To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

odyssey06

odyssey06 wrote: »

Norway is a low density country bordered by low density countries. Spain is a country with a large tourism dependent sector. Norways largest city has a population one fifth of Madrid. Madrids population is 80 percent that of Norway as a whole.

They are also recommended in norway:
The Government also recommends that face masks are used in the following situations (not time restricted):
All places where it is not possible to keep two meters away from others.

Thanks. A poor comparison in the light of the above. It'd be interesting to compare Norway with a country that's similar to it in terms of population density. Dr Anders Tegnell, whenever he is asked to compare Sweden with Norway and Finland, always lists reasons why Sweden is very different to its neighbours. People might say that he would of course say that, but he always goes into detail as to why it's very different to its neighbours. He also often mentions that the virus hit Sweden a lot harder and a lot earlier than its neighbours.

political analyst

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/teen-with-asthma-refused-entry-to-school-for-leaving-cert-oral-exam-as-she-was-not-wearing-mask-40274727.html

A mother is furious after her daughter, who has health issues, was stopped from sitting her Leaving Cert Irish oral exam because she was not wearing a mask.

Lorraine Preston (38), from Ayrfield, north Dublin, showed the Irish Independent a medical note, which stated in October last year that Mikayla Preston (17) should be exempt from wearing a face mask or visor. The letter explained the schoolgirl has “a long history of anxiety and asthma”.

She claimed that, despite repeated attempts by her daughter to enter Donahies Community School in Dublin's Donaghmede without a mask, the school did not allow her access.

The school hasn't responded to the Indo yet.

Given that Mikayla had a medical exemption from having to wear a mask, why was she denied the opportunity to sit that exam?

It is quite clear that the ASTI and the TUI have a lot to answer for because of their insistence on masks being worn during oral exams. Surely, a combination of distancing, perspex screens and ventilation would've been enough to protect the health of the students and of the examiners.

xhomelezz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Thanks. A poor comparison in the light of the above. It'd be interesting to compare Norway with a country that's similar to it in terms of population density. Dr Anders Tegnell, whenever he is asked to compare Sweden with Norway and Finland, always lists reasons why Sweden is very different to its neighbours. People might say that he would of course say that, but he always goes into detail as to why it's very different to its neighbours. He also often mentions that the virus hit Sweden a lot harder and a lot earlier than its neighbours.

Dr. Tegnell is as well admitting his own fcùk ups.

Sparkey84

paw patrol wrote: »

masks (or to be more accurate - face coverings) are a load of sh1te. Impact is negligible and so called "mask - mandates" are just make believe to keep the easily wound up calm.

The only reason to wear them is to avoid confrontation which in itself is troubling.

have a look on the screen shot attached. if you find the meta analysis on the internet you will see all randomised control trials involved seen reduction in disease transmission by using face coverings

i only see 2 reasons not to wear a mask
- misinformed by BS on facebook and the likes
- informed but don't care enough about your health or that of the people around you.

not only have our precautions helped about covid but also flu is down bronchiectisis in kids and many more because respiratory hygiene is better and contact is less.

on a complete sidenote there is a wealth of reasonable unbiased information out there google scholar and pubmed.com are free to browse and have good data. the information on the sites is easy to find and much more reliable than the populus social media.

on a science tv show years ago MYTHBUSTERS adam savage demonstrated the mucus from a sneeze travelling many meters, i do not believe for a second any intelligent argument can be made saying that test could be reproduced with a mask and that the masks "impact would be negligible"

as far as confrontation goes. if someone walks into an eg. a shop without a mask they are blatantly announcing to all that they do not care for anybody elses safety and are going to risk it. they should expect confrontation, it is a similar ethical decision to drink driving

Away With The Fairies

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

I want to live in a society that is safe, thank you very much.

At what cost? Do you want a zero risk society?

Sparkey84

Sparkey84 wrote: »

have a look on the screen shot attached. if you find the meta analysis on the internet you will see all randomised control trials involved seen reduction in disease transmission by using face coverings

i only see 2 reasons not to wear a mask
- misinformed by BS on facebook and the likes
- informed but don't care enough about your health or that of the people around you.

not only have our precautions helped about covid but also flu is down bronchiectisis in kids and many more because respiratory hygiene is better and contact is less.

on a complete sidenote there is a wealth of reasonable unbiased information out there google scholar and pubmed.com are free to browse and have good data. the information on the sites is easy to find and much more reliable than the populus social media.

on a science tv show years ago MYTHBUSTERS adam savage demonstrated the mucus from a sneeze travelling many meters, i do not believe for a second any intelligent argument can be made saying that test could be reproduced with a mask and that the masks "impact would be negligible"

as far as confrontation goes. if someone walks into an eg. a shop without a mask they are blatantly announcing to all that they do not care for anybody elses safety and are going to risk it. they should expect confrontation, it is a similar ethical decision to drink driving

But how do you know the person wouldn't have a medical condition which would make it impossible for them to wear a mask? Should they have to announce to everyone in the shop that they have a medical condition?

xhomelezz

political analyst wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/teen-with-asthma-refused-entry-to-school-for-leaving-cert-oral-exam-as-she-was-not-wearing-mask-40274727.html



The school hasn't responded to the Indo yet.

Given that Mikayla had a medical exemption from having to wear a mask, why was she denied the opportunity to sit that exam?

It is quite clear that the ASTI and the TUI have a lot to answer for because of their insistence on masks being worn during oral exams. Surely, a combination of distancing, perspex screens and ventilation would've been enough to protect the health of the students and of the examiners.

Surprised they did wait that long before going public, unles indo wasn't picking up the phones

Sparkey84

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But how do you know the person wouldn't have a medical condition which would make it impossible for them to wear a mask? Should they have to announce to everyone in the shop that they have a medical condition?

anybody that short of breath that they can not tolerate a 200-500 mn mesh cotton mask will be visiblely short of breath their respiratory distress would be obvious to even a non medical professional, they would not need to announce it.

Sparkey84

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But how do you know the person wouldn't have a medical condition which would make it impossible for them to wear a mask? Should they have to announce to everyone in the shop that they have a medical condition?

just to add in there is a massive difference with the person who actually medically cannot tolerate a mask and the plethora of selfish idiots who may find a mask uncomfortable.

Sparkey84

[Deleted User] wrote: »

At what cost? Do you want a zero risk society?

i am sure you are going to say zero risk is impossible and you are correct, may i suggest you use the terms reasonable risk and unreasonable risk.

eg

reasonable risk,
driving a motorcycle or white water kayaking

unreasonable risk,
drink driving or a restaurant serving out of date chicken.

i want to ride my motorcycle and kayak and expect the law to allow me.

i also want the law to protect me from someone drink driving, etx

Away With The Fairies

[Deleted User] wrote: »

At what cost? Do you want a zero risk society?

What do mean at what cost? It doesn't kill someone to wear a mask.

odyssey06

political analyst wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/teen-with-asthma-refused-entry-to-school-for-leaving-cert-oral-exam-as-she-was-not-wearing-mask-40274727.html

The school hasn't responded to the Indo yet.

Given that Mikayla had a medical exemption from having to wear a mask, why was she denied the opportunity to sit that exam?

It is quite clear that the ASTI and the TUI have a lot to answer for because of their insistence on masks being worn during oral exams. Surely, a combination of distancing, perspex screens and ventilation would've been enough to protect the health of the students and of the examiners.

The GP doesnt support the letter.
Thats why the school refused entry.

The student does not have a valid medical exemption.

Did you actually read the article?

Away With The Fairies

political analyst wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/teen-with-asthma-refused-entry-to-school-for-leaving-cert-oral-exam-as-she-was-not-wearing-mask-40274727.html



The school hasn't responded to the Indo yet.

Given that Mikayla had a medical exemption from having to wear a mask, why was she denied the opportunity to sit that exam?

It is quite clear that the ASTI and the TUI have a lot to answer for because of their insistence on masks being worn during oral exams. Surely, a combination of distancing, perspex screens and ventilation would've been enough to protect the health of the students and of the examiners.

Em, isn't one of the answers thrown about the place here is to hide under the bed if you're scared?

Sparkey84

Sparkey84 wrote: »

anybody that short of breath that they can not tolerate a 200-500 mn mesh cotton mask will be visiblely short of breath their respiratory distress would be obvious to even a non medical professional, they would not need to announce it.

Should autistic people have to wear a mask?

https://www.autismhampshire.org.uk/index/covid-19-resources/face-masks-barriers-in-communication-for-autistic-people

""Face coverings can be a barrier for processing social communication, which everyone is experiencing now, but poses more challenges for autistic people. Communication associated with mask wearing is very much reliant on eye contact, which some autistic people would have found difficult before the pandemic. With such a focus now on eyes, this can be difficult for autistic people. This can make people feel even more self-conscious and it changes the nature of social interactions, sometimes to become even more bewildering than ‘normal’. Communicating with others wearing masks can make social situations feel abnormal, awkward and even more scary for autistic people. It can be upsetting and unsettling for normal social routines and social structures to be disrupted by the need to wear masks.""

What about rape survivors:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/aug/10/survivors-say-they-are-being-stigmatised-for-not-wearing-masks

"A number of rape and sexual abuse survivors have told the charity Rape Crisis they are so scared of being confronted and verbally abused for not wearing face masks that they are avoiding places where they may be challenged.

“A significant proportion of rape survivors had their mouths or noses covered, or were choked or smothered, as part of the abuse and violence they experienced,” said Kate Russell, the national spokesperson for Rape Crisis England and Wales. “Covering their face and nose now can trigger flashbacks, panic attacks and severe anxiety.”"

It's extremely upsetting to read about rape survivors feeling they have to avoid certain places for fear of being challenged.

Sparkey84

Sparkey84 wrote: »

i am sure you are going to say zero risk is impossible and you are correct, may i suggest you use the terms reasonable risk and unreasonable risk.

eg

reasonable risk,
driving a motorcycle or white water kayaking

unreasonable risk,
drink driving or a restaurant serving out of date chicken.

i want to ride my motorcycle and kayak and expect the law to allow me.

i also want the law to protect me from someone drink driving, etx

Good suggestion. Thanks.

Away With The Fairies

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

What do mean at what cost? It doesn't kill someone to wear a mask.

Sorry, I should have been specific. I was referring more to the idea of the State eliminating all risk from society.

_Kaiser_

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

What do mean at what cost? It doesn't kill someone to wear a mask.

I said this last night but I'll say it again.

It's not normal to ask a population to hide behind masks (indefinitely) and expect them to treat everyone they encounter as a threat/potential plague carrier.

Masks in this country were introduced after months of declining case numbers and minimal deaths following a period when most of those deaths were the result of the complete screw-up in nursing homes. This was also the time when we had little information about the risks in general so if indeed the virus was as deadly as was feared we should have seen a lot more deaths and serious illness.

Masks were brought in and since them we've had yo-yoing case numbers and almost 8 months of continuing Level 5 restrictions. It's reasonable to infer then that their effect has been minimal or perhaps acting as a false sense of security for some (especially given most don't wear them correctly, wash or sterilise them regularly), and to act as a constant reminder of a virus that the numbers prove don't pose any real threat to the overwhelming majority of the population in this country.

The only real reason that the majority are wearing them is the threat of fines or prosecution if they don't. The minute that disappears, so too will the masks and rightly so.

The truth is that CV-19 isn't the deadly mass killer it was originally (and justifiably) feared to be. It doesn't warrant the level of restrictions we have now, let alone notions of things like masks and winter lockdowns becoming an accepted approach to HSE incompetence or Government cowardice and abdication of responsibility in the future.

Seanergy

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I said this last night but I'll say it again.

It's not normal to ask a population to hide behind masks (indefinitely) and expect them to treat everyone they encounter as a threat/potential plague carrier.

Masks in this country were introduced after months of declining case numbers and minimal deaths following a period when most of those deaths were the result of the complete screw-up in nursing homes. This was also the time when we had little information about the risks in general so if indeed the virus was as deadly as was feared we should have seen a lot more deaths and serious illness.

Masks were brought in and since them we've had yo-yoing case numbers and almost 8 months of continuing Level 5 restrictions. It's reasonable to infer then that their effect has been minimal or perhaps acting as a false sense of security for some (especially given most don't wear them correctly, wash or sterilise them regularly), and to act as a constant reminder of a virus that the numbers prove don't pose any real threat to the overwhelming majority of the population in this country.

The only real reason that the majority are wearing them is the threat of fines or prosecution if they don't. The minute that disappears, so too will the masks and rightly so.

The truth is that CV-19 isn't the deadly mass killer it was originally (and justifiably) feared to be. It doesn't warrant the level of restrictions we have now, let alone notions of things like masks and winter lockdowns becoming an accepted approach to HSE incompetence and Government abdication of responsibility and cowardice.

Whistling bull, care to correct?

Most?
The Majority?

_Kaiser_

Seanergy wrote: »

Whistling bull, care to correct?

Most?
The Majority?

Feel free to present your argument.

Seanergy

Deleted User wrote: »

Should autistic people have to wear a mask?

https://www.autismhampshire.org.uk/index/covid-19-resources/face-masks-barriers-in-communication-for-autistic-people

Should autistic people not have to wear a mask?

Did the UK gov not role out 1/4 million masks in September to help NHS and care workers communicate with people with certain conditions like hearing loss, autism and dementia?

Have you tried starting at the beginning of part1 of this thread?

xabi_a

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The only real reason that the majority are wearing them is the threat of fines or prosecution if they don't. The minute that disappears, so too will the masks and rightly so.

I'd beg to differ. I'd bet most people don't know what the fine for non-wearing of masks is.

Most people are wearing masks to help stop the virus spreading, and out of decency and respect for others sharing the same indoor space.

Sparkey84

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Should autistic people have to wear a mask?

https://www.autismhampshire.org.uk/index/covid-19-resources/face-masks-barriers-in-communication-for-autistic-people

""Face coverings can be a barrier for processing social communication, which everyone is experiencing now, but poses more challenges for autistic people. Communication associated with mask wearing is very much reliant on eye contact, which some autistic people would have found difficult before the pandemic. With such a focus now on eyes, this can be difficult for autistic people. This can make people feel even more self-conscious and it changes the nature of social interactions, sometimes to become even more bewildering than ‘normal’. Communicating with others wearing masks can make social situations feel abnormal, awkward and even more scary for autistic people. It can be upsetting and unsettling for normal social routines and social structures to be disrupted by the need to wear masks.""

What about rape survivors:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/aug/10/survivors-say-they-are-being-stigmatised-for-not-wearing-masks

"A number of rape and sexual abuse survivors have told the charity Rape Crisis they are so scared of being confronted and verbally abused for not wearing face masks that they are avoiding places where they may be challenged.

“A significant proportion of rape survivors had their mouths or noses covered, or were choked or smothered, as part of the abuse and violence they experienced,” said Kate Russell, the national spokesperson for Rape Crisis England and Wales. “Covering their face and nose now can trigger flashbacks, panic attacks and severe anxiety.”"

It's extremely upsetting to read about rape survivors feeling they have to avoid certain places for fear of being challenged.

two very fair points well researched fair play, i might offer an opinion that those would be the exception to the rule rather than the exception that sets the rule. wearing masks for the vast majority of people is a reasonable demand to make.

maybe i have missed your bigger point.

from memory i recall some information about seatbelts for pregnant women being possibly more dangerous than no seat belt at lower speeds below 10mph.

now if we were going to set a law about the use of seatbelts for pregnant women in golf carts that information may be relevant.

however if we are going to debate seatbelt use for general population within society as a whole that data may become statistically irrelevant

im talking about masks for general population on a national scale. you can't argue that scale by cherry picking the less than 1% of people who may suit an agenda.

i have met professionally many people who informed me at first they could not wear a mask. so far they were all incorrect. all was fine once some patient education was given and we dealt with the irrational baseless dribble from FB etx from uneducated half wits.

we had the advantage of a medical setting where they could be monitored but they all managed the mask fine no intervention needed or supplementary o2 just reassurance. i have no doubt many of them went on to make the decision to wear a mask in shops etx.

Sparkey84

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Masks, It's reasonable to infer then that their effect has been minimal

that is a dangerous inference, respect your right to an opinion but reasoned scientific data does not support it.

a face covering can reduce the amount of droplets that pass from one person to another.

nobody is going to claim they are 100% effective but if they are proven more effective than no mask then not wearing one is at best illogical

NovemberWren

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I said this last night but I'll say it again.

It's not normal to ask a population to hide behind masks (indefinitely) and

The only real reason that the majority are wearing them is the threat of fines or prosecution if they don't. The minute that disappears, so too will the masks and rightly so.

Most people were sik-to-the-gills of the Rat Race. So the Lockdown is novel to them.

Add to that the PUP and they are almost completely bought in. They go along with the mask thing.

Where it gets interesting is when the PUP is stopped in June.
Even worse again, if there is another Lockdown - with no PUP.

moonage

Just a reminder to anyone who doesn't want to wear a mask—you don't have to actually be medically exempt to not wear one.

One of the exemptions is if it causes "severe distress", which anyone can claim. It causes me severe distress to know that decades of studies up to 2019 showing the ineffectiveness of masks for the general population for a viral situation like we're in now was just thrown out the window.

In a shop a "I'm exempt" will suffice, as the staff have no right to ask for any details.

On public transport they can ask but a "It causes me severe distress" should do the trick.

siblers

For the life of me don't see why it's so ****ing hard to wear a mask. I wore one when I had severe sinus issues, my nostrils were getting 10% air on a good day.

It's incredibly selfish and ignorant

am_zarathustra

moonage wrote: »

Just a reminder to anyone who doesn't want to wear a mask—you don't have to actually be medically exempt to not wear one.

One of the exemptions is if it causes "severe distress", which anyone can claim. It causes me severe distress to know that decades of studies up to 2019 showing the ineffectiveness of masks for the general population for a viral situation like we're in now was just thrown out the window.

In a shop a "I'm exempt" will suffice, as the staff have no right to ask for any details.

On public transport they can ask but a "It causes me severe distress" should do the trick.

Sources showing they are ineffective against viruses with the particular transmissibility, size and infection mechanism of conroavirus please?

I suspect you are confusing a lack of data, due to the lack of a pandemic with negative data. You know, because we haven't had a pandemic in a hundred years, and this virus is different anyway, and it mutates.......the way they tend to.

Cool starting point, effective and have a nice doage impact to boot.

Washing your hands is pretty great too

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8

But you seem very sound, worrying elderly people by refusing to adhere to a very basic curtosy.

Sparkey84

moonage wrote: »

Just a reminder to anyone who doesn't want to wear a mask—you don't have to actually be medically exempt to not wear one.

One of the exemptions is if it causes "severe distress", which anyone can claim. It causes me severe distress to know that decades of studies up to 2019 showing the ineffectiveness of masks for the general population for a viral situation like we're in now was just thrown out the window.

In a shop a "I'm exempt" will suffice, as the staff have no right to ask for any details.

On public transport they can ask but a "It causes me severe distress" should do the trick.

i would love to see one of those studies you quoted? that is directly applicable to this droplet bourne pandemic.

moonage

siblers wrote: »

For the life of me don't see why it's so ****ing hard to wear a mask. I wore one when I had severe sinus issues, my nostrils were getting 10% air on a good day.

It's incredibly selfish and ignorant

I find it easy to wear a mask but I don't want to because it reinforces the false narrative that we're in the midst of a deadly plague.

Away With The Fairies

moonage wrote: »

I find it easy to wear a mask but I don't want to because it reinforces the false narrative that we're in the midst of a deadly plague.

Well that's an insult to the people who died.