In message , at 16:39:04 on Tue, 19
May 2020, Ian Jackson remarked:

She's got the wrong end of the stick. You should tell her they are to
protect the rest of the world from the wearer, not the other way
round. Then it becomes clear.

It's amazing how many people still don't 'get' this simple fact
(including some of the scientific 'experts' who are advising the
government).

Not a good precedent for people who claim the public have sufficient
common sense to decide whether it's sensible to drive 100 miles to take
the dog for a walk.
--
Roland Perry

On 19/05/2020 15:50, Sammi Gray-Jones wrote:
On 19/05/2020 15:13, Recliner wrote:
So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to
serve?


They are a placebo, pure and simple, there to *make* the wearer think
that they are safer.


Of course masks make you safer. A mask over your mouth and nose isn't
going to save you if you are a nurse with people coofing into your
eyeball all day long, but if I'm in a supermarket and a virus floats
along and lands on my mask instead of my lips, it saved me and my family
from dying.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Jon Hassell - 1999 - Fascinoma

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 May 2020 09:45:14 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Tue, 19 May 2020 08:25:34 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
The 2m thing is like a religious prohibition: vaguely based on a sensible

I hadn't thought of it like that, but it certainly matches peoples
behaviour.
Wierdly - assuming my local supermarket is typical - that behaviour is
forgotten in the aisles. Presumably because its almost impossible to
observe.

Tempting though it may be, most experts say we should not look for
individuals. Superspreading events are determined by a complex mix of
behavioural and environmental factors.

I wonder if its complex in reality. I imagine its the sort of people who
wipe
their nose with their fingers then go and then go and touch a dozen items
in
every shop they visit and hardly buy any of them just leaving them on the
shelves nicely infected. Ditto when they touch the handles in buses and
trains.

In London, cases of coronavirus have dropped dramatically since the
lockdown. The superspreading events that were once spreading the virus so
widely have now stopped.

I doubt they've stopped , far more likely IMO is that a significant
proportion
of the population have caught the virus without knowing it and are now
immune.

I think it's true that in London, most of the mobile population is now
either immune of not susceptible to the disease. I was in Waitrose
today, and everyone seemed more relaxed. Few of the staff were
bothering to wear the face shields they're supplied with, there was no
special sanitising of the trolley handles, and people got quite close
to each other in the aisles. There was also almost no queue to get in.

The few people with or susceptible to the disease in London are in
care homes or hospitals, and the task now is to stop it getting back
into the wider population.

though we are still getting 3,500 new cases every day

rather a lot, now that those infect before lockdown have long entered the
count

We really ought to be on much lower numbers than this

like Spain an Italy (with similar total cases) are

tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 May 2020 09:45:14 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Tue, 19 May 2020 08:25:34 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
The 2m thing is like a religious prohibition: vaguely based on a sensible

I hadn't thought of it like that, but it certainly matches peoples
behaviour.
Wierdly - assuming my local supermarket is typical - that behaviour is
forgotten in the aisles. Presumably because its almost impossible to
observe.

Tempting though it may be, most experts say we should not look for
individuals. Superspreading events are determined by a complex mix of
behavioural and environmental factors.

I wonder if its complex in reality. I imagine its the sort of people who
wipe
their nose with their fingers then go and then go and touch a dozen items
in
every shop they visit and hardly buy any of them just leaving them on the
shelves nicely infected. Ditto when they touch the handles in buses and
trains.

In London, cases of coronavirus have dropped dramatically since the
lockdown. The superspreading events that were once spreading the virus so
widely have now stopped.

I doubt they've stopped , far more likely IMO is that a significant
proportion
of the population have caught the virus without knowing it and are now
immune.

I think it's true that in London, most of the mobile population is now
either immune of not susceptible to the disease. I was in Waitrose
today, and everyone seemed more relaxed. Few of the staff were
bothering to wear the face shields they're supplied with, there was no
special sanitising of the trolley handles, and people got quite close
to each other in the aisles. There was also almost no queue to get in.

The few people with or susceptible to the disease in London are in
care homes or hospitals, and the task now is to stop it getting back
into the wider population.

though we are still getting 3,500 new cases every day

You're out by three orders of magnitude. The number of new cases a day in
London is probably now in single figures:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/14/london-has-just-24-new-coronavirus-cases-day/

This is from five days ago, so the rate of new cases in London now is
likely below 10. The virus has burned out in London.

The northeast and Scotland are some weeks behind.

On 19/05/2020 16:55, Basil Jet wrote:
On 19/05/2020 15:50, Sammi Gray-Jones wrote:
On 19/05/2020 15:13, Recliner wrote:
So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to
serve?


They are a placebo, pure and simple, there to *make* the wearer think
that they are safer.


Of course masks make you safer. A mask over your mouth and nose isn't
going to save you if you are a nurse with people coofing into your
eyeball all day long, but if I'm in a supermarket and a virus floats
along and lands on my mask instead of my lips, it saved me and my family
from dying.

We give up. You carry on believing that. We're following the advice
given to us by a medical professional who we know and trust. You follow
what the media says and may your God go with you.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

On 19/05/2020 16:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:50:21 on Tue, 19 May
2020, Sammi Gray-Jones remarked:

So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to
serve?

They are a placebo, pure and simple, there to *make* the wearer think
that they are safer.

Rinse and repeat. They don't make the *wearer* safer.

But they make them *think* they're safer.

--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/05/2020 16:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:50:21 on Tue, 19 May
2020, Sammi Gray-Jones remarked:

So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to
serve?

They are a placebo, pure and simple, there to *make* the wearer think
that they are safer.

Rinse and repeat. They don't make the *wearer* safer.

But they make them *think* they're safer.


The government and its experts have never claimed that, and nor does the
media. It's always been made clear that simple masks for the general public
are worn to protect others, not the wearer. If some people nevertheless
choose to believe it, they're deluding themselves.

After all, plenty of people still take homeopathic 'medicines', which are
even less useful than a flimsy mask (but more expensive). Lots of people
take high dose vitamin tablets, which are of little or no benefit, and may
even be harmful.

MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/05/2020 16:55, Basil Jet wrote:
On 19/05/2020 15:50, Sammi Gray-Jones wrote:
On 19/05/2020 15:13, Recliner wrote:
So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to
serve?


They are a placebo, pure and simple, there to *make* the wearer think
that they are safer.


Of course masks make you safer. A mask over your mouth and nose isn't
going to save you if you are a nurse with people coofing into your
eyeball all day long, but if I'm in a supermarket and a virus floats
along and lands on my mask instead of my lips, it saved me and my family
from dying.

We give up. You carry on believing that. We're following the advice
given to us by a medical professional who we know and trust. You follow
what the media says and may your God go with you.

That isn't what the media says. Nobody claims that flimsy masks for the
supermarket protect the wearers — they simply provide a modest degree of
protection to others, if the wearer is an asymptomatic carrier. If wearers
nevertheless choose to believe they're self-protecting, it's up to them.

One thing I don't know is how much of a dose you need to get before you're
at any risk of catching the virus. If you're healthy and breathe in a stray
droplet, that's not enough. Indeed, I wonder if getting such weak doses
isn't actually sensible, as it amounts to a vaccine. It's now being said
that having a cold is a protection, as the body develops antibodies to a
different coronavirus which trains it to combat SARS-CoV2.

On 19/05/2020 21:40, Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/05/2020 16:55, Basil Jet wrote:
On 19/05/2020 15:50, Sammi Gray-Jones wrote:
On 19/05/2020 15:13, Recliner wrote:
So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to
serve?


They are a placebo, pure and simple, there to *make* the wearer think
that they are safer.


Of course masks make you safer. A mask over your mouth and nose isn't
going to save you if you are a nurse with people coofing into your
eyeball all day long, but if I'm in a supermarket and a virus floats
along and lands on my mask instead of my lips, it saved me and my family
from dying.

We give up. You carry on believing that. We're following the advice
given to us by a medical professional who we know and trust. You follow
what the media says and may your God go with you.

That isn't what the media says. Nobody claims that flimsy masks for the
supermarket protect the wearers — they simply provide a modest degree of
protection to others, if the wearer is an asymptomatic carrier. If wearers
nevertheless choose to believe they're self-protecting, it's up to them.

One thing I don't know is how much of a dose you need to get before you're
at any risk of catching the virus. If you're healthy and breathe in a stray
droplet, that's not enough. Indeed, I wonder if getting such weak doses
isn't actually sensible, as it amounts to a vaccine. It's now being said
that having a cold is a protection, as the body develops antibodies to a
different coronavirus which trains it to combat SARS-CoV2.


I'd still like to see your medical qualifications. If you don't have
any, shut up, you're as bad as the idiots wandering around my local
Morrisons.

I'm out of here.

--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/05/2020 21:40, Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/05/2020 16:55, Basil Jet wrote:
On 19/05/2020 15:50, Sammi Gray-Jones wrote:
On 19/05/2020 15:13, Recliner wrote:
So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to
serve?


They are a placebo, pure and simple, there to *make* the wearer think
that they are safer.


Of course masks make you safer. A mask over your mouth and nose isn't
going to save you if you are a nurse with people coofing into your
eyeball all day long, but if I'm in a supermarket and a virus floats
along and lands on my mask instead of my lips, it saved me and my family
from dying.

We give up. You carry on believing that. We're following the advice
given to us by a medical professional who we know and trust. You follow
what the media says and may your God go with you.

That isn't what the media says. Nobody claims that flimsy masks for the
supermarket protect the wearers — they simply provide a modest degree of
protection to others, if the wearer is an asymptomatic carrier. If wearers
nevertheless choose to believe they're self-protecting, it's up to them.

One thing I don't know is how much of a dose you need to get before you're
at any risk of catching the virus. If you're healthy and breathe in a stray
droplet, that's not enough. Indeed, I wonder if getting such weak doses
isn't actually sensible, as it amounts to a vaccine. It's now being said
that having a cold is a protection, as the body develops antibodies to a
different coronavirus which trains it to combat SARS-CoV2.


I'd still like to see your medical qualifications. If you don't have
any, shut up, you're as bad as the idiots wandering around my local
Morrisons.

How many medical qualifications did you need to be a bus driver? And which
of my remarks do you feel don't come up to your standards of scientific
rigour?



I'm out of here.


You've been out of London for a long time.