Are cyclist just too superior to keep their masks/buffs on

[DieselnDust]

Look it's going to be pointless to go through the CSA argument again.

 

But to the part in bold, many of us are of the view that there are many of the regulations that are irrational and need to be challenged. We are also of the view that wearing a mask is not irrational and it is the right thing to do. Somehow you want to equate doing the right thing as to capitulating to an oppressive government and it isn't.

 

 

again, why is it black or white? Why is challenging the validity of wearing the mask 100% of the time consider to be anti mask or a complete disregard for the intension of what the regulation tries to execute?

Taking the lappie from your nose and mouth and mouth when theres no one around or very low humanoid density on the road is risk management.

But is it valid to be wearing it at all?

 

So there's a publication on thelancet: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31183-1/fulltext where an attempt was made to measure the effectiveness of mask wearing, eyeshields and social distancing. The jury is still out as to the effectiveness of single layer masks in curbing transmission but the combination of the three does show reduced transmission in crowed closed environments. No discussion around external environments. This is the probably the best study and was published on the 2nd June 2020.

[River Rat]

again, why is it black or white? Why is challenging the validity of wearing the mask 100% of the time consider to be anti mask or a complete disregard for the intension of what the regulation tries to execute?

Taking the lappie from your nose and mouth and mouth when theres no one around or very low humanoid density on the road is risk management.

But is it valid to be wearing it at all?

 

So there's a publication on thelancet: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31183-1/fulltext where an attempt was made to measure the effectiveness of mask wearing, eyeshields and social distancing. The jury is still out as to the effectiveness of single layer masks in curbing transmission but the combination of the three does show reduced transmission in crowed closed environments. No discussion around external environments. This is the probably the best study and was published on the 2nd June 2020.

In this case it would seem from your article it is quite clear that wearing a mask is the right thing to do. So why indeed are you challenging something that is actually as clear cut as this?

 

"Chu and colleagues reported that masks and respirators reduced the risk of infection by 85% (aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07–0·34), with greater effectiveness in health-care settings (RR 0·30, 95% CI 0·22–0·41) than in the community (0·56, 0·40–0·79; p_interaction=0·049)."

 

"In regions with a high incidence of COVID-19, universal face mask use combined with physical distancing could reduce the rate of infection (flatten the curve), even with modestly effective masks."

 

[PygaSchmyga]

OK E-toll in a perfect world- we all pay, they plough millions into the road network and in 2 years time the whole N1 is a double decker and at 7am on a Monday morning you can do 120kmh from PTA to JHB.

 

E-Toll in SA- money gets stolen, no one pays, and we still stuck with bottlenecks and it takes 90 mins to get 60km on a Monday morning. 

 

Lockdown in a perfect world(NZ) a few weeks everyone obeys the "silly" laws like no surfing or running. Boom ow they have no new cases, their economy is recovering and they are good to carry on without masks and other stupid ****.

 

Lockdown here- Me, me, me, I, I, I, do as we please from ministers down to hobos and now the economy is poked, the disease runs rampant and we are going to deal with this until a vaccine is out.

 

Great stuff, it is a bit like masturbation- some short term satisfaction but the end of the day you are just F***** yourself...

 

Edit typos**

you say that like its a bad thing

 

[PygaSchmyga]

Look it's going to be pointless to go through the CSA argument again.

 

But to the part in bold, many of us are of the view that there are many of the regulations that are irrational and need to be challenged. We are also of the view that wearing a mask is not irrational and it is the right thing to do. Somehow you want to equate doing the right thing as to capitulating to an oppressive government and it isn't.

I think your interpretation here is wrong on several points. 

 

Firstly, who is to say you are doing the right thing?  You are trying to take a moral high ground here, which is hollow.  Government TOLD you to do this, so now it is AUTOMATICALLY the right thing?  Nonsense.

 

Secondly, as has been pointed out several times now, the argument is not FOR masks, or AGAINST masks - it is not black and white, as you continue to try to frame it.  The debate is around a very specific set of circumstances in which people are choosing to ignore the rule - not throw the whole rule out in combative defiance, but in a very narrow set of circumstances to consider blanket application of the rule to be irrational.  Can you get this?

 

[PygaSchmyga]

Exactly! People did nothing. They didn't act. They didn't contact their local politician etc. There were some sporadic protests but by and large the public in general did diddly squat to change the law other than sit on their arses not paying. To claim it as some sort social movement is ridiculous.

 

If OUTA hadn't solved the problem for us it never would have changed.

 

You're still missing the part about social responsibility. I'm all for you breaking laws that you feel are not good enough for you - on condition that your actions don't harm or potentially harm others.

 

Not paying tolls fees? Have at it. Dodging your tax? No problem. Not having a flu or HPV vaccine? Great.

 

Things like not wearing a mask can have devastating consequences to your fellow citizens. Not getting a polio vaccine, driving at 200kph past a nursery school etc also. Do the right thing.

if I can try to understand what you are saying, it goes something along the following lines - please feel free to correct me:

 

People must feel free to ignore laws/rules provided that they do not have the possibility of direct physical harm.

 

Is that right?

[River Rat]

I think your argument was absolutely valid when it was just about you riding on your own. But where you lost us is when you decided that the rule was stupid anyway which suggests that you might not be inclined to wear a mask when you weren't on your own. So clear this up for us and we can move on will you wear a mask when you are riding in the company of others even if it is  a stupid rule?

 

 

 

Its a moot point, because group riding is prohibited.  I ride alone

 

 

I think your interpretation here is wrong on several points. 

 

Firstly, who is to say you are doing the right thing?  You are trying to take a moral high ground here, which is hollow.  Government TOLD you to do this, so now it is AUTOMATICALLY the right thing?  Nonsense.

 

Secondly, as has been pointed out several times now, the argument is not FOR masks, or AGAINST masks - it is not black and white, as you continue to try to frame it.  The debate is around a very specific set of circumstances in which people are choosing to ignore the rule - not throw the whole rule out in combative defiance, but in a very narrow set of circumstances to consider blanket application of the rule to be irrational.  Can you get this?

 

You see there was a very simple question for you to answer but you willfully  side stepped it and my opinion of your view was formed by this.

 

Now to the point scientifically it is clear that by me wearing a mask I'm protecting you and by you wearing a mask you're protecting me, or does your critical thinking mean you don't have to be logical?. If there's no one around no problem, I said it before and I'll say it again. It seems that your argument has now become some sort of teenage rebellion and you are incapable of acknowledging that when in close contact with others it makes sense whether government says so or not .

 

[Eldron]

if I can try to understand what you are saying, it goes something along the following lines - please feel free to correct me:

 

People must feel free to ignore laws/rules provided that they do not have the possibility of direct physical harm.

 

Is that right?

 

Nope. Social responsibility.

 

You're welcome to damage yourself in any way, shape or form  - it's when your disregard for the rules affects other people that you should "do the right thing".

 

One of my favourite sayings is "you have the right to swing your arm as much as you like but that right ends when it hits me in the face". 

[The Ouzo]

Nope. Social responsibility.

 

You're welcome to damage yourself in any way, shape or form  - it's when your disregard for the rules affects other people that you should "do the right thing".

 

One of my favourite sayings is "you have the right to swing your arm as much as you like but that right ends when it hits me in the face". 

100%, when your rights impede on my rights is where the problem comes in.

And just in case anyone starts throwing scenarios at this, its once again not black & white

[Shebeen]

*asking for a friend*

Why cycle in packs where not a single person has a masked on? This morning a group of 4 guys passed me near Camps Bay - none with any form of covering their nose/mouth and the leader coughing his lungs out over everyone- me included.

 

Is it too much to ask? I counted mask wearers after this incicdent - less than 4% had their faces covered. It sort of makes it hard for those of us in the "danger" age group (50->) to be out cycling - just because of the majority of cycling community beig utterly selfish.

 

And if you think you cannot get it or that you are so much better than anyone else - good luck - no one knows! I lost 2 friends in as many weeks - the one just older than 40 with no co-morbidities.

But even if you are a super human - why would you willingly want to put others at risk?

since we're on page 20, and I ran a search on it, I'm going to be THAT guy that points out that there's a grammar error in the title.

 

i tried not to bring it up guys, i really did. I loose my tihs over stuff like this.

[River Rat]

since we're on page 20, and I ran a search on it, I'm going to be THAT guy that points out that there's a grammar error in the title.

 

i tried not to bring it up guys, i really did. I loose my tihs over stuff like this.

You're far to anal about these things

[Pieter-za]

The (Lancet) doc states more research are required, but for a summary see article in BT, also ​ref

 

Most comprehensive study to date provides evidence on optimal physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent spread of COVID-19

 

​​Evidence from 10 studies (across all three viruses, including 2,647 participants) found similar benefits for face masks in general (risk of infection or transmission when wearing a mask was 3% vs 17% when not wearing a mask).

For healthcare workers, N95 and other respirator-type masks might be associated with greater protection from viral transmission than surgical masks or similar.

For the general public, face masks are also probably associated with protection, even in non-health-care settings, with either disposable surgical masks or reusable 12-16 layer cotton ones.

(How many layers does a buff etc have?)

 

However - I do not think this study takes outdoor spec mechanics (running / cycling etc) into consideration?  (Indoor / closed environments biased).  The presence of fresh air and sunlight might have a dramatic impact on findings.

physicaldistancing.pdf

Edited June 4, 2020 by Pieter-za

[Eldron]

since we're on page 20, and I ran a search on it, I'm going to be THAT guy that points out that there's a grammar error in the title.

 

i tried not to bring it up guys, i really did. I loose my tihs over stuff like this.

 

Ah ye goode olde grammar nazi rule: He who corrects grammar or spelling shall make several grammar and spelling errors in their own post.

 

Your post looks like a dog ate some words, chewed on them for days than vomitted half of them up on the other half that came out of the other end of the dog!

[Eldron]

100%, when your rights impede on my rights is where the problem comes in.

And just in case anyone starts throwing scenarios at this, its once again not black & white

 

That is one of the banes of social media discussion - the exception that destroys the rule. If you look hard enough you can find/create a scenario that disproves almost any statement.

 

It's what happens when we debate instead of dicuss....

[EvanB]

Why are we the exception that requires masks during exercise, mates in the UK, NZ say not so over there?

[Eldron]

Why are we the exception that requires masks during exercise, mates in the UK, NZ say not so over there?

 

Not the exception by any means: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/countries-wearing-face-masks-compulsory-200423094510867.html

[PygaSchmyga]

Nope. Social responsibility.

 

You're welcome to damage yourself in any way, shape or form  - it's when your disregard for the rules affects other people that you should "do the right thing".

 

One of my favourite sayings is "you have the right to swing your arm as much as you like but that right ends when it hits me in the face". 

"social responsibility" - here you go again with this feigned righteousness and moral argument.  And then you sit in judgement and make these hollow veiled threats about "if you do anything that affects me I'll moer you".  Ho Hum.  This is like groundhog day.  I can try to explain the subtlety of the argument to you that is ACTUALLY been discussed, but I can't understand it for you

Edited June 4, 2020 by PygaSchmyga