|
My nomination for idiot shoppers are those who wear blue disposable plastic gloves BUT no mask. The gloves will give you no protection, since the gloves can be contaminated just as easily a your bare hands.
On the other hand it's now generally agreed that a mask does give a degree of protection.
Masks should be made compulsory for all shoppers and shop workers, especially if social distancing regulations are to be relaxed from 2 m to 1.5 m.
|
My nomination for idiot shoppers are those who wear blue disposable plastic gloves BUT no mask. The gloves will give you no protection, since the gloves can be contaminated just as easily a your bare hands.
On the other hand it's now generally agreed that a mask does give a degree of protection.
Masks should be made compulsory for all shoppers and shop workers, especially if social distancing regulations are to be relaxed from 2 m to 1.5 m.
There is only limited benefit at best, and, prior to the pandemic, this was to protect others (not the wearer) against spreading germs (not viruses, which can pass straight through the vast, vast majority of face masks) in a clinic environment and to give a small benefit if the wearer is sick.
This time, you can just as easily pass it via contact of surfaces (including of goods in the shop), even when wearing gloves, mainly because the user will not be competent in putting them on, using them and acting in a hygenic way as they would in a sterile enviroment like a operating theatre.
I mean, what do you do if you have an itchy nose or need to blow your nose/sneeze? All it takes is just one person to do the wrong thing (easily done), but wearing such masks and gloves, in my view, gives the wearer a false sense of security, leading them to undertake far more risky behaviour (as we've seen in the news) whilst simultaneously complaining about low risk behaviour elsewhere.
It should also be noted that breathing through a face mask increases the respiratory rate, putting more pressure of the system, increases the likelihood of breathing back in germs and viruses off the mask and generally is much more difficult to do over long periods by people with existing respiratory ailments, including asthma, which can be exacerbated by doing so.
The apparent risk of transmission (an average and likely to be an estimate) goes from 1.5% to 3% on extended close contact (over 15 minutes and presumably under 2m).
|
|
It's now generally acknowledged that if an infected person wears a mask it reduces the risk of spreading the virus to others. And if others are wearing masks, that reduces the risk of them contracting the virus. All the evidence from other countries suggest that masks are effective to some extent. The important thing to remember is that a mask isn't a guarantee against becoming infected but it's likely to reduce the risk somewhat. I wear a mask to the supermarket and I don't believe its led me to indulge in more risky behaviour.
I believe that when we were told early on that masks were of no use, that was just government propaganda aimed at reducing demand for masks when they were in short supply. If masks were no good, why was it so important that medical staff had to have PPE?
Edited by Sofa Spud on 12/06/2020 at 09:30
|
|
When the Mrs worked in theatre they were required to change masks frequently because as the user breathed the pores in the mask became moist and their effectiveness reduced eventually to the point of being totally ineffective.
That was a good few years ago and the materials may have changed but are those being sold to the general public of the same quality used by professionals.
How often do those people we see wearing masks when shopping replace or wash them? An ineffective mask is worse than no mask since it gives the wearer a feeling of being immune to the virus, witness their disregard for the one way systems and the 2m distance rules.
And what is it with those people that wear a mask when alone in their car?
Have to admit we bought some masks yesterday but for a specific purpose. The MIL has an hospital appointment next month (was March but has now been rescheduled) and wearing one will be required by both MIL and whoever goes with her. No idea how good they are, probably just cheap tat but without BS requirements you have to buy what is available and IMHO still be careful and keep 2m apart.
|
When the Mrs worked in theatre they were required to change masks frequently because as the user breathed the pores in the mask became moist and their effectiveness reduced eventually to the point of being totally ineffective.
That was a good few years ago and the materials may have changed but are those being sold to the general public of the same quality used by professionals.
Even now, masks become less effective after every use to the point of being useless. That said, I don't know whether it takes longer or not for masks to fail with today's current technological and material improvements.
And the masks sold to the general public generally aren't medical grade unless it specifically states otherwise. Not that that fact matters much as they both have very different applications.
How often do those people we see wearing masks when shopping replace or wash them? An ineffective mask is worse than no mask since it gives the wearer a feeling of being immune to the virus, witness their disregard for the one way systems and the 2m distance rules.
Agreed. More so because anything caught in the mask isn't going to just evaporate. And we know people are touching their masks, then touching stuff around them, potentially spreading contaminants.
And what is it with those people that wear a mask when alone in their car?
Why shouldn't they if they feel safer with it? Though there could be numerous reasons. Two off the top of my head are:
1. Taxi driver - have dozens of people in and out all shift. The taxi drivers I've used recently have all been wearing masks.
2. Parents - they could be out after doing the school run and, not knowing who or what their child has been in contact with all day, doesn't fancy taking the risk. My sister's partner used to leave work, pick up the girls, and then go back to work every day.
Have to admit we bought some masks yesterday but for a specific purpose. The MIL has an hospital appointment next month (was March but has now been rescheduled) and wearing one will be required by both MIL and whoever goes with her. No idea how good they are, probably just cheap tat but without BS requirements you have to buy what is available and IMHO still be careful and keep 2m apart.
Agreed with maintaining social distancing and being careful. This situation is far from done. The masks are likely to prevent people spraying spittle about the place (we all do it), rather than to prevent you catching something.
|
|
There's been talk when discussing shopping about people handling goods and returning them to the shelves. Obviously best avoided but Aldi continue to mix different variations of product (eg stir fry sauce, bacon or cheese) in the same display box.
Yesterday it was only possible to obtain sliced plain Bavarian cheese by physically sorting it from the versions with ham or jalapeno. It took a thorough search of a box of stir fry sauces to ascertain that only two of the four varieties shown were actually available.
|
|
|
|
<< The masks are likely to prevent people spraying spittle about the place (we all do it), rather than to prevent you catching something. >>
Speak for yourself, sir. I think I can claim not to spray spittle around, as I keep my mouth shut as much as possible. Sneezing and coughing are the most effective ways to spray, and I can't remember when I last did either in a public place.
|
And what is it with those people that wear a mask when alone in their car?
Why shouldn't they if they feel safer with it? Though there could be numerous reasons. Two off the top of my head are:
1. Taxi driver - have dozens of people in and out all shift. The taxi drivers I've used recently have all been wearing masks.
I never mentioned Taxi. I used the words their car.
2. Parents - they could be out after doing the school run and, not knowing who or what their child has been in contact with all day, doesn't fancy taking the risk. My sister's partner used to leave work, pick up the girls, and then go back to work every day.
And what would that achieve. I accept that kids could pick up a bug a school but do parents who wear masks in the car when driving their kids to and from continue to wear the masks in their own home, if they don't they would still be at risk.
|
And what is it with those people that wear a mask when alone in their car?
Why shouldn't they if they feel safer with it? Though there could be numerous reasons. Two off the top of my head are:
1. Taxi driver - have dozens of people in and out all shift. The taxi drivers I've used recently have all been wearing masks.
I never mentioned Taxi. I used the words their car.
Some taxi drivers own the vehicles they use for work. Also, Uber drivers (or equivalent).
2. Parents - they could be out after doing the school run and, not knowing who or what their child has been in contact with all day, doesn't fancy taking the risk. My sister's partner used to leave work, pick up the girls, and then go back to work every day.
And what would that achieve. I accept that kids could pick up a bug a school but do parents who wear masks in the car when driving their kids to and from continue to wear the masks in their own home, if they don't they would still be at risk.
I couldn't possibly say.
To be blunt though, why does it even matter? If they feel safer doing so, then so be it.
|
|
|
|
<< The masks are likely to prevent people spraying spittle about the place (we all do it), rather than to prevent you catching something. >>
Speak for yourself, sir. I think I can claim not to spray spittle around, as I keep my mouth shut as much as possible. Sneezing and coughing are the most effective ways to spray, and I can't remember when I last did either in a public place.
Nor do I, but I think spittle may have been the wrong word to use. Maybe particulate would be more apt? Either way, my point is that it is to stop you spreading particulates rather than stopping you from absorbing them. I could be wrong though.
|
|
I still go with the idea that wearing a mask reduces the risk of being infected by others and also reduces the risk of oneself spreading the virus if infected. Logic would suggest masks work in both directions to some extent, although nobody's claiming they're anything like 100% effective.
|
|
I think the point is that bog-standard masks are much better at filtering what comes out of your orifices than what goes in.
|
|
If everyone wearing masks in public places reduces average risk of people contracting covid-19 by even 20%, that could mean the difference between the R number being above or below 1. That means a difference between a slight increase in infections and a slight decrease.
We mustn't lose sight of the fact that it's theoretically possible to eradicate covid-19 by blocking all means of transmission. In reality that's very difficult to do because we all have to go shopping etc.or we might need medical attention for whatever reason. But every weapon in the armory for reducing the spread should be used so that the day when we have no more cases is brought as close as possible.
|
|
I think it has spread too wide around the world to be able to eradicate it, and we can't stop it coming back by stopping all international travel. It's not as though (even now) we can isolate and test every international traveller before letting them in.
I also don't think that masks are as good as some believe, especially as the countries that regularly use them are a) used to doing so and b) very regimented and often restrictive societies, even 'westernised' ones like South Korea. I see so many people using them incorrestly, touching them all the time, taking them off to eat and putting the down. Even the medical experts are very sceptical about the use of them (also see below).
Using them also reduces our bodies' ability to fight off other infections and viruses that we'd normally pick up and thus our immune systems would be degraded. I have to wonder sometimes whether people in the Far East who use masks a LOT even when there are no epidemics/pandemics actually contribute to those areas having them more often to start with.
One other point is that many people who already have chronic respiratory diseases will find using masks very hard, because they seriously restrict air movement into/out of the lungs. I myself suffer from asthma and have used face masks over the years as an engineer, and do not like using them at all - only getting by for short periods (15-30 mins max). Even worse at this time of the year when hot/humid weather is about.
Not sure how I'd cope with using them on train and tube journeys of 90mins and more.
|
I think it has spread too wide around the world to be able to eradicate it, and we can't stop it coming back by stopping all international travel. It's not as though (even now) we can isolate and test every international traveller before letting them in.
I also don't think that masks are as good as some believe, especially as the countries that regularly use them are a) used to doing so and b) very regimented and often restrictive societies, even 'westernised' ones like South Korea. I see so many people using them incorrestly, touching them all the time, taking them off to eat and putting the down. Even the medical experts are very sceptical about the use of them (also see below).
Using them also reduces our bodies' ability to fight off other infections and viruses that we'd normally pick up and thus our immune systems would be degraded. I have to wonder sometimes whether people in the Far East who use masks a LOT even when there are no epidemics/pandemics actually contribute to those areas having them more often to start with.
One other point is that many people who already have chronic respiratory diseases will find using masks very hard, because they seriously restrict air movement into/out of the lungs. I myself suffer from asthma and have used face masks over the years as an engineer, and do not like using them at all - only getting by for short periods (15-30 mins max). Even worse at this time of the year when hot/humid weather is about.
Not sure how I'd cope with using them on train and tube journeys of 90mins and more.
No, no, no, no, NO! (Matt Dillahunty quote) Wearing a mask does NOT weaken your immune system. Damn Facebook for spreading this rubbish.
There is very little science to back the claim that wearing a mask weakens your immune system (I can't find anything other than opinion pieces). If wearing a face covering for 2-3 months weakened our immune systems in any significant way, humanity would have died out centuries ago*. You inhale, absorb or otherwise take in enough bacteria throughout the day just by walking your dog, taking your daily exercise, or relaxing in your garden.
*Hyperbole, but you should get the point.
The people in the East generally wear masks to protect themselves from factory and vehicle emissions. If they truly did weaken the immune system, those living in China would be dropping like flies as their cities are cramped, busy, and have less stringent health and food control measures.
The face masks that most of the public use are not generally used for protecting the person wearing it, rather it is to protect others from the droplets we all release when breathing and speaking (with droplets being the primary transmission method of the disease).
Also, Polio was a global thing and that has almost been eradicated. The only reason it hasn't is because of religious zealots in Afghanistan and Pakistan refusing to allow civilians to be immunized. The only cases we've had in the UK have been reactions to the jabs we all get (if we're sensible).
Edited by Joe-Alex on 03/07/2020 at 20:31
|
|
If wearing a face mask weakens teh immune system, surgeons world wide would be dropping dead daily as their job neccessitates wearing a mask daily.
|
If wearing a face mask weakens teh immune system, surgeons world wide would be dropping dead daily as their job neccessitates wearing a mask daily.
To both of you, I didn't say that wearing a maskper se weakens the immune system - but it does lessen the amount of ordinary viruses and germs we would otherwise normally get, and the ONLY natural way our body fights them off is to get them once or twice and acquire natural immunity, whether completely or to some degree.
One of the reasons why so many of us from the post WWII era have allergies is because we are not exposed to many of them as a child - which is why parents are now (until COVID) encouraged to take very young children into the countryside and expose them to a range of airbourne germs, viruses and allergens when their bodies can easily adapt, as many younger children have to COVID.
With medical staff, they wear them to mainly protect the patients from germs etc whilst treating them. It should be noted that a much higher percentage of clinical staff HAVE been adversely affected by COVID than in the general population, even taking into account where they work. In particular, those who originate from countries where, as children, they had poor diets and sanitation, resulting in lowered immune systems for life.
|
No, no, no, no, NO! (Matt Dillahunty quote) Wearing a mask does NOT weaken your immune system. Damn Facebook for spreading this rubbish.
I didn't say that per se - see my other response below for more.
There is very little science to back the claim that wearing a mask weakens your immune system (I can't find anything other than opinion pieces). If wearing a face covering for 2-3 months weakened our immune systems in any significant way, humanity would have died out centuries ago*. You inhale, absorb or otherwise take in enough bacteria throughout the day just by walking your dog, taking your daily exercise, or relaxing in your garden.
So why is it that so many people nowadays suffer from allegies, etc?
*Hyperbole, but you should get the point.
The people in the East generally wear masks to protect themselves from factory and vehicle emissions. If they truly did weaken the immune system, those living in China would be dropping like flies as their cities are cramped, busy, and have less stringent health and food control measures.
They are - the Chinese government just lied about it. Even a blind man could see that.
The face masks that most of the public use are not generally used for protecting the person wearing it, rather it is to protect others from the droplets we all release when breathing and speaking (with droplets being the primary transmission method of the disease).
If nature thought that wearing masks 24/7 was great, it would've had some species have them via natural slection by now. That none have and (barring human intervention and rocks falling from the sky) we're all still here 1M years later means that we don't need them for the most part.
Also, Polio was a global thing and that has almost been eradicated. The only reason it hasn't is because of religious zealots in Afghanistan and Pakistan refusing to allow civilians to be immunized. The only cases we've had in the UK have been reactions to the jabs we all get (if we're sensible).
Some vaccines work well. Others do not. I never got the flu until the year I was offered a flu jab (about 8 years ago) on the NHS. Since then, for the 5 times I got a jab, I got the flu (twice REALLY BAD - off work for 2 weeks [I'm now in my mid 40s]). Now I don't qualify for a free jab because my asthma was downgraded as 'not chronic' (no 'brown inhailor'), and so no jab since 2017. I haven't had the flu since.
I'm not some anti-vaxxer, but as an engineer, I'm trained not to believe everything I'm told at face value and will check and question.
Especially when certain multi-billionairres who 'donate' lots to 'charities' that do vaccination programmes (some of whom have been discredited and chucked out of countries for causing deaths because they were, in effect, illegal, unauthorised human tests) who will gain 10x more because they also invest in vaccine R&D and have been pushing for annual ones and draconian 'social credit' systems to enforce them rather than at most 'lifetime' (one-off) vaccines like for polio that have actually been thoroughly tested over many years before taking them to market.
|
|
You do realise or rather you don't appear to - the flu is not one unchanged virus but one with multiple different strains? And it mutates all the time.
Each is different.
The vaccination you get is a one off for what are forecast to be the common strains next year. Sometimes, the forecasts are wrong. They need to forecast as the lead times to make enough vaccine is months.
If you don't know this - and it is basic stuff- then I question your ability to comment with any authority on any medical issues as what I state above is simple basic stuff anyone who did ANY research would know about.
So I assume it' all opinion and no facts.
|
|
I have been having the flu vaccine since about 2008 when my mother and father needed help form me and the wife. We could not afford to be unable to help. Wife got hers free form the NHS and then the County Council when she moved jobs, I have had to pay for mine.
In October 2016 I was refused a jab since in the past I had reacted badly to treatment and it was suspected to be latex allergy, that years vaccine had a warning. Move on to February and I was hit by the real flu, not man flu. For 3 weeks I was unable to visit mother who shortly after I became unwell had some medical episode (never fully explained) and because I was ill I was unable to visit her. She was eventually discharged and I did get to see her in the nursing home before she died.
Later that year I went to see the doctor and explained the previous situation and he simply said I'll do it now if you wish, you should be fine, I was. Did not want to risk the flu again since we still had dad to look after.
Its your choice but for me to get flu only once in those 12 years does not prove I would not have got it after a jab but living in the same house the wife did not suffer which kind of suggests that years jab did work that year.
|
|
<< So why is it that so many people nowadays suffer from allergies, etc? >>
Possibly because there are more 'unnatural' contaminants in the atmosphere, and additives in processed food, since the WW2 you mention? Though I agree with the old adage that one should eat a peck of dirt in a lifetime, not taking every conceivable precaution to avoid ingesting or inhaling something unexpected.
As an example, a long-standing friend of ours developed a strange food allergy which was eventually tied down to one of the E-numbers, an emulsifier in margarine or edible fat.
|
|
"Along with the U.S., Germany, Italy and Norway had the highest prevalence of food sensitivity — with about 22 percent of people from each country showing antibodies against some type of food.
The lowest rates were seen in Iceland (11 percent), Spain (11 percent), France and the UK (each around 14 percent)."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-food/rates-of-food-sensitivity-vary-by-country-study-idUSTRE62B45220100312#:~:text=Along%20with%20the%20U.S.%2C%20Germany,
against%20some%20type%20of%20food.
Edited by Avant on 05/07/2020 at 13:38
|
|
Its not just shoppers that are idiots. I read that the police have been closing pubs because people cannot use them according to the guidelines.
It seems to me that some of the public are hell bent on ensuring there is a second wave when a bit of common sense should help keep infections as low as possible.
I fear another total lock down in the very near future.
It would be OK if the idiots were the ones that died of Corona Virus but as usual with idiots they are the ones who will have mild symptoms, its the decent folk who will die.
|
Its not just shoppers that are idiots. I read that the police have been closing pubs because people cannot use them according to the guidelines.
It seems to me that some of the public are hell bent on ensuring there is a second wave when a bit of common sense should help keep infections as low as possible.
I fear another total lock down in the very near future.
It would be OK if the idiots were the ones that died of Corona Virus but as usual with idiots they are the ones who will have mild symptoms, its the decent folk who will die.
I am planning on the basis there will be a second wave and lockdown again will not work.
( I note investigation show sweat shops were working in Leicester with no social distancing during the lockdown and paying under £4 an hour.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8490753/Investigation-reveals-Leicester-clothes-workers-supplying-Boohoo-paid-little-3-50-hour.html
As if the council did not know....
|
I( I note investigation show sweat shops were working in Leicester with no social distancing during the lockdown and paying under £4 an hour.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8490753/Investigation-reveals-Leicester-clothes-workers-supplying-Boohoo-paid-little-3-50-hour.html
As if the council did not know....
The cynical among us would suggest that some councillors (not just in Leicester) have personal financial interests in these activities or in turning a blind eye as a favour to someone.
(As in the case of the Conservative minister who expedited a planning approval to save his friend £40 million)
Council decisions and policies often seem contrary to public interest and common sense (and under current restrictions on meetings, proper scrutiny by all councillors has not been possible in my area).
|
Its not just shoppers that are idiots. I read that the police have been closing pubs because people cannot use them according to the guidelines.
It seems to me that some of the public are hell bent on ensuring there is a second wave when a bit of common sense should help keep infections as low as possible.
I fear another total lock down in the very near future.
It would be OK if the idiots were the ones that died of Corona Virus but as usual with idiots they are the ones who will have mild symptoms, its the decent folk who will die.
Well, just in case of something going awry, I'm getting a very short haircut very soon, just in case all the barbers, etc suddenly have to close again for months. I absolutely loathe having long hair.
When out for a walk yesterday I did see a number of covidiots out and about, including some people having a party where several groups of friends drove there for a house party.
Class.
I just hope this all doesn't end in tears.
|
When out for a walk yesterday I did see a number of covidiots out and about, including some people having a party where several groups of friends drove there for a house party.
I reckon this government can't afford further lockdown, so they've no option other than to loosen restrictions and let the young build up 'herd immunity'. The covidiots are no great loss to society if they succumb fatally.
Me? I'm staying put.
|
No, no, no, no, NO! (Matt Dillahunty quote) Wearing a mask does NOT weaken your immune system. Damn Facebook for spreading this rubbish.
I didn't say that per se - see my other response below for more.
There is very little science to back the claim that wearing a mask weakens your immune system (I can't find anything other than opinion pieces). If wearing a face covering for 2-3 months weakened our immune systems in any significant way, humanity would have died out centuries ago*. You inhale, absorb or otherwise take in enough bacteria throughout the day just by walking your dog, taking your daily exercise, or relaxing in your garden.
So why is it that so many people nowadays suffer from allegies, etc?
What do you mean 'people nowadays'? People have always suffered with allergies. I fail to see what that has to do with masks.
*Hyperbole, but you should get the point.
The people in the East generally wear masks to protect themselves from factory and vehicle emissions. If they truly did weaken the immune system, those living in China would be dropping like flies as their cities are cramped, busy, and have less stringent health and food control measures.
They are - the Chinese government just lied about it. Even a blind man could see that.
About the covid-19 deaths? Yes, I'm aware of the Chinese government lying when reporting deaths to the WHO. Again, I don't see how this relates to the use of masks though.
The face masks that most of the public use are not generally used for protecting the person wearing it, rather it is to protect others from the droplets we all release when breathing and speaking (with droplets being the primary transmission method of the disease).
If nature thought that wearing masks 24/7 was great, it would've had some species have them via natural slection by now. That none have and (barring human intervention and rocks falling from the sky) we're all still here 1M years later means that we don't need them for the most part.
I'm not an evolutionary biologist so I couldn't really say. I'm not saying we need masks to survive, I'm saying that they are proven to help limit the spread of infection during a global pandemic.
Also, Polio was a global thing and that has almost been eradicated. The only reason it hasn't is because of religious zealots in Afghanistan and Pakistan refusing to allow civilians to be immunized. The only cases we've had in the UK have been reactions to the jabs we all get (if we're sensible).
Some vaccines work well. Others do not. I never got the flu until the year I was offered a flu jab (about 8 years ago) on the NHS. Since then, for the 5 times I got a jab, I got the flu (twice REALLY BAD - off work for 2 weeks [I'm now in my mid 40s]). Now I don't qualify for a free jab because my asthma was downgraded as 'not chronic' (no 'brown inhailor'), and so no jab since 2017. I haven't had the flu since.
I'm not some anti-vaxxer, but as an engineer, I'm trained not to believe everything I'm told at face value and will check and question.
But what happened to you personally doesn't really prove anything at all, hence science being based on replicable evidence and not anecdotal evidence.
I share your stance on not taking everything at face value.
Especially when certain multi-billionairres who 'donate' lots to 'charities' that do vaccination programmes (some of whom have been discredited and chucked out of countries for causing deaths because they were, in effect, illegal, unauthorised human tests) who will gain 10x more because they also invest in vaccine R&D and have been pushing for annual ones and draconian 'social credit' systems to enforce them rather than at most 'lifetime' (one-off) vaccines like for polio that have actually been thoroughly tested over many years before taking them to market.
I can't speak to this as I have not researched it at all. I have heard mutterings of Bill Gates doing the rounds on Facebook though. Any links you'd like to share?
|
|
|
|
|
|
