20 Aug 20
@ghost-of-a-duke said"I think your argument is self-defeating. If the number of people who can't wear masks and should 'stay at home' is so small (Shav says 1 in a million) how could they pose a significant risk to the mask-wearing masses?"
I think your argument is self-defeating. If the number of people who can't wear masks and should 'stay at home' is so small (Shav says 1 in a million) how could they pose a significant risk to the mask-wearing masses? In the UK that would mean 70 people walking around without masks. (Statistically, none would be infected).
Because it's not like vaccinations. The chain isn't broken. One unvaccinated person getting into contact with a vaccinated one doesn't infect the latter. One person without a mask carrying the virus can infect people wherever that person goes, because the mask doesn't stop getting the virus. Then those people infect their family members and so on.
Think of a hypothetical person getting a medical exemption (for whatever reason) to drive at 150km/h. 1 in a million. Would you say that the risk is acceptable? Those people should just be allowed to drive at 150km/h? Are we willing to allow them to be on the streets? The risk is they run over some people and kill them. Or cause a massive accident. The alternative is that they just stay at home or they follow the same rules as everyone else. So you have 2 options, which is the more acceptable.
Are you going to say that those people who cannot wear masks cannot infect people?
@zahlanzi saidYeah I know it’s hard to find an analogy but not being allowed to drive at 150kmh is not analogous with not being able to leave your house. The latter is a well established fundamental freedom that you propose to take away from vulnerable people on the off chance that they might infect other people, whilst allowing people in pubs and restaurants etc to go mask free. In order to justify your stance you have to shut down everything that involves people taking their masks off.
"I think your argument is self-defeating. If the number of people who can't wear masks and should 'stay at home' is so small (Shav says 1 in a million) how could they pose a significant risk to the mask-wearing masses?"
Because it's not like vaccinations. The chain isn't broken. One unvaccinated person getting into contact with a vaccinated one doesn't infect the latter. On ...[text shortened]... re acceptable.
Are you going to say that those people who cannot wear masks cannot infect people?
20 Aug 20
@kevcvs57 saidI don't know what other ridiculous exceptions the Brits are making, but where I am you have to wear a mask in pubs and restaurants except when you are sitting and at a social distance from others not in your group (and all staff always have to). So that particular "whataboutism" is just another example of poor rulemaking in the UK.
Yeah I know it’s hard to find an analogy but not being allowed to drive at 150kmh is not analogous with not being able to leave your house. The latter is a well established fundamental freedom that you propose to take away from vulnerable people on the off chance that they might infect other people, whilst allowing people in pubs and restaurants etc to go mask free. In orde ...[text shortened]... to justify your stance you have to shut down everything that involves people taking their masks off.
Your constant minimizing of the risk that maskless people pose to the health and safety of others is just scientific skepticism, which has already cost many thousands of lives in this pandemic.
20 Aug 20
@no1marauder saidYeah good luck drinking and eating through a mask, who are you kidding. We call it rational rule making and we try to keep politics out of it and trying to attain the maximum public good whilst protecting vulnerable minorities.
I don't know what other ridiculous exceptions the Brits are making, but where I am you have to wear a mask in pubs and restaurants except when you are sitting and at a social distance from others not in your group (and all staff always have to). So that particular "whataboutism" is just another example of poor rulemaking in the UK.
Your constant minimizing of the risk ...[text shortened]... hers is just scientific skepticism, which has already cost many thousands of lives in this pandemic.
@kevcvs57 saidI assume you were simply careless in reading what I wrote. Yes, you can eat and drink when sitting without a mask at a social distance (putting the mask on when you stand, of course). Why your government and you think differently is rather puzzling.
Yeah good luck drinking and eating through a mask, who are you kidding. We call it rational rule making and we try to keep politics out of it and trying to attain the maximum public good whilst protecting vulnerable minorities.
The UK policies towards COVID are widely accepted to be a total disaster. Its deaths per million is exceeded only by Belgium, Peru and Spain among countries with more than a million population. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
Measures that encourage the spread of a deadly, infectious disease hardly "attain the maximum public good".
20 Aug 20
Way back in March, this is what George Gao, director-general of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had to say about the biggest mistake other countries were making:
"A: The big mistake in the U.S. and Europe, in my opinion, is that people aren’t wearing masks. This virus is transmitted by droplets and close contact. Droplets play a very important role—you’ve got to wear a mask, because when you speak, there are always droplets coming out of your mouth. Many people have asymptomatic or presymptomatic infections. If they are wearing face masks, it can prevent droplets that carry the virus from escaping and infecting others."
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/not-wearing-masks-protect-against-coronavirus-big-mistake-top-chinese-scientist-says
Maybe Duchy can tell what "exemptions" were granted from wearing masks in Wuhan early in the year.
@no1marauder saidSo in effect no masks in pubs and restaurants then just to clarify.
I assume you were simply careless in reading what I wrote. Yes, you can eat and drink when sitting without a mask at a social distance (putting the mask on when you stand, of course). Why your government and you think differently is rather puzzling.
The UK policies towards COVID are widely accepted to be a total disaster. Its deaths per million is exceeded only by Be ...[text shortened]... s that encourage the spread of a deadly, infectious disease hardly "attain the maximum public good".
It’s not science scepticism it’s balancing public health needs with the needs and rights of a vulnerable minority. I’m sorry you cannot get that but the idea that I can dine out and go for a drink without a mask whilst the asthma sufferer next door cannot shop for food is too high a price to pay for me.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
@divegeester saidAs you know precisely what I do for a living I can only assume you are asking if I have become a qualified doctor or psychiatrist in the last few weeks. If that's the case, then 'no' I have not.
Are you medically qualified?
I have however worked in mental health for over 20 years so know my client group well and how social isolation impacts on their health.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
20 Aug 20
@no1marauder saidThe only absurdity is not recognising that some people have legitimate reasons for not wearing a mask. The UK government correctly recognises such exemptions.
An absurd argument in the face of an epidemic that is well on its way to killing more than a million people worldwide in one year.
20 Aug 20
@kevcvs57 saidYour "clarification" is an outright falsehood.
So in effect no masks in pubs and restaurants then just to clarify.
It’s not science scepticism it’s balancing public health needs with the needs and rights of a vulnerable minority. I’m sorry you cannot get that but the idea that I can dine out and go for a drink without a mask whilst the asthma sufferer next door cannot shop for food is too high a price to pay for me.
20 Aug 20
@no1marauder saidNo your just playing with words, if your eating your not wearing a mask, if your drinking your not wearing a mask. Social distancing is, or should be a requisite for commercial premises mask or no mask.
Your "clarification" is an outright falsehood.
BTW if I was a US citizen I probably wouldn’t be cracking on about other governments responses to covid 19, it comes across as a bit silly.
20 Aug 20
So, 12 pages of discussion and you’ve not yet completed the opinion stage of debate (in Dutch its “oordeelvormend”... no idea what that is in English).
You all have managed to name call and repeat the same points page after page.
There’s a saying: a donkey doesn’t bang its head twice on the same stone (obviously a Dutch saying).
What you all need is a chairman.
20 Aug 20
@kevcvs57 said"Yeah I know it’s hard to find an analogy"
Yeah I know it’s hard to find an analogy but not being allowed to drive at 150kmh is not analogous with not being able to leave your house. The latter is a well established fundamental freedom that you propose to take away from vulnerable people on the off chance that they might infect other people, whilst allowing people in pubs and restaurants etc to go mask free. In orde ...[text shortened]... to justify your stance you have to shut down everything that involves people taking their masks off.
It's hard to find an analogy because as a society we don't allow people to endanger the vast majority just so they can be comfortable.
" but not being allowed to drive at 150kmh is not analogous with not being able to leave your house."
Finish the sentence. "Not being allowed to drive at 150km/h is not analogous with not being able to leave your house to endanger the lives of everyone you come into contact". The last part, the one where leaving the house puts others at risk is quite important for the analogy, wouldn't you think?
"The latter is a well established fundamental freedom "
A freedom that we take away all the time. To protect everyone. We don't allow dangerous mental health patients to roam freely either.
"on the off chance that they might infect other people"
Off chance? Can you abstain from throwing ignorant opinions around, unsupported by medical experts? It's really starting to get annoying. And yes. The one driving at 150km/h within city limits doesn't kill someone every time he goes out. On the off chance he might, we have speed limits. So that it lowers the chance he would kill someone even further. Just like masks lower the chance someone would infect others.
"whilst allowing people in pubs and restaurants etc to go mask free"
Who the hell advocated for people in pubs and restaurants to go mask free? How did you come up with this one?
"In order to justify your stance you have to shut down everything that involves people taking their masks off."
Yes, i would. And we have. No closed spaces restaurants. No more than X people at a table in open spaces and they should be close relatives. Cinemas have been closed.
The main argument though is that those are optional. People don't have to go to a bar, and if they want to, they can choose bars depending on what safety measures are in place and whether one accepts those as sufficient.
People have to go to the supermarket and they have to go to their workplace. They have to go in a bank to do some operations that they can't online. In case you've been sleeping until now, those are the places i most insist the masks wearing be mandatory. Hope it's clearer now, i thought it was pretty obvious but you are a bit obtuse on this subject.
I know i can't force people to be 100% safe all the time. One can still simply refuse to wash their hands, meet in private places, go to a bar that doesn't observe social distancing in whatever city that relaxed those measures. Precisely that's why it's absolutely crucial that all people wear masks in non-optional areas. So they don't spread the virus they got from being irresponsible somewhere else.
20 Aug 20
@kevcvs57 saidyes, how is this a hard concept to grasp?
So in effect no masks in pubs and restaurants then just to clarify.
It’s not science scepticism it’s balancing public health needs with the needs and rights of a vulnerable minority. I’m sorry you cannot get that but the idea that I can dine out and go for a drink without a mask whilst the asthma sufferer next door cannot shop for food is too high a price to pay for me.
One can dine out, at a table alone or with close relatives. Maintains social distance to others. And if others find this is still unsafe, they can choose another restaurant or just grab the food to go.
One doesn't have a choice when it comes to supermarkets. One must do their shopping.
The two are totally unrelated . That asthma sufferer is free to dine out as well. Just like everyone. He is not free to shop in a supermarket without a mask, unlike everyone.
And yes, it's science skepticism. Your entire position stands on not believing what medical experts tell you and simply having a feeling that not wearing a mask isn't that bad for the asthma sufferers because... magic? Is it because you don't understand herd immunity and you think a few people not wearing masks is the same as a few people not getting vaccinated? Who knows? It's all a blur in your head.