• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Coronavirus

To be clear my stance on masks are due to the severe anxiety they cause me & the fact a minimum of 60% of people wear them wrong.
 
From that article:

"Real-world studies are a bit harder to come by, but the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has highlighted a few."

Then goes on to mention a few studies where the effect of wearing a mask wouldn't be enough to reduce the R number sufficiently to stop eventual exponential growth.

The biggest real world study that's ever been conducted, ie. Making masks mandatory for the whole population - did not prevent lockdowns and other measures having to be introduced, it totally baffles me how people still cling to them as a solution.
 
I thought we were asked to wear masks to prevent outbound transmission rather than protecting the wearer?

A type IIR mask is a medical grade “fluid resistant” mask. Which has to meet that industry standard. They are worn in surgery as PPE to prevent splatter into nose and mouth.

After some wear (20 mins) this “fluid resistance” reduces and that is why they are single use.

You aren’t supposed to touch them once their on. You only touch them to put them in the bin.

99% of the population aren’t wearing medical grade stuff. 99% aren’t using them as single use. 99% aren’t touching them with sanitised hands and then re sanitising hands.

There’s no debate a fluid resistant mask stops fluid droplets. That’s not up for debate. But it’s pointless if you then touch it with your hands and then wipe them everywhere.
 
Feel the same away about anti-vaxxers…

Bollocks to masks
We are a society not a collection of individuals - good attempt to deflect from your selfishness by pointing the finger at anti-vaxxers.
 
From that article:

"Real-world studies are a bit harder to come by, but the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has highlighted a few."

Then goes on to mention a few studies where the effect of wearing a mask wouldn't be enough to reduce the R number sufficiently to stop eventual exponential growth.

The biggest real world study that's ever been conducted, ie. Making masks mandatory for the whole population - did not prevent lockdowns and other measures having to be introduced, it totally baffles me how people still cling to them as a solution.
Because they don't stop COVID spread on their own masks are useless?
 
From that article:

"Real-world studies are a bit harder to come by, but the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has highlighted a few."

Then goes on to mention a few studies where the effect of wearing a mask wouldn't be enough to reduce the R number sufficiently to stop eventual exponential growth.

The biggest real world study that's ever been conducted, ie. Making masks mandatory for the whole population - did not prevent lockdowns and other measures having to be introduced, it totally baffles me how people still cling to them as a solution.
So as whataboutery seems to be your stock in trade on this what would the death rate have looked like without masks?
 
To be clear my stance on masks are due to the severe anxiety they cause me & the fact a minimum of 60% of people wear them wrong.
I’m not overly keen on them either - my glasses get steamed up - half blind around Tesco - that said, I’d rather a bit of discomfort than cough all over the cashier and impact on their life.
 
I’m not overly keen on them either - my glasses get steamed up - half blind around Tesco - that said, I’d rather a bit of discomfort than cough all over the cashier and impact on their life.
Anyone coughing all over a cashier is an absolute idiot… I’d rather not have a full blown panic attack when simply shopping.
 
Because they don't stop COVID spread on their own masks are useless?
Yes as they don't reduce the R number enough to prevent exponential growth. You are going to get massive case numbers whether you mandate masks or not.
 
Yes as they don't reduce the R number enough to prevent exponential growth. You are going to get massive case numbers whether you mandate masks or not.
When it's cold out do you only go outside in your big winter coat and absolutely nothing else?
 
When it's cold out do you only go outside in your big winter coat and absolutely nothing else?
What's that's got to do with anything?

I've marked the approximate point on the graph where mask mandates came in last year, 20th July.

Where is this difference to deaths they supposedly make?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20211127-194227.png
    Screenshot_20211127-194227.png
    177.6 KB · Views: 5
What's that's got to do with anything?

I've marked the approximate point on the graph where mask mandates came in last year, 20th July.

Where is this difference to deaths they supposedly make?
Masks were just one of the mitigations we employed. They're were never intended to be the only mitigation unless, of course, R was low enough that masks alone would be enough.
 
Masks were just one of the mitigations we employed. They're were never intended to be the only mitigation unless, of course, R was low enough that masks alone would be enough.
So if that's the case, we're heading for more lockdowns - are you happy with that?
 
The prime minister said the "tightening up" of the mask rules will be outlined by Health Secretary Sajid Javid "in the next day or so". He did not indicate when PCR tests would begin and in a press release the Department of Health would only say it was among the measures being "introduced from next week".

It's in the country NOW. NOW you useless fat cunt, fuck me it can't be that hard to introduce emergency rulings for people to put fucking masks on (everywhere, not just in places where you're looking to sustain your fucking tax income) or take PCR tests when traveling here from Africa?
 
Back
Top