To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

odyssey06

Pitch n Putt wrote: »

No evidence of masks reducing transmission in a real world environment.

See below from the WHO

And jump down off your high horse.

I never mentioned anything about starving people of oxygen and all that rubbish you spouted in the last paragraph.



“The virus can also spread after infected people sneeze, cough on, or touch surfaces, or objects, such as tables, doorknobs and handrails. Other people may become infected by touching these contaminated surfaces, then touching their eyes, noses or mouths without having cleaned their hands first.”

You can say what you like but most people spend more time fiddling with their masks all you have to do is look around.

There are no confirmed real world cases of fomite transmission either for that matter.
So where is your real world evidence?

The Denmark trial shows some protective element to mask wearing ... they live in the real world so unless Danish people fidget less than Irish people it clearly shows your theory re masks being risky is utterly without foundation.

The WHO also advise to wear masks.
Your cherry picking of which of their advice you follow is pretty obvious.

The CDC advise that the primary means of spread is respiratory droplets.

odyssey06

From the CDC:
Particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.
Spread from touching surfaces is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html

Pitch n Putt

odyssey06 wrote: »

There are no confirmed real world cases of fomite transmission either for that matter.
So where is your real world evidence?

The Denmark trial shows some protective element to mask wearing ... they live in the real world so unless Danish people fidget less than Irish people it clearly shows your theory re masks being risky is utterly without foundation.

The WHO also advise to wear masks.
Your cherry picking of which of their advice you follow is pretty obvious.

The CDC advise that the primary means of spread is respiratory droplets.

This acclaimed Danish trial was a controlled trial which the outcome was deemed inconclusive. So that can be pretty much binned.

HalfAndHalf

Pitch n Putt wrote: »

Your lost. Nobody ever mentioned anything about pocket germs for god sake.

I’ll dumb it down for you so you can understand maybe.

If your breathing out this magical named viral load and you keep touching your damp mask and handling things afterwards. Transmission can occur.

Hand to mask. Then hand to door handles and anything else you touch.

You’re!!!

Fgs if you’re gonna post a ton of repetitive posts please for the love of God learn the difference between your and you’re. Thanks

odyssey06

Pitch n Putt wrote: »

This acclaimed Danish trial was a controlled trial which the outcome was deemed inconclusive. So that can be pretty much binned.

If masks were as manky as you portray then the trial would have had to show it...
But if anything the trial showed a small protective element to mask wearing.
It completely discredits your theory.

Pitch n Putt

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

You’re!!!

Fgs if you’re gonna post a ton of repetitive posts please for the love of God learn the difference between your and you’re. Thanks

Thanks for that excellent input. I’m sure all posts by yourself are grammatically perfect.

If that’s all you can add to a discussion you would be better off not contributing.

Thanks.

Pitch n Putt

odyssey06 wrote: »

If masks were as manky as you portray then the trial would have had to show it...
But if anything the trial showed a small protective element to mask wearing.
It completely discredits your theory.

Controlled is the word you missed. In the reality of everyday life nothing is controlled.

We agree to disagree I suppose.

HalfAndHalf

Pitch n Putt wrote: »

Thanks for that excellent input. I’m sure all posts by yourself are grammatically perfect.

If that’s all you can add to a discussion you would be better off not contributing.

Thanks.

Shall I take that as a no then? I mean, it’s not hard to use the right word is it.

Pitch n Putt

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Shall I take that as a no then? I mean, it’s not hard to use the right word is it.

Jog on is as politely as I’ll put it for you.

Thanks

HalfAndHalf

Pitch n Putt wrote: »

Jog on is as politely as I’ll put it for you.

Thanks

So no then. Ok.

At least this little interlude broke up the continual repetitiveness of your posts slamming anyone that didn’t agree with you.

You can carry on with your mask denying now if ye like. I’ve had my fun. Thanks.

Pitch n Putt

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

So no then. Ok.

At least this little interlude broke up the continual repetitiveness of your posts slamming anyone that didn’t agree with you.

You can carry on with your mask denying now if ye like. I’ve had my fun. Thanks.

Doubt you will be posting in here again anyway.

Glad you had fun. Some people are easily amused and thanks for derailing the thread.

Head on somewhere else now and stir the pot.

HalfAndHalf

Pitch n Putt wrote: »

Doubt you will be posting in here again anyway.

Glad you had fun. Some people are easily amused and thanks for derailing the thread.

Head on somewhere else now and stir the pot.

Sure thing big man :-)

I’ll just leave this here for you to read on the BENEFITS of wearing masks.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

But yeah, let’s all breathe our droplets on each other.

Seanergy

Pitch n Putt wrote: »

Thousands of health care workers have been infected with covid whilst wearing masks.
This much we know as fact.

This is not fact, you are spewing covid-19 mis-information.

50000 people in this country got infected in the last week while wearing masks is mandatory and adhered to in most shops.
Again this is a fact.

Again this is not fact, 50,000 people did got infected whilst wearing masks in most shops.

You are spewing covid-19 mis-information.

robinph

Pitch n Putt wrote: »

I never mentioned anything about starving people of oxygen and all that rubbish you spouted in the last paragraph.

Well it's useful to know that you've not fallen for those lies, I was merely anticipating your next lines that you'd dig up as reasons for not wearing a mask. Saves us several pointless pages of posts rehashing those points again.

Now where is the evidence to show that masks are the cause of transmission of covid or manky-mask-itis? Presumably there would be years worth of data from countries like Japan where they have historical usage of masks which show high incidence of manky-mask-itis before 2020 happened.

Seanergy

More insight into the HSE's and HSPC Professor Martin Hand Cormican.

Martin Cormican, consultant microbiologist and HSE lead for infection prevention control and antimicrobial resistance and Dr Nuala O’ Connor, Irish College of General Practitioners lead advisor on Covid-19 and antibiotic resistance have a chat.

Time's of note:

10:50 for a couple of mins

44:40 - 46:40

and obviously at the end when she says they all want you basically to be running the country that's at 50:10

PTH2009

seen one guy who cut his visor which only covers his mouth, it looks horrible. Just buy a damn mask put it on when your in a public place

Away With The Fairies

PTH2009 wrote: »

seen one guy who cut his visor which only covers his mouth, it looks horrible. Just buy a damn mask put it on when your in a public place

I don't think he cut his visor. You can actually get those half visor yokes. Those types of people must think people emit the virus through their hands.

CalamariFritti

Just hate the feckin things.

Not so much the actual wearing them for a few moments. But to me they are the embodiment of everything thats wrong with us and our response. Hysterical, pseudo-science, mob/twitter-driven, reporting non-truths/half-truths often enough until they stick as 'fact', their use as peer pressure virtually signalling device. I need to stop typing, I'm about to get sick.

Just hate the feckin things.

Seanergy

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Just hate the feckin things.

Not so much the actual wearing them for a few moments. But to me they are the embodiment of everything thats wrong with us and our response. Hysterical, pseudo-science, mob/twitter-driven, reporting non-truths/half-truths often enough until they stick as 'fact', their use as peer pressure virtually signalling device. I need to stop typing, I'm about to get sick.

Just hate the feckin things.

Everything thats wrong with us and our response was/is individual twats who won't just zip it and play from a team card.


Could/should have been nipped in the butt donkeys ago.

CalamariFritti

Seanergy wrote: »

Everything thats wrong with us and our response was/is individual twats who won't just zip it and play from a team card.

Could/should have been nipped in the butt donkeys ago.

Zip it as in shut up? Ye thats really going to pull me around. I think your reply proves my point. I see practically 100% compliance. Now we are not even allowed to say anything anymore ye?

Sconsey

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Just hate the feckin things.

Not so much the actual wearing them for a few moments. But to me they are the embodiment of everything thats wrong with us and our response. Hysterical, pseudo-science, mob/twitter-driven, reporting non-truths/half-truths often enough until they stick as 'fact', their use as peer pressure virtually signalling device. I need to stop typing, I'm about to get sick.

Just hate the feckin things.

You're getting sick writing it, believe me I am getting sick reading it, probably because it is a load of shyte.

railer201

Seanergy wrote: »

More insight into the HSE's and HSPC Professor Martin Hand Cormican.

Martin Cormican, consultant microbiologist and HSE lead for infection prevention control and antimicrobial resistance and Dr Nuala O’ Connor, Irish College of General Practitioners lead advisor on Covid-19 and antibiotic resistance have a chat.

Time's of note:

10:50 for a couple of mins

44:40 - 46:40

and obviously at the end when she says they all want you basically to be running the country that's at 50:10

Probably the overall observation is two people talking directly at each other at a distance of less than 2 metres ( possibly 1.5 at best ) for nearly 1 hour. So not following the very rules they want us the public to adhere to.

Not that the 2 metre rule is of much value indoors if adequate ventilation is not maintained by either open windows or frequent air changes.

Not a mask in sight of course, since the emphasis was on hand-washing and no acknowledgement of how Covid aerosol clouds can also occur and linger indoors.

robinph

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Just hate the feckin things.

Not so much the actual wearing them for a few moments. But to me they are the embodiment of everything thats wrong with us and our response. Hysterical, pseudo-science, mob/twitter-driven, reporting non-truths/half-truths often enough until they stick as 'fact', their use as peer pressure virtually signalling device. I need to stop typing, I'm about to get sick.

Just hate the feckin things.

What is psuedo science about using any means possible to limit the spread of a virus that is primarily spread by people breathing on each other in close contact, and as ne of the methods to reduce those risks asking people to wear masks to reduce how much they are breathing directly on each other.

What lies about masks are you referring to?

ginoginelli

Seanergy wrote: »

This is not fact, you are spewing covid-19 mis-information.


Again this is not fact, 50,000 people did got infected whilst wearing masks in most shops.

You are spewing covid-19 mis-information.

Well, that didn't age well. I wonder how many people got infected early on directly due to his erroneous advice.

CalamariFritti

robinph wrote: »

What is psuedo science about using any means possible to limit the spread of a virus that is primarily spread by people breathing on each other in close contact, and as ne of the methods to reduce those risks asking people to wear masks to reduce how much they are breathing directly on each other.

What lies about masks are you referring to?

What do you mean by any means possible? If we were about any means possible we wouldnt be going to work.

It is a lie because it is based on assumptions and pseudo-science. The one time where actual science was used on masks they showed to have little to no effect.

Wibbs

Seanergy wrote: »

More insight into the HSE's and HSPC Professor Martin Hand Cormican.

Martin Cormican, consultant microbiologist and HSE lead for infection prevention control and antimicrobial resistance and Dr Nuala O’ Connor, Irish College of General Practitioners lead advisor on Covid-19 and antibiotic resistance have a chat.

Time's of note:

10:50 for a couple of mins

44:40 - 46:40

and obviously at the end when she says they all want you basically to be running the country that's at 50:10

Cormican has proven to be at best out of step in the last year. And that's being kind.

robinph

CalamariFritti wrote: »

What do you mean by any means possible? If we were about any means possible we wouldnt be going to work.

It is a lie because it is based on assumptions and pseudo-science. The one time where actual science was used on masks they showed to have little to no effect.

Well you shouldn't be going to work if you can work from home, if you have to go out and are indoors with other people then wear a mask. How is that complicated or too oppressive for you?

So was the science that was done on masks dodgy then, or was it good science that just showed that masks had little effect? You can't have both. Pick a side.

If you belive the science and it showed that masks have a little effect, then that is a good reason to wear them. As stated multiple times in this thread, masks are just one part of the actions we can take to reduce the spread of the infection. Nobody has claimed they are 100% of the solution.

Unless you've got something that shows they have a negative effect, then they are useful.

Sconsey

CalamariFritti wrote: »

What do you mean by any means possible? If we were about any means possible we wouldnt be going to work.

It is a lie because it is based on assumptions and pseudo-science. The one time where actual science was used on masks they showed to have little to no effect.

You keep telling yourself that nonsense, meanwhile here is a list of 70 papers, including reviews/meta-analysis and individual studies, in reverse chronological order. And this is an old list at this stage, there have been many more published since this list was put together. Pseudo-science yeah right.

https://threader.app/thread/1279144399897866248

odyssey06

CalamariFritti wrote: »

What do you mean by any means possible? If we were about any means possible we wouldnt be going to work.
It is a lie because it is based on assumptions and pseudo-science. The one time where actual science was used on masks they showed to have little to no effect.

This view you have of 'science' and pseudo-science and actual science is wrong.
It's an arbitrary standard you have set.
It's not the standard health authorities i.e. actual health scientists - laboratory studies, epidemiological data is science too.

To suggest the CDC recommendations are based on a lie is an argument utterly without merit or foundation.

To present the study from Denmark in the light you have is misrepresentation.
Simple as.
You well know its scope was about masks as PPE and you are asked to wear masks as barriers.

And you accuse the CDC of lies?

Seanergy

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Zip it as in shut up? Ye thats really going to pull me around. I think your reply proves my point. I see practically 100% compliance. Now we are not even allowed to say anything anymore ye?

100% Compliance with an outdated model based on guidance from the HSE lead Martin Hands Cormican ain't going to get us out of this mess or prevent us from falling back into it in the future.



Boards still remains the best Irish interface for a grassroots effort to expedite getting the bejasus outa this buzz wrecking experience.