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

30 Pages«<282930
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Roundtuit  
#1161 Posted : 14 January 2021 21:32:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Seeing empty posts brought the Tremeloes recording "Silence is Golden" to mind

When you wonder how that song title came about you arrive at the proverb "Speech is silver, silence is golden"

Proverbs about silence include "Empty vessels make the most sound"

A completed journey from which inner peace can prevail

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Brian Hagyard on 15/01/2021(UTC), Brian Hagyard on 15/01/2021(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#1162 Posted : 14 January 2021 21:32:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Seeing empty posts brought the Tremeloes recording "Silence is Golden" to mind

When you wonder how that song title came about you arrive at the proverb "Speech is silver, silence is golden"

Proverbs about silence include "Empty vessels make the most sound"

A completed journey from which inner peace can prevail

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Brian Hagyard on 15/01/2021(UTC), Brian Hagyard on 15/01/2021(UTC)
SLord80  
#1163 Posted : 15 January 2021 07:08:50(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post
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 2015https://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&amp;S professional. Currently there is a debate in a H&amp;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 responseNo, it is not my conclusion. I believe an effective cloth mask can be designedPlease seehttps://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 supportyour 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
You clearly don’t understand how science works do you matey. The papers conclusions are the papers conclusions - just because the author ‘changes their minds’ doesn’t then take away from the objective parts of the research - they are factual and there for all to see. Additionally, it is actually you who fails to be able to re assess your own opinion when factual evidence is presented to you, not only did I provide the McIntyre study I then provided the Denmark study 2020 which look at thousands of mask and non mask wearers and found no statistical difference between either group catching covid19. Yes you will now tell me ‘it’s about protecting other people!’ Show me the evidence then. Or are you all just taking matt Hancock’s (one of the most vile human beings I’ve ever laid eyes on) word for it? I have repeatedly asked for you or other forum members to post some good hard science that masks are effective - and the best I got was a trial with TEN participants in. That’s a 1 and a 0. Utterly insignificant when presented on its own due to the ridiculously low sample size. Now again, ironically, it is you whose suffering from the ability to change your own opinion, even when presented with solid evidence.
SLord80  
#1164 Posted : 15 January 2021 07:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
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".
Do you see you hypocrisy? You mention my comments but fail to mention said poster first called me an idiot? How about you take your own advice.
thanks 1 user thanked SLord80 for this useful post.
The Iron Chicken on 15/01/2021(UTC)
John Murray  
#1165 Posted : 15 January 2021 08:15:14(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Now, if *everyone* blocks them, we can get back to normal !

(if you are really masochistic then log-in without a password and continue to read)

thanks 1 user thanked John Murray for this useful post.
Brian Hagyard on 15/01/2021(UTC)
Holliday42333  
#1166 Posted : 15 January 2021 09:09:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
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".

Quite right achrn.  This is the reason for my plea for moderation (you have to look to the heavens for this as you are more likely to get a divine response than one from IOSH Towers)

chris42  
#1167 Posted : 15 January 2021 09:38:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post

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?

 

Not sure if my post got lost in amongst other irrelevant rantings adding nothing or no one had an input or view on it, so I thought I would put it at the end again.

I only wondered because if in England you have so far followed the 1m plus rules with the plus being a face cover then you (your business) are possibly at risk that if one person gets it all have to isolate and so the company could lose a significant section of its workforce.

The Gov web site puts an exception in for plastic screens, but no mention if everyone in group was using a face cover (including the infected person).

Chris

The Iron Chicken  
#1168 Posted : 15 January 2021 09:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post
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

Erm... the BMJ article Ms MacIntyre linked to is actually a study comparing cloth masks (washed by hand), cloth masks (washed in hospital laundry) and medical masks, with the following stated aims:

"To determine the relationship of washing of masks to infection risk in cloth mask users. The secondary aim was to determine contamination with viral pathogens on the surface of cloth and medical masks."

Also her answer: "I believe an effective cloth mask can be designed"

Neither of the above answer the question you asked her!

Brian Hagyard  
#1169 Posted : 15 January 2021 09:53:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post

I only wondered because if in England you have so far followed the 1m plus rules with the plus being a face cover then you (your business) are possibly at risk that if one person gets it all have to isolate and so the company could lose a significant section of its workforce.

The Gov web site puts an exception in for plastic screens, but no mention if everyone in group was using a face cover (including the infected person).

Chris

Chris I have constantly advised my employer that face covering are not an acceptable "additional measure" where they want to reduce the 2m rule.

I use this from the test and trace guidance to support this (as well as the workplace guidance documents)

The contact tracers will not consider the wearing of personal protective equipment (PPE) as a mitigation when assessing whether a recent contact is likely to have risked transmitting the virus. Only full medical-grade PPE worn in health and care settings will be considered.

To date my employer has been supportive and we are sticking to the 2m rule,

thanks 1 user thanked Brian Hagyard for this useful post.
chris42 on 15/01/2021(UTC)
biker1  
#1170 Posted : 15 January 2021 11:21:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Chris42, I have never understood why the WHO have stuck to their mantra of 1m separation, whereas 2m has always seemed a bare minimum distance to me, when you consider the ability of people to spread spittle even in normal conversation, going back to my microbiology training.

I do struggle to understand what the big problem is in wearing face coverings, social distancing etc. These precautions are not perfect, and no-one would claim they are, but they are small sacrifices to make to try and limit the spread of the virus. If face coverings are not at all effective, why are they insisted on in clinical settings? They are a well established precaution, the difference now being that they are viewed as more about protecting others rather than the wearer, but then in microbiology settings this has long been the case. We can all trawl research on such matters, which will have varying results, but then what is our motivation in doing so? If it is to identify the most efficient way of using the precautions, then fair enough, but if it is to argue against precautions without suggesting alternatives, then I think the motivation is suspect. The 'scientific method' is not without bias, and people can interpret results to support their preconceived ideas. It can be an emotive subject, especially if like me you have had family members made seriously ill by COVID, and then read material arguing against common sense precautions. There is therefore a risk of descending into name calling, which I hold my hand up to, but ultimately this will get us nowhere.

thanks 2 users thanked biker1 for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 15/01/2021(UTC), chris42 on 15/01/2021(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#1171 Posted : 15 January 2021 12:01:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
If face coverings are not at all effective, why are they insisted on in clinical settings? 

The face coverings the public are expected to wear whilst appearing to be of a "medical" type are not.

Vigilant suppliers even stipulate on their packaging that the product is not a medical device nor is it RPE.

Medical Devices come under Directive 93/42/CEE or Regulation EU/2017/745 and like PPE are CE marked.

Roundtuit  
#1172 Posted : 15 January 2021 12:01:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
If face coverings are not at all effective, why are they insisted on in clinical settings? 

The face coverings the public are expected to wear whilst appearing to be of a "medical" type are not.

Vigilant suppliers even stipulate on their packaging that the product is not a medical device nor is it RPE.

Medical Devices come under Directive 93/42/CEE or Regulation EU/2017/745 and like PPE are CE marked.

CptBeaky  
#1173 Posted : 15 January 2021 12:04:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

There is nothing I believe in that I would willing put other people's lives at risk rather than admit I might be wrong. Wearing a face covering won't kill me, not wearing one might kill someone else. As H&S professionals we deal with this sort of situation all the time. We have to avoid letting our pride put other people at risk. We must do what the scientific consensus suggests, whether we agree with that scientific consensus or not.

For example, our learned colleague Chris Packham knows a lot more about hand hygiene than I do. I believed that alcohol gel was bad for hands, and soap and water was the best option. He gave evidence that I was wrong. He explained why I was wrong. He has much more knowledge on the subject, therefore I have changed my stance. My pride is not so great that I would put the skin of my workers at risk, rather than admit that an expert knows more than me.

The mistrust of experts is now endemic across the world. This pandemic has highlighted just how bad this has become. We can blame Trump for this, but to be honest Trump was the logical outcome of this paranoia. He got where he was because people no longer trusted experts and here pandered to that fear. A perfect example of this was during the ebola crisis "witch doctors" told their followers that the healthcare professionals were killing their loved ones in the hospitals. This resulted in the families rushing into the hospitals to rescue their families, causing the outbreak to spread again. The woo-peddlars were worried they would lose face and believers if the experts proved to be right. They risked the lives of their congregation rather than admit they could be wrong. I find it strange that climate change deniers can't see the power that the oil companies have, and instead point to a "green energy hoax".

For too long blame has been put at experts doors, when none was there to be had. We have a media that distorts facts depending on their agenda, to the point that James Murdoch quit his media empire due to the fact they were knowingly posting lies about climate change being a hoax. This has been excerbated by politians taking donations from groups that have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

Now we have a situation where literally thousands of people are dying every day and people still don't believe there is a virus or that it is exagerated. Some people don't even believe in viruses themselves, arguing they are just the result of the body "detoxing".

There are conspiracies out there that will be true, but these are not the grand schemes that the "truthers" want us to believe. A conspiracy is only as good as those that can keep it a secret. The millions of people that would have to be in on the virus hoax precludes it from being true. Health care workers, virologists, victims, biologists, governments, etc would all have to be in on it.  The ruling elite doesn't make sense when you see how bungled a response many countries have had. Do they ask governments to delibrately make their response look shambolic? For what end?

Strange that when the truthers get on a plane they trust that experts to get them safely to their destination.

Remember, as Carl Sagan said, all claims require evidence, extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence 

thanks 4 users thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
Kate on 15/01/2021(UTC), chris42 on 15/01/2021(UTC), biker1 on 15/01/2021(UTC), peter gotch on 15/01/2021(UTC)
Brian Hagyard  
#1174 Posted : 15 January 2021 12:15:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post

I do struggle to understand what the big problem is in wearing face coverings, social distancing etc. These precautions are not perfect, and no-one would claim they are, but they are small sacrifices to make to try and limit the spread of the virus.

Biker1 - not sure if my post was clear - i agree with you about wearing face coverings and social distancing during this public health crisis - which is why when asked if we can reduce to 1m if we wear face coverings I tell my employer no - thats not in the guidance.

chris42  
#1175 Posted : 15 January 2021 13:07:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Sorry my question was not about the wearing of face covings in terms of “must we” I am happy to wear them with the hope it does something to protect others and as far as I am aware, we have no one in work that have expressed a problem with wearing them. I do also suggest that everyone should stay 2m apart when possible, but there are times they do need to be closer for a short period of time, so have suggested they can be 1m plus face cover away (plastic screens not appropriate for our scenarios)

I believe our duty is to help protect not only employees, but our employers, I’m part of the management team and sit in board meetings etc. Government guidance allows for the distancing down to 1m plus an additional measure (latest update 07/01/2021) and that measure can be a face cover (link below)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-meeting-with-others-safely-social-distancing/coronavirus-covid-19-meeting-with-others-safely-social-distancing

My question was regarding employees who have to self-Isolate because they have followed this guidance, and worked 1m with face cover for more than 1 minute, and end up on SSP for 2 weeks. Obviously at the same time it could remove a significant amount of the workforce and become an issue for my employer for two weeks. We work in relatively small groups around the country, say 2 dozen in one place, and any qty of people having to isolate means we close that site. We are considered to be providing an essential service.

It just seems that on one hand they are saying it is safe to be 1m plus face cover from someone else, but if you do and they get the virus you have to isolate because it was risky for you to do that.

Just wondered about others views on this.

Chris

Roundtuit  
#1176 Posted : 15 January 2021 13:27:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post
My question was regarding employees who have to self-Isolate because they have followed this guidance, and worked 1m with face cover for more than 1 minute, 

Bit of a leap to declare self-isolation was "because" - ever since the concept of Covid secure these forums have concluded that in the general populations (not virology labs or treatment wards) work environment it would be impossible to draw conclusion that someone definitivley caught the virus as a consequence of work.

thanks 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 15/01/2021(UTC), chris42 on 15/01/2021(UTC), A Kurdziel on 15/01/2021(UTC), chris42 on 15/01/2021(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#1177 Posted : 15 January 2021 13:27:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post
My question was regarding employees who have to self-Isolate because they have followed this guidance, and worked 1m with face cover for more than 1 minute, 

Bit of a leap to declare self-isolation was "because" - ever since the concept of Covid secure these forums have concluded that in the general populations (not virology labs or treatment wards) work environment it would be impossible to draw conclusion that someone definitivley caught the virus as a consequence of work.

thanks 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 15/01/2021(UTC), chris42 on 15/01/2021(UTC), A Kurdziel on 15/01/2021(UTC), chris42 on 15/01/2021(UTC)
Brian Hagyard  
#1178 Posted : 15 January 2021 14:39:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-meeting-with-others-safely-social-distancing/coronavirus-covid-19-meeting-with-others-safely-social-distancing

It just seems that on one hand they are saying it is safe to be 1m plus face cover from someone else, but if you do and they get the virus you have to isolate because it was risky for you to do that.

Chris

I see the document you have link as guidance to the general public - i do not belive it is aimed at the workplace. If you look at any of the workplace guides face coverings do not feature in the listed "additional measures" for 1m+. I two have situations where collegues cannot stay 2m appart - when this happens we try and follow the other guidance, such as fixed teams. Yes we encourage the use of face coverings, but the only areas we make them madatory are where staff are lickly to meet people they do not normaly contact and socially distancing may be difficult (I think that was the wording from the guidance) or where mandated such as close contact survices (where it is type 2 surgical mask and face coverings) retail sale etc.

Unfortunatly i think people are taking the guidance you link to, to mean thats its OK to be within 1 meter with face coverings but i dont belive that was ever its intention. If both people are wearing coverings it will limit the spread but as we keep saying they are not PPE and hence why Test and Trace discount them. 

Edited by user 15 January 2021 14:40:51(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked Brian Hagyard for this useful post.
chris42 on 15/01/2021(UTC)
biker1  
#1179 Posted : 15 January 2021 15:26:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post

I do struggle to understand what the big problem is in wearing face coverings, social distancing etc. These precautions are not perfect, and no-one would claim they are, but they are small sacrifices to make to try and limit the spread of the virus.

Biker1 - not sure if my post was clear - i agree with you about wearing face coverings and social distancing during this public health crisis - which is why when asked if we can reduce to 1m if we wear face coverings I tell my employer no - thats not in the guidance.

Sorry Brian, but I wasn't thinking of your post when I wrote this, if you follow me.
chris42  
#1180 Posted : 15 January 2021 15:55:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Roundtuit, I was not intending it to sound as if the person caught the virus in work, just that they had been working with a mask on in work and later found out they had it. Yes, I agree you will not know if it was work related, unless a whole team comes down with it in one go, then it may be likely.

Interesting point Brian I had put lots of different guidance together. I admit when I went to look for a reference, I just picked the first one, which I had read previously, I also read a number of other workplace ones so probably merged a few together in my head. Other workplace guidance does mention the use of face coverings, but not to rely on it as only measure, which we don’t it is more of “as well as” the other measures, but as you say that is why test and trace discount them.

Thanks for the discussion all.

Chris

peter gotch  
#1181 Posted : 15 January 2021 16:06:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Good that this thread appears to be reverting (in the main) to discussions about real life problems and real life solutions.

chris42  
#1182 Posted : 15 January 2021 16:15:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Just noted I used the word mask when I intended it to be face cover.

Chris

SLord80  
#1183 Posted : 15 January 2021 16:56:30(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SLord80

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post
<p>There is nothing I believe in that I would willing put other people's lives at risk rather than admit I might be wrong. Wearing a face covering won't kill me, not wearing one might kill someone else. As H&amp;S professionals we deal with this sort of situation all the time. We have to avoid letting our pride put&nbsp;other people at risk. We must do what the scientific consensus suggests, whether we agree with that scientific consensus or not.</p><p>For example, our learned colleague Chris Packham knows a lot more about hand hygiene than I do. I believed that alcohol gel&nbsp;was&nbsp;bad for hands, and soap and water was the best option. He gave evidence that I was wrong. He explained why I was wrong. He has much more knowledge on the subject, therefore I have changed my stance. My pride is not so great that I would put the skin of my workers at risk, rather than admit that an expert knows more than me.</p><p>The mistrust of experts is now endemic across the world. This pandemic has highlighted just how bad this has become. We can blame Trump for this, but to be honest Trump was the logical outcome of this paranoia. He got where he was because people no longer trusted experts and here pandered to that fear. A perfect example of this was during the ebola crisis "witch doctors" told their followers that the healthcare professionals were killing their loved ones in the hospitals. This resulted in the families rushing into the hospitals to rescue their families, causing the outbreak to spread again. The woo-peddlars were worried they would lose face and believers if the experts proved to be right. They risked the lives of their congregation rather than admit they could be wrong. I find it strange that climate change deniers can't see the power that the oil companies have, and instead point to a "green energy hoax".</p><p>For too long blame has been put at experts doors, when none was there to be had. We have a media that distorts facts depending on their agenda, to the point that James Murdoch quit his media empire due to the fact they were knowingly posting lies about climate change being a hoax. This has been excerbated by politians taking donations from groups that have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.</p><p>Now we have a situation where literally thousands of people are dying every day and people still don't believe there is a virus or that it is exagerated. Some people don't even believe in viruses themselves, arguing they are just the result of the body "detoxing".</p><p>There are conspiracies out there that will be true, but these are not the grand schemes that the "truthers" want us to believe. A conspiracy is only as good as those that can keep it a secret. The millions of people that would have to be in on the virus hoax precludes it from being true. Health care workers, virologists, victims, biologists, governments, etc would all have to be in on it.&nbsp; The ruling elite doesn't make sense when you see how bungled a response many countries have had. Do they ask governments to delibrately make their response look shambolic? For what end? </p><p>Strange that when the truthers get on a plane they&nbsp;trust that&nbsp;experts to get them safely to their destination. </p><p>Remember, as Carl Sagan said, all claims require evidence, extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence&nbsp;</p>
I agree with this. At the start of the pandemic I had a similar option to Biker1. But then I came across facts which surprised me, such as the survival rate, such as the inaccuracy of PCR tests, such as the dodgy contracts given by the government (we have tens of thousands of full hazmat suits that will never ever be used, we paid 12 billion for the failure that is test and trace), then you even have the dodgy reportings of deaths (any death after a positive PCR Test would be classified as a covid death - no matter how many weeks or months it happened after the test). This changed my mind. No you tube videos changed my mind, I’m not a conspiracy theorist, so linking people like me (I know many professionals personally who have a similar opinion as me, yea this includes doctors and nurses working on the front line) to these flat earthers is just as easy way to discredit us. On that note, I’d be genuinely interested of the evidence that changed your mind regarding alcohol gel being better than soap and water?
Roundtuit  
#1184 Posted : 15 January 2021 18:52:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9151577/Germany-passes-two-million-coronavirus-infections.html

Here you go Biker - Angela is upping the required standard for face coverings to "medical"

Roundtuit  
#1185 Posted : 15 January 2021 18:52:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9151577/Germany-passes-two-million-coronavirus-infections.html

Here you go Biker - Angela is upping the required standard for face coverings to "medical"

Roundtuit  
#1186 Posted : 15 January 2021 19:02:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9149537/Covid-EU-leaders-discuss-plans-week-roll-vaccine-passports.html

Well what a great idea from countries desparate to have holiday maker money.

Why don't they do it the other way - free vaccine with every holiday?

Based on Janet Street Porters latest article the fact so many "non" celebrities are being photographed in Dubai may be down to a concierge service offering "tourist vaccine packages"

BoJo should have closed the airports immediatley - not Monday morning

Roundtuit  
#1187 Posted : 15 January 2021 19:02:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9149537/Covid-EU-leaders-discuss-plans-week-roll-vaccine-passports.html

Well what a great idea from countries desparate to have holiday maker money.

Why don't they do it the other way - free vaccine with every holiday?

Based on Janet Street Porters latest article the fact so many "non" celebrities are being photographed in Dubai may be down to a concierge service offering "tourist vaccine packages"

BoJo should have closed the airports immediatley - not Monday morning

The Iron Chicken  
#1188 Posted : 16 January 2021 16:44:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

On a point of order...

The viewpoints of SLord80 and myself may differ from those of many of you.

SLord80 and I may share opinions on some topics, but we also differ on others.

I'm sure I speak for SLord80 also, when I say it would be appreciated if you would afford us the courtesy of treating us as individuals rather than pigeonholing us as you are currently doing.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Users browsing this topic
30 Pages«<282930
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.