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

25 Pages«<1617181920>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Swygart25604  
#681 Posted : 18 October 2020 14:52:23(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Swygart25604

Had a discussion with a local Factory Inspector last week, in response to some people testing positive who work at our site. I said that we'd adopted P2 mask wearing on site and world-wide throughout our Group globally since mid-April. His response was that he "wasn't keen on compulsory mask wearing, as that could compromise social distancing". I get the point, but really?? It's just a shame that our wonderful government didn't make this compulsory way earlier like in other countries, and as for the mixed messaging......don't get me started. Everything is distilled by Cummings to a simplistic 3 word phrase; life is not that simple, sadly. What I want to know is why am I getting harrangued for a blatant failure of public policy by one of its employees???

I have been abroad on holiday for 3 weeks to two different locations this summer and never felt safer, as opposed to being here.

thanks 1 user thanked Swygart25604 for this useful post.
biker1 on 19/10/2020(UTC)
John Murray  
#682 Posted : 18 October 2020 15:08:06(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

"FFP2 etc. PPE masks are designed and intend to protect the wearer.

Face coverings aren't intended to protect the wearer. Face coverings protect everyone else. Face coverings are supposed to limit the degree to which an infected wearer passes it on to everyone else.

It's no great surprise that something intended to do one job isn't very effective at the opposite."

Actually, unless fitted with a release valve, they filter both inhaled and exhaled breath.

"surgical" facemasks failed both tests. Home made face coverings fail both also.

Given that the majority of "face coverings" fit dismally, and the amount of people going-around wearing them with the nose exposed, or around their chins with both nose and mouth exposed, or not at all, I wear a [properly fitted] FFP2.

I also have a selection of full face-masks with replaceable filters, to P3 standard. The blood-test facility is not happy at me wearing those, but since there are a dozen people in an unventilated room, sitting one metre apart, they can stay unhappy.

You wear what you like.




biker1  
#683 Posted : 19 October 2020 09:38:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

It is curious isn't it, that so many people are refusing to wear something that protects other people, rather than themselves? Says a lot about their attitude to personal responsibility and their respect for other people. I see that Liam and Noel Gallagher are refusing to wear masks. What does that tell us about them that we didn't already know? *rseholes with attitude.

thanks 1 user thanked biker1 for this useful post.
A Parfrey on 27/10/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#684 Posted : 19 October 2020 11:43:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: Swygart25604 Go to Quoted Post
What I want to know is why am I getting harrangued for a blatant failure of public policy by one of its employees???

Was it the HSE inspector or someone else?

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 19/10/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 19/10/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#685 Posted : 19 October 2020 11:43:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: Swygart25604 Go to Quoted Post
What I want to know is why am I getting harrangued for a blatant failure of public policy by one of its employees???

Was it the HSE inspector or someone else?

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 19/10/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 19/10/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#686 Posted : 19 October 2020 11:59:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
It is curious isn't it, that so many people are refusing to wear something that protects other people, rather than themselves?

Not really - society has long pandered to the whims and rights of the individual. Just because we now have a pandemic it will take many years of throwing people off planes, barring customers from technology shops and punching other bus users to change society.

What point is a face covering when the "celebrity" entitled jet world wide on a frequent basis and then head out without following the rules (anyone keeping count of the party failings against regulation - think the recent Blair & Corbyn examples have Labour in the lead even with the Cummings trip). One even has a range of clothing expressing their disdain for the rest of us "Sorry I dont que Hun" emblazoned across the front.

thanks 6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
biker1 on 19/10/2020(UTC), nic168 on 22/10/2020(UTC), A Parfrey on 27/10/2020(UTC), biker1 on 19/10/2020(UTC), nic168 on 22/10/2020(UTC), A Parfrey on 27/10/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#687 Posted : 19 October 2020 11:59:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
It is curious isn't it, that so many people are refusing to wear something that protects other people, rather than themselves?

Not really - society has long pandered to the whims and rights of the individual. Just because we now have a pandemic it will take many years of throwing people off planes, barring customers from technology shops and punching other bus users to change society.

What point is a face covering when the "celebrity" entitled jet world wide on a frequent basis and then head out without following the rules (anyone keeping count of the party failings against regulation - think the recent Blair & Corbyn examples have Labour in the lead even with the Cummings trip). One even has a range of clothing expressing their disdain for the rest of us "Sorry I dont que Hun" emblazoned across the front.

thanks 6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
biker1 on 19/10/2020(UTC), nic168 on 22/10/2020(UTC), A Parfrey on 27/10/2020(UTC), biker1 on 19/10/2020(UTC), nic168 on 22/10/2020(UTC), A Parfrey on 27/10/2020(UTC)
biker1  
#688 Posted : 19 October 2020 13:58:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Too true, Roundtuit. Sad isn't it, that just for a while during the lockdown we got a glimpse of how better society could be? Now that restrictions have been lifted (albeit briefly from the way things are going), it's back to the usual attitudes. I blame Maggie Thatcher for starting the 'me, me' mindset (but then I blame her for most things wrong with Britain these days).

Agree with the poor example being shown with so many famous people, POTUS being the main one. Mass rallies, with no social distancing and not many masks in sight. I don't know how he sleeps at night. 

A Kurdziel  
#689 Posted : 19 October 2020 14:23:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

I blame the wrongs of modern society on the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon 451 AD

Their rejection the Eutychian doctrine of monophysitism was a grave error but the got RIDDOR just about right until Council of Ephesus had a go.

thanks 1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
biker1 on 28/10/2020(UTC)
achrn  
#690 Posted : 19 October 2020 15:19:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
POTUS being the main one. 

Have you seen he's apparently been told about a study that found that 85% of people with covid reported that they had sometimes worn a face covering, and interpreted that as being that 85% of people that wear a face covering will get covid?

thanks 1 user thanked achrn for this useful post.
biker1 on 28/10/2020(UTC)
peter gotch  
#691 Posted : 19 October 2020 15:42:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

achrn

Time for an update on a well known phrase

"Lies, damned lies and statistics and then "fake news" and Trumped up statistics"

Edited by user 19 October 2020 15:43:18(UTC)  | Reason: Accidentally inserted a full stop where I didna ought to

John Murray  
#692 Posted : 19 October 2020 21:38:09(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post

It is curious isn't it, that so many people are refusing to wear something that protects other people, rather than themselves? Says a lot about their attitude to personal responsibility and their respect for other people. I see that Liam and Noel Gallagher are refusing to wear masks. What does that tell us about them that we didn't already know? *rseholes with attitude.

If you'd seen the results of tests on both "surgical" facemasks and "face coverings", you would not be that interested in putting your faith in them!

An FFP2 mask protects from inhaling virus and also exhaling, to a greater extent than the two previous examples. They don't wear "surgical" facemasks in areas of high likelihood of infection in hospitals (although the govt spend £30 million buying a load for that purpose!)

I'm 70, my faith in humanity is at a very low ebb. My faith in politicians does not exist; at all.

N Hancock  
#693 Posted : 20 October 2020 08:42:30(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
N Hancock

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post

It is curious isn't it, that so many people are refusing to wear something that protects other people, rather than themselves? Says a lot about their attitude to personal responsibility and their respect for other people. I see that Liam and Noel Gallagher are refusing to wear masks. What does that tell us about them that we didn't already know? *rseholes with attitude.

Got no desire to be muzzled myself tbh, why is everyone becoming so bitter ? 

What i dont understand is why there has been no tv advert campaign on their correct use.  People are just walking around in 'props'.

We have lost all proportion and humanity.

peter gotch  
#694 Posted : 20 October 2020 10:26:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Re post #681, news from across the Pond, it looks like OSHA is being a little tougher than the HSE "Factory Inspector(s)".

OSHA inspectors have removed 634,515 workers from COVID-19 hazards during the coronavirus pandemic.

Also announced slightly over $1.2m in fines for COVID violations. OSHA fines tend to be quite small and I didn't check how many there were to total this figure.

Roundtuit  
#695 Posted : 20 October 2020 18:41:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: N Hancock Go to Quoted Post
What i dont understand is why there has been no tv advert campaign on their correct use.

Instructions for care and use are the remit of a market supplier.

When HMG let the craft folk loose and the myriad to purchase from internet auction sites any concept of a standard let alone including instructions went out the window.

Despite the link being via "The Wail" YouGov in a poll confirms what you are saying

Roundtuit  
#696 Posted : 20 October 2020 18:41:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: N Hancock Go to Quoted Post
What i dont understand is why there has been no tv advert campaign on their correct use.

Instructions for care and use are the remit of a market supplier.

When HMG let the craft folk loose and the myriad to purchase from internet auction sites any concept of a standard let alone including instructions went out the window.

Despite the link being via "The Wail" YouGov in a poll confirms what you are saying

achrn  
#697 Posted : 21 October 2020 07:29:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post

OSHA inspectors have removed 634,515 workers from COVID-19 hazards during the coronavirus pandemic.

Do we have any idea what that means?  If we assume that the first lockdown resulted in 90% of the UK working population either working from home or lounging at home, then the UK measures removed some 25 million workers from COVID-19 hazards...
Roundtuit  
#698 Posted : 23 October 2020 20:05:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

hand sanitiser recall

Surprised we have gone this long before this kind of article appeared
Roundtuit  
#699 Posted : 23 October 2020 20:05:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

hand sanitiser recall

Surprised we have gone this long before this kind of article appeared
Roundtuit  
#700 Posted : 23 October 2020 20:57:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Slipping under the radar the end of October marks the end of HMRC allowing VAT exemption on PPE. Fur coats, Rolls Royce, Rolex - no problem with these being taxed as a luxury, PPE like air and water are essentials so why are they attracting this European tax ?

Captcha tCVD

Edited by user 23 October 2020 20:59:00(UTC)  | Reason: Samsung autocorrect

Roundtuit  
#701 Posted : 23 October 2020 20:57:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Slipping under the radar the end of October marks the end of HMRC allowing VAT exemption on PPE. Fur coats, Rolls Royce, Rolex - no problem with these being taxed as a luxury, PPE like air and water are essentials so why are they attracting this European tax ?

Captcha tCVD

Edited by user 23 October 2020 20:59:00(UTC)  | Reason: Samsung autocorrect

peter gotch  
#702 Posted : 24 October 2020 10:01:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

UK decision to apply a temporary reduction in VAT on PPE so it's for the UK to decide whether or not to extend this.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-zero-rating-for-personal-protective-equipment/vat-zero-rating-for-personal-protective-equipment

Given that there was not consultation before the decision to go zero rated, we can probably expect an announcement to extend the freeze in the next few days.

For the Breixiteers it's surely a no brainer. Easy to get some of the press to sell this as the UK breaking free whilst completely ignoring the fact that the EU encouraged Member States to consider such exemption.

However, we do pay VAT on most "essentials" thought often at a reduced rate. Bread, fuel etc. Sales taxes came into effect in Britain long before the UK existed and have always attracted negative attention!

Justin M. Jackson  
#703 Posted : 24 October 2020 16:41:31(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Justin M. Jackson

We are asking the same questions of our clients, and asking our teams for any information that could present risk to them or family memebers.

Roundtuit  
#704 Posted : 24 October 2020 18:58:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Reported

Roundtuit  
#705 Posted : 24 October 2020 18:58:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Reported

John Murray  
#706 Posted : 25 October 2020 08:43:05(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post

UK decision to apply a temporary reduction in VAT on PPE so it's for the UK to decide whether or not to extend this.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-zero-rating-for-personal-protective-equipment/vat-zero-rating-for-personal-protective-equipment

Given that there was not consultation before the decision to go zero rated, we can probably expect an announcement to extend the freeze in the next few days.

For the Breixiteers it's surely a no brainer. Easy to get some of the press to sell this as the UK breaking free whilst completely ignoring the fact that the EU encouraged Member States to consider such exemption.

However, we do pay VAT on most "essentials" thought often at a reduced rate. Bread, fuel etc. Sales taxes came into effect in Britain long before the UK existed and have always attracted negative attention!

Basic bread is zero-rated!

Domestic heating fuels are 5%, whilst transport fuels are 20%.

The temporary exemption for PPE only implements VAT changes for businesses and individuals purchasing personal protective equipment used for protection from infection.

John Murray  
#707 Posted : 25 October 2020 08:47:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

Reported

But....you didn't even read it!

Surely everyone needs a Garmin Tactical Watch that tells them when they're being illuminated by an infra-red light used by night-vision? (Problem: Most military night-vision uses passive night vision gear now)

(opened in a non-networked device)

thanks 2 users thanked John Murray for this useful post.
nic168 on 26/10/2020(UTC), Cheeky Me on 26/10/2020(UTC)
nic168  
#708 Posted : 26 October 2020 13:12:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
nic168

  Thanks John, I was wondering what it was. Surely every safety ninja needs one of these

achrn  
#709 Posted : 26 October 2020 15:12:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Most (probably all) digital camera sensors are sensitive to IR, and most installations don't have 100% effective IR filters in front of the sensor, so just use the camera on your 'phone.  (You can check it in advance by looking at your TV remote with the camera - you'll probably see the transmitter diode light up as you press the buttons.)

A Parfrey  
#710 Posted : 27 October 2020 08:18:10(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
A Parfrey

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

COSHH - see post 641 in this thread.

Can you demonstrate an adequate level of protection from your devices that would stand up in a court of law in the event of a claim? There are no standards for face coverings, some have exhaust vents actually blowing exhaled air on to others and that is if they actually get them covering nose and mouth simultaneously.

When you read the regulations you will see that exemptions do not require a medical opinion - this was very deliberate not only in protection of the rights of the individual but recognising accessing medical appointments for critical care was already an issue without adding unecessary administration to overloaded systems.

A recent TV article on juvenille mental health showed people waiting nearly two years to get their first assessment, long before some jobsworth started incorrectly demanding a doctors note so they can board a bus.

Even if someone catches Covid at your workplace you would be hard pressed to definitvley prove the source as a particular employee not wearing a mask. Your assumption forgets all the interactions every employee can have outside of working hours any of which can inflict the termoil described.

ALARP can include employees not wearing masks - you have reasonably requested and they have reasonably refused - document it as a consideration of the employees mental well being and move on.

As I understand it, the virus is 2 microns in size.  FFP masks are sesigned to filter out objects that are 6 microns and above..BUT, the virus doesn't transfer on its own - it does so on the back of dust or water particles - which are 6 microns.. Hence the effectiveness of masks to filter out the virus....

Heres some proper research - as opposed to someones gut reaction / opinion, which is currently being driven by people getting tired of the situation and the rules  - and why masks are widley used to protect in other circumstances - on the effectiveness of different masks against SARS - (so not COVID, but a similar virus spread the same way as COVID..)

https://msphere.asm.org/content/5/5/e00637-20

What it shows is the very real impact of even a basic face covering.  Clearly these are laboratory conditions and dont take into account all of the variables inherent in real life - but managing a reduction of up to 80 -90% transmission from mask wearing alone, when youve already exhausted the other options is an easy, quick win that ought to be taken up..

We have advised that anyone who has an issue / problem with wearing a mask can wear a face shield.   Although a face shield isnt as fitted it is a solid object that wont permit the direct passage of water droplets carrying the virus..  

Should one persons "Human Right" not to wear the face covering or shield overshadow the rights of the majority to work in a (COVID) safe environment ?  

Roundtuit  
#711 Posted : 27 October 2020 08:44:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: A Parfrey Go to Quoted Post
As I understand it, the virus is 2 microns in size.  FFP masks are sesigned to filter out objects that are 6 microns and above. Should one persons "Human Right" not to wear the face covering or shield overshadow the rights of the majority to work in a (COVID) safe environment? 

Your discorse starts from a poor position - not all face coverings are equal, nor has every in-use variant been tested and as you concur this American published paper is based upon laboratory not real world testing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54693622 Why should the vulnerable be thrown on the scrap heap to suit mob mentality? They have more than "Human Rights". Whilst you may wish to argue one act overturns the provisions of another be wary - you are just about to take that first step back to a very dark period in history. Today face coverings, tomorrow the obese, the day after.....

Roundtuit  
#712 Posted : 27 October 2020 08:44:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: A Parfrey Go to Quoted Post
As I understand it, the virus is 2 microns in size.  FFP masks are sesigned to filter out objects that are 6 microns and above. Should one persons "Human Right" not to wear the face covering or shield overshadow the rights of the majority to work in a (COVID) safe environment? 

Your discorse starts from a poor position - not all face coverings are equal, nor has every in-use variant been tested and as you concur this American published paper is based upon laboratory not real world testing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54693622 Why should the vulnerable be thrown on the scrap heap to suit mob mentality? They have more than "Human Rights". Whilst you may wish to argue one act overturns the provisions of another be wary - you are just about to take that first step back to a very dark period in history. Today face coverings, tomorrow the obese, the day after.....

biker1  
#713 Posted : 27 October 2020 09:33:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

I think there is enough research to conclude that wearing face masks/coverings significantly reduces transmission of the virus; arguing about the actual figure is probably less than useful. No, not all face coverings are equal, and there was a lot of scorn about the assertion of POTUS that a scarf would suffice. But in the great scheme of things, it is a small sacrifice to ask people to make to help protect others. One of the Gallaghers recently said that he refuses to wear a mask and if he gets COVID it's on him. No, it's on everyone else who catches it from you, you idiot.

Debate about human rights is a curious thing. The protestors out in force against lockdowns seem to use it as one of their arguments, but then the Human Rights Act has a history of being used as a criminal's charter.

CptBeaky  
#714 Posted : 27 October 2020 11:48:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

Quote:

When can a public authority interfere with a qualified right?

A public authority can only interfere with a qualified right if it’s allowed under the law. It must also show that it has a specific reason set out in the Human Rights Act for interfering with your rights. The Act calls these reasons a legitimate aim.

Examples of legitimate aims include:

  • the protection of other people’s rights
  • national security
  • public safety
  • the prevention of crime
  • the protection of health.

The interference must be no more than what's absolutely necessary to achieve one of the aims in the Act. The Human Rights Act says the interference must be necessary in a democratic society.

This is from the citizens' Advice Bureau. Whilst there is no doubt that a private company is not a public authority, it can be argued that they are acting upon guidance from a public authority.

The next question is whether choosing not to wear a mask is a "qualified right" i.e.

  • article 8 - your right to respect for private and family life
  • article 9 - freedom to manifest your religion or belief (not to be mistaken for the right to freedom of religion/belief)
  • article 10  - freedom of expression
  • article 11 - freedom of assembly.

I would argue that it comes under "freedom of expression".

Now take into account that scientific consensus states that face coverings are a vital part of managing the pandemic, and saving lives.

Given all of this I think it can be argued that mandating wearing of face coverings is a legitimate reason for interfering with that right of freedom of expression, under public safety and the protection of health. As I have said in many other posts, I don't think it is a fight worth having, I would hope that humans would just do the right thing. That being said I think people need to understand that human rights do not allow you to put other peoples' lives in danger. There is no "right to not wearing a face covering", despite what these protestors think.

thanks 3 users thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
chris.packham on 27/10/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 27/10/2020(UTC), biker1 on 28/10/2020(UTC)
Kate  
#715 Posted : 27 October 2020 12:06:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

It used to be argued the other way, about whether women who covered their faces for religious or cultural reasons should be forced to uncover them or whether they had a right to the practice of covering their faces.

chris.packham  
#716 Posted : 27 October 2020 12:16:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Of course, facial coverings are not PPE and so do not have to comply with a specific standard, nor is there any requirement for training in their correct use. Perhaps there is a case for a standard for SPE (social protective equipment as opposed to personal protective equipment). Having said this, I wonder how the person claiming to be unable to wear a facial covering would respond if they had to wear a mask to protect themselves against a toxic vapour that, if inhaled, would kill them. Would they still claim that their 'human rights', even if it would kill them?

thanks 3 users thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
Brian Hagyard on 27/10/2020(UTC), Kate on 27/10/2020(UTC), CptBeaky on 28/10/2020(UTC)
Brian Hagyard  
#717 Posted : 27 October 2020 12:27:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard


Social protective equipment (SPE)I like that description!
biker1  
#718 Posted : 28 October 2020 11:24:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

In my area, we are apparently about to move up to tier 2 by the weekend, if not before, so that will be even more excuse for our GP practice not to see anybody. They really have been snowflakes throughout this whole business, but are quite happy for district nurses to carry on seeing patients in their own homes, and hospital doctors and nurses to see and examine people. Apparently, the practice nurses are not allowed to listen to someone's chest now, despite having been close looking in ears. Quite ridiculous, and frankly shameful.

Since we are about to move up a level, looked into the further restrictions involved. What I can't understand is what effective difference these additional restrictions will have on transmission rates. The usual confusing mess from government that you could drive a bus through. If they are going to make a real difference to infection levels, they'll have to do a lot better than they have been doing.

I also can't understand the mentality of the increasing number of people protesting about restrictions. If it was a case of campaigning for more support during all of this, they might have a point, but when they start banging on about personal freedom, and calling the virus a hoax, I see red. Perhaps these people could help out on COVID wards, after all they think they have nothing to be afraid of.

chris42  
#719 Posted : 28 October 2020 12:09:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Arguably there is already a term used in H&S for this, it is called “collective Protection” and is normally higher up the hierarchy than Personal protection. I say arguably because of course normally collective protection would be a handrail or safety net etc which does not rely on an individual doing things correctly (other than putting them there correctly in the first place). However, I feel they do meet the general idea that they help protect groups of people at a time.

The call for evidence they work, could easily be changed to a call for evidence they don’t. I personally feel they do help. It is the same way we have all been taught to use a handkerchief or tissue in our hands when you have a cold (catch it bin it), which is neither tight fitting to the face or made to any particular standard. It should slow down the emission of droplets and so not spread them so far, which seems fair enough.

I am tired of people telling me they are exempt from their use, because they have a problem with their mouth being covered. Not the genuine ones, but those with that little twinkle in their eye as they say it, because they want you to know they are lying through their teeth (which you should not be able to see) and are just being awkward.

It seems obvious that with the infection rates rising, we as a people are not doing enough. We are either not following the rules in place or the rules are inadequate. When track and trace call up the infected and they are asked who they have been closer than 2m from or 1m plus other measures, the answer should be “nobody”. It obviously isn’t though is it.

Chris

Roundtuit  
#720 Posted : 28 October 2020 14:11:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Biker you are right to question Tier 2

Existing in the greater burough of Burnham we have had extended restrictions since coming out of the first national lock down and are currently lodged at Tier 3 in the English system without any supposed improvement in numbers.

All the while the three amigos battle to see who can come up with the most eye wateringly ludicrous controls without realising how fatigued the populace and businees is with the constant churn of  restrictions.

Absolute classic this week was the metro mayor having a rant at a supermarket chain for their failure to enforce the wearing of face coverings seemingly forgetting that role of mayor is also that of Police & Crime Commissioner.

Roundtuit  
#721 Posted : 28 October 2020 14:11:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Biker you are right to question Tier 2

Existing in the greater burough of Burnham we have had extended restrictions since coming out of the first national lock down and are currently lodged at Tier 3 in the English system without any supposed improvement in numbers.

All the while the three amigos battle to see who can come up with the most eye wateringly ludicrous controls without realising how fatigued the populace and businees is with the constant churn of  restrictions.

Absolute classic this week was the metro mayor having a rant at a supermarket chain for their failure to enforce the wearing of face coverings seemingly forgetting that role of mayor is also that of Police & Crime Commissioner.

John Murray  
#722 Posted : 28 October 2020 15:53:42(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
In my area, we are apparently about to move up to tier 2 by the weekend, if not before, so that will be even more excuse for our GP practice not to see anybody. They really have been snowflakes throughout this whole business, but are quite happy for district nurses to carry on seeing patients in their own homes, and hospital doctors and nurses to see and examine people. Apparently, the practice nurses are not allowed to listen to someone's chest now, despite having been close looking in ears. Quite ridiculous, and frankly shameful.Since we are about to move up a level, looked into the further restrictions involved. What I can't understand is what effective difference these additional restrictions will have on transmission rates. The usual confusing mess from government that you could drive a bus through. If they are going to make a real difference to infection levels, they'll have to do a lot better than they have been doing.I also can't understand the mentality of the increasing number of people protesting about restrictions. If it was a case of campaigning for more support during all of this, they might have a point, but when they start banging on about personal freedom, and calling the virus a hoax, I see red. Perhaps these people could help out on COVID wards, after all they think they havenothing to be afraid of.


They’re morons.
Try asking them if they have relatives over 70, the pointing-out that if they get infected and have to go to hospital, their chance of a receiving treatment in a high dependency unit is only slightly better than that of a snowflake in hades.
SLord80  
#723 Posted : 28 October 2020 21:07:17(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post
Quote:

When can a public authority interfere with a qualified right?A public authority can only interfere with a qualified right if it’s allowed under the law. It must also show that it has a specific reason set out in the Human Rights Act for interfering with your rights. The Act calls these reasons alegitimate aim.Examples of legitimate aims include:
    <li>the protection of other people’s rights</li><li>national security</li><li>public safety</li><li>the prevention of crime</li><li>the protection of health.</li>
The interference must be no more than what's absolutely necessary to achieve one of the aims in the Act. The Human Rights Act says the interference must benecessary in a democratic society.
This is from the citizens' Advice Bureau. Whilst there is no doubt that a private company is not a public authority, it can be argued that they are acting upon guidance from a public authority.
The next question is whether choosing not to wear a mask is a "qualified right" i.e.
    <li>article 8 - your right to respect for private and family life</li><li>article 9 - freedom tomanifestyour religion or belief (not to be mistaken for the right to freedom ofreligion/belief)</li><li>article 10 - freedom of expression</li><li>article 11 - freedom of assembly.</li>
I would argue that it comes under "freedom of expression".Now take into account that scientific consensus states that face coverings are a vital part of managing the pandemic, and saving lives.Given all of this I think it can be argued that mandating wearing of face coveringsis a legitimate reason for interfering with that right of freedom of expression, under public safety and the protection of health. As I have said in many other posts, I don't think it is a fight worth having, I would hope that humans would just do the right thing. That being said I think people need to understand that human rights do not allow you to put other peoples' lives in danger. There is no "right to not wearing a face covering", despite what these protestors think.


Okay so it seems some people on this forum need educating.

First point - how do you define ‘put other peoples lives in danger’ - I assume you mean that people who don’t wear face coverings are putting other people’s lives in danger. Really? The virus has an overall survival rate of 99.96%, according to the CDC.

Second point - there clearly is a ‘right to not wear a face covering’. The covid red clearly state who is exempt from wearing the face masks. I’ll remind you:

(i)
because of any physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability (within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010(1)), or
(ii)
without severe distress; https://www.legislation....20/791/regulation/4/made


If a person claims to have a disability, the regs also state that the person is under no obligation to prove said disability.

If anything, due to this disability, reasonable adjustments may have to be made to ensure the person is not discriminated against.


A point for other posters who seem to think all the science concludes face masks work - please don’t dismiss the vast amount of science which concludes the opposite.

When is anyone going to stand up for the children in all of this? They are literally at zero risk from the virus yet they will be burdened profoundly for decades, mentally(mental health services have never been so busy) , educationally (months and months of school time missed), Physically (child obesity rates all time high due to lockdown) and financially, paying back all the billions the government has given out - people think this money grows on trees, that the government are wonderful for helping out financially. It is the younger generations who will be paying this all for a very long time.
John Murray  
#724 Posted : 29 October 2020 06:46:19(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

The children themselves may well be at near-zero risk....the people they contact are not.

If there was a chance of an independent enquiry after this [present manifestation of] this disease ends [average 6-month period of antibody presence, then back to square one] then the role being played in the rapidly-increasing death rate, in the second time around, would doubtless point several fingers towards the policy of allowing super-spreaders to continue doing what they do best...I doubt their mental health is suffering much, they chatter to their mates online all the time, and they have online education (doubtless second best, but in difficult times eh?)

Death rate yesterday = 310. A 51.2% increase compared to the previous week.

Possibly you too are an ardent believer in killing-off the poor/sick/elderly? Just like our present govt.

thanks 3 users thanked John Murray for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 29/10/2020(UTC), flysafe on 29/10/2020(UTC), biker1 on 29/10/2020(UTC)
CptBeaky  
#725 Posted : 29 October 2020 08:55:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

[/quoe]

Okay so it seems some people on this forum need educating.

First point - how do you define ‘put other peoples lives in danger’ - I assume you mean that people who don’t wear face coverings are putting other people’s lives in danger. Really? The virus has an overall survival rate of 99.96%, according to the CDC.

Second point - there clearly is a ‘right to not wear a face covering’. The covid red clearly state who is exempt from wearing the face masks. I’ll remind you:

(i)
because of any physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability (within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010(1)), or
(ii)
without severe distress; https://www.legislation....20/791/regulation/4/made


If a person claims to have a disability, the regs also state that the person is under no obligation to prove said disability.

If anything, due to this disability, reasonable adjustments may have to be made to ensure the person is not discriminated against.


A point for other posters who seem to think all the science concludes face masks work - please don’t dismiss the vast amount of science which concludes the opposite.

When is anyone going to stand up for the children in all of this? They are literally at zero risk from the virus yet they will be burdened profoundly for decades, mentally(mental health services have never been so busy) , educationally (months and months of school time missed), Physically (child obesity rates all time high due to lockdown) and financially, paying back all the billions the government has given out - people think this money grows on trees, that the government are wonderful for helping out financially. It is the younger generations who will be paying this all for a very long time.

Firstly the survival rate is not likley to be 99.96%. And I can provide evidence of this with very simple maths. Peru currently has 34,000 deaths so far. Assuming the whole 33m population was infected that gives a survival rate of 99.90% which is worse than your 99.96%. And we have to assume nobody else is going to die in Peru, which seems unlikely.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ - Gives you an idea of how deadly the virus has been so far. 19 countries have already lost more than 1 person out of every 2000 to this virus, and we are probably only halfway through. you 99.96% would kill 3.12m people (worldwide) and we are over a third of the way there already, with under reporting. Do you really believe a third of the world is already infected? If we follow Peru's model it could be as high as 7.8m.

Exemptions to a law are not the same as the "right to not wear a face covering". They are reasons that the government decided they would allow people not to wear a face covering, that is all. The people protesting are not the same people that have an exemption, let's not pretend they are.

Can you link to the "vast amount of science" papers that say masks are not effective? I will link a respected sources below below that say they are.

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3021   - From the British Medical Journal

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7494435/ - is an interesting read debunking those that say masks are not effective

https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-c-facemasks.pdf - is waiting on peer review, but is a good review point for the scientific consensus

Children are not "zero risk" they are extremely low risk. We don't yet know the long term implications of being infected. The damage it could do to society to let the virus run havoc is far more than the inconvenience of one year of disruption. If you are so concerned about the children then I question your views on masks. South Korea put masks in place much earlier on (along with most of S.E Asia) as they had previous experience of a SARS epidemic. They haven't had to resort to huge lockdowns because they have the virus under control. Masks save lives, it is as simple as that.

thanks 2 users thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
flysafe on 29/10/2020(UTC), biker1 on 29/10/2020(UTC)
CptBeaky  
#726 Posted : 29 October 2020 09:04:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

Firstly the survival rate is not likley to be 99.96%. And I can provide evidence of this with very simple maths. Peru currently has 34,000 deaths so far. Assuming the whole 33m population was infected that gives a survival rate of 99.90% which is worse than your 99.96%. And we have to assume nobody else is going to die in Peru, which seems unlikely.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

- Gives you an idea of how deadly the virus has been so far. 19 countries have already lost more than 1 person out of every 2000 to this virus, and we are probably only halfway through. you 99.96% would kill 3.12m people (worldwide) and we are over a third of the way there already, with under reporting. Do you really believe a third of the world is already infected? If we follow Peru's model it could be as high as 7.8m.

Exemptions to a law are not the same as the "right to not wear a face covering". They are reasons that the government decided they would allow people not to wear a face covering, that is all. The people protesting are not the same people that have an exemption, let's not pretend they are.

Can you link to the "vast amount of science" papers that say masks are not effective? I will link a respected sources below below that say they are.

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3021

 - From the British Medical Journal

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7494435/

- is an interesting read debunking those that say masks are not effective

https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-c-facemasks.pdf

- is waiting on peer review, but is a good review point for the scientific consensus

Children are not "zero risk" they are extremely low risk. We don't yet know the long term implications of being infected. The damage it could do to society to let the virus run havoc is far more than the inconvenience of one year of disruption. If you are so concerned about the children then I question your views on masks. South Korea put masks in place much earlier on (along with most of S.E Asia) as they had previous experience of a SARS epidemic. They haven't had to resort to huge lockdowns because they have the virus under control. Masks save lives, it is as simple as that.

Sorry can't edit - that should be easier to read

CptBeaky  
#727 Posted : 29 October 2020 10:15:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

And because I can't let things like this go easily

https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-c-facemasks.pdf?la=en-GB&hash=A22A87CB28F7D6AD9BD93BBCBFC2BB24

With that paper are the results of several tests (page 7) and various other data studies. My orginal links were more general. This is by the Royal Society, a well respected source.

thanks 2 users thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
chris42 on 29/10/2020(UTC), flysafe on 29/10/2020(UTC)
chris42  
#728 Posted : 29 October 2020 11:52:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Page 9 and 10 of the above report are of interest as it is about protection of others.

Chris

Users browsing this topic
Guest
25 Pages«<1617181920>»
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.