Masks again

[alex397]

Well said time for the sheep to wake up.

Do you think it is appropriate in a debate to call people who disagree with you ‘sheep’?

Arguing against mask usage is fine - I can see your points. But calling people who disagree ‘virtue signallers’, ‘woke’ or ‘sheep’ etc is certainly not helpful in a debate and I’m surprised it is allowed on this forum.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I'll be doing the bare minimum, they have squandered every scrap of goodwill I had through their lies and their hypocrisy.

Perfectly fair and acceptable comment.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Apologies if I missed it, but what is the reason that masks are being reimposed in these settings? England has seemed quite happy to bounce along at around 30,000 positive tests a day since late summer with no adverse impacts on hospitals & healthcare. If this move is targeted at the new omicron variant, it is rather early for that level of intervention IMO (at this stage you impose the restrictions on arrivals from outside the UK and increase testing, but no point doing population wide NPIs until there's evidence of population wide spread), which does leave me wondering if there is some ulterior motive.

Yup
1. Sleaze
2. Social Care Bill
3. Peppa Pig debacle
oh and biggest one
4. allegedly 20+ letters into the 1922 committee already so what a better way to close down any leadership challenge

utterly blatant its not about masks - watch the presser BoJo incoherent not interested as he doesn't believe in it but he knows how to keep himself on top and will use any tactics at his disposal to do so.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Do you think it is appropriate in a debate to call people who disagree with you ‘sheep’?

Arguing against mask usage is fine - I can see your points. But calling people who disagree ‘virtue signallers’, ‘woke’ or ‘sheep’ etc is certainly not helpful in a debate and I’m surprised it is allowed on this forum.

Totally appropriate. They seem to be the ones driving this through mindlessly following things due to a lack of ability to critically think.

 

[alex397]

Totally appropriate. They seem to be the ones driving this through mindlessly following things due to a lack of ability to critically think.

Nope, it is not appropriate. If people want others to see their point of view, calling them ‘virtue signaller sheep’ is not constructive and will just push people further away from hearing other people’s views.

 

[John Luxton]

Do you think it is appropriate in a debate to call people who disagree with you ‘sheep’?

Arguing against mask usage is fine - I can see your points. But calling people who disagree ‘virtue signallers’, ‘woke’ or ‘sheep’ etc is certainly not helpful in a debate and I’m surprised it is allowed on this forum.

I do not see what the problem is with these terms.

I am not intentionally insulting anyone other than those who are enthusiasts lockdown / mask wearers.

I have absolutely nothing against anyone who wished to wear a mask if it gives them a sense of security and protection. What I do object to is the fact that so many of these people abuse those of us who do not wish to comply with this "psychological crutch" dictat. Personally I am a libertarian who works on the basis of "if you don't bother me, I won't bother you" stance. But once your views do start bothering me then I will come out fighting.

 

[Darandio]

Nope, it is not appropriate. If people want others to see their point of view, calling them ‘virtue signaller sheep’ is not constructive and will just push people further away from hearing other people’s views.

And calling someone who is double vaccinated an 'anti-vaxxer' is an appropriate term?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Yup
1. Sleaze
2. Social Care Bill
3. Peppa Pig debacle
oh and biggest one
4. allegedly 20+ letters into the 1922 committee already so what a better way to close down any leadership challenge

utterly blatant its not about masks - watch the presser BoJo incoherent not interested as he doesn't believe in it but he knows how to keep himself on top and will use any tactics at his disposal to do so.

Only 54 MPs to seal his fate.

A lot of people tonight think this is a distraction, but I would still say the mask mandate is fundamentally only a test of compliance, ready to decide if a lockdown will be allowed. Even then, the lockdown won’t be necessary, it will just be the perfect way to make sure nothing happens to the NHS as they want to be able to cut capacity and prepare it for privatisation.

Nope, it is not appropriate. If people want others to see their point of view, calling them ‘virtue signaller sheep’ is not constructive and will just push people further away from hearing other people’s views.

Why did you ask the question if you didn’t want this answer?

I do not see what the problem is with these terms.

I am not intentionally insulting anyone other than those who are enthusiasts lockdown / mask wearers.

I have absolutely nothing against anyone who wished to wear a mask if it gives them a sense of security and protection. What I do object to is the fact that so many of these people abuse those of us who do not wish to comply with this "psychological crutch" dictat. Personally I am a libertarian who works on the basis of "if you don't bother me, I won't bother you" stance. But once your views do start bothering me then I will come out fighting.

This is right. If you want to do it, fine. But you cannot attack others. Mask wearing is damaging to human interaction and those who wear them and enjoy others wearing them I can imagine being very sad at home and quite unfulfilled.

And calling someone who is double vaccinated an 'anti-vaxxer' is an appropriate term?

Now now, let’s not point out any hypocrisy

 

[yorkie]

Yes I’m vaccinated.

But appear to be a non-believer, evidently

But I can still pass on things, including the flu.

Of course we can; such viruses coexist with us in a state of endemic equilibrium.

If you want to guarantee never passing on flu you will need to wear a tight fitting FFP3 mask at all times, except when at home. Eating and drinking out of your home could only be done outside. And for what benefit?

I would rather reduce the risk as much as I can, especially amongst work colleagues who are vulnerable.

If they are vulnerable, surely they have been vaccinated? If they are immunocompromised, they could choose to wear an effective FFP3 mask if they don't trust the vaccines alone. It makes no sense for anyone to demand others wear flimsy masks when people who deem themselves vulnerable have the option of wearing effective masks.

You will also know that having a vaccine doesn’t stop you getting Covid completely (but significantly reduces the risk), and having being exposed to Covid can improve immunity but doesn’t stop you catching it again.

Vaccines are not intended to stop you catching Sars-CoV-2 and we can never eliminate this virus. It is becoming endemic and we will have to live with it, and be re-infected with it throughout our lifetimes, as we are with other pre-existing HCoVs, such as OC43 which likely caused a pandemic approximately 132 years ago.

Where have I said I’ll never go in a restaurant or pub again?

It was a question. So you will? How will you avoid virus transmission in those places then?

Mandating masks in shops won’t affect me much - I already wear a mask, and most shops I went in about half of people were wearing a mask anyway.

It is surely irrelevant to you whether or not other people wear masks.

So, you’re arguement is that because we don’t promote healthier living more to help prevent Covid, we shouldn’t promote mask usage either? No, we should certainly promote healthier living too in regards to Covid.

You miss the point completely.

 

[alex397]

And calling someone who is double vaccinated an 'anti-vaxxer' is an appropriate term?

I never called you an anti-vaxxer. I said you were starting to sound like one.

 

[Darandio]

I never called you an anti-vaxxer. I said you were starting to sound like one.

It wasn't me but that's the same thing in my book!

 

[yorkie]

I never called you an anti-vaxxer. I said you were starting to sound like one.

That's ironic given the main reason pro-maskers give for promoting mandatory masks is that the vaccines are apparently "ineffective" (or words to that effect).

 

[initiation]

I feel a combination of anger, dispair and resignation. Masks are the most visible sign of things not being 'normal'. Far from being a sop to placate those calling for Plan B, this will embolden them. Places that are not included in the law (such as work places or restuarants) will come under pressure to enact similar rules and there will be a push for 'mission' creep for pubs etc...

There will apparently be a review in 3 weeks time - remember 3 weeks to flatten the curve? This will still be here in 3 months time.
This ends when people want it to.

I shall be claiming full exemption. Ignoring the science argument, is my hatred for the things slightly irrational? Possibly, but probably less irrational than the anti-vaxxers who say we need to continue mandatory population wide NPIs despite a vaccine that is very effective at stopping serious illness and 90%+ plus of adults having anti-bodies.

 

[adc82140]

Will this also mean the 50% capacity reduction being bought back on buses? Or only the return of mask mandates?

No capacity reduction. Remember there is no longer furlough or any other financial support. They cannot introduce any rules that would negatively affect a company, whether that is buses, pubs, whatever.

Your last part is far from the truth. Japanese will often mask up if they are unwell to ensure they don’t pass on whatever they have.

I'd much rather they stayed at home to stop spreading whatever it is they have. Masks in Japan are a visible manifestation of the quite ruthless presenteeism culture they have. Best I think we don't import that. In this country there are, thankfully, no prizes for coming in to work when you're ill.

 

[Pete_uk]

This thread is dividing us, when does the conqueror roll in?

 

[alex397]

But appear to be a non-believer, evidently

Nope.

Of course we can; such viruses coexist with us in a state of endemic equilibrium.

Reduces the risk though

If you want to guarantee never passing on flu you will need to wear a tight fitting FFP3 mask at all times, except when at home. Eating and drinking out of your home could only be done outside. And for what benefit?

Never said masks ‘guarantee’ not passing it on.

If they are vulnerable, surely they have been vaccinated? If they are immunocompromised, they could choose to wear an effective FFP3 mask if they don't trust the vaccines alone. It makes no sense for anyone to demand others wear flimsy masks when people who deem themselves vulnerable have the option of wearing effective masks.

Some of the vulnerable people are vaccinated, one is not fully due to having a significantly bad reaction the first time, and another lives at home with a vulnerable person. Wearing a mask around them reduces the risk, and even if I was an anti-masker it wouldn’t be very courteous to argue with someone in that position.

Vaccines are not intended to stop you catching Sars-CoV-2 and we can never eliminate this virus. It is becoming endemic and we will have to live with it, and be re-infected with it throughout our lifetimes, as we are with other pre-existing HCoVs, such as OC43 which likely caused a pandemic approximately 132 years ago.

Of course we will have to live with it. Hopefully more people will be vaccinated.

It was a question. So you will? How will you avoid virus transmission in those places then?

Yes I will. I won’t avoid virus transmission. But again, it will reduce the risk.

It is surely irrelevant to you whether or not other people wear masks.

Probably. But I wear a mask to help reduce passing anything on. As I have already said.

You miss the point completely.

Nope.

 

[yorkie]

I feel a combination of anger, dispair and resignation. Masks are the most visible sign of things not being 'normal'. Far from being a sop to placate those calling for Plan B, this will embolden them. Places that are not included in the law (such as work places or restuarants) will come under pressure to enact similar rules and there will be a push for 'mission' creep for pubs etc...

There will apparently be a review in 3 weeks time - remember 3 weeks to flatten the curve? This will still be here in 3 months time.
This ends when people want it to.

I shall be claiming full exemption. Ignoring the science argument, is my hatred for the things slightly irrational? Possibly, but probably less irrational than the anti-vaxxers who say we need to continue mandatory population wide NPIs despite a vaccine that is very effective at stopping serious illness and 90%+ plus of adults having anti-bodies.

I completely agree.

No capacity reduction. Remember there is no linger furlough ir a y other financial support. They cannot introduce any rules that would negatively affect a company, whether that is buses, pubs, whatever.

Indeed and this may be a reason for not mandating it in pubs & restaurants; it could put people off going to those places and there is no way pubs or restaurants can be expected to carry out any enforcement.

I'd much rather they stayed at home to stop spreading whatever it is they have. Masks in Japan are a visible manifestation of the quite ruthless presenteeism culture they have. Bes I thinj we don't import that. In this country there are, thankfully, no prizes for coming in to work when you're ill.

Indeed. Those who seek to replace our culture with a Chinese or Japanese culture (I appreciate these are very different from each other in other aspects!) should think more carefully.

This thread is dividing us, when does the conqueror roll in?

That's about the only think mask mandates are good for!

Nope.

So why do you support mask mandates if you trust vaccines?

Reduces the risk though

What does? Everyone wearing FFP3 masks when out and about indefinitely?

Never said masks ‘guarantee’ not passing it on.

The virus is going to continue to circulate regardless.

Some of the vulnerable people are vaccinated, one is not fully due to having a significantly bad reaction the first time

So they have had a dose of the vaccine, which means they are still pretty well protected against severe infection. If they are really keen to avoid a natural infection to boost their immunity then they could wear an FFP3 mask indefinitely whenever they leave the house but this is their choice. It is not up to others to try to facilitate this.

, and another lives at home with a vulnerable person. Wearing a mask around them reduces the risk, and even if I was an anti-masker it wouldn’t be very courteous to argue with someone in that position.

This is a nonsense argument; the person who lives at home with a vulnerable person IS going to get exposed to the virus at some point and this can NOT be avoided.

Of course we will have to live with it. Hopefully more people will be vaccinated.

The anti-vaccine effectiveness messaging is hardly going to encourage people to get vaccinated, is it?!

Yes I will. I won’t avoid virus transmission. But again, it will reduce the risk.

How will it?! The virus is going to continue to circulate indefinitely and we will all be exposed to it.

Probably. But I wear a mask to help reduce passing anything on. As I have already said.

That is your choice; if you wish to wear an effective FFP2/3 mask every time you leave the house indefinitely it is true that you will reduce the chance of infecting others, but this does not make anyone safer!

Nope.

Yep.

 

[Farang]

Yup
1. Sleaze
2. Social Care Bill
3. Peppa Pig debacle
oh and biggest one
4. allegedly 20+ letters into the 1922 committee already so what a better way to close down any leadership challenge

utterly blatant its not about masks - watch the presser BoJo incoherent not interested as he doesn't believe in it but he knows how to keep himself on top and will use any tactics at his disposal to do so.

Such is my aversion to Boris Johnson, I can’t bring myself to watch him in any circumstances.

I’ve just read the WHO guidance on mask wearing and ordered some packs of 3-layer fabric masks.

 

[brad465]

Yup
1. Sleaze
2. Social Care Bill
3. Peppa Pig debacle
oh and biggest one
4. allegedly 20+ letters into the 1922 committee already so what a better way to close down any leadership challenge

utterly blatant its not about masks - watch the presser BoJo incoherent not interested as he doesn't believe in it but he knows how to keep himself on top and will use any tactics at his disposal to do so.

The first 3 definitely, the forth one to an extent but if the committee has received around 20 letters then not everyone in the CRG has sent them, and the return of a mask mandate will only push the CRG more to send letters. Then again it won't be the first time this month that Johnson has made a gross miscalculation.

Only 54 MPs to seal his fate.

Only 54 MPs to trigger a leadership challenge yes, but if he survives it he's immune for a year, which is an even worse outcome than no challenge happening at the present time.

 

[alex397]

That's ironic given the main reason pro-maskers give for promoting mandatory masks is that the vaccines are apparently "ineffective" (or words to that effect).

Who’s calling them ineffective?

 

[Darandio]

I shall be claiming full exemption. Ignoring the science argument, is my hatred for the things slightly irrational? Possibly, but probably less irrational than the anti-vaxxers who say we need to continue mandatory population wide NPIs despite a vaccine that is very effective at stopping serious illness and 90%+ plus of adults having anti-bodies.

And with restrictions introduced to a backdrop of a new variant that when studied in South Africa has shown to be mild in comparison with zero vaccinated individuals admitted to hospital with it. These restrictions are not driven by any medium of science, it's much more sinister.

 

[bramling]

Yup
1. Sleaze
2. Social Care Bill
3. Peppa Pig debacle
oh and biggest one
4. allegedly 20+ letters into the 1922 committee already so what a better way to close down any leadership challenge

utterly blatant its not about masks - watch the presser BoJo incoherent not interested as he doesn't believe in it but he knows how to keep himself on top and will use any tactics at his disposal to do so.

Yes watching it for a second time, it was quite apparent he was very much reading from a script. That’s quite poor for a prime minister. I was always taught that presentations should be from bullet points, so as to avoid disengaging the audience.

You can also add to that list
5. Bexley by-election, where from what I understand Boris performance has been a salient issue. I doubt the seat will change hands (though with London as it is nowadays never rule it out), but a poor result would certainly have relevance to the fourth item on your list.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I feel a combination of anger, dispair and resignation. Masks are the most visible sign of things not being 'normal'. Far from being a sop to placate those calling for Plan B, this will embolden them. Places that are not included in the law (such as work places or restuarants) will come under pressure to enact similar rules and there will be a push for 'mission' creep for pubs etc...

There will apparently be a review in 3 weeks time - remember 3 weeks to flatten the curve? This will still be here in 3 months time.
This ends when people want it to.

I shall be claiming full exemption. Ignoring the science argument, is my hatred for the things slightly irrational? Possibly, but probably less irrational than the anti-vaxxers who say we need to continue mandatory population wide NPIs despite a vaccine that is very effective at stopping serious illness and 90%+ plus of adults having anti-bodies.

Exactly what BoJo wants move the spotlight off him this is all it is he knows full well mask enforcement won't happen he's got TfL attempt to reinforce thats its unenforceable

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Nope.

Reduces the risk though


Never said masks ‘guarantee’ not passing it on.

Some of the vulnerable people are vaccinated, one is not fully due to having a significantly bad reaction the first time, and another lives at home with a vulnerable person. Wearing a mask around them reduces the risk, and even if I was an anti-masker it wouldn’t be very courteous to argue with someone in that position.

Of course we will have to live with it. Hopefully more people will be vaccinated.

Yes I will. I won’t avoid virus transmission. But again, it will reduce the risk.

Probably. But I wear a mask to help reduce passing anything on. As I have already said.

Nope.

Do what you want, and leave us alone. Problems sorted.

 

[bramling]

Who’s calling them ineffective?

Surely if the vaccines are properly effective then why bother with masks, which even their most hardcore supporters never advocate as having more than a marginal benefit.

 

[317 forever]

A few people who do not wish to wear masks could avoid non-essential shopping or public transport usage. Could the owners or operators seek compensation from the government for suppressing part of their trade?

 

[alex397]

Do what you want, and leave us alone. Problems sorted.

I will do, along with the rest of the virtue signalling leftie woke snowflakes I know.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Yes watching it for a second time, it was quite apparent he was very much reading from a script. That’s quite poor for a prime minister. I was always taught that presentations should be from bullet points, so as to avoid disengaging the audience.

You can also add to that list
5. Bexley by-election, where from what I understand Boris performance has been a salient issue. I doubt the seat will change hands (though with London as it is nowadays never rule it out), but a poor result would certainly have relevance to the fourth item on your list.

The majority is expected to be slashed to about 6,000. Lots of support for Reform and some Labour switching. It may send a message.

 

[baz962]

This is all it is, unfortunately. Oh well. We had a good run of it over the last few months I guess. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Government introduced something draconian about the exemption process (e.g written doctors note or £5,000 fine or something), otherwise I don’t think the uptake will be what they hope for - I haven’t worn one in any setting outside the airport in England since June and I don’t intend to again if they don’t do something like that. May as well do the Christmas shopping tomorrow to be on the safe side

Why bother with the airport then ?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Surely if the vaccines are properly effective then why bother with masks, which even their most hardcore supporters never advocate as having more than a marginal benefit.

because it looks like there doing something to the groups that are concerned so govt is seen as caring