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 |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Somethings going on. https://news.sky.com/story/ten-times-more-people-in-hospital-with-flu-than-this-time-last-year-nhs-england-data-shows-12754431" You know those things people use to put over their noses and mouths…. Apparently they are very good at keeping nasty germs to yourself…..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Somethings going on. https://news.sky.com/story/ten-times-more-people-in-hospital-with-flu-than-this-time-last-year-nhs-england-data-shows-12754431" So OP, what do you think is going on? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Somethings going on. https://news.sky.com/story/ten-times-more-people-in-hospital-with-flu-than-this-time-last-year-nhs-england-data-shows-12754431" Yes there's a flu outbreak. It happens  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Somethings going on. https://news.sky.com/story/ten-times-more-people-in-hospital-with-flu-than-this-time-last-year-nhs-england-data-shows-12754431 You know those things people use to put over their noses and mouths…. Apparently they are very good at keeping nasty germs to yourself….. "yup.. I actually thought after it helped so much to limit illness that along with ' don't go out or to work if you had symptoms ' that they would bring it back this year... I've been doing it anyway. My daughter has symptoms but not tested postitive for covid . . And she is staying home | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Somethings going on. https://news.sky.com/story/ten-times-more-people-in-hospital-with-flu-than-this-time-last-year-nhs-england-data-shows-12754431 You know those things people use to put over their noses and mouths…. Apparently they are very good at keeping nasty germs to yourself….. yup.. I actually thought after it helped so much to limit illness that along with ' don't go out or to work if you had symptoms ' that they would bring it back this year...
I've been doing it anyway. My daughter has symptoms but not tested postitive for covid . . And she is staying home "Honestly there was a point wherebi thought masks might become yhe norm on public transport, and companies would not expect you to work when ill which would have made us so much healthier but I guess not. And not fir covid, just for a healthier society | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Somethings going on. https://news.sky.com/story/ten-times-more-people-in-hospital-with-flu-than-this-time-last-year-nhs-england-data-shows-12754431 You know those things people use to put over their noses and mouths…. Apparently they are very good at keeping nasty germs to yourself….. yup.. I actually thought after it helped so much to limit illness that along with ' don't go out or to work if you had symptoms ' that they would bring it back this year...
I've been doing it anyway. My daughter has symptoms but not tested postitive for covid . . And she is staying home
Honestly there was a point wherebi thought masks might become yhe norm on public transport, and companies would not expect you to work when ill which would have made us so much healthier but I guess not. And not fir covid, just for a healthier society "Some of us are doing it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Somethings going on. https://news.sky.com/story/ten-times-more-people-in-hospital-with-flu-than-this-time-last-year-nhs-england-data-shows-12754431 You know those things people use to put over their noses and mouths…. Apparently they are very good at keeping nasty germs to yourself….. yup.. I actually thought after it helped so much to limit illness that along with ' don't go out or to work if you had symptoms ' that they would bring it back this year...
I've been doing it anyway. My daughter has symptoms but not tested postitive for covid . . And she is staying home
Honestly there was a point wherebi thought masks might become yhe norm on public transport, and companies would not expect you to work when ill which would have made us so much healthier but I guess not. And not fir covid, just for a healthier society "I thought the same... however even at work now we can only stay off work till the 5th day of a covid infection.. symptoms or not x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Somethings going on. https://news.sky.com/story/ten-times-more-people-in-hospital-with-flu-than-this-time-last-year-nhs-england-data-shows-12754431" It’s a non story. Flu wasn’t in circulation last year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Somethings going on. https://news.sky.com/story/ten-times-more-people-in-hospital-with-flu-than-this-time-last-year-nhs-england-data-shows-12754431 It’s a non story. Flu wasn’t in circulation last year." it was kept very much in check by the procedures put in place to protect against a much more infectious illness | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because last year they identified every case of flu as Covid. " exactly, at last someone who has a brain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because last year they identified every case of flu as Covid. " but that wasn't the case at all | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Somethings going on. https://news.sky.com/story/ten-times-more-people-in-hospital-with-flu-than-this-time-last-year-nhs-england-data-shows-12754431 So OP, what do you think is going on? "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because last year they identified every case of flu as Covid. exactly, at last someone who has a brain. " You misspelled "Brian" lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because last year they identified every case of flu as Covid. " Nope. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because last year they identified every case of flu as Covid. " Nope | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down" Ah magical cloth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down Ah magical cloth. " Read the post above yours. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've had the flu vaccinations each year for the last five years to help protect my parents, but I honestly don't think I've ever had flu. If I've had it, then it's been so mild that I've had few of the core symptoms and it's been indistinguishable from my allergies. No fevers, no muscle or joint pains etc." No I don't think I've ever had the flu. A lot of people will say they they've got the flu if they have a heavy cold. I've never understood the logic of people saying cover was nothing it's only like flu. I can only assume these people have never had flu as from what I understand it's really horrible and can wipe you out for days if not weeks on end. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've got to wear a mask as I have no immune system been diagnosed with leukemia on the last 6 months" I'm sorry. Be well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because last year they identified every case of flu as Covid. exactly, at last someone who has a brain. " Two untruths in one post.
Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Somethings going on. https://news.sky.com/story/ten-times-more-people-in-hospital-with-flu-than-this-time-last-year-nhs-england-data-shows-12754431 You know those things people use to put over their noses and mouths…. Apparently they are very good at keeping nasty germs to yourself….. yup.. I actually thought after it helped so much to limit illness that along with ' don't go out or to work if you had symptoms ' that they would bring it back this year...
I've been doing it anyway. My daughter has symptoms but not tested postitive for covid . . And she is staying home
Honestly there was a point wherebi thought masks might become yhe norm on public transport, and companies would not expect you to work when ill which would have made us so much healthier but I guess not. And not fir covid, just for a healthier society " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"During the pandemic where social distancing was observed flu infections declined considerably, so the natural immunity to this strain of virus diminished. And like many people pointing out, if we all wore masks to limit the spread of germ laden particulate matter whilst in public (like the Japanese do) then we might all be healthier. And I don't hear many people moaning about the Japanese work ethic or economy. There's nothing 'going on'." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"During the pandemic where social distancing was observed flu infections declined considerably, so the natural immunity to this strain of virus diminished. And like many people pointing out, if we all wore masks to limit the spread of germ laden particulate matter whilst in public (like the Japanese do) then we might all be healthier. And I don't hear many people moaning about the Japanese work ethic or economy. There's nothing 'going on'." Baffles me how the blindingly bleedin' obvious eludes some people. Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Which just goes to show; you don't cough and sneeze over everything and everyone and you don't spread viruses. Not rocket science is it. " Who knew?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Which just goes to show; you don't cough and sneeze over everything and everyone and you don't spread viruses. Not rocket science is it. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because last year they identified every case of flu as Covid. exactly, at last someone who has a brain. " How thick are you? Flu has a low r0. People who get flu don't pass it on very easily because most of the time they are in bed. With covid, for most, people weren't bed ridden so passed it on easily. Covid is also naturally very transmissible. The measure that were put in place for covid would lower transmissibility of all viruses resulting in some having an an r0 below 0 and therefore unable to spread. Exactly what happened to flu. Guess what also happened. Chicken pox cases dropped for period of the pandemic. Wonder why? Were they all classed as covid too?!? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down" No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because last year they identified every case of flu as Covid. exactly, at last someone who has a brain. How thick are you? Flu has a low r0. People who get flu don't pass it on very easily because most of the time they are in bed. With covid, for most, people weren't bed ridden so passed it on easily. Covid is also naturally very transmissible. The measure that were put in place for covid would lower transmissibility of all viruses resulting in some having an an r0 below 0 and therefore unable to spread. Exactly what happened to flu. Guess what also happened. Chicken pox cases dropped for period of the pandemic. Wonder why? Were they all classed as covid too?!? " Ah! The common sense, use your brain approach. Not fair! Where’s your Facebook and YouTube sources? What about whatsisname down the pub who read an article.!should be ashamed of yourself - lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Which just goes to show; you don't cough and sneeze over everything and everyone and you don't spread viruses. Not rocket science is it. " It would appear to be harder than rocket science for some. Seems so obvious, cover your mouth and nose, socially distance, stay home, improve your personal hygiene, cases go down. Do the opposite, cases go up. Amazing..... Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Which just goes to show; you don't cough and sneeze over everything and everyone and you don't spread viruses. Not rocket science is it. It would appear to be harder than rocket science for some. Seems so obvious, cover your mouth and nose, socially distance, stay home, improve your personal hygiene, cases go down. Do the opposite, cases go up. Amazing..... Winston " Hygiene is a tool of the deep state wanting to install social credit systems. Don't be a sheeple, resist soap. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ?" This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Which just goes to show; you don't cough and sneeze over everything and everyone and you don't spread viruses. Not rocket science is it. It would appear to be harder than rocket science for some. Seems so obvious, cover your mouth and nose, socially distance, stay home, improve your personal hygiene, cases go down. Do the opposite, cases go up. Amazing..... Winston Hygiene is a tool of the deep state wanting to install social credit systems. Don't be a sheeple, resist soap." Bloke next to me on the tube this morning, totally embracing the no soap idea. 
He's never gonna get flu.....
Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've had the flu vaccinations each year for the last five years to help protect my parents, but I honestly don't think I've ever had flu. If I've had it, then it's been so mild that I've had few of the core symptoms and it's been indistinguishable from my allergies. No fevers, no muscle or joint pains etc. No I don't think I've ever had the flu. A lot of people will say they they've got the flu if they have a heavy cold. I've never understood the logic of people saying cover was nothing it's only like flu. I can only assume these people have never had flu as from what I understand it's really horrible and can wipe you out for days if not weeks on end. " I’ve had flu twice, when it hits hard it hits very hard!! Last time it it took me 3 months to fully get back my energy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today " There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. " So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ?" Who said that they were "so effective"? They are better than wearing nothing. Masks reduce transmission. They don't stop. But, what the reduction in transmission does is reduces the exponential spread. Flu is a completely different virus. It is also well understood and therefore the effects and consequences of various measures of protection have been adequately evaluated over time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston " Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? " Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? Who said that they were "so effective"? They are better than wearing nothing. Masks reduce transmission. They don't stop. But, what the reduction in transmission does is reduces the exponential spread. Flu is a completely different virus. It is also well understood and therefore the effects and consequences of various measures of protection have been adequately evaluated over time." You're right, masks for flu have been evaluated many times & they've always been found to ineffective hence why they have never been recommended, so any suggestion now that we should be wearing masks again is ridiculous. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone." But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone." You beat me to it.
Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' " OK, if you believe that, you do you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' " Whilst the virus particles are indeed often smaller that the holes in the masks, the virus particles don't fly around at free will. They attach to the globules of moisture that come out of your nose or mouth. And those moisture particles are bigger than the holes in the masks we've all been wearing. Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' " Not a very good analogy really is it. When think about the science of movement of particles. So maybe try again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' " Literally no one uses that analogy   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' Not a very good analogy really is it. When think about the science of movement of particles. So maybe try again." The devil does tend to be in the detail | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' Whilst the virus particles are indeed often smaller that the holes in the masks, the virus particles don't fly around at free will. They attach to the globules of moisture that come out of your nose or mouth. And those moisture particles are bigger than the holes in the masks we've all been wearing. Winston " You had better inform the Gov't then as their advertising campaigns claimed covid particles do just flout around at free will & you should open a window to let them out. Anyway, what do you think happens to virus laden moisture particles travelling at high velocity when they hit a thin mask ? They nebulise into much smaller particles which will pass through the material or rebound back & out the gaps at the side etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' OK, if you believe that, you do you." It's not just me believing it, there are decades of scientific evidence proving it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because last year they identified every case of flu as Covid. exactly, at last someone who has a brain. Two untruths in one post.
Winston"That's a little harsh. Possibly true though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' OK, if you believe that, you do you. It's not just me believing it, there are decades of scientific evidence proving it. " Ok. I'll keep masking and we'll see how that goes. I've not caught Covid yet, or mutant bacteria from a dirty mask or whatever else people claim. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' OK, if you believe that, you do you. It's not just me believing it, there are decades of scientific evidence proving it. Ok. I'll keep masking and we'll see how that goes. I've not caught Covid yet, or mutant bacteria from a dirty mask or whatever else people claim." Fair enough, you do you, I've never worn a mask, not vaccinated either & also never caught Covid. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' OK, if you believe that, you do you. It's not just me believing it, there are decades of scientific evidence proving it. Ok. I'll keep masking and we'll see how that goes. I've not caught Covid yet, or mutant bacteria from a dirty mask or whatever else people claim. Fair enough, you do you, I've never worn a mask, not vaccinated either & also never caught Covid." Ok. Bully for you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' OK, if you believe that, you do you. It's not just me believing it, there are decades of scientific evidence proving it. " And literally millions of operating theater staff all over the world wearing masks and not transmitting their germs to patients, or catching germs off their patients. There's literally decades of scientific evidence proving it. Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Somethings going on. https://news.sky.com/story/ten-times-more-people-in-hospital-with-flu-than-this-time-last-year-nhs-england-data-shows-12754431" Haven't seen much of a surge in admissions but as winter sets in the normal seasonal lurgies will raise their heads and as hand washing, mask wearing and general hygiene is going back to pre covid levels and folks are flocking to stores for Christmas shopping etc it's bound to rise. Not looking forward to the weather turning and icy pavements bring the elderly slips and trips. Ah well, things getting back to normality, hospital visitors walking past gel dispensers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ?" Search '1918 Spanish flu masks'. Masks help us breathe in our own waste...very elfy lol
I trust my own immune system.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? Search '1918 Spanish flu masks'. Masks help us breathe in our own waste...very elfy lol
I trust my own immune system. "*Checks calender........ Nope, it's definitely 2022.
Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? Search '1918 Spanish flu masks'. Masks help us breathe in our own waste...very elfy lol
I trust my own immune system.
*Checks calender........
Nope, it's definitely 2022.
Winston "Checking your history might prove more useful... actually... don't bother lol  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? Search '1918 Spanish flu masks'. Masks help us breathe in our own waste...very elfy lol
I trust my own immune system. "Some caution would be wise for you, as an ageing male, where your immune system, like much of your body, enters decline, via immunosenescence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? Search '1918 Spanish flu masks'. Masks help us breathe in our own waste...very elfy lol
I trust my own immune system.
Some caution would be wise for you, as an ageing male, where your immune system, like much of your body, enters decline, via immunosenescence. "Good advice.
I strengthen my immune system with something free and extremely potent... can you guess what it is? Clue... It doesn't come out of a syringe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? Search '1918 Spanish flu masks'. Masks help us breathe in our own waste...very elfy lol
I trust my own immune system.
*Checks calender........
Nope, it's definitely 2022.
Winston
Checking your history might prove more useful... actually... don't bother lol "Are you genuinely placing credence on beliefs from 1918 in relation to knowledge and scientific understanding in 2022? Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? Search '1918 Spanish flu masks'. Masks help us breathe in our own waste...very elfy lol
I trust my own immune system.
*Checks calender........
Nope, it's definitely 2022.
Winston
Checking your history might prove more useful... actually... don't bother lol
Are you genuinely placing credence on beliefs from 1918 in relation to knowledge and scientific understanding in 2022?
Winston "Are you seriously unaware of mask wearing during the Spanish flu? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? Search '1918 Spanish flu masks'. Masks help us breathe in our own waste...very elfy lol
I trust my own immune system.
*Checks calender........
Nope, it's definitely 2022.
Winston
Checking your history might prove more useful... actually... don't bother lol
Are you genuinely placing credence on beliefs from 1918 in relation to knowledge and scientific understanding in 2022?
Winston
Are you seriously unaware of mask wearing during the Spanish flu? "That's a yes then.
Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? Search '1918 Spanish flu masks'. Masks help us breathe in our own waste...very elfy lol
I trust my own immune system.
*Checks calender........
Nope, it's definitely 2022.
Winston
Checking your history might prove more useful... actually... don't bother lol
Are you genuinely placing credence on beliefs from 1918 in relation to knowledge and scientific understanding in 2022?
Winston
Are you seriously unaware of mask wearing during the Spanish flu?
That's a yes then.
Winston "https://www.history.com/news/1918-pandemic-public-health-campaigns | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? Who said that they were "so effective"? They are better than wearing nothing. Masks reduce transmission. They don't stop. But, what the reduction in transmission does is reduces the exponential spread. Flu is a completely different virus. It is also well understood and therefore the effects and consequences of various measures of protection have been adequately evaluated over time. You're right, masks for flu have been evaluated many times & they've always been found to ineffective hence why they have never been recommended, so any suggestion now that we should be wearing masks again is ridiculous." Source of these many evaluations please... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's not just me believing it, there are decades of scientific evidence proving it. " Not sure where your looking but the evidence clearly shows that mask wearing especially along side hand washing ( sanitising) helps prevent the spread of all sorts of infections including flu and covid 19. https://www.healthline.com/health/cold-flu/mask#guidelines has some studies mentioned that can be further looked x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've had the flu vaccinations each year for the last five years to help protect my parents, but I honestly don't think I've ever had flu. If I've had it, then it's been so mild that I've had few of the core symptoms and it's been indistinguishable from my allergies. No fevers, no muscle or joint pains etc." you took the flu jabs to protect your parents? Am I missing something? Do you realise how idiotic that is | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ?" Because it was an established virus with a known R number and a readily available vaccine. COVID was none of those. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because last year they identified every case of flu as Covid. " You know they're completely different viruses, right? That's like pissing on a pregnancy test and expecting it to tell you whether your cat is pregnant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"….you took the flu jabs to protect your parents? Am I missing something? Do you realise how idiotic that is " Yes you are missing something. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does one actually know if theyve got the flu, as opposed to a cold , or just a runny nose and a few sneezes ?or are all 3 the same .Even pneumonia in most cases is treated at home with rest and antibiotics." If you've had the flu you'll know. Generally knocks you for six. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does one actually know if theyve got the flu, as opposed to a cold , or just a runny nose and a few sneezes ?or are all 3 the same .Even pneumonia in most cases is treated at home with rest and antibiotics." True for bacterial pneumonia. Antibiotics wouldn’t do much for viral pneumonia | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because last year they identified every case of flu as Covid. You know they're completely different viruses, right? That's like pissing on a pregnancy test and expecting it to tell you whether your cat is pregnant." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does one actually know if theyve got the flu, as opposed to a cold , or just a runny nose and a few sneezes ?or are all 3 the same .Even pneumonia in most cases is treated at home with rest and antibiotics." . If you don’t know you have flu then you don’t have flu!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' OK, if you believe that, you do you. It's not just me believing it, there are decades of scientific evidence proving it. And literally millions of operating theater staff all over the world wearing masks and not transmitting their germs to patients, or catching germs off their patients. There's literally decades of scientific evidence proving it. Winston " Meh. There's a publication on ncbi called "Unmasking the surgeon's: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery". Doesn't sound quite convincing where "germ catching" is involved - particularly viral matter (it's more about wound infection in surgery than transmission of viruses, isn't it), which is also an interesting aspect touched on in the next study I'm mentioning - which also talks about the difference in the expelled breath in a mask wearer and non mask wearer. I personally am a lot more worried about the potential harm and risks to your health wearing facemasks, particularly when worn over long periods of time. A study published on ncbi called "Is a mask that covers the mouth and nose free from undesirable side effects in everyday use and free of potential hazards". These health hazards, I find quite shocking, very few people are aware of them and particularly the long term consequences. But hey, the government, the scientists, the medical experts see nothing wrong with it, so it must be "the right thing to do", preferably without question - God forbid, you might be called a right wing, fascist conspiracy theorist who believes the earth is flat, the moonlanding didn't happen and in lizard people if you do question the science behind masking and the risk/benefit analysis which was not performed by any government in the world when they mandated a medical device to be worn in public by everyone - and you were lynched by the general public when you dared to use a medical exemption as a (very valid) excuse for not wearing a facemask. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' OK, if you believe that, you do you. It's not just me believing it, there are decades of scientific evidence proving it. And literally millions of operating theater staff all over the world wearing masks and not transmitting their germs to patients, or catching germs off their patients. There's literally decades of scientific evidence proving it. Winston " Nope operating theatre staff I.e surgeons anesthesiologist, ect wear masks to stop bodily fluids from the patient spraying into their faces and patient confidence there was a study conducted in 1980s in two English hospitals and found no difference in bacterial contamination of those who did and who didn't wear masks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"….you took the flu jabs to protect your parents? Am I missing something? Do you realise how idiotic that is Yes you are missing something." Yes you wear your seat belt or mine won't work | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Somethings going on. https://news.sky.com/story/ten-times-more-people-in-hospital-with-flu-than-this-time-last-year-nhs-england-data-shows-12754431 You know those things people use to put over their noses and mouths…. Apparently they are very good at keeping nasty germs to yourself….. yup.. I actually thought after it helped so much to limit illness that along with ' don't go out or to work if you had symptoms ' that they would bring it back this year...
I've been doing it anyway. My daughter has symptoms but not tested postitive for covid . . And she is staying home
Honestly there was a point wherebi thought masks might become yhe norm on public transport, and companies would not expect you to work when ill which would have made us so much healthier but I guess not. And not fir covid, just for a healthier society "A healthy society, maybe. But economically broken which is the way it’s heading anyway | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' OK, if you believe that, you do you. It's not just me believing it, there are decades of scientific evidence proving it. And literally millions of operating theater staff all over the world wearing masks and not transmitting their germs to patients, or catching germs off their patients. There's literally decades of scientific evidence proving it. Winston Nope operating theatre staff I.e surgeons anesthesiologist, ect wear masks to stop bodily fluids from the patient spraying into their faces and patient confidence there was a study conducted in 1980s in two English hospitals and found no difference in bacterial contamination of those who did and who didn't wear masks " Quoting one study from 40-odd years ago is hardly giving vigorous empirical support to your claim. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' OK, if you believe that, you do you. It's not just me believing it, there are decades of scientific evidence proving it. And literally millions of operating theater staff all over the world wearing masks and not transmitting their germs to patients, or catching germs off their patients. There's literally decades of scientific evidence proving it. Winston Meh. There's a publication on ncbi called "Unmasking the surgeon's: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery". Doesn't sound quite convincing where "germ catching" is involved - particularly viral matter (it's more about wound infection in surgery than transmission of viruses, isn't it), which is also an interesting aspect touched on in the next study I'm mentioning - which also talks about the difference in the expelled breath in a mask wearer and non mask wearer. I personally am a lot more worried about the potential harm and risks to your health wearing facemasks, particularly when worn over long periods of time. A study published on ncbi called "Is a mask that covers the mouth and nose free from undesirable side effects in everyday use and free of potential hazards". These health hazards, I find quite shocking, very few people are aware of them and particularly the long term consequences. But hey, the government, the scientists, the medical experts see nothing wrong with it, so it must be "the right thing to do", preferably without question - God forbid, you might be called a right wing, fascist conspiracy theorist who believes the earth is flat, the moonlanding didn't happen and in lizard people if you do question the science behind masking and the risk/benefit analysis which was not performed by any government in the world when they mandated a medical device to be worn in public by everyone - and you were lynched by the general public when you dared to use a medical exemption as a (very valid) excuse for not wearing a facemask. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' OK, if you believe that, you do you. It's not just me believing it, there are decades of scientific evidence proving it. And literally millions of operating theater staff all over the world wearing masks and not transmitting their germs to patients, or catching germs off their patients. There's literally decades of scientific evidence proving it. Winston Nope operating theatre staff I.e surgeons anesthesiologist, ect wear masks to stop bodily fluids from the patient spraying into their faces and patient confidence there was a study conducted in 1980s in two English hospitals and found no difference in bacterial contamination of those who did and who didn't wear masks Quoting one study from 40-odd years ago is hardly giving vigorous empirical support to your claim." Someone further up is quoting a study from 1918. 40 years is nothing.
Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Quoting one study from 40-odd years ago is hardly giving vigorous empirical support to your claim. Someone further up is quoting a study from 1918. 40 years is nothing.
Winston"If you're referring to the study I referred to, it's actually from 2015 from the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, called "Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery". There's another from 2016 in the Cochrane Library called "Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery" with the summary: "Key results Overall, we found very few studies and identified no new trials for this latest update. We analysed a total of 2106 participants from the three studies we found. All three studies showed that wearing a face mask during surgery neither increases nor decreases the number of wound infections occurring after surgery. We conclude that there is no clear evidence that wearing disposable face masks affects the likelihood of wound infections developing after surgery." The previous study is more detailed in analysis. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't get the mask wearing argument at all for it not helping as we are told from very young to cover our mouths when coughing or our noses when sneezing to prevent droplets spreading. So on that alone it's obvious why masks will help " As I mentioned in a previous post - it's about risk vs benefit. Facemasks have adverse side effects and are potentially a health hazard. I quoted a detailed study further up which may give you some insight on the potential damage done to your health. "Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?" from the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on ncbi. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' OK, if you believe that, you do you. It's not just me believing it, there are decades of scientific evidence proving it. And literally millions of operating theater staff all over the world wearing masks and not transmitting their germs to patients, or catching germs off their patients. There's literally decades of scientific evidence proving it. Winston Nope operating theatre staff I.e surgeons anesthesiologist, ect wear masks to stop bodily fluids from the patient spraying into their faces and patient confidence there was a study conducted in 1980s in two English hospitals and found no difference in bacterial contamination of those who did and who didn't wear masks Quoting one study from 40-odd years ago is hardly giving vigorous empirical support to your claim." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7902177/ Apart from the words, there's pictures.
Winston "I thought the graphics may have helped some understand. Actually on that site alone if you searched for mask wearing data, their were over a thousand research papers.. I randomly picked 20 and all showed how they helped stop the thread of viruses | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7902177/ Apart from the words, there's pictures.
Winston I thought the graphics may have helped some understand. Actually on that site alone if you searched for mask wearing data, their were over a thousand research papers.. I randomly picked 20 and all showed how they helped stop the thread of viruses "But that's the thing - they don't "stop" the spread of viruses. There may be an element of a barrier but and I quote "masks are responsible for a proportionally disproportionate production of fine particles in the environment and, surprisingly, much more so than in people without masks [98]. It was shown that all mask-wearing subjects released significantly more smaller particles of size 0.3–0.5 µm (size of SARS-CoV-2 ranges from 0.07 µm to 0.09 µm) into the air than mask-less people, both when breathing, speaking and coughing (fabric, surgical, N95 masks, measured with the Aerodynamic Particle Sizer, APS, TS, model 3329)". N95 (FFP2), for the record, stands for National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the United States (NIOSH), and 95 indicates the 95 per cent filtering capacity for fine particles up to at least 0.3 µm. And even according to your study, the admission is: "In particular, many types of face masks aimed at the general public are fast coming into the market, but the amount of research that shows their fit-for-purpose is currently LACKING. In addition, face mask wearing may bear social, cultural, and geographical influences, with some unfortunate politicization since the COVID-19 outbreak. Furthermore, wearers may not wear them properly, have repeated handling and compromise hygiene, etc., resulting in a false sense of security that could actually make the transmissions worse." Whereas an excerpt of the study I mentioned, clearly shows the damage done to health - in which case, every government in the world should have done an in depth risk assessment before mandating the wearing of them: "In Germany, FFP2 (N95) masks must be worn for 75 min, followed by a 30-minute break. An additional suitability examination by specialized physicians is also obligatory and stipulated for occupationally used respirators". "The mask-induced adverse changes are relatively minor at first glance, but repeated exposure over longer periods in accordance with the above-mentioned pathogenetic principle is relevant. LONG-TERM DISEASE-RELEVANT CONSEQUENCES OF MASKS ARE TO BE EXPECTED. Insofar, the statistically significant results found in the studies with mathematically tangible differences between mask wearers and people without masks are clinically relevant. They give an indication that with correspondingly repeated and prolonged exposure to physical, chemical, biological, physiological and psychological conditions, some of which are subliminal, but which are significantly shifted towards pathological areas, health-reducing changes and clinical pictures can develop such as HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE and ARTERIOSCLEROSIS, including CORONARY HEART DISEASE (metabolic syndrome) as well as neurological diseases. For small increases in carbon dioxide in the inhaled air, this disease-promoting effect has been proven with the creation of headaches, irritation of the respiratory tract up to asthma as well as an increase in blood pressure and heart rate with vascular damage and, finally, neuropathological and cardiovascular consequences. Even slightly but persistently increased heart rates encourage oxidative stress with endothelial dysfunction, via increased inflammatory messengers, and finally, the stimulation of arteriosclerosis of the blood vessels has been proven. A similar effect with the stimulation of high blood pressure, cardiac dysfunction and damage to blood vessels supplying the brain is suggested for slightly increased breathing rates over long periods. Masks are responsible for the aforementioned physiological changes with rises in inhaled carbon dioxide, small sustained increases in heart rate and mild but sustained increases in respiratory rates". You wear your mask, if it makes you feel better, safer or whatever. It's your body, your choice. I choose/chose not to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7902177/ Apart from the words, there's pictures.
Winston I thought the graphics may have helped some understand. Actually on that site alone if you searched for mask wearing data, their were over a thousand research papers.. I randomly picked 20 and all showed how they helped stop the thread of viruses "We'll see how it all goes in a few years. In fact, I wonder if the current flu season is an indicator. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7902177/ Apart from the words, there's pictures.
Winston I thought the graphics may have helped some understand. Actually on that site alone if you searched for mask wearing data, their were over a thousand research papers.. I randomly picked 20 and all showed how they helped stop the thread of viruses
But that's the thing - they don't "stop" the spread of viruses. There may be an element of a barrier but and I quote "masks are responsible for a proportionally disproportionate production of fine particles in the environment and, surprisingly, much more so than in people without masks [98].
It was shown that all mask-wearing subjects released significantly more smaller particles of size 0.3–0.5 µm (size of SARS-CoV-2 ranges from 0.07 µm to 0.09 µm) into the air than mask-less people, both when breathing, speaking and coughing (fabric, surgical, N95 masks, measured with the Aerodynamic Particle Sizer, APS, TS, model 3329)".
N95 (FFP2), for the record, stands for National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the United States (NIOSH), and 95 indicates the 95 per cent filtering capacity for fine particles up to at least 0.3 µm.
And even according to your study, the admission is:
"In particular, many types of face masks aimed at the general public are fast coming into the market, but the amount of research that shows their fit-for-purpose is currently LACKING. In addition, face mask wearing may bear social, cultural, and geographical influences, with some unfortunate politicization since the COVID-19 outbreak. Furthermore, wearers may not wear them properly, have repeated handling and compromise hygiene, etc., resulting in a false sense of security that could actually make the transmissions worse."
Whereas an excerpt of the study I mentioned, clearly shows the damage done to health - in which case, every government in the world should have done an in depth risk assessment before mandating the wearing of them:
"In Germany, FFP2 (N95) masks must be worn for 75 min, followed by a 30-minute break. An additional suitability examination by specialized physicians is also obligatory and stipulated for occupationally used respirators".
"The mask-induced adverse changes are relatively minor at first glance, but repeated exposure over longer periods in accordance with the above-mentioned pathogenetic principle is relevant. LONG-TERM DISEASE-RELEVANT CONSEQUENCES OF MASKS ARE TO BE EXPECTED. Insofar, the statistically significant results found in the studies with mathematically tangible differences between mask wearers and people without masks are clinically relevant. They give an indication that with correspondingly repeated and prolonged exposure to physical, chemical, biological, physiological and psychological conditions, some of which are subliminal, but which are significantly shifted towards pathological areas, health-reducing changes and clinical pictures can develop such as HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE and ARTERIOSCLEROSIS, including CORONARY HEART DISEASE (metabolic syndrome) as well as neurological diseases. For small increases in carbon dioxide in the inhaled air, this disease-promoting effect has been proven with the creation of headaches, irritation of the respiratory tract up to asthma as well as an increase in blood pressure and heart rate with vascular damage and, finally, neuropathological and cardiovascular consequences. Even slightly but persistently increased heart rates encourage oxidative stress with endothelial dysfunction, via increased inflammatory messengers, and finally, the stimulation of arteriosclerosis of the blood vessels has been proven. A similar effect with the stimulation of high blood pressure, cardiac dysfunction and damage to blood vessels supplying the brain is suggested for slightly increased breathing rates over long periods. Masks are responsible for the aforementioned physiological changes with rises in inhaled carbon dioxide, small sustained increases in heart rate and mild but sustained increases in respiratory rates".
You wear your mask, if it makes you feel better, safer or whatever. It's your body, your choice. I choose/chose not to.
"On holiday in Gran Canaria at present and the buses are red hot on mask wearing. As someone who wears a mask all day at work, don't find it a problem but one lady did, it was hilarious. Coach pulls up at bus stop, doors open, everyone dons a mask, steps on, pays fare, all good so far, nobody says a word. But then an English lady waves a bit of papers saying exempt, exempt. No, says the coach driver. Exempt, Exempt the lady repeats, then realising the driver doesn't speak English she shouts Exempto, Exempto. The driver shakes his head, says no again and closes the doors. The lady flips, starts banging on the door, driver keeps doors closed but doesn't move the coach. The lady them delves onto her large shopping bag and produces a mask, driver opens door, she steps up, muttering and complaining, pulls her mask down to give driver an ear full, driver tells her to pull up mask. Muttering and cursing, trying to get reassurance from fellow passengers who promptly ignore her. Plonks herself down, husband pacifies her and off comes the mask, driver walks down coach tells her to put mask on, pulls it back on below nose, driver tells her over nose. She then gets out a bottle of water and makes a big song and dance about having a drink, driver stays with her until drink taken, points to her mask and goes back to his seat. Off we pop, she pulled the mask down a tad but her husband gave her a few words. 40 minutes later, she didn't need CPR, wasn't gasping her final breath, no paramedics needed. She stepped off the bus and walked down the road and only realised a few hundred meters later she actually still had her mask on then ripped it off. Free entertainment from the good old English. Used public transport over the last couple of weeks and never seen anyone else, young or old, with any issues. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7902177/ Apart from the words, there's pictures.
Winston I thought the graphics may have helped some understand. Actually on that site alone if you searched for mask wearing data, their were over a thousand research papers.. I randomly picked 20 and all showed how they helped stop the thread of viruses
But that's the thing - they don't "stop" the spread of viruses. There may be an element of a barrier but and I quote "masks are responsible for a proportionally disproportionate production of fine particles in the environment and, surprisingly, much more so than in people without masks [98].
It was shown that all mask-wearing subjects released significantly more smaller particles of size 0.3–0.5 µm (size of SARS-CoV-2 ranges from 0.07 µm to 0.09 µm) into the air than mask-less people, both when breathing, speaking and coughing (fabric, surgical, N95 masks, measured with the Aerodynamic Particle Sizer, APS, TS, model 3329)".
N95 (FFP2), for the record, stands for National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the United States (NIOSH), and 95 indicates the 95 per cent filtering capacity for fine particles up to at least 0.3 µm.
And even according to your study, the admission is:
"In particular, many types of face masks aimed at the general public are fast coming into the market, but the amount of research that shows their fit-for-purpose is currently LACKING. In addition, face mask wearing may bear social, cultural, and geographical influences, with some unfortunate politicization since the COVID-19 outbreak. Furthermore, wearers may not wear them properly, have repeated handling and compromise hygiene, etc., resulting in a false sense of security that could actually make the transmissions worse."
Whereas an excerpt of the study I mentioned, clearly shows the damage done to health - in which case, every government in the world should have done an in depth risk assessment before mandating the wearing of them:
"In Germany, FFP2 (N95) masks must be worn for 75 min, followed by a 30-minute break. An additional suitability examination by specialized physicians is also obligatory and stipulated for occupationally used respirators".
"The mask-induced adverse changes are relatively minor at first glance, but repeated exposure over longer periods in accordance with the above-mentioned pathogenetic principle is relevant. LONG-TERM DISEASE-RELEVANT CONSEQUENCES OF MASKS ARE TO BE EXPECTED. Insofar, the statistically significant results found in the studies with mathematically tangible differences between mask wearers and people without masks are clinically relevant. They give an indication that with correspondingly repeated and prolonged exposure to physical, chemical, biological, physiological and psychological conditions, some of which are subliminal, but which are significantly shifted towards pathological areas, health-reducing changes and clinical pictures can develop such as HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE and ARTERIOSCLEROSIS, including CORONARY HEART DISEASE (metabolic syndrome) as well as neurological diseases. For small increases in carbon dioxide in the inhaled air, this disease-promoting effect has been proven with the creation of headaches, irritation of the respiratory tract up to asthma as well as an increase in blood pressure and heart rate with vascular damage and, finally, neuropathological and cardiovascular consequences. Even slightly but persistently increased heart rates encourage oxidative stress with endothelial dysfunction, via increased inflammatory messengers, and finally, the stimulation of arteriosclerosis of the blood vessels has been proven. A similar effect with the stimulation of high blood pressure, cardiac dysfunction and damage to blood vessels supplying the brain is suggested for slightly increased breathing rates over long periods. Masks are responsible for the aforementioned physiological changes with rises in inhaled carbon dioxide, small sustained increases in heart rate and mild but sustained increases in respiratory rates".
You wear your mask, if it makes you feel better, safer or whatever. It's your body, your choice. I choose/chose not to.
On holiday in Gran Canaria at present and the buses are red hot on mask wearing.
As someone who wears a mask all day at work, don't find it a problem but one lady did, it was hilarious.
Coach pulls up at bus stop, doors open, everyone dons a mask, steps on, pays fare, all good so far, nobody says a word.
But then an English lady waves a bit of papers saying exempt, exempt.
No, says the coach driver.
Exempt, Exempt the lady repeats, then realising the driver doesn't speak English she shouts Exempto, Exempto.
The driver shakes his head, says no again and closes the doors.
The lady flips, starts banging on the door, driver keeps doors closed but doesn't move the coach.
The lady them delves onto her large shopping bag and produces a mask, driver opens door, she steps up, muttering and complaining, pulls her mask down to give driver an ear full, driver tells her to pull up mask.
Muttering and cursing, trying to get reassurance from fellow passengers who promptly ignore her.
Plonks herself down, husband pacifies her and off comes the mask, driver walks down coach tells her to put mask on, pulls it back on below nose, driver tells her over nose. She then gets out a bottle of water and makes a big song and dance about having a drink, driver stays with her until drink taken, points to her mask and goes back to his seat.
Off we pop, she pulled the mask down a tad but her husband gave her a few words.
40 minutes later, she didn't need CPR, wasn't gasping her final breath, no paramedics needed.
She stepped off the bus and walked down the road and only realised a few hundred meters later she actually still had her mask on then ripped it off.
Free entertainment from the good old English.
Used public transport over the last couple of weeks and never seen anyone else, young or old, with any issues. "We had a guy on the bus back to the airport that removed his mask to cough and then put it back on again | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think some people should just relocate to the north Pole , so afraid of germs and viruses are they. How did they ever manage before covid i wonder" Can't do it now. Ice is melting, those zombie viruses will get you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't get the mask wearing argument at all for it not helping as we are told from very young to cover our mouths when coughing or our noses when sneezing to prevent droplets spreading. So on that alone it's obvious why masks will help As I mentioned in a previous post - it's about risk vs benefit. Facemasks have adverse side effects and are potentially a health hazard. I quoted a detailed study further up which may give you some insight on the potential damage done to your health. "Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?" from the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on ncbi. " wearing masks is a big part of the covid theatre and driving fear amongst the plebs; when in reality they are effective as an ashtray on a motorbike. And in fact have serious potential health risks especially if worn for long periods. Your typical mask is made from polypropylene and there’s a real risk of inhaling micro plastic fibres into your lungs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7902177/ Apart from the words, there's pictures.
Winston I thought the graphics may have helped some understand. Actually on that site alone if you searched for mask wearing data, their were over a thousand research papers.. I randomly picked 20 and all showed how they helped stop the thread of viruses
But that's the thing - they don't "stop" the spread of viruses. There may be an element of a barrier but and I quote "masks are responsible for a proportionally disproportionate production of fine particles in the environment and, surprisingly, much more so than in people without masks [98].
It was shown that all mask-wearing subjects released significantly more smaller particles of size 0.3–0.5 µm (size of SARS-CoV-2 ranges from 0.07 µm to 0.09 µm) into the air than mask-less people, both when breathing, speaking and coughing (fabric, surgical, N95 masks, measured with the Aerodynamic Particle Sizer, APS, TS, model 3329)".
N95 (FFP2), for the record, stands for National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the United States (NIOSH), and 95 indicates the 95 per cent filtering capacity for fine particles up to at least 0.3 µm.
And even according to your study, the admission is:
"In particular, many types of face masks aimed at the general public are fast coming into the market, but the amount of research that shows their fit-for-purpose is currently LACKING. In addition, face mask wearing may bear social, cultural, and geographical influences, with some unfortunate politicization since the COVID-19 outbreak. Furthermore, wearers may not wear them properly, have repeated handling and compromise hygiene, etc., resulting in a false sense of security that could actually make the transmissions worse."
Whereas an excerpt of the study I mentioned, clearly shows the damage done to health - in which case, every government in the world should have done an in depth risk assessment before mandating the wearing of them:
"In Germany, FFP2 (N95) masks must be worn for 75 min, followed by a 30-minute break. An additional suitability examination by specialized physicians is also obligatory and stipulated for occupationally used respirators".
"The mask-induced adverse changes are relatively minor at first glance, but repeated exposure over longer periods in accordance with the above-mentioned pathogenetic principle is relevant. LONG-TERM DISEASE-RELEVANT CONSEQUENCES OF MASKS ARE TO BE EXPECTED. Insofar, the statistically significant results found in the studies with mathematically tangible differences between mask wearers and people without masks are clinically relevant. They give an indication that with correspondingly repeated and prolonged exposure to physical, chemical, biological, physiological and psychological conditions, some of which are subliminal, but which are significantly shifted towards pathological areas, health-reducing changes and clinical pictures can develop such as HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE and ARTERIOSCLEROSIS, including CORONARY HEART DISEASE (metabolic syndrome) as well as neurological diseases. For small increases in carbon dioxide in the inhaled air, this disease-promoting effect has been proven with the creation of headaches, irritation of the respiratory tract up to asthma as well as an increase in blood pressure and heart rate with vascular damage and, finally, neuropathological and cardiovascular consequences. Even slightly but persistently increased heart rates encourage oxidative stress with endothelial dysfunction, via increased inflammatory messengers, and finally, the stimulation of arteriosclerosis of the blood vessels has been proven. A similar effect with the stimulation of high blood pressure, cardiac dysfunction and damage to blood vessels supplying the brain is suggested for slightly increased breathing rates over long periods. Masks are responsible for the aforementioned physiological changes with rises in inhaled carbon dioxide, small sustained increases in heart rate and mild but sustained increases in respiratory rates".
You wear your mask, if it makes you feel better, safer or whatever. It's your body, your choice. I choose/chose not to.
On holiday in Gran Canaria at present and the buses are red hot on mask wearing.
As someone who wears a mask all day at work, don't find it a problem but one lady did, it was hilarious.
Coach pulls up at bus stop, doors open, everyone dons a mask, steps on, pays fare, all good so far, nobody says a word.
But then an English lady waves a bit of papers saying exempt, exempt.
No, says the coach driver.
Exempt, Exempt the lady repeats, then realising the driver doesn't speak English she shouts Exempto, Exempto.
The driver shakes his head, says no again and closes the doors.
The lady flips, starts banging on the door, driver keeps doors closed but doesn't move the coach.
The lady them delves onto her large shopping bag and produces a mask, driver opens door, she steps up, muttering and complaining, pulls her mask down to give driver an ear full, driver tells her to pull up mask.
Muttering and cursing, trying to get reassurance from fellow passengers who promptly ignore her.
Plonks herself down, husband pacifies her and off comes the mask, driver walks down coach tells her to put mask on, pulls it back on below nose, driver tells her over nose. She then gets out a bottle of water and makes a big song and dance about having a drink, driver stays with her until drink taken, points to her mask and goes back to his seat.
Off we pop, she pulled the mask down a tad but her husband gave her a few words.
40 minutes later, she didn't need CPR, wasn't gasping her final breath, no paramedics needed.
She stepped off the bus and walked down the road and only realised a few hundred meters later she actually still had her mask on then ripped it off.
Free entertainment from the good old English.
Used public transport over the last couple of weeks and never seen anyone else, young or old, with any issues.
We had a guy on the bus back to the airport that removed his mask to cough and then put it back on again "Early on in the mask wearing I read a comment that wearing a mask over the mouth and nose cuts off oxygen to the brain. Buddy, if that's your belief, that ship has sailed.....
Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't get the mask wearing argument at all for it not helping as we are told from very young to cover our mouths when coughing or our noses when sneezing to prevent droplets spreading. So on that alone it's obvious why masks will help As I mentioned in a previous post - it's about risk vs benefit. Facemasks have adverse side effects and are potentially a health hazard. I quoted a detailed study further up which may give you some insight on the potential damage done to your health. "Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?" from the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on ncbi. wearing masks is a big part of the covid theatre and driving fear amongst the plebs; when in reality they are effective as an ashtray on a motorbike. And in fact have serious potential health risks especially if worn for long periods. Your typical mask is made from polypropylene and there’s a real risk of inhaling micro plastic fibres into your lungs. " I've seen the "micro plastic fibres inhaled into the lungs" statement quite often. The mistaken belief comes from 2012 study of lung samples by a Dr Sadofsky. The study sample of the analysed lungs “was carried out before the pandemic, when face masks were not an issue. The sampling was approved in 2012, as indicated in a document from the National Research Ethics Service and the Health Research Authority of the NHS. The actual study was did not include the use of face masks. Sources cited. Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" wearing masks is a big part of the covid theatre and driving fear amongst the plebs; when in reality they are effective as an ashtray on a motorbike. And in fact have serious potential health risks especially if worn for long periods. Your typical mask is made from polypropylene and there’s a real risk of inhaling micro plastic fibres into your lungs. " I wear masks for upto 12 hours a day. I suggest some more research as a) the plastic being inhaled was proven false quite some time ago... b) the research is there now to show the value of mask wearing ( when worn correctly and in conjunction with hand hygiene etc) I change my mask often at work. But may wear the same one for upto 3 hours If I've not had to remove it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7902177/ Apart from the words, there's pictures.
Winston I thought the graphics may have helped some understand. Actually on that site alone if you searched for mask wearing data, their were over a thousand research papers.. I randomly picked 20 and all showed how they helped stop the thread of viruses
But that's the thing - they don't "stop" the spread of viruses. There may be an element of a barrier but and I quote "masks are responsible for a proportionally disproportionate production of fine particles in the environment and, surprisingly, much more so than in people without masks [98].
It was shown that all mask-wearing subjects released significantly more smaller particles of size 0.3–0.5 µm (size of SARS-CoV-2 ranges from 0.07 µm to 0.09 µm) into the air than mask-less people, both when breathing, speaking and coughing (fabric, surgical, N95 masks, measured with the Aerodynamic Particle Sizer, APS, TS, model 3329)".
N95 (FFP2), for the record, stands for National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the United States (NIOSH), and 95 indicates the 95 per cent filtering capacity for fine particles up to at least 0.3 µm.
And even according to your study, the admission is:
"In particular, many types of face masks aimed at the general public are fast coming into the market, but the amount of research that shows their fit-for-purpose is currently LACKING. In addition, face mask wearing may bear social, cultural, and geographical influences, with some unfortunate politicization since the COVID-19 outbreak. Furthermore, wearers may not wear them properly, have repeated handling and compromise hygiene, etc., resulting in a false sense of security that could actually make the transmissions worse."
Whereas an excerpt of the study I mentioned, clearly shows the damage done to health - in which case, every government in the world should have done an in depth risk assessment before mandating the wearing of them:
"In Germany, FFP2 (N95) masks must be worn for 75 min, followed by a 30-minute break. An additional suitability examination by specialized physicians is also obligatory and stipulated for occupationally used respirators".
"The mask-induced adverse changes are relatively minor at first glance, but repeated exposure over longer periods in accordance with the above-mentioned pathogenetic principle is relevant. LONG-TERM DISEASE-RELEVANT CONSEQUENCES OF MASKS ARE TO BE EXPECTED. Insofar, the statistically significant results found in the studies with mathematically tangible differences between mask wearers and people without masks are clinically relevant. They give an indication that with correspondingly repeated and prolonged exposure to physical, chemical, biological, physiological and psychological conditions, some of which are subliminal, but which are significantly shifted towards pathological areas, health-reducing changes and clinical pictures can develop such as HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE and ARTERIOSCLEROSIS, including CORONARY HEART DISEASE (metabolic syndrome) as well as neurological diseases. For small increases in carbon dioxide in the inhaled air, this disease-promoting effect has been proven with the creation of headaches, irritation of the respiratory tract up to asthma as well as an increase in blood pressure and heart rate with vascular damage and, finally, neuropathological and cardiovascular consequences. Even slightly but persistently increased heart rates encourage oxidative stress with endothelial dysfunction, via increased inflammatory messengers, and finally, the stimulation of arteriosclerosis of the blood vessels has been proven. A similar effect with the stimulation of high blood pressure, cardiac dysfunction and damage to blood vessels supplying the brain is suggested for slightly increased breathing rates over long periods. Masks are responsible for the aforementioned physiological changes with rises in inhaled carbon dioxide, small sustained increases in heart rate and mild but sustained increases in respiratory rates".
You wear your mask, if it makes you feel better, safer or whatever. It's your body, your choice. I choose/chose not to.
On holiday in Gran Canaria at present and the buses are red hot on mask wearing.
As someone who wears a mask all day at work, don't find it a problem but one lady did, it was hilarious.
Coach pulls up at bus stop, doors open, everyone dons a mask, steps on, pays fare, all good so far, nobody says a word.
But then an English lady waves a bit of papers saying exempt, exempt.
No, says the coach driver.
Exempt, Exempt the lady repeats, then realising the driver doesn't speak English she shouts Exempto, Exempto.
The driver shakes his head, says no again and closes the doors.
The lady flips, starts banging on the door, driver keeps doors closed but doesn't move the coach.
The lady them delves onto her large shopping bag and produces a mask, driver opens door, she steps up, muttering and complaining, pulls her mask down to give driver an ear full, driver tells her to pull up mask.
Muttering and cursing, trying to get reassurance from fellow passengers who promptly ignore her.
Plonks herself down, husband pacifies her and off comes the mask, driver walks down coach tells her to put mask on, pulls it back on below nose, driver tells her over nose. She then gets out a bottle of water and makes a big song and dance about having a drink, driver stays with her until drink taken, points to her mask and goes back to his seat.
Off we pop, she pulled the mask down a tad but her husband gave her a few words.
40 minutes later, she didn't need CPR, wasn't gasping her final breath, no paramedics needed.
She stepped off the bus and walked down the road and only realised a few hundred meters later she actually still had her mask on then ripped it off.
Free entertainment from the good old English.
Used public transport over the last couple of weeks and never seen anyone else, young or old, with any issues. "I'm a bit envious of you being in the canaries. And also you getting to see that comedy sketch. I'd have loved to have seen it. When in Rome etc. Agree with their rules , or not. Their country , so follow the rules... duh | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' " Brownian Diffusion IS very interesting PSYSICS.. there's aymt least two thar will catch COVID in a "face cloth", do you want to take an educational guess? Direct Interception. This type of mechanism is characterized by a particle that follows a fluid streamline and does not deviate from that streamline. Usually, a particle will be captured if it comes within one particle radius of a fiber. If this assumption is valid, and this were the only mechanism involved in the filtration process, then filtration efficiency should be independent of flow rate. Most investigators consider this mechanism to be effective in most filtration cases. Inertial Impaction. If the mass of a contaminant particle is much greater than that of the carrier fluid, the particle cannot follow the same trajectory as that of the fluid. The particles deviate from the streamlines as the fluid passes around a fiber. The particle may therefore be "thrown" into a possible retention site. The effects of this transport mechanism could be expected to increase with heavier particles and with increasing flow through the medium. Although investigations have not shown whether inertial impaction is important in all filtration processes, the mechanism may represent a significant aspect. Brownian Diffusion. Particles that are very small exhibit Brownian movement. These particles do not move along a fluid streamline, but diffuse throughout the fiber matrix. They may reach a possible retention site and remain there. The effect of Brownian motion would increase with smaller particles and decrease with higher fluid velocities: at higher velocities, the particles have less time to diffuse and approach a capture site. Brownian motion is usually neglected as a transport mechanism for particles above one micrometer in diameter, especially with viscous liquids. Gravity. If the particles have a different density than the fluid, they are subject to gravity and therefore deviate from the fluid streamlines. If the fluid velocity is low enough, the particles may possibly enter a retention site and be captured. Heavier particles increase the gravitational effects while higher fluid velocity and viscosity decrease the effects. Gravity effects are usually neglected in the flow of viscous fluid with particles less than 25 to 30 micrometers in diameter. Hydrodynamic Effects. Because of the nonsphericity of many contaminant particles or because of the nonuniformity of the flow field, hydrodynamic effects may occur on the particles. These effects cause the suspended particles to migrate laterally, enabling them to leave a fluid streamline and possibly enter a retention site. These effects are more noticeable in the filtration of highly nonspherical particles. However, most contaminant particles found in operating systems have irregular shapes. Electrostatic Attraction. Particles that possess a different charge from that of the filter fiber are attracted to the surface of the fiber. This attractive force can be particularly effective when the velocity of the transport fluid through the capillaries of the filter media is low. The electrostatic principle has been artificially applied in some filter designs to achieve a better separation performance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well no one wears masks now where they did last year. Did you expect the numbers to go down No one wore a mask before 2020, why were masks never recommended in previous flu seasons if they are so effective ? This is something we should seriously look back at in hindsight and ask ourselves why we didn't. I will be wearing a mask in public places during flu season from now on. I'd hope it would become mandatory during winter but unlikely that such a cheap and easy way to cut transmission would be encouraged. Rarely see people hand washing or sanitising now... and untold people were coughing or sneezing in the shops today There is a very good reason why we didn't wear them previously - 50+ years of scientific data that stated they are ineffective at virus control. You've only got to look at the real world data from the last 2 years to see that mask mandates made no difference to case rates whatsoever. If you want to wear a mask go for it, no one is stopping you, just don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. So..... if mask wearing makes no difference to case rates.........why, when we were all wearing masks did case rates drop? *it wasn't magic Winston Come on Winston, surely you know correlation doesn't equal causation but if we're playing that game why was it that when England dropped the mask mandate & Scotland kept theirs both countries case rates followed identical curves ? Causes of infection rates are going to be multifactorial. The idea that people are arguing against the basic physics of barriers slowing the spread of stuff... it's a bit bonkers. I understand the need to stick to a narrative, but it's a bit silly, particularly now mask mandates are gone. But its not basic physics when the barrier is full of holes larger than the thing you're trying to stop & has gaps around the edges. To quote a well used analogy 'Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out' Brownian Diffusion IS very interesting PSYSICS.. there's aymt least two thar will catch COVID in a "face cloth", do you want to take an educational guess? Direct Interception. This type of mechanism is characterized by a particle that follows a fluid streamline and does not deviate from that streamline. Usually, a particle will be captured if it comes within one particle radius of a fiber. If this assumption is valid, and this were the only mechanism involved in the filtration process, then filtration efficiency should be independent of flow rate. Most investigators consider this mechanism to be effective in most filtration cases. Inertial Impaction. If the mass of a contaminant particle is much greater than that of the carrier fluid, the particle cannot follow the same trajectory as that of the fluid. The particles deviate from the streamlines as the fluid passes around a fiber. The particle may therefore be "thrown" into a possible retention site. The effects of this transport mechanism could be expected to increase with heavier particles and with increasing flow through the medium. Although investigations have not shown whether inertial impaction is important in all filtration processes, the mechanism may represent a significant aspect. Brownian Diffusion. Particles that are very small exhibit Brownian movement. These particles do not move along a fluid streamline, but diffuse throughout the fiber matrix. They may reach a possible retention site and remain there. The effect of Brownian motion would increase with smaller particles and decrease with higher fluid velocities: at higher velocities, the particles have less time to diffuse and approach a capture site. Brownian motion is usually neglected as a transport mechanism for particles above one micrometer in diameter, especially with viscous liquids. Gravity. If the particles have a different density than the fluid, they are subject to gravity and therefore deviate from the fluid streamlines. If the fluid velocity is low enough, the particles may possibly enter a retention site and be captured. Heavier particles increase the gravitational effects while higher fluid velocity and viscosity decrease the effects. Gravity effects are usually neglected in the flow of viscous fluid with particles less than 25 to 30 micrometers in diameter. Hydrodynamic Effects. Because of the nonsphericity of many contaminant particles or because of the nonuniformity of the flow field, hydrodynamic effects may occur on the particles. These effects cause the suspended particles to migrate laterally, enabling them to leave a fluid streamline and possibly enter a retention site. These effects are more noticeable in the filtration of highly nonspherical particles. However, most contaminant particles found in operating systems have irregular shapes. Electrostatic Attraction. Particles that possess a different charge from that of the filter fiber are attracted to the surface of the fiber. This attractive force can be particularly effective when the velocity of the transport fluid through the capillaries of the filter media is low. The electrostatic principle has been artificially applied in some filter designs to achieve a better separation performance." Precis, masks work.
Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"During the pandemic where social distancing was observed flu infections declined considerably, so the natural immunity to this strain of virus diminished. And like many people pointing out, if we all wore masks to limit the spread of germ laden particulate matter whilst in public (like the Japanese do) then we might all be healthier. And I don't hear many people moaning about the Japanese work ethic or economy. There's nothing 'going on'." The Japanese don’t “all wear” masks. Hardly anyone does - out there the only time one would wear a mask is when you are the sick - for example if you have a cough or cold. Healthy normal people don’t wear them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7902177/ Apart from the words, there's pictures.
Winston I thought the graphics may have helped some understand. Actually on that site alone if you searched for mask wearing data, their were over a thousand research papers.. I randomly picked 20 and all showed how they helped stop the thread of viruses
But that's the thing - they don't "stop" the spread of viruses. There may be an element of a barrier but and I quote "masks are responsible for a proportionally disproportionate production of fine particles in the environment and, surprisingly, much more so than in people without masks [98].
It was shown that all mask-wearing subjects released significantly more smaller particles of size 0.3–0.5 µm (size of SARS-CoV-2 ranges from 0.07 µm to 0.09 µm) into the air than mask-less people, both when breathing, speaking and coughing (fabric, surgical, N95 masks, measured with the Aerodynamic Particle Sizer, APS, TS, model 3329)".
N95 (FFP2), for the record, stands for National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the United States (NIOSH), and 95 indicates the 95 per cent filtering capacity for fine particles up to at least 0.3 µm.
And even according to your study, the admission is:
"In particular, many types of face masks aimed at the general public are fast coming into the market, but the amount of research that shows their fit-for-purpose is currently LACKING. In addition, face mask wearing may bear social, cultural, and geographical influences, with some unfortunate politicization since the COVID-19 outbreak. Furthermore, wearers may not wear them properly, have repeated handling and compromise hygiene, etc., resulting in a false sense of security that could actually make the transmissions worse."
Whereas an excerpt of the study I mentioned, clearly shows the damage done to health - in which case, every government in the world should have done an in depth risk assessment before mandating the wearing of them:
"In Germany, FFP2 (N95) masks must be worn for 75 min, followed by a 30-minute break. An additional suitability examination by specialized physicians is also obligatory and stipulated for occupationally used respirators".
"The mask-induced adverse changes are relatively minor at first glance, but repeated exposure over longer periods in accordance with the above-mentioned pathogenetic principle is relevant. LONG-TERM DISEASE-RELEVANT CONSEQUENCES OF MASKS ARE TO BE EXPECTED. Insofar, the statistically significant results found in the studies with mathematically tangible differences between mask wearers and people without masks are clinically relevant. They give an indication that with correspondingly repeated and prolonged exposure to physical, chemical, biological, physiological and psychological conditions, some of which are subliminal, but which are significantly shifted towards pathological areas, health-reducing changes and clinical pictures can develop such as HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE and ARTERIOSCLEROSIS, including CORONARY HEART DISEASE (metabolic syndrome) as well as neurological diseases. For small increases in carbon dioxide in the inhaled air, this disease-promoting effect has been proven with the creation of headaches, irritation of the respiratory tract up to asthma as well as an increase in blood pressure and heart rate with vascular damage and, finally, neuropathological and cardiovascular consequences. Even slightly but persistently increased heart rates encourage oxidative stress with endothelial dysfunction, via increased inflammatory messengers, and finally, the stimulation of arteriosclerosis of the blood vessels has been proven. A similar effect with the stimulation of high blood pressure, cardiac dysfunction and damage to blood vessels supplying the brain is suggested for slightly increased breathing rates over long periods. Masks are responsible for the aforementioned physiological changes with rises in inhaled carbon dioxide, small sustained increases in heart rate and mild but sustained increases in respiratory rates".
You wear your mask, if it makes you feel better, safer or whatever. It's your body, your choice. I choose/chose not to.
On holiday in Gran Canaria at present and the buses are red hot on mask wearing.
As someone who wears a mask all day at work, don't find it a problem but one lady did, it was hilarious.
Coach pulls up at bus stop, doors open, everyone dons a mask, steps on, pays fare, all good so far, nobody says a word.
But then an English lady waves a bit of papers saying exempt, exempt.
No, says the coach driver.
Exempt, Exempt the lady repeats, then realising the driver doesn't speak English she shouts Exempto, Exempto.
The driver shakes his head, says no again and closes the doors.
The lady flips, starts banging on the door, driver keeps doors closed but doesn't move the coach.
The lady them delves onto her large shopping bag and produces a mask, driver opens door, she steps up, muttering and complaining, pulls her mask down to give driver an ear full, driver tells her to pull up mask.
Muttering and cursing, trying to get reassurance from fellow passengers who promptly ignore her.
Plonks herself down, husband pacifies her and off comes the mask, driver walks down coach tells her to put mask on, pulls it back on below nose, driver tells her over nose. She then gets out a bottle of water and makes a big song and dance about having a drink, driver stays with her until drink taken, points to her mask and goes back to his seat.
Off we pop, she pulled the mask down a tad but her husband gave her a few words.
40 minutes later, she didn't need CPR, wasn't gasping her final breath, no paramedics needed.
She stepped off the bus and walked down the road and only realised a few hundred meters later she actually still had her mask on then ripped it off.
Free entertainment from the good old English.
Used public transport over the last couple of weeks and never seen anyone else, young or old, with any issues.
I'm a bit envious of you being in the canaries. And also you getting to see that comedy sketch. I'd have loved to have seen it. When in Rome etc.
Agree with their rules , or not. Their country , so follow the rules... duh"It cracked us up. One other major plus for mask wearing is the ability to mouth things like "dickhead" without anyone lip reading. I'm getting a piece of paper from a FAB doctor, print it out on FAB medical school official letterhead and wildly shout EXEMPTO when getting on the bus, maybe not. Just getting a plane from Gran Canaria to Fuertuventura to get some more sun on my lady bits and meet some more FAB members. One couple organised a FAB social in one of the bars last week, the best night ever. its organising meets the great thing about FAB. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
.
As for inhaling mask fibers - seriously, you don't believe it's possible for a mask to shed any fibers at all and considering its position for fibers to be inhaled?!
@ MissCali: considering you wear a mask 12 hours a day I would urge you to read the study. There's a reason why the likes of Germany (also mentioned in the study) has legislation in place with regards to the wearing of masks (FFP2 and higher grade) in the workplace (well established before Covid came into play) - to protect the health of workers because of associated adverse health effects.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33923935/
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7902177/ Apart from the words, there's pictures.
Winston I thought the graphics may have helped some understand. Actually on that site alone if you searched for mask wearing data, their were over a thousand research papers.. I randomly picked 20 and all showed how they helped stop the thread of viruses
But that's the thing - they don't "stop" the spread of viruses. There may be an element of a barrier but and I quote "masks are responsible for a proportionally disproportionate production of fine particles in the environment and, surprisingly, much more so than in people without masks [98].
It was shown that all mask-wearing subjects released significantly more smaller particles of size 0.3–0.5 µm (size of SARS-CoV-2 ranges from 0.07 µm to 0.09 µm) into the air than mask-less people, both when breathing, speaking and coughing (fabric, surgical, N95 masks, measured with the Aerodynamic Particle Sizer, APS, TS, model 3329)".
N95 (FFP2), for the record, stands for National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the United States (NIOSH), and 95 indicates the 95 per cent filtering capacity for fine particles up to at least 0.3 µm.
And even according to your study, the admission is:
"In particular, many types of face masks aimed at the general public are fast coming into the market, but the amount of research that shows their fit-for-purpose is currently LACKING. In addition, face mask wearing may bear social, cultural, and geographical influences, with some unfortunate politicization since the COVID-19 outbreak. Furthermore, wearers may not wear them properly, have repeated handling and compromise hygiene, etc., resulting in a false sense of security that could actually make the transmissions worse."
Whereas an excerpt of the study I mentioned, clearly shows the damage done to health - in which case, every government in the world should have done an in depth risk assessment before mandating the wearing of them:
"In Germany, FFP2 (N95) masks must be worn for 75 min, followed by a 30-minute break. An additional suitability examination by specialized physicians is also obligatory and stipulated for occupationally used respirators".
"The mask-induced adverse changes are relatively minor at first glance, but repeated exposure over longer periods in accordance with the above-mentioned pathogenetic principle is relevant. LONG-TERM DISEASE-RELEVANT CONSEQUENCES OF MASKS ARE TO BE EXPECTED. Insofar, the statistically significant results found in the studies with mathematically tangible differences between mask wearers and people without masks are clinically relevant. They give an indication that with correspondingly repeated and prolonged exposure to physical, chemical, biological, physiological and psychological conditions, some of which are subliminal, but which are significantly shifted towards pathological areas, health-reducing changes and clinical pictures can develop such as HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE and ARTERIOSCLEROSIS, including CORONARY HEART DISEASE (metabolic syndrome) as well as neurological diseases. For small increases in carbon dioxide in the inhaled air, this disease-promoting effect has been proven with the creation of headaches, irritation of the respiratory tract up to asthma as well as an increase in blood pressure and heart rate with vascular damage and, finally, neuropathological and cardiovascular consequences. Even slightly but persistently increased heart rates encourage oxidative stress with endothelial dysfunction, via increased inflammatory messengers, and finally, the stimulation of arteriosclerosis of the blood vessels has been proven. A similar effect with the stimulation of high blood pressure, cardiac dysfunction and damage to blood vessels supplying the brain is suggested for slightly increased breathing rates over long periods. Masks are responsible for the aforementioned physiological changes with rises in inhaled carbon dioxide, small sustained increases in heart rate and mild but sustained increases in respiratory rates".
You wear your mask, if it makes you feel better, safer or whatever. It's your body, your choice. I choose/chose not to.
"I'm getting g that you just copied and pasted that but how does a mask cause atherosclerosis? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@ LizandPaul: it's also about the long term damage that's caused from wearing the mask, even if in short stints. If you read the study I quoted, you might become aware of the possible impacts. @ Winston: I believe I read somewhere that you do your research, including opposing opinion in order not to fall into the category of confirmation bias. Your responses clearly indicate you didn't read the study I quoted either. It tells you a little about the dead space volume in a mask and how that affects oxygen saturation and CO2 levels in the blood. You may also factor in the increase in resistance to breathe - the study is long and detailed but I understand if it's a little too much .
As for inhaling mask fibers - seriously, you don't believe it's possible for a mask to shed any fibers at all and considering its position for fibers to be inhaled?!
@ MissCali: considering you wear a mask 12 hours a day I would urge you to read the study. There's a reason why the likes of Germany (also mentioned in the study) has legislation in place with regards to the wearing of masks (FFP2 and higher grade) in the workplace (well established before Covid came into play) - to protect the health of workers because of associated adverse health effects.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33923935/
"I read it. Also read this; Healthcare dot org says: Blue surgical masks are safe and recommended for the public to wear to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. Blue surgical face masks are made with non-woven fabric, which has been shown to have better bacteria filtration and airflow than woven cloth. The material most commonly used to make these masks is polypropylene—a type of fabric made from a “thermoplastic” polymer (meaning that it’s easy to work with and shape at high temperatures). Blue surgical masks can also be made of polystyrene, polycarbonate, polyethylene, or polyester— all of which are types of fabrics derived from thermoplastic polymers. It is not common practice for surgical masks to be manufactured using formaldehyde. However, some literature as well as reports from some surgical mask manufacturers have shown that blue surgical masks might include traces of formaldehyde and bronopol. These trace impurities of formaldehyde and bronopol have led to cases of contact dermatitis; however, these cases are not common, and have particularly been documented amongst individuals who are already susceptible to this condition either due to sensitive skin, allergies, or very long-term mask wearing (such as healthcare workers). Toluene—which is a toxic liquid used in gasoline—is not used to manufacture blue surgical masks and is not known to be found in surgical masks, even in trace amounts. On the contrary, toluene has been used to test how well different antimicrobial agents can filter out carbon and other pollutants when used on masks. Most surgical face masks also do not contain polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), the polymer that also makes Teflon, the brand name of a non-stick chemical coating commonly used on kitchen appliances such as pots and pans. If you do have a mask that contains PTFE, there is no evidence that wearing the mask would cause any flu-like symptoms or other negative outcomes when worn properly and normally. While some masks are sprayed with PTFE or have a PTFE filter, as PTFE has widely been used in the field of air filtration, it would take a mask with PTFE to 1) be heated to an extremely high temperature — 300 to 400 degrees celsius or 572 to 752 degrees Fahrenheit, 2) for fumes to be released, and 3) for those fumes to be breathed in, for any ailment to be caused. To be completely sure of the safety of a surgical mask, it helps to know where it came from (that is, to be able to see and read the box). If you are concerned about any potential allergic reactions to surgical face masks, another great option is to purchase or create your own cloth mask, as long as it is made out of cotton or linen, has at least two layers of fabric, covers your nose, and mouth, and has ear loops. Source cited. Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@ LizandPaul: it's also about the long term damage that's caused from wearing the mask, even if in short stints. If you read the study I quoted, you might become aware of the possible impacts. @ Winston: I believe I read somewhere that you do your research, including opposing opinion in order not to fall into the category of confirmation bias. Your responses clearly indicate you didn't read the study I quoted either. It tells you a little about the dead space volume in a mask and how that affects oxygen saturation and CO2 levels in the blood. You may also factor in the increase in resistance to breathe - the study is long and detailed but I understand if it's a little too much .
As for inhaling mask fibers - seriously, you don't believe it's possible for a mask to shed any fibers at all and considering its position for fibers to be inhaled?!
@ MissCali: considering you wear a mask 12 hours a day I would urge you to read the study. There's a reason why the likes of Germany (also mentioned in the study) has legislation in place with regards to the wearing of masks (FFP2 and higher grade) in the workplace (well established before Covid came into play) - to protect the health of workers because of associated adverse health effects.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33923935/
"Yes, of course its possible to inhale mask fibres, just not the ones frequently quoted as "fact". I'm guessing you didn't read this; I've seen the "micro plastic fibres inhaled into the lungs" statement quite often. The mistaken belief comes from 2012 study of lung samples by a Dr Sadofsky. The study sample of the analysed lungs “was carried out before the pandemic, when face masks were not an issue. The sampling was approved in *2012*, as indicated in a document from the National Research Ethics Service and the Health Research Authority of the NHS. The actual study was did not include the use of face masks. Sources cited. Winston *added detail for those without a calculator..... 2012 was 8 years before covid hit the world stage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Going to say, why was none if this an issue before COVID. Putting doctors and nurses at risk, how unethical." Someone posted a short while ago about how masks were dangerous. I said thousands of operating theatre staff throughout the world would disagree. He posted an article about why surgeons wear masks as a rebuttle. Well done for proving my point. Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Going to say, why was none if this an issue before COVID. Putting doctors and nurses at risk, how unethical. Someone posted a short while ago about how masks were dangerous. I said thousands of operating theatre staff throughout the world would disagree. He posted an article about why surgeons wear masks as a rebuttle. Well done for proving my point. Winston " I'm a recent convert to the antimasker movement. I for 1 will be telling my surgeon to throw away his orrible mask before operating on me. Gimme all those natural germs, I says! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Going to say, why was none if this an issue before COVID. Putting doctors and nurses at risk, how unethical. Someone posted a short while ago about how masks were dangerous. I said thousands of operating theatre staff throughout the world would disagree. He posted an article about why surgeons wear masks as a rebuttle. Well done for proving my point. Winston I'm a recent convert to the antimasker movement. I for 1 will be telling my surgeon to throw away his orrible mask before operating on me. Gimme all those natural germs, I says!" How's the wicker man coming on? Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Going to say, why was none if this an issue before COVID. Putting doctors and nurses at risk, how unethical. Someone posted a short while ago about how masks were dangerous. I said thousands of operating theatre staff throughout the world would disagree. He posted an article about why surgeons wear masks as a rebuttle. Well done for proving my point. Winston I'm a recent convert to the antimasker movement. I for 1 will be telling my surgeon to throw away his orrible mask before operating on me. Gimme all those natural germs, I says! How's the wicker man coming on? Winston " Pretty much full of evil masks now. Just gotta figure out what tune to play when I light it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Going to say, why was none if this an issue before COVID. Putting doctors and nurses at risk, how unethical. Someone posted a short while ago about how masks were dangerous. I said thousands of operating theatre staff throughout the world would disagree. He posted an article about why surgeons wear masks as a rebuttle. Well done for proving my point. Winston I'm a recent convert to the antimasker movement. I for 1 will be telling my surgeon to throw away his orrible mask before operating on me. Gimme all those natural germs, I says! How's the wicker man coming on? Winston Pretty much full of evil masks now. Just gotta figure out what tune to play when I light it." https://youtu.be/LH-QwK4v0ZI | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Going to say, why was none if this an issue before COVID. Putting doctors and nurses at risk, how unethical. Someone posted a short while ago about how masks were dangerous. I said thousands of operating theatre staff throughout the world would disagree. He posted an article about why surgeons wear masks as a rebuttle. Well done for proving my point. Winston " I was actually agreeing with you.. How come COVID highlighted the dangers of masks they've been covering up for years. Absolutely disgusting..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Going to say, why was none if this an issue before COVID. Putting doctors and nurses at risk, how unethical. Someone posted a short while ago about how masks were dangerous. I said thousands of operating theatre staff throughout the world would disagree. He posted an article about why surgeons wear masks as a rebuttle. Well done for proving my point. Winston I'm a recent convert to the antimasker movement. I for 1 will be telling my surgeon to throw away his orrible mask before operating on me. Gimme all those natural germs, I says! How's the wicker man coming on? Winston Pretty much full of evil masks now. Just gotta figure out what tune to play when I light it. https://youtu.be/LH-QwK4v0ZI" Ooh perfect! This is gonna be epic! Just gotta unfurl my covid-was-a-con-and-fuck-masks flag before lighting my Wicker Man. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Going to say, why was none if this an issue before COVID. Putting doctors and nurses at risk, how unethical. Someone posted a short while ago about how masks were dangerous. I said thousands of operating theatre staff throughout the world would disagree. He posted an article about why surgeons wear masks as a rebuttle. Well done for proving my point. Winston I'm a recent convert to the antimasker movement. I for 1 will be telling my surgeon to throw away his orrible mask before operating on me. Gimme all those natural germs, I says! How's the wicker man coming on? Winston Pretty much full of evil masks now. Just gotta figure out what tune to play when I light it. https://youtu.be/LH-QwK4v0ZI Ooh perfect! This is gonna be epic! Just gotta unfurl my covid-was-a-con-and-fuck-masks flag before lighting my Wicker Man." Oh no! My flag caught fire! What am I gonna do? I uninstalled my sprinklers cos I read they was full of tiny cameras the Welsh were using to spy on me! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you'd have lined your walls with asbestos, you'd not risk burning your house down. Do people never learn.. tisk" The woke brigade ruin everything | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Going to say, why was none if this an issue before COVID. Putting doctors and nurses at risk, how unethical. Someone posted a short while ago about how masks were dangerous. I said thousands of operating theatre staff throughout the world would disagree. He posted an article about why surgeons wear masks as a rebuttle. Well done for proving my point. Winston I was actually agreeing with you.. How come COVID highlighted the dangers of masks they've been covering up for years. Absolutely disgusting.. "I know you were, I was illustrating someone else's stoopud.
Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't get the mask wearing argument at all for it not helping as we are told from very young to cover our mouths when coughing or our noses when sneezing to prevent droplets spreading. So on that alone it's obvious why masks will help As I mentioned in a previous post - it's about risk vs benefit. Facemasks have adverse side effects and are potentially a health hazard. I quoted a detailed study further up which may give you some insight on the potential damage done to your health. "Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?" from the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on ncbi. wearing masks is a big part of the covid theatre and driving fear amongst the plebs; when in reality they are effective as an ashtray on a motorbike. And in fact have serious potential health risks especially if worn for long periods. Your typical mask is made from polypropylene and there’s a real risk of inhaling micro plastic fibres into your lungs. I've seen the "micro plastic fibres inhaled into the lungs" statement quite often. The mistaken belief comes from 2012 study of lung samples by a Dr Sadofsky. The study sample of the analysed lungs “was carried out before the pandemic, when face masks were not an issue. The sampling was approved in 2012, as indicated in a document from the National Research Ethics Service and the Health Research Authority of the NHS. The actual study was did not include the use of face masks. Sources cited. Winston " it’s not mistaken it’s a known fact. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't get the mask wearing argument at all for it not helping as we are told from very young to cover our mouths when coughing or our noses when sneezing to prevent droplets spreading. So on that alone it's obvious why masks will help As I mentioned in a previous post - it's about risk vs benefit. Facemasks have adverse side effects and are potentially a health hazard. I quoted a detailed study further up which may give you some insight on the potential damage done to your health. "Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?" from the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on ncbi. wearing masks is a big part of the covid theatre and driving fear amongst the plebs; when in reality they are effective as an ashtray on a motorbike. And in fact have serious potential health risks especially if worn for long periods. Your typical mask is made from polypropylene and there’s a real risk of inhaling micro plastic fibres into your lungs. I've seen the "micro plastic fibres inhaled into the lungs" statement quite often. The mistaken belief comes from 2012 study of lung samples by a Dr Sadofsky. The study sample of the analysed lungs “was carried out before the pandemic, when face masks were not an issue. The sampling was approved in 2012, as indicated in a document from the National Research Ethics Service and the Health Research Authority of the NHS. The actual study was did not include the use of face masks. Sources cited. Winston it’s not mistaken it’s a known fact. " Yes. It's a known fact the study sample of the analysed lungs “was carried out before the pandemic, when face masks were not an issue. The sampling was approved in 2012, as indicated in a document from the National Research Ethics Service and the Health Research Authority of the NHS. The actual study did not include the use of face masks. The mistaken belief comes from 2012 study of lung samples by a Dr Sadofsky. Sources cited. Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't get the mask wearing argument at all for it not helping as we are told from very young to cover our mouths when coughing or our noses when sneezing to prevent droplets spreading. So on that alone it's obvious why masks will help As I mentioned in a previous post - it's about risk vs benefit. Facemasks have adverse side effects and are potentially a health hazard. I quoted a detailed study further up which may give you some insight on the potential damage done to your health. "Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?" from the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on ncbi. wearing masks is a big part of the covid theatre and driving fear amongst the plebs; when in reality they are effective as an ashtray on a motorbike. And in fact have serious potential health risks especially if worn for long periods. Your typical mask is made from polypropylene and there’s a real risk of inhaling micro plastic fibres into your lungs. I've seen the "micro plastic fibres inhaled into the lungs" statement quite often. The mistaken belief comes from 2012 study of lung samples by a Dr Sadofsky. The study sample of the analysed lungs “was carried out before the pandemic, when face masks were not an issue. The sampling was approved in 2012, as indicated in a document from the National Research Ethics Service and the Health Research Authority of the NHS. The actual study was did not include the use of face masks. Sources cited. Winston it’s not mistaken it’s a known fact. Yes. It's a known fact the study sample of the analysed lungs “was carried out before the pandemic, when face masks were not an issue. The sampling was approved in 2012, as indicated in a document from the National Research Ethics Service and the Health Research Authority of the NHS. The actual study did not include the use of face masks. The mistaken belief comes from 2012 study of lung samples by a Dr Sadofsky. Sources cited. Winston" Yes but it's known Truthiness from a source of alternative facts, the best kind of facts. Therefore masks are icky. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't get the mask wearing argument at all for it not helping as we are told from very young to cover our mouths when coughing or our noses when sneezing to prevent droplets spreading. So on that alone it's obvious why masks will help As I mentioned in a previous post - it's about risk vs benefit. Facemasks have adverse side effects and are potentially a health hazard. I quoted a detailed study further up which may give you some insight on the potential damage done to your health. "Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?" from the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on ncbi. wearing masks is a big part of the covid theatre and driving fear amongst the plebs; when in reality they are effective as an ashtray on a motorbike. And in fact have serious potential health risks especially if worn for long periods. Your typical mask is made from polypropylene and there’s a real risk of inhaling micro plastic fibres into your lungs. I've seen the "micro plastic fibres inhaled into the lungs" statement quite often. The mistaken belief comes from 2012 study of lung samples by a Dr Sadofsky. The study sample of the analysed lungs “was carried out before the pandemic, when face masks were not an issue. The sampling was approved in 2012, as indicated in a document from the National Research Ethics Service and the Health Research Authority of the NHS. The actual study was did not include the use of face masks. Sources cited. Winston it’s not mistaken it’s a known fact. Yes. It's a known fact the study sample of the analysed lungs “was carried out before the pandemic, when face masks were not an issue. The sampling was approved in 2012, as indicated in a document from the National Research Ethics Service and the Health Research Authority of the NHS. The actual study did not include the use of face masks. The mistaken belief comes from 2012 study of lung samples by a Dr Sadofsky. Sources cited. Winston Yes but it's known Truthiness from a source of alternative facts, the best kind of facts. Therefore masks are icky." The date of the study kind of gives the game away, 8 years prior to covid. I mean, it's not like the info isn't readily available from the two bone fide sources cited. But yes, masks are icky.
Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Somethings going on. https://news.sky.com/story/ten-times-more-people-in-hospital-with-flu-than-this-time-last-year-nhs-england-data-shows-12754431" Yes, I agree. The number of ambulance emergency callouts has rose 77% since 2010. Has anyone elso noticed alot more ambulances on emergency call out lately? This is from NHS England website; NHS staff dealt with the highest ever number of life-threatening ambulance call outs last month, new figures show today. Ambulances responded to 82,000 category one calls in December, an average of one every 33 seconds and higher than any other month on record. Scary times peeps! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Going to say, why was none if this an issue before COVID. Putting doctors and nurses at risk, how unethical. Someone posted a short while ago about how masks were dangerous. I said thousands of operating theatre staff throughout the world would disagree. He posted an article about why surgeons wear masks as a rebuttle. Well done for proving my point. Winston I'm a recent convert to the antimasker movement. I for 1 will be telling my surgeon to throw away his orrible mask before operating on me. Gimme all those natural germs, I says!" Absolutely correct. These medics think they know it all. Years of training for what...not knowing the mask you wear will cut years off your life. I think you should not only insist your surgeon removes mask but takes off gloves and gown and wear his gardening pants and to spit into any open wound to fend of any naughty bacteria that may float in from close by poor people. That will show them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Somethings going on. https://news.sky.com/story/ten-times-more-people-in-hospital-with-flu-than-this-time-last-year-nhs-england-data-shows-12754431 Yes, I agree. The number of ambulance emergency callouts has rose 77% since 2010. Has anyone elso noticed alot more ambulances on emergency call out lately? This is from NHS England website; NHS staff dealt with the highest ever number of life-threatening ambulance call outs last month, new figures show today. Ambulances responded to 82,000 category one calls in December, an average of one every 33 seconds and higher than any other month on record. Scary times peeps! " & today is 1st December.... so you're "Quoting" figures from at least 12 months ago. Not really sure what point you're trying to make here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@ LizandPaul: it's also about the long term damage that's caused from wearing the mask, even if in short stints. If you read the study I quoted, you might become aware of the possible impacts. @ Winston: I believe I read somewhere that you do your research, including opposing opinion in order not to fall into the category of confirmation bias. Your responses clearly indicate you didn't read the study I quoted either. It tells you a little about the dead space volume in a mask and how that affects oxygen saturation and CO2 levels in the blood. You may also factor in the increase in resistance to breathe - the study is long and detailed but I understand if it's a little too much .
As for inhaling mask fibers - seriously, you don't believe it's possible for a mask to shed any fibers at all and considering its position for fibers to be inhaled?!
@ MissCali: considering you wear a mask 12 hours a day I would urge you to read the study. There's a reason why the likes of Germany (also mentioned in the study) has legislation in place with regards to the wearing of masks (FFP2 and higher grade) in the workplace (well established before Covid came into play) - to protect the health of workers because of associated adverse health effects.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33923935/
I read it. Also read this;
Healthcare dot org says:
Blue surgical masks are safe and recommended for the public to wear to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. Blue surgical face masks are made with non-woven fabric, which has been shown to have better bacteria filtration and airflow than woven cloth.
The material most commonly used to make these masks is polypropylene—a type of fabric made from a “thermoplastic” polymer (meaning that it’s easy to work with and shape at high temperatures). Blue surgical masks can also be made of polystyrene, polycarbonate, polyethylene, or polyester— all of which are types of fabrics derived from thermoplastic polymers.
It is not common practice for surgical masks to be manufactured using formaldehyde. However, some literature as well as reports from some surgical mask manufacturers have shown that blue surgical masks might include traces of formaldehyde and bronopol. These trace impurities of formaldehyde and bronopol have led to cases of contact dermatitis; however, these cases are not common, and have particularly been documented amongst individuals who are already susceptible to this condition either due to sensitive skin, allergies, or very long-term mask wearing (such as healthcare workers).
Toluene—which is a toxic liquid used in gasoline—is not used to manufacture blue surgical masks and is not known to be found in surgical masks, even in trace amounts. On the contrary, toluene has been used to test how well different antimicrobial agents can filter out carbon and other pollutants when used on masks.
Most surgical face masks also do not contain polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), the polymer that also makes Teflon, the brand name of a non-stick chemical coating commonly used on kitchen appliances such as pots and pans. If you do have a mask that contains PTFE, there is no evidence that wearing the mask would cause any flu-like symptoms or other negative outcomes when worn properly and normally.
While some masks are sprayed with PTFE or have a PTFE filter, as PTFE has widely been used in the field of air filtration, it would take a mask with PTFE to 1) be heated to an extremely high temperature — 300 to 400 degrees celsius or 572 to 752 degrees Fahrenheit, 2) for fumes to be released, and 3) for those fumes to be breathed in, for any ailment to be caused.
To be completely sure of the safety of a surgical mask, it helps to know where it came from (that is, to be able to see and read the box). If you are concerned about any potential allergic reactions to surgical face masks, another great option is to purchase or create your own cloth mask, as long as it is made out of cotton or linen, has at least two layers of fabric, covers your nose, and mouth, and has ear loops.
Source cited.
Winston "This has absolutely nothing to do with the points I've made further above. According to the study I mentioned masks are certainly not "safe" and can be accompanied by detrimental adverse effects on the wearer's health. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7902177/ Apart from the words, there's pictures.
Winston I thought the graphics may have helped some understand. Actually on that site alone if you searched for mask wearing data, their were over a thousand research papers.. I randomly picked 20 and all showed how they helped stop the thread of viruses
But that's the thing - they don't "stop" the spread of viruses. There may be an element of a barrier but and I quote "masks are responsible for a proportionally disproportionate production of fine particles in the environment and, surprisingly, much more so than in people without masks [98].
It was shown that all mask-wearing subjects released significantly more smaller particles of size 0.3–0.5 µm (size of SARS-CoV-2 ranges from 0.07 µm to 0.09 µm) into the air than mask-less people, both when breathing, speaking and coughing (fabric, surgical, N95 masks, measured with the Aerodynamic Particle Sizer, APS, TS, model 3329)".
N95 (FFP2), for the record, stands for National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the United States (NIOSH), and 95 indicates the 95 per cent filtering capacity for fine particles up to at least 0.3 µm.
And even according to your study, the admission is:
"In particular, many types of face masks aimed at the general public are fast coming into the market, but the amount of research that shows their fit-for-purpose is currently LACKING. In addition, face mask wearing may bear social, cultural, and geographical influences, with some unfortunate politicization since the COVID-19 outbreak. Furthermore, wearers may not wear them properly, have repeated handling and compromise hygiene, etc., resulting in a false sense of security that could actually make the transmissions worse."
Whereas an excerpt of the study I mentioned, clearly shows the damage done to health - in which case, every government in the world should have done an in depth risk assessment before mandating the wearing of them:
"In Germany, FFP2 (N95) masks must be worn for 75 min, followed by a 30-minute break. An additional suitability examination by specialized physicians is also obligatory and stipulated for occupationally used respirators".
"The mask-induced adverse changes are relatively minor at first glance, but repeated exposure over longer periods in accordance with the above-mentioned pathogenetic principle is relevant. LONG-TERM DISEASE-RELEVANT CONSEQUENCES OF MASKS ARE TO BE EXPECTED. Insofar, the statistically significant results found in the studies with mathematically tangible differences between mask wearers and people without masks are clinically relevant. They give an indication that with correspondingly repeated and prolonged exposure to physical, chemical, biological, physiological and psychological conditions, some of which are subliminal, but which are significantly shifted towards pathological areas, health-reducing changes and clinical pictures can develop such as HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE and ARTERIOSCLEROSIS, including CORONARY HEART DISEASE (metabolic syndrome) as well as neurological diseases. For small increases in carbon dioxide in the inhaled air, this disease-promoting effect has been proven with the creation of headaches, irritation of the respiratory tract up to asthma as well as an increase in blood pressure and heart rate with vascular damage and, finally, neuropathological and cardiovascular consequences. Even slightly but persistently increased heart rates encourage oxidative stress with endothelial dysfunction, via increased inflammatory messengers, and finally, the stimulation of arteriosclerosis of the blood vessels has been proven. A similar effect with the stimulation of high blood pressure, cardiac dysfunction and damage to blood vessels supplying the brain is suggested for slightly increased breathing rates over long periods. Masks are responsible for the aforementioned physiological changes with rises in inhaled carbon dioxide, small sustained increases in heart rate and mild but sustained increases in respiratory rates".
You wear your mask, if it makes you feel better, safer or whatever. It's your body, your choice. I choose/chose not to.
I'm getting g that you just copied and pasted that but how does a mask cause atherosclerosis?"I suggest you read the study or the excerpt above. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@ LizandPaul: it's also about the long term damage that's caused from wearing the mask, even if in short stints. If you read the study I quoted, you might become aware of the possible impacts. @ Winston: I believe I read somewhere that you do your research, including opposing opinion in order not to fall into the category of confirmation bias. Your responses clearly indicate you didn't read the study I quoted either. It tells you a little about the dead space volume in a mask and how that affects oxygen saturation and CO2 levels in the blood. You may also factor in the increase in resistance to breathe - the study is long and detailed but I understand if it's a little too much .
As for inhaling mask fibers - seriously, you don't believe it's possible for a mask to shed any fibers at all and considering its position for fibers to be inhaled?!
@ MissCali: considering you wear a mask 12 hours a day I would urge you to read the study. There's a reason why the likes of Germany (also mentioned in the study) has legislation in place with regards to the wearing of masks (FFP2 and higher grade) in the workplace (well established before Covid came into play) - to protect the health of workers because of associated adverse health effects.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33923935/
I read it. Also read this;
Healthcare dot org says:
Blue surgical masks are safe and recommended for the public to wear to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. Blue surgical face masks are made with non-woven fabric, which has been shown to have better bacteria filtration and airflow than woven cloth.
The material most commonly used to make these masks is polypropylene—a type of fabric made from a “thermoplastic” polymer (meaning that it’s easy to work with and shape at high temperatures). Blue surgical masks can also be made of polystyrene, polycarbonate, polyethylene, or polyester— all of which are types of fabrics derived from thermoplastic polymers.
It is not common practice for surgical masks to be manufactured using formaldehyde. However, some literature as well as reports from some surgical mask manufacturers have shown that blue surgical masks might include traces of formaldehyde and bronopol. These trace impurities of formaldehyde and bronopol have led to cases of contact dermatitis; however, these cases are not common, and have particularly been documented amongst individuals who are already susceptible to this condition either due to sensitive skin, allergies, or very long-term mask wearing (such as healthcare workers).
Toluene—which is a toxic liquid used in gasoline—is not used to manufacture blue surgical masks and is not known to be found in surgical masks, even in trace amounts. On the contrary, toluene has been used to test how well different antimicrobial agents can filter out carbon and other pollutants when used on masks.
Most surgical face masks also do not contain polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), the polymer that also makes Teflon, the brand name of a non-stick chemical coating commonly used on kitchen appliances such as pots and pans. If you do have a mask that contains PTFE, there is no evidence that wearing the mask would cause any flu-like symptoms or other negative outcomes when worn properly and normally.
While some masks are sprayed with PTFE or have a PTFE filter, as PTFE has widely been used in the field of air filtration, it would take a mask with PTFE to 1) be heated to an extremely high temperature — 300 to 400 degrees celsius or 572 to 752 degrees Fahrenheit, 2) for fumes to be released, and 3) for those fumes to be breathed in, for any ailment to be caused.
To be completely sure of the safety of a surgical mask, it helps to know where it came from (that is, to be able to see and read the box). If you are concerned about any potential allergic reactions to surgical face masks, another great option is to purchase or create your own cloth mask, as long as it is made out of cotton or linen, has at least two layers of fabric, covers your nose, and mouth, and has ear loops.
Source cited.
Winston
This has absolutely nothing to do with the points I've made further above.
According to the study I mentioned masks are certainly not "safe" and can be accompanied by detrimental adverse effects on the wearer's health."It has absolutely everything to do with the points you made, in which you claim wearing a mask is detrimental to your health.
*Healthcare dot org.
Source cited.
Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@ Winston: I'll trust my source ("Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?" on PubMed ncbi) and err on the side of caution "Ill go with that too, makes sence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@ Winston: I'll trust my source ("Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?" on PubMed ncbi) and err on the side of caution "You do you. Your beliefs in this don't affect me.
Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@ Winston: I'll trust my source ("Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?" on PubMed ncbi) and err on the side of caution "The same pubmed carried an article "Airborne simulation experiments showed that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks provide some protection from the transmission of infective SARS-CoV-2 droplets/aerosols" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@ Winston: I'll trust my source ("Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?" on PubMed ncbi) and err on the side of caution
The same pubmed carried an article
"Airborne simulation experiments showed that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks provide some protection from the transmission of infective SARS-CoV-2 droplets/aerosols""I'm not sure what prevention of transmission has to do with potential hezards - bar that everyone should do their own risk benefit analysis, which should have been done by any government before mandating them (when they did), particularly when you look at the extent of how damaging mask wearing can be to the wearer's health. I've done mine and I'm not ashamed to say that I will not wear a mask when I have no symptoms of illness. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Somethings going on. https://news.sky.com/story/ten-times-more-people-in-hospital-with-flu-than-this-time-last-year-nhs-england-data-shows-12754431 You know those things people use to put over their noses and mouths…. Apparently they are very good at keeping nasty germs to yourself….. yup.. I actually thought after it helped so much to limit illness that along with ' don't go out or to work if you had symptoms ' that they would bring it back this year...
I've been doing it anyway. My daughter has symptoms but not tested postitive for covid . . And she is staying home
Honestly there was a point wherebi thought masks might become yhe norm on public transport, and companies would not expect you to work when ill which would have made us so much healthier but I guess not. And not fir covid, just for a healthier society "Problem for companies is that employees rip the pish out of a good scheme. We had one guy claim covid 5 times in about 6 months. Others saw how easy it was to have a week or 10 days off and suddenly we had high rates of covid infection in the staff...all while we paid full wages as we preferred to have infected employees at home. Now the company doesn't pay, it appears good health has returned to the staff. Just my experience. Don't shoot the messanger...... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because last year they identified every case of flu as Covid. exactly, at last someone who has a brain. You misspelled "Brian" lol" so did you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
