Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

31 Pages«<2728293031>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
chris.packham  
#1121 Posted : 11 January 2021 15:29:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

The problem is that hand washing, particularly if performed frequently, results in damage to the skin barrier and the skin microbiome. The skin is then more easily colonised by transient micro-organisms (Covidd-19?) which are then very difficult to remove by hand washing. So frequent hand washing can be counter-productive. This is what the studies found that resulted in the guidance on hand decontamination within the NHS. There are several other studies that support this. In fact, the sale of alcohol sanitiser has grown enormously with more and more people finding this a more convenient method. No need to search for a wash basin or having just handled the fuel pump at the filling station (glove box as usual empty!). Why create the impression that the only way is hand washing rather than have alcohol sanitiser as a preferred method with hand washing as an acceptable alternative? At least point out that after hand washing use of a skin lotion to restore the skin's barrier properties is important. At least that would give the skin a chance of working as it should.

thanks 1 user thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
Sharpe23621 on 12/01/2021(UTC)
chris.packham  
#1122 Posted : 13 January 2021 07:45:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Considering the situation where shops and other buildings have a problem with visitors claiming that they have a condition that means they are exempt from wearing a facial covering how about this as a policy:

"You wish to enter my premises and are claiming you are exempt from the rule about facial covering. Fine, however, the purpose of the facial covering is to protect others in my premises from risk should you be a carrier (even if asymptomatic). By not wearing a facial covering you could be putting others in my premises at potentially serious risk. I have a duty of care towards them. You may come in but only after you have shown me a recent, valid test certificate confirming that you tested negative."

This seems to me a perfectly reasonable approach and gets round the fact that anyone can spuriously claim examption but could be an asymptomatic spreader. You are not denying them entry, merely asking them to demonstrate that they can do so without creating a health risk for others.

Roundtuit  
#1123 Posted : 13 January 2021 08:23:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

haven't we already debated the futility of obtaining a negative test across many other posts?

In many stores it is those already present putting others at risk:

- valved masks

- noses out

- the "collegaues" reaching over you and your trolley picking orders / filling shelves

- the family day out

- mask down to talk on their mobile

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Brian Hagyard on 13/01/2021(UTC), Brian Hagyard on 13/01/2021(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#1124 Posted : 13 January 2021 08:23:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

haven't we already debated the futility of obtaining a negative test across many other posts?

In many stores it is those already present putting others at risk:

- valved masks

- noses out

- the "collegaues" reaching over you and your trolley picking orders / filling shelves

- the family day out

- mask down to talk on their mobile

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Brian Hagyard on 13/01/2021(UTC), Brian Hagyard on 13/01/2021(UTC)
John Murray  
#1125 Posted : 13 January 2021 10:21:03(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

haven't we already debated the futility of obtaining a negative test across many other posts?

In many stores it is those already present putting others at risk:

- valved masks

- noses out

- the "collegaues" reaching over you and your trolley picking orders / filling shelves

- the family day out

- mask down to talk on their mobile

Mask off to sneeze and blow their nose.....

A group of rowdy teenagers wearing sunflower lanyards and no face coverings...

biker1  
#1126 Posted : 13 January 2021 10:38:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

The whole issue of face mask exemptions has been appallingly set up. Anyone claiming an exemption cannot be asked to prove it, and in fact cannot, since doctors will not issue any form of exemption certificate. We wouldn't tolerate this with regards to sick notes to be absent from work, for instance, and employers would not be impressed with anyone claiming to be sick but declining to prove it in any way. The whole system is therefore open to abuse. Didn't anyone in government think this through? Oh, silly me, of course they didn't.

A Kurdziel  
#1127 Posted : 13 January 2021 11:06:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

How do you PROVE that you need an exemption. The term “medical” exemption is a complete red herring.  A doctor cannot establish whether a person suffers “anxiety or distress” if forced to wear a face covering. There is no blood test for it. And carers might need an exemption if they are caring for someone who is deaf etc but when they are not doing their caring role they should wear face covering along with everybody else, but will they switch lanyards etc.

chris.packham  
#1128 Posted : 13 January 2021 11:24:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

As I have already posted, I would not argue with the person refusing to wear the mask, only insist that they produce a test certificate showing that they tested negative. Quite a reasonable request, I think, as I need to ensure that their not wearing a facial covering was not putting my workers or customers at risk.

biker1  
#1129 Posted : 13 January 2021 11:31:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

As with sick notes, it should depend on the clinical judgment of GPs. I think that in practice, the number of people who should legitimately be exempt from face coverings is very small. A family member is a nurse, and suffers from asthma, but manages to wear a mask for most of the day. It might not be pleasant, no-one likes them, but can be tolerated by the vast majority of people. Having COVID is a whole lot worse. And what is it that people don't understand about the correct way to wear a face covering? The number of people I see who don't have their noses covered is appalling. I didn't think that people needed to be shown how to wear a covering, but perhaps they do. And the issue about the use of visors is relevant. There is no evidence that they are at all effective; in fact, simulations I have seen demonstrate just how ineffective they are. They are not accepted as a face coverings in Scotland, but are in England, but then I think they have long been ahead of things in Scotland

CptBeaky  
#1130 Posted : 13 January 2021 11:32:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

An engineer turned up at our work last week and refused to wear a face covering due to him "having asthma". I find this strange as I too have asthma, along with around 15% of our workforce, and we were face coverings where necessary.

Since we have no way of knowing his medical history I just ensured nobodu was in his vicinity the whole time. I later emailed the company he worked for and asked whether they felt it was acceptable to send a person who cannot wear a face covering out on call.

thanks 3 users thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
biker1 on 13/01/2021(UTC), Alan Haynes on 13/01/2021(UTC), A Kurdziel on 13/01/2021(UTC)
Alan Haynes  
#1131 Posted : 13 January 2021 11:49:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Alan Haynes

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post
An engineer turned up at our work last week and refused to wear a face covering due to him "having asthma". .............I later emailed the company he worked for and asked whether they felt it was acceptable to send a person who cannot wear a face coveringout on call.
What was the response from his employer?
Roundtuit  
#1132 Posted : 13 January 2021 12:05:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

So people who cannot wear masks should be banned from working, banned from entering shops and (coming soon) banned from being seen in public?

Perhaps when the doctor conducts the assessment they could tattoo a mark on the person as indelible proof to an ever intolerant society that the person is not merely swinging the lead, say a raised middle finger or the text "I told you so!"

I am finding it hard not to draw parallels with societal attitudes last seen across 1930's Europe

Roundtuit  
#1133 Posted : 13 January 2021 12:05:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

So people who cannot wear masks should be banned from working, banned from entering shops and (coming soon) banned from being seen in public?

Perhaps when the doctor conducts the assessment they could tattoo a mark on the person as indelible proof to an ever intolerant society that the person is not merely swinging the lead, say a raised middle finger or the text "I told you so!"

I am finding it hard not to draw parallels with societal attitudes last seen across 1930's Europe

Holliday42333  
#1134 Posted : 13 January 2021 12:06:21(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post

And the issue about the use of visors is relevant. There is no evidence that they are at all effective; in fact, simulations I have seen demonstrate just how ineffective they are. They are not accepted as a face coverings in Scotland, but are in England, but then I think they have long been ahead of things in Scotland

Biker; visors are excluded in the English guidance (but not specifically in the legislation) to be worn on their own.  The guidance to specifically exclude visor use was changed a while ago now but I haven't seen any promotion of this so most people are blissfully unaware of the change. (In fact I recieved an email from The Sainsbury's Chief Executive, Simon Roberts, this morning telling me I must wear a mask or visor when visiting their stores).

Holliday42333  
#1135 Posted : 13 January 2021 12:13:10(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

So people who cannot wear masks should be banned from working, banned from entering shops and (coming soon) banned from being seen in public?

Perhaps when the doctor conducts the assessment they could tattoo a mark on the person as indelible proof to an ever intolerant society that the person is not merely swinging the lead, say a raised middle finger or the text "I told you so!"

I am finding it hard not to draw parallels with societal attitudes last seen across 1930's Europe

I don't think anyone here has a problem with people who have a genuine physiological/psycological issue with wearing a face covering and the assiciated issues with them having to prove this.  The issue isn't with people who cannot rather those that will not.

The probelm is around the small but apparently obvious demographic who are using the exemption criteria as a loophole, for whatever their personal reasons, to not wear a face covering when they could/should.

The very real polemic is that all the solutions so far proposed indeed unacceptably penalise those with a genuine reason for exemption.

Edited by user 13 January 2021 12:22:03(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

The Iron Chicken  
#1136 Posted : 13 January 2021 13:05:19(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post

Iron Chicken, maybe instead of spamming the board up you could just go direct to the families of the 75,000 of the victims of COVID-19 here in the UK, and tell them that it is all a hoax. Go tell them that their grandparents, parents, children... whatever, are all secretly locked up in a building somewhere because the illuminati want to vaccinate the world, to reduce the population. (which seems wierd since the virus seems to be doing a good job of that already)

Whatever you do, please stop posting anti science on here.

We are H&S professionals. We rely on experts to keep us safe. When we call on an expert to examine something because we don't have any expertise in it ourself, we have to trust they are honest. If you don't trust experts, you have no place in the H&S profession. If you don't trust science, then go live in a mud hut and live off the land, because everything you have is the result of scientific study.

At what point, exactly, do you think doctors, biologists, virologists etc. are taken to one side during their training and told the "truth", and told to keep it a secret?

If you are unable to employ critical thinking and refuse to question the information you are presented with, YOU should have no place in the H&S profession.
The Iron Chicken  
#1137 Posted : 13 January 2021 13:09:57(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post

Iron Chicken - I consider your posts an insult to the families of those who have died from COVID, and the larger number of people made very ill by it, and still suffering months after being infected. Conspiracy theorists, anti-lockdown protestors,anti-vaccers and the plain selfish are the people who have prolonged the pandemic. Whilst we can criticise the government for their inept handling of the pandemic, at the end of the day it is people who spread the virus, and try to justify their selfishness by dreaming up wild theories about world domination, or value their freedom above the lives of others. Such people are an affront to the majority trying to do their best to contain the virus. You are posting gibberish on the wrong forum, so please return with the likes of David Icke, David Eades, and Piers Corbyn to the planet Zog.

I consider the fact that you wish to silence my opinions an insult.

The Iron Chicken  
#1138 Posted : 13 January 2021 13:17:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

So people who cannot wear masks should be banned from working, banned from entering shops and (coming soon) banned from being seen in public?

Perhaps when the doctor conducts the assessment they could tattoo a mark on the person as indelible proof to an ever intolerant society that the person is not merely swinging the lead, say a raised middle finger or the text "I told you so!"

I am finding it hard not to draw parallels with societal attitudes last seen across 1930's Europe

That's what I've been trying to tell you!!!
Alan Haynes  
#1139 Posted : 13 January 2021 16:21:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Alan Haynes

What a disappointment - I'd hoped that the fowl being had rusted solid and been thrown on the scrap heap.
biker1  
#1140 Posted : 13 January 2021 16:40:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Originally Posted by: The Iron Chicken Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post

Iron Chicken - I consider your posts an insult to the families of those who have died from COVID, and the larger number of people made very ill by it, and still suffering months after being infected. Conspiracy theorists, anti-lockdown protestors,anti-vaccers and the plain selfish are the people who have prolonged the pandemic. Whilst we can criticise the government for their inept handling of the pandemic, at the end of the day it is people who spread the virus, and try to justify their selfishness by dreaming up wild theories about world domination, or value their freedom above the lives of others. Such people are an affront to the majority trying to do their best to contain the virus. You are posting gibberish on the wrong forum, so please return with the likes of David Icke, David Eades, and Piers Corbyn to the planet Zog.

I consider the fact that you wish to silence my opinions an insult.

So you think it's ok to voice any opinion, no matter how offensive it might be to those affected by one of the worst pandemics ever seen, and no matter how debunked your theories might be? That is an abuse of freedom of speech. Such an approach wouldn't be tolerated in other fields. You are also posting to a forum of experts, apparently because you think you know better than them. That takes arrogance to new heights. And yet, you find my post an insult? Add hypocrisy.
chris.packham  
#1141 Posted : 13 January 2021 17:52:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

biker1 - In your position I would not even bother to respond to those idiotic postings. No matter what you say you will never persuade someone like them to even consider that they might be wrong, no matter what the evidence says. People like him simply ignore anything that does not match their preconceived and unfounded views. Bit like the Donald really.

He isn't worth your time and effort. I would  let him post and simply ignore it. The rest of us know how the real facts show what he is posting is dangerous rubbish.   

thanks 1 user thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
biker1 on 14/01/2021(UTC)
peter gotch  
#1142 Posted : 13 January 2021 19:00:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Park warning - Don't feed the Ferrous Birds.

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
biker1 on 14/01/2021(UTC)
The Iron Chicken  
#1143 Posted : 14 January 2021 06:42:51(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: The Iron Chicken Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post

Iron Chicken - I consider your posts an insult to the families of those who have died from COVID, and the larger number of people made very ill by it, and still suffering months after being infected. Conspiracy theorists, anti-lockdown protestors,anti-vaccers and the plain selfish are the people who have prolonged the pandemic. Whilst we can criticise the government for their inept handling of the pandemic, at the end of the day it is people who spread the virus, and try to justify their selfishness by dreaming up wild theories about world domination, or value their freedom above the lives of others. Such people are an affront to the majority trying to do their best to contain the virus. You are posting gibberish on the wrong forum, so please return with the likes of David Icke, David Eades, and Piers Corbyn to the planet Zog.

I consider the fact that you wish to silence my opinions an insult.

So you think it's ok to voice any opinion, no matter how offensive it might be to those affected by one of the worst pandemics ever seen, and no matter how debunked your theories might be? That is an abuse of freedom of speech. Such an approach wouldn't be tolerated in other fields. You are also posting to a forum of experts, apparently because you think you know better than them. That takes arrogance to new heights. And yet, you find my post an insult? Add hypocrisy.

You obviously do not understand the concept of 'freedom of speech'.

thanks 1 user thanked The Iron Chicken for this useful post.
SLord80 on 14/01/2021(UTC)
The Iron Chicken  
#1144 Posted : 14 January 2021 06:46:54(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: chris.packham Go to Quoted Post

biker1 - In your position I would not even bother to respond to those idiotic postings. No matter what you say you will never persuade someone like them to even consider that they might be wrong, no matter what the evidence says. People like him simply ignore anything that does not match their preconceived and unfounded views. Bit like the Donald really.

He isn't worth your time and effort. I would  let him post and simply ignore it. The rest of us know how the real facts show what he is posting is dangerous rubbish.   

Could the above statements also apply to yourself?
thanks 1 user thanked The Iron Chicken for this useful post.
SLord80 on 14/01/2021(UTC)
chris42  
#1145 Posted : 14 January 2021 09:33:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

I have recently come across a document from outside of our company that suggested that close contact includes being within 1m of someone for one minute while wearing face coverings.

However, the Gov.uk web site lists it as below without mention of face covering:

  • been within one metre for one minute or longer without face-to-face contact
  • been within 2 metres of someone for more than 15 minutes (either as a one-off contact, or added up together over one day)

Has anyone come across such a definition of close contact regarding time and distance while wearing a face cover?

biker1  
#1146 Posted : 14 January 2021 09:37:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Chris and Peter - of course I know you're right, I shouldn't rise to the bait with the likes of Iron Chicken and SLord80. But I do get angry with such people, as they are the kind of idiots who are prolonging the pandemic, and ultimately costing more lives. As an intensive care specialist said recently, they have blood on their hands. But I will try and ignore them in future, since as you point out, it is pointless to try and reason with them. A bit like Trump supporters, who come out with the most hilarious rubbish.

Roundtuit  
#1147 Posted : 14 January 2021 10:40:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

I find the show/hide post button a most useful feature of this platform. Like watching someone on the other side of triple glazing - you are aware of their presence but protected from their words

Roundtuit  
#1148 Posted : 14 January 2021 10:40:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

I find the show/hide post button a most useful feature of this platform. Like watching someone on the other side of triple glazing - you are aware of their presence but protected from their words

Brian Hagyard  
#1149 Posted : 14 January 2021 10:47:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

I find the show/hide post button a most useful feature of this platform. Like watching someone on the other side of triple glazing - you are aware of their presence but protected from their words

thanks Roundtuit - i had tried that previously and it did not appear to work but it is now. No more Iron Chicken raveings!

John Murray  
#1150 Posted : 14 January 2021 12:35:48(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

I have now put the Ferrous Fowl in the freezer
CptBeaky  
#1151 Posted : 14 January 2021 12:38:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: Alan Haynes Go to Quoted Post

What was the response from his employer?

Surprisingly I didn't get one

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

So people who cannot wear masks should be banned from working, banned from entering shops and (coming soon) banned from being seen in public?

Not quite, I would suggest we find alternative arrangements for those unable to wear masks. Maybe they could get priority, free delivery. Maybe we could find alternative work for them to do, where they don't have to meet the public face to face etc. I would expect all reasonable efforts to be made to ensure those unable to wear masks are kept safe and those around them are also kept safe.

Roundtuit  
#1152 Posted : 14 January 2021 14:04:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Why should someones employment be dictated by a piece of (quite often ineffective) cloth?

I note last night the BBC once again struggling with the concepts of protection by incorrectly reporting medical / surgical masks used on wards as a lower/less effective form of PPE compared to the fiited masks used in Covid ICU - different products to meet the requirements of different regulations.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
SLord80 on 14/01/2021(UTC), SLord80 on 14/01/2021(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#1153 Posted : 14 January 2021 14:04:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Why should someones employment be dictated by a piece of (quite often ineffective) cloth?

I note last night the BBC once again struggling with the concepts of protection by incorrectly reporting medical / surgical masks used on wards as a lower/less effective form of PPE compared to the fiited masks used in Covid ICU - different products to meet the requirements of different regulations.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
SLord80 on 14/01/2021(UTC), SLord80 on 14/01/2021(UTC)
SLord80  
#1154 Posted : 14 January 2021 15:03:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
Chris and Peter - of course I know you're right, I shouldn't rise to the bait with the likes of Iron Chicken and SLord80. But I do get angry with such people, as they are the kind of idiots who are prolonging the pandemic, and ultimately costing more lives. As an intensive care specialist said recently, they have blood on their hands. But I will try and ignore them in future, since as you point out, it is pointless to try and reason with them. A bit like Trump supporters, who come out with the most hilarious rubbish.
As I get angry when I read your idiotic postings also. Your recent post about ‘abuse of freedom of speech’ So you even realise the idiocy and this statement? Obviously not or you would not have posted it. Biker, you quite literally don’t have a clue. I feel genuinely sorry for anyone you work directly with as you’ve clearly no idea about anything you talk about, I think you might just sit there and watch the news 24/7, without actually reading something objective, such as the science behind face masks (or lack of). I know a lot of other posters here don’t agree with some of my points but atleast they have other valid points to raise or counter with. You don’t.
thanks 1 user thanked SLord80 for this useful post.
The Iron Chicken on 14/01/2021(UTC)
SLord80  
#1155 Posted : 14 January 2021 15:12:06(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
I think that in practice, the number of people who should legitimately be exempt from face coverings is very small
Here a good example. Idiotic comment that you’ve just plucked out of thin air. There is not a shred of evidence to back this claim up.
thanks 1 user thanked SLord80 for this useful post.
The Iron Chicken on 14/01/2021(UTC)
SLord80  
#1156 Posted : 14 January 2021 15:17:37(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post
Why should someones employment be dictated by a piece of (quite often ineffective) cloth?
Exactly this. Could not agree more.
thanks 1 user thanked SLord80 for this useful post.
The Iron Chicken on 14/01/2021(UTC)
CptBeaky  
#1157 Posted : 14 January 2021 15:23:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

Why should someones employment be dictated by a piece of (quite often ineffective) cloth?

Not to split hairs, but a lot of peoples employment depends on the ability to wear a mask. I get your point.  I never asked the person to be made unemployed, i ask they find safe work for that person, and failing that they furlough them.

I feel this is reasonable, we have done the same for those that we feel we cannot keep safe, or we feel would endanger other people. This is a public health emergency and the sooner people start acting like it the better.

CptBeaky  
#1158 Posted : 14 January 2021 15:32:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: SLord80 Go to Quoted Post
1. There has only been one gold standard study on face masks, McIntyre 2015.

I assume you mean MacIntyre 2015 https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h694.abstract

I got in contact with Ms MacIntyre - the author of the paper. Below is the e-mails sent

Good afternoon,

 My email -

I am really sorry to bother you at what is probably a really busy time for you. As you can see I am a H&S professional. Currently there is a debate in a H&S forum in the UK as to the efficacy of face coverings. The person arguing against their use is quoting your paper (in the title). Are you able to confirm that is your conclusion, based on the current pandemic, that face coverings are not an effective method of transmission spread?

Her response

No, it is not my conclusion. I believe an effective cloth mask can be designed

Please see

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e042045

 

Slord - remember your "gold Standard" paper that the author herself said that you are wrong? This is why I can't take you seriously. You have the very author that you stated was the best on offer to support your argument saying you are wrong, and yet you refuse to re-evaluate your position. At this point it is obvious that no evidence will be good enough for you, and therefore there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.

What evidence would convince you that face coverings/lockdowns etc are necessary? How many deaths would it take? If you can quantify your position, maybe we would be able to understand it better.

Captcha WuWu

thanks 1 user thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
biker1 on 14/01/2021(UTC)
Holliday42333  
#1159 Posted : 14 January 2021 15:49:39(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

The return of Iron Chicken and SLord80 make me want to raise my eyes to the heavens and yell a miss-quote the late great Frank Costanza (Jerry Stiller) in Seinfeld.

"Moderation now, moderation now!"

thanks 1 user thanked Holliday42333 for this useful post.
Brian Hagyard on 15/01/2021(UTC)
Holliday42333  
#1160 Posted : 14 January 2021 16:10:23(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post

Captcha WuWu

I couldn't agree more!

thanks 1 user thanked Holliday42333 for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 14/01/2021(UTC)
achrn  
#1161 Posted : 14 January 2021 17:15:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Go to Quoted Post

The return of Iron Chicken and SLord80 make me want to raise my eyes to the heavens

Please don't let them drag you down to the sort of ad-hominem name-calling they practice.

They are very welcome here if they remain on topic, remain civil, and don't move from explanations of why they disagree with the views expressed by another poster to making statements like "you ... don’t have a clue" and "you’ve clearly no idea about anything you talk about".

The Iron Chicken  
#1162 Posted : 14 January 2021 20:26:09(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post

Chris and Peter - of course I know you're right, I shouldn't rise to the bait with the likes of Iron Chicken and SLord80. But I do get angry with such people, as they are the kind of idiots who are prolonging the pandemic, and ultimately costing more lives. As an intensive care specialist said recently, they have blood on their hands. But I will try and ignore them in future, since as you point out, it is pointless to try and reason with them. A bit like Trump supporters, who come out with the most hilarious rubbish.

Would you explain how SLord80 and myself are prolonging the pandemic please?

thanks 1 user thanked The Iron Chicken for this useful post.
SLord80 on 15/01/2021(UTC)
The Iron Chicken  
#1163 Posted : 14 January 2021 20:33:08(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post

Chris and Peter - of course I know you're right, I shouldn't rise to the bait with the likes of Iron Chicken and SLord80. But I do get angry with such people, as they are the kind of idiots who are prolonging the pandemic, and ultimately costing more lives. As an intensive care specialist said recently, they have blood on their hands. But I will try and ignore them in future, since as you point out, it is pointless to try and reason with them. A bit like Trump supporters, who come out with the most hilarious rubbish.

If you researched the business connections of the 'blood on their hands' intensive care specialist, would you find conflicts of interest?

thanks 1 user thanked The Iron Chicken for this useful post.
SLord80 on 15/01/2021(UTC)
The Iron Chicken  
#1164 Posted : 14 January 2021 20:37:32(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post

Chris and Peter - of course I know you're right, I shouldn't rise to the bait with the likes of Iron Chicken and SLord80. But I do get angry with such people, as they are the kind of idiots who are prolonging the pandemic, and ultimately costing more lives. As an intensive care specialist said recently, they have blood on their hands. But I will try and ignore them in future, since as you point out, it is pointless to try and reason with them. A bit like Trump supporters, who come out with the most hilarious rubbish.

Would you define 'Trump supporter' for me please?

Users browsing this topic
Guest
31 Pages«<2728293031>
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.