SmallTown
Well-known member
Explain?
Mask wearing post pandemic
- Thread starter Boro1876
- Start date
SmallTown
Well-known member
What are you trying to say then. That's how I read it. maybe you should be more clear and concise.
Laughing
Well-known member
Read third legs response straight after mine st
SmallTown
Well-known member
I'll wait
Andy_W
Well-known member
It still reduces risk, it doesn't delete risk.
A reduction in risk that we have had due to masks means cases will now be lower than they otherwise would have been
Would it be 100% lower? No.
Does it need to be 100% lower? No.
Even 10% is better than nothing and 100% worth doing.
Grown men crying about having (choosing) to wear a piece of cloth over their face when out shopping (which WILL reduce others risk), pathetic.
JM14
Well-known member
These people baffle me. Do they drive their car with no seat belt and the air bags off because they wont 100% stop you dying in an accident?
Laughing
Well-known member
Andy is on my ignore list so you may be right St.
Assuming Andy is arguing that masks reduce infections. Yes they do but have no impact when infections are out of control, which they are now. It's like bailing seawater from the titanic with a teaspoon.
At the current rate of infection with no other restrictions masks have no effect.
The evidence for masks isn't that strong to begin with. When your infection rate is doubling every few days what effect are masks having. Do we have the science for that? No we don't St. You are assuming they have an effect.
You really are a poisonous fella St.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Slight problem with all of that, it's not largely logical, practical and it's unrealistic to avoid all of those things and for the economy to function, but you can simply reduce the impact and risk of those things very simply, with very little personal impact.
It's risk v reward or loss v gain.
The "level of intrusion" or "inconvenience" of wearing a mask on public transport, or in a shop is effectively nil, this is not opinion, it's fact.
It is also an extremely low standard of common decency, and respect to others who are at more risk.
If people choose not to meet this extremely low standard, then it says a lot about their standards overall.
Muttley
Well-known member
Doesn't even make sense in a sentence.
Are they?
With the same information and levels of vaccination it looks like Scotland will continue to ask for masks to be worn on Public Transport and in shops. No surprise that our populist fukkwit PM will choose to abdicate responsibility is it?
Laughing
Well-known member
If you don't understand my post apologies I should have made it simpler for you.
If the government decide to keep masks as a restriction then we should all wear one. No argument there.
If they remove the restriction its then up to the individual and people shouldn't be criticised for their decision, any more than they should be criticised for going to the pub or shopping.
Masks are effective in helping to control infection rates when used in conjunction with other measures on their own they are ineffective. If they were effective on their own we wouldn't have the infection rates we have now.
Is really not difficult mutley.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Poor fella has weak arguments against logic, so attempts to hide away from logic
Masks reduce R (or stop it being higher, whichever way you want to look at it), or the multiplier and a lower multiplier means a slower rate of growth. It could have been the difference between 30k cases now, or 40k (30k bad, 40k worse).
Example below based on a 1.05 or 1.10 multiplier, so call that maybe 5% difference by wearing a mask.
By the 15th instance you've basically doubled your poblem, effectively like compound interest. By the 30th instance you've quadrupled it.
So a 5% change in risk-on day 1, does not stay a 5% change in risk, as the risk compounds. Each instance is reliant on previous instances (all of them).
Small changes to the multiplier actually have a bigger impact when on more cases as that's how multipliers work, working on a larger number with the same multiplier is a larger number, than working on a smaller number with the same multiplier.
Also, I wouldn't call the estimated 0.5% of the population infected v 45m people vaccinated as "out of control", I would say it's very much still controllable, it just depends how much we want to do that. I don't think wearing masks is a lot to ask.
Last edited:
JM14
Well-known member
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?
streethalo
Member
I was wearing a mask during the first wave before this government recommended it, and I'll be wearing one after they say you don't need to bother anymore. That's more a reflection on how I distrust the government, rather than a dig at the real Boro men on here that don't like to wear a mask for a bit on public transport because it's uncomfortable. Or maybe it's a dig at both. Newsflash; if you are expecting to travel internationally in the next few years, you won't have a choice but to wear one, even if it is an inconvenience.
London_Boro
Well-known member
No issues in wearing a mask here. I would like them to be made mandatory on public transport tbh, especially down here!
Laughing
Well-known member
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?Poor fella has weak arguments against logic, so attempts to hide away from logic
Masks reduce R (or stop it being higher, whichever way you want to look at it), or the multiplier and a lower multiplier means a slower rate of growth. It could have been the difference between 30k cases now, or 40k (30k bad, 40k worse).
Example below based on a 1.05 or 1.10 multiplier, so call that maybe 5% difference by wearing a mask.
By the 15th instance you've basically doubled your poblem, effectively like compound interest. By the 30th instance you've quadrupled it.
So a 5% change in risk-on day 1, does not stay a 5% change in risk, as the risk compounds. Each instance is reliant on previous instances (all of them).
Small changes to the multiplier actually have a bigger impact when on more cases as that's how multipliers work, working on a larger number with the same multiplier is a larger number, than working on a smaller number with the same multiplier.
Also, I wouldn't call the estimated 0.5% of the population infected v 45m people vaccinated as "out of control", I would say it's very much still controllable, it just depends how much we want to do that. I don't think wearing masks is a lot to ask.
View attachment 20790
How much have they reduced infections by under the current restrictions? Do you know that? No?
Of course you don't.
Same_as_before
Well-known member
What is anti mask? I am not going to wear one. If you do that's fine by me. I don't eat meat, I am not anti meat, I don't smoke, I am not anti smoking, I don't watch Coronation Street, I am not against thoughs that do.
SmallTown
Well-known member
Do you understand the reasons some of us still want people to wear masks?
Same_as_before
Well-known member
Yes. Do you understand why I won't?