# Face masks



## lurker (13 Jul 2020)

Now we are on the edge of compulsory wearing of face masks in shops etc........

These only have some use by preventing the wearer contaminating others.
They do not protect the wearer indeed a case could be made for them being detrimental to the wearer.
I think most of us either through our hobby or work, know that proper fit and the right mask is essential.

I am getting rather annoyed when I see folks wearing masks with a valve as these are just venting unfiltered air and are totally innapropriate and damn selfish.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Jul 2020)

Oooh I think we are going to agree on something! lol

You are absolutely bang on, but it's even worse, wearing masks changes the behaviour of the wearer and those around them causing them to act in a more risky manner, same thing happens with gloves.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (13 Jul 2020)

If you wear a mask, and have the evil disease, your mask is going to be a colossal repository of virus. Watch everyone who wears a mask incessantly pulling and tugging and repositioning their masks, all the time. Watch them not wash their hands every time they touch their mask. Watch them touch their mask and then touch produce, railings, door handles, so on and so forth. 

I don't have the data, but I would guess mask wearers touch their faces/masks more often than non wearers touch their faces. 

But it keeps Karen happy, so we must all comply.


----------



## Droogs (13 Jul 2020)

Now that my Readybrek treatment is over and I have been allowed to go beyond my front gate, I will be wearing a mask as it is mandatory up here in the rather less infected north. I will not me wearing a cloth or paper mask at any time, I will wear a proper sealing halfmask with ffp3 filters and pre-filters as my immune system will still take 3 months to regenerate to normal levels. I will wear this as it will afford ME the level of protection I need, the mask is/will be cleaned properly on my return home each time and the pre-filter replaced. I know I am covid free having been in my house since the end of February (apart from treatment visits while wearing said mask) and do not need to filter what I breath out just the in. I


----------



## transatlantic (13 Jul 2020)

Surely if they're going to make mask wearing compulsory, then there must be some system in place to provide people with suitable masks in the first place?

Else you'll just get people wearing handkerchiefs, or week old painters masks etc which is entirely pointless.

Or .... we'll be right back at the tissue roll thing where people hoard them and sell them for crazy prices.

I have no idea how it should work, but just telling people they have to wear a mask and letting them get on with it seems rather incomplete to me.


----------



## lurker (13 Jul 2020)

Droogs":3m8k5gej said:


> Now that my Readybrek treatment is over and I have been allowed to go beyond my front gate, I will be wearing a mask as it is mandatory up here in the rather less infected north. I will not me wearing a cloth or paper mask at any time, I will wear a proper sealing halfmask with ffp3 filters and pre-filters as my immune system will still take 3 months to regenerate to normal levels. I will wear this as it will afford ME the level of protection I need, the mask is/will be cleaned properly on my return home each time and the pre-filter replaced. I know I am covid free having been in my house since the end of February (apart from treatment visits while wearing said mask) and do not need to filter what I breath out just the in. I



Just don't put too much faith in it as its no where are protective as you think. What about you eyes? , I understand this is a route of infection exceeding that of the respiratory tract. 
Distance is your best protection, that and avoiding touching your face . Plus hand washing.


----------



## lurker (13 Jul 2020)

transatlantic":gt7dicgn said:


> Surely if they're going to make mask wearing compulsory, then there must be some system in place to provide people with suitable masks in the first place?
> 
> Else you'll just get people wearing handkerchiefs, or week old painters masks etc which is entirely pointless.
> 
> ...



Define suitable mask.
If you mean for the wearer's protection , you need something costing maybe £500 plus a couple of hours training on how to put it on, take it off ( the critical action) and maintain it.


----------



## Droogs (13 Jul 2020)

Lurker, It is a good point you make and I am aware of this. I do have access to full face systems including filtered forced air and CBRN if needed. I do think that to be OTT just now. I don't tend to touch my face as I usually have a mask on while working in a very small workshop with weak clean air ventilation (it is a building inside a building), so wear a mask all the time if any sawdust or any volatiles have been used. As to demasking drills in a contaminated environment, I am well aware as I am an ex NBC / CBRN instructor


----------



## lurker (13 Jul 2020)

Droogs":31ygfdrt said:


> As to demasking drills in a contaminated environment, I am well aware as I am an ex NBC / CBRN instructor



In that case you are part of, what I would guess is less than 1% of the population, who would get decent protection from this form of PPE. Certainly a good 50% NHS staff , who should have had training, use it incorrectly from what I have seen.


----------



## sammy.se (13 Jul 2020)

I don't understand all the objections to masks. The logic is simple (to me): Spittle, and water droplets come out of your mouth when you talk, and breath. The mask - even a basic one - reduces the droplets being propelled onto other people, surfaces, the air immediately in the vicinity of others (e.g. as you walk past each other in a shop aisle).

No one says it will 100% defend the wearer from infection. No one says it will 100% stop the spread of the virus.
It's just a way to help stem the spread.

Everyone is so sensitive about this, it's crazy.

We wear seat belts in cars, we wear helmets on motorcycles, we adhere to a speed limit, we use a riving knife, we wear airplane belts, we wear PPE at work. the list goes on. It's just another precaution. let's just get on with it and try and be happy


----------



## lurker (13 Jul 2020)

I have no objection to them at all.
Just so long as folks understand the reason why and their considerable limitations.


----------



## Geoff_S (13 Jul 2020)

And in case of nuclear attack, hide under a table ... and other useful government advice.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Jul 2020)

sammy.se":9sadlwuv said:


> We wear seat belts in cars, we wear helmets on motorcycles, we adhere to a speed limit, we use a riving knife, we wear airplane belts, we wear PPE at work. the list goes on. It's just another precaution. let's just get on with it and try and be happy



Go back to what I said about masks and gloves, look at the studies. Everything you have just said there encourages risky behaviour. People who wear seat belts drive faster and more dangerously. 

I am fine with masks if people knew how to use them and acted accordingly. The people I see in the supermarket acting the least cautious are the people wearing masks and gloves.


----------



## transatlantic (13 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":29ijzx0m said:


> sammy.se":29ijzx0m said:
> 
> 
> > We wear seat belts in cars, we wear helmets on motorcycles, we adhere to a speed limit, we use a riving knife, we wear airplane belts, we wear PPE at work. the list goes on. It's just another precaution. let's just get on with it and try and be happy
> ...



So you're saying we shouldn't encourage people to wear masks as it makes them more complacent? :?:


----------



## lurker (13 Jul 2020)

"We wear PPE at work".........
Assuming you understand risk assessments; you will know that PPE is very low in the hierarchy of control measures. And that assumes it is fit for purpose, well maintained and correctly used.


----------



## lurker (13 Jul 2020)

transatlantic":3592qmib said:


> Rorschach":3592qmib said:
> 
> 
> > sammy.se":3592qmib said:
> ...



I think this is precisely why they were not prescribed, earlier in the lockdown.

I will wear them as required, but still retain my 3+ metres* distancing and hand washing practices. 
* I never accepted from the get go that 2 metres was enough.


----------



## Chris152 (13 Jul 2020)

I wear a cloth mask and gloves when I enter a shop, i do my shop without touching anything i don't have to touch, I leave the shop and carefully remove and bin the gloves and carefully remove the mask. I leave the mask on a windowsill at least 3 days before re-using. 
I don't think the fact that some people do silly things while wearing masks and gloves is any reason for the rest of us not to use them. The scientific evidence is increasingly clear, apparently. 
Perhaps govt could issue advice on how to use this stuff to help those who don't understand how to use it safely - it's not remotely complex.


----------



## lurker (13 Jul 2020)

Chris152":lxu0nlpy said:


> Perhaps govt could issue advice on how to use this stuff to help those who don't understand how to use it safely - it's not remotely complex.



Sounds reasonable, but the majority don’t even see government advice let alone heed it.

I used to work in nuclear. We had training sessions, refreshed every six months, just on how to take off gloves :shock: sounds a bit over the top until you consider how easy it is to contaminate yourself.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Jul 2020)

My view is pretty much the same as I had on lockdown. Wear masks if you wish, I won't berate you if you do, I won't berate you if you don't. I will continue to socially distance in the same way I did before and carry out my own personal protection.


----------



## lurker (13 Jul 2020)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-53389977

Like I said distance via barriers trumps face masks


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Jul 2020)

lurker":2smg7695 said:


> I will wear them as required, but still retain my 3+ metres* distancing and hand washing practices.
> * I never accepted from the get go that 2 metres was enough.



No, it should have been 500 mil upwind and six metres downwind.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (13 Jul 2020)

Geoff_S":m65h85lj said:


> And in case of nuclear attack, hide under a table ... and other useful government advice.



A bit of an aside, I have personally met a man who survived the bombing of Nagasaki by sheltering under his desk. OK, if you were close to the blast, you and the desk are done for. But on the fringes, the building you're in might kill you rather than heat or radiation.

So sometimes rather inadequate sounding advice can just make the difference - not guaranteed protection, just improving the odds.


----------



## whatknot (13 Jul 2020)

I couldn't agree more 

Whats the fuss, if its mandatory just comply whats the big deal 

As to the suggestion that people wearing seat belts drive faster, what a load of tosh, people that want to speed, will do, it was no different before seat belts became mandatory, people drove to fast then too 

When I am out shopping, I am *very* aware of the need to not touch your face, mask or no, its plain common sense 

If *you* wear a mask you reduce the risk of passing it on (you may not know you have it until its to late) and if everyone else wears a mask, they reduce the risk of passing it on to *you* 

The more you minimise the risk, the less likely you are to get it 

I really don't understand what there is to complain about 




sammy.se":qzbu0iwc said:


> I don't understand all the objections to masks. The logic is simple (to me): Spittle, and water droplets come out of your mouth when you talk, and breath. The mask - even a basic one - reduces the droplets being propelled onto other people, surfaces, the air immediately in the vicinity of others (e.g. as you walk past each other in a shop aisle).
> 
> No one says it will 100% defend the wearer from infection. No one says it will 100% stop the spread of the virus.
> It's just a way to help stem the spread.
> ...


----------



## Rorschach (13 Jul 2020)

whatknot":3sym3ysn said:


> Whats the fuss, if its mandatory just comply whats the big deal
> 
> As to the suggestion that people wearing seat belts drive faster, what a load of tosh, people that want to speed, will do, it was no different before seat belts became mandatory, people drove to fast then too



Statement 1: You want to be real careful with that attitude, history should have taught you better.

Statement 2: You are just plain wrong, plenty of science to back it up, the safer we make things the greater the risk people take. This is not an opinion or a cause for argument, it is a plain simple fact.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (13 Jul 2020)

There is a purist approach which seeks to reduce the risk of infection to zero. This is neither practicable or affordable - crossing the road, lightning strike, air crash etc become high risk by comparison.

I favour a more pragmatic approach where the risk is reduced to what could be described as normally acceptable levels.

Based on latest data ONS estimate 1 in 3900 were infected in the two weeks ended 5th July. You could spend every day for the next week marching up and down your local high street and not pass a single infected person (probably).

If the rate of transmission remains unchanged and every 2 weeks there are another 1 in 3900 infections, over the course of the next year the risk changes to approx 1 in 150. This is starting to become a significant risk - if I visit a supermarket every day for the next year I may pass someone who is infected (roughly).

To reduce the risk of personal infection I need to do a number of things:

- support mask wearing - consensus is that it materially reduces virus spread
- avoid crowded enclosed spaces
- limit closer contact to those who are similarly cautious
- STAY ALERT, WASH HANDS blah blah blah

And bear in mind that even if CV-19 deaths continue at 100 per day (36000 pa) it would only be 4th to 6th on the main causes of death in the UK (after heart, dementia, cancer).


----------



## whatknot (13 Jul 2020)

This has to be a wind up surely ;-) 

Re seat belts, even if the assertion were true, the facts are that wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of injury or death (even if you were going faster than you were) 

Wearing a mask and others doing likewise *will* reduce the risk to both parties, *and* to your nearest and dearest by you not passing it on by being infected by a total stranger whilst out shopping


----------



## Blackswanwood (13 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":1zi2mfye said:


> whatknot":1zi2mfye said:
> 
> 
> > Whats the fuss, if its mandatory just comply whats the big deal
> ...



Statement 1: He's advocating wearing a facemask not invading Poland

Statement 2: Source Think.gov.uk:

*The facts*

In a crash you’re twice as likely to die if you don’t wear a seat belt.
Drivers and passengers aged 17-34 have the lowest seat belt-wearing rates, combined with the highest accident rate.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Jul 2020)

Blackswanwood":p0i8o10e said:


> Statement 1: He's advocating wearing a facemask not invading Poland
> 
> Statement 2: Source Think.gov.uk:
> 
> ...



Small steps lead to tyranny. :wink: 

I never said it was safer to drive without a seat belt, go back and read it properly before you post irrelevant facts


----------



## Blackswanwood (13 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":3aaejfl9 said:


> Blackswanwood":3aaejfl9 said:
> 
> 
> > Statement 1: He's advocating wearing a facemask not invading Poland
> ...



You said “People who wear seat belts drive faster and more dangerously.”

I’m struggling to see how that correlates with the highest accident rate being linked to those that have the lowest seat belt-wearing rates.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Jul 2020)

Blackswanwood":1zvekvb1 said:


> You said “People who wear seat belts drive faster and more dangerously.”



Yes I did, because it's true. Google the Peltzman effect, or risk compensation.

In fact since you are too lazy to do it for yourself, I have got you a starter link, you're welcome :wink: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation


----------



## Trevanion (13 Jul 2020)

Can we have *ONE* decent thread on CV that doesn't devolve into petty and inconsequential bickering ffs...


----------



## Blackswanwood (13 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":x2qsg8t1 said:


> Blackswanwood":x2qsg8t1 said:
> 
> 
> > You said “People who wear seat belts drive faster and more dangerously.”
> ...



I’m very familiar with the Peltzman effect. I wrote a dissertation on motor insurance personal injury costs and referenced it heavily. My research went a bit beyond Wikipedia and YouTube.

If you read it properly (not the cut down version that has recently been doing the rounds on the likes of the conversation) and you’ll see it’s not quite that straightforward.

Some people get lulled into a false sense of security but the overall benefit of seatbelts is positive. Masks could well be in the same category.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Jul 2020)

Blackswanwood":14sdmtq9 said:


> I’m very familiar with the Peltzman effect. I wrote a dissertation on motor insurance personal injury costs and referenced it heavily. My research went a bit beyond Wikipedia and YouTube.
> 
> If you read it properly (not the cut down version that has recently been doing the rounds on the likes of the conversation) and you’ll see it’s not quite that straightforward.
> 
> Some people get lulled into a false sense of security but the overall benefit of seatbelts is positive. Masks could well be in the same category.



Well if you did write that dissertation you know what I am saying is correct, I didn't say seatbelts were bad, just that whenever you create safety, you also create a willingness to take risks. Are another one purposely misunderstanding me and trying to find an excuse to attack me?


----------



## Blackswanwood (13 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":2ver0opx said:


> Well if you did write that dissertation you know what I am saying is correct, I didn't say seatbelts were bad, just that whenever you create safety, you also create a willingness to take risks. Are another one purposely misunderstanding me and trying to find an excuse to attack me?



No I am not purposely trying to find fault in what you say and have no interest in attacking anyone. I do find what I see as your tendency to make sweeping statements and then not entertain the possibility that those who have a different view to yours to be “plain wrong” a bit disconcerting though.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Jul 2020)

Trevanion":2wxfi1hf said:


> Can we have *ONE* decent thread on CV that doesn't devolve into petty and inconsequential bickering ffs...




No.


----------



## llangatwgnedd (13 Jul 2020)

Should have worn masks at the beginning of the outbreak.
Instead, we filled the undertakers wallet instead.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Jul 2020)

They could at least have insisted the people flying in from Wuhan and Iran wore them.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Jul 2020)

Blackswanwood":201awqdo said:


> No I am not purposely trying to find fault in what you say and have no interest in attacking anyone. I do find what I see as your tendency to make sweeping statements and then not entertain the possibility that those who have a different view to yours to be “plain wrong” a bit disconcerting though.



It wasn't my view, it was a factual statement that you also know to be true, you wrote a dissertation on it :|


----------



## lurker (13 Jul 2020)

llangatwgnedd":1yhcb9we said:


> Should have worn masks at the beginning of the outbreak.
> Instead, we filled the undertakers wallet instead.



Your faith in such a poor form of protection is rather worrying.


----------



## whatknot (13 Jul 2020)

I completely agree, its rather late in the day IMHO 



llangatwgnedd":2b4u5m1m said:


> Should have worn masks at the beginning of the outbreak.
> Instead, we filled the undertakers wallet instead.


----------



## Marineboy (14 Jul 2020)

lurker":15jtbf6x said:


> Now we are on the edge of compulsory wearing of face masks in shops etc........
> 
> These only have some use by preventing the wearer contaminating others.
> They do not protect the wearer indeed a case could be made for them being detrimental to the wearer.
> ...



Surely the valve is to allow unfiltered air _in_. The air you breathe out goes through the mask.


----------



## Rorschach (14 Jul 2020)

Marineboy":114cvnj3 said:


> Surely the valve is to allow unfiltered air _in_. The air you breathe out goes through the mask.



No, other way around.


----------



## RogerS (14 Jul 2020)

Trevanion":onkrf10d said:


> Can we have *ONE* decent thread on CV that doesn't devolve into petty and inconsequential bickering ffs...



Only when Karen stops pontificating, I'm afraid.


----------



## Marineboy (14 Jul 2020)

Oh yes the penny has dropped. Those valves masks are ok in a workshop but not for the purposes of CV.


----------



## RogerS (14 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":80mivu2z said:


> They could at least have insisted the people flying in from Wuhan and Iran wore them.



Wrong nations, Phil. Most of the incoming infections came from people returning from skiing and travelling in Italy, France etc.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... k-too-late


----------



## owen (14 Jul 2020)

Marineboy":s382i625 said:


> lurker":s382i625 said:
> 
> 
> > Now we are on the edge of compulsory wearing of face masks in shops etc........
> ...



Why would the mask allow unfiltered air in? They're to stop dust getting in not out. The air you breathe out goes straight through the bit of rubber in the center of the mask


----------



## RogerS (14 Jul 2020)

Marineboy":satxqnbo said:


> Oh yes the penny has dropped. Those valves masks are ok in a workshop but not for the purposes of CV.



Eh? I don't think so. My mask works exactly the opposite way round to what I think you're suggesting. In fact, surely all masks must do if they are to be effective? The valve is one-way to allow air out. Dusty air is filtered by the mask before you breath it in.


----------



## Marineboy (14 Jul 2020)

RogerS":3887hu16 said:


> Marineboy":3887hu16 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yes the penny has dropped. Those valves masks are ok in a workshop but not for the purposes of CV.
> ...



Yes I’ve already said my original post was a mistake on my part.


----------



## Rorschach (14 Jul 2020)

Mandatory now from the 24th July, presumably we are safe until then as we have been up until now? :|


----------



## Marineboy (14 Jul 2020)

Go out shopping and if you don’t wear a mask we’ll fine you £100. Then go into a restaurant, take off your mask and we’ll give you a tenner.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Jul 2020)

RogerS":2xy5zdqx said:


> Phil Pascoe":2xy5zdqx said:
> 
> 
> > They could at least have insisted the people flying in from Wuhan and Iran wore them.
> ...



We know that now. What are you doing reading ther Grauniad , anyway?


----------



## RogerS (14 Jul 2020)

Marineboy":e4t1gahw said:


> Oh yes the penny has dropped. Those valves masks are ok in a workshop but not for the purposes of CV.



Yes, I read this but it was your last sentence that threw me. Many of the 'proper' masks for use against inhaling Covid have one-way valves. Just like my workshop mask.


----------



## lurker (14 Jul 2020)

RogerS":1724ekwj said:


> Marineboy":1724ekwj said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yes the penny has dropped. Those valves masks are ok in a workshop but not for the purposes of CV.
> ...



Where are these masks you speak of used, Roger?


----------



## RogerS (14 Jul 2020)

lurker":rz7bgw2j said:


> RogerS":rz7bgw2j said:
> 
> 
> > Marineboy":rz7bgw2j said:
> ...



I have no photographs to show you but they are available. You can get FFP3 masks with or without a valve. Not to be confused with respirators.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (14 Jul 2020)

RogerS":1lc4o6ro said:


> Phil Pascoe":1lc4o6ro said:
> 
> 
> > They could at least have insisted the people flying in from Wuhan and Iran wore them.
> ...



Yes, my son's school not only went ahead with the half term ski trip to Northern Italy, but later took the Latin and Classics classes to Rome, even though sites like the Colloseum and Pompeii were already closed. But the UK government had not yet advised against travel to Italy, so the insurers wouldn't have paid if they had cancelled. If the government had acted sooner, those trips could have been cancelled and it would have been a lot cheaper in the long run !

Fortunately my son wasn't on either trip - it must have been a very anxious time for parents.


----------



## sammy.se (14 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":3q27g4ac said:


> They could at least have insisted the people flying in from Wuhan and Iran wore them.



And Italy


----------



## That would work (14 Jul 2020)

Or the country which has the highest number of infected people perhaps.


----------



## Lons (14 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":3b5blat4 said:


> Mandatory now from the 24th July, presumably we are safe until then as we have been up until now? :|



You know that the likely answer to that is:

1). Government scientific advisors at best were split opinion on effectiveness and worst said they didn't help.

2). To protect supplies already in dire straits of PPE equipment needed fro the NHS and other front line services.

Just think back to toilet rolls and many other commodities almost impossible to get and expect a run on masks. 
I had for example a box of 50 disposable masks in my Amazon basket as had been unsure due to poor reviews and bought elsewhere, checked this morning and the price had more than doubled overnight, checked others I'd been looking at and many have also increased significantly.


----------



## thetyreman (14 Jul 2020)

the same government were advising people you don't need masks a few months ago and insisting on it, wtf is wrong with them? there's no consistency at all, they've already killed enough people through lack of real leadership, at least we've got a few days to enjoy not having to wear masks now, make the most of it.


----------



## transatlantic (14 Jul 2020)

"Those who fail to comply with the new rules will face a fine of up to £100. This will be reduced to £50 if people pay within 14 days."

Why do they put these pathetic fines in place? Like many other fines (e.g disabled parking bays), it's low enough that people will just risk it.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (14 Jul 2020)

Sadly we have a police force which prefers to look on at law breaking rather than intervene and enforce the law:

- allow Black Lives Matter protests (irrespective of the campaigns merits)
- allow destruction and defacement of public monuments 
- allow masses to descend on the beaches in fine weather
- apparently do little to enforce mask wearing on public transport

So expecting any police enforcement of mask wearing more generally is naive.

The main hope is that the retail sector will want to enforce mask wearing to protect compliant customers and staff. Perhaps there is a job opportunity for ex-bouncers currently unemployed due to the closure of bars and clubs :wink:


----------



## Droogs (14 Jul 2020)

Don't hold your breath on the retail sector doing it right either

2 days ago SWMBO rang the manager of our local Tesco to ask why half the people in the shop including staff were not wearing mask in accordance with the rules here in Scotland and was told "it's not our job to enforce mask wearing" so Ef 'em, they will never get another penny out of us and now we will go a mile further to get our groceries where they do enforce it.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Jul 2020)

transatlantic":3p1iucqe said:


> "Those who fail to comply with the new rules will face a fine of up to £100. This will be reduced to £50 if people pay within 14 days."
> 
> Why do they put these pathetic fines in place? Like many other fines (e.g disabled parking bays), it's low enough that people will just risk it.



Yes, it rather reminds me of years ago when our council announced proudly that they were putting an end to the problem of dog fouling - they'd increased the maximum fine from £50 to £500. The problem was that no one could ever remember anyone being prosecuted anyway.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Jul 2020)

Terry - Somerset":3axwhu7i said:


> Sadly we have a police force which prefers to look on at law breaking rather than intervene and enforce the law:
> 
> - allow Black Lives Matter protests (irrespective of the campaigns merits)
> - allow destruction and defacement of public monuments
> ...



They do what they are told to, and don't do what they are told not to. They were undoubtedly told to leave the BLM people alone. A neighbour, an ex sergeant, was involved in the St. Pauls riots in the early '80s - he said that they had just as well not have been there, as they were told under no circumstances were they to retaliate when threatened.
Of course, one problem they have as a police officer said on the radio a couple of days ago is that so far as masks, distancing etc. is concerned they haven't been told what is advice, some sort of regulation, or is actually a law.


----------



## Rorschach (14 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":2bhesbt2 said:


> transatlantic":2bhesbt2 said:
> 
> 
> > "Those who fail to comply with the new rules will face a fine of up to £100. This will be reduced to £50 if people pay within 14 days."
> ...



Here they are now going to fine you if you don't have poo bags with you when walking a dog. Of course the problems remains as before, those handing out the fines have no power to detain or to take your details, so if you tell them to sod off and walk away there is nothing they can do.


----------



## profchris (14 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":26vh4mdu said:


> They could at least have insisted the people flying in from Wuhan and Iran wore them.



Unexpectedly, that would have done no good! Check out the final programme in BBC Radio 4's series "More or Less", which reports on research which indicates that almost every source of infection was from Italy, Spain or France.

I can see an argument, at the time, that all foreign arrivals should wear a mask. But that's easy to say, hard to know if they are foreign arrivals once they've left the airport, station or port. Lots of Italians live here and haven't left since last summer, whilst most of the infections from Italy are thought to have come via UK citizens returning from skiing holidays.

It's a pretty useful rule of thumb that if you have a complex problem (and I think we all agree the pandemic is complex), then any simple solution is almost certainly wrong, no matter how sensible it seems at first.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't try those solutions, just that they need more thought and added complexity than at first appears.


----------



## Nigel Burden (14 Jul 2020)

Droogs":1tmfgs01 said:


> Don't hold your breath on the retail sector doing it right either
> 
> 2 days ago SWMBO rang the manager of our local Tesco to ask why half the people in the shop including staff were not wearing mask in accordance with the rules here in Scotland and was told "it's not our job to enforce mask wearing" so Ef 'em, they will never get another penny out of us and now we will go a mile further to get our groceries where they do enforce it.



Exactly the same down here in Dorset.

Tesco in Poole have removed all 2mtr and one way markers and there is no limit to the number of people allowed in the store. We haven't shopped in Tesco on a regular basis for about four years now. We now shop at Waitrose. The staff clean the trolleys before you use them, and social distancing is enforced. They also count customers in and out of the store, with a limit on the amount allowed in. All in all, a much better shopping experience.

Nigel.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (14 Jul 2020)

Every day something else that you were free to do yesterday is forbidden today. And every new regulation, law and rule is applied forever. 

The perennial problem - safety or freedom? Safety or freedom? Daddy or chips? The big questions are always tricky.


----------



## selectortone (14 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":mv7rlkt2 said:


> The perennial problem - safety or freedom? Safety or freedom? Daddy or chips? The big questions are always tricky.



To paraphrase something I once read: making things safe for idiots just allows more idiots to breed.


----------



## Lons (14 Jul 2020)

selectortone":t3sjnqwg said:


> To paraphrase something I once read: making things safe for idiots just allows more idiots to breed.


I've said it before, in the wild, animals and birds that are weak, naive or more stupid than those around them are killed off by predators thereby a selection of the strongest and most intelligent, humans on the other hand do the opposite with predictable results.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Jul 2020)

I rather have the feeling that there is an element of 'official over-correction' going on. In other words, having not really acted on warnings given a few years ago on the likelihood of a pandemic and how the country might cope with one, officialdom (politicians? scientists? advisors?) are now rather over-reacting, particularly by issuing dire warnings about second spikes and possible consequences.

I have not the first idea whether or not there will be a second spike, when, or how serious. I don't think anybody else does, either. I don't recall seeing any definitive scientific evidence that face masks make a significant difference - indeed, my (rather sceptical) reading of the various media reports suggests that the current evidence is patchy and inconclusive at best, and downright contradictory at worst. It seems to me that someone has persuaded government to mandate their use so as to be seen to be doing something. 

Out of courtesy to others, I'll go along with the use of face masks in shops (I'll take it off again on leaving, though - I detest wearing the damn things!), but I resent being bullied into it by Big Government. I'd sooner they produced some rather more compelling evidence of their efficacy - but I suspect they can't.

I look forward to the resumption of our freedom to go about our lives normally at the earliest opportunity.


----------



## RogerS (14 Jul 2020)

Cheshirechappie":3e3tager said:


> I rather have the feeling that there is an element of 'official over-correction' going on. In other words, having not really acted on warnings given a few years ago on the likelihood of a pandemic and how the country might cope with one, officialdom (politicians? scientists? advisors?) are now rather over-reacting, particularly by issuing dire warnings about second spikes and possible consequences.
> 
> .....



An alternative viewpoint is that they are still trying to find the brewery while running around with reduced height.


----------



## RogerS (14 Jul 2020)

Cheshirechappie":2ghgr13j said:


> ...
> 
> I look forward to the resumption of our freedom to go about our lives normally at the earliest opportunity.



Best ask Covid nicely to ease up a bit then. 'Cos it ain't going to happen any time soon. This is one helluva nasty virus and a lot of people (I'm thinking of one person in particular) still haven't grasped that fact.


----------



## gregmcateer (15 Jul 2020)

Lons":3k8k1s2m said:


> I've said it before, in the wild, animals and birds that are weak, naive or more stupid than those around them are killed off by predators thereby a selection of the strongest and most intelligent, humans on the other hand do the opposite with predictable results.



I have some sympathy with your sentiment, though the challenge for a civilised society is deciding which of the weak, naive or stupid are worthy of saving. If we just use the wild animal approach, by logical extension, we shouldn't really have doctors or hospitals, or even shops, farmers, factories etc. If we can't survive on our own, we don't survive. 'Someone' has to decide who is worth saving. Not 100% sure that worked so well in Europe in the 30's :?


----------



## John Brown (15 Jul 2020)

Lons":hmapc35m said:


> selectortone":hmapc35m said:
> 
> 
> > To paraphrase something I once read: making things safe for idiots just allows more idiots to breed.
> ...


Again, evolution does not necessarily "select" for intelligence.
Maybe that's why so many people misunderstand it.


----------



## John Brown (15 Jul 2020)

profchris":2h398zek said:


> Phil Pascoe":2h398zek said:
> 
> 
> > They could at least have insisted the people flying in from Wuhan and Iran wore them.
> ...


Occam's beard, perhaps.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (15 Jul 2020)

RogerS":11wx08gg said:


> Best ask Covid nicely to ease up a bit then. 'Cos it ain't going to happen any time soon. This is one helluva nasty virus and a lot of people (I'm thinking of one person in particular) still haven't grasped that fact.









Ignore the propaganda headline: look at the chart. Now consider that no one dies of anything _except_ Coronavirus.

And finally,


> Deaths in the UK return to normal levels
> Figures released on Tuesday 14 July by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show the number of deaths from all causes registered in a single week has stayed below the five-year average for the third consecutive week.



The above is official BBC propaganda, so must be true: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51768274

So the question is: are we still in the grip of an appalling, lethal epidemic, or is it actually over, all bar the shouting?


----------



## Rorschach (15 Jul 2020)

RogerS":1msmgvkt said:


> This is one helluva nasty virus and a lot of people (I'm thinking of one person in particular) still haven't grasped that fact.



Would that be me  

Nasty compared to? Rabies? Ebola? HIV? Small Pox? MERS? Sars Cov 1? Even common rota virus used to kill half a million children every year! 
C19 is not even as nasty as the 1918 Spanish Flu which although it likely had a lower case mortality rate, it killed the young and healthy (fact, not opinion, look it up).
Get some perspective Roger.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (15 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":26bnb3hj said:


> Nasty compared to? Rabies? Ebola? HIV? Small Pox? MERS?



I often consider myxomatos - now that is a properly dangerous disease, If you are a scared ikkle wabbit.


> Myxomatosis is the name of the severe and often fatal disease in European rabbits caused by the myxoma virus. Different strains exist which vary in their virulence. The Californian strain, which is endemic to the west coast of the United States and Baja in Mexico, is the most virulent, with reported case fatality rates of 100%


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Jul 2020)

One of my late uncle's first jobs on joining the navy in the mid '50s was clubbing rabbits with myxy on Dartmoor.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (15 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3a6ay0jj said:


> So the question is: are we still in the grip of an appalling, lethal epidemic, or is it actually over, all bar the shouting?



No. It is still there, hence the ongoing new cases and deaths, but at a lower level because at least some of the measures taken have worked. The graph shows what looks like an exponential decay, but not to zero. Apart from people's behaviour, little has changed - no vaccine, not enough people having had it to bring significant immunity. The only thing that has changed is ~30K fewer vulnerable people in care homes, who account for most of the deaths.

We now have the problem anticipated from the start of lockdown, when you run and hide, you always have to take a bit of a guess as to when it's safe to come back out. Looking at other countries around the world - USA, India, South Africa, even Japan who have a second rise in cases - this is far from all over.

This is a nasty disease, don't think the deaths are the whole story, remember the long lasting health damage to survivors too.


----------



## loftyhermes (15 Jul 2020)

For a while now the government have been saying face coverings, bandannas, scarves etc. not necessarily masks and as someone once said, 
“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”


----------



## selectortone (15 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2zizffyc said:


> So the question is: are we still in the grip of an appalling, lethal epidemic, or is it actually over, all bar the shouting?



Possibly a little early to be counting one's chickens if the 1918-20 Spanish flu pandemic is anything to go by:

"_The second wave of the 1918 pandemic was much more deadly than the first. The first wave had resembled typical flu epidemics; those most at risk were the sick and elderly, while younger, healthier people recovered easily. October 1918 was the month with the highest fatality rate of the whole pandemic.[40] In the United States, ~292,000 deaths were reported between September-December 1918, compared to ~26,000 during the same time period in 1915.[31] Copenhagen reported over 60,000 deaths, Holland reported 40,000+ deaths from influenza and acute respiratory disease, Bombay reported ~15,000 deaths in a population of ~15,000 deaths in a population of 1.1 million_."

source

There were actually four waves in that pandemic.

"_Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it._" (Winston Churchill)


----------



## Chris152 (15 Jul 2020)

loftyhermes":1b4181xd said:


> For a while now the government have been saying face coverings, bandannas, scarves etc. not necessarily masks and as someone once said,
> “The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”


We give up all kinds of what could be called 'individual rights' for the common good, and which we benefit from. Endless laws see to this and the vast majority of us accept them as we see the benefits outweigh the losses. The idea that being forced now to put a bit of fabric across your nose and mouth to help prevent avoidable deaths in the middle of a pandemic is a significant infringement of our rights is silly, I think.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (15 Jul 2020)

Does seem more than a bit odd that the most likely time for a second wave to occur (if it does) is as winter sets in, but that the wearing of face masks - a measure to mitigate against the effects of a second wave - are imposed in the middle of summer, particularly as numbers of infections seem to be dropping, and social distancing relaxation seems to be under active discussion.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (15 Jul 2020)

The scientific consensus is strongly supportive of wearing facemasks to reduce transmission of the virus. 

As the lockdown eases, and people increasingly interact, the value of facemasks increases. Arguably during the first two months of lockdown masks would have made little difference as mostly people stayed at home anyway (if they could).

Given the resistance to mask wearing in the UK (compared to some other parts of the world), making it mandatory now makes it more likely that it will become an embedded behaviour by the winter.

The extent to which people interact allows virus transmission. To keep R at or below 1.0, policies need to either limit personal interactions and/or limit the risk when they do interact. 

All measures are part of a complete package and choices need to be made - eg: wear masks or shut nail bars, allow theatres, concert halls or schools to re-open, open swimming pools but shut snooker halls etc etc.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (15 Jul 2020)

Terry - Somerset":u6r9fyg1 said:


> The scientific consensus is strongly supportive of wearing facemasks to reduce transmission of the virus.
> 
> As the lockdown eases, and people increasingly interact, the value of facemasks increases. Arguably during the first two months of lockdown masks would have made little difference as mostly people stayed at home anyway (if they could).
> 
> ...



If there is a scientific consensus - and , frankly, I'm sceptical about that, judging by all I've seen and read about Covid19 - why was the wearing of facemasks, or face coverings of some sort, not made mandatory back in March/April when infection rates were on the rise and it looked like the NHS might be overwhelmed? Why now, when infection rates have declined quite sharply?

(On scientific consensus, I don't see how there can be one on Covid19, given the amount we don't know about it. Indeed, I see all sorts of appropriately qualified and experienced people interpreting the (rather incomplete) data we do have in all sorts of ways - as you'd expect, at this stage of our research into it. And that's with leaving the more sensationalist media reports out of my consideration of the body of public knowledge.)


----------



## Chris152 (15 Jul 2020)

Govt here discouraged it as we had insufficient face masks for the nhs etc. and were afraid people would buy up supplies


----------



## RogerS (15 Jul 2020)

The bottom line, CC, is that Covid is like nothing we have ever seen before. If you get it then how you are affected is down to your own genetics and personal lifestyle ie if you are obese then be ready to have a tough time (but then again depending on your genes, you might not) . For some, it's nothing more than a trivial cold. For others, their lungs. Others, their kidneys. The brain. Covid has the potential to attack (badly) systemically any part of your body. Spanish flu is trivial by comparison. For some people, Covid comes back months later and puts you in bed with zero energy for months. Hallucinations. You name it. 

It's a game of roulette where the odds, sitting where I am, seem very much in favour of Covid. It's a bit like Clint Eastwood looking down the barrel of his Magnum and saying "Do you feel lucky, punk ?"


----------



## Cheshirechappie (15 Jul 2020)

RogerS":ev2uuvor said:


> The bottom line, CC, is that Covid is like nothing we have ever seen before. If you get it then how you are affected is down to your own genetics and personal lifestyle ie if you are obese then be ready to have a tough time (but then again depending on your genes, you might not) . For some, it's nothing more than a trivial cold. For others, their lungs. Others, their kidneys. The brain. Covid has the potential to attack (badly) systemically any part of your body. Spanish flu is trivial by comparison. For some people, Covid comes back months later and puts you in bed with zero energy for months. Hallucinations. You name it.
> 
> It's a game of roulette where the odds, sitting where I am, seem very much in favour of Covid. It's a bit like Clint Eastwood looking down the barrel of his Magnum and saying "Do you feel lucky, punk ?"



In other words, Roger, this is just another in a very long list of unpleasant, nasty, and in some cases terminal, diseases that nature throws at us. The difference with this one is that it's fairly new, and we're still learning about it. Given that we're still learning, I don't see how any scientific consensus about it is yet possible.


----------



## Chris152 (15 Jul 2020)

most countries in the developed world are responding to the virus in rather similar ways so clearly there is considerable consensus, scientific and governmental


----------



## RogerS (15 Jul 2020)

Cheshirechappie":gqoguyfw said:


> RogerS":gqoguyfw said:
> 
> 
> > The bottom line, CC, is that Covid is like nothing we have ever seen before. If you get it then how you are affected is down to your own genetics and personal lifestyle ie if you are obese then be ready to have a tough time (but then again depending on your genes, you might not) . For some, it's nothing more than a trivial cold. For others, their lungs. Others, their kidneys. The brain. Covid has the potential to attack (badly) systemically any part of your body. Spanish flu is trivial by comparison. For some people, Covid comes back months later and puts you in bed with zero energy for months. Hallucinations. You name it.
> ...



I agree 100%. It then comes down to ones own research into what scientists are saying, their track record, how they come across (helps having an A1* grade psychologist on my team) etc and then forming your own view.


----------



## Lons (15 Jul 2020)

Cheshirechappie":3n0o89mu said:


> RogerS":3n0o89mu said:
> 
> 
> > The bottom line, CC, is that Covid is like nothing we have ever seen before. If you get it then how you are affected is down to your own genetics and personal lifestyle ie if you are obese then be ready to have a tough time (but then again depending on your genes, you might not) . For some, it's nothing more than a trivial cold. For others, their lungs. Others, their kidneys. The brain. Covid has the potential to attack (badly) systemically any part of your body. Spanish flu is trivial by comparison. For some people, Covid comes back months later and puts you in bed with zero energy for months. Hallucinations. You name it.
> ...



What is very telling about that statement CC is that if the scientists don't really know yet even with have all the available data how is it that certain people on here know better? 
Especially when their "facts" are cherry picked from the internet and media. :roll: :wink:


----------



## D_W (15 Jul 2020)

Chris152":olc1b3m7 said:


> Govt here discouraged it as we had insufficient face masks for the nhs etc. and were afraid people would buy up supplies



Ditto here in the states. Fauci's one huge fib was telling people that there was no great reason to wear masks. We were reading at the same time that outcomes were worse in places where there was a lot of virus in the air, and that the progression of the virus was much slower if it started in the nose and throat/mouth. 

He came out and admitted they intentionally lied to protect their ability to buy masks (and hospitals') .

We weren't really reading good information in the news - we were being told the nonsense about washing off mail and cruise ships with virus on non-oxidizing surfaces for up to 17 days. But little about "how is it being transmitted, though, why are the high percentage transmissions always in an enclosed space with dead air, and why is the outcome always so much worse if someone is breathing air somewhere that the infection rate is high". 

50% hospitalization rate at the nursing home in WA state here in the US for *staff* averaging age 44. In the end, we'll find that people have the highest viral load just before they're symptomatic and very little of the transmission occurs any way other than breathing droplets from the air. 

In the states, we don't have the same level of trust in the government (unfortunately, the ability to speak freely also means that we have a huge amount of BS that's off the mark in the other direction), so I'm not sure anyone believed fauci from soup to nuts, anyway. 

The other side of his talks is that even if he's mostly truthful, his view is that minimizing covid is the only goal. If it's going to be around for years, most of the country here is comfortable with starting and stopping and making the important measure whether or not the health care system is overwhelmed. If it's not, we don't want scorched earth policy or single-minded officials using the goofy heartstrings type logic "if just one more person passes away, it's too many. it could be your grandmother".


----------



## woodhutt (15 Jul 2020)

I find it hard to believe that this discussion is still going on.
While the evidence for the effectiveness of masks is empirical, taken with other measures (social distancing, regular hand washing, avoiding large gatherings etc.) it has been shown to have an impact. Look at New York City/State as an example where these rules were implemented thanks to firm and clear guidelines from the state government and support by (the majority) of its citizens. 
From reports, I see that there are so many exceptions to the rules for mask wearing in the UK as to make it almost pointless. People with breathing difficulties, taxi passengers, shop staff, office workers and others are exempt. 
If you have an underlying breathing condition (as I have) such as asthma which makes it difficult to wear a mask, then don't go out.
Make a few fabric masks, wear the bloody things and wash them after each use.
Doesn't matter if they are not up to chemical and biological warfare standards, if they only reduce the spread of the aerosols you exhale by a few percent, it's something.
If nothing else, you are showing consideration for those around you and we could all do with a bit more of that. 
Pete


----------



## Woody2Shoes (15 Jul 2020)

...


----------



## Lons (15 Jul 2020)

John Brown":2guu9zkf said:


> Lons":2guu9zkf said:
> 
> 
> > I've said it before, in the wild, animals and birds that are weak, naive or more stupid than those around them are killed off by predators thereby a selection of the strongest and most intelligent, humans on the other hand do the opposite with predictable results.
> ...



First I'm no expert and never pretended to be so I don't know but I'll clarify what I meant by that comment. I guess it depends also on how you view intelligence which I've always thought of as being able to learn and influence your environment and to be able to adapt, plan ahead and solve problems, ok far from as simple as that but that's the reasoning I applied to my comment. I'm happy to be corrected by those who have a better understanding

Animals that can solve problems surely have a better chance of survival and are therefore more likely to reproduce and pass on at least a percentage of that "intelligence" to their offspring while the others likely won't.

My comment about humans stands, we protect those and they reproduce often at higher rates than other sections of society and the results can be seen by anyone who cares to go out and look. Again not a simple argument as their offspring are usually locked into poor education, poor diet and housing, smoking and possibly drugs and a life of crime so it's not their fault. I don't know how much of lack of intelligence contributes to all of that probably much less than their environment but it most likely is part of it IMO.


There is of course a massive difference between academic intelligence and common sense and I personally know 3 brilliant scientists with no commonsense whatsoever. Not slagging off academics, I know many more at the other end of the spectrum with none.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Jul 2020)

I have two nephews, both adopted and brought up in the same environment. One is exceedingly smart with a good master's degree, and the other couldn't find his buttocks in the dark.


----------



## gregmcateer (16 Jul 2020)

Lons":3va1l1ll said:


> Animals that can solve problems surely have a better chance of survival and are therefore more likely to reproduce and pass on at least a percentage of that "intelligence" to their offspring while the others likely won't.
> 
> My comment about humans stands, we protect those and they reproduce often at higher rates than other sections of society and the results can be seen by anyone who cares to go out and look. Again not a simple argument as their offspring are usually locked into poor education, poor diet and housing, smoking and possibly drugs and a life of crime so it's not their fault. I don't know how much of lack of intelligence contributes to all of that probably much less than their environment but it most likely is part of it IMO.
> 
> ...



Whilst it's true we humans preserve life of the less able/ intelligent / sensible, etc, etc, the alternative requires someone or some people to decide who is worthy and who isn't. Slight echoes of 1930's Europe, I fear. :shock: 
If we are to be truly 'survival of the fittest' then anarchy and not society is the logical extension. Everyone should be self sufficient. I think it's fair to say that humans have moved beyond that. Just a thought.


----------



## lurker (16 Jul 2020)

Back to my OP 
Masks give some protection to others from the wearer. So the masks do have a function.

Whilst it might defy the logic of the man in the street they don't protect the wearer.
Distance does. Double the distance and you decrease the risk by fourfold or more ( the more is open to some debate but not the fourfold!).


----------



## Lons (16 Jul 2020)

gregmcateer":2gcau4hr said:


> Whilst it's true we humans preserve life of the less able/ intelligent / sensible, etc, etc, the alternative requires someone or some people to decide who is worthy and who isn't. Slight echoes of 1930's Europe, I fear. :shock:
> If we are to be truly 'survival of the fittest' then anarchy and not society is the logical extension. Everyone should be self sufficient. I think it's fair to say that humans have moved beyond that. Just a thought.


The suggestion that others decide who lives or dies dependant on age, ability, creed or anything else is certainly not something I would ever support Greg although we know it happens every day in hospitals to prioritise beds, equipment and medication. If you read my posts you'll find I got slammed by some for my views that the old and other vulnerable people be protected by lockdown.
My mother's family were Austrian and although not Jewish were right in the centre of Nazi persecution so I have strong views as you can probably imagine.


----------



## Rorschach (16 Jul 2020)

Lons":1zp92zr0 said:


> If you read my posts you'll find I got slammed by some for my views that the old and other vulnerable people be protected by lockdown.



If you got slammed by me it was for the method you proposed/supported, not for the principle of protecting the old and vulnerable.


----------



## John Brown (16 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":1d1heq81 said:


> I have two nephews, both adopted and brought up in the same environment. One is exceeding smart with a good master's degree, and the other couildn't find his buttocks in the dark.


I have friends who had two children, neither were adopted. Chalk and Cheese.

Strange names, I'll grant you, but hey, it was the 70s.


----------



## RogerS (16 Jul 2020)

lurker":1j13r9rf said:


> Back to my OP
> Masks give some protection to others from the wearer. So the masks do have a function.
> 
> Whilst it might defy the logic of the man in the street they don't protect the wearer.
> Distance does. Double the distance and you decrease the risk by fourfold or more ( the more is open to some debate but not the fourfold!).



The right mask DOES protect the user if applied and used properly. Otherwise there'd be very few medical staff left.


----------



## Lons (16 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":18b3xcrp said:


> Lons":18b3xcrp said:
> 
> 
> > If you read my posts you'll find I got slammed by some for my views that the old and other vulnerable people be protected by lockdown.
> ...


Bullsh*t!

I could have named you but didn't as it would be provocative however you've just identified yourself. :wink: Anyway what happened to your declaration you wouldn't respond to any of my posts? You just can't help being an bottom wipe! :roll:


----------



## Garno (16 Jul 2020)

Lons":17bx2s6a said:


> My mother's family were Austrian and although not Jewish were right in the centre of Nazi persecution so I have strong views as you can probably imagine.



Everyone should have strong views on this, if only to make sure it can never happen again.


----------



## Rorschach (16 Jul 2020)

Lets also remember the Nazi's killed more non-Jews, than Jews.


----------



## Trevanion (16 Jul 2020)

8 pages in and they're already on Nazis


----------



## Trainee neophyte (16 Jul 2020)

In no way segueing from Nazis, there is an interesting paper written by a Swiss former. Emeritus professor at the university of Berne: 

Coronavirus: Why everyone was wrong
The immune response to the virus is stronger than everyone thought.


> Firstly, it was wrong to claim that this virus was novel. Secondly, It was even more wrong to claim that the population would not already have some immunity against this virus. Thirdly, it was the crowning of stupidity to claim that someone could have Covid-19 without any symptoms at all or even to pass the disease along without showing any symptoms whatsoever.



It goes against the orthodoxy, but is interesting reading: https://medium.com/@vernunftundrichtigk ... e6db5ba809


----------



## Lons (16 Jul 2020)

Have you taken your medication tonight TN?


----------



## Trainee neophyte (16 Jul 2020)

Lons":8u6whox5 said:


> Have you taken your medication tonight TN?



Did you read it? If so, what do you disagree with?


----------



## RogerS (16 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":19yl6f9s said:


> Lons":19yl6f9s said:
> 
> 
> > Have you taken your medication tonight TN?
> ...



Is your tinfoil hat on securely, TN ? You'll be telling us next that 5G masts are causing Covid.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (16 Jul 2020)

> The author, Beda M Stadler is the former director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Bern, a biologist and professor emeritus



Of course, it's on the internet so may be nonsense - if you can show that Her Doktor didn't write the article, isn't a doctor, or isn't qualified to comment in this area, then I would be interested to hear. If you can show your medical qualifications trump his qualifications, I would also be interested to hear your opinion as to why, specifically, this article is tosh. Until then...


----------



## lurker (16 Jul 2020)

RogerS":30ld3i29 said:


> lurker":30ld3i29 said:
> 
> 
> > Back to my OP
> ...



Read the seventh post on page one, I made to this thread.

From what I have seen on the telly the medics are alive more by luck than design. Most of them have either not been trained properly or have ignored their training.


----------



## RogerS (16 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3vth8jq0 said:


> > The author, Beda M Stadler is the former director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Bern, a biologist and professor emeritus
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, it's on the internet so may be nonsense - if you can show that Her Doktor didn't write the article, isn't a doctor, or isn't qualified to comment in this area, then I would be interested to hear. If you can show your medical qualifications trump his qualifications, I would also be interested to hear your opinion as to why, specifically, this article is tosh. Until then...



Oh FFS, TN....get a grip, man.

Here's a snippet...
_
So: Sars-Cov-2 isn’t all that new, but merely a seasonal cold virus that mutated and disappears in summer, as all cold viruses do _

Remind me? How many effing people around the world are DEAD because of Covid ?

I'm sticking you back on Ignore along with that other nutter, Karen.


----------



## RogerS (16 Jul 2020)

lurker":kkyskcg2 said:


> RogerS":kkyskcg2 said:
> 
> 
> > lurker":kkyskcg2 said:
> ...




My point is still valid.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (16 Jul 2020)

@Roger (who allegedly can't hear me): Relax. Breathe. It's just an idea. I did say it goes against the orthodoxy. If you don't want to play with thought experiments, that's ok, too.


----------



## Lons (16 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":34q3o45i said:


> Lons":34q3o45i said:
> 
> 
> > Have you taken your medication tonight TN?
> ...


Some of it, haven't you got better things to do than trawl the internet for tosh, maybe the animals need feeding or olives picking.


----------



## Lons (16 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":tl8p0lzj said:


> > The author, Beda M Stadler is the former director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Bern, a biologist and professor emeritus
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, it's on the internet so may be nonsense - if you can show that Her Doktor didn't write the article, isn't a doctor, or isn't qualified to comment in this area, then I would be interested to hear. If you can show your medical qualifications trump his qualifications, I would also be interested to hear your opinion as to why, specifically, this article is tosh. Until then...



And of course as you don't have those qualifications either then why would you believe what he says when there are many more opinions published to the contrary by scientists with equal or higher qualifications.

Oh I know, it's because he says what you want to believe and you post just to troll. :wink:


----------



## Trainee neophyte (17 Jul 2020)

Lons":1qy3nxlc said:


> Oh I know, it's because he says what you want to believe and you post just to troll



No. Actually, I try really hard not to upset people. In other words, I bow to the groupthink and accept the enforced censorship of aggressive narrative control that is so evident here. That is, I mostly bow to it, sometimes things gets the better of me. I have to say that I am rapidly losing the will to consider other people's feeling, at which point I may well become a troll. Until then, I am trying to have some kind of discourse, but unfortunately it is mostly with people who put their fingers in their ears and shout "La, la, la! I can't hear you!".

Questions I consider interesting: does the human body have an ability to protect itself from the Coronavirus? Does this(novel?) virus mean that no human being, anywhere in the world, has protection or built in immunity from it? If that is the case , why are virtally no children getting ill? How does that work? I can't get my head around the logic.

Another interesting question: the chart of deaths in the UK conforms to virtually every normal epidemic - it is a textbook example. Why does this mean that it will _not_ behave like every other coronavirus outbreak: infections increase, peak, decrease and die out, awaiting the next virus, after it has mutated. Every single cold virus outbreak follows this pattern - why not this one? What's different? Why will there be a second wave? Virus return is normally because it comes back to infect the newly born, who don't have herd immunity, but this virus doesn't touch children, so what is the logic?

And then your appeal to authority: only listen to the approved experts? Which ones? The ones that have already been confirmed to be completely wrong and incompetent (Neil Fergusson), or the ones that have already been caught out in the lie (masks don't work, until they do)? Show me which lie is the correct lie to believe, please.

I would like to have a conversation about these things, because I freely admit there are things here I don't understand, and things that don't seem to conform to the internal logic of the agreed upon narrative. 

If you are so completely wedded to a narrative that you cannot even contemplate considering alternatives, that says more about you than me, in my opinion.

So the question really is: have you driven me out, enforced narrative cleansing and ensured that only your "official" view Is allowed to be aired, or do I keep chipping away, asking questions and offering alternative viewpoints? What say you? Do you want a conversation, or just confirmation that you are always right?


----------



## billw (17 Jul 2020)

It's false to say the virus doesn't touch children, it does. The symptoms tend to be milder though.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (17 Jul 2020)

billw":20m4mg7b said:


> It's false to say the virus doesn't touch children, it does. The symptoms tend to be milder though.



So what is the process? There is built in immunity, or not? I agree that children are exposed to the virus, and the virus must enter their bodies. Therefore, children have a mechanism to defeat the virus without getting noticeably ill. How many adults also have this mechanism? Anyone?


----------



## Rorschach (17 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":kp0h49ny said:


> billw":kp0h49ny said:
> 
> 
> > It's false to say the virus doesn't touch children, it does. The symptoms tend to be milder though.
> ...



We don't know, if you don't have symptoms or have mild symptoms you are unlikely to get tested. If you have a very mild case then it's quite likely you won't form a (testable) immune response either.


----------



## Chris152 (17 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":eosrssf6 said:


> billw":eosrssf6 said:
> 
> 
> > It's false to say the virus doesn't touch children, it does. The symptoms tend to be milder though.
> ...


Without searching for the proper response, i've read something along the lines of: as you get older you have more responses (past defences) to viral infections; Covid deaths result from over-response of the immune system to the virus; thus, youngsters don't have the 'resources' to over-respond. Something like that. 

A point about the 'children' thing that's really getting my goat as I'm told my kids have to be sent back to school or face legal actions is that older kids are more vulnerable than younger ones, that many kids in school from puberty up to 18 are hardly children biologically and that the virus doesn't seem to respect our current definition of 'child'. The latest survey which showed infection rates in May showed the highest rate of infected people to be in the 18-25 category - I'm inclined to think my 17 year old is quite capable of contracting the disease and fetching it home for me. (Of course, at 17 he doesn't have to be in school, but the alternative is no education as schools and FE are planning full time, full capacity return in September - no social distancing etc., that's all very old-fashioned now.)


----------



## Sheffield Tony (17 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3h7n2lji said:


> And then your appeal to authority: only listen to the approved experts? Which ones? The ones that have already been confirmed to be completely wrong and incompetent (Neil Fergusson), or the ones that have already been caught out in the lie (masks don't work, until they do)? Show me which lie is the correct lie to believe, please.



First a point of order - I don't think it is fair to say Neil Fergusson was "completely wrong and incompetent". I know him personally from University days, and although I wouldn't say he was a friend, I'll defend him here. He was instrumental in changing the government's trajectory by showing that relying on herd immunity would not go well, and might lead to 250K deaths. As it is, our delay to implement the lockdown resulted in us having one of the worst death tolls, 45K officially and probably 60K judging by excess deaths. To me it seems quite likely he was very close to the mark. He actually lost his job because of breaking lockdown rules and being spotted sha**ing another man's wife. Remember he is just a university scientist, not a politician used to being watched by the press. No real politician would behave like that and expect to get away with it surely ? :roll: 

Second, the masks "lie" has been covered at least twice already. There was a need to protect supplies for clinical and care use. It was only just a lie, as it is true to say they don't offer much in the way of protection to the wearer.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (17 Jul 2020)

Sheffield Tony":3rp1gg2i said:


> Trainee neophyte":3rp1gg2i said:
> 
> 
> > And then your appeal to authority: only listen to the approved experts? Which ones? The ones that have already been confirmed to be completely wrong and incompetent (Neil Fergusson), or the ones that have already been caught out in the lie (masks don't work, until they do)? Show me which lie is the correct lie to believe, please.
> ...


I have a little bit of experience with the man through his foot and mouth scorched earth policies, but my main criticism of his work, as opposed to his ability to play hide-the-sausage, is that when finally released, his modelling software was shown to be a joke: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/06/ ... ons-model/


> Second, the masks "lie" has been covered at least twice already. There was a need to protect supplies for clinical and care use. It was only just a lie, as it is true to say they don't offer much in the way of protection to the wearer.



Ok, so they were lying then, but telling the truth now? I have been amusing myself with this little offering over coffee this afternoon: https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/lockdo ... vid-deaths

The premise is that, by withdrawing care and emptying the hospitals, the spike in mortality is directly attributable to lockdown policy, not any coronavirus: 






I don't know if this is correct, but there is a very lucid argument to suggest that most of the deaths are due to the removal of care from the vulnerable, not from a virus. Brutal if true. It should, at the very least, be considered as a hypothesis, if only to be discarded after testing (like old-fashioned science, in other words).

Question everything.


----------



## Rorschach (17 Jul 2020)

You can't show that graph, it's not allowed! That's one of the ones that shows how infections were already declining before lockdown started! :lol: 

Looking forward to hearing more from Prof Heneghan, the CEBM have been coming out with some very interesting data. Before anyone says this is quackery take note that the government issued their statement on death reporting today because of this research from the CEBM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxLDJJb1_KI&t=0s


----------



## lurker (17 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2mxcm1y2 said:


> billw":2mxcm1y2 said:
> 
> 
> > It's false to say the virus doesn't touch children, it does. The symptoms tend to be milder though.
> ...


 
T cells are a main defence to disease. The body production starts to drop off when you reach 40.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (17 Jul 2020)

My reason for being hung up on "natural immunity" for want of a better description, is because of herd immunity. We know that 60% to 80% of the population need to get it for herd immunity to apply, but this doesn't mean 60% - 80% of the entire population - it only means those who are actually susceptible to the virus. This is a smaller number than the entire population, but how small? At what point do infection rates drop simply because there are no longer any available, infectable bodies around? I have seen numbers suggesting 17% to 20% of the total population, which is why Sweden, New York, UK etc have reducing death rates. Nothing to do with lockdown. Allegedly. 

Investigations continue.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (17 Jul 2020)

Well, you have to decide what you trust. A professor at a respected university, or someone who writes on an oddball "skeptics" website who doesn't have the courage to reveal their identity.


----------



## Rorschach (17 Jul 2020)

Sheffield Tony":1emuvbtu said:


> Well, you have to decide what you trust. A professor at a respected university, or someone who writes on an oddball "skeptics" website who doesn't have the courage to reveal their identity.



Also ask yourself who has the most to lose? Getting the prediction wrong in one way would be career/life ending, getting it wrong the other way would be celebrated.


----------



## woodhutt (18 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2bmtt1wl said:


> Question everything.



Why?


----------



## Trainee neophyte (18 Jul 2020)

In other news, apparently Greece has decided that face masks are mandatory in supermarkets. It would seem that no other shops, restaurants etc are included: just supermarkets. Makes perfect sense.


----------



## woodhutt (18 Jul 2020)

Certainly puzzling. Have read the recent UK mask regulations; shoppers but not shop staff, not required in taxis, not required by office workers (presumably they can socially distance at work), not required if you have a breathing problem.
All very strange and very loose.


----------



## Suffolkboy (18 Jul 2020)

Don't they kind of have to be to make them workable. 

Not required by staff... Then the shop isn't bound by law to provide them and staff don't have to wear them all the time. Otherwise a shop might have to close because they can't get stock of facemasks for their employees I guess. 

People with breathing trouble... You can't think it reasonable to force someone with extreme asthma or COPD etc to restrict their breathing even further can you? 

Offices have other measures in place. 

Got nothing for you on Taxis mind you. 

The other thing is that it doesn't have to be law for people to wear a face mask so if an employer chooses to they can still ask their staff to wear a face covering.


----------



## Rorschach (18 Jul 2020)

The taxi one doesn't make sense but all the others make sense in their implementation (leaving aside the actual usefulness of the mask)


----------



## Phil Pascoe (18 Jul 2020)

...
it doesn't have to be law for people to wear a face mask so if an employer chooses to they can still ask their staff to wear a face covering ...

and if it's not a law they can refuse.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (18 Jul 2020)

Sheffield Tony":1d6057vx said:


> Well, you have to decide what you trust. A professor at a respected university, or someone who writes on an oddball "skeptics" website who doesn't have the courage to reveal their identity.



Trust the very people who freely admit to lying whenever they deem it expedient? 

Trust the "experts"?

Does the term "Stockholm syndrome" mean anything to you? ;-)

Re your "anonymous blogger", UKColumn:


> About The UK Column
> The UK Column story began with local residents in Devonport, the historic Royal Navy dockyard area of the city of Plymouth in South West England.
> 
> Fighting against corruption within Plymouth City Council, and motivated by the increasing interference in their community by government backed ’Quangos’, as well as the political charity Common Purpose, local people were unable to get their concerns published by the local press.
> ...



Sounds like the last bastion of honest journalism to me, but maybe I should stick with The Guardian, just to safe.


----------



## Droogs (18 Jul 2020)

Once again this all highlights how differently this is all being handled around the UK. In Scotland, EVERYONE INSIDE a shop is required to wear a mask. Taxi drivers are not permitted to carry a passenger unless they and the passenger/s are indeed wearing masks and all taxi and PHV/PCO companies must provide a disposable mask to any passenger who does not have one. If a passenger refuses to wear the mask they (the taxi driver) are not permitted to accept the fare and must refuse entry to the vehicle


----------



## woodhutt (18 Jul 2020)

Suffolkboy":12iagzjy said:


> People with breathing trouble... You can't think it reasonable to force someone with extreme asthma or COPD etc to restrict their breathing even further can you?
> 
> Offices have other measures in place.
> 
> ...



As someone with COPD myself, of course I don't expect someone with the same condition to suffer further breathing restriction. What I would expect is that they limit their exposure and not simply think "Oh well. I'm excused." and wander around in public. 
The evidence seems to be that, taken in conjunction with other measures, mask wearing does help to limit the spread. However, it is a complete waste of time if only a percentage of the public adopt these measures. 
As there are and always will be a lot of, let's call them 'independently' minded individuals, unless you mandate and enforce these measures then it is a waste of time.


----------



## Suffolkboy (18 Jul 2020)

Well, yeah. 

You have to legislate to the lowest common denominator. If they hadn't have included that if you have breathing difficulties you don't have to wear one then you could end up with some over zealous copper throwing you to the ground in Tescos for breaking the law. 

I would have thought that the vast majority of people with breathing conditions are only going out when absolutely necessary anyway and would take any precautions to protect themselves that they could while they were out.

I have mild Asthma so I guess technically I am exempt from having to wear a mask. 

Personally I think that the benefits of masks are limited but I will be wearing a mask because I get the impression it will be less hassle to wear one that not. I would guess the vast majority will be the same?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (18 Jul 2020)

Did my weekly shop in Sainsbury's this morning. As usual, pass the time of day with the checkout staff. They talk to quite a few people, of course, given their job. The subject of compulsory face masks came up a lot, apparently - and those who already wore them (maybe 1 in 20, from observation) were in favour, and everyone else wasn't, though the majority said they'd go along with it. Almost all were saying why now, if they weren't needed in March and April.

I did mention the Prime Minister's suggestion that the country would be back to normal by Christmas, and the response was an emphatic "Yes please!".

Totally unscientific and representative of only the opinion expressed in one Cheshire branch of Sainsbury's, of course, so take it on that basis.


----------



## woodhutt (18 Jul 2020)

Suffolkboy":11ew6xmj said:


> Well, yeah.
> 
> You have to legislate to the lowest common denominator. If they hadn't have included that if you have breathing difficulties you don't have to wear one then you could end up with some over zealous copper throwing you to the ground in Tescos for breaking the law.
> 
> ...



I totally agree. The benefits of mask wearing *alone* are limited. But allied with all the other measures (social distancing, hand washing etc.) they have been shown to have an impact.
But *only* if everyone adopts the measures. A couple of months of inconvenience can make a heck of a difference to the spread as has been evidenced in other places around the world. The problem is to get everyone (or as near to everyone as possible) singing from the same song sheet. This, I think is the biggest problem the UK faces. Not only have you been presented with, often conflicting, half-measures but you also have to overcome a lack of empathy and ignorance ( I'm using that word in the literal sense - a lack of knowledge or understanding) displayed by others. If it wasn't for this, there would be no need to legislate and enforce as most people (thank heavens) are still sensible and caring.

P.S. I can't believe the police would rugby tackle an asthmatic to the ground.
Not unless they were wearing a shirt with a large golden Gallic rooster on it with the letters FFR underneath. :wink:


----------



## Rorschach (18 Jul 2020)

I will also be wearing one, just to make life easier really. I suspect myself and my partner could get an exemption as we are both claustrophobic. We were given homemade masks by a friend and found them distressing to wear as they were restrictive and steam up our glasses, not very practical. So we are making our own out of thinner material and with a looser fit, still not pleasant but it will allow us to go shopping without hassle.


----------



## Rorschach (18 Jul 2020)

This is most definitely worth a watch whichever side you are on. Posted in the other discussion as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3plSbCbkSA


----------



## Trainee neophyte (18 Jul 2020)

Cheshirechappie":1m3d593w said:


> The subject of compulsory face masks came up a lot, apparently - and those who already wore them (maybe 1 in 20, from observation) were in favour, and everyone else wasn't, though the majority said they'd go along with it.


That reminds me of a thing by Nasim Taleb: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-int ... .z5ry4bucq


> The best example I know that gives insights into the functioning of a complex system is with the following situation. It suffices for an intransigent minority –a certain type of intransigent minorities –to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences. Further, an optical illusion comes with the dominance of the minority: a naive observer would be under the impression that the choices and preferences are those of the majority.



This also explains political correctness, Black Lives Matter, Karen etc.


----------



## doctor Bob (18 Jul 2020)

People didn't like wearing seat belts in the 70's, but as Jimmy Saville used to say .................... "can you catch the sausage under this blanket" ....... hang on I'm getting confused ..............


----------



## Cheshirechappie (18 Jul 2020)

If I'd walked into my bank six months ago with my face covered, they'd have done their nuts and possibly had me arrested (assuming there was a policeman within ten miles). Now they won't let me in without a face covering.

Weird old world, isn't it!


----------



## Terry - Somerset (18 Jul 2020)

Two opposing views on mask wearing - they reduce transmission of the virus, or they are an ineffective uncomfortable waste of time.

The scientic consensus seems to be they assist the former. But let's just accept that the odds are 50:50.

As a betting man (I'm not) where would I put my money? 

Unquestionably on the "make them mandatory" horse. If I'm wrong - a period of generally minor discomfort until the science is clearer.

Betting on the latter seriously risks my health (or life) and that of others if I have made the wrong call.

This bet is not about what happens if I win, but the consequences if I lose. The only issues I have are that:

- the Govt has done too litte to make masks both mandatory and widespread
- shoppers but not checkout staff is plain inconsistent and daft
- mask wearing uncomfortable - tough - very few exceptions should be made


----------



## Cheshirechappie (18 Jul 2020)

Two opposing views?

1) Do as we damn well tell you, or else.

2) Show me the evidence and let me make my own mind up.

Authoritarian or libertarian. Which one are you?

(OK - I know that might wind some people up, and it isn't really intended to. It's just an illustration of two distinct ways of looking at the problem.)


----------



## RogerS (18 Jul 2020)

Terry - Somerset":2o1i4kc6 said:


> Two opposing views on mask wearing - they reduce transmission of the virus, or they are an ineffective uncomfortable waste of time.
> 
> The scientic consensus seems to be they assist the former. But let's just accept that the odds are 50:50.
> 
> ...



Spot on.


----------



## Trevanion (18 Jul 2020)

Tried to buy dust masks through Wurth the other day like we usually do, gone up from around £20 for a box of 10 to £75 a box, and that was for valved ones which are apparently totally useless for CV prevention.

To hazard a guess there probably still isn't enough really in the country to make them totally mandatory (Yes, you could use washable homemade jobbies), especially when you're supposed to swap them out every couple of hours at least.


----------



## RogerS (18 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":nc0nyya8 said:


> This is most definitely worth a watch whichever side you are on. Posted in the other discussion as well.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3plSbCbkSA



Rorschach.

I have you (alongside many other members, who's views I respect, on Ignore.). But it's hard to ignore your posts when they get quoted. And I confess to dipping in to see your latest hobby-horse because, let's face it, that is what they are. Hobby horses because they affect you personally and sod the rest of us.

When lockdown came in, all your posts, your Google references and such were solely towards those that said 'Lockdown is wrong'. Nothing else mattered. The only thing that mattered to you was that you were no longer able to sell your trinkets. All your posts were to that end. Totally oblivious as to whether or not lockdown might actually prevent more deaths. In fact, many of your posts were beyond the pale in regard to your apparent callous attitude towards the effects that Covid might have on others and especially the elderly.

And now here we are again. Face masks. Your link to that video is only there because they are saying that facemasks might not do anything...it is not proven...they might work..they might not. But you are, by your own admission , claustrophobic and you don't want to wear a facemask. And so? So, you Google way until you find someone, somewhere who says 'facemasks might or might not be effective' and you post away. Nothing at all to do with your fellow man. Only from the very selfish point-of-view of Rorschach.

You admit to being a disruptor. We used to have another one..Jacob...but at least he had integrity and reasoned from the point of view of fellow man. You only reason from the point of 'How will this affect me'. 

You commented in a thread I made using the word 'attitude'. I checked the use of that word and it is valid. Others..probably most of us..would have used and understood the word 'concern'..and so I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Now I am not so sure.

In response to another post of mine, you posted 'I fail to see ...' . Well, Rorschach, 'fail away'. 

In fact, 'Fail off' ...

....because you do come across as an odious little man.


----------



## Chris152 (19 Jul 2020)

'Coronavirus face masks: Why men are less likely to wear masks'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-53446827
Research showed that "men were not only less inclined to wear face masks than women. They also considered that donning a mask was "shameful, not cool and a sign of weakness". Poor little dabs, so insecure.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Jul 2020)

That doesn't surprise me, though anecdotal evidence of what I have seen at shops I would say it's fairly even spread. 
I'll be wearing my new mask today as the place we are going for lunch insists on you wearing one when you enter and leave, but not when you are eating or drinking, makes no sense to me but I won't cause a fuss.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (19 Jul 2020)

RogerS":28dvcwxb said:


> ....because you do come across as an odious little man.



Look, folks - could we debate without personal insults, please?

If you don't like someone's opinion, post your own and let others make their own minds up, or demonstrate with facts and reason why an opinion is incomplete or misguided.

A couple of weeks ago, maybe on a now-deleted thread, doctor Bob suggested that some forumites are put off posting their opinions because they'd rather discuss than get involved in a fight. He's right.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (19 Jul 2020)

RogerS":3df007gf said:


> In fact, 'Fail off' ...
> 
> ....because you do come across as an odious little man.



1. Play the ball, not the man.

2. It's just an idea - an opinion. You don't have to buy into it, believe it, subscribe to it, look at it, or even acknowledged that it exists. If you don't agree with the idea, that's ok. No one needs, or wants, a place where only authorized, agreed-upon narratives are allowed. Seriously, you do _not_ want that. This isn't Facebook, nor is it Twitter.

3. Re the video, I watched about a third of it, because I didn't have time, but they seemed to be saying that, as far as evidence based medical proof goes, there isn't any evidence one way or the other. Therefore, they can not provide any evidence based advice to policy makers. Why should that be such a dangerous fact that censorship and excoriating is required? Do you actually agree that these people are sufficiently qualified to assert that there is no evidence? It does rather seem to be their jobs.

Opinions are like bottoms, in that everyone has one. The sky won't fall, and the world won't end if you hold a different opinion to someone else. Remember that, should you ever find yourself in the minority one day.


----------



## Lons (19 Jul 2020)

Use this


----------



## Lons (19 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":1pnnrdan said:


> If you got slammed by me it was for the method you proposed/supported, not for the principle of protecting the old and vulnerable.



I missed this, could it be because you wrote


> *I'm going to stop replying to your comments now*



It was Bob I was referring to and I responded to him at the time, you couldn't slam a door if wind assisted in a force 9 gale! :wink:


----------



## D_W (19 Jul 2020)

Trevanion":2h5dxo5s said:


> Tried to buy dust masks through Wurth the other day like we usually do, gone up from around £20 for a box of 10 to £75 a box, and that was for valved ones which are apparently totally useless for CV prevention.
> 
> To hazard a guess there probably still isn't enough really in the country to make them totally mandatory (Yes, you could use washable homemade jobbies), especially when you're supposed to swap them out every couple of hours at least.



I don't know what your laws are like there, but there are gouging laws in the US here. What ends up happening, though, is the retailers just take the masks off of the shelf and sell elsewhere. 

If they try to sell something like that in the same slot and someone has proof of it, they'll get whacked. 

https://triblive.com/local/pittsburgh-a ... ging-case/

(some of the gouging laws are state - as this one above, and some federal as far as I know. 20% isn't much wiggle room!!)

I have no idea what retailers can say on donated masks as all n95, etc, when they write off donations but most here donated anything with a medical certification. If they're allowed to claim going rates for the donation, they'll likely make more on the tax savings than they would've at the original price (that is, if they pay state and federal tax on profits of 40%) and masks triple in price and they can write them off at that, they'll get more for write-off than they would've under their allowable price increase.


----------



## Rorschach (20 Jul 2020)

Phone in topic on the radio today, mandatory vaccination. 

I'd be interested to know if the people who were in favour of a strict lockdown, and indeed think we should still be under it, also very pro-masks etc. Are those same people happy with mandatory vaccinations?


----------



## Sheffield Tony (20 Jul 2020)

I guess it is a sliding scale, but mandatory vaccination seems to me to be in another league to enforced lock down or mask wearing. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for vaccination, but forced is to me unacceptable and probably counter-productive. As it has not been considered for anything else - e.g MMR - I can't see that being a real prospect.

One of the things I've been wondering - I get the impression we have some opposition to masks here, which surprises me a bit; as woodworkers, surely we are all used to wearing, and accept the value of, PPE of various sorts :? ? For what, 30-60 minutes in a shop it seems a fairly small thing to me. Certainly when compared with accepting a not very long tested vaccine.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (20 Jul 2020)

Masks are being mandated based upon the proposition that doing so reduces the risk to others. The nature of the masks/face covering means it gives limited protection to the user.

Vaccine protects those who are vaccinated - it is the individual who is at risk from their own refusal to be vaccinated. Whether that is a sensible response or plain stupid is open to debate


----------



## Rorschach (20 Jul 2020)

Terry - Somerset":1xpk9v49 said:


> Vaccine protects those who are vaccinated - it is the individual who is at risk from their own refusal to be vaccinated. Whether that is a sensible response or plain stupid is open to debate



Not entirely true I am afraid, vaccines work on a principle of herd immunity since not everyone in a population can be vaccinated and the vaccine doesn't provide a sufficient immune response in everyone it is given too (plus the response can fade over time). The idea being that if enough people can mount a reasonable immune response then a disease is unable to get a strong enough foothold to spread.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (20 Jul 2020)

Mandated vaccines bring up moral issues: if you don't have the right to control your own body, what do you have? 

Who gets to be dictator? Who gets to decide?

Bit of a moral minefield.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (20 Jul 2020)

> Not entirely true I am afraid, vaccines work on a principle of herd immunity since not everyone in a population can be vaccinated and the vaccine doesn't provide a sufficient immune response in everyone it is given too (plus the response can fade over time). The idea being that if enough people can mount a reasonable immune response then a disease is unable to get a strong enough foothold to spread.



I am making the simplistic and as yet unproven assumption that immunity is effectively permanent, or can be updated annually and (say) combined with the flu vaccine. The initial results from the Oxford vaccine suggest that ~ 90% of first vaccines are effective rising to 100% with a second jab.

For a population you are right that a vaccine works through herd immunity - sufficient numbers need to be immune to reduce the rate of traansmission =< 1.

An individual does get immunity - so if vaccinated I have immunity. I may or may not care about the rest of the population.


----------



## gregmcateer (22 Jul 2020)

I've no axe to grind on the subject, but just saw this;

https://twitter.com/kenjeong/status/128 ... 20576?s=09


----------



## profchris (22 Jul 2020)

Terry - Somerset":37sjvikl said:


> > The initial results from the Oxford vaccine suggest that ~ 90% of first vaccines are effective rising to 100% with a second jab.



We have to be careful with statistics like these, which means knowing what the calculator of the statistic means by, in this case, "effective".

I think it means, roughly, "effective in reducing the risk of infection taking hold to whatever this vaccine achieves." So if the Oxford vaccine produces the same risk reduction as 'flu vaccines do, around 50% risk reduction, it's 90-100% effective in producing that risk reduction. In other words, a vaccinated person's risk is halved.

However, if the Oxford vaccine is as effective in preventing infection as, say, the measles vaccine (978%) then it would produce a much higher risk reduction.

I believe the next phase of the Oxford trials will test this, so we don't know the final "effectiveness" yet.

I don't think it means that if you are vaccinated you are immune, and thus have no risk from the virus - even for the measles vaccine, some of those vaccinated become infected.

Useful links:

https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/init ... ndex2.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza ... ectiveness


----------



## MikeG. (22 Jul 2020)

profchris":2ii7xahl said:


> Terry - Somerset":2ii7xahl said:
> 
> 
> > > The initial results from the Oxford vaccine suggest that ~ 90% of first vaccines are effective rising to 100% with a second jab.
> ...



Careful!!  That's some flu vaccines some years, and is the worst they manage. Some of them, some years, are very much more effective than that.


----------



## Rorschach (22 Jul 2020)

MikeG.":2x8bwj9m said:


> Careful!!  That's some flu vaccines some years, and is the worst they manage. Some of them, some years, are very much more effective than that.



It wasn't in 2017/18, we had over 50,000 excess deaths that year, surely you remember the lockdown, the face masks, the media outrage, how life was never normal again................


----------



## Rorschach (25 Jul 2020)

First shopping trip with a mask today.

Just about everyone else seemed to be wearing one, bit weird smiling at people and realising they can't see you. New thin mask was reasonably comfortable in an air conditioned shop.

One thing I noticed though right away. In the last 4 months I have not touched my face when out shopping, been very careful as I am handling items to avoid until I am back in car, hands sanitised. Within 30 seconds of getting into the shop today I had adjusted my mask 3 times and I was constantly having to adjust things throughout the trip. I may be protecting others (dubious) but I am definitely not protecting myself much! :roll:


----------



## Trainee neophyte (25 Jul 2020)

Small town rural Greece mask protocol: wear it, because there is a €150 fine if you don't, but don't cover your nose, because 35°C etc.

Staff are rocking full-face plastic shields more suitable for strimmer, chainsaw or perhaps lathe use. Much nicer to wear, but probably does nothing for virus containment. The problem here is that, without the incessant media fear, no one would have a clue there is a problem - hardly any cases, almost no deaths. Hence the need to wear masks in public.







It's all a bit silly, really.


----------



## RobinBHM (28 Jul 2020)

I find wearing a mask makes my glasses steam up.

So now I might die crossing the road......


----------



## DrPhill (28 Jul 2020)

RobinBHM":1wbeurhz said:


> I find wearing a mask makes my glasses steam up.



I think that you should be due some condensation....


----------



## John Brown (28 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":3cnnkhdy said:


> First shopping trip with a mask today.
> 
> Just about everyone else seemed to be wearing one, bit weird smiling at people and realising they can't see you. New thin mask was reasonably comfortable in an air conditioned shop.
> 
> One thing I noticed though right away. In the last 4 months I have not touched my face when out shopping, been very careful as I am handling items to avoid until I am back in car, hands sanitised. Within 30 seconds of getting into the shop today I had adjusted my mask 3 times and I was constantly having to adjust things throughout the trip. I may be protecting others (dubious) but I am definitely not protecting myself much! :roll:


Me too! I find I'm constantly having to adjust my mask.
But as you suggest, maybe I'm protecting others, or more the point, since I don't have Covid, they're protecting me.


----------



## billw (28 Jul 2020)

RobinBHM":aopwhdz2 said:


> I find wearing a mask makes my glasses steam up.
> 
> So now I might die crossing the road......



Most masks have a strip across the top that you pinch onto your nose to avoid this problem.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (29 Jul 2020)

billw":37bqle8j said:


> RobinBHM":37bqle8j said:
> 
> 
> > I find wearing a mask makes my glasses steam up.
> ...



Somebody explained that trick to me, too. However, no matter how I adjust the mask, I find it doesn't work consistently. Whatever I do, my glasses still steam up to some extent.

I have to say I utterly detest the things. I go along with the instruction to wear them in shops just out of courtesy to others, but I can't get the thing off fast enough on leaving. I certainly have a renewed sympathy for people who have to wear them as part of their daily work.

The sooner all this lot dies down and we can get back to normal - or whatever normal will look like after this - the better.


----------



## Trevanion (29 Jul 2020)

John Brown":23l765eh said:


> or more the point, since I don't have Covid, they're protecting me.



Do you know that for an absolute fact though?

In my eyes the selfish attitude of “I haven’t got it so I’m fine” is what’s going to be downfall of all the effort up to this point.


----------



## RogerS (2 Aug 2020)

Apologies if this has already been mentioned but ....

those masks with an exhale vent....surely utterly pointless and should be banned ? My understanding is that unless one has a full PPE3 mask, without a beard, properly fitted etc then the user is only partially protected. That this is accepted by the PtB(Powers that Be)....but the goal of everyone wearing a mask is that if anyone is infected then that mask limits (to a certain extent) them spewing out their Covid molecules for the rest of us to inhale.

So you go and give them a mask that has an exhale vent. #-o


----------



## Chris152 (4 Aug 2020)

'Cloth face coverings, even homemade masks made of the correct material, are effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 - for the wearer and those around them - according to a new study from Oxford’s Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science.'
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-08-ox ... 4dQDv-Vxk#


----------



## RogerS (4 Aug 2020)

Chris152":1d5lwj3q said:


> 'Cloth face coverings, even homemade masks made of the correct material, are effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 - for the wearer and those around them - according to a new study from Oxford’s Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science.'
> https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-08-ox ... 4dQDv-Vxk#



But those with a valve are open to the air when you exhale. So do nothing to stop Covid virus being blocked!


----------



## Chris152 (4 Aug 2020)

Yes, that's true Roger (I'd been stupidly wearing mine thinking I was protecting others til I realised!) - my last post was just a new bit of research that argues the value of cloth masks in general.


----------



## Rorschach (4 Aug 2020)

Chris152":13uoz509 said:


> 'Cloth face coverings, even homemade masks made of the correct material, are effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 - for the wearer and those around them - according to a new study from Oxford’s Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science.'
> https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-08-ox ... 4dQDv-Vxk#



Using that (non RCT) study as evidence that masks are effective amongst the general population and should be compulsory is quite frankly laughable. They use a tiny number of (non RCT) trials, with a small sample size and they are all amongst healthcare workers in a healthcare setting. This is not good evidence for forming the basis of law. Fair enough if you want to advise based on a study like this, that's fine, but to compel on the threat of legal action is completely wrong.


----------



## Chris152 (4 Aug 2020)

It's another piece of research, Rorschach, not something to get upset about.


----------



## Rorschach (4 Aug 2020)

Chris152":1s1t270n said:


> It's another piece of research, Rorschach, not something to get upset about.



Yes but another one based on dubious research and used to prop up a dubious piece of legislation. I am all for sensible policy based on firm evidence and common sense, not kneejerk reactions based on dubious science and reactionary to a small vocal elite.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (4 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":1462prds said:


> Chris152":1462prds said:
> 
> 
> > It's another piece of research, Rorschach, not something to get upset about.
> ...



Its based mostly on evidence it _will_ benefit others, which seems to be widely agreed. It might also benefit the wearer directly. It has little downside, provided you dispose of them properly. What is it some people are getting so heated about ? It's no more an infringement of your freedom than being expected to wear clothes in public, to not drive pi**ed, etc etc. You can't have complete freedom whilst living within a society and enjoying its benefits. Consideration for others is all part of the package.

So what would those who don't want to wear a mask do about Covid ? There is plenty of evidence on the John Hopkins site of what happens when you drop your guard. Demonstrations in the US are reflected, as is - I think we can hopefully just see - the change in attitude to mask wearing. Ramadan is visible in Muslim countries. The partial re-opening in the UK is reflected in a gentle rise - showing return to life as normal is not one of the available choices. What's your better plan ?


----------



## Rorschach (4 Aug 2020)

Sheffield Tony":3dwftkuk said:


> Its based mostly on evidence it _will_ benefit others, which seems to be widely agreed. It might also benefit the wearer directly. It has little downside, provided you dispose of them properly. What is it some people are getting so heated about ? It's no more an infringement of your freedom than being expected to wear clothes in public, to not drive pi**ed, etc etc. You can't have complete freedom whilst living within a society and enjoying its benefits. Consideration for others is all part of the package.
> 
> So what would those who don't want to wear a mask do about Covid ? There is plenty of evidence on the John Hopkins site of what happens when you drop your guard. Demonstrations in the US are reflected, as is - I think we can hopefully just see - the change in attitude to mask wearing. Ramadan is visible in Muslim countries. The partial re-opening in the UK is reflected in a gentle rise - showing return to life as normal is not one of the available choices. What's your better plan ?



Agreed by whom and based on what evidence? There are zero RCT on this, it has never been tested properly. 
I agree it isn't a big deal wearing a mask, I wear my mask when I go shopping. That isn't the point, it's the way they are going about it, enforcing a policy that they say is guided by science when the science just doesn't exist in a meaningful way. It's the principle of it, what next after masks, mandatory vaccination? Immunity certificates? It's a slippery slope.


----------



## Inspector (4 Aug 2020)

RogerS":rdv5xj5v said:


> Chris152":rdv5xj5v said:
> 
> 
> > 'Cloth face coverings, even homemade masks made of the correct material, are effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 - for the wearer and those around them - according to a new study from Oxford’s Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science.'
> ...



I might have already said it in this thread before so rather go back and look for it I'll (maybe) repeat myself. Tape over the little exhale valve on the disposable masks with them and protect others around you. If you are wearing a cartridge mask, tape some filtration material over the opening of the exhaust valve for some protection of others. Or you can make use of the orphans in your sock drawer like I do.

Pete


----------



## Garno (4 Aug 2020)

His nose is massive, no wonder he has it covered up


----------



## sammy.se (4 Aug 2020)

Haha brilliant idea

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk


----------



## Lons (4 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":1ysly5y2 said:


> I am all for sensible policy based on firm evidence and common sense.



Well that would be a 180 deg about turn and a pleasant surprise, if only it were believable and true. :wink:


----------



## Halo Jones (4 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":9677333q said:


> It's the principle of it, what next after masks, mandatory vaccination?



Absolutely.


----------



## Rorschach (4 Aug 2020)

Halo Jones":1cwkmjck said:


> Rorschach":1cwkmjck said:
> 
> 
> > It's the principle of it, what next after masks, mandatory vaccination?
> ...



Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":1lzem3gg said:


> I agree it isn't a big deal wearing a mask, I wear my mask when I go shopping. That isn't the point, it's the way they are going about it, enforcing a policy that they say is guided by science when the science just doesn't exist in a meaningful way. It's the principle of it, what next after masks, mandatory vaccination? Immunity certificates? It's a slippery slope.



Surely if you truely feel this way, you should stop wearing a mask. Being vocal on a forum is meaningless. You talk of principles then don't act.
I like your posts, bit of ummfff usually but don't bang on about principles when you actively go against yours in public.


----------



## Halo Jones (4 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":332repf8 said:


> Halo Jones":332repf8 said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":332repf8 said:
> ...



Yes. I wish to be safe from a deadly disease.


----------



## Rorschach (4 Aug 2020)

Halo Jones":2v9agb1g said:


> Yes. I wish to be safe from a deadly disease.



I don't do personal insults on this forum but I almost made an exception for you.
I really hope you are never in charge of anything important in this country.


----------



## Rorschach (4 Aug 2020)

doctor Bob":o4vwjmge said:


> Rorschach":o4vwjmge said:
> 
> 
> > I agree it isn't a big deal wearing a mask, I wear my mask when I go shopping. That isn't the point, it's the way they are going about it, enforcing a policy that they say is guided by science when the science just doesn't exist in a meaningful way. It's the principle of it, what next after masks, mandatory vaccination? Immunity certificates? It's a slippery slope.
> ...



I know I should be more firm and if I were out alone maybe I would be, but I shop with my partner and I wear it for her to prevent any aggro and partly for the same reason myself. We only shop once a week now anyway. 
I draw the line at mandatory vaccination though, I might consider a voluntary one (not that I think I in any way need it) but I will not be forced.


----------



## Halo Jones (4 Aug 2020)

Polio, small pox, hepatitis, measles, mumps, rubella, ebola are just a few of the deadly diseases that are controlled or have been eradicated by vaccines. The vaccination strategy only works if a very large proportion of the population take the vaccine. Measles is now starting to kill children again because of the rise in the Anti-vax movement.

You can insult me if you like but vaccination should be mandatory.


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":2bescm48 said:


> I know I should be more firm and if I were out alone maybe I would be, but I shop with my partner and I wear it for her to prevent any aggro and partly for the same reason myself. We only shop once a week now anyway.
> I draw the line at mandatory vaccination though, I might consider a voluntary one (not that I think I in any way need it) but I will not be forced.



But this just emphasises my point, principle should be stood by. If you vocalise these principles on a forum and then say "in public I don't like the looks I get" or "for my partner" it just seems a bit wimpy.
If you believe your principles not wearing a mask is an opportunity to correct peoples thinking, you choose to conform.

Bit like the bloke down the pub telling you what he does blah blah blar when you know full well he doesn't, all talk no action, or talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.


----------



## Rorschach (4 Aug 2020)

doctor Bob":32dyp7sy said:


> But this just emphasises my point, principle should be stood by. If you vocalise these principles on a forum and then say "in public I don't like the looks I get" or "for my partner" it just seems a bit wimpy.
> If you believe your principles not wearing a mask is an opportunity to correct peoples thinking, you choose to conform.
> 
> Bit like the bloke down the pub telling you what he does blah blah blar when you know full well he doesn't, all talk no action, or talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.



I am far from perfect I know that. I equate it to the same as politics though, I think it stinks and think lots of things should change, but I don't stand for parliament :lol:


----------



## Rorschach (4 Aug 2020)

Halo Jones":31vqqjj9 said:


> Polio, small pox, hepatitis, measles, mumps, rubella, ebola are just a few of the deadly diseases that are controlled or have been eradicated by vaccines. The vaccination strategy only works if a very large proportion of the population take the vaccine. Measles is now starting to kill children again because of the rise in the Anti-vax movement.
> 
> You can insult me if you like but vaccination should be mandatory.



I am not anti-vax, I am anti mandatory vaccination. All of the gains you talk about were achieved without mandatory vaccination, also all of those diseases were actually a major threat, unlike C19 which is not. If we didn't do it for Polio or small pox, we certainly don't need to do it for C19.

Mandatory medial intervention is the first step of eugenics.


----------



## Garno (4 Aug 2020)

https://www.thejournal.ie/balaclavas-un ... 9-Jul2020/


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":19coi1b9 said:


> I am far from perfect I know that. I equate it to the same as my politics though, I think it stinks and think lots of things should change, but I don't stand for parliament :lol:



But your moral outrage on here does not equate to how you act in real life. Internet in't it great.


----------



## Rorschach (4 Aug 2020)

doctor Bob":thqxfujo said:


> Rorschach":thqxfujo said:
> 
> 
> > I am far from perfect I know that. I equate it to the same as my politics though, I think it stinks and think lots of things should change, but I don't stand for parliament :lol:
> ...



It is indeed, a very necessary outlet at times.
I don't think I put myself forward as a moral compass, at least not intentionally. I have said it before I see myself as a provocateur to generate debate, put forward an alternative viewpoint and make people question their own beliefs.


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":1ld6vjqs said:


> It is indeed, a very necessary outlet at times.
> I don't think I put myself forward as a moral compass, at least not intentionally. I have said it before I see myself as a provocateur to generate debate, put forward an alternative viewpoint and make people question their own beliefs.



you seem to be missing the point ....... it's you who demonstates that you question your own beliefs by not following them.
you have a genuine opportunity to convince people in real life, however you chose not to and conform. But give it the biggun on the net, it's pointless, why should we listen to you.

I wear a mask, I genuinely believe anyone who can't see that it helps prevent spread is a simpleton. I wouldn't confront a non wearer but I'd try my best to give then 2m distance.

I'm not jumping on the bandwagon by the way, I agree with a lot of your previous points, I think you have lost the plot a bit here though.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (4 Aug 2020)

Seen in Manchester airport this morning: man lifts mask to sneeze. Twice.

I am a reluctant mandatory mask wearer. It would seem that most people aro6nd here are also going through the motions more than seriously protecting themselves and others. €150 fine is some incentive, although I was in a taxi the other day and no one wore a mask: €750 potential income for the state should we have been caught.

About mandatory vaccines: they normally take 10 years to get to market, so who would want to be a guinea pig? More fun; who wants to be forced to be a guinea pig? Rumours of indemnity for companies so there will be no financial repercussions should all those vaccinated grow a second head or similar. What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Rorschach (4 Aug 2020)

doctor Bob":2ghwe2xi said:


> it's you who demonstates that you question your own beliefs by not following them.


I don't questions my beliefs, I go along for an easy life at the moment. There are lots of things I don't believe in but follow as I am sure there are for you. I don't believe in most of the taxes I have to pay, but I pay them. I don't believe in the speed limit being set as it is, but I don't speed. You must do something similar.



doctor Bob":2ghwe2xi said:


> why should we listen to you.


 I never asked you to, I am merely putting forward my views, you are free to follow, or not, argue or not, ignore me or engage with me, it's your choice.


----------



## Blackswanwood (4 Aug 2020)

I don’t understand why anyone has a strong aversion to the wearing of masks.

The efficacy may be far from perfect but it’s better for both the wearer and others if they are worn than not (in my opinion). Even if it’s marginal I think there are more important things to get wound up over.

If it comes down to not liking being told what to do by officials there are those that equally want clear direction and rules as it makes them feel safe. Boris & Co are damned if they do and damned if they don’t make rules. 

I don’t make the link to it being the thin end of a wedge. I may be wrong but I think there is a line before getting to compulsory vaccination no serious politician in the UK will cross.


----------



## Rorschach (4 Aug 2020)

Blackswanwood":132ac0rw said:


> I don’t make the link to it being the thin end of a wedge. I may be wrong but I think there is a line before getting to compulsory vaccination no serious politician in the UK will cross.



I hope you are right, sadly some members here would hope you are wrong.


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":2w28ekrh said:


> I don't questions my beliefs, I go along for an easy life at the moment. There are lots of things I don't believe in but follow as I am sure there are for you. I don't believe in most of the taxes I have to pay, but I pay them. I don't believe in the speed limit being set as it is, but I don't speed. You must do something similar.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Firstly I'm happy to tell people in real life I don't believe in the speed limits and often demonstate it, when I feel it's appropriate often 80 on a motorway. I also tell real life people I begrudge some taxes and actively employ an accountant to avoid them (not evade). I don't just do it vocally on the net.
Secondly, that's a cheeky little sentence edit ........... :lol: :lol:


----------



## MikeG. (4 Aug 2020)

Blackswanwood":35lw0s8p said:


> .........I don’t make the link to it being the thin end of a wedge. I may be wrong but I think there is a line before getting to compulsory vaccination no serious politician in the UK will cross.



For a start, the sane 80% of the population will stampede towards their health-care centres the second there is a vaccine on offer, so we're only talking about the remnant nutters. Rather than making it compulsory, they'll just be coercive, I reckon. Like, you can't get access to government offices, public buildings, sports stadia, or schools unless you're vaccinated. That sort of thing. Some people have no idea at all what is in their own best interests, so it will just have to be made a little easier for them to understand.


----------



## Trevanion (4 Aug 2020)

Call me completely daft but I probably won't be rushing to be first in line to have a vaccination, I know they most likely won't put anything out for definite without knowing that it does indeed work but I'd rather avoid a second head growing as TN says so I'll let everyone else test it first.


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Aug 2020)

Trevanion":3bmdzd6e said:


> Call me completely daft but I probably won't be rushing to be first in line to have a vaccination, I know they most likely won't put anything out for definite without knowing that it does indeed work but I'd rather avoid a second head growing as TN says so I'll let everyone else test it first.



Absolutely, probably grow a forth bollloox or something, not me I'll stick with 3 thank you.


----------



## Halo Jones (4 Aug 2020)

MikeG.":1f9uq8l3 said:


> Blackswanwood":1f9uq8l3 said:
> 
> 
> > .........I don’t make the link to it being the thin end of a wedge. I may be wrong but I think there is a line before getting to compulsory vaccination no serious politician in the UK will cross.
> ...



Thanks, you beat me to it. Many vaccines require a 85-90% uptake before they are effective and it is always the last 10-15% that are difficult to get, hence why making a vaccine mandatory would be a good way to go, even if politically unpalatable. Mind you, wearing seatbelts was made mandatory and not smoking in enclosed public spaces was made mandatory. Both grumbled about when implemented, but now proven to be highly effective policies.

I would happily jump to the front of the queue if an effective vaccine is developed. Most vaccines are based around proven safe technology so you aren't going to grow a second head. The base technology for flue vaccines went through years of safety testing but now they produce several new vaccines every year trying to predict how the flu virus will mutate. They might not be very effective some years but they are not going to produce any adverse effects.


----------



## rafezetter (4 Aug 2020)

Trevanion":wsh0w5ko said:


> Can we have *ONE* decent thread on CV that doesn't devolve into petty and inconsequential bickering ffs...



It seems not when rorsh*ite is involved.

"small steps lead to tyranny....." you couldn't make it up. A super troll or genuinely a mental case - only he knows.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (5 Aug 2020)

MikeG.":1s8p7kpr said:


> Rather than making it compulsory, they'll just be coercive, I reckon. Like, you can't get access to government offices, public buildings, sports stadia, or schools unless you're vaccinated. That sort of thing. *Some people have no idea at all what is in their own best interests, so it will just have to be made a little easier for them to understand.*



Have we all read 1984? 

How about we have a digital only currency, and anyone who doesn't voluntarily get their vaccine (or comply with a myriad other "voluntary social requests") loses their access to money? That should provide sufficient encouragement to enforce groupthink. Or just shoot anyone who doesn't comply? That used to be the favourite of the tyrannical. 

If the vaccine works, then those who are vaccinated have no need to fear. Those who are not vaccinated can take their chances, but it is their own fault, and has minimal impact on the rest of the Karens. Why the overwhelming need to force people to do things to their bodies that they don't want to do? 

Frankly, I don't want to live in a society where someone else has the power to make decisions about my body. It smacks of slavery. Even more fun: what if you central planning types enforce this, and something goes wrong? Then what? You say "Oops"? 

One of the reasons the US has such a problem with vaccines is that this as done in the 1970s, and it didn't go as well as expected: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180961994/


----------



## MikeG. (5 Aug 2020)

Trainee neophyte":7uoin03a said:


> .....How about we have a digital only currency, and anyone who doesn't voluntarily get their vaccine (or comply with a myriad other "voluntary social requests") loses their access to money? That should provide sufficient encouragement to enforce groupthink. Or just shoot anyone who doesn't comply? That used to be the favourite of the tyrannical.



Sometimes hyperbole doesn't help make your case. It makes your case look ridiculous instead.



> If the vaccine works, then those who are vaccinated have no need to fear.



That fails to understand vaccines and how they work in a population. Say it has an efficacy of 75%........we would be back to relying on herd immunity in which we all protect each other by being vaccinated.



> Why the overwhelming need to force people to do things to their bodies that they don't want to do?



The greater good. Herd immunity. Oh, and I didn't suggest forcing anyone. I suggested making access to certain places and services conditional on having a vaccination. Up to you then to balance out how important those places and services are to you against how important your views on vaccination are to you.



> Frankly, I don't want to live in a society where someone else has the power to make decisions about my body.



Bad luck, you already do.



> It smacks of slavery.....



No, that's hyperbole again. Under the scenario I suggested, you would be free to not have a vaccination if you chose not to. However, with rights go responsibilities, and so if you want the benefits of living in society you have to accept society's rules.

Don't forget, I wasn't advocating this course of action, I was predicting it.


----------



## Rorschach (5 Aug 2020)

Well some interesting views coming out of the woodwork. Not that is surprises me given the attitude on the base topic. 

So for the greater good then, how about we stop those with genetic conditions breeding? That's fine isn't it? It's for the greater good, they don't have the right to pass on a sickness to someone else.
Keep greasing that incline


----------



## Sheffield Tony (5 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":1wdc7196 said:


> all of those diseases were actually a major threat, unlike C19 which is not.



It was a major enough threat to both my mother and aunt, who it killed. Not lost a relative yet ? Think yourself lucky.

Agree with Mike about vaccination. Compulsory would produce a counterproductive backlash. More likely, you will find you won't be let into other countries without proof of vaccination, won't be able to attend university, school, etc. Not compulsory, like having a passport or a driving license is not compulsory.


----------



## Inspector (5 Aug 2020)

My condolences Tony.

Pete


----------



## Rorschach (5 Aug 2020)

Sheffield Tony":1daa6kcw said:


> It was a major enough threat to both my mother and aunt, who it killed. Not lost a relative yet ? Think yourself lucky.



I am sorry for your loss, but with respect the fact you lost someone doesn't make it any more deadly, it just changes your perception of it as it feels very close to home. 

And yes we (probably) have lost someone. I say probably because they died in February with C19 symptoms but before there was proper testing etc so I can't say with 100% certainty.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (5 Aug 2020)

MikeG.":q6n6oi81 said:


> Trainee neophyte":q6n6oi81 said:
> 
> 
> > .....How about we have a digital only currency, and anyone who doesn't voluntarily get their vaccine (or comply with a myriad other "voluntary social requests") loses their access to money? That should provide sufficient encouragement to enforce groupthink. Or just shoot anyone who doesn't comply? That used to be the favourite of the tyrannical.
> ...


 Most central banks are looking at a digital only blockchain currency: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ailey-says The implications of this are zero privacy, no hiding from arbitrary bank charges, negative interest rates, and losing access to your money should someone decide to recind your "right" to your digital account. The ultimate way to ensure compliance - you don't have to behave, but you can't take part economically until you submit to the greater good. This would be the perfect incentive, would it not?


> > If the vaccine works, then those who are vaccinated have no need to fear.
> 
> 
> 
> That fails to understand vaccines and how they work in a population. Say it has an efficacy of 75%........we would be back to relying on herd immunity in which we all protect each other by being vaccinated.


 You mean, if the vaccine doesn't work, in other words]. 75%, which is what has been suggested, is actually less effective than the current built in immune system.


> > Why the overwhelming need to force people to do things to their bodies that they don't want to do?
> 
> 
> 
> The greater good. Herd immunity. Oh, and I didn't suggest forcing anyone. I suggested making access to certain places and services conditional on having a vaccination. Up to you then to balance out how important those places and services are to you against how important your views on vaccination are to you.


see above for a few reasons why enforced social compliance is to be avoided. If you want a few more examples, Chinese credit scores, puritans, Pol Pot's regime etc are all good examples. Or just read 1984 and Brave New World again.


> > Frankly, I don't want to live in a society where someone else has the power to make decisions about my body.
> 
> 
> 
> Bad luck, you already do.


Currently we have Habius Corpus to keep the psychopaths in check, for a very good reason. Checks and balances are needed.


> > It smacks of slavery.....
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's hyperbole again. Under the scenario I suggested, you would be free to not have a vaccination if you chose not to. However, with rights go responsibilities, and so if you want the benefits of living in society you have to accept society's rules.


Again, see above for a few thoughts on freedoms and enforced compliance - I don't think we are going to agree here


> Don't forget, I wasn't advocating this course of action, I was predicting it.


 It will be interesting to see how the frightened sheep take to it, and whether there are any consequences. I agree that it may come to pass - should be an interesting experiment. Good luck, everybody.


----------



## MikeG. (5 Aug 2020)

Trainee neophyte":29s6usqy said:


> .......You mean, if the vaccine doesn't work, in other words]. 75%, which is what has been suggested, is actually less effective than the current built in immune system.
> 
> 
> > .........



Are you making this up for a giggle? We have no immunity to it whatsoever. It is a novel disease. No-one on the planet had any immunity to it before last October. If a vaccine provides any level of protection at all, it is better than the _status quo anti_. Honest debate is easier if one party doesn't just make stuff up.


----------



## Lons (5 Aug 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2abevlep said:


> Or just read 1984 and Brave New World again.



I know that being from Mars you take everything at face value but really should point out as you clearly hadn't realised that those books you've referred to on more than one occasion are dystopian fiction novels and only two of many such publicised fiction. 

In case you don't understand the meaning of fiction. 


> _1. - literature in the form of prose, especially novels, that describes imaginary events and people.
> 2. - something that is invented or untrue.
> _


Tell me you don't think the Terminator and Chewbacca are real as well. :wink:


----------



## RogerS (5 Aug 2020)

Lons":7hz8xcah said:
 

> .....
> Tell me you don't think the Terminator and Chewbacca are real as well. :wink:



ROTFLMAO :lol: 

Think you nailed it, Lons.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (5 Aug 2020)

Assuming that the vaccine is wholly effective in providing protection, then it should be a matter of individual choice . Those who choose not to be vaccinated may later get infected. That's their decision and potential problem.

Having a vaccine presents a risk of side effects which could be severe due (in part) to rapid and possibly inadequate testing. In making the "vaccinate or not" decision I need to weigh up the probability of side effects emerging. 

For the young and healthy the risk of the vaccine may seem (possibly irrationally) higher than the consequences of infection. For the older and more vulnerable, the probability of a severe outcome from infection may be perceived as much higher than the vaccine risk.

Those who do not get vaccinated are at risk from, and a risk to, other like minded people. There is a moral dimension - if stretched, should the NHS give priority to those who refused vaccination over (say) those who have suffered a more normal serious problem.

Personally I would go for the vaccine every time being over 60 and vulnerable. Were I 25 in good health I may not want to be an early adopter!


----------



## Rorschach (5 Aug 2020)

MikeG.":c32yv5wz said:


> Are you making this up for a giggle? We have no immunity to it whatsoever. It is a novel disease. No-one on the planet had any immunity to it before last October. If a vaccine provides any level of protection at all, it is better than the _status quo anti_. Honest debate is easier if one party doesn't just make stuff up.



Actually the more we are learning about C19 the more we are realising that actually some people do have a level of immunity to it, largely T-cell immunity though some might even form an antibody response based on previous exposure to other coronaviruses.


----------



## Inspector (5 Aug 2020)

Terry it seems more under 40 people are getting infected in the US than the over 60 crowd. Probably due to choices pertaining to their activities. Always trying to be number one. :wink: So younger people get it and die too and I suspect when the schools reopen this fall we will see just how vulnerable they are. It has been reported that kids don't have the "immunity experience" of older people and that's why they don't get sick but a newborn here recently got it and they have virtually no exposure to viruses beyond what mother's milk does for them. I don't know what the outcome was for the baby. While I won't be elbowing my way to the front of the needle line I will be watching and waiting to make sure it is going to protect me and then I'll be taking the shot. I just hope it is a one shot deal and not like the flu where it evolves, needing a new one every year. Meanwhile I'm still going to mask up.

Pete


----------



## MikeG. (5 Aug 2020)

Inspector":2wh3nfol said:


> ....... I just hope it is a one shot deal and not like the flu where it evolves......



At the moment there is no evolutionary advantage to evolving. We have no defenses against it, so winners and losers aren't selected out of the virus population, and thus no great evolutionary pressure or likelihood of it changing. However, once we have defenses, be that through a vaccine or through years of exposure (as a population), then the classic evolutionary arms race is on.


----------



## Rorschach (5 Aug 2020)

Evolution is good for viruses, they almost invariably evolve to be less deadly. It's in their interests, ebola was a poor virus, it was too deadly for it's own good.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (5 Aug 2020)

MikeG.":29d5h14v said:


> Trainee neophyte":29d5h14v said:
> 
> 
> > .......You mean, if the vaccine doesn't work, in other words]. 75%, which is what has been suggested, is actually less effective than the current built in immune system.
> ...



That may turn out not to be the case. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/30/heal ... index.html which is quoting https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2598-9
Also 
https://bgr.com/2020/07/02/coronavirus- ... -immunity/


> Immunity to the coronavirus might be even higher than we thought, a new study indicates.
> COVID-19 survivors who have low antibody counts could still mount an active immunity against the novel coronavirus.
> *The researchers found two people who had COVID-19-specific T-cells that can identify and kill the virus for every person who developed antibodies that can prevent the virus from infecting healthy cells.[*\quote]
> 
> And then this nonsense that any immunity you may have lasts a matter of weeks at best, then you can catch it all over again, unlike any other virus in the history of the universe. https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... overblown/


----------



## lurker (6 Aug 2020)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53672841

Pretty much what I said on page one of this thread.


----------



## John Brown (6 Aug 2020)

My niece, who is a biologist working for Google, and is probably the smartest person I know, sent me this link to an article by someone she regards as smart.
It's quite long, but I found it interesting. 
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ry/614956/


----------



## Rorschach (6 Aug 2020)

John Brown":12akpyp9 said:


> My niece, who is a biologist working for Google, and is probably the smartest person I know, sent me this link to an article by someone she regards as smart.
> It's quite long, but I found it interesting.
> https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ry/614956/



Yes it is, some of the points in that article have been brought up here and poo-pooed by certain members.

The thing I take away from that article is, the immune system is very complicated and knowledge takes time, a long time. In the meantime, take some basic precautions and live your life.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (6 Aug 2020)

lurker":3ta5nkc5 said:


> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53672841
> 
> Pretty much what I said on page one of this thread.



Just because masks may not meet the standards required to protect healthcare workers when working with possibly / probably infectious people in no way means that there is no advantage in using them or similar masks for a modicum of protection for yourself and others in more ordinary situations.

Outside of healthcare and related settings, it is not about assured protection for yourself. It is about doing anything which is fairly easy, but reduces the overall transmission.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (6 Aug 2020)

When is "asymptomatic" not the same as "immune"? I assume that if you are currently asymptomatic, but later go on to present symptoms then you are not immune, but allegedly a significant proportion of Covid19 cases are fully "asymptomatic", i.e.never present any symptoms

This report (Time Magazine) claims 80% asymptomatic: https://time.com/5842669/coronavirus-as ... nsmission/ Even if that is an exaggeration, wouldn't asymptomatic in this case be the same as immune? Or am I missing something?


----------



## Droogs (6 Aug 2020)

Trainee neophyte":1hblht1d said:


> When is "asymptomatic" not the same as "immune"? I assume that if you are currently asymptomatic, but later go on to present symptoms then you are not immune, but allegedly a significant propionate of Covid19 cases are fully "asymptomatic", i.e.never present any symptoms
> 
> This report (Time Magazine) claims 80% asymptomatic: https://time.com/5842669/coronavirus-as ... nsmission/ Even if that is an exaggeration, wouldn't asymptomatic in this case be the same as immune? Or am I missing something?



when you are immune you can not pass on the virus, when you are asymptomatic you can still infect other people 

NOT the same thing


----------



## Rorschach (6 Aug 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2w1rewlt said:


> When is "asymptomatic" not the same as "immune"? I assume that if you are currently asymptomatic, but later go on to present symptoms then you are not immune, but allegedly a significant propionate of Covid19 cases are fully "asymptomatic", i.e.never present any symptoms
> 
> This report (Time Magazine) claims 80% asymptomatic: https://time.com/5842669/coronavirus-as ... nsmission/ Even if that is an exaggeration, wouldn't asymptomatic in this case be the same as immune? Or am I missing something?



Immune means the virus never gets chance to take hold and reproduce, asymptomatic means you are infected (to some degree) and the virus is reproducing but not to a level at which you it is causing you any trouble. Whether you are can infect others if you are asymptomatic is still debatable, even if you can though you would be much less infectious than a symptomatic person who is constantly coughing everywhere.

A personal case, as a child I had chicken pox 3 times (rare but not unheard of). First time I got it I had the usual symptoms of the illness and some pox, the second time I was mildly ill with hardly any pox, 3rd time I had one tiny pox but no other symptoms, I was basically asymptomatic. Doctors advised my parents to keep me at home both times though as there was a risk I was still infectious despite having no symptoms.


----------



## Rorschach (6 Aug 2020)

Droogs":15i8uvj3 said:


> when you are asymptomatic you can still infect other people



That's still out for debate and it probably varies from person to person. An asymptomatic person is not going to be as infectious as a symptomatic person, that's for certain (they aren't coughing everywhere for a start) but to what degree they can spread we simply don't know.


----------



## MikeG. (6 Aug 2020)

Droogs":1dx6d780 said:


> ....... when you are asymptomatic you can still infect other people.......



There's a subtlety here. One form of asymptomatic is pre-symptomatic, and if you are pre-symptomatic (ie infected but showing no symptoms *yet*), then 100% this is one of the deadliest things about this virus. I caught it from a friend who had no symptoms, and passed it on to my wife before I had any symptoms myself. This is the principle reason this virus has had to have such drastic methods employed to slow its spread. However, the other form of "asymptomatic" is people who never show any symptoms but are still carrying the virus in their system. I think the evidence is less clear here as to whether or not they spread the virus to the same extent. Clearly they spread it, but to what extent I think is something we're less sure of.


----------



## lurker (6 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":5i170oe0 said:


> ebola was a poor virus, it was too deadly for it's own good.



That statement would only be true if Ebola no longer existed.


----------



## Rorschach (6 Aug 2020)

lurker":27aj0d03 said:


> Rorschach":27aj0d03 said:
> 
> 
> > ebola was a poor virus, it was too deadly for it's own good.
> ...



I'll re-phrase:

Ebola is a poor virus, it is too deadly for it's own good.

We will never see an Ebola pandemic in the same way C19 or even just common flu. Ebola is too deadly, too quickly and as such is very easy to diagnose and contain. Africa, where diseases are very difficult to control for a whole host of reasons has had good success containing Ebola outbreaks, that shows you how "poor" of a virus it is.


----------



## lurker (6 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":25a6xcvs said:


> lurker":25a6xcvs said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":25a6xcvs said:
> ...



I think your main problem is that you don't know what you don't know.


----------



## Rorschach (6 Aug 2020)

We learn more everyday and (hopefully) improve with each new bit of information.


----------



## lurker (6 Aug 2020)

I am not on about "we" , I mean you.

I know enough (degree in microbiology and five years working in genetics) to be aware of my limitations.


----------



## Rorschach (6 Aug 2020)

Changed my mind.


----------



## nev (6 Aug 2020)

AGAIN deteriorating into petty digs and pathetic oneupmanship


----------



## jonk65 (6 Aug 2020)

Hi what do people think about the new law that's been in a few weeks now to do with face masks. I'm of an age now that I'm suppose to have a flue jab. I said to the nurse at our local GP that I didn't want the jab. I was told by the nurse that I'm selfish and irresponsible. she said this a few years ago. telling me how I'm putting the elderly at risk by not having a flue jab. I said don't I have a the chance to say if I want this flue jab or not. as its not law. She its not law but you are expected just to take the without complaint.
Now with the face mask. it says you can chose not to use a mask and you don't need a medical certificate from your doctor to say you are to ill to use one. but if you don't use a mask shop are refusing entry. Taking away the your option. (I thought it was the polices job to see if you are using a mask). the next problem is if the police are asked to step in. As we all no the police work on evidence and true facts. So you tell the police you a medical problem. as they want evidence and true facts they will ask for proof that are unable to use a mask. As you have no proof from your GP or anyone else that could provide that information. That only leaves the police with one option. that is to fine you or arrest you.


----------



## Blackswanwood (6 Aug 2020)

jonk65":1his3ex5 said:


> Hi what do people think about the new law that's been in a few weeks now to do with face masks.



Scroll back and have a read of this thread and you will see a range of opinions from face masks not going far enough to being asked to wear one is a precursor to the enslavement of mankind.


----------



## jonk65 (7 Aug 2020)

I don't understand why they have made that we have to use face masks. they tell us the peak of the infection was in April and the same with the old peoples homes. Since then they tell us it dropping rapidly to date. A top scientist gets the results of who died from what each month. he said he seen this present outbreak on the list. He said the virus came about a quarter of the way up the death list. The next month he received the new list for that month. There wasn't anything else but corona virus. so he rang up and asked was the results right. they ask him why. he said it says everyone died of corona virus. He said it has to be wrong. There reply was as there is no one in the department that determine who died of what is closed due to the virus. so the only thing they can do is to say the person died of corona virus. But then on the other hand there has been countries that have done nothing, and they are in no worse state for not responding. what's my response. Its totally confusing


----------



## Blackswanwood (7 Aug 2020)

jonk65":4g6xnovy said:


> I don't understand why they have made that we have to use face masks.



It’s somewhere between because it’s the best that Boris & Co think they can get away with to keep us safe and because there is a secret plot to steal our civil liberties. The best you will get here is a range of opinions which are all covered earlier in this thread.


----------



## John Brown (7 Aug 2020)

jonk65":17lwebhy said:


> Hi what do people think about the new law that's been in a few weeks now to do with face masks. I'm of an age now that I'm suppose to have a flue jab. I said to the nurse at our local GP that I didn't want the jab. I was told by the nurse that I'm selfish and irresponsible. she said this a few years ago. telling me how I'm putting the elderly at risk by not having a flue jab. I said don't I have a the chance to say if I want this flue jab or not. as its not law. She its not law but you are expected just to take the without complaint.
> Now with the face mask. it says you can chose not to use a mask and you don't need a medical certificate from your doctor to say you are to ill to use one. but if you don't use a mask shop are refusing entry. Taking away the your option. (I thought it was the polices job to see if you are using a mask). the next problem is if the police are asked to step in. As we all no the police work on evidence and true facts. So you tell the police you a medical problem. as they want evidence and true facts they will ask for proof that are unable to use a mask. As you have no proof from your GP or anyone else that could provide that information. That only leaves the police with one option. that is to fine you or arrest you.


May I ask why you don't want a flu jab?


----------



## Woody2Shoes (7 Aug 2020)

jonk65":2x356nie said:


> Hi what do people think about the new law that's been in a few weeks now to do with face masks. I'm of an age now that I'm suppose to have a flue jab. I said to the nurse at our local GP that I didn't want the jab. I was told by the nurse that I'm selfish and irresponsible. she said this a few years ago. telling me how I'm putting the elderly at risk by not having a flue jab. I said don't I have a the chance to say if I want this flue jab or not. as its not law. She its not law but you are expected just to take the without complaint.
> Now with the face mask. it says you can chose not to use a mask and you don't need a medical certificate from your doctor to say you are to ill to use one. but if you don't use a mask shop are refusing entry. Taking away the your option. (I thought it was the polices job to see if you are using a mask). the next problem is if the police are asked to step in. As we all no the police work on evidence and true facts. So you tell the police you a medical problem. as they want evidence and true facts they will ask for proof that are unable to use a mask. As you have no proof from your GP or anyone else that could provide that information. That only leaves the police with one option. that is to fine you or arrest you.



I'm happy to have my flu jab because:

1) The risk of something bad happening to me as a direct result of having the jab is extremely low.
2) The potential impact on me, my family, and my community (at its simplest 'the taxpayer') if I get a bad dose of flu is significant, and the chances of catching it at some point are larger than small.

I have made a personal decision as someone with what I think is a good basic understanding of arithmetic and human health.

I don't actually care deeply what other people do, but there is a greater cost to society if people get (potentially gravely) avoidably ill - one of the reasons that the taxpayer so generously funds flu jabs for vulnerable folk.

I think that scaremongering/dogwhistle talk of 'compulsion' is Trumpian internet-fuelled bowrox myself....


----------



## Woody2Shoes (7 Aug 2020)

jonk65":y0d1ymvw said:


> I don't understand why they have made that we have to use face masks. they tell us the peak of the infection was in April and the same with the old peoples homes. Since then they tell us it dropping rapidly to date. A top scientist gets the results of who died from what each month. he said he seen this present outbreak on the list. He said the virus came about a quarter of the way up the death list. The next month he received the new list for that month. There wasn't anything else but corona virus. so he rang up and asked was the results right. they ask him why. he said it says everyone died of corona virus. He said it has to be wrong. There reply was as there is no one in the department that determine who died of what is closed due to the virus. so the only thing they can do is to say the person died of corona virus. But then on the other hand there has been countries that have done nothing, and they are in no worse state for not responding. what's my response. Its totally confusing



Wearing a face mask in public situations may or may not make any difference to your chances of catching it from others (washing hands religiously and protecting your eyes may be as good or better) and/or your chances of passing it on to others - but for the vast majority of people (who don't have some kind of mental/physical issues making it hard for them) wearing a mask is painless and easy to do.

Even if it could make a tiny positive difference (and waiting for "proof" either way will take a very long time), why not just fliipin do it?

The virus is still circulating within the community, it is pernicious, and it hasn't gone away.


----------



## jonk65 (7 Aug 2020)

May I ask why you don't want a flu jab?

Iv only ever had one flu jab. I was laid up in bed very ill after the injection. I told the nurse at the doctors and she told me I will be ok. so if they ask me if I want a jab. I will always say no. Because I don't want be ill like I was last time I had a jab. I found out one day that there is compensation scheme set for those who have side effects from there vaccines. but they tell there vaccines are all safe. if they are all safe why is there a compensation scheme. but even if you have problem with a vaccine. you will need to very rich to start with to go for there compensation. 
I remember about 20 years ago, they was a jab for children to stop them from getting some real serious diseases. but they found that the drug they was giving the children. Was given the children some serious problem. Even though the government knew there was bad side effects that could effect your child. They didn't take it off the market. they gave you the chance to choose if you want to have your children vaccinated. Bet even back then you may of had the chance to choose. if picked no injection for your child. you would then get a lecture on how your child will be spreading the childhood diseases. How your child is a carrier. So you get choice. but if you pick the wrong one. you get ridiculed for making that choice.


----------



## Garno (7 Aug 2020)

jonk65":m7t093yx said:


> May I ask why you don't want a flu jab?
> 
> Iv only ever had one flu jab. I was laid up in bed very ill after the injection. I told the nurse at the doctors and she told me I will be ok. so if they ask me if I want a jab. I will always say no. Because I don't want be ill like I was last time I had a jab. I found out one day that there is compensation scheme set for those who have side effects from there vaccines. but they tell there vaccines are all safe. if they are all safe why is there a compensation scheme. but even if you have problem with a vaccine. you will need to very rich to start with to go for there compensation.
> I remember about 20 years ago, they was a jab for children to stop them from getting some real serious diseases. but they found that the drug they was giving the children. Was given the children some serious problem. Even though the government knew there was bad side effects that could effect your child. They didn't take it off the market. they gave you the chance to choose if you want to have your children vaccinated. Bet even back then you may of had the chance to choose. if picked no injection for your child. you would then get a lecture on how your child will be spreading the childhood diseases. How your child is a carrier. So you get choice. but if you pick the wrong one. you get ridiculed for making that choice.



Shame there is not a vaccination for trolling


----------



## Lons (7 Aug 2020)

Garno":3df6a9lr said:


> Shame there is not a vaccination for trolling



This.......


----------



## Blackswanwood (7 Aug 2020)

jonk65":3n4o2yii said:


> I remember about 20 years ago, they was a jab for children to stop them from getting some real serious diseases. but they found that the drug they was giving the children. Was given the children some serious problem. Even though the government knew there was bad side effects that could effect your child.



I suspect you are referring to the claims by the then Doctor Andrew Wakefield (he was struck off I think last year) that MMR vaccinations caused Autism. This turned out to be total rubbish but the hullabaloo he caused led to some parents choosing to not have their children vaccinated, a corresponding spike in the associated illnesses and millions wasted to confirm he was talking trash. Allegedly this guy is now saying that Covid19 is a fake.

It's up to you to decide whether you believe him or not.


----------



## lurker (7 Aug 2020)

jonk65":25q1j29v said:


> May I ask why you don't want a flu jab?
> 
> Iv only ever had one flu jab. I was laid up in bed very ill after the injection. I told the nurse at the doctors and she told me I will be ok. so if they ask me if I want a jab. I will always say no. Because I don't want be ill like I was last time .



Maybe the nurse injected the wrong arm, if she had used the other arm you would have been fine.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (7 Aug 2020)

lurker":33zylj7q said:


> jonk65":33zylj7q said:
> 
> 
> > May I ask why you don't want a flu jab?
> ...



I'm wondering if the injection wasn't in the Arcuate Fasciculus .....


----------



## sploo (7 Aug 2020)

Blackswanwood":17pdd92j said:


> jonk65":17pdd92j said:
> 
> 
> > I remember about 20 years ago, they was a jab for children to stop them from getting some real serious diseases. but they found that the drug they was giving the children. Was given the children some serious problem. Even though the government knew there was bad side effects that could effect your child.
> ...


Ironically Wakefield's claims about MMR were only one part of his shady behaviour. Amongst a litany of unethical practices, he was performing potentially dangerous procedures on children that were not medically indicated (i.e. risky procedures that were not required for the care of the patient; only for the sole purpose of collecting samples): https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... th-autism/


----------



## sploo (7 Aug 2020)

jonk65":1nue87ri said:


> Iv only ever had one flu jab. I was laid up in bed very ill after the injection. I told the nurse at the doctors and she told me I will be ok. so if they ask me if I want a jab. I will always say no. Because I don't want be ill like I was last time I had a jab.


This is entirely possible; but it's important to remember it's all about the numbers. A vaccine may well cause a response in the body (after all, it's training the immune system on what to look for and attack). In the overwhelming majority of people who are given any particular vaccine, there will be little or no reaction; but there will inevitably be a percentage who have a less pleasant experience.

The thing to consider is; without the flu jab, what is your risk rate for catching (and/or being severely affected by) a bout of the flu? Everything is a case of percentages; flu can kill (and to the best of my knowledge, the flu vaccination does not).

Note that there's also a non-zero chance that your illness after the jab wasn't related to the vaccine; i.e. you might already have caught another virus (or even the flu).

None of this is meant as criticism or an attack; it's just highlighting the problem with "samples of one".


----------



## MikeG. (7 Aug 2020)

Woody2Shoes":1chopkqm said:


> lurker":1chopkqm said:
> 
> 
> > jonk65":1chopkqm said:
> ...



Superb!! =D> =D>


----------



## John Brown (7 Aug 2020)

It appears that you only joined this forum to spread ignorance and nonsense.
Sorry to all for responding to the troll.


----------



## Inoculate (7 Aug 2020)

Face masks main intention is to protect others from being infected by you in case you are infected. I just can't understand why the US is still debating over to wear or not to wear.


----------



## John Brown (7 Aug 2020)

Another one.
Maybe we need a rule, like how you can't post pictures until you've made n posts, you can't participate in off-topic forums until you've asked some woodworking questions...


----------



## Lons (7 Aug 2020)

Inoculate":2vwast20 said:


> Face masks main intention is to protect others from being infected by you in case you are infected. I just can't understand why the US is still debating over to wear or not to wear.



The "US" part may provide a clue. Land of the Trump supporters.


----------



## RogerS (7 Aug 2020)

Blackswanwood":2103wbjb said:


> jonk65":2103wbjb said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand why they have made that we have to use face masks.
> ...



I thought that wearing masks was to hide us from aliens ?


----------



## billw (7 Aug 2020)

Inoculate":1ip1q0cj said:


> Face masks main intention is to protect others from being infected by you in case you are infected. I just can't understand why the US is still debating over to wear or not to wear.



Republicans


----------



## Trainee neophyte (8 Aug 2020)

If we are talking about whether or not to take a vaccine, Yale University is doing a study to test which propaganda messages will be the most effective to convince the population to line up for their shots. We don't have a vaccine yet, but it's always good to have the narrative in place early.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04460703

So when you start seeing some of these memes on Facebook, you will be able to recognise which cohort it is aimed at, and why. A few quotes from the link:



> Experimental: Social pressure- guilt
> Experimental message arm.
> Other: Guilt message
> 1/15 of the sample will be assigned to this message. The message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one's family and community. The best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and society must work together to get enough people vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don't get vaccinated and spread the disease.
> ...


----------



## Blackswanwood (8 Aug 2020)

The word propaganda conjures negative connotations. Isn’t this just a public health message?


----------



## Sheffield Tony (8 Aug 2020)

If you want to get the naximum people vaccinated, they seem to have it wrong. Forget societal pressure, family, embarrassment etc. People influenced like that will go for the vaccine anyway. Tell people (true or not) once you're vaccinated that's you ok to take off your mask and do exactly what you please. It is the selfish b*****ds you need to appeal to.


----------



## RogerS (8 Aug 2020)

Trainee neophyte":1i2e1w6a said:


> If we are talking about whether or not to take a vaccine, Yale University is doing a study to test which propaganda messages will be the most effective to convince the population to line up for their shots. We don't have a vaccine yet, but it's always good to have the narrative in place early.
> 
> https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04460703
> 
> ...



Your point is what, exactly ? You seem to like speaking in soundbites that don't actually make any sense.

A lot of people are stupid.
A lot of people are selfish
A lot of people are both.

So if you are trying to get an important message into their thick skulls then you need to consider every angle - just plain common sense.

So...your point was ...what ?


----------



## sploo (8 Aug 2020)

RogerS":1nbzffpm said:


> A lot of people are stupid.
> A lot of people are selfish
> A lot of people are both.
> 
> So if you are trying to get an important message into their thick skulls then you need to consider every angle - just plain common sense.


Somewhere there's a solution that covers the whole demographic. Maybe... driving a big red bus with a message on the side, past a packed beach.

Ahem. Sorry.


----------



## Rorschach (8 Aug 2020)

Speaking of packed beaches, I notice the MSM are not making such a big fuss this time round as they did with Bournemouth. In fact no-one seems to be talking about Bournemouth anymore :roll:


----------



## Trainee neophyte (8 Aug 2020)

RogerS":kf3ob6aa said:


> Trainee neophyte":kf3ob6aa said:
> 
> 
> > If we are talking about whether or not to take a vaccine, Yale University is doing a study to test which propaganda messages will be the most effective to convince the population to line up for their shots. We don't have a vaccine yet, but it's always good to have the narrative in place early.
> ...



Good to see we are talking again. It's lonely being on "ignore".

My point is that I find it interesting that such effort is put into manipulating the public. Manipulating me. Personally, I prefer not to be manipulated. I like to imagine (probably erroneously ) that I am free to make up my own mind. It seems that not only do the various governments go to a lot of trouble to make up the minds of their citizens on their citizens behalf, but also that quite a lot of the citizens embrace this wholeheartedly. Regardless of the subject at hand, government ought to exist for the benefit of the people, rather than the other way around. Anyone for a war in {insert nation here}? There's a department in Yale who can help sell it to the people... (weapons of mass destruction might not be an easy sell third time around - best go for something more emotive, like gender rights.)


----------



## sploo (8 Aug 2020)

Trainee neophyte":26mc4xh0 said:


> My point is that I find it interesting that such effort is put into manipulating the public. Manipulating me. Personally, I prefer not to be manipulated. I like to imagine (probably erroneously ) that I am free to make up my own mind. It seems that not only do the various governments go to a lot of trouble to make up the minds of their citizens on their citizens behalf, but also that quite a lot of the citizens embrace this wholeheartedly. Regardless of the subject at hand, government ought to exist for the benefit of the people, rather than the other way around. Anyone for a war in {insert nation here}? There's a department in Yale who can help sell it to the people... (weapons of mass destruction might not be an easy sell third time around - best go for something more emotive, like gender rights.)


The problem is that, in the case of a virus and a vaccine, the "honest" route is to present the public with the current state of the medical research; including the statistical data weighing up the various risks.

Clearly the overwhelming majority would not be able to make sense of that information (myself included), so other routes need to be taken.

Granted, it then becomes a moral grey area if you "manipulate" or scare someone into doing something because you're actually trying to protect them (and those around them).


----------



## Woody2Shoes (8 Aug 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2qu8poor said:


> ......My point is that I find it interesting that such effort is put into manipulating the public. Manipulating me. Personally, I prefer not to be manipulated. .....



The trouble is, often as not, it's someone *else's* government (and/or other unelected vested interests), or their proxies, trying to do the manipulation....

eg https://content.govdelivery.com/attachm ... 281%29.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53433523
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... y-public1/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... r-spending

The old joke used to be about the marketing director who said "I'm convinced that half my advertising spend is wasted - the trouble is, I don't know which half."
With modern internet/bigdata tools, the truth is that 'advertising' of whatever kind can be much much more effective (a bit like the difference between a 'dumb' bomb and a laser/gps guided munition)...


----------



## MikeG. (8 Aug 2020)

Trainee neophyte":33hbbtzv said:


> .........Good to see we are talking again. It's lonely being on "ignore"......



There's lots of lonely people on this forum, then, as a direct result of this thread.


----------



## RogerS (8 Aug 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2909u70w said:


> RogerS":2909u70w said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



It's a non-issue. Stop fretting about it.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (8 Aug 2020)

I only posted it for its entertainment value: there was a time when government manipulation was considered a conspiracy theory, but now it is so mainstream universities write papers on it. The benefits of a private/public partnership I suppose. It's a good job 1984 was a work of fiction, not an instruction manual, or we'd all be in trouble ;-)


----------



## selectortone (8 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":1uqxvx3t said:


> Speaking of packed beaches, I notice the MSM are not making such a big fuss this time round as they did with Bournemouth. In fact no-one seems to be talking about Bournemouth anymore :roll:



Six weeks ago most of the infrastructure we have for dealing with influxes of hundreds of thousands of day trippers was still being brought out of mothballs. Toilets, refuse collection, beachside catering, traffic management, etc., etc. Facilities are mostly back in place now. Bournemouth has been a seaside holiday destination for many years after all, so It's not like we aren't able to cope with them in more normal times.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (9 Aug 2020)

Woody2Shoes":rqluqjqh said:


> Trainee neophyte":rqluqjqh said:
> 
> 
> > ......My point is that I find it interesting that such effort is put into manipulating the public. Manipulating me. Personally, I prefer not to be manipulated. .....
> ...



I've only just had chance to go through your links, which are all fine examples of bending reality for profit (except the Russian electioneering nonsense, which is a fine example of government propaganda for shepherding purposes). I would add to the list the fact that Bill Gates is now the largest funder of the WHO, given that the USA has withdrawn support. What could possibly go wrong? https://www.politico.eu/article/bill-ga ... ul-doctor/


----------



## Rorschach (9 Aug 2020)

selectortone":31s9pwgn said:


> Rorschach":31s9pwgn said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of packed beaches, I notice the MSM are not making such a big fuss this time round as they did with Bournemouth. In fact no-one seems to be talking about Bournemouth anymore :roll:
> ...



That wasn't my point. The Bournemouth issue/ beach issue in general wasn't about the infrastructure it was about the cries of "second wave" "new infections" "they are all going to die". Of course none of that came to pass, just as it didn't with every other mass gathering in the last few months where the MSM went wild over infections going up, and then 2 weeks later when nothing happened they were oddly quiet on the matter.


----------



## Blackswanwood (9 Aug 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2p8xo6lo said:


> I've only just had chance to go through your links, which are all fine examples of bending reality for profit (except the Russian electioneering nonsense, which is a fine example of government propaganda for shepherding purposes). I would add to the list the fact that Bill Gates is now the largest funder of the WHO, given that the USA has withdrawn support. What could possibly go wrong? https://www.politico.eu/article/bill-ga ... ul-doctor/



I don’t see why there is a need to be cynical about Bill Gates. He had been on the end of a whole series of allegations from conspiracy theorists ... put Bill Gates Fake News into any search engine and see what cones up.

If any of us had his wealth and were spending it on improving the world I would wager most would have a desire to see tangible results and may be specific about how we wanted it used?


----------



## Woody2Shoes (9 Aug 2020)

Trainee neophyte":e5g7zwwf said:


> Woody2Shoes":e5g7zwwf said:
> 
> 
> > Trainee neophyte":e5g7zwwf said:
> ...



I've noticed before that you seem to have an inexplicable blindspot for the actions of Putin's Russia - maybe you've consumed some of their Kool-Aid (electronic or otherwise)?

I think your animosity towards Bill Gates is misplaced - far more noteworthy is Trump's removal of the US from the WHO.


----------



## John Brown (9 Aug 2020)

Bill Gates may not be perfect, but he's trying to make amends for forcing us all to use Windows, weird segmented memory microprocessors and, worst of all, spellchecking us into using "ise" instead of good old-fashioned "ize". He knows he's done some bad things, and he's trying to make up for it by eradicating polio and malaria. We should cut him some slack. There are plenty of other billionaires more worthy of irrational hate.


----------



## sploo (9 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":24mmmebb said:


> That wasn't my point. The Bournemouth issue/ beach issue in general wasn't about the infrastructure it was about the cries of "second wave" "new infections" "they are all going to die". Of course none of that came to pass, just as it didn't with every other mass gathering in the last few months where the MSM went wild over infections going up, and then 2 weeks later when nothing happened they were oddly quiet on the matter.


I guess I must have imagined the recent rise in infection rates and areas of the UK being locked down again. I'll let my wife (an NHS doctor) know that they're fussing over nothing. I'm sure she'll be relieved; what with all this non-functional PPE they've been given.


----------



## Garno (9 Aug 2020)

My GP phones me every 2 weeks to check up on me, (previously before Covid I had to go and see him) and because I am classed as vulnerable or most at risk he has advised me to continue lockdown and not leave the house. He says the choice is now my own to make but if he had to make the choice he would choose lockdown for me and everyone else who are in my category. Covid he says is still very much out there and is still killing people on a daily basis. When he last phoned 12 days ago he said it had been 4 days since the last covid patient had been under his jurisdiction but said 1 persons foolish behaviour could change all that.

People are acting as though the fight against covid has been won, they say it's not safe enough for them to return to work, yet they deem it safe enough to visit tourist areas in the thousands, they are happy to take 80% of their wage but unhappy to take the advice offered to them whilst collecting it. Even people on these forums are saying they will not wear a mask or have a vaccine (when or if one gets made) out of principle, I would be prepared to wager that if those same people were to catch Covid after refusing the vaccine they would be saying it was the fault of others as it was not explained properly what could happen should they not take it. Already in certain postcodes throughout the country we are seeing spikes and increases in the number of people with Covid, it would be interesting to know if those areas adhered to the wearing of masks advice as other parts of the country have, my guess would be that they have not and my reasoning would be that the spikes would be a lot wider spread and no doubt cover the whole of the country.

For what it is worth, I see the lockdown as being a safety guard for myself, I also see or believe that the wearing of masks outdoors is also a safety guard and when a vaccine becomes available I would also see that as a safety guard, god only knows I will take any potential safety guard that I possibly could, when faced with the great possibility of death the guidelines and advice given to us all makes a lot of sense.

When some members on here talk about the guidelines and/or mandatory vaccinations as some kind of manipulative scheme it saddens me, it saddens me that our society has reached a stage where it has become every man for himself, it saddens me that every bit of advice given that may save lives is questioned from a negative viewpoint, it saddens me that society has become so selfish and self centred and cares nothing for anyone else. These people will always be the first to shout and try and justify themselves to the point of looking foolish, yet still they will continue. These are usually people who risk nothing, they are unable to take genuine fears of those most at risk into account. I cannot stress enough what it feels like to be to scared to even leave my own home due to the risk of getting killed by some self centred silly person who believes the rules are just a manipulation tool, would that person call at my house and apologise to my wife for killing me with covid? chances are they would not care.

I am going to be selfish and upset some posters on this thread, I am going to remain inside my home for as long as my GP advises me to do so, if someone knocks on the door I will continue to answer from the window roughly 4M away and wear a mask whilst doing so, I will also sleep at night knowing that no one has ever or would ever catch covid from me.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (9 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":2e66nhwj said:


> Speaking of packed beaches, I notice the MSM are not making such a big fuss this time round as they did with Bournemouth. In fact no-one seems to be talking about Bournemouth anymore :roll:



Don't know if the ES meets your definition of MSM but:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/uk-b ... 20266.html


----------



## Rorschach (9 Aug 2020)

Woody2Shoes":vfk1zahv said:


> Rorschach":vfk1zahv said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of packed beaches, I notice the MSM are not making such a big fuss this time round as they did with Bournemouth. In fact no-one seems to be talking about Bournemouth anymore :roll:
> ...



It does, I didn't see that, but the article is dated today. The first bournemouth hype was all over every news outlet and social media as well as being mentioned here. I notice that article says it is the third day, not quite the same hype is you get my drift?

EDIT: when I was looking the day before yesterday, this was the only article I could find ironically
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/53519668


----------



## Rorschach (9 Aug 2020)

Garno":110evkp5 said:


> My GP phones me every 2 weeks to check up on me, (previously before Covid I had to go and see him) and because I am classed as vulnerable or most at risk he has advised me to continue lockdown and not leave the house. He says the choice is now my own to make but if he had to make the choice he would choose lockdown for me and everyone else who are in my category. Covid he says is still very much out there and is still killing people on a daily basis. When he last phoned 12 days ago he said it had been 4 days since the last covid patient had been under his jurisdiction but said 1 persons foolish behaviour could change all that.
> 
> People are acting as though the fight against covid has been won, they say it's not safe enough for them to return to work, yet they deem it safe enough to visit tourist areas in the thousands, they are happy to take 80% of their wage but unhappy to take the advice offered to them whilst collecting it. Even people on these forums are saying they will not wear a mask or have a vaccine (when or if one gets made) out of principle, I would be prepared to wager that if those same people were to catch Covid after refusing the vaccine they would be saying it was the fault of others as it was not explained properly what could happen should they not take it. Already in certain postcodes throughout the country we are seeing spikes and increases in the number of people with Covid, it would be interesting to know if those areas adhered to the wearing of masks advice as other parts of the country have, my guess would be that they have not and my reasoning would be that the spikes would be a lot wider spread and no doubt cover the whole of the country.
> 
> ...



You are likely upset with me, that's fine. I respect what you say here and I have always defended the rights of individuals to do as they see fit and have always encouraged those most at risk to protect themselves.

All I ask is that those who see risk differently be allowed to live their lives without interference. It matters not one jot to me if you stay at home for 6 months or 6 years if you feel that is necessary to protect yourself. You are also welcome to have any vaccine you like and avoid contact with those you see as potentially dangerous to yourself. Remember though, C19 is not the only thing out that there could kill you if you are as vulnerable as you say, do you take these same precautions every year with flu and other winter respiratory illnesses? You probably should, they kill tens of thousands every year.

I don't see it as selfish to ask be allowed to live my life and ask for that same freedom for others who feel the same. I know the risk, my family knows the risk, if it kills me, then I only have myself to blame exactly the same as when I get into my car and go for a drive (statistically probably as risky as C19 for someone in my demographic).


----------



## Woody2Shoes (9 Aug 2020)

John Brown":1vesvfup said:


> ....weird segmented memory microprocessors .....



To be fair that wasn't Gates's (page) fault


----------



## Garno (9 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":dv8xy02r said:


> You are likely upset with me, that's fine. I respect what you say here and I have always defended the rights of individuals to do as they see fit and have always encouraged those most at risk to protect themselves.
> 
> All I ask is that those who see risk differently be allowed to live their lives without interference. It matters not one jot to me if you stay at home for 6 months or 6 years if you feel that is necessary to protect yourself. You are also welcome to have any vaccine you like and avoid contact with those you see as potentially dangerous to yourself. Remember though, C19 is not the only thing out that there could kill you if you are as vulnerable as you say, do you take these same precautions every year with flu and other winter respiratory illnesses? You probably should, they kill tens of thousands every year.
> 
> I don't see it as selfish to ask be allowed to live my life and ask for that same freedom for others who feel the same. I know the risk, my family knows the risk, if it kills me, then I only have myself to blame exactly the same as when I get into my car and go for a drive (statistically probably as risky as C19 for someone in my demographic).



This is the exact reaction I was expecting, What you are saying is that you will do what you deem right regardless of what your actions do to others, the longer you do this the longer those at risk are unable to carry on with a normal life. It bothers you not one jot if those who are vulnerable remain in lockdown for 6 months or 6 years and that they cannot lead ordinary lives, this is providing that you and others can do as they wish.

I think you say these things in the forum for effect, you make out you don't care yet you have signed up to test the vaccines out :? that in my mind makes you an out and out hypocrite. You say one thing and do another, If (touch wood it never happens) your wife or one of your children contacted Covid and had it bad enough that they were hospitalised and their situation became critical I think you would be happy to wear a mask when visiting them or would you argue with the nurses that you should not? we both know the answer to that and so that shows us all that the rules shall be followed when it best suits your situation, the fact that you never really come out and admit to that as it does not suit your argument makes you nothing more than a troll that posts for a reaction as opposed to posting your true views.

If I had to take a yearly vaccine for Covid as I do with the flu then I would do so as that would no doubt be the advice given to me from someone a lot more qualified than yourself to give it.


----------



## John Brown (9 Aug 2020)

Ok. Not directly. Except that he had a DOS that he supplied to IBM that ran on Intel chips, so could have been influential.
To be honest, I heard him on Desert island discs a few years back, and apart from sounding exactly like Kermit the frog, he came across as a thoroughly nice guy. He made no mention of wanting to inject everybody with microchips as part of some nefarious world-domination plan.


----------



## rafezetter (9 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":2a7s0wfk said:


> Garno":2a7s0wfk said:
> 
> 
> > My GP phones me every 2 weeks to check up on me, (previously before Covid I had to go and see him) and because I am classed as vulnerable or most at risk he has advised me to continue lockdown and not leave the house. He says the choice is now my own to make but if he had to make the choice he would choose lockdown for me and everyone else who are in my category. Covid he says is still very much out there and is still killing people on a daily basis. When he last phoned 12 days ago he said it had been 4 days since the last covid patient had been under his jurisdiction but said 1 persons foolish behaviour could change all that.
> ...




It's clear you have decided that your right to live your life in the manner that suits you the most, overrides the conventions and requirements that keep other people inside the boundaries of legal and social morality.

That is the absolute definition of a sociopath, and the self confessed fact you care not that these actions may result in the deaths of others many might inferr could also be defined as psychopathic.

I do not beleive for a moment you have shared these viewpoints with your family and social circle especially the viewpoint of "sacrificing old people", because most good people would find this attitude of wilfull disregard for anothers health to the point of death, abhorrent; and without which our human society would devolve into anarchy. All it takes is a few more of you, and a few less of me, something you seem to be willfully promoting.

It's posts like these that's the reason why I don't put people on ignore, here or anywhere else, because someone has to stand in front of it BEFORE it gains momentum.

People don't like me or my views on many things in this forum, but I know I am on the right side of morality, which canot be said for you rorshach.

Edit - I also do not beleive rorshach has signed up for vaccine testing - I think he has said that to take the edge off the fact he has said multiple times he's happy to sacrifice other people as long as he can continue to make money.

And of course he will not provide proof of signing up, because that would give away his real identity, whereas I would happily post all manner of information about myself to any that asked.


----------



## RogerS (9 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":1iugak26 said:


> ..I know the risk, my family knows the risk, if it kills me, .....



Yeah..true. And meanwhile if you're not wearing a mask then you're spraying Covid out over everybody. Nice chap.

Are you in the 20-30 year old cohort who, seemingly, don't give a s**t ? Not just here but in other countries.


----------



## Rorschach (9 Aug 2020)

Garno":3awkp19z said:


> This is the exact reaction I was expecting, What you are saying is that you will do what you deem right regardless of what your actions do to others, the longer you do this the longer those at risk are unable to carry on with a normal life. It bothers you not one jot if those who are vulnerable remain in lockdown for 6 months or 6 years and that they cannot lead ordinary lives, this is providing that you and others can do as they wish.
> 
> I think you say these things in the forum for effect, you make out you don't care yet you have signed up to test the vaccines out :? that in my mind makes you an out and out hypocrite. You say one thing and do another, If (touch wood it never happens) your wife or one of your children contacted Covid and had it bad enough that they were hospitalised and their situation became critical I think you would be happy to wear a mask when visiting them or would you argue with the nurses that you should not? we both know the answer to that and so that shows us all that the rules shall be followed when it best suits your situation, the fact that you never really come out and admit to that as it does not suit your argument makes you nothing more than a troll that posts for a reaction as opposed to posting your true views.
> 
> If I had to take a yearly vaccine for Covid as I do with the flu then I would do so as that would no doubt be the advice given to me from someone a lot more qualified than yourself to give it.



As I said, if you want to have a vaccine as for flu, that's fine, you take care of yourself. Anyone I come into contact with outside has decided to take the risk of going out as have I, I am not going house to house infecting people on purpose, you will note I also said I do wear a mask in shops as the law dictates, despite my objection to it.

I never said I was testing vaccines, don't know where you got that idea, certainly not something I would get involved in. I have been asked to take part in an infection/antibody study. Still waiting to hear when that begins though. 

I am not trolling, these are my real views, my family know it and share some of them but not others.


----------



## Rorschach (9 Aug 2020)

RogerS":3t53iz1s said:


> Rorschach":3t53iz1s said:
> 
> 
> > ..I know the risk, my family knows the risk, if it kills me, .....
> ...



I am wearing a mask, Dr Bob already called me a hypocrite for doing so.


----------



## Garno (9 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":va8y4yoc said:


> I am wearing a mask, Dr Bob already called me a hypocrite for doing so.



And is he right?


----------



## Rorschach (9 Aug 2020)

Garno":12q0e145 said:


> Rorschach":12q0e145 said:
> 
> 
> > I am wearing a mask, Dr Bob already called me a hypocrite for doing so.
> ...



Probably a little. I am doing it for an easy life, I don't go out an awful lot anyway. I am not encouraging others to ditch their masks, they can wear one if they like, I am just against it being mandatory. I am also against the speed limit being 70, but I don't go around speeding to make my point. :wink:


----------



## Woody2Shoes (9 Aug 2020)

John Brown":1gwgmkvl said:


> Ok. Not directly. Except that he had a DOS that he supplied to IBM that ran on Intel chips, so could have been influential.
> To be honest, I heard him on Desert island discs a few years back, and apart from sounding exactly like Kermit the frog, he came across as a thoroughly nice guy. He made no mention of wanting to inject everybody with microchips as part of some nefarious world-domination plan.



Still not sure if you got my (quite good I thought) little punnette (which, if you had got it, might have suggested you knew that paged/segmented memory architecture was invented long before Intel tried to replicate it. As my computer science lecturer said, "the advent of the microprocessor set back the progress of computer science by about 20 years" - he meant: while all the engineers re-invented the wheels that the mathematicians had already designed and built!).

I agree, Bill Gates comes across as a well meaning sort of person. I'm sure there are others who will say he can afford the best PR but heyho.


----------



## MikeG. (9 Aug 2020)

Garno":2iophkxs said:


> Rorschach":2iophkxs said:
> 
> 
> > You are likely upset with me, that's fine. I respect what you say here and I have always defended the rights of individuals to do as they see fit and have always encouraged those most at risk to protect themselves.
> ...



I just so wish the quote function worked in a different way so that the hypocritical, illogical, self-satisfied, selfishness of some trolls could remain properly hidden. This particular one would have been perfectly happy for my wife to die as a price well worth paying so that he could strut about without letting a trivial little global pandemic interfere with his lifestyle.


----------



## Trevanion (9 Aug 2020)

RogerS":2ufe1lvl said:


> Are you in the 20-30 year old cohort who, seemingly, don't give a s**t ? Not just here but in other countries.



I guess I'd fit in that cohort, although in the last 5 months aside from being at home I've only been to work and the chiropractor because:

A: I really do not want to catch it 
B: If I do somehow catch it, I don't want anyone to catch it on my account.
C: My leg needed fixing, mask worn at all times even when it wasn't necessary.

Now, everyone I talk to in passing at a distance (When you've got a big roll-up door on the side of the road people tend to stop and chat, I've been playing the radio full-blast to passively deter people from coming in) keeps droning on about how ignorant and rude the 60+ brigade have been locally, particularly the tourists. Really petty things mostly like refusing to fill out T&T forms, not observing any form of social distancing and getting all uppity about their rights and such, and these are the people most at risk.

I guess it goes to show there's still selfish kunts at every age bracket.


----------



## John Brown (9 Aug 2020)

Woody2Shoes":1byqnw3d said:


> John Brown":1byqnw3d said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. Not directly. Except that he had a DOS that he supplied to IBM that ran on Intel chips, so could have been influential.
> ...


Yes, I did appreciate your pun, although I didn't actually see it the first time I read your post. You may be right about the invention of the microprocessor, I wouldn't know, as I didn't come from a mainframe background, I was fixing video games built of 74 series logic chips, when 8080s and 6502s suddenly appeared on the PCBs.


----------



## Lons (9 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":18czh53u said:


> As I said, if you want to have a vaccine as for flu, that's fine, you take care of yourself. Anyone I come into contact with outside has decided to take the risk of going out as have I, I am not going house to house infecting people on purpose, you will note I also said I do wear a mask in shops as the law dictates, despite my objection to it.
> 
> I never said I was testing vaccines, don't know where you got that idea, certainly not something I would get involved in. I have been asked to take part in an infection/antibody study. Still waiting to hear when that begins though.
> 
> I am not trolling, these are my real views, my family know it and share some of them but not others.


Hypocrite is far too mild a word for Karen IMHO.
As far as the testing study is concerned and without reading back I'm pretty certain he said " It's a nice little earner". Says a lot about the bloke who's only interested in himself and money.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (9 Aug 2020)

Woody2Shoes":77mvbv29 said:


> I've noticed before that you seem to have an inexplicable blindspot for the actions of Putin's Russia - maybe you've consumed some of their Kool-Aid (electronic or otherwise)?
> 
> I think your animosity towards Bill Gates is misplaced - far more noteworthy is Trump's removal of the US from the WHO.



Russiagate is proven to have been made up nonsense. Evil Russia is a theme promoted ever since Putin threw out the billionaire thieves who were selling the country piecemeal, and the Ukrainian chaos was caused directly by the West in order to put pressure on Russia and give nato a reason for existence. The endless propaganda about Russia is tiresome. Is Russia a free democracy? Probably no less than most western nations. We lock up people without Habius corpus, we prosecute whistle blowers rather than the corruption they expose, etc, etc, etc. I'm sure that you can find any number of instances of Russian corruption, but one thing they haven't done is killed over 20 million people since WWII. That milestone is entirely to be owned by the free, Democratic west. https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-ki ... ii/5492051

Bill Gates has too much money, and therefore too much power. He is answerable to no one, but any politician coming into his orbit will be powerless to deny him, because of the power his money brings to reelection chances. Bill seems a nice enough guy, and I don't buy into the idea that he wants to cull the human race, but who made him top medical advisor to the world? He bought that position. It's not as if he was any good at stopping viruses when he was at Microsoft...


----------



## MikeG. (9 Aug 2020)

Lons":3ur6xuyo said:


> ........Hypocrite is far too mild a word for Karen IMHO......



What's this "Karen" thing all about?


----------



## MikeG. (9 Aug 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2ulpn7cj said:


> ........Bill Gates has too much money, and therefore too much power.....



But he is doing his level best to do good with it. Malaria research has jumped ahead because of his input, for instance. Why is it that someone trying to do the right thing by the impoverished and downtrodden of this planet is in your crosshairs?


----------



## Chris152 (9 Aug 2020)

MikeG.":r7a3p5qs said:


> Lons":r7a3p5qs said:
> 
> 
> > ........Hypocrite is far too mild a word for Karen IMHO......
> ...


It's something to do with 'Essex (?) girl's' perspective on the world Mike - my kids tried to explain it to me a while back but I'm not sure I got it.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (9 Aug 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2zhvueji said:


> Woody2Shoes":2zhvueji said:
> 
> 
> > I've noticed before that you seem to have an inexplicable blindspot for the actions of Putin's Russia - maybe you've consumed some of their Kool-Aid (electronic or otherwise)?
> ...



I rest my case m'lud.....


----------



## selectortone (9 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":38mr5i46 said:


> selectortone":38mr5i46 said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":38mr5i46 said:
> ...



Well, that's rather hard to quantify isn't it? Given there are no graphs or stats for people who converge on southern beaches and sit for several hours in a seething ant-heap of humanity, and then disperse back to their homes all over the south of England.

We get day trippers from as far away as Nottingham and Leicester. Who's to say that those hotspots in the Midlands didn't kick off after someone contracted the virus on a day trip to the beach? Does that sound far-fetched? Any more than some of the conjecture you come out with? Could there possibly be a link to the current rise in infections in the USA and all those mass gatherings to celebrate the 4th of July?

edit to add: I've just now revisited this thread after 24hrs - after responding, I see that others have made similar points.


----------



## selectortone (9 Aug 2020)

Woody2Shoes":1u23ds0f said:


> I've noticed before that you seem to have an inexplicable blindspot for the actions of Putin's Russia - maybe you've consumed some of their Kool-Aid (electronic or otherwise)?



I've long ago come to the conclusion that our friend who purports to be a greek farmer is actually sat in one of those fake news factories in Russia. It's the only logical explanation for all the disinformation he relentlessly churns out. Yeah, I know... paranoid or what. But they have a very sophisticated operation going on over there. It's not just facebook and twitter.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (9 Aug 2020)

selectortone":3se0i5qu said:


> Woody2Shoes":3se0i5qu said:
> 
> 
> > I've noticed before that you seem to have an inexplicable blindspot for the actions of Putin's Russia - maybe you've consumed some of their Kool-Aid (electronic or otherwise)?
> ...


He got very uppity with me when I suggested it some months ago. The most charitable explanation I can come up with is that he's been drinking the KoolAid rather than manufacturing it.


----------



## selectortone (9 Aug 2020)

Woody2Shoes":3tjb4lfc said:


> selectortone":3tjb4lfc said:
> 
> 
> > Woody2Shoes":3tjb4lfc said:
> ...



He has a pretty good internet connection for somebody sat in depths of the Greek countryside.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (9 Aug 2020)

selectortone":rcoy0cyb said:


> Woody2Shoes":rcoy0cyb said:
> 
> 
> > I've noticed before that you seem to have an inexplicable blindspot for the actions of Putin's Russia - maybe you've consumed some of their Kool-Aid (electronic or otherwise)?
> ...



As far as I know, the only people who have deployed chemical weapons within 50 miles of where I live, and who currently have multiple nuclear warheads targeted on sites within a similar radius, are answerable to Putin.


----------



## Rorschach (9 Aug 2020)

I am not quite sure who is acting like a Karen? Nobody here, even those I disagree with could be described that way.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Karen


----------



## Lons (9 Aug 2020)

Rorschach":2qumbfnp said:


> I am not quite sure who is acting like a Karen? Nobody here, even those I disagree with could be described that way.
> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Karen


A bit odd that you picked up on that rather than the direct accusation that you're interested only in yourself and money. 
I and others might well mean something very different by the word Karen and I'm perfectly happy to call you something else but you're not worth getting banned for. :wink: 

You won't read this of course as you decided to ignore me many pages ago.


----------



## RogerS (9 Aug 2020)

Trainee neophyte":1v3q9dgm said:


> Woody2Shoes":1v3q9dgm said:
> 
> 
> > I've noticed before that you seem to have an inexplicable blindspot for the actions of Putin's Russia - maybe you've consumed some of their Kool-Aid (electronic or otherwise)?
> ...



ROTFLAMO


----------



## Trainee neophyte (11 Aug 2020)

It turns out that, unlike almost everyone else who likes to contribute to this thread, I am not living in a state of perpetual fear and panic induced by the media and government combined terror propaganda services. Some of things I am not scared of:

Russian tank divisions thundering through the Fulder Gap to over-run NATO countries.
Russians generally (except when driving).
Covid19
Catastrophic anthropomorphic climate change
Brexit
China

The list goes on, but hopefully you get the point. The real problem is that, because I don't subscribe to the fear message, I am an outcast, an unbeliever, a blasphemer, and possibly a witch to boot. (If you want to weigh me and see if I am really a witch, you will need a duck that weighs more than 90kg. Just trying to be helpful.)

On that note, here is an article that will make you all seethe: it accuses the mask wearing new - normalists of being somewhat detached from reality, to put it mildly. Are you man enough to read it, even if you disagree? 



> They’re here! No, not the pod people from _Invasion of the Body Snatchers_. We’re not being colonized by giant alien fruit. I’m afraid it is a little more serious than that. People’s minds are being taken over by a much more destructive and less otherworldly force … a force that transforms them overnight into aggressively paranoid, order-following, propaganda-parroting totalitarians.
> 
> You know the people I’m talking about. Some of them are probably your friends and family, people you have known for years, and who had always seemed completely rational, but who are now convinced that we need to radically alter the fabric of human society to protect ourselves from a virus that causes mild to moderate flu-like symptoms (or absolutely no symptoms at all) in over 95% of those infected, and that over 99.6% survive, which, it goes without saying, is totally insane.[\quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Trainee neophyte (11 Aug 2020)

selectortone said:


> I've long ago come to the conclusion that our friend who purports to be a greek farmer is actually sat in one of those fake news factories in Russia. It's the only logical explanation for all the disinformation he relentlessly churns out. Yeah, I know... paranoid or what. But they have a very sophisticated operation going on over there. It's not just facebook and twitter.


It's not often I get called sophisticated. Thank you. 

You are welcome to come and visit - it's really quite nice where I live. Hardly a goolag in sight. In the meantime, Russia has announced announced a working vaccine today, but it it's probably a despicable plot to undermine western values, or something.


----------



## MikeG. (11 Aug 2020)

.......announced a working vaccine without publishing any results, and before the stage C trials had completed. You're perfectly welcome to rush out to have that stuck in your arm, but I'll just wait until some proper science is completed, thanks.


----------



## Droogs (11 Aug 2020)

To Quote TN (my retort as to why he is not scared is in Italics)
It turns out that, unlike almost everyone else who likes to contribute to this thread, I am not living in a state of perpetual fear and panic induced by the media and government combined terror propaganda services. Some of things I am not scared of:

Russian tank divisions thundering through the Fulder Gap to over-run NATO countries. _*They no longer have enough tanks or petrol money to have enough divisions operational to do that*_
Russians generally (except when driving). _* TN still thinks the Russians have that many tank divisions*_
Covid19 *He lives too far away for anyone to bother walking that far to give him it*
Catastrophic anthropomorphic climate change _*His hammock is up high enough to not be drowned by rising sea levels*_
Brexit *Tn already lives in an economic hellhole*
China* TN lives in a place where they know how to break a plate*


----------



## Trainee neophyte (11 Aug 2020)

Droogs said:


> To Quote TN (my retort as to why he is not scared is in Italics)
> It turns out that, unlike almost everyone else who likes to contribute to this thread, I am not living in a state of perpetual fear and panic induced by the media and government combined terror propaganda services. Some of things I am not scared of:
> 
> Russian tank divisions thundering through the Fulder Gap to over-run NATO countries. _*They no longer have enough tanks or petrol money to have enough divisions operational to do that*_
> ...


Not a bad effort - well done for having a go. 

About Russian driving: 

As for the rest of it - I'm sure you can do better. You are in danger of coming over as vindictive, which I am sure isn't your intent.


----------



## Garno (11 Aug 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Not a bad effort - well done for having a go.
> 
> About Russian driving:
> 
> As for the rest of it - I'm sure you can do better. You are in danger of coming over as vindictive, which I am sure isn't your intent.




The one with the camper van on the trailer was funny


----------



## Trainee neophyte (11 Aug 2020)

Back on topic, Covid Travel: Wearing Masks, In These 22 Countries Most Do

Which countries wear masks, and which don't: the USA, full of mad, independent-minded gun - toting loonies is at 65%, and the UK down at 25%. Allegedly.


----------



## Droogs (11 Aug 2020)

All meant as tongue in cheek TN


----------



## Trainee neophyte (12 Aug 2020)

Droogs said:


> All meant as tongue in cheek TN


----------



## Rorschach (12 Aug 2020)

Went out for Lunch yesterday. Chap came into the restaurant wearing a mask, fair enough, he then sat down still wearing it, fair enough maybe. He then ate, sliding the mask down for each sip of drink or bite of food, putting it back up afterwards. Some very strange people.

Also, can anyone explain the purpose of those clear visors I am starting to see more of? I am sure they are much more comfortable to wear than a face masks in hot weather, but what benefit are they supposed to give? Strikes me they are worse than masks with valves on them.


----------



## sploo (12 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> Also, can anyone explain the purpose of those clear visors I am starting to see more of? I am sure they are much more comfortable to wear than a face masks in hot weather, but what benefit are they supposed to give? Strikes me they are worse than masks with valves on them.


Aerosol guard likely. Common for medical staff - someone coughing/sneezing in your eyes is a great virus vector.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Aug 2020)

sploo said:


> Aerosol guard likely. Common for medical staff - someone coughing/sneezing in your eyes is a great virus vector.



Why aren't we all told to wear visors then? I see a visor as much less antisocial and problematic than a face mask.


----------



## John Brown (13 Aug 2020)

Where would we get 60 million visors from? Probably not practicle.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Aug 2020)

Since when did "practical" come into any of this? We haven't done anything practical or sensible since March 22nd


----------



## John Brown (13 Aug 2020)

I said "practicle", not "practical". Please don't misquote me


----------



## Trevanion (13 Aug 2020)

John Brown said:


> I said "practicle", not "practical". Please don't misquote me



I think you might've been looking for practicable, not practicle.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Aug 2020)

John Brown said:


> I said "practicle", not "practical". Please don't misquote me



I didn't misquote you, I used the word myself and put it in quotation marks for emphasis.


----------



## John Brown (13 Aug 2020)

Anyway, ignoring my culpable typo, which I unsuccessfully tried to make light of, I still maintain that, while most people can run up or improvise a mask, very few have the skills or equipment to make a visor, and I very much doubt that supplies are available in the necessary quantities. I am not a fan of the current shower-in-power, but I try to give them credit for the occasional sensible decision.


----------



## John Brown (13 Aug 2020)

Trevanion said:


> I think you might've been looking for practicable, not practicle.


Thanks, but no, it was just a typo.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Aug 2020)

John Brown said:


> Anyway, ignoring my culpable typo, which I unsuccessfully tried to make light of, I still maintain that, while most people can run up or improvise a mask, very few have the skills or equipment to make a visor, and I very much doubt that supplies are available in the necessary quantities. I am not a fan of the current shower-in-power, but I try to give them credit for the occasional sensible decision.



Sorry I didn't get the humour, it can be hard to see that in text form, not your fault there.


I suppose you are right regarding DIY for masks as opposed to visors. If visors were good though I would have thought they would have been recommended by the Gov, I haven't seen that, but I might have missed it. The message seems to be preventing people breathing on each other, which I suppose a mask is better at dissipating rather than a visor. 

Anyway I notice social media has gone back to berating people for enjoying themselves on beaches, just like they did a few months ago, even though nothing bad happened. I am sure some people (some members here for certain) have enforced misery on themselves and just want everyone to be as miserable as they are. Not a new trend though.


----------



## sploo (14 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> Why aren't we all told to wear visors then? I see a visor as much less antisocial and problematic than a face mask.


I guess the benefits of a face mask are that you don't cough/sneeze over others (and it's a minor reminder to try to not touch your face). A visor is more effective for stopping you being coughed/sneezed on; which is going to be a bigger issue for a doctor treating patients.


----------



## Rorschach (14 Aug 2020)

sploo said:


> I guess the benefits of a face mask are that you don't cough/sneeze over others (and it's a minor reminder to try to not touch your face). A visor is more effective for stopping you being coughed/sneezed on; which is going to be a bigger issue for a doctor treating patients.



Well ironically I didn't touch my face once for over 4 months when out in public, as soon as I started wearing a mask I have to touch my face several times a minute to adjust the damn thing or scratch my face. Everyone I see in public is constantly fiddling with their masks as well.


----------



## sploo (14 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> Well ironically I didn't touch my face once for over 4 months when out in public


_Maybe_. It's something people tend to do subconciously; far more than they realise.


----------



## Droogs (14 Aug 2020)

the estimates are between 15 to 23 times an hour depending if you are in public or private for some reason


----------



## Rorschach (14 Aug 2020)

I definitely didn't touch my face before the masks. We had a procedure, I was the "dirty" one who touched items in the shops and pushed the trolley, my partner read the list, chose the items, paid, held the shopping bags etc. If I had an itch she would scratch it for me and she would confirm that I never touched my face until I wore a mask.

I fully accept that in normal circumstances we do touch our faces a lot, and at home I am sure I do it without thinking, but when you are concentrating and thinking about it constantly it's very easy to avoid. We have had a lot of practice from travelling on the underground and would watch each other to make sure we didn't do it. We never got sick in London even when friends travelling with us did.


----------



## selectortone (14 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> Anyway I notice social media has gone back to berating people for enjoying themselves on beaches, just like they did a few months ago, even though nothing bad happened.



How can you possibly be sure 'nothing bad happened'? As I said previously (and you conspicuously ignored) that's rather hard to quantify, given there are no graphs or stats for people who converge on southern beaches, and sit for several hours in a seething ant-heap of humanity, and then disperse back to their homes all over the south of England and beyond.

Here in Bournemouth we get day trippers from as far away as Nottingham and Leicester. Some of the idiots defacing and befouling Durdle Door were from Manchester. Who's to say that those hotspots in the Midlands and around Manchester didn't kick off after people contracted the virus on a day trip to the beach?


----------



## Rorschach (14 Aug 2020)

Well the BBC, who arguably are most culpable for the moral outrage against normal people and the damage caused to the country by forcing a lockdown say no.









Did Bournemouth beach crowds spread coronavirus?


One month ago, thousands of people visited a beach in Bournemouth, but did they spread coronavirus?



www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## selectortone (14 Aug 2020)

Nice try, but that BBC article is talking about increases in infections in Bournemouth. And then it goes on to say exactly what I did - they have no way of telling if visitors spread the infection among themselves and then took it home with them.

Edit to add: not surprised at all that the infection rate here only rose marginally - Bournemouth residents know better than to go to the grockle hotspots even in normal times.


----------



## Rorschach (14 Aug 2020)

Did you read all of it? It also looks at other tourist hotspots.
At the time you will recall there were cries of "second wave" accompanying the pictures of the beach. Hmmm how did that turn out.
It's ok to admit you were wrong you know, the world won't end. But of course no-one on here ever does, just tow the line and stay stubborn lest you look foolish.


----------



## selectortone (14 Aug 2020)

Yes, I did read it all. Read it a while ago actually. It makes exactly my point. 

The words 'pot 'kettle' and 'black' are coming to mind here. I'm not the one posting garbage every five minutes, as you can see by my post count.


----------



## Lons (14 Aug 2020)

selectortone said:


> The words 'pot 'kettle' and 'black' are coming to mind here. I'm not the one posting garbage every five minutes, as you can see by my post count.


The Emperor's new clothes comes to mind as well, the guy suggesting it's ok to admit you're wrong never does so himself.


----------



## Rorschach (14 Aug 2020)

When I am proved wrong, I will admit it, I am not too proud to do that unlike some.

As usual though, all piling on the insults while I remain polite and keep to the topic and avoid personal attacks.


----------



## selectortone (14 Aug 2020)

Hey, you started with the insults pal. It's a two way street.


----------



## Rorschach (14 Aug 2020)

Please point out my insult.

I see Roger still like to look in lol.


----------



## selectortone (14 Aug 2020)

*sigh*

The insults started with implying that I was 'stubborn' and 'looking foolish'. Now, I'm a big boy and that's water off a duck's back, but you did ask.

I can't remember the last time I had a _'You started it!' 'No, You did!!!' _argument. It must have been 65 years ago with my sister.


----------



## Rorschach (15 Aug 2020)

I wouldn't say calling someone stubborn was an insult (I am fairly stubborn myself) and it was directed at a group rather than you specifically but oh well. If you are a big boy though as you say, why fuss about it in the first place? You obviously were bothered enough to throw an actual insult at me.

Anyway I'll leave it there, please if you don't like what I say, don't engage, ignore me, do a Roger and a snipe from afar if you must (lol). But please don't attack me personally.


----------



## RogerS (15 Aug 2020)

selectortone said:


> *sigh*
> 
> The insults started with implying that I was 'stubborn' and 'looking foolish'. Now, I'm a big boy and that's water off a duck's back, but you did ask.
> 
> I can't remember the last time I had a _'You started it!' 'No, You did!!!' _argument. It must have been 65 years ago with my sister.


I heartily recommend the use of the Ignore option. It removes all the drivel from a thread! NB I'm not Ignoring you ....


----------



## selectortone (15 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> .... why fuss about it in the first place?



Not fussing at all. You're the one who upped the ante with the first personal dig:

"I_t's ok to admit you were wrong you know, the world won't end. But of course no-one on here ever does, just tow (sic) the line and stay stubborn lest you look foolish._"

Prior to that I was, quite reasonably I thought, pointing out that one can't categorically state that "nothing bad" happened after the mass gatherings at Bournemouth beach and other places, where social distancing went out the window - because people dispersed all over the country and it's impossible to quantify. You then posted a rebuttal link to a BBC report that in fact actually agreed with me, i.e.:

_"We also don't know if visitors spread the infection among themselves and then returned with it to their home areas."_

And then you took umbrage and started with the personal stuff. Just so we get the facts straight.


----------



## Rorschach (25 Aug 2020)

Face masks for kids in schools, who comes up with this idiocy? Has anyone in the Scottish government actually got or met a teenager?

Also, first confirmed case of reinfection, puts even more doubt on an effective vaccine.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (25 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> Face masks for kids in schools, who comes up with this idiocy? Has anyone in the Scottish government actually got or met a teenager?
> 
> Also, first confirmed case of reinfection, puts even more doubt on an effective vaccine.


I wouldn't put too much stock in the fear pron. One confirmed reinfection, out of a total of 23 million cases. I know everyone was desperate to find a case, and run around with their hair on fire accordingly, but a one in 23 million chance - I'll take those odds.

About the masks et al: Argonaut's Norris: 'Fraud' lockdown was the 'biggest policy error since WWI'



> Norris believes the UK Government initially sought to follow Sweden's lead, but Prime Minister Boris Johnson "bottled it" for fear of facing tough allegations from mainstream media.
> 
> "Boris was told, if he didn't lock down, journalists will ask him on national television to accept responsibility and apologise to the families of those who have died as a result of Covid-19, because the rhetoric would have been that is was his fault for not locking down," the manager continued.
> 
> ...


----------



## Droogs (25 Aug 2020)

3 cases TN, Hong Kong, Belgium, Netherlands


----------



## Trainee neophyte (25 Aug 2020)

Droogs said:


> 3 cases TN, Hong Kong, Belgium, Netherlands


So that's it then: we're all going to die. Good job my will is up to date.


----------



## Droogs (25 Aug 2020)

If we are all going to die, does it matter TN if it isn't?


----------



## Rorschach (26 Aug 2020)

If it does turn out immunity is as short lived as 6 months then you might all have to admit I was right, that's a fate worse than death anyway.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (26 Aug 2020)

Droogs said:


> If we are all going to die, does it matter TN if it isn't?


Glad _someone_ picked up on that.


----------



## clogs (26 Aug 2020)

for saftey's sake nobody has mentiond condoms yet.........hahaha......
might be retired but not at the stage for a pie n a pint thanks.....
sorry it's just my sence of humor.....

here in Crete they just done a survey about masks and the take up was pretty good......
on a similar note.....

90% of moped and mortorcycle riders either dont wear a helmet or it's on their elbow......
aparantly there 's nothing to say u have to put it on yer head....u just have wear it....
madness...


----------



## Rorschach (22 Sep 2020)

These masks are working well aren't they


----------



## artie (22 Sep 2020)

Rorschach said:


> These masks are working well aren't they


Yep hardly any deaths or sickness before, now masks are in "cases" are going through the roof.


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Sep 2020)

Rorschach said:


> These masks are working well aren't they


working well in countries like South Korea, Singapore.


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Sep 2020)

Rorschach said:


> Well the BBC, who arguably are most culpable for the moral outrage against normal people and the damage caused to the country by forcing a lockdown say no.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that picture was in all the main papers at the time
you have just picked BBC to suit your narrative


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Sep 2020)

Droogs said:


> I am not living in a state of perpetual fear and panic



EDIT: Droogs quoted TN (my apologies)

nor is anybody that is concerned by the virus.

you are using emotive language which conflates informed debate with irrational fear.

emotive language I might suggest is typically used by the Daily mail.



Droogs said:


> again the above was Droogs quoting TN(my apologies)
> media and government combined terror propaganda services


no such thing


----------



## Droogs (22 Sep 2020)

@RobinBHM Your quotations are not my words but those of another member being quoted by me. Please correct your last post, thank you


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Sep 2020)

Rorschach said:


> I don't see it as selfish to ask be allowed to live my life and ask for that same freedom for others who feel the same. I know the risk, my family knows the risk, if it kills me, then I only have myself to blame exactly the same as when I get into my car and go for a drive



Unfortunately you dont understand how dealing with a pandemic requires a collective effort.

wearing a face mask does not you, it protects the others around you. and if they wear a mask it helps to protect you.


you are wrong to think you should have the freedom "because only you will die from your actions"........reducing the R value to below 1 requires social distancing on a collective scale

Its like a student house with a shared kitchen....its always filthy because something that is everybody's responsibility becomes nobody's responsibility....


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Sep 2020)

Droogs said:


> @RobinBHM Your quotations are not my words but those of another member being quoted by me. Please correct your last post, thank you


Done -my apologies, I misread you post.


----------



## Rorschach (22 Sep 2020)

Robins back, taking things out of context and talking twaddle again lol


----------



## lurker (22 Sep 2020)

RobinBHM said:


> Its like a student house with a shared kitchen....its always filthy because something that is everybody's responsibility becomes nobody's responsibility....



When my son was in a shared student house, I used to go there once in a while, when he was not there (it was only 15 miles away) and clean the kitchen and put out the rubbish. Used to take at least 3 hours but was very satisfying!
He used to get furious. His mates still talk about it nearly 20 years later.


----------



## lurker (22 Sep 2020)

Rorschach said:


> Robins back, taking things out of context and talking twaddle again lol


Kettle, pot.


----------



## Rorschach (22 Sep 2020)

lurker said:


> Kettle, pot.



Can't say that now, it's racist.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (22 Sep 2020)

]



RobinBHM said:


> Its like a student house with a shared kitchen....its always filthy because something that is everybody's responsibility becomes nobody's responsibility











Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## lurker (22 Sep 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> ]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting!


----------



## lurker (22 Sep 2020)

Rorschach said:


> Can't say that now, it's racist.



Some of my best friends are pots and kettles


----------



## jackal (23 Sep 2020)

Rorschach said:


> These masks are working well aren't they


I suppose not is you wear them on the forehead!!!


----------

