Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

I told you.


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Chunketh said:

We have a vaccine for Flu. We don’t have a vaccine for COVID. Asians wear masks every flu season when showing symptoms, you don’t hear them whinging about it because its a good idea. Nobody tells them to wear one usually, they just do it.

Even if wearing a mask reduces the CFR by 5% its worth doing it until we can get a vaccine. It’s a mask, its really not a big deal wearing one.

We are being legislated to wear masks because the government thinks we are children and wont do the right thing by choice. Given the totally out of proportion reaction to masks, I think they are right.

Three people died of the virus yesterday. Is it really necessary to shut down the economy and force people to wear masks?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/12553443/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-latest-cases/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

22 minutes ago, Biggus said:

Three people died of the virus yesterday. Is it really necessary to shut down the economy and force people to wear masks?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/12553443/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-latest-cases/

 

Yes... If you want to cover something up. 

 

£675bn and 0.1% says to me the housing market was imploding and/or the banking system was going to collapse. 

 

The fed had to pump in liquidity late last year, something was up. 

 

Seems to me they've used this crisis as a great excuse to hand the rich more, much much more 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chunketh said:

Sigh, again.

I don’t think the mask makes me safe. It does however lower the chance of my spreading it to someone else. We can argue about how *much* lower that chance is, but even a low percentage of reduction in transmission makes it worthwhile. The more people doing it the better the herd effect.

Masks are cheap and easy to use. The bottom line is that this is about people spreading it to others and it speaks volumes about the people up in arms whinging about being forced to wear them. I can only conclude that they don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves.

There aren't even any reliable figures for how effective it might be.  On a personal level it's almost certainly pretty ineffective though it likely does have a small downward impact on the speed of viral spread on a wider level.

It certainly does diddly-squat to stop spread by aerosols which seems to be the real problem.

Arguably it does harm too - many people seem to believe it magically  makes them 'safe' (which I suspect, is why it is being pushed) and therefore are less concerned with other measures - like avoiding potentially 'dangerous' infection situations.  Then there's all the people wearing them and not covering their noses, taking them down to talk, touching the edges all the time to move them around their face.

Not to mention that apparently you don't have to wear them at all in pubs or restaurants which are now mostly open.

 

All in all, I put them in about the same category as effectiveness as only a bit above  'clapping for the NHS' except maybe in situations like public transport - you are stuck in a metal tube in close proximity with lots of people and no fresh air.  Maybe shops too from the point of view of reducing falling droplets spreading over surfaces, though if you are social distancing, sanitising hands and not touching your face that shouldn't be an issue.

Personally, I prefer to avoid public transport if at all possible now and only go to supermarkets at opening time to minimise chances of airborne infection.

 

Interesting that you like to ascribe any questioning of the narrative as being down to people deliberately being inconsiderate to others. 
 

Edited by Sour Mash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

Yes... If you want to cover something up. 

 

£675bn and 0.1% says to me the housing market was imploding and/or the banking system was going to collapse. 

 

The fed had to pump in liquidity late last year, something was up. 

 

Seems to me they've used this crisis as a great excuse to hand the rich more, much much more 

Yep - never waste a good crisis.

Aside from the authorities bailing out the markets even more, just about every vested interest is trying to get the arm in, even if it means directly causing harm (eg. the suppression of HCQ).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

Interesting that you like to ascribe any questioning of the narrative as being down to people deliberately being inconsiderate to others.

Often happens - "my assumptions are unquestionably correct and therefore anyone else's opinions on a matter must be judged only according to them," which in turn leads to the assumption that everyone else really agrees with them but must be behaving differently because they're an ****.

Hopefully he's not quite as dogmatic and oversimplified black and white as that (a couple of paragraphs posted often make people sound more like that than they really are).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Biggus said:

Three people died of the virus yesterday. Is it really necessary to shut down the economy and force people to wear masks?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/12553443/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-latest-cases/

 

Yes to masks, depends on the economy. The reason is so low now is because of the actions taken. Its really not rocket science, even for a Sun reader.

Edited by Chunketh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

There aren't even any reliable figures for how effective it might be.  On a personal level it's almost certainly pretty ineffective though it likely does have a small downward impact on the speed of viral spread on a wider level.

It certainly does diddly-squat to stop spread by aerosols which seems to be the real problem.

Arguably it does harm too - many people seem to believe it magically  makes them 'safe' (which I suspect, is why it is being pushed) and therefore are less concerned with other measures - like avoiding potentially 'dangerous' infection situations.  Then there's all the people wearing them and not covering their noses, taking them down to talk, touching the edges all the time to move them around their face.

Not to mention that apparently you don't have to wear them at all in pubs or restaurants which are now mostly open.

 

All in all, I put them in about the same category as effectiveness as only a bit above  'clapping for the NHS' except maybe in situations like public transport - you are stuck in a metal tube in close proximity with lots of people and no fresh air.  Maybe shops too from the point of view of reducing falling droplets spreading over surfaces, though if you are social distancing, sanitising hands and not touching your face that shouldn't be an issue.

Personally, I prefer to avoid public transport if at all possible now and only go to supermarkets at opening time to minimise chances of airborne infection.

 

Interesting that you like to ascribe any questioning of the narrative as being down to people deliberately being inconsiderate to others. 
 

Not at all, I quoted the part where you were saying I believed it made me safe.

We can argue about how effective or ineffective it is in preventing transmission. To me it does offer protection on my spreading it. It certainly stops larger spittle droplets from getting out and onto surfaces where others can pick it up.

If that results in a few less deaths then brilliant, lets do it. I rather suspect that those whinging about masks have yet to lose anyone close to them to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Biggus said:

Three people died of the virus yesterday. Is it really necessary to shut down the economy and force people to wear masks?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/12553443/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-latest-cases/

 

Or more accurately despite all measures in place people are still catching and dying.

Pre-reopening and these measures being applied I think we were losing a lot more.

As for risk compensation arguments well they also serve as a timely reminder - people often do things automatically so in such lapses social distancing or any awareness goes out the window. I'm sure we've all encountered that person in their own world who manages to walk into you with zero spatial awareness as they're trying to remember the brand of sauce they need. There is a sign in the village post office - do not lick your fingers when counting money... I have been in there when someone did it and then shouted down the place for refusing one of his tenners. 

As for folks being too risk averse - I believe there are a number of people who came back from Zante or attended raves who beg to differ in that appraisal. Especially the rave in the Norwegian bunker that caused carbon monoxide casualties. You see ironically those claiming people don't understand risk and people don't get nuances have fallen into a trap - risk aversion to one hazard doesn't make you risk averse to everything. People can cling to a handrail for dear life on rickety stairs, but happily cage dive with great whites.

Mask effectiveness in preventing deaths is always going to be impossible to 'prove' as lots of other variables involved. No mask in an army training centre - most folks fit and healthy. No mask in a bingo hall... or the person becomes asymptomatic but then transmits to a more vulnerable household member they've sheltered.

An unscientific but easily reproducible test would be to take a genuine aerosol spray ( non harmful pls kids) and spray against the mask onto paper below or hand or other. There is a mickey mouse barrier test all can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Chunketh said:

Masks are cheap and easy to use. 

But they are not FREE and nor do they have NO downsides to use.

I don't understand why you can't accept that the benefits of using masks needs to be weighed against the costs?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't wear masks - I AM saying that it's not just a no brainer.  It needs cost/benefit analysis to see when and where it makes sense to use them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

But they are not FREE and nor do they have NO downsides to use.

I don't understand why you can't accept that the benefits of using masks needs to be weighed against the costs?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't wear masks - I AM saying that it's not just a no brainer.  It needs cost/benefit analysis to see when and where it makes sense to use them.

And even then (and this is a difficult one for many to accept) there is a very large dose of subjectivity in what is both a cost and a benefit. People often mistakenly reject those aspects simply because they can't be definitively, unambiguously, uncontroversially measured, which can lead to decisions being made on very partial information indeed - that which is easy to determine, rather than that which is relevant.

Also beware of anyone taking the "if it saves one life..." line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

But they are not FREE and nor do they have NO downsides to use.

I don't understand why you can't accept that the benefits of using masks needs to be weighed against the costs?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't wear masks - I AM saying that it's not just a no brainer.  It needs cost/benefit analysis to see when and where it makes sense to use them.

They are free....any piece of material will do or make your own.... can't see the problem.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, winkie said:

They are free....any piece of material will do or make your own.... can't see the problem.;)

As I said to someone else earlier - then don't criticise those who do. There's too much "well I don't see why there's an issue so I can't understand how there can be one" going around. A necessity for criticising someone is having the ability to empathise (not sympathise) with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

As I said to someone else earlier - then don't criticise those who do. There's too much "well I don't see why there's an issue so I can't understand how there can be one" going around. A necessity for criticising someone is having the ability to empathise (not sympathise) with them.

Come on....can wrap a scarf around, where are we if we can't find something that would suffice...cost has nothing to do with it.....the will to do it perhaps, the principal of doing it perhaps.....I emphasise with those that have a problem breathing or have anxiety problems about wearing something covering nose and mouth.....that is where my empathy ceases.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

That was lighthearted Steve hence the 😉 but...

I think he just asked what it would take for you to wear a mask in a confined public space. I don't think a link to loaded questions is necesaary at all tbh.

He's trying to work out what needs to change to make it more pallatible and in what situations you might need to wear a mask to comply with the rules.

For instance if you had modified your behaviour / activities to avoid any mask wearing environments that is a noble commitment to your convictions and I for one salute anyone that determined in their convictions even if I disagree with their conclusions.

As for the orthogonal question - if it is a matter of personal liberties, freedoms and causing future anxieties - if you are engaged in activities in a confined public space then we come back to what about responsibility to others and the anxieties someone may create by not wearing one. Lady from the Cardiff TUI flight was pretty anxious and annoyed that she's been on a plane with folks not wearing masks.

I also have a coworker who is wfh because his missus had lung damage, he has massive anxiety about going shopping or if go for a walk as folks around no masks or distancing. He takes all precautions as advised by doctors and essentially is stuck in most time

Steve these aren't personal attacks but you and your position seem permanently entwined and elements of it fairly unique to you - the future vision of authoritarianism that you are trying to prevent and how you assess that risk. Do you see why people might be interested what the impacts of those choices are on wider community as well. So please don't take it folks are just lining up to take a pop for sport - it's genuine debate

Refusing to wear face mask ‘could be sign of sociopath’ - study
 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/refusing-to-wear-face-mask-could-be-sign-of-sociopath-study-a4538456.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sour Mash said:

Yep - never waste a good crisis.

Aside from the authorities bailing out the markets even more, just about every vested interest is trying to get the arm in, even if it means directly causing harm (eg. the suppression of HCQ).

 

The whole thing is criminal 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

As I said to someone else earlier - then don't criticise those who do. There's too much "well I don't see why there's an issue so I can't understand how there can be one" going around. A necessity for criticising someone is having the ability to empathise (not sympathise) with them.

I have to say you're clearly entitled to your opinion. There's this sense that mask wearing is being accused of being a breach of civil liberties. Maybe it wasn't you I dunno. But whoever makes that argument is, imho, offensive to those who have actually suffered breaches of civil liberties.

Edited by Si1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sour Mash said:

There aren't even any reliable figures for how effective it might be.  On a personal level it's almost certainly pretty ineffective though it likely does have a small downward impact on the speed of viral spread on a wider level.

It certainly does diddly-squat to stop spread by aerosols which seems to be the real problem.

There is plenty of observational evidence about their effectiveness, but if you are looking for a randomised blind trial there isn't one and for pretty obvious reasons there won.t be one. 

On a simplistic level wearing a home made mask them reduces the amount of virus expelled into the air by around 80% and has about a 50% chance of catching an incoming viral particle. What the overall effect of that is open to debate but it seems likely to be considerable.  Of course some of this will be offset by the fact that wearing masks causes behavioural changes, like being prepared to get on a bus/train in the first place. 

Aerosol is not thought to be a major infection but If you are worried want better protection you can now get much higher quality masks FFP3 masks that will protect you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/05/2020 at 15:33, Killer Bunny said:

As I tweeted (anyone who follows me) I'm looking at ~30% off, nationally, over the next few years.  After that, even wage rises will be punched back by higher interest rates.  Look at 1974-76.  ~50% rise in wages.  ZERO rise in HPs.

Yeah, how about no.

Here's what's going to happen instead.

Taxes are going to rise to support the extra debt taken over by supporting furloughed people and small businesses.

The pound will take another serious beating.

The BoE will buy more worthless junk with some made up hundreds of billions.

House prices are going to rise by probably 20% over the next 5 years supported by the fact that ~300-500k new people come to the UK each year, whereas the government isn't even building 100k new houses each year. Offer, demand, economy 101. Another factor will be the pound going down, at which point everyone will prefer to have their savings in land/bricks and not in pretty figures on a screen.

Salaries are going to lag behind the real inflation, of course.

The bank of mum and dad is going to have a dig a little deeper.

That's about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those asking why the law was needed simply look at smoking ban in public places. A largely popular law change that was vociferously opposed by some groups on civil liberties grounds, that when voluntary trialled had some deliberately flouting to make the point.

There are still people who oppose the ban and dispute the medical evidence. If there was no law they'd spark up in a heartbeat wherever they were, regardless of any impact on those around them.

Since the ban it has been described as nannying, that the risk to others is low and that it is an authoritarian infringement on rights. The ability to measure how many lives it actually saved is up for debate, however it is widely regarded as a highly successful health initiative.

If we'd done a conclusive trial to see impacts on cancer deaths we'd have needed years to prove effects - however we could do a decent modelling effort. 

The smoking ban came with a cost - signage, dedicated smoking spaces, etc... but we did it.

As for reasons for not wanting to wear a mask - there seems to be many disparate reasons on offer. The pro-mask groups seem more unified around the idea of helping prevent spread. That may explain the 'empathy' aspect as understanding the myriad of reasoning can lead to empathy fatigue and pigeon-holing. That and there's a hell of a lot of rabbitholes to disappear down and sometimes little empathy coming the other way

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Biggus said:

Three people died of the virus yesterday. Is it really necessary to shut down the economy and force people to wear masks?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/12553443/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-latest-cases/

 

😁😁😁 What fantastic logic.

Ignoring the reality that only 3 people died yesterday because of all the efforts made to reduce infection is a bit like arguing that because so few people die after jumping out of planes parachutes are clearly unnecessary.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sour Mash said:

Yep - never waste a good crisis.

Aside from the authorities bailing out the markets even more, just about every vested interest is trying to get the arm in, even if it means directly causing harm (eg. the suppression of HCQ).

 

Only suppressed in your imagination, truth is it has had far more attention than dozens of other promising drugs 

Hundreds of trials have been carried out around the world.

Most failed but there is now evidence that it has its place and if given at the right time can prevent the progression of cases from mild to severe.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/09/2020 at 16:33, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

It was not a loaded question. Your refusal to answer it with a deflecting uppity whimsical attitude says more than anything else quite frankly. 

I didn't refuse to answer with a deflecting, uppity, whimsical attitude.  I declined to engage with accusatory loaded questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

😁😁😁 What fantastic logic.

Ignoring the reality that only 3 people died yesterday because of all the efforts made to reduce infection is a bit like arguing that because so few people die after jumping out of planes parachutes are clearly unnecessary. 

I assume you appreciate the irony of that post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

😁😁😁 What fantastic logic.

Ignoring the reality that only 3 people died yesterday because of all the efforts made to reduce infection is a bit like arguing that because so few people die after jumping out of planes parachutes are clearly unnecessary.  

 

To be fair with the new migrants entering daily they should of just let it rip.

Maybe only 100k would have pegged it easy to hide in the stats.

Maybe Cummings was right after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.