" assault Rape survivors say they are being stigmatised for not wearing masks"

The post that was quoted here has been removed

first of all, vaccinations and this wearing masks during covid are not the same thing for reasons i already mentioned.

Secondly, i know misrepresenting what other said are your mo. In case it isn't intentional, allow me to explain it to tou: he didn't say "force everyone to wear a mask".

You can choose not to wear a mask but you don't get to shove your freedom down everyone else's throats and endanger everybody. Stay home.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

If a measure is not 100% effective it's not worth implementing?

@zahlanzi said
"Exemptions are not about 'comfort.' Take for example somebody with serious breathing problems."
I beg to differ. It is about their comfort. They aren't forced to wear a mask, they can stay at home. They don't want to because it's more comfortable for them to go out. If a piece of cloth makes you suffocate you should stay at home, it's not safe for you out.

Blimey sir. Your ignorance is truly dazzling.

Well done.

@zahlanzi said
Before i continue any further, do you even believe masks greatly help with public safety? Maybe you think they are a placebo the government is forcing on us?

'Greatly,' no.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Yes, I agree with this.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
'Greatly,' no.

ah, we're done here then.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Blimey sir. Your ignorance is truly dazzling.

Well done.

eloquently put. I can feel the weight of your arguments dismantling my position. You sir are a debating master.

@zahlanzi said
Before i continue any further, do you even believe masks greatly help with public safety? Maybe you think they are a placebo the government is forcing on us?

Have you looked at the evidence base for the use of masks to prevent covid-19 transmission? It's not great, in the systematic review I looked at [1] (see figure 5) all the evidence was from SARS and the masks had 12 to 16 layers. Rather more than the flimsy thing I wear when I go to the supermarket. It's probably a good idea to wear a mask, but I'm skeptical about the idea that it ought to be a legal requirement and I'm against the notion that people for whom they are contra-indicated should be required to be under effective house arrest.

[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR05LfsTQ8A219fv4uLwn90AiouktvjW9iJcMB0xx9huOx6g0u30bPm9H8g

@deepthought said
Have you looked at the evidence base for the use of masks to prevent covid-19 transmission? It's not great, in the systematic review I looked at [1] (see figure 5) all the evidence was from SARS and the masks had 12 to 16 layers. Rather more than the flimsy thing I wear when I go to the supermarket. It's probably a good idea to wear a mask, but I'm skeptical about the ...[text shortened]... IS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR05LfsTQ8A219fv4uLwn90AiouktvjW9iJcMB0xx9huOx6g0u30bPm9H8g

It is rather strange that you would rely on that report to oppose mandatory face mask measures when it states:

"The use of face masks was protective for both health-care workers and people in the community exposed to infection, with both the frequentist and Bayesian analyses lending support to face mask use irrespective of setting. Our unadjusted analyses might, at first impression, suggest use of face masks in the community setting to be less effective than in the health-care setting, but after accounting for differential N95 respirator use between health-care and non-health-care settings, we did not detect any striking differences in effectiveness of face mask use between settings. The credibility of effect-modification across settings was, therefore, low. Wearing face masks was also acceptable and feasible. Policy makers at all levels should, therefore, strive to address equity implications for groups with currently limited access to face masks and eye protection. "

in the "Discussion" Section

Of course, more recent studies have produced even stronger evidence:

The results of the Missouri case study provide further evidence on the benefits of wearing a cloth face covering. The investigation focused on two hair stylists — infected with and having symptoms of COVID-19 — whose salon policy followed a local ordinance requiring cloth face coverings for all employees and patrons. The investigators found that none of the stylists’ 139 clients or secondary contacts became ill, and all 67 clients who volunteered to be tested showed no sign of infection.

The finding adds to a growing body of evidence that cloth face coverings provide source control – that is, they help prevent the person wearing the mask from spreading COVID-19 to others. The main protection individuals gain from masking occurs when others in their communities also wear face coverings.

COVID-19 prevention in a Missouri hair salon

When two stylists at a Missouri hair salon tested positive for the virus that causes COVID-19, researchers from CoxHealth hospitals, Washington University, the University of Kansas, and the Springfield-Greene County Health Department worked together to trace contacts, investigate the cases, and publish their findings in the MMWR.

One of the stylists developed respiratory symptoms but continued to see clients for eight days. The other, who apparently became infected from her co-worker, also developed respiratory symptoms and continued to see clients for four days.

The salon in which they worked had a policy requiring both stylists and their clients to wear face coverings, consistent with the local government ordinance. Both stylists wore double-layered cloth face coverings or surgical masks when seeing clients. The median appointment time was 15 minutes and ranged from 15 to 45 minutes. More than 98% of clients wore a face covering—47% wore cloth face coverings, 46% wore surgical masks, and about 5% wore N-95 respirators.

When customers were asked whether they had been ill with any respiratory symptoms in the 90 days preceding their appointment, 87 (84% ) reported that they had not. None of the interviewed customers developed symptoms of illness. Among 67 (48% ) customers who volunteered to be tested, all 67 tested negative for the virus that causes COVID-19. Several family members of one of the stylist’s subsequently developed symptoms and received a diagnosis of COVID-19.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0714-americans-to-wear-masks.html

Sorry, but the scientific evidence is strongly supportive of the utility of face masks in sharply reducing the probability of spreading COVID-19 and mandatory measures requiring them are a wise policy choice protecting the public health.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Exemptions are not about 'comfort.' Take for example somebody with serious breathing problems.

There are lots of people who have physical or mental health problems that make wearing a mask difficult or impossible. I know many. To expect such individuals to remain at home indefinitely is unreasonable.

To insist that they have some "right" to infect others with a deadly disease is far more unreasonable.

The general principle is that those who have some mental and physical health issues should be treated and helped as much as possible but IF their health issues endanger others, it is expected that they will be prevented from doing so, by involuntary confinement and/or quarantine if necessary. I have no idea why this General Principle should be disregarded in the case of a deadly, highly contagious illness that will certainly wind up killing more than a million persons worldwide this year. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that excessive sympathy for such individuals is blinding those here to the consequences of granting them exemptions from necessary measures to control a worldwide pandemic (those consequences being illness and deaths to other individuals who would otherwise be spared).

I think there is a term for this but it presently escapes me. At any rate, such thinking is dangerous and inappropriate in our present situation.

@zahlanzi said
"
To ensure as much safety for others, especially the most vulnerable of us, wear a mask in public or stay home and ask for help.

This is the problem that I have, in this modern victim worshiping age, WE have to wear masks for OTHERS. in this age of "take no responsibility" why is it always someone ELSES responsibility.
If you don't want it YOU wear the damn mask.
BTW, I do wear a mask, it stops me getting a $200.00 fine and it stops crazies from attacking me.
Personal responsibility is dead.

@zahlanzi said
first of all, vaccinations and this wearing masks during covid are not the same thing for reasons i already mentioned.

Secondly, i know misrepresenting what other said are your mo. In case it isn't intentional, allow me to explain it to tou: he didn't say "force everyone to wear a mask".

You can choose not to wear a mask but you don't get to shove your freedom down everyone else's throats and endanger everybody. Stay home.

Heres the problem I have with this logic, I have to stay home so YOU won't get it??? what the? My logic says that YOU stay home so YOU won't get it.
Again, the modern day victim worshiping, blame someone else as a default position.

@jimmac said
Heres the problem I have with this logic, I have to stay home so YOU won't get it??? what the? My logic says that YOU stay home so YOU won't get it.
Again, the modern day victim worshiping, blame someone else as a default position.

There is no "logic" in stupidly insisting you have some personal "right" to spread a deadly disease.

There is nothing "modern day" about societies taking measures to reduce the chances of communicable diseases spreading and sickening and killing; they have done so since time immemorial.