Masks for indoor work

[k979aaa]

Basically they choose who will live and die because what IF

And your suggestions on living as normal is exactly the same. So its ok for you to gamble with other peoples lives?

Quite the opposite old friend to have a health service you need an economy and a working population this is not just something I dream up it is the way of the world and evolution survival of the fittest and all that anything is is a bonus paid for us all and is a just and fair redistribution of wealth/taxation this is what a society is trouble is some want the benefits without paying in I would tax them mightily like the ex CEO and others they should pay their lot!

[ddtc]

Basically might as well give up and die is your solution. As long as your alive and enjoying life, others are just in your way because they are weak. Am I getting this right?

[k979aaa]

Not really no one is enjoying life at the moment. Did not say die or weak but people should be shielded and helped and priority food delivery and if necessary free food out of the tax payers pocket. I would rather my tax goes directly to those deserving of it rather than an aid budget to China who build islands in the sea and warships that don't sink like ours do!

[ddtc]

Basically they choose who will live and die because what IF

And your suggestions on living as normal is exactly the same. So its ok for you to gamble with other peoples lives?

Quite the opposite old friend to have a health service you need an economy and a working population this is not just something I dream up it is the way of the world and evolution survival of the fittest and all that anything is is a bonus paid for us all and is a just and fair redistribution of wealth/taxation this is what a society is trouble is some want the benefits without paying in I would tax them mightily like the ex CEO and others they should pay their lot!

Survival of the fittest?

[Pumpernickel]

There's a difference between being optimistic and being reckless, and there's also a difference between acting with consideration and believing doom and gloom.

Your internal extrapolation of my (and others) reasoning is not the reality of the reasoning we each have.

Reckless is closing down the economy for a disease that has an average age of mortality of 82.4.
Tens of thousands of people will lose their jobs and possibly their homes, there have already been thousands of appointments missed for Cancer screenings.
It is bizarre why the government would wreck the economy and lives of millions for Coronavirus which is the 24th biggest killer in the UK.

You're at it again, expressing certainties that are actually unknowns.

We don't know the mortality of this virus running unrestricted since that hasn't happened. The lockdowns prevented health services becoming overwhelmed, and if they had been overwhelmed the mortality could have been wildly different.
There is also the aspect of long term complications for many that "recover", and that isn't remotely understood because those people haven't had these effects long term yet.
You also assume the economy wouldn't be wrecked by people actually feeling the need to go out less, to buy less and mingle less (esp in entertainment and hospitality). Most people would have had their own version of a lockdown if there was no government measure, so the economy would be in a dire state anyway (not to mention the countries that actually got a grip, enforced contact tracing, and had high levels of mask usage [the specific topic here] have fared economically better than the likes of us).

I'll remind you again: you're a postman. You don't know as much as you think you do, and you ignore the fact that a little bit of knowledge with no understanding can be extremely dangerous in these sorts of circumstances.

I don't claim to be an expert but unlike I don't believe everything that the media says about Covid.
With regards to masks we have had more cases of Coronavirus at work since it was mandatory to wear masks, this is only anecdotal I know but it's not unexpected.
Lockdowns are a religion to people like you, there is always an excuse why they don't work, usually we locked down too late or it wasn't long enough or tough enough or selfish people weren't observing the lockdown.

You're still forcing yourself to follow a false narrative regarding my opinions. Given you can't get your head out of your own false beliefs and circular lack of logic, it's evident this could go on forever with your false assumptions cycled ad-nauseam which, frankly, I can't be botherd with.

[milly]

There's a difference between being optimistic and being reckless, and there's also a difference between acting with consideration and believing doom and gloom.

Your internal extrapolation of my (and others) reasoning is not the reality of the reasoning we each have.

Reckless is closing down the economy for a disease that has an average age of mortality of 82.4.
Tens of thousands of people will lose their jobs and possibly their homes, there have already been thousands of appointments missed for Cancer screenings.
It is bizarre why the government would wreck the economy and lives of millions for Coronavirus which is the 24th biggest killer in the UK.

You're at it again, expressing certainties that are actually unknowns.

We don't know the mortality of this virus running unrestricted since that hasn't happened. The lockdowns prevented health services becoming overwhelmed, and if they had been overwhelmed the mortality could have been wildly different.
There is also the aspect of long term complications for many that "recover", and that isn't remotely understood because those people haven't had these effects long term yet.
You also assume the economy wouldn't be wrecked by people actually feeling the need to go out less, to buy less and mingle less (esp in entertainment and hospitality). Most people would have had their own version of a lockdown if there was no government measure, so the economy would be in a dire state anyway (not to mention the countries that actually got a grip, enforced contact tracing, and had high levels of mask usage [the specific topic here] have fared economically better than the likes of us).

I'll remind you again: you're a postman. You don't know as much as you think you do, and you ignore the fact that a little bit of knowledge with no understanding can be extremely dangerous in these sorts of circumstances.

I don't claim to be an expert but unlike I don't believe everything that the media says about Covid.
With regards to masks we have had more cases of Coronavirus at work since it was mandatory to wear masks, this is only anecdotal I know but it's not unexpected.
Lockdowns are a religion to people like you, there is always an excuse why they don't work, usually we locked down too late or it wasn't long enough or tough enough or selfish people weren't observing the lockdown.

You're still forcing yourself to follow a false narrative regarding my opinions. Given you can't get your head out of your own false beliefs and circular lack of logic, it's evident this could go on forever with your false assumptions cycled ad-nauseam which, frankly, I can't be botherd with.

You don't have any opinions.
You can't be bothered with me but still keep replying .

[Pumpernickel]

I still believe their is a virus and it will kill some people before their time and we should prevent that but at the expense of treatable cancers and other illness and the wider economy.

Then maybe try wearing a mask to reduce the spread (reduce - not eliminate altogether), take other reasonable measures, and encourage others to do so to the point that we may not need to lock down in the longer term because all the little reductions to the spread add up...

As another example (other than mask wearing in public): after the first lockdown I did visit the pub a few times. I didn't go in without a mask on, and I certainly wouldn't sit in while I drank. Instead I sat and drank outside where the chance of transmission is reduced and had a mask in my pocket for any trips to the lav. Its a reasonable measure that allowed me to continue as reasonably normal while still going to the pub, spending money, and socialising. Lots of little changes can add up to a big effect without going down the "ooh authoritarian drama" route.

[k979aaa]

Basically they choose who will live and die because what IF

And your suggestions on living as normal is exactly the same. So its ok for you to gamble with other peoples lives?

Quite the opposite old friend to have a health service you need an economy and a working population this is not just something I dream up it is the way of the world and evolution survival of the fittest and all that anything is is a bonus paid for us all and is a just and fair redistribution of wealth/taxation this is what a society is trouble is some want the benefits without paying in I would tax them mightily like the ex CEO and others they should pay their lot!

Survival of the fittest?

Darwin if we did not have the wonder of science and a vaccine not good for some for that is what happened in the past like 1968 flu and the 1918 flu and not to mention bubonic plague which killed about 30% to 90% without treatment! For a virus with a less than 1% kill ratio should society be destroyed by lockdowns and social isolation? We cannot bring back the dead towns or city's in due course they will recover but it will never be the same again!

[Pumpernickel]

You don't have any opinions.
You can't be bothered with me but still keep replying .

I've stated my opinions numerous times.

I can't be bothered with your circular ignorance where you continually repeat your false narrative about me. I can be bothered stating you're wrong in your thoughts about my opinions.

[ddtc]

I still believe their is a virus and it will kill some people before their time and we should prevent that but at the expense of treatable cancers and other illness and the wider economy.

Then maybe try wearing a mask to reduce the spread (reduce - not eliminate altogether), take other reasonable measures, and encourage others to do so to the point that we may not need to lock down in the longer term because all the little reductions to the spread add up...

As another example (other than mask wearing in public): after the first lockdown I did visit the pub a few times. I didn't go in without a mask on, and I certainly wouldn't sit in while I drank. Instead I sat and drank outside where the chance of transmission is reduced and had a mask in my pocket for any trips to the lav. Its a reasonable measure that allowed me to continue as reasonably normal while still going to the pub, spending money, and socialising. Lots of little changes can add up to a big effect without going down the "ooh authoritarian drama" route.

That's the thing if people were sensible we could maybe be living in some sort of normality. But no we've had numerous failings by people not adhering to rules etc. Now all we get are people blaming the government and the rules for the rise in infections and death. Sure just ignore how a vast majority of people have made the rules fail because its easier to blame the government than accept that we screwed up. You keep on saying people like us are sheep for following bs but you yourselves are doing the same and following bs of your own.

[Pumpernickel]

I still believe their is a virus and it will kill some people before their time and we should prevent that but at the expense of treatable cancers and other illness and the wider economy.

Then maybe try wearing a mask to reduce the spread (reduce - not eliminate altogether), take other reasonable measures, and encourage others to do so to the point that we may not need to lock down in the longer term because all the little reductions to the spread add up...

As another example (other than mask wearing in public): after the first lockdown I did visit the pub a few times. I didn't go in without a mask on, and I certainly wouldn't sit in while I drank. Instead I sat and drank outside where the chance of transmission is reduced and had a mask in my pocket for any trips to the lav. Its a reasonable measure that allowed me to continue as reasonably normal while still going to the pub, spending money, and socialising. Lots of little changes can add up to a big effect without going down the "ooh authoritarian drama" route.

That's the thing if people were sensible we could maybe be living in some sort of normality. But no we've had numerous failings by people not adhering to rules etc. Now all we get are people blaming the government and the rules for the rise in infections and death. Sure just ignore how a vast majority of people have made the rules fail because its easier to blame the government than accept that we screwed up. You keep on saying people like us are sheep for following bs but you yourselves are doing the same and following bs of your own.

TBF the government have been extremely inconsistant with conflicting rules and exceptions, along with their own actions demonstrating one rule for us and no rules for them. Then there's the promises of "just this one time" followed by "just this second time", etc. I think all this bull has led to people giving up and just doing their own thing.

[k979aaa]

I still believe their is a virus and it will kill some people before their time and we should prevent that but at the expense of treatable cancers and other illness and the wider economy.

Then maybe try wearing a mask to reduce the spread (reduce - not eliminate altogether), take other reasonable measures, and encourage others to do so to the point that we may not need to lock down in the longer term because all the little reductions to the spread add up...

As another example (other than mask wearing in public): after the first lockdown I did visit the pub a few times. I didn't go in without a mask on, and I certainly wouldn't sit in while I drank. Instead I sat and drank outside where the chance of transmission is reduced and had a mask in my pocket for any trips to the lav. Its a reasonable measure that allowed me to continue as reasonably normal while still going to the pub, spending money, and socialising. Lots of little changes can add up to a big effect without going down the "ooh authoritarian drama" route.

That's the thing if people were sensible we could maybe be living in some sort of normality. But no we've had numerous failings by people not adhering to rules etc. Now all we get are people blaming the government and the rules for the rise in infections and death. Sure just ignore how a vast majority of people have made the rules fail because its easier to blame the government than accept that we screwed up. You keep on saying people like us are sheep for following bs but you yourselves are doing the same and following bs of your own.

TBF the government have been extremely inconsistant with conflicting rules and exceptions, along with their own actions demonstrating one rule for us and no rules for them. Then there's the promises of "just this one time" followed by "just this second time", etc. I think all this bull has led to people giving up and just doing their own thing.

Well we had the virus under control at one point in time yet people went on holidays to Spain or somewhere and schools opened up test and trace the farce of £12 billion gone in an instant. Plus not paying people to self isolate if they are self employed and squandering money like tomorrow on fake business. The buck stops with someone it is not me or you but BORIS!

[ddtc]

TBF the government have been extremely inconsistant with conflicting rules and exceptions, along with their own actions demonstrating one rule for us and no rules for them. Then there's the promises of "just this one time" followed by "just this second time", etc. I think all this bull has led to people giving up and just doing their own thing.

Yeah I get that, but I guess trying to keep everyone happy just lead to them just confusing everyone and making things worse. As for no rules to them, again yes but since when did people listen to the government anyway so why follow the rule breakers? I didn't exactly feel the need to ignore rules all of a sudden just because some of them idiots did. We all failed at the end of the day. We will never know if say in our first lockdown if people actually stayed in for a few months that we might of been in a better place. But now with the constant lockdowns, tier bs etc its just possibly dragged on longer than neccesary.

As for the blame going all to Boris. Come on yeah his an idiot that allowed holidays to continue etc. But it was peoples choices to go knowing the risks so why bother. He didn't tell people to go just because it was allowed. Money wasted, thats just the governments for you, what do you expect? We all elect idiots knowing our money won't be spent wisely. We all make our own decisions, I don't need a loon to tell me how to stay safe, I'll just use my own common sense in protecting myself and others.

[Woody Guthrie]

It's strange to see people arguing that death rates are normal and then at the same time arguing that lockdown is killing more people than it's saving.

Mental contortiinism.
Justifying a purely self centred position by scraping together as many weak arguments as possible and trying to present them as a cohesive theory.

[k979aaa]

It's strange to see people arguing that death rates are normal and then at the same time arguing that lockdown is killing more people than it's saving.

Mental contortiinism.
Justifying a purely self centred position by scraping together as many weak arguments as possible and trying to present them as a cohesive theory.

Give us your best shot woody when are we going to be out of this?