Modified GCQ

YES Sir! And thanks for explaining that in a pleasant manner.

I do use the 'quotes' system but sometimes a posting just runs away with oneself!

 

Masks may be effective when worn by a virus carrier but as some (possibly very many) are asymptomatic then how does any person know if to wear one? Do you want to be within a public area without a mask and assume that ALL the people around you are NOT infected? Because if you get that wrong just once, then perhaps 'bingo'.

I did explain once that it seems logical to me that the infected, especially if coughing, can force virus particles out through the mask as it sits on the face - so the virus particles are in numbers and expelled with force a short distance to be pushed through the mask. BUT, the person being protected by a mask is receiving particles at low force and spread out (thus reducing the numbers coming at you). Obviously, social distancing helps disperse the virus cloud before it hits you - but without a mask there is no way to stop the particles which might hit you.

The mask also serves to stop the wearer touching the face - can that be disputed? Those who say that some people scratch an itch by putting their hands under the mask or wear an ill-fitting mask are missing the point - these people are wearing a mask, but not properly. So put a bullet proof vest on incorrectly, use a parachute packed incorrectly or use a gun without bullets and you have the same effect - it is not doing what was intended. Is that a reason to stop using a bp vest, parachute or gun where needed? Therefore, your point on touching infected surfaces is valid but how to stop those virus particles going from the surface to your face? Answer = wash your hands and wear a mask. If a mask is not worn then it is guaranteed you will touch your face and transfer virus there. But, people will say "I washed my hands", Really? Every single time you touched anything? So the mask is THE always-on protection, not the hand washing.

Now, about bus timetables ....

 

I know I wrote about "infected" persons - do you not get the point that an "asymptomatic carrier" is also an 'infected person'?

I would not give advice to people to wear a mask only if they 'know' they are asymptomatic as they won't know they are!

Your main point was that a mask provides no protection to the wearer - you cannot be talking here of infected people as achieving "no protection" is a bit late in their case! You must be talking about people who are probably not already infected - so these are the people who should ALSO have been wearing a mask. I don't care what experts have spent months saying as more and more countries day by day are increasing the use of masks. In the analysis of this disease they will recognise their grave errors. It has taken 'experts' months to recognise this and cost thousands of lives.

You now say that everyone should be wearing a mask in case they are infected (with or without symptoms) and I agree - but to say a mask has no protective value to the wearer is wrong and is what I pointed out to you.

Also, you wrote on your original post that "any form of cloth" will impede the distance the virus can travel from the infected person. I agree - so why is "any form of cloth" (your words) able to do that but not impede the virus entry INTO a person? Does not make sense. If you read my post above to Mr Poppy, you will read about the force exerted on the virus particles when leaving the mouth as opposed to entering it - that is why wearing a mask may (nothing is certain) stop most, or all, virus particles coughed out by person A entering person B. At present, most of us here are Person B (not infected and not wanting to be).

And, finally, you say concerning masks "That is also what COMPETENT authorities tell us." I feel the word "competent" (in upper case!) is a dig at me (water off a duck's back) but I am pleased for you and others here in the Philippines that we are not in our scientifically-advanced countries, full of scientific advice and competency, where people are dying in their thousands. P.S. Don't forget to add the WHO (not the rock group!) to your list of COMPETENT authorities - they have been an absolute gem!

 

In defense of @NYC he did say from the very beginning that everyone should wear a mask.

@NYC also recognized that they are for the safety of the community and not a personal decision. Including: "Enforcement should be expensive and subject to arrest."

@Notmyrealname What you say is true and thank you for pointing out that wearing a mask has some resistance to infection by reduced face touching and some filtration effect. (Although a cloth mask is not as good as a N95 = 95% filtration.)

Skipping the details, the issue is that in order to stop the spread of this virus we all need to work together. (wear masks, reduce exposure, etc.) I think you both agree on this.

The challenge is the oppositional defiant minority who complain about a nanny state while putting others in the community at risk. A spirited discussion helps to educate the oppositional defiant. Thank you!

 

It seems the thread has been hi-jacked into a pi$$ing contest. No more useful information.

 

An N-95 mask worn in a car apparently resulted oxygen deprivation and caused a crash (those masks are really sealed).

Opinions on masks are not all the same, they vary greatly; here, the LGU makes them mandatory everywhere, even while driving, but keep an open mind:

From: https://www.guideautoweb.com/en/articles/55009/driving-with-a-mask-can-be-dangerous/

"Motorists and the public alike are reminded that while masks should be used in public settings to help prevent the spread of COVID-19, they are not necessary outdoors when social distancing can be maintained, and especially not necessary when driving a vehicle with no additional occupants," the Lincoln Park PD wrote on Facebook.