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

@jimmac said
There is no chance, no way, non at all that my lobbying will help, the only protests that are allowed are for victim groups. And as stated I have no rights. A state of emergency has been declared, that means they have full control over you.
Your second statement seems to contradict your 1st.
"Lobby for that law to be repealed"
1st/ We are talking about not wearing masks i ...[text shortened]... ets a bit confusing, you say you decide for me, the Premiere says its up to him, I say its up to me.

"There is no chance, no way, non at all that my lobbying will help, the only protests that are allowed are for victim groups"
Does that tell you something? Maybe that there are more pressing matters to attend to than your comfort?

@jimmac said
Without going to to much trouble, 2 quick stats re Australia from 2018. There are 800,000 aged care residents at any one time in Aussie. 1,200,000 Aussies use age care per year. I heard recently that the average life expectancy in aged care is 8 months.
We are destroying the world economies here, Suicides are through the roof. In Aussie they are 5 times the covid death rate, ...[text shortened]... what they are doing.
I do not pretend to know the answer but then, I do not believe you do either.

"To save a few lives of ( predominantly ) people that want to die anyway, as their last days are being spend in isolated agony, at the cost of far more young peoples lives is inhumane."
Hah, i haven't heard that one before! That old people would gladly die so that their children don't suffer a bad economy. Oh wait, i did hear that. From a millionaire politician whose parents wouldn't actually be in danger offering other people's parents as sacrifices.
You are so brave giving up other people's lives. A true hero. Like Jesus said, "If old people inconvenience you, just send them off to die or something"

Not to mention that young people die too of covid. But who is counting, amirite?
Certainly not you.


What i said about getting bored having to reexplain how someone's comfort shouldn't come at the expense of other people's lives, it happened. I am bored. This thread started about people having severe panic attacks from wearing masks and people with respiratory illnesses. You made it about you, and your "rights" to not be inconvenienced. So, yeah, i have 0 sympathy for you and your whining.

@zahlanzi said
"There is no chance, no way, non at all that my lobbying will help, the only protests that are allowed are for victim groups"
Does that tell you something? Maybe that there are more pressing matters to attend to than your comfort?

What it tells me is that victim ideology is more important ( to clowns ) than your concern about the virus, really?
I am concerned about the virus, I am not concerned about victim ideology.
No matter what we do, there will be losers.

@zahlanzi said
"To save a few lives of ( predominantly ) people that want to die anyway, as their last days are being spend in isolated agony, at the cost of far more young peoples lives is inhumane."
Hah, i haven't heard that one before! That old people would gladly die so that their children don't suffer a bad economy. Oh wait, i did hear that. From a millionaire politician whose parent ...[text shortened]... u, and your "rights" to not be inconvenienced. So, yeah, i have 0 sympathy for you and your whining.

And it seems you zero sympathy for the many thousands that will die as a result of lockdown.( said tongue in cheek as I suspect you do ) Many young people have already suicided, already happening. I know people in isolation that are already suffering and they are not spending their last days lonely in age care, are you ok with that, seems like hell to me, yeah, spending my last precious moments lonely.
Re the masks, I am ok with them being compulsory in shops and such just not all the time. My comments where regarding my situation.
And answer this, as asked before, why did less than 10% wear the masks 1 day before they where compulsory.
And don't misquote me, I never said "gladly" die. I do suspect that many would rather die than not see loved ones again. I actually know 2 people that have said that, 1 very seriously.
You do not seem able to see the other side of the story here. That is ok, I do suspect that like me, you come from a point of compassion. But you have been selective about who you are compassionate towards. There are many sides to all this.

@jimmac said
And it seems you zero sympathy for the many thousands that will die as a result of lockdown.( said tongue in cheek as I suspect you do ) Many young people have already suicided, already happening. I know people in isolation that are already suffering and they are not spending their last days lonely in age care, are you ok with that, seems like hell to me, yeah, spending my las ...[text shortened]... t you have been selective about who you are compassionate towards. There are many sides to all this.

I think you are a bit behind the times; I don't know about other countries, but in the US there was never a "lockdown" and the closing of businesses and such hasn't been in effect for months. There are still some restrictions on large events and the like, but the grim scenario you posit with people completely isolated from each other is a fairy tale.

@no1marauder said
I think you are a bit behind the times; I don't know about other countries, but in the US there was never a "lockdown" and the closing of businesses and such hasn't been in effect for months. There are still some restrictions on large events and the like, but the grim scenario you posit with people completely isolated from each other is a fairy tale.

I am so pleased that you have not had to suffer a lockdown, someone must be doing something right.
I - 1/ Must wear a mask whenever I leave the front door.
2/ Must never, without a valid reason, travel more than 5 km from home.
3/ Cannot visit ANYONE unless for necessary care arrangement. keeping someone company does not qualify.
4/ am allowed out for 1 hr only per day.
5/ cannot leave home after 8pm unless for an emergency.
6/ Can work if that work is deemed critical only.
7/ cannot shop with my wife. The ones that are allowed to trade, Mask or no.
I have a friend that lives 18km away so I am unable to have face to face contact.
I am unable to visit my grandkids.
The list goes on. look it up Victoria Australia. I live in Pakenham.
I do NOT underrate this virus and I know that there are a lot of well intentioned people on both sides and I "do" see the "other" side. I do. The problem is, I am personally seeing only problems associated with the response and none to do with the virus. When/if I know someone that dies from it, I doubt that I will change my mind.
The fairy tale is a nightmare for some.

@zahlanzi said
"Well in essence then we just disagree on what sacrifices we’re prepared to inflict on members of society to keep other members of society safe,"
Yep. Not being able to shop or having to work from home is more acceptable to me than exposing someone to a deadly disease.

"My preference would be to shield those most likely to die or suffer serious consequences from covid" ...[text shortened]... ar them go around spreading the disease? How is that supporting and shielding those at risk from it?

“
"My preference would be to shield those most likely to die or suffer serious consequences from covid"
How do you plan on doing that? 😀 Should THEY be confined at home because some people can't or won't wear masks?

Err yes because their the ones whose lives are in danger. We managed to do it here in the UK whilst using the general lockdown to flatten the curve and get the r rate below 1. There’s probably another wave on its way and that’s why i support mandatory mask wearing anywhere outside your own home but with medical exemptions. I don’t know exactly where you live but I take it there’s a thriving trade in black market medical exemptions. But here it would be done by the the public health authority issuing them based on medical records much the same way as we selected our shielded community.
You cannot stop covid transmission by wearing masks but you can control and minimise transmission.

@kevcvs57 said
“
"My preference would be to shield those most likely to die or suffer serious consequences from covid"
How do you plan on doing that? 😀 Should THEY be confined at home because some people can't or won't wear masks?

Err yes because their the ones whose lives are in danger. We managed to do it here in the UK whilst using the general lockdown to flatten the curve and ge ...[text shortened]...
You cannot stop covid transmission by wearing masks but you can control and minimise transmission.

"Err yes because their the ones whose lives are in danger"
Heh so that's not inhumane? Do you listen to yourself? What about people not at risk? Have them locked away too? people in their thirties xan and have gotten covid. What about them? What about the grocery workers, exposed daily to the risk of getting covid, whant them to deal with an unmasked face full if germs because they can't stay at home or have someone shop for them, which i would support as a government service?

So you're exposing everyone to a deadly disease because a very small minority can't wear masks and is unwilling to make sacrifices? So you would have all the many others make sacrifices instead?


Yeah i am done. It's only so many times i can explain this to you and get the same answer

@zahlanzi said
"Err yes because their the ones whose lives are in danger"
Heh so that's not inhumane? Do you listen to yourself? What about people not at risk? Have them locked away too? people in their thirties xan and have gotten covid. What about them? What about the grocery workers, exposed daily to the risk of getting covid, whant them to deal with an unmasked face full if germs beca ...[text shortened]... tead?


Yeah i am done. It's only so many times i can explain this to you and get the same answer

Your just not getting it are you? 100% wearing masks will not stop transmission. It’s about control of, not elimination of, the transmission rate. The best, or rather the only way to protect those who are most likely to die from, or suffer debilitating after effects from, covid is to shield them and keep the r rate below 1 by the use of masks, social distancing and hand washing.
Why would you enforce the effective house arrest of the small minority of people who cannot wear masks when a mask in itself is not going to prevent transmission.
No the sensible and liberal thing to do is to support those who need to shield and control the curve of transmission by having the vast majority of the active population wearing masks and and observing other best practices.

@kevcvs57 said
Your just not getting it are you? 100% wearing masks will not stop transmission. It’s about control of, not elimination of, the transmission rate. The best, or rather the only way to protect those who are most likely to die from, or suffer debilitating after effects from, covid is to shield them and keep the r rate below 1 by the use of masks, social distancing and hand wash ...[text shortened]... ng the vast majority of the active population wearing masks and and observing other best practices.

"100% wearing masks will not stop transmission. "
it will actually. Just not 100%. Which makes me ask you again, if a measure is not perfect, it's not worth implementing? Doing everything the fire department advises might still not be enough to prevent your house from catching fire but it damn helps.

"Why would you enforce the effective house arrest of the small minority of people who cannot wear masks when a mask in itself is not going to prevent transmission."
As i have said repeatedly, and gotten ignored, i am not enforcing that. They shouldn't be allowed in supermarkets without a mask. And i want to enforce that to protect the vast majority of people who are wearing masks and following rules. I

"No the sensible and liberal thing to do is to support those who need to shield and control the curve of transmission by having the vast majority of the active population wearing masks and and observing other best practices."
All the population. No exceptions. That's the sensible thing to do. I don't care if it's the most liberal because it's a damn pandemic. I am sorry if you can't wear a mask but that doesn't mean i should just accept you sneezing around me without a mask. I have rights as well. if a friend of mine asks me to do some grocery shopping for him because he can't wear a mask i will but i will call him out on it if he goes to a store without one.

I said before that i was done and i broke my promise. Seriously this thread has gone on long enough. I can't keep finding new ways to argue the notion that one shouldn't endanger his peers no matter how hard it would be for his own comfort. Especially when my points are ignored and you just keep repeating that the few shouldn't make any sacrifices and endanger the many

@jimmac said
I am so pleased that you have not had to suffer a lockdown, someone must be doing something right.
I - 1/ Must wear a mask whenever I leave the front door.
2/ Must never, without a valid reason, travel more than 5 km from home.
3/ Cannot visit ANYONE unless for necessary care arrangement. keeping someone company does not qualify.
4/ am allowed out for 1 hr o ...[text shortened]... one that dies from it, I doubt that I will change my mind.
The fairy tale is a nightmare for some.

Looking it up, it seems that such measures will only be in place for six weeks IF COVID is brought under control in your area. While the measures adopted here weren't quite as draconian, similar restrictions have been somewhat common to fight the outbreak. They have uniformly resulted in the lessening of cases and deaths from this deadly pandemic and, where people have been responsible after they have been lifted (by wearing masks, avoiding large gatherings, etc. etc.) in the saving of many lives and in an ability to return to some levels of normalcy in an economic sense (the pipe dream that you could simply reopen businesses in the middle of a deadly epidemic and have the same level of productive activity has been shown to be just that).

It's of course no fun to be limited in what you can do but the effectiveness of such temporary measures has been shown the world over. One should accept them in good graces and then follow the advice of health care professionals. That is the surest way forward to minimize the damage of this pandemic.

@zahlanzi said
"Err yes because their the ones whose lives are in danger"
Heh so that's not inhumane? Do you listen to yourself? What about people not at risk? Have them locked away too? people in their thirties xan and have gotten covid. What about them? What about the grocery workers, exposed daily to the risk of getting covid, whant them to deal with an unmasked face full if germs beca ...[text shortened]... tead?


Yeah i am done. It's only so many times i can explain this to you and get the same answer

If you don’t want to be exposed to covid stay indoors, tape up the windows and grow your own food.
There is no way of eliminating covid transmission mask or no mask. The majority of people wearing masks will hopefully break the chain of infection or control the curve until a vaccine becomes available.
Taking the step of removing someone’s right to leave their home in order to achieve a goal that is not achievable for reasons of political partisanship is not the way to combat covid 19.
The good news is that there is a massive overlap between the shielding community and those who would have medical exemptions from mask wearing.
To assert that the small minority who would be in the community without a mask pose a major hazard without knowing, let alone crunching, the numbers involved is mere conjecture and you need a lot more than assertion and conjecture before you put people under house arrest, we’ll certainly in the UK anyway.

@kevcvs57 said
If you don’t want to be exposed to covid stay indoors, tape up the windows and grow your own food.
There is no way of eliminating covid transmission mask or no mask. The majority of people wearing masks will hopefully break the chain of infection or control the curve until a vaccine becomes available.
Taking the step of removing someone’s right to leave their home in order ...[text shortened]... assertion and conjecture before you put people under house arrest, we’ll certainly in the UK anyway.

Ignoring all medical advice and the overwhelming evidence is hardly a way to limit the spread of a deadly epidemic.

This Forum has been filled since early in the epidemic with these types of post minimizing the dangers of COVID and expressing strong opposition to the advice of public health experts for dubious reasons. Not even a death toll approaching one million seems to have gotten through to the skeptics.

You've refused to answer, so I'll ask again: how many sick, hospitalized and dead are you willing to endure to grant exemptions for mask wearing?

@no1marauder said
Ignoring all medical advice and the overwhelming evidence is hardly a way to limit the spread of a deadly epidemic.

This Forum has been filled since early in the epidemic with these types of post minimizing the dangers of COVID and expressing strong opposition to the advice of public health experts for dubious reasons. Not even a death toll approaching one million seem ...[text shortened]... how many sick, hospitalized and dead are you willing to endure to grant exemptions for mask wearing?

I’m not ignoring it No1 I agree wholeheartedly with it but I don’t believe it’s necessary to impede a basic right like freedom of movement from people who with the best will in the world cannot wear a mask and function or breathe at the same time.
I think as a civilised society we should run that risk especially given that airborne transmission is just one transmission mode and contact transmission is a huge threat.
Are you advocating the closure of Bars and restaurants until there’s a vaccine because they are by definition unmasked environments.
Just to emphasise I’m talking about people who cannot wear a mask, rather than people who choose not to wear one. I’d be quite happy to put them under actual arrest.