Mask wearing post pandemic

Will you still wear one?

  • Yes

    Votes: 94 62.7%

  • No

    Votes: 56 37.3%
  • Total voters
    150
Laughing said:
So you dont know Andy? You are guessing how effective masks are. I thought it was scientifically proven, ST says so, so we should know by how much masks reduce infections, shouldn't we?
Click to expand...
I've never said how effective they are, I've just said they're effective, and used 5% as an example.

I then gave an example about how a change in a risk multiplier by 5% can compound over time to be 400%, or 300% more.

I'm assuming you admit they do help though, which makes your entire previous pointless argument(s) even more pointless.

How much do you think they help? I assume you would think it's more than 1%? The governments and scientists of the responsible world probably think it's more than 1%, hence why they're being used all over the world.

Here's a calculation based on a 1% difference, just for arguments sake.
1625493533018.png

Still ends up with 34% more infections, after 30 instances, that could be in 30 weeks time, or whatever.

Maybe you can tell the 34% more dead, or 34% more with long covid that they don't matter to you.
 
JM14 said:
You’ve just admitted you were talking ***** about that a few posts back, why are you now using it in a separate argument when you know it’s not comparable?
Click to expand...
Are you really that dim? I am only talking b***ks if you are. If you all want to go down this route thats fine, but if you do I am equally able to say your all just as selfish.

You want to do as much as you are prepared to do and no more, but your hypocrisy is that you want everyone else to do the same as you, without being prepared to do what others do.

Insult all you like, it doesn't make you right.

Do as you please and **** off if you think you can tell others what to do, is my only point, and it's a valid one.
 
Andy_W said:
I've never said how effective they are, I've just said they're effective, and used 5% as an example.

I then gave an example about how a change in a risk multiplier by 5% can compound over time to be 400%, or 300% more.

Glad you admit they do help though, which makes your entire previous pointless argument(s) even more pointless.

How much do you think they help? I assume you would think it's more than 1%? The governments and sceintists of the repsobsible world probably think it's more than 1%, hence why they're being used all over the world.

Here's a calculation based on a 1% difference, just for arguments sake.
View attachment 20793

Still ends up with 34% more infections, after 30 instances, that could be in 30 weeks time, or whatever.

Maybe you can tell teh 34% more dead, or 34% more with long covid that they don't matter to you.
Click to expand...
One in 7 infections lead to long covid and 1 in 35 to long covid for over a year. So, if there are 25,000 cases today, that's 3.5k long covid sufferers and 700 will have long covid for over a year.
 
bear66 said:
One in 7 infections lead to long covid and 1 in 35 to long covid for over a year. So, if there are 25,000 cases today, that's 3.5k long covid sufferers and 700 will have long covid for over a year.
Click to expand...
Yup, something which the deniers casually flutter over or ignore.
 
Laughing said:
How much have they reduced infections by under the current restrictions? Do you know that? No?

Of course you don't.
Click to expand...
No idea, I don't have a parallel universe, unfortunately (neither do you), I know it's not zero though, what about you?

The point is, we don't have to pin a number on it exactly, as basic logic dictates that it's certainly a help, for an extremely little inconvenience.

My bet is it's probably helped between 1% and 10%, but that the 1% and 10% has compounded over time, and even a 1% change in risk over a long durations and multiple instances ends up being a lot, when dealing with billions of people.
 
Laughing said:
Are you really that dim? I am only talking b***ks if you are. If you all want to go down this route thats fine, but if you do I am equally able to say your all just as selfish.

You want to do as much as you are prepared to do and no more, but your hypocrisy is that you want everyone else to do the same as you, without being prepared to do what others do.

Insult all you like, it doesn't make you right.

Do as you please and **** off if you think you can tell others what to do, is my only point, and it's a valid one.
Click to expand...
What am I not prepared to do that others are doing?
 
JM14 said:
What am I not prepared to do that others are doing?
Click to expand...
My dad wont go to the pub, a restaurant or football. He doesn't go to the cinema either, but then he hasnt done that for years anyway.

He doesn't do these things because we are in the middle of a pandemic and he thinks its irresponsible to do that.

I don't agree with him, but he doesn't call me selfish for not agreeing with him.

So plenty of people forgoe things that you possibly are not. That's their choice and you have your choices to make and you should be able to do them without other people calling you names.

I really cannot make this any clearer. Make your own decisions and let others make theirs without the childish reprisals.
 
Laughing said:
My dad wont go to the pub, a restaurant or football. He doesn't go to the cinema either, but then he hasnt done that for years anyway.

He doesn't do these things because we are in the middle of a pandemic and he thinks its irresponsible to do that.

I don't agree with him, but he doesn't call me selfish for not agreeing with him.

So plenty of people forgoe things that you possibly are not. That's their choice and you have your choices to make and you should be able to do them without other people calling you names.

I really cannot make this any clearer. Make your own decisions and let others make theirs without the childish reprisals.
Click to expand...
Completely missing the point of this though, to do all of those things will have a significant impact on your health as well as the economy if everyone did. And its not just going to the pub, what about those having to go to work or use public transport? Mask wearing has zero negative effects which is the entire point of this discussion. You cant expect people to stay locked away forever but why shouldnt people continue mask wearing, no one has been able to give an answer for this yet?
 
Laughing said:
Who are the deniers you are talking of Andy? Some people just want to argue and look down their noses at others. Beggars belief it really does.
Click to expand...
Been a few on here along the way, plenty on social media, plenty in real life etc. Most of the time it is ignorance, lack of intelligence or incompetence which leads to this.

What is worse though (in my opinion), is the competent not acknowledging that long covid is as a problem, or even not highlighting this as a problem when defending or arguing for things which will no doubt lead to more risk, when the settings dictate that risk does not need to be needlessly increased.

i.e arguing for no masks on public transport is daft when a mask can easily reduce risk. It's not the same as increasing the risk in a setting where the setting could not reasonably exist with the risk reduction measures in place (ie pubs/ restaurants).

It's horses for courses, reduce risk where you can easily, for little inconvenience, in settings which people rely on have to be forced to take risk (public transport), allow more risk when industries rely in it, and people can largely choose whether they want to use them or not (pubs restaurants).
 
I think some of people are going to struggle when people are told that they don't have to wear masks anymore. Lots of people will not wear them. I fear for the mental state of some people who sound like this is going to cause them real stress.

They whys, wheres, and what-about arguments will all go out of the window as soon as the Gov't make that decision.
 
JM14 said:
Completely missing the point of this though, to do all of those things will have a significant impact on your health as well as the economy if everyone did. And its not just going to the pub, what about those having to go to work or use public transport? Mask wearing has zero negative effects which is the entire point of this discussion. You cant expect people to stay locked away forever but why shouldnt people continue mask wearing, no one has been able to give an answer for this yet?
Click to expand...
Because if the restriction is removed you don't have to. that is the answer, it really is as simple as that.

You don't have the knowledge or expertise to criticize someone for following the governmental guideline. Have your opinion, that's great, we all have one. Advocate for it even, nothing wrong with that. As always the tone in these conversation drops bit by bit. People are selfish, they can't explain why they won't wear a mask. They don't have to explain to you and why on earth would they feel the need to?

Oh and I am not missing the point at all. Not once have I missed the point. I get what you are saying, it's just an amateur opinion and one you are so attached to you feel you have the right to criticize someone for ignoring your amateur opinion.

As for the actions having an effect on the economy and your health. Hmm maybe, so let's kill folk to get the economy moving. The point of this example was to highlight 2 things. Firstly you started using those facilities when the government said you could, despite the fact that shops, pubs restaurants are all infection vectors. You didn't do this to help the economy, you did it because you wanted to.

Almost certainly the government opened shops up too early, you used them anyway. they opened pubs up too early, you used those too. Nothing wrong with that, but it increased infections and did so at a rate far higher than someone not wearing a mask.
 
Laughing said:
Because if the restriction is removed you don't have to. that is the answer, it really is as simple as that.

You don't have the knowledge or expertise to criticize someone for following the governmental guideline. Have your opinion, that's great, we all have one. Advocate for it even, nothing wrong with that. As always the tone in these conversation drops bit by bit. People are selfish, they can't explain why they won't wear a mask. They don't have to explain to you and why on earth would they feel the need to?

Oh and I am not missing the point at all. Not once have I missed the point. I get what you are saying, it's just an amateur opinion and one you are so attached to you feel you have the right to criticize someone for ignoring your amateur opinion.

As for the actions having an effect on the economy and your health. Hmm maybe, so let's kill folk to get the economy moving. The point of this example was to highlight 2 things. Firstly you started using those facilities when the government said you could, despite the fact that shops, pubs restaurants are all infection vectors. You didn't do this to help the economy, you did it because you wanted to.

Almost certainly the government opened shops up too early, you used them anyway. they opened pubs up too early, you used those too. Nothing wrong with that, but it increased infections and did so at a rate far higher than someone not wearing a mask.
Click to expand...
Because you don’t have to, assumed that would be the case. Take some personal responsibility
 
JM14 said:
Because you don’t have to, assumed that would be the case. Take some personal responsibility
Click to expand...
I don't understand that post? I assume you are asking me to take some personal responsibility?

What personal responsibility should I take?
 
Laughing said:
Because if the restriction is removed you don't have to. that is the answer, it really is as simple as that.

You don't have the knowledge or expertise to criticize someone for following the governmental guideline. Have your opinion, that's great, we all have one. Advocate for it even, nothing wrong with that. As always the tone in these conversation drops bit by bit. People are selfish, they can't explain why they won't wear a mask. They don't have to explain to you and why on earth would they feel the need to?

Oh and I am not missing the point at all. Not once have I missed the point. I get what you are saying, it's just an amateur opinion and one you are so attached to you feel you have the right to criticize someone for ignoring your amateur opinion.

As for the actions having an effect on the economy and your health. Hmm maybe, so let's kill folk to get the economy moving. The point of this example was to highlight 2 things. Firstly you started using those facilities when the government said you could, despite the fact that shops, pubs restaurants are all infection vectors. You didn't do this to help the economy, you did it because you wanted to.

Almost certainly the government opened shops up too early, you used them anyway. they opened pubs up too early, you used those too. Nothing wrong with that, but it increased infections and did so at a rate far higher than someone not wearing a mask.
Click to expand...

Completely missed the point again.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should (or have to), without a thought or care in the world. Especially when it comes to this government, well known for taking on far too much risk with this pandemic, and also well known for getting ahead of themselves.

They don't ban smoking, but most of us know it's a bad idea and that doing it increases the risk to the user and to others, same with drinking. But just because it's not banned doesn't mean most people should go and smoke 100 a day and neck 20 pints. People don't do it as they moderate their risk, which has a knock-on effect of helping others (or not increasing others risk).

People are selfish if they don't choose to wear a mask on public transport, around others who have no choice but to use it. Even more selfish if they have no logical reasoning to back up why they don't want to do it, at the current time when we have rocketing cases. Just because they don't have to give an excuse, doesn't mean they shouldn't have one, and we've not heard a good one against it yet (other than they're cry-babies).

There is an economical benefit to people going to pubs and restaurants, which is largely following people getting a social benefit from it initially. There's no economic benefit to not wearing a mask on train or bus, and the social impact is next to nil, for the vast majority of people.

Also, whilst the government seem to be lifting restrictions, they are not seemingly advising throwing all caution to the wind. It looks like they're going to put some of the responsibility on the people, which probably means the unselfish limiting risk where simply practical, for the benefit of all (including the unselfish). And the selfish increasing the risk to all, more than they need to, largely as they're jack.
 
Andy_W said:
Completely missed the point again.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should (or have to), without a thought or care in the world. Especially when it comes to this government, well known for taking on far too much risk with this pandemic, and also well known for getting ahead of themselves.

They don't ban smoking, but most of us know it's a bad idea and that doing it increases the risk to the user and to others, same with drinking. But just because it's not banned doesn't mean most people should go and smoke 100 a day and neck 20 pints. People don't do it as they moderate their risk, which has a knock-on effect of helping others (or not increasing others risk).

People are selfish if they don't choose to wear a mask on public transport, around others who have no choice but to use it. Even more selfish if they have no logical reasoning to back up why they don't want to do it, at the current time when we have rocketing cases. Just because they don't have to give an excuse, doesn't mean they shouldn't have one, and we've not heard a good one against it yet (other than they're cry-babies).

There is an economical benefit to people going to pubs and restaurants, which is largely following people getting a social benefit from it initially. There's no economic benefit to not wearing a mask on train or bus, and the social impact is next to nil, for the vast majority of people.

Also, whilst the government seem to be lifting restrictions, they are not seemingly advising throwing all caution to the wind. It looks like they're going to put some of the responsibility on the people, which probably means the unselfish limiting risk where simply practical, for the benefit of all (including the unselfish). And the selfish increasing the risk to all, more than they need to, largely as they're jack.
Click to expand...
Back to the selfish argument Andy. Nobody goes to the pub to oil the wheels off British commerce. They go because they want to and the health implications in a pandemic be dammed. Don't try and pretend it's for any other reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top