To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

CalamariFritti

re: odyssey06 (edit)

Those are fair points and I'm not expecting to sway people. All I want is recognition that there are genuine concerns. I don't want to be put automatically in the covidiot bracket which happens so much. We're trying to shout down discourse in the covid debate a lot and I hate it. Its actually very unscientific, too.

CalamariFritti

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

A poster in the main thread said there was 14 ICU beds left in Dublin. Yesterday it was 9 left.

And people find it hard or just ignorant to be wearing a face mask?

To be fair we had 6 months to prepare and we knew exactly what was coming. If having 20 people in ICU with covid has us on the brink then masks aren't really our problem are they? If that number is actually true there should be heads rolling immediately.

3xh

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

Low hospitalisations? Hospitalisations is increasing. So are deaths.

It took a TD speaking out against the grain in the oireachtas for NPHET to confirm ‘hospitalisation’ means anyone admitted to hospital with Covid.

As more people move away from the lockdown before, return to work, roads get busier, etc, etc, hospitalisations will naturally increase.

Because Covid has clearly passed through a larger portion of the public asymptomatically, it’s when these few who are hospitalised are tested, we see Covid ‘hospitalisation’ figures increase.

The problem for you is, you said ‘hospitalisations are increasing’ How many are because of Covid? You don’t know. But NPHET do. Strange they don’t tell us that when they’re telling us they’re very concerned and the next 2 weeks are critical.

Away With The Fairies

CalamariFritti wrote: »

To be fair we had 6 months to prepare and we knew exactly what was coming. If having 20 people in ICU with covid has us on the brink then masks aren't really our problem are they? If that number is actually true there should be heads rolling immediately.

Our health service is fcuked, they should have increased ICU capacity earlier in the year. But they didn't and it's not our fault but we should be doing everything we can to be staying out of ICU. If masks help to reduce viral load and not get it bad... I don't understand how people find this difficult to understand.

We are given a warning that we may end up bad with this virus, maybe end up in hospital or ICU. We don't get any warning if we end up in a car accident and need ICU. We can at least wear a mask and prevent others from getting sick and needing ICU. Really, don't understand why people are not getting this.

CalamariFritti

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

Our health service is fcuked, they should have increased ICU capacity earlier in the year. But they didn't and it's not our fault but we should be doing everything we can to be staying out of ICU. If masks help to reduce viral load and not get it bad... I don't understand how people find this difficult to understand.

We are given a warning that we may end up bad with this virus, maybe end up in hospital or ICU. We don't get any warning if we end up in a car accident and need ICU. We can at least wear a mask and prevent others from getting sick and needing ICU. Really, don't understand why people are not getting this.

Just read my post 5 above and dont just repeat that 'whats so hard to understand' line. Its not that it isn't hard to understand. It simply doesnt add up and I don't buy that 'every little may help' attitude.

Away With The Fairies

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Just read my post 5 above and dont just repeat that 'whats so hard to understand' line. Its not that it isn't hard to understand. It simply doesnt add up and I don't buy that 'every little may help' attitude.

What doesn't add up for you?

CalamariFritti

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

What doesn't add up for you?

The way we established a couple of facts and then connected them with a lot of conjecture and assumption and then go around and call the whole thing scientific evidence, case closed. Far from it IMO.

Anyway, better do some work...

odyssey06

CalamariFritti wrote: »

re: odyssey06 (edit)

Those are fair points and I'm not expecting to sway people. All I want is recognition that there are genuine concerns. I don't want to be put automatically in the covidiot bracket which happens so much. We're trying to shout down discourse in the covid debate a lot and I hate it. Its actually very unscientific, too.

I hope no one has been shouted down for expressing genuine concerns or being unconvinced... those can be discussed and that's what boards is there for.

Unfortunately masks have attracted a lot of 'covidiot' opposition which has a different agenda not seeking discourse (great reset, muzzles, oxygen deprivation etc) which kinda does need to be rebutted but also shouted down to a certain extent. That can raise the temperature of the thread and reduce the scope for the above discussions.

odyssey06

CalamariFritti wrote: »

The way we established a couple of facts and then connected them with a lot of conjecture and assumption and then go around and call the whole thing scientific evidence, case closed. Far from it IMO.

Anyway, better do some work...

I think you need to expand your concept of scientific evidence beyond something like randomly controlled trials with human subjects.
In the absence of being able to do random controlled trials with humans (would not be ethical without vaccine), this is often how public health has to operate, from an epidemiological perspective. That is still scientific evidence.

Graces7

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

Our health service is fcuked, they should have increased ICU capacity earlier in the year. But they didn't and it's not our fault but we should be doing everything we can to be staying out of ICU. If masks help to reduce viral load and not get it bad... I don't understand how people find this difficult to understand.

We are given a warning that we may end up bad with this virus, maybe end up in hospital or ICU. We don't get any warning if we end up in a car accident and need ICU. We can at least wear a mask and prevent others from getting sick and needing ICU. Really, don't understand why people are not getting this.

The ICU issue is complicated as it takes 6 months atop of ordinary training for an ICU nurse to be able for it. As they are now opening more ICU beds they have clearly been retraining.

But yes; as much as we can to stay out of ICU and simple measures like wearing a mask all help

Away With The Fairies

Went to the shop this morning, someone working there behind their screen and their face mask around their chin. Another worker had a visor but not covering her face but sitting on the head. The worker with the face mask on the chin turned around to the worker with visor on the head and was inches away.

Two customers outside the shop, a father and teenage son, tried to put on face masks outside the shop. Saw them inside the shop and both of them with their face masks around their chin. Ah yeah, that will do for a pass into a shop!!

Seriously, and people are wondering about increase in cases with mask wearing? I'm no Einstein but when you see this type of behaviour every day, it doesn't take a genius to figure out.

Away With The Fairies

It's only a matter of time when they come out with it being airborne. I wonder what will Ireland's plan be after that? Masks and ventilation are so important but sure how long will they figure this out.

CalamariFritti

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think you need to expand your concept of scientific evidence beyond something like randomly controlled trials with human subjects.
In the absence of being able to do random controlled trials with humans (would not be ethical without vaccine), this is often how public health has to operate, from an epidemiological perspective. That is still scientific evidence.

Sorry no. I understand what the constraints are and what we are able to determine as facts is obviously enough for you and others to go ahead with masks anyway. But you cant' call it evidence.

Edit:

Some may call it semantics, but I want to be clear. I accept evidence that we found virus in droplets outside of patients. I accept evidence that masks reduce droplets emissions. But I dont accept those two as evidence that masks in shops and supermarkets will make a noticeable impact on transmission in Ireland. Between the first two points and the latter one there is a huge leap with nothing to support it other than 'lets err on the side of caution'.

Sconsey

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Sorry no. I understand what the constraints are and what we are able to determine as facts is obviously enough for you and others to go ahead with masks anyway. But you cant' call it evidence.

Edit:

Some may call it semantics, but I want to be clear. I accept evidence that we found virus in droplets outside of patients. I accept evidence that masks reduce droplets emissions. But I dont accept those two as evidence that masks in shops and supermarkets will make a noticeable impact on transmission in Ireland. Between the first two points and the latter one there is a huge leap with nothing to support it other than 'lets err on the side of caution'.

I think you are being very shortsighted saying that the first two points do not support the third point. But even with that in mind, I am blown away that you can accept the first two facts and are not willing to err on the side of caution...it's a global pandemic, the first in a hundred years, we should be doing everyting we can to address it, with a bit of perspective wearing a mask is a tiny ask.

odyssey06

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Sorry no. I understand what the constraints are and what we are able to determine as facts is obviously enough for you and others to go ahead with masks anyway. But you cant' call it evidence.

Edit:
Some may call it semantics, but I want to be clear. I accept evidence that we found virus in droplets outside of patients. I accept evidence that masks reduce droplets emissions. But I dont accept those two as evidence that masks in shops and supermarkets will make a noticeable impact on transmission in Ireland. Between the first two points and the latter one there is a huge leap with nothing to support it other than 'lets err on the side of caution'.

I disagree it is a huge leap.
It is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the evidence.

What would that evidence look like that would satisfy you?
And how does it compare to scientific evidence, for example, that banning smoking on buses or in shops would make a noticeable impact on cancer rates in Ireland.
And I don't mean evidence gathered years later. I mean the evidence presented at the time and during its introduction.

You can't just look at case counts because the very nature of the transmission space makes it challenging to 'notice' the effect of the measure, especially when we are dealing at the same time with constant changes in the rest of the measures \ lockdowns etc

CalamariFritti

I might accept it if empirical evidence wouldnt point in the other direction.

odyssey06

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I might accept it if empirical evidence wouldnt point in the other direction.

I don't know what that means really.
We have the empirical evidence of countries which were early adopters of masks in public setting such as Czech Republic, who had far lower case counts than other countries who otherwise enacted similar level lockdowns.
That was one of the set of evidence cited by the US CDC in updating their advice on masks in public settings.

Demonique

I was halfway down the shopping centre on my way to boots when I realised I'd forgotten to put my mask on, put it on pretty double quick once I realised

is_that_so

odyssey06 wrote: »

I don't know what that means really.
We have the empirical evidence of countries which were early adopters of masks in public setting such as Czech Republic, who had far lower case counts than other countries who otherwise enacted similar level lockdowns.
That was one of the set of evidence cited by the US CDC in updating their advice on masks in public settings.

We also have empirical evidence of the Czechs opening up way too fast and now experiencing rapidly rising cases. Masks are of no real use in the face of people wanting to live their lives as if it's pre-COVID as that HSE parable yesterday showed! They are at best of limited use and have long since reached that limit.

odyssey06

is_that_so wrote: »

We also have empirical evidence of the Czechs opening up way too fast and now experiencing rapidly rising cases. Masks are of no real use in the face of people wanting to live their lives as if it's pre-COVID as that HSE parable yesterday showed! They are at best of limited use and have long since reached that limit.

If they reduce the risk in community settings, they make it easier for the vulnerable to go about their business and reduce their chance of picking something up from those "living their lives as if it's 2019".
It's a tool against the virus in specific settings, not the be all and end all.
You can call that limited, or you can call it specific.

Sconsey

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I might accept it if empirical evidence wouldnt point in the other direction.

By emperical evidence I assume you are talking about the fact that no outbreaks were reported from shops when masks were not mandated? yet at the same time there was over 30% community spread that could have been coming from anywhere including supermarkets, coupled with the fact that most shops were closed, throw in the fact that we now know a large percentage could be asymptomatic. That is weak emperical evidence.

Whereas there is scientific evidence and emperical evidence (check out the infection rates in HSE staff before and after masks were mandated) that masks can reduce the risk of spreading.

is_that_so

odyssey06 wrote: »

If they reduce the risk in community settings, they make it easier for the vulnerable to go about their business and reduce their chance of picking something up from those "living their lives as if it's 2019".
It's a tool against the virus in specific settings, not the be all and end all.
You can call that limited, or you can call it specific.

Well, it's not the salvation of humanity that some would have you believe. We seem to be at a real 90% compliance so that's it done. It's really not a practical solution in the community where cases are emerging. Back to basic measures is the only answer there and that's what some people have forgotten or are ignoring.

CalamariFritti

Sconsey wrote: »

I think you are being very shortsighted saying that the first two points do not support the third point. But even with that in mind, I am blown away that you can accept the first two facts and are not willing to err on the side of caution...it's a global pandemic, the first in a hundred years, we should be doing everyting we can to address it, with a bit of perspective wearing a mask is a tiny ask.

Its a global pandemic that caught us by surprise at first, fair enough, but one that we are now vastly exaggerating (which is not the same as saying its still not a problem).
I am simply completely distrustful of politicians. They would mandate anything if they thought it got them approval. So over the top 'just in case' stuff will not get my benefit of the doubt.

CalamariFritti

Sconsey wrote: »

By emperical evidence I assume you are talking about the fact that no outbreaks were reported from shops when masks were not mandated? yet at the same time there was over 30% community spread that could have been coming from anywhere including supermarkets, coupled with the fact that most shops were closed, throw in the fact that we now know a large percentage could be asymptomatic. That is weak emperical evidence.

Whereas there is scientific evidence and emperical evidence (check out the infection rates in HSE staff before and after masks were mandated) that masks can reduce the risk of spreading.

Yes thats what I mean.

We went from our first outbreak with bad numbers down to single figures without masks. Supermarket staff had virtually no reported infections. Them being there all the time amongst us should have been exposed like a sponge if you like.

I wouldn't call that weak evidence. Its stronger than the mask 'evidence', at least it has real life experience behind it.

Edit: Thats my whole point, you cant compare a hospital setting with actual conformed covid cases and staff treating them to random supermarket encounters.

Sconsey

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Yes thats what I mean.

We went from our first outbreak with bad numbers down to single figures without masks. Supermarket staff had virtually no reported infections. Them being there all the time amongst us should have been exposed like a sponge if you like.

I wouldn't call that weak evidence. Its stronger than the mask 'evidence', at least it has real life experience behind it.

We'll have to agree to differ, as there is actually shed-loads of real evidence (no quotes required) out there and in these threads.

CalamariFritti

Sconsey wrote: »

We'll have to agree to differ, as there is actually shed-loads of real evidence (no quotes required) out there and in these threads.

Evidence of supermarket/shop infections? Or staff infections?

Look no worries. I have no way of knowing who is wrong or right and I dont think anyone has. I am just saying I'm sceptical and thats the opinion I arrived at. What harm does it anyway? I go shopping and I'll wear my mask like everyone else.

One last comment. I see a lot of people wearing them wrongly and more importantly being at them non-stop (myself included). Cos they slip and they itch and whatnot. We were told at the start not to go at your face under any circumstances when out and about. So call me mad but I'm not even convinced due to this they may not actually cause more infections than they prevent.

3xh

All this talk about the usefulness or otherwise of masks and the elephant in the room is the HSE staff notice to educated nurses and admin staff on the front line reminding them of the need to wear one to allay the fears of both admitted patients and the public waiting to be seen.

These nurses and support staff are meant to scarred basically from what they saw 6 months ago. Yet it appears even the wearing of one behind the doors to the wards is a pain for them such that they’re whipped off the minute the staff cross over into public areas.

In the words of the HSE themselves, the need to wear masks in the public areas is for show. Not for scientific reasons in the suppression of the virus. And this is in hospitals! Not walking from the street into a shop/shopping centre.

If you still think ‘you’re doing your bit’ etc etc you’re beyond help. No offence.

odyssey06

3xh wrote: »

All this talk about the usefulness or otherwise of masks and the elephant in the room is the HSE staff notice to educated nurses and admin staff on the front line reminding them of the need to wear one to allay the fears of both admitted patients and the public waiting to be seen.
These nurses and support staff are meant to scarred basically from what they saw 6 months ago. Yet it appears even the wearing of one behind the doors to the wards is a pain for them such that they’re whipped off the minute the staff cross over into public areas.
In the words of the HSE themselves, the need to wear masks in the public areas is for show. Not for scientific reasons in the suppression of the virus. And this is in hospitals! Not walking from the street into a shop/shopping centre.
If you still think ‘you’re doing your bit’ etc etc you’re beyond help. No offence.

You believe everything in every press release from the HSE?
The amount of importance you attach to a single phrase in a single press release is out of all proportion to the content.
At least they didn't say "for your convenience".

The declared reason for something doesn't have to be the sole or real reason for doing so. The declared reason may be the reason the HSE thinks will most convince the target audience.
Sure we know health staff don't sign up for the flu vaccine.
We know they weren't washing their hands for 20 seconds etc etc
People are busy. People are lazy. This we know. If they don't have to do something they won't.
Does that invalidate the advice on hand washing or masks? No.

3xh

odyssey06 wrote: »

You believe everything in every press release from the HSE?
The amount of importance you attach to a single phrase in a single press release is out of all proportion to the content.
At least they didn't say "for your convenience".

The declared reason for something doesn't have to be the sole or real reason for doing so. The declared reason may be the reason the HSE thinks will most convince the target audience.
Sure we know health staff don't sign up for the flu vaccine.
We know they weren't washing their hands for 20 seconds etc etc
People are busy. People are lazy. This we know. If they don't have to do something they won't.
Does that invalidate the advice on hand washing or masks? No.

Imagine management having to tell nurses to wear their masks in public areas so as not to alarm the public as opposed to the ‘real’ reason that it helps reduce spread.

Sconsey

3xh wrote: »

Imagine management having to tell nurses to wear their masks in public areas so as not to alarm the public as opposed to the ‘real’ reason that it helps reduce spread.

Nurses need to be told what to do too, they are not all the smartest or even health conscious. Imagine.