DieselnDust Posted June 4, 2020 Posted June 4, 2020 What I am wondering, with the SA attitude of finding loopholes, maybe it was just easier to say you must have a mask on when not at your residence and not have an exception for exercising. Otherwise, we would have people out-and-about without masks and a valid excuse would be that they are busy with exercise, walking is a form of exercise. I think it would be difficult to defend the rationality of having everyone wear masks outside except people out for exercise. So just to be clear, does NZ and UK have compulsory mask wearing when in public, but exceptions for exercise? How many countries have this setup? many countries it appears. If you examine all the countries listed in the Aljazeera article all are advocating masks in confined public spaces or when you leave the home. I've checked in with mates in Austria, Czech Republic and Hungary and although the law says to have it on in public the law enforcement is not targeting cyclists, runners or others engaging in aerobic activity but they are targeting lack of conformance to social distancing and groups. In SA, by observation I see nearly 100% compliance wrt to public spaces like shops, pharmacies etc. The challenge comes in wrt to exercising and this is where peeps are having a hissie fit.Even so I still see perhaps 90% compliance with people wearing a mask and pulling it up or down depending on the density of people they are moving past or sharing space with. Vetplant and Eldron 2
DieselnDust Posted June 4, 2020 Posted June 4, 2020 (edited) 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; pinteraction=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." Once again black and white, with added cherry picking. The results you speak to relate to N95 masks. From this they extrapolate that a simple cloth mask COULD have benefits. People comply willingly with this while out shopping and conducting low intensity activity.The study does not cover impacts of high intensity activity and risks associated with transmission when exercising around other athletes as the mechanism relating to aerosol transmission in this mode has not been studied. yet you draw a conclusion..... Edited June 4, 2020 by DieselnDust
River Rat Posted June 4, 2020 Posted June 4, 2020 Once again black and white, with added cherry picking. The results you speak to relate to N95 masks. From this they extrapolate that a simple cloth mask COULD have benefits. People comply willingly with this while out shopping and conducting low intensity activity.The study does not cover impacts of high intensity activity and risks associated with transmission when exercising around other athletes as the mechanism relating to aerosol transmission in this mode has not been studied. yet you draw a conclusion..... Sorry accusing me of cherry picking is nonsense it seems that you did not read your own article, from the same article."They attribute this difference to the predominant use of N95 respirators in health-care settings; in a sub-analysis, respirators were 96% effective (aOR 0·04, 95% CI 0·004–0·30) compared with other masks, which were 77% effective (aOR 0·33, 95% CI 0·17–0·61; pinteraction=0·090)." and "This study supports universal face mask use, because masks were equally effective in both health-care and community settings when adjusted for type of mask use." I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that masks make a difference and I can say without a doubt that it certainly does not say that masks are ineffective. But seeing that I am cherry picking show me where the article says something contrary to my conclusion. Vetplant, dsw and Andrew Steer 3
VicanZA Posted June 4, 2020 Posted June 4, 2020 Can’t believe this is still rolling... Jewbacca, ChrisF, guidodg and 3 others 6
Andrew Steer Posted June 4, 2020 Posted June 4, 2020 Can’t believe this is still rolling...That... and I also can't believe the level of BS some people are willing to spew dave303e, Wayne pudding Mol and Vetplant 3
ChrisF Posted June 4, 2020 Posted June 4, 2020 Can’t believe this is still rolling...Have to wonder .... has a single person changed their "perception" based on anything that have been posted here ... Actually sad to see how people turn on each other ... Andrew Steer 1
Mamil Posted June 4, 2020 Posted June 4, 2020 That's cos it's not really about the masks - when stressed dogs lick raw patches in their own skins. Can’t believe this is still rolling...
Zatopek Posted June 4, 2020 Posted June 4, 2020 Have to wonder .... has a single person changed their "perception" based on anything that have been posted here ... Actually sad to see how people turn on each other ...Yes - that charts of the time the virus stay alive on surfaces that was shared earlier made me even more reluctant to go into the Spar etc - and make really sure where I touch and how regular I clean my hands in that environment. Chris_, ChrisF and Vetplant 3
Zatopek Posted June 4, 2020 Posted June 4, 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; pinteraction=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." It is frustrating how much time are focused are on mask/no mask, while it should always be done with where you are relative to other people as context. * I don't argue against masks DieselnDust and Vetplant 2
DieselnDust Posted June 4, 2020 Posted June 4, 2020 Sorry accusing me of cherry picking is nonsense it seems that you did not read your own article, from the same article."They attribute this difference to the predominant use of N95 respirators in health-care settings; in a sub-analysis, respirators were 96% effective (aOR 0·04, 95% CI 0·004–0·30) compared with other masks, which were 77% effective (aOR 0·33, 95% CI 0·17–0·61; pinteraction=0·090)." and "This study supports universal face mask use, because masks were equally effective in both health-care and community settings when adjusted for type of mask use." I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that masks make a difference and I can say without a doubt that it certainly does not say that masks are ineffective. But seeing that I am cherry picking show me where the article says something contrary to my conclusion. yes you're cherry picking and haven't read or understood the report in its entirety. "In community " refers to going to the shop or other socialized activity in communities. It does NOT refer to aerobic or anaerobic exercise anywhere.The focus of the study is also not to find a definitive proof but to provide a direction around certain guidelines that are being promoted. It clearly states a proper randomised study is needed to fully understand the implications.But continue with the confirmation bias if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy in your moral high tower. as a doc said to me: "Do you want to get the virus while fit and healthy or after a mask induced asthma attack. Be Sensible about how you use it. Social distance is key."
Pure Savage Posted June 4, 2020 Posted June 4, 2020 Coming back to the title of the thread though and ignoring the whole community vibe. I reckon cyclists/runners are propably more superior compared to the general population when it comes to the risk against COVID. Majority of deaths are in 50+ with health issues. Majority of regular cyclists probably do not have those health issues, well besides Chris Froome and his Asthma. Vetplant 1
River Rat Posted June 5, 2020 Posted June 5, 2020 yes you're cherry picking and haven't read or understood the report in its entirety. "In community " refers to going to the shop or other socialized activity in communities. It does NOT refer to aerobic or anaerobic exercise anywhere.The focus of the study is also not to find a definitive proof but to provide a direction around certain guidelines that are being promoted. It clearly states a proper randomised study is needed to fully understand the implications.But continue with the confirmation bias if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy in your moral high tower. as a doc said to me: "Do you want to get the virus while fit and healthy or after a mask induced asthma attack. Be Sensible about how you use it. Social distance is key." It is worse than I thought and there's no point of bringing logic to an outrage.
sias Posted June 5, 2020 Posted June 5, 2020 Hard Hat off to you Sias! Gold Mine? Which one?Yip, gold mine - Kusasalethu (Elandsrand) near Carletonville Mojoman 1
Fisan Posted June 5, 2020 Posted June 5, 2020 ...But continue with the confirmation bias if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy in your moral high tower.... Didn't you learn anything from Revenge of the Sith? In the end, the oke with the ^moral high tower ground survived but his mate who didn't listen almost died and ended up on ventilator support for the rest of his life.
Recommended Posts