Coronavirus - Part Two.

[Martin C 81]

Three healthy looking young men (probably mid-late-20s) shopping together for lunch snacks in the Kelham Island Tesco Express one day earlier this week.  None wore masks - I'd think it very unlikely that all three of them were exempt.

[apelike 10]

3 hours ago, FORE said:

Certainly don't want covid to progress, but why oh why doesn't everyone try that bit harder when out?

I think its because people are seeing through the fallacy that face coverings, as someone put on here, significantly reduce the spread. But...  since face covering have been mandatory we have also seen a rise in cases when it should actually be much lower as a result of wearing them, so why is that happening?

Edited September 18, 2020 by apelike

[andyofborg 11]

33 minutes ago, apelike said:

I think its because people are seeing through the fallacy that face coverings, as someone put on here, significantly reduce the spread. But...  since face covering have been mandatory we have also seen a rise in cases when it should actually be much lower as a result of wearing them, so why is that happening?

i would guess it's because people are going into higer risk environments without taking suitable precautions to avoid infection. 

 

 

 

 

[Litotes 63]

1 hour ago, apelike said:

I think its because people are seeing through the fallacy that face coverings, as someone put on here, significantly reduce the spread. But...  since face covering have been mandatory we have also seen a rise in cases when it should actually be much lower as a result of wearing them, so why is that happening?

Fallacy? The figures are rising through darwinian selection of those who think they can outrun the virus are actually getting it.

These are the same people who reckon that they need a beer more than they need life and while I would personally let them wipe themselves out, they can't control who they pass it on to.

 

So my message - don't become a statistic - wear a mask!

[RJRB 688]

2 hours ago, apelike said:

I think its because people are seeing through the fallacy that face coverings, as someone put on here, significantly reduce the spread. But...  since face covering have been mandatory we have also seen a rise in cases when it should actually be much lower as a result of wearing them, so why is that happening?

If they only have a small effect then it’s worth having them.What you cannot quantify is how much greater the transmission would be without them.

To call any form of PPE a fallacy is ridiculous.

[Pettytom 1]

2 hours ago, apelike said:

I think its because people are seeing through the fallacy that face coverings, as someone put on here, significantly reduce the spread. But...  since face covering have been mandatory we have also seen a rise in cases when it should actually be much lower as a result of wearing them, so why is that happening?

How can they “see through the fallacy”?

 

Especially when there is no fallacy. The antimaskers are antisocial. It’s time to make face coverings compulsory in public places.

1 hour ago, Litotes said:

Fallacy? The figures are rising through darwinian selection of those who think they can outrun the virus are actually getting it.

These are the same people who reckon that they need a beer more than they need life and while I would personally let them wipe themselves out, they can't control who they pass it on to.

 

So my message - don't become a statistic - wear a mask!

Trouble is that it isn’t the mask refusers who suffer. It is those exposed to the mask refusers

[apelike 10]

1 hour ago, Litotes said:

Fallacy? The figures are rising through darwinian selection of those who think they can outrun the virus are actually getting it.

Yes a fallacy, as no one has yet proven that face coverings have any positive affect in helping control the virus and even the Who state that medical grade masks are the ones that work not any old face covering.

Edited September 18, 2020 by apelike

[butlers 261]

Wish our police would adopt the Spanish police way if dealing with know nothing anti maskers.

Worrying couple of weeks ahead,let's hope the increase in numbers does not lead to much increased hospitalisations

Last I saw they reckon 5 percent of population has had exposure to the virus so far

 

[apelike 10]

2 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

How can they “see through the fallacy”?

 

Especially when there is no fallacy.

As above in post #1045

 

2 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

The antimaskers are antisocial. It’s time to make face coverings compulsory in public places.

You are correct in one sense in that just like any track and trace system the only way it can be effective is if it is compulsory for everyone and with an uptake of 75-80%, but even then only if they are medical grade.

 

29 minutes ago, RJRB said:

To call any form of PPE a fallacy is ridiculous.

No its not as this is not a form of PPE unless it also has the data to back up the fact that face coverings work and so far there is no such data. Would you be happy if hospitals and other medical professionals wore face coverings instead of medical grade PPE? Saying they are effective is also leading to people being relaxed when social distancing as they seem to think that face coverings are now stopping the virus. People put them on when travelling on transport, take them off, put them in their pocket and then put them on again when shopping and somehow that is safer!

[butlers 261]

A city in Germany (Jena) decided to introduce mandatory face coverings & guess what was found “face masks reduce the daily growth rate of reported infections by around 40%.”
Debate in UK & US largely ideological at this point. 
https://t.co/TqXoofDHC

x

 

This is from ..

Devi Lalita Sridhar is a Professor and Chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh.

She's advising the Scottish Parliament 

[apelike 10]

4 minutes ago, butlers said:

Wish our police would adopt the Spanish police way if dealing with know nothing anti maskers.

The thing to note here is their laws state medical grade masks and not just any old bit of cloth.

[apelike 10]

22 minutes ago, butlers said:

Last I saw they reckon 5 percent of population has had exposure to the virus so far

But just to add. If its been 9 months and only 5% have been exposed to the virus because of lockdowns etc then how long will lockdowns have to be in place for? What percentage of infections should we be willing to accept to get back to some sense of normality as at the rate we are going at its going to take many years before lockdowns will be eased.

 

So we have a big problem, do we keep the numbers low by keeping widespread lockdowns in place and extend them indefinitely or do we now start to allow the numbers to rise?

 

Bearing in mind the mortality rate as well.

Edited September 18, 2020 by apelike