Coronavirus precautions: Has the world gone mad?

[kylemore]

Washing hands with soap and water is generally more effective than hand sanitiser.



Some people think paying for public transport is stupid, is it ok for them to subvert it where they can? Also, some think speed limits are stupid. What about them?

The two examples you give are not stupid - the muzzle nonsense is.

 

[alex397]

The two examples you give are not stupid - the muzzle nonsense is.

Who is to decide what is a nonsense law and what isn’t?

If people have the attitude that they don’t have to follow ‘stupid’ laws, then where does it end?

 

[DB]

Who is to decide what is a nonsense law and what isn’t?

If people have the attitude that they don’t have to follow ‘stupid’ laws, then where does it end?

Ones where there is clear evidence that they have a good chance of achieving what they are intended to achieve, and where there is monitoring to demonstrate whether or not that is the case.

What is the whole muzzle thing supposed to achieve exactly? A vague idea of reducing the number of cases a bit, but to what end? It'll only prolong the situation even more (if it works at all, which it may well not). Despite the evidence being weak, there seems to be no system in place to monitor whether it actually makes any difference at all.

There are those who demand restrictions until there's a vaccine, which may or may not ever appear. Recent research just published seems to suggest that immunity when someone has recovered may only last a few months, in which case a vaccine is only likely to work for a similar amount of time. So what if that proves to be true? Paranoid, ineffective restrictions forever to combat the Deadly Killer Virus, even if those restrictions actually make little or no difference to spread, but cause major social issues?

 

[AM9]

Ones where there is clear evidence that they have a good chance of achieving what they are intended to achieve, and where there is monitoring to demonstrate whether or not that is the case.

What is the whole muzzle thing supposed to achieve exactly? A vague idea of reducing the number of cases a bit, but to what end? It'll only prolong the situation even more (if it works at all, which it may well not). Despite the evidence being weak, there seems to be no system in place to monitor whether it actually makes any difference at all.

There are those who demand restrictions until there's a vaccine, which may or may not ever appear. Recent research just published seems to suggest that immunity when someone has recovered may only last a few months, in which case a vaccine is only likely to work for a similar amount of time. So what if that proves to be true? Paranoid, ineffective restrictions forever to combat the Deadly Killer Virus, even if those restrictions actually make little or no difference to spread, but cause major social issues?

What's all this about 'muzzles', - is it on dogs? Can you point to a law that says muzzles must be worn?

 

[al78]

Who is to decide what is a nonsense law and what isn’t?

Objective analysis, including observational evidence.

 

[alex397]

Objective analysis, including observational evidence.

Except the evidence for face masks is not clear yet, so you can’t make an objective decision. Until then, just wear a mask, it’s not that difficult (unless you have a respiratory issue or other).

 

[HSTEd]

Except the evidence for face masks is not clear yet, so you can’t make an objective decision. Until then, just wear a mask, it’s not that difficult (unless you have a respiratory issue or other).

Normally the people proposing an action are the ones that have to build evidence to support their case.
Interesting that this time it gets swapped.

 

[Scrotnig]

Except the evidence for face masks is not clear yet, so you can’t make an objective decision. Until then, just wear a mask, it’s not that difficult (unless you have a respiratory issue or other).

Laws that severely curtail civil liberties and personal freedoms should not be passed on the basis of "the evidence is a bit flimsy at the moment but we think it's probably a good idea so we're going to force it on you anyway".

No. No. No.

Just how have we sleepwalked into this sort of stuff?

 

[Scrotnig]

What's all this about 'muzzles', - is it on dogs? Can you point to a law that says muzzles must be worn?

They are muzzles. They hide our facial expressions, limit our individuality, limit our ability to communicate properly, and propagate living in fear of each other.

 

[alex397]

Normally the people proposing an action are the ones that have to build evidence to support their case.
Interesting that this time it gets swapped.

Laws that severely curtail civil liberties and personal freedoms should not be passed on the basis of "the evidence is a bit flimsy at the moment but we think it's probably a good idea so we're going to force it on you anyway".

No. No. No.

Just how have we sleepwalked into this sort of stuff?

I realise this is quite a libertarian forum, but for goodness sake, its just a mask!

I realise it is worrying to have had these draconian measures put in place without much consultation, but things have had to be put in place quickly to react to this virus. By the time we find out that masks are truly effective/ineffective, it would be a bit late to start introducing them.

Plus there is lots of evidence to suggest that masks can be very effective (but likewise, that they are not particularly effective).

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

I realise it is worrying to have had these draconian measures put in place without much consultation, but things have had to be put in place quickly to react to this virus.

Is 4 months into the pandemic classed as "quickly"?

No, thought not.

 

[alex397]

Is 4 months into the pandemic classed as "quickly"?

No, thought not.

No, it should have been done sooner.
The horse has bolted, but if it further reduces the lowering rates than even better.

 

[45107]

A couple of questions for those who oppose the use of face coverings -

Do you cover your mouth with your hand/handkerchief when you sneeze ?
Do you consider this to be a means of preventing the spread of germs ?
Why do you not consider a face covering to be a means of preventing the spread of germs ?

Some are saying that there is no evidence that face coverings are effective. That is probably true as there is no baseline data to make comparisons with in relation to this virus.
I suppose that some evidence could be gained by making comparisons with the UK figures and other countries that imposed coverings earlier and see how the number of infections/deaths have differed over time. (No I haven’t done it nor do I intend to as I believe that coverings do provide some protection compared to an open face)

 

[HSTEd]

I realise this is quite a libertarian forum, but for goodness sake, its just a mask!

Every action we take has large knock-on impacts.

For example, any further reduction in economic activity from people not going to shops because its a pain and wearing a mask is unpleasant leads to further economic damage.
Economic damage kills people, they won't be photogenic pensioners but their lives still have value.

Plus there is lots of evidence to suggest that masks can be very effective (but likewise, that they are not particularly effective).

At this time, the number of lives/serious cases saved by introducing masks will be very small.
Reducing transmission by the amount often proposed will achieve very little because there are very few remaining cases.

Reducing transmission by a small amount at the start of an epidemic has a significant impact over a long time, but now it won't achieve very much at all.
It is likely we will be at something like 30 deaths per day (rolling average) by the time the mask requirement actually takes effect.

 

[westv]

A couple of questions for those who oppose the use of face coverings -

Do you cover your mouth with your hand/handkerchief when you sneeze ?
Do you consider this to be a means of preventing the spread of germs ?
Why do you not consider a face covering to be a means of preventing the spread of germs ?

No, I use a tissue. Handkerchiefs are germ factories.
Yes. That has always been the case.
A face covering is on all the time. A tissue isn't.

 

[AM9]

They are muzzles. They hide our facial expressions, limit our individuality, limit our ability to communicate properly, and propagate living in fear of each other.

So which law specifically says that 'muzzles' must be worn?

 

[al78]

Except the evidence for face masks is not clear yet, so you can’t make an objective decision. Until then, just wear a mask, it’s not that difficult (unless you have a respiratory issue or other).

I will wear a mask when required, but I still say there shouldn't be a law passed if there is not good evidence that the law is beneficial. By beneficial, I mean it solves more problems than it causes, and is probabilitstically likely to be a net societal benefit. If no-one can't show that, then at best it should be advisory only, with a clear iindication of the uncertainties.

I have no time for anyone who advocates inconvenience on others on nothing more than an appeal to emotion. Logic should take priority in objective situations, this minimises stupid, or worse, dangerous actions.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Do you cover your mouth with your hand/handkerchief when you sneeze ?
Do you consider this to be a means of preventing the spread of germs ?
Why do you not consider a face covering to be a means of preventing the spread of germs ?

1. Yes (well, I use a tissue and then I throw it in the bin, hankies are disgusting petri dishes). But I don't cover my mouth whilst I am talking, or whilst I am breathing, or whilst I am thinking I might sneeze in a bit.
2. Yes. Because the phlegm goes everywhere if I don't.
3. It is, but as you rightly point out, so is putting your hand over your mouth when you sneeze. There's no need to wear a mask all the time, just in case you might sneeze at some point in the future.

 

[johnnychips]

A couple of questions for those who oppose the use of face coverings -

Do you cover your mouth with your hand/handkerchief when you sneeze ?
Do you consider this to be a means of preventing the spread of germs ?
Why do you not consider a face covering to be a means of preventing the spread of germs ?

Some are saying that there is no evidence that face coverings are effective. That is probably true as there is no baseline data to make comparisons with in relation to this virus.

Yes of course I use my sleeve or a hanky when I cough or sneeze to stop the effluvium flying everywhere. The rest of the time I just breath normally.

When wearing a mask, if I am breathing normally, the air still escapes. If I have to cough or sneeze I have to take it off to do that into my hankie anyway.

If I were asymptomatic my tainted exhalations would normally just disperse. Now they are sticking to my mask, which I am fiddling with when it gets uncomfortable, touch the train tables, whip it off as soon as I reach the platform, touch the banisters etc. I would say about 80% on the train do this.

Of course the chances of passing this bug on like this are very, very low... as are the chances of my passing it on by just not wearing a mask.

 

[al78]

A couple of questions for those who oppose the use of face coverings -

Do you cover your mouth with your hand/handkerchief when you sneeze ?
Do you consider this to be a means of preventing the spread of germs ?
Why do you not consider a face covering to be a means of preventing the spread of germs ?

Yes I do cover my mouth if I am about to sneeze, that is more about not showering anyone or surfaces with droplets from the sneeze. It has little to do with transmission, I can't transmit hayfever but I still cover my mouth if I sneeze as a result of a high pollen count. I don't go around all day with my hand over my mouth just in case I have picked up a cold without knowing it.

 

[island]

What's all this about 'muzzles', - is it on dogs? Can you point to a law that says muzzles must be worn?

It’s a pejorative term for face coverings that some members have taken to using, presumably to try to stir up visceral feelings of humans being treated like dogs. For me, the usage stirs up a feeling that the author’s opinions are so biased that I should ignore them.

 

[AM9]

It’s a pejorative term for face coverings that some members have taken to using, presumably to try to stir up visceral feelings of humans being treated like dogs. For me, the usage stirs up a feeling that the author’s opinions are so biased that I should ignore them.

I wasn't bothered, - clearly the poster was too ashamed to explain the peurile dysphemism.

 

[alex397]

I have no time for anyone who advocates inconvenience on others on nothing more than an appeal to emotion. Logic should take priority in objective situations, this minimises stupid, or worse, dangerous actions.

This is not ‘nothing more than an appeal to emotion’.
I think logic and expert knowledge should always come before emotion.
To me, the emotion part seems to be those who are going on about us ‘losing our freedom’ etc etc.

I will say that the government only just introducing this rule seems to be more about emotion, to be seen to be doing something rather than logic. It should have been introduced sooner to be more effective. I still think it’s better than not at all though.

 

[Journeyman]

They are muzzles. They hide our facial expressions, limit our individuality, limit our ability to communicate properly, and propagate living in fear of each other.

I hate masks, but please - stop calling them muzzles. It trivialises the genuine concerns people have about them and is ammunition to those who think we should just put up with them.

 

[Cowley]

Can we please keep discussion on this thread to COVID precautions other than mask wearing. Posts about mask wearing should be made in the relevant mask wearing thread. Thanks.

Repeating what @Mag_seven said a few posts ago, let’s try and keep this thread clear of mask discussions please.
We may end up locking this thread at some point because it’s just a bit too general and pretty much everything discussed is covered in most of the other (many) threads.
Thank you folks.

 

[talldave]

Who is to decide what is a nonsense law and what isn’t?

We can, if it hasn't been democratically debated in parliament.