Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My supermarket doesn't do those things. It's also beside the point. Supermarkets and shops having mandatory mask orders placed on them is entirely arbitrary. Hence why you can spend an extended period of time indoors in public without one, so long as you're eating or drinking beer. It's nonsense.

We did this dance two pages ago guys, it does not go anywhere. Ignore and move on, bad-faith posters get threads locked.

https://people.com/health/three-quarters-recovered-coronavirus-patients-have-heart-damage-months-later

Just a flu

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We did this dance two pages ago guys, it does not go anywhere. Ignore and move on, bad-faith posters get threads locked.

I notice you handily disregarded my previous post destroying your 'bad faith' claims...

queen_annes_revenge wrote:I'd argue that you don't need a university education to be able to do that. I'd also argue that that is becoming less and less the case, but that is heading off topic

That's theoretically 100% true but practically you tend to learn a lot of technical terms and highly specific usages of regular words while getting a degree. You also get filtered for certain levels of competence (it's not perfect but better than nothing). People (amateurs) who don't have degrees—or even just people who have degrees in something unrelated (a lot of STEM graduates seem to fall in this group)—and blog or write about scientific papers often tend to simply not understand what those mean even if they technically understand all the words. Thus their conclusions tend to be rather badly informed, even if they are correct according to their own perception of things. And they often seem to hold their opinions in high regard because they technically understand a paper (or at least the words) and they came to a conclusion while not even understanding that don't know what they are talking/writing about.

A fun name for that is Igon Value Problem.

Its name is a humorous reference to eigenvalue problemsWikipedia in mathematics,[2] and stems from a misinterpretation of the term "eigenvalue" as "igon value" on p.71 of Gladwell's book, as discussed below.

Such problems arise because the writer in question doesn't have the full understanding of a topic that comes from a full education and becoming a true expert in the subject. They are then prone to comparatively simple errors arising from mis-hearing or misunderstanding a topic in their interview with an expert.

That happened in the context of a rather simple mathematical term to a supposedly smart journalist who should have editors and people to read through their drafts as to avoid such fundamental mistakes. Now imagine how much worse it's for random bloggers or writers who have a similar sized ego but not the editorial support.

tneva82 wrote:https://people.com/health/three-quarters-recovered-coronavirus-patients-have-heart-damage-months-later

Just a flu

Just to add to this: https://news.yahoo.com/as-post-covid-heart-and-brain-problems-linger-some-coronavirus-survivors-find-its-a-long-haul-to-recovery-165434453.html

Jennica Harris, 33, is starting to believe she will never fully recover from the coronavirus. A fit and healthy Southern California mother of two, Harris fell ill in April after her husband, a commercial airline pilot, was infected. Her husband has recovered, and her children, who showed symptoms of the disease but were never tested, are now healthy — but Harris is still suffering flare-ups, when her heart rate jumps and she has to lie completely still. During these flare-ups, she also has severe bouts of diarrhea. When she’s sleeping, sometimes her pulse drops so low she awakens, gasping for breath. She is now waiting for results from a sleep study. Her brain feels foggy, she has started to stutter, she is extremely fatigued, and she gets debilitating headaches and dizzy spells along with muscle and joint pain. She said her vision is sometimes blurred and her hearing is now slightly impaired.

Also in mask news: http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/955278.html

On July 17, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) disclosed instances in which wearing masks had blocked the additional spread of COVID-19. While the virus is extremely virulent, careful use of masks is enough to prevent a considerable amount of secondary infections, contract tracers have found.
[…]
According to a study published by the Lancet, an internationally acclaimed medical journal, a person not wearing a mask is five times more likely to contract COVID-19 than one who is.
[…]
The KCDC also provided examples of poor mask usage, such as lowering the mask below one’s chin. The KCDC recommends that the mask completely cover the mouth and nose and fit snugly to the face. After putting on a mask, one should avoid touching its surface and should only use the straps when taking it off.

This tweet really sums up the general COVID-19 zeitgeist and how certain people react to it:

https://twitter.com/IdahoBones/status/1288538398676967427

this virus is pretty horrifying but just a little less horrifying than it needs to be to be taken very seriously and thats one of the most maddening things about it. its so endemic of our era of everything just slowly getting worse but not worse enough to change.

Mario wrote:


Also in mask news: http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/955278.html

On July 17, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) disclosed instances in which wearing masks had blocked the additional spread of COVID-19. While the virus is extremely virulent, careful use of masks is enough to prevent a considerable amount of secondary infections, contract tracers have found.
[…]
According to a study published by the Lancet, an internationally acclaimed medical journal, a person not wearing a mask is five times more likely to contract COVID-19 than one who is.
[…]
The KCDC also provided examples of poor mask usage, such as lowering the mask below one’s chin. The KCDC recommends that the mask completely cover the mouth and nose and fit snugly to the face. After putting on a mask, one should avoid touching its surface and should only use the straps when taking it off.

This isn't anything new really. Medical professionals using masks making a positive benefit has been known for some time. It's just repeating research that has already been undertaken. Using masks in controlled environments is a positive benefit. The question that isn't asked is why when large scale sampling of the populace at large why in medical environments there is such a large positive impact and why in the public it only has a weak positive impact. As an assertion (and my own conjecture) I query whether the latter quote above is largely the issue and also a psychology one. Firstly most of the public aren't trained in their use, likely use the same mask for hours, if not over days. Secondly that it makes people feel safe; a medical professional continues to recognises the risks even whilst wearing a mask so takes the necessary precautions. As such the mask is additive benefit over other protection measures. For the public they don't see the same risks. For them its the same as burning brimstone in the 1600s; it is *the* answer to the problem and hence other measures can be relaxed (e.g. keeping your distance). As such although people think they are safe the other measures they take place themselves at more risk. Hence the mask only has a weak benefit (the benefit is offset by the extra risk people put themselves under). Similar effects can be seen in climate change. There's evidence to suggest that those people that do something positive like install solar panels can actually be worse emitters of carbon.

As such I tend not to favour the over positive reporting on masks. I think although they are a benefit the populace as a whole use the evidence in the wrong way.

Areas of the North West around Manchester and Oldham have now been put back into lockdown.

Not clear on all the details, but it's apparently less severe than the one implemented in Leicester, but will affect many more people.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We did this dance two pages ago guys, it does not go anywhere. Ignore and move on, bad-faith posters get threads locked.

I notice you handily disregarded my previous post destroying your 'bad faith' claims...

You didn't destroy their "bad faith" claims. In fact, you decided to just make more "bad faith" claims.

So according to that Lancet study, the masks DO protect the wearer, contrary to the popular assertion. In which case, put the onus back on an individuals judgement of their own risk, and not a mandatory diktat of compliance for everybody.

So they don't reduce your chance of spreading it to other people at all?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Areas of the North West around Manchester and Oldham have now been put back into lockdown.

Not clear on all the details, but it's apparently less severe than the one implemented in Leicester, but will affect many more people.

I wasn't clear on the details either from the reporting (I wonder if the govt isn't a bit fuzzy on the details too?)

One thing I would love to know is how they're going to tell people in the areas that they are not locked down (it's easy to say an entire country but it seems a lot harder to spread the message to a more localised area especially round the edges of it where people will wonder if they're in or out, household letters might work but given how slow they were to arrive from the start of national lockdown that might be too slow)

Postcodes. Simply list all the postcodes of affected areas on the local government website.

I'm actually registered with the local council online, for stuff like paying fines, applying for replacement bins etc, so they'd be able to cross reference my address and text me, but I doubt that's even close to the majority, but listing postcodes would be simpke enough.

nfe wrote:

PhDs are a slightly different game, where it is the opinion of two persons, but the examinations are thorough and sometimes, probably more often than they should be, brutal.

I have an MSc by research in astrophysics. My examination was a 3 hour long viva defending my thesis and demonstrating knowledge of the subject around my thesis.

So even some masters follow the examination procedure of PhDs.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

nfe wrote:

PhDs are a slightly different game, where it is the opinion of two persons, but the examinations are thorough and sometimes, probably more often than they should be, brutal.

I have an MSc by research in astrophysics. My examination was a 3 hour long viva defending my thesis and demonstrating knowledge of the subject around my thesis.

So even some masters follow the examination procedure of PhDs.

Fair enough. I was aware most research masters have the option of a viva if the external feels they need to probe the author, but I don't actually know anyone who's had to have one.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
My supermarket doesn't do those things. It's also beside the point. Supermarkets and shops having mandatory mask orders placed on them is entirely arbitrary. Hence why you can spend an extended period of time indoors in public without one, so long as you're eating or drinking beer. It's nonsense.

I don't think it's arbitrary as much as it's the companies choice if they want to risk the bad publicity of being marked as a hotspot and potentially put into lockdown. You lose money and potentially reputation. Customers avoid the location in the future due to viewing your company as irresponsible. Pretty much falls into similar brackets as Work Health and Safety guidelines.

Locations like public areas are slightly different as it's more difficult to say who is responsible exactly if there is an outbreak linked to that specific location. Or the local council can just swing it's weight around to push the blame elsewhere.

I guess when in doubt simply try to ask who could be blamed if everything falls to grox droppings.

It's the opposite of arbitrary. It's a targeted response to the fact that people working in retail have been significantly negatively impacted relative to other employment sectors, with reports of up to 75% higher fatality rates. Which is what makes the whining about wearing them so baseless.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


I've also never claimed its impossible for me to get it.
.

My wording was poorly phrased. . . I was truly talking about the people in the US who are making the same tired arguments you have been. . . IME, the AMERICANS who hold these views act, even if they aren't verbally saying it, like they are "immune" . . .

IMO, what other posters have said of you, things like "whats next, you'll say its all faked?" is said for a reason. . . People in the US who argue against being "forced" to wear a mask have a very large cross-section on the venn-diagram of "people who feel inconvenienced by masks and think they are special and shouldnt have to wear one" and "people who think its a giant fething hoax." If you are NOT one of the people who think its a hoax, your arguments sure seem to fall in line with those who do.


And the thing to keep in mind, you did say earlier ITT, that you have not been in contact with anyone who's infected or possibly infected. . . Which, on the face of it is BS. It is BS for literally anyone who lives in a society in any form. . . whether you live on a farm and have to go in to town, live in the suburbs, inner city or anywhere else. In short, unless you're a mountain-man/trapper who lives in complete isolation off of the land, you have contact with *someone* other than yourself. IF you've been to a grocery store, you've been exposed to someone who has it, or has been exposed to it. And, we know that this thing has a really high transmission rate.

So really, the reason so many countries around the world are bringing out mask mandates, is because people who argue as you have ITT, are incredibly selfish and either don't understand that they live in a society where people are affected by others' actions, or they just don't care.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We did this dance two pages ago guys, it does not go anywhere. Ignore and move on, bad-faith posters get threads locked.

And yet the whole issue could have been prevented months ago if the mods country had had some real leadership.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We did this dance two pages ago guys, it does not go anywhere. Ignore and move on, bad-faith posters get threads locked.

And yet the whole issue could have been prevented months ago if the mods country had had some real leadership.

Ok honestly, I think that is an extremely harsh comparison to make and I hope I am misinterpreting. I don't think Dakka mods have ever sunk close to the same realm of poor leadership.

But I do agree, decent leadership or even no leadership in the US (as opposed to labeling it a hoax and 'no worse than the flu') would have us in a dramatically improved situation. We can see in this very thread that people who solidified their opinion of Covid as a non-threat are also among those most stubbornly resistant to changing their viewpoints. Just when it comes to this particular issue the link to suffering and death is more direct.

 Azreal13 wrote:
So they don't reduce your chance of spreading it to other people at all?

That would be typical logic for　him yes. Binary on/off. If it protects you it doesn't prevent you from infecting others.

Oh and lack ofwearing it thus increases your chance of catching it and thus by very definition increases chance of you infecting others as to infect others you have to have it. So again it's not just personal thing.

But hey howabout law where if you don't wear it and anybody catches it from you you get sentenced from assault/murder depending does victim die or not. Your choice, you pay the price.

Far right presidential candidate Herman Cain, who championed an economic plan discredited by a civilization computer game and recently attended a (name i cant be the only one sick of seeing) rally which bragged about ignoring covid safety rules, has died of covid. He atended thr rally in the time window that would have fit his diagnosis with covid.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/30/former-gop-presidential-candidate-herman-cain-dies-after-battle-with-coronavirus.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/30/politics/herman-cain-dies-coronavirus/index.html

Well. He was practically begging to catch the virus so not surprising news.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
put the onus back on an individuals judgement of their own risk, and not a mandatory diktat of compliance for everybody.

That 'diktat' is so there is no ambiguity or excuse when confronted. If there is a valid reason to not wear one, fine. Everyone else, no matter their beliefs or reasons, has to wear one.
So many examples from around the world have led to that. Blame the extreme cases we hear about in the news. Look at the reports (as you have), and there is no reason not to wear one.
We know that 'an individuals judgement' is flawed in so many cases, and cannot be relied upon.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We did this dance two pages ago guys, it does not go anywhere. Ignore and move on, bad-faith posters get threads locked.

And yet the whole issue could have been prevented months ago if the mods country had had some real leadership.

Ok honestly, I think that is an extremely harsh comparison to make and I hope I am misinterpreting. I don't think Dakka mods have ever sunk close to the same realm of poor leadership.

But I do agree, decent leadership or even no leadership in the US (as opposed to labeling it a hoax and 'no worse than the flu') would have us in a dramatically improved situation. We can see in this very thread that people who solidified their opinion of Covid as a non-threat are also among those most stubbornly resistant to changing their viewpoints. Just when it comes to this particular issue the link to suffering and death is more direct.

Going more for a gentle...ish tweaking than harsh criticism.

tneva82 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
So they don't reduce your chance of spreading it to other people at all?

That would be typical logic for　him yes. Binary on/off. If it protects you it doesn't prevent you from infecting others.

The nirvana fallacy in action my friend.

The nirvana fallacy is a common logical fallacy argument used by people opposing something. If something, a solution to a problem, a better way of doing things, etc is not absolutely perfect in every way and in every circumstance, the people opposing it will ignore it's clear advantages and strengths and focus on it's failings, no matter how small, as justification to oppose it.

So, wearing masks will reduce the spread of covid and protect some people to some degrees, but won't make covid magically disappear overight.

"Masks aren't no damn good and aren't worth violating people's rights for!"

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

That’s a good name for that fallacy...but’s not perfect.

cody.d. wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
My supermarket doesn't do those things. It's also beside the point. Supermarkets and shops having mandatory mask orders placed on them is entirely arbitrary. Hence why you can spend an extended period of time indoors in public without one, so long as you're eating or drinking beer. It's nonsense.

I don't think it's arbitrary as much as it's the companies choice if they want to risk the bad publicity of being marked as a hotspot and potentially put into lockdown. You lose money and potentially reputation. Customers avoid the location in the future due to viewing your company as irresponsible. Pretty much falls into similar brackets as Work Health and Safety guidelines.

Locations like public areas are slightly different as it's more difficult to say who is responsible exactly if there is an outbreak linked to that specific location. Or the local council can just swing it's weight around to push the blame elsewhere.

I guess when in doubt simply try to ask who could be blamed if everything falls to grox droppings.

It's not the companies at all. This is a law. Before this my supermarket didn't give a damn if you wore a mask or not. They don't care about masks at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt Swain wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
So they don't reduce your chance of spreading it to other people at all?

That would be typical logic for　him yes. Binary on/off. If it protects you it doesn't prevent you from infecting others.

The nirvana fallacy in action my friend.

The nirvana fallacy is a common logical fallacy argument used by people opposing something. If something, a solution to a problem, a better way of doing things, etc is not absolutely perfect in every way and in every circumstance, the people opposing it will ignore it's clear advantages and strengths and focus on it's failings, no matter how small, as justification to oppose it.

So, wearing masks will reduce the spread of covid and protect some people to some degrees, but won't make covid magically disappear overight.

"Masks aren't no damn good and aren't worth violating people's rights for!"

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

Congratulations.... If only you were right. This would only apply to this situation if I were saying that they shouldn't be used at all because the benefit is only small. Which I'm not. I'm saying people should be allowed to make their own decisions, precisely because the benefit is so small. If there was conclusive proof that they stopped most spread (along with other factors like the disease actually affecting a substantial number of people. <0.1% of the UK population remember?) I would advocate their use, and potentially support mandatory wearing in some places.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Skinnereal wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
put the onus back on an individuals judgement of their own risk, and not a mandatory diktat of compliance for everybody.

That 'dictat' is so there is no ambiguity or excuse when confronted. If there is a valid reason to not wear one, fine. Everyone else, no matter their beliefs or reasons, has to wear one.
So many examples from around the world have led to that. Blame the extreme cases we hear about in the news. Look at the reports (as you have), and there is no reason not to wear one.
We know that 'an individuals judgement' is flawed in so many cases, and cannot be relied upon.

Best get us re-educated then. Maybe you could put us in camps to facilitate it... Just make sure we're all wearing masks...

I don't know what your point is here. This is just a description of exactly what I'm opposing.

Again, this is for sake of safety, backed by empirical evidence.

As a Driver, it’s my legal responsibility to ensure my car is safe to drive, insured for at least Third Party, and that any passengers are wearing seatbelts, and wearing them properly.

Yes, there are weirdos who claim seatbelts and airbags are dangerous items. Perhaps they’re right. But they’re less dangerous than a short flight through a windscreen, landing who knows where, or indeed the old classic ‘flung with great velocity into that worryingly sturdy steering wheel’

Restaurants have hygiene codes to stick to, due to public safety concerns.

These and hundreds, if not thousands of “diktats” are in place for the safety of as many people as possible. You may also recognise them under their proper name of laws?

You know laws. A set of enforceable controls where the Absolute Freedom of the individual is curtailed for the betterment of society as a whole? Some say they’re the hallmark of a civilised society, especially when they’re regularly and fairly enforced.

I'm glad someone finally brought up seatbelts. I'm surprised it didn't come up sooner.
This highlights my point perfectly.
Seatbelts have been proven to have a massive impact in saving lives in car accidents. Unequivocally. Therefore, imposing them in law is fine. It makes sense.

Masks, might work a little bit, sometimes, and it's been back and forth so much that no one seems to really know. Therefore imposing them on the population with threat of financial reprisal, is not proportionate.
Also, seatbelts and car parts are made to a set of specific specifications, of approved materials and tested to a set of standards. I can go into the supermarket wearing anything from a strip of my nans curtain to a lettuce leaf sellotaped around my face.

I'm assuming that you all vociferously opposed people wearing masks when the government said that they provide little benefit? I hope so.

No, I wore my masks because I was doing whatever I could to reduce potential infection of myself and others.

Same as taking care to wash my hands properly. Same as carrying a bottle of hand sanitiser. Same as not picking things up in the supermarket just to put them back. Same as still coughing into the crook of my arm. Same as not shaking hands with folk. Same as doing what I can to maintain a decent gap between myself and the next person.

You know. Teeny tiny little things which barely affect me, to do whatever I can to not make things any worse than the already are?

Consider. When we got Mum’s prognosis last year (around March, if memory serves) I of course went up to Scotland to see her. For flavour, it was terminal upper bowel cancer, which is a horrible way to go.

She’d been receiving chemo, but it just wasn’t working. And of course, chemo being chemo, she was left with a compromised immune system.

Unfortunately, the train was packed, and I wound up with someone sitting next to me. This person stunk to high heaven. Stale sweat, old ciggies. Their clothes were pretty manky too. Lots of coughing, and no covering of their mouth.

That really, really worried me. Sure, I’ve a decent immune system, and I only rarely get ill (but when I do, it’s horrendously ill.)

But because of that filth wizard, I had legitimate concerns that I might be bringing a pathogen into the house. So what did I do? I asked Dad not to collect me from the station, and took a taxi instead. Before walking through to the front room to see my parents, I took my bag to my room, grabbed a quick shower and changed my clothes.

That is going out of my way, because I had a legitimate concern for my Mum’s safety.

Wearing a mask, basic hygiene and consideration for others is not onerous. At all.