Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

You Must Wear A Useless Facemask Or Be Fined £3,200


Social Justice League
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, HovelinHove said:

I was talking about the flu actually. COVID is probably >80% asymptomatic...the biggest nothing burger in history. I do wear a mask, in fact early on I was usually one of the only ones wearing a mask as we didn’t understand the virus. Now that we do, I personally do not believe we should be forced to wear masks, but it is not a big deal so I Don’t get upset about it. I am angry about just about every other aspect of social distancing etc now. I suspect that a good 20-30% of the population have had it if you look at all the data (AB tests saying about 6-8%, but people who were asymptomatic would not test positive after a few weeks on an AB test, and since 80% are asymptomatic that makes 20-30% have had it - symptomatic cases are testing negative after a couple of months). Add the fact that some people have immunity to COVID through T-cells that have been generated from other coronaviruses, and then the fact that for the vast majority it is harmless, and we should just be getting on with life as normal now. Peak COVID was March, and lockdown was a case of closing the stable door after horse bolted.

Agree. Was just pointing out the irony that the sheeple are going to get very funny about symptomatic people - but odds on if you are symptomatic, especially now, it isn't CV-19. Such is the upside down reactionary world built for the uninformed we now live in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Chunketh said:

You misunderstand me.

If you have an accident with someone not wearing a seatbelt and that person dies a preventable death...thats where I am going with it.

There is also a significant cost to society.

i) the cost of the emergency services.

ii) the cost of hospitalisation and treatment which maybe lifelong if the person is severely disabled or paralysed.

Plus the cost of all other parties involved in the accident. When you get into the details the consequences just skyrocket.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras60-average-value-of-preventing-road-accidents

As for masks, my belief is that they don't help much in the summer. It is winter when filthy people wheeze around coughing and sneezing that they will probably have the best effect, both to prevent covid and also prevent bed blocking by none covid/flu patients.

Obviously this winter I had hyper sensitivity to people around me coughing and sneezing. It seemed like every other person in the supermarket was hacking something up. Now in the summer I have not heard anyone for weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

There is also a significant cost to society.

i) the cost of the emergency services.

ii) the cost of hospitalisation and treatment which maybe lifelong if the person is severely disabled or paralysed.

Plus the cost of all other parties involved in the accident. When you get into the details the consequences just skyrocket.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras60-average-value-of-preventing-road-accidents

As for masks, my belief is that they don't help much in the summer. It is winter when filthy people wheeze around coughing and sneezing that they will probably have the best effect, both to prevent covid and also prevent bed blocking by none covid/flu patients.

Obviously this winter I had hyper sensitivity to people around me coughing and sneezing. It seemed like every other person in the supermarket was hacking something up. Now in the summer I have not heard anyone for weeks.

 

Then there should be a mechanism whereby individuals can waive their right to treatment in return for the right not to be forced to take measures to protect themselves. I doubt that many would take it up, I wouldn't, but it would remove my objection to seat belt and crash helmet laws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

There is also a significant cost to society.

i) the cost of the emergency services.

ii) the cost of hospitalisation and treatment which maybe lifelong if the person is severely disabled or paralysed.

Plus the cost of all other parties involved in the accident. When you get into the details the consequences just skyrocket.

Which is one of the things that drives the "wrap everything up in cotton wool" society we're suffering from. There are limits of course but it's more and more the case where I find those consequences less unappealing than the the more subtle consequences of everyone getting diproportionately scared of every risk, of the idea that everyone should be treated like irresponsible children, that getting rid of every bit of responsibility is a good goal and creates a better world to live in. No thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chunketh said:

We cant mandate (even though we should) vaccination. The tin foil hat brigade would have seizures.

Even though we should? What a frightening, obnoxious, authoritarian world you want to live in!

I've no objection to getting vaccinated personally and regard anti-vaxxers as complete and utter lunatics but the idea that such things should be mandated is so beyond what should be acceptable that it's equally lunatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

 

Then there should be a mechanism whereby individuals can waive their right to treatment in return for the right not to be forced to take measures to protect themselves. I doubt that many would take it up, I wouldn't, but it would remove my objection to seat belt and crash helmet laws. 

It clearly isn't practical to do that.

In general I am in agreement that you should be allowed to do anything you want provided it doesn't affect anyone else. The trouble is that nearly everything you do can in some way or another.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Which is one of the things that drives the "wrap everything up in cotton wool" society we're suffering from. There are limits of course but it's more and more the case where I find those consequences less unappealing than the the more subtle consequences of everyone getting diproportionately scared of every risk, of the idea that everyone should be treated like irresponsible children, that getting rid of every bit of responsibility is a good goal and creates a better world to live in. No thanks. 

I think there is a balance. If you can make things safer without significantly impacting your ability to do them why wouldn't you ?

Seatbelt is a small price to pay in terms of freedom of choice when you consider the safety benefits it brings. To me anyway.

Obviously everyones tradeoff point is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Even though we should? What a frightening, obnoxious, authoritarian world you want to live in!

I've no objection to getting vaccinated personally and regard anti-vaxxers as complete and utter lunatics but the idea that such things should be mandated is so beyond what should be acceptable that it's equally lunatic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

I think there is a balance. If you can make things safer without significantly impacting your ability to do them why wouldn't you ?

Seatbelt is a small price to pay in terms of freedom of choice when you consider the safety benefits it brings. To me anyway.

Obviously everyones tradeoff point is different.

I agree there's a balance, but I guess we have different views on where it lies. When it comes to anything being made compulsory I really do believe it should only be in the most extreme cases.

As for the "why not?" line, I've never found that at all persuasive. I need a good reason why, not a good reason why not. Personally speaking I agree that the risks vs consequences of seatbelts make a good enough reason why I'd choose to wear one but the "why not?" line is often trotted out for things that only make a small difference to rather more unlikely risks, and that really cuts no ice. Firstly I'd need persuading that the risk is great enough to even be worth caring about in the first place, and secondly that the difference it makes is, even if the cost and effort is zero. Otherwise you end up heading down the path to absurdity. Why not only wear shoes without laces? Lowers the risk of tripping over them, and should that be mandatory?

Edited by Riedquat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Which is one of the things that drives the "wrap everything up in cotton wool" society we're suffering from. There are limits of course but it's more and more the case where I find those consequences less unappealing than the the more subtle consequences of everyone getting diproportionately scared of every risk, of the idea that everyone should be treated like irresponsible children, that getting rid of every bit of responsibility is a good goal and creates a better world to live in. No thanks. 

Wrap everything up in cotton wool society.

Who needs rules and regulations?

Grenfell-tower-2.jpg

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Why not?

My guess is you are unlikely to be persuaded otherwise so there is little point.

But here's some suggestions.

How do you check whether someone is part of the scheme ?

Do you call the ambulances/helicopters/police to race to the scene before or after you find out ?

If you're not part of the scheme, what happens to your body ? Is it left lying in the middle of the road ? And if you are non terminally injured, are you just left there to be run over by the next truck ? And if you are, is that murder, or not ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zugzwang said:

Wrap everything up in cotton wool society.

Who needs rules and regulations?

Where did I say anything about no rules and regulations? There's always someone who seems to interpret anything said in a depressingly oversimplified one extreme or the other fashion. Do you understand that an acceptance for a level of "sh1t happens" does not equate to shrugging off everything that goes wrong with that? Or that even the most over-regulated, over-protected society can still have some areas where it's got it wrong in the other direction? Or do you just want someone else to protect you from the big bad scary wide world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

But I would strongly object to being forced to wear a face mask if it were only to protect myself.

Well look it’s not just for that and I get it that your liberty is important, other countries wear them to prevent the spread of the flu or colds so it’s a good idea.  Hopefully people see it that way and we can all get out and avoid needless lockdowns 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

My guess is you are unlikely to be persuaded otherwise so there is little point.

But here's some suggestions.

How do you check whether someone is part of the scheme ?

Do you call the ambulances/helicopters/police to race to the scene before or after you find out ?

If you're not part of the scheme, what happens to your body ? Is it left lying in the middle of the road ? And if you are non terminally injured, are you just left there to be run over by the next truck ? And if you are, is that murder, or not ?

Advance directive backed up by a charge over your estate to cover costs? Should cover most of that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

What happens if your estate won't cover it ?

Who looks after your kids when you are dead ? Are they kicked out onto the streets ?

Who looks after them currently after you're dead if there's nothing in your estate?

If we're going to dig around in the financial implications of this we really should have some rough estimate of the order of magnitude of the change (in relative terms to the total cost). I'm no fan of "give me a number!" - that's too often used as a dismissal of a general concept, but it's handy to have some idea whether an issue is a big one, moderate one, or not really one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Christ's sake, do we have to do this?

It's fairly likely that wearing a mask causes a small reduction in transmission which, on the basis of exponential growth, can have a big impact on deaths/cases etc. No it's not going to stop you getting it, that's not the point. 

I get the impression that if Donald Trump or "Q" or whichever right wing YouTuber du jour told some of you that oxygen was bad for you you'd suffocate yourselves in short order. 

Whether you agree with it or not, is wearing a mask that much of a big deal? Is it not worth giving it a shot if there's even a chance it might work? Let's face it, Asia seems to have done well out of it. All this from the same group of people that likes to chuck terms like "snowflake" about but gets all offended the minute they're asked to wear a face mask in Tescos. 

This community is at its best when it calls out the absurdity of housing issues in the UK, a really valid message which needs to be spread. Sadly though, some of the more reactionary, frankly "swivel eyed" posters ruin it and dilute that message. 

The absolute conviction that every time someone farts in canary wharf it's a banking crisis is one example but the sub-Q Anon level conspiracy drivel on the migrant "crisis", brexit and now masks is at best off topic and at worst embarassing. 

Really does make it easy for the people you're trying to win over to dismiss this place as a hive of misanthropic weirdos who's opinions are non valid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“We’re going to award billions of pounds to our cronies and run a completely corrupt and incompetent govt for the benefit of ourselves and anyone rich enough to buy our benevolence”

Brits: OK m’lord! *doffs cap bought on credit*

”Wear a mask for a brief time at certain places”

Brits: AUTHORITARIANISM!!! Rise up against our oppressors!! Defy the overlords!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hullabaloo82 said:

For Christ's sake, do we have to do this?

What, question whether or not a legal compulsion backed up by fines is  justifiable or not? Yes, we really do have to do this. Meek, blind, unquestioning obedience of anything should never be advocated.

This doesn't mean a rejection of whatever is being proposed (although in this case I'm still sceptical), but if we reach a point where no-one gets bothered, or questions, then we've got far bigger problems than a pandemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PeanutButter said:

“We’re going to award billions of pounds to our cronies and run a completely corrupt and incompetent govt for the benefit of ourselves and anyone rich enough to buy our benevolence”

Brits: OK m’lord! *doffs cap bought on credit*

”Wear a mask for a brief time at certain places”

Brits: AUTHORITARIANISM!!! Rise up against our oppressors!! Defy the overlords!! 

On what basis do you assume big support for the former? You realise how easily that sort of equivalence could be turned on its head?

Edited by Riedquat
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.