Almost Canadian

There is no research that suggests that mask wearing will affect transmission. It may be that it does become available but, currently, it doesn't exist.

If it can be transmitted by aerosols that can pass through the mask what is the purpose of the mask? Your statement, not mine. If your statements are correct, why hasn't any government in Canada required the use of masks in regular day to day life?

The media reporting something is not scientific fact. I am sure you are capable of appreciating that. We have dealt with your shortage argument above. Scientists qualifying what they say with the use of words like "may" is not science either. As I have stated, I have no issue with anyone making a choice to wear a mask. If governments wish to compel the use of masks, and state that they are relying upon science to do so, I wish for them to produce the science.

If my hands were full I would do something simple like sneeze downwards or raise whatever I was carrying so that I placed them between my nose and whatever I was attempting to avoid spraying. I have been taking public transport throughout this period and everybody has been keeping 6 feet away from one another. People that spit in the street are unlikely to spit at another and, if they do, I don't believe that they would not be able to lower their mask to enable them to do so.

It is an indisputable fact that planes were deliberately flown into 2 large buildings in 2001. Should all such buildings be knocked down as it may happen again? Governments know that smoking kills people - an indisputable fact. I doubt that anyone can put forward a suggestion that smoking is a benefit to someone that has never tried it before, yet governments allow the sale of products that they know have a proven downside to society.

I am not aware of any jurisdiction that has compelled its use. I am aware that apps exist and, if people wish to use them, good for them. The issue I have is with governments making it compulsory. They are two very different things and I would have thought that an intelligent person would be able to distinguish the difference between the two.

BristolUK

I don't know why I bother. But I'm going to.
Here is a news report on the latest non-existent piece of research. Some agree, some disagree, but the research is there.

Here's another. "We identified seasonal human coronaviruses, influenza viruses and rhinoviruses in exhaled breath and coughs of children and adults with acute respiratory illness. Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets. Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals."

Or this. "There have been several studies on the use of medical masks outside of the hospital setting."
Again, some disagree, some don't but the research is there. Some research has different findings. But the research is there.

Strewth, did you not read the part about droplets? Aerosols pass through, droplets being bigger less likely to.
Answered twice already. And it's being considered. Perhaps you will be satisfied then

Almost Canadian

You seem particularly obsessed with getting me to change my opinion. Why are you unable to accept that our opinions differ and leave it there?

jimf

"Sir Patrick said the evidence of the effectiveness of wearing face coverings in public was "not straightforward" but added they could have a "marginal but positive" impact on reducing the spread of the virus."

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-05/...are-committee/

Given that others not wearing masks does appear to cause anxiety in some individuals wearing a mask may well be a considerate thing to do.

Boris and Nicola seem to be advocates of wearing masks.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-a9493061.html

Atlantic Xpat

If your opinion was "I've not seen evidence that I believe or are prepared to accept that use of masks reduces transmission" then thats one thing, your opinion, you do you etc. But you stated "there is no evidence". Well there is. You may not find it credible, you may not want to believe it, but it exists and both Bristol and I have linked to it. Changing your opinion on mask use? No, that's not likely is it, but to go back to my earlier theme at some point it's likely to be irrelevant whether you accept or don't accept that wearing a mask is necessary. You'll have to do so , irrespective of you feelings on the subject. Getting on a plane today is a good example and I suspect that getting on a plane in a years time may require one to wear a mask..

Jerseygirl

If face masks do not stop the spread of germs, why do doctors, dentists etc wear them?

Almost Canadian

OK. If your premise is correct, are you able to explain why, in Canada, wearing a mask during general day to day going about life is not compulsory? Do you believe that all of the relevant governments are acting against the interests of their residents?

I accept.that, if mask wearing hecomes compulsory, I will have to wear one or face the consequences. I don't believe I have stated otherwise.

Atlantic Xpat

I don't know, I don't make policy. I suspect its as much to do with supply (scarcity of) as it is efficacy. Physical distancing doesn't come with the same supply issues.

Former Lancastrian

BINGO. I also suspect that if every person in the world doesn't have a mask or access to a mask then Govt officials are reluctant to make it mandatory for all persons outside of their homes to wear one. Sure some businesses are making it mandatory to wear a mask to enter a store or fly etc etc and if I wish to use these then I either wear a mask or denied that service. I have a mask so prepared to wear one when required when outside my home.

BristolUK

I've long accepted your opinions are different to mine. There is nothing wrong with that.
But as others have observed, that's not what you said.

Oakvillian

This is one of the greatest misconceptions of the lockdown/social isolation protocols. It's the same misunderstanding as those who think that the Y2K thing was all an overstated damp squib. Success is measured by the absence of being overwhelmed. If the health service is coping, then the preventive measures are working. By further analogy to the millennium bug, the very reason that planes didn't fall out of the sky or the banking system collapse in chaos was that tens of thousands of hours of effort had gone into ensuring that preventive measures were in place before the event. So the lack of catastrophe, while it didn't make for an interesting news story, was the clearest measure of success that the IT industry could have hoped for.

With reference to your comments about Quebec. I think reopening too widely and too soon will potentially prove far more damaging to the economy than the short term impact (albeit a harsh impact for those directly affected) of closing some workplaces. Sadly, only time will tell.

I think Bristol and AX have answered the rest of your post. You are of course, for the moment, free to disagree and act accordingly. But I strongly suspect that the weight of evidence will move against your position as more research is carried out and the results published.

Almost Canadian

The vast majority of my posts above resulted from Siouxie's comment that I appeared to be unable to accept different opinions to the one I hold. From then on, each time I attempted to address an issue that I hadn't previously commented about, I was asked to comment about other issues,

Your analogy of Y2K only works if you are able to show that those that didn't make the preparations suffered consequences as a result of their failure to do so. In the current situation, we are able to demonstrate that there are jurisdictions where lockdowns were not ordered and whose healthcare systems have not been overwhelmed. We can all debate forever and a day about what would have happened had the lockdown not taken place and, if others wish to, I am happy for them to do so, but I have no interest in doing so.

The healthcare system relies upon funds to operate. Decimating one's tax base means that one will not have the funds necessary. We won't be able to sell bonds to China for forever and a day and, if we do, the cost of doing so will be enormous. Can you imagine how the market in government bonds is going to require the returns to investors to increase massively?

Someone will have to explain to me why it is fine to be able to shop at Costco, but not to be able to purchase a coffee from a coffee shop (not a drive through) on the way home. If it is OK to keep a distance at Costco, why not at the coffee shop? (I am not asking you specifically so there is no need for a "...I don't make policy..." response).

The whole "this is essential; that is not essential" appears to be B/S. Pot being essential - really?

I can't see how the world can avoid the vast majority of its inhabitants getting infected unless, of course, a vaccine is produced and can be administered to the entire world within a relatively short period of time, which doesn't appear to be remotely achievable. It appears that, for most, getting infected doesn't cause any real issues to them so why not isolate those that are vulnerable, rather than those that aren't?

I don't doubt that and, in fact, I said as much above. The point is: governments around the world are stating that they are basing their decisions upon "science" and are not producing the science upon which their decisions are, apparently, being made.

I still believe that washing one's hands and avoiding touching one's face are far more important that wearing a mask when not in close proximity to another.

I am absolutely horrified by the ease with which people are accepting the restrictions being imposed upon them, with minimal objection, and are then reacting with venom against those that suggest the current situation may be completely disproportionate to the risks that the vast majority of the world is facing.

FWIW, my life is continuing pretty much as normal. My income has not been massively reduced and I am able to work almost as much as I did previously while, as I stated in another thread, replacing huge tracts of fencing at my residence. I am not stating anything as a so called frothing loon who is penniless as a result of a despotic government but I am noticing that governments are using the fear that has been produced to do things they wouldn't dare to do during regular times.

SanDiegogirl

You don't believe you are infected ....? What if you are? What if you a asymptomatic but infectious? Wearing a mask would reduce the chance of your droplets/breath infecting someone else.

To be considerate and respectful of all those around you, why would you not wear a mask?

Almost Canadian

I have not been within 6 feet (which, as you likely aware, is a distance that has no scientific basis either) for well over a month. I live on 20 acres and wash my hands every 5 minutes. Exactly how have I become infected?

Buy into the hysteria all you want to, but don't expect others to follow you.

Siouxie