FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Weekly deaths lower than average for 7 weeks in a row
Weekly deaths lower than average for 7 weeks in a row
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Source - www.ons.gov.uk
Weekly deaths of all causes lower than last 5 years average for 7 weeks in a row. Can anyone explain why this is?"
You can only die once. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Source - www.ons.gov.uk
Weekly deaths of all causes lower than last 5 years average for 7 weeks in a row. Can anyone explain why this is?"
I suggested that it was because the people who would have naturally died this year were taken by covid earlier this year |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Source - www.ons.gov.uk
Weekly deaths of all causes lower than last 5 years average for 7 weeks in a row. Can anyone explain why this is?"
Many reasons are possible but suspect one factor is that most people are a lot more attentive and aware with their health and hygiene... I know I am. That and the fact some of the elderly or ill died months earlier. Could be those 5g masts are secretly bathing us in juju and making us live longer... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
All the reasons above plus less leaving the house/driving around so less accidents and casualties. Harder to go out to the pub on a whim means less drink driving, more police on the streets means less crime. Could be any number of reasons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Probably because covid has run its
natural course, in exactly the same
way as every other winter virus.
Quite why the powers that be along
with the mainstream media are still
pushing "project fear" is up for debate.
The only thing that is no longer up for
debate is that CV19 is no longer killing
anyone in anything like the numbers
required to keep these draconian
measures going.
That's why we've been steered away
from a "pandemic" to a "casedemic"
which is utterly irrelevant.
Everyone could test positive for CV19 and
if nobody is getting ill from it anymore
(and they are not) then There is more
behind this than we're being told.
Did you know that more people have died
from flu - than from CV in the past
5 weeks? Not reporting that on the
TV are they?
THE TIMES:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/flu-kills-five-times-more-than-covid-9wlzsdlh9?fbclid=IwAR1LCiPUGPEHdcYqmmgR6DHCMZqqbJXMGmPyCLX7To5pLgOdB3TghA0NI4I
Masks don't work either - they are like
carrying sand on a tennis racket to any virus.
Don't buy into the "casedemic" that's what they
want. Look at the facts and listen to
any expert who is NOT in the employ of the government, or who is taking money from
big pharma.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *om girlCouple (FF)
over a year ago
South Yorkshire |
"Probably because covid has run its
natural course, in exactly the same
way as every other winter virus.
Quite why the powers that be along
with the mainstream media are still
pushing "project fea
r" is up for debate.
The only thing that is no longer up for
debate is that CV19 is no longer killing
anyone in anything like the numbers
required to keep these draconian
measures going.
That's why we've been steered away
from a "pandemic" to a "casedemic"
which is utterly irrelevant.
Everyone could test positive for CV19 and
if nobody is getting ill from it anymore
(and they are not) then There is more
behind this than we're being told.
Did you know that more people have died
from flu - than from CV in the past
5 weeks? Not reporting that on the
TV are they?
THE TIMES:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/flu-kills-five-times-more-than-covid-9wlzsdlh9?fbclid=IwAR1LCiPUGPEHdcYqmmgR6DHCMZqqbJXMGmPyCLX7To5pLgOdB3TghA0NI4I
Masks don't work either - they are like
carrying sand on a tennis racket to any virus.
Don't buy into the "casedemic" that's what they
want. Look at the facts and listen to
any expert who is NOT in the employ of the government, or who is taking money from
big pharma.
"
Well said where being lied to and people believe everything they been told |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The problem I have with The Times article is that it groups flu and pneumonia. How do we know that 99% of those deaths aren't pneumonia ? About 30,000 people die each year from pneumonia which is an infection of the lungs caused by bacteria, viruses, fungi, or parasites. That's just under 600 deaths a week caused by many different reasons. You're comparing this to a single virus that we've been suppressing like no other virus has ever been before.
Can you explain these facts which kind of supports my initial point. (see link my next message - formatting completely screwed!!
As for the tennis racket analogy...that's nonsense. Imagine a the sand is wet on a tennis ball. The virus is a grain of sand and the tennis ball is the particle carrying the virus (the virus spreads on much larger particles such as the air when you exhale). The tennis ball can't pass through the racket and neither will the virus. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Probably because covid has run its
natural course, in exactly the same
way as every other winter virus.
Quite why the powers that be along
with the mainstream media are still
pushing "project fear" is up for debate.
The only thing that is no longer up for
debate is that CV19 is no longer killing
anyone in anything like the numbers
required to keep these draconian
measures going.
That's why we've been steered away
from a "pandemic" to a "casedemic"
which is utterly irrelevant.
Everyone could test positive for CV19 and
if nobody is getting ill from it anymore
(and they are not) then There is more
behind this than we're being told.
Did you know that more people have died
from flu - than from CV in the past
5 weeks? Not reporting that on the
TV are they?
THE TIMES:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/flu-kills-five-times-more-than-covid-9wlzsdlh9?fbclid=IwAR1LCiPUGPEHdcYqmmgR6DHCMZqqbJXMGmPyCLX7To5pLgOdB3TghA0NI4I
Masks don't work either - they are like
carrying sand on a tennis racket to any virus.
Don't buy into the "casedemic" that's what they
want. Look at the facts and listen to
any expert who is NOT in the employ of the government, or who is taking money from
big pharma.
"
Also reguarding masks, most masks that people are wearing are just cloth. They do not significantly change what goes through them, if you were in a dusty atmosphere of a big dust particle like soot, you would still get copious amounts of soot in your lungs. Most people are nievely thinking cloth is a filter. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Probably because covid has run its
natural course, in exactly the same
way as every other winter virus.
Quite why the powers that be along
with the mainstream media are still
pushing "project fear" is up for debate.
The only thing that is no longer up for
debate is that CV19 is no longer killing
anyone in anything like the numbers
required to keep these draconian
measures going.
That's why we've been steered away
from a "pandemic" to a "casedemic"
which is utterly irrelevant.
Everyone could test positive for CV19 and
if nobody is getting ill from it anymore
(and they are not) then There is more
behind this than we're being told.
Did you know that more people have died
from flu - than from CV in the past
5 weeks? Not reporting that on the
TV are they?
THE TIMES:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/flu-kills-five-times-more-than-covid-9wlzsdlh9?fbclid=IwAR1LCiPUGPEHdcYqmmgR6DHCMZqqbJXMGmPyCLX7To5pLgOdB3TghA0NI4I
Masks don't work either - they are like
carrying sand on a tennis racket to any virus.
Don't buy into the "casedemic" that's what they
want. Look at the facts and listen to
any expert who is NOT in the employ of the government, or who is taking money from
big pharma.
Also reguarding masks, most masks that people are wearing are just cloth. They do not significantly change what goes through them, if you were in a dusty atmosphere of a big dust particle like soot, you would still get copious amounts of soot in your lungs. Most people are nievely thinking cloth is a filter."
Here are some sources that disagree...
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/stanford-scientists-contribute-to-who-mask-guidelines.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/face-masks-really-do-matter-the-scientific-evidence-is-growing-11595083298
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-08-oxford-covid-19-study-face-masks-and-coverings-work-act-now#
How is karen? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The point is, if you have no specification for a mask, then what's the point of enforcement. I don't use anything less than a 3M mask for work. I want it to do its job that it's deigned to do. Under the rules now, you could wear a cardboard box on your head and you would be compliant. If the rules were that you had to wear at least a mask of a certain specification, then that would be a more sensible position.
I'm not sure what the 'Karen' bit is, but if used to insult, it says often more about the person using it. It's often used with a set of rolling eyes to signal "I have nothing else I can say, can't be polite and discuss a topic like a grown up." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The point is, if you have no specification for a mask, then what's the point of enforcement. I don't use anything less than a 3M mask for work. I want it to do its job that it's deigned to do. Under the rules now, you could wear a cardboard box on your head and you would be compliant. If the rules were that you had to wear at least a mask of a certain specification, then that would be a more sensible position.
I'm not sure what the 'Karen' bit is, but if used to insult, it says often more about the person using it. It's often used with a set of rolling eyes to signal "I have nothing else I can say, can't be polite and discuss a topic like a grown up.""
The point is covering your mouth and nose will reduce transmission. Of course, some face coverings do this job better than others.
The 'karen' comment was simply because, like many posts on here, you have made a claim but don't produce any kind of reliable source.
I would say that providing links to 3 reliable sources shows I have plenty to say and demonstrates the ability to discuss like a grown up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The point is, if you have no specification for a mask, then what's the point of enforcement. I don't use anything less than a 3M mask for work. I want it to do its job that it's deigned to do. Under the rules now, you could wear a cardboard box on your head and you would be compliant. If the rules were that you had to wear at least a mask of a certain specification, then that would be a more sensible position.
I'm not sure what the 'Karen' bit is, but if used to insult, it says often more about the person using it. It's often used with a set of rolling eyes to signal "I have nothing else I can say, can't be polite and discuss a topic like a grown up."
The point is covering your mouth and nose will reduce transmission. Of course, some face coverings do this job better than others.
The 'karen' comment was simply because, like many posts on here, you have made a claim but don't produce any kind of reliable source.
I would say that providing links to 3 reliable sources shows I have plenty to say and demonstrates the ability to discuss like a grown up. "
"The point is covering up your nose and mouth will reduce transmition"
Sorry but it won't reduce the spread of any type of coronavirus what so ever.
Its like wrapping barb wire around my house to keep out flys.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Maybe it will be seasonal like the flu
According to Bupa 'People tend to get it around the same time every year. In the UK, people usually get seasonal flu between December and March'.
Just a thought. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The point is, if you have no specification for a mask, then what's the point of enforcement. I don't use anything less than a 3M mask for work. I want it to do its job that it's deigned to do. Under the rules now, you could wear a cardboard box on your head and you would be compliant. If the rules were that you had to wear at least a mask of a certain specification, then that would be a more sensible position.
I'm not sure what the 'Karen' bit is, but if used to insult, it says often more about the person using it. It's often used with a set of rolling eyes to signal "I have nothing else I can say, can't be polite and discuss a topic like a grown up."
The point is covering your mouth and nose will reduce transmission. Of course, some face coverings do this job better than others.
The 'karen' comment was simply because, like many posts on here, you have made a claim but don't produce any kind of reliable source.
I would say that providing links to 3 reliable sources shows I have plenty to say and demonstrates the ability to discuss like a grown up. "
That's a better response, the "grown up" point I was making was you made a valid point which was good, then just used the word Karen as derogatory dig, the same as so may people do with the endless use of rolling eyes, the use of which is used to say I've presented some facts, surely you agree with me, otherwise you are stupid, which either they want to shut down the conversation or just want an argument.
I'm in agreement with you that a mask will reduce some transmission, that's logical and the potential viral load would be less, however, by not giving a specification for the mask is the problem. Wearing a eye goggles would probably reduce it further, it's to what extent you go to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Maybe it will be seasonal like the flu
According to Bupa 'People tend to get it around the same time every year. In the UK, people usually get seasonal flu between December and March'.
Just a thought. "
That would logical |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The point is, if you have no specification for a mask, then what's the point of enforcement. I don't use anything less than a 3M mask for work. I want it to do its job that it's deigned to do. Under the rules now, you could wear a cardboard box on your head and you would be compliant. If the rules were that you had to wear at least a mask of a certain specification, then that would be a more sensible position.
I'm not sure what the 'Karen' bit is, but if used to insult, it says often more about the person using it. It's often used with a set of rolling eyes to signal "I have nothing else I can say, can't be polite and discuss a topic like a grown up."
The point is covering your mouth and nose will reduce transmission. Of course, some face coverings do this job better than others.
The 'karen' comment was simply because, like many posts on here, you have made a claim but don't produce any kind of reliable source.
I would say that providing links to 3 reliable sources shows I have plenty to say and demonstrates the ability to discuss like a grown up.
That's a better response, the "grown up" point I was making was you made a valid point which was good, then just used the word Karen as derogatory dig, the same as so may people do with the endless use of rolling eyes, the use of which is used to say I've presented some facts, surely you agree with me, otherwise you are stupid, which either they want to shut down the conversation or just want an argument.
I'm in agreement with you that a mask will reduce some transmission, that's logical and the potential viral load would be less, however, by not giving a specification for the mask is the problem. Wearing a eye goggles would probably reduce it further, it's to what extent you go to."
Apologies. Too many karens on here. i agree about the specification. The higher the specification the less transmission but something is considerably better than nothing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The point is, if you have no specification for a mask, then what's the point of enforcement. I don't use anything less than a 3M mask for work. I want it to do its job that it's deigned to do. Under the rules now, you could wear a cardboard box on your head and you would be compliant. If the rules were that you had to wear at least a mask of a certain specification, then that would be a more sensible position.
I'm not sure what the 'Karen' bit is, but if used to insult, it says often more about the person using it. It's often used with a set of rolling eyes to signal "I have nothing else I can say, can't be polite and discuss a topic like a grown up."
The point is covering your mouth and nose will reduce transmission. Of course, some face coverings do this job better than others.
The 'karen' comment was simply because, like many posts on here, you have made a claim but don't produce any kind of reliable source.
I would say that providing links to 3 reliable sources shows I have plenty to say and demonstrates the ability to discuss like a grown up.
"The point is covering up your nose and mouth will reduce transmition"
Sorry but it won't reduce the spread of any type of coronavirus what so ever.
Its like wrapping barb wire around my house to keep out flys.
"
Except it will and that's another a stupid analogy just like the grains of sand above.
Perhaps you can explain why when wearing a mask my glasses steam up. If all the air particles that are potentially carrying a virus pass through the mask (like flies through barb wire) then my glasses wouldn't steam up.
The particles are being blocked or escape around the sides BUT the velocity is reduced by the mask and therefore they don't spread as far.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rx1Couple
over a year ago
North of Okehampton, South of Bideford |
"Source - www.ons.gov.uk
Weekly deaths of all causes lower than last 5 years average for 7 weeks in a row. Can anyone explain why this is?
Many reasons are possible but suspect one factor is that most people are a lot more attentive and aware with their health and hygiene... I know I am. That and the fact some of the elderly or ill died months earlier. Could be those 5g masts are secretly bathing us in juju and making us live longer... "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Covid 19 seems to be well adapted to every climate and temperature so far, so there's a high doubt it's seasonal.
Less people are dying as older or vulnerable people are either staying at home or are incredibly cautious when out and about.
Most cases are in the 20-40 age range where the risk of getting seriously ill and dying is far less than someone over 60.
The virus hasn't gone away, most the population haven't been exposed to it so complacency at this stage could see infections sky rocket again. Spain, France & Germany are currently trying to stop a large spike in cases.
The infections in the UK at the start of July were around 500 a day, now it's over 1,000 a day.
Yes it will eventually run its course as nothing lasts forever, however, how we act now will help determine how long for. US, India & Brazil have had the largest outbreaks and will take longer to rid the virus. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Because as Covid 19 mostly killed the elderly with co-morbidities it in effect just moved the deaths forward of many who were going to die naturally in the next few weeks/months anyway
Unfortunately the lockdown also caused another two collateral deaths for every 3 CV19 deaths. No one seems to care about these deaths for some reason.
Wake up folks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Because as Covid 19 mostly killed the elderly with co-morbidities it in effect just moved the deaths forward of many who were going to die naturally in the next few weeks/months anyway
Unfortunately the lockdown also caused another two collateral deaths for every 3 CV19 deaths. No one seems to care about these deaths for some reason.
Wake up folks."
That's a very generalised statement.
Many people in their 50s and 60s and even some in their 70s and 80s wouldn't have died in a few months anyway. The Virus nearly killed Boris, I don't think he would have been hospitalised anyway in the coming months without having contracting the virus.To many people who have lost someone to the virus, your comments could be seen as heartless.
Yes people have died due to the situation that was imposed on us all. I know someone who couldn't cope and killed themselves as a result. There's a clear lack of support for people out there and it's been going on since before the virus came along, it amplified already difficult situation.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Because as Covid 19 mostly killed the elderly with co-morbidities it in effect just moved the deaths forward of many who were going to die naturally in the next few weeks/months anyway
Unfortunately the lockdown also caused another two collateral deaths for every 3 CV19 deaths. No one seems to care about these deaths for some reason.
Wake up folks."
source on the collateral deaths please. Thanks in advance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I started being suspicious of the figures when I saw we had a death rate of -7.3 over the last 14 days. Considering that we have had Covid-19 deaths, I'm rather convinced that if we had brought that many people back from the dead it would be in the Sun at least... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Because as Covid 19 mostly killed the elderly with co-morbidities it in effect just moved the deaths forward of many who were going to die naturally in the next few weeks/months anyway
Unfortunately the lockdown also caused another two collateral deaths for every 3 CV19 deaths. No one seems to care about these deaths for some reason.
Wake up folks."
So lockdown worked, well said. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think for 99.9% of the time we could agree that when you put a response/statement that people don't want to see other people die, why would someone posting feel the need to first put a statement out that they are not heartless etc and just because someone feels that they are doesn't make it fact.
People's scepticism for the masks is that it's so diverse as to what they are made out of, you can not say you have a set of truly meaningful evidence when one could be a specific 3M mask and the other one made from an old T-shirt. No one is saying no one shouldn't be careful, wash hands etc, but enforcement of such poor quality( in general) face masks ends up in people thinking, what am I doing this for as what is being asked is poorly thought out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Fairly obvious what has happened.
Covid bumped off people that were probably due to die during the next year anyway, just a bit early, and now the population left has fairly strong T cells so if we do get it the mortality rate is fairly low. We are all running around wearing masks and some of us acting like headless chickens for nowt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think for 99.9% of the time we could agree that when you put a response/statement that people don't want to see other people die, why would someone posting feel the need to first put a statement out that they are not heartless etc and just because someone feels that they are doesn't make it fact.
People's scepticism for the masks is that it's so diverse as to what they are made out of, you can not say you have a set of truly meaningful evidence when one could be a specific 3M mask and the other one made from an old T-shirt. No one is saying no one shouldn't be careful, wash hands etc, but enforcement of such poor quality( in general) face masks ends up in people thinking, what am I doing this for as what is being asked is poorly thought out."
If the old t-shirt is 90% effective and a 3M masks is 99% effective then I am not that concerned because it's effective enough to make a huge difference.
Would it have been possible for everyone in the UK to obtain the most effective masks in the few days between it being announced and made mandatory? How could the government reasonably enforce everyone buying a specific mask? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Fairly obvious what has happened.
Covid bumped off people that were probably due to die during the next year anyway, just a bit early, and now the population left has fairly strong T cells so if we do get it the mortality rate is fairly low. We are all running around wearing masks and some of us acting like headless chickens for nowt."
Fairly obvious what has happened.
The ecdc has reported -7.3 deaths per 100 000 over the last 14 days. Since dead people don't come to life, which means that almost exactly 500 Covid-19 deaths have been reclassified as non Covid-19 deaths.
Because our government was taking so much flack for our attrocious death rate, it would appear that the figures have been fudged to make us look good. Meaning this whole quarantine list is nothing more than a publicity stunt to draw attention to this amazing recovery even though we've done nothing other countries haven't done.
And it worked. Because we believe what we want to believe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fairly obvious what has happened.
Covid bumped off people that were probably due to die during the next year anyway, just a bit early, and now the population left has fairly strong T cells so if we do get it the mortality rate is fairly low. We are all running around wearing masks and some of us acting like headless chickens for nowt."
Some of us are just wearing masks and getting on with stuff as best we can as opposed to whining about it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Fairly obvious what has happened.
Covid bumped off people that were probably due to die during the next year anyway, just a bit early, and now the population left has fairly strong T cells so if we do get it the mortality rate is fairly low. We are all running around wearing masks and some of us acting like headless chickens for nowt."
It's a good theory except for the fact that even if all 41000 deaths were people supposedly at death's door this just a tiny fraction of our population that are highly susceptible to Covid mortality. There are over 9 million people over 70 in the UK. So the number of fatalities represents 0.4%. This excludes people at risk from other underlying conditions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fairly obvious what has happened.
Covid bumped off people that were probably due to die during the next year anyway, just a bit early, and now the population left has fairly strong T cells so if we do get it the mortality rate is fairly low. We are all running around wearing masks and some of us acting like headless chickens for nowt."
Gosh it's great to have such a simple explaination
Why the fuck do we pay so much money to experts
It appears every government in the world should listen to a swinger |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think for 99.9% of the time we could agree that when you put a response/statement that people don't want to see other people die, why would someone posting feel the need to first put a statement out that they are not heartless etc and just because someone feels that they are doesn't make it fact.
People's scepticism for the masks is that it's so diverse as to what they are made out of, you can not say you have a set of truly meaningful evidence when one could be a specific 3M mask and the other one made from an old T-shirt. No one is saying no one shouldn't be careful, wash hands etc, but enforcement of such poor quality( in general) face masks ends up in people thinking, what am I doing this for as what is being asked is poorly thought out.
If the old t-shirt is 90% effective and a 3M masks is 99% effective then I am not that concerned because it's effective enough to make a huge difference.
Would it have been possible for everyone in the UK to obtain the most effective masks in the few days between it being announced and made mandatory? How could the government reasonably enforce everyone buying a specific mask? "
The T-shirt mask I seriously doubt would be 90% effective and the 3M mask wouldn't be 99% effective. After I've been cutting bricks for even an hour , if I blow my nose it is orange! Brick dust particles are big in comparison to viruses.
3M masks are the best mask and given that I recall it was a few weeks before masks were brought in there was plenty of time. It was done primarily economic reasons , so as to give people more confidence to use the shops. It has not been a success, the people still in utter fear are still in utter fear. I believe in choice with masks, if you think it's good for you then I and everyone else should be good with that and I who have made a reasoned decision not to in a shop should have the same. The words of wisdom that are uttered many a time on here, is your selfish etc. It's a reasoned decision not to, some say that if you don't you ought not to receive the nhs care, that argument made by certain individuals never want to include smokers or type 2 diabetes, obesity etc. Also it's said to protect your granny, well they should worry about there own granny and not mine, I'll look after my own family. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think for 99.9% of the time we could agree that when you put a response/statement that people don't want to see other people die, why would someone posting feel the need to first put a statement out that they are not heartless etc and just because someone feels that they are doesn't make it fact.
People's scepticism for the masks is that it's so diverse as to what they are made out of, you can not say you have a set of truly meaningful evidence when one could be a specific 3M mask and the other one made from an old T-shirt. No one is saying no one shouldn't be careful, wash hands etc, but enforcement of such poor quality( in general) face masks ends up in people thinking, what am I doing this for as what is being asked is poorly thought out.
If the old t-shirt is 90% effective and a 3M masks is 99% effective then I am not that concerned because it's effective enough to make a huge difference.
Would it have been possible for everyone in the UK to obtain the most effective masks in the few days between it being announced and made mandatory? How could the government reasonably enforce everyone buying a specific mask?
The T-shirt mask I seriously doubt would be 90% effective and the 3M mask wouldn't be 99% effective. After I've been cutting bricks for even an hour , if I blow my nose it is orange! Brick dust particles are big in comparison to viruses.
3M masks are the best mask and given that I recall it was a few weeks before masks were brought in there was plenty of time. It was done primarily economic reasons , so as to give people more confidence to use the shops. It has not been a success, the people still in utter fear are still in utter fear. I believe in choice with masks, if you think it's good for you then I and everyone else should be good with that and I who have made a reasoned decision not to in a shop should have the same. The words of wisdom that are uttered many a time on here, is your selfish etc. It's a reasoned decision not to, some say that if you don't you ought not to receive the nhs care, that argument made by certain individuals never want to include smokers or type 2 diabetes, obesity etc. Also it's said to protect your granny, well they should worry about there own granny and not mine, I'll look after my own family. "
Sorry, meant to say 3M masks are not the best masks out there, but a decent one, for my work anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think for 99.9% of the time we could agree that when you put a response/statement that people don't want to see other people die, why would someone posting feel the need to first put a statement out that they are not heartless etc and just because someone feels that they are doesn't make it fact.
People's scepticism for the masks is that it's so diverse as to what they are made out of, you can not say you have a set of truly meaningful evidence when one could be a specific 3M mask and the other one made from an old T-shirt. No one is saying no one shouldn't be careful, wash hands etc, but enforcement of such poor quality( in general) face masks ends up in people thinking, what am I doing this for as what is being asked is poorly thought out.
If the old t-shirt is 90% effective and a 3M masks is 99% effective then I am not that concerned because it's effective enough to make a huge difference.
Would it have been possible for everyone in the UK to obtain the most effective masks in the few days between it being announced and made mandatory? How could the government reasonably enforce everyone buying a specific mask?
The T-shirt mask I seriously doubt would be 90% effective and the 3M mask wouldn't be 99% effective. After I've been cutting bricks for even an hour , if I blow my nose it is orange! Brick dust particles are big in comparison to viruses.
3M masks are the best mask and given that I recall it was a few weeks before masks were brought in there was plenty of time. It was done primarily economic reasons , so as to give people more confidence to use the shops. It has not been a success, the people still in utter fear are still in utter fear. I believe in choice with masks, if you think it's good for you then I and everyone else should be good with that and I who have made a reasoned decision not to in a shop should have the same. The words of wisdom that are uttered many a time on here, is your selfish etc. It's a reasoned decision not to, some say that if you don't you ought not to receive the nhs care, that argument made by certain individuals never want to include smokers or type 2 diabetes, obesity etc. Also it's said to protect your granny, well they should worry about there own granny and not mine, I'll look after my own family. "
"If" t-shirt is 90% effective. That was a completely random figure to demonstrate something is better than nothing.
Of course you will still blow out dust particles but you have been exposed to it for an hour at close range. That's significantly more than passing through the breath of an infected individual.
I also wish people would stop banging on about the size of the virus. The virus is carried on much larger particles. Stop these particles then the virus is stopped.
As for looking after your own family, that's how this thing spreads. We need to collectively work together to prevent the spread otherwise individual efforts are futile.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think for 99.9% of the time we could agree that when you put a response/statement that people don't want to see other people die, why would someone posting feel the need to first put a statement out that they are not heartless etc and just because someone feels that they are doesn't make it fact.
People's scepticism for the masks is that it's so diverse as to what they are made out of, you can not say you have a set of truly meaningful evidence when one could be a specific 3M mask and the other one made from an old T-shirt. No one is saying no one shouldn't be careful, wash hands etc, but enforcement of such poor quality( in general) face masks ends up in people thinking, what am I doing this for as what is being asked is poorly thought out.
If the old t-shirt is 90% effective and a 3M masks is 99% effective then I am not that concerned because it's effective enough to make a huge difference.
Would it have been possible for everyone in the UK to obtain the most effective masks in the few days between it being announced and made mandatory? How could the government reasonably enforce everyone buying a specific mask?
The T-shirt mask I seriously doubt would be 90% effective and the 3M mask wouldn't be 99% effective. After I've been cutting bricks for even an hour , if I blow my nose it is orange! Brick dust particles are big in comparison to viruses.
3M masks are the best mask and given that I recall it was a few weeks before masks were brought in there was plenty of time. It was done primarily economic reasons , so as to give people more confidence to use the shops. It has not been a success, the people still in utter fear are still in utter fear. I believe in choice with masks, if you think it's good for you then I and everyone else should be good with that and I who have made a reasoned decision not to in a shop should have the same. The words of wisdom that are uttered many a time on here, is your selfish etc. It's a reasoned decision not to, some say that if you don't you ought not to receive the nhs care, that argument made by certain individuals never want to include smokers or type 2 diabetes, obesity etc. Also it's said to protect your granny, well they should worry about there own granny and not mine, I'll look after my own family.
"If" t-shirt is 90% effective. That was a completely random figure to demonstrate something is better than nothing.
Of course you will still blow out dust particles but you have been exposed to it for an hour at close range. That's significantly more than passing through the breath of an infected individual.
I also wish people would stop banging on about the size of the virus. The virus is carried on much larger particles. Stop these particles then the virus is stopped.
As for looking after your own family, that's how this thing spreads. We need to collectively work together to prevent the spread otherwise individual efforts are futile.
"
Whilst I do agree masks have some small and negligible effect (I say this as there is a massive variation in the material used) moisture which is stated as a carrier molecule easily passes through most masks. I do accept that the forward velocity of the virus will be reduced.
If I can ask you, at what stage you would not wear a mask? If let's say we have a couple of deaths a day and we say hospitalisation is down to less than 100 a day, this stays consistent for a month, continues to fall, the government policy still remains in force and there is no end date for the mask wearing in this scenario.
What would you do with mask wearing? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Many folk may not want to hear this, but the only reason so many folks died, is because the NHS didn't have a fuckig clue, and banged every man and his dog on a ventalator, blew lungs to bits, truth hurts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
