Face masks

davygravy said:
Well that's a bit of a scummy reply isn't it. People like you are why I don't come here often. I feel you have been somewhat brainwashed as to the current risks, to be honest.

And lovely for you to jump on my mention of mental health and totally dismiss that. Lovely person you are.
Click to expand...

I was referring to you considering the wearing of a mask to be mentally damaging..when its really only a physical nuisance as such...The Lockdown measures affected All of us...my son and daughter lost out on money coming in...so I helped them out..and made sacrifices to enable that.
It has been about society helping itself in many different ways...at the same time as trusting the Leaders and Scientists to get the Advice right.. ..some discipline must be in place to get through a crisis.

Brainwashed ? You may have a point there on some of the issues...I think that needs reviewing at some point.
 
GaryRB said:
So fair points raised
For clarity, no negative test required, hence I suspect the harder line on masks compared to larger test events which require a test. Still agree with sentiment though, in an open space separated from others, what's the point apart from an exercise in compliance
Click to expand...

Thanks for that response, fair enough about no tests needed but I still don't understand why people outside HAVE to wear a mask still. If anything, surely its a better way to see how the vaccines are going, if masks weren't mandatory any longer. Tits like Old Cherry annoy me, as they are not up to date with the latest data and just think restrictions don't cause any issues for anyone.
 
Old Cherry said:
I was referring to you considering the wearing of a mask to be mentally damaging..when its really only a physical nuisance as such...The Lockdown measures affected All of us...my son and daughter lost out on money coming in...so I helped them out..and made sacrifices to enable that.
It has been about society helping itself in many different ways...at the same time as trusting the Leaders and Scientists to get the Advice right.. ..some discipline must be in place to get through a crisis.
Click to expand...

Sorry but the words you use were pretty shoddy. To many, mask wearing causes distress on many levels. They might not to you or some others here, which is fair enough but trust me, they do to many, many people. Hence why they should be voluntary and that should be the case, because of the science and data.

Also bear in mind there isn't just one science, you will find plenty of times where the experts disagree on this issue - and all the others too. SAGE has been way out, time and time again too. We were promised they would follow 'data not dates' and they have blatantly failed to do that. But once again, please do not belittle anyone who tells you very nicely that things like mask wearing and even social distancing, DO cause mental stress to people. The whole mental health issue is a ticking time bomb and the end of the mask mandate alone would seriously help with this.
 
davygravy said:
Thanks for that response, fair enough about no tests needed but I still don't understand why people outside HAVE to wear a mask still. If anything, surely its a better way to see how the vaccines are going, if masks weren't mandatory any longer. Tits like Old Cherry annoy me, as they are not up to date with the latest data and just think restrictions don't cause any issues for anyone.
Click to expand...
Perhaps its because friends of BoJo and his chums have a vested interest in selling masks to the Government!
 
davygravy said:
and if I can add.......your use of words such as 'rampant' is blatant scaremongering tactics, the likes that the Govt have used these last months. Even the scientists admit it's been a deliberate ploy to scare people into 'compliance'. And yes, it has always - factually - been a low risk virus, look at the stats. And right now, hardly anyone is in hospital for it, how much more low risk could it actually be??
Click to expand...

If your right about Low Risk..and I hope you are ( although people grieving the dead might not agree)...then we are all OK for the coming Winter period.
Lets see what Pans Out ( no pun intended) !

Note: If the 'scaremongering' becomes enough of an Issue.....then surely it should bring down Johnson and his Government in the medium to long term...as it would have been responsible for bringing the Economy down.
 
Last edited:
Old Cherry said:
If your right about Low Risk..and I hope you are ( although people grieving the dead might not agree)...then we are all OK for the coming Winter period.
Lets see what Pans Out ( no pun intended) !
Click to expand...

I am talking about the current situation, nothing to do with the past and whether more died than was necessary [ something we will likely never truly know ]. People all along said we had to wait until certain conditions were met, we now have the virus under control [ despite a small nudging of cases in a few areas, nothing 'rampant' and unless it results in mass hospitalisations, which it shouldn't, then nothing to panic about ]. ....and yet many still want restrictions in place. I just wonder how lower they want things to get, we have had days of zero covid deaths several times recently!
 
Old Cherry said:
Your pretty sure about that..OK

I'M pretty sure that wearing a piece of cloth across my face to help prevent infection both ways...is a small sacrifice to make in respect for fellow citizens...for something as serious as what this Pandemic has inflicted.
Click to expand...

Well then you should be able to speak for yourself rather than invoke the actions of a generation you don't belong to in order to try and add weight to your argument.
 
davygravy said:
and if I can add.......your use of words such as 'rampant' is blatant scaremongering tactics, the likes that the Govt have used these last months. Even the scientists admit it's been a deliberate ploy to scare people into 'compliance'. And yes, it has always - factually - been a low risk virus, look at the stats. And right now, hardly anyone is in hospital for it, how much more low risk could it actually be??
Click to expand...

Have the government really used those terms or is it the press?
 
Old Cherry said:
My mother had a 'serious issue' in WW2 when bombs dropped on her factory and killed 7 of her friends. She was lucky to escape with her life and ' basic freedoms' ...but went back to work next day!
She has just survived Covid at 97...Christ knows how...but with some kind of resolve kicking in .. and with brave 'masked' staff putting in 100% efforts.
.
My father and his mates protecting life against a World Dictator in armoured tanks on the desert 39 to 44... 3 of his crew had both legs blown off and bled to death...and you come on here moaning about a bit of cloth across your face.

Hope we don't have to fight another War with Snowflakes like you involved...

Citizen Gravytrain ...this is not a Mental Disease..its a very Physical one...attacks vital organs!

If we encounter physical attacks on our Wellbeing...we need to continue the campaign to wipe it out...To the End...not wimp out halfway....for the sake of a leisurely kick about on a football field...which is All it really is!
But you just carry on seeing "what's plain to see"...for you and your 'millions'...about this 'low risk virus'...as you call it.

Nice to see Barnsley fans ' enjoying' it.
Good...but its not too far from Bolton and other areas where a new strain is rampant...but of course you won't believe that will you.

Mental Health issue eh ? We need to pull clear of these if we can, or at least make the effort... Because if we all succumb
to them...that's life on this Planet done for!
Click to expand...
A fair and reasoned post if you ask me. As it happens, I don't agree with wearing masks outdoors but will if requested to (like at the school when picking the little one up) but do think it's best to wear them indoors. That said, I don't judge those who don't as I don't know their own situation. For example, if my daughter was of the age where she needed to wear one, she almost certainly couldn't do it because it would be too much from a sensory point of view. If everything opens up in the 21st, I'll probably continue to wear a mask until the wife is fully vaccinated just in case. I certainly don't like wearing a mask, but it doesn't bother me either.
 
Ivyhouse said:
Sorry just had to step in here. You don’t wear the mask for your own benefit. You wear it to stop your foul stinking halitosis riddled mouth spreading germs to other people. If you don’t think it works just try blowing out a candle with one on.
Click to expand...

What if 25m people have had 2 vaccinations because they wanted too you muppet, does that not effect those who cherish the masks?
People who get too sterile and OCD about this and anything will become more vulnerable because they're immune system proceeds to have a nervous breakdown when they get any form of bad bacteria believe it or not. Have a roll around the dirt mate it will do you good
 
Last edited:
davygravy said:
I still don't understand why people outside HAVE to wear a mask still.
Click to expand...

This just goes to demonstrate the communication shambles and the mixed messages that have been given over the past year, by Johnson and his mob.

I have been isolating for most of the past year, apart from from a daily walk (Some may remember my virtual walk from Manchester to Bournemouth, my birth town, and back, last year.

I have never worn a mask outside because I thought we were told, early on, that it was safe not to do so, provided that you kept a social distance, which appears to fluctuate between one and two metres (not that many people seem to understand what two metres is. As an ex-maths teacher, this does not surprise me).

The question is, I suppose, is a football stadium an outside venue or not? If it is, why do I have to wear a mask, ie. have the rules changed? If it is deemed an indoor venue then I agree masks should be worn.

In either case social distancing should still apply, I assume, but is that 1, 1+ or 2 metres?
 
Audenshaw Cherry said:
This just goes to demonstrate the communication shambles and the mixed messages that have been given over the past year, by Johnson and his mob.

I have been isolating for most of the past year, apart from from a daily walk (Some may remember my virtual walk from Manchester to Bournemouth, my birth town, and back, last year.

I have never worn a mask outside because I thought we were told, early on, that it was safe not to do so, provided that you kept a social distance, which appears to fluctuate between one and two metres (not that many people seem to understand what two metres is. As an ex-maths teacher, this does not surprise me).

The question is, I suppose, is a football stadium an outside venue or not? If it is, why do I have to wear a mask, ie. have the rules changed? If it is deemed an indoor venue then I agree masks should be worn.

In either case social distancing should still apply, I assume, but is that 1, 1+ or 2 metres?
Click to expand...

I totally get what you wrote there. We were told by pretty much every expert masks didn't make any difference and so weren't needed. Then many seemed to change their minds despite no fresh science to do so. Then it was that they weren't needed outside anyway. Yet we have seen sports team staff members wearing them all along the way [ because covid didn't affect anyone on a pitch but could just to the side of it! ].

Either way, I have just seen yet more stats that show everyone is now as protected as they can be, that needs protection and that rates are now so low, that all social restrictions could end today and we would all be just fine. I do think the Govt likes all this control though and just make stuff up to scare us!
 
davygravy said:
I totally get what you wrote there. We were told by pretty much every expert masks didn't make any difference and so weren't needed. Then many seemed to change their minds despite no fresh science to do so. Then it was that they weren't needed outside anyway. Yet we have seen sports team staff members wearing them all along the way [ because covid didn't affect anyone on a pitch but could just to the side of it! ].

Either way, I have just seen yet more stats that show everyone is now as protected as they can be, that needs protection and that rates are now so low, that all social restrictions could end today and we would all be just fine. I do think the Govt likes all this control though and just make stuff up to scare us!
Click to expand...
Please can you share the link to the stats about restrictions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;