Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok what do I put in the search on Netflix? I'll watch it tonight "Nazi Concentration Camps. It really is hard to watch. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok what do I put in the search on Netflix? I'll watch it tonight
Nazi Concentration Camps.
It really is hard to watch. "Noted thanks | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The growing up will be needed when half the country are out of work and can't feed themselves or their families." Sure. And the pain will be prolonged if we don't all pull together and do the work towards eradicating the virus. It isn't public health or economy. Ignoring public health will fuck up the economy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The growing up will be needed when half the country are out of work and can't feed themselves or their families." I have no idea what your point is. Many people have suffered due to covid19 - loss of life, loss of independence (those shielding), increase of mental health conditions, financial losses, and losses not mentioned. I'm having a dig at people with a poor attitude with regards to thinking about others. You know the ones who boast about not wearing masks for example. And not those who are exempt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The growing up will be needed when half the country are out of work and can't feed themselves or their families. Sure. And the pain will be prolonged if we don't all pull together and do the work towards eradicating the virus. It isn't public health or economy. Ignoring public health will fuck up the economy" We're not expecting to eradicate it. Just keep transmission suppressed as much as possible. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The growing up will be needed when half the country are out of work and can't feed themselves or their families. Sure. And the pain will be prolonged if we don't all pull together and do the work towards eradicating the virus. It isn't public health or economy. Ignoring public health will fuck up the economy We're not expecting to eradicate it. Just keep transmission suppressed as much as possible. " I know. Hence "work towards". If it's less of a problem, confidence will increase and we have a better chance of rebuilding. Rather than some people going out and spending, others not, and maybe bam lockdown again economy fucked some more. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The growing up will be needed when half the country are out of work and can't feed themselves or their families. Sure. And the pain will be prolonged if we don't all pull together and do the work towards eradicating the virus. It isn't public health or economy. Ignoring public health will fuck up the economy" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think throwing insults around is gonna help the situation. I agree we have little to whine about in the grand scheme of things, but I think people have the right to question the government and the decisions made and the extensive powers they have chosen to award themselves via hastily passed legislation. I think as part of a democratic society it is right that people speak out and question when their freedoms are encroached upon. " I think there's a difference between "due process was not followed and this may have implications for our democracy" and "I donwanna wear a mask". The first is sensible and should be examined. The second is puerile. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think throwing insults around is gonna help the situation. I agree we have little to whine about in the grand scheme of things, but I think people have the right to question the government and the decisions made and the extensive powers they have chosen to award themselves via hastily passed legislation. I think as part of a democratic society it is right that people speak out and question when their freedoms are encroached upon. " I agree, especially when you consider the numerous inconsistencies with the current face covering situation . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think throwing insults around is gonna help the situation. I agree we have little to whine about in the grand scheme of things, but I think people have the right to question the government and the decisions made and the extensive powers they have chosen to award themselves via hastily passed legislation. I think as part of a democratic society it is right that people speak out and question when their freedoms are encroached upon. I agree, especially when you consider the numerous inconsistencies with the current face covering situation ." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think throwing insults around is gonna help the situation. I agree we have little to whine about in the grand scheme of things, but I think people have the right to question the government and the decisions made and the extensive powers they have chosen to award themselves via hastily passed legislation. I think as part of a democratic society it is right that people speak out and question when their freedoms are encroached upon. I agree, especially when you consider the numerous inconsistencies with the current face covering situation ." 1. The science changed 2. Availability changed 3. The government bungled it 4. Cover your germ holes | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watch the Nazi Concentration Camps documentary, made in 1945 during liberation of prisoners. Then bleat that certain lock down restrictions and mitigations are all about controlling the people. " I fail to see the relevance of the slaughter of thousands of people by a madman and not being able to go to the pub for a few weeks but good luck. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just watched it and it was absolutely horrific. I get where you coming from in your title...we have endured bugger all in comparison. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sadly not a day goes by on here with someone bleating on about Adolf.. Let if go ffs . " First time I've noticed any mention of Adolf, but tantrums about having to wear a mask are so prevalent that you can click on any thread here and find one... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think throwing insults around is gonna help the situation. I agree we have little to whine about in the grand scheme of things, but I think people have the right to question the government and the decisions made and the extensive powers they have chosen to award themselves via hastily passed legislation. I think as part of a democratic society it is right that people speak out and question when their freedoms are encroached upon. I think there's a difference between "due process was not followed and this may have implications for our democracy" and "I donwanna wear a mask". The first is sensible and should be examined. The second is puerile." Saves me responding  .
Also, a pansy - a pretty little garden flower, now compare that "insult" to others that have been thrown about in the forum  . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am acutely aware of the concentration camps. I had direct relative who perished in Sobibor, Dachau, Auschwitz and in the Westerbork camp where they were herded before they were deported. I know their names, their children's names, I know one little girl who, quite by coincidence, had the same name as me, just with one letter different. My name is VERY unusual too. She was 8 when she died in Sobibor. One relative was shot in an SS prison the day before the Canadians liberated their town. He had been involved in resistance. Those in my family who survived did so due to the extreme bravery of non Jewish people in the country who hid children. Children whose parents did not survive. I am more than aware. I have visited our family synagogue, the family business premises (name still above the door) but there was no one to come back to it all in 1945. When I watch anything about the Holocaust, I feel affected, but the weirdest experience was in a programme by David Baddiel about anti Semitism. He interviewed a Polish man, who had heard and smelled the camp at Dachau. As he spoke of what he was aware of, as a child, I felt as though the souls of my ancestors were touching me. I felt cold but only for a second or two. I am a scientist and have NEVER had any belief in the afterlife or anything similar, but that feeling was weird. It's never happened before or since when watching or reading about the Holocaust. I tuned in to listen to the names of all the people from my Great Grandfather's country who perished. All 102,000 names from one of the smallest countries in Europe were read out at the Westerbork camp, night and day, for 5 days, live streamed. If anyone wishes to dispute the events of the mid 1930s to 1945, they can speak to me and they will soon peel the scales from their eyes. Yes, the mid 1930s,because it was happening before 1939. " From 1933 I think. Political prisoners, religious, undesirables (homosexuals m & f, tramps, prostitutes), prisoners of war later on - when you saw the last scenes in Belsen, where the ex-guards had to bury thousands of people, the majority naked, it was heartbreaking. They eventually had to use ploughs to push the bodies into the pits due to the necessity of preventing disease... Heartbreaking | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watch the Nazi Concentration Camps documentary, made in 1945 during liberation of prisoners. Then bleat that certain lock down restrictions and mitigations are all about controlling the people. I fail to see the relevance of the slaughter of thousands of people by a madman and not being able to go to the pub for a few weeks but good luck." People are whining about their freedoms, or the lockdown and masks being used as controlling the people (I'd still like to know how masks do this) and yet history shows us genocides have been used as a control. Temporary measures from the dept of health & social care, really are nothing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sadly not a day goes by on here with someone bleating on about Adolf.. Let if go ffs . " Wake up peeps, Tom says you can only bleat about what he agrees with  . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watch the Nazi Concentration Camps documentary, made in 1945 during liberation of prisoners. Then bleat that certain lock down restrictions and mitigations are all about controlling the people. I fail to see the relevance of the slaughter of thousands of people by a madman and not being able to go to the pub for a few weeks but good luck." Try millions. About 6 million Jews alone, or for context approx the entire populations of Scotland and Northern Ireland being killed in a few years. Give or take a few. Then add in the other groups who were persecuted and you come to a figure of around 10-11 million killed. Or the entire population of Belgium. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think throwing insults around is gonna help the situation. I agree we have little to whine about in the grand scheme of things, but I think people have the right to question the government and the decisions made and the extensive powers they have chosen to award themselves via hastily passed legislation. I think as part of a democratic society it is right that people speak out and question when their freedoms are encroached upon. I think there's a difference between "due process was not followed and this may have implications for our democracy" and "I donwanna wear a mask". The first is sensible and should be examined. The second is puerile. Saves me responding .
Also, a pansy - a pretty little garden flower, now compare that "insult" to others that have been thrown about in the forum . "A pansy, also a (quite outdated) way of calling someone a queer or used to question someone's masculinity. Why lower yourself down to the level of unhelpful insults? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think throwing insults around is gonna help the situation. I agree we have little to whine about in the grand scheme of things, but I think people have the right to question the government and the decisions made and the extensive powers they have chosen to award themselves via hastily passed legislation. I think as part of a democratic society it is right that people speak out and question when their freedoms are encroached upon. I think there's a difference between "due process was not followed and this may have implications for our democracy" and "I donwanna wear a mask". The first is sensible and should be examined. The second is puerile. Saves me responding .
Also, a pansy - a pretty little garden flower, now compare that "insult" to others that have been thrown about in the forum .
A pansy, also a (quite outdated) way of calling someone a queer or used to question someone's masculinity.
Why lower yourself down to the level of unhelpful insults?"I distinctly remember you throwing out some insults on Friday night  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think throwing insults around is gonna help the situation. I agree we have little to whine about in the grand scheme of things, but I think people have the right to question the government and the decisions made and the extensive powers they have chosen to award themselves via hastily passed legislation. I think as part of a democratic society it is right that people speak out and question when their freedoms are encroached upon. I think there's a difference between "due process was not followed and this may have implications for our democracy" and "I donwanna wear a mask". The first is sensible and should be examined. The second is puerile. Saves me responding .
Also, a pansy - a pretty little garden flower, now compare that "insult" to others that have been thrown about in the forum .
A pansy, also a (quite outdated) way of calling someone a queer or used to question someone's masculinity.
Why lower yourself down to the level of unhelpful insults?
I distinctly remember you throwing out some insults on Friday night "I will blame you and your shots for anything said. Or done | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think throwing insults around is gonna help the situation. I agree we have little to whine about in the grand scheme of things, but I think people have the right to question the government and the decisions made and the extensive powers they have chosen to award themselves via hastily passed legislation. I think as part of a democratic society it is right that people speak out and question when their freedoms are encroached upon. I think there's a difference between "due process was not followed and this may have implications for our democracy" and "I donwanna wear a mask". The first is sensible and should be examined. The second is puerile. Saves me responding .
Also, a pansy - a pretty little garden flower, now compare that "insult" to others that have been thrown about in the forum .
A pansy, also a (quite outdated) way of calling someone a queer or used to question someone's masculinity.
Why lower yourself down to the level of unhelpful insults?"Are any helpful? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watch the Nazi Concentration Camps documentary, made in 1945 during liberation of prisoners. Then bleat that certain lock down restrictions and mitigations are all about controlling the people. " Agreed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"0.004469697 % of people in uk have had covid19 0.0006818182% of the UK population have died of covid19 4% of them are under 45 And most of that % had underlying health issues" And 100% of them deserve compassion. And 100% of us should be trying to prevent getting this or spreading it to others. And an unknown percentage are suffering or will suffer ongoing effects or disability. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watch the Nazi Concentration Camps documentary, made in 1945 during liberation of prisoners. Then bleat that certain lock down restrictions and mitigations are all about controlling the people. " Great documentary, I feel less inclined to compare it to lockdown... perhaps the home front in Ww2 would have felt more apt. I do feel the need to throw in the lesser known fact... Concentration Camps, the invention of colonial Britain! We should never forget that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"0.004469697 % of people in uk have had covid19 0.0006818182% of the UK population have died of covid19 4% of them are under 45 And most of that % had underlying health issues" Stats are a wonderful thing to present, Using the same figures I can say: We have lost more frontline health workers to Covid 19 than servicemen and woman during the entire invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. We have lost of double the number of lives that the UK suffered on the first day of the Somme in WW1, if we accounted for the surplus deaths it exceeds triple. The death toll for the under 45’s from covid-19 is over double the total UK armed forces deaths since world war 2. That is the small matter of 20 conflicts. And on the subject of war... never forget those who live with disability, those figures don’t even touch on those with lasting damage from the virus who survive yet will suffer a reduced lifespan and lasting physical effects from the illness. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the mask wearing becomes compulsory and dick heads trying to go into shops without said mask, may find themselves the subject of summary justice, just saying. " i went on my local pier today my daughter and myself were only among bout 5 people only I saw wearing masks apart from few staff out of literally 100s of people and some people even looked at us as if we were aliens virus is never gonna go with people having that attitude | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the mask wearing becomes compulsory and dick heads trying to go into shops without said mask, may find themselves the subject of summary justice, just saying. " I am absolutely, 100% for wearing masks in shops and public places. But "summary justice"? Honestly...it's like 1984 cant happen fast enough for some of you. To quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Stay at home if you're that worried. I'm genuinely more scared of people who want people fined or locking up than the odd idiot who wont wear a mask. We have no idea how long the virus will be here but I can assure you this much, the laws made because of it will last a hell of a lot longer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think throwing insults around is gonna help the situation. I agree we have little to whine about in the grand scheme of things, but I think people have the right to question the government and the decisions made and the extensive powers they have chosen to award themselves via hastily passed legislation. I think as part of a democratic society it is right that people speak out and question when their freedoms are encroached upon. I think there's a difference between "due process was not followed and this may have implications for our democracy" and "I donwanna wear a mask". The first is sensible and should be examined. The second is puerile. Saves me responding .
Also, a pansy - a pretty little garden flower, now compare that "insult" to others that have been thrown about in the forum .
A pansy, also a (quite outdated) way of calling someone a queer or used to question someone's masculinity.
Why lower yourself down to the level of unhelpful insults?
I distinctly remember you throwing out some insults on Friday night
I will blame you and your shots for anything said. Or done "The shots had nothing to do with me! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please moderator close this thread down. People are not thinking clearly, it's somewhat tedious and unworthy. " Hear Hear... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the mask wearing becomes compulsory and dick heads trying to go into shops without said mask, may find themselves the subject of summary justice, just saying. I am absolutely, 100% for wearing masks in shops and public places. But "summary justice"? Honestly...it's like 1984 cant happen fast enough for some of you. To quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Stay at home if you're that worried. I'm genuinely more scared of people who want people fined or locking up than the odd idiot who wont wear a mask. We have no idea how long the virus will be here but I can assure you this much, the laws made because of it will last a hell of a lot longer. " So the freedom to enter shops without a mask, during a pandemic, is an 'essential right'. To quote me, you're full of shit. It's not about rights, it's about protecting your fellow human beings. Why do you think we have laws, to check, regulate and punish people, who are selfish enough to ignore them. The human rights act does not apply, to people spreading disease. F | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"0.004469697 % of people in uk have had covid19 0.0006818182% of the UK population have died of covid19 4% of them are under 45 And most of that % had underlying health issues" Cases 65k additional deaths you are totally disrespectful to those families Your so selfish Do you still believe the earth is flat??? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please moderator close this thread down. People are not thinking clearly, it's somewhat tedious and unworthy. " Tedious and unworthy and yet you read it and commented upon it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sadly not a day goes by on here with someone bleating on about Adolf.. Let if go ffs . Wake up peeps, Tom says you can only bleat about what he agrees with . " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"0.004469697 % of people in uk have had covid19 0.0006818182% of the UK population have died of covid19 4% of them are under 45 And most of that % had underlying health issues" Think your decimal point is in the wrong place... Not really sure the point you are attempting to make. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"0.004469697 % of people in uk have had covid19 0.0006818182% of the UK population have died of covid19 4% of them are under 45 And most of that % had underlying health issues" Based on your figures, 15% of those who have had covid are dead yet others claim the figure is between 0.5 and 1%. So, who is wrong? I suspect both... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"0.004469697 % of people in uk have had covid19 0.0006818182% of the UK population have died of covid19 4% of them are under 45 And most of that % had underlying health issues" Are you married to Diane Abbot ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"0.004469697 % of people in uk have had covid19 0.0006818182% of the UK population have died of covid19 4% of them are under 45 And most of that % had underlying health issues Based on your figures, 15% of those who have had covid are dead yet others claim the figure is between 0.5 and 1%. So, who is wrong? I suspect both... " The 15% figure is calculated by taking the number of deaths divided by the positive tests count. This assumes that every person who caught the disease was tested. Of course the UK was only testing the people who were ill enough to be admitted to hospital. Those who caught the disease but didn't require hospitalisation were not tested. The 0.5% to 1% comes from random antibody testing where they test a random selection of people in an area and see how many caught it and how many died in that area. This a more accurate number. Another way is to look at a closed system. For instance the French aircraft carrier where, out of 2300 sailors, 1081 tested positive and 15 went to hospital. Three went into intensive care and none died. So under the uk testing regime there would have been only 15 cases recorded and they would report that 20% of cases needed intensive care. The true figure would be 0.3% needed intensive care. It has been estimated that the number of people who have actually had the disease is between 10 and 40 times more than the figures reported from positive tests. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is no question that previous generations have endured much worse hardship than we currently do. But this is a different threat and while it is everyone's right to question government decision and this one has not done much right. The crux of the matter is, this is a pandemic, it won't go way anytime soon and it is everyones responsibility to take precautions so to keep us all safe, anyone failing to do so is just plain selfish" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"0.004469697 % of people in uk have had covid19 0.0006818182% of the UK population have died of covid19 4% of them are under 45 And most of that % had underlying health issues Based on your figures, 15% of those who have had covid are dead yet others claim the figure is between 0.5 and 1%. So, who is wrong? I suspect both... The 15% figure is calculated by taking the number of deaths divided by the positive tests count. This assumes that every person who caught the disease was tested. Of course the UK was only testing the people who were ill enough to be admitted to hospital. Those who caught the disease but didn't require hospitalisation were not tested. The 0.5% to 1% comes from random antibody testing where they test a random selection of people in an area and see how many caught it and how many died in that area. This a more accurate number. Another way is to look at a closed system. For instance the French aircraft carrier where, out of 2300 sailors, 1081 tested positive and 15 went to hospital. Three went into intensive care and none died. So under the uk testing regime there would have been only 15 cases recorded and they would report that 20% of cases needed intensive care. The true figure would be 0.3% needed intensive care. It has been estimated that the number of people who have actually had the disease is between 10 and 40 times more than the figures reported from positive tests." “..... comes from random antibody testing....” ——————————- Like you say it is ‘random’. Results will vary depending on what area or sector you do the random test, which it turn produces random statistics results. Also people have been dying of covid before we started testing, and those deaths are not included in the covid deaths. That partly explains why we have so many excess deaths this year. For now I prefer to look at confirmed cases rather than random statistics. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"0.004469697 % of people in uk have had covid19 0.0006818182% of the UK population have died of covid19 4% of them are under 45 And most of that % had underlying health issues And 100% of them deserve compassion. And 100% of us should be trying to prevent getting this or spreading it to others. And an unknown percentage are suffering or will suffer ongoing effects or disability." Correct | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just wear one.... Its easy... Do it for others, for their freedom of just wanting to live.. Its a mask FFS.. THINK OF OTHERS" Yes. Masks are icky versus an overwhelmed NHS, untold suffering and ongoing disability, economic damage, death and grieving, and a lot of fear. Nah. Masks are icky. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"0.004469697 % of people in uk have had covid19 0.0006818182% of the UK population have died of covid19 4% of them are under 45 And most of that % had underlying health issues And 100% of them deserve compassion. And 100% of us should be trying to prevent getting this or spreading it to others. And an unknown percentage are suffering or will suffer ongoing effects or disability." This | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Face coverings are inconsistent and provide the wearer with a false sense of security thereby distracting them from other far more important actions they should be focussed on. I do use a covering, but i don't think for one minute i am somehow being selfless and saving other peoples lives by doing so. " I'm not being selfless. I'm being a considerate decent human being. And I do other things as well. But a face covering is up there with "the least we can do" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Face coverings are inconsistent and provide the wearer with a false sense of security thereby distracting them from other far more important actions they should be focussed on. I do use a covering, but i don't think for one minute i am somehow being selfless and saving other peoples lives by doing so. " Nor do I. However, there will be a number of people who wear them who, unknowingly, have reduced the chances of another person being exposed to the virus. So I wear mine in the spirit of camaraderie (and just in case). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Face coverings are inconsistent and provide the wearer with a false sense of security thereby distracting them from other far more important actions they should be focussed on. I do use a covering, but i don't think for one minute i am somehow being selfless and saving other peoples lives by doing so. " Perhaps for some. For most people they just try and do their best without trying to find excuses to do anything else. Before all this I caught a sneeze in a hankie, have done since my parents battered it into me many moons ago, and cover my mouth when I cough. I don't doubt my germ catching skills are imperfect but I also don't doubt I catch and therefore dont spread some of them. It's no more complicated than that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Face coverings are inconsistent and provide the wearer with a false sense of security thereby distracting them from other far more important actions they should be focussed on. I do use a covering, but i don't think for one minute i am somehow being selfless and saving other peoples lives by doing so. I'm not being selfless. I'm being a considerate decent human being. And I do other things as well. But a face covering is up there with "the least we can do"" you are quick to regard those who are not wearing a mask to be selfish, thereby those who are wearing a mask must be selfless. Those who are not wearing a mask for any reason, legitimate or not, you consider them inconsiderate bad human beings? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Face coverings are inconsistent and provide the wearer with a false sense of security thereby distracting them from other far more important actions they should be focussed on. I do use a covering, but i don't think for one minute i am somehow being selfless and saving other peoples lives by doing so. I'm not being selfless. I'm being a considerate decent human being. And I do other things as well. But a face covering is up there with "the least we can do" you are quick to regard those who are not wearing a mask to be selfish, thereby those who are wearing a mask must be selfless. Those who are not wearing a mask for any reason, legitimate or not, you consider them inconsiderate bad human beings? " You're putting words into her mouth (albeit in a questioning manner) and aligning inconsiderate with bad. Whereas not to consider another person could simply be a failure of thought processes rather than consider someone and then act in a negative manner. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Face coverings are inconsistent and provide the wearer with a false sense of security thereby distracting them from other far more important actions they should be focussed on. I do use a covering, but i don't think for one minute i am somehow being selfless and saving other peoples lives by doing so. I'm not being selfless. I'm being a considerate decent human being. And I do other things as well. But a face covering is up there with "the least we can do" you are quick to regard those who are not wearing a mask to be selfish, thereby those who are wearing a mask must be selfless. Those who are not wearing a mask for any reason, legitimate or not, you consider them inconsiderate bad human beings? You're putting words into her mouth (albeit in a questioning manner) and aligning inconsiderate with bad. Whereas not to consider another person could simply be a failure of thought processes rather than consider someone and then act in a negative manner. " This. Although yeah. If you don't have a medical reason not to wear a mask... you're inconsiderate at least. Wear the damn mask. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Face coverings are inconsistent and provide the wearer with a false sense of security thereby distracting them from other far more important actions they should be focussed on. I do use a covering, but i don't think for one minute i am somehow being selfless and saving other peoples lives by doing so. I'm not being selfless. I'm being a considerate decent human being. And I do other things as well. But a face covering is up there with "the least we can do" you are quick to regard those who are not wearing a mask to be selfish, thereby those who are wearing a mask must be selfless. Those who are not wearing a mask for any reason, legitimate or not, you consider them inconsiderate bad human beings? You're putting words into her mouth (albeit in a questioning manner) and aligning inconsiderate with bad. Whereas not to consider another person could simply be a failure of thought processes rather than consider someone and then act in a negative manner. " So wearing a mask you are considerate. Whether you are a decent person or not has nothing to do with using a face covering . Maybe an alternative method of identifying those who have genuine reason not to wear a mask should be adopted thereby avoiding the situation where they may be labelled inconsiderate human beings ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In person I assume anyone not wearing a mask has a good reason, because I don't want to inadvertently make someone's life worse when they do have reason. On here people are saying they don't want to and they won't. Those people are at a minimum inconsiderate. We need to get this under control and we need everyone to do everything they can to control this and protect those around them." The people who wear a face covering but don't use hand sanitizer. How considerate/inconsiderate are they? What is the holy grail of considerateness? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In person I assume anyone not wearing a mask has a good reason, because I don't want to inadvertently make someone's life worse when they do have reason. On here people are saying they don't want to and they won't. Those people are at a minimum inconsiderate. We need to get this under control and we need everyone to do everything they can to control this and protect those around them."
I have no idea why TBW is becoming fixated on the labelling of people who don't wear masks  . Like you, it's the labelling of people who protest against it here as if they're rebelling against the govt recommendations rather than seeing the recommendations for the potential risk reduction it is, ie being considerate of those around us as social distancing (purposely or not) is reduced. Social distancing is still ideally 2m but 1m (with mitigations) where 2m cannot be fulfilled. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In person I assume anyone not wearing a mask has a good reason, because I don't want to inadvertently make someone's life worse when they do have reason. On here people are saying they don't want to and they won't. Those people are at a minimum inconsiderate. We need to get this under control and we need everyone to do everything they can to control this and protect those around them." I think its opposition to what the mask represents rather the wearing the mask itself that is the real problem. That and a certain amount of denial. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Face coverings are inconsistent and provide the wearer with a false sense of security thereby distracting them from other far more important actions they should be focussed on. I do use a covering, but i don't think for one minute i am somehow being selfless and saving other peoples lives by doing so. I'm not being selfless. I'm being a considerate decent human being. And I do other things as well. But a face covering is up there with "the least we can do" you are quick to regard those who are not wearing a mask to be selfish, thereby those who are wearing a mask must be selfless. Those who are not wearing a mask for any reason, legitimate or not, you consider them inconsiderate bad human beings? You're putting words into her mouth (albeit in a questioning manner) and aligning inconsiderate with bad. Whereas not to consider another person could simply be a failure of thought processes rather than consider someone and then act in a negative manner. So wearing a mask you are considerate. Whether you are a decent person or not has nothing to do with using a face covering . Maybe an alternative method of identifying those who have genuine reason not to wear a mask should be adopted thereby avoiding the situation where they may be labelled inconsiderate human beings ?" Bit slow on the uptake, but nothing wrong with that at all. People can take different journeys while still arriving at the same glorious destination. Whether or not your a decent person depends on your choices. If you choose to not wear a mask for some spurious reason then your decency is in question. If you cannot wear a mask for some medical reason then there is no choice to be made so your decency is not in question. It's really very simple. There are even face mask exempt cards for those with that medical condition. An imposition, but as the OP suggests, it's a very minor one in the grand scheme of things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not really difficult, wear a mask in shops, job done!" But it's not job done... that's the issue. wearing a face covering distracts you from other actions that are far more important in keeping you and others safe from transmitting the virus | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Face coverings are inconsistent and provide the wearer with a false sense of security thereby distracting them from other far more important actions they should be focussed on. I do use a covering, but i don't think for one minute i am somehow being selfless and saving other peoples lives by doing so. I'm not being selfless. I'm being a considerate decent human being. And I do other things as well. But a face covering is up there with "the least we can do" you are quick to regard those who are not wearing a mask to be selfish, thereby those who are wearing a mask must be selfless. Those who are not wearing a mask for any reason, legitimate or not, you consider them inconsiderate bad human beings? You're putting words into her mouth (albeit in a questioning manner) and aligning inconsiderate with bad. Whereas not to consider another person could simply be a failure of thought processes rather than consider someone and then act in a negative manner. So wearing a mask you are considerate. Whether you are a decent person or not has nothing to do with using a face covering . Maybe an alternative method of identifying those who have genuine reason not to wear a mask should be adopted thereby avoiding the situation where they may be labelled inconsiderate human beings ? Bit slow on the uptake, but nothing wrong with that at all. People can take different journeys while still arriving at the same glorious destination. Whether or not your a decent person depends on your choices. If you choose to not wear a mask for some spurious reason then your decency is in question. If you cannot wear a mask for some medical reason then there is no choice to be made so your decency is not in question. It's really very simple. There are even face mask exempt cards for those with that medical condition. An imposition, but as the OP suggests, it's a very minor one in the grand scheme of things. " Should these cards be presented on request to anyone who challenges someone for not wearing a face covering? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not really difficult, wear a mask in shops, job done! But it's not job done... that's the issue. wearing a face covering distracts you from other actions that are far more important in keeping you and others safe from transmitting the virus " That's a generalisation and a half  . True in the respect it may distract some people. Those of us aware of that can lead by example. It certainly isn't a reason to not wear one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In person I assume anyone not wearing a mask has a good reason, because I don't want to inadvertently make someone's life worse when they do have reason. On here people are saying they don't want to and they won't. Those people are at a minimum inconsiderate. We need to get this under control and we need everyone to do everything they can to control this and protect those around them. I think its opposition to what the mask represents rather the wearing the mask itself that is the real problem. That and a certain amount of denial." What the mask represents? Holy crap.... It represents nothing beyond being a tool to help reduce the spread of an airborne disease by a variable amount. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In person I assume anyone not wearing a mask has a good reason, because I don't want to inadvertently make someone's life worse when they do have reason. On here people are saying they don't want to and they won't. Those people are at a minimum inconsiderate. We need to get this under control and we need everyone to do everything they can to control this and protect those around them. I think its opposition to what the mask represents rather the wearing the mask itself that is the real problem. That and a certain amount of denial." Yes. I'm sorry it's scary, but... Just fucking deal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not really difficult, wear a mask in shops, job done! But it's not job done... that's the issue. wearing a face covering distracts you from other actions that are far more important in keeping you and others safe from transmitting the virus " Err do you have any evidence of that claim? For me... It doesn't distract, for incredibly skilled and close surgeons..... It doesn't.... So need some convincing that wearing one in a shop distracts anyone from picking up some shopping and paying for it... Which is about as threatening as it gets. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not really difficult, wear a mask in shops, job done! But it's not job done... that's the issue. wearing a face covering distracts you from other actions that are far more important in keeping you and others safe from transmitting the virus " So where's the messaging telling people what else they need to do? This isn't the fault of those saying we need to cover faces. I'm aware of what else needs to be done. I've communicated some of it. I've kept myself up to date. I'm doing my bit. Just because we need to do more doesn't mean that wearing masks is a bad thing. Just the opposite. We need to give everyone the tools to do our bit. Spreading uncertainty about an increasingly clear mitigation method does not do that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Face coverings are inconsistent and provide the wearer with a false sense of security thereby distracting them from other far more important actions they should be focussed on. I do use a covering, but i don't think for one minute i am somehow being selfless and saving other peoples lives by doing so. I'm not being selfless. I'm being a considerate decent human being. And I do other things as well. But a face covering is up there with "the least we can do" you are quick to regard those who are not wearing a mask to be selfish, thereby those who are wearing a mask must be selfless. Those who are not wearing a mask for any reason, legitimate or not, you consider them inconsiderate bad human beings? You're putting words into her mouth (albeit in a questioning manner) and aligning inconsiderate with bad. Whereas not to consider another person could simply be a failure of thought processes rather than consider someone and then act in a negative manner. So wearing a mask you are considerate. Whether you are a decent person or not has nothing to do with using a face covering . Maybe an alternative method of identifying those who have genuine reason not to wear a mask should be adopted thereby avoiding the situation where they may be labelled inconsiderate human beings ? Bit slow on the uptake, but nothing wrong with that at all. People can take different journeys while still arriving at the same glorious destination. Whether or not your a decent person depends on your choices. If you choose to not wear a mask for some spurious reason then your decency is in question. If you cannot wear a mask for some medical reason then there is no choice to be made so your decency is not in question. It's really very simple. There are even face mask exempt cards for those with that medical condition. An imposition, but as the OP suggests, it's a very minor one in the grand scheme of things. Should these cards be presented on request to anyone who challenges someone for not wearing a face covering? " No, but if they want access to a shop without wearing a mask, then the shop keeper is within their rights to suggest they wear one or not enter the shop. Make a choice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not really difficult, wear a mask in shops, job done! But it's not job done... that's the issue. wearing a face covering distracts you from other actions that are far more important in keeping you and others safe from transmitting the virus Err do you have any evidence of that claim? For me... It doesn't distract, for incredibly skilled and close surgeons..... It doesn't.... So need some convincing that wearing one in a shop distracts anyone from picking up some shopping and paying for it... Which is about as threatening as it gets. " The scenario I think of is, someone is infectious and asymptomatic. They don't like masks so don't wear one. They go shopping. Someone who can't wear a mask due to vulnerability squeezes past them. They catch Covid-19. They die. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In person I assume anyone not wearing a mask has a good reason, because I don't want to inadvertently make someone's life worse when they do have reason. On here people are saying they don't want to and they won't. Those people are at a minimum inconsiderate. We need to get this under control and we need everyone to do everything they can to control this and protect those around them. I think its opposition to what the mask represents rather the wearing the mask itself that is the real problem. That and a certain amount of denial. What the mask represents? Holy crap.... It represents nothing beyond being a tool to help reduce the spread of an airborne disease by a variable amount. " there are far too many variables to make the rule consistent in restricting the spread | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Face coverings are inconsistent and provide the wearer with a false sense of security thereby distracting them from other far more important actions they should be focussed on. I do use a covering, but i don't think for one minute i am somehow being selfless and saving other peoples lives by doing so. I'm not being selfless. I'm being a considerate decent human being. And I do other things as well. But a face covering is up there with "the least we can do" you are quick to regard those who are not wearing a mask to be selfish, thereby those who are wearing a mask must be selfless. Those who are not wearing a mask for any reason, legitimate or not, you consider them inconsiderate bad human beings? You're putting words into her mouth (albeit in a questioning manner) and aligning inconsiderate with bad. Whereas not to consider another person could simply be a failure of thought processes rather than consider someone and then act in a negative manner. So wearing a mask you are considerate. Whether you are a decent person or not has nothing to do with using a face covering . Maybe an alternative method of identifying those who have genuine reason not to wear a mask should be adopted thereby avoiding the situation where they may be labelled inconsiderate human beings ? Bit slow on the uptake, but nothing wrong with that at all. People can take different journeys while still arriving at the same glorious destination. Whether or not your a decent person depends on your choices. If you choose to not wear a mask for some spurious reason then your decency is in question. If you cannot wear a mask for some medical reason then there is no choice to be made so your decency is not in question. It's really very simple. There are even face mask exempt cards for those with that medical condition. An imposition, but as the OP suggests, it's a very minor one in the grand scheme of things. Should these cards be presented on request to anyone who challenges someone for not wearing a face covering? " I imagine that's probably the idea... it's a fairly simple concept. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In person I assume anyone not wearing a mask has a good reason, because I don't want to inadvertently make someone's life worse when they do have reason. On here people are saying they don't want to and they won't. Those people are at a minimum inconsiderate. We need to get this under control and we need everyone to do everything they can to control this and protect those around them. I think its opposition to what the mask represents rather the wearing the mask itself that is the real problem. That and a certain amount of denial. What the mask represents? Holy crap.... It represents nothing beyond being a tool to help reduce the spread of an airborne disease by a variable amount. there are far too many variables to make the rule consistent in restricting the spread " What are these variables and what's your evidence? (I know you can't post links, you can post things I can search) My understanding of the evidence to date is that it's an overarching benefit and any potential downside is outweighed by it... and can be mitigated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In person I assume anyone not wearing a mask has a good reason, because I don't want to inadvertently make someone's life worse when they do have reason. On here people are saying they don't want to and they won't. Those people are at a minimum inconsiderate. We need to get this under control and we need everyone to do everything they can to control this and protect those around them. I think its opposition to what the mask represents rather the wearing the mask itself that is the real problem. That and a certain amount of denial. What the mask represents? Holy crap.... It represents nothing beyond being a tool to help reduce the spread of an airborne disease by a variable amount. " Aerosol spray/droplet contamination. I actually had someone sneeze on me last year. I was talking and I felt a droplet enter my mouth. Due to this droplet my life has dramatically changed (acquired brain injury). A different infection to covid19 but apart from death I'm an example of what can happen if the brain gets infected. Studies have already shown, through autopsies, that people have died through encephalitis from covid19. The fatality percentage is 80% without immediate antiviral treatment and 30% with. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In person I assume anyone not wearing a mask has a good reason, because I don't want to inadvertently make someone's life worse when they do have reason. On here people are saying they don't want to and they won't. Those people are at a minimum inconsiderate. We need to get this under control and we need everyone to do everything they can to control this and protect those around them. I think its opposition to what the mask represents rather the wearing the mask itself that is the real problem. That and a certain amount of denial. What the mask represents? Holy crap.... It represents nothing beyond being a tool to help reduce the spread of an airborne disease by a variable amount. " The mask represents a collective responsibility to reduce transmission, I think many are opposed to doing something they see as for the benefit of others. One person wearing a mask doesn't make a big difference, it requires collective action. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Face coverings are inconsistent and provide the wearer with a false sense of security thereby distracting them from other far more important actions they should be focussed on. I do use a covering, but i don't think for one minute i am somehow being selfless and saving other peoples lives by doing so. I'm not being selfless. I'm being a considerate decent human being. And I do other things as well. But a face covering is up there with "the least we can do" you are quick to regard those who are not wearing a mask to be selfish, thereby those who are wearing a mask must be selfless. Those who are not wearing a mask for any reason, legitimate or not, you consider them inconsiderate bad human beings? You're putting words into her mouth (albeit in a questioning manner) and aligning inconsiderate with bad. Whereas not to consider another person could simply be a failure of thought processes rather than consider someone and then act in a negative manner. So wearing a mask you are considerate. Whether you are a decent person or not has nothing to do with using a face covering . Maybe an alternative method of identifying those who have genuine reason not to wear a mask should be adopted thereby avoiding the situation where they may be labelled inconsiderate human beings ? Bit slow on the uptake, but nothing wrong with that at all. People can take different journeys while still arriving at the same glorious destination. Whether or not your a decent person depends on your choices. If you choose to not wear a mask for some spurious reason then your decency is in question. If you cannot wear a mask for some medical reason then there is no choice to be made so your decency is not in question. It's really very simple. There are even face mask exempt cards for those with that medical condition. An imposition, but as the OP suggests, it's a very minor one in the grand scheme of things. Should these cards be presented on request to anyone who challenges someone for not wearing a face covering? No, but if they want access to a shop without wearing a mask, then the shop keeper is within their rights to suggest they wear one or not enter the shop. Make a choice. " I didn't see the security guard at Sainsburys asking for medical cards when people without face coverings were walking in ... seems to me that shop keeper is also making a choice. This would be another variable.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In person I assume anyone not wearing a mask has a good reason, because I don't want to inadvertently make someone's life worse when they do have reason. On here people are saying they don't want to and they won't. Those people are at a minimum inconsiderate. We need to get this under control and we need everyone to do everything they can to control this and protect those around them. I think its opposition to what the mask represents rather the wearing the mask itself that is the real problem. That and a certain amount of denial. What the mask represents? Holy crap.... It represents nothing beyond being a tool to help reduce the spread of an airborne disease by a variable amount. The mask represents a collective responsibility to reduce transmission, I think many are opposed to doing something they see as for the benefit of others. One person wearing a mask doesn't make a big difference, it requires collective action." Agreed. It represents that we're in a crisis and we all have to stand together. I'm sorry that's upsetting. It's an upsetting time. Deal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not really difficult, wear a mask in shops, job done! But it's not job done... that's the issue. wearing a face covering distracts you from other actions that are far more important in keeping you and others safe from transmitting the virus Err do you have any evidence of that claim? For me... It doesn't distract, for incredibly skilled and close surgeons..... It doesn't.... So need some convincing that wearing one in a shop distracts anyone from picking up some shopping and paying for it... Which is about as threatening as it gets. The scenario I think of is, someone is infectious and asymptomatic. They don't like masks so don't wear one. They go shopping. Someone who can't wear a mask due to vulnerability squeezes past them. They catch Covid-19. They die." One of the things which I think would be helpful in this matter is some actuarial data about likelihoods, as I think people get distracted sometimes by the huge amount of facts and social media facts...and interpretations. Likelihood of catching without masks, with masks for one example. 1 in 10000 cf 1 in 12000 (numbers made up!) but some clarity would I hope convince some of the antis. I was politely reminded this morning that I needed to wear a mask to pay for my petrol. No problem. And thanked the lady who reminded me for keeping us all safe. We are stronger together. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Face coverings are inconsistent and provide the wearer with a false sense of security thereby distracting them from other far more important actions they should be focussed on. I do use a covering, but i don't think for one minute i am somehow being selfless and saving other peoples lives by doing so. I'm not being selfless. I'm being a considerate decent human being. And I do other things as well. But a face covering is up there with "the least we can do" you are quick to regard those who are not wearing a mask to be selfish, thereby those who are wearing a mask must be selfless. Those who are not wearing a mask for any reason, legitimate or not, you consider them inconsiderate bad human beings? You're putting words into her mouth (albeit in a questioning manner) and aligning inconsiderate with bad. Whereas not to consider another person could simply be a failure of thought processes rather than consider someone and then act in a negative manner. So wearing a mask you are considerate. Whether you are a decent person or not has nothing to do with using a face covering . Maybe an alternative method of identifying those who have genuine reason not to wear a mask should be adopted thereby avoiding the situation where they may be labelled inconsiderate human beings ? Bit slow on the uptake, but nothing wrong with that at all. People can take different journeys while still arriving at the same glorious destination. Whether or not your a decent person depends on your choices. If you choose to not wear a mask for some spurious reason then your decency is in question. If you cannot wear a mask for some medical reason then there is no choice to be made so your decency is not in question. It's really very simple. There are even face mask exempt cards for those with that medical condition. An imposition, but as the OP suggests, it's a very minor one in the grand scheme of things. Should these cards be presented on request to anyone who challenges someone for not wearing a face covering? I imagine that's probably the idea... it's a fairly simple concept." You are ok with any random person approaching you in a shop and, as you are not wearing a face covering, asking to see your medical exemption card? Even if I did have such a card I would be perfectly happy with a suitably blunt response - and I'm a decent person  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Face coverings are inconsistent and provide the wearer with a false sense of security thereby distracting them from other far more important actions they should be focussed on. I do use a covering, but i don't think for one minute i am somehow being selfless and saving other peoples lives by doing so. I'm not being selfless. I'm being a considerate decent human being. And I do other things as well. But a face covering is up there with "the least we can do" you are quick to regard those who are not wearing a mask to be selfish, thereby those who are wearing a mask must be selfless. Those who are not wearing a mask for any reason, legitimate or not, you consider them inconsiderate bad human beings? You're putting words into her mouth (albeit in a questioning manner) and aligning inconsiderate with bad. Whereas not to consider another person could simply be a failure of thought processes rather than consider someone and then act in a negative manner. So wearing a mask you are considerate. Whether you are a decent person or not has nothing to do with using a face covering . Maybe an alternative method of identifying those who have genuine reason not to wear a mask should be adopted thereby avoiding the situation where they may be labelled inconsiderate human beings ? Bit slow on the uptake, but nothing wrong with that at all. People can take different journeys while still arriving at the same glorious destination. Whether or not your a decent person depends on your choices. If you choose to not wear a mask for some spurious reason then your decency is in question. If you cannot wear a mask for some medical reason then there is no choice to be made so your decency is not in question. It's really very simple. There are even face mask exempt cards for those with that medical condition. An imposition, but as the OP suggests, it's a very minor one in the grand scheme of things. Should these cards be presented on request to anyone who challenges someone for not wearing a face covering? No, but if they want access to a shop without wearing a mask, then the shop keeper is within their rights to suggest they wear one or not enter the shop. Make a choice. I didn't see the security guard at Sainsburys asking for medical cards when people without face coverings were walking in ... seems to me that shop keeper is also making a choice. This would be another variable.. " The world is a swimming sea of almost infinite variables. You seem capable of asking a question or two, perhaps you're capable of drawing some general principles to guide yourself through the morass. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In person I assume anyone not wearing a mask has a good reason, because I don't want to inadvertently make someone's life worse when they do have reason. On here people are saying they don't want to and they won't. Those people are at a minimum inconsiderate. We need to get this under control and we need everyone to do everything they can to control this and protect those around them. I think its opposition to what the mask represents rather the wearing the mask itself that is the real problem. That and a certain amount of denial. What the mask represents? Holy crap.... It represents nothing beyond being a tool to help reduce the spread of an airborne disease by a variable amount. there are far too many variables to make the rule consistent in restricting the spread " Surely it is obvious that the more people who do more to reduce the spread of the disease, the better for us all? The mask is one way to help reduce the spread. There are many variables to its effectiveness I agree. But that doesn't detract from a little is better than none. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Face coverings are inconsistent and provide the wearer with a false sense of security thereby distracting them from other far more important actions they should be focussed on. I do use a covering, but i don't think for one minute i am somehow being selfless and saving other peoples lives by doing so. I'm not being selfless. I'm being a considerate decent human being. And I do other things as well. But a face covering is up there with "the least we can do" you are quick to regard those who are not wearing a mask to be selfish, thereby those who are wearing a mask must be selfless. Those who are not wearing a mask for any reason, legitimate or not, you consider them inconsiderate bad human beings? You're putting words into her mouth (albeit in a questioning manner) and aligning inconsiderate with bad. Whereas not to consider another person could simply be a failure of thought processes rather than consider someone and then act in a negative manner. So wearing a mask you are considerate. Whether you are a decent person or not has nothing to do with using a face covering . Maybe an alternative method of identifying those who have genuine reason not to wear a mask should be adopted thereby avoiding the situation where they may be labelled inconsiderate human beings ? Bit slow on the uptake, but nothing wrong with that at all. People can take different journeys while still arriving at the same glorious destination. Whether or not your a decent person depends on your choices. If you choose to not wear a mask for some spurious reason then your decency is in question. If you cannot wear a mask for some medical reason then there is no choice to be made so your decency is not in question. It's really very simple. There are even face mask exempt cards for those with that medical condition. An imposition, but as the OP suggests, it's a very minor one in the grand scheme of things. Should these cards be presented on request to anyone who challenges someone for not wearing a face covering? I imagine that's probably the idea... it's a fairly simple concept. You are ok with any random person approaching you in a shop and, as you are not wearing a face covering, asking to see your medical exemption card? Even if I did have such a card I would be perfectly happy with a suitably blunt response - and I'm a decent person "I'd have no problem with it at all. Why would you have a problem with it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not really difficult, wear a mask in shops, job done! But it's not job done... that's the issue. wearing a face covering distracts you from other actions that are far more important in keeping you and others safe from transmitting the virus Err do you have any evidence of that claim? For me... It doesn't distract, for incredibly skilled and close surgeons..... It doesn't.... So need some convincing that wearing one in a shop distracts anyone from picking up some shopping and paying for it... Which is about as threatening as it gets. The scenario I think of is, someone is infectious and asymptomatic. They don't like masks so don't wear one. They go shopping. Someone who can't wear a mask due to vulnerability squeezes past them. They catch Covid-19. They die. One of the things which I think would be helpful in this matter is some actuarial data about likelihoods, as I think people get distracted sometimes by the huge amount of facts and social media facts...and interpretations. Likelihood of catching without masks, with masks for one example. 1 in 10000 cf 1 in 12000 (numbers made up!) but some clarity would I hope convince some of the antis. I was politely reminded this morning that I needed to wear a mask to pay for my petrol. No problem. And thanked the lady who reminded me for keeping us all safe. We are stronger together. " The numbers that stick in my head are as follows. (Sources, can't link anything specifically because it's a lot of material over weeks or months - This Week in Virology and related podcasts, blogs Science Based Medicine and Respectful Insolence) 93% of transmission occurs in indoor or indoor/outdoor spaces. Air flow helps. About 90% of infection is respiratory droplets or aerosol. (Although early indications are that aerosol is not a major factor, more study needed) A 2m distance reduces transmission by about 80%, after that diminishing returns on investment. It takes (can't remember numbers) I think thousands of particles to infect anyone. Masks reduce a good deal of particles and so cut risks. Even bad masks badly fitted. Viral dose influences seriousness of infection. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Face coverings are inconsistent and provide the wearer with a false sense of security thereby distracting them from other far more important actions they should be focussed on. I do use a covering, but i don't think for one minute i am somehow being selfless and saving other peoples lives by doing so. I'm not being selfless. I'm being a considerate decent human being. And I do other things as well. But a face covering is up there with "the least we can do" you are quick to regard those who are not wearing a mask to be selfish, thereby those who are wearing a mask must be selfless. Those who are not wearing a mask for any reason, legitimate or not, you consider them inconsiderate bad human beings? You're putting words into her mouth (albeit in a questioning manner) and aligning inconsiderate with bad. Whereas not to consider another person could simply be a failure of thought processes rather than consider someone and then act in a negative manner. So wearing a mask you are considerate. Whether you are a decent person or not has nothing to do with using a face covering . Maybe an alternative method of identifying those who have genuine reason not to wear a mask should be adopted thereby avoiding the situation where they may be labelled inconsiderate human beings ? Bit slow on the uptake, but nothing wrong with that at all. People can take different journeys while still arriving at the same glorious destination. Whether or not your a decent person depends on your choices. If you choose to not wear a mask for some spurious reason then your decency is in question. If you cannot wear a mask for some medical reason then there is no choice to be made so your decency is not in question. It's really very simple. There are even face mask exempt cards for those with that medical condition. An imposition, but as the OP suggests, it's a very minor one in the grand scheme of things. Should these cards be presented on request to anyone who challenges someone for not wearing a face covering? No, but if they want access to a shop without wearing a mask, then the shop keeper is within their rights to suggest they wear one or not enter the shop. Make a choice. I didn't see the security guard at Sainsburys asking for medical cards when people without face coverings were walking in ... seems to me that shop keeper is also making a choice. This would be another variable.. " Yep that's their choice. I'd add that every shop I have entered have had excellent adherence to wearing face coverings and for the few I have seen approaching without, they have been reminded they need to wear one politely and they have responded positively. A small set of shops for a small period of time but my experiences are almost everyone is making the effort. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have stated on several threads that non-compliance will be factored in govt equations. After all, since the virus is not going anywhere, it needs to permeate throughout society. If it does so at a controlled rate, it gives researchers time to find treatments and perhaps vaccination withOUT global health systems being held to ransom. " OOPS without | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not really difficult, wear a mask in shops, job done! But it's not job done... that's the issue. wearing a face covering distracts you from other actions that are far more important in keeping you and others safe from transmitting the virus Err do you have any evidence of that claim? For me... It doesn't distract, for incredibly skilled and close surgeons..... It doesn't.... So need some convincing that wearing one in a shop distracts anyone from picking up some shopping and paying for it... Which is about as threatening as it gets. The scenario I think of is, someone is infectious and asymptomatic. They don't like masks so don't wear one. They go shopping. Someone who can't wear a mask due to vulnerability squeezes past them. They catch Covid-19. They die. One of the things which I think would be helpful in this matter is some actuarial data about likelihoods, as I think people get distracted sometimes by the huge amount of facts and social media facts...and interpretations. Likelihood of catching without masks, with masks for one example. 1 in 10000 cf 1 in 12000 (numbers made up!) but some clarity would I hope convince some of the antis. I was politely reminded this morning that I needed to wear a mask to pay for my petrol. No problem. And thanked the lady who reminded me for keeping us all safe. We are stronger together. The numbers that stick in my head are as follows. (Sources, can't link anything specifically because it's a lot of material over weeks or months - This Week in Virology and related podcasts, blogs Science Based Medicine and Respectful Insolence) 93% of transmission occurs in indoor or indoor/outdoor spaces. Air flow helps. About 90% of infection is respiratory droplets or aerosol. (Although early indications are that aerosol is not a major factor, more study needed) A 2m distance reduces transmission by about 80%, after that diminishing returns on investment. It takes (can't remember numbers) I think thousands of particles to infect anyone. Masks reduce a good deal of particles and so cut risks. Even bad masks badly fitted. Viral dose influences seriousness of infection." Aerosol = projected tiny droplets. I would hypothesise that as they are not as heavy as visible droplets they travel further and cause a greater risk of contamination. As for 1000 particles needed - please find your source, as I haven't come across that information. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not really difficult, wear a mask in shops, job done! But it's not job done... that's the issue. wearing a face covering distracts you from other actions that are far more important in keeping you and others safe from transmitting the virus " Does it though? Such as? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not really difficult, wear a mask in shops, job done! But it's not job done... that's the issue. wearing a face covering distracts you from other actions that are far more important in keeping you and others safe from transmitting the virus Does it though? Such as? " Some people don't maintain distance because they think the mask protects them. Or they contaminate themselves handling it badly. The benefit outweighs the risk. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"1000s of particles - slightly misremembered. Blog, Respectful Insolence. 13 July, title "Airborne transmission of COVID-19: The controversy" Relevant quote: "If a viral infection generates aerosols containing 10 virus particles per droplet, but it takes 1000 virus particles per human cell to establish an infection, then those aerosols are not infectious, even though they contain virus. In addition, while airborne, aerosols begin to lose water content by evaporation and virus particles, especially enveloped particles like Ebola, can be affected by other environmental conditions such as humidity, air currents, and sunlight."" It takes one particle to inject RNA or DNA into a human cell which then replicates until they burst out of that cell. They then attach to other cells and so on. If multiple particles are able to utilise one cell then replication would be faster. But in my learning, the 1000s of particles are a result of replication not of the viral load. Therefore I would deduce that the viral aerosol is still a danger. As an undergrad I stand to be corrected by graduates . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"1000s of particles - slightly misremembered. Blog, Respectful Insolence. 13 July, title "Airborne transmission of COVID-19: The controversy" Relevant quote: "If a viral infection generates aerosols containing 10 virus particles per droplet, but it takes 1000 virus particles per human cell to establish an infection, then those aerosols are not infectious, even though they contain virus. In addition, while airborne, aerosols begin to lose water content by evaporation and virus particles, especially enveloped particles like Ebola, can be affected by other environmental conditions such as humidity, air currents, and sunlight." It takes one particle to inject RNA or DNA into a human cell which then replicates until they burst out of that cell. They then attach to other cells and so on. If multiple particles are able to utilise one cell then replication would be faster. But in my learning, the 1000s of particles are a result of replication not of the viral load. Therefore I would deduce that the viral aerosol is still a danger. As an undergrad I stand to be corrected by graduates . "Or rather by virologists or immunologists as opposed to oncologists  . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The single viral particle will not result in systemic infection because the innate immune system can clear that tiny bit of infection. The infectious dose is the dose that overwhelms the innate immune system, resulting in body wide inflammation and recruitment of the adaptive immune response. However, if someone has never encountered a particular infection before, like Covid, the adaptive immune response will take many days and so they display the symptoms for 5-7 days, ish. Some people in that time will suffer severe symptoms, resulting in hospital admission or might even die. Most will suffer relatively mild symptoms. By about day 7 onwards, the adaptive immune response starts to clear the infection and symptoms subside (in the majority of people). Those with compromised immunity may not get to that point or it might take longer. Adaptive immune response may result in a T cell and B cell response (so antibodies and B memory cells are formed). However, in mild illness, researchers are finding limited evidence of B cell response, so no/few antibodies. The T cell response alone was therefore sufficient to clear the milder infection but this results in a different type of "memory" that is not antibody based and is very hard to measure. " Thank you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not really difficult, wear a mask in shops, job done! But it's not job done... that's the issue. wearing a face covering distracts you from other actions that are far more important in keeping you and others safe from transmitting the virus Does it though? Such as? Some people don't maintain distance because they think the mask protects them. Or they contaminate themselves handling it badl." Also people who cough or sneeze into it instead of putting their hand/elbow in the way first | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"1000s of particles - slightly misremembered. Blog, Respectful Insolence. 13 July, title "Airborne transmission of COVID-19: The controversy" Relevant quote: "If a viral infection generates aerosols containing 10 virus particles per droplet, but it takes 1000 virus particles per human cell to establish an infection, then those aerosols are not infectious, even though they contain virus. In addition, while airborne, aerosols begin to lose water content by evaporation and virus particles, especially enveloped particles like Ebola, can be affected by other environmental conditions such as humidity, air currents, and sunlight." It takes one particle to inject RNA or DNA into a human cell which then replicates until they burst out of that cell. They then attach to other cells and so on. If multiple particles are able to utilise one cell then replication would be faster. But in my learning, the 1000s of particles are a result of replication not of the viral load. Therefore I would deduce that the viral aerosol is still a danger. As an undergrad I stand to be corrected by graduates . "A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing as can be self appointed experts.. My take is this.. I wear a mask.. it may protect others more than me... But then again it might give me some protection. I am more aghast at the protesters and beachgoing sardines than the non mask wearers. Either way... It's a game of Russian Roulette. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I just pray that the world leaders are studying this thread and will follow those that know better than them. "Wonderfully meaningless contribution. Bravo! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I just pray that the world leaders are studying this thread and will follow those that know better than them.
Wonderfully meaningless contribution. Bravo! "Thank you.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"1000s of particles - slightly misremembered. Blog, Respectful Insolence. 13 July, title "Airborne transmission of COVID-19: The controversy" Relevant quote: "If a viral infection generates aerosols containing 10 virus particles per droplet, but it takes 1000 virus particles per human cell to establish an infection, then those aerosols are not infectious, even though they contain virus. In addition, while airborne, aerosols begin to lose water content by evaporation and virus particles, especially enveloped particles like Ebola, can be affected by other environmental conditions such as humidity, air currents, and sunlight." It takes one particle to inject RNA or DNA into a human cell which then replicates until they burst out of that cell. They then attach to other cells and so on. If multiple particles are able to utilise one cell then replication would be faster. But in my learning, the 1000s of particles are a result of replication not of the viral load. Therefore I would deduce that the viral aerosol is still a danger. As an undergrad I stand to be corrected by graduates .
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing as can be self appointed experts..
"A little knowledge for an undergrad could lead to choosing that field in which to further study, so on that basis I know you cannot be accusing me of appointing myself as an expert . So who are you accusing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I just pray that the world leaders are studying this thread and will follow those that know better than them.
Wonderfully meaningless contribution. Bravo! "And not even a wake up peeps | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I just pray that the world leaders are studying this thread and will follow those that know better than them.
Wonderfully meaningless contribution. Bravo!
And not even a wake up peeps "Ahem, I think you mean "wake up sheeple" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not really difficult, wear a mask in shops, job done! But it's not job done... that's the issue. wearing a face covering distracts you from other actions that are far more important in keeping you and others safe from transmitting the virus Does it though? Such as? Some people don't maintain distance because they think the mask protects them. Or they contaminate themselves handling it badl. Also people who cough or sneeze into it instead of putting their hand/elbow in the way first" There is a strange kind of logic here. The government used it to discourage the general public wearing masks when there was a shortage presumably because more were needed for the NHS. They told us the science said that they were not necessary for the general public. Now miraculously the science says we should wear them. A cynic might say that this is because there are enough supplies of masks. Another cynic might say that if we get the general public to wear them then there is money to be made in their production. Then the, 'they only protect if you don, doff and wear them correctly' brigade arrived at the party. They are usually the ones who love stating the bleeding obvious. No shit Sherlock | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not really difficult, wear a mask in shops, job done! But it's not job done... that's the issue. wearing a face covering distracts you from other actions that are far more important in keeping you and others safe from transmitting the virus Does it though? Such as? Some people don't maintain distance because they think the mask protects them. Or they contaminate themselves handling it badl. Also people who cough or sneeze into it instead of putting their hand/elbow in the way first There is a strange kind of logic here. The government used it to discourage the general public wearing masks when there was a shortage presumably because more were needed for the NHS. They told us the science said that they were not necessary for the general public. Now miraculously the science says we should wear them. A cynic might say that this is because there are enough supplies of masks. Another cynic might say that if we get the general public to wear them then there is money to be made in their production. Then the, 'they only protect if you don, doff and wear them correctly' brigade arrived at the party. They are usually the ones who love stating the bleeding obvious. No shit Sherlock " Or, our numbers are down and as restrictions are eased they don't want massive spikes so they are asking us to wear masks to reduce the risk of large spikes? I mean, god forbid should we have to take some responsibility for our own health and the health of people around us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it that every single bit of advice has to be torn to shreds by these forums? They moan about no masks then they moan about wearing masks. They moan about lockdown not being implemented earlier then moan that lockdown is too long. They moan about large gatherings then bitch about social distancing not being reduced to 1m soon enough. They moan about flights still being allowed in and out but then bitch about quarantine being put into place. Just do what we need to do and this will all be over faster. It's not rocket science. " Yep. And remember. Nobody said its going to be easy. It is going to be tough for a while. Stronger together. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people feel invincible. Some are selfish. It's about attitudes to risk. Show me a risk taker and I will show you a non mask wearing, barebacking, speeding driver, tailgating, tobacco smoking, littering son of bitch... " wrong. i dont smoke | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success "Yes, because people are always spitting in my face. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success "1. Ask your friend to drive over you in his car. 2. Ask your friend to cycle into you on his bicycle. You see, we should ban cars and make everyone cycle. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face."Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face.
Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you?"Not the same at all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face.
Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you?
Not the same at all."Airborne droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing don't have the same biological make up as saliva? How so? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face.
Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you?
Not the same at all.
Airborne droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing don't have the same biological make up as saliva? How so?"No, someone spitting in your face is completely different to someone coughing near you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face."Zooooooooom, right over your head. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face.
Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you?
Not the same at all.
Airborne droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing don't have the same biological make up as saliva? How so?
No, someone spitting in your face is completely different to someone coughing near you."On a transmission of virus through airborne water droplets basis, how so? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face.
Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you?
Not the same at all.
Airborne droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing don't have the same biological make up as saliva? How so?"Have you never coughed up phlegm? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face.
Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you?
Not the same at all.
Airborne droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing don't have the same biological make up as saliva? How so?
No, someone spitting in your face is completely different to someone coughing near you.
On a transmission of virus through airborne water droplets basis, how so?"You don't think there's a difference? OK. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face.
Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you?
Not the same at all.
Airborne droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing don't have the same biological make up as saliva? How so?
Have you never coughed up phlegm? "Probably, why? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face.
Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you?
Not the same at all.
Airborne droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing don't have the same biological make up as saliva? How so?
No, someone spitting in your face is completely different to someone coughing near you.
On a transmission of virus through airborne water droplets basis, how so?
You don't think there's a difference? OK. "Thank you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face.
Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you?
Not the same at all.
Airborne droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing don't have the same biological make up as saliva? How so?
No, someone spitting in your face is completely different to someone coughing near you.
On a transmission of virus through airborne water droplets basis, how so?"Coughing or sneezing can expel matter from the nose, throat or lungs. Saliva comes from the mouth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face.
Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you?
Not the same at all.
Airborne droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing don't have the same biological make up as saliva? How so?
Have you never coughed up phlegm?
Probably, why?"Then you know it doesn't have the same biological make up as saliva. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face.
Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you?
Not the same at all.
Airborne droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing don't have the same biological make up as saliva? How so?
No, someone spitting in your face is completely different to someone coughing near you.
On a transmission of virus through airborne water droplets basis, how so?
Coughing or sneezing can expel matter from the nose, throat or lungs. Saliva comes from the mouth. "If somebody is infected with a virus, the infection is present in all bodily fluids, whether phlegm, blood, urine, saliva etc. When you have a test, why do you think they swab your nose and your mouth? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watch the Nazi Concentration Camps documentary, made in 1945 during liberation of prisoners. Then bleat that certain lock down restrictions and mitigations are all about controlling the people. " So the carefully planned & scientifically redearched , industrialised destruction of men women & children in a Nazi death camp is = what we're seeing today with C-19? If we could travel back maybe we could ask the victims what they'd prefer, a trip to the gas chamber - incidentlly fuelled by Bayer, one of the companies 'rushing' to find a credible C-19 cure - or a lockdown? Auschwitz and C-19, not a very good comparison is it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face.
Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you?
Not the same at all.
Airborne droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing don't have the same biological make up as saliva? How so?
No, someone spitting in your face is completely different to someone coughing near you.
On a transmission of virus through airborne water droplets basis, how so?
Coughing or sneezing can expel matter from the nose, throat or lungs. Saliva comes from the mouth.
If somebody is infected with a virus, the infection is present in all bodily fluids, whether phlegm, blood, urine, saliva etc. When you have a test, why do you think they swab your nose and your mouth?"An infection can also be detected by blood test or urinalysis, but the swab system is easier and more convenient. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face.
Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you?
Not the same at all.
Airborne droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing don't have the same biological make up as saliva? How so?
No, someone spitting in your face is completely different to someone coughing near you.
On a transmission of virus through airborne water droplets basis, how so?
Coughing or sneezing can expel matter from the nose, throat or lungs. Saliva comes from the mouth.
If somebody is infected with a virus, the infection is present in all bodily fluids, whether phlegm, blood, urine, saliva etc. When you have a test, why do you think they swab your nose and your mouth?"No it's not. Where do you get your information from? A urinalysis can inform a medic that the body is fighting an infection by leucocytes present. Blood tests can show the severity of an infection by measuring the CRP in the blood (a protein), it also measures the numbers of the types of white blood cells in the blood. It's a different test to see if there are pathogens in the blood. In the case of covid19 which is predominantly a respiratory infection, they take nose and throat swabs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watch the Nazi Concentration Camps documentary, made in 1945 during liberation of prisoners. Then bleat that certain lock down restrictions and mitigations are all about controlling the people. So the carefully planned & scientifically redearched , industrialised destruction of men women & children in a Nazi death camp is = what we're seeing today with C-19? If we could travel back maybe we could ask the victims what they'd prefer, a trip to the gas chamber - incidentlly fuelled by Bayer, one of the companies 'rushing' to find a credible C-19 cure - or a lockdown? Auschwitz and C-19, not a very good comparison is it? "Quite shocking comparison in my opinion. OP should reflect | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watch the Nazi Concentration Camps documentary, made in 1945 during liberation of prisoners. Then bleat that certain lock down restrictions and mitigations are all about controlling the people. So the carefully planned & scientifically redearched , industrialised destruction of men women & children in a Nazi death camp is = what we're seeing today with C-19? If we could travel back maybe we could ask the victims what they'd prefer, a trip to the gas chamber - incidentlly fuelled by Bayer, one of the companies 'rushing' to find a credible C-19 cure - or a lockdown? Auschwitz and C-19, not a very good comparison is it? "Oh dear! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face.
Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you?
Not the same at all.
Airborne droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing don't have the same biological make up as saliva? How so?
No, someone spitting in your face is completely different to someone coughing near you.
On a transmission of virus through airborne water droplets basis, how so?
Coughing or sneezing can expel matter from the nose, throat or lungs. Saliva comes from the mouth.
If somebody is infected with a virus, the infection is present in all bodily fluids, whether phlegm, blood, urine, saliva etc. When you have a test, why do you think they swab your nose and your mouth?
An infection can also be detected by blood test or urinalysis, but the swab system is easier and more convenient."An infection can detected by faecal swabs, skin/lesion swabs and lumber puncture. Note the use of "an". It doesn't state which in infection. It doesn't state all infections. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face.
Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you?
Not the same at all.
Airborne droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing don't have the same biological make up as saliva? How so?
No, someone spitting in your face is completely different to someone coughing near you.
On a transmission of virus through airborne water droplets basis, how so?
Coughing or sneezing can expel matter from the nose, throat or lungs. Saliva comes from the mouth.
If somebody is infected with a virus, the infection is present in all bodily fluids, whether phlegm, blood, urine, saliva etc. When you have a test, why do you think they swab your nose and your mouth?"Not necessarily, many asymptomatic people test positive by swab of the mouth and nose but not all test positive in blood and it incubates in your nose. (In simple terms) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watch the Nazi Concentration Camps documentary, made in 1945 during liberation of prisoners. Then bleat that certain lock down restrictions and mitigations are all about controlling the people. So the carefully planned & scientifically redearched , industrialised destruction of men women & children in a Nazi death camp is = what we're seeing today with C-19? If we could travel back maybe we could ask the victims what they'd prefer, a trip to the gas chamber - incidentlly fuelled by Bayer, one of the companies 'rushing' to find a credible C-19 cure - or a lockdown? Auschwitz and C-19, not a very good comparison is it?
Quite shocking comparison in my opinion. OP should reflect "Bless your little cottons. But it's OK, anyone who has a modicom of intelligence (and uses it) realises that the comparison is between a slight imposition (I'm nicking someone else's synonym re small loss of freedom) to a large scale loss of freedom; and, one person's thoughts on people control to another's genocide. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face.
Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you?
Not the same at all.
Airborne droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing don't have the same biological make up as saliva? How so?
No, someone spitting in your face is completely different to someone coughing near you.
On a transmission of virus through airborne water droplets basis, how so?
Coughing or sneezing can expel matter from the nose, throat or lungs. Saliva comes from the mouth.
If somebody is infected with a virus, the infection is present in all bodily fluids, whether phlegm, blood, urine, saliva etc. When you have a test, why do you think they swab your nose and your mouth?
No it's not. Where do you get your information from?
A urinalysis can inform a medic that the body is fighting an infection by leucocytes present. Blood tests can show the severity of an infection by measuring the CRP in the blood (a protein), it also measures the numbers of the types of white blood cells in the blood. It's a different test to see if there are pathogens in the blood.
In the case of covid19 which is predominantly a respiratory infection, they take nose and throat swabs. "From the gov.co.uk website - "Initial research has identified the presence of COVID-19 virus in the stools and conjunctival secretions of confirmed cases. All secretions (except sweat) and excretions, including diarrhoeal stools from patients with known or possible COVID-19, should be regarded as potentially infectious." I have the link if you would like it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face.
Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you?
Not the same at all.
Airborne droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing don't have the same biological make up as saliva? How so?
No, someone spitting in your face is completely different to someone coughing near you.
On a transmission of virus through airborne water droplets basis, how so?
Coughing or sneezing can expel matter from the nose, throat or lungs. Saliva comes from the mouth.
If somebody is infected with a virus, the infection is present in all bodily fluids, whether phlegm, blood, urine, saliva etc. When you have a test, why do you think they swab your nose and your mouth?
No it's not. Where do you get your information from?
A urinalysis can inform a medic that the body is fighting an infection by leucocytes present. Blood tests can show the severity of an infection by measuring the CRP in the blood (a protein), it also measures the numbers of the types of white blood cells in the blood. It's a different test to see if there are pathogens in the blood.
In the case of covid19 which is predominantly a respiratory infection, they take nose and throat swabs.
From the gov.co.uk website -
"Initial research has identified the presence of COVID-19 virus in the stools and conjunctival secretions of confirmed cases. All secretions (except sweat) and excretions, including diarrhoeal stools from patients with known or possible COVID-19, should be regarded as potentially infectious."
I have the link if you would like it."Where does it state all viruses are present in all bodily wastes? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watch the Nazi Concentration Camps documentary, made in 1945 during liberation of prisoners. Then bleat that certain lock down restrictions and mitigations are all about controlling the people. So the carefully planned & scientifically redearched , industrialised destruction of men women & children in a Nazi death camp is = what we're seeing today with C-19? If we could travel back maybe we could ask the victims what they'd prefer, a trip to the gas chamber - incidentlly fuelled by Bayer, one of the companies 'rushing' to find a credible C-19 cure - or a lockdown? Auschwitz and C-19, not a very good comparison is it?
Quite shocking comparison in my opinion. OP should reflect
Bless your little cottons. But it's OK, anyone who has a modicom of intelligence (and uses it) realises that the comparison is between a slight imposition (I'm nicking someone else's synonym re small loss of freedom) to a large scale loss of freedom; and, one person's thoughts on people control to another's genocide. "A slight imposition to some and an attack of freedoms to another... Interesting I hear, and I have not been to pub in months, that they have to keep a register of those using the facilities. A slight imposition to some and an attack on freedoms for others. Some records are electronically activated and stored. Some are paper records... Useful to the watchers no doubt... Useful to those who would monitor us... And the counter arguement.. if you have nothing to hide... Against Stop and Search.. if you have nothing to hide... Against a pub register.. if you have nothing to hide.. Surveillance society at its best... I wear my mask with pride because I hand stitched it... Supermarkets are not turning people away without a mask.. Profit talks. People make choices.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watch the Nazi Concentration Camps documentary, made in 1945 during liberation of prisoners. Then bleat that certain lock down restrictions and mitigations are all about controlling the people. So the carefully planned & scientifically redearched , industrialised destruction of men women & children in a Nazi death camp is = what we're seeing today with C-19? If we could travel back maybe we could ask the victims what they'd prefer, a trip to the gas chamber - incidentlly fuelled by Bayer, one of the companies 'rushing' to find a credible C-19 cure - or a lockdown? Auschwitz and C-19, not a very good comparison is it?
Quite shocking comparison in my opinion. OP should reflect
Bless your little cottons. But it's OK, anyone who has a modicom of intelligence (and uses it) realises that the comparison is between a slight imposition (I'm nicking someone else's synonym re small loss of freedom) to a large scale loss of freedom; and, one person's thoughts on people control to another's genocide.
A slight imposition to some and an attack of freedoms to another...
Interesting I hear, and I have not been to pub in months, that they have to keep a register of those using the facilities. A slight imposition to some and an attack on freedoms for others.
Some records are electronically activated and stored. Some are paper records... Useful to the watchers no doubt... Useful to those who would monitor us...
And the counter arguement.. if you have nothing to hide...
Against Stop and Search.. if you have nothing to hide...
Against a pub register.. if you have nothing to hide..
Surveillance society at its best...
I wear my mask with pride because I hand stitched it...
Supermarkets are not turning people away without a mask.. Profit talks.
People make choices..
"Wtf is your point? I simply corrected you on your re-assertion of what I was comparing. And then you seemingly infer a mask is a step towards something more sinister. You're entitled to your opinions but you come across as being argumentative for the sake of it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face.
Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you?
Not the same at all.
Airborne droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing don't have the same biological make up as saliva? How so?
No, someone spitting in your face is completely different to someone coughing near you.
On a transmission of virus through airborne water droplets basis, how so?
Coughing or sneezing can expel matter from the nose, throat or lungs. Saliva comes from the mouth.
If somebody is infected with a virus, the infection is present in all bodily fluids, whether phlegm, blood, urine, saliva etc. When you have a test, why do you think they swab your nose and your mouth?
No it's not. Where do you get your information from?
A urinalysis can inform a medic that the body is fighting an infection by leucocytes present. Blood tests can show the severity of an infection by measuring the CRP in the blood (a protein), it also measures the numbers of the types of white blood cells in the blood. It's a different test to see if there are pathogens in the blood.
In the case of covid19 which is predominantly a respiratory infection, they take nose and throat swabs.
From the gov.co.uk website -
"Initial research has identified the presence of COVID-19 virus in the stools and conjunctival secretions of confirmed cases. All secretions (except sweat) and excretions, including diarrhoeal stools from patients with known or possible COVID-19, should be regarded as potentially infectious."
I have the link if you would like it.
Where does it state all viruses are present in all bodily wastes? "I think we are at cross-purposes here. I am agreeing with the sentiment that masks/face coverings are essential, my initial post was an extreme example of how protective they could potentially be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watch the Nazi Concentration Camps documentary, made in 1945 during liberation of prisoners. Then bleat that certain lock down restrictions and mitigations are all about controlling the people. So the carefully planned & scientifically redearched , industrialised destruction of men women & children in a Nazi death camp is = what we're seeing today with C-19? If we could travel back maybe we could ask the victims what they'd prefer, a trip to the gas chamber - incidentlly fuelled by Bayer, one of the companies 'rushing' to find a credible C-19 cure - or a lockdown? Auschwitz and C-19, not a very good comparison is it?
Quite shocking comparison in my opinion. OP should reflect " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here is a way to test the efficacy of face coverings. Step 1. Ask a covid infected person to stand in front of you and spit in your face. Step 2. Dry your face, ask your new friend to put on their mask and spit in your face again. If your face remains dry on step 2, success
Yes, because people are always spitting in my face.
Nobody has ever coughed or sneezed near you?
Not the same at all.
Airborne droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing don't have the same biological make up as saliva? How so?
No, someone spitting in your face is completely different to someone coughing near you.
On a transmission of virus through airborne water droplets basis, how so?
Coughing or sneezing can expel matter from the nose, throat or lungs. Saliva comes from the mouth.
If somebody is infected with a virus, the infection is present in all bodily fluids, whether phlegm, blood, urine, saliva etc. When you have a test, why do you think they swab your nose and your mouth?
No it's not. Where do you get your information from?
A urinalysis can inform a medic that the body is fighting an infection by leucocytes present. Blood tests can show the severity of an infection by measuring the CRP in the blood (a protein), it also measures the numbers of the types of white blood cells in the blood. It's a different test to see if there are pathogens in the blood.
In the case of covid19 which is predominantly a respiratory infection, they take nose and throat swabs.
From the gov.co.uk website -
"Initial research has identified the presence of COVID-19 virus in the stools and conjunctival secretions of confirmed cases. All secretions (except sweat) and excretions, including diarrhoeal stools from patients with known or possible COVID-19, should be regarded as potentially infectious."
I have the link if you would like it.
Where does it state all viruses are present in all bodily wastes?
I think we are at cross-purposes here. I am agreeing with the sentiment that masks/face coverings are essential, my initial post was an extreme example of how protective they could potentially be."Oh I know we're on the same side re masks, I just wanted to correct some biological aspects. And I don't mind being corrected if I'm in the wrong, probably cos whilst an undergrad I won't get egg on my face, I'll simply be improving my knowledge | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watch the Nazi Concentration Camps documentary, made in 1945 during liberation of prisoners. Then bleat that certain lock down restrictions and mitigations are all about controlling the people. So the carefully planned & scientifically redearched , industrialised destruction of men women & children in a Nazi death camp is = what we're seeing today with C-19? If we could travel back maybe we could ask the victims what they'd prefer, a trip to the gas chamber - incidentlly fuelled by Bayer, one of the companies 'rushing' to find a credible C-19 cure - or a lockdown? Auschwitz and C-19, not a very good comparison is it?
Quite shocking comparison in my opinion. OP should reflect
"And another. I'm so glad Tom has other posters to join him in his error - must make him feel all fuzzy inside | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think some people have missed the OPs point. My reading of it was that instead of people whinging about face masks and small impositions on their freedoms eg. a lockdown etc, that they should take a moment and think it's nowhere near as bad as it could be. None of us are being systematically slaughtered in a mass genocide. Maybe I got it wrong, but that was my take home message. " You're not wrong. The documentary was harrowing. The hell those people went through. Death may have been a kindness to some. It made me ashamed of being part of a society that has become pretty self-indulgent that it can bleat on about such trivialities as choosing not to wear masks (ie not exemptions). I comprehend the questioning of the rationale and debates, and that's good in a democracy, but some people are just coming across as being bloody-minded. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watch the Nazi Concentration Camps documentary, made in 1945 during liberation of prisoners. Then bleat that certain lock down restrictions and mitigations are all about controlling the people. So the carefully planned & scientifically redearched , industrialised destruction of men women & children in a Nazi death camp is = what we're seeing today with C-19? If we could travel back maybe we could ask the victims what they'd prefer, a trip to the gas chamber - incidentlly fuelled by Bayer, one of the companies 'rushing' to find a credible C-19 cure - or a lockdown? Auschwitz and C-19, not a very good comparison is it?
Quite shocking comparison in my opinion. OP should reflect
And another. I'm so glad Tom has other posters to join him in his error - must make him feel all fuzzy inside "You have a short memory, scroll up ... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watch the Nazi Concentration Camps documentary, made in 1945 during liberation of prisoners. Then bleat that certain lock down restrictions and mitigations are all about controlling the people. So the carefully planned & scientifically redearched , industrialised destruction of men women & children in a Nazi death camp is = what we're seeing today with C-19? If we could travel back maybe we could ask the victims what they'd prefer, a trip to the gas chamber - incidentlly fuelled by Bayer, one of the companies 'rushing' to find a credible C-19 cure - or a lockdown? Auschwitz and C-19, not a very good comparison is it?
Quite shocking comparison in my opinion. OP should reflect
And another. I'm so glad Tom has other posters to join him in his error - must make him feel all fuzzy inside
You have a short memory, scroll up ..."Actually I do due to a severe brain infection, ha! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please moderator close this thread down. People are not thinking clearly, it's somewhat tedious and unworthy. Tedious and unworthy and yet you read it and commented upon it "Hiya, not referring to your post, think you're ace and I hope I didn't offend, not my intention, suspect it's a transmit / receive thing.. Messages often read badly... the replies, the replies, some replies are not ok, I think, misjudged in wee small hours after a glass or two of wine. And people then just openly having a pop at each other. Nonsensical, unnecessary and can't we just all get on - it's summer, stay safe and look after each other no? xx  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please moderator close this thread down. People are not thinking clearly, it's somewhat tedious and unworthy. Tedious and unworthy and yet you read it and commented upon it
Hiya, not referring to your post, think you're ace and I hope I didn't offend, not my intention, suspect it's a transmit / receive thing.. Messages often read badly... the replies, the replies, some replies are not ok, I think, misjudged in wee small hours after a glass or two of wine. And people then just openly having a pop at each other. Nonsensical, unnecessary and can't we just all get on - it's summer, stay safe and look after each other no? xx "Apology accepted | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just watch, Jonathan Pie’s piece. Put a f¥€k on!! https://youtu.be/wZQkBHysrig" He is brilliant | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's funny, I have been watching this post and I could of predicted who would of been mask moaning....low and behold... "The same pro and anti....we all hit the same threads | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think some people have missed the OPs point. My reading of it was that instead of people whinging about face masks and small impositions on their freedoms eg. a lockdown etc, that they should take a moment and think it's nowhere near as bad as it could be. None of us are being systematically slaughtered in a mass genocide. Maybe I got it wrong, but that was my take home message. " I got the point right at the start. But it's been interesting reading some of the comments  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watch the Nazi Concentration Camps documentary, made in 1945 during liberation of prisoners. Then bleat that certain lock down restrictions and mitigations are all about controlling the people. So the carefully planned & scientifically redearched , industrialised destruction of men women & children in a Nazi death camp is = what we're seeing today with C-19? If we could travel back maybe we could ask the victims what they'd prefer, a trip to the gas chamber - incidentlly fuelled by Bayer, one of the companies 'rushing' to find a credible C-19 cure - or a lockdown? Auschwitz and C-19, not a very good comparison is it?
Quite shocking comparison in my opinion. OP should reflect
And another. I'm so glad Tom has other posters to join him in his error - must make him feel all fuzzy inside
You have a short memory, scroll up ...
Actually I do due to a severe brain infection, ha! "Apology accepted  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's funny, I have been watching this post and I could of predicted who would of been mask moaning....low and behold...
The same pro and anti....we all hit the same threads "Tis true....tis funny! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A slight imposition to some and an attack of freedoms to another... Interesting I hear, and I have not been to pub in months, that they have to keep a register of those using the facilities. A slight imposition to some and an attack on freedoms for others. Some records are electronically activated and stored. Some are paper records... Useful to the watchers no doubt... Useful to those who would monitor us... And the counter arguement.. if you have nothing to hide... Against Stop and Search.. if you have nothing to hide... Against a pub register.. if you have nothing to hide.. Surveillance society at its best... I wear my mask with pride because I hand stitched it... Supermarkets are not turning people away without a mask.. Profit talks. People make choices.." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
