Who is going to continue to wear a mask after 21st June?

[survivalist]

xx99xx said:

andyeds1234 said:

A low level of fear seems reasonable, when there is a very real risk. I infer a low level of fear in my kids, when they walk next to our local cliffs. Seems reasonable, no?

As for offset of personal Liberty... it’s a delicate cotton mask, that has to be worn infrequently, not a bamboo cage in the Nam

You'll never get a Freeman to see reason but I admire your persistence.

What the fk is a “low level of fear”?

[Lotobear]

survivalist said:

What the fk is a “low level of fear”?

Sufficient fear to keep the populous subdued and malleable...the sort of human equivalent of puffing smoke at bees

[andyeds1234]

Colonel Cupcake said:

What is acceptable to me does not matter.

The fact that no group has carried out anything other than lab-based studies means that they are either unwillng or unable to.

As suspected you haven’t read any of the studies, have you?
Many are based on data from live environments such as hospitals.

FFS, just a fraction of effort to understand might help

[andyeds1234]

survivalist said:

What the fk is a “low level of fear”?

It’s fear of dwarves.

[survivalist]

andyeds1234 said:

survivalist said:

What the fk is a “low level of fear”?

It’s fear of dwarves.

Surely that's a fear of low level? The level of fear isn't specified.

[andyeds1234]

survivalist said:

Surely that's a fear of low level? The level of fear isn't specified.

You’re right, that makes more sense.
Don’t get me started on masked dwarves though...

[survivalist]

Lotobear said:

survivalist said:

What the fk is a “low level of fear”?

Sufficient fear to keep the populous subdued and malleable...the sort of human equivalent of puffing smoke at bees

Not sure that's a good analogy. The bees aren't frightened, they are a bit stoned.

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

[andyeds1234]

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?

[Einion Yrth]

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.

[dave_s13]

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.
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?

What is acceptable to me does not matter.

The fact that no group has carried out anything other than lab-based studies means that they are either unwillng or unable to.

There are some things in the medical sphere that you simply cannot prove one way or another. You can gain a consensus of opinion of course.

But you shouldn't make fking laws based on opinion.

[Leon R]

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.

[Einion Yrth]

Leon R said:

There is no scenario where the removal of the general publics ability to think freely can be considered a good thing.

Unless you're a politician. Tax farming is most profitable if you keep the masses thick or uninterested. Panem et circenses.

[Jasandjules]

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/

[andyeds1234]

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 fks 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...

[dave_s13]

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 fks 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...

You can't quote Wikipedia in scientific papers. Just saying.

[Douglas Quaid]

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?

It would certainly have been better to have a consensus of strategy in that situation and I think if that had been the case the vast majority would’ve stuck to it.

[survivalist]

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?

Your first point is valid. In March 2020 the risks of COVID-19 were unclear, which is why for the initial 3 weeks of lockdown, compliance was higher than expected.

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.

[vulture1]

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.

Yes but what i was getting at is the loonies wore masks early on. Then they became the normal and the loonies/outsiders were the non wearers.

[andyeds1234]

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 fks 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...

You can't quote Wikipedia in scientific papers. Just saying.

I’m not

[Jasandjules]

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.