Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

The White Rose


JoeDavola
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, eight said:

I hope you never operate on me, with your Black and Decker.

AFAIK, we don't have a single medical doctor here. Probably too busy playing golf during lockdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in Italy - no mask, no shopping. No chemist. No supermarket. No bar. You'll be ejected immediately.

The owners of those establishments have a duty to protect their staff. No staff, no shop. Nobody wins.

If wearing a mask reduces - even only very fractionally - the risk that a carrier may spread the disease, I see no problem with such a policy while the pandemic is serious.

Can anyone articulate why the "I don't want want to wear one" argument is stronger?

None of the tinfoil hattery "It's mind control! I'm not having the government tell me what to do!" nonsense please.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yadda yadda yadda
9 minutes ago, DTMark said:

Here in Italy - no mask, no shopping. No chemist. No supermarket. No bar. You'll be ejected immediately.

The owners of those establishments have a duty to protect their staff. No staff, no shop. Nobody wins.

If wearing a mask reduces - even only very fractionally - the risk that a carrier may spread the disease, I see no problem with such a policy while the pandemic is serious.

Can anyone articulate why the "I don't want want to wear one" argument is stronger?

None of the tinfoil hattery "It's mind control! I'm not having the government tell me what to do!" nonsense please.

The psychological damage exceeds any benefit from masks. Kids especially will be mentally scared by this, probably permanently. Masks are very ineffective. As shown by the complaint about glasses steaming up. Shows that air is being redirected around the edges of the mask rather than filtered through it.

  • Agree 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Yadda yadda yadda said:

The psychological damage exceeds any benefit from masks. Kids especially will be mentally scared by this, probably permanently. Masks are very ineffective. As shown by the complaint about glasses steaming up. Shows that air is being redirected around the edges of the mask rather than filtered through it.

And the amount of fiddling with the mask reverses any supposed benefit. 

  • Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hail the Tripod
1 minute ago, Yadda yadda yadda said:

Masks are very ineffective. As shown by the complaint about glasses steaming up. Shows that air is being redirected around the edges of the mask rather than filtered through it.

Quite. If someone had a genuinely deadly plague, would you be in any way reassured if you had to interact with them by their wearing a crappy cloth mask?

  • Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DTMark said:

Can anyone articulate why the "I don't want want to wear one" argument is stronger?

 

I don't want to be raped either. Is that OK with you?

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

Because it shouldn’t be legally mandated by government unless there is compelling evidence that it significantly reduces transmission. Which there isn’t. And there really would be by now, if it did.

If Individual business owners want to introduce such a rule fo their premises, then I suppose that’s OK.

They wouldn’t though, for the same reason there weren’t more than a handful of non-smoking pubs before that ban justified by “second hand smoke” (for which there is also vanishingly little evidence of deleterious effects).

What about if there were a theory that is may reduce transmission, which can be readily understood and which is logical - is the bar "significantly"?

I tend to disagree on your last point. Pubs did segregate smoking and no-smoking areas in order to satisfy both groups. Shops cannot be segregated like this. Unless, perhaps, there were to be a "non-mask-wearer hour" in the evening.

I'd agree that the risk to someone from passive smoking has never been quantified and is likely to be incredibly small where we're not talking about living with and sitting next to someone over 40 years.

If I go to the house of a non-smoker and smoke in front of them, do they have the right to tell me not to do so?

What about my rights to smoke and do what I want? There's no proof of significant risk to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Yadda yadda yadda said:

The psychological damage exceeds any benefit from masks. Kids especially will be mentally scared by this, probably permanently. Masks are very ineffective. As shown by the complaint about glasses steaming up. Shows that air is being redirected around the edges of the mask rather than filtered through it.

Disagree on your first two points.

Very ineffective is not the same as completely ineffective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Generation Game
20 minutes ago, DTMark said:

Here in Italy - no mask, no shopping. No chemist. No supermarket. No bar. You'll be ejected immediately.

The owners of those establishments have a duty to protect their staff. No staff, no shop. Nobody wins.

If wearing a mask reduces - even only very fractionally - the risk that a carrier may spread the disease, I see no problem with such a policy while the pandemic is serious.

Can anyone articulate why the "I don't want want to wear one" argument is stronger?

None of the tinfoil hattery "It's mind control! I'm not having the government tell me what to do!" nonsense please.

Inside, I am more flexible. If you want me inside your store for the minimum amount of time, reducing my purchases to the absolute bare essentials because I just want to get the hell out of there and take my mask off, then I can MAYBE play ball. 

If you force me to keep wearing it when I am outside in the open air then you can fuck the fuck off. 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Generation Game said:

Inside, I am more flexible. If you want me inside your store for the minimum amount of time, reducing my purchases to the absolute bare essentials because I just want to get the hell out of there and take my mask off, then I can MAYBE play ball. 

If you force me to keep wearing it when I am outside in the open air then you can fuck the fuck off. 

I'm talking about indoors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Generation Game
2 minutes ago, DTMark said:

I'm talking about indoors.

We don't have that luxury here. But, even under those circumstances, the internet wins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hail the Tripod
4 minutes ago, DTMark said:

If I go to the house of a non-smoker and smoke in front of them, do they have the right to tell me not to do so?

Of course. Fundamentally all voluntary personal relationships are subject to explicit or implicit negotiation of behaviour. You also have the right to never agree to meet them at their house again if that is a term you don’t agree with.

I don’t believe for a second that they have a right to dictate by force that you don’t smoke at other people’s houses either, unless they can convincing prove that there is a material risk to others well above background risks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JoeDavola
Posted (edited)

I’m not saying this is an argument but I don’t like not seeing people’s faces when indoors (and in some cases outdoors too) there’s something inhumane about it.

 If this was during a brief peak and it worked (does it work?) then ok. But does anyone really think mask wearing is going away any time soon? If ever?

 Also and I accept this is my fault my mask gets used for days sometimes weeks on end when I go into shops and stuffed in a coat pocket in between. Rather unhygienic strapping such a thing to your gob. Most plebs don’t get a fresh sterile mask every use like a surgeon does.

And Im a speccy so get fogged up and blinded frequently with the things.

 Having said that I do wear one i just spend as little time in shops as possible. If non essential retail re-opens with masks required I’ll be avoiding them as much as possible. Best of luck with the economic recovery.

Edited by JoeDavola
  • Agree 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wight Flight
36 minutes ago, DTMark said:

Here in Italy - no mask, no shopping. No chemist. No supermarket. No bar. You'll be ejected immediately.

The owners of those establishments have a duty to protect their staff. No staff, no shop. Nobody wins.

If wearing a mask reduces - even only very fractionally - the risk that a carrier may spread the disease, I see no problem with such a policy while the pandemic is serious.

Can anyone articulate why the "I don't want want to wear one" argument is stronger?

None of the tinfoil hattery "It's mind control! I'm not having the government tell me what to do!" nonsense please.

Would you be just as happy to ban black people from shops?

Or maybe homosexuals should have been banned at the start of the AIDS pandemic?

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wight Flight said:

Would you be just as happy to ban black people from shops?

Or maybe homosexuals should have been banned at the start of the AIDS pandemic?

Is there any reason to believe that black people and homosexuals may have a higher risk of probability of carrying a highly contagious disease?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wight Flight
Just now, DTMark said:

Is there any reason to believe that black people and homosexuals may have a higher risk of probability of carrying a highly contagious disease?

I think it is understood that black people are more likely to have Covid. Or at least they have spent months telling us they are because of their poor living conditions and jobs they do.

At the start of the AIDS pandemic, people thought it could be transmitted by normal contact. But we didn't ban homosexuals from shops then.

I can understand why you don't think masks are a problem, because it doesn't affect you. But that isn't how we should run society.

 

  • Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hail the Tripod
13 minutes ago, DTMark said:

What about if there were a theory that is may reduce transmission, which can be readily understood and which is logical - is the bar "significantly"?

That is an interesting question. I have certainly felt that they should have recommended vitamin D supplementation on the basis of positive preliminary results, rather than waiting for categoric proof. I wouldn’t have supported force feeding people it.

I suppose if there were an untested action that seemed likely to be positive, with few discernible downsides, it may be worth trialling. It does seem logical that even crappy masks may apply a little friction to the spread of airborne transmission. Maybe it did make sense to try if it had never been tried en-masse before. TBH, wearing a mask for my brief forays into the supermarket, or taking my dad to hospital don’t bother me especially. I have only really become vexed about it now my kids are expected to wear them all day in class.

Further, it doesn’t appear from any of the grand experiments worldwide to have made the blindest bit of difference, and rather than abandoning them they keep ratcheting their use up.

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DTMark said:

Is there any reason to believe that black people and homosexuals may have a higher risk of probability of carrying a highly contagious disease?

No, I don't think so. See how the media winds people up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JoeDavola said:

I’m not saying this is an argument but I don’t like not seeing people’s faces when indoors (and in some cases outdoors too) there’s something inhumane about it.

Completely agree.

However I'm waiting for someone to come up with an answer to my question, which was, specifically:

Can anyone articulate why the "I don't want want to wear one" argument is stronger?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yadda yadda yadda
12 minutes ago, DTMark said:

Disagree on your first two points.

Very ineffective is not the same as completely ineffective.

You don't think it is causing psychological damage? I think you should consider the importance of non-verbal communication. Children aren't learning this whilst people are masked up. It will permanently stunt their development. Then there is the importance of smiling. Years ago I tried wearing an anti pollution mask for cycling. Binned it as every ride I used smiling and other facial gestures to communicate with other road users. Nodding in a mask just didn't cut it.

Masks are completely ineffective except when used alongside other measures in sterile environments. In those circumstances much higher rated masks are used which have been fitted closely to the face to ensure no leakage. Surgical masks are designed to stop accidental spitting into open wounds. They don't stop viruses.

Do you think that everyone with a beard should be forced to shave before they go to a shop as it is impossible to achieve a tight seal with even stubble?

  • Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Yadda yadda yadda said:

You don't think it is causing psychological damage? I think you should consider the importance of non-verbal communication. Children aren't learning this whilst people are masked up.

 

You don't have to wear the masks at home.

Next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yadda yadda yadda
Just now, DTMark said:

You don't have to wear the masks at home.

Next.

You don't learn only from your parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Yadda yadda yadda said:

You don't learn only from your parents.

Perhaps something can be learned from the behaviour of doing something you personally would rather not, and which you find inconvenient, because there is the slenderest of chances that your doing so may protect others including the people you care about such as your friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Yadda yadda yadda said:

Do you think that everyone with a beard should be forced to shave before they go to a shop as it is impossible to achieve a tight seal with even stubble?

Beards are forbidden in certain situations, for the the reasons you desribe. I don't have a beard, but if I had one, I would have been required to wear a "bartshutze" in a cleanroom in Germany, that I never went to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...