Government's attitude and guidance to the wearing of facemasks is appalling

Cdebru

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
6,646
I have heard him saying on numerous occasions that one should act as though one is infected. His message has been consistent - wearing a face covering protects the people around the wearer.
He has not been consistent, time you gave up on that one, I have shown you him specifically saying that people not infected should not wear masks, you are embarrassing yourself at this stage trying to pretend he said or meant something different. Luke O'Neil is part of the problem around masks and IMO should never be referenced as to what we should be doing one way or the other, the fact that he is not taken to task by Pat Kenny and others on this undermines their moaning on the subject as well.
The guy has zero credibility on masks at least.
 


ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
52,503
He has not been consistent, time you gave up on that one, I have shown you him specifically saying that people not infected should not wear masks, you are embarrassing yourself at this stage trying to pretend he said or meant something different. Luke O'Neil is part of the problem around masks and IMO should never be referenced as to what we should be doing one way or the other, the fact that he is not taken to task by Pat Kenny and others on this undermines their moaning on the subject as well.
The guy has zero credibility on masks at least.
Oh dear. He has said that infected people should wear them. He has said that we should all assume that we are infected.
 

Cdebru

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
6,646
Oh dear. He has said that infected people should wear them. He has said that we should all assume that we are infected.
Really this is the hill you want to die on ?

I am actually embarrassed for you at this stage, come on you are better than this ? The mental gymnastics to try and maintain that Luke O'Neil has been consistent are beyond ridiculous.

Again

At 1:05 he specifically says

" if you are not infected no reason to wear a face mask" this was neither qualified or clarified as meaning anything other than the commonly understood meaning of the words he actually said.

That is the clear advice he gave the nation, he should shut up and say nothing else on the matter and let actual experts make the case who have not embarrassed themselves by giving conflicting advice and pretending they never gave the first advice.
 

fat finger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
2,676
Who should not wear (a cloth face mask)

Cloth face coverings are not suitable for children under the age of 13 and anyone who:
  • has trouble breathing
  • is unconscious or incapacitated
  • is unable to remove it without help
  • has special needs and who may feel upset or very uncomfortable wearing the face covering
Do not criticise or judge people who are not able to wear a face covering.


 

fat finger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
2,676
The HEALTH ACT 1947 (SECTION 31A – TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS)(COVID-19) (FACE COVERINGS ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT) REGULATIONS 2020 take effect today and remain in effect until 5th October.
To justify the mandatory wearing of face masks by passengers on public transport, the minister of health draws on the enabling legislation that allows the regulations to be introduced for the risk to human life and public health posed by the spread of covid-19. The risk must be
  • immediate
  • exceptional
  • manifest.
But how is the risk immediate? The chance of dying by catching coronavirus on a bus is still very low for all passengers, probably much lower than dying by bus or rail crash.

How is the risk exceptional? The risk of catching covid-19 has been 'the new normal' for several months, it is no longer exceptional (that argument might have held had the regulations been introduced as soon as the virus arrived in Ireland, several months ago, but it no longer holds now).
In addition, the chance of catching covid-19 on public transport is no higher than many other shared public spaces, and is still so low that despite several months of the virus the authorities have still not formulated typical probabilities for catching it. To justify claiming the risk is exceptional, legislation would have to mandate the wearing of masks in all other public spaces. But it doesn't.

And how is the risk manifest? By individual experience and reports in the media, many people have said they still only know about a handful of cases of the disease, mostly not at all serious or fatal, many cases being people they don't even know ('the sister of a guy at work').
Only a minority of the population can still say (after several months of fearmongering by RTE etc) that the risk has been manifest in their life (manifest in serious, life threatening way, not in the 'got a bad bout of it and was off sick for two weeks' way like you'd have with the flu).

Take away those infected who were already suffering from serious illness, or those in the well-known high risk categories (who should take their own precautionary measures), the virus has since the beginning represented little threat to the population of this country.
Forcing masks onto all of us (except certain categories who are just as likely to transmit the virus) compounds the original horrible mistake of locking us all down, with all the horrible economic and social damage that has resulted.
These regulations are not helpful because they criminalise members of the public for behaviour that is normal, reasonable and safe (i.e. maintaining distance from other passengers the same way as in other shared public spaces), introducing them was a bad idea, for the minister, the government and the rest of us October 5th the day of their lifting cannot come to soon.
 
Last edited:

greencharade

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2019
Messages
764
The HEALTH ACT 1947 (SECTION 31A – TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS)(COVID-19) (FACE COVERINGS ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT) REGULATIONS 2020 take effect today and remain in effect until 5th October.
To justify the mandatory wearing of face masks by passengers on public transport, the minister of health draws on the enabling legislation that allows the regulations to be introduced for the risk to human life and public health posed by the spread of covid-19. The risk must be
  • immediate
  • exceptional
  • manifest.
But how is the risk immediate? The chance of dying by catching coronavirus on a bus is still very low for all passengers, probably much lower than dying by bus or rail crash.

How is the risk exceptional? The risk of catching covid-19 has been 'the new normal' for several months, it is no longer exceptional (that argument might have held had the regulations been introduced as soon as the virus arrived in Ireland, several months ago, but it no longer holds now).
In addition, the chance of catching covid-19 on public transport is no higher than many other shared public spaces, and is still so low that despite several months of the virus the authorities have still not formulated typical probabilities for catching it. To justify claiming the risk is exceptional, legislation would have to mandate the wearing of masks in all other public spaces. But it doesn't.

And how is the risk manifest? By individual experience and reports in the media, many people have said they still only know about a handful of cases of the disease, mostly not at all serious or fatal, many cases being people they don't even know ('the sister of a guy at work').
Only a minority of the population can still say (after several months of fearmongering by RTE etc) that the risk has been manifest in their life (manifest in serious, life threatening way, not in the 'got a bad bout of it and was off sick for two weeks' way like you'd have with the flu).

Take away those infected who were already suffering from serious illness, or those in the well-known high risk categories (who should take their own precautionary measures), the virus has since the beginning represented little threat to the population of this country.
Forcing masks onto all of us (except certain categories who are just as likely to transmit the virus) compounds the original horrible mistake of locking us all down, with all the horrible economic and social damage that has resulted.
These regulations are not helpful because they criminalise members of the public for behaviour that is normal, reasonable and safe (i.e. maintaining distance from other passengers the same way as in other shared public spaces), introducing them was a bad idea, for the minister, the government and the rest of us October 5th the day of their lifting cannot come to soon.
Your argument is entirely reasonable.

Can it reasonably be taken before the courts to have this rectified by the ordinary person? - no chance.
 

bactrian

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2004
Messages
1,360
The HEALTH ACT 1947 (SECTION 31A – TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS)(COVID-19) (FACE COVERINGS ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT) REGULATIONS 2020 take effect today and remain in effect until 5th October.
To justify the mandatory wearing of face masks by passengers on public transport, the minister of health draws on the enabling legislation that allows the regulations to be introduced for the risk to human life and public health posed by the spread of covid-19. The risk must be
  • immediate
  • exceptional
  • manifest.
But how is the risk immediate? The chance of dying by catching coronavirus on a bus is still very low for all passengers, probably much lower than dying by bus or rail crash.

How is the risk exceptional? The risk of catching covid-19 has been 'the new normal' for several months, it is no longer exceptional (that argument might have held had the regulations been introduced as soon as the virus arrived in Ireland, several months ago, but it no longer holds now).
In addition, the chance of catching covid-19 on public transport is no higher than many other shared public spaces, and is still so low that despite several months of the virus the authorities have still not formulated typical probabilities for catching it. To justify claiming the risk is exceptional, legislation would have to mandate the wearing of masks in all other public spaces. But it doesn't.

And how is the risk manifest? By individual experience and reports in the media, many people have said they still only know about a handful of cases of the disease, mostly not at all serious or fatal, many cases being people they don't even know ('the sister of a guy at work').
Only a minority of the population can still say (after several months of fearmongering by RTE etc) that the risk has been manifest in their life (manifest in serious, life threatening way, not in the 'got a bad bout of it and was off sick for two weeks' way like you'd have with the flu).

Take away those infected who were already suffering from serious illness, or those in the well-known high risk categories (who should take their own precautionary measures), the virus has since the beginning represented little threat to the population of this country.
Forcing masks onto all of us (except certain categories who are just as likely to transmit the virus) compounds the original horrible mistake of locking us all down, with all the horrible economic and social damage that has resulted.
These regulations are not helpful because they criminalise members of the public for behaviour that is normal, reasonable and safe (i.e. maintaining distance from other passengers the same way as in other shared public spaces), introducing them was a bad idea, for the minister, the government and the rest of us October 5th the day of their lifting cannot come to soon.

"immediate" : An infected person(on a bus) could transmit the infection to another person(on the bus) . The symptoms may not become apparent for a number of days , but the infection will have been transmitted on the bus.

"exceptional": This refers to an increase in risk (to health) beyond that which would normally be found in daily living.
(The "New normal" is descriptive of the effect of the virus on our daily life).

"manifest": means "clear or obvious": The death of 1746(to date) people in Ireland is a clear and obvious manifestation of the Risk.

Within reason you are entitled to undertake risk in your life, you however are not entitled to be a selfish git and put others at risk just because you have a self-important notion .
 
Last edited:

greencharade

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2019
Messages
764
"immediate" : An infected person(on a bus) could transmit the infection to another person(on the bus) . The symptoms may not become apparent for a number of days , but the infection will have been transmitted on the bus.

"exceptional": This refers to an increase in risk (to health) beyond that which would normally be found in daily living.
(The "New normal" is descriptive of the effect of the virus on our daily life).

"manifest": means "clear or obvious": The death of 1746(to date) people in Ireland is a clear and obvious manifestation of the Risk.

Within reason you are entitled to undertake risk in your life, you however are not entitled to be a selfish git and put others at risk just because you have a self-important notion .
Everything has some risk associated with it. You are not entitled to assert that your risk aversion should be imposed upon me or anyone else. Nor are you entitled to assert that everyone you meet will infect you.

I doubt many significant things have a risk of 0.000003 per million, as is the daily risk of being a confirmed covid case today in Ireland.

It is preposterous that many aspects of society are still shut down, and those that have opened are behaving as if everyone has the plague.
 

fat finger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
2,676
Despite what media will have you believe, the regulations introduced yesterday do NOT require passengers to wear a 'mask' on public transport. In fact the regulations do not refer to masks at all.
Instead, passengers are only required to wear a 'face covering' which is described in the regulations as "a covering of any type which when worn by a person covers the person’s nose and mouth", so a scarf, paper bag or large handkerchief will do the job no problem, and probably better than the badly fitting paper masks that have started littering the countryside spreading who knows what germs everywhere.
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
34,055
I know you are in the Alps.

I've watched these - beautiful scenery
Yes that's it. And yes the scenery is breathtaking. They didn't jump from the very top though. And I paid extra for them each to be 'go pro' filmed. (I've gone a bit mad altogether this year as I've decided life is for living) I went up in the gondola/lift thing with them and I was filming them getting geared up etc but I was terrified to look down even though it wasn't a sheer drop where the paragliders jump. It's got to do with my mummy hormones I reckon. Of course I'm so nervous I sometimes forget not to cover the camera lens on my ipad. And those film clips of the top, that's what it felt like when you go up and walk along. The mountainey men think I'm a woose of course but they are very nice. They were great with the kids. And also great with me when we went rafting a couple of years ago and the man instantly recognised my fears.

One funny thing that happened is we were walking thru an alpine meadow where the kids had been before on their own a couple of days previously and they said there were hundreds of goats there with a fence etc. So I thought they had the wrong meadow, but the day I came upon the goats in a different ski lift when I was on my own with my husband (we took the easy route that day), they move goats and fences around but I hadn't realised. So I took pictures on my new phone. I could post up one if I could figure out how to do that. LOL.
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
34,055
That is the clear advice he gave the nation, he should shut up and say nothing else on the matter and let actual experts make the case who have not embarrassed themselves by giving conflicting advice and pretending they never gave the first advice.
Would that not be every expert?
 

bactrian

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2004
Messages
1,360
Everything has some risk associated with it. You are not entitled to assert that your risk aversion should be imposed upon me or anyone else. Nor are you entitled to assert that everyone you meet will infect you.

I doubt many significant things have a risk of 0.000003 per million, as is the daily risk of being a confirmed covid case today in Ireland.

It is preposterous that many aspects of society are still shut down, and those that have opened are behaving as if everyone has the plague.
Indeed we all run risks every day and we all assess those risks . That assessment takes into account a number of factors including
A. The likelihood of the the event happening
B. The Consequences , if the event happens.


(i).A person who contracts Covid _19 may be asymtomatic and endure no discomfort
(ii).A person who contracts Covid _19 may be have only mild symptoms and only mild discomfort
(iii).A person who contracts Covid _19 may have severe symptoms and require hospitalisation.
(iv).A person who contracts Covid _19 may suffer post Covid consequences which severely impact of their life
(v).A person who contracts Covid _19 may die.



The idea that someone who contracts the virus will be sick (possibly even very severely)for a few weeks and then get over it is nonsense. It is now becoming apparent that many are suffering longterm consequences and damage post Covid.

Climb down from your self-entitled , egocentric horse and consider that while you may not be likely to get the disease , others have and will get the virus, and are at risk of longterm life changing consequences
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
34,055
According to the BBC the experts think that in the winter there could be between 24,000 and 250,000 deaths in the UK from Covid. It doesn't mention if everybody wear masks has any effect on the figures.


they suggest a range between 24,500 and 251,000 of virus-related deaths in hospitals alone

Can hospitals actually cope with that number of sick people all of a sudden.
 

fat finger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
2,676
According to the BBC the experts think that in the winter there could be between 24,000 and 250,000 deaths in the UK from Covid. It doesn't mention if everybody wear masks has any effect on the figures.

they suggest a range between 24,500 and 251,000 of virus-related deaths in hospitals alone

Can hospitals actually cope with that number of sick people all of a sudden.

Laughable that the bbc would report this without any mention of the first wave of fear superspreading by the London professor who predicted half a million deaths in the UK, bbc is as bad as RTE for superspreading and we need to know who those organisations are taking their orders from
 

bactrian

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2004
Messages
1,360
Laughable that the bbc would report this without any mention of the first wave of fear superspreading by the London professor who predicted half a million deaths in the UK, bbc is as bad as RTE for superspreading and we need to know who those organisations are taking their orders from
To date there have been 44,830 deaths in the UK confirmed to be caused by Covid_19 , but you, think that it' s all a con.
It's a conspiracy ( "and we need to know who those organisations are taking their orders from ")

Your tag-line says it all "End Coronabogus Now!

You will not be argued out of your idiocy ,and I'm not going to try.
 

greencharade

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2019
Messages
764
Laughable that the bbc would report this without any mention of the first wave of fear superspreading by the London professor who predicted half a million deaths in the UK, bbc is as bad as RTE for superspreading and we need to know who those organisations are taking their orders from
Same tactic as with the climate scam - create a model, generate a worst case scenario, promote to achieve your fear propagation goal. Project Fear II/III/IV etc.

What the underlying objective is can only be surmised - though the implementation of the desired "new normal" might be one. Another might be the cowing of the populace to accept whatever else is going on without question - the passivation of the populace in the face of wealth extraction by the aristocratic "experts" of the public sector, for example.
 

bactrian

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2004
Messages
1,360
Same tactic as with the climate scam - create a model, generate a worst case scenario, promote to achieve your fear propagation goal. Project Fear II/III/IV etc.

What the underlying objective is can only be surmised - though the implementation of the desired "new normal" might be one. Another might be the cowing of the populace to accept whatever else is going on without question - the passivation of the populace in the face of wealth extraction by the aristocratic "experts" of the public sector, for example.
Conspiracy theories abound and fools who follow them.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom