ChatterBank32 mins ago
Personal Freedom?
80 Answers
https:/
- just click the 'Free Browse' button.
This piece gives pause for thought - at what point does the protection of the population violate civil liberties?
In America, a culture far more twitchy about perceived rights to curb any of its freedoms, the notion of a government dictating just about anything designed to keep the public safe from itself meets with howls of protest and quoting the Constitution.
Over here we are slightly more reasonable, but the 'mask' question has caused similar debates to spring up.
Do you feel that you have a right not to wear a mask if you choose not to, because it infringes on your freedom of choice, or do you feel that mandatory mask wearing and enforcement is justified for the good of the majority, and on that basis, personal freedom needs to take a back seat?
- just click the 'Free Browse' button.
This piece gives pause for thought - at what point does the protection of the population violate civil liberties?
In America, a culture far more twitchy about perceived rights to curb any of its freedoms, the notion of a government dictating just about anything designed to keep the public safe from itself meets with howls of protest and quoting the Constitution.
Over here we are slightly more reasonable, but the 'mask' question has caused similar debates to spring up.
Do you feel that you have a right not to wear a mask if you choose not to, because it infringes on your freedom of choice, or do you feel that mandatory mask wearing and enforcement is justified for the good of the majority, and on that basis, personal freedom needs to take a back seat?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//If you're a bit under the weather, do you cover your nose and mouth when you cough or sneeze? Do you get a handkerchief there if you can?
The mask is the same principle.//
It may be the same principle but the results would be very different. If you cough or sneeze with a face covering on, most of what you expel (certainly most of what would matter as far as this discussion goes) would find its way through the covering. If you put your hand over your mouth and nose most of what you expel would finish up on your hand. But in any case that does not alter the risk to the wearer which nobody seems to want to address.
The mask is the same principle.//
It may be the same principle but the results would be very different. If you cough or sneeze with a face covering on, most of what you expel (certainly most of what would matter as far as this discussion goes) would find its way through the covering. If you put your hand over your mouth and nose most of what you expel would finish up on your hand. But in any case that does not alter the risk to the wearer which nobody seems to want to address.
NJ, its not the "amateur" face covering, its the "amateur" user. I have taken the decision to use scarves, not masks, when and if I need to. Each scarf is rolled into a separate plastic bag and is kept in my car together with a box of virucidal wipes that work on both skin and hard surfaces. Plan is that I will clean hands, don scarf and adjust, clean hands again. Once I am done with the activity, clean hands, scarf comes off and is packed into plastic bag and sealed and hands are then cleaned again. once home, used scarf is decanted into washing machine. I've also got one "don't get caught out" scarf in a pack in my handbag with a virucidal hand and hard surface spray. If a thing is worth doing at all and all that.
> It may be the same principle but the results would be very different. If you cough or sneeze with a face covering on, most of what you expel (certainly most of what would matter as far as this discussion goes) would find its way through the covering. If you put your hand over your mouth and nose most of what you expel would finish up on your hand.
I consider the mask as a permanently-in-place handkerchief. It's there to not only catch particles in coughs and sneezes, but breath too. If I coughed or sneezed in a mask, I'd still cover my mouth and nose area with my hand, I think (not done that yet). It's there to help others not catch what I've got, or might have.
> But in any case that does not alter the risk to the wearer which nobody seems to want to address.
Your concern, I think, is that somebody who doesn't have Covid is more likely to catch it if they wear a mask. I think most people, including you, are not in a position to argue that one way or the other. It would all be guesswork, probably biased by the outcome they actually wanted. For example, you may well be more likely to catch Covid if you wear a mask and come into contact with Covid, but you may be less likely to come into contact with Covid in the first place if everybody wears masks. Most people don't have the time or resources to figure that out, so they leave it to the government and their scientists to do it for them.
The more general principle at stake in the OP is, no matter what you believe or want to believe about the effectiveness of face coverings, will you do as the government asks, or do you believe you have a right to not wear a mask if you so choose?
I consider the mask as a permanently-in-place handkerchief. It's there to not only catch particles in coughs and sneezes, but breath too. If I coughed or sneezed in a mask, I'd still cover my mouth and nose area with my hand, I think (not done that yet). It's there to help others not catch what I've got, or might have.
> But in any case that does not alter the risk to the wearer which nobody seems to want to address.
Your concern, I think, is that somebody who doesn't have Covid is more likely to catch it if they wear a mask. I think most people, including you, are not in a position to argue that one way or the other. It would all be guesswork, probably biased by the outcome they actually wanted. For example, you may well be more likely to catch Covid if you wear a mask and come into contact with Covid, but you may be less likely to come into contact with Covid in the first place if everybody wears masks. Most people don't have the time or resources to figure that out, so they leave it to the government and their scientists to do it for them.
The more general principle at stake in the OP is, no matter what you believe or want to believe about the effectiveness of face coverings, will you do as the government asks, or do you believe you have a right to not wear a mask if you so choose?
" The idiosyncratic implementation of this far to late breathing restriction exposes the cluelessness of the officials and their policies." @15:05 Mon 03rd Aug 2020
Setting aside prior behaviour of the government to this new/novel virus, if mask wearing saves lives and helps the danger of the virus to be reduced similar to the end of the 1918- Spanish flu when 'normal life' resumed, I will conform and consent to mask wearing.
I would have made mask wearing a priority from day one.
I have yet to see any research on how fomite (contaminated surfaces) have contributed to the covid death count and was always suspicious of this wash wash wash hands/surfaces was given such high priority from the start and masks practically zero.
"The long-range airborne, fomite and close contact routes contribute to 54.3%, 4.2% and 44.5% of influenza A infections, respectively."
https:/
"Despite consistent evidence as to SARS-CoV-2 contamination of surfaces and the survival of the virus on certain surfaces, there are no specific reports which have directly demonstrated fomite transmission." WHO, 9 July 2020
https:/
Setting aside prior behaviour of the government to this new/novel virus, if mask wearing saves lives and helps the danger of the virus to be reduced similar to the end of the 1918- Spanish flu when 'normal life' resumed, I will conform and consent to mask wearing.
I would have made mask wearing a priority from day one.
I have yet to see any research on how fomite (contaminated surfaces) have contributed to the covid death count and was always suspicious of this wash wash wash hands/surfaces was given such high priority from the start and masks practically zero.
"The long-range airborne, fomite and close contact routes contribute to 54.3%, 4.2% and 44.5% of influenza A infections, respectively."
https:/
"Despite consistent evidence as to SARS-CoV-2 contamination of surfaces and the survival of the virus on certain surfaces, there are no specific reports which have directly demonstrated fomite transmission." WHO, 9 July 2020
https:/
//NJ, its not the "amateur" face covering, its the "amateur" user.//
Of course it is, woofy. Because we’re all (well, 99% of us) amateur users. Your regime seems admirable. Not one I would be prepared to undertake if I wore a face covering for no other reason than I rarely go shopping in my car. Carrying a supply of spare scarves around with me, together with sanitisation paraphernalia, then finding somewhere to do all that is not something I would be willing or able to do on foot or on a bus or train. But the government has issued no guidelines to educate people in the proper use of face coverings. And it doesn’t seem that even you know that any one covering should not be worn for more than 30 minutes before it should be changed.
//what wearer risk? If you cough or sneeze into a facecovering all that will be deposited is what came from you.//
Coughing or sneezing is not the risk (see my earlier posts).
//Your concern, I think, is that somebody who doesn't have Covid is more likely to catch it if they wear a mask. I think most people, including you, are not in a position to argue that one way or the other. It would all be guesswork, probably biased by the outcome they actually wanted. For example, you may well be more likely to catch Covid if you wear a mask and come into contact with Covid, but you may be less likely to come into contact with Covid in the first place if everybody wears masks. Most people don't have the time or resources to figure that out, so they leave it to the government and their scientists to do it for them.//
That isn’t the issue at all. The risk comes from “amateur” users. The use of PPE is a discipline that is instilled in medical professionals. It’s not a hobby that can be indulged in by amateurs. The increased risk – small that it is - to the user who fiddles with his mask (or other covering) between pawing through the baked beans in Tesco’s, getting on and off the bus, going for a coffee, going back into another shop and so on far outweighs any possible benefit to others. I made my decision a week or more ago and explained why. My cousin is the clinical nursing director (“Matron”) in a large hospital. She has spent >30 years working in operating theatres, A&Es and ICUs. She has forgotten more about PPE than most of us will ever know. She will not wear a face covering outside her hospital because even she, with her vast experience, does not trust herself to leave it alone when outside work. She has advised her husband and adult children likewise. Sometimes leaving the government and their advisors to figure things out for you is not the best strategy.
Of course it is, woofy. Because we’re all (well, 99% of us) amateur users. Your regime seems admirable. Not one I would be prepared to undertake if I wore a face covering for no other reason than I rarely go shopping in my car. Carrying a supply of spare scarves around with me, together with sanitisation paraphernalia, then finding somewhere to do all that is not something I would be willing or able to do on foot or on a bus or train. But the government has issued no guidelines to educate people in the proper use of face coverings. And it doesn’t seem that even you know that any one covering should not be worn for more than 30 minutes before it should be changed.
//what wearer risk? If you cough or sneeze into a facecovering all that will be deposited is what came from you.//
Coughing or sneezing is not the risk (see my earlier posts).
//Your concern, I think, is that somebody who doesn't have Covid is more likely to catch it if they wear a mask. I think most people, including you, are not in a position to argue that one way or the other. It would all be guesswork, probably biased by the outcome they actually wanted. For example, you may well be more likely to catch Covid if you wear a mask and come into contact with Covid, but you may be less likely to come into contact with Covid in the first place if everybody wears masks. Most people don't have the time or resources to figure that out, so they leave it to the government and their scientists to do it for them.//
That isn’t the issue at all. The risk comes from “amateur” users. The use of PPE is a discipline that is instilled in medical professionals. It’s not a hobby that can be indulged in by amateurs. The increased risk – small that it is - to the user who fiddles with his mask (or other covering) between pawing through the baked beans in Tesco’s, getting on and off the bus, going for a coffee, going back into another shop and so on far outweighs any possible benefit to others. I made my decision a week or more ago and explained why. My cousin is the clinical nursing director (“Matron”) in a large hospital. She has spent >30 years working in operating theatres, A&Es and ICUs. She has forgotten more about PPE than most of us will ever know. She will not wear a face covering outside her hospital because even she, with her vast experience, does not trust herself to leave it alone when outside work. She has advised her husband and adult children likewise. Sometimes leaving the government and their advisors to figure things out for you is not the best strategy.
NJ yes I did know about the 30 minute thing.....and yes my planned regime suits me. If I was on foot or on public transport I would do things differently. I think it helps that when DH was alive I was a pillion biker and well used to wearing a face covering inside my helmet. Government guidance has been issued. https:/
Driving on pavements is not normal, it's not what they are for, so opting to do so is clearly wrong. Wearing a mask (or covering for the pedantic) is not normal so forcing someone to do so is clearly wrong. One needs to understand what freedom is, and what responsibilities go with it, in order to get the right balance. Even better if one can see the logic of the correct side of a disagreement, and how the other side, even if it's made to sound good, is flawed.
iluv margie its up to you (Sir Percy!) https:/
that was the conclusion from the cough plate expts fifty to a hundred years ago
hence my one liner - reusing a face mask is like taking a used lavatory paper out of the toilet and putting it in your handbaaaaaaag !
official advice - very coy about how often to change - when it needs it etc
also explains the official prancing around about - face masks arent the only thing
( face masks arent any thing but never mind)
hence my one liner - reusing a face mask is like taking a used lavatory paper out of the toilet and putting it in your handbaaaaaaag !
official advice - very coy about how often to change - when it needs it etc
also explains the official prancing around about - face masks arent the only thing
( face masks arent any thing but never mind)
//NJ, "one covering should not be worn for more than 30 minutes before it should be changed."
Can you cite a source for that please?//
My cousin.
There are plenty of places if you want to look them up. Strangely there is a letter in the Telegraph only today. The DT has a paywall so I'll reproduce the salient point here. It's from a person who went to visit his sister in hospital. He was given a mask to wear and told he had to change it after 30 mins. The doc explained that after this time exhaled water vapour partially saturates the fabric making it ineffective. Germs then build up inside the mask presenting a possible danger to oneself and others. Oxygen intake is reduced and more carbon dioxide is inhaled.
Alternatively you could go with my cousin's explanation (which I replicated on here a week or so ago after I had spoken to her): "It's common sense when you think about it. After a while the mask becomes damp. Whatever is on it from coming in or going out prospers in a nice warm, wet sponge - right in front of your nose and mouth".
Can you cite a source for that please?//
My cousin.
There are plenty of places if you want to look them up. Strangely there is a letter in the Telegraph only today. The DT has a paywall so I'll reproduce the salient point here. It's from a person who went to visit his sister in hospital. He was given a mask to wear and told he had to change it after 30 mins. The doc explained that after this time exhaled water vapour partially saturates the fabric making it ineffective. Germs then build up inside the mask presenting a possible danger to oneself and others. Oxygen intake is reduced and more carbon dioxide is inhaled.
Alternatively you could go with my cousin's explanation (which I replicated on here a week or so ago after I had spoken to her): "It's common sense when you think about it. After a while the mask becomes damp. Whatever is on it from coming in or going out prospers in a nice warm, wet sponge - right in front of your nose and mouth".
Ellipsis - // If it's so simple and obvious that wearing a mask is harmful, why do you think the government is demanding that we wear one? //
Because to do otherwise would look like the government were doing nothing in the face of rising infection rates.
Politically, it's better to do be seen to do something, even if it's not effective, than to be seen to do nothing, even if the actual end result is the same - because one makes them look like they know what they are doing, and the other makes them look like they don't care.
Because to do otherwise would look like the government were doing nothing in the face of rising infection rates.
Politically, it's better to do be seen to do something, even if it's not effective, than to be seen to do nothing, even if the actual end result is the same - because one makes them look like they know what they are doing, and the other makes them look like they don't care.
And not only our country but many others have gone for the same con, have they Andy? Including those with experience of other more localised pandemics, like SARS. Ridiculous ... especially if, as NJ claims, wearing a mask will actually make matters worse. This would mean it wasn't just ineffective, it was harmful.
//New Judge ... If you wanted to wear a mask, you would cite a different friend or relative's opinion rather than your cousin's.//
If I wanted to wear a mask I'd just get on and do it. I wouldn't need the benefit of an opinion. I don't need an opinion not to wear one either. I decided some time ago that I wouldn't because I'd made my own enquiries and reached my own conclusions. My cousin's advice was coincidental as I phoned her on her birthday. Jenny Harries, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England, is not my cousin. But they both hold similar views - that face coverings worn by untrained people cause more problems than they solve.
I've no objection to people wearing face coverings - they can do as they wish as far as I'm concerned. But I do have objections to people who decide to take umbrage at those not wearing them. If I see somebody not wearing one I simply assume they have decided they have a "reasonable excuse". It's no business of mine. I'm quite robust and I will give as good as I get if anybody expresses their displeasure with me - in fact they may end up wishing they'd never bothered. But many people who genuinely cannot wear a face covering are not so sturdy. Many of them have now taken to not going out to shops or on public transport because they cannot take the hassle. That is a disgraceful state of affairs and a lot of the abuse stems from Cressida *** open support for quasi-vigilantism. For the country's most senior police officer to suggest that people should be "shamed" into wearing face coverings when it is clear that large numbers will be exempt or have a reasonable excuse beggars belief.
//If it's so simple and obvious that wearing a mask is harmful, why do you think the government is demanding that we wear one?//
You'd have to ask them that. One answer could be that they are considerably in thrall to Prof. Whitty. This is the man who believes the country has been "opened up" as far as it can go. This is when: 9m people are still not working; a number of businesses are still not permitted to open; most office workers are working at home; the DVLA is all but defunct for anything other than online applications; people are having to cancel trips because they cannot get a passport; sporting events cannot have live audiences; schools have not operated for almost five months and are unlikely to properly open come September; a large part of northern England is in renewed lockdown when their local infection rates are lower than when the pubs were permitted to reopen. Prof. Whitty will urge us "to be on the safe side" which, if he had his way, would mean us all walking around in full chemical and biological warfare protection.
Another reason may be that you have a government which is:
- Giving out £50 vouchers for people to get their bikes fixed to help them fight obesity and giving them a tenner off a Nandos or a McDonalds.
- Urging people to get back to work whilst allowing most civil servants remain at home.
- Telling people to go out and spend money to help the economy, then threatening to pull the shutters down again if they do.
So I've no idea why they should instruct people to undertake something which will possibly cause them harm. I gave up trying to understand the government's aims, strategies and tactics some time ago.
If I wanted to wear a mask I'd just get on and do it. I wouldn't need the benefit of an opinion. I don't need an opinion not to wear one either. I decided some time ago that I wouldn't because I'd made my own enquiries and reached my own conclusions. My cousin's advice was coincidental as I phoned her on her birthday. Jenny Harries, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England, is not my cousin. But they both hold similar views - that face coverings worn by untrained people cause more problems than they solve.
I've no objection to people wearing face coverings - they can do as they wish as far as I'm concerned. But I do have objections to people who decide to take umbrage at those not wearing them. If I see somebody not wearing one I simply assume they have decided they have a "reasonable excuse". It's no business of mine. I'm quite robust and I will give as good as I get if anybody expresses their displeasure with me - in fact they may end up wishing they'd never bothered. But many people who genuinely cannot wear a face covering are not so sturdy. Many of them have now taken to not going out to shops or on public transport because they cannot take the hassle. That is a disgraceful state of affairs and a lot of the abuse stems from Cressida *** open support for quasi-vigilantism. For the country's most senior police officer to suggest that people should be "shamed" into wearing face coverings when it is clear that large numbers will be exempt or have a reasonable excuse beggars belief.
//If it's so simple and obvious that wearing a mask is harmful, why do you think the government is demanding that we wear one?//
You'd have to ask them that. One answer could be that they are considerably in thrall to Prof. Whitty. This is the man who believes the country has been "opened up" as far as it can go. This is when: 9m people are still not working; a number of businesses are still not permitted to open; most office workers are working at home; the DVLA is all but defunct for anything other than online applications; people are having to cancel trips because they cannot get a passport; sporting events cannot have live audiences; schools have not operated for almost five months and are unlikely to properly open come September; a large part of northern England is in renewed lockdown when their local infection rates are lower than when the pubs were permitted to reopen. Prof. Whitty will urge us "to be on the safe side" which, if he had his way, would mean us all walking around in full chemical and biological warfare protection.
Another reason may be that you have a government which is:
- Giving out £50 vouchers for people to get their bikes fixed to help them fight obesity and giving them a tenner off a Nandos or a McDonalds.
- Urging people to get back to work whilst allowing most civil servants remain at home.
- Telling people to go out and spend money to help the economy, then threatening to pull the shutters down again if they do.
So I've no idea why they should instruct people to undertake something which will possibly cause them harm. I gave up trying to understand the government's aims, strategies and tactics some time ago.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
ChatterBank39 mins ago
Film, Media & TV132 mins ago
Could All Help With Signing My Petition
Seasonal188 mins ago
