Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.
Options
Comments
-
paw patrol wrote: »nope , my belief is sincere.
I meant no point arguing the toss over masks in a thread/forum where they all agree. unless I get the horn for "likes".
Likes are nice but i'm really here for robust debate.paw patrol wrote: »It is a complete fraud.
Nothing more than a comfort blanket to make the worried feel better and the state can laud the fact they are doing something.
Robust debate? Doubt that.0 -
You dont know who closed the windows.
Your post is simply not credible on any level.
There were people wearing masks before they were a requirement.
People opened and shut windows on buses pre covid. It wasnt peer pressure that made people you didnt even see shutting a window do it.
Your theory is bogus.
This type of denialism is reminiscent of the late Soviet era. People wearing masks to supposedly protect themselves are sitting next to closed windows with yellow signs on them saying "keep open" and they're not obeying. There has to be a reason for the difference, and it's a perfectly rational assumption that it's because there's no social pressure to obey the latter, because it's not personal. There are no nasty nicknames like 'windowloons' to marginalise them; I've never heard of an argument breaking out over the issue; I've haven't heard it mentioned once in the media.0 -
Robust debate? Doubt that.
a harsh character judgement.
You doubt my sincerity but swallow some cobbled together science on masks.
till about June 2020 masks didn't work - then very quickly not only did they work but the science was nailed down erasing all previous findings.
that's not science that's religious conversion.
Road to Damascus stuff.0 -
This type of denialism is reminiscent of the late Soviet era. People wearing masks to supposedly protect themselves are sitting next to closed windows with yellow signs on them saying "keep open" and they're not obeying. There has to be a reason for the difference, and it's a perfectly rational assumption that it's because there's no social pressure to obey the latter, because it's not personal. There are no nasty nicknames like 'windowloons' to marginalise them; I've never heard of an argument breaking out over the issue; I've haven't heard it mentioned once in the media.
The late Soviet era? Why did they wear masks there then? If not, you know the forum for such crap.
The way you spin the story it is as if each passenger on the bus got on the bus, only wearing a mask because other people were wearing a mask, got to the window, read the sign, still closed the window.
Whereas in fact you have no idea of the circumstances which led to the windows being closed, or how aware the passengers are of the need to keep windows open. There's lot of signs on buses, ads, doesn't mean people cop them.
And maybe yes there is a cohort of people who are only wearing masks because it is a legal requirement & of peer pressure. Just as there is a cohort of people who don't drink and drive for the same reasons, or don't smoke on a bus for the same reasons.
But there were significant numbers of people wearing them before they become a legal requirement. There was significant media campaign making people aware of the importance of masks.
That tipped over the mask wearing numbers into the majority.
And the legal requirements and peer pressure did the rest.
As a general argument against masks, or indeed any public health measure, it has no foundation."To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
0 -
paw patrol wrote: »a harsh character judgement.
You doubt my sincerity but swallow some cobbled together science on masks.
till about June 2020 masks didn't work - then very quickly not only did they work but the science was nailed down erasing all previous findings.
that's not science that's religious conversion.
Road to Damascus stuff.
Remember when we were told it was spread by contact \ fomites because the Chinese didn't want people to be worried about human to human transmission?
Is that still where you are at?
How exactly do you think this virus spreads?
It took a while for that disinformation to be discounted by health authorities and that corrupted some of the early health advice from authorities about masks as it placed too much emphasis on fomite risk versus respiratory risk.
If masks didn't work why were they being used as PPE in spring 2020?
Previous findings clearly demonstrated their benefits there didn't they?
So what previous findings are you talking about?
It comes down to the difference between their use as PPE to protect an uninfected person caring for an infected person V use as a barrier to contain the droplets from an infected person when in a public place.
The standard of the mask and the proper procedures in wearing them as PPE is totally different to their use as barriers.
It was their use as barriers that wasn't assessed previously but was reconsidered in light of the importance of droplets in transmitting covid & that people without symptoms could transmit it & how effective masks are are containing such droplets.
Also looked at were real world incidents where infected hairdressers and plane passengers were shown to not infect others and they were wearing masks.
So no religion involved. That's the scientific process in action."To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
0 -
Advertisement
-
Irish Stones wrote: »FFP2 and 3 are PPE.
Surgical masks and other face coverings are not.
there you go.
why else would you say surgical masks do not count as ppe? what i took from that message is that you considered them not "effective" enough be be counted as ppe. what else could you have meant?0 -
paw patrol wrote: »nope , my belief is sincere.
I meant no point arguing the toss over masks in a thread/forum where they all agree. unless I get the horn for "likes".
Likes are nice but i'm really here for robust debate.
i too would like some robust debate. i have been on this thread a while. from the anti maskers i have seen nonsense. bogus science articles quoted. real science articles miss-quoted. unfounded opinion and some complete bullsh1t.
everytime any of us knocks down one of the arguments it is never argued back or robustly debated. the goal post is moved and a different piece of nonsense is spouted.
i showed a picture of adam savage sneezing droplets for his science show mythbusters. please o please robustly debate that point.
explain to me how some people are so deluded to believe that sneeze could have been as messy through a mask????????0 -
paw patrol wrote: »a harsh character judgement.
You doubt my sincerity but swallow some cobbled together science on masks.
till about June 2020 masks didn't work - then very quickly not only did they work but the science was nailed down erasing all previous findings.
that's not science that's religious conversion.
Road to Damascus stuff.
And what exacting studies to such great standards are you basing your opinions on?
That masks didn't work was never the stated case. At the start of all this mask use was not recommended to the public for many reasons, none of which were because they didn't "work", whatever "work" means in your opinion. Officials stating that there was lack of evidence to their efficacy is a very different thing and Seanergy has posted many reports here, from the early 2000's onwards, where mask use was recommended in epidemics/pandemics, if you care to check.
No one has said masks will 100% prevent the wearer getting covid but there are numerous studies on their benefits i.e.:
Reducing the chance of an infected person spreading the virus.
Reducing the chance of a wearer contracting the virus.
The reduction of viral load for the wearer if they do become infected, meaning a less severe form of the disease.
It's all about risk reduction and while the danger of the disease may be low for a large proportion of our society our chances of spreading a disease to those more vulnerable, if we don't catch it, is zero.
Of all the measures we've been asked to endure it really is the most trivial of them.0 -
paw patrol wrote: »a harsh character judgement.
You doubt my sincerity but swallow some cobbled together science on masks.
till about June 2020 masks didn't work - then very quickly not only did they work but the science was nailed down erasing all previous findings.
that's not science that's religious conversion.
Road to Damascus stuff.
See, you are not looking for any debate at all.
Religious conversion.
Fraud .
Etc.
Absolutely nothing to say with any proof or source. As other poster pointed you earlier, there are better threads to push this kind of agenda further.0 -
See, you are not looking for any debate at all.
Religious conversion.
Fraud .
Etc.
Absolutely nothing to say with any proof or source. As other poster pointed you earlier, there are better threads to push this kind of agenda further.
with respect . you're being disingenuous
that reply was in response to you doubting my sincerity - I was hardly going to reply by inviting you over for socially distanced afternoon tea.....0 -
Advertisement
-
And what exacting studies to such great standards are you basing your opinions on?
That masks didn't work was never the stated case. At the start of all
from about 1:15 for the moneyshot
irelands most prominent knowledge man on covid19 guffawing and back slapping with Tubridy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7_P2RmrA6U
I also remember the days when the WHO said similar and superman tony - I sound like an auld lad but so be it....
I will be back work permitting.0 -
there you go.
why else would you say surgical masks do not count as ppe? what i took from that message is that you considered them not "effective" enough be be counted as ppe. what else could you have meant?
PPE stands for Personal Protective Equipment, that means that a particular equipment is there to protect you, like safety goggles, helmets, heavy duty gloves, etc. They provide you active safety to protect you from incidents.
Surgical masks do not protect you, they do not provide you active safety, they are not Protecting you, they do protect the others around you.
In order to have you protected too, you should wear FFP2 or FFP3 masks, that are PPEs.
Being them "PPEs" or "effective" are two different concepts, you shouldn't mix them in the same sentence. Surgical masks ARE "effective" to protect others.0 -
paw patrol wrote: »from about 1:15 for the moneyshot
irelands most prominent knowledge man on covid19 guffawing and back slapping with Tubridy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7_P2RmrA6U
I also remember the days when the WHO said similar and superman tony - I sound like an auld lad but so be it....
I will be back work permitting.
That's brilliant evidence, assuming all knowledge on the virus has not changed since February 2020. Because that is what your argument seems to be based on. You are using old news/data to push a completely false narrative.
You're either too thick to understand this or more likely just getting your thrills by trying to get a rise out of people. Kind of sad either way.0 -
A bit of interesting reading, might even explain some of the posts here.
Anti-intellectualism and the mass public’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01112-w0 -
That's brilliant evidence, assuming all knowledge on the virus has not changed since February 2020. Because that is what your argument seems to be based on. You are using old news/data to push a completely false narrative.
You're either too thick to understand this or more likely just getting your thrills by trying to get a rise out of people. Kind of sad either way.
That's fair enough,however the individual referred to by the OP is no ordinary quack is he ?
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/what-is-an-immunologistImmunologist Education and Training
Immunologists in the United States spend at least 9 years training -- after earning a bachelor’s degree. The education process that follows includes:
4 years of medical school
3 years of training in their specialty, typically pediatrics (children’s health) or internal medicine (treating problems inside the body)
Passing an exam and receiving certification from the American Board of Internal Medicine or American Board of Pediatrics
A 2-year immunology and allergy fellowship (first-hand experience at a medical facility)
A final exam to receive certification from the American Board of Allergy and Immunology (ABAI)
Doctors with ABAI certification have an in-depth knowledge of the immune system, immunochemistry, and immunobiology. They’re experts in diagnosing and treating autoinflammatory and inflammatory disorders.
(US centred,however I am assuming Irish qualifications will,be to a similarly stringent standard)
He is somewhat eminent in his field.
As an immunologist,his view carries weight,added to by his particular media presence.
So is it surprising that the great unwashed treat his views with a form of deference,and then become equally confused when this impressive personage does a 180 within a very short timeframe ?
Or,is this,in your opinion,merely being "Sad" ?Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
Irish Stones wrote: »PPE stands for Personal Protective Equipment, that means that a particular equipment is there to protect you, like safety goggles, helmets, heavy duty gloves, etc. They provide you active safety to protect you from incidents.
Surgical masks do not protect you, they do not provide you active safety, they are not Protecting you, they do protect the others around you.
In order to have you protected too, you should wear FFP2 or FFP3 masks, that are PPEs.
Being them "PPEs" or "effective" are two different concepts, you shouldn't mix them in the same sentence. Surgical masks ARE "effective" to protect others.
well if your surgical mask protects me, and my mask protects you then "our" PERSONAL pieces of PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT are working just fine. of course surgical masks are ppe. god how you can divert a point and split hairs is almost impressive if not for being such s waste of time0 -
paw patrol wrote: »from about 1:15 for the moneyshot
ireland most prominent knowledge man on covid19 guffawing and back slapping with Tubridy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7_P2RmrA6U
I also remember the days when the WHO said similar and superman tony - I sound like an auld lad but so be it....
I will be back work permitting.
Your money shot may be premature, I recommend you re-watch that vid (from Feb 2020) given that he says that masks are of benefit if you're infected. For the uninfected, he stated his belief (at that time) that there was no evidence that they should be worn. You'll never guess what's happened during the intervening year...
As for the WHO, their guidelines from early 2019 on influenza pandemics recommended the use of masks by the public, the fact that they didn't during the early stages of Covid 19 has to be down to the scarcity of PPE for HCW's at that time, given that the modes of transmission are similar.
Given that you're fond of the bould Lukeen here's a interview from Sept where he discusses studies on the reduced severity of infection due to mask use:
So no, here was never stage where the consensus was that masks don't work, and then some magic date when they did, that's just your very inaccurate reading of the situation.0 -
He is somewhat eminent in his field.
As an immunologist,his view carries weight,added to by his particular media presence.
So is it surprising that the great unwashed treat his views with a form of deference,and then become equally confused when this impressive personage does a 180 within a very short timeframe ?
Or,is this,in your opinion,merely being "Sad" ?
He didn't "do a 180", he stated in that video from Feb 2020 that masks were of benefit if the wearer was infected, not a blanket "masks don't work". The issue with asymptomatic spread was not as well known at that time so that why he's on record since saying all people should wear masks.
And while he is an eminent immunologist he also bows down to experts in other fields, where masks are concerned that would be materials science, fluid dynamics, applied mathematics, etc.0 -
That's brilliant evidence, assuming all knowledge on the virus has not changed since February 2020. Because that is what your argument seems to be based on. You are using old news/data to push a completely false narrative.
You're either too thick to understand this or more likely just getting your thrills by trying to get a rise out of people. Kind of sad either way.
nope
I answered a specific question when a poster said nobody said what I claimed.
I showed somebody of note (Irish too) saying just that.
You're either too thick to understand this or more likely just getting your thrills by trying to get a rise out of people. Kind of sad either way.
I find your remark above overly snide. Your post gives you the air of an unpleasant closed minded individual who barks at people who have different opinions. Id wonder if you are the type of person who posts on local facebook group moaning about kids and teens playing in the park ?That's brilliant evidence, assuming all knowledge on the virus has not changed since February 2020. Because that is what your argument seems to be based on. You are using old news/data to push a completely false narrative.
Nope. I was very clear for decades masks (the general ones - not fancy graded ones) were not effective. With all other virus.
Then covid comes and that changed - as you say I'm looking at old science - but the argument I made was you cannot discard decades of recognised science for a new flash study or two. That's not science.
Anyway where is the science that shows masks works - anything i've seen is "may" work - the get out of jail clause. The Covid virus is too small to be effectively trapped by the cloth masks.
Carl Heneghan doesn't believe they are effective. I used him as an example - there are others of similar stature saying the same.
He would be more in tune with the science than administrators(or political animals) dictating this - take your pick from the clearly compromised WHO, Superman Tony or Fauci.
*Edit
Also France and Austria have said cloth masks are not effective and ordered higher grade ones. So it's clearly not settled.
I'm open minded though so lets see what a mask proponent says - try the CDC
OH...Cloth masks have been used in healthcare and community settings to protect the wearer from respiratory infections. The use of cloth masks during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is under debate. The filtration effectiveness of cloth masks is generally lower than that of medical masks and respirators; however, cloth masks may provide some protection if well designed and used correctly. Multilayer cloth masks, designed to fit around the face and made of water-resistant fabric with a high number of threads and finer weave, may provide reasonable protection. Until a cloth mask design is proven to be equally effective as a medical or N95 mask, wearing cloth masks should not be mandated for healthcare workers. In community settings, however, cloth masks may be used to prevent community spread of infections by sick or asymptomatically infected persons, and the public should be educated about their correct use.
vague as fcuk if you ask me. Also I'd draw your attention to
" cloth masks may provide some protection if well designed and used correctly"
which they are not on both accounts.
Forgive me if I'm not willing to do something cos I'm told by the man on the tv when don't believe it to be effective. I am able to evaluate thing in my "thick" brain :rolleyes:
the standard masks worn DO have an effect , I won't deny this. They offer comfort to people . But their fear is their problem , not mine.
Good day to you0 -
paw patrol wrote: »" cloth masks may provide some protection if well designed and used correctly"
which they are not on both accounts.
When you're able to spit, sneeze or spray through a cloth mask you may have an argument.0 -
Advertisement
-
paw patrol wrote: »nope
I answered a specific question when a poster said nobody said what I claimed.
I showed somebody of note (Irish too) saying just that.
I think the below accusation is quite mean.
I find your remark above overly snide. Your post gives you the air of an unpleasant closed minded individual who barks at people who have different opinions. Id wonder if you are the type of person who posts on local facebook group moaning about kids and teens playing in the park ?
Nope. I was very clear for decades masks (the general ones - not fancy graded ones) were not effective. With all other virus.
Then covid comes and that changed - as you say I'm looking at old science - but the argument I made was you cannot discard decades of recognised science for a new flash study or two. That's not science.
Anyway where is the science that shows masks works - anything i've seen is "may" work - the get out of jail clause. The Covid virus is too small to be effectively trapped by the cloth masks.
Carl Heneghan doesn't believe they are effective. I used him as an example - there are others of similar stature saying the same.
He would be more in tune with the science than administrators(or political animals) dictating this - take your pick from the clearly compromised WHO, Superman Tony or Fauci.
*Edit
Also France and Austria have said cloth masks are not effective and ordered higher grade ones. So it's clearly not settled.
I'm open minded though so lets see what a mask proponent says - try the CDC
OH...
vague as fcuk if you ask me. Also I'd draw your attention to
" cloth masks may provide some protection if well designed and used correctly"
which they are not on both accounts.
Forgive me if I'm not willing to do something cos I'm told by the man on the tv when don't believe it to be effective. I am able to evaluate thing in my "thick" brain :rolleyes:
the standard masks worn DO have an effect , I won't deny this. They offer comfort to people . But their fear is their problem , not mine.
Good day to you
With this piece you've completely killed your post. Arrogance and ignorance at it's best IMO!0 -
paw patrol wrote: »nope
I answered a specific question when a poster said nobody said what I claimed.
I showed somebody of note (Irish too) saying just that.
I think the below accusation is quite mean.
I find your remark above overly snide. Your post gives you the air of an unpleasant closed minded individual who barks at people who have different opinions. Id wonder if you are the type of person who posts on local facebook group moaning about kids and teens playing in the park ?
Nope. I was very clear for decades masks (the general ones - not fancy graded ones) were not effective. With all other virus.
Then covid comes and that changed - as you say I'm looking at old science - but the argument I made was you cannot discard decades of recognised science for a new flash study or two. That's not science.
Anyway where is the science that shows masks works - anything i've seen is "may" work - the get out of jail clause. The Covid virus is too small to be effectively trapped by the cloth masks.
Carl Heneghan doesn't believe they are effective. I used him as an example - there are others of similar stature saying the same.
He would be more in tune with the science than administrators(or political animals) dictating this - take your pick from the clearly compromised WHO, Superman Tony or Fauci.
*Edit
Also France and Austria have said cloth masks are not effective and ordered higher grade ones. So it's clearly not settled.
I'm open minded though so lets see what a mask proponent says - try the CDC
OH...
vague as fcuk if you ask me. Also I'd draw your attention to
" cloth masks may provide some protection if well designed and used correctly"
which they are not on both accounts.
Forgive me if I'm not willing to do something cos I'm told by the man on the tv when don't believe it to be effective. I am able to evaluate thing in my "thick" brain :rolleyes:
the standard masks worn DO have an effect , I won't deny this. They offer comfort to people . But their fear is their problem , not mine.
Good day to you
out of interest what is your concise opinion? i think i understand what you are against but not exactly sure what you are for?
should people in shops were masks?0 -
out of interest what is your concise opinion? i think i understand what you are against but not exactly sure what you are for?
should people in shops were masks?
they can wear one if it pleases them.
I don't believe people should be forced to wear a mask esp not under the threat of penalty or arrest.
I don't believe they are effective and that adds to the civil liberty woe. This may be a flaw of mine - won't argue - but I have issues with being forced into doing something I don't believe in.
if we had an argument regarding fancier masks like PPF3 (of which I have a stock ) I'd concede my counter debaters would have a more solid argument.
But as it stand with normal face coverings the evidence isn't there to compel me to believe.
But as they stand I sincerely believe the majority of masks I see are ineffective in spread the virus.0 -
-
paw patrol wrote: »they can wear one if it pleases them.
I don't believe people should be forced to wear a mask esp not under the threat of penalty or arrest.
I don't believe they are effective and that adds to the civil liberty woe. This may be a flaw of mine - won't argue - but I have issues with being forced into doing something I don't believe in.
if we had an argument regarding fancier masks like PPF3 (of which I have a stock ) I'd concede my counter debaters would have a more solid argument.
But as it stand with normal face coverings the evidence isn't there to compel me to believe.
But as they stand I sincerely believe the majority of masks I see are ineffective in spread the virus.
fair enough i dont agree but i can see it is a reasoned opinion.
in relation to ffp3 of course they are better but that is not a fair point, a simple surgical mask has proven more effective than no mask at all, the literature does exist and i have referenced it hear before.
for civil liberties i call BS, we already are forced to do things we may not want to for the sake of public health eg not drink and drive.
a random person does have the freedom to drive drunk because it is not just their life in risk.
a random maskless person should not be welcomed into public places or shops because also it is not just their life they risk.0 -
a random maskless person should not be welcomed into public places or shops because also it is not just their life they risk.
Did you ever believe that it was okay to restrict liberties for the greater good in relation to other respiratory viruses? Do you now?
At what point do you think masks should stop being mandatory in indoor public spaces, if ever?0 -
paw patrol wrote: »well done. medal is in the post. :rolleyes:
Thanks, I'll be happy to add it to my collection.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Did you ever believe that it was okay to restrict liberties for the greater good in relation to other respiratory viruses? Do you now?
At what point do you think masks should stop being mandatory in indoor public spaces, if ever?
i absolutely did believe it was ok to restrict liberties in relation to masks for respiratory illness. pre covid the only illness they were routinely worn for was tb. but worn they were. every tb patient had a ffp3 mask stuck on them and expected to wear it for long periods. and they were medically unwell people. and they all did without issue.
when it should be lifted i am truly unsure. i have been asked that exact question on this thread already and my best guess would involve community transmission eradicated to a massive degree.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Did you ever believe that it was okay to restrict liberties for the greater good in relation to other respiratory viruses? Do you now?
At what point do you think masks should stop being mandatory in indoor public spaces, if ever?
I can't see them ever going away, although I hope I'm wrong. I just don't see all those signs at Luas stops, on buses, in railway stations, in shops, banks etc disappearing. And there's been practically zero opposition to them.
In the UK, it's likely that mask wearing and social distancing will continue after the 21st of June: https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/covid-rules-to-last-beyond-20511894
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/02/the-end-of-lockdown-exactly-how-much-freedom-will-we-have
“I think we’ll re-impose masking in the winter on crowded indoor spaces. It has the benefit of reducing flu.”
But it's hard to know what's going to happen in the UK. A week or so ago it was reported that masks would be scrapped for the summer: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/face-mask-free-summer-on-cards-as-data-looks-good-for-next-stage-of-roadmap-9710000 -
Advertisement
-
I can't see them ever going away, although I hope I'm wrong. I just don't see all those signs at Luas stops, on buses, in railway stations, in shops, banks etc disappearing. And there's been practically zero opposition to them.
Of all the NPI'S introduced to help deal with Covid-19, masks have recieved the most opposition.
Can you see the hand washing signs remaining also or the social distancing signs?
Your getting way ahead of yourself, stirring the pot to expidite and radicalise, no need to inject your fear into the present let alone the future.
Suprised your not promoting this more....
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement