Face masks

[Suffolkboy]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Spot on.

 

[Trevanion]

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]

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]

'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]

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]

....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]

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]

Use this

 

[Lons]

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]

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.