Face coverings

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 hours ago, carlos said:

its kinda ironic all these arborists whinging over wearing a mask,  everyday arb gear worn to improve safety is not exactly high comfort is it (despite the cool write up on the website!)

i wasnt that keen on the whole mask wearing thing but an unseen event mean i had to travel on an airplane and spend time in a hospital, sure it wasnt so comfy but totally do able.

masks might not be 100% effective all the time but better than nothing( seatbelts arnt either but you still always put one on! ) 

 

1 hour ago, skyhuck said:

Reading this thread beggars belief!!

 

Is this really a forum for tree workers??

 

We spend much of our lives having our nuts squished, when the harness shifts, have sawdust, dead confer bits, insects of all types, down the back of our necks or front of our undies, have pointy bits of conifer, hawthorn etc, poking our ass and all other parts of out bodies, as we endeavour to defy gravity climbing hedges with the tensile strength of a wet fart. We squint our eyes, while they fill with sawdust, felling the head out of an 80ft tree in howling wind and rain. etc, etc.

 

But wearing a face covering while we shop is "uncomfortable" ?? Really??

 

We need to give people who are venerable, may have been shielding for 4 months, the confidence to come back out and rejoin society. If wearing a mask helps, I'm all for it, I care not if they actually work.

 

As for the "there are gaps round them, they don't stop the virus" clowns! Its not about stopping the virus itself. When you speak you spit, you may not realise but you do. These spit droplets may contain millions of virus molecules. The more virus someone is exposed to the worse the decease may be, that's why bus drivers etc have been so badly hit, often dying. Look up "viral loading"

 

As for panic attacks, that's a shame and they need to find alternative work maybe. But can you imagine the effect of them having to wear a cpap machine, if they become infected? I listed to a radio documentary of a Covid ward. A lady died because she could not go on the cpap, due to panic attacks.

 

Come on lads just man up and wear a face covering. If you don't like masks, just get a buff and pull it up over your mouth and nose when you enter a shop.

 

As for government control. You can self declare an excuse to not wear one, not exactly the SS is it?

These would be valid points but for the glaring omission.

 

Seat belts, chainsaw safety gear, drink driving, smoking ban...  All of these comparisons have been made but none of them are really appropriate or relevant to the face covering discussion.

 

Example:  The seat belt law  - it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure every passenger in a car is suitably belted (unless medically exempt)

 

For the comparison between seat belts and face coverings to be valid it would have to be like, the driver has to wear a seatbelt but the passenger doesn't if they are getting out in a minute, on their way to work, eating a sandwich or having a pint.  Clearly, totally ?ing bonkers and would rightly draw derision for the inability to enforce and police it and the obvious illogical nature of the "guidance."

 

Same with chainsaw PPE, same with drink driving etc etc....

 

The issue with the "guidance" for face coverings is that it is too late, too random, ineffective and not supported by factual data.  It is a question of credibility and on this matter the government has none - in my estimation.  

 

As for giving confidence to those that may have been shielding - I'd suggest it would be much more efficient and effective if those that feel vulnerable take proper measures to protect themselves rather than seeking to impose improper measures on everyone else.  I know that might be seen as more of a self centred position (and it is) but it is also a much more logical position IMHO.  Better to properly protect the vulnerable than to improperly fail to protect everyone.  

 

I still maintain that this has nothing to do with personal discomfort, inconvenience or awkwardness (well, maybe a bit of awkwardness) but it is entirely an issue of the lack of credibility to support the requirement.

 

The net result of this poorly conceived, delayed implementation will be that morons rely upon bad advice to implement unnecessary measures in an inappropriate manner such that risk will likely be increased through bad practice in relation to face coverings and an increasing apathy towards other, better, countermeasures such as hand washing and distancing.

 

Think about it - what's next?  All the lemmings will be piling into airplanes and ?ing off to Marmaris to get sunburned and marinaded in Watney's Red Barrel - it'll all be OK though even though they are packed in like sardines they'll be perfectly 'safe' because they've been wearing gran's crusty nicks on their head for the past 3 weeks.... 

[skyhuck]

55 minutes ago, Mark J said:

Surgeons wear clogs.

I believe that’s to prevent static electric. Sparks can cause the oxygen and other gases to explode.

[Mark J]

3 minutes ago, skyhuck said:

I believe that’s to prevent static electric. Sparks can cause the oxygen and other gases to explode.

You learn something new everyday.

 

[Mark Bolam]

3 hours ago, woodwizzard said:

If people think that wearing a covering is going to "get things going again", they are in a dream world. The closed down shops and ruined businesses are gone. Poncing around with your pants on your head won't be helping them!

What do you suggest doing about it then, you fuckwit?

[Khriss]

9 minutes ago, skyhuck said:

I believe that’s to prevent static electric. Sparks can cause the oxygen and other gases to explode.

The Nitrous Oxide ( highly explosive)   for the aenethetist.  Plus they comfy fr standing. K

[Mark Bolam]

Totally with you on the handwashing and distancing thing Kevin, and I agree that the usual idiots will simply crack on thinking a mask means they are bulletproof.

[trigger_andy]

11 hours ago, Mark Bolam said:

It’s very, very simple.

 

If you want to go into a shop, wear a mask.

Ive been back in the UK three days now. Only been asked to wear a mask in one shop, I walked out and went to the one thatr did not insist on it. That to me is very very simple and works for me. I see the likes of Asda are not enforcing it which is some common sense at last. Tesco where happy for me to shop without one and with good reason, 70% of their staff was not wearing one either. 

 

Common sense will prevail eventually and we can put this charade behind us. 

[skyhuck]

14 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

 

These would be valid points but for the glaring omission.

 

Seat belts, chainsaw safety gear, drink driving, smoking ban...  All of these comparisons have been made but none of them are really appropriate or relevant to the face covering discussion.

 

Example:  The seat belt law  - it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure every passenger in a car is suitably belted (unless medically exempt)

 

For the comparison between seat belts and face coverings to be valid it would have to be like, the driver has to wear a seatbelt but the passenger doesn't if they are getting out in a minute, on their way to work, eating a sandwich or having a pint.  Clearly, totally ?ing bonkers and would rightly draw derision for the inability to enforce and police it and the obvious illogical nature of the "guidance."

 

Same with chainsaw PPE, same with drink driving etc etc....

 

The issue with the "guidance" for face coverings is that it is too late, too random, ineffective and not supported by factual data.  It is a question of credibility and on this matter the government has none - in my estimation.  

 

As for giving confidence to those that may have been shielding - I'd suggest it would be much more efficient and effective if those that feel vulnerable take proper measures to protect themselves rather than seeking to impose improper measures on everyone else.  I know that might be seen as more of a self centred position (and it is) but it is also a much more logical position IMHO.  Better to properly protect the vulnerable than to improperly fail to protect everyone.  

 

I still maintain that this has nothing to do with personal discomfort, inconvenience or awkwardness (well, maybe a bit of awkwardness) but it is entirely an issue of the lack of credibility to support the requirement.

 

The net result of this poorly conceived, delayed implementation will be that morons rely upon bad advice to implement unnecessary measures in an inappropriate manner such that risk will likely be increased through bad practice in relation to face coverings and an increasing apathy towards other, better, countermeasures such as hand washing and distancing.

 

Think about it - what's next?  All the lemmings will be piling into airplanes and ?ing off to Marmaris to get sunburned and marinaded in Watney's Red Barrel - it'll all be OK though even though they are packed in like sardines they'll be perfectly 'safe' because they've been wearing gran's crusty nicks on their head for the past 3 weeks.... 

The way I see it, earlier there was a shortage of PPE, so the government did not want joe pubic buying it. Plus as others have said there a pro’s and con’s to wearing them, improper use, handling etc. 
 Lock down has been eased and still many are nervous about going out. So face coverings may help them feel a little more confident.

 Nervous people are not likely to want to go to the boozer etc.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

20 minutes ago, Mark Bolam said:

Totally with you on the handwashing and distancing thing Kevin, and I agree that the usual idiots will simply crack on thinking a mask means they are bulletproof.

It's a credibility issue for me Mark - like there ain't none...  

 

I suspect we will find, with the benefit of hindsight, that poor "mask discipline" (cleanliness, disposal frequency, storage between uses etc) will create more problems than it is supposed to solve.

 

I don't buy it because I feel it being peddled as a false narrative in order to get people out and about again rather than as a real and tangible aid to infection control.

 

It's the perceived dishonesty behind it and the belief that the general public are so gullible as to believe it that really tugs my sack.

[woodwizzard]

5 hours ago, Mark Bolam said:

What do you suggest doing about it then, you ****************wit?

A society walking around with face coverings on can only really enforce the belief that there is a danger out there. Add that with all the mixed messages about face coverings and I can't see how it will entice anyone vulnerable or scared out.