To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

Sconsey

Sconsey wrote: »

What has this got to do with masks not working? this is a study that detected various potentailly dangerous chamicals in some masks. No info on what percentage of masks have these chemicals, no info on the levels of chemicals, no info at all other than one study that asks questions. You know if you checked your water filter at home you would find dangerous chemicals, if you eat a tin of beans you find dangerous chemicals. Chemicals are everywhere, what matters is the concentrations and exposure.

This article is weak if you are trying to discredit masks as an effective means of reducing the spread of Covid-19. Try harder.

Is it not concerning that there are masks being used that can cause people to break out in a rash? The most important point made by Professor Braungart is "we have a chemical cocktail in front of our nose and mouth that has never been tested for either toxicity or any long-term effects on health".

I'm not trying to persuade people as to the merits of masks. It's clear that most people on this thread believe them to be effective. I'm just pointing to studies done on masks if people would like to discuss them.

Seanergy

Just under 1.8% of fines were for not wearing a face covering.

Sconsey

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it not concerning that there are masks being used that can cause people to break out in a rash? The most important point made by Professor Braungart is "we have a chemical cocktail in front of our nose and mouth that has never been tested for either toxicity or any long-term effects on health".

I'm not trying to persuade people as to the merits of masks. It's clear that most people on this thread believe them to be effective. I'm just pointing to studies done on masks if people would like to discuss them.

Do you wear socks? is it not concerning that some people have broken out in a rash from wearing socks?

I think the millions of healthcare workers that have been using masks for decades would have signaled a problem if one exists. If there are some dodgy masks out there not being made to standard then the sure, buy from legitimate sources...same goes for socks.

odyssey06

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it not concerning that there are masks being used that can cause people to break out in a rash? The most important point made by Professor Braungart is "we have a chemical cocktail in front of our nose and mouth that has never been tested for either toxicity or any long-term effects on health".
I'm not trying to persuade people as to the merits of masks. It's clear that most people on this thread believe them to be effective. I'm just pointing to studies done on masks if people would like to discuss them.

The studies have been "done" on masks alright, as in there seems to be a definite agenda underlying a lot of them.

People can break out in a rash from particular types of plaster. It says nothing about toxicity or long term health.

Regardless of the pandemic and their use by general population, masks have been used as PPE by medical professionals for decades. If you have evidence of occupational health issues from such use, please share it. Otherwise this appears to be nothing more than scurrilous nonsense.

odyssey06

odyssey06 wrote: »

The studies have been "done" on masks alright, as in there seems to be a definite agenda underlying a lot of them.

People can break out in a rash from particular types of plaster. It says nothing about toxicity or long term health.

Regardless of the pandemic and their use by general population, masks have been used as PPE by medical professionals for decades. If you have evidence of occupational health issues from such use, please share it. Otherwise this appears to be nothing more than scurrilous nonsense.

So do you think that study was a waste of time and should be ignored?

xhomelezz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is it not concerning that there are masks being used that can cause people to break out in a rash? The most important point made by Professor Braungart is "we have a chemical cocktail in front of our nose and mouth that has never been tested for either toxicity or any long-term effects on health".

I'm not trying to persuade people as to the merits of masks. It's clear that most people on this thread believe them to be effective. I'm just pointing to studies done on masks if people would like to discuss them.

I think, and it's only my personal opinion, your goal is somewhere else.

Away With The Fairies

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So do you think that study was a waste of time and should be ignored?

Have you got nothing else to prove that masks don't work? I get a rash from washing powder, it still works to wash and clean my clothes.

xhomelezz

Seanergy wrote: »

Just under 1.8% of fines were for not wearing a face covering.

Bet any money some will use it as a proof masks not working

patnor1011

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

Fiddling with masks was an excuse used last year not to have the public wearing masks. At a time they wanted to keep masks for healthcare workers. Can we move on into 2021?

Picking up covid on your finger, you would want to shove your finger into your nose or mouth to transfer covid from your finger to yourself. And I never see that from mask wearers.

And if you're so worried about people catching covid like that, how about we wear masks, contain our own germs and keep surfaces clean, to prevent people from picking up covid they can pick up on their finger?

No, I am not worried at all. I stopped to worry about covid a year ago. Being vulnerable I know what to do to protect myself and mask is not anything I consider as a protection for myself or others. This idea being floated around that we should protect others is ridiculous because first thing you should do when you are sick is to stay away from others and not go around masked or not.
I already had covid and even though I am quite vulnerable since I got invite for a vaccine about a week ago it was nothing particularly alarming. Few days with high temperature perfectly managed with just paracetamol. My primary vulnerabilities are far more discomforting, dangerous and painful several times every year than covid is.

xhomelezz

patnor1011 wrote: »

No, I am not worried at all. I stopped to worry about covid a year ago. Being vulnerable I know what to do to protect myself and mask is not anything I consider as a protection for myself or others. This idea being floated around that we should protect others is ridiculous because first thing you should do when you are sick is to stay away from others and not go around masked or not.
I already had covid and even though I am quite vulnerable since I got invite for a vaccine about a week ago it was nothing particularly alarming. Few days with high temperature perfectly managed with just paracetamol. My primary vulnerabilities are far more discomforting, dangerous and painful several times every year than covid is.

On that point you are completely right.

Unfortunately that's not what some peeps do.

patnor1011

odyssey06 wrote: »

Do they?
I havent seen the data on that.
And how does it explain asian countries with longer history of masks and lower covid rates.

I think you will find a lot of the places without strict mask laws have far lower population densities and/or travel.

Masks work as they reduce the risk to people in specific settings.
There are new more contagious variants around now hence the doubling down.
But if people are ignoring other restrictions you are going to have high case counts.
At least with masks those following the restrictions can protect themselves more effectively in community settings.

There are other rather deciding factors which you forgot to mention.
Generally Asian people are considered to be in much better shape - healthier than western people mainly due to difference in diet and lifestyle like excercise and such.
Our obsession with fast food junk diet and obesity is main factor in number of covid related deaths. Mask effect for protecting from viruses is negligible.
Asian people do wear masks but only in mega cities and because of smog and air polutants for which they do work perfectly. Not so much for viruses which tends to be 100's times smaller.

Loafing Oaf

patnor1011 wrote: »

This idea being floated around that we should protect others is ridiculous because first thing you should do when you are sick is to stay away from others and not go around masked or not.

Do you understand the concept of asymptomatic infection?

Away With The Fairies

xhomelezz wrote: »

On that point you are completely right.

Unfortunately that's not what some peeps do.

Not to mention being infectious before showing symptoms. So we have to treat everyone as if they are sick. How do people not understand this a year later?

Away With The Fairies

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Do you understand the concept of asymptomatic infection?

I don't think they do.

patnor1011

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Do you understand the concept of asymptomatic infection?

I do. It seems you do not.
According to experts from WHO and from all available research it is very rare and actually 3-25 times lower than people with symptoms.
You will have to be in the same rather small room with someone for over an hour to have a chance to get it.

It is akin to wearing a condom 24/7 in case you may get to meet a nice girl one day soon and have intercourse so you do not get her pregnant.

patnor1011

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

Not to mention being infectious before showing symptoms. So we have to treat everyone as if they are sick. How do people not understand this a year later?

You completely miss the point. We do not have to treat everyone as sick and it is incomprehensible to demand everyone to act as that they are sick to "protect" small rather tiny percentage of population.
They should be, and in most cases actually are the ones who should take proper care and precautions not to get infected. By cocooning for example.

xhomelezz

patnor1011 wrote: »

I do. It seems you do not.
According to experts from WHO and from all available research it is very rare and actually 3-25 times lower than people with symptoms.
You will have to be in the same rather small room with someone for over an hour to have a chance to get it.

It is akin to wearing a condom 24/7 in case you may get to meet a nice girl one day soon and have intercourse so you do not get her pregnant.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3

xhomelezz

patnor1011 wrote: »

You completely miss the point. We do not have to treat everyone as sick and it is incomprehensible to demand everyone to act as that they are sick to "protect" small rather tiny percentage of population.
They should be, and in most cases actually are the ones who should take proper care and precautions not to get infected. By cocooning for example.

I'm sorry but you still don't understand the basics. And at the end, your post has nothing to do with masks.

odyssey06

patnor1011 wrote: »

I do. It seems you do not.
According to experts from WHO and from all available research it is very rare and actually 3-25 times lower than people with symptoms.
You will have to be in the same rather small room with someone for over an hour to have a chance to get it.

Three to 25 times lower? Yeah that's pretty solid data eh?
I think you'll understand why that's not an acceptable risk if it is at the lower end of that range.
Perhaps if you can give a recent source for your claims with more solid data

And you're forgetting about pre-symptomatic transmission, which is not the same as asymptomatic transmission.

patnor1011

xhomelezz wrote: »

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3

Exactly what I am saying. Nobody knows, even that article is full of if's and but's so yes, it is like wearing condom so you do not get someone pregnant one day in future.

Away With The Fairies

patnor1011 wrote: »

You completely miss the point. We do not have to treat everyone as sick and it is incomprehensible to demand everyone to act as that they are sick to "protect" small rather tiny percentage of population.
They should be, and in most cases actually are the ones who should take proper care and precautions not to get infected. By cocooning for example.

I think it's you that don't get it. We're not protecting a small percentage of the population. We are protecting everyone else around us.

odyssey06

patnor1011 wrote: »

Exactly what I am saying. Nobody knows, even that article is full of if's and but's so yes, it is like wearing condom so you do not get someone pregnant one day in future.

More like wearing a seat belt in case you have a car crash.

Loafing Oaf

patnor1011 wrote: »

I do. It seems you do not.
According to experts from WHO and from all available research it is very rare

Is this what you are referencing there?
https://www.thesun.ie/news/5275544/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-spread-infect-others/

Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, caused a stir on June 8 when she said asymptomatic transmission was “very rare”.

But wait

WHO have now backtracked and said a large percentage of Covid-19 infections could be transmitted by people who have the virus but no symptoms.

patnor1011

odyssey06 wrote: »

Three to 25 times lower? Yeah that's pretty solid data eh?
I think you'll understand why that's not an acceptable risk if it is at the lower end of that range.
Perhaps if you can give a recent source for your claims with more solid data

And you're forgetting about pre-symptomatic transmission, which is not the same as asymptomatic transmission.

Lol that spread is solid giveaway that there are no data. That is why they claim so wide spread as they are just guessing.

I am not forgetting pre-symptomatic. I was replying to a person who specifically mentioned asymptomatic transmission.

We can talk and talk till our head spin fact is that this virus is not what we were being told it is. While it may be fatal to tiny percentage of people with many other comorbidities it is pretty much walk in the park for majority of the people even though we are harder hit than the rest of the world given our poor diet and unhealthy lifestyle.

odyssey06

patnor1011 wrote: »

You completely miss the point. We do not have to treat everyone as sick and it is incomprehensible to demand everyone to act as that they are sick to "protect" small rather tiny percentage of population.
They should be, and in most cases actually are the ones who should take proper care and precautions not to get infected. By cocooning for example.

It's not a tiny % of the population, it's a significant % of the population if you look at those vulnerable to the disease based on age and conditions - based not just not on deaths but on ICU admissions and hospitalisations.

And that's not even considering the effects of long covid on the 'less vulnerable'.

Cocooning is not enough if there is widespread community transmission as we have seen in country after country. It's just a slogan, not a matter of practicable policy when you consider multi-generational households, how the vulnerable access essential care etc etc
It's a thoroughly discredited concept.

Seanergy

The High Court has published in full, a judgment granting the Medical Council's application to suspend a Kildare GP who is alleged to have failed to refer patients for Covid-19 tests, and to operate his surgery in accordance with public health regulations. LINK

The suspension came about after a complaint from a patient who said the doctor claimed his illness was caused by the mask he was wearing, which the GP described as that "silly f***ing thing".

After Dr Waters was suspended, the Medical Council says a banner appeared on the wall of his clinic stating that he had been suspended because he refused to give the Covid-19 vaccine and objected to the lockdowns.

However, the council said this misrepresented the basis for the 71-year-old's suspension and asked the High Court to publish the judgment in full. PDF LINK

xhomelezz

patnor1011 wrote: »

Exactly what I am saying. Nobody knows, even that article is full of if's and but's so yes, it is like wearing condom so you do not get someone pregnant one day in future.

Well condoms do the job, right..

odyssey06

patnor1011 wrote: »

Lol that spread is solid giveaway that there are no data. That is why they claim so wide spread as they are just guessing.

I am not forgetting pre-symptomatic. I was replying to a person who specifically mentioned asymptomatic transmission.

We can talk and talk till our head spin fact is that this virus is not what we were being told it is. While it may be fatal to tiny percentage of people with many other comorbidities it is pretty much walk in the park for majority of the people even though we are harder hit than the rest of the world given our poor diet and unhealthy lifestyle.

It's called the precautionary principle. Asymptomatic transmission is possible, we don't know the extent of it.
And we don't know who is asymptomatic v presymptomatic v healthy that the prudent course of action in enclosed public places is to wear a mask to contain an infection that you don't know you are carrying from infecting others. So the argument that 'healthy' people don't need to wear masks has no foundation given that the person making the argument doesn't clarify how we distinguish between the categories - it's a dishonest argument.

So yes, like wearing protection in case you have an STD you could be carrying without symptoms manifesting that could have serious consequences for your partner.

patnor1011

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

I think it's you that don't get it. We're not protecting a small percentage of the population. We are protecting everyone else around us.

Sorry, I do not buy it. I came from a country where there was a lot of this "we" talk. How "we" should do this and that for betterment of others...
It is a modus operandi of socialist and communist regimes where exactly this kind of rhetoric was used to beat everyone in submission and completely remove free will and individual from realizing their potential.
This pandemic which is anything but is now being used in the same way. Talk about some moral duty to "protect" everyone else and you in particular coming here every day reminding everyone that they should act as if they are carrier of death is simply wrong.

odyssey06

patnor1011 wrote: »

Sorry, I do not buy it. I came from a country where there was a lot of this "we" talk. How "we" should do this and that for betterment of others...
It is a modus operandi of socialist and communist regimes where exactly this kind of rhetoric was used to beat everyone in submission and completely remove free will and individual from realizing their potential.
This pandemic which is anything but is now being used in the same way. Talk about some moral duty to "protect" everyone else and you in particular coming here every day reminding everyone that they should act as if they are carrier of death is simply wrong.

You can be a carrier of death, just as when you get into a car after a few drinks, or smoke in a public place. With liberty comes responsibility.
Nothing to do with the betterment of others, just making sure you don't "accidentally" deprive them of their life, liberty and ability to pursue happiness.

Besides, either masks make sense or they do not. What political slogans communist regimes deployed has nothing do with it.
You have allowed your view of the science to be corrupted by the abuse of language by those regimes.