Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Who Wants Masks?
Boris announced yesterday that masks are to be made compulsory again in shops. In the summer he said that there would be no going back on the relaxation of measures. Face masks are a complete waste of time given the way that most people wear them so how many will join me in this little bit of civil disobedience and refuse to wear them?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by diddlydo. 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.
Gromit
All week I have been coping with people laughing ‘haha its bad in Germany, good job we were out of the EU’.
Telling them that 50,000 more have died in the UK than in Germany shuts the Mail plonkers up.
__________________________
Straight from Gromit's bumper book of things that didn't happen.
All week I have been coping with people laughing ‘haha its bad in Germany, good job we were out of the EU’.
Telling them that 50,000 more have died in the UK than in Germany shuts the Mail plonkers up.
__________________________
Straight from Gromit's bumper book of things that didn't happen.
"It implies that such deaths are preventable. They are not. "
another thought on this... the conditions that make a person particularly vulnerable to getting seriously ill or dying from covid are not for the most part fatal... obesity, high blood pressure, immunosuppression, asthma, are of course problems but it is quite possible to live a normal life with them... unless they catch covid of course. the idea that those who died of covid were frail and were not long for this world anyway is simply not true...
another thought on this... the conditions that make a person particularly vulnerable to getting seriously ill or dying from covid are not for the most part fatal... obesity, high blood pressure, immunosuppression, asthma, are of course problems but it is quite possible to live a normal life with them... unless they catch covid of course. the idea that those who died of covid were frail and were not long for this world anyway is simply not true...
https:/
some of these are serious but many of them are perfectly manageable conditions... unless you catch covid in which case the chances of dying are much higher.
some of these are serious but many of them are perfectly manageable conditions... unless you catch covid in which case the chances of dying are much higher.
youngmafbog
//Btw the above link tells of a third Omnicron case in uk//
Wowwee, three cases of a strain that is climes to be weaker than others in a population of circa 70 million(according to supermarkets and utility companies)
——-
6 new cases in Scotland alone today
Yeah you are right
Let us ignore the current variant which has got scientists and virologists worried
It will probably turn out to be nothing
Remember when the bbc reported on the very first case of Covid in the uk in an almost frivolous manner ?
Do you recall how that turned out ?
//Btw the above link tells of a third Omnicron case in uk//
Wowwee, three cases of a strain that is climes to be weaker than others in a population of circa 70 million(according to supermarkets and utility companies)
——-
6 new cases in Scotland alone today
Yeah you are right
Let us ignore the current variant which has got scientists and virologists worried
It will probably turn out to be nothing
Remember when the bbc reported on the very first case of Covid in the uk in an almost frivolous manner ?
Do you recall how that turned out ?
//…unless you catch covid.//
Or any one of a large number of other infectious diseases that might see off a person with multiple advanced ailments. In particular those which affect the respiratory system such as pneumonia, bronchitis or even “ordinary” ‘flu.
//On that basis deaths by murder or terrorism or car accidents or fires are miniscule so lets not worry//
I’ve never suggested not to “worry”. However, the measures taken to prevent terrorism or to lessen the risk of car accidents or fires are effective and do not inflict considerable collateral damage on the nation’s health and economy. Furthermore, people using aircraft or roads are encouraged to take a measured approach to the risks they are taking and it is not suggested that stepping into a car or onto an aircraft puts them at a huge risk of death.
//none the less, 220 governments have come closer to doing so than the British government.//
It is by no means certain that the various measures taken by governments have had any overall effect on the numbers being taken ill or who have died from the virus. It’s simply been assumed, but never proved (largely because there has not been a proper “control”). To see how this might be a matter to investigate, you only have to look at the epidemic curve for Sweden last winter, which did not have a 'lockdown' and where masks have never been widely used. You can see it is almost the same as the rise and fall of the curves in countries like France over the same period. Here are charts of the incidence of daily new cases for the two countries:
https:/
France had vicious restrictions right through from mid-October to mid-May, during which time bars and restaurants and other places of leisure were all completely shut, plus an overnight curfew, plus of course massive mask mandates, and yet its cases rose again in the New Year and did not come down until early May when they fell sharply - exactly the same pattern as Sweden at that same time of the year. I accept that other variables come into play, such as population density, demographics and so on. But if we are to believe that lockdowns and masks are so vital to preventing the spread of the virus, I would expect there to be a marked and noticeable difference between the spread patterns of two countries which operated such a widely different strategy when dealing with the disease. But there isn’t. The argument will no doubt go that if France had not been so harsh in its measures, their casualties would have been much worse. So why weren’t Sweden’s?
Or any one of a large number of other infectious diseases that might see off a person with multiple advanced ailments. In particular those which affect the respiratory system such as pneumonia, bronchitis or even “ordinary” ‘flu.
//On that basis deaths by murder or terrorism or car accidents or fires are miniscule so lets not worry//
I’ve never suggested not to “worry”. However, the measures taken to prevent terrorism or to lessen the risk of car accidents or fires are effective and do not inflict considerable collateral damage on the nation’s health and economy. Furthermore, people using aircraft or roads are encouraged to take a measured approach to the risks they are taking and it is not suggested that stepping into a car or onto an aircraft puts them at a huge risk of death.
//none the less, 220 governments have come closer to doing so than the British government.//
It is by no means certain that the various measures taken by governments have had any overall effect on the numbers being taken ill or who have died from the virus. It’s simply been assumed, but never proved (largely because there has not been a proper “control”). To see how this might be a matter to investigate, you only have to look at the epidemic curve for Sweden last winter, which did not have a 'lockdown' and where masks have never been widely used. You can see it is almost the same as the rise and fall of the curves in countries like France over the same period. Here are charts of the incidence of daily new cases for the two countries:
https:/
France had vicious restrictions right through from mid-October to mid-May, during which time bars and restaurants and other places of leisure were all completely shut, plus an overnight curfew, plus of course massive mask mandates, and yet its cases rose again in the New Year and did not come down until early May when they fell sharply - exactly the same pattern as Sweden at that same time of the year. I accept that other variables come into play, such as population density, demographics and so on. But if we are to believe that lockdowns and masks are so vital to preventing the spread of the virus, I would expect there to be a marked and noticeable difference between the spread patterns of two countries which operated such a widely different strategy when dealing with the disease. But there isn’t. The argument will no doubt go that if France had not been so harsh in its measures, their casualties would have been much worse. So why weren’t Sweden’s?
My wariness, is the way we record "covid deaths". I already know, from when my daughter had it last Dec (working in a residential/ nursing home), that as soon as she tested positive, she had to isolate for 10 days.
I asked her if she would be tested before she could return, but tests still show up positive for 90 days after recovery... on top of that, we include, as covid deaths, anyone with a positive test up to 28 days before.
Potentially, that is at least 4 months, from covid and recovery, that people are still being written as "covid".
Doesn't that seem excessive?
I asked her if she would be tested before she could return, but tests still show up positive for 90 days after recovery... on top of that, we include, as covid deaths, anyone with a positive test up to 28 days before.
Potentially, that is at least 4 months, from covid and recovery, that people are still being written as "covid".
Doesn't that seem excessive?
" multiple advanced ailments."
but those risk factors are not necessarily "advanced ailments"... having diabetes puts you at serious risk of illness if you catch covid and so does having asthma... neither of these are "advanced ailments" and it is perfectly possible to live a normal life with them.... but covid is a serious risk to them.
"In particular those which affect the respiratory system such as pneumonia, bronchitis or even “ordinary” ‘flu. "
Covid has a much worse mortality rate than flu or bronchitis New Judge... (haven't checked pneumonia)... it's not comparable at all.
but those risk factors are not necessarily "advanced ailments"... having diabetes puts you at serious risk of illness if you catch covid and so does having asthma... neither of these are "advanced ailments" and it is perfectly possible to live a normal life with them.... but covid is a serious risk to them.
"In particular those which affect the respiratory system such as pneumonia, bronchitis or even “ordinary” ‘flu. "
Covid has a much worse mortality rate than flu or bronchitis New Judge... (haven't checked pneumonia)... it's not comparable at all.
//Maybe your question should be "Who wants Covid?"//
It might be if it could be shown that wearing (usually incorrectly) a loosely fitting piece of cloth round your face prevented the wearer from contracting the virus. But it doesn't. Those who require such protection should not rely or expect others to provide it but instead make their own arrangements by properly wearing a medical grade mask (such as FFP3) themselves.
It might be if it could be shown that wearing (usually incorrectly) a loosely fitting piece of cloth round your face prevented the wearer from contracting the virus. But it doesn't. Those who require such protection should not rely or expect others to provide it but instead make their own arrangements by properly wearing a medical grade mask (such as FFP3) themselves.
Untitled, I don't know this, I was hoping to ask sunny dave, or at least, someone willing to read, consider and not be biased. But...
Does wearing a cloth mask, and I'm willing to concede there could be a tiny barrier advantage, genuinely offset the difference in behaviour when people are wearing one?
I noticed right from the first day of mandatory masks, originally, that people were both passing closer and standing closer, than they had been without them. Does the sense of reassurance (originally the reason for masks), actually outweigh any potential benefit?
Does wearing a cloth mask, and I'm willing to concede there could be a tiny barrier advantage, genuinely offset the difference in behaviour when people are wearing one?
I noticed right from the first day of mandatory masks, originally, that people were both passing closer and standing closer, than they had been without them. Does the sense of reassurance (originally the reason for masks), actually outweigh any potential benefit?
//Covid has a much worse mortality rate than flu or bronchitis New Judge... (haven't checked pneumonia)... it's not comparable at all.//
It's interesting that you know that without having checked. Actually cardiovascular disease and cancer are the biggest causes of death amongst diabetics - as they are amongst the general population.
My point is that people suffering from diabetes and many other chronic conditions stand a far greater chance of becoming seriously ill or dying from any number of ailments which would not cause otherwise healthy people to be so badly affected. It's unfortunate, but there it is. They have to take extra precautions against contracting those diseases. The notion that their fellow human beings will somehow help them with that by badly wearing an ill fitting, largely ineffective face covering is lulling them into a false sense of security.
It's interesting that you know that without having checked. Actually cardiovascular disease and cancer are the biggest causes of death amongst diabetics - as they are amongst the general population.
My point is that people suffering from diabetes and many other chronic conditions stand a far greater chance of becoming seriously ill or dying from any number of ailments which would not cause otherwise healthy people to be so badly affected. It's unfortunate, but there it is. They have to take extra precautions against contracting those diseases. The notion that their fellow human beings will somehow help them with that by badly wearing an ill fitting, largely ineffective face covering is lulling them into a false sense of security.
Here are a couple of studies on the question Pixie poses:
https:/
https:/
It's hard to interpret these results, beyond noting that the answer is very difficult to entangle, but it does seem that, as long as a mask is properly worn (over nose and mouth), then its effect is probably more significant than reduced social distancing.
If, on the other hand, the mask isn't properly-worn, then all bets are off.
https:/
https:/
It's hard to interpret these results, beyond noting that the answer is very difficult to entangle, but it does seem that, as long as a mask is properly worn (over nose and mouth), then its effect is probably more significant than reduced social distancing.
If, on the other hand, the mask isn't properly-worn, then all bets are off.
Latest Posts
Strands #260 “Coming Up For...
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Are We Heading Towards Another...
Politics175 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.