham

GT89 wrote: »

all it takes is a few people not wearing them to spread it

all the more reason for everyone to wear them.

GT89

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

Graham wrote: »

all the more reason for everyone to wear them.

I was responding to a poster who was accusing the spike in cv19 figures on a protest that took place on Custom House Quay in Dublin where the vast majority of protestors did not wear muzzles. I refuted this by saying there was no spike after BLM protests in Dublin despite only some protestor wearing muzzles

gozunda

Yes: surgical

Spiderman0081 wrote: »

Finland has spent a few million euros testing kids in school for coranavirus up to the age of 10. The goal was to see if there is any evidence that kids that have returned to school are spreaders of the virus and if so, are masks necessary for children. 11,000 children were tested after returning to school. 5 children tested positive, 0.045%.

I would presume that the design of any such study would have been carried out on a phased basis and not presumably on the immediate return of children to school.

Otherwise the results are meaningless tbh.

washman3

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

The majority of them were. The two protests cannot be compared. The majority of people at the BLM protests were wearing masks... And people at the anti-mask protest weren't.

A person attending an anti-mask protest wouldn't generally wear a mask...;)

From what i can see from the BLM protest a large amount of them wore masks to hide their identity rather than worrying about a virus.
As for some of those that were wearing them, take a good look at the state of them..!! The mask was actually doing them a big favour....

Tokyo

GT89 wrote: »

I was responding to a poster who was accusing the spike in cv19 figures on a protest that took place on Custom House Quay in Dublin where the vast majority of protestors did not wear muzzles. I refuted this by saying there was no spike after BLM protests in Dublin despite only some protestor wearing muzzles

GT89 wrote: »

Zoom in can clearly see some not wearing muzzles

Mod: the 'muzzles' rhetoric has been called out again and again at this stage, and you refuse to listen. Don't post in the thread again please.

bodhrandude

Yes: surgical

GT89 wrote: »

I was responding to a poster who was accusing the spike in cv19 figures on a protest that took place on Custom House Quay in Dublin where the vast majority of protestors did not wear muzzles. I refuted this by saying there was no spike after BLM protests in Dublin despite only some protestor wearing muzzles

Muzzles are for preventing sheep dogs from biting sheep, pretty different from masks I think, I'm sure some poster was warned in the past, maybe you about mentioning muzzles.

Spiderman0081

gozunda wrote: »

I would presume that the design of any such study would have been carried out on a phased basis and not presumably on the immediate return of children to school.

Otherwise the results are meaningless tbh.

You would presume correctly

McGiver

No: I don't care enough

odyssey06 wrote:

Czech repulic didn't follow the European agenda on masks in Spring and look at how many lives they saved by showing initiative. They are the example we should be following.

That's right. Actually, the Czech epidemiologists challenged the WHO re masks. That's what you call leadership.

There was no European agenda, the EU has no Competence in health care and it was all just chaotic - Italy, Spain, France and UK were struggling to think what to do.

patnor1011

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

Maybe not those people at the protests. It's still early days for symptoms to show up.

But there's guaranteed more anti maskers around the country.

Can you please clarify something for me? I am genuinely confused here. I am getting lost in this modern way of talking - mainly where some labels are being applied and then used to prove some point.
It seems to me that if we say "anti maskers" we mean people who are against masks. They do not want them and they do not want others in them. It seems pretty straightforward but how do we label everyone else then? If we are to going to call each other by some names which are usually derogatory should we all do it then?

If people are for wearing a mask is it ok to call them "masker"? Is it sufficiently insulting or should we come up with more punching name?

Then there is even more complicated problem. How do we call people who have nothing against other people wearing masks yet will not wear them themselves for one reason or another. They clearly are not "maskers" or "anti maskers". What are they?

Seanergy

Yes: valved

GT89 wrote: »

Well if mask wearing is effective why are cases up thought the idea of masks was to stop the spread of the virus. Secondly if mask wearing reduces viral loads and protects the induvidual from the virus then it shouldn't be mandatory if I want to not wear one and put myself "at risk" then that should my prerogative.

You thought wrong so, only a respirator with dual filtering can stop the spread of the virus, all other masks can only help to reduce the spread.

weldoninhio

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

patnor1011 wrote: »

Can you please clarify something for me? I am genuinely confused here. I am getting lost in this modern way of talking - mainly where some labels are being applied and then used to prove some point.
It seems to me that if we say "anti maskers" we mean people who are against masks. They do not want them and they do not want others in them. It seems pretty straightforward but how do we label everyone else then? If we are to going to call each other by some names which are usually derogatory should we all do it then?

If people are for wearing a mask is it ok to call them "masker"? Is it sufficiently insulting or should we come up with more punching name?

Then there is even more complicated problem. How do we call people who have nothing against other people wearing masks yet will not wear them themselves for one reason or another. They clearly are not "maskers" or "anti maskers". What are they?

I would use zealots for the "everyone must bow down to the cult of masks" people. It's an almost religious fanaticism.

Anti-maskers is ok for those totally opposed to anyone who doesn't want masks on anyone.

Those who don't care wither way and would prefer not to wear a mask, but is happy to let others make their own minds up. I'd call them rational.

odyssey06

patnor1011 wrote: »

Can you please clarify something for me? I am genuinely confused here. I am getting lost in this modern way of talking - mainly where some labels are being applied and then used to prove some point.
It seems to me that if we say "anti maskers" we mean people who are against masks. They do not want them and they do not want others in them. It seems pretty straightforward but how do we label everyone else then? If we are to going to call each other by some names which are usually derogatory should we all do it then?
If people are for wearing a mask is it ok to call them "masker"? Is it sufficiently insulting or should we come up with more punching name?

Then there is even more complicated problem. How do we call people who have nothing against other people wearing masks yet will not wear them themselves for one reason or another. They clearly are not "maskers" or "anti maskers". What are they?

I don't know if you are just trying to rile people up.

Obviously if one side is anti- something.
The other side is usually categorised as pro- something.
In fact it is strange something so obvious did not occur to you.

Pro-mask
Anti-mask
a la carte \ laissez faire

xhomelezz

Yes: valved

weldoninhio wrote: »

I would use zealots for the "everyone must bow down to the cult of masks" people. It's an almost religious fanaticism.

Anti-maskers is ok for those totally opposed to anyone who doesn't want masks on anyone.

Those who don't care wither way and would prefer not to wear a mask, but is happy to let others make their own minds up. I'd call them rational.

Seriously??

odyssey06

weldoninhio wrote: »

I would use zealots for the "everyone must bow down to the cult of masks" people. It's an almost religious fanaticism.
Anti-maskers is ok for those totally opposed to anyone who doesn't want masks on anyone.
Those who don't care wither way and would prefer not to wear a mask, but is happy to let others make their own minds up. I'd call them rational.

Oh look, it's argument by labelling again.
When you can't oppose the other sides arguments, resort to name calling and sloganising.

Classic de-baiting trick, try to turn it into a mud-slinging match.

weldoninhio

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

odyssey06 wrote: »

Oh look, it's argument by labelling again.
When you can't oppose the other sides arguments, resort to name calling and sloganising.

Classic de-baiting trick, try to turn it into a mud-slinging match.

I gave my opinion on an question asking for opinions on a discussion thread. Shock Horror!! :rolleyes:

xhomelezz

Yes: valved

weldoninhio wrote: »

I would use zealots for the "everyone must bow down to the cult of masks" people. It's an almost religious fanaticism.

Anti-maskers is ok for those totally opposed to anyone who doesn't want masks on anyone.

Those who don't care wither way and would prefer not to wear a mask, but is happy to let others make their own minds up. I'd call them rational.

Labeling started by you and your fanclub calling anyone advocating use of masks by mask nazis, maskzis etc. Of course the minute you run out of any credible argument you need to go zealots way. Couple weeks ago you were saying there's no Covid-19 in Ireland anymore, there is some wisdom hiding in your posts

odyssey06

weldoninhio wrote: »

I gave my opinion on an question asking for opinions on a discussion thread. Shock Horror!! :rolleyes:

What kind of discussion is possible when you put out posts like that re: zealots and categorising one side implicitly as irrational?
None whatsosever.
It's not a discussion, it just becomes a shouting match of slogans and labels.
You are just baiting the other side into responding in kind to take the thread off course.

extra gravy

Those that don't wear masks are the "rational" ones now. Comical.

weldoninhio

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

xhomelezz wrote: »

Labeling started by you and your fanclub calling anyone advocating use of masks by mask nazis, maskzis etc. Of course the minute you run out of any credible argument you need to go zealots way. Couple weeks ago you were saying there's no Covid-19 in Ireland anymore, there is some wisdom hiding in your posts

I believe Covidiot was used long before maskzi or anything else. :rolleyes:

weldoninhio

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

odyssey06 wrote: »

What kind of discussion is possible when you put out posts like that re: zealots and categorising one side implicitly as irrational?
None whatsosever.
It's not a discussion, it just becomes a shouting match of slogans and labels.
You are just baiting the other side into responding in kind to take the thread off course.

Look, you lads are mad for the masks, fair enough. But you admit to not following the guidelines for the safe wearing of them. Ye are hypocrites, and yes zealots.

xhomelezz

Yes: valved

weldoninhio wrote: »

Look, you lads are mad for the masks, fair enough. But you admit to not following the guidelines for the safe wearing of them. Ye are hypocrites, and yes zealots.

Nice try, especially from someone like you.

odyssey06

weldoninhio wrote: »

Look, you lads are mad for the masks, fair enough. But you admit to not following the guidelines for the safe wearing of them. Ye are hypocrites, and yes zealots.

'Mad'
'Hypocrites'
'Zealots'

I'm not going to take the bait.
We already rebutted your guidelines query multiple times already.
Come back when you want to debate not de-bait.

Jim_Hodge

Yes: homemade

weldoninhio wrote: »

Look, you lads are mad for the masks, fair enough. But you admit to not following the guidelines for the safe wearing of them. Ye are hypocrites, and yes zealots.

You need to take a break and relax. People who wear masks and can see some benefit from them are not necessarily rejoicing in having to wear them. Neither are they hypocrites nor zealots.

You've been banging this drum from day one with every excuse under the sun for not wearing one - even feigning illness and getting a fraudulent letter to excuse you - it would appear you're more of the zealot.

plodder

France to focus on face masks as it plans €100bn stimulus package

We must summon the French ambassador at once, to inform him of the error in this plan and that they are in fact hypocrites and zealots.

Sconsey

No: other

xhomelezz wrote: »

Nice try, especially from someone like you.

Yes, never forget who you are talking to....Weldoninhio the liar. In case anyone forgets this guy is lieing about having a mental illness so he can avoid wearing a mask on public transport. Take everything he says with a large pinch of salt. He is obviously an outlier and I would treat him as such.

weldoninhio

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

odyssey06 wrote: »

'Mad'
'Hypocrites'
'Zealots'

I'm not going to take the bait.
We already rebutted your guidelines query multiple times already.
Come back when you want to debate not de-bait.

You rebutted nothing. You buried your head in the sand. I gave you the link and everything. Suddenly the word of the govt scientists on how to wear a mask safely were only guidelines and didn't really matter.

Loafing Oaf

No: I don't care enough

ginoginelli wrote: »

I'm seeing a lot of people wearing a different type of visor. These ones barely go down to the mouth, so if the wearer raises his chin slightly basically the whole face is exposed.

Why the f#$% are the goverment even allowing these things? They offer little to none protection and give a false sense of security.

We are so behind in this country on covid preventive measures its embarrassing. Embarrassing and dangerous.

Still a lot of retail staff wearing the visors. I thought they would be largely filtered out by this stage, but wWord doesn't seem to be getting around that they're not much help.

patnor1011

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

odyssey06 wrote: »

I don't know if you are just trying to rile people up.

Obviously if one side is anti- something.
The other side is usually categorised as pro- something.
In fact it is strange something so obvious did not occur to you.

Pro-mask
Anti-mask
a la carte \ laissez faire

Sure. You are correct up to the point when it is used as an insult.
Anti-mask is way different than anti masker.
Almost everyone here who used the term "anti masker" did so in a way as to make fun of people who are against wearing a mask.
So it seems that "pro masker" is acceptable choice to label anyone who do use "anti masker" term. It is pretty obvious too, right?

patnor1011

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Still a lot of retail staff wearing the visors. I thought they would be largely filtered out by this stage, but wWord doesn't seem to be getting around that they're not much help.

They will not be "filtered" out. They are recommended for people with asthma or people with mental issues who can not wear a mask. Get used to seeing them around.
Ireland has the 4th highest prevalence of asthma worldwide. Approximately 470,000 people affected (1 in 8 of population) ... Asthma is the commonest chronic disease in childhood and the most common respiratory condition in Ireland.
- 890,000 people in Ireland experience asthma at some stage of their life.
- 380,000 people in Ireland currently have asthma.
- 1 in 13 people in Ireland currently have asthma.
- 1 in 10 children currently have asthma.

robinph

No: I don't care enough

... but don't let people be using the excuse of having a bit of asthma as a reason to not wear a mask.

If your asthma is that bad you cannot wear a mask then you need an urgent trip to the GP to get your medication checked out, and how you are taking it. People with asthma are still way better off wearing a mask in the majority of cases, and whilst it's not relevant with this weeks weather where I am, I'm kind of hoping that masks are still socially acceptable thing to wear in the street next spring/ summer as it helps a hell of a lot with the hay-fever too.

Hopefully not a requirement to wear a mask next summer, but for it not to look weird would be fantastic for me.

Loafing Oaf

No: I don't care enough

patnor1011 wrote: »

They will not be "filtered" out. They are recommended for people with asthma or people with mental issues who can not wear a mask. Get used to seeing them around.

I'd estimate one in three of the retail staff, many quite young, I saw this morning were wearing a visor (or no mask at all). I can't believe all of these have a legit medical reason for this.

odyssey06

patnor1011 wrote: »

They will not be "filtered" out. They are recommended for people with asthma or people with mental issues who can not wear a mask. Get used to seeing them around.
Ireland has the 4th highest prevalence of asthma worldwide. Approximately 470,000 people affected (1 in 8 of population) ... Asthma is the commonest chronic disease in childhood and the most common respiratory condition in Ireland.
- 890,000 people in Ireland experience asthma at some stage of their life.
- 380,000 people in Ireland currently have asthma.
- 1 in 13 people in Ireland currently have asthma.

They are not recommended for people 'with asthma'.
Please find me where there is a general recommendation that asthmatics should wear visors instead of masks?

Those are the total numbers with no distinction of severity or nature of the asthma.
Asthma can be well managed, exercise \ allergy induced, moderate, severe.

The number of people with actual asthma and anxiety issues so severe they cannot wear a mask is a tiny fraction of the number of people using it as an excuse, or going around with visors on.
And if your asthma is that severe an enclosed public space during a respiratory virus pandemic is not where you should be.
Many many actual asthmatics are going around wearing masks while shopping.

Most people with asthma, even if it’s severe, can manage to wear a face mask or covering for a short period of time, and shouldn't worry if they need to wear one.
https://www.asthma.org.uk/advice/triggers/coronavirus-covid-19/what-should-people-with-asthma-do-now/

weldoninhio

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

You need to take a break and relax. People who wear masks and can see some benefit from them are not necessarily rejoicing in having to wear them. Neither are they hypocrites nor zealots.

You've been banging this drum from day one with every excuse under the sun for not wearing one - even feigning illness and getting a fraudulent letter to excuse you - it would appear you're more of the zealot.

Hands up if you are following all of the below from the HSPC. Otherwise you are doing it wrong and your mask is pointless.

If you choose to use a cloth face covering:

Do

• Do remember that proper hand hygiene is essential and remains a priority.
• Check that the face covering is made from a fabric that you are comfortable wearing.
• Check that the face covering is suitable for laundering at a temperature of at least 60 degrees celsius.
• Check that the face coverings are easy to fit and completely cover your nose and mouth.
• Carry the unused face covering in a sealable clean waterproof bag (for example a zip lock bag).
• Carry a second readily distinguishable sealable clean waterproof bag for storage of used face coverings.
• Practice fitting and removing the face covering so that you are comfortable applying and removing it readily.
• When you are about to enter a situation where face covering use is recommended put on a clean one and ensure it is covering your nose and mouth.
• Once the face covering is in place, try not to touch the front of it.
• Leave the face covering in place until you have left the situation where its use is needed or the face covering is damaged or wet.
• If your face covering is wet or soiled remove it and replace with a fresh one.
• When you remove the face covering do so without touching the front of it and place it in the bag for used face coverings.
• Clean your hands as soon as possible after removal of a face covering.
• Launder used face coverings on the evening of use at a temperature of at least 60 degrees Celsius.
• Check face coverings regularly for wear and damage and dispose of face coverings that are damaged.
• Dispose of face covering that are no longer required.
• Be aware that face covering use is not practical for everyone and that children under 13 year should not wear a face covering.
• Be aware that face coverings can pose a strangulation hazard and, in that context, may not be appropriate for use in certain settings

If you choose to use a cloth face covering:


Don’t

• Do not wear a face covering if under 13 years of age (unless specifically advised to do so by a healthcare provider).
• Do not wear a face covering if you have special needs or a disability that means that use of a face covering creates specific risks.
• Do not use face coverings instead of self-isolation.
• Do not use face coverings instead of keeping your distance of 2 m from other people whenever possible.
• Do not use face coverings instead of hand hygiene.
• Do not wear a face covering when you are alone in a room or in your car or in an open space away from other people.
• Do not allow other people to use a face covering that you have used (until laundered).
• Do not lower the face covering to speak, eat, and smoke or vape. If you need to uncover your nose or mouth remove the face covering and place in the bag for use face coverings.
• Do not place used face coverings on surfaces that are likely to be touched by other people in public places (for example on tables).
• Do not discard face coverings in public places other than into refuse bins.
• Do not criticise or judge people who are not able to wear a face covering.

joeguevara

weldoninhio wrote: »

Hands up if you are following all of the below from the HSPC. Otherwise you are doing it wrong and your mask is pointless.

If you choose to use a cloth face covering:

Do

• Do remember that proper hand hygiene is essential and remains a priority.
• Check that the face covering is made from a fabric that you are comfortable wearing.
• Check that the face covering is suitable for laundering at a temperature of at least 60 degrees celsius.
• Check that the face coverings are easy to fit and completely cover your nose and mouth.
• Carry the unused face covering in a sealable clean waterproof bag (for example a zip lock bag).
• Carry a second readily distinguishable sealable clean waterproof bag for storage of used face coverings.
• Practice fitting and removing the face covering so that you are comfortable applying and removing it readily.
• When you are about to enter a situation where face covering use is recommended put on a clean one and ensure it is covering your nose and mouth.
• Once the face covering is in place, try not to touch the front of it.
• Leave the face covering in place until you have left the situation where its use is needed or the face covering is damaged or wet.
• If your face covering is wet or soiled remove it and replace with a fresh one.
• When you remove the face covering do so without touching the front of it and place it in the bag for used face coverings.
• Clean your hands as soon as possible after removal of a face covering.
• Launder used face coverings on the evening of use at a temperature of at least 60 degrees Celsius.
• Check face coverings regularly for wear and damage and dispose of face coverings that are damaged.
• Dispose of face covering that are no longer required.
• Be aware that face covering use is not practical for everyone and that children under 13 year should not wear a face covering.
• Be aware that face coverings can pose a strangulation hazard and, in that context, may not be appropriate for use in certain settings

If you choose to use a cloth face covering:


Don’t

• Do not wear a face covering if under 13 years of age (unless specifically advised to do so by a healthcare provider).
• Do not wear a face covering if you have special needs or a disability that means that use of a face covering creates specific risks.
• Do not use face coverings instead of self-isolation.
• Do not use face coverings instead of keeping your distance of 2 m from other people whenever possible.
• Do not use face coverings instead of hand hygiene.
• Do not wear a face covering when you are alone in a room or in your car or in an open space away from other people.
• Do not allow other people to use a face covering that you have used (until laundered).
• Do not lower the face covering to speak, eat, and smoke or vape. If you need to uncover your nose or mouth remove the face covering and place in the bag for use face coverings.
• Do not place used face coverings on surfaces that are likely to be touched by other people in public places (for example on tables).
• Do not discard face coverings in public places other than into refuse bins.
• Do not criticise or judge people who are not able to wear a face covering.

Let me get this straight. If I criticise or judge someone for not wearing a mask, then me wearing a mask is pointless. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt.

Loafing Oaf

No: I don't care enough

weldoninhio wrote: »

Hands up if you are following all of the below from the HSPC. Otherwise you are doing it wrong and your mask is pointless.

And of course you will be able to quote where in HSPC guidelines in states that if you don't follow all of these guidelines to the letter, wearing a mask is a waste of time.