![]() |
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
In the height of the mask-wearing phase when it was a requirement to wear masks in public places, we'd see people wearing these standard masks that were clearly not tight on the face, and a countless number of people with the mask under the nose. No-one ever seemed to challenge anyone about this. I still believe that the change of government advice in favour of mask-wearing was simply PR, designed to get people who had been scared to death by the medical rhetoric out of their homes. It is untrue to say no-one is making us wear them. In too many situations, it is still a requirement (GP surgeries, hospitals, chemists, aeroplanes, etc.). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0245688 |
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
|
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
Quote:
It’s interesting that you don’t think people should wear masks to GP surgeries& hospitals, where it’s likely that the people there would be vulnerable - can I ask why you think that? |
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
|
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
|
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
|
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
"cloth and surgical masks were not significantly different" https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance...iab797/6370149 |
Re: Coronavirus
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Two different things. The study showed that surgical & fabric masks kept between 65-80% of particles outside the mask - that is not "largely ineffective". https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...3&d=1633289074 Anyway, instead of a study that involved 7 people, how about one that involved 350,000 people? https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-ne...-covid-19.html Quote:
|
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
Although I still think it's a legal requirement on TfL services, and in hospitals and medical practices (which makes sense as there are sick people there) in most places you're neither legally compelled to nor is it enforceable, though I suppose a place could in principle refuse entry to someone who isn't if they want to make it a condition of entry. In any case, even when it was backed up with a legal instrument, there were still exemptions, and there was no requirement to have your exemption officially certified by a doctor, literally you could not wear one, and they weren't really supposed to challenge someone who wasn't, this was actually explicitly against the law, some form of disability discrimination as well to bar people because they weren't, there are plenty of examples where people have unlawfully challenged someone for not wearing a face covering because they are exempt. And not all disabilities are visible, for example, it can be if it causes you distress, which could be if you were assaulted and someone grabbed you over the face to stop you crying out for help... I do think some of it was a visual cue or even a confidence booster, we did get rid of covid in March-July 2020 to levels much lower than now, and get most of the economy open albeit with social distancing in pubs etc, before it was mandatory to wear masks basically in indoor areas. Whilst some of it makes sense, for example if you're close to a lot of people for a long time period, in something like a supermarket where you're not in close contact with anyone for any sustained period, it doesn't. And the way they ended up in pubs where you had table service anyway, had to wear one going in and out and when going into the toilet, but not when you were sat at your table (and presumably in a toilet, though no-one's going to bang down the door and check you're wearing one there) is a bit silly because the virus is still out there, they may as well not bother and say you don't need to for the amount of time you're wearing one. Plus a lot of people forget they don't really protect the wearer but others, which presumably only applies if you have covid (or anything else like a cold) and don't realise it. |
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
|
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
|
Re: Coronavirus
Masks are still very needed when flying. Is flew on holiday a couple of weeks back with Tui and it was mask on at Gatwick and it stayed on apart from when eating or drinking until we landed and out of the airport. 12 hours in total. No big deal to be honest, the biggest thing is to dress light so you don't overheat.
There were people on the plane who had medical exemptions. And so did their spouses. And so did their kids. One of those poor families went ballistic when harmless insecticide was sprayed through the plane on landing. The Chief Purser tried to defuse the situation but in the end lost a bit of patience saying that they should have worn a mask then and if they refused to let the crew set off the insecticide, then the plane couldn't let passengers off and they would need to take it up with the other 230 passengers! Just checked as I am flying with work in a couple of weeks and BA are still mandating masks - https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb...lcome-on-board |
Re: Coronavirus
As are Jet2, RyanAir, easyJet, TUI, KLM, Aer Lingus, & Virgin Atlantic.
|
Re: Coronavirus
No masks on pierr's flight though, that's a bonus.
|
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:18. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum