FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Complacency
Complacency
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An unfortunate byproduct of all this is the realisation that we’re living in a nation of thick as f**k, selfish, conspiracy theory wielding, huffy toddlers. I think that’s been the toughest thing for me. Not the lockdown, not the restrictions. But the exhausting stupidity on display. " Have to say I can see your point. The amount of people who just walk past the cleaning stations is definitely getting larger. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An unfortunate byproduct of all this is the realisation that we’re living in a nation of thick as f**k, selfish, conspiracy theory wielding, huffy toddlers. I think that’s been the toughest thing for me. Not the lockdown, not the restrictions. But the exhausting stupidity on display. " Huffy toddlers  . ROFL yep sums it up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! " Oooohhh....the voice of the silent majority. Best of luck on this one mate. You're in for a torrid few retorts from the epidemiological experts on fab....  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! " You don’t have a right to anything at the expense of someone else’s life. Weak people who can’t handle adjusting their lives for the greater good, who insist on maintaining their ‘freedom’, are the very people who’re making sure the pandemic drags on as long as possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's not Boris who gave the disease to your parents or elderly relative. " Ehh... at some point there's a portion of blame on him. Or at least the culture shift he's promoted that created Brexit and put him in power. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's not Boris who gave the disease to your parents or elderly relative. Ehh... at some point there's a portion of blame on him. Or at least the culture shift he's promoted that created Brexit and put him in power." The culture shift has been around from the early 80's. So many people following the mantra "I'm alright Jack" has in a part led to the society Johnson has manipulated for his own gain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can back mine up with actual peer reviewed science, so I’m ready and waiting, bring them all on " No you can’t. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! " Are you being serious?...we all have a right to our freedom, unfortunately that's been put on hold mainly because of selfish twats who think they are better than the rest of us who are following the rules . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! Are you being serious?...we all have a right to our freedom, unfortunately that's been put on hold mainly because of selfish twats who think they are better than the rest of us who are following the rules ." I presume he also resents his loss of freedom when he wears a seatbelt... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An unfortunate byproduct of all this is the realisation that we’re living in a nation of thick as f**k, selfish, conspiracy theory wielding, huffy toddlers. I think that’s been the toughest thing for me. Not the lockdown, not the restrictions. But the exhausting stupidity on display. " Couldnt agree more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
I take my own hand sanitiser everywhere now. Thankfully our dimwits are wfh again so we can social distance in peace.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An unfortunate byproduct of all this is the realisation that we’re living in a nation of thick as f**k, selfish, conspiracy theory wielding, huffy toddlers. I think that’s been the toughest thing for me. Not the lockdown, not the restrictions. But the exhausting stupidity on display. "
Even many of my colleagues who I thought were decent people are actually huffy toddlers. It's disappointing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! " I knew we would eventually find the reason why the north is is such a fucking state with cases still on the rise after weeks of lockdown. Congratulations, I hope the freedom is worth all the pain, suffering and heartache that you have caused. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! I knew we would eventually find the reason why the north is is such a fucking state with cases still on the rise after weeks of lockdown. Congratulations, I hope the freedom is worth all the pain, suffering and heartache that you have caused. " Liverpool has been decreasing Actually since a week before lock down began | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A mixed-up government giving messages that weakened the buyin from the public. " This. They’re self contradictory. And it’s one rule for them, another for us. Undermines all authority. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This new lockdown will be about as useful as a chocolate Teapot. Infact a chocolate fireguard is more useful because at least you can eat it." Or ashtray on a motorbike... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! I knew we would eventually find the reason why the north is is such a fucking state with cases still on the rise after weeks of lockdown. Congratulations, I hope the freedom is worth all the pain, suffering and heartache that you have caused. Liverpool has been decreasing Actually since a week before lock down began " Our cities are the human equivalent of a Petri dish; infection spreads exponentially when left to its own devices and without intervention. Cases may have rapidly slowed in Liverpool which is testament to the people and leaders of Liverpool working together but Liverpool's hospitals are at full capacity and are having to send patients elsewhere. Unfortunately the mayor of Liverpool unfortunately lost his brother to Covid 19 last month, the drastic reduction for him, must be bitter sweet. Liverpool may have caught it in the Nick of time but it doesn't mean they are out of the shit just yet; it only takes one person to spread the disease to 10 others, for those to do the same and so on, and suddenly you have hundreds of extra cases in the space of a week. In the meantime, the North east and central areas are still seeing cases rise week on week. Why? If Liverpool can get it under control so quickly, Why can't other areas. Why is the North West different to the North East? It's the skinny bit of the country, they are not that far apart.. Is it mentality, is it social economic, is it ethnic make-up. Could it even be because they only drink Yorkshire tea, eat hovis bread and have gravy on chips? There has to be a reason but everyone seems to be at a loss to why! Rapid testing being rolled out in Liverpool might start to show the true extent of infection and the true rate that the virus spreads among the asymptomatic, but it will only work if people embrace it and go and get tested even when not showing symptoms. I'm hopeful the good people of Liverpool will set an example for the rest of the country to follow and that some good data will highlight why social distancing and mask wearing are so important in defeating a disease that is known to spread from person to person through aerosol droplets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! Are you being serious?...we all have a right to our freedom, unfortunately that's been put on hold mainly because of selfish twats who think they are better than the rest of us who are following the rules . I presume he also resents his loss of freedom when he wears a seatbelt..." Comparing seatbelts to masks? Bit of a false equivalency. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh I love all this morality on here. All those nasty people over there spreading the virus. Apparently there’s a large proportion of people who are asymptomatic. You could be one of them. When you go and do your weekly shopping and you’re sorting through the packs of Richmond sausages to get the best dates you could be leaving your nasty germs for the old granny to pick up after you. It’s a contagious virus, not a game of top trumps." That granny has the same odds of dying from the potential flu you could be carrying, yet no one has ever given two fucks about passing that on while shopping. Also, if she is following the rules then she shouldn't have the chance of being infected. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh I love all this morality on here. All those nasty people over there spreading the virus. Apparently there’s a large proportion of people who are asymptomatic. You could be one of them. When you go and do your weekly shopping and you’re sorting through the packs of Richmond sausages to get the best dates you could be leaving your nasty germs for the old granny to pick up after you. It’s a contagious virus, not a game of top trumps.That granny has the same odds of dying from the potential flu you could be carrying, yet no one has ever given two fucks about passing that on while shopping. Also, if she is following the rules then she shouldn't have the chance of being infected. " Oh Lordy I really don’t have the energy today ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! I knew we would eventually find the reason why the north is is such a fucking state with cases still on the rise after weeks of lockdown. Congratulations, I hope the freedom is worth all the pain, suffering and heartache that you have caused. Liverpool has been decreasing Actually since a week before lock down began " Karen on Facebook said that people aren't getting tested so the numbers go back down and they can avoid being locked down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh I love all this morality on here. All those nasty people over there spreading the virus. Apparently there’s a large proportion of people who are asymptomatic. You could be one of them. When you go and do your weekly shopping and you’re sorting through the packs of Richmond sausages to get the best dates you could be leaving your nasty germs for the old granny to pick up after you. It’s a contagious virus, not a game of top trumps.That granny has the same odds of dying from the potential flu you could be carrying, yet no one has ever given two fucks about passing that on while shopping. Also, if she is following the rules then she shouldn't have the chance of being infected. Oh Lordy I really don’t have the energy today ! "That's okay. Neither do I. Spent too long looking for Richmond sausages with a good date. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! I knew we would eventually find the reason why the north is is such a fucking state with cases still on the rise after weeks of lockdown. Congratulations, I hope the freedom is worth all the pain, suffering and heartache that you have caused. Liverpool has been decreasing Actually since a week before lock down began Our cities are the human equivalent of a Petri dish; infection spreads exponentially when left to its own devices and without intervention. Cases may have rapidly slowed in Liverpool which is testament to the people and leaders of Liverpool working together but Liverpool's hospitals are at full capacity and are having to send patients elsewhere. Unfortunately the mayor of Liverpool unfortunately lost his brother to Covid 19 last month, the drastic reduction for him, must be bitter sweet. Liverpool may have caught it in the Nick of time but it doesn't mean they are out of the shit just yet; it only takes one person to spread the disease to 10 others, for those to do the same and so on, and suddenly you have hundreds of extra cases in the space of a week. In the meantime, the North east and central areas are still seeing cases rise week on week. Why? If Liverpool can get it under control so quickly, Why can't other areas. Why is the North West different to the North East? It's the skinny bit of the country, they are not that far apart.. Is it mentality, is it social economic, is it ethnic make-up. Could it even be because they only drink Yorkshire tea, eat hovis bread and have gravy on chips? There has to be a reason but everyone seems to be at a loss to why! Rapid testing being rolled out in Liverpool might start to show the true extent of infection and the true rate that the virus spreads among the asymptomatic, but it will only work if people embrace it and go and get tested even when not showing symptoms. I'm hopeful the good people of Liverpool will set an example for the rest of the country to follow and that some good data will highlight why social distancing and mask wearing are so important in defeating a disease that is known to spread from person to person through aerosol droplets. " The figures for the North East are substantially below the figures of the North West, at 290 per 100,000 as opposed to 440. Gateshead, having the highest figure of 346 is again lower than Liverpool which has a figure of 384. Gateshead’s figures are showing a downward trend too. When you say North East, do you really mean Yorkshire and the Humber? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! I knew we would eventually find the reason why the north is is such a fucking state with cases still on the rise after weeks of lockdown. Congratulations, I hope the freedom is worth all the pain, suffering and heartache that you have caused. Liverpool has been decreasing Actually since a week before lock down began Our cities are the human equivalent of a Petri dish; infection spreads exponentially when left to its own devices and without intervention. Cases may have rapidly slowed in Liverpool which is testament to the people and leaders of Liverpool working together but Liverpool's hospitals are at full capacity and are having to send patients elsewhere. Unfortunately the mayor of Liverpool unfortunately lost his brother to Covid 19 last month, the drastic reduction for him, must be bitter sweet. Liverpool may have caught it in the Nick of time but it doesn't mean they are out of the shit just yet; it only takes one person to spread the disease to 10 others, for those to do the same and so on, and suddenly you have hundreds of extra cases in the space of a week. In the meantime, the North east and central areas are still seeing cases rise week on week. Why? If Liverpool can get it under control so quickly, Why can't other areas. Why is the North West different to the North East? It's the skinny bit of the country, they are not that far apart.. Is it mentality, is it social economic, is it ethnic make-up. Could it even be because they only drink Yorkshire tea, eat hovis bread and have gravy on chips? There has to be a reason but everyone seems to be at a loss to why! Rapid testing being rolled out in Liverpool might start to show the true extent of infection and the true rate that the virus spreads among the asymptomatic, but it will only work if people embrace it and go and get tested even when not showing symptoms. I'm hopeful the good people of Liverpool will set an example for the rest of the country to follow and that some good data will highlight why social distancing and mask wearing are so important in defeating a disease that is known to spread from person to person through aerosol droplets. The figures for the North East are substantially below the figures of the North West, at 290 per 100,000 as opposed to 440. Gateshead, having the highest figure of 346 is again lower than Liverpool which has a figure of 384. Gateshead’s figures are showing a downward trend too. When you say North East, do you really mean Yorkshire and the Humber?" I stated central and north east; Manchester, Leeds, Nottingham, Grimsby; pretty much the entire of the North where there is high population. Barring a few areas, the trend is an upward one and has been so for weeks with infection rates increasing unabated. But numbers of infection alone does not tell the whole story, the rate of change (R rate) needs to be coupled with it to give the true picture. Liverpool's figures may be higher than other locations but the trend is now going down and if they continue at the rate they are going, next week could possibly be around 250 per 100,000 and maybe below 200 the following week. Whatever way you look at it, there are areas that have a significant problem and just cannot get control of it. Why Liverpool, an area of high density population has managed to buck the trend so substantially needs to be understood to see if it is possible to do the same elsewhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you feel people have become a little complacent over the last few months? " Yes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! I knew we would eventually find the reason why the north is is such a fucking state with cases still on the rise after weeks of lockdown. Congratulations, I hope the freedom is worth all the pain, suffering and heartache that you have caused. Liverpool has been decreasing Actually since a week before lock down began Our cities are the human equivalent of a Petri dish; infection spreads exponentially when left to its own devices and without intervention. Cases may have rapidly slowed in Liverpool which is testament to the people and leaders of Liverpool working together but Liverpool's hospitals are at full capacity and are having to send patients elsewhere. Unfortunately the mayor of Liverpool unfortunately lost his brother to Covid 19 last month, the drastic reduction for him, must be bitter sweet. Liverpool may have caught it in the Nick of time but it doesn't mean they are out of the shit just yet; it only takes one person to spread the disease to 10 others, for those to do the same and so on, and suddenly you have hundreds of extra cases in the space of a week. In the meantime, the North east and central areas are still seeing cases rise week on week. Why? If Liverpool can get it under control so quickly, Why can't other areas. Why is the North West different to the North East? It's the skinny bit of the country, they are not that far apart.. Is it mentality, is it social economic, is it ethnic make-up. Could it even be because they only drink Yorkshire tea, eat hovis bread and have gravy on chips? There has to be a reason but everyone seems to be at a loss to why! Rapid testing being rolled out in Liverpool might start to show the true extent of infection and the true rate that the virus spreads among the asymptomatic, but it will only work if people embrace it and go and get tested even when not showing symptoms. I'm hopeful the good people of Liverpool will set an example for the rest of the country to follow and that some good data will highlight why social distancing and mask wearing are so important in defeating a disease that is known to spread from person to person through aerosol droplets. The figures for the North East are substantially below the figures of the North West, at 290 per 100,000 as opposed to 440. Gateshead, having the highest figure of 346 is again lower than Liverpool which has a figure of 384. Gateshead’s figures are showing a downward trend too. When you say North East, do you really mean Yorkshire and the Humber? I stated central and north east; Manchester, Leeds, Nottingham, Grimsby; pretty much the entire of the North where there is high population. Barring a few areas, the trend is an upward one and has been so for weeks with infection rates increasing unabated. But numbers of infection alone does not tell the whole story, the rate of change (R rate) needs to be coupled with it to give the true picture. Liverpool's figures may be higher than other locations but the trend is now going down and if they continue at the rate they are going, next week could possibly be around 250 per 100,000 and maybe below 200 the following week. Whatever way you look at it, there are areas that have a significant problem and just cannot get control of it. Why Liverpool, an area of high density population has managed to buck the trend so substantially needs to be understood to see if it is possible to do the same elsewhere. " Just to be a pedant ( and because I live there) the North East is between the Scottish Borders and Teeside. As I stated earlier, the figures there are substantially less than the North West. Yorkshire and the Humber region currently has the highest figures in England. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh I love all this morality on here. All those nasty people over there spreading the virus. Apparently there’s a large proportion of people who are asymptomatic. You could be one of them. When you go and do your weekly shopping and you’re sorting through the packs of Richmond sausages to get the best dates you could be leaving your nasty germs for the old granny to pick up after you. It’s a contagious virus, not a game of top trumps.That granny has the same odds of dying from the potential flu you could be carrying, yet no one has ever given two fucks about passing that on while shopping. Also, if she is following the rules then she shouldn't have the chance of being infected. Oh Lordy I really don’t have the energy today ! "Go and have a lie down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An unfortunate byproduct of all this is the realisation that we’re living in a nation of thick as f**k, selfish, conspiracy theory wielding, huffy toddlers. I think that’s been the toughest thing for me. Not the lockdown, not the restrictions. But the exhausting stupidity on display. Have to say I can see your point. The amount of people who just walk past the cleaning stations is definitely getting larger." i use my own as its in my car i do before i enter and when i get back in the car or if more than one shop then before each shop but then i have to as im front line but not only that i was doing this before covid as basic hygiene i think every car should have a bottle just think off all those nose picking kids | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! " Freedom comes with responsibility otherwise its just anarchy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But I have a right to my freedom !!!! I presume he also resents his loss of freedom when he wears a seatbelt..." He'll not be wearing a seatbelt. That might indicate he'd drive a car, following a highway code, driving on a road, in the correct lane, with insurance, paying tax etc etc. No, unless he's a passenger, he'll be on the bus to his next meet, or on foot.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! " For me it’s the people like you... a loss of freedom? And there was me thinking you’d just been asked to where a face mask and wash your hands. Honestly, I pity you x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An unfortunate byproduct of all this is the realisation that we’re living in a nation of thick as f**k, selfish, conspiracy theory wielding, huffy toddlers. I think that’s been the toughest thing for me. Not the lockdown, not the restrictions. But the exhausting stupidity on display. " I wouldn’t have put it in quite the same way, but you know what, you are absolutely feckin spot on and that stupidity is whats gonna make it take so much longer to get out of.
Everyone breaks or bends the rules- FACT
There are no right decisions- FACT
Many people think they know best , but they don’t consider all situations and think their values are all that matters. And while every f****er keeps arguing about it it takes longer to get it sorted and makes people more confused, so now a blanket lockdown thats easy to understand, yet we still argue about it....  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At the end of the day it's basically a cold /flue less people have died this year than last few on average ,it's been basically proven they are recording pretty much all deaths as covid irrespective if it was actually cuased of death /contributing factor or or just a positive test result after death from contraction at earlier date in most cases showing no symptoms. Yes I believe there is a virus of sorts ,yes I believe there has been deaths and the financial impact has been unbelievable but I all so read /study and have a few contacts and friends in nhs ,armed forces ,local council.n one mp and a couple of medical professionals that I trust there word a lot more than the payed professionals this government wheels out to literate there scripted agenda's. The over all death rate is actually very low there are more people die world wide due to hunger and water shortages n contamination then there is all the armed conflicts mass concentration camps sorry reeducation schools sorry in china the mass amounts of cancer world wide due to the way the world is running ie radio mobile micro waves pollution then there is the massive increase in suicide and over doses due directly to the lock down and shutting of services that said people use but can not access ,then there's the mental health issues that arrise from isolation financial difficulty's increased domestic and sival violence I could go on and on but know it is wasted on a large majority of people that are basically drop fed false and doctored information and fear _ased scripting from the moment they wake till they sleep at night All while rushing out to stock pile food and essential items leaving the shelf's bare for the elderly and vulnerable. I am not sure what is going on or why but know a lye n rat when I see n smell one .not to forget the cases of the black death,ebola that have basically been ignored round the world even though they are fifty if not hundred times more contagious and deadly,and the people.that have contracted phumonia due to masks world wide ie re breathing bad air .At the end of the day it is nature working at its finest ie the weak and the old are the people that die ,not saying it's good but it's natural we have taken so many of the ways that used to claim human life of the table through vaccinations and medical science it's un real we are sat in a time bomb,the earth can't take the over crowding and over use of resources and will find a way to cull numbers no matter what we do or how hard we try to keep a few feet apart and wearing sly masks that are basically about as effective as wearing a plaster across your face .if it was real risks surely it would be a case of ventilator masks n gas mask sort style ppe not paper thin ones that leave a gap round most of your face it's joke .I do keep my distance out if respect for others but not because I am told to by powers at be ,.could go in but I have to go in to a building site with around 150/200 other people on and work for eight hours to pay tax so the rest a the country can have a massive holiday n payed break and the giros can keep raising and coming through the door for the 10/15% that can't or won't work in this country.....oh yes and to the one that made the comment about the rave last weekend and the other big ones that happened since September I wasn't both the big ones and popped in to bath one done interview for bbc at the Welsh one and so far not one person I know who had attended any of these events has been ill or contracted covid due to attending .sure you whent down the pub or sat in a restaurant or maybe attended a club in the not so distance past what is the difference really out door events that are in the fresh air country side .ok this last one was a warehouse but it was cold lol ie what I am saying is people are not over crowded n crammed in at these and vents like you see at festivals n gigs ...any way one thing is for sure in life no one gets out alive and you can't take it with you so get out and bloody enjoy it .sod living in fear of some thing that you don't really know what it is if it's what they say it is and so on ......I was in india then egypt and then spain at the start n first few weeks of this last round a rubbish and did not see first hand the carnage that was reported on tv here and via via my family and friends round world have been seeing horror stories about the uk sitchuation that we are not actually seeing here .where your mask drink your cheap cheap alcohol and processed unrecognisable food and preach about health issue why not "To save anyone wasting their lives reading this shit, I can summarise: Waffle, waffle, bollocks, bollocks, I am the kind of nugget who instead of digging in during hard times lashes at blaming everyone and anything. If you want something to do during lockdown, copy and paste it into a word processor and edit it for grammatical errors... that should see you through to December 2nd xxx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At the end of the day it's basically a cold /flue less people have died this year than last few on average ,it's been basically proven they are recording pretty much all deaths as covid irrespective if it was actually cuased of death /contributing factor or or just a positive test result after death from contraction at earlier date in most cases showing no symptoms. Yes I believe there is a virus of sorts ,yes I believe there has been deaths and the financial impact has been unbelievable but I all so read /study and have a few contacts and friends in nhs ,armed forces ,local council.n one mp and a couple of medical professionals that I trust there word a lot more than the payed professionals this government wheels out to literate there scripted agenda's. The over all death rate is actually very low there are more people die world wide due to hunger and water shortages n contamination then there is all the armed conflicts mass concentration camps sorry reeducation schools sorry in china the mass amounts of cancer world wide due to the way the world is running ie radio mobile micro waves pollution then there is the massive increase in suicide and over doses due directly to the lock down and shutting of services that said people use but can not access ,then there's the mental health issues that arrise from isolation financial difficulty's increased domestic and sival violence I could go on and on but know it is wasted on a large majority of people that are basically drop fed false and doctored information and fear _ased scripting from the moment they wake till they sleep at night All while rushing out to stock pile food and essential items leaving the shelf's bare for the elderly and vulnerable. I am not sure what is going on or why but know a lye n rat when I see n smell one .not to forget the cases of the black death,ebola that have basically been ignored round the world even though they are fifty if not hundred times more contagious and deadly,and the people.that have contracted phumonia due to masks world wide ie re breathing bad air .At the end of the day it is nature working at its finest ie the weak and the old are the people that die ,not saying it's good but it's natural we have taken so many of the ways that used to claim human life of the table through vaccinations and medical science it's un real we are sat in a time bomb,the earth can't take the over crowding and over use of resources and will find a way to cull numbers no matter what we do or how hard we try to keep a few feet apart and wearing sly masks that are basically about as effective as wearing a plaster across your face .if it was real risks surely it would be a case of ventilator masks n gas mask sort style ppe not paper thin ones that leave a gap round most of your face it's joke .I do keep my distance out if respect for others but not because I am told to by powers at be ,.could go in but I have to go in to a building site with around 150/200 other people on and work for eight hours to pay tax so the rest a the country can have a massive holiday n payed break and the giros can keep raising and coming through the door for the 10/15% that can't or won't work in this country.....oh yes and to the one that made the comment about the rave last weekend and the other big ones that happened since September I wasn't both the big ones and popped in to bath one done interview for bbc at the Welsh one and so far not one person I know who had attended any of these events has been ill or contracted covid due to attending .sure you whent down the pub or sat in a restaurant or maybe attended a club in the not so distance past what is the difference really out door events that are in the fresh air country side .ok this last one was a warehouse but it was cold lol ie what I am saying is people are not over crowded n crammed in at these and vents like you see at festivals n gigs ...any way one thing is for sure in life no one gets out alive and you can't take it with you so get out and bloody enjoy it .sod living in fear of some thing that you don't really know what it is if it's what they say it is and so on ......I was in india then egypt and then spain at the start n first few weeks of this last round a rubbish and did not see first hand the carnage that was reported on tv here and via via my family and friends round world have been seeing horror stories about the uk sitchuation that we are not actually seeing here .where your mask drink your cheap cheap alcohol and processed unrecognisable food and preach about health issue why not
To save anyone wasting their lives reading this shit, I can summarise:
Waffle, waffle, bollocks, bollocks, I am the kind of nugget who instead of digging in during hard times lashes at blaming everyone and anything.
If you want something to do during lockdown, copy and paste it into a word processor and edit it for grammatical errors... that should see you through to December 2nd xxx"Woah, go easy there, hospitals are already at capacity across the country apparently so they're not going to have room for a patient needing treatment for those levels of burns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and from all these cases, how many false positives were declared, and how many exactly died OF, convid and not WITH convid ? And if you look at it from a logical point of view, us anti maskers won't get tested, so it could well be you mask lovers that are getting the tests and pushing the so called cases up, which to me means your masks aint working " Whoa, easy there now nickthedick, If you want to stop driving your car because you cannot follow basic rules which make the roads safer for others, that's your call. I do worry about those that spout factless theories to suit their own agendas, I'm wondering if it's not due to being selfish but more a mental illness. Having a relative who has schizophrenia with delusions of grandeur, the rantings he makes regarding those out to do him harm (along with the devil who lives in his kitchen) are not greatly different to those of the conspiracy theorists that spout their rubbish on social media. There are many eminent scientists with brains the size of small planets, along with medical professionals, all of whom are telling us the benefits of wearing masks. They don't do it just because they want to inconvenience you Nick, they do it because they know it helps. And for those who claim it's like a cold or flu, take it from someone who is currently suffering the effects of covid, it's not like flu.. it's nothing like flu.. It's fucking awful. Foe the vast majority that don't get any severe effects, all I can say to that is that you are very fortunate. So I'd just like to personally thank you Nick, and all the other selfish cnuts who think they are above the rules for causing myself and others to suffer unnecessarily so you can have your 5 minutes of freedom. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"right miss fucking know it all, i asked a legitimate question, the same question that has been asked of vallance, handcock, Johnson and witty, all have declined to answer, so if all these so called scientists say that masks are the be all and end all of this fake virus, put up he independent peer reviewed science to back it up. because all of the above are on record as saying masks are of no consequence. and I can lay my hands on around 40 peer reviewed scientific papers, stating masks are pretty much useless. " Dear Nick, There’s a lot of aggression there and you also seem to be ranting over very little. The public health decision to wear masks was made on the back of a number of worldwide studies into their effectiveness but primarily a peice of research work conducted by Cambridge university at the start of the pandemic. That concluded as most studies do that masks offer very little protection outside of a clinical setting yet decrease the transfer of infectious droplets five fold. Other studies state less but most range between 3-5 fold for non surgical face coverings. In short we don’t protect ourselves, we protect others and that undoubtedly has an impact. As a man of science you may be interested to know as a trust we are supplying data for an ongoing study on the subject comparing transmissions of covid-19 within the hospital environment before and after legislation concerning mandatory mask use at all times. What is pretty conclusive for me and my colleagues is our staff and non covid patient infection rate has dropped by about 40% since we are required to wear masks outside of the red zone, that’s been the case for 4 months now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"right miss fucking know it all, i asked a legitimate question, the same question that has been asked of vallance, handcock, Johnson and witty, all have declined to answer, so if all these so called scientists say that masks are the be all and end all of this fake virus, put up he independent peer reviewed science to back it up. because all of the above are on record as saying masks are of no consequence. and I can lay my hands on around 40 peer reviewed scientific papers, stating masks are pretty much useless. Dear Nick, There’s a lot of aggression there and you also seem to be ranting over very little. The public health decision to wear masks was made on the back of a number of worldwide studies into their effectiveness but primarily a peice of research work conducted by Cambridge university at the start of the pandemic. That concluded as most studies do that masks offer very little protection outside of a clinical setting yet decrease the transfer of infectious droplets five fold. Other studies state less but most range between 3-5 fold for non surgical face coverings. In short we don’t protect ourselves, we protect others and that undoubtedly has an impact. As a man of science you may be interested to know as a trust we are supplying data for an ongoing study on the subject comparing transmissions of covid-19 within the hospital environment before and after legislation concerning mandatory mask use at all times. What is pretty conclusive for me and my colleagues is our staff and non covid patient infection rate has dropped by about 40% since we are required to wear masks outside of the red zone, that’s been the case for 4 months now."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your handsome every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! I knew we would eventually find the reason why the north is is such a fucking state with cases still on the rise after weeks of lockdown. Congratulations, I hope the freedom is worth all the pain, suffering and heartache that you have caused. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! You don't tbough Do you still not get it " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! Freedom comes with responsibility otherwise its just anarchy" This | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! You don’t have a right to anything at the expense of someone else’s life. Weak people who can’t handle adjusting their lives for the greater good, who insist on maintaining their ‘freedom’, are the very people who’re making sure the pandemic drags on as long as possible. " You've said this more eloquently than I was going to. My reply would have consisted mostly of a few well directed C bombs. Thanks for saving me from a "holiday" E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"right miss fucking know it all, i asked a legitimate question, the same question that has been asked of vallance, handcock, Johnson and witty, all have declined to answer, so if all these so called scientists say that masks are the be all and end all of this fake virus, put up he independent peer reviewed science to back it up. because all of the above are on record as saying masks are of no consequence. and I can lay my hands on around 40 peer reviewed scientific papers, stating masks are pretty much useless. " A condom would have prevented this post. I'd suggested you do exactly that, lay your hands on those 40 peer reviewed papers and actually read them. I bet they don't say what you think they say. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"right miss fucking know it all, i asked a legitimate question, the same question that has been asked of vallance, handcock, Johnson and witty, all have declined to answer, so if all these so called scientists say that masks are the be all and end all of this fake virus, put up he independent peer reviewed science to back it up. because all of the above are on record as saying masks are of no consequence. and I can lay my hands on around 40 peer reviewed scientific papers, stating masks are pretty much useless. " Could you list these papers, please? No links, I know we can't always do that. First and last author, title, journal, date | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Strange how this virus least effects Asian countries who are used to wearing masks in every day life. Conspiracy theorists really and their nonsensical brain should really get a grip. " In fairness I think China, Vietnam etc would also grab the likes of “Freedom Nick” give him a good battering and then stick him in a cell with enough time to re-read and properly digest his peer reviewed articles... I do applaud his use of the term face nappy though, one could imagine if his speach mirrors his writing there would be plenty of crap caught on the inside of his mask. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah they certainly do take some phathoming out these nutters" I think they should be fathomed. And by that I mean being immersed in six feet of water. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah they certainly do take some phathoming out these nutters I think they should be fathomed. And by that I mean being immersed in six feet of water. E" For how long? Do you work for the CIA? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah they certainly do take some phathoming out these nutters I think they should be fathomed. And by that I mean being immersed in six feet of water. E For how long? Do you work for the CIA? "As long as it takes for them to absorb all the water.
I'm not allowed to say. 
E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah they certainly do take some phathoming out these nutters I think they should be fathomed. And by that I mean being immersed in six feet of water. E For how long? Do you work for the CIA?
As long as it takes for them to absorb all the water.
I'm not allowed to say.
E"Ah sponge boarding, my favourite torture method | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah they certainly do take some phathoming out these nutters I think they should be fathomed. And by that I mean being immersed in six feet of water. E For how long? Do you work for the CIA?
As long as it takes for them to absorb all the water.
I'm not allowed to say.
E
Ah sponge boarding, my favourite torture method "Mine's sponge caking.
E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What amazes me about those that deny events, such as the nutters currently denying there is a virus that is putting people in hospital and killing people; and those that deny the Holocaust ever happened, they seem to ignore the facts and truths that are as plain as daylight, just focus on a single bit of information where detail is lacking or a single discrepancy. They hang onto it like a rabid dog with a bone and just won't let it go. Masks is another point they keep going on about. A small child can understand the benefits of wearing and even the mechanics behind wearing a mask. It's a filter that catches most the moisture you exhale. Simple science in action. Why are there no peer reviewed papers they ask? Well I guess because before now, nobody had any interest in doing research into a boring and unnecessary subject. Now it's of importance to understand, various studies are being conducted. There are standards in place already for filtration quality and mask quality, so a benchmark does exist to rate them against. But why oddballs deny the simple physics of the mask is beyond comprehension. " yep keep getting one messaging me not on masks but saying the whole thingis a hoax i ask him to speak to me in the forum but surprise,surprise he cant because he is banned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"right miss fucking know it all, i asked a legitimate question, the same question that has been asked of vallance, handcock, Johnson and witty, all have declined to answer, so if all these so called scientists say that masks are the be all and end all of this fake virus, put up he independent peer reviewed science to back it up. because all of the above are on record as saying masks are of no consequence. and I can lay my hands on around 40 peer reviewed scientific papers, stating masks are pretty much useless. " I haven't heard them say masks are the be all and end all, they're one of a number of tools. I'm curious to see those papers though to see what the hypothesis, research, findings, and peer reviews have been please. I assume you're referring to medical or similar journals? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had a covidiot naysayer passenger about six weeks ago, just before it became a legal requirement to wear them. Point blank refused to wear mask when I requested he did. I picked him up again yesterday and he was wearing mask and proceeded to tell me he had the worst three weeks of his life due to having covid. He's now a believer and gladly complies with advice and regulations. I'm finding it very hard not to wish the same on some people in these forums. - James" I think that's called poetic justice | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"right miss fucking know it all, i asked a legitimate question, the same question that has been asked of vallance, handcock, Johnson and witty, all have declined to answer, so if all these so called scientists say that masks are the be all and end all of this fake virus, put up he independent peer reviewed science to back it up. because all of the above are on record as saying masks are of no consequence. and I can lay my hands on around 40 peer reviewed scientific papers, stating masks are pretty much useless. I haven't heard them say masks are the be all and end all, they're one of a number of tools. I'm curious to see those papers though to see what the hypothesis, research, findings, and peer reviews have been please. I assume you're referring to medical or similar journals? " Yes, I want to see the citations | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"independent peer reviewed science please, not, Cambridge did this oxford did that. look forward to reading it you mention a public health decision to wear masks, I can't find that any where on gov.uk, all I can find is "guidelines" for face coverings, so has Cambridge taken this into account when doing your study ?" First, where are the 40 studies you can easily lay your hands on? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"right miss fucking know it all, i asked a legitimate question, the same question that has been asked of vallance, handcock, Johnson and witty, all have declined to answer, so if all these so called scientists say that masks are the be all and end all of this fake virus, put up he independent peer reviewed science to back it up. because all of the above are on record as saying masks are of no consequence. and I can lay my hands on around 40 peer reviewed scientific papers, stating masks are pretty much useless. " Fake virus Really sad ..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"independent peer reviewed science please, not, Cambridge did this oxford did that. look forward to reading it you mention a public health decision to wear masks, I can't find that any where on gov.uk, all I can find is "guidelines" for face coverings, so has Cambridge taken this into account when doing your study ?" Within a hospital environment it’s a legal requirement to be masked, it isn’t a guideline. You obviously have forgotten but the wearing of masks within hospitals became compulsory well before the advice for the general public’s use. In response to “independent peer reviewed science”, have you posted your 40 which you cited in your earlier post? In fact, have you cited a single one? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"independent peer reviewed science please, not, Cambridge did this oxford did that. look forward to reading it you mention a public health decision to wear masks, I can't find that any where on gov.uk, all I can find is "guidelines" for face coverings, so has Cambridge taken this into account when doing your study ?" And here’s your study Nick... “Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis” Derek K Chu, MD Prof Elie A Akl, MD Stephanie Duda, MSc Karla Solo, MSc Sally Yaacoub, MPH Prof Holger J Schünemann, MD Now let’s see your 40 which state masks are useless please... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To quote: “ Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25?697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10?736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” So to summarise... 172 studies.... “ Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection” It kind of begs the question: what the fuck are you talking about Nick? #twatwaffle " Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” Could result.... with stronger associations with N95 or similar reuseable 12-16 layer.... Your summary isn’t quite the same as the quote! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree OP. We had a lovely few months where most people worked from home. Everyone still in work were very careful about social distancing. The wfh people came back and stand far too close. Supermarkets in lockdown were limited to number of people allowed in. Formal queueing system for tills. Now it's just like 2019 but with masks on chins.
I take my own hand sanitiser everywhere now. Thankfully our dimwits are wfh again so we can social distance in peace.
"What does wfh mean ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can lay my hands on around 40 peer reviewed scientific papers, stating masks are pretty much useless. " It makes no difference how ranty you get, your 'peer reviewed' evidence probably doesn't exist in a single document, let alone 40 of them. Like it or not, masks are here for the immediate future. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To quote: “ Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25?697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10?736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” So to summarise... 172 studies.... “ Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection” It kind of begs the question: what the fuck are you talking about Nick? #twatwaffle Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” Could result.... with stronger associations with N95 or similar reuseable 12-16 layer.... Your summary isn’t quite the same as the quote! " Could result... yes, if worn correctly with all the other variables, that’s a pretty standard term in the wonderful world of science. Why not take the time to read the findings, why not look at the figures in the section covering non clinical environments... the figures all display the simple fact, infection chances increase without a mask. Or are you disputing that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree OP. We had a lovely few months where most people worked from home. Everyone still in work were very careful about social distancing. The wfh people came back and stand far too close. Supermarkets in lockdown were limited to number of people allowed in. Formal queueing system for tills. Now it's just like 2019 but with masks on chins.
I take my own hand sanitiser everywhere now. Thankfully our dimwits are wfh again so we can social distance in peace.
What does wfh mean ? "Work from home | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What does wfh mean ? " Work From Home | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To quote: “ Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25?697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10?736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” So to summarise... 172 studies.... “ Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection” It kind of begs the question: what the fuck are you talking about Nick? #twatwaffle Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” Could result.... with stronger associations with N95 or similar reuseable 12-16 layer.... Your summary isn’t quite the same as the quote! Could result... yes, if worn correctly with all the other variables, that’s a pretty standard term in the wonderful world of science. Why not take the time to read the findings, why not look at the figures in the section covering non clinical environments... the figures all display the simple fact, infection chances increase without a mask. Or are you disputing that?" Could is a standard term in the wonderful world of science????? Could means it’s uncertain, not proven. Your quote contained reference to N95 masks or 12-16 layer cotton masks having stronger associations.... who’s wearing n95 or 12-16 layers? The information you proffered was irrelevant | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An unfortunate byproduct of all this is the realisation that we’re living in a nation of thick as f**k, selfish, conspiracy theory wielding, huffy toddlers. I think that’s been the toughest thing for me. Not the lockdown, not the restrictions. But the exhausting stupidity on display. " Oh yes. I'd like to think I'd be OK (fingers crossed) but other elderly relatives would definitely fare far worse than me. That's the main reason I follow the rules, almost to the letter. I've had real trouble thinking and worrying about those not giving two hoots about any of it though, sure enough they can believe what they like but they aren't going to help anyone else out by acting like a huge cock stain and spreading it prolonging this covid nightmare. I'm sure it's not just us in the UK, all over the world they have selfish picks too. Some other more authoritive states may be better at following rules but here we have struggled as what we all see as our God given right to do whatever the fuck we like has been mildly infringed for a brief period. Also yes, those same people are so quick to point the blame at the government, the same people that are paying their 80% wages more than likely too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To quote: “ Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25?697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10?736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” So to summarise... 172 studies.... “ Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection” It kind of begs the question: what the fuck are you talking about Nick? #twatwaffle Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” Could result.... with stronger associations with N95 or similar reuseable 12-16 layer.... Your summary isn’t quite the same as the quote! Could result... yes, if worn correctly with all the other variables, that’s a pretty standard term in the wonderful world of science. Why not take the time to read the findings, why not look at the figures in the section covering non clinical environments... the figures all display the simple fact, infection chances increase without a mask. Or are you disputing that? Could is a standard term in the wonderful world of science????? Could means it’s uncertain, not proven. Your quote contained reference to N95 masks or 12-16 layer cotton masks having stronger associations.... who’s wearing n95 or 12-16 layers? The information you proffered was irrelevant " Yes, scientists do tend to couch their findings in such ways. That's not surprising. And the evidence refers to various kinds of masks including up to N95 and that many layers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To quote: “ Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25?697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10?736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” So to summarise... 172 studies.... “ Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection” It kind of begs the question: what the fuck are you talking about Nick? #twatwaffle Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” Could result.... with stronger associations with N95 or similar reuseable 12-16 layer.... Your summary isn’t quite the same as the quote! Could result... yes, if worn correctly with all the other variables, that’s a pretty standard term in the wonderful world of science. Why not take the time to read the findings, why not look at the figures in the section covering non clinical environments... the figures all display the simple fact, infection chances increase without a mask. Or are you disputing that?" I'm sure no one can contest the results, the study was funded by WHO and has been cited in the Lancet, amongst other reputable publications. It probably would have been aided by a simple summary along the lines of - As part of a total protection solution for those in public facing roles or medical environments, wearing of a good quality mask coupled with eye protection and maintaining social distancing will provide the best all round protection. It should also be bore in mind that mask quality will also affect the effectiveness with N95 rated masks being of a higher standard and probably more effective than layered cotton masks (Further studies will need to be conducted to confirm the variability of the effectiveness of non rated masks) So the confirms what we have been told already; hands, face and space. Common sense really when you think about it. Before all this covid malarkey, if someone stood near you coughing and sneezing you would either move away or tell them to piss off. Really, none of this is rocket science. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To quote: “ Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25?697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10?736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” So to summarise... 172 studies.... “ Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection” It kind of begs the question: what the fuck are you talking about Nick? #twatwaffle Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” Could result.... with stronger associations with N95 or similar reuseable 12-16 layer.... Your summary isn’t quite the same as the quote! Could result... yes, if worn correctly with all the other variables, that’s a pretty standard term in the wonderful world of science. Why not take the time to read the findings, why not look at the figures in the section covering non clinical environments... the figures all display the simple fact, infection chances increase without a mask. Or are you disputing that? Could is a standard term in the wonderful world of science????? Could means it’s uncertain, not proven. Your quote contained reference to N95 masks or 12-16 layer cotton masks having stronger associations.... who’s wearing n95 or 12-16 layers? The information you proffered was irrelevant Yes, scientists do tend to couch their findings in such ways. That's not surprising. And the evidence refers to various kinds of masks including up to N95 and that many layers." pfffftt, evidence. Do you think that proves something? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To quote: “ Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25?697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10?736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” So to summarise... 172 studies.... “ Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection” It kind of begs the question: what the fuck are you talking about Nick? #twatwaffle Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” Could result.... with stronger associations with N95 or similar reuseable 12-16 layer.... Your summary isn’t quite the same as the quote! Could result... yes, if worn correctly with all the other variables, that’s a pretty standard term in the wonderful world of science. Why not take the time to read the findings, why not look at the figures in the section covering non clinical environments... the figures all display the simple fact, infection chances increase without a mask. Or are you disputing that? Could is a standard term in the wonderful world of science????? Could means it’s uncertain, not proven. Your quote contained reference to N95 masks or 12-16 layer cotton masks having stronger associations.... who’s wearing n95 or 12-16 layers? The information you proffered was irrelevant Yes, scientists do tend to couch their findings in such ways. That's not surprising. And the evidence refers to various kinds of masks including up to N95 and that many layers. pfffftt, evidence. Do you think that proves something?"   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To quote: “ Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25?697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10?736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” So to summarise... 172 studies.... “ Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection” It kind of begs the question: what the fuck are you talking about Nick? #twatwaffle Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” Could result.... with stronger associations with N95 or similar reuseable 12-16 layer.... Your summary isn’t quite the same as the quote! Could result... yes, if worn correctly with all the other variables, that’s a pretty standard term in the wonderful world of science. Why not take the time to read the findings, why not look at the figures in the section covering non clinical environments... the figures all display the simple fact, infection chances increase without a mask. Or are you disputing that? Could is a standard term in the wonderful world of science????? Could means it’s uncertain, not proven. Your quote contained reference to N95 masks or 12-16 layer cotton masks having stronger associations.... who’s wearing n95 or 12-16 layers? The information you proffered was irrelevant Yes, scientists do tend to couch their findings in such ways. That's not surprising. And the evidence refers to various kinds of masks including up to N95 and that many layers. pfffftt, evidence. Do you think that proves something? "The book that is accepted in the plague year is facebook. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To quote: “ Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25?697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10?736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” So to summarise... 172 studies.... “ Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection” It kind of begs the question: what the fuck are you talking about Nick? #twatwaffle Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” Could result.... with stronger associations with N95 or similar reuseable 12-16 layer.... Your summary isn’t quite the same as the quote! Could result... yes, if worn correctly with all the other variables, that’s a pretty standard term in the wonderful world of science. Why not take the time to read the findings, why not look at the figures in the section covering non clinical environments... the figures all display the simple fact, infection chances increase without a mask. Or are you disputing that? Could is a standard term in the wonderful world of science????? Could means it’s uncertain, not proven. Your quote contained reference to N95 masks or 12-16 layer cotton masks having stronger associations.... who’s wearing n95 or 12-16 layers? The information you proffered was irrelevant Yes, scientists do tend to couch their findings in such ways. That's not surprising. And the evidence refers to various kinds of masks including up to N95 and that many layers." Ok .... not sure what that added ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To quote: “ Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25?697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10?736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” So to summarise... 172 studies.... “ Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection” It kind of begs the question: what the fuck are you talking about Nick? #twatwaffle Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” Could result.... with stronger associations with N95 or similar reuseable 12-16 layer.... Your summary isn’t quite the same as the quote! Could result... yes, if worn correctly with all the other variables, that’s a pretty standard term in the wonderful world of science. Why not take the time to read the findings, why not look at the figures in the section covering non clinical environments... the figures all display the simple fact, infection chances increase without a mask. Or are you disputing that? I'm sure no one can contest the results, the study was funded by WHO and has been cited in the Lancet, amongst other reputable publications. It probably would have been aided by a simple summary along the lines of - As part of a total protection solution for those in public facing roles or medical environments, wearing of a good quality mask coupled with eye protection and maintaining social distancing will provide the best all round protection. It should also be bore in mind that mask quality will also affect the effectiveness with N95 rated masks being of a higher standard and probably more effective than layered cotton masks (Further studies will need to be conducted to confirm the variability of the effectiveness of non rated masks) So the confirms what we have been told already; hands, face and space. Common sense really when you think about it. Before all this covid malarkey, if someone stood near you coughing and sneezing you would either move away or tell them to piss off. Really, none of this is rocket science. " The simple summary you propose isn’t quite a summary of the information in the associated studies! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To quote: “ Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25?697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10?736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” So to summarise... 172 studies.... “ Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection” It kind of begs the question: what the fuck are you talking about Nick? #twatwaffle Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” Could result.... with stronger associations with N95 or similar reuseable 12-16 layer.... Your summary isn’t quite the same as the quote! Could result... yes, if worn correctly with all the other variables, that’s a pretty standard term in the wonderful world of science. Why not take the time to read the findings, why not look at the figures in the section covering non clinical environments... the figures all display the simple fact, infection chances increase without a mask. Or are you disputing that?" I’ve taken time to read some not all .... though I struggled with the graphs .... I hopped onwards a little to conclusions.... and no one there was mentioning simple facts or strongly advocating the use of ‘everyday masks’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could is a standard term in the wonderful world of science????? Could means it’s uncertain, not proven. Your quote contained reference to N95 masks or 12-16 layer cotton masks having stronger associations.... who’s wearing n95 or 12-16 layers? The information you proffered was irrelevant " Erm no, stop trying to be Saul Goodman... this is science, not an American courtroom. Could is a term they have to use because of individual variables and the unkown elements within all results, there is no guarantee in the world of PPE. I wear an N95, full visor, gown, apron, 2 pairs of latex gloves, one standard, one surgical, I tape connections... as the results for “in clinical’ show, it increases my chances of being safe, in other words “it could” protect me. I’ve had colleagues who have still been infected whilst using it though. What we can say with certainty in that situation and also the results presented here is that without that protection your chances of infection significantly increase. Their conclusions in the report are clear, you distance and have space... less chance of infection. You wear a higher quality of mask or make more space... an even smaller chance (omg revelation!) So, let’s cut to the chase... where in these 172 sets of figures or indeed anyone other piece of solid research are there a set of figures that show that wearing any grade of mask does not appear to increase your chances of not being infected? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could is a standard term in the wonderful world of science????? Could means it’s uncertain, not proven. Your quote contained reference to N95 masks or 12-16 layer cotton masks having stronger associations.... who’s wearing n95 or 12-16 layers? The information you proffered was irrelevant Erm no, stop trying to be Saul Goodman... this is science, not an American courtroom. Could is a term they have to use because of individual variables and the unkown elements within all results, there is no guarantee in the world of PPE. I wear an N95, full visor, gown, apron, 2 pairs of latex gloves, one standard, one surgical, I tape connections... as the results for “in clinical’ show, it increases my chances of being safe, in other words “it could” protect me. I’ve had colleagues who have still been infected whilst using it though. What we can say with certainty in that situation and also the results presented here is that without that protection your chances of infection significantly increase. Their conclusions in the report are clear, you distance and have space... less chance of infection. You wear a higher quality of mask or make more space... an even smaller chance (omg revelation!) So, let’s cut to the chase... where in these 172 sets of figures or indeed anyone other piece of solid research are there a set of figures that show that wearing any grade of mask does not appear to increase your chances of not being infected? " Damn your good | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! " What has become apparent and is a very sad indictment of FAB and society in general is the war that this has turned us into people we wouldn’t recognise by our profile descriptions. Polite, respectful, fun good company? Let’s have a minute and tske a look at ourselves| we have been on FAB a few years now and have met some great, and some not so great people , the majority on our wavelength, similar outlook to live life to the full. What this has done is show some true colours, some that aren’t actually respectful, polite, anything but. Like it or not Covid is going to be with us for some time to come, we are ALLaffected by it, directly or indirectly. Forget government guidance and all the confusion, COMMON SENSE, that’s all oh and a bit of respect for each other. We may not agree with lockdowns and restrictions, the effect it’s having on the economy and individuals is catastrophic but for the greater good we do wear a mask, sanitise and socially distance in the honest belief this is the right thing to do for all of us. It’s not about your freedom, your rights or anyone else’s fear, it’s just about being a decent caring human being, as some of profiles suggest . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! What has become apparent and is a very sad indictment of FAB and society in general is the war that this has turned us into people we wouldn’t recognise by our profile descriptions. Polite, respectful, fun good company? Let’s have a minute and tske a look at ourselves| we have been on FAB a few years now and have met some great, and some not so great people , the majority on our wavelength, similar outlook to live life to the full. What this has done is show some true colours, some that aren’t actually respectful, polite, anything but. Like it or not Covid is going to be with us for some time to come, we are ALLaffected by it, directly or indirectly. Forget government guidance and all the confusion, COMMON SENSE, that’s all oh and a bit of respect for each other. We may not agree with lockdowns and restrictions, the effect it’s having on the economy and individuals is catastrophic but for the greater good we do wear a mask, sanitise and socially distance in the honest belief this is the right thing to do for all of us. It’s not about your freedom, your rights or anyone else’s fear, it’s just about being a decent caring human being, as some of profiles suggest ." You got that speech from braveheart didn't you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"independent peer reviewed science please, not, Cambridge did this oxford did that. look forward to reading it you mention a public health decision to wear masks, I can't find that any where on gov.uk, all I can find is "guidelines" for face coverings, so has Cambridge taken this into account when doing your study ? Within a hospital environment it’s a legal requirement to be masked, it isn’t a guideline. You obviously have forgotten but the wearing of masks within hospitals became compulsory well before the advice for the general public’s use. In response to “independent peer reviewed science”, have you posted your 40 which you cited in your earlier post? In fact, have you cited a single one?" Also a legal requirement in taxis. Driver and passengers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could is a standard term in the wonderful world of science????? Could means it’s uncertain, not proven. Your quote contained reference to N95 masks or 12-16 layer cotton masks having stronger associations.... who’s wearing n95 or 12-16 layers? The information you proffered was irrelevant Erm no, stop trying to be Saul Goodman... this is science, not an American courtroom. ???? It’s the science you proposed! Could is a term they have to use because of individual variables and the unkown elements within all results, there is no guarantee in the world of PPE. There are guarantees in the effectiveness of PPE... not sure what the world of PPE is. I wear an N95, full visor, gown, apron, 2 pairs of latex gloves, one standard, one surgical, I tape connections... as the results for “in clinical’ show, it increases my chances of being safe, in other words “it could” protect me. I’ve had colleagues who have still been infected whilst using it though. I’d hope that that PPE would provide a significant level of protection.... though it’s no argument for wearing an ‘everyday mask’ What we can say with certainty in that situation and also the results presented here is that without that protection your chances of infection significantly increase. That’s not the conclusion of the study for ‘everyday’ masks. Their conclusions in the report are clear, you distance and have space... less chance of infection. You wear a higher quality of mask or make more space... an even smaller chance (omg revelation!) You can continue with “it’s clear” statements .... just that ..... but now it’s not any mask it’s a higher quality of mask, then we can add in the clinical setting then we can add in larger distances..... what isn’t clear is the significant reduction in risk by wearing face coverings that are purported to be effective. So, let’s cut to the chase... where in these 172 sets of figures or indeed anyone other piece of solid research are there a set of figures that show that wearing any grade of mask does not appear to increase your chances of not being infected? " This line I think from a review of the article (I know it’s a soundbite but what’s good for the goose....).... Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Read the document and it’s publications You quoted from it so presume you read it all before making your post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What of course Dr Domenhim and Professor Nick from Nottingham should summarise from their intensive scrutiny of their Scientific peers and their excellent studies is the following: The should wear the highest grade face covering they could possibly buy, they should also probably go for a gown, gloves and definitely a full visor before they step out of the door... ideally they should plot the quietest time of the day to venture out and then cross reference this with the day containing the strongest wind speed before embarking on a trip to the shops. Once out of the door, they should venture to Waitrose (that’s where high ranking scientists shop, right?) and place whatever items they need in a bag. They pay via contactless, they return home again maximising distance from all and sundry... Once home, place the shopping outside in a quarantine zone for 72 hours, spray with disinfectant before leaving. Now follow a precise doffing procedure to remove and bin all items of PPE. Move then, and only then to the porch, remove all Remaining clothing, shoes and shower (with a portable unit) before entering the house. Sit back and wait 4 days before enjoying your shopping. That’s our known science on infection control played out, so if you need to scrutinise on such a testing level that’s probably your best course of action." I’m not sure why you chose to say all that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could is a standard term in the wonderful world of science????? Could means it’s uncertain, not proven. Your quote contained reference to N95 masks or 12-16 layer cotton masks having stronger associations.... who’s wearing n95 or 12-16 layers? The information you proffered was irrelevant Erm no, stop trying to be Saul Goodman... this is science, not an American courtroom. ???? It’s the science you proposed! Could is a term they have to use because of individual variables and the unkown elements within all results, there is no guarantee in the world of PPE. There are guarantees in the effectiveness of PPE... not sure what the world of PPE is. I wear an N95, full visor, gown, apron, 2 pairs of latex gloves, one standard, one surgical, I tape connections... as the results for “in clinical’ show, it increases my chances of being safe, in other words “it could” protect me. I’ve had colleagues who have still been infected whilst using it though. I’d hope that that PPE would provide a significant level of protection.... though it’s no argument for wearing an ‘everyday mask’ What we can say with certainty in that situation and also the results presented here is that without that protection your chances of infection significantly increase. That’s not the conclusion of the study for ‘everyday’ masks. Their conclusions in the report are clear, you distance and have space... less chance of infection. You wear a higher quality of mask or make more space... an even smaller chance (omg revelation!) You can continue with “it’s clear” statements .... just that ..... but now it’s not any mask it’s a higher quality of mask, then we can add in the clinical setting then we can add in larger distances..... what isn’t clear is the significant reduction in risk by wearing face coverings that are purported to be effective. So, let’s cut to the chase... where in these 172 sets of figures or indeed anyone other piece of solid research are there a set of figures that show that wearing any grade of mask does not appear to increase your chances of not being infected? This line I think from a review of the article (I know it’s a soundbite but what’s good for the goose....).... Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Read the document and it’s publications You quoted from it so presume you read it all before making your post. " Yes I did read it all, and yes this is not news... everyone calling you on your bold statements 100% agrees that lesser masks do little to protect beyond protecting the others around you from infection should you be a carrier. I honestly don’t get your point really? I remind you this study looks at two way personal protection. PPE is a bit like Team GB cycling of years gone by... marginal gains, in my work, all items add a little protection, together they make a significant difference. In internal shared spaces in a non clinical environment face masks (of any kind) make a difference, as does opening a window for airflow, as does sanitising surfaces etc... We still await your 40 articles, we still await a single studying saying they make no difference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What of course Dr Domenhim and Professor Nick from Nottingham should summarise from their intensive scrutiny of their Scientific peers and their excellent studies is the following: The should wear the highest grade face covering they could possibly buy, they should also probably go for a gown, gloves and definitely a full visor before they step out of the door... ideally they should plot the quietest time of the day to venture out and then cross reference this with the day containing the strongest wind speed before embarking on a trip to the shops. Once out of the door, they should venture to Waitrose (that’s where high ranking scientists shop, right?) and place whatever items they need in a bag. They pay via contactless, they return home again maximising distance from all and sundry... Once home, place the shopping outside in a quarantine zone for 72 hours, spray with disinfectant before leaving. Now follow a precise doffing procedure to remove and bin all items of PPE. Move then, and only then to the porch, remove all Remaining clothing, shoes and shower (with a portable unit) before entering the house. Sit back and wait 4 days before enjoying your shopping. That’s our known science on infection control played out, so if you need to scrutinise on such a testing level that’s probably your best course of action. I’m not sure why you chose to say all that. " Because you take the position of needing “hard science” to be influenced... One thing the science world is pretty overwhelmingly united on is Covid is a massive threat to us. If your argument is you don’t see enough hard evidence to support the wearing of simple face coverings.... upgrade, go surgical grade mask, seal it to you face and dispose of it after use, the evidence for “blue” masks In that report is very favourable. But no... actually you just pick at a single weakness, you have your own agenda to go against any communal effort to lessen infection rates and try and hide behind your “I need science” persona in an effort to look informed as opposed to a selfish c&nt. P.S. we are still awaiting these articles outlining the futility of mask wearing... it’s as if they don’t exist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could is a standard term in the wonderful world of science????? Could means it’s uncertain, not proven. Your quote contained reference to N95 masks or 12-16 layer cotton masks having stronger associations.... who’s wearing n95 or 12-16 layers? The information you proffered was irrelevant Erm no, stop trying to be Saul Goodman... this is science, not an American courtroom. ???? It’s the science you proposed! Could is a term they have to use because of individual variables and the unkown elements within all results, there is no guarantee in the world of PPE. There are guarantees in the effectiveness of PPE... not sure what the world of PPE is. I wear an N95, full visor, gown, apron, 2 pairs of latex gloves, one standard, one surgical, I tape connections... as the results for “in clinical’ show, it increases my chances of being safe, in other words “it could” protect me. I’ve had colleagues who have still been infected whilst using it though. I’d hope that that PPE would provide a significant level of protection.... though it’s no argument for wearing an ‘everyday mask’ What we can say with certainty in that situation and also the results presented here is that without that protection your chances of infection significantly increase. That’s not the conclusion of the study for ‘everyday’ masks. Their conclusions in the report are clear, you distance and have space... less chance of infection. You wear a higher quality of mask or make more space... an even smaller chance (omg revelation!) You can continue with “it’s clear” statements .... just that ..... but now it’s not any mask it’s a higher quality of mask, then we can add in the clinical setting then we can add in larger distances..... what isn’t clear is the significant reduction in risk by wearing face coverings that are purported to be effective. So, let’s cut to the chase... where in these 172 sets of figures or indeed anyone other piece of solid research are there a set of figures that show that wearing any grade of mask does not appear to increase your chances of not being infected? This line I think from a review of the article (I know it’s a soundbite but what’s good for the goose....).... Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Read the document and it’s publications You quoted from it so presume you read it all before making your post. Yes I did read it all, and yes this is not news... everyone calling you on your bold statements 100% agrees that lesser masks do little to protect beyond protecting the others around you from infection should you be a carrier. I honestly don’t get your point really? I remind you this study looks at two way personal protection. PPE is a bit like Team GB cycling of years gone by... marginal gains, in my work, all items add a little protection, together they make a significant difference. In internal shared spaces in a non clinical environment face masks (of any kind) make a difference, as does opening a window for airflow, as does sanitising surfaces etc... We still await your 40 articles, we still await a single studying saying they make no difference. " Re read the quote from the article you posted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What of course Dr Domenhim and Professor Nick from Nottingham should summarise from their intensive scrutiny of their Scientific peers and their excellent studies is the following: The should wear the highest grade face covering they could possibly buy, they should also probably go for a gown, gloves and definitely a full visor before they step out of the door... ideally they should plot the quietest time of the day to venture out and then cross reference this with the day containing the strongest wind speed before embarking on a trip to the shops. Once out of the door, they should venture to Waitrose (that’s where high ranking scientists shop, right?) and place whatever items they need in a bag. They pay via contactless, they return home again maximising distance from all and sundry... Once home, place the shopping outside in a quarantine zone for 72 hours, spray with disinfectant before leaving. Now follow a precise doffing procedure to remove and bin all items of PPE. Move then, and only then to the porch, remove all Remaining clothing, shoes and shower (with a portable unit) before entering the house. Sit back and wait 4 days before enjoying your shopping. That’s our known science on infection control played out, so if you need to scrutinise on such a testing level that’s probably your best course of action. I’m not sure why you chose to say all that. Because you take the position of needing “hard science” to be influenced... One thing the science world is pretty overwhelmingly united on is Covid is a massive threat to us. If your argument is you don’t see enough hard evidence to support the wearing of simple face coverings.... upgrade, go surgical grade mask, seal it to you face and dispose of it after use, the evidence for “blue” masks In that report is very favourable. But no... actually you just pick at a single weakness, you have your own agenda to go against any communal effort to lessen infection rates and try and hide behind your “I need science” persona in an effort to look informed as opposed to a selfish c&nt. P.S. we are still awaiting these articles outlining the futility of mask wearing... it’s as if they don’t exist. " I used your science! You chose shouty, abusive, methods again to try and make a point. Using ‘the world of science’, the world of PPE, overwhelming, etc., makes it no more true! You appear to use words in the way politicians do.... you like the sound bites, you like the emphasis, you like the ‘for the nation’ chants .... to attempt to convince others without substantiating your claims. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What of course Dr Domenhim and Professor Nick from Nottingham should summarise from their intensive scrutiny of their Scientific peers and their excellent studies is the following: The should wear the highest grade face covering they could possibly buy, they should also probably go for a gown, gloves and definitely a full visor before they step out of the door... ideally they should plot the quietest time of the day to venture out and then cross reference this with the day containing the strongest wind speed before embarking on a trip to the shops. Once out of the door, they should venture to Waitrose (that’s where high ranking scientists shop, right?) and place whatever items they need in a bag. They pay via contactless, they return home again maximising distance from all and sundry... Once home, place the shopping outside in a quarantine zone for 72 hours, spray with disinfectant before leaving. Now follow a precise doffing procedure to remove and bin all items of PPE. Move then, and only then to the porch, remove all Remaining clothing, shoes and shower (with a portable unit) before entering the house. Sit back and wait 4 days before enjoying your shopping. That’s our known science on infection control played out, so if you need to scrutinise on such a testing level that’s probably your best course of action. I’m not sure why you chose to say all that. Because you take the position of needing “hard science” to be influenced... One thing the science world is pretty overwhelmingly united on is Covid is a massive threat to us. If your argument is you don’t see enough hard evidence to support the wearing of simple face coverings.... upgrade, go surgical grade mask, seal it to you face and dispose of it after use, the evidence for “blue” masks In that report is very favourable. But no... actually you just pick at a single weakness, you have your own agenda to go against any communal effort to lessen infection rates and try and hide behind your “I need science” persona in an effort to look informed as opposed to a selfish c&nt. P.S. we are still awaiting these articles outlining the futility of mask wearing... it’s as if they don’t exist. I used your science! You chose shouty, abusive, methods again to try and make a point. Using ‘the world of science’, the world of PPE, overwhelming, etc., makes it no more true! You appear to use words in the way politicians do.... you like the sound bites, you like the emphasis, you like the ‘for the nation’ chants .... to attempt to convince others without substantiating your claims." All valid and pertinent points, that you're patently failing to grasp. In my minds eye I see you sat at your PC, frantically typing your your argumentative response. Long before anyone's actually posted anything. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What of course Dr Domenhim and Professor Nick from Nottingham should summarise from their intensive scrutiny of their Scientific peers and their excellent studies is the following: The should wear the highest grade face covering they could possibly buy, they should also probably go for a gown, gloves and definitely a full visor before they step out of the door... ideally they should plot the quietest time of the day to venture out and then cross reference this with the day containing the strongest wind speed before embarking on a trip to the shops. Once out of the door, they should venture to Waitrose (that’s where high ranking scientists shop, right?) and place whatever items they need in a bag. They pay via contactless, they return home again maximising distance from all and sundry... Once home, place the shopping outside in a quarantine zone for 72 hours, spray with disinfectant before leaving. Now follow a precise doffing procedure to remove and bin all items of PPE. Move then, and only then to the porch, remove all Remaining clothing, shoes and shower (with a portable unit) before entering the house. Sit back and wait 4 days before enjoying your shopping. That’s our known science on infection control played out, so if you need to scrutinise on such a testing level that’s probably your best course of action. I’m not sure why you chose to say all that. Because you take the position of needing “hard science” to be influenced... One thing the science world is pretty overwhelmingly united on is Covid is a massive threat to us. If your argument is you don’t see enough hard evidence to support the wearing of simple face coverings.... upgrade, go surgical grade mask, seal it to you face and dispose of it after use, the evidence for “blue” masks In that report is very favourable. But no... actually you just pick at a single weakness, you have your own agenda to go against any communal effort to lessen infection rates and try and hide behind your “I need science” persona in an effort to look informed as opposed to a selfish c&nt. P.S. we are still awaiting these articles outlining the futility of mask wearing... it’s as if they don’t exist. I used your science! You chose shouty, abusive, methods again to try and make a point. Using ‘the world of science’, the world of PPE, overwhelming, etc., makes it no more true! You appear to use words in the way politicians do.... you like the sound bites, you like the emphasis, you like the ‘for the nation’ chants .... to attempt to convince others without substantiating your claims. All valid and pertinent points, that you're patently failing to grasp. In my minds eye I see you sat at your PC, frantically typing your your argumentative response. Long before anyone's actually posted anything. E" Similarly, you saying they’re valid and pertinent points doesn’t make them true! No I don’t tend to do things frantically and my responses are, just that, responses. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What of course Dr Domenhim and Professor Nick from Nottingham should summarise from their intensive scrutiny of their Scientific peers and their excellent studies is the following: The should wear the highest grade face covering they could possibly buy, they should also probably go for a gown, gloves and definitely a full visor before they step out of the door... ideally they should plot the quietest time of the day to venture out and then cross reference this with the day containing the strongest wind speed before embarking on a trip to the shops. Once out of the door, they should venture to Waitrose (that’s where high ranking scientists shop, right?) and place whatever items they need in a bag. They pay via contactless, they return home again maximising distance from all and sundry... Once home, place the shopping outside in a quarantine zone for 72 hours, spray with disinfectant before leaving. Now follow a precise doffing procedure to remove and bin all items of PPE. Move then, and only then to the porch, remove all Remaining clothing, shoes and shower (with a portable unit) before entering the house. Sit back and wait 4 days before enjoying your shopping. That’s our known science on infection control played out, so if you need to scrutinise on such a testing level that’s probably your best course of action. I’m not sure why you chose to say all that. Because you take the position of needing “hard science” to be influenced... One thing the science world is pretty overwhelmingly united on is Covid is a massive threat to us. If your argument is you don’t see enough hard evidence to support the wearing of simple face coverings.... upgrade, go surgical grade mask, seal it to you face and dispose of it after use, the evidence for “blue” masks In that report is very favourable. But no... actually you just pick at a single weakness, you have your own agenda to go against any communal effort to lessen infection rates and try and hide behind your “I need science” persona in an effort to look informed as opposed to a selfish c&nt. P.S. we are still awaiting these articles outlining the futility of mask wearing... it’s as if they don’t exist. I used your science! You chose shouty, abusive, methods again to try and make a point. Using ‘the world of science’, the world of PPE, overwhelming, etc., makes it no more true! You appear to use words in the way politicians do.... you like the sound bites, you like the emphasis, you like the ‘for the nation’ chants .... to attempt to convince others without substantiating your claims. All valid and pertinent points, that you're patently failing to grasp. In my minds eye I see you sat at your PC, frantically typing your your argumentative response. Long before anyone's actually posted anything. E Similarly, you saying they’re valid and pertinent points doesn’t make them true! No I don’t tend to do things frantically and my responses are, just that, responses. " The best thing to do when you're in a hole is to put down the shovel, otherwise you're just confirming assumptions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What of course Dr Domenhim and Professor Nick from Nottingham should summarise from their intensive scrutiny of their Scientific peers and their excellent studies is the following: The should wear the highest grade face covering they could possibly buy, they should also probably go for a gown, gloves and definitely a full visor before they step out of the door... ideally they should plot the quietest time of the day to venture out and then cross reference this with the day containing the strongest wind speed before embarking on a trip to the shops. Once out of the door, they should venture to Waitrose (that’s where high ranking scientists shop, right?) and place whatever items they need in a bag. They pay via contactless, they return home again maximising distance from all and sundry... Once home, place the shopping outside in a quarantine zone for 72 hours, spray with disinfectant before leaving. Now follow a precise doffing procedure to remove and bin all items of PPE. Move then, and only then to the porch, remove all Remaining clothing, shoes and shower (with a portable unit) before entering the house. Sit back and wait 4 days before enjoying your shopping. That’s our known science on infection control played out, so if you need to scrutinise on such a testing level that’s probably your best course of action. I’m not sure why you chose to say all that. Because you take the position of needing “hard science” to be influenced... One thing the science world is pretty overwhelmingly united on is Covid is a massive threat to us. If your argument is you don’t see enough hard evidence to support the wearing of simple face coverings.... upgrade, go surgical grade mask, seal it to you face and dispose of it after use, the evidence for “blue” masks In that report is very favourable. But no... actually you just pick at a single weakness, you have your own agenda to go against any communal effort to lessen infection rates and try and hide behind your “I need science” persona in an effort to look informed as opposed to a selfish c&nt. P.S. we are still awaiting these articles outlining the futility of mask wearing... it’s as if they don’t exist. I used your science! You chose shouty, abusive, methods again to try and make a point. Using ‘the world of science’, the world of PPE, overwhelming, etc., makes it no more true! You appear to use words in the way politicians do.... you like the sound bites, you like the emphasis, you like the ‘for the nation’ chants .... to attempt to convince others without substantiating your claims. All valid and pertinent points, that you're patently failing to grasp. In my minds eye I see you sat at your PC, frantically typing your your argumentative response. Long before anyone's actually posted anything. E Similarly, you saying they’re valid and pertinent points doesn’t make them true! No I don’t tend to do things frantically and my responses are, just that, responses. The best thing to do when you're in a hole is to put down the shovel, otherwise you're just confirming assumptions." Brilliant! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What of course Dr Domenhim and Professor Nick from Nottingham should summarise from their intensive scrutiny of their Scientific peers and their excellent studies is the following: The should wear the highest grade face covering they could possibly buy, they should also probably go for a gown, gloves and definitely a full visor before they step out of the door... ideally they should plot the quietest time of the day to venture out and then cross reference this with the day containing the strongest wind speed before embarking on a trip to the shops. Once out of the door, they should venture to Waitrose (that’s where high ranking scientists shop, right?) and place whatever items they need in a bag. They pay via contactless, they return home again maximising distance from all and sundry... Once home, place the shopping outside in a quarantine zone for 72 hours, spray with disinfectant before leaving. Now follow a precise doffing procedure to remove and bin all items of PPE. Move then, and only then to the porch, remove all Remaining clothing, shoes and shower (with a portable unit) before entering the house. Sit back and wait 4 days before enjoying your shopping. That’s our known science on infection control played out, so if you need to scrutinise on such a testing level that’s probably your best course of action. I’m not sure why you chose to say all that. Because you take the position of needing “hard science” to be influenced... One thing the science world is pretty overwhelmingly united on is Covid is a massive threat to us. If your argument is you don’t see enough hard evidence to support the wearing of simple face coverings.... upgrade, go surgical grade mask, seal it to you face and dispose of it after use, the evidence for “blue” masks In that report is very favourable. But no... actually you just pick at a single weakness, you have your own agenda to go against any communal effort to lessen infection rates and try and hide behind your “I need science” persona in an effort to look informed as opposed to a selfish c&nt. P.S. we are still awaiting these articles outlining the futility of mask wearing... it’s as if they don’t exist. I used your science! You chose shouty, abusive, methods again to try and make a point. Using ‘the world of science’, the world of PPE, overwhelming, etc., makes it no more true! You appear to use words in the way politicians do.... you like the sound bites, you like the emphasis, you like the ‘for the nation’ chants .... to attempt to convince others without substantiating your claims. All valid and pertinent points, that you're patently failing to grasp. In my minds eye I see you sat at your PC, frantically typing your your argumentative response. Long before anyone's actually posted anything. E Similarly, you saying they’re valid and pertinent points doesn’t make them true! No I don’t tend to do things frantically and my responses are, just that, responses. The best thing to do when you're in a hole is to put down the shovel, otherwise you're just confirming assumptions. Brilliant! " Far from it, its regrettable that you're choosing a contrarion position with regard to role of masks in reducing transmission of the virus. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What of course Dr Domenhim and Professor Nick from Nottingham should summarise from their intensive scrutiny of their Scientific peers and their excellent studies is the following: The should wear the highest grade face covering they could possibly buy, they should also probably go for a gown, gloves and definitely a full visor before they step out of the door... ideally they should plot the quietest time of the day to venture out and then cross reference this with the day containing the strongest wind speed before embarking on a trip to the shops. Once out of the door, they should venture to Waitrose (that’s where high ranking scientists shop, right?) and place whatever items they need in a bag. They pay via contactless, they return home again maximising distance from all and sundry... Once home, place the shopping outside in a quarantine zone for 72 hours, spray with disinfectant before leaving. Now follow a precise doffing procedure to remove and bin all items of PPE. Move then, and only then to the porch, remove all Remaining clothing, shoes and shower (with a portable unit) before entering the house. Sit back and wait 4 days before enjoying your shopping. That’s our known science on infection control played out, so if you need to scrutinise on such a testing level that’s probably your best course of action. I’m not sure why you chose to say all that. Because you take the position of needing “hard science” to be influenced... One thing the science world is pretty overwhelmingly united on is Covid is a massive threat to us. If your argument is you don’t see enough hard evidence to support the wearing of simple face coverings.... upgrade, go surgical grade mask, seal it to you face and dispose of it after use, the evidence for “blue” masks In that report is very favourable. But no... actually you just pick at a single weakness, you have your own agenda to go against any communal effort to lessen infection rates and try and hide behind your “I need science” persona in an effort to look informed as opposed to a selfish c&nt. P.S. we are still awaiting these articles outlining the futility of mask wearing... it’s as if they don’t exist. I used your science! You chose shouty, abusive, methods again to try and make a point. Using ‘the world of science’, the world of PPE, overwhelming, etc., makes it no more true! You appear to use words in the way politicians do.... you like the sound bites, you like the emphasis, you like the ‘for the nation’ chants .... to attempt to convince others without substantiating your claims. All valid and pertinent points, that you're patently failing to grasp. In my minds eye I see you sat at your PC, frantically typing your your argumentative response. Long before anyone's actually posted anything. E Similarly, you saying they’re valid and pertinent points doesn’t make them true! No I don’t tend to do things frantically and my responses are, just that, responses. The best thing to do when you're in a hole is to put down the shovel, otherwise you're just confirming assumptions. Brilliant! Far from it, its regrettable that you're choosing a contrarion position with regard to role of masks in reducing transmission of the virus." I wasn’t stating my position on masks.... I was merely discussing the study that Charli put forward and proposing that the study came to a different conclusion about wearing everyday masks in a non clinical setting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could is a standard term in the wonderful world of science????? Could means it’s uncertain, not proven. Your quote contained reference to N95 masks or 12-16 layer cotton masks having stronger associations.... who’s wearing n95 or 12-16 layers? The information you proffered was irrelevant Erm no, stop trying to be Saul Goodman... this is science, not an American courtroom. ???? It’s the science you proposed! Could is a term they have to use because of individual variables and the unkown elements within all results, there is no guarantee in the world of PPE. There are guarantees in the effectiveness of PPE... not sure what the world of PPE is. I wear an N95, full visor, gown, apron, 2 pairs of latex gloves, one standard, one surgical, I tape connections... as the results for “in clinical’ show, it increases my chances of being safe, in other words “it could” protect me. I’ve had colleagues who have still been infected whilst using it though. I’d hope that that PPE would provide a significant level of protection.... though it’s no argument for wearing an ‘everyday mask’ What we can say with certainty in that situation and also the results presented here is that without that protection your chances of infection significantly increase. That’s not the conclusion of the study for ‘everyday’ masks. Their conclusions in the report are clear, you distance and have space... less chance of infection. You wear a higher quality of mask or make more space... an even smaller chance (omg revelation!) You can continue with “it’s clear” statements .... just that ..... but now it’s not any mask it’s a higher quality of mask, then we can add in the clinical setting then we can add in larger distances..... what isn’t clear is the significant reduction in risk by wearing face coverings that are purported to be effective. So, let’s cut to the chase... where in these 172 sets of figures or indeed anyone other piece of solid research are there a set of figures that show that wearing any grade of mask does not appear to increase your chances of not being infected? This line I think from a review of the article (I know it’s a soundbite but what’s good for the goose....).... Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Read the document and it’s publications You quoted from it so presume you read it all before making your post. Yes I did read it all, and yes this is not news... everyone calling you on your bold statements 100% agrees that lesser masks do little to protect beyond protecting the others around you from infection should you be a carrier. I honestly don’t get your point really? I remind you this study looks at two way personal protection. PPE is a bit like Team GB cycling of years gone by... marginal gains, in my work, all items add a little protection, together they make a significant difference. In internal shared spaces in a non clinical environment face masks (of any kind) make a difference, as does opening a window for airflow, as does sanitising surfaces etc... We still await your 40 articles, we still await a single studying saying they make no difference. Re read the quote from the article you posted." I posted part of the summary, nothing more. if you like, read the actual article, look at the figures, show me any result that doesn’t show at the very least a marginal advantage in wearing a mask. Better still, perhaps yourselves or Bottingham Nick can post one of these 40 studies showing masks are useless... we are all STILL waiting, we’ve only asked you for them on multiple occasions.. what’s stopping either of you posting them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could is a standard term in the wonderful world of science????? Could means it’s uncertain, not proven. Your quote contained reference to N95 masks or 12-16 layer cotton masks having stronger associations.... who’s wearing n95 or 12-16 layers? The information you proffered was irrelevant Erm no, stop trying to be Saul Goodman... this is science, not an American courtroom. ???? It’s the science you proposed! Could is a term they have to use because of individual variables and the unkown elements within all results, there is no guarantee in the world of PPE. There are guarantees in the effectiveness of PPE... not sure what the world of PPE is. I wear an N95, full visor, gown, apron, 2 pairs of latex gloves, one standard, one surgical, I tape connections... as the results for “in clinical’ show, it increases my chances of being safe, in other words “it could” protect me. I’ve had colleagues who have still been infected whilst using it though. I’d hope that that PPE would provide a significant level of protection.... though it’s no argument for wearing an ‘everyday mask’ What we can say with certainty in that situation and also the results presented here is that without that protection your chances of infection significantly increase. That’s not the conclusion of the study for ‘everyday’ masks. Their conclusions in the report are clear, you distance and have space... less chance of infection. You wear a higher quality of mask or make more space... an even smaller chance (omg revelation!) You can continue with “it’s clear” statements .... just that ..... but now it’s not any mask it’s a higher quality of mask, then we can add in the clinical setting then we can add in larger distances..... what isn’t clear is the significant reduction in risk by wearing face coverings that are purported to be effective. So, let’s cut to the chase... where in these 172 sets of figures or indeed anyone other piece of solid research are there a set of figures that show that wearing any grade of mask does not appear to increase your chances of not being infected? This line I think from a review of the article (I know it’s a soundbite but what’s good for the goose....).... Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Read the document and it’s publications You quoted from it so presume you read it all before making your post. Yes I did read it all, and yes this is not news... everyone calling you on your bold statements 100% agrees that lesser masks do little to protect beyond protecting the others around you from infection should you be a carrier. I honestly don’t get your point really? I remind you this study looks at two way personal protection. PPE is a bit like Team GB cycling of years gone by... marginal gains, in my work, all items add a little protection, together they make a significant difference. In internal shared spaces in a non clinical environment face masks (of any kind) make a difference, as does opening a window for airflow, as does sanitising surfaces etc... We still await your 40 articles, we still await a single studying saying they make no difference. Re read the quote from the article you posted. I posted part of the summary, nothing more. if you like, read the actual article, look at the figures, show me any result that doesn’t show at the very least a marginal advantage in wearing a mask. Better still, perhaps yourselves or Bottingham Nick can post one of these 40 studies showing masks are useless... we are all STILL waiting, we’ve only asked you for them on multiple occasions.. what’s stopping either of you posting them? " Oooow ooooow ooooow, I think I know the answer to that one Charli........
E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What of course Dr Domenhim and Professor Nick from Nottingham should summarise from their intensive scrutiny of their Scientific peers and their excellent studies is the following: The should wear the highest grade face covering they could possibly buy, they should also probably go for a gown, gloves and definitely a full visor before they step out of the door... ideally they should plot the quietest time of the day to venture out and then cross reference this with the day containing the strongest wind speed before embarking on a trip to the shops. Once out of the door, they should venture to Waitrose (that’s where high ranking scientists shop, right?) and place whatever items they need in a bag. They pay via contactless, they return home again maximising distance from all and sundry... Once home, place the shopping outside in a quarantine zone for 72 hours, spray with disinfectant before leaving. Now follow a precise doffing procedure to remove and bin all items of PPE. Move then, and only then to the porch, remove all Remaining clothing, shoes and shower (with a portable unit) before entering the house. Sit back and wait 4 days before enjoying your shopping. That’s our known science on infection control played out, so if you need to scrutinise on such a testing level that’s probably your best course of action. I’m not sure why you chose to say all that. Because you take the position of needing “hard science” to be influenced... One thing the science world is pretty overwhelmingly united on is Covid is a massive threat to us. If your argument is you don’t see enough hard evidence to support the wearing of simple face coverings.... upgrade, go surgical grade mask, seal it to you face and dispose of it after use, the evidence for “blue” masks In that report is very favourable. But no... actually you just pick at a single weakness, you have your own agenda to go against any communal effort to lessen infection rates and try and hide behind your “I need science” persona in an effort to look informed as opposed to a selfish c&nt. P.S. we are still awaiting these articles outlining the futility of mask wearing... it’s as if they don’t exist. I used your science! You chose shouty, abusive, methods again to try and make a point. Using ‘the world of science’, the world of PPE, overwhelming, etc., makes it no more true! You appear to use words in the way politicians do.... you like the sound bites, you like the emphasis, you like the ‘for the nation’ chants .... to attempt to convince others without substantiating your claims. All valid and pertinent points, that you're patently failing to grasp. In my minds eye I see you sat at your PC, frantically typing your your argumentative response. Long before anyone's actually posted anything. E Similarly, you saying they’re valid and pertinent points doesn’t make them true! No I don’t tend to do things frantically and my responses are, just that, responses. The best thing to do when you're in a hole is to put down the shovel, otherwise you're just confirming assumptions. Brilliant! " You must have worn that handle all the way down to the blade by now.
E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What of course Dr Domenhim and Professor Nick from Nottingham should summarise from their intensive scrutiny of their Scientific peers and their excellent studies is the following: The should wear the highest grade face covering they could possibly buy, they should also probably go for a gown, gloves and definitely a full visor before they step out of the door... ideally they should plot the quietest time of the day to venture out and then cross reference this with the day containing the strongest wind speed before embarking on a trip to the shops. Once out of the door, they should venture to Waitrose (that’s where high ranking scientists shop, right?) and place whatever items they need in a bag. They pay via contactless, they return home again maximising distance from all and sundry... Once home, place the shopping outside in a quarantine zone for 72 hours, spray with disinfectant before leaving. Now follow a precise doffing procedure to remove and bin all items of PPE. Move then, and only then to the porch, remove all Remaining clothing, shoes and shower (with a portable unit) before entering the house. Sit back and wait 4 days before enjoying your shopping. That’s our known science on infection control played out, so if you need to scrutinise on such a testing level that’s probably your best course of action. I’m not sure why you chose to say all that. Because you take the position of needing “hard science” to be influenced... One thing the science world is pretty overwhelmingly united on is Covid is a massive threat to us. If your argument is you don’t see enough hard evidence to support the wearing of simple face coverings.... upgrade, go surgical grade mask, seal it to you face and dispose of it after use, the evidence for “blue” masks In that report is very favourable. But no... actually you just pick at a single weakness, you have your own agenda to go against any communal effort to lessen infection rates and try and hide behind your “I need science” persona in an effort to look informed as opposed to a selfish c&nt. P.S. we are still awaiting these articles outlining the futility of mask wearing... it’s as if they don’t exist. I used your science! You chose shouty, abusive, methods again to try and make a point. Using ‘the world of science’, the world of PPE, overwhelming, etc., makes it no more true! You appear to use words in the way politicians do.... you like the sound bites, you like the emphasis, you like the ‘for the nation’ chants .... to attempt to convince others without substantiating your claims. All valid and pertinent points, that you're patently failing to grasp. In my minds eye I see you sat at your PC, frantically typing your your argumentative response. Long before anyone's actually posted anything. E Similarly, you saying they’re valid and pertinent points doesn’t make them true! No I don’t tend to do things frantically and my responses are, just that, responses. The best thing to do when you're in a hole is to put down the shovel, otherwise you're just confirming assumptions. Brilliant! You must have worn that handle all the way down to the blade by now.
E"Four candles! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could is a standard term in the wonderful world of science????? Could means it’s uncertain, not proven. Your quote contained reference to N95 masks or 12-16 layer cotton masks having stronger associations.... who’s wearing n95 or 12-16 layers? The information you proffered was irrelevant Erm no, stop trying to be Saul Goodman... this is science, not an American courtroom. ???? It’s the science you proposed! Could is a term they have to use because of individual variables and the unkown elements within all results, there is no guarantee in the world of PPE. There are guarantees in the effectiveness of PPE... not sure what the world of PPE is. I wear an N95, full visor, gown, apron, 2 pairs of latex gloves, one standard, one surgical, I tape connections... as the results for “in clinical’ show, it increases my chances of being safe, in other words “it could” protect me. I’ve had colleagues who have still been infected whilst using it though. I’d hope that that PPE would provide a significant level of protection.... though it’s no argument for wearing an ‘everyday mask’ What we can say with certainty in that situation and also the results presented here is that without that protection your chances of infection significantly increase. That’s not the conclusion of the study for ‘everyday’ masks. Their conclusions in the report are clear, you distance and have space... less chance of infection. You wear a higher quality of mask or make more space... an even smaller chance (omg revelation!) You can continue with “it’s clear” statements .... just that ..... but now it’s not any mask it’s a higher quality of mask, then we can add in the clinical setting then we can add in larger distances..... what isn’t clear is the significant reduction in risk by wearing face coverings that are purported to be effective. So, let’s cut to the chase... where in these 172 sets of figures or indeed anyone other piece of solid research are there a set of figures that show that wearing any grade of mask does not appear to increase your chances of not being infected? This line I think from a review of the article (I know it’s a soundbite but what’s good for the goose....).... Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Read the document and it’s publications You quoted from it so presume you read it all before making your post. Yes I did read it all, and yes this is not news... everyone calling you on your bold statements 100% agrees that lesser masks do little to protect beyond protecting the others around you from infection should you be a carrier. I honestly don’t get your point really? I remind you this study looks at two way personal protection. PPE is a bit like Team GB cycling of years gone by... marginal gains, in my work, all items add a little protection, together they make a significant difference. In internal shared spaces in a non clinical environment face masks (of any kind) make a difference, as does opening a window for airflow, as does sanitising surfaces etc... We still await your 40 articles, we still await a single studying saying they make no difference. Re read the quote from the article you posted. I posted part of the summary, nothing more. if you like, read the actual article, look at the figures, show me any result that doesn’t show at the very least a marginal advantage in wearing a mask. Better still, perhaps yourselves or Bottingham Nick can post one of these 40 studies showing masks are useless... we are all STILL waiting, we’ve only asked you for them on multiple occasions.. what’s stopping either of you posting them? " See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could is a standard term in the wonderful world of science????? Could means it’s uncertain, not proven. Your quote contained reference to N95 masks or 12-16 layer cotton masks having stronger associations.... who’s wearing n95 or 12-16 layers? The information you proffered was irrelevant Erm no, stop trying to be Saul Goodman... this is science, not an American courtroom. ???? It’s the science you proposed! Could is a term they have to use because of individual variables and the unkown elements within all results, there is no guarantee in the world of PPE. There are guarantees in the effectiveness of PPE... not sure what the world of PPE is. I wear an N95, full visor, gown, apron, 2 pairs of latex gloves, one standard, one surgical, I tape connections... as the results for “in clinical’ show, it increases my chances of being safe, in other words “it could” protect me. I’ve had colleagues who have still been infected whilst using it though. I’d hope that that PPE would provide a significant level of protection.... though it’s no argument for wearing an ‘everyday mask’ What we can say with certainty in that situation and also the results presented here is that without that protection your chances of infection significantly increase. That’s not the conclusion of the study for ‘everyday’ masks. Their conclusions in the report are clear, you distance and have space... less chance of infection. You wear a higher quality of mask or make more space... an even smaller chance (omg revelation!) You can continue with “it’s clear” statements .... just that ..... but now it’s not any mask it’s a higher quality of mask, then we can add in the clinical setting then we can add in larger distances..... what isn’t clear is the significant reduction in risk by wearing face coverings that are purported to be effective. So, let’s cut to the chase... where in these 172 sets of figures or indeed anyone other piece of solid research are there a set of figures that show that wearing any grade of mask does not appear to increase your chances of not being infected? This line I think from a review of the article (I know it’s a soundbite but what’s good for the goose....).... Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Read the document and it’s publications You quoted from it so presume you read it all before making your post. Yes I did read it all, and yes this is not news... everyone calling you on your bold statements 100% agrees that lesser masks do little to protect beyond protecting the others around you from infection should you be a carrier. I honestly don’t get your point really? I remind you this study looks at two way personal protection. PPE is a bit like Team GB cycling of years gone by... marginal gains, in my work, all items add a little protection, together they make a significant difference. In internal shared spaces in a non clinical environment face masks (of any kind) make a difference, as does opening a window for airflow, as does sanitising surfaces etc... We still await your 40 articles, we still await a single studying saying they make no difference. Re read the quote from the article you posted. I posted part of the summary, nothing more. if you like, read the actual article, look at the figures, show me any result that doesn’t show at the very least a marginal advantage in wearing a mask. Better still, perhaps yourselves or Bottingham Nick can post one of these 40 studies showing masks are useless... we are all STILL waiting, we’ve only asked you for them on multiple occasions.. what’s stopping either of you posting them? See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! " If you feel a poster is abusing you report it. If you feel a measured and reasoned response is abuse I'd suggest you recalibrate your dial. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What of course Dr Domenhim and Professor Nick from Nottingham should summarise from their intensive scrutiny of their Scientific peers and their excellent studies is the following: The should wear the highest grade face covering they could possibly buy, they should also probably go for a gown, gloves and definitely a full visor before they step out of the door... ideally they should plot the quietest time of the day to venture out and then cross reference this with the day containing the strongest wind speed before embarking on a trip to the shops. Once out of the door, they should venture to Waitrose (that’s where high ranking scientists shop, right?) and place whatever items they need in a bag. They pay via contactless, they return home again maximising distance from all and sundry... Once home, place the shopping outside in a quarantine zone for 72 hours, spray with disinfectant before leaving. Now follow a precise doffing procedure to remove and bin all items of PPE. Move then, and only then to the porch, remove all Remaining clothing, shoes and shower (with a portable unit) before entering the house. Sit back and wait 4 days before enjoying your shopping. That’s our known science on infection control played out, so if you need to scrutinise on such a testing level that’s probably your best course of action. I’m not sure why you chose to say all that. Because you take the position of needing “hard science” to be influenced... One thing the science world is pretty overwhelmingly united on is Covid is a massive threat to us. If your argument is you don’t see enough hard evidence to support the wearing of simple face coverings.... upgrade, go surgical grade mask, seal it to you face and dispose of it after use, the evidence for “blue” masks In that report is very favourable. But no... actually you just pick at a single weakness, you have your own agenda to go against any communal effort to lessen infection rates and try and hide behind your “I need science” persona in an effort to look informed as opposed to a selfish c&nt. P.S. we are still awaiting these articles outlining the futility of mask wearing... it’s as if they don’t exist. I used your science! You chose shouty, abusive, methods again to try and make a point. Using ‘the world of science’, the world of PPE, overwhelming, etc., makes it no more true! You appear to use words in the way politicians do.... you like the sound bites, you like the emphasis, you like the ‘for the nation’ chants .... to attempt to convince others without substantiating your claims. All valid and pertinent points, that you're patently failing to grasp. In my minds eye I see you sat at your PC, frantically typing your your argumentative response. Long before anyone's actually posted anything. E Similarly, you saying they’re valid and pertinent points doesn’t make them true! No I don’t tend to do things frantically and my responses are, just that, responses. The best thing to do when you're in a hole is to put down the shovel, otherwise you're just confirming assumptions. Brilliant! You must have worn that handle all the way down to the blade by now.
E
Four candles! "
E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! " I work a role which exposes me the the very worst results of this virus on a daily basis. I am directly responsible for those within the red zones safety and their use of personal protective equipment. I am very entitled to take a stance which is very heavily biased to the side of face coverings, that is after all the subject I work with every day. Why I choose to do that is because I am exposed to, I read and I digest the majority of new data, studies and tests. I then use that information in a clinical setting to keep my team and relatives families as safe as we can do. The long and short of this is the world of science can pretty safely assume wearing any face covering has a positive impact on infection spread, there is also a growing belief that there is a link to ingested viral load when patients are infected by covid. The numbers seem to suggest the chance of serious infection or fatality is reduced wearing even the simplest of face coverings. I have no idea what you do, I suspect you don’t work with covid patients, I suspect you don’t work as a researcher in this field. I therefore question why you seem to need to portray yourself as such a vocal negative opinion regarding mask wearing... its unqualified, biased and Ill informed in truth. If you want to challenge your brain have a read of this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 It’s a good overview on current world thinking with as many references as you like within its content. Why someone is hell bent on arguing the toss on what is said when it’s there to protect themselves and their families... well I don’t get that. Happy reading | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! I work a role which exposes me the the very worst results of this virus on a daily basis. I am directly responsible for those within the red zones safety and their use of personal protective equipment. I am very entitled to take a stance which is very heavily biased to the side of face coverings, that is after all the subject I work with every day. Why I choose to do that is because I am exposed to, I read and I digest the majority of new data, studies and tests. I then use that information in a clinical setting to keep my team and relatives families as safe as we can do. The long and short of this is the world of science can pretty safely assume wearing any face covering has a positive impact on infection spread, there is also a growing belief that there is a link to ingested viral load when patients are infected by covid. The numbers seem to suggest the chance of serious infection or fatality is reduced wearing even the simplest of face coverings. I have no idea what you do, I suspect you don’t work with covid patients, I suspect you don’t work as a researcher in this field. I therefore question why you seem to need to portray yourself as such a vocal negative opinion regarding mask wearing... its unqualified, biased and Ill informed in truth. If you want to challenge your brain have a read of this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 It’s a good overview on current world thinking with as many references as you like within its content. Why someone is hell bent on arguing the toss on what is said when it’s there to protect themselves and their families... well I don’t get that. Happy reading" Every government of any party, in every country in the world has a population full of people saying "This government fucked it up, this government are useless, blah blah blah" When the truth is, they're all trying to deal with a global pandemic for which no-one has any experience of, for which there's no cure, for which we're learning something new every day. Meanwhile, people keep ignoring the advice, the statistics and the guidelines, whilst moaning about how the Government are screwing it up, cases are rising and the restrictions are tightening. People and their stinking, selfish, stupid, ignorant attitudes. Them's the problem. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An unfortunate byproduct of all this is the realisation that we’re living in a nation of thick as f**k, selfish, conspiracy theory wielding, huffy toddlers. I think that’s been the toughest thing for me. Not the lockdown, not the restrictions. But the exhausting stupidity on display. " It is, its bloody exhausting having to deal with the endless flow of garbage that is used to justify being a tool. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's just occurred to me, looking through a number of threads, that the vast majority of those who either disbelieve the pandemic, are critical of the handling or are vocal about not wearing a mask, predominantly come from areas where the infection rates are at the highest. Not that I'm pointing a finger or anything but could there possibly be a correlation between the two?" There's a relation between poverty and education, there's a relation between poverty and covid hotspots. But its not as simple as that. Covid deniers have been weaponised. It's easier to convince someone of one conspiracy theory if they already believe another. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! I work a role which exposes me the the very worst results of this virus on a daily basis. I am directly responsible for those within the red zones safety and their use of personal protective equipment. I am very entitled to take a stance which is very heavily biased to the side of face coverings, that is after all the subject I work with every day. Why I choose to do that is because I am exposed to, I read and I digest the majority of new data, studies and tests. I then use that information in a clinical setting to keep my team and relatives families as safe as we can do. The long and short of this is the world of science can pretty safely assume wearing any face covering has a positive impact on infection spread, there is also a growing belief that there is a link to ingested viral load when patients are infected by covid. The numbers seem to suggest the chance of serious infection or fatality is reduced wearing even the simplest of face coverings. I have no idea what you do, I suspect you don’t work with covid patients, I suspect you don’t work as a researcher in this field. I therefore question why you seem to need to portray yourself as such a vocal negative opinion regarding mask wearing... its unqualified, biased and Ill informed in truth. If you want to challenge your brain have a read of this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 It’s a good overview on current world thinking with as many references as you like within its content. Why someone is hell bent on arguing the toss on what is said when it’s there to protect themselves and their families... well I don’t get that. Happy reading" "See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you feel people have become a little complacent over the last few months? I'm not denying that I have; the initial worry that everything may be contaminated has diminished and I'm not using every hand sanitiser I encounter. However, on a recent trip to the shops I went into a large chain store who shall remain unnamed, they did have a sanitiser station set up which consisted of a 5l container with a broken pump and a couple of very small empty bottles. This type of thing was replicated in the few other shops I visited; either empty or non-existent. Social distancing seems to have gone out of the window too, people no longer seem to care if they invade your social space and seem oblivious, though I find a subtle cough makes them move fairly rapid! And then we wonder why cases are rising; It's some of us who are refusing to self isolate when we should. Its some of us who refuse to get tested when we show symptoms. It's some of us who refuse to get tested when we know we have been in contact with a positive case. It's some of us who refuse to wear a mask and have no reason not to. It's some of us who refuse to social isolate. It's some of us who are so selfish we attend illegal raves and parties. It's some of us that are spreading the disease to others! "Oh, but the government have failed us at every opportunity" I hear you shout! Well, it's certainly not a few hundred MP's who are going around giving this to others. It's not Boris who gave the disease to your parents or elderly relative. So come on, get your head out of your 'arris and realise that every single one of us has a responsibility to ourselves, our family and the country as a whole, to prevent spreading the virus. " And wtf are people on here still advertising for meets? Stupidity? Arrogance? ....... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you feel people have become a little complacent over the last few months? I'm not denying that I have; the initial worry that everything may be contaminated has diminished and I'm not using every hand sanitiser I encounter. However, on a recent trip to the shops I went into a large chain store who shall remain unnamed, they did have a sanitiser station set up which consisted of a 5l container with a broken pump and a couple of very small empty bottles. This type of thing was replicated in the few other shops I visited; either empty or non-existent. Social distancing seems to have gone out of the window too, people no longer seem to care if they invade your social space and seem oblivious, though I find a subtle cough makes them move fairly rapid! And then we wonder why cases are rising; It's some of us who are refusing to self isolate when we should. Its some of us who refuse to get tested when we show symptoms. It's some of us who refuse to get tested when we know we have been in contact with a positive case. It's some of us who refuse to wear a mask and have no reason not to. It's some of us who refuse to social isolate. It's some of us who are so selfish we attend illegal raves and parties. It's some of us that are spreading the disease to others! "Oh, but the government have failed us at every opportunity" I hear you shout! Well, it's certainly not a few hundred MP's who are going around giving this to others. It's not Boris who gave the disease to your parents or elderly relative. So come on, get your head out of your 'arris and realise that every single one of us has a responsibility to ourselves, our family and the country as a whole, to prevent spreading the virus. And wtf are people on here still advertising for meets? Stupidity? Arrogance? ......." Cos they are ejits Red.. By the way, do you fancy a shag? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! I work a role which exposes me the the very worst results of this virus on a daily basis. I am directly responsible for those within the red zones safety and their use of personal protective equipment. I am very entitled to take a stance which is very heavily biased to the side of face coverings, that is after all the subject I work with every day. Why I choose to do that is because I am exposed to, I read and I digest the majority of new data, studies and tests. I then use that information in a clinical setting to keep my team and relatives families as safe as we can do. The long and short of this is the world of science can pretty safely assume wearing any face covering has a positive impact on infection spread, there is also a growing belief that there is a link to ingested viral load when patients are infected by covid. The numbers seem to suggest the chance of serious infection or fatality is reduced wearing even the simplest of face coverings. I have no idea what you do, I suspect you don’t work with covid patients, I suspect you don’t work as a researcher in this field. I therefore question why you seem to need to portray yourself as such a vocal negative opinion regarding mask wearing... its unqualified, biased and Ill informed in truth. If you want to challenge your brain have a read of this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 It’s a good overview on current world thinking with as many references as you like within its content. Why someone is hell bent on arguing the toss on what is said when it’s there to protect themselves and their families... well I don’t get that. Happy reading "See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! "" Still digging? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! I work a role which exposes me the the very worst results of this virus on a daily basis. I am directly responsible for those within the red zones safety and their use of personal protective equipment. I am very entitled to take a stance which is very heavily biased to the side of face coverings, that is after all the subject I work with every day. Why I choose to do that is because I am exposed to, I read and I digest the majority of new data, studies and tests. I then use that information in a clinical setting to keep my team and relatives families as safe as we can do. The long and short of this is the world of science can pretty safely assume wearing any face covering has a positive impact on infection spread, there is also a growing belief that there is a link to ingested viral load when patients are infected by covid. The numbers seem to suggest the chance of serious infection or fatality is reduced wearing even the simplest of face coverings. I have no idea what you do, I suspect you don’t work with covid patients, I suspect you don’t work as a researcher in this field. I therefore question why you seem to need to portray yourself as such a vocal negative opinion regarding mask wearing... its unqualified, biased and Ill informed in truth. If you want to challenge your brain have a read of this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 It’s a good overview on current world thinking with as many references as you like within its content. Why someone is hell bent on arguing the toss on what is said when it’s there to protect themselves and their families... well I don’t get that. Happy reading "See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! " Still digging?" I've looked, I can't see any abuse. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! I work a role which exposes me the the very worst results of this virus on a daily basis. I am directly responsible for those within the red zones safety and their use of personal protective equipment. I am very entitled to take a stance which is very heavily biased to the side of face coverings, that is after all the subject I work with every day. Why I choose to do that is because I am exposed to, I read and I digest the majority of new data, studies and tests. I then use that information in a clinical setting to keep my team and relatives families as safe as we can do. The long and short of this is the world of science can pretty safely assume wearing any face covering has a positive impact on infection spread, there is also a growing belief that there is a link to ingested viral load when patients are infected by covid. The numbers seem to suggest the chance of serious infection or fatality is reduced wearing even the simplest of face coverings. I have no idea what you do, I suspect you don’t work with covid patients, I suspect you don’t work as a researcher in this field. I therefore question why you seem to need to portray yourself as such a vocal negative opinion regarding mask wearing... its unqualified, biased and Ill informed in truth. If you want to challenge your brain have a read of this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 It’s a good overview on current world thinking with as many references as you like within its content. Why someone is hell bent on arguing the toss on what is said when it’s there to protect themselves and their families... well I don’t get that. Happy reading "See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! " Still digging? I've looked, I can't see any abuse. E" Its the standard play, be contrarian then play the victim. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! I work a role which exposes me the the very worst results of this virus on a daily basis. I am directly responsible for those within the red zones safety and their use of personal protective equipment. I am very entitled to take a stance which is very heavily biased to the side of face coverings, that is after all the subject I work with every day. Why I choose to do that is because I am exposed to, I read and I digest the majority of new data, studies and tests. I then use that information in a clinical setting to keep my team and relatives families as safe as we can do. The long and short of this is the world of science can pretty safely assume wearing any face covering has a positive impact on infection spread, there is also a growing belief that there is a link to ingested viral load when patients are infected by covid. The numbers seem to suggest the chance of serious infection or fatality is reduced wearing even the simplest of face coverings. I have no idea what you do, I suspect you don’t work with covid patients, I suspect you don’t work as a researcher in this field. I therefore question why you seem to need to portray yourself as such a vocal negative opinion regarding mask wearing... its unqualified, biased and Ill informed in truth. If you want to challenge your brain have a read of this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 It’s a good overview on current world thinking with as many references as you like within its content. Why someone is hell bent on arguing the toss on what is said when it’s there to protect themselves and their families... well I don’t get that. Happy reading "See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! " Still digging? I've looked, I can't see any abuse. E Its the standard play, be contrarian then play the victim. " Not the victim, not the contrarian ... you aren’t reading.... the term used was selfish c*nts, it was used twice by different people.... possibly deleted?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! I work a role which exposes me the the very worst results of this virus on a daily basis. I am directly responsible for those within the red zones safety and their use of personal protective equipment. I am very entitled to take a stance which is very heavily biased to the side of face coverings, that is after all the subject I work with every day. Why I choose to do that is because I am exposed to, I read and I digest the majority of new data, studies and tests. I then use that information in a clinical setting to keep my team and relatives families as safe as we can do. The long and short of this is the world of science can pretty safely assume wearing any face covering has a positive impact on infection spread, there is also a growing belief that there is a link to ingested viral load when patients are infected by covid. The numbers seem to suggest the chance of serious infection or fatality is reduced wearing even the simplest of face coverings. I have no idea what you do, I suspect you don’t work with covid patients, I suspect you don’t work as a researcher in this field. I therefore question why you seem to need to portray yourself as such a vocal negative opinion regarding mask wearing... its unqualified, biased and Ill informed in truth. If you want to challenge your brain have a read of this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 It’s a good overview on current world thinking with as many references as you like within its content. Why someone is hell bent on arguing the toss on what is said when it’s there to protect themselves and their families... well I don’t get that. Happy reading "See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! " Still digging? I've looked, I can't see any abuse. E Its the standard play, be contrarian then play the victim. Not the victim, not the contrarian ... you aren’t reading.... the term used was selfish c*nts, it was used twice by different people.... possibly deleted?? " Yes that term was used a few times in the thread, I failed to see where it was directed at you, it was more aimed at a particular mindset. I do hope that you understand that such a mindset is a danger to all of us. However if you do feel that you were personally attacked then do report the posts in question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! I work a role which exposes me the the very worst results of this virus on a daily basis. I am directly responsible for those within the red zones safety and their use of personal protective equipment. I am very entitled to take a stance which is very heavily biased to the side of face coverings, that is after all the subject I work with every day. Why I choose to do that is because I am exposed to, I read and I digest the majority of new data, studies and tests. I then use that information in a clinical setting to keep my team and relatives families as safe as we can do. The long and short of this is the world of science can pretty safely assume wearing any face covering has a positive impact on infection spread, there is also a growing belief that there is a link to ingested viral load when patients are infected by covid. The numbers seem to suggest the chance of serious infection or fatality is reduced wearing even the simplest of face coverings. I have no idea what you do, I suspect you don’t work with covid patients, I suspect you don’t work as a researcher in this field. I therefore question why you seem to need to portray yourself as such a vocal negative opinion regarding mask wearing... its unqualified, biased and Ill informed in truth. If you want to challenge your brain have a read of this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 It’s a good overview on current world thinking with as many references as you like within its content. Why someone is hell bent on arguing the toss on what is said when it’s there to protect themselves and their families... well I don’t get that. Happy reading "See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! " Still digging? I've looked, I can't see any abuse. E Its the standard play, be contrarian then play the victim. " Having an opinion that's contrary to someone else isn't abuse. My opinion in this is contrary to yours. By your logic I'm now abusing you. Clearly, I'm not. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! I work a role which exposes me the the very worst results of this virus on a daily basis. I am directly responsible for those within the red zones safety and their use of personal protective equipment. I am very entitled to take a stance which is very heavily biased to the side of face coverings, that is after all the subject I work with every day. Why I choose to do that is because I am exposed to, I read and I digest the majority of new data, studies and tests. I then use that information in a clinical setting to keep my team and relatives families as safe as we can do. The long and short of this is the world of science can pretty safely assume wearing any face covering has a positive impact on infection spread, there is also a growing belief that there is a link to ingested viral load when patients are infected by covid. The numbers seem to suggest the chance of serious infection or fatality is reduced wearing even the simplest of face coverings. I have no idea what you do, I suspect you don’t work with covid patients, I suspect you don’t work as a researcher in this field. I therefore question why you seem to need to portray yourself as such a vocal negative opinion regarding mask wearing... its unqualified, biased and Ill informed in truth. If you want to challenge your brain have a read of this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 It’s a good overview on current world thinking with as many references as you like within its content. Why someone is hell bent on arguing the toss on what is said when it’s there to protect themselves and their families... well I don’t get that. Happy reading "See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! " Still digging? I've looked, I can't see any abuse. E Its the standard play, be contrarian then play the victim. " Agreed. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! I work a role which exposes me the the very worst results of this virus on a daily basis. I am directly responsible for those within the red zones safety and their use of personal protective equipment. I am very entitled to take a stance which is very heavily biased to the side of face coverings, that is after all the subject I work with every day. Why I choose to do that is because I am exposed to, I read and I digest the majority of new data, studies and tests. I then use that information in a clinical setting to keep my team and relatives families as safe as we can do. The long and short of this is the world of science can pretty safely assume wearing any face covering has a positive impact on infection spread, there is also a growing belief that there is a link to ingested viral load when patients are infected by covid. The numbers seem to suggest the chance of serious infection or fatality is reduced wearing even the simplest of face coverings. I have no idea what you do, I suspect you don’t work with covid patients, I suspect you don’t work as a researcher in this field. I therefore question why you seem to need to portray yourself as such a vocal negative opinion regarding mask wearing... its unqualified, biased and Ill informed in truth. If you want to challenge your brain have a read of this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 It’s a good overview on current world thinking with as many references as you like within its content. Why someone is hell bent on arguing the toss on what is said when it’s there to protect themselves and their families... well I don’t get that. Happy reading "See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! " Still digging? I've looked, I can't see any abuse. E Its the standard play, be contrarian then play the victim. Not the victim, not the contrarian ... you aren’t reading.... the term used was selfish c*nts, it was used twice by different people.... possibly deleted?? Yes that term was used a few times in the thread, I failed to see where it was directed at you, it was more aimed at a particular mindset. I do hope that you understand that such a mindset is a danger to all of us. However if you do feel that you were personally attacked then do report the posts in question." I did! I assume that’s why the posts were removed. They were clearly directed at me. If you want to argue about that .... find someone else! It’s good you’re sticking to cheerleading and adding little | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! " x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! What has become apparent and is a very sad indictment of FAB and society in general is the war that this has turned us into people we wouldn’t recognise by our profile descriptions. Polite, respectful, fun good company? Let’s have a minute and tske a look at ourselves| we have been on FAB a few years now and have met some great, and some not so great people , the majority on our wavelength, similar outlook to live life to the full. What this has done is show some true colours, some that aren’t actually respectful, polite, anything but. Like it or not Covid is going to be with us for some time to come, we are ALLaffected by it, directly or indirectly. Forget government guidance and all the confusion, COMMON SENSE, that’s all oh and a bit of respect for each other. We may not agree with lockdowns and restrictions, the effect it’s having on the economy and individuals is catastrophic but for the greater good we do wear a mask, sanitise and socially distance in the honest belief this is the right thing to do for all of us. It’s not about your freedom, your rights or anyone else’s fear, it’s just about being a decent caring human being, as some of profiles suggest . You got that speech from braveheart didn't you "Damn yes, you caught me ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worst thing for me has been the selfish f....ts that expect me to give up my freedom for their fear, by all means lock your self away sanitize your hands every five minutes wear a face nappy. That’s your right too But I have a right to my freedom !!!! " Is someone missing a huffy toddler? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This new lockdown will be about as useful as a chocolate Teapot. Infact a chocolate fireguard is more useful because at least you can eat it. Or ashtray on a motorbike... " Obviously not seen a goldwing, they have an ashtray, stereo and an optional extra of an armchair rear seat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So ladies and gentlemen of Fab, there you have it. Conclusive and compelling evidence that most do still what they can to abide by the laws, regulations and requests of the state. But there is a small minority that do not. The overriding conclusion that can be taken is they do so out of a desire for personal freedom while failing to comprehend that their blatant and very selfish actions jeopardise the health or live of others. In a court of law, this would be classed as a malicious act with intent to cause harm. Unfortunately our government has not attempted to pass laws that have the sufficient strength to allow for prosecution which, under other situations are enforceable. A person who ignores symptoms and does not isolate is for all intents, a walking biological weapon. Likewise, a person who is asymptomatic and does not wear a mask is similar to a business that accidentally pollutes. Both instances would end up with fines and/or prosecution. Yet some still fail to comprehend the long term and potentially devastating effects of their actions. It is a sad indictment of society and even sadder that some of us on here may have already or will lose loved ones as a direct effect of a covidiots selfish behaviour. " The reassuring thing is the majority of people on here do see the seriousness of this and follow the rules. Your point of law fact, there was a case in the 80’’s where a guy who knew he had HIV was convicted of assault in crown court when it was proved that he had sex with someone, knew he would infect them, or was reckless to that possibility. My view, and it’s not a legal point that anyone with COVID symptoms or has tested positive and goes out to meet people are just as liable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! I work a role which exposes me the the very worst results of this virus on a daily basis. I am directly responsible for those within the red zones safety and their use of personal protective equipment. I am very entitled to take a stance which is very heavily biased to the side of face coverings, that is after all the subject I work with every day. Why I choose to do that is because I am exposed to, I read and I digest the majority of new data, studies and tests. I then use that information in a clinical setting to keep my team and relatives families as safe as we can do. The long and short of this is the world of science can pretty safely assume wearing any face covering has a positive impact on infection spread, there is also a growing belief that there is a link to ingested viral load when patients are infected by covid. The numbers seem to suggest the chance of serious infection or fatality is reduced wearing even the simplest of face coverings. I have no idea what you do, I suspect you don’t work with covid patients, I suspect you don’t work as a researcher in this field. I therefore question why you seem to need to portray yourself as such a vocal negative opinion regarding mask wearing... its unqualified, biased and Ill informed in truth. If you want to challenge your brain have a read of this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 It’s a good overview on current world thinking with as many references as you like within its content. Why someone is hell bent on arguing the toss on what is said when it’s there to protect themselves and their families... well I don’t get that. Happy reading "See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! " Still digging? I've looked, I can't see any abuse. E Its the standard play, be contrarian then play the victim. Not the victim, not the contrarian ... you aren’t reading.... the term used was selfish c*nts, it was used twice by different people.... possibly deleted?? Yes that term was used a few times in the thread, I failed to see where it was directed at you, it was more aimed at a particular mindset. I do hope that you understand that such a mindset is a danger to all of us. However if you do feel that you were personally attacked then do report the posts in question. I did! I assume that’s why the posts were removed. They were clearly directed at me. If you want to argue about that .... find someone else! It’s good you’re sticking to cheerleading and adding little "So, what are you adding, other than arguing against the greater good? E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! I work a role which exposes me the the very worst results of this virus on a daily basis. I am directly responsible for those within the red zones safety and their use of personal protective equipment. I am very entitled to take a stance which is very heavily biased to the side of face coverings, that is after all the subject I work with every day. Why I choose to do that is because I am exposed to, I read and I digest the majority of new data, studies and tests. I then use that information in a clinical setting to keep my team and relatives families as safe as we can do. The long and short of this is the world of science can pretty safely assume wearing any face covering has a positive impact on infection spread, there is also a growing belief that there is a link to ingested viral load when patients are infected by covid. The numbers seem to suggest the chance of serious infection or fatality is reduced wearing even the simplest of face coverings. I have no idea what you do, I suspect you don’t work with covid patients, I suspect you don’t work as a researcher in this field. I therefore question why you seem to need to portray yourself as such a vocal negative opinion regarding mask wearing... its unqualified, biased and Ill informed in truth. If you want to challenge your brain have a read of this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 It’s a good overview on current world thinking with as many references as you like within its content. Why someone is hell bent on arguing the toss on what is said when it’s there to protect themselves and their families... well I don’t get that. Happy reading "See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! " Still digging? I've looked, I can't see any abuse. E Its the standard play, be contrarian then play the victim. Not the victim, not the contrarian ... you aren’t reading.... the term used was selfish c*nts, it was used twice by different people.... possibly deleted?? Yes that term was used a few times in the thread, I failed to see where it was directed at you, it was more aimed at a particular mindset. I do hope that you understand that such a mindset is a danger to all of us. However if you do feel that you were personally attacked then do report the posts in question. I did! I assume that’s why the posts were removed. They were clearly directed at me. If you want to argue about that .... find someone else! It’s good you’re sticking to cheerleading and adding little
So, what are you adding, other than arguing against the greater good?
E
"Well .... it was like this.... a poster cited a document saying one thing .... I said that’s not exactly what that documents says... nothing more nothing less. For some reason that tiny observation, which was absolutely true, provoked an unwarranted, aggressive reaction from the poster. Without any justification the poster and her cheerleaders sought to insult, abuse and, if not accuse, make assumptions regarding my personal actions. I think on reflection I’ve highlighted that some in the thread are absolutely blind to criticism and that any word spoken on a thread contrary to the ‘gangs’ beliefs will not be met with carefully considered response or even decency. While the poster I responded to chose to change the subject and never respond to my original post and immediately sought to attack I don’t think any of the cheerleaders actually read or questioned the validity of what I said ... your post that I am arguing against the greater good reflects this... you don’t even know what I said! As for arguments, you resurrected a thread you were very active in after more than 24 hours to ask why I’m arguing! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! I work a role which exposes me the the very worst results of this virus on a daily basis. I am directly responsible for those within the red zones safety and their use of personal protective equipment. I am very entitled to take a stance which is very heavily biased to the side of face coverings, that is after all the subject I work with every day. Why I choose to do that is because I am exposed to, I read and I digest the majority of new data, studies and tests. I then use that information in a clinical setting to keep my team and relatives families as safe as we can do. The long and short of this is the world of science can pretty safely assume wearing any face covering has a positive impact on infection spread, there is also a growing belief that there is a link to ingested viral load when patients are infected by covid. The numbers seem to suggest the chance of serious infection or fatality is reduced wearing even the simplest of face coverings. I have no idea what you do, I suspect you don’t work with covid patients, I suspect you don’t work as a researcher in this field. I therefore question why you seem to need to portray yourself as such a vocal negative opinion regarding mask wearing... its unqualified, biased and Ill informed in truth. If you want to challenge your brain have a read of this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 It’s a good overview on current world thinking with as many references as you like within its content. Why someone is hell bent on arguing the toss on what is said when it’s there to protect themselves and their families... well I don’t get that. Happy reading "See this is where you show your single mindedness regarding the issue. I haven’t argued against mask use, I haven’t stated I can produce 40 studies. I simply chose a line from the study that says .. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. Your summary ignored this line.... it wasn’t balanced .... for some reason you chose to rant, insult and abuse me! " Still digging? I've looked, I can't see any abuse. E Its the standard play, be contrarian then play the victim. Not the victim, not the contrarian ... you aren’t reading.... the term used was selfish c*nts, it was used twice by different people.... possibly deleted?? Yes that term was used a few times in the thread, I failed to see where it was directed at you, it was more aimed at a particular mindset. I do hope that you understand that such a mindset is a danger to all of us. However if you do feel that you were personally attacked then do report the posts in question. I did! I assume that’s why the posts were removed. They were clearly directed at me. If you want to argue about that .... find someone else! It’s good you’re sticking to cheerleading and adding little
So, what are you adding, other than arguing against the greater good?
E
Well .... it was like this.... a poster cited a document saying one thing .... I said that’s not exactly what that documents says... nothing more nothing less. For some reason that tiny observation, which was absolutely true, provoked an unwarranted, aggressive reaction from the poster.
Without any justification the poster and her cheerleaders sought to insult, abuse and, if not accuse, make assumptions regarding my personal actions.
I think on reflection I’ve highlighted that some in the thread are absolutely blind to criticism and that any word spoken on a thread contrary to the ‘gangs’ beliefs will not be met with carefully considered response or even decency. While the poster I responded to chose to change the subject and never respond to my original post and immediately sought to attack I don’t think any of the cheerleaders actually read or questioned the validity of what I said ... your post that I am arguing against the greater good reflects this... you don’t even know what I said!
As for arguments, you resurrected a thread you were very active in after more than 24 hours to ask why I’m arguing!
"Uhhhm, because I'm not on the forums 24/7, I come and go as life dictates. I apologise for not being able to disagree with you sooner. I'll try harder in future.
E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some very petulant people on here, 'sources' you get them then try and debunk them, you ask for credibility in doctors finds, you get them and we get your petty comebacks and relentless knit picking, if a professor of infectious deceases told you his finding and told what was/is going to happen, you lot would try and debunk it ahhhhhh the scientist of fab..." This. ^ Apologies for leaving it so long before commenting, apparently that's now a crime. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nor me though it’s evident you were active in posts after the thread was left yesterday. However, what are you disagreeing with me about? " Ah, I see. So once I've commented on a thread I'm not allowed to leave it, join others and return to the original? Let's start with your understand of the word "could" in scientific research papers. I understand why they use the word "could". Why do you think it's used and what do you think it infers? E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nor me though it’s evident you were active in posts after the thread was left yesterday. However, what are you disagreeing with me about? Ah, I see. So once I've commented on a thread I'm not allowed to leave it, join others and return to the original? Let's start with your understand of the word "could" in scientific research papers. I understand why they use the word "could". Why do you think it's used and what do you think it infers? E " My understanding as that the word could maintains its meaning in whichever context it’s used! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t know how that relates to anything I’ve said . It may be easier if you use something I’ve said then highlight the bit you disagree with " You've commented on the word "could" in your very first post in this thread, then went on to argue it's meaning and useage in scientific papers. Is that highlighted adequately enough for you?
E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was pissed off the last time I went to Tesco some selfish twat was locking his bike to the sanitizer station" You're kidding?
E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nor me though it’s evident you were active in posts after the thread was left yesterday. However, what are you disagreeing with me about? Ah, I see. So once I've commented on a thread I'm not allowed to leave it, join others and return to the original? Let's start with your understand of the word "could" in scientific research papers. I understand why they use the word "could". Why do you think it's used and what do you think it infers? E My understanding is that the word could maintains its meaning in whichever context it’s used! " Could - although not a definitive term, is still a positive term and the opposite of cannot, shan't won't or unable. Having written several scientific documents, could is used where a it is not possible to assign a value or the authors understanding does not extend beyond a basic knowledge that the subject completes the requirement to some degree. In short, it works. It cannot be denied by any sane and normal person that the benefits offered by complying with the requirements does have a positive impact on significantly reducing transmission. We saw it through the last lockdown where social distancing and hand washing had a slow but steady impact on the decline. More recent results from the tier 3 areas showed a significant impact with many of those areas transmission rates peaking and falling within 3 weeks of going into the higher tier. The only difference between the current lockdown/tier 3 and previous is the use of face coverings from the start. The original lockdown took months to show incremental change, the current has shown an exponential decrease. Scientific evidence may not exist for the usefulness of face coverings no more than scientific evidence exists for the long-term damage typing on a mobile phone screen will have on our finger joints or how human fingers may evolve in the future. What little empirical and observational evidence exists, the vast majority states in one form or another it is beneficial. There will always be someone who will state the contrary and they may have some evidence they have pinned their negative observation upon. Invariably they will never give a balanced argument of positives against negative as this will undermine their whole argument. There are positives and negatives for everything and unless we take an impartial, balanced and holistic view of the subject, we will constantly go around in circles arguing the toss. If you still don't agree, I have just one thing to say - Stop being a petulant twunt and go and worry about something more important like climate change! Oh let me guess, you don't believe climate change is taking place either do you? Thought as much.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;” Could result.... with stronger associations with N95 or similar reuseable 12-16 layer.... Your summary isn’t quite the same as the quote! Ok so what do you disagree with? " I strongly disagree with your subsequent questioning and understanding of the use of "could" in scientific research papers. Which is what I just asked, but you chose to ignore. It's patently obvious why the word "could" is used. In a similar way to how condoms "could" stop unwanted pregnancy and transmission of sti's. Again, my apologies for not responding to you in a timely manner. I'll make every effort to check when you're online and posting in order to be more prompt.
E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
