Will you continue to wear a mask in public after Jan 27th?

[Ari]

Randy Winkman said:

An observation about your post from someone with no skin in the game at all - in my view, when you say "fetid cloth" it undermines the rest of your post. Nothing personal, I've made this sort of point a few times on PH. There are some things in posts on all sorts of topics that just make me switch off.

By the way, I've just been in my local Tesco without a mask (fetid cloth).

Fair enough, but let's be honest, that's basically what it is. These people aren't wearing proper masks, neither are they fitting them properly in a sterile environment and neither are they ensuring that they don't ever touch them once on, disposing of them safely or fitting a new one every fifteen minutes.

What they're doing is buying bits of pretty cloth from Esty, shoving them in their pockets, grabbing them out when they enter Tescos, fiddling about with them after touching door handles and shopping trollies and PIN machines that a thousand other people have touched and chucking them in the wash once a week.

So whilst I take your point, fetid cloth, if we're being really honest about this, aint that far from the truth.

[Ari]

monthou said:

So when you say 'new' you mean the last couple of years?
If that's the case I agree, at least for the uk. I'm not sure what the smiley's about, unless you think you just wrote something hilarious?

It's like dealing with children sometimes!

Okay, are you sitting comfortably? Then I shall explain.

The definition of 'manners' is: a person's outward bearing or way of behaving towards others

'Bad manners' is pushing into the front of a queue of people, because you're making them wait longer in order to get served quicker. It's selfish.

'Good manners' is holding a door open once you have passed through it so that it doesn't slam in the face of the person behind you. A minor inconvenience to yourself, but you've made someone else's day a little better.

Manners, good or bad, are actions that affect the people around you.

Things that don't affect the people around you are not 'manners' at all. Examples might be:

Wearing a flower in your lapel.
Placing a sticker in the back window of your car saying you've been to Whitby
Wearing a face covering

I hope that helps

[Ari]

Countdown said:

If you're wanting to go into somebody else's shop/supermarket and they ask you to wear a mask then do you not think it's good manners to either comply or go elsewhere, regardless of whether or not you believe in the efficacy of masks?

The fact that the staff are not bothering with masks would rather suggest that they actually couldn't care less, and that the signs are only there to reassure the timid that they are Doing Something to help save them.

[Ari]

21TonyK said:

Errr... really? Jesus some people are really looking for things that aren't there.

I'm quite clearly stating the current situation, that support for the majority of vulnerable people has been removed and they are angry.

You seem to think that that's an argument against removing restrictions.

Maybe that's what you a want to read but its not what is written.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what you are angry about?

I'm afraid I read it the same way as RS...

[Ari]

21TonyK said:

I'm not angry, I'm simply saying a lot of people are. Looks like quite a few of them are posting on here, trying to twist other peoples posts to suit their purpose of ranting about things they want to get off their chest.

I see. What are they angry about? What support is being removed that they believe should stay? Genuine question, I'm not trying to be clever, just genuinely curious about what people want.

[Ari]

monthou said:

Ari said:

monthou said:

So when you say 'new' you mean the last couple of years?
If that's the case I agree, at least for the uk. I'm not sure what the smiley's about, unless you think you just wrote something hilarious?

It's like dealing with children sometimes!

Okay, are you sitting comfortably? Then I shall explain.

The definition of 'manners' is: a person's outward bearing or way of behaving towards others

'Bad manners' is pushing into the front of a queue of people, because you're making them wait longer in order to get served quicker. It's selfish.

'Good manners' is holding a door open once you have passed through it so that it doesn't slam in the face of the person behind you. A minor inconvenience to yourself, but you've made someone else's day a little better.

Manners, good or bad, are actions that affect the people around you.

Things that don't affect the people around you are not 'manners' at all. Examples might be:

Wearing a flower in your lapel.
Placing a sticker in the back window of your car saying you've been to Whitby
Wearing a face covering

I hope that helps

Since you're back I thought I'd address your 'explaining it to the children' post.
Looking up we have a different view of what manners are...
"Things that don't affect the people around you are not 'manners' at all. Examples might be:"
Picking your nose;
farting / belching loudly;
scratching your bum;
pocket billiards;
wiping your nose on your sleeve;
inappropriate swearing.

Each to their own though. As long as we're not sharing a supermarket.

You view someone not wearing a mask to being the same as someone 'farting/belching loudly'?

There really is no limit to the absurdity of those desperate to keep the masks is there?

[Ari]

Meanwhile, here are some kids being told they don't have to wear masks anymore.

https://twitter.com/ChatLUFC/status/14920970231217...

Odd reaction, given that the maskers assure us that children don't mind/are very adaptable/it's no biggie when it comes to forcing masks on them.

[Ari]

21TonyK said:

garyhun said:

21TonyK said:

dave_s13 said:

Case numbers are largely irrelevant now

A rather expensive 30 minute advisory consultation last week with a leading Professor (a Sir and MBE no less) has advised me and my employer that this is not the case.

I think I'll take his advice... you know, thanks all the same.

I think the last 2 years have proven that knighted professors do not necessarily speak the truth.

Oh okay, I'll take the word (or random statements and what I can only assume are influnced ramblings) of a bunch of internet loons in his place.

Was he able to explain to you why it matters? Or just that it does, and that you should continue to use his 'rather expensive 30 minute advisory consultations'?

[Ari]

21TonyK said:

Ari said:

21TonyK said:

garyhun said:

21TonyK said:

dave_s13 said:

Case numbers are largely irrelevant now

A rather expensive 30 minute advisory consultation last week with a leading Professor (a Sir and MBE no less) has advised me and my employer that this is not the case.

I think I'll take his advice... you know, thanks all the same.

I think the last 2 years have proven that knighted professors do not necessarily speak the truth.

Oh okay, I'll take the word (or random statements and what I can only assume are influnced ramblings) of a bunch of internet loons in his place.

Was he able to explain to you why it matters? Or just that it does, and that you should continue to use his 'rather expensive 30 minute advisory consultations'?

Yes he could and did. Why would you try to discredit him by implying his clinical assessment was influenced by money?

Excellent! Why does it matter?

[Ari]

21TonyK said:

Ari said:

21TonyK said:

Ari said:

21TonyK said:

garyhun said:

21TonyK said:

dave_s13 said:

Case numbers are largely irrelevant now

A rather expensive 30 minute advisory consultation last week with a leading Professor (a Sir and MBE no less) has advised me and my employer that this is not the case.

I think I'll take his advice... you know, thanks all the same.

I think the last 2 years have proven that knighted professors do not necessarily speak the truth.

Oh okay, I'll take the word (or random statements and what I can only assume are influnced ramblings) of a bunch of internet loons in his place.

Was he able to explain to you why it matters? Or just that it does, and that you should continue to use his 'rather expensive 30 minute advisory consultations'?

Yes he could and did. Why would you try to discredit him by implying his clinical assessment was influenced by money?

Excellent! Why does it matter?

Why does what matter, do you mean why you seek to undermine and discredit anything posted that doesn't support your view?

Why are case numbers relevant, according to your "rather expensive 30 minute advisory consultation last week with a leading Professor (a Sir and MBE no less)"

[Ari]

21TonyK said:

For exactly the same reason I posted originally. An areas prevailing case rate will be a factor in the local populations assessment of risk to them or others and influence their behaviour and mitigations they may put in place.

Surely that is pretty basic, obvious stuff.

Do they do it for colds? Flu? HIV? Anything?

Why the obsession with Covid? We have successful vaccines, pointless masks, and the knowledge that it's no longer any kind of serious threat for the vast vast majority.

[Ari]

Bullett said:

I don't really understand why it matters. When travel was restricted what happened locally was to a degree relevant but people move about, I was out and about in public in London yesterday, Dorchester earlier in the week and locally around town.

Exactly. Most of us are just getting on with our lives now, not desperately looking up local vaccine rates and worrying about it. What is the point?

[Ari]

Nickgnome said:

You could of course just take your letter with you rather than do the old 'I know my rights' routine.. Hardly an issue is it.

Papers please!

FFS, you do love all this nonsense don't you?

[Ari]

Nickgnome said:

Ari said:

Nickgnome said:

You could of course just take your letter with you rather than do the old 'I know my rights' routine.. Hardly an issue is it.

Papers please!

FFS, you do love all this nonsense don't you?

No i do not. I just do behave like some petulant teenager and yes I carry my driving licence and Insurance and used to carry MoT as well.

At the appropriate time other certificates.

In my view it's people trying to make an issue out of a nothing.

What will you find to gripe about in a month or two?

I've no doubt I'll still be griping about the pointless mask love by people like you.

We had 'Because The Science Says So'

When it became blindingly obvious that masks were not making any difference, we had 'Because The Government Says So'

When the government stopped insisting on the mask theatre, we had a rather desperate 'But it's rude not to wear a mask'

I've no doubt at all that the mask lovers will come up with other excuses to cling on to them, and for why everyone else should be wearing one too.

What we never seem to hear is when they think they might eventually stop with the masks?

[Ari]

SWoll said:

Nickgnome said:

Neil's post is spot on and to reinforce his position you have come in trying to deride mask wearers.

Why can't you mind your own business and let others mind their's without your silly comments in relation to the choices they make.

What an awful example it would set for our children if we allow them to consider that abuse and belittling of others is OK.

As you've been so keen to point out though Nick, actions have consequences.

I do find your "think of the children" stance rather ironic when they are exactly the group that have been and are still today the most affected by the face covering obsession so many adults appear to be clinging on to.

Also funny how live and let live seems to only work in one direction isn't it?

Exactly this! I was about to point out the same. We force masks on school children and then our vertically challenged friend pips up 'won't someone think of the children!'

How ironic.

[Ari]

Talking of which, saw this on Twitter today.


Hope 100,000 people had fun at the super bowl with your face freedom!

Dropped my daughter off at school where 24 kids will wear kn95’s outdoors for PE.

Thanks LA!! Doing a great job!!


And people think that the mask nonsense is governed according to science!

[Ari]

You just have to believe in the masks - the evidence ship has long since sailed...

[Ari]

Nickgnome said:

I don't get the ongoing need by some to try and belittle people who continue to wear mask though.

I never understood the need for the mask lovers to be constantly on the attack of those asking (but never getting) evidence that they work in real life either, but it seem the standard modus operandi.

So it's a bit rich to be complaining of the reverse (not that I've seen much of it, I've nothing but sympathy for those so frightened that they're wearing the hateful rags seemingly night and day).

[Ari]

More of The Science, remarkable.

https://twitter.com/UnityNewsNet/status/1493547761...

[Ari]

Missy Charm said:

Not necessarily. In statistical terms, asking 'do face coverings in the community prevent coronavirus transmission' is a fairly simple one tailed test. The experimental hypothesis being that masks prevent transmission and the null being that they do not. The usual way of doing things is to look for evidence to support the experimental hypothesis, and if evidence is not found to accept the null, in this case that masks do not prevent transmission in the community.

All we, the so called anti-maskers, are asking for is evidence to support the experimental hypothesis. What are you relying on to make the decision that it should be accepted? That may well change our minds and cause us to reject the null. The point, however, is that we do not have to prove the null separately; it is proved by a lack of evidence, not by seeking evidence specifically in its favour.

Precisely this.

There are three questions they cannot answer.

What is the evidence that the face covering mandate actually worked? (Particularly given that implementing, and then scrapping and then re-implementing and then scrapping again saw no change in any trajectory - infections, hospitalisations or deaths)?

When are you going to put away your 'face coverings' for good?

Why are you so very keen on them?