Compulsory masks in shops from 24th and petrol stations

[Riley Blue]

The Spruce Goose said:

Riley Blue said:

We willingly accept the wearing of seat belts and crash helmets so I don't feel that's an entirely valid argument - .

i think the safety aspects are very clear. Mask wearing not so clear.

But becoming clearer as the days pass.

The Spruce Goose said:

i also think at time the economy is in the stter, making it harder for people to shop physically is a bad judgement.

I agree about the massive impact on economy though feel that having to wear a mask is a pretty minor and fairly brief imposition in the greater scheme of things.

Right now I'm about to put a mask on for a visit to my barber, the first since March. I will, of course, have to take it off when I get there so he can give my beard a going over with his hedge trimmer.

[leef44]

51mes said:

Perhaps this will explain why we are being sed to wear masks..

Isn't this what some people are complaining about? First they say we are not allowed to walk in the streets naked and make us have to wear clothes - this is taking our civil liberty away.

[Drumroll]

leef44 said:

51mes said:

Perhaps this will explain why we are being sed to wear masks..

Isn't this what some people are complaining about? First they say we are not allowed to walk in the streets naked and make us have to wear clothes - this is taking our civil liberty away.

I demand the right to be able to p1ss on whoever I like, If I can't you are taking away my civil liberties. You know the ones our parents/grandparents fought for.

[leef44]

Drumroll said:

leef44 said:

51mes said:

Perhaps this will explain why we are being sed to wear masks..

Isn't this what some people are complaining about? First they say we are not allowed to walk in the streets naked and make us have to wear clothes - this is taking our civil liberty away.

I demand the right to be able to p1ss on whoever I like, If I can't you are taking away my civil liberties. You know the ones our parents/grandparents fought for.

And what's worrying is that we are on a car forum. It's a bit scary that some of these people are let loose in a car on their own.

[Deep Thought]

ash73 said:

unident said:

ash73 said:

I'm slightly worried about unintended consequences, e.g. what will happen to our herd immunity to other illnesses as they continue to mutate? If the answer is nothing, then masks don't work.

And I don't understand why people under 50, with no underlying conditions, are concerned about getting this. It strikes me as cowardly. We should be building up immunity during the summer, to protect the vulnerable.

Separate shopping hours for vulnerables, and home deliveries prioritised for them, would be a better mitigation, imo.

If everyone under 50 catches it then some of them will die. It’s not a zero death rate under 50. Some will suffer major health problems from it rather than dying. Equally, they will definitely pass the virus on to those over 50, causing many deaths / health issues. Or do you think that you can’t pass it on?

It’s not cowardly, it’s actually showing compassion towards your fellow citizens. Your approach seems self-centred and very ill-informed to me.

The summer comment shows that. What season do you think it is in the Southern Hemisphere currently?

Deaths under 50 are statistical outliers.

The problem is stupid people can't understand fractions; which is why they buy lottery tickets.

The vulnerables should be protected, as I suggested.

The UK is in the northern hemisphere, hth.

Just because under 50s arent as likely to die doesnt mean they may not still require hospitalisation or enhanced care to manage them through it. And therein lies the problem - our health service cant cope with vast swathes of people needing hospitilation and enhanced care (even though they may not otherwise die).

And when people are being treated for CV19 then cancer sufferers dont get the treatment they need, routine operations, etc cant happen.

My view was always that lockdown and the social distancing measures were to allow the NHS time to prepare, for scientists to get more data about the illness and to control the illness as it spread rather than allow it to run rampant.

I think his reference to the SH was because in the SH its winter and CV19 is still very active.

You say it strikes you as cowardly for under 50s to be concerned about CV19 - it strikes me as irresponsible to [i]not[/] be concerned about it

Edited by Deep Thought on Monday 20th July 14:02

[cmvtec]

Will I wear one? Yes. Do I want to? No.

[Deep Thought]

cmvtec said:

Will I wear one? Yes. Do I want to? No.

+1

[anonymous-user]

Jonno02 said:

As a scientific researcher that works in a medical profession...

Stop thinking that you're smarter than world leading scientists.

Yet The World Health Organisation has maintained that wearing a face mask is not effective unless you have the disease.

So are the WHO not led by ''world leading scientists''.?

''The University of Hong Kong published an analysis of 10 RCTs looking at whether face masks prevented influenza transmission in the community.
They found no significant reduction.

the Beijing Research Centre for Preventive Medicine found that if people wear face masks at home before they develop symptoms, it prevents transmission 79 per cent of the time. Yet after the onset of symptoms, masks make no difference. '''

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/16/do-fac...

So you as a scientist person are saying everyone else is wrong and you are right, when the scientific evidence is pretty inconclusive.

There is evidence that certain specification masks do offer reductions, but not all masks.

[thecremeegg]

Brave Fart said:

This is my position too. The question is "is it OK for the state to mandate something that may (or may not) have a small benefit?"
My answer is "no, it is not OK; this is the state over-reaching its authority. An unacceptable intrusion into out liberty."

Many will disagree with me, and that's fine. But consider this; at what point will you object to legislation like this? For example, would you accept mandatory Covid vaccination? After all, it may have a benefit.........

My word, it's getting more and more like the USA everyday over here - look where that's got them!
Muh rights!!!!
Why do people have such an ISSUE with rules and regulations that are designed to help keep people safe?

[thecremeegg]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It's this simple, the quicker we do this the quicker we can get back to normality.
That's what the idiots don't get that think the government is trying to control them for some reason..goons

[Riley Blue]

ash73 said:

The primary purpose of wearing a mask is to prevent the spread to other people, not to prevent you catching it.

Some masks, when worn correctly can prevent you catching it as well as reducing spread.

[leef44]

ash73 said:

Jonno02 said:

What I find the most infuriating, is people with no skill-set in data verification or a scientific background using totally nonsensical terminology to try and justify their position - you primarily will see this on websites like Facebook. People love to go on and on about 'statistical significance' or 'outlier deaths' and have zero idea of what these actually mean. As soon as you engage them they fold into a heap of "COGNITIVE DISSONANCE!" because it comes apparent that they do indeed, have no clue.

I used the term outlier so I assume that's aimed at me. I have a scientific background and use statistics every day so I'm happy to get into a debate about it.

What percentage of reported cases are under 50?
What percentage of hospitalised patients are under 50?
What percentage of the total deaths are under 50?

Let's remember the strategy is to control NHS throughout, while building herd immunity. It is NOT to become an isolated community that cannot mix with the rest of the world.

What is the capacity of the NHS, and the current utilisation?
What is the forecast number of hospitalised patients for the next 3 months?
Does that forecast exceed capacity?
What is the reduction in the forecast if everyone wears masks?

Jonno02 said:

Even if you catch COVID while wearing a mask, the mask will help reduce the viral load that actually makes it into your body. That reduction in viral load could be the difference between you being in intensive care, or taking a few lemsips.

The primary purpose of wearing a mask is to prevent the spread to other people, not to prevent you catching it.

Sorry I haven't read through the whole thread but was is the significance of separately classifying people under and over 50, if the primary purpose is to prevent the spread?

Whether you are under or over 50, you have the same chance of catching it but under 50 have better chance of surviving but not less chance of spreading it even if assymptomatic. So this would still put the strain on the NHS unless everyone follows the rules irrespective of age classification.

I am no expert and may have misunderstood this so am happy to be put straight.

[Riley Blue]

leef44 said:

Sorry I haven't read through the whole thread but was is the significance of separately classifying people under and over 50, if the primary purpose is to prevent the spread?

Whether you are under or over 50, you have the same chance of catching it but under 50 have better chance of surviving but not less chance of spreading it even if assymptomatic. So this would still put the strain on the NHS unless everyone follows the rules irrespective of age classification.

I am no expert and may have misunderstood this so am happy to be put straight.

My understanding is that the older you are, the greater the likelihood you have of catching it, hence why all over 70s are considered 'clinically vulnerable' and children are at least risk.

[Cold]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

What gives you that idea?

[Jaguar steve]

Jonno02 said:

As a scientific researcher that works in a medical profession, I find it extremely dis-heartening that so many people are adverse to simply wearing a mask. Words like "muzzles" etc are thrown about as hyperbole to try and make a non-point.

What I find the most infuriating, is people with no skill-set in data verification or a scientific background using totally nonsensical terminology to try and justify their position - you primarily will see this on websites like Facebook. People love to go on and on about 'statistical significance' or 'outlier deaths' and have zero idea of what these actually mean. As soon as you engage them they fold into a heap of "COGNITIVE DISSONANCE!" because it comes apparent that they do indeed, have no clue.

I wear PPE all day, every day. If I spill 99.9% pure sulfuric acid on myself and I haven't got my labcoat on, I'm getting seriously burned. If I spill the same amount of myself with a lab coat, that's an extra layer of protection that will reduce the damage to myself. Now, the lab coat won't be 100% effective, but it will reduce the chance of me being seriously hurt. The same goes for masks. No guarantee they're 100% effective, but why not take that extra layer of protection?

Even if you catch COVID while wearing a mask, the mask will help reduce the viral load that actually makes it into your body. That reduction in viral load could be the difference between you being in intensive care, or taking a few lemsips. To the "We were told not to wear masks at the start" brigade; yes, we were told that. Partially to keep the supply chain directed towards medical professionals who need it the most and partially because at the start, the virus was poorly understood. I know people like to think that science is all "stick [sample] in a machine and we'll know everything about it in a few hours," but it isn't. We'll be finding things out about COVID for years.

Ignoring all the evidence, if there's even a chance that a mask will reduce you contracting/passing on COVID, do you really have such little respect for your fellow humans that you will put your fingers in your ears and say "I won't wear a muzzle?"

Stop thinking that you're smarter than world leading scientists. Stop thinking that refusing to wear a mask makes you special. Stop thinking that those that do are 'sheep' - and put a bloody mask on when required.

I'm sure the "I'm a freeman of the land" etc mob will be coming at me shortly, but I've said my piece and won't say anything more.

Edited by Jonno02 on Monday 20th July 13:59

Yup. Absolutely 100% this.

I can't think of a single reason not to wear one.

[Psycho Warren]

Jonno02 said:

do you really have such little respect for your fellow humans that you will put your fingers in your ears and say "I won't wear a muzzle?"

You forget we are not like asia or japan where it is considered rude to not wear a mask. Out there it is the norm to wear masks to not spread germs. so here, in a culture of no respect in general, what makes you think people would have that respect in the first place?

People won't even piss on thier fellow human if they are on fire because they gain nothing by doing it. So facemasks are well down in the list of priorities.

Alex Z said:

Of course you could just pay at the night counter without going into the shop.

Exactly, no rules on masks outside and as long as 2m apart, risk is virtually zero.

[NGee]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Yep, me too. So that's 2 more shops that'll go bust because of political egos, and there will be many more other businesses that fold, causing misery to millions until this scaremongering, proper-gander and lies stops brainwashing the gullible public.

[unident]

Cold said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

What gives you that idea?

Maybe someone could put a great big stamp on that graph for the period where everyone was effectively socially isolated from each other in lockdown so the risk of transmission was negligible.

The point you’re missing is that we’re now in the midst of ending all aspects of lockdown bar a few rules and they’re looking at ways of stopping a second wave happening.

Of course you don’t want to see that as it’s funnier to be stupid.

[unident]

ash73 said:

Deaths under 50 are statistical outliers.

The problem is stupid people can't understand fractions; which is why they buy lottery tickets.

The vulnerables should be protected, as I suggested.

The UK is in the northern hemisphere, hth.

Great epitaph for some people “he was a statistical outlier”. For the other under 50s who caught it and passed it on. They could update their Facebook status to “sharing the virus because I’m hard”

The chances of winning the lottery are considerably less than contracting Covid. However, someone nearly always wins the lottery.

Your solution is to lock up a big chunk of society whilst everyone else gets on with it. Well that’s a fantastic idea. Maybe we could agree an age for euthanasia and be done with it. Logan’s Run is probably worth a watch.

My point about the Southern Hemisphere related to you demanding a herd immunity (which seems not to work) before winter hits. It’s winter in the SH and they’re not being hit as hard as countries in the northern hemisphere where it’s summer.

Edited by unident on Monday 20th July 16:33

[Brave Fart]

thecremeegg said:

My word, it's getting more and more like the USA everyday over here - look where that's got them!
Muh rights!!!!
Why do people have such an ISSUE with rules and regulations that are designed to help keep people safe?

Probably because, in this instance, they don't work! Well, medical grade masks or full hazmat suits might work, but that's not the law, is it? The law mandates any covering, including, should you wish, any old piece of manky cloth. Please don't pretend that this will make any difference at all. The government is introducing a law that forces citizens to do something that will often be pointless.

I ask again; would you happily comply with any safety measure? Would you agree with compulsory vaccination? Will you do anything, anything at all, because the government tells you to?