No Mask, No Entry, No Exceptions

[Griffith4ever]

CharlesdeGaulle said:

bad company said:

You could tell them you’re exempt, they have to accept your say do.

The same line, after all this time.

He speaks the truth. You are still laughing so one could say the sam....

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Short Grain said:

... I got Covid a fortnight after having the jab and it still laid me out! Dread to think what it would have done without the jab as I have COPD from years of ! My own fault there obviously.

You'll never know. Likewise those who are unjabbed will never know what effect the jab will have on them without taking it, or the efficacy of the jab in a particular person.

[HTP99]

Koyaanisqatsi said:

Short Grain said:

... I got Covid a fortnight after having the jab and it still laid me out! Dread to think what it would have done without the jab as I have COPD from years of ! My own fault there obviously.

You'll never know. Likewise those who are unjabbed will never know what effect the jab will have on them without taking it, or the efficacy of the jab in a particular person.

Wasn't it reported that you are more susceptible to catching Covid a while after receiving a jab?

[yellowjack]

Koyaanisqatsi said:

Short Grain said:

... I got Covid a fortnight after having the jab and it still laid me out! Dread to think what it would have done without the jab as I have COPD from years of ! My own fault there obviously.

You'll never know. Likewise those who are unjabbed will never know what effect the jab will have on them without taking it, or the efficacy of the jab in a particular person.

One of the reasons the boosters were being touted about earlier in the year was a widely held belief in medicine that it takes a good deal more than two weeks for the vaccine to become fully effective in your body. You can't just have the jab one day and expect to be fully protected the next. Within the NHS the pressure to get boosted this year has been going on for months already. My wife and I are both in our fifties but haven't got boosted yet. But then we're in the ONS/Oxford University Covid Survey study group, and so we get regular antibody test results. We were both jabbed twice first time around, my wife had a booster last year, and we've both since had Covid. Currently our blood antibodies for Covid 19 are coming back as 'high' so neither of us is bothering to take the offer of a booster just yet. As soon as my antibody levels reduce, I'll reconsider my position on the matter. My latest test samples (both nose and throat swabs and a blood sample) were posted off this week and we're waiting on the results now.

[Graveworm]

Griffith4ever said:

CharlesdeGaulle said:

bad company said:

You could tell them you’re exempt, they have to accept your say do.

The same line, after all this time.

He speaks the truth. You are still laughing so one could say the sam....

It never was "True" it was trotted out based on half understood guidelines and legislation. If you were exempt, because of a protected characteristic, within a workplace etc, then it may have been discriminatory to go further than ask - if it could be shown that they knew or should have known that you were disabled and that it wasn't a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.

Some places and bodies had guidelines that included don't ask. There is no current legislation from government so the exemption, that included severe distress etc has gone. It has always been the case that any workplace or premises can impose any restrictions, they think are necessary, subject to the above limitations.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 9th December 11:58

[bad company]

CharlesdeGaulle said:

bad company said:

You could tell them you’re exempt, they have to accept your say do.

The same line, after all this time.

It worked then and works now though it’s been a while since I was asked to wear a mask in the uk.

[gareth_r]

Here are a couple of quotes that seem to have been forgotten:

One from The Science

Van Tam on the 3rd of April 2020 said:

Wearing of masks by the general public. This has been a controversial area in pandemic preparedness and planning for the fifteen years that I have been involved in it, and, indeed, I was on the 'phone this morning to a colleague in Hong Kong, who's a professor there, who's done the evidence review for the World Health Organisation on face masks, and we're of the same mind, that there is no evidence that general wearing of face masks by the public who are well affects the spread of the disease in our society. But in terms of the hard evidence and what the UK government recommends; we do not recommend face masks for general wearing by the public.

and one from The Psyops

SAGE SPI:B on 20th April 2020 said:

Wearing facemasks outside of the house could complement existing government messaging of social responsibility if communicated alongside the effectiveness of masks in protecting others who are not infected. Wearing a facemask could demonstrate that an individual is concerned for other people's welfare and is enacting desired social norms around safety and hygiene.

Who to believe, eh? Jonathan Van Tam or Susan Michie? Difficult choice, but I think the scientist (before he became part of The Science) just shades it over the behavioural non-scientist, who, some might say, is best left to advise supermarkets on where to position the fresh veg.

I wonder, which one could have influenced that hero of the pandemic, The Right Honourable Matthew Hancock MP BA IACGMOOH?

Hancock on 14th July 2020 said:

We want to give people more confidence to shop safely, and enhance protections for those who work in shops. Both of these can be done by the use of face coverings. We have therefore come to the decision that face coverings should be mandatory in shops and supermarkets.

Face masks - what a cult!

[Francois de La Rochefoucauld]

My local surgery in London asked me to wear one today. All three reception staff behind the plastic screen were mask free. I took it and put it in the bin. The GP continued the charade by wearing one, but didn't mention that I wasn't. Mental.

[Graveworm]

gareth_r said:

Here are a couple of quotes that seem to have been forgotten:

One from The Science

Van Tam on the 3rd of April 2020 said:

Wearing of masks by the general public. This has been a controversial area in pandemic preparedness and planning for the fifteen years that I have been involved in it, and, indeed, I was on the 'phone this morning to a colleague in Hong Kong, who's a professor there, who's done the evidence review for the World Health Organisation on face masks, and we're of the same mind, that there is no evidence that general wearing of face masks by the public who are well affects the spread of the disease in our society. But in terms of the hard evidence and what the UK government recommends; we do not recommend face masks for general wearing by the public.

and one from The Psyops

SAGE SPI:B on 20th April 2020 said:

Wearing facemasks outside of the house could complement existing government messaging of social responsibility if communicated alongside the effectiveness of masks in protecting others who are not infected. Wearing a facemask could demonstrate that an individual is concerned for other people's welfare and is enacting desired social norms around safety and hygiene.

Who to believe, eh? Jonathan Van Tam or Susan Michie? Difficult choice, but I think the scientist (before he became part of The Science) just shades it over the behavioural non-scientist, who, some might say, is best left to advise supermarkets on where to position the fresh veg.

I wonder, which one could have influenced that hero of the pandemic, The Right Honourable Matthew Hancock MP BA IACGMOOH?

Hancock on 14th July 2020 said:

We want to give people more confidence to shop safely, and enhance protections for those who work in shops. Both of these can be done by the use of face coverings. We have therefore come to the decision that face coverings should be mandatory in shops and supermarkets.

Face masks - what a cult!

Van Tam was right and I was on here arguing with those who wanted people to wear masks back then but then 2 things happened the evidence of wearing masks to protect others was factored in and they were tested and showed to work - Van Tam the WHO and every other body looked at the evidence, applied the precautionary principle and changed their view in line with that.

[GranpaB]

gareth_r said:

Face masks - what a cult!

It certainly is alright, especially when people keep dragging this thread back and then posting about how they are still 'sticking it to da man', when 99% of the population are getting on with their lives.

[remedy]

Graveworm said:

Van Tam was right and I was on here arguing with those who wanted people to wear masks back then but then 2 things happened the evidence of wearing masks to protect others was factored in and they were tested and showed to work - Van Tam the WHO and every other body looked at the evidence, applied the precautionary principle and changed their view in line with that.

Errr.

No. No country performed any better with enforced wearing of cloth, surgical or n91.
Just look at Our world in data graph for infections in England, Scotland, Germany, Italy and Sweden from November 21 to march 22.

So, no.

[gareth_r]

Graveworm said:

Van Tam was right and I was on here arguing with those who wanted people to wear masks back then but then 2 things happened the evidence of wearing masks to protect others was factored in and they were tested and showed to work - Van Tam the WHO and every other body looked at the evidence, applied the precautionary principle and changed their view in line with that.

When was the study proving that they worked performed? Who carried it out?

SAGE on the 28th of April 2020 said:

The recommendation from SAGE is completely clear, which is that there is weak evidence of a small effect in which a face mask can prevent a source of infection going from somebody to the people around them. But the answer is clear, that the evidence is weak and the effect is small and we've passed that on to our colleagues in government with which to make a decision.

Shapps on 4th June 2020 said:

I can announce that as of Monday June 15 face coverings will become mandatory on public transport.

Five weeks doesn't seem long enough.

[Graveworm]

remedy said:

Graveworm said:

Van Tam was right and I was on here arguing with those who wanted people to wear masks back then but then 2 things happened the evidence of wearing masks to protect others was factored in and they were tested and showed to work - Van Tam the WHO and every other body looked at the evidence, applied the precautionary principle and changed their view in line with that.

Errr.

No. No country performed any better with enforced wearing of cloth, surgical or n91.
Just look at Our world in data graph for infections in England, Scotland, Germany, Italy and Sweden from November 21 to march 22.

So, no.

Which, even if true, wouldn't measure the impact or effectiveness of mask wearing.
The studies to measure that are all above
But here are a few more:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa221102...
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.ht...
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068302##

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 9th December 15:25

[Pica-Pica]

Francois de La Rochefoucauld said:

My local surgery in London asked me to wear one today. All three reception staff behind the plastic screen were mask free. I took it and put it in the bin. The GP continued the charade by wearing one, but didn't mention that I wasn't. Mental.

Oooh! How daring.

[Graveworm]

gareth_r said:

Graveworm said:

Van Tam was right and I was on here arguing with those who wanted people to wear masks back then but then 2 things happened the evidence of wearing masks to protect others was factored in and they were tested and showed to work - Van Tam the WHO and every other body looked at the evidence, applied the precautionary principle and changed their view in line with that.

When was the study proving that they worked performed? Who carried it out?

Not study studies:
Some examples from around that period
https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/5/e002794

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.22...
Here is the graph from that -


https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800

https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10720

[remedy]

Unfortunately, as we exist in the real world where real people exist outside of lab conditions and academic controls, this happens...



Germany and Italy, mandatory n95 masks
UK a mixture of Scotland with mandatory surgical and England with anything you've got in your pocket.

[Graveworm]

remedy said:

Unfortunately, as we exist in the real world where real people exist outside of lab conditions and academic controls, this happens...



Germany and Italy, mandatory n95 masks
UK a mixture of Scotland with mandatory surgical and England with anything you've got in your pocket.

This doesn't have anything to do with whether masks reduce infections or not. Not everyone was wearing them, they are not worn in all settings and they far from completely prevent transmission.
One of studies above was the biggest of it's kind, not in a lab it looked at millions of people and eliminated all other factors except mask wearing.
Do you understand what the confidence interval means? The studies alone are pretty conclusive - not a single study has found the opposite take them all together it's almost impossible that masks don't reduce transmission.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 9th December 18:16

[remedy]

Graveworm said:

remedy said:

Unfortunately, as we exist in the real world where real people exist outside of lab conditions and academic controls, this happens...



Germany and Italy, mandatory n95 masks
UK a mixture of Scotland with mandatory surgical and England with anything you've got in your pocket.

This doesn't have anything to do with whether masks reduce infections or not. Not everyone was wearing them, they are not worn in all settings and they far from completely prevent transmission.
One of studies above was the biggest of it's kind, not in a lab it looked at millions of people and eliminated all other factors except mask wearing.
Do you understand what the confidence interval means? The studies alone are pretty conclusive - not a single study has found the opposite take them all together it's almost impossible that masks don't reduce transmission.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 9th December 18:16

This is an airborne virus. Where does the air supply come from for a mask worn by the general population?
How about an n95 that is fitted over a beard?

I'd take the testimony of an industrial engineer specialising in masks on the effectiveness of masks for an airborne virus, personally. Because it fits the real world data observed throughout the pandemic.



Note the mask advocate who doesn't even pick up the paper and sits cross armed in her mask, throughout.

Edited by remedy on Friday 9th December 18:24

[Graveworm]

remedy said:

Graveworm said:

remedy said:

Unfortunately, as we exist in the real world where real people exist outside of lab conditions and academic controls, this happens...



Germany and Italy, mandatory n95 masks
UK a mixture of Scotland with mandatory surgical and England with anything you've got in your pocket.

This doesn't have anything to do with whether masks reduce infections or not. Not everyone was wearing them, they are not worn in all settings and they far from completely prevent transmission.
One of studies above was the biggest of it's kind, not in a lab it looked at millions of people and eliminated all other factors except mask wearing.
Do you understand what the confidence interval means? The studies alone are pretty conclusive - not a single study has found the opposite take them all together it's almost impossible that masks don't reduce transmission.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 9th December 18:16

This is an airborne virus. Where does the air supply come from for a mask worn by the general population?
How about an n95 that is fitted over a beard?

I'd take the testimony of an industrial engineer specialising in masks on the effectiveness of masks for an airborne virus, personally. Because it fits the real world data observed throughout the pandemic.



Note the mask advocate who doesn't even pick up the paper and sits cross armed in her mask, throughout.

Edited by remedy on Friday 9th December 18:24

You are literally explaining why masks aren't perfect but missing out that the real world data is what fed the studies showing the opposite to what you contend they do.

[remedy]

I'm trying to explain that masks forced on a real world population in real world scenarios do nothing to prevent a virus. So, as the thread title, what is the point?

Especially when I take it off to sit down and eat my meal.