Let's face it, it was the only factor, but it's to be expected of the WHO. It's just funny how they tried to find a different reason when everyone knows the real one.
Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!
- Thread starter bullybeef
- Start date
- Status
Let's face it, it was the only factor, but it's to be expected of the WHO. It's just funny how they tried to find a different reason when everyone knows the real one.
Well yes.
But if people are wearing them in shops etc, then it's going to help stop the spread in those settings (or contribute towards preventing it), even if the spread is happening other settings.
So, in theory, you're cutting the amount of settings it can spread, while not restricting anyone's 'freedom' or ability to run a business (the latter being the most important really).
I don't disagree with the rest of your point, I just think saying 'well it'll still be spreading in other settings so what's the point in having to wear mask in a supermarket' is a bit daft.
Untill we vacinate. - Worldwide these variations will continue to happen looking after number one is selfish, contributing in Covid variants mutating in non vaccination countries......
Doesn't make sense. It's like wearing a condom for the first few thrusts then taking it off - takes away the whole point of the protective measure, so you may as well have not used it at all.
COVID spreads exponentially. So where people catch it barely matters because they take it home to families etc. John can catch it in the pub, then take it to work and spread it to Bill and Jane, while little Jimmy goes to school and brings it back to mum and so on. Doesn't matter if they all wore masks at a supermarket or on the train, and it doesn't matter if everyone else did, because there's so many other areas and routes of transmission. So you either have protective measures or you don't when it comes to limiting transmissability. That's what a lockdown is for.
The only reasonable argument for supermarkets and travel alone is to protect the vulnerable, but again, the situation hasn't changed - there's 2 Omicron cases in the entire UK, so there's no sudden reason now for a mask mandate to protect anyone that didn't exist days, weeks and months ago.
It's a tokenistic measure. It serves no real purpose. It's being done to 'do something' rather than for any logical reason.
D
Deleted member 48881
Guest
We must really manage one day to do without ‘news’. Reading the newspapers in fact only tells us what we didn’t yet know. And that is exactly what we are looking for: something new. But what we didn’t yet know is exactly what we forget immediately. Because as soon as we know it, we have to leave room for what we don’t yet know, which will come tomorrow. Newspapers have no memory: one piece of news drives out another, each event displaces another which sinks without a trace. Rumours bulge up, then suddenly subside. One juicy ‘I have it on the best authority’ succeeds another in a shapeless, perpetual cascade.
From the book I'm reading atm, called Marcher une Philosophie (A Philosophy of Walking)
Take care of your mental health, people!
From the book I'm reading atm, called Marcher une Philosophie (A Philosophy of Walking)
Take care of your mental health, people!
I really don't agree there. Not that it spreads exponentially, I know that is correct, but having some protective measures is still going to help reduce spread in those settings. If that wasn't the case, then why have we had to wear masks for going to any medical settings for the last six months? I don't think anyone in their right mind would complain about that?
I agree on the last bit again to an extent but can see the logic in there being measures to reduce spread in certain settings, at least in theory. Like I said, we've accepted that with going to any medical setting in the last few months and you yourself have been wearing masks in shops etc but I guess not in pubs, so you've been doing it anyway?
efcfanwirral
Player Valuation: £30m
If you want to stop it spreading to a point where hospitals are overwhelmed, you need to reduce contacts in the home.
Its a comfort blanket thinking that public spread is the problem - its mainly going to be people going to work or kids going to school and spreading it to other members of their household.
IF it needs controlling, there's only one option. And it's not masks
well yeah I get that but I also don't really see why anyone has an issue with lobbing a mask on to go to the shop - I haven't been doing it every time over the last 6 months but the vast majority of times I have done. it's no bother at all, to anyone, and isn't going to do any damage and may just help. So what's the issue?
It's another rubbish government flip flop but I don't see it as some mad conspiracy or public conditioning - the latter bit was done as soon as people started screaming at others or grassing people up for going on a walk last spring.
I‘ve seen a lot of analogies used with Covid but that is the first condom one I recall!
However going to skip diving into that one too deeply but address the rest of your post.
Take your example of John - yes he can catch it in the pub and then take it to work and spread it to Bill and Jane (which btw is why I’d prefer mask mandates to include general workplaces). But if John also goes to the supermarket after work whilst infectious and whilst maskless there infects Olivia then that is one more additional transmission that is potentially avoided.
Could Olivia get it by some other means, by her kid going to school with Jimmy for instance yes, but that already exists in your scenario.
Cutting even 5% of the transmission chains can help the numbers overall when dealing with exponential growth.
summerisle
The rain, it raineth every day
Get a haircut and shave you weirdo - 9 minutes of your life you won't get back.
Who is this moron? Quite impressive how much bullsh.. he's managed to fit into that
- Status