No Mask, No Entry, No Exceptions

[donkmeister]

sevensfun said:

MaxFromage said:

Some info to consider:

https://www.meehanmd.com/blog/post/170332/if-masks...

Great find - and there we have it

If a surgeon were sick, especially with a viral infection, they would not perform surgery as they know the virus would NOT be stopped by their surgical mask.

One doctor has said "masks don't work to prevent viral transmission", so every other doctor in the world who says "masks will help prevent the transmission of COVID-19 through aerosols" must be wrong.

And obviously an eye doctor who proclaims himself to be "a top eye surgeon", is a notorious anti-vaxxer who makes a lot of money through selling the patented approach of "less pies, booze and fags, plus a bit more sleep and you'll feel better" is the supreme last word on epidemiology and virology. Natch. He totally hasn't got in hot water for libel and defamation of other doctors a few years back either.

In my career as a physicist I had the displeasure of working with a creationist... The man could "do" physics just fine, he just didn't believe it. Everything that contradicted the bible (e.g. the earth wasn't created in 7 days) was an illusion, either by satan to trick us, or by god to test our faith. He was spurred on by his parents who had no scientific background but had fire'n'brimstoned him since birth. It's not a huge leap to go from that to an anti-vaxxer managing to get through medical school (or MD realising that he can gain money, women and power through telling fibs).

[bad company]

Smurfsarepeopletoo said:

I'm assuming all of the people that decide they don't want to wear a mask, would be happy with surgical staff not wearing them if they had to operate on them, because you know, what's the point, they don't do anything, and the surgical team might not want to wear them.

There’s something of a difference between being in an operating theatre compared to a shop. The surgical staff were wearing masks before Covid and will continue to do so after.

[Durzel]

I would be willing to bet that the anti-lockdown “only kills old people innit” and anti-mask crowd are to all intents and purposes a single circle on a Venn diagram.

[donkmeister]

rscott said:

sevensfun said:

MaxFromage said:

Some info to consider:

https://www.meehanmd.com/blog/post/170332/if-masks...

Great find - and there we have it

If a surgeon were sick, especially with a viral infection, they would not perform surgery as they know the virus would NOT be stopped by their surgical mask.

A blog giving the opinion of a surgeon in which he claims CDC say masks don't prevent transmission.

Hmm - this CDC page clearly states their view that masks massively reduce transmission (by up to 80% ) - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/...

It also points out flaws in the Danish study which reported that masks don't make a difference.

Nooooo, don't doubt the word of Jim Meehan MD (whose testimony was rejected in court as he is unqualified in the field). Also, don't you dare suggest that the fact he sells vitamins as an alternative to face masks might come into it.

https://www.ctpost.com/news/coronavirus/article/Ju...

[Sticks.]

monthou said:

Colonel Cupcake said:

A lady won 7 grand after being denied access to a service after being unable to wear a mask

https://disabilityrights.org.uk/first-face-mask-di...

All that shows is that they paid her off. It didn't go to court.
Presumably they saw paying her to go away as the cheaper option.

I think it's a requirement, ie that you can't go straight to a court case. It was under the DDA iirc.

[monthou]

Colonel Cupcake said:

monthou said:

sevensfun said:

monthou said:

All that shows is that they paid her off. It didn't go to court.
Presumably they saw paying her to go away as the cheaper option.

The more people that do what she did, the better. They'll eventually get the message.

I think you're right in that entitled aholes writing compo letters to businesses will stop businesses enforcing no-mask policies.
Where we differ is that you see it as a good thing.

You don't think it's a good thing that disabled people have protections in law?

I bet you're one of those people who tip people out of wheelchairs, punch blind people in the face and set fire to homeless peoples sleeping bags whilst they are still in them.

Have you stopped beating your wife?
'So what you're saying is...'

[rscott]

Sticks. said:

monthou said:

Colonel Cupcake said:

A lady won 7 grand after being denied access to a service after being unable to wear a mask

https://disabilityrights.org.uk/first-face-mask-di...

All that shows is that they paid her off. It didn't go to court.
Presumably they saw paying her to go away as the cheaper option.

I think it's a requirement, ie that you can't go straight to a court case. It was under the DDA iirc.

Incredibly vague press release from that "not for profit" company. Fails to mention that she'll only receive 75% of that layout - they keep the rest.

[monthou]

Sticks. said:

monthou said:

Colonel Cupcake said:

A lady won 7 grand after being denied access to a service after being unable to wear a mask

https://disabilityrights.org.uk/first-face-mask-di...

All that shows is that they paid her off. It didn't go to court.
Presumably they saw paying her to go away as the cheaper option.

I think it's a requirement, ie that you can't go straight to a court case. It was under the DDA iirc.

I'm not disputing any of that, but not sure it alters the point. It's often easier / cheaper to settle.

[InitialDave]

Colonel Cupcake said:

You don't think it's a good thing that disabled people have protections in law?

It is good that disabled people have protections in law, and that allowances are made where a law could disproportionately affect them so they need not comply fully with it.

It is good that disabled people can make use of these without jumping through onerous hoops to do so.

People who are not disabled taking advantage of the above when they don't need to are just selfish.

[sospan]

sevensfun said:

If masks are such a fantastic idea then why did it take so long for govt and WHO to mandate use?

Masks are one part of a cumulative effect.on their own they contribute, say, x amount of prevention.
Distancing contributes y amount.
Hand washing z amount.
Combined you get x+y+z.
Why the slow reaction by WHO and gov?
Who knows?
Slow realisation of the airborne spread, panic to get masks by every man and his dog when medical people needed the limited supply initially?
The only real success has been the UK vaccine management. Early input and ordering put us ahead of others.
The rest of the measures seem to be reactive rather than proactive. Inconsistency in rules is mystery to me.
Supermarkets were allowed to expand the types of goods they could sell. Take clothing...Dedicated clothing shops couldn’t open. Buying clothes in a supermarket exposes people to more contact with a wider range of shoppers buying everything else. Clothes shops would have clothes shoppers only mixing.

[mattyprice4004]

bad company said:

You clearly have no problems wearing a mask/muzzle, millions of others including me most certainly do. They’re uncomfortable, unhygienic and imo dehumanising.

Dehumanising? Get a grip ffs

[sevensfun]

sospan said:

Masks are one part of a cumulative effect.on their own they contribute, say, x amount of prevention.
Distancing contributes y amount.
Hand washing z amount.
Combined you get x+y+z.
Why the slow reaction by WHO and gov?
Who knows?
Slow realisation of the airborne spread, panic to get masks by every man and his dog when medical people needed the limited supply initially?
The only real success has been the UK vaccine management. Early input and ordering put us ahead of others.
The rest of the measures seem to be reactive rather than proactive. Inconsistency in rules is mystery to me.
Supermarkets were allowed to expand the types of goods they could sell. Take clothing...Dedicated clothing shops couldn’t open. Buying clothes in a supermarket exposes people to more contact with a wider range of shoppers buying everything else. Clothes shops would have clothes shoppers only mixing.

Thanks for the sensible reply
It’s the dithering and inconsistency that annoys me and the fact it took so long to implement. If they’re such a good idea then why did cases continue to rise? And why was WHO advising against it? Because they didn’t know.

[bad company]

mattyprice4004 said:

bad company said:

You clearly have no problems wearing a mask/muzzle, millions of others including me most certainly do. They’re uncomfortable, unhygienic and imo dehumanising.

Dehumanising? Get a grip ffs

Oh I’m sticking with dehumanising thanks. As stated earlier I’ve stopped using them.

[GasEngineer]

You're allowed to remove your mask once seated, but have to replace it when entering/leaving or moving around - eg to visit the toilet so would perhaps explain why those already inside were not wearing a mask.

[Driver101]

bad company said:

mattyprice4004 said:

bad company said:

You clearly have no problems wearing a mask/muzzle, millions of others including me most certainly do. They’re uncomfortable, unhygienic and imo dehumanising.

Dehumanising? Get a grip ffs

Oh I’m sticking with dehumanising thanks. As stated earlier I’ve stopped using them.

It's a ridiculous statement. The next bit is also lacking common sense.

You don't see any difference in walking around a restaurant coming face to face with strangers, or sitting at a table with your partner, friend or family?

[bad company]

Driver101 said:

It's a ridiculous statement. The next bit is also lacking common sense.

You don't see any difference in walking around a restaurant coming face to face with strangers, or sitting at a table with your partner, friend or family?

Difference yes, danger or logical, no.

[Driver101]

bad company said:

Driver101 said:

It's a ridiculous statement. The next bit is also lacking common sense.

You don't see any difference in walking around a restaurant coming face to face with strangers, or sitting at a table with your partner, friend or family?

Difference yes, danger or logical, no.

Why do you feel there is no logic to it?

[CrutyRammers]

Some people really do believe that masks are saving people don't they?
And that therefore it makes it not only reasonable, but required, to hate people who dont wear one.
Quite remarkable.
I'm sure they all wore one before, to prevent the transmission of other diseases. And will carry on doing so for the rest of their lives.

[sevensfun]

CrutyRammers said:

Some people really do believe that masks are saving people don't they?
And that therefore it makes it not only reasonable, but required, to hate people who dont wear one.
Quite remarkable.
I'm sure they all wore one before, to prevent the transmission of other diseases. And will carry on doing so for the rest of their lives.

Of course

Because government said so!

[dave_s13]

sospan said:

Masks are one part of a cumulative effect.on their own they contribute, say, x amount of prevention.
Distancing contributes y amount.
Hand washing z amount.
Combined you get x+y+z.
Why the slow reaction by WHO and gov?
Who knows?
Slow realisation of the airborne spread, panic to get masks by every man and his dog when medical people needed the limited supply initially?
The only real success has been the UK vaccine management. Early input and ordering put us ahead of others.
The rest of the measures seem to be reactive rather than proactive. Inconsistency in rules is mystery to me.
Supermarkets were allowed to expand the types of goods they could sell. Take clothing...Dedicated clothing shops couldn’t open. Buying clothes in a supermarket exposes people to more contact with a wider range of shoppers buying everything else. Clothes shops would have clothes shoppers only mixing.

Don't buy it...."face coverings" do precisely fk all given the type, environment and methods they are worn.

I've stopped wearing one.