Wearing masks

Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants said:
I know a local who is right down the rabbit hole with every conspiracy and he refuses to wear a mask. Went on holiday and refused on the plane. Played the ‘im exempt’ card which he isn’t and he boasted about on facebook. It’s all a hoax to him though.
Click to expand...

There's loads like that, most of them will end up ok themselves (as they're usually not in the at risk categories), but they (on average) will be much more responsible for killing someone's mum, dad or grandad etc, either from passing onto them directly or starting a chain heading their way.

I wish there was a way to let those that don't believe it or want to take risks, just have that effect them only, I would be all for it. The average intelligence of the UK would go up quickly.
 
Statto1 said:
This is contradictory. The mask reduces the viral load leaving a person (it's original secondary benefit (stop/ lower outward) has replaced the original primary benefit (stop/ lower inward)) , if that load/ volume leaving the person is reduced due to the mask, or the velocity reduced due to the mask, then the load in the atmosphere is also reduced.

But good on you for doing the latter, even if you think they're not effective.
Click to expand...
If that's the case then why don't they just test your saliva for the virus or do a cheek swab instead of sticking a rod right to back of your nose and throat? That's what I can't work out.

You can have your entire DNA worked out with a cheek swab but can't find a virus with one?
 
RandySavage said:
What I meant is businesses should be able to decide for themselves the relevant measures and restrictions.
If supermarkets are seeing an increase in verbal or physical abuse that's obviously an issue for the police and they can hire extra security staff. But you can't have government dictate to smaller shops for example or those who don't have trouble to implement security measures.
Click to expand...

Businesses do not have the expertise (or care) to know about pandemics, or there's no guarantee they will not put themselves or their bank balance ahead of the public interest (not dying).

Nobody is saying force some shop to put on bouncers, if they can handle it themselves, we're saying they need to be able to handle their own security, or be forced not to sell to those that won't behave. Small shops likely won't need it, but Tesco might, but they can afford it.
 
RandySavage said:
If that's the case then why don't they just test your saliva for the virus or do a cheek swab instead of sticking a rod right to back of your nose and throat? That's what I can't work out.

You can have your entire DNA worked out with a cheek swab but can't find a virus with one?
Click to expand...

I don't know, it's probably easier with a throat swab? Maybe it's because they have been working on testing saliva DNA for 40 years, so got quite good at doing that in that way? They've only had since about March with this virus in the UK, so all the options might not be open to us yet? I don't know, as I'm not an expert and I don't think you are either?
But I'll listen to those that are (and not just from the UK), and that have been advancing medical science for centuries.
 
Last edited:
am of the opinion that the government need to enforce law not shopkeepers, and I think this for so many reasons, not least of which is the implications of having citizens enforce legislation that is not even that well understood.

Statto, I wasn't contradicting myself with the mask comment. Even with a mask on, indoors an infected person very quickly loads the environment with the disease, whether he wears a mask or not. The one area it helps is if someone sneezes and you are only near them for a very short period of time.

If you sit in a pub for a couple of hours, masks would not help, even if everyone wore them and drank intravenously
 
In the test instructions it says to avoid the swab touching your teeth or tongue so I'd guess that it's a contamination issue as well as making sure you are making sure you get the best possible sample of the virus if it is present.
 
jam69 said:
People who are exempt should carry a letter ot id card to confirm, shop staff should refuse to serve anyone without a mask, no need for security, no need to stop entry just refuse to serve.
Also shop staff whilst out on the shop floor and not behind a screen should also wear one. It helps set the tone.
I put the Irish lottery on for my mother, as soon as you walk into the william hills they ask you to mask up or leave, it works well
Click to expand...

Store teams do wear a mask when not behind a screen - it is government guidance.
Very easy to say ‘don’t serve’ someone - have you seen the abuse (spitting etc) they get for doing just that.
A card for exemptions? Possibly. Only helps if those serving are expected to challenge them - and they are not.
 
Laughing said:
am of the opinion that the government need to enforce law not shopkeepers, and I think this for so many reasons, not least of which is the implications of having citizens enforce legislation that is not even that well understood.

Statto, I wasn't contradicting myself with the mask comment. Even with a mask on, indoors an infected person very quickly loads the environment with the disease, whether he wears a mask or not. The one area it helps is if someone sneezes and you are only near them for a very short period of time.

If you sit in a pub for a couple of hours, masks would not help, even if everyone wore them and drank intravenously
Click to expand...

We don't have enough police to put someone in each shop, and that would effectively be a massive waste anyway, for most places that could very easily handle it themselves. I wouldn't be against them putting in police in every supermarket though, I would be more than happy to pay any extra tax required to cover this ~(well my share anyway, not the full bill :)).

The load and projection distance from someone sat with a mask on is going to be less than someone without, it's impossible not to be. Even if it's 5%,10%, 50% or 75%, it's better than nothing and no hardship so everyone should do it, that can. It's helping in talking (shouting in pubs), coughing, sneezing and just general exhalation projection/ distance.

I wouldn't sit in a pub for a couple of hours, not now, but that's just me, and that's coming from someone that was out pretty much every Friday and Saturday. I've not been in a pub since February I think. I had considered it though, but would only contemplate mixing with others who I considered sensible through this pandemic. Nearly anyone I would be mixing with works from home and pretty much self isolates during the week anyway. I would probably be even less inclined to go out, if I was facing the public every day though, like if I worked in a shop, a pub or whatever. The shop/ public workers really do have it rough, I feel sorry for them.
But anyway, I think those punters and workers in pubs and restaurants should be masked up too, unless they're eating or drinking, considering the eating and drinking part is probably less than 10% of the time spent in there.
 
Last edited:
RandySavage said:
Believe so but if it's spread by droplets surely a saliva or cheek swab would be sufficient to find an infected person?
Click to expand...
From what I have read about PCR tests, it's basically a case of eliminating errors as much as possible so that you have a better chance of getting an accurate diagnosis.
When they were first done there was a lot of manual analysis which led to the results being inaccurate upto 30% of the time. With more automation now that has been reduced to about 15% or so. I'd think not having all the other stuff that is in saliva kicking about on the swab is just part of the attempt to get an as accurate result as possible.
Trust me, if there was a better way then I'd be all for it.
 
RandySavage said:
Believe so but if it's spread by droplets surely a saliva or cheek swab would be sufficient to find an infected person?
Click to expand...
A Canadian company has developed a saliva test. Only being used in British Columbia at the moment, but it will become more used as time goes by. Cheap and non-intrusive.
Link
 
Further to my post above, it just dawned on me that the 15% chance of inaccurate results might be the reason why it tells you on the email that you may be able to return to work if you have not had a high temperature for 48 hours. Sounds like it's a precautionary measure.
 
Statto1 said:
I don't know, it's probably easier with a throat swab? Maybe it's because they have been working on testing saliva DNA for 40 years, so got quite good at doing that in that way? They've only had since about March with this virus in the UK, so all the options might not be open to us yet? I don't know, as I'm not an expert and I don't think you are either?
But I'll listen to those that are (and not just from the UK), and that have been advancing medical science for centuries.
Click to expand...
I believe they look for a unique rna sequence rather than the full genetic code of the virus.
 
newyddion said:
Not as bad as walking around with no mask on for no good reason. Are you suggesting folks eat outside?
Click to expand...
I’m suggesting, taking your mask off in an indoor space exposes the same risk whether you’re eating a sandwich or not.
C’mon Newy, you’ll comprehend this, sooner or later.
 
1finny said:
‘Supermarkets not enforcing this, or saying they can't enforce it is laughable, their trade is probably up or at least even over the last 6 month as less people are eating out or going out. They're putting profits first, and hiding behind some BS excuses, because the government is too weak to enforce it on them.‘

I’ll bite
Firstly, all a customer has to do is say they are exempt. End of story, you can’t ask why.
Secondly, I have seen videos of stores being trashed, shop workers being spat at and having people cough in their faces - all for trying to do their moral duty.
It’s not the job of anyone to enforce the law other than law enforcement.

And, to suggest a local store serving a local community can stick a security guard in place costing around £1500 a week is, well lets just say ’interesting;


Wouldn’t dream of trying to convince you
But, there are those out there who don’t believe masks make a difference. They would argue, on that basis, they are not being selfish.
Full disclosure - I wear a mask.
Click to expand...
What my point is, is that why not make the wearing of masks mandatory, unless a person has a GP note to say otherwise, if the science states it reduces infection then enforce it, that includes proving medical exemption, that removes any doubt or any people trying to play the medical exemption card when they actually are not exempt? At least this way, shops , pubs etc. could enforce, they would either see a mask or a legitimate medical exemption card, not a self prescribed one.
 
Laughing said:
am of the opinion that the government need to enforce law not shopkeepers, and I think this for so many reasons, not least of which is the implications of having citizens enforce legislation that is not even that well understood.

Statto, I wasn't contradicting myself with the mask comment. Even with a mask on, indoors an infected person very quickly loads the environment with the disease, whether he wears a mask or not. The one area it helps is if someone sneezes and you are only near them for a very short period of time.

If you sit in a pub for a couple of hours, masks would not help, even if everyone wore them and drank intravenously
Click to expand...
Just on your first point, saying it is up to the government to enforce the law, not shops, does that same rule apply to the sale of alcohol or cigarettes to underage people, where do you see enforcement to lie there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top