Who is going to continue to wear a mask after 21st June?
Discussion
Lotobear said:
survivalist said:
What the f
k is a “low level of fear”?
Sufficient fear to keep the populous subdued and malleable...the sort of human equivalent of puffing smoke at beesk is a “low level of fear”? Maybe it's keeping people anxious about everything? If so it certainly seems to be working on certain sections of society (and PH).
As far as I can see, all the pandemic has proved is how few people can’t think for themselves. Disappointing and worrying in equal measure.
ETA - typo
Edited by survivalist on Friday 12th March 20:33
survivalist said:
As far as I can see, all the pandemic has proved is how few people can think for themselves. Disappointing and worrying in equal measure.
Here’s an honest question for you, and I’m not trying to steer the argument in any direction on this one...Let’s, for arguments sake, assume that this pandemic could genuinely have got out of hand, with services becoming overwhelmed.
Is it more beneficial as a nation, to have free thinkers, all interpreting their response to the situation independently, or a have a consensus of strategy that everyone adheres to?
Are the general public, well informed and educated enough, to do the right thing in the circumstances, or do they need to be steered in a certain direction?
Would a military force of 10000 individuals, for example, be more effective using their own judgement during a conflict, rather than simply following a set strategy?
andyeds1234 said:
Let’s, for arguments sake, assume that this pandemic could genuinely have got out of hand, with services becoming overwhelmed.
The numbers are in, the IFR is less than 1%. It would have been an unpleasant experience, but significantly less unpleasant than the "Spanish" flu of 1918-20. As it is the government reaction has, at the very least, given us economic and and mental health issues which will continue for decades. And that's ignoring the "great reset" stuff, which I hope is conspiracy loon territory, but am as yet unconvinced actually is.Colonel Cupcake said:
andyeds1234 said:
Colonel Cupcake said:
More 'evidence' with two mannequins wearing masks in a laboratory.
Simply does not translate to any real world scenario.
Ok, I’ll play.Simply does not translate to any real world scenario.
What method of testing would be acceptable to you?
Which organisation doing the testing would be acceptable to you?
What level of mitigation would be acceptable to you?
What is the “real world scenario” that would be an acceptable test bed for you?
There seems to be a moving set of goalposts here.
Studies by experts aren’t enough, so tell me what is enough?
The fact that no group has carried out anything other than lab-based studies means that they are either unwillng or unable to.
But you shouldn't make f
king laws based on opinion.andyeds1234 said:
Here’s an honest question for you, and I’m not trying to steer the argument in any direction on this one...
Let’s, for arguments sake, assume that this pandemic could genuinely have got out of hand, with services becoming overwhelmed.
Is it more beneficial as a nation, to have free thinkers, all interpreting their response to the situation independently, or a have a consensus of strategy that everyone adheres to?
Are the general public, well informed and educated enough, to do the right thing in the circumstances, or do they need to be steered in a certain direction?
Would a military force of 10000 individuals, for example, be more effective using their own judgement during a conflict, rather than simply following a set strategy?
There is no scenario where the removal of the general publics ability to think freely can be considered a good thing.Let’s, for arguments sake, assume that this pandemic could genuinely have got out of hand, with services becoming overwhelmed.
Is it more beneficial as a nation, to have free thinkers, all interpreting their response to the situation independently, or a have a consensus of strategy that everyone adheres to?
Are the general public, well informed and educated enough, to do the right thing in the circumstances, or do they need to be steered in a certain direction?
Would a military force of 10000 individuals, for example, be more effective using their own judgement during a conflict, rather than simply following a set strategy?
andyeds1234 said:
Concensus is maybe a word you should learn.
Um, do you mean consensus? I fear you have had no scientific training at all, you appear to lack even the basics. However, you must appreciate that science is not consensus based. If you do not, well, all hope is lost for you, and there was little in the first place. Perhaps read this https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/
Jasandjules said:
Um, do you mean consensus?
I fear you have had no scientific training at all, you appear to lack even the basics. However, you must appreciate that science is not consensus based. If you do not, well, all hope is lost for you, and there was little in the first place. Perhaps read this https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/
It’s just a spelling mistake for fI fear you have had no scientific training at all, you appear to lack even the basics. However, you must appreciate that science is not consensus based. If you do not, well, all hope is lost for you, and there was little in the first place. Perhaps read this https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/
ks sake.Of course science can be consensus based you pillock.
“Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity”
I fear all may be lost for you, but perhaps read this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consens...
andyeds1234 said:
Jasandjules said:
Um, do you mean consensus?
I fear you have had no scientific training at all, you appear to lack even the basics. However, you must appreciate that science is not consensus based. If you do not, well, all hope is lost for you, and there was little in the first place. Perhaps read this https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/
It’s just a spelling mistake for fI fear you have had no scientific training at all, you appear to lack even the basics. However, you must appreciate that science is not consensus based. If you do not, well, all hope is lost for you, and there was little in the first place. Perhaps read this https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/
ks sake.Of course science can be consensus based you pillock.
“Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity”
Perhaps read this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consens...
andyeds1234 said:
survivalist said:
As far as I can see, all the pandemic has proved is how few people can think for themselves. Disappointing and worrying in equal measure.
Here’s an honest question for you, and I’m not trying to steer the argument in any direction on this one...Let’s, for arguments sake, assume that this pandemic could genuinely have got out of hand, with services becoming overwhelmed.
Is it more beneficial as a nation, to have free thinkers, all interpreting their response to the situation independently, or a have a consensus of strategy that everyone adheres to?
Are the general public, well informed and educated enough, to do the right thing in the circumstances, or do they need to be steered in a certain direction?
Would a military force of 10000 individuals, for example, be more effective using their own judgement during a conflict, rather than simply following a set strategy?
andyeds1234 said:
survivalist said:
As far as I can see, all the pandemic has proved is how few people can think for themselves. Disappointing and worrying in equal measure.
Here’s an honest question for you, and I’m not trying to steer the argument in any direction on this one...Let’s, for arguments sake, assume that this pandemic could genuinely have got out of hand, with services becoming overwhelmed.
Is it more beneficial as a nation, to have free thinkers, all interpreting their response to the situation independently, or a have a consensus of strategy that everyone adheres to?
Are the general public, well informed and educated enough, to do the right thing in the circumstances, or do they need to be steered in a certain direction?
Would a military force of 10000 individuals, for example, be more effective using their own judgement during a conflict, rather than simply following a set strategy?
However, once we had some time to gather data it became clear that it wasn’t an existential threat. Sadly by then politics became the real issue, not science. Combined with a collective aversion to discussing death and quality of life, the foolish policy of saving everyone took hold.
The military comparison is an irrelevant one. Those following orders in the military are essentially part of a set of tools to get a job done. Doesn’t detract from the bravery and sacrifice, but it’s not comparable to civilian life.
Civilians should make decisions based on their circumstances. Sadly we constantly see grandparents who haven’t seen their grandchildren in months. Some will be because they fear the virus (possibly because of the government adverts and the desire for the media to re-enforce the virtue of starting law olds down) but many more because it’s illegal.
My children’s grandparents have seen them throughout where possible (as some live abroad it has been, on occasion, a logistical challenge) even though it’s introduced a vanishingly small amount of risk.
nonsequitur said:
vulture1 said:
I work in a supermarket and have worked all through this. Early on with panic buying there were 1 or 2 loonies with weird masks. It felt like the start of an apocalypse movie. Then a few more people. Then it was optional . Then it was in public places but not through the back. Then a few weirdos on the shop floor not wearing one. The wierdos then gave into peer group pressure. Then every skumbag developed anxiety and was exempt.
Once masks are no longer compulsory mines will be gone. I dont fear the virus all. No one in retail 99% will drop it given the choice. At this point I then expect there will be a few customers who will complain at us not wearing masks.
Theres a great video called the first follower on YT about a lone nut getting up to dance. It is very appropriate.
My guess is that you will end up doing what your employer instructs you to do.Once masks are no longer compulsory mines will be gone. I dont fear the virus all. No one in retail 99% will drop it given the choice. At this point I then expect there will be a few customers who will complain at us not wearing masks.
Theres a great video called the first follower on YT about a lone nut getting up to dance. It is very appropriate.
dave_s13 said:
andyeds1234 said:
Jasandjules said:
Um, do you mean consensus?
I fear you have had no scientific training at all, you appear to lack even the basics. However, you must appreciate that science is not consensus based. If you do not, well, all hope is lost for you, and there was little in the first place. Perhaps read this https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/
It’s just a spelling mistake for fI fear you have had no scientific training at all, you appear to lack even the basics. However, you must appreciate that science is not consensus based. If you do not, well, all hope is lost for you, and there was little in the first place. Perhaps read this https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/
ks sake.Of course science can be consensus based you pillock.
“Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity”
Perhaps read this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consens...
andyeds1234 said:
Of course science can be consensus based you pillock.
I see you lack the ability to be wrong and be graceful. This does somewhat underline why you have the view you have and why you so interpret information incorrectly and without either reading or understanding ( I know not which, but I can take a guess ) the flaws and margins of error in them. No, science can not be consensus based and is not consensus based. A fact is a fact regardless of how many claim to the contrary. Look to history for evidence, heliocentricity could be your starting point.
It is not clear whether you do not understand the motto I linked to or whether you think it is wrong, but do look at exactly what organisation it is, assuming you do not know already. But when you understand it, you will see what you say is fundamentally wrong and should be subject to challenge, and should all science. If it is not subject to challenge or discourse then it is not science but religious fervour.
Jasandjules said:
I see you lack the ability to be wrong and be graceful. This does somewhat underline why you have the view you have and why you so interpret information incorrectly and without either reading or understanding ( I know not which, but I can take a guess ) the flaws and margins of error in them.
No, science can not be consensus based and is not consensus based. A fact is a fact regardless of how many claim to the contrary. Look to history for evidence, heliocentricity could be your starting point.
It is not clear whether you do not understand the motto I linked to or whether you think it is wrong, but do look at exactly what organisation it is, assuming you do not know already. But when you understand it, you will see what you say is fundamentally wrong and should be subject to challenge, and should all science. If it is not subject to challenge or discourse then it is not science but religious fervour.
I see you lack the ability to be wrong and graceful.No, science can not be consensus based and is not consensus based. A fact is a fact regardless of how many claim to the contrary. Look to history for evidence, heliocentricity could be your starting point.
It is not clear whether you do not understand the motto I linked to or whether you think it is wrong, but do look at exactly what organisation it is, assuming you do not know already. But when you understand it, you will see what you say is fundamentally wrong and should be subject to challenge, and should all science. If it is not subject to challenge or discourse then it is not science but religious fervour.
Scientific consensus is driven by many independent, isolated studies, coming to a similar conclusion.
Scientific consensus is rare, and as such has value. Facts are facts, and when that same fact is determined multiple times, in independent studies, that sometimes becomes consensual.
You can discuss the semantics of the term until the cows come home, or the “motto”, but claiming science and scientists can’t reach a consensus is total b
ks.You have assumed “when enough people have the same opinion” to be the definition of scientific consensus, when in reality, it is when repeated independent studies, produce the same outcome.
Science can then, at least until proven otherwise, reach a consensus.
One is political, the other is entirely fact based.
Getting back to the mask topic... if you or anyone else in this thread, have studied the effects of masks on disease mitigation, for a substantial amount of time, or If you are anyone else in this thread, has studied and reviewed the thousands of available studies, and perhaps conducted a peer reviewed study of your own, you would be perfectly entitled to challenge the current scientific consensus on the subject.
If, however, you are someone with limited experience on the subject, and have simply listened to a podcast on the subject, or read an interesting post on the subject, you have not earned the right to challenge that consensus.
Edited by andyeds1234 on Friday 12th March 23:20
As things stand, in terms of the body of evidence published, you are simply wrong.
On the old 4 stages of competence pyramid you are sitting right at the bottom.
Now I'm not a research scientist but my stab at how you might measure the effectiveness of face coverings would look something like this.
Take 2 conparible populations. Then mandate "face coverings" plus Hands Face Space in one and nothing in the other. Then measure clinical outcomes.
If outcomes were significantly different then run again but add Hands Face Space to the no face covering population and measure.
If significant differences are seen you might infer face coverings did something.
But that is incredibly difficult to design as the logistics are impossible and it's impossible to remove subject biases. And in the UK wouldn't even get past the ethics committee.
All we have at the moment are literature searches based on a body of evidence that doesn't fit the actual scenario we find ourselves in.
On the old 4 stages of competence pyramid you are sitting right at the bottom.
Now I'm not a research scientist but my stab at how you might measure the effectiveness of face coverings would look something like this.
Take 2 conparible populations. Then mandate "face coverings" plus Hands Face Space in one and nothing in the other. Then measure clinical outcomes.
If outcomes were significantly different then run again but add Hands Face Space to the no face covering population and measure.
If significant differences are seen you might infer face coverings did something.
But that is incredibly difficult to design as the logistics are impossible and it's impossible to remove subject biases. And in the UK wouldn't even get past the ethics committee.
All we have at the moment are literature searches based on a body of evidence that doesn't fit the actual scenario we find ourselves in.
The thread asks if anyone will continue wearing masks if/when(??) the mandate is scrapped. I asked family, friends & work colleagues about this & have yet to find a single person who will continue wearing them. Indeed, many of the respondents laughed at the thought.
The level of derision about the bloody things was a lot higher than I anticipated - many references to muzzles, face nappies etc....
The level of derision about the bloody things was a lot higher than I anticipated - many references to muzzles, face nappies etc....
Fact is, you don't cover up a stunning face like mine. I enjoy woman wolf whistling at me, and giving me cheeky grins as I walk by. I enjoy being eye candy for the married ladies out there. I'm just a big walking chunk of desirable human wagyu that certainly shouldn't be hid under a mask during my prime.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff