Calorie Counter

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Face mask or no face mask?

145791029

Replies

  • FitterFifteenFitterFifteen Member Posts: 75 Member Member Posts: 75 Member
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    I happily wear them where they are mandated (in the uk/England, so shops, takeouts etc) as these areas are likely to bring people into close contact with little ventilation. However where it is not required, I will not wear one.

    The main reason I won’t wear one at all times is because I don’t want this to become the new norm. Facial expressions are a key part of non verbal communication and it’s not a world I wish my son to grow up becoming accustomed to

    I pray your son gets to grow up healthy. Many children and young people will not be that lucky; either dying prematurely or suffering health changing struggles through out their lives.

    I see wearing masks as a temporary life change to promote quicker recovery until the world catches up with Covid, learns more about it and can cope with it. Yes, we all want this over and done with now, yesterday but for that to happen, we all need to come together to move forward.
    Hugs and best wishes to everyone here.

    I do hope it’s temporary and as I said, where required I will wear it without any squabble.
    I’m just saying I will resist this becoming the norm in all/most situations for the long term.
    Most effects of covid on the young is mental, this will only be exacerbated if social interactions become taboo and avoided. We are after all a social species.
  • cboardwine1cboardwine1 Member, Premium Posts: 1 Member Member, Premium Posts: 1 Member
    I wear a mask solely because it is mandated, even though it has been stated repeatedly that it isn't effective.
    I am in the high risk category, as I have breast cancer. While I was in treatment for 3 weeks, I had multiple discussions with my oncologist. He always wore a mask and repeatedly stated that he hated them. He said they gave people a false sense of security. They aren't effective, and took his off when it was just the two of us talking. He said the only effective way to stop the spread of the virus is social distancing. He said to imagine the 6 liters of air expelled from the lungs as an aerosol, potentially containing a virus, hanging in the air like smoke. If smoke can get around the mask, the virus can.
  • Slacker16Slacker16 Member Posts: 1,125 Member Member Posts: 1,125 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    (...) If anything, I think it's harder to keep actual conspiracies under wraps, in the modern era. (...)
    Idk about that... Most historical conspiracies weren't kept hidden nearly as well as we might think. When they were successful, it was usually due to the conspirators being able to keep enough details of the conspiracy hidden for it to go through, or of the warnings not being taken seriously enough.

    To give the best-known example, the whole "beware the ides of March" thing really did happen and I doubt it was the result of augury (nor was it the only warning, for that matter). But we're getting pretty far off-topic now...
    edited July 28
  • breefosheebreefoshee Member Posts: 370 Member Member Posts: 370 Member
    Hollis100 wrote: »
    breefoshee wrote: »
    breefoshee wrote: »
    I'm not a scientist-- I don't know whose information I'm supposed to trust. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but historically, in every country, drama like this goes down during every election year. Which does make me reluctant to trust any news or educated professional.

    I wear a mask because I am not opinionated enough about it to go one way or another, and people seem more offended by people not wearing a mask. I do not wear it while I am out for run/walks as I live in Louisiana have trouble breathing normal hot air as it is and no one is around.

    I'm forty years old and I don't remember any drama quite like THIS before any election. I'm comfortable assuming that COVID-19 is an actual thing.

    I think it is a "thing", I'm just not sure about the hype around it and whose numbers to trust. Ultimately, everyone is just choosing what they consider to be facts--but when there are "facts" on both sides, it becomes faith. Faith that your information is more accurate than the guy next to you's.

    "Facts" on both sides? Death is death. The death count is real. Frankly, I trust scientists and doctors -- including coroners -- far more than anybody else speaking out right now. And they all say this disease is serious and real. I don't see how any reasoning adult could dismiss their words.

    I think that the cause for speculation isn't that people have died because of it-- death is death. But that the numbers of recoveries vs. death aren't quite dependable yet because of the lack of testing available in the beginning.

    So in the beginning, people (Side A) were arguing against the high death rate numbers saying that people who recovered weren't really counted in the number because people weren't being tested until things became severe. So they believed that the death percentages were inaccurate and inflated. But the others (Side B ) said that these percentages were accurate and to be taken very seriously.

    So now, there are more tests available and the numbers of people getting the virus are on the rise... however the death percentage is decreasing. Side A says "Let's go back normal, the death rate is going down and this isn't more serious than any other virus." Side B says, "No there are just more test available-- the death rate is still serious. More and more people are getting infected."

    In my opinion, side B has more facts on their side. However, they are using the exact same argument now that Side A used in the beginning-- which is that the number of tests available affects the percentages of deaths vs. recoveries. And deaths vs. recoveries is what distinguishes this virus from any other virus in the world.
    edited July 28
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Member Posts: 24,285 Member Member Posts: 24,285 Member
    breefoshee wrote: »
    @janejellyroll generally, I agree and practice that which my state implements. I do not believe that they are maliciously deceiving as much as I don't know which information they are drawing from. I confess that I am putting faith in them.

    As far as local politics, I can honestly say ... no I don't trust local health officials. My boyfriend worked for years in public health trying to implement rules that would fight a huge problem in our state-- which is college binge drinking. Everyone agreed it was a huge issue-- and is why he was hired. Ultimately, he could not get anything implemented or make changes because of the politics and money the state would lose from alcohol sales.

    I think that to assume there are no politics/money involved in a health crisis at all would be naive. That's not to say that YOU are naive-- I just think that it is good to stop and ask questions.

    @AnnPT77 I think that it is only within the last few elections that we have had as much access to social media to have the ability to share information on such a broad scale. I think that it has made such a difference. Suddenly I can be angry about things happening in other states that I might not have known about if I weren't living in the information age.

    I definitely agree that it is the reactions that froth up-- not so much the events. But there are more events as result of public outcry of other events.

    These are just my thoughts. I'm open--I just am slower to pull the trigger one way or another.

    I'm not arguing that there is no politics or money involved in public health (there clearly is here). I'm arguing that there is no good evidence that public health officials are misleading us into thinking that things are worse than they are.
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Member Posts: 24,285 Member Member Posts: 24,285 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    breefoshee wrote: »
    I'm not a scientist-- I don't know whose information I'm supposed to trust. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but historically, in every country, drama like this goes down during every election year. Which does make me reluctant to trust any news or educated professional.

    I wear a mask because I am not opinionated enough about it to go one way or another, and people seem more offended by people not wearing a mask. I do not wear it while I am out for run/walks as I live in Louisiana have trouble breathing normal hot air as it is and no one is around.

    I'm forty years old and I don't remember any drama quite like THIS before any election. I'm comfortable assuming that COVID-19 is an actual thing.

    I can add almost 25 years to that (I'll be 65 later this year), and I'd put it more strongly: There has not been anything like this before any election within my memory, and I remember elections going back to the 1960s. (Speaking here only of the US.)

    Civil rights era of early 1960s, Watergate break-ins and president resigning, 1968 Chicago political convention riots, large scale Vietnam war protests, 4 college students shot by the US National Guard, women's rights movement, oil shortage, assassinations of presidential candidate and other national leaders, stagflation, acid rain, burning rivers, 15%+ mortgage interest rates with 20% minimum downpayments, Oklahoma City bombings, 9/11, . . . I remember a lot of stuff, and it was somewhat dramatic at times. Generally, *reactions* (not events) froth up a little extra near elections, but only a little. Mostly, dramatic things happen all the time, nearly every year, election or no.

    Within my memory, only 1968 comes close for controversy and devisiveness. Then, and now (IMO), the events and phenomena were real and organic (not manufactured for political reasons), and the political devisiveness had to do with how people felt the government was handling those real events, or should be handling those real events.

    The somewhat widespread idea that the events (in this case, the pandemic) were pure invention, not actually happening, but manufactured just for political reasons? That's new, in my memory.

    Anyone else hear Billy Joel through that paragraph?


    Agreed that ALL of the stuff in the news cycle today is a lot more than ever before. Maybe it wouldn't be so much if it wasn't all at once. I'm not wise enough to remember that far back, but my mother is and she agrees with you.

    I think I was not clear. I believe there is *not* more stuff in the world, or more stuff in the news cycle. Things get smaller in the rear-view mirror, so people tend to believe that earlier times were simpler times. I think they weren't. I think they were *different* times, mostly.
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    breefoshee wrote: »
    I'm not a scientist-- I don't know whose information I'm supposed to trust. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but historically, in every country, drama like this goes down during every election year. Which does make me reluctant to trust any news or educated professional.

    I wear a mask because I am not opinionated enough about it to go one way or another, and people seem more offended by people not wearing a mask. I do not wear it while I am out for run/walks as I live in Louisiana have trouble breathing normal hot air as it is and no one is around.

    I'm forty years old and I don't remember any drama quite like THIS before any election. I'm comfortable assuming that COVID-19 is an actual thing.

    I can add almost 25 years to that (I'll be 65 later this year), and I'd put it more strongly: There has not been anything like this before any election within my memory, and I remember elections going back to the 1960s. (Speaking here only of the US.)

    Civil rights era of early 1960s, Watergate break-ins and president resigning, 1968 Chicago political convention riots, large scale Vietnam war protests, 4 college students shot by the US National Guard, women's rights movement, oil shortage, assassinations of presidential candidate and other national leaders, stagflation, acid rain, burning rivers, 15%+ mortgage interest rates with 20% minimum downpayments, Oklahoma City bombings, 9/11, . . . I remember a lot of stuff, and it was somewhat dramatic at times. Generally, *reactions* (not events) froth up a little extra near elections, but only a little. Mostly, dramatic things happen all the time, nearly every year, election or no.

    Within my memory, only 1968 comes close for controversy and devisiveness. Then, and now (IMO), the events and phenomena were real and organic (not manufactured for political reasons), and the political devisiveness had to do with how people felt the government was handling those real events, or should be handling those real events.

    The somewhat widespread idea that the events (in this case, the pandemic) were pure invention, not actually happening, but manufactured just for political reasons? That's new, in my memory.

    Going to try hard to keep this politically neutral BUT even the events in recent history that may or may not have involved threats that were ginned-up or exaggerated for political reasons . . . these were either external events that were hard for the average citizen to evaluate clearly (as in, threats to US security that were external to our country) or socially based and therefore very subjective (as in, we're being told there is an internal threat to our way of life that is based on changing philosophies/minority action).

    I don't know if there is any precedent for a threat that would involve things like faking numbers of critically ill/dead people within the US in many different areas. It's a level of coordination between multiple states that would be quite impressive given that we're getting serious reports from areas that are politically diverse. At this point, many of us know people IRL who have either been personally impacted by illness or are actively engaged in patient care. You can't just attribute that to the media (although the media certainly is involved in helping us understand what is happening in other areas of the country).

    Again, not sure I was clear (and I, too, am trying not to be political, in the sense of partisan, at least).

    My intent wasn't to attribute anything to the media particularly.

    Personally, I think humans are pretty terrible at maintaining large-scale conspiracies. They're not that great at conspiring even out in the open (OPEC?), let alone keeping the conspiracy secret besides. The more people who'd need to be in on the conspiracy to make it work, the more improbable it is IMO that there is any conspiracy.

    If the pandemic were fake, how many people would need to be complicit in it, for that to work as a conspiracy? Tens of thousands, worldwide, many without a language in common. As you say, thousands of public health officials who've seemed to care about and act in support of our health in the past would need to be complicit. Hospitals, doctors, nurses, including some who are our personal friends and acquaintenances. Funeral homes. Nursing home administrators. We're reading first-hand comments here on MFP about the pandemic from Jordan, Italy, France, Australia, and more. Are those all fake? Seems doubtful.

    If anything, I think it's harder to keep actual conspiracies under wraps, in the modern era.
    breefoshee wrote: »

    @AnnPT77 I think that it is only within the last few elections that we have had as much access to social media to have the ability to share information on such a broad scale. I think that it has made such a difference. Suddenly I can be angry about things happening in other states that I might not have known about if I weren't living in the information age.

    I definitely agree that it is the reactions that froth up-- not so much the events. But there are more events as result of public outcry of other events.

    These are just my thoughts. I'm open--I just am slower to pull the trigger one way or another.

    I don't agree that social media is all that novel, in that particular way, though it does vary the details a bit, and the speed of transmission of both information and misinformation.

    I particularly disagree with the bolded. For just one example, people in the US North were riled about events in the US South in the early 1960s to the point of going there in buses that were (sometimes) then literally set on fire on account of the controversy.

    Apologies for adding to the confusion or if I attributed anything to you that you didn't say. I was more trying to ADD to what I understood you were saying than to counter it, I agreed with your post. And I agree that it would be incredibly difficult to maintain a conspiracy of the size we'd have to believe in if COVID-19 wasn't a real and ongoing threat.
  • FitterFifteenFitterFifteen Member Posts: 75 Member Member Posts: 75 Member

    Most of us are just trying to get through the short term without getting ill or experiencing terrible economic consequences. For others of us, those hopes have already been dashed and illness/death or financial disaster (or both) has already struck.

    I think worrying about potential long term consequences of mask wearing can take place IF that happens. Right now we should focus on the best way to get as many of us as possible to that "long term."

    And that’s why I do wear a mask where I have to. I’ve just expressed my feelings with regards to making it a norm.
  • will_it_go_round_in_circleswill_it_go_round_in_circles Member Posts: 682 Member Member Posts: 682 Member
    I wear a mask solely because it is mandated, even though it has been stated repeatedly that it isn't effective.
    I am in the high risk category, as I have breast cancer. While I was in treatment for 3 weeks, I had multiple discussions with my oncologist. He always wore a mask and repeatedly stated that he hated them. He said they gave people a false sense of security. They aren't effective, and took his off when it was just the two of us talking. He said the only effective way to stop the spread of the virus is social distancing. He said to imagine the 6 liters of air expelled from the lungs as an aerosol, potentially containing a virus, hanging in the air like smoke. If smoke can get around the mask, the virus can.

    Because oncology is the study of airborne disease and the spread of it...

    If for one second you think putting on a flimsy paper mask is going to stop you from getting the virus, then yeah you've got a false sense of security. It doesn't work like that at all, but that has to be old news by now. It's been laid out in here at least a dozen times already. They don't do *kitten* when it comes to stopping the virus.

    Where they most certainly are effective is at REDUCING or SLOWING the projections of DROPLETS of saliva and mucous exiting the mouth and nose. It's the same principle as covering your mouth when you cough or sneeze to help prevent the spread of cold/flu. A stronger measure is NEEDED here because the level of contaigesnous in this virus is much higher than that of the common cold or flu.

    Take your aerosol example for instance. Get you a can of hairspray, a rag, and a clean mirror. Stand back from the mirror and just pshhht the hairspray real quick at the mirror unobstructed. It's a big *kitten* mess ain't it? Now find a clean spot on the mirror, hold the rag up in front of the can and pshhht it again through the rag. Did dome make it through/around? Yeah, SOME did. Is it less? LOTS LESS.

    I happily wear them where they are mandated (in the uk/England, so shops, takeouts etc) as these areas are likely to bring people into close contact with little ventilation. However where it is not required, I will not wear one.

    The main reason I won’t wear one at all times is because I don’t want this to become the new norm. Facial expressions are a key part of non verbal communication and it’s not a world I wish my son to grow up becoming accustomed to

    If that's how you really feel, then wear one now so he doesn't have to later. That's the job of a parent, to make the sacrifices today so our children don't have to tomorrow, right? Your contribution now is what's going to guarentee this to be a part of your childs life.

    Oncology is a branch of medicine that deals with the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CANCER. A medical professional who practices oncology is an oncologist.

    I know what an oncologist is, that was kind of the point.
  • will_it_go_round_in_circleswill_it_go_round_in_circles Member Posts: 682 Member Member Posts: 682 Member
    I know what an oncologist is, that was kind of the point.

    @will_it_go_round_in_circles :wink:

    Apologies, since you quoted me in your reply I thought the explanation was for me.

    My statement was one of sarcasm and frustration.
This discussion has been closed.