Masks

joeguevara

jonnny68 wrote: »

face shields surely are more comfortable to wear and offer the same protection as masks.

no they dont

Loafing Oaf

No: I don't care enough

jonnny68 wrote: »

face shields offer the same protection as masks.

You would think that, but most evidence is to the contrary

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-face-shield-mask-prevent-spread/

Plastic face shields are likely not as effective in preventing the spread of the coronavirus as cloth face masks, experts believe.

jonnny68

joeguevara wrote: »

no they dont

thats debateable as many say they are, id feel more comfortable in one anyway.

jonnny68

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You would think that, but most evidence is to the contrary

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-face-shield-mask-prevent-spread/

as i menioned in my other posts it's debateable, some think they arent whereas some think they are, i feel more comfortable wering one anyway!!

joeguevara

jonnny68 wrote: »

thats debateable as many say they are, id feel more comfortable in one anyway.

Definitely feel more comfortable in one.

But the protection they offer versus masks is not debatable. Its due to the transmission being in droplet and aerosol format.

If a cough is minimal distance from the person it will offer very good protection. If a cough is from a distance away it wont. (think its 68%)

odyssey06

jonnny68 wrote: »

thats debateable as many say they are, id feel more comfortable in one anyway.

According to the CDC: If face shields are used without a mask, they should wrap around the sides of the wearer’s face and extend to below the chin.
If your shield doesn't do that, it doesn't offer the same protection as a mask.

If it's so debateable, provide your source for the claim.

At the moment, it's a very dubious claim.

weldoninhio

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

odyssey06 wrote: »

According to the CDC: If face shields are used without a mask, they should wrap around the sides of the wearer’s face and extend to below the chin.
If your shield doesn't do that, it doesn't offer the same protection as a mask.

If it's so debateable, provide your source for the claim.

At the moment, it's a very dubious claim.

Strange that this, from the CDC, matters, while other guidelines don't :rolleyes:

joeguevara

weldoninhio wrote: »

Strange that this, from the CDC, matters, while other guidelines don't :rolleyes:

You do know the pointlessness of your argument if none of the guidelines from them matter to you.

jonnny68

weldoninhio wrote: »

Strange that this, from the CDC, matters, while other guidelines don't :rolleyes:

exactly whatever suits the user i suppose :rolleyes:

moonage

Masks aren't mandatory in post offices, yet they have signs up saying to wear a mask.

These signs should be taken down. They should instead put up "masks not necessary" signs if they want.

Graham

I guess it's like any business, they can decide the terms under which they'll allow entry (equality legislation aside obv.)

moonage

Graham wrote: »

I guess it's like any business, they can decide the terms under which they'll allow entry (equality legislation aside obv.)

Maybe if they were a private business, but post offices are state operated.

Away With The Fairies

Yes: valved

moonage wrote: »

Masks aren't mandatory in post offices, yet they have signs up saying to wear a mask.

These signs should be taken down. They should instead put up "masks not necessary" signs if they want.

Why don't you open a post office and you can do whatever you want and put up whatever signs you want?

Graham

906 out of 951 post offices are owned/operated by retail partners.

The fact that masks aren't mandatory under the legislation doesn't preclude an organisation from deciding otherwise.

joeguevara

I fcucking love how anti maskers use the ''but but but you are not required by legislation to.....' as an argument for not wearing a mask, but then refuse to wear a fcucking mask in places where it is required by legislation.

The Nal

joeguevara wrote: »

I fcucking love how anti maskers use the ''but but but you are not required by legislation .

I fcucking love how anti maskers are anti maskers. I mean, of all the things in the world to be concerned about, popping a mask on for a few minutes in a shop is well down the list.

But some people have spent entire months of their lives now "protesting" it. How bored and angry are some people?

weldoninhio

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

joeguevara wrote: »

You do know the pointlessness of your argument if none of the guidelines from them matter to you.

Shows up the blatant hypocrisy of those crying the loudest for masks.

rob316

I'm on the other side of the fence with this pandemic but I don't mind wearing a mask, however barely anyone actually knows how to use and handle them correctly so I question the point of even wearing one. Still its got to be better than nothing as the principal behind how a mask works is pretty simple.

odyssey06

weldoninhio wrote: »

Shows up the blatant hypocrisy of those crying the loudest for masks.

Your blatant lies have been shown up already on this thread,inventing quotes from experts.

And there is no hypocrisy. Some people have the cop on to distinguish between recommendations for optimal performance and legal requirements for effectiveness. Wearing a mask in enclosed public places is the law, the law which you claim to be ignoring with a fradulent letter.
It's like someone saying if you are not following the optimal care guidelines for your vehicle or tyres, there's no point in having an NCT.
It's a ludicrous position which has been rightly ridiculed on this thread.

Jim_Hodge

Yes: homemade

weldoninhio wrote: »

Shows up the blatant hypocrisy of those crying the loudest for masks.

You might think that but it really doesn't. It just shows you looking for new holes to dig each day as your dogged rejection of masks runs into dead ends.

The Nal

rob316 wrote: »

I'm on the other side of the fence with this pandemic but I don't mind wearing a mask, however barely anyone actually knows how to use and handle them correctly so I question the point of even wearing one. Still its got to be better than nothing as the principal behind how a mask works is pretty simple.

If it makes the fragile little old woman I'm standing beside in the shop feel more comfortable Ill happily wear one for a few minutes for her sake.

MrStuffins

Yes: other

The Nal wrote: »

I fcucking love how anti maskers are anti maskers. I mean, of all the things in the world to be concerned about, popping a mask on for a few minutes in a shop is well down the list.

But some people have spent entire months of their lives now "protesting" it. How bored and angry are some people?

They're not just anti-maskers though. You'd be here all day making a list of things they're against.

It boils down to sheer selfishness and, in some cases, sociopathy!

Masks? No! Ok, then how about social distancing? No! Ok, how about any other method of protecting others? No!

They "want". They just "want" and they don't care who will die as long as they get what they "want". They're the kids who banged their heads and bit their mothers because they didn't get the sweets they wanted in the shops, and they haven't grown out of it.

odyssey06

rob316 wrote: »

I'm on the other side of the fence with this pandemic but I don't mind wearing a mask, however barely anyone actually knows how to use and handle them correctly so I question the point of even wearing one. Still its got to be better than nothing as the principal behind how a mask works is pretty simple.

The main thing when wearing them is that they cover your mouth and nose to contain any droplets you produce when breathing, speaking, coughing, sneezing.
That's their essential purpose and why you are being asked to wear one in enclosed public places - to protect those around you.

Using the masks as PPE (and they need to be masks not cloth coverings) is usually approached more for those in health and care settings coming into contact with infected patients. A lot of the guidance still reflects that aspect.
So if the question is whether they are being handled and used correctly, whether it's to protect others or as PPE is significant.

The infected particles on a health care worker's mask are likely to come from patients, and in this situation the health care worker is (hopefully) uninfected and therefore vulnerable. In contrast, if a member of the public is wearing a cloth face covering, they are the most likely source of any infectious particles on it. The more infectious particles that are caught in that covering, the fewer will have been aerosolised to infect others.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.13415

robinph

No: I don't care enough

rob316 wrote: »

I'm on the other side of the fence with this pandemic but I don't mind wearing a mask, however barely anyone actually knows how to use and handle them correctly so I question the point of even wearing one. Still its got to be better than nothing as the principal behind how a mask works is pretty simple.

What precisely about a mask being put in a pocket after wearing rather than a zip lock bag and being washed at 60 degrees every evening and never scratching your nose renders them pointless?

Once it covers your mouth and nose then it's doing its job. Not difficult.

Spiderman0081

MrStuffins wrote: »

They're not just anti-maskers though. You'd be here all day making a list of things they're against.

It boils down to sheer selfishness and, in some cases, sociopathy!

Masks? No! Ok, then how about social distancing? No! Ok, how about any other method of protecting others? No!

They "want". They just "want" and they don't care who will die as long as they get what they "want". They're the kids who banged their heads and bit their mothers because they didn't get the sweets they wanted in the shops, and they haven't grown out of it.

And it looks like mommy didn’t give enough hugs to a little angry someone

MrStuffins

Yes: other

Spiderman0081 wrote: »

And it looks like mommy didn’t give enough hugs to a little angry someone

Exactly! They're exactly like this You've nailed it!

littlecbear

john4321 wrote: »

Hopefully after reading the below you might reconsider if you are listening to the correct person


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ucd-professor-asked-to-resign-from-eu-committee-over-covid-19-claims-1.4277698


"Ms Cahill also supported the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19, one that has been supported, too, by US president Donald Trump. The drug, she said, is “safe and effective” in treating the disease."

The HSE would agree with the drug being safe and effective. In fact back in March Professor Michael Barry sent a memo to pharmacists to ask with their assistance in conserving its stocks for hospital treatment of Covid-19 to avoid hospital shortages and ensure stocks for community use for other non covid conditions only.

juno10353

Yes: to protect myself and others

littlecbear wrote: »

The HSE would agree with the drug being safe and effective. In fact back in March Professor Michael Barry sent a memo to pharmacists to ask with their assistance in conserving its stocks for hospital treatment of Covid-19 to avoid hospital shortages and ensure stocks for community use for other non covid conditions only.

Hydroxychloroquine has been shown to have benefits in prevention and in early onset Covid, but the reverse if given only in later stages

xhomelezz

Yes: valved

weldoninhio wrote: »

Shows up the blatant hypocrisy of those crying the loudest for masks.

Why don't you post all that on Relaxation restrictions thread, you'll get plenty of audience there. This thread is a bit dead end for ya

Seanergy

Yes: valved

https://twitter.com/IrishTimes/status/1299425437681057794

Jim_Hodge

Yes: homemade

Seanergy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/IrishTimes/status/1299425437681057794

So no posts from him tonight then? He'll tell the Gardaí they're wearing their masks wrong and not washing then enough - it'll do their head in. Extra charges if they find the fraudulent letter.

xhomelezz

Yes: valved

Seanergy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/IrishTimes/status/1299425437681057794

Gardaí attended the scene just before 4pm where, according to footage shared on social media, they began removing and seizing the banners over the objections of a small group of protesters.

arccosh

odyssey06 wrote: »

The main thing when wearing them is that they cover your mouth and nose to contain any droplets you produce when breathing, speaking, coughing, sneezing.
That's their essential purpose and why you are being asked to wear one in enclosed public places - to protect those around you.

Using the masks as PPE (and they need to be masks not cloth coverings) is usually approached more for those in health and care settings coming into contact with infected patients. A lot of the guidance still reflects that aspect.
So if the question is whether they are being handled and used correctly, whether it's to protect others or as PPE is significant.

The infected particles on a health care worker's mask are likely to come from patients, and in this situation the health care worker is (hopefully) uninfected and therefore vulnerable. In contrast, if a member of the public is wearing a cloth face covering, they are the most likely source of any infectious particles on it. The more infectious particles that are caught in that covering, the fewer will have been aerosolised to infect others.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.13415

you can't convince people with facts unfortunately....



realistically, the only way of changing an anti maskers opinion is through empathy... which means them being directly impacted by COVID...


thereafter, you're in psychopath territory

Seanergy

Yes: valved

Anyone got access to the Lancet? paper doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(07)70029-4

So we had Fauci and Luke O'Neil both citing that public would cause more harm to themselves than good if they donned masks in March, maybe they took this from the following paper.

We know airborne was cited as a route of transmission by HSE around the middle of March, albeit covered up now. It's very possible that HSE have known about airborne transmission since March but due to various reasons, possibly the reasons outlined below, have not publicly relayed this.

Here are 2 snippets from paper + a snippet of text from Charles V. Chapin.

Away With The Fairies

Yes: valved

Ventilation is good with airborne viruses. The HSE knew from the beginning this was airborne. Their advice from the beginning of this was to go into a room by yourself, with a phone and open a window. They just never actually said it was airborne. It's criminal behaviour from them really because face coverings at least should have been made mandatory for the public.

jackboy

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

Ventilation is good with airborne viruses. The HSE knew from the beginning this was airborne. Their advice from the beginning of this was to go into a room by yourself, with a phone and open a window. They just never actually said it was airborne. It's criminal behaviour from them really because face coverings at least should have been made mandatory for the public.

There was a shortage of masks at the start so the HSE wanted healthcare workers to be first priority for getting these. They handled the shortage by lying to the public, claiming masks were dangerous and wearing them is worse than not wearing them.

The vast majority of the media and Irish scientists backed up the lies.

Away With The Fairies

Yes: valved

jackboy wrote: »

There was a shortage of masks at the start so the HSE wanted healthcare workers to be first priority for getting these. They handled the shortage by lying to the public, claiming masks were dangerous and wearing them is worse than not wearing them.

The vast majority of the media and Irish scientists backed up the lies.

That's why I said they should have made face coverings mandatory back in the early days. They just lied to us and allowed all this to happen, risking people's lives. Now all we have are anti-maskers who doesn't believe they work.

fr336

Yes: surgical

I wonder how many anti maskers rarely wash their hands...not folks id want to be socialising with

Ash.J.Williams

Yes: homemade

Seanergy wrote: »

Anyone got access to the Lancet? paper doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(07)70029-4

So we had Fauci and Luke O'Neil both citing that public would cause more harm to themselves than good if they donned masks in March, maybe they took this from the following paper.

We know airborne was cited as a route of transmission by HSE around the middle of March, albeit covered up now. It's very possible that HSE have known about airborne transmission since March but due to various reasons, possibly the reasons outlined below, have not publicly relayed this.

Here are 2 snippets from paper + a snippet of text from Charles V. Chapin.

Just wear the feckin thing

extra gravy

MrStuffins wrote: »

They're not just anti-maskers though. You'd be here all day making a list of things they're against.

It boils down to sheer selfishness and, in some cases, sociopathy!

Masks? No! Ok, then how about social distancing? No! Ok, how about any other method of protecting others? No!

They "want". They just "want" and they don't care who will die as long as they get what they "want". They're the kids who banged their heads and bit their mothers because they didn't get the sweets they wanted in the shops, and they haven't grown out of it.

Nail on the head. They dress their selfishness up as some kind of crusade to protect their individual rights etc when the reality is they are just a***holes plain and simple.

odyssey06

On a 5 hour flight from Singapore, 11 of the 325 people on board were infected by one man... no mask worn.

An infected couple flew from China to Canada on 22 January, none of the 350 passengers on the 15-hour flight were infected. Masks were worn.

Notethat the air on a plane is replaced every 3-5 minutes. For comparison on a eurostar train every 15 minutes.

(from New Scientist)

Seanergy

Yes: valved

Something that is often overlooked regarding flights is the length of time parked pre and post flight. The air is not replaced at inflight rate when on the tarmac, more often it is stagnant.

arccosh

Seanergy wrote: »

Anyone got access to the Lancet? paper doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(07)70029-4

So we had Fauci and Luke O'Neil both citing that public would cause more harm to themselves than good if they donned masks in March, maybe they took this from the following paper.

We know airborne was cited as a route of transmission by HSE around the middle of March, albeit covered up now. It's very possible that HSE have known about airborne transmission since March but due to various reasons, possibly the reasons outlined below, have not publicly relayed this.

Here are 2 snippets from paper + a snippet of text from Charles V. Chapin.

yes... original article appears to have been in the journal in 2007 and there has been a lot of research since citing it which appears to argue against it... (disclaimer: I quickly browsed)

edit:

TLDR version for people who don't want to look up the lancet article:

Summary Planning for the next influenza pandemic is occurring at many levels throughout the world, spurred on by the recent spread of H5N1 avian influenza in Asia, Europe, and Africa. Central to these planning efforts in the health-care sector are strategies to minimise the transmission of influenza to health-care workers and patients. The infection control precautions necessary to prevent airborne, droplet, and contact transmission are quite different and will need to be decided on and planned before a pandemic occurs. Despite vast clinical experience in human beings, there continues to be much debate about how influenza is transmitted. We have done a systematic review of the English language experimental and epidemiological literature on this subject to better inform infection control planning efforts. We have found that the existing data are limited with respect to the identification of specific modes of transmission in the natural setting. However, we are able to conclude that transmission occurs at close range rather than over long distances, suggesting that airborne transmission, as traditionally defined, is unlikely to be of significance in most clinical settings. Further research is required to better define conditions under which the influenza virus may transmit via the airborne route

edit 2: it should be taken that this is for flu only, which is the most common infectious virus that is potentially leathal to humans.... it could be argued different viruses have different "infectivity" levels.... Ebola being higher than flu.... the verdict being out on COVID still

Seanergy

Yes: valved

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

Ventilation is good with airborne viruses. The HSE knew from the beginning this was airborne. Their advice from the beginning of this was to go into a room by yourself, with a phone and open a window. They just never actually said it was airborne. It's criminal behaviour from them really because face coverings at least should have been made mandatory for the public.

Just like the WHO the HSE didn't forsee that people would or could make their own, it became grossly negligent from March once the masksforall campaign had taken root and got worldwide media coverage.

jackboy wrote: »

There was a shortage of masks at the start so the HSE wanted healthcare workers to be first priority for getting these. They handled the shortage by lying to the public, claiming masks were dangerous and wearing them is worse than not wearing them.

The vast majority of the media and Irish scientists backed up the lies.

HSE prioritsed doctors in Hospital settings, majority of HCW's were thrown under the bus until April 22nd.

Leo is all talk currently about 90% of clusters happening in homes, where are the stats on clusters in health care settings from unmasked staff from begining of March until April 22nd? He kept quiet on that one. Face ceoverings were not tolerated in health care settings, had they been some of the transmission could have been greatly reduced.

Away With The Fairies

Yes: valved

odyssey06 wrote: »

On a 5 hour flight from Singapore, 11 of the 325 people on board were infected by one man... no mask worn.

An infected couple flew from China to Canada on 22 January, none of the 350 passengers on the 15-hour flight were infected. Masks were worn.

Notethat the air on a plane is replaced every 3-5 minutes. For comparison on a eurostar train every 15 minutes.

(from New Scientist)

Interesting with the 15 hour flight and no one was infected. What was up with that? Surely the masks would have been taken off for food and drinking. And I don't see the reason why they would immediately put their masks back on after eating if they didn't know they had it.

This whole virus is weird.

political analyst

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

That's why I said they should have made face coverings mandatory back in the early days. They just lied to us and allowed all this to happen, risking people's lives. Now all we have are anti-maskers who doesn't believe they work.

The government had to buy time for the manufacturing of non-surgical masks. Not everyone has the ability to make a mask at home.

Loafing Oaf

No: I don't care enough

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

Interesting with the 15 hour flight and no one was infected. What was up with that? Surely the masks would have been taken off for food and drinking. And I don't see the reason why they would immediately put their masks back on after eating if they didn't know they had it.

This whole virus is weird.

Some people are infected but not very infectious I suppose...

political analyst

Seanergy wrote: »

Just like the WHO the HSE didn't forsee that people would or could make their own, it became grossly negligent from March once the masksforall campaign had taken root and got worldwide media coverage.

Some people can't. So the government had to buy time for the manufacturing of non-surgical masks.

Seanergy wrote: »

Leo is all talk currently about 90% of clusters happening in homes, where are the stats on clusters in health care settings from unmasked staff from begining of March until April 22nd? He kept quiet on that one. Face ceoverings were not tolerated in health care settings, had they been some of the transmission could have been greatly reduced.

Why would a health care employer not tolerate employees wearing masks?

AMKC

Yes: homemade

So I was in Lidi doing my shopping today and when I was at the till there was a guy not at the till I was at but at the next one and he had his mask half on. What I mean buy that is he had it covering his mouth and not his nose. How utterly thick and selfish has someone got to be doing that. I wanted to say something and even thought of taking a picture but in the end I just gave him my angry eye look. I just hope the till assistant said something to him.

xhomelezz

Yes: valved

political analyst wrote: »

The government had to buy time for the manufacturing of non-surgical masks. Not everyone has the ability to make a mask at home.

They didn't have to. Masksforall was already in motion, countries who implemented idea of homemade masks were able to supply everyone, simple. Government here chose approach hmmm no they don't work..