• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The case for and against the effectiveness of face coverings and the mandating of their use

Status
Not open for further replies.

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
My employer took no precautions whatsoever, it was like nothing had happened, so I simply chose to sit on my own at lunch time, not in a room full of people.
I don't really understand why you brought this up; it's not on topic but as I said before, I don't think your perception of what people have said in this conversation is correct and the dispute that occurred at your workplace is not surprising for me to hear. You shouldn't be getting abuse but I suspect that I would hear a different version of events from the other party. As interesting as it was to hear about the dispute, I suggest you drop it now; I've given a recommendation but of course I don't expect you to take it and therefore I don't think there is anything more to be said on that matter. If you think there is, I recommend creating a new thread to discuss it further.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,221
Location
London
Is it still necessary to prolong the measures at this stage, now that SARS-CoV-2 is endemic within the U.K. and population immunity as about as high as can reasonably be expected?

This is the crux of the issue: the people in favour of restrictions will endlessly move the goalposts, fear monger about variants etc. It’s now vital that the government holds its nerve as we move into Autumn snd the inevitable “protect the NHS” shouting starts.
 

Green tractor

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2019
Messages
227
Location
Lancaster
I don't really understand why you brought this up; it's not on topic but as I said before, I don't think your perception of what people have said in this conversation is correct and the dispute that occurred at your workplace is not surprising for me to hear. You shouldn't be getting abuse but I suspect that I would hear a different version of events from the other party. As interesting as it was to hear about the dispute, I suggest you drop it now; I've given a recommendation but of course I don't expect you to take it and therefore I don't think there is anything more to be said on that matter. If you think there is, I recommend creating a new thread to discuss it further.
I brought it up, because it was another example of people getting upset when they saw others being careful, like you seem to be (and in the case of not sitting with everybody else it certainly was an effective measure) You seemed to of dodged the question as to why avoiding sitting with other people in a non distance manner (before anybody had been vaccinated) makes me the victim of a misinformation campaign?

My relations with my work colleagues are fine, it was a one off isolated incident, and I don't bear grudges.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
I brought it up, because it was another example of people getting upset when they saw others being careful, like you seem to be (and in the case of not sitting with everybody else it certainly was an effective measure)
I refer you to what I said on this matter previously, that your perception is not the same as the reality.

You seemed to [have] dodged the question as to why avoiding sitting with other people in a non distance manner (before anybody had been vaccinated) makes me the victim of a misinformation campaign?
I said I felt you were the victim of a misinformation campaign; please do not misrepresent what was said. You asked me why I felt that, and I already answered it. Here it is again:

You appear to underestimate the overall risk of this particular virus, underestimate effectiveness of vaccines and overestimate the effectiveness of flimsy masks.


I also stated:
In my opinion, anyone who thinks that wearing a flimsy loose fitting mask is offering any measurable degree of protection is indeed misinformed

In contrast, choosing to wear an effective FFP3 mask would be effective against SARS-CoV-2 transmission; anyone wearing one would be well informed about the effectiveness of such masks (whether or not they are well informed about the purpose and effectiveness of vaccines is another question entirely)

I won't ask again; for the final time: please do not misrepresent what others have said and please do not re-ask the same questions.
 

alex397

Established Member
Joined
6 Oct 2017
Messages
1,546
Location
UK
So in other words you’re dodging the question because you don’t have any evidence! I can’t say I’m surprised. Mask enthusiasts have consistently failed to provide evidence of efficacy since the beginning of the pandemic.
Nope. I’ve already linked articles in the past on this forum. I can’t see any point in doing so again.
I’m not a mask ‘enthusiast’, and it’s quite silly to use such an expression, and doesn’t really help make this a healthy debate does it?
There is plenty of evidence on both sides of this argument. I have found Dr Phil Hammond, who writes for Private Eye, the most reliable source for Covid, and he has advocated the use of wearing masks
That’s entirely up to you. You might find yourself getting some strange looks though as the rest of us want to get back to normal. I notice mask wearing is dropping off a cliff around my way. I was on a very busy crush loaded train yesterday and I’d say less than 20% were bothering.
It would be a shame if people did give me funny looks, as it would show they have nothing better to do.
Whether you anti-maskers like it or not, mask wearing will continue in some form, similar to how they are often used on countries such as South Korea even before Covid.
if you don’t want to wear one, that’s fine. I don’t judge those who are not wearing one, so we shouldn’t be judging those who do.
Im finding that most people, or ‘sheeple’ as some might call them, are still wearing masks, especially so on my trip to Scotland last week.
It shows you don’t know me well, as I also want to get back to normal. Like many others, people have felt that having a bit of protection helps them feel better about getting back to normal.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
Nope. I’ve already linked articles in the past on this forum. I can’t see any point in doing so again.
I’m not a mask ‘enthusiast’, and it’s quite silly to use such an expression, and doesn’t really help make this a healthy debate does it?
There is plenty of evidence on both sides of this argument. I have found Dr Phil Hammond, who writes for Private Eye, the most reliable source for Covid, and he has advocated the use of wearing masks
Well I've found other people to be more reliable. The case for face coverings is not very strong so there are plenty of people who will argue both for or against.

It would be a shame if people did give me funny looks, as it would show they have nothing better to do.
Whether you anti-maskers like it or not, mask wearing will continue in some form, similar to how they are often used on countries such as South Korea even before Covid.
Whether you pro-maskers like it or not, mask wearing will continue to decline and it will soon be the case that people who make your choice will be very much the majority. Our culture is not going to change in the manner you appear to hope for.

if you don’t want to wear one, that’s fine. I don’t judge those who are not wearing one, so we shouldn’t be judging those who do.
Im finding that most people, or ‘sheeple’ as some might call them, are still wearing masks, especially so on my trip to Scotland last week.
I wonder what services you are catching? Clearly not the same ones as me as most people are not wearing them, but of course Scotland will be different as they are still mandated there, though plenty of people in Scotland aren't.

It shows you don’t know me well, as I also want to get back to normal. Like many others, people have felt that having
It doesn't sound like you want to be back to normal to me, but whatever.


a bit of protection helps them feel better about getting back to normal.
If you have chosen not to get vaccinated or you do not believe in the effectiveness of vaccines, or if you think you need additional protection for any other reason, you can get extra protection by wearing an FFP3 mask, which would be highly effective against virus transmission.

If you choose to wear a flimsy loose fitting mask, that is your choice but it does not actually offer any protection.
 

Green tractor

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2019
Messages
227
Location
Lancaster
I said I felt you were the victim of a misinformation campaign; please do not misrepresent what was said. You asked me why I felt that, and I already answered it. Here it is again:

You appear to underestimate the overall risk of this particular virus, underestimate effectiveness of vaccines and overestimate the effectiveness of flimsy masks.
You feel I underestimate the risk of the virus? How does that make me the victim of a misinformation campaign?

How does me choosing to be careful by social distancing (before the vaccines were approved) and avoid taking the virus into a household with 2 clinically extremity vulnerable people make me a victim of a misinformation campaign?
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
You feel I underestimate the risk of the virus? How does that make me the victim of a misinformation campaign?
Because you have been mislead into thinking the dangers are higher than they are; this has resulted in you becoming embroiled in arguments both on this forum and at your workplace.

The vaccines are highly effective, and yet you appear to be acting as if they are not. The evidence has been provided and it is absolutely clear that they are effective but you still don't appear to be believing it.

Standard face coverings are clearly ineffective; you appear to recognhise that FFP3 masks are highly effective and yet you choose to put your faith in ineffective masks rather than FFP3 masks. This is evidence you have been mislead by people who advocate flimsy loose fitting masks.

There is nothing new here; you are asking the same questions over and over again and we are going round and round in circles. The evidence is all there but you choose not to acknowledge it. The questions you ask have been answered multiple times but you do not see.
 

Green tractor

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2019
Messages
227
Location
Lancaster
Please answer the question, are you claiming that social distancing is ineffective?
You seemed to of dodged the question as to why avoiding sitting with other people in a non distance manner (before anybody had been vaccinated) makes me the victim of a misinformation campaign?

You appear to underestimate the overall risk of this particular virus, underestimate effectiveness of vaccines and overestimate the effectiveness of flimsy masks.
I don't underestimate the effectiveness of vaccines either, but not everybody is double jabbed yet
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
Please answer the question, are you claiming that social distancing is ineffective?
I'm not claiming that, and I again refer you to what I said above.
I don't underestimate the effectiveness of vaccines either, but not everybody is double jabbed yet
Are you are proposing that people should (be made to?) wear standard loose fitting flimsy face masks until "everybody" (how do you define that?) has been double jabbed?
 

NorthOxonian

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
1,483
Location
Oxford/Newcastle
Whether you anti-maskers like it or not, mask wearing will continue in some form, similar to how they are often used on countries such as South Korea even before Covid.
The issue is statements like this don't really contribute anything, and if anything just serve to irritate.

A lot of people are uncomfortable around those who wear masks. You can't expect everyone to love the idea of us living in a faceless society. Some people have disabilities which mean that masks make communication much more difficult, while for others the sight of masks might remind them of traumatic experiences that they've had in the last year. You can't just expect to call for this huge societal change without people pushing back.

I don't think it's right that you should get funny looks, and certainly think that what you said earlier about getting into a confrontation over it last night was appalling. But equally you have to accept that some people are going to feel uncomfortable around you if you wear a mask, and many people will be uncomfortable at the idea of masks become normalised forever. They don't have a right to say or do anything to you, but they do have a right to their own thoughts. It's no different to how you might feel uncomfortable around someone not wearing one, which is your right - but you can't start having a go at them or worse.
 

Green tractor

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2019
Messages
227
Location
Lancaster
I'm not claiming that, and I again refer you to what I said above.

Are you are proposing that people should (be made to?) wear standard loose fitting flimsy face masks until "everybody" (how do you define that?) has been double jabbed?
I'm not proposing anything, I just want to know why you have a problem with OTHER people wearing face masks, I fully respect the choice of those who choose not to.

People should not abuse you for this; in my opinion you have been mislead and this has been harmful to you. My issue isn't so much against people who have been mislead but against people spreading the misleading messaging as this is what is causing the harm to our mental, social and ultimately physical well-being.
I got abuse for sitting on my own at break times rather than sit in the non socially distanced mess-room, had people make fun of me for actually staying at home during lockdown. One chap got very angry with me shouting at me asking if I was high risk (2 members of my household are) turns out his girlfriend is at high risk for some reason, but following the crowd and putting on a macho front was more important to him than reducing his (and therefore her) risk. (This was before the vaccines had been rolled out)
How have I been misled by believing that Covid 19 will be harmful to 2 clinically extremely vulnerable members of my household?

Are you going to suggest that they should wear FFP 3 masks in their own home?

I thought it was best to take all reasonable precautions to avoid taking it there in the first place. Are you saying I should not of taken care to protect them?
 
Last edited:

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,221
Location
London
I'm not proposing anything, I just want to know why you have a problem with OTHER people wearing face masks, I fully respect the choice of those who choose not to.

Really!? I rather suspect you weren’t in favour of the legal requirement to wear face coverings being removed…
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
I'm not proposing anything
Then what was the purpose of your statement?

I just want to know why you have a problem with OTHER people wearing face masks, I fully respect the choice of those who choose not to.
As I've said before, please do not make false claims about what other people have said and please do not ask questions you have asked before; see above.

How have I been misled by believing that Covid 19 will be harmful to 2 clinically extremely vulnerable members of my household?
What makes you think a Sars-CoV-2 infection "will be harmful" to two vaccinated people who are "clinically extremely vulnerable"? Without knowing how they are "clinically extremely vulnerable" it is difficult to have a nuanced discussion so if you can elaborate on that, it would be useful.

Are you going to suggest that they should wear FFP 3 masks in their own home?
I do not think anyone should be made to do anything!

I thought it was best to take all reasonable precautions to avoid taking it there in the first place.
What do you define as a reasonable precaution? If you are referring to mask wearing, what type of mask are you referring to?

Are you saying I should not [have] taken care to protect them?
I have not said that, nor am I sure what you even mean by this.
 

Green tractor

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2019
Messages
227
Location
Lancaster
Really!? I rather suspect you weren’t in favour of the legal requirement to wear face coverings being removed…
I wasn't, (in the case of supermarkets and public transport etc, but not pubs) but it has been, so I respect that. (basically I would of kept the non economically damaging measures in place until next spring, just on the basis that it was best to try and avoid a surge in cases in mid winter. Things like the plastic screens too.)

What makes you think a Sars-CoV-2 infection "will be harmful" to two vaccinated people who are "clinically extremely vulnerable"?
Please read what I wrote, this was early last summer, before anybody had been vaccinated. I am referring to my parents, dad 91, mum 84.

Are you saying should of carried on as if nothing had changed in the world?
What do you define as a reasonable precaution?
I am referring to me social distancing by not going into a crowded non socially distance, non ventilated messroom with 12 other people. (Doing the household shopping late at night too while the supermarket was quiet, something I continue to do, its an altogether more pleasant experience.)

Why does me taking precautions to avoid infecting myself and my household, before any of us were vaccinated make me the victim of a misinformation campaign?
 
Last edited:

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
Please read what I wrote, this was early last summer, before anybody had been vaccinated.
You did not make it clear you were talking about last Summer; you said "will be" which relates to the future tense, not the past tense.

I am referring to my parents, dad 91, mum 84.
You cannot state with certainty that exposure to Sars-CoV-2 "will" be harmful to them.

Are you saying should of carried on as if nothing had changed in the world?
I am not saying that; you've just made that up.

What I am saying is that the wearing of a flimsy loose fitting mask is not going to protect anyone from virus infection; if you want additional protection you have been made aware that FFP3 masks are highly effective. Whether you, or they, choose to wear effective or ineffective masks, or no masks, is a decision for each individual.

I am referring to me social distancing by not going into a crowded messroom with 12 other people (doing the household shopping late at night too while the supermarket was quiet, something I continue to do, its an altogether more pleasant experience.)
We're going round in circles here but I am finding it difficult to believe the dispute arose simply for this reason.

Why does me taking precautions to avoid infecting myself and my household, before any of us were vaccinated make me the victim of a misinformation campaign?
I said I felt you were the victim of a misinformation campaign; please do not misrepresent what was said.

You asked me why I felt that, and I already answered it. Here it is again:

You appear to underestimate the overall risk of this particular virus, underestimate effectiveness of vaccines and overestimate the effectiveness of flimsy masks.


I also stated:
In my opinion, anyone who thinks that wearing a flimsy loose fitting mask is offering any measurable degree of protection is indeed misinformed

In contrast, choosing to wear an effective FFP3 mask would be effective against SARS-CoV-2 transmission; anyone wearing one would be well informed about the effectiveness of such masks (whether or not they are well informed about the purpose and effectiveness of vaccines is another question entirely)
 

Green tractor

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2019
Messages
227
Location
Lancaster
You
Because that is what I have decided to do, it is entirely my choice, just as it is your choice not to wear one



Wearing a mask is considerably less restrictive than the shops/pubs being closed, public transport being cut back and being told to stay in my home as much as possible.

Also in terms of abuse, people getting angry I've been on the receiving end of some at work for being careful. My employer did nothing, I got abuse for sitting on my own at break times rather than sit in the non socially distanced mess-room, had people make fun of me for actually stating at home during lockdown. One chap got very angry with me shouting at me asking if I was high risk (2 members of my household are) turns out his girlfriend is at high risk for some reason, but following the crowd and putting on a macho front was more important to him than reducing his (and therefore her) risk. (This was before the vaccines had been rolled out)
I did make it clear, you chose not to read it.
You cannot state with certainty that exposure to Sars-CoV-2 "will" be harmful to them.
Do you not agree it would be best to not be responsible for testing that theory? I would have to live with that for the rest of my life. They are both fit, healthy and active.

What I am saying is that the wearing of a flimsy loose fitting mask is not going to protect anyone from virus infection; if you want additional protection you have been made aware that FFP3 masks are highly effective. Whether you, or they, choose to wear effective or ineffective masks, or no masks, is a decision for each individual.
In that post I was referring to people getting abuse for being careful to avoid infection (before the vaccines were approved) Just to point out that it isn't only people who don't wear face masks that get funny looks etc.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
You

I did make it clear, you chose not to read it.
The post I was responding to was:

I'm not proposing anything, I just want to know why you have a problem with OTHER people wearing face masks, I fully respect the choice of those who choose not to.


How have I been misled by believing that Covid 19 will be harmful to 2 clinically extremely vulnerable members of my household?

Are you going to suggest that they should wear FFP 3 masks in their own home?

I thought it was best to take all reasonable precautions to avoid taking it there in the first place. Are you saying I should not of taken care to protect them?

By quoting a different post, this does not demonstrate that you "made it clear" you were talking in the past tense; as I said above, your post used the future tense.

I am now finding that with almost every post you make, I am having to go back and find what was actually said as this appears to differ from your perception; this is unsustainable and it's wearing thin.

Do you not agree it would be best to not be responsible for testing that theory? I would have to live with that for the rest of my life. They are both by the way fit, healthy and active
Just to be clear, you are saying we should state with certainly that a Sars-CoV-2 infection will be harmful in a fit, healthy and active person aged 84, just in case it turns out to be true?

As for "not testing the theory" that the virus may not be harmful to them (are you still having this discussion in the past tense, by the way?), if you therefore believe it is prudent for you to wear a protective mask, as I have said before, you (and/or they) have the option to wear an effective FFP3 mask if you(/they) wish to do so.

I know you were in favour of the mask mandate to continue, but there is no evidence that extending the mandate would have offered any protection to you/them against infection; you can obtain any additional protection you seek regardless of whether or not others wear effective or ineffective masks or no masks.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
This is the crux of the issue: the people in favour of restrictions will endlessly move the goalposts, fear monger about variants etc. It’s now vital that the government holds its nerve as we move into Autumn snd the inevitable “protect the NHS” shouting starts.

That holding the nerve I suspect is going to severely test the political fraternity, as cases are bound to rise at some point, and the “headline” mortality figures are still pushing the point where they can make uncomfortable publicity should people wish to spin them a certain way.

I’d be more confident if we had a batch of politicians who didn’t have a track record of flapping in the wind, u-turning and being generally useless. Or, to put it another way, I wouldn’t be surprised at all we get some kind of lockdown before the spring.

If we do, we are screwed forever more, as I fear it then really will be welcome to our new life of everything being closed over winter, and we get a few months of release around the summer school holidays, and perhaps a few days to see a specified number of contacts over Christmas if we all behave well, wear our masks, and wash our hands when ordered...
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,221
Location
London
I wasn't, (in the case of supermarkets and public transport etc, but not pubs) but it has been, so I respect that. (basically I would of kept the non economically damaging measures in place until next spring, just on the basis that it was best to try and avoid a surge in cases in mid winter. Things like the plastic screens too.)

The trouble with this kind of thinking is that it overlooks the simple reality that we cannot stop what is going to be an endemic virus spreading, and case numbers will inevitably increase when restrictions are lifted. So essentially it is an argument for perpetual restrictions. Case numbers are not the concern they once were now that we have an effective vaccine.

Many of these measures are also highly questionable - little to no evidence in favour of masks - plastic screens again have little scientific credibility, and indeed can make things worse as they can reduce ventilation.

Please read what I wrote, this was early last summer, before anybody had been vaccinated. I am referring to my parents, dad 91, mum 84.

Are you saying should of carried on as if nothing had changed in the world?

I can see that what have been a worry before the vaccine, but assuming they are both vaccinated, everything possible has been done. People of this age are sadly at high risk from flu but we would never consider mandating the kinds of things we have seen over the last 18 months to prevent flu spreading.
 

Green tractor

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2019
Messages
227
Location
Lancaster
As for "not testing the theory" that the virus may not be harmful to them (are you still having this discussion in the past tense, by the way?)
I was referring to my decision to be extremely careful before they were vaccinated. Do you have a problem with this, do you think I was being too careful?

I’d be more confident if we had a batch of politicians who didn’t have a track record of flapping in the wind, u-turning and being generally useless.
And that is the problem. Both sides of the debate look to countries which have had generally consistent policies. What was needed was a consitent simple set of rules, oh and some political leaders which could stick to them too.
 
Last edited:

GALLANTON

Member
Joined
18 May 2021
Messages
246
Location
Scotland
I was referring to my decision to be extremely careful before they were vaccinated. Do you have a problem with this or do you think I was being too careful?

Better safe than sorry. If you are taking precautions to reduce the risk of infecting vulnerable people then I see absolutely no issue with doing so.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,221
Location
London
I’d be more confident if we had a batch of politicians who didn’t have a track record of flapping in the wind, u-turning and being generally useless. Or, to put it another way, I wouldn’t be surprised at all we get some kind of lockdown before the spring.

I certainly share your concern! You’d hope the simple logic that we’ve now long since vaccinated high risk groups would be enough to face this kind of thing down. But I can certainly imagine calls along the lines of: “we need a circuit breaker lockdown until we offer booster vaccines to the at risk”.

And that is the problem. Both sides of the debate look to countries which have had generally consistent policies. What was needed was a consitent simple set of rules, oh and some political leaders which could stick to them too.

I’d have liked to see more focus on measures that actually mattered and had scientific evidence supporting them, rather than irrelevant sideshows such as masks, plant pots closing streets, and daft one way systems. Basically the Swedish approach which has not delivered significantly worse results than countries which took a much stricter approach.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
I was referring to my decision to be extremely careful before they were vaccinated.
That doesn't answer my question.

Do you have a problem with this, do you think I was being too careful?
A problem with what exactly, and how does this relate to the topic in hand?

Better safe than sorry. If you are taking precautions to reduce the risk of infecting vulnerable people then I see absolutely no issue with doing so.
To be clear: in this context we are talking about "fit, healthy and active" people, who have been vaccinated, and are deemed "vulnerable" purely due to being 84 and 91 years old.

If anyone believes that it is important that such an individual is not exposed to a virus, then the wearing of those individuals or close family members of FFP3 masks would be an effective precaution that could be taken. Whether this is proportionate, given the effectiveness of vaccines, is something each individual can decide on. But there is no doubt that anyone wearing such an effective mask, in accordance with the instructions, is given additional protection on top of the already excellent protection provided by the vaccines.

But if the 'precaution' is the wearing of a standard flimsy loose fitting mask, then this offers no measurable protection against infection, as the study linked to in this thread demonstrated.

If we are talking about other precautions then that's really a debate for a different thread.
 

Green tractor

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2019
Messages
227
Location
Lancaster
To be clear: in this context we are talking about "fit, healthy and active" people, who have been vaccinated, and are deemed "vulnerable" purely due to being 84 and 91 years old.

We are talking about people who were at the time not vaccinated due to the vaccines not having been approved at the time as I have pointed out several times.

Now can you please answer the question. Do you think I was being too careful by not going into a crowded messroom at work twice a day as well as taking other precautions to avoid taking covid 19 into a household I shared with my elderly parents.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
We are talking about people who were at the time not vaccinated due to the vaccines not having been approved at the time as I have pointed out several times.

Now can you please answer the question. Do you think I was being too careful by not going into a crowded messroom at work twice a day as well as taking other precautions to avoid taking covid 19 into a household I shared with my elderly parents.
I don't understand why you are so keen to drag this thread off topic into a discussion about a historical scenario which isn't even related to the case for or against the effectiveness of face coverings and the mandating of their use.

As I have said before, if you wish to continue the discussion regarding the dispute that occurred at your workplace several months ago, this should take place in a new thread. If you wish for people to judge the rights and wrongs of the dispute, you are welcome to create such a thread. It's not easy for people to judge the rights and wrongs of such a situation without having witnessed it, but if you provide as much detail as possible, people can give their opinions based on what has been said, but it really doesn't belong in this thread.
 

Green tractor

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2019
Messages
227
Location
Lancaster
Can you not answer the question?
We are talking about people who were at the time not vaccinated due to the vaccines not having been approved at the time as I have pointed out several times.

Now can you please answer the question. Do you think I was being too careful by not going into a crowded messroom at work twice a day as well as taking other precautions to avoid taking covid 19 into a household I shared with my elderly parents.
class 320 has, and 43066 provided a very clear comprehensive answer that I completely agree with.

I have provided plenty of detail.

The reason I brought it up in passing was that there are people saying on here that they get funny looks etc for not wearing masks, and I was making the point that it isn't all one way. Which was completely on topic.
 
Last edited:

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
Can you not answer the question?

class 320 has, and 43066 provided a very clear comprehensive answer that I completely agree with.

The reason I brought it up in passing was that there are people saying on here that they get funny looks etc for not wearing masks, and I was making the point that it isn't all one way. Which was completely on topic.

To (hopefully) draw a line under it, taking precautions at that time and under your circumstances was perfectly sensible. There was a time (believe it or not!) when I was rather careful too as we didn’t know what we were dealing with.

People are free to choose to wear a mask and shouldn’t be abused for doing so. However I don’t wear one, and I’d prefer it if others didn’t either as I associate them with the government’s “unethical use of behavioural science” (to quote a letter I read yesterday). The frustrating thing for me is that there is no evidence they work, other than to act as a reminder we should be fearful, and yet people are hanging on to them long after they’ve abandoned social distancing for example. I also believe that the number of people who wear them to protect others is tiny. The vast majority wear them as they mistakenly believe they are protecting themselves, whilst quite a few seem to think they’re still mandatory and a vocal minority see it as an opportunity to virtue signal. They’re a complete farce and it’s little wonder they’ve never featured in a pandemic response plan, up until last year when it was decided some people weren’t taking the situation seriously enough….
 

Bungle73

On Moderation
Joined
19 Aug 2011
Messages
3,040
Location
Kent
LNER still trotting out the "WEAR A FACE COVERING" nonsense on Twitter. I'm seriously beginning to regret getting vaccinated now. I wish I hadn't bothered as appears to have been a complete waste of my time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top