One last thing, for everyone struggling with "masks" you may want to try something called a Buff. It's a microfiber "tube" designed to be worn as a scarf, snood, hat etc. It's breathable, won't steam up glasses, can stay round your neck and be easily pulled up over the mouth and nose. It's gently elastic and doesn't overheat. I fortunately had a couple as they are great when traveling in very cold weather.
The original buff is the one to get.
If anyone is thinking of getting a Buff then I've found the merino wool ones to be much better than the polyester ones. The wool ones are also about 12cm longer which makes them a bit more versatile. I swear by them.
If you can keep your head, while those around you are losing theirs, you may not have grasped the seriousness of the situation.
I am no great fans of the public wearing masks, for the reasons often quoted, but it is an altruistic act and it is the law. As I have stated many times on this thread, I wore a mask for most of my working life and I know how difficult it is to wear them properly. Rising admission rates to ICU, does not mean that mask don't work.
How can you lie there and think of England When you don't even know who's in the team
It could well be that things would be worse if nobody wore a mask. The increase in cases proves nothing either way. But surely logic dictates that any barrier is better than nothing.
@B3 The problem is, and with the greatest respect to you, "worse" and "better than nothing" doesn't mean anything and is a layman's term that doesn't support proper debate. It's an unfortunate logical fallacy. This is a significant part of the issue when understanding the current position and problem especially with ever changing guidance.
Let me give an example, and I'll make a few assumptions to keep to the point rather than provide a statistical argument. Let's say that face coverings and social distancing reduce the risk of another individual contracting the virus by 50%. However, also remember that the risk of dying of the virus for healthy people 50 to 60 is very low (about 0.3%), and negligible for people under 50 (about 0.05%, which is about the same as the risk of dying from choking on food). And of course you can choose not to leave your house, reducing your risk further, but you can't stop eating...
Now, let's say that social distancing has reduced the capacity of entertainment venues by 50% (using the BBC calculations). On top of that, the rule of 6 and face coverings have meant that a further 33% of people who would have gone out, have decided not to do so. This results in significantly reduced custom for businesses, and jobs are also lost. This is the current situation.
In turn, this means lower tax revenues for the government. They therefore have less money to invest into the NHS, at the same time as resources are being diverted from other medicine to focus on the virus.
The end result means that fewer life threatening conditions are detected and treated, quality of life is reduced and we are all poorer financially and societally as a result.
So, a measure such as compulsory face masks can have significant macroeconomic impact. The "worse that could happen" is that a significant chunk of the population simply decides not to bother going out, don't spend money, and the eventual result is an inability to properly fund cancer treatment et al
Back to my stat above. A healthy individual under 50 has a greater chance of choking to death than dying from coronavirus. That's why the political response to this virus has to differ from the scientific response, which would be full lockdown until the virus is eradicated, no exceptions.
Hopefully the gist of the issue is clear, but I can provide some stats and sources to explain further. Perhaps the best example is this, from the British Heart Foundation, that identifies a 50% reduction in people seeking care for heart attacks.
Unfortunately, the "worst that can happen" is more people die from the prevention measures than from the virus.
And that's why it's also a duty to question wether the measures are correct, to argue for and against face masks, and not simply blindly comply without discussion and debate. Those who say "just get on with it and obey the rules" fundamentally misunderstand the difference between obeying the law and legitimately questioning the foundations of, for example, national policy, which is I'd argue a civic duty.
You can probably tell I'm interested in independent critical thinking and the scientific method
I always wear a mask when I go into shops etc because it's the law and I make sure it covers my mouth and nose properly. I hate wearing them, I feel uncomfortable and unable to breath properly. Since mask wearing became law I have stopped all but absolutely essential visits to shops. I have only been into two cafe's since January, I used to go weekly with my Bestie. I no longer go shopping for pleasure and so impulse buys have become a thing of the past. The times I do go out I find that those wearing masks no longer respect social distancing rules, its as if their mask is some sort of protective shield. Due to differing opinions, I have no idea whether wearing a face mask reduces the chance of me or any other person from catching Covid. I do know that it has restricted my enjoyment of life and that my contribution to the economy has dropped considerably. Mind you I am saving money.
Lots of people want to go to restaurants in large groups and go to the cinema and go on cruises. Lots of people want their jobs back and their lives to return to normal. People stopped buying videos but they still watch films and tv. People want change if it’s for the better. Everyone’s life is now worse.
At some point we need to learn to live with this virus as we have learned over the years to live with everything else that will kill us. Taking sensible precautions is altruistic but so many of the rules are so ridiculous they will not be obeyed.
My daughter goes swimming, there is now an empty lane in the centre of the pool which means everyone is closer together in the two remaining lanes and nobody seems to have realised that all the water is the same water. Just one example.
I can meet a friend in a pub, a cafe or a local shop, I can meet her in a park but I can’t go into her house.
I can drink until 10pm in a pub but after that I cannot. Can Covid tell the time?
The problem with your theory @strelitzia32 is that you can't just say the risk of dying is 0.3 %, because that is only the individual risk of dying. If you come onto my ICU and infect me and maybe 3-4 other staff members, you have to consider their risk of dying. Plus of course the other people you have come into contact with before you required hospitalisation. If you choke to death, it is only you who are affected.
How can you lie there and think of England When you don't even know who's in the team
I have mentioned before that many aspects of how we live our lives are officially within the ‘rules’ (eg. swimming, making a support bubble etc) yet, if we dissect the potential risks involved, are somewhat unwise. There is still choice.
It is a numbers game to a certain extent, whether a chance of something is 1 in 10 or 1 in a million, that doesn’t help you if you are the “1”. That is life in general.
I feel that some of issues with this pandemic are because individuals need to make personal sacrifices (no holidays, no socialising, no seeing loved ones, wearing masks, isolating...) for the greater good and for others, and that is not a motivator for many.
. The statistics regarding the number of cases that they pump out every day are meaningless if people can't access the test when they need it. How can you determine the R number in an area where testing is rationed?
Posts
As I have stated many times on this thread, I wore a mask for most of my working life and I know how difficult it is to wear them properly.
Rising admission rates to ICU, does not mean that mask don't work.
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
Let me give an example, and I'll make a few assumptions to keep to the point rather than provide a statistical argument. Let's say that face coverings and social distancing reduce the risk of another individual contracting the virus by 50%. However, also remember that the risk of dying of the virus for healthy people 50 to 60 is very low (about 0.3%), and negligible for people under 50 (about 0.05%, which is about the same as the risk of dying from choking on food). And of course you can choose not to leave your house, reducing your risk further, but you can't stop eating...
Now, let's say that social distancing has reduced the capacity of entertainment venues by 50% (using the BBC calculations). On top of that, the rule of 6 and face coverings have meant that a further 33% of people who would have gone out, have decided not to do so. This results in significantly reduced custom for businesses, and jobs are also lost. This is the current situation.
In turn, this means lower tax revenues for the government. They therefore have less money to invest into the NHS, at the same time as resources are being diverted from other medicine to focus on the virus.
The end result means that fewer life threatening conditions are detected and treated, quality of life is reduced and we are all poorer financially and societally as a result.
So, a measure such as compulsory face masks can have significant macroeconomic impact. The "worse that could happen" is that a significant chunk of the population simply decides not to bother going out, don't spend money, and the eventual result is an inability to properly fund cancer treatment et al
Back to my stat above. A healthy individual under 50 has a greater chance of choking to death than dying from coronavirus. That's why the political response to this virus has to differ from the scientific response, which would be full lockdown until the virus is eradicated, no exceptions.
Hopefully the gist of the issue is clear, but I can provide some stats and sources to explain further. Perhaps the best example is this, from the British Heart Foundation, that identifies a 50% reduction in people seeking care for heart attacks.
https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/news-from-the-bhf/news-archive/2020/april/drop-in-heart-attack-patients-amidst-coronavirus-outbreak
Unfortunately, the "worst that can happen" is more people die from the prevention measures than from the virus.
And that's why it's also a duty to question wether the measures are correct, to argue for and against face masks, and not simply blindly comply without discussion and debate. Those who say "just get on with it and obey the rules" fundamentally misunderstand the difference between obeying the law and legitimately questioning the foundations of, for example, national policy, which is I'd argue a civic duty.
You can probably tell I'm interested in independent critical thinking and the scientific method
If you come onto my ICU and infect me and maybe 3-4 other staff members, you have to consider their risk of dying. Plus of course the other people you have come into contact with before you required hospitalisation.
If you choke to death, it is only you who are affected.
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
And no one has realised that 😀
It is a numbers game to a certain extent, whether a chance of something is 1 in 10 or 1 in a million, that doesn’t help you if you are the “1”. That is life in general.
I feel that some of issues with this pandemic are because individuals need to make personal sacrifices (no holidays, no socialising, no seeing loved ones, wearing masks, isolating...) for the greater good and for others, and that is not a motivator for many.
The statistics regarding the number of cases that they pump out every day are meaningless if people can't access the test when they need it.
How can you determine the R number in an area where testing is rationed?