The big Coronavirus thread

rick_chasey

Entirely depends on what governments mean by “mandatory” vaccines.

oblongomaculatus

surrey_commuter said:

oblongomaculatus said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

This article summarising various studies is already more than a year old. I really don't think it is in doubt that they are effective in reducing transmission. They are not a magic wand, nor are any of the other measures you mention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

They are mildy inconvenient/uncomfortable in the same way that most PPE is. Wearing them with glasses is tricky, but if that's the biggest challenge you face in the day, life is treating you well.

Well, I doubt their effectiveness, for one. Some data on infection reduction, as a percentage is what I've been looking for, and failed to find, which as I said leads me to think it's a very low number. We might get some indication on that soon though, since the only restriction introduced so far is mandatory masks on pubic transport and in shops. If they are measurably effective, you'd expect, in two or three weeks, for infection rates to begin to drop, as significantly more people are now wearing them in those settings.

My scepticism is based on the size of the pores, which are visible if you hold them up to the light, v the size of the microscopic drops of water vapour that carry the virus in the air. I'd liken it to trying to catch damp sand with a tennis racquet. A few grains will stick to the strings, but the vast majority of it will fly straight through. Plus, as someone else has said, the way they are generally worn means what happens in the real world is likely to fall far short of laboratory testing.

And, as I said yesterday, personally I find them rather more than mildly inconvenient. The continual feeling of suffocation is most unpleasant.

could you let us know how many people currentlyget infected in shops and public transport so we can measure the drop off.

If you feel like you are suffocating then you may have an underlying condition which means that your blood oxygen levels are low. You should get yourself tested.

I don't think that sort of detail in the data is available, at least not to the public. But the general rate of infection, which has been announced daily, would surely drop off sharply once the effect of more people now wearing them starts to kick in, if indeed they are as effective as is claimed. My point about that was that the government, by constantly emphasising their importance in virtually every statement (sometimes mentioning them ahead of vaccination) has created an inflated impression of their effectiveness. I think this has led to some people believing wearing a mask creates a shield of invulnerability around them and everyone near them. I wouldn't mind the mandatory aspect so much if the government came clean, and said something like "masks can help in reducing transmission, but only by five percent*. All the same, please wear them as even a small reduction is very helpful."

*or whatever the figure is

As to your second point, that has occurred to me, though I doubt it, as I never encounter any breathing problems when cycling, even at maximum effort (100 miles on the turbo last Saturday, at a good pace, for example, tired at the end but no breathing issues).

rjsterry

joe2019 said:

rjsterry said:

Knowing someone who has lived in an actual dictatorship (Belarus) I suspect that Australia is not actually like a dictatorship. You won't get bundled into a van, beaten and disappeared just for saying you don't think much of Scott Morrison.

I guess it was a figure of speech.

Probably. I have a low tolerance for equating public health measures with authoritarianism. Neil Oliver being a particular current nadir.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Entirely depends on what governments mean by “mandatory” vaccines.

The suspense is killing me. What are you driving at? Voluntary vaccines unless you happen to want to leave the house, that sort of thing?

I tend to favour making it more difficult to function in society without a vaccine, by requiring it for as many public spaces as possible, but otherwise leaving it as a choice. This means vaccine passports, I think.

I know the theory goes that you need to persuade rather than cajole, but the people who are refusing vaccines now are, by and large just doubling down on their own initial idiocy and I'm far beyond giving a shit about their sensibilities.

If they want to sulk on their own that's fine as long as I'm not put at unnecessary risk or restriction by their misplaced indignance of what a free society actually is (i.e. too much emphasis on free, not enough on society).

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Entirely depends on what governments mean by “mandatory” vaccines.

The suspense is killing me. What are you driving at? Voluntary vaccines unless you happen to want to leave the house, that sort of thing?

I tend to favour making it more difficult to function in society without a vaccine, by requiring it for as many public spaces as possible, but otherwise leaving it as a choice. This means vaccine passports, I think.

I know the theory goes that you need to persuade rather than cajole, but the people who are refusing vaccines now are, by and large just doubling down on their own initial idiocy and I'm far beyond giving a censored about their sensibilities.

If they want to sulk on their own that's fine as long as I'm not put at unnecessary risk or restriction by their misplaced indignance of what a free society actually is (i.e. too much emphasis on free, not enough on society).

I think there is quite a big gap between forcibly injecting people with the help of the police and restricting access to certain public spaces and services without a vaccine passport.

They both come under "mandatory vaccines". I think the more vaccine resistant lot see police dragging people out of their homes to get injected when they hear "mandatory vaccines". I don't think that's what governments mean when they say "mandatory vaccines"

Ben6899

joe2019 said:

briantrumpet said:

joe2019 said:

rjsterry said:

Knowing someone who has lived in an actual dictatorship (Belarus) I suspect that Australia is not actually like a dictatorship. You won't get bundled into a van, beaten and disappeared just for saying you don't think much of Scott Morrison.

I guess it was a figure of speech.

Maybe use the right words then?

Who the F%%K do you think you are?

It’s an authoritarian democracy. Got lots of mates [from] there, spent time there.

Could do with a bit of the same here, tbh, rules being properly enforced and all that.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Entirely depends on what governments mean by “mandatory” vaccines.

The suspense is killing me. What are you driving at? Voluntary vaccines unless you happen to want to leave the house, that sort of thing?

I tend to favour making it more difficult to function in society without a vaccine, by requiring it for as many public spaces as possible, but otherwise leaving it as a choice. This means vaccine passports, I think.

I know the theory goes that you need to persuade rather than cajole, but the people who are refusing vaccines now are, by and large just doubling down on their own initial idiocy and I'm far beyond giving a censored about their sensibilities.

If they want to sulk on their own that's fine as long as I'm not put at unnecessary risk or restriction by their misplaced indignance of what a free society actually is (i.e. too much emphasis on free, not enough on society).

I think there is quite a big gap between forcibly injecting people with the help of the police and restricting access to certain public spaces and services without a vaccine passport.

They both come under "mandatory vaccines". I think the more vaccine resistant lot see police dragging people out of their homes to get injected when they hear "mandatory vaccines". I don't think that's what governments mean when they say "mandatory vaccines"

Whatabout the person in hospital who has been double jabbed. Whatabout the children. Whatabout the mate of mine who had it and is fine.

I'm utterly sick of them. Quite a few gravitate to this thread as well, which is interesting. Like a modern version of door to door Jehovah 's Witnesses.

TheBigBean

I can't get too excited about the unvaccinated. I see it as a sort of collective Darwin award, but I don't think it changes much for me.

rjsterry

oblongomaculatus said:

surrey_commuter said:

oblongomaculatus said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

This article summarising various studies is already more than a year old. I really don't think it is in doubt that they are effective in reducing transmission. They are not a magic wand, nor are any of the other measures you mention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

They are mildy inconvenient/uncomfortable in the same way that most PPE is. Wearing them with glasses is tricky, but if that's the biggest challenge you face in the day, life is treating you well.

Well, I doubt their effectiveness, for one. Some data on infection reduction, as a percentage is what I've been looking for, and failed to find, which as I said leads me to think it's a very low number. We might get some indication on that soon though, since the only restriction introduced so far is mandatory masks on pubic transport and in shops. If they are measurably effective, you'd expect, in two or three weeks, for infection rates to begin to drop, as significantly more people are now wearing them in those settings.

My scepticism is based on the size of the pores, which are visible if you hold them up to the light, v the size of the microscopic drops of water vapour that carry the virus in the air. I'd liken it to trying to catch damp sand with a tennis racquet. A few grains will stick to the strings, but the vast majority of it will fly straight through. Plus, as someone else has said, the way they are generally worn means what happens in the real world is likely to fall far short of laboratory testing.

And, as I said yesterday, personally I find them rather more than mildly inconvenient. The continual feeling of suffocation is most unpleasant.

could you let us know how many people currentlyget infected in shops and public transport so we can measure the drop off.

If you feel like you are suffocating then you may have an underlying condition which means that your blood oxygen levels are low. You should get yourself tested.

I don't think that sort of detail in the data is available, at least not to the public. But the general rate of infection, which has been announced daily, would surely drop off sharply once the effect of more people now wearing them starts to kick in, if indeed they are as effective as is claimed. My point about that was that the government, by constantly emphasising their importance in virtually every statement (sometimes mentioning them ahead of vaccination) has created an inflated impression of their effectiveness. I think this has led to some people believing wearing a mask creates a shield of invulnerability around them and everyone near them. I wouldn't mind the mandatory aspect so much if the government came clean, and said something like "masks can help in reducing transmission, but only by five percent*. All the same, please wear them as even a small reduction is very helpful."

*or whatever the figure is

As to your second point, that has occurred to me, though I doubt it, as I never encounter any breathing problems when cycling, even at maximum effort (100 miles on the turbo last Saturday, at a good pace, for example, tired at the end but no breathing issues).

The information is in the public domain. I posted the link to one example. The fact that it can't be simplified down to a neat number doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm sure there are improvements that could be made to the public health communications. The point about ventilation has been made a number of times on here. It feels a bit as if you are looking for a reason to back up your dislike of wearing one.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

surrey_commuter said:

oblongomaculatus said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

This article summarising various studies is already more than a year old. I really don't think it is in doubt that they are effective in reducing transmission. They are not a magic wand, nor are any of the other measures you mention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

They are mildy inconvenient/uncomfortable in the same way that most PPE is. Wearing them with glasses is tricky, but if that's the biggest challenge you face in the day, life is treating you well.

Well, I doubt their effectiveness, for one. Some data on infection reduction, as a percentage is what I've been looking for, and failed to find, which as I said leads me to think it's a very low number. We might get some indication on that soon though, since the only restriction introduced so far is mandatory masks on pubic transport and in shops. If they are measurably effective, you'd expect, in two or three weeks, for infection rates to begin to drop, as significantly more people are now wearing them in those settings.

My scepticism is based on the size of the pores, which are visible if you hold them up to the light, v the size of the microscopic drops of water vapour that carry the virus in the air. I'd liken it to trying to catch damp sand with a tennis racquet. A few grains will stick to the strings, but the vast majority of it will fly straight through. Plus, as someone else has said, the way they are generally worn means what happens in the real world is likely to fall far short of laboratory testing.

And, as I said yesterday, personally I find them rather more than mildly inconvenient. The continual feeling of suffocation is most unpleasant.

could you let us know how many people currentlyget infected in shops and public transport so we can measure the drop off.

If you feel like you are suffocating then you may have an underlying condition which means that your blood oxygen levels are low. You should get yourself tested.

I don't think that sort of detail in the data is available, at least not to the public. But the general rate of infection, which has been announced daily, would surely drop off sharply once the effect of more people now wearing them starts to kick in, if indeed they are as effective as is claimed. My point about that was that the government, by constantly emphasising their importance in virtually every statement (sometimes mentioning them ahead of vaccination) has created an inflated impression of their effectiveness. I think this has led to some people believing wearing a mask creates a shield of invulnerability around them and everyone near them. I wouldn't mind the mandatory aspect so much if the government came clean, and said something like "masks can help in reducing transmission, but only by five percent*. All the same, please wear them as even a small reduction is very helpful."

*or whatever the figure is

As to your second point, that has occurred to me, though I doubt it, as I never encounter any breathing problems when cycling, even at maximum effort (100 miles on the turbo last Saturday, at a good pace, for example, tired at the end but no breathing issues).

The information is in the public domain. I posted the link to one example. The fact that it can't be simplified down to a neat number doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm sure there are improvements that could be made to the public health communications. The point about ventilation has been made a number of times on here. It feels a bit as if you are looking for a reason to back up your dislike of wearing one.

Well put.

I'd go further to say that it seems to be a complicated issue that can't be explained sufficiently simply for some people to comprehend. Ideally those people would trust the highly qualified group of people trying to dumb it down for them, rather than erroneously assume that just because they can't comprehend, it must not exist.

It come back to the arrogance of ignorance again.

And yes I'm being intentionally and pointedly rude.

darkhairedlord

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

surrey_commuter said:

oblongomaculatus said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

This article summarising various studies is already more than a year old. I really don't think it is in doubt that they are effective in reducing transmission. They are not a magic wand, nor are any of the other measures you mention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

They are mildy inconvenient/uncomfortable in the same way that most PPE is. Wearing them with glasses is tricky, but if that's the biggest challenge you face in the day, life is treating you well.

Well, I doubt their effectiveness, for one. Some data on infection reduction, as a percentage is what I've been looking for, and failed to find, which as I said leads me to think it's a very low number. We might get some indication on that soon though, since the only restriction introduced so far is mandatory masks on pubic transport and in shops. If they are measurably effective, you'd expect, in two or three weeks, for infection rates to begin to drop, as significantly more people are now wearing them in those settings.

My scepticism is based on the size of the pores, which are visible if you hold them up to the light, v the size of the microscopic drops of water vapour that carry the virus in the air. I'd liken it to trying to catch damp sand with a tennis racquet. A few grains will stick to the strings, but the vast majority of it will fly straight through. Plus, as someone else has said, the way they are generally worn means what happens in the real world is likely to fall far short of laboratory testing.

And, as I said yesterday, personally I find them rather more than mildly inconvenient. The continual feeling of suffocation is most unpleasant.

could you let us know how many people currentlyget infected in shops and public transport so we can measure the drop off.

If you feel like you are suffocating then you may have an underlying condition which means that your blood oxygen levels are low. You should get yourself tested.

I don't think that sort of detail in the data is available, at least not to the public. But the general rate of infection, which has been announced daily, would surely drop off sharply once the effect of more people now wearing them starts to kick in, if indeed they are as effective as is claimed. My point about that was that the government, by constantly emphasising their importance in virtually every statement (sometimes mentioning them ahead of vaccination) has created an inflated impression of their effectiveness. I think this has led to some people believing wearing a mask creates a shield of invulnerability around them and everyone near them. I wouldn't mind the mandatory aspect so much if the government came clean, and said something like "masks can help in reducing transmission, but only by five percent*. All the same, please wear them as even a small reduction is very helpful."

*or whatever the figure is

As to your second point, that has occurred to me, though I doubt it, as I never encounter any breathing problems when cycling, even at maximum effort (100 miles on the turbo last Saturday, at a good pace, for example, tired at the end but no breathing issues).

The information is in the public domain. I posted the link to one example. The fact that it can't be simplified down to a neat number doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm sure there are improvements that could be made to the public health communications. The point about ventilation has been made a number of times on here. It feels a bit as if you are looking for a reason to back up your dislike of wearing one.

Well put.

I'd go further to say that it seems to be a complicated issue that can't be explained sufficiently simply for some people to comprehend. Ideally those people would trust the highly qualified group of people trying to dumb it down for them, rather than erroneously assume that just because they can't comprehend, it must not exist.

It come back to the arrogance of ignorance again.

And yes I'm being intentionally and pointedly rude.

At least they are not calling them face-nappies

DeVlaeminck

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

surrey_commuter said:

oblongomaculatus said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

This article summarising various studies is already more than a year old. I really don't think it is in doubt that they are effective in reducing transmission. They are not a magic wand, nor are any of the other measures you mention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

They are mildy inconvenient/uncomfortable in the same way that most PPE is. Wearing them with glasses is tricky, but if that's the biggest challenge you face in the day, life is treating you well.

Well, I doubt their effectiveness, for one. Some data on infection reduction, as a percentage is what I've been looking for, and failed to find, which as I said leads me to think it's a very low number. We might get some indication on that soon though, since the only restriction introduced so far is mandatory masks on pubic transport and in shops. If they are measurably effective, you'd expect, in two or three weeks, for infection rates to begin to drop, as significantly more people are now wearing them in those settings.

My scepticism is based on the size of the pores, which are visible if you hold them up to the light, v the size of the microscopic drops of water vapour that carry the virus in the air. I'd liken it to trying to catch damp sand with a tennis racquet. A few grains will stick to the strings, but the vast majority of it will fly straight through. Plus, as someone else has said, the way they are generally worn means what happens in the real world is likely to fall far short of laboratory testing.

And, as I said yesterday, personally I find them rather more than mildly inconvenient. The continual feeling of suffocation is most unpleasant.

could you let us know how many people currentlyget infected in shops and public transport so we can measure the drop off.

If you feel like you are suffocating then you may have an underlying condition which means that your blood oxygen levels are low. You should get yourself tested.

I don't think that sort of detail in the data is available, at least not to the public. But the general rate of infection, which has been announced daily, would surely drop off sharply once the effect of more people now wearing them starts to kick in, if indeed they are as effective as is claimed. My point about that was that the government, by constantly emphasising their importance in virtually every statement (sometimes mentioning them ahead of vaccination) has created an inflated impression of their effectiveness. I think this has led to some people believing wearing a mask creates a shield of invulnerability around them and everyone near them. I wouldn't mind the mandatory aspect so much if the government came clean, and said something like "masks can help in reducing transmission, but only by five percent*. All the same, please wear them as even a small reduction is very helpful."

*or whatever the figure is

As to your second point, that has occurred to me, though I doubt it, as I never encounter any breathing problems when cycling, even at maximum effort (100 miles on the turbo last Saturday, at a good pace, for example, tired at the end but no breathing issues).

The information is in the public domain. I posted the link to one example. The fact that it can't be simplified down to a neat number doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm sure there are improvements that could be made to the public health communications. The point about ventilation has been made a number of times on here. It feels a bit as if you are looking for a reason to back up your dislike of wearing one.

Well put.

I'd go further to say that it seems to be a complicated issue that can't be explained sufficiently simply for some people to comprehend. Ideally those people would trust the highly qualified group of people trying to dumb it down for them, rather than erroneously assume that just because they can't comprehend, it must not exist.

It come back to the arrogance of ignorance again.

And yes I'm being intentionally and pointedly rude.

Though to be fair initially during this pandemic both sage or at least the scientific advisors who spoke at the briefings and our govt were arguing there was no evidence masks were worth wearing when some of us on here were questioning that.

First.Aspect

DeVlaeminck said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

surrey_commuter said:

oblongomaculatus said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

This article summarising various studies is already more than a year old. I really don't think it is in doubt that they are effective in reducing transmission. They are not a magic wand, nor are any of the other measures you mention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

They are mildy inconvenient/uncomfortable in the same way that most PPE is. Wearing them with glasses is tricky, but if that's the biggest challenge you face in the day, life is treating you well.

Well, I doubt their effectiveness, for one. Some data on infection reduction, as a percentage is what I've been looking for, and failed to find, which as I said leads me to think it's a very low number. We might get some indication on that soon though, since the only restriction introduced so far is mandatory masks on pubic transport and in shops. If they are measurably effective, you'd expect, in two or three weeks, for infection rates to begin to drop, as significantly more people are now wearing them in those settings.

My scepticism is based on the size of the pores, which are visible if you hold them up to the light, v the size of the microscopic drops of water vapour that carry the virus in the air. I'd liken it to trying to catch damp sand with a tennis racquet. A few grains will stick to the strings, but the vast majority of it will fly straight through. Plus, as someone else has said, the way they are generally worn means what happens in the real world is likely to fall far short of laboratory testing.

And, as I said yesterday, personally I find them rather more than mildly inconvenient. The continual feeling of suffocation is most unpleasant.

could you let us know how many people currentlyget infected in shops and public transport so we can measure the drop off.

If you feel like you are suffocating then you may have an underlying condition which means that your blood oxygen levels are low. You should get yourself tested.

I don't think that sort of detail in the data is available, at least not to the public. But the general rate of infection, which has been announced daily, would surely drop off sharply once the effect of more people now wearing them starts to kick in, if indeed they are as effective as is claimed. My point about that was that the government, by constantly emphasising their importance in virtually every statement (sometimes mentioning them ahead of vaccination) has created an inflated impression of their effectiveness. I think this has led to some people believing wearing a mask creates a shield of invulnerability around them and everyone near them. I wouldn't mind the mandatory aspect so much if the government came clean, and said something like "masks can help in reducing transmission, but only by five percent*. All the same, please wear them as even a small reduction is very helpful."

*or whatever the figure is

As to your second point, that has occurred to me, though I doubt it, as I never encounter any breathing problems when cycling, even at maximum effort (100 miles on the turbo last Saturday, at a good pace, for example, tired at the end but no breathing issues).

The information is in the public domain. I posted the link to one example. The fact that it can't be simplified down to a neat number doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm sure there are improvements that could be made to the public health communications. The point about ventilation has been made a number of times on here. It feels a bit as if you are looking for a reason to back up your dislike of wearing one.

Well put.

I'd go further to say that it seems to be a complicated issue that can't be explained sufficiently simply for some people to comprehend. Ideally those people would trust the highly qualified group of people trying to dumb it down for them, rather than erroneously assume that just because they can't comprehend, it must not exist.

It come back to the arrogance of ignorance again.

And yes I'm being intentionally and pointedly rude.

Though to be fair initially during this pandemic both sage or at least the scientific advisors who spoke at the briefings and our govt were arguing there was no evidence masks were worth wearing when some of us on here were questioning that.

There was a time when we didn't know what a virus was, and wore leather masks filled with pot pourri to fend off the plague.

Things move on, but it takes at least some mental flexibility to change one's opinion in light of new information.

DeVlaeminck

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

surrey_commuter said:

oblongomaculatus said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

This article summarising various studies is already more than a year old. I really don't think it is in doubt that they are effective in reducing transmission. They are not a magic wand, nor are any of the other measures you mention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

They are mildy inconvenient/uncomfortable in the same way that most PPE is. Wearing them with glasses is tricky, but if that's the biggest challenge you face in the day, life is treating you well.

Well, I doubt their effectiveness, for one. Some data on infection reduction, as a percentage is what I've been looking for, and failed to find, which as I said leads me to think it's a very low number. We might get some indication on that soon though, since the only restriction introduced so far is mandatory masks on pubic transport and in shops. If they are measurably effective, you'd expect, in two or three weeks, for infection rates to begin to drop, as significantly more people are now wearing them in those settings.

My scepticism is based on the size of the pores, which are visible if you hold them up to the light, v the size of the microscopic drops of water vapour that carry the virus in the air. I'd liken it to trying to catch damp sand with a tennis racquet. A few grains will stick to the strings, but the vast majority of it will fly straight through. Plus, as someone else has said, the way they are generally worn means what happens in the real world is likely to fall far short of laboratory testing.

And, as I said yesterday, personally I find them rather more than mildly inconvenient. The continual feeling of suffocation is most unpleasant.

could you let us know how many people currentlyget infected in shops and public transport so we can measure the drop off.

If you feel like you are suffocating then you may have an underlying condition which means that your blood oxygen levels are low. You should get yourself tested.

I don't think that sort of detail in the data is available, at least not to the public. But the general rate of infection, which has been announced daily, would surely drop off sharply once the effect of more people now wearing them starts to kick in, if indeed they are as effective as is claimed. My point about that was that the government, by constantly emphasising their importance in virtually every statement (sometimes mentioning them ahead of vaccination) has created an inflated impression of their effectiveness. I think this has led to some people believing wearing a mask creates a shield of invulnerability around them and everyone near them. I wouldn't mind the mandatory aspect so much if the government came clean, and said something like "masks can help in reducing transmission, but only by five percent*. All the same, please wear them as even a small reduction is very helpful."

*or whatever the figure is

As to your second point, that has occurred to me, though I doubt it, as I never encounter any breathing problems when cycling, even at maximum effort (100 miles on the turbo last Saturday, at a good pace, for example, tired at the end but no breathing issues).

The information is in the public domain. I posted the link to one example. The fact that it can't be simplified down to a neat number doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm sure there are improvements that could be made to the public health communications. The point about ventilation has been made a number of times on here. It feels a bit as if you are looking for a reason to back up your dislike of wearing one.

Well put.

I'd go further to say that it seems to be a complicated issue that can't be explained sufficiently simply for some people to comprehend. Ideally those people would trust the highly qualified group of people trying to dumb it down for them, rather than erroneously assume that just because they can't comprehend, it must not exist.

It come back to the arrogance of ignorance again.

And yes I'm being intentionally and pointedly rude.

Though to be fair initially during this pandemic both sage or at least the scientific advisors who spoke at the briefings and our govt were arguing there was no evidence masks were worth wearing when some of us on here were questioning that.

There was a time when we didn't know what a virus was, and wore leather masks filled with pot pourri to fend off the plague.

Things move on, but it takes at least some mental flexibility to change one's opinion in light of new information.

I must have missed sage's advice on fending off plague.

I've always (since the start of the pandemic) thought masks were worth wearing but I don't see the problem with revisiting the issue. It's the attitude that all these issues are settled forever that demonstrates a lack of mental flexibility.

First.Aspect

DeVlaeminck said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

surrey_commuter said:

oblongomaculatus said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

This article summarising various studies is already more than a year old. I really don't think it is in doubt that they are effective in reducing transmission. They are not a magic wand, nor are any of the other measures you mention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

They are mildy inconvenient/uncomfortable in the same way that most PPE is. Wearing them with glasses is tricky, but if that's the biggest challenge you face in the day, life is treating you well.

Well, I doubt their effectiveness, for one. Some data on infection reduction, as a percentage is what I've been looking for, and failed to find, which as I said leads me to think it's a very low number. We might get some indication on that soon though, since the only restriction introduced so far is mandatory masks on pubic transport and in shops. If they are measurably effective, you'd expect, in two or three weeks, for infection rates to begin to drop, as significantly more people are now wearing them in those settings.

My scepticism is based on the size of the pores, which are visible if you hold them up to the light, v the size of the microscopic drops of water vapour that carry the virus in the air. I'd liken it to trying to catch damp sand with a tennis racquet. A few grains will stick to the strings, but the vast majority of it will fly straight through. Plus, as someone else has said, the way they are generally worn means what happens in the real world is likely to fall far short of laboratory testing.

And, as I said yesterday, personally I find them rather more than mildly inconvenient. The continual feeling of suffocation is most unpleasant.

could you let us know how many people currentlyget infected in shops and public transport so we can measure the drop off.

If you feel like you are suffocating then you may have an underlying condition which means that your blood oxygen levels are low. You should get yourself tested.

I don't think that sort of detail in the data is available, at least not to the public. But the general rate of infection, which has been announced daily, would surely drop off sharply once the effect of more people now wearing them starts to kick in, if indeed they are as effective as is claimed. My point about that was that the government, by constantly emphasising their importance in virtually every statement (sometimes mentioning them ahead of vaccination) has created an inflated impression of their effectiveness. I think this has led to some people believing wearing a mask creates a shield of invulnerability around them and everyone near them. I wouldn't mind the mandatory aspect so much if the government came clean, and said something like "masks can help in reducing transmission, but only by five percent*. All the same, please wear them as even a small reduction is very helpful."

*or whatever the figure is

As to your second point, that has occurred to me, though I doubt it, as I never encounter any breathing problems when cycling, even at maximum effort (100 miles on the turbo last Saturday, at a good pace, for example, tired at the end but no breathing issues).

The information is in the public domain. I posted the link to one example. The fact that it can't be simplified down to a neat number doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm sure there are improvements that could be made to the public health communications. The point about ventilation has been made a number of times on here. It feels a bit as if you are looking for a reason to back up your dislike of wearing one.

Well put.

I'd go further to say that it seems to be a complicated issue that can't be explained sufficiently simply for some people to comprehend. Ideally those people would trust the highly qualified group of people trying to dumb it down for them, rather than erroneously assume that just because they can't comprehend, it must not exist.

It come back to the arrogance of ignorance again.

And yes I'm being intentionally and pointedly rude.

Though to be fair initially during this pandemic both sage or at least the scientific advisors who spoke at the briefings and our govt were arguing there was no evidence masks were worth wearing when some of us on here were questioning that.

There was a time when we didn't know what a virus was, and wore leather masks filled with pot pourri to fend off the plague.

Things move on, but it takes at least some mental flexibility to change one's opinion in light of new information.

I must have missed sage's advice on fending off plague.

I've always (since the start of the pandemic) thought masks were worth wearing but I don't see the problem with revisiting the issue. It's the attitude that all these issues are settled forever that demonstrates a lack of mental flexibility.

If there is any new information, sure. But if there isn't, you would simply be revisiting out of date information and confirming that it's out of date. Which is a waste of time and worst still tempts people to ignore more up to date information.

pblakeney

Study from 18th November 2021 shows masks prevent 50% of transmission.
Sorry if it's not what you want to read.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-18/masks-cut-covid-risk-in-half-in-review-of-public-health-measures

briantrumpet

pblakeney said:

Study from 18th November 2021 shows masks prevent 50% of transmission.
Sorry if it's not what you want to read.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-18/masks-cut-covid-risk-in-half-in-review-of-public-health-measures

Except there was an article in the Graun noting that that study was deeply flawed, in that they've included a lot of data from weak sources in order to get the sample number up, and the article makes the point that a large sample doesn't improve reliability if the initial data is weak.

briantrumpet

Here it is: https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2021/nov/28/ivermectin-mask-wearing-quality-of-evidence-matters

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

surrey_commuter said:

oblongomaculatus said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

This article summarising various studies is already more than a year old. I really don't think it is in doubt that they are effective in reducing transmission. They are not a magic wand, nor are any of the other measures you mention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

They are mildy inconvenient/uncomfortable in the same way that most PPE is. Wearing them with glasses is tricky, but if that's the biggest challenge you face in the day, life is treating you well.

Well, I doubt their effectiveness, for one. Some data on infection reduction, as a percentage is what I've been looking for, and failed to find, which as I said leads me to think it's a very low number. We might get some indication on that soon though, since the only restriction introduced so far is mandatory masks on pubic transport and in shops. If they are measurably effective, you'd expect, in two or three weeks, for infection rates to begin to drop, as significantly more people are now wearing them in those settings.

My scepticism is based on the size of the pores, which are visible if you hold them up to the light, v the size of the microscopic drops of water vapour that carry the virus in the air. I'd liken it to trying to catch damp sand with a tennis racquet. A few grains will stick to the strings, but the vast majority of it will fly straight through. Plus, as someone else has said, the way they are generally worn means what happens in the real world is likely to fall far short of laboratory testing.

And, as I said yesterday, personally I find them rather more than mildly inconvenient. The continual feeling of suffocation is most unpleasant.

could you let us know how many people currentlyget infected in shops and public transport so we can measure the drop off.

If you feel like you are suffocating then you may have an underlying condition which means that your blood oxygen levels are low. You should get yourself tested.

I don't think that sort of detail in the data is available, at least not to the public. But the general rate of infection, which has been announced daily, would surely drop off sharply once the effect of more people now wearing them starts to kick in, if indeed they are as effective as is claimed. My point about that was that the government, by constantly emphasising their importance in virtually every statement (sometimes mentioning them ahead of vaccination) has created an inflated impression of their effectiveness. I think this has led to some people believing wearing a mask creates a shield of invulnerability around them and everyone near them. I wouldn't mind the mandatory aspect so much if the government came clean, and said something like "masks can help in reducing transmission, but only by five percent*. All the same, please wear them as even a small reduction is very helpful."

*or whatever the figure is

As to your second point, that has occurred to me, though I doubt it, as I never encounter any breathing problems when cycling, even at maximum effort (100 miles on the turbo last Saturday, at a good pace, for example, tired at the end but no breathing issues).

The information is in the public domain. I posted the link to one example. The fact that it can't be simplified down to a neat number doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm sure there are improvements that could be made to the public health communications. The point about ventilation has been made a number of times on here. It feels a bit as if you are looking for a reason to back up your dislike of wearing one.

Well put.

I'd go further to say that it seems to be a complicated issue that can't be explained sufficiently simply for some people to comprehend. Ideally those people would trust the highly qualified group of people trying to dumb it down for them, rather than erroneously assume that just because they can't comprehend, it must not exist.

It come back to the arrogance of ignorance again.

And yes I'm being intentionally and pointedly rude.

Right on cue:

https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1466331049542230017

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

Here it is: https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2021/nov/28/ivermectin-mask-wearing-quality-of-evidence-matters

This is a problem with a lot of meta analyses. When I was in chemical research, by and large, to be published you had to actually do some experiments. There were relative few "review" papers and those that were published were not presented as new studies.

In medicine, publications are often little more than opinion pieces carried with the gravitas of the crackpot in question happening to have a medical degree, and there is a whole industry of pouring over data and re-slicing it for purposes that were not originally intended. Some are good. Others aren't.

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

surrey_commuter said:

oblongomaculatus said:

rjsterry said:

oblongomaculatus said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My problem with masks is my glasses fog up - my eyesight is not so bad so I just take them off but I feel a bit sorry for those who really can't see without their specs.

I also see (as an anti vaxxer mate has copied it to his Facebook) there is an article in the telegraph by a former Sage advisor questioning the effectiveness of masks. If we are making masks a major part of our strategy maybe we should look at what type of masks offer the best protection whilst still remaining practical. I tend to wear a mix of cloth or the blue ones you get in most shops - if one is definitely better than the other I'd choose that as I'm having to wear one anyway it may as well do the job.

I'd be interested to read that, have you got the link? My suspicion is the effectiveness of masks is being deliberately exaggerated because they are a useful visual reminder, both when they were originally made mandatory and now, because of the omicron variant. We're often told "evidence is growing" of their effectiveness, but this is too vague to mean anything. There is never anything specific, such as what percentage of infections mask prevent. I suspect this is because it would be such a low number no-one would think masks were worth bothering with.

The effectiveness league table is topped by isolation - closed shops and pubs, work from home, no parties etc, which is unsustainable in the long term - followed by vaccination. Masks, I believe, is somewhere down in the relegation zone, along with crossing your fingers and hoping.

This article summarising various studies is already more than a year old. I really don't think it is in doubt that they are effective in reducing transmission. They are not a magic wand, nor are any of the other measures you mention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

They are mildy inconvenient/uncomfortable in the same way that most PPE is. Wearing them with glasses is tricky, but if that's the biggest challenge you face in the day, life is treating you well.

Well, I doubt their effectiveness, for one. Some data on infection reduction, as a percentage is what I've been looking for, and failed to find, which as I said leads me to think it's a very low number. We might get some indication on that soon though, since the only restriction introduced so far is mandatory masks on pubic transport and in shops. If they are measurably effective, you'd expect, in two or three weeks, for infection rates to begin to drop, as significantly more people are now wearing them in those settings.

My scepticism is based on the size of the pores, which are visible if you hold them up to the light, v the size of the microscopic drops of water vapour that carry the virus in the air. I'd liken it to trying to catch damp sand with a tennis racquet. A few grains will stick to the strings, but the vast majority of it will fly straight through. Plus, as someone else has said, the way they are generally worn means what happens in the real world is likely to fall far short of laboratory testing.

And, as I said yesterday, personally I find them rather more than mildly inconvenient. The continual feeling of suffocation is most unpleasant.

could you let us know how many people currentlyget infected in shops and public transport so we can measure the drop off.

If you feel like you are suffocating then you may have an underlying condition which means that your blood oxygen levels are low. You should get yourself tested.

I don't think that sort of detail in the data is available, at least not to the public. But the general rate of infection, which has been announced daily, would surely drop off sharply once the effect of more people now wearing them starts to kick in, if indeed they are as effective as is claimed. My point about that was that the government, by constantly emphasising their importance in virtually every statement (sometimes mentioning them ahead of vaccination) has created an inflated impression of their effectiveness. I think this has led to some people believing wearing a mask creates a shield of invulnerability around them and everyone near them. I wouldn't mind the mandatory aspect so much if the government came clean, and said something like "masks can help in reducing transmission, but only by five percent*. All the same, please wear them as even a small reduction is very helpful."

*or whatever the figure is

As to your second point, that has occurred to me, though I doubt it, as I never encounter any breathing problems when cycling, even at maximum effort (100 miles on the turbo last Saturday, at a good pace, for example, tired at the end but no breathing issues).

The information is in the public domain. I posted the link to one example. The fact that it can't be simplified down to a neat number doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm sure there are improvements that could be made to the public health communications. The point about ventilation has been made a number of times on here. It feels a bit as if you are looking for a reason to back up your dislike of wearing one.

Well put.

I'd go further to say that it seems to be a complicated issue that can't be explained sufficiently simply for some people to comprehend. Ideally those people would trust the highly qualified group of people trying to dumb it down for them, rather than erroneously assume that just because they can't comprehend, it must not exist.

It come back to the arrogance of ignorance again.

And yes I'm being intentionally and pointedly rude.

Right on cue:

https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1466331049542230017

I think I should sign up to Twitter.

pblakeney

briantrumpet said:

Here it is: https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2021/nov/28/ivermectin-mask-wearing-quality-of-evidence-matters

So even being pessimistic the lowest rate is 18%.
I'd say wearing masks is worthwhile even at that low rate.

Pross

Just bought some lunch at my local shop and the woman who served me was coughing into her hand then used that hand to scan the stuff I bought without washing or sanitising her hands at all. Luckily it was all in packaging but any hopes that people will have cleaned up their hygeine over the last 2 years appear to have gone out of the window.

pblakeney

At least the window was open. 😉

mully79

Wearing masks is all well and good but government cherry picking the places to wear them makes a mockery of the whole thing.

My day is basically.
No mask in the morning for buffet breakfast.
No mask in workplace (factory).
Mask to buy sandwich at shop.
Mask for screwfix,
No mask in hotel,
No mask in pub.

Hardly a reliable message is it.

rjsterry

mully79 said:

Wearing masks is all well and good but government cherry picking the places to wear them makes a mockery of the whole thing.

My day is basically.
No mask in the morning for buffet breakfast.
No mask in workplace (factory).
Mask to buy sandwich at shop.
Mask for screwfix,
No mask in hotel,
No mask in pub.

Hardly a reliable message is it.

I would guess that they are trying very hard to not give the hospitality industry any more of a kicking than it has already had.

john80

Pross said:

Just bought some lunch at my local shop and the woman who served me was coughing into her hand then used that hand to scan the stuff I bought without washing or sanitising her hands at all. Luckily it was all in packaging but any hopes that people will have cleaned up their hygeine over the last 2 years appear to have gone out of the window.

I would not worry about it as covid probably got killed by the faecal matter on her hands already.

john80

mully79 said:

Wearing masks is all well and good but government cherry picking the places to wear them makes a mockery of the whole thing.

My day is basically.
No mask in the morning for buffet breakfast.
No mask in workplace (factory).
Mask to buy sandwich at shop.
Mask for screwfix,
No mask in hotel,
No mask in pub.

Hardly a reliable message is it.

You can wear a mask in all those places yourself. If you don't then is there much point in moaning that the government did not make you do it as you as an individual did not exactly go the extra mile.

rick_chasey

john80 said:

Pross said:

Just bought some lunch at my local shop and the woman who served me was coughing into her hand then used that hand to scan the stuff I bought without washing or sanitising her hands at all. Luckily it was all in packaging but any hopes that people will have cleaned up their hygeine over the last 2 years appear to have gone out of the window.

I would not worry about it as covid probably got killed by the faecal matter on her hands already.

I remember back when corona was limited to a handful and half a cruise-ship there was a theory it was transmitted by faecal matter and that was how it was infected the shipmates.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

john80 said:

Pross said:

Just bought some lunch at my local shop and the woman who served me was coughing into her hand then used that hand to scan the stuff I bought without washing or sanitising her hands at all. Luckily it was all in packaging but any hopes that people will have cleaned up their hygeine over the last 2 years appear to have gone out of the window.

I would not worry about it as covid probably got killed by the faecal matter on her hands already.

I remember back when corona was limited to a handful and half a cruise-ship there was a theory it was transmitted by faecal matter and that was how it was infected the shipmates.

Captain Pugwash was the cause of a lot of these stereotypes.