Comfortable Masks-Where Can I Get Them?

[jane2008 15]

1 minute ago, top4718 said:

No, you need to read this and the previous post to get the gist.

No probs I will

[top4718 838]

3 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Really? Evidence please?

 

The evidence is the thousands of people who've had and not been seriously ill, you know like a lot of illnesses.

 

I won't add anymore as this is derailing a thread about masks, hopefully the mods will reopen the other thread after this cooling off period.

[Guest sibon]

5 minutes ago, top4718 said:

The evidence is the thousands of people who've had and not been seriously ill, you know like a lot of illnesses.

 

I won't add anymore as this is derailing a thread about masks, hopefully the mods will reopen the other thread after this cooling off period.

Wrong thread

[Guest makapaka]

There’s definitely a question to be asked about me being fully vaccinated going to the pub and sitting amongst people but being required to wear a mask if I call in the shop on the way home.

 

it’s either needed or it isn’t.

[Guest sibon]

14 minutes ago, makapaka said:

There’s definitely a question to be asked about me being fully vaccinated going to the pub and sitting amongst people but being required to wear a mask if I call in the shop on the way home.

 

it’s either needed or it isn’t.

You have a point.

 

I think that the distinction is that shops, especially food shops, and public transport are essential. As such, they are used by vulnerable people and the unvaccinated.

 

I do know people for whom the pub is also essential, but mostly they are optional.

 

Choose your risk. 

[PRESLEY 1,230]

7 hours ago, nikki-red said:

But surely even a half decent person would have a fear of catching it then passing it on to someone in that minority? 

Well said, Good Post. 

[Guest makapaka]

10 hours ago, sibon said:

You have a point.

 

I think that the distinction is that shops, especially food shops, and public transport are essential. As such, they are used by vulnerable people and the unvaccinated.

 

I do know people for whom the pub is also essential, but mostly they are optional.

 

Choose your risk. 

Yeah I thought about that.

 

I don’t see any need to mandate mask to cater for those that are unvaccinated - why should everyone have to take action to protect an individual who hasn’t done the same for themselves.

 

I get the vulnerable argument - but for me those people should wear a mask - their choice.

[AndrewC 307]

14 hours ago, makapaka said:

There’s definitely a question to be asked about me being fully vaccinated going to the pub and sitting amongst people but being required to wear a mask if I call in the shop on the way home.

 

it’s either needed or it isn’t.

Saying it's as black & white as 'it is or it isn't' is just the kind simplification that leads to so much disbelief amongst anti-vaxxers et al that masks 'work'.

 

None of the protections we've used in society over the last two years (social distancing, masks, vaccines, treatments) offer 100% protection/effectiveness and no one has ever really claimed that they do, but they do provide a high level or protection, and the more we use and the more time we use them for increases the level of protection.

 

If you have to wear it in the shop but not in the pub, that's still better than you not wearing at all, because at the very least it helps reduce your spread of droplets while you are in the shop. You could argue that Ideally you'd wear it in the shop and the pub but obviously that's a political decision to only enforce the mask protection up to a certain point.

 

 

3 hours ago, makapaka said:

Yeah I thought about that.

 

I don’t see any need to mandate mask to cater for those that are unvaccinated - why should everyone have to take action to protect an individual who hasn’t done the same for themselves.

 

I get the vulnerable argument - but for me those people should wear a mask - their choice.

Even among fully-vaccinated people, there's still a small additional % extra protection that masks, distancing etc brings that potentially makes them still worth doing - you're probably right in that if it really were the case that +95% of the population was vaccinated then it might arguably might not be worth the impact on life/economy to mandate masks etc.

 

(Of course, the real reason masks are back officially is because of Omicron. It's such an unknown that it's effectively like we're dealing with a new virus again. If it's resistant to vaccines then we're effectively back in March/April 2020 again.)

 

However, putting Omicron aside for a second and thinking just about Delta - we aren't at that level of vaccination (it's about 80% have had second doses?)  and unfortunately there is no way to separate out those who are and aren't in any given indoor setting (unless we advocate segregation...which I suspect most don't want to go down that alley!) But the vaccine itself does not offer 100% protection.  It massively reduces the potential symptoms and infectiousness of an individual, so you can still get it, get ill from it, and pass it on to others, it's just much, much less likely. 

 

So you're right in one sense; it probably is only because 15-20% of the population still haven't been fully vaccinated that we are currently having to mandate masks, but your suggestion that the unvaccinated should wear masks so that the vaccinated don't have to, it wouldn't work; there would still be risks for the vaccinated. Best that we all mask-up as much as possible.

[Guest makapaka]

9 minutes ago, AndrewC said:

but your suggestion that the unvaccinated should wear masks so that the vaccinated don't have to, it wouldn't work; there would still be risks for the vaccinated. Best that we all mask-up as much as possible.

I was suggesting the vulnerable wear masks not the unvaccinated.

[AndrewC 307]

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

I was suggesting the vulnerable wear masks not the unvaccinated.

Sorry - I misread.

 

Though I think my general argument still holds true. Non-vulnerable, vaccinated people can still be in danger of getting ill from covid, and can be a danger to others by passing it on. It's still true to say there is a significant benefit of having the non-vulnerable wear masks.

 

Coincidentally, in my experience - I have a couple of friends in the vulnerable group - they are already doing far more than most of us to help protect themselves. Whilst I and many others this summer started being a bit more relaxed about where, how often and who we were socialising or going in to the office (though I personally have always kept wearing my mask on public transport and in shops and walking around pubs/restaurants), my vulnerable friends have generally remained very cautious.

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, AndrewC said:

Non-vulnerable, vaccinated people can still be in danger of getting ill from covid

Very rarely - and that logic means masks for non. vulnerable vaccinated people forever doesn’t it? 

[top4718 838]

7 hours ago, AndrewC said:

Saying it's as black & white as 'it is or it isn't' is just the kind simplification that leads to so much disbelief amongst anti-vaxxers et al that masks 'work'.

 

None of the protections we've used in society over the last two years (social distancing, masks, vaccines, treatments) offer 100% protection/effectiveness and no one has ever really claimed that they do, but they do provide a high level or protection, and the more we use and the more time we use them for increases the level of protection.

 

If you have to wear it in the shop but not in the pub, that's still better than you not wearing at all, because at the very least it helps reduce your spread of droplets while you are in the shop. You could argue that Ideally you'd wear it in the shop and the pub but obviously that's a political decision to only enforce the mask protection up to a certain point.

 

 

Even among fully-vaccinated people, there's still a small additional % extra protection that masks, distancing etc brings that potentially makes them still worth doing - you're probably right in that if it really were the case that +95% of the population was vaccinated then it might arguably might not be worth the impact on life/economy to mandate masks etc.

 

(Of course, the real reason masks are back officially is because of Omicron. It's such an unknown that it's effectively like we're dealing with a new virus again. If it's resistant to vaccines then we're effectively back in March/April 2020 again.)

 

However, putting Omicron aside for a second and thinking just about Delta - we aren't at that level of vaccination (it's about 80% have had second doses?)  and unfortunately there is no way to separate out those who are and aren't in any given indoor setting (unless we advocate segregation...which I suspect most don't want to go down that alley!) But the vaccine itself does not offer 100% protection.  It massively reduces the potential symptoms and infectiousness of an individual, so you can still get it, get ill from it, and pass it on to others, it's just much, much less likely. 

 

So you're right in one sense; it probably is only because 15-20% of the population still haven't been fully vaccinated that we are currently having to mandate masks, but your suggestion that the unvaccinated should wear masks so that the vaccinated don't have to, it wouldn't work; there would still be risks for the vaccinated. Best that we all mask-up as much as possible.

Why did cases fall in England (and continued to do so) when the mask mandate was dropped but rise in Scotland and Wales where it wasn't?

 

Hospitals are one of the main places where people catch Covid, masks in hospitals and worn as readily as shoes, so again what are the masks actually preventing?

 

I was on a BAM Construction site last week, as you enter the site there's a sign which reads "This is the person responsible for your safety" its printed on a mirror, its shame this very good advice on construction safety isn't applied by the Covid cult, it would make things a lot easier for everyone.