To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

Spanish Eyes

I often wonder if the fact that annual flu season passed us by with virtually no outbreak is the result of mask wearing.

Could very well be, but you would have to factor in the lack of gatherings in crowded places and public transport too I suppose. Still.....

odyssey06

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I often wonder if the fact that annual flu season passed us by with virtually no outbreak is the result of mask wearing.
Could very well be, but you would have to factor in the lack of gatherings in crowded places and public transport too I suppose. Still.....

Or that those things happened in asia and apac winter so no new strains generated.

Seanergy

Seanergy wrote: »

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....

I can. I don't see any of the signs going.

I should clarify that I mean no media or political opposition. In the UK, in contrast, there has been significant media (Talk Radio, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail) and political (The Covid Recovery Group) opposition.

Masks are popular with the general public, so I don't see them going away.

is_that_so

Gortanna wrote: »

I can. I don't see any of the signs going.

I should clarify that I mean no media or political opposition. In the UK, in contrast, there has been significant media (Talk Radio, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail) and political (The Covid Recovery Group) opposition.

Masks are popular with the general public, so I don't see them going away.

I don't know about popular but they are generally well tolerated. Some will still keep them for a good while even after we are free to go about without them.

Seanergy

Gortanna wrote: »

I can. I don't see any of the signs going.

I should clarify that I mean no media or political opposition.

The mask debate was caught in such a bad stalemate during the opening months, 50/50 pro/opposing that NPHET had to make a special masks sub committee to achieve moving ground.

Political opposition to mask wearing was very evident. NPHET advice to mask up the population pre the first lockdown exit last May was ignored.

Regarding media, personally I found RTÉ have acted very 'unmasky' throughout. 'Anti-maskers' were too caught up with having easy jabs to notice or manilpulate.

Seanergy

UK nearly finished their first pilot programme. Today's audience for the final was ramped up to full capacity.

Double maskers and nose pokers scattered aswell. Good balance of types of masks and fit, similar to ours I would have thought, maybe even less sloppy looking.

Plonker in faceshield had the boom camera lined up for a cough when it panned around to him and a smile afterward, I said he's a good laugh, in his own head.

All of those attending will have to take a COVID-19 test before they arrive, and must show confirmation of a negative result to enter the venue, as well as having another five days afterwards at home.

paw patrol

Sparkey84 wrote: »

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.
.

That's a fair counter point. But it's not the same thing.
If we applied that logic then we should ban or curtail nearly every activities we do. Life is full of dangers and mishaps but to limit our fun/free movement (insert something else) is to kill of lives.

While I'm not saying you are advocating this , the more curtailment(s) we as a society champion the more toward social credit china style. And that's an abhorrent system of surveillance and punishment.

Sparkey84 wrote: »

a random maskless person should not be welcomed into public places or shops because also it is not just their life they risk.

Covid19 has a survival rate of 99.9% (or 99.7% as some will argue but they ignore the people who had it who weren't tested) with no real data showing outdoor spread it appears to be confined to within the household spread or healthcare settings or at work. I'd guess public transport would contribute to spread too if work from home wasn't a thing.
It doesn't seem to spread in supermarkets or shops - the supermarkets have been constantly (mask mandates and no mask mandates) open but the good and great staff of Tesco or Dunnes haven't dropped like flies.

instead of lashing all society with rules (under the treat of arrest) it may have been better to spend resources to offer supports for those who are worried about it.
You may not agree, but for me it's better to be free in a riskier environment than to live in a sterile society with overt control of my daily actions.

Irish Stones

Seanergy wrote: »

Can you see the hand washing signs remaining also or the social distancing signs?

I can see them remaining, too.
Why should they be removed?
Washing hands often, staying away from other, wearing masks, all these things worked fine and cost close to nothing. What harm could they do if they remain?
After all, who knows, someone next to you might be the carrier of a brand new disease/virus, wouldn't you like to stay safe from them?

Irish Stones

Irish Stones wrote: »

After all, who knows, someone next to you might be the carrier of a brand new disease/virus, wouldn't you like to stay safe from them?

No. That is a ridiculously overcautious way to live.

Sparkey84

paw patrol wrote: »

That's a fair counter point. But it's not the same thing.
If we applied that logic then we should ban or curtail nearly every activities we do. Life is full of dangers and mishaps but to limit our fun/free movement (insert something else) is to kill of lives.

While I'm not saying you are advocating this , the more curtailment(s) we as a society champion the more toward social credit china style. And that's an abhorrent system of surveillance and punishment.




Covid19 has a survival rate of 99.9% (or 99.7% as some will argue but they ignore the people who had it who weren't tested) with no real data showing outdoor spread it appears to be confined to within the household spread or healthcare settings or at work. I'd guess public transport would contribute to spread too if work from home wasn't a thing.
It doesn't seem to spread in supermarkets or shops - the supermarkets have been constantly (mask mandates and no mask mandates) open but the good and great staff of Tesco or Dunnes haven't dropped like flies.

instead of lashing all society with rules (under the treat of arrest) it may have been better to spend resources to offer supports for those who are worried about it.
You may not agree, but for me it's better to be free in a riskier environment than to live in a sterile society with overt control of my daily actions.

you are deliberately miss quoting me.
my fair "counterpoint" is very close ethically to the mask issue.

as a society we allow motorcycling even though proven more dangerous. it is an acceptable risk a person chooses to take. we ban drink driving because it is an unacceptable risk to others without their choice.

in exactly the same way that a maskless person in a shop is risking the health of other people and not respecting their choice of being safer.

i hate the term civil liberties. the far more important term is civil responsibility.

also where are you pulling the 99.9% survivability stat from, please try and reference that one.

also no real evidence of outdoor spread?? where's that from??

Sparkey84

Sparkey84 wrote: »

also where are you pulling the 99.9% survivability stat from, please try and reference that one.

"Taking account of historical experience, trends in the data, increased number of infections in the population at largest, and potential impact of misclassification of deaths give a presumed estimate for the COVID-19 IFR somewhere between 0.1% and 0.35%.*"

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/

Sparkey84 wrote: »

also no real evidence of outdoor spread?? where's that from??

Evidence continues to suggest that the vast majority of transmission happens in
indoor spaces; recent reviews considering data from several countries found very
little evidence of outdoor transmission for SARS-CoV-2, influenza or other
respiratory viruses [9, 10]. The small number of cases where outdoor transmission
may have occurred are associated with gatherings that facilitate close interactions,
particularly extended duration, or settings where people mixed in indoor venues
alongside an outdoor setting.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/945978/S0921_Factors_contributing_to_risk_of_SARS_18122020.pdf

Lumen

Deleted User wrote: »

"Taking account of historical experience, trends in the data, increased number of infections in the population at largest, and potential impact of misclassification of deaths give a presumed estimate for the COVID-19 IFR somewhere between 0.1% and 0.35%.*"

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/

Also on that page, in a brightly coloured panel:

"IFR estimate = 0.52%"

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

Also on that page, in a brightly coloured panel:

"IFR estimate = 0.52%"

Sure. The article goes on to explain that during the swine flu pandemic, the IFR was estimated at 0.1%, but ended up at 0.02%, fivefold less, because more people had been infected than was initially estimated. Factoring in that lesson from history and combining it with what is known about the relative transmissibility of Covid-19 and the prevalence of asymptomatic and/or mild, never tested cases, they arrive at the estimate of the IFR being somewhere between 0.1% and 0.35%

It's all in the article.

If you look outside the brightly coloured panels.

Lumen

Deleted User wrote: »

If you look outside the brightly coloured panels.

I've no time for that. 😀

Besides, you still picked the lower bound for no apparent reason other than that it suited your argument.

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

I've no time for that. ��

Besides, you still picked the lower bound for no apparent reason other than that it suited your argument.

I didn't. I wasn't the person making the argument to begin with. I just found the sources that someone had asked for after the argument was made.

Don't be so cynical. It's bad for you.

xhomelezz

Christ, I'm just waiting when someone says coronavirus desease makes us healthier.

Death rate is not as bad as predicted, because of precautions. You can only imagine what situation we would be in, if we just let it go wild.

odyssey06

xhomelezz wrote: »

Christ, I'm just waiting when someone says coronavirus desease makes us healthier.
Death rate is not as bad as predicted, because of precautions. You can only imagine what situation we would be in, if we just let it go wild.

It's like the people who compared it to the Ebola fatality rate without mentioning how likely someone is to BE infected.
It's the sheer quantity of people this sends into hospital and ICU.

Which is where restrictions and measures like masks come in...

paw patrol

Sparkey84 wrote: »

you are deliberately miss quoting me.
my fair "counterpoint" is very close ethically to the mask issue.

if I did , I didn't do it intentionally

Sparkey84 wrote: »

i hate the term civil liberties. the far more important term is civil responsibility.

thats ok , I disagree. I shouldn't be control by the whims and (sometimes) irrational needs of others. We aren't a hive mind.

Sparkey84 wrote: »

also no real evidence of outdoor spread?? where's that from??

It's common knowledge Uk government published this I think and oxford uni.

I'm at work so I'm not digging out a study - I'm not one of these internet heros that saves articles in order to win battles online in the future. I read , absorb and move on and normally I refuse - they can google themselves,

but here is an IT article on it

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/outdoor-transmission-accounts-for-0-1-of-state-s-covid-19-cases-1.4529036

Irish Stones

Deleted User wrote: »

No. That is a ridiculously overcautious way to live.

Nonetheless many will live by these new safety measures. They are inexpensive and proved to be effective.

Seanergy

Court of Appeal upholds High Court decision that two primary school age children be returned to their mother in France where they habitually reside.

Their father in Ireland was keeping them here over the mandatory wearing of masks in their own school.

https://www.courts.ie/viewer/pdf/5e3174eb-2658-41b9-8718-e461f57ff12c/2021_IECA_132.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Sparkey84

paw patrol wrote: »

if I did , I didn't do it intentionally




thats ok , I disagree. I shouldn't be control by the whims and (sometimes) irrational needs of others. We aren't a hive mind.





It's common knowledge Uk government published this I think and oxford uni.

I'm at work so I'm not digging out a study - I'm not one of these internet heros that saves articles in order to win battles online in the future. I read , absorb and move on and normally I refuse - they can google themselves,

but here is an IT article on it

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/outdoor-transmission-accounts-for-0-1-of-state-s-covid-19-cases-1.4529036

that article on the outdoor transmission was interesting in fairness, much lower than i expected considering how long the virus can live on stainless steel etx.

in relation to the hive mind, thats taking it too far, the reason we dont drink and drive is because we respect the wishes and safety of our fellow citizens not because we are borg from star trek.

imagine if a a person was stabbed with a syringe
in an assault.

the person who owns the syringe may not see it as a deadly weapon as they stick it in themselves routinely

the person who gets stabed may see it as a more severe weapon than a knife due to risk of aids heb a,b,c etx.

who's view matters in that case?

how can you quantify your right to feel comfortable (no mask) vs a strangers right to fell safe( not be around maskless)

Sparkey84

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"Taking account of historical experience, trends in the data, increased number of infections in the population at largest, and potential impact of misclassification of deaths give a presumed estimate for the COVID-19 IFR somewhere between 0.1% and 0.35%.*"

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/



Evidence continues to suggest that the vast majority of transmission happens in
indoor spaces; recent reviews considering data from several countries found very
little evidence of outdoor transmission for SARS-CoV-2, influenza or other
respiratory viruses [9, 10]. The small number of cases where outdoor transmission
may have occurred are associated with gatherings that facilitate close interactions,
particularly extended duration, or settings where people mixed in indoor venues
alongside an outdoor setting.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/945978/S0921_Factors_contributing_to_risk_of_SARS_18122020.pdf

there are 4900 deaths in ireland so far, even if that translates to a low % number that will offer little comfort to the family.

_Kaiser_

Sparkey84 wrote: »

there are 4900 deaths in ireland so far, even if that translates to a low % number that will offer little comfort to the family.

And each death is sad and a loss to their family and friends, of course.

But.. people die I'm afraid. They did before Covid, they do during Covid, and they will after Covid.

Masks or any other restriction won't change that. We haven't discovered a cure to death, or way to immortality.

<5000 deaths after 14 months in a country of 4.9 million people is actually an extremely low number, and this is a VERY GOOD thing. 99.7/9% of people in this country are at little to no risk from Covid, and this is again a VERY GOOD thing.

Seanergy

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Masks or any other restriction won't change that. We haven't discovered a cure to death, or way to immortality.

Masks are not a restriction. How are masks a restriction? What are the other restrictions your refferring to?

is_that_so

Seanergy wrote: »

Masks are not a restriction. How are masks a restriction? What are the other restrictions your refferring to?

They are NPIs and in principle not having one restricts access to a wide range of services.

Sparkey84

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

And each death is sad and a loss to their family and friends, of course.

But.. people die I'm afraid. They did before Covid, they do during Covid, and they will after Covid.

Masks or any other restriction won't change that. We haven't discovered a cure to death, or way to immortality.

<5000 deaths after 14 months in a country of 4.9 million people is actually an extremely low number, and this is a VERY GOOD thing. 99.7/9% of people in this country are at little to no risk from Covid, and this is again a VERY GOOD thing.

nobody died of covid before covid arrived. and covid is specifically what we are talking about.

if ford stopped offering seatbelts / airbags and came out with the attitude "sure people die what of it, no point of taking reasonable precautions" how do you think that would go? very badly, your argument is no better.

by the way the fact that only 0.1% of the population died does not mean the mortality rate is 0.1%, different measurment

_Kaiser_

Sparkey84 wrote: »

nobody died of covid before covid arrived. and covid is specifically what we are talking about.

if ford stopped offering seatbelts / airbags and came out with the attitude "sure people die what of it, no point of taking reasonable precautions" how do you think that would go? very badly, your argument is no better.

by the way the fact that only 0.1% of the population died does not mean the mortality rate is 0.1%, different measurment

You're right.. it's probably a lot less as we counted every death "with" Covid rather than "from" Covid, as well as not counting those who had it, recovered, and didn't know it.

Your analogy would be accurate if it was more that Ford offer seatbelts/airbags but despite this acknowledge that some will unfortunately still die regardless. We can't save everyone I'm afraid - at some point you have to balance risk vs reward and proportionality. The needs of the many vs the needs of the few.

That balance and proportionality is something we've gotten badly wrong in the last year and the impact to other health issues/treatments, employment, business, mental health and community, and the wider economy is something we'll all be dealing with for a lot longer than Covid.

odyssey06

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

You're right.. it's probably a lot less as we counted every death "with" Covid rather than "from" Covid, as well as not counting those who had it, recovered, and didn't know it.

Your analogy would be accurate if it was more that Ford offer seatbelts/airbags but despite this acknowledge that some will unfortunately still die regardless. We can't save everyone I'm afraid - at some point you have to balance risk vs reward and proportionality. The needs of the many vs the needs of the few.

That balance and proportionality is something we've gotten badly wrong in the last year and the impact to other health issues/treatments, employment, business, mental health and community, and the wider economy is something we'll all be dealing with for a lot longer than Covid.

The 'needs' of drivers to speed or drink drive does not outweigh the rights of pedestrians to be protected. Or the 'need' of drivers to drive badly maintained bangers pre-NCT.

The needs of the many do not outweigh the rights of the few, and in this case it isn't even 'the few'.

A significant number of the Irish population are known to be vulnerable to covid to the extent that it can hospitalise them or put them into ICU and potentially the grave.
The needs of the many require a functioning public health system and allowing covid to run unchecked runs counters to that.

As for masks, there is no 'need' being infringed, and their economic impact is negligible. Anyone actually concerned about the economy wouldn't give two hoots about masks, would welcome them in fact, as a tool to allow businesses to open.

Sparkey84

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

You're right.. it's probably a lot less as we counted every death "with" Covid rather than "from" Covid, as well as not counting those who had it, recovered, and didn't know it.

Your analogy would be accurate if it was more that Ford offer seatbelts/airbags but despite this acknowledge that some will unfortunately still die regardless. We can't save everyone I'm afraid - at some point you have to balance risk vs reward and proportionality. The needs of the many vs the needs of the few.

That balance and proportionality is something we've gotten badly wrong in the last year and the impact to other health issues/treatments, employment, business, mental health and community, and the wider economy is something we'll all be dealing with for a lot longer than Covid.

you have miss quoted me twice insinuating i am trying to save everyone, that is not the case i am advocating for reducing relative risk, a very different thing

how has the wearing of masks had a negative effect on business and our economy? i really dont get that. there are business that are aloud to open and trade due to precautions like masks etx

Sparkey84

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

You're right.. it's probably a lot less as we counted every death "with" Covid rather than "from" Covid, as well as not counting those who had it, recovered, and didn't know it.

Your analogy would be accurate if it was more that Ford offer seatbelts/airbags but despite this acknowledge that some will unfortunately still die regardless. We can't save everyone I'm afraid - at some point you have to balance risk vs reward and proportionality. The needs of the many vs the needs of the few.

That balance and proportionality is something we've gotten badly wrong in the last year and the impact to other health issues/treatments, employment, business, mental health and community, and the wider economy is something we'll all be dealing with for a lot longer than Covid.

you have miss quoted me twice insinuating i am trying to save everyone, that is not the case i am advocating for reducing relative risk, a very different thing

how has the wearing of masks had a negative effect on business and our economy? i really dont get that. there are business that are aloud to open and trade due to precautions like masks etx