• Dear Guest, and welcome to RailUK Forums. Our non-railway discussion forums are currently restricted until members have five or more posts, and you will not be able to make a new thread or reply to an existing one in this section until you have made five or more posts elsewhere on the forum.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,102
But we really are talking about people that find masks a problem.
Again there is a difference between finding something a problem (which is pretty normal and healthy) and being so disturbed by it that you literally cannot sleep (that is not normal and not healthy).
Whatever you think about masks themselves, that is a deeply unpleasant and problematic change that society has undergone in a very short time. As such, it would have been most welcome if the most obvious symbol of that attitude had been jettisoned once people were free to do so. That most have not done so points to a potentially permanent, very negative, change in our society. Seems reasonable to me if that worries people, it certainly scares me.
But again, we were not talking about all of that. Very specifically we were talking about someone who had said the very concept of people choosing to wear a mask is something that heavily disturbs them and stops them from sleeping. If we take that person at their word then seeing a mental health specialist wouldn't be a bad idea.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Green tractor

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2019
Messages
215
Location
Lancaster
Exactly, to stop them spitting and potentially causing an infection. Which is how the virus is carried, which is why we are asked to wear them now
 

Dent

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2015
Messages
712
Exactly, to stop them spitting and potentially causing an infection. Which is how the virus is carried, which is why we are asked to wear them now

Not "exactly" at all. Hot not notice the words "open wounds", "during surgery" and "nothing to do with a respiratory virus"?
 

Class320

Member
Joined
18 May 2021
Messages
217
Not "exactly" at all. Hot not notice the words "open wounds", "during surgery" and "nothing to do with a respiratory virus"?

If a mask is going to stop spit etc going into an open wound then it's also going to stop spit going into someone else's face whilst talking to them or standing near them...
 

Fred26

Member
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Messages
1,029
If a mask is going to stop spit etc going into an open wound then it's also going to stop spit going into someone else's face whilst talking to them or standing near them...
Why are you spitting in people's faces?
 

VauxhallandI

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2012
Messages
2,108
Location
Cheshunt
If it was so simple and so obvious due to the surgeons example why were the explicitly stated as being pointless by the medical world including the WHO for months?

I take it you had yours on at the start of March?
 

Green tractor

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2019
Messages
215
Location
Lancaster
Breath onto a piece of glass, then try and tell me no moisture is leaving your mouth.......

Nearly all the study's done then were about protecting the wearer....
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
1,879
Location
Surrey
What if they now said it was 2mph?
The point about speed limits is they are a risk control measure from the hazards of vehicular movement. In high population density speed is lower as probability of risk exposure is higher, in rural areas risk exposure is lower and even lower on motorways so speed limit is higher.

The analogy with masks is the same, the hazard is the virus the control measure is the mask, the issue here is the effectiveness of the mask or actually face covering. Perhaps if a minimum of N95 had been promoted would those contributing to this debate be taking a different view?

Anyhow continuing fall back in cases should increase confidence amongst populous that the hazard is receding and therefore risk control is becoming unnecessary.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
3,618
Breath onto a piece of glass, then try and tell me no moisture is leaving your mouth.......

Nearly all the study's done then were about protecting the wearer....
You keep repeating this, but have you tried breathing onto a piece of glass through a thin fabric mask. In general you'll find it still fogs up quite a lot.

More importantly, according to WHO droplets are not a massively significant source of transmission. The main vector is aerosols. These are far too small to be noticeably affected by a simple fabric mask, are completely unaffected by visors, and aren't heavily impeded by the proper disposable masks.

The links to studies you are posting are a mix of:
- Small scale observational studies which don't provide any meaningful conclusions
- Literature reviews of small observational studies, where the conclusions are scandalously unsupported by the underlying papers
- Extremely limited geographical statistical studies which were rushed out early last year to support the conclusion which the authors had already reached

More recent studies have directly contradicted the geographical studies, and demonstrated that face coverings are less effective at preventing droplet and aerosol spread than assumed. That leaves no kind of useful scientific argument for masks at all. It's all just voodoo at this point.

Incidentally, I don't recall even the positive studies purporting to demonstrate anything on this "my mask protects you, your mask protects me" nonsense at all. That's more or less pure sophistry - simultaneously an excuse for why studies are difficult, and a psychological trick to make social pressure a more effective tool.

What might be pretty effectively at stopping the aerosols passing through is a properly-fitted FFP3 mask. That's best worn by people at risk to avoid them catching it. Less than 5% of the population are at any meaningful risk from an infection, so the number of people needing to wear the masks are fewer. Possibly more importantly the people at risk are more likely to keep the mask properly fitted - if you don't do that then it doesn't work
 

Green tractor

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2019
Messages
215
Location
Lancaster
You keep repeating this, but have you tried breathing onto a piece of glass through a thin fabric mask. In general you'll find it still fogs up quite a lot.

More importantly, according to WHO droplets are not a massively significant source of transmission. The main vector is aerosols. These are far too small to be noticeably affected by a simple fabric mask, are completely unaffected by visors, and aren't heavily impeded by the proper disposable masks.

The links to studies you are posting are a mix of:
- Small scale observational studies which don't provide any meaningful conclusions
- Literature reviews of small observational studies, where the conclusions are scandalously unsupported by the underlying papers
- Extremely limited geographical statistical studies which were rushed out early last year to support the conclusion which the authors had already reached

More recent studies have directly contradicted the geographical studies, and demonstrated that face coverings are less effective at preventing droplet and aerosol spread than assumed. That leaves no kind of useful scientific argument for masks at all. It's all just voodoo at this point.

Incidentally, I don't recall even the positive studies purporting to demonstrate anything on this "my mask protects you, your mask protects me" nonsense at all. That's more or less pure sophistry - simultaneously an excuse for why studies are difficult, and a psychological trick to make social pressure a more effective tool.

What might be pretty effectively at stopping the aerosols passing through is a properly-fitted FFP3 mask. That's best worn by people at risk to avoid them catching it. Less than 5% of the population are at any meaningful risk from an infection, so the number of people needing to wear the masks are fewer. Possibly more importantly the people at risk are more likely to keep the mask properly fitted - if you don't do that then it doesn't work

Would you like to provide some links please?
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
2,535
Location
Ely
Do you find the 30 and 20 mph speed limits disturbing? Just like face masks they are there to protect other people, not those driving.

No, I think it is rather sensible to have some measures in place that try to stop people who are in charge of tons of fast-moving heavy machinery, from doing so very recklessly.

I’m not remotely sure what that has to do with people who are at zero risk to others facing social pressure to ‘mitigate’ that zero risk.

Surgeons wear medical grade masks to prevent saliva etc. getting into open wounds during surgery, nothing to do with a respiratory virus.

And also to prevent blood splashes from the patient going into the surgeons mouth. Not a risk you generally find on a train or in a shop!
 

Green tractor

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2019
Messages
215
Location
Lancaster
I’m not remotely sure what that has to do with people who are at zero risk to others facing social pressure to ‘mitigate’ that zero risk.



And also to prevent blood splashes from the patient going into the surgeons mouth. Not a risk you generally find on a train or in a shop!

How do you know you are zero risk? A good proportion of people who have covid are asymptomatic.
 

VauxhallandI

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2012
Messages
2,108
Location
Cheshunt
How do you know you are zero risk? A good proportion of people who have covid are asymptomatic.
If it was so simple and so obvious due to the surgeons example why were the explicitly stated as being pointless by the medical world including the WHO for months?

I take it you had yours on at the start of March?
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,278
Location
Yorkshire
They are airborne, but they are largely carried on the drops of moisture in your breath. That is what a mask stops.
Standard flimsy, ill-fitting masks with holes that are much larger than virus particles do not "stop" virus particles or moisture. If they completely stopped moisture, glasses would not be steamed up by the wearing of such masks. If they stopped transmission, we would not have seen a 47 fold difference in rates of infection, between the wearing of flimsy masks vs FFP3 masks.

Do you find the 30 and 20 mph speed limits disturbing?
This suggests to me that nothing you say is to be taken seriously. It's an utterly absurd analogy, which makes no sense.
Just like face masks they are there to protect other people, not those driving.
This is simply false.
I wear a mask to protect other people, it stops me spitting on things as I exhale, it is not about protecting the wearer
Standard masks do not filter virus particles; virus particles go straight through them. I refer you to earlier posts.

Who do you think you are protecting, given the current rates of vaccination in this country, and the effectiveness of vaccines?

This article provides links....

That's just another of the same old nonsense that does not actually perform a real world comparison. It links to other studies that are the same. It makes incorrect statements such as "The prevalence of mask use in the community may be of greater importance than the type of mask worn" when we know from recent studies, such as the one I linked to a few posts up, which show the type of mask makes a HUGE difference. The language used in the article is unprofessional. It's primary purpose appears to be a tit-for-tat argument against the Danish study, with their 'evidence' being linking to similarly poor articles and regurgitating false statements.

What we would need is a proper real-world trial with a suitable control group (not wearing masks) and a group wearing standard masks which are not designed to filter virus particles and finally a group wearing effective masks which are designed to filter virus particles and see what actually happens to infection rates. Those wearing standard masks should do so in a manner consistent with the real-world behaviour of people in an environment of mandatory mask wearing, and not based on theoretical scenarios that do not happen in the real world.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
1,879
Location
Surrey
Standard flimsy, ill-fitting masks with holes that are much larger than virus particles do not "stop" virus particles or moisture. If they completely stopped moisture, glasses would not be steamed up by the wearing of such masks. If they stopped transmission, we would not have seen a 47 fold difference in rates of infection, between the wearing of flimsy masks vs FFP3 masks.


This suggests to me that nothing you say is to be taken seriously. It's an utterly absurd analogy, which makes no sense.

This is simply false.

Standard masks do not filter virus particles; virus particles go straight through them. I refer you to earlier posts.

Who do you think you are protecting, given the current rates of vaccination in this country, and the effectiveness of vaccines?


That's just another of the same old nonsense that does not actually perform a real world comparison. It links to other studies that are the same. It makes incorrect statements such as "The prevalence of mask use in the community may be of greater importance than the type of mask worn" when we know from recent studies, such as the one I linked to a few posts up, which show the type of mask makes a HUGE difference. The language used in the article is unprofessional. It's primary purpose appears to be a tit-for-tat argument against the Danish study, with their 'evidence' being linking to similarly poor articles and regurgitating false statements.

What we would need is a proper real-world trial with a suitable control group (not wearing masks) and a group wearing standard masks which are not designed to filter virus particles and finally a group wearing effective masks which are designed to filter virus particles and see what actually happens to infection rates. Those wearing standard masks should do so in a manner consistent with the real-world behaviour of people in an environment of mandatory mask wearing, and not based on theoretical scenarios that do not happen in the real world.
I have found it rather frustrating after best part of 16 months how little real research has been done into covid to understand its transmission and appropriate control measures. Virtually all original studies emanated from China and seem to have formed the basis of how to manage it. You cite the inadequacy of this particular piece of research which I concur with your view but without a thorough piece of research we are none the wiser either way. However, there is acknowledgement on this discussion that a FFP3 face mask will provide good levels of protection so that in itself is an admission that masks have a part to play when covid is prevalent but again at what level is it appropriate to protect oneself or to protect others. I can get a rammed tube train is probably a hostile environment but generally people are not talking so maybe its not as dodgy as people believe but who knows. Then you have a packed pub music playing and you certainly have to raise your voice to hold a discussion so that sounds a more hostile environment but who really knows.
Anyhow step 4, however fudged people may feel it is over face coverings, is the closest we have got to pre covid to benchmark what happens with lower levels of mask wearing so lets see how its plays out.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,278
Location
Yorkshire
I have found it rather frustrating after best part of 16 months how little real research has been done into covid to understand its transmission and appropriate control measures. Virtually all original studies emanated from China and seem to have formed the basis of how to manage it. You cite the inadequacy of this particular piece of research which I concur with your view but without a thorough piece of research we are none the wiser either way. However, there is acknowledgement on this discussion that a FFP3 face mask will provide good levels of protection so that in itself is an admission that masks have a part to play when covid is prevalent but again at what level is it appropriate to protect oneself or to protect others.
The study is an admission that standard, loose-fitting, flimsy masks which are NOT designed to filter virus particles are NOT effective at preventing the spread of Sars-CoV-2.

It is of no surprise that the study found that FFP3 masks are effective, but what was perhaps surprising was how ineffective standard flimsy masks were.

People who seek to mandate that people wear ineffective face coverings "to protect others" appear to be relucant to acknowledge this study, nor do they wish to acknowledge the incredible success of the vaccines.

I can get a rammed tube train is probably a hostile environment but generally people are not talking so maybe its not as dodgy as people believe but who knows. Then you have a packed pub music playing and you certainly have to raise your voice to hold a discussion so that sounds a more hostile environment but who really knows.
Anyhow step 4, however fudged people may feel it is over face coverings, is the closest we have got to pre covid to benchmark what happens with lower levels of mask wearing so lets see how its plays out.
Mask wearing has not made any measurable difference to infection rates anywhere. It is often the case that when masks become mandated, cases soon skyrocket; we saw that in many countries and provinces. It is also often the case that cases decline after masks cease to be mandated.

However I am not suggesting that mask mandates cause an increase in cases (though I do believe they give people a 'false sense of security' and I have seen clear evidence of this myself) but the idea that they reduce cases is not supported by any real-world evidence whatsoever.

The virus is endemic and our best protection is to build up our level of population immunity; the most effective way to do this is for as many people as possible to be vaccinated, and to get us back to normal.

I find it incredible that the most vocal people against vaccine effectiveness tend to be those who seek to mandate the wearing of flimsy loose-fitting masks which aren't designed to filter virus particles. It's pretty obvious what their agenda is, and I utterly reject their authoritarian ideology.

Here are some utterly crazy individuals with authoritarian agendas who dismiss the effectiveness of vaccines:

From: Trish Greenhalgh
To: Jeff Bezos

"...masks are as effective ... as vaccines...."

masks and social distancing are the most effective preventives of spreading the virus. the vaccine is really just a “buffer”. makes you less likely to be infected after exposure and less likely to have severe symptoms of other strains. it isn’t a preventative like masks/distance.

This is disgusting. I am CEV and I’ve been vaccinated but it’s unlikely the vaccine is effective for me. I am not “cowering” but I am stuck at home because of your reckless decision to get rid of compulsory masks and distancing. You’re a disgrace.

We already know the vaccine is not as effective in people with compromised immune systems, especially the J&J vaccine which was part of warp speed. Exactly why we need masks. This is out of 162 million who have been fully vaccinated and millions more that have had at least 1 dose

But vaccinated people still need to wear masks. Vaccines are not fully effective especially against new variants


We can’t vaccinate our way out of the pandemic..

The vaccine is only 39% effective against Delta. We need N95 masks and improved ventilation.

@PressSec because it will show why you want vaccinated people wearing masks. The vaccine isn't as effective as they're claiming. #Libtard #COVID19 #covid #VACCINE
Warning: the above tweets contain misinformation about the effectiveness of vaccines; the examples above are to illustrate how crazy the most vocal pro-mandatory mask campaigners are.
 
Last edited:

sjpowermac

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,676
It's pretty obvious what their agenda is, and I utterly reject their authoritarian ideology.
Good post about masks, well researched and informative.

I notice though that you use the word ‘authoritarian’ again. I’ve read through recent entries in several threads, but I’ve not found your stance on Covid Passports. Please accept my apologies if you have already commented, but what is your stance on banning unvaccinated people from certain activities? I think that in time masks will largely fizzle out, you seem to be fighting yesterday’s battle.

I’ve had both jabs and if asked would always encourage others to do likewise, but I’m completely opposed to Covid Passports.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,278
Location
Yorkshire
I'm opposed to their use for domestic purposes; see posts from the relevant thread:
It is likely that some sort of evidence of vaccination will be required to visit certain countries. This is not without precedent and there is nothing we in the UK can do about that (other than people can choose to not visit those countries)

I do not think vaccine passports would be likely to be used for things like entries to pubs, restaurants etc because it would be many months before any such passport could be both issued and also be issued to enough of the population to avoid indirect discrimination.

And by the time that happens, we will probably be accepting Sars-Cov-2 becoming the 5th endemic Coronavirus in the world and most countries will effectively be 'at equilibrium' with the virus, its status downgraded - through our build up of immunity - to a similar status to other viruses that we live with. That is not a guaranteed outcome but is what most experts appear to be predicting.

I also don't think that sufficient quantities of people in the UK are going to refuse the vaccine to make it viable, but that's just a guess on my part.

If vaccine take-up is high, then for domestic purposes, it sounds like there will never be a concept of a vaccine passport for things like pubs etc as vaccination passports will be pointless once almost everyone has been vaccinated.

Clearly some sort of evidence of vaccination is required for international travel (this is not unprecedented and we are at the mercy of the country we are visiting).
For international travel they could potentially be required for a few years.

But for domestic use, I see only a limited lifespan.

If vaccine take-up is really high (which it would be if Government got its messaging right) then they should never be needed. They are arguably not viable until everyone has been offered the vaccine and the chance to get a valid vaccine passport issued; once nearly everyone has been vaccinated the whole concept is effectively redundant.

So by pressing ahead with this ludicrous plan, it's almost as if the Government expects take-up to be low.
I'm happy to continue the discussion there:)
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
8,393
The study is an admission that standard, loose-fitting, flimsy masks which are NOT designed to filter virus particles are NOT effective at preventing the spread of Sars-CoV-2.

It is of no surprise that the study found that FFP3 masks are effective, but what was perhaps surprising was how ineffective standard flimsy masks were.

People who seek to mandate that people wear ineffective face coverings "to protect others" appear to be relucant to acknowledge this study, nor do they wish to acknowledge the incredible success of the vaccines.


Mask wearing has not made any measurable difference to infection rates anywhere. It is often the case that when masks become mandated, cases soon skyrocket; we saw that in many countries and provinces. It is also often the case that cases decline after masks cease to be mandated.

However I am not suggesting that mask mandates cause an increase in cases (though I do believe they give people a 'false sense of security' and I have seen clear evidence of this myself) but the idea that they reduce cases is not supported by any real-world evidence whatsoever.

The virus is endemic and our best protection is to build up our level of population immunity; the most effective way to do this is for as many people as possible to be vaccinated, and to get us back to normal.

I find it incredible that the most vocal people against vaccine effectiveness tend to be those who seek to mandate the wearing of flimsy loose-fitting masks which aren't designed to filter virus particles. It's pretty obvious what their agenda is, and I utterly reject their authoritarian ideology.

Here are some utterly crazy individuals with authoritarian agendas who dismiss the effectiveness of vaccines:

















Warning: the above tweets contain misinformation about the effectiveness of vaccines; the examples above are to illustrate how crazy the most vocal pro-mandatory mask campaigners are.

I suspect that you could find people with similar views about wearing masks who strongly support the vaccine program (probaby with some fairly significant mental gymnastics to argue "logic"), likewise they'll be those who are anti vaccine and anti mask (maybe even those who believe the whole virus thing is a hoax). As there's always going to be extreme views when there's a large enough group of people.

The existence of such views doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that there's some crazy ideas out there (does everyone who thinks that we should have better railways think that reopening all the Beaching cuts is a good thing to do? Likewise does everyone who thinks that we should build HS2 thinks that no money should be spent on improving the existing rail network - a view which those opposed to HS2 think is the case?)
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,278
Location
Yorkshire
I suspect that you could find people with similar views about wearing masks who strongly support the vaccine program (probaby with some fairly significant mental gymnastics to argue "logic"), likewise they'll be those who are anti vaccine and anti mask (maybe even those who believe the whole virus thing is a hoax). As there's always going to be extreme views when there's a large enough group of people.

The existence of such views doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that there's some crazy ideas out there (does everyone who thinks that we should have better railways think that reopening all the Beaching cuts is a good thing to do? Likewise does everyone who thinks that we should build HS2 thinks that no money should be spent on improving the existing rail network - a view which those opposed to HS2 think is the case?)
Thee stuff in brackets is off topic and not relevant; getting straight to the point, do you support the mandating of masks, and if so, what is you rationale for this?

Edit: here is a good article

...Mayor Bill de Blasio is absolutely correct to reject calls for a renewed indoor mask mandate and to refuse to consider renewed lockdowns in New York City in light of the emergence of the Delta variant. “A mask doesn’t arrest the progress of the variant,” Mr. de Blasio said, explaining how following the science led him to be reluctant to reinstitute the mandate this week. “Vaccination does.” This holds true not just for New York City...
...We know what works in our battle against Covid: vaccines. We tried lockdowns, we tried mask mandates, but numbers only started to drop to endemic levels in some areas when vaccination became mainstream. Our society incentivized vaccination as a condition of a return to normalcy, and millions of Americans signed onto this social contract. We need increased vaccination rates in order to keep Covid at bay, and reneging on the agreement to return to normalcy with the ready availability and acceptance of vaccination would have the opposite effect...
...We can tell people to stay home and mask-up all we want, but government demands don’t necessarily result in compliance. If new mask mandates and lockdowns were to be ordered, compliance would largely depend on the willingness of the populace to do so. It’s not a heavy lift to imagine that the only places willing to comply with lockdowns again are the places that least need to do so — localities with high vaccination rates, and as a result, with low numbers of hospitalization and death...
..We need to pose hard questions about what the endgame is; if we’re talking about the reinstitution of emergency measures when hospitals are functioning normally, when would they be lifted?...
 
Last edited:

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
8,393
Thee stuff in brackets is off topic and not relevant; getting straight to the point, do you support the mandating of masks, and if so, what is you rationale for this?

Edit: here is a good article


I do not support the mandating of masks, as the vaccine is doing what it was supposed to do.

The point being that there's always going to be some crazy ideas from the outer edges of society whatever the topic, as such if you going looking for them you'll find them and therefore the fact that those comments exist doesn't prove anything either way.

For example:
NAILED IT. As I've been saying all along, this entire #scamdemic has been solely for certain people and groups to gain power, wealth, and control. Congrats, sheep. You've been played. #covidiots #plandemic #fraud https://t.co/M47TnkVyX8

Force vaxxinating people. What would you do? https://t.co/Iw4Dy16LmL

Dr. Grouchey, why get a vaccine if you still have to wear a mask anywhere? #scamdemic

NO MORE NAZI MASKS NO NAZI COVID PASS #NoNewNormal #NoVaccinePassports #COVID19 #NoMasks #NoVaccinePassportsAnywhere #NWO #WHO #UnitedNations #Tyranny
 
Last edited:

Class320

Member
Joined
18 May 2021
Messages
217
I'd like to see evidence that the video of people being "force vaccinated" is actually 100% genuine. How would the Police know who has/hasn't been vaccinated?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
8,393
like to see evidence that the video of people being "force vaccinated" is actually 100% genuine. How would the Police know who has/hasn't been vaccinated?

Indeed, the video looks like a fairly hard, but not uncommon, arrest.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,278
Location
Yorkshire
I do not support the mandating of masks, as the vaccine is doing what it was supposed to do.

The point being that there's always going to be some crazy ideas from the outer edges of society whatever the topic, as such if you going looking for them you'll find them and therefore the fact that those comments exist doesn't prove anything either way.
Glad we are in agreement.

Yes there are some crazy people arguing against the effectiveness of vaccines from all angles, but let's be honest hardly anyone in this country listens to the anti-vax crowd.

I think the biggest danger is from those who support restrictions and who use ''the vaccine is not effective [enough]" as their excuse, and I have noticed a huge uptick in such arguments from those who seek to mandate masks.

The existence of other crazy views does not negate that!

I think you are perhaps misunderstanding the point I was making.


For example:
NAILED IT. As I've been saying all along, this entire #scamdemic has been solely for certain people and groups to gain power, wealth, and control. Congrats, sheep. You've been played. #covidiots #plandemic #fraud https://t.co/M47TnkVyX8
If they are suggesting the virus was created for this purpose, that's clearly false, but they are right that the pandemic has been used for those purposes. This appears to relate to events in the US.
https://t.co/M47TnkVyX8
Force vaxxinating people. What would you do? https://t.co/Iw4Dy16LmL
It is not clear what is going on here; again it's not in this country (appears to possibly relate to Australia). No-one should be forced into a vaccination but it's not in the cards in this country; any such claims can be dismissed.
https://t.co/Iw4Dy16LmL
Dr. Grouchey, why get a vaccine if you still have to wear a mask anywhere? #scamdemic
I think that it is reasonable to point out that the point of getting a vaccine should be that life can go back to normal. This tweet appears to be aimed at authorities in the US who are mandating masks, despite the fact that the US generally had a policy of not mandating masks for vaccinating people. I can see why people want to call that out.
NO MORE NAZI MASKS NO NAZI COVID PASS #NoNewNormal #NoVaccinePassports #COVID19 #NoMasks #NoVaccinePassportsAnywhere #NWO #WHO #UnitedNations #Tyranny
Authoritarianism is inevitably going to invoke reactions of this nature; this refers to events in Ireland, where authoritarianism has been very strong, and so I would expect a strong reaction from some.

I don't see how these tweets really relate to the point I was making; none of the above are based in the UK or directly relate to events here and none are really on the subject I was referring to, regarding people denying the effectiveness of vaccines (without being anti-vax, per se).
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
1,608
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
Having been involved in mask discussion with my neighbours earlier today, I have broken a resolution made several months ago and ventured into the Covid section of this forum again. It hasn't changed much - just the subject matter has moved on a bit. I don't understand the degree of obsession on both sides of the mask argument. I guess my problem is that wearing a mask, or seeing others wearing a mask or not wearing a mask, just doesn't worry me very much - and I don't regard being asked to wear one as a forerunner of a fascist or other authoritarian takeover.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
3,618
Having been involved in mask discussion with my neighbours earlier today, I have broken a resolution made several months ago and ventured into the Covid section of this forum again. It hasn't changed much - just the subject matter has moved on a bit. I don't understand the degree of obsession on both sides of the mask argument. I guess my problem is that wearing a mask, or seeing others wearing a mask or not wearing a mask, just doesn't worry me very much - and I don't regard being asked to wear one as a forerunner of a fascist or other authoritarian takeover.
That doesn't sound like your problem at all. It sounds very convenient for you. Well done on not having had your year ruined. Did you have anything to add to the discussion at hand?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top