If masks become compulsory in shops.

[anonymoususer]

Derek Smith said:

Made some good points about war time folk

Woody John said:

Won't be wearing a muzzle personally.

What you get up to in your own home is of no concern to anyone else but make sure your curtains are closed

scottyp123 said:

I wonder how many people tried Amazon for the 1st time over lock-down and were absolutely convinced they were going to get scammed by the evil internet, and then absolutely amazed less than 24 hrs later as the package was brought to their door by a nice young man or woman.

You forgot to add they maybe enjoying their free one month trial of Prime

Dont Panic said:

Mandatory smearing of lemon jelly on your balls wouldn't be any more effective than masks that "may" help but "may not", would you do it then just to comply?

I have sent you a PM about swapping ideas

grumbledoak said:

So said:

How's the public opinion of our PM these days?

The alternative was Corbyn.

hmmmmmm............

Helicopter123 said:

I wonder what the war time generation make of all this?

During a global pandemic, we are being told to wear a mask when inside a shop. That is it. And yet, near hysterical meltdown from some quarters.

What has become of this country?

Carl_Manchester said:

I wear an N95 when i need to go down there,

Nokia did make some cracking hamndsets and were not afraid to experiment but the launch of the i phone did for them

[Jasey_]

scottyp123 said:

What hasn't changed though is the physics and science regarding the masks since February and March, if the government are right now about masks and they do save lives then their advice back in March about them causing more damage than good was horrifically bad advice and would be the direct cause of many many losses of life.

On the other hand if they were correct back then and managed to save lives by rightly telling people not to wear masks then that advice must still stand today, unless they have managed to re-write the laws of physics. If they have then they can just pop back in time and kill the bat Marty style.

They've finally got to the end of Cumming's plan and read the bit that says once the old s are dead we need to protect people properly !

[Graveworm]

Red 4 said:

"Experts" are ten a penny at the moment. Stick ten of them in a room, ask them a question and you'll get ten different answers.

Why do you think masks are beneficial ? Not the "experts" - you.
From a health perspective I can't see how they would do any harm, but from a consumer confidence perspective ?

I think they are beneficial as we are starting to move forwards, which means more contact, more shopping more moving around which is great -but will increase risk of transmission. Hopefully symptomatic people will still, in the main, self isolate but, the risk from asymptomatic people from talking has now been identified. Improvised masks have been shown to help in this. If we take the (Relatively) easy wins ,like masks in shopping then we can hopefully weather the harder to manage risks without having to reintroduce more extreme restrictions. .

[ChocolateFrog]

I wonder if it'll last as long as their quarantine plan as soon as high street shops start squaring about it hindering their recovery.

[anonymous-user]

[redacted]

[anonymoususer]

l354uge said:

Id this the definitive Karen look ?
The brows
the hair
yummy

[Jasey_]

sambucket said:

The advice is to wash once a day I read? Why would touching a mask make it any less effective in slowing down your exhaled droplets?

Your hands have been touching items covered in the virus and then you put the virus on your mask. You then suck the air through the mask into your lungs taking some virus with it.

This was the main thing they were worried about 4 months ago (apparently) but now it's no longer a problem .

[anonymous-user]

Jasey_ said:

Your hands have been touching items covered in the virus and then you put the virus on your mask. You then suck the air through the mask into your lungs taking some virus with it.

This was the main thing they were worried about 4 months ago (apparently) but now it's no longer a problem .

You have it backwards. The masks are to stop infected people spreading the virus (eg to retail staff). So it doesn't matter if they suck in more virus.

[Jasey_]

sambucket said:

Jasey_ said:

Your hands have been touching items covered in the virus and then you put the virus on your mask. You then suck the air through the mask into your lungs taking some virus with it.

This was the main thing they were worried about 4 months ago (apparently) but now it's no longer a problem .

You have it backwards. The masks are to stop infected people spreading the virus (eg to retail staff). So it doesn't matter if they suck in more virus.

My bad - all these moving targets

[scottyp123]

sambucket said:

Jasey_ said:

Your hands have been touching items covered in the virus and then you put the virus on your mask. You then suck the air through the mask into your lungs taking some virus with it.

This was the main thing they were worried about 4 months ago (apparently) but now it's no longer a problem .

You have it backwards. The masks are to stop infected people spreading the virus (eg to retail staff). So it doesn't matter if they suck in more virus.

It matters if you are the one sucking in the virus, it would only be there to be sucked in because you touched your mask, as the prossies will shortly be saying, no mask no sucky,

[voyds9]

Graveworm said:

voyds9 said:

Quite right far better to gone on feeling, hopes and beliefs that you may be right.

I have tried to follow the evidence as it grew rather than try to find reasons it might be wrong so I don't have to.
The majority of the evidence posted here and out there from the major bodies is pro mask.
The majority of opposition are logical fallacies. That source might be skewed or discredited, they were wrong about something else so are wrong about this. Correlation doesn't mean causation so it means nothing. if they are good then, why are they only being used in XYZ. If we do this then surely it's only time before worse happens. But mostly we are in John Kenneth Galbraith territory.

Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 14th July 21:23

The evidence an expert was quoting this morning was a ship at sea with covid onboard
Those seamen that wore masks were less likely to catch covid than those that didn't.
So those in close proximity for weeks are less likely to catch if they wear masks.
Really!!!
What about passing for a few seconds.
I haven't heard of mass deaths from supermarket workers, do they require danger money.

Deaths male by job

process, plant and machine operatives occupations (30.1 deaths per 100,000 men; 473 deaths)
administrative and secretarial occupations (26.0 deaths per 100,000 men; 125 deaths)
sales and customer service occupations (24.7 deaths per 100,000 men; 98 deaths)
skilled trades occupations (23.9 deaths per 100,000 men; 500 deaths)


Looks to me that face to face with the public is safer than working with colleagues

[3454.5]

Surely if Government is mandating masks it should supply them, to a standard its experts approve.

Free at the point of delivery, as with vaccinations to provide herd immunity, for the common good.

[isaldiri]

sambucket said:

Everyone is moving at different speeds, but no one is moving backwards on this.

"Denmark - As of Friday, the authority recommends using face masks in certain special situations, bringing the policy in Denmark closer to that of other European countries such as France and Germany."

If the evidence continues to grow, I imagine Norway will follow next. Not sure about Sweden. Presumably they have concerns about the winter too?

Complete BS as I pointed out on the other thread.

Denmark recommends facemasks when you might have
-tested positive for covid
-come into close contact with people who have tested positive
-are currently showing symptoms of covid and is unable to self isolate

Which is all very sensible and quite acceptable to everyone here who has posted that the masks as implemented here is idiocy.

What Denmark is doing is a lightyear away from what the morons in government have done mandating masks in shops (but not pubs and other known superspreading situations) under threat of a fine for non compliance.

[ATG]

scottyp123 said:

What hasn't changed though is the physics and science regarding the masks since February and March, if the government are right now about masks and they do save lives then their advice back in March about them causing more damage than good was horrifically bad advice and would be the direct cause of many many losses of life.

On the other hand if they were correct back then and managed to save lives by rightly telling people not to wear masks then that advice must still stand today, unless they have managed to re-write the laws of physics. If they have then they can just pop back in time and kill the bat Marty style.

Back in March very little was known about how the virus spread in practice, what percentage of people could be asymptomatic carriers, how many people were infected, etc, etc. There's a lot more data available now so the science has in fact moved on. Also one of the main concerns about encouraging people to wear masks at the beginning of the outbreak was that it would give people a false sense of safety. Several months later after we've all experienced the lockdown it is reasonable to think that our reaction to masks will be rather different.

[scottyp123]

Just before I go to bed, this is my observations from when I went to Aldi earlier on, on the 3 mile drive to get there through the local town centre I probably saw 5 people with masks on, not sure how many without but I'd guess 200 or 300 people.

Inside Aldi it was fairly quiet, probably 20 people inside, no member of staff either out stocking shelves or on the tills had a mask on and only 1 woman was wearing one, she was thin looking, maybe 30, dark hair in a tightly pulled back pony tail and round glasses, her clothing looked a little too mature for her didn't catch her name properly but I think it was Darren or something like that.

The woman that served me must work evenings every week because she has been there ever since I can remember going there, she looks well.

My other observation was how cheap the beer is, I had a good look at it for the first time to see if I could avoid having to go to Bargain Booze with a mask on from now on, 12 cans of 440ml of Brasserie for £8.79 compared to 4 cans of Fosters or Bud etc for £5.50 from BB. Forcing a mask onto me has made me abandon my twice or thrice weekly visit to BB... forever.

Edited by scottyp123 on Tuesday 14th July 22:27

[crankedup]

Hope that masks can be purchased that are of a good design. By that I mean a mask that is not constantly falling down the nose negating it’s purpose.

[cherryowen]

[redacted]

[grumbledoak]

scottyp123 said:

What hasn't changed though is the physics and science regarding the masks since February and March, if the government are right now about masks and they do save lives then their advice back in March about them causing more damage than good was horrifically bad advice and would be the direct cause of many many losses of life.

On the other hand if they were correct back then and managed to save lives by rightly telling people not to wear masks then that advice must still stand today, unless they have managed to re-write the laws of physics. If they have then they can just pop back in time and kill the bat Marty style.

I don't think it is either/or.

I think the most likely explanation is that in March they were lying. They wanted PPE for the NHS so they didn't want the public buying that, so they lied about them being unsafe.

Now they want something else. They say they want us to wear masks. But they still want PPE for the NHS. So we are being told to wear fake PPE "face coverings". And they are lying about them being effective.

Politicians.

[scottyp123]

ATG said:

scottyp123 said:

What hasn't changed though is the physics and science regarding the masks since February and March, if the government are right now about masks and they do save lives then their advice back in March about them causing more damage than good was horrifically bad advice and would be the direct cause of many many losses of life.

On the other hand if they were correct back then and managed to save lives by rightly telling people not to wear masks then that advice must still stand today, unless they have managed to re-write the laws of physics. If they have then they can just pop back in time and kill the bat Marty style.

Back in March very little was known about how the virus spread in practice, what percentage of people could be asymptomatic carriers, how many people were infected, etc, etc. There's a lot more data available now so the science has in fact moved on. Also one of the main concerns about encouraging people to wear masks at the beginning of the outbreak was that it would give people a false sense of safety. Several months later after we've all experienced the lockdown it is reasonable to think that our reaction to masks will be rather different.

Either they were right or wrong back in March, the virus behaves exactly the same way now regarding masks as it did back then, its that simple. If I was up on a health and safety charge after someone had died, saying well I didn't really know what was going on would not cut any ice.

[isaldiri]

Graveworm said:

I have tried to follow the evidence as it grew rather than try to find reasons it might be wrong so I don't have to.
The majority of the evidence posted here and out there from the major bodies is pro mask.
The majority of opposition are logical fallacies. That source might be skewed or discredited, they were wrong about something else so are wrong about this. Correlation doesn't mean causation so it means nothing. if they are good then, why are they only being used in XYZ. If we do this then surely it's only time before worse happens. But mostly we are in John Kenneth Galbraith territory.

In short whatever Boris/Cummings says must be the truth and you'll believe it no matter what other actual empirical evidence is around to consider an alternative view. Not a surprise I suppose.