No Mask, No Entry, No Exceptions

[monthou]

dave_s13 said:

monthou said:

Brave Fart said:

monthou said:

What's your opinion based on?

Two things, really:
1) the absence of any random control trials between an unmasked group and an identical group wearing typical face coverings. None of the studies I've seen have done this. They are all compromised by other actions, like social distancing, coinciding with mask wearing.
2) the similarity in infection curves everywhere, despite different mask policies. Or to put it more simply: the virus does what it does, irrespective of our interventions(vaccines excepted). In the UK we didn't have masks until last July and infections fell. Then we mandated masks and infections went up.

The other thing I'd say is that masks themselves do bring problems: they are creating huge problems with littering or landfill, they are consuming vast amounts of polymers creating shortages elsewhere, and they are an impediment to learning about people's expressions, especially with young children trying to learn about adults' faces.

Are you an expert in virology, epidemiology or a related field?

All you need is some basic critical thinking training in the sciences and it's not hard to come to that conclusion...certainly where I am with it.

I've done research appraisal at masters level btw.....it's mainly common sense though.

The face coverings we are wearing are a load of ste.

So is your conclusion based on reading studies or on 'common sense'?
Why do you think you've come to a different conclusion than, for example, the CDC?

[98elise]

Colonel Cupcake said:

QuickQuack said:

My wife had someone in their 60s starting to walk into her consulting room without a mask. She politely asked them to stop and to put their mask on before entering. On being asked to do this, the indignant cretin screamed that they had severe asthma and couldn't wear a mask as a result. My wife then calmly pointed out that it really wasn't a good idea to lie about your medical history to your doctor who has been seeing you for the last decade and who also has your medical notes up on the screen available to them.

Some of these people seem to be so used to lying about why they can't wear a mask that they forget that there are some people to whom they cannot lie...

You were not present at that interaction.

From what I have seen, it is medical people that are barking orders at people and screaming at them.

My own mask difficulties stem from a childhood incident I had long since put out of my mind. That 'indignant cretin' may have simply used a poor choice of words to describe her own difficulties.

Your arrogant wife needs to learn some bedside manner skills.

You mean like calmly pointing out that they don't have the medical issue that they claim to have?

[Cold]

QuickQuack said:

My wife had someone in their 60s starting to walk into her consulting room without a mask. She politely asked them to stop and to put their mask on before entering. On being asked to do this, the indignant cretin screamed that they had severe asthma and couldn't wear a mask as a result. My wife then calmly pointed out that it really wasn't a good idea to lie about your medical history to your doctor who has been seeing you for the last decade and who also has your medical notes up on the screen available to them.

Some of these people seem to be so used to lying about why they can't wear a mask that they forget that there are some people to whom they cannot lie...

I don't believe any of this story. A GP seeing a patient in person? Pull the other one, it's got a plague bell on it.

[CrutyRammers]

98elise said:

CrutyRammers said:

So it appears that all the "pro" arguments boil down to, "the government says do this, and they know best, so you should do it".
There's a noticable lack of any analysis, data, or other evidence. Just endless appeals to authority, repeating of government soundbites, and a sort of blind trust that our masters have our best interests at heart. And with that, the ever-present desire to force others to think and do as they do, not to question, just to accept.

Nobody wants to wear a mask. The pro argument is that the government is advised by a large body of expert scientists and doctors, rather than facebook.

If it's your field of expertise then maybe you have a point, if it's not then your best of taking the advice of experts.

the point which keeps being made, and ignored, is that there isn't a single body of "the experts" with a single view. There are many experts with different opinions. Many non-experts in positions of influence who are pushing other agendas. Very few, it appears, who want to balance the risk of covid against the harm caused by fighting it. And on top of that, a government made of legendary liars, who themselves have other agendas.
Even when we have whitty being caught fiddling the figures, the faith is unshakable. Members of sage saying that the manipulation and use of fear has gone too far. They are unbelievers, rightly cast down . Johnson lying every single time. Rejoice, brother, it is a sign that we must redouble our faith.

As for no-one wanting to wear a mask...I don't believe that either. I think some positively relish it.

[Graveworm]

Brave Fart said:

monthou said:

What's your opinion based on?

Two things, really:
1) the absence of any random control trials between an unmasked group and an identical group wearing typical face coverings. None of the studies I've seen have done this. They are all compromised by other actions, like social distancing, coinciding with mask wearing.
2) the similarity in infection curves everywhere, despite different mask policies. Or to put it more simply: the virus does what it does, irrespective of our interventions(vaccines excepted). In the UK we didn't have masks until last July and infections fell. Then we mandated masks and infections went up.

The other thing I'd say is that masks themselves do bring problems: they are creating huge problems with littering or landfill, they are consuming vast amounts of polymers creating shortages elsewhere, and they are an impediment to learning about people's expressions, especially with young children trying to learn about adults' faces.

1) is impossible since unless there is a scientist following each participant around taking details of each interaction then following up contact with infected people within the study to see if face covering wearers when they interacted were less likely to infect. Literally the point made, very early on, by the author of the definitive textbook on evidence based medicine, and ignored as inconvenient by those who oppose masks.
They have however looked at households, flights etc where pre and asymptotic people wore them and found fewer secondary infections amongst those who were in contact with infected people when they wore face coverings. They have also conducted lab experiments, and cloth coverings reduce the amount of pathogens being spread.
2) If they work or don't, the curve will be the same shape. But overall around the globe mask wearing do show better outcomes. Studies show they reduce onward infection by 16 to 50 percent. Even the few critical studies say there are benefits but they are marginal. So even if people were wearing them diuring every waking hour it would turn R4 into R2-R3..4. Just in shops, restaurants and public transport etc maybe a net reduction of low single figures. However that's still way more lives saved since start of the outbreak than died on the roads. With many more prevented from falling seriously ill, off work etc.
It's the precautionary principle, nothing new. If the majority of the world's experts are wrong, or have a sinister secret agenda, then we have unnecessarily worn a mask to go to the loo in Weatherspoons in shops etv. If you are wrong, and wearing face coverings does have an impact, then more people unnecessarily died and restrictions went on longer than they needed to.

Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 17th June 22:45

[dave_s13]

monthou said:

So is your conclusion based on reading studies or on 'common sense'?
Why do you think you've come to a different conclusion than, for example, the CDC?

Both.

I'm not expending energy trying to explain though. It's your responsibility to understand the research process, not mine to try and explain.

The only thing that will change the mind of someone like you is Boris telling you it's ok now.

[thewarlock]

Does any anti-masker have any other argument than "You lot all just do what Boris tells you?"

it's the most feeble strawman argument I've seen in a while, and it seems to be all you have.

[CharlesdeGaulle]

Colonel Cupcake said:

Never mind all your flim-flam. Were you at that interaction or not?

No, you were not. All you are doing is relaying an anecdote, as you have already confirmed. You have canonised your wife and denigrated a patient.

You have the nerve to call yourselves medical 'professionals' and yet it is YOUR response that is peppered with profanity and insults. Always a sign of poor command of language.

I love it when someone doubles-down on a flawed stance, nice work.

And, 'peppered with profanity and insults...' Mate, you need to get out more!

[monthou]

dave_s13 said:

monthou said:

So is your conclusion based on reading studies or on 'common sense'?
Why do you think you've come to a different conclusion than, for example, the CDC?

Both.

I'm not expending energy trying to explain though. It's your responsibility to understand the research process, not mine to try and explain.

The only thing that will change the mind of someone like you is Boris telling you it's ok now.

Boris is a charlatan.
You apparently know best though, so crack on. Screw everyone else.

[mikeveal]

Brave Fart said:

So to summarise, you think it's OK to be rude to people whose opinion differs from yours. You think using terms such as "precious snowflake" and "stupid" is acceptable. And you think people who disagree that masks make a difference deserve no respect.
Well, in that case I don't think there's a civil discussion to be had with you, my friend. Good day to you.

No, you've missed my point.
I may consider someone stupid if their opinion differs from the scientifically accepted norm. But I wouldn't be rude to them.
If they act on their opinion, and in doing so put others at risk of harm (in this case that means refusing to wear a mask), then yes it is absolutely fine to be rude to them. Mask refusers are shoving two fingers up at society, they shouldn't be surprised if they are treated accordingly.

I don't know if you just object to mask wearing, or if you're an active refuser. So this isn't directly aimed at you.

Edit:
Actually I think those who vehemently disagree with mask wearing but still abide by the rules and wear one deserve a fair dollop of respect.

Edited by mikeveal on Friday 18th June 10:18

[dave_s13]

monthou said:

Boris is a charlatan.
You apparently know best though, so crack on. Screw everyone else.

Assuming you haven't already sign up for a degree, then a masters (or just some modules) invest st loads of time, effort and money in learning things....then com back to us

Like I said, it's not my responsibility for how much other people understand things.

[monthou]

dave_s13 said:

monthou said:

Boris is a charlatan.
You apparently know best though, so crack on. Screw everyone else.

Assuming you haven't already sign up for a degree, then a masters (or just some modules) invest st loads of time, effort and money in learning things....then com back to us

Like I said, it's not my responsibility for how much other people understand things.

This is gibberish.
edit: Seriously, 'I don't have to follow the rules 'cos I got an MSc.'

Edited by monthou on Friday 18th June 10:11

[MYOB]

mikeveal said:

I may consider someone stupid if their opinion differs from the scientifically accepted norm. But I wouldn't be rude to them.

<sigh> scientifically accepted norm?

Really?

[m_cozzy]

Fortunately those working at my local gp aren't frothing mask lovers as I've just got back from an appointment to have stitches removed and no-one asked me to wear a mask.
Maybe they have faith in the vaccine if they have had one or maybe they realise a cloth mask has absolutely no effect.

[CrutyRammers]

thewarlock said:

Does any anti-masker have any other argument than "You lot all just do what Boris tells you?"

it's the most feeble strawman argument I've seen in a while, and it seems to be all you have.

You were thinking that one up all night, weren't you?
Well done. You win an internet.

[thewarlock]

CrutyRammers said:

You were thinking that one up all night, weren't you?
Well done. You win an internet.

Not exactly proving me wrong there, are you?

Also, no, your post is entirely wrong. A common theme.

[dave_s13]

monthou said:

dave_s13 said:

monthou said:

Boris is a charlatan.
You apparently know best though, so crack on. Screw everyone else.

Assuming you haven't already sign up for a degree, then a masters (or just some modules) invest st loads of time, effort and money in learning things....then com back to us

Like I said, it's not my responsibility for how much other people understand things.

This is gibberish.
edit: Seriously, 'I don't have to follow the rules 'cos I got an MSc.'

Edited by monthou on Friday 18th June 10:11

Your failure to understand what I was trying to get across is your problem, not mine.

[monthou]

dave_s13 said:

Your failure to understand what I was trying to get across is your problem, not mine.

Sure.
You have a Master's.

[Pixelpeep Z4]

If people want us to have the freedom to decide if we wear a mask or not, surely we should afford shop owners with the same respect and allow them to decide how they want to run their business?

'you can't come in here without a mask'

ok, i'll go somewhere else, thank you.

easy really.

[mikeveal]

MYOB said:

<sigh> scientifically accepted norm?

Really?

<sigh>
Based on advice from the WHO and no doubt their own experts, this shows which countries have concluded that mask wearing will reduce the spread of the disease.

As I've said before, I'm not going to be drawn into a debate on the efficacy of mask wearing. There is no point in arguing, efficacy is proven beyond debate. You are perfectly entitled to hold a differing opinion, but your opinion does not change the facts.