Covid deniers and anti maskers

Laughing said:
OK Andy, let me try and be clear. The only real world test on a large sample size was done with flu. Masks were found to have little or no effect in stopping the spread of flu indoors, if you were in an enclosed space for an extended period of time.

No research has been done on the social effects of a population wearing masks, nor the additional health problems masks cause when being disposed of.

You believe that masks help, the truth is, if they do help, they help very little and that may well be offset, and them some, by the other problems that masks cause: lack of social distancing, more mixing, false sense of security and disposal.

It's not conspiracy, it's not a single scietists view. During the current pandemic, it is safer for the WHO to advise mask wearing, they see it as a blameless decision, which it largely is. Probably does no harm, overall, so why wouldn't you.

My issue is not with wearing a mask or not, I like my mask, it keeps my face warm. My issue is solely your categorization of anyone who thinks a mask is innefective, as a moron. They cearly are not.
Click to expand...
Right, "little effect" is good, for flu, this transmits easier and worse than flu, so the "little effect", becomes a "bigger effect", due to increased transmissibility. Any reduced effect is a benefit, this is a small piece of a big puzzle, and the pieces all add up.

The idea is to also be cutting down that "extended period of time", if you're in anywhere longer, you should be wearing a better mask, in line with the level of risk.

"No research has been done on the social effects of a population wearing masks, nor the additional health problems masks cause when being disposed of."

Why do you need research for that? Putting increased people at risk to get that research, which would likely fail? Maybe it's not been done in massive detail as it's so blindingly not an issue looked at risk v reward. If people can't wear a mask to help stop a pandemic because of unproven "social effects", then we're screwed.
What are the social effects of more dead people and longer lockdowns to get R below 1?
Mask in the bin, that's not for recycling, whoever empties the bins wears gloves, who is binning masks in supermarkets? Who is emptying bins in supermarkets not wearing gloves?

There's no "scientists view" on a lot of things, it doesn't mean that they're not blindingly obvious to not cause harm or net cause benefit.
Your increased risks may have been assessed at 1, the other option maybe a 3.

I've not assessed the risk of jumping out of the tree in my back garden, but I'm going to hazard guess that it won't end well, and so would 99% of people. I don't think getting 10,000 people to try it out would be a net benefit.

My issue is people thinking they know better than the thousands of people in medical and virology professions, that are saying wear a mask, and they're feeding information to leaders and health experts of every responsible country. Or thinking a mask is ineffective, with zero proof it's ineffective for coronavirus.

Just because something is not proven beyond doubt, does not mean the probability is 50/50, it's far from it, when pretty much every single country has come to the same conclusion that they're going to help, when weighing up the pros and cons. Going against that, makes someone an idiot, and spreading disinformation or bringing this into question is even worse.
 
Andy_W said:
Right, "little effect" is good, for flu, this transmits easier and worse than flu, so the "little effect", becomes a "bigger effect", due to increased transmissibility. Any reduced effect is a benefit, this is a small piece of a big puzzle, and the pieces all add up.

The idea is to also be cutting down that "extended period of time", if you're in anywhere longer, you should be wearing a better mask, in line with the level of risk.

"No research has been done on the social effects of a population wearing masks, nor the additional health problems masks cause when being disposed of."

Why do you need research for that? Putting increased people at risk to get that research, which would likely fail? Maybe it's not been done in massive detail as it's so blindingly not an issue looked at risk v reward. If people can't wear a mask to help stop a pandemic because of unproven "social effects", then we're screwed.
What are the social effects of more dead people and longer lockdowns to get R below 1?
Mask in the bin, that's not for recycling, whoever empties the bins wears gloves, who is binning masks in supermarkets? Who is emptying bins in supermarkets not wearing gloves?

There's no "scientists view" on a lot of things, it doesn't mean that they're not blindingly obvious to not cause harm or net cause benefit.
Your increased risks may have been assessed at 1, the other option maybe a 3.

I've not assessed the risk of jumping out of the tree in my back garden, but I'm going to hazard guess that it won't end well, and so would 99% of people. I don't think getting 10,000 people to try it out would be a net benefit.

My issue is people thinking they know better than the thousands of people in medical and virology professions, that are saying wear a mask, and they're feeding information to leaders and health experts of every responsible country. Or thinking a mask is ineffective, with zero proof it's ineffective for coronavirus.

Just because something is not proven beyond doubt, does not mean the probability is 50/50, it's far from it, when pretty much every single country has come to the same conclusion that they're going to help, when weighing up the pros and cons. Going against that, makes someone an idiot, and spreading disinformation or bringing this into question is even worse.
Click to expand...
You have now gone from all scientific evidence points to... To a different tone, apportioning your opinion.

To be clear, masks do no harm and may help, lets wear them. Anyone who thinks they are innefective is not a moron. That was my point, Classifying anyone who has done sufficient research and come to a different conclusion to you, as a moron is nonsense. There is plenty of evidence to support the premise that masks have a marginal effect at best.

Think about this for a minute, if masks do have a significant impact, why were cases still rising exponentially before lockdown? Could it be masks are not very effective instopping the spread of a virus.
 
Andy_W said:
Right, "little effect" is good, for flu, this transmits easier and worse than flu, so the "little effect", becomes a "bigger effect", due to increased transmissibility. Any reduced effect is a benefit, this is a small piece of a big puzzle, and the pieces all add up.

The idea is to also be cutting down that "extended period of time", if you're in anywhere longer, you should be wearing a better mask, in line with the level of risk.

"No research has been done on the social effects of a population wearing masks, nor the additional health problems masks cause when being disposed of."

Why do you need research for that? Putting increased people at risk to get that research, which would likely fail? Maybe it's not been done in massive detail as it's so blindingly not an issue looked at risk v reward. If people can't wear a mask to help stop a pandemic because of unproven "social effects", then we're screwed.
What are the social effects of more dead people and longer lockdowns to get R below 1?
Mask in the bin, that's not for recycling, whoever empties the bins wears gloves, who is binning masks in supermarkets? Who is emptying bins in supermarkets not wearing gloves?

There's no "scientists view" on a lot of things, it doesn't mean that they're not blindingly obvious to not cause harm or net cause benefit.
Your increased risks may have been assessed at 1, the other option maybe a 3.

I've not assessed the risk of jumping out of the tree in my back garden, but I'm going to hazard guess that it won't end well, and so would 99% of people. I don't think getting 10,000 people to try it out would be a net benefit.

My issue is people thinking they know better than the thousands of people in medical and virology professions, that are saying wear a mask, and they're feeding information to leaders and health experts of every responsible country. Or thinking a mask is ineffective, with zero proof it's ineffective for coronavirus.

Just because something is not proven beyond doubt, does not mean the probability is 50/50, it's far from it, when pretty much every single country has come to the same conclusion that they're going to help, when weighing up the pros and cons. Going against that, makes someone an idiot, and spreading disinformation or bringing this into question is even worse.
Click to expand...
The link I posted above has references to a flu mask trial with protective efficacy greater than 80% and also social issues of mask wearing, such as the 'seat belt' effect.
 
bear66 said:
The link I posted above has references to a flu mask trial with protective efficacy greater than 80% and also social issues of mask wearing, such as the 'seat belt' effect.
Click to expand...
Yup and completely ignores another trial that I looked at Bear. One thing, and I haven't finished reading yet, is that trials are few and far between and I can see some problems with the methodology used.

For example in the flu transmission in households study the report refers to:

It found that face masks were 79% effective in preventing transmission, if they were used by all household members prior to symptoms occurring.

There is an obvious problem with that, in as much as no one in the families studied may ever contract covid so the masks would appear to be 100% effective.

As I say not finished reading it yet.
 
Andy_W said:
The masks don't produce anything, it's the body doing that (caught after big infected by other bodies).
Click to expand...
It really is that simple. The argument that washing hands is more important is bunk. It's a respiratory disease, if you allow uninhibited respiratory expulsion of the virus, then more surfaces will be covered with virus, thus you will need to wash hands even more often, airborn driplets will more prevalent for you to breath in. If everyone wears masks, the number of airborn droplets is massively reduced, thus you are less likely to breath in and less likely to touch a surface with the virus......this really isn't rocket science, why are people over complicating it....it's a respiratory virus!
 
Laughing said:
It found that face masks were 79% effective in preventing transmission, if they were used by all household members prior to symptoms occurring.

There is an obvious problem with that, in as much as no one in the families studied may ever contract covid so the masks would appear to be 100% effective.
Click to expand...
clearly someone was infected but didn't infect other family members, otherwise it would have stated 100%
 
Going back to the original point of all anti maskers and Vaxers being pro brexit right wingers I think they are a tiny minority. I personally don’t know one person that wouldn’t have the vaccine and only know one that moans about masks and that’s my father in law. He’s an a lifelong union member and Labour voter who would gladly strangle Boris so I’m not sure it’s simply a right wing thing either.

As far as brexit goes Someone said that all racists voted brexit. I would imagine that’s right due to a misguided view of immigration and what would happen post brexit. But what is never mentioned on here is the long standing dislike the traditional left has had for the EU. Tony Benn hated the EU saying it was anti democratic and removed power from him as an elected MP. Peter Shore, Eric Heffer, Hugh Gaitskill through to the likes of Galloway and dare I say it maybe even Corbyn if he were honest. You had Labour MPs like Graham Stringer, John Mann, Frank Field and Ronnie Campbell, Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey all on the leave side.

On the flip side the remain campaign is hardly dominated by angels. You have Ken Clarke hated by the unions in the 80s when Secretary of State for both Health and education for Thatcher. You have the multi millionaire Tory grandee that is Heseltine who put the final nail in the coffin of the coal industry at the behest of that prominent remainer Sir John Major. Cameron and Osbourne who created a decade of austerity and brought misery to millions. Let’s not forget both sides were sharing platforms with undesirables.

The playground name calling of thick, racist gammons has been counter productive and it needs to stop if that red wall is ever to be rebuilt other wise Small Town’s Tories will be in for a generation. Again.
 
You'd think the leader of the opposition would be setting an example. I mean meeting 10 other people from 10 separate households, with no masks in an enclosed poorly ventilated office space is a great example to set isn't it?

20210212_115310.jpg

Note Mr Starmer quickly deleted this photo off of his twitter after someone pointed it out to him. 😂
 
Last edited:
BoroMart said:
It really is that simple. The argument that washing hands is more important is bunk. It's a respiratory disease, if you allow uninhibited respiratory expulsion of the virus, then more surfaces will be covered with virus, thus you will need to wash hands even more often, airborn driplets will more prevalent for you to breath in. If everyone wears masks, the number of airborn droplets is massively reduced, thus you are less likely to breath in and less likely to touch a surface with the virus......this really isn't rocket science, why are people over complicating it....it's a respiratory virus!
Click to expand...
If you say so.
 
Randy said:
You'd think the leader of the opposition would be setting an example. I mean meeting 10 other people from 10 separate households, with no masks in an enclosed poorly ventilated office space is a great example to set isn't it?

View attachment 13588

Note Mr Starmer quickly deleted this photo off of his twitter after someone pointed it out to him. 😂
Click to expand...
Probably why he seems to be constantly self isolating.
 
Randy said:
You'd think the leader of the opposition would be setting an example. I mean meeting 10 other people from 10 separate households, with no masks in an enclosed poorly ventilated office space is a great example to set isn't it?

View attachment 13588

Note Mr Starmer quickly deleted this photo off of his twitter after someone pointed it out to him. 😂
Click to expand...
 
Laughing said:
You have now gone from all scientific evidence points to... To a different tone, apportioning your opinion.

To be clear, masks do no harm and may help, lets wear them. Anyone who thinks they are innefective is not a moron. That was my point, Classifying anyone who has done sufficient research and come to a different conclusion to you, as a moron is nonsense. There is plenty of evidence to support the premise that masks have a marginal effect at best.

Think about this for a minute, if masks do have a significant impact, why were cases still rising exponentially before lockdown? Could it be masks are not very effective instopping the spread of a virus
Click to expand...

No, I haven't changed stance, evidence suggests that masks help, hence why every responsible country is using them.
I've changed tone, to debunk your BS, that you've not backed up in any way, which is effectively a conspiracy theory or is implying that the entire world is using masks just for the craic, or for something they know will be a net loss, which is obviously BS.

Your's and others problems are what you're classing as "research", yours and others ability to carry out "research" is less than that of the experts that are advising the governments of the entire world. If you knew what you were on about, people would be listening to you, or your opinion would marry up with the wider consensus of experts, and those advising the entire world.

"Think about this for a minute, if masks do have a significant impact, why were cases still rising exponentially before lockdown? Could it be masks are not very effective instopping the spread of a virus"

:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: Are you for real?

Masks have an impact, it may not be significant as in reducing 60% of cases, but it doesn't need to be. If it helps by 10% that is a massive gain but will not work on its own, that's why the pubs are shut, people are using anti-bac, social distancing etc. Not one of them will do a job on their own, it's a combination of effects. If you take one of those reductions away, R goes up.

Before Christmas the combination of effects was large enough to keep R above 1 (and it would have been higher had people not been wearing masks), in January the combination has been < 1.

The pre-Christmas rise was because people were mixing, social movements were up, shopping, having Christmas dinner with 8 others.
Even if people wore hazmat suits and gas masks in supermarkets that wouldn't have been enough to offset the other failures.
The idea is that a mask helps you to the goal of getting R below 1. If that's 20% great if it's 10% also great. The 10% might mean you're not locked down for an extra 2-3 weeks, or might knock 10% off the death toll. Even if it's 5%, that's still massive, it's certainly not making it worse.
 
Andy_W said:
No, I haven't changed stance, evidence suggests that masks help, hence why every responsible country is using them.
I've changed tone, to debunk your BS, that you've not backed up in any way, which is effectively a conspiracy theory or is implying that the entire world is using masks just for the craic, or for something they know will be a net loss, which is obviously BS.

Your's and others problems are what you're classing as "research", yours and others ability to carry out "research" is less than that of the experts that are advising the governments of the entire world. If you knew what you were on about, people would be listening to you, or your opinion would marry up with the wider consensus of experts, and those advising the entire world.

"Think about this for a minute, if masks do have a significant impact, why were cases still rising exponentially before lockdown? Could it be masks are not very effective instopping the spread of a virus"

:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: Are you for real?

Masks have an impact, it may not be significant as in reducing 60% of cases, but it doesn't need to be. If it helps by 10% that is a massive gain but will not work on its own, that's why the pubs are shut, people are using anti-bac, social distancing etc. Not one of them will do a job on their own, it's a combination of effects. If you take one of those reductions away, R goes up.

Before Christmas the combination of effects was large enough to keep R above 1 (and it would have been higher had people not been wearing masks), in January the combination has been < 1.

The pre-Christmas rise was because people were mixing, social movements were up, shopping, having Christmas dinner with 8 others.
Even if people wore hazmat suits and gas masks in supermarkets that wouldn't have been enough to offset the other failures.
The idea is that a mask helps you to the goal of getting R below 1. If that's 20% great if it's 10% also great. The 10% might mean you're not locked down for an extra 2-3 weeks, or might knock 10% off the death toll. Even if it's 5%, that's still massive, it's certainly not making it worse.
Click to expand...
OK what a crock. Do you even read what I write? Have you bothered to read any scientific papers on the efficacy of mask wearing? Do you understand why masks produce a social effect that no study has ever been completed on?


You want to debate, I am good with that if you want to insult shove it you patronizing ****
 
Laughing said:
If you say so.
Click to expand...
I do say so, and it is that simple

You stop it at source. You don't tell people the answer is to resolve the incident where you end up with virus on your hands by washing, you tell people to solve the initial underlying problem, which is to reduce the amount of virus on surfaces by masking up.

Solving incidents is a band aid, solving problems is a solution that reduces incidents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top