Coronavirus

[duncs500]

If you click into the link there's a caption on the image, it's not a real mask it just looks like one.

what a bizarre concept!

It probably does do something though. If you can't see through it, it can block out light, so it probably blocks out other things too.

[jamcg]

If you click into the link there's a caption on the image, it's not a real mask it just looks like one.

It’s still a fabric face covering, so will be better than nothing and stop her firing droplets everywhere, so not sure how she thinks it’s not a mask? Yeah it’s not ffp3 level of filtration but it’s still following the rules for uk at least

[Beany]

If you click into the link there's a caption on the image, it's not a real mask it just looks like one.

It lets you breathe, just like...a real mask?

And it'll reduce the amount of phlegm you're spraying about just by it's nature, just like....a real mask?

I think that Etsy store owner might be the greatest troll in that thread.

Edit - balls, browsing on mobile, didn't notice the new page, literally repeated what your two have said

[Broccers]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... l#comments

[Beany]

Ah, a link to the daily mail. I'm sure it will be objective to a fault and absolutely not editorialised to a level that Goebbels would tip his hat to.

[Broccers]

Ah, a link to the daily mail. I'm sure it will be objective to a fault and absolutely not editorialised to a level that Goebbels would tip his hat to.

Comments are pretty disturbing. But if true then the fact 36000 people got c19 inside hospital during the first wave is quite astonishing.

[Beany]

Daily Mail and 'facts' are going to require far more research to back up than I'm comfortable doing at 10pm on a Friday night after s bottle of cheap red.

Best in mind the DM is owned by people who want the sell the NHS off, then consider that story in a more cynical light, eh?

[Broccers]

Daily Mail and 'facts' are going to require far more research to back up than I'm comfortable doing at 10pm on a Friday night after s bottle of cheap red.

Best in mind the DM is owned by people who want the sell the NHS off, then consider that story in a more cynical light, eh?

The source is SAGE, experts apparently in everything related so must be true

Enjoy your cheap vino, probably good for keeping away nasty bugs

[Beany]

I think this stuff would make a pretty decent drain cleaner, albeit a fairly tasty one

[Jobbo]

Daily Mail and 'facts' are going to require far more research to back up than I'm comfortable doing at 10pm on a Friday night after s bottle of cheap red.

Best in mind the DM is owned by people who want the sell the NHS off, then consider that story in a more cynical light, eh?

The source is SAGE, experts apparently in everything related so must be true

Enjoy your cheap vino, probably good for keeping away nasty bugs

The source is the Daily Mail, since that’s what you’ve linked to. I can’t find the SAGE report they refer to. I am sure some sort of report exists, but the Mail put their own spin on everything and are quite often simply wrong. That’s the problem with cutting journalists and focussing on the Hello/OK market.

ETA: found it - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... t_wave.pdf

What is scandalous about analysing what was known last year based on what is known now? That’s just scientific method. That ‘40%’ figure quoted by the Mail is utterly misleading. Towards the end the report states:
“the complete prevention of nosocomial transmission would have led to approximately 1% impact on the number of infections in the English epidemic overall.”

[Broccers]

Daily Mail and 'facts' are going to require far more research to back up than I'm comfortable doing at 10pm on a Friday night after s bottle of cheap red.

Best in mind the DM is owned by people who want the sell the NHS off, then consider that story in a more cynical light, eh?

The source is SAGE, experts apparently in everything related so must be true

Enjoy your cheap vino, probably good for keeping away nasty bugs

The source is the Daily Mail, since that’s what you’ve linked to. I can’t find the SAGE report they refer to. I am sure some sort of report exists, but the Mail put their own spin on everything and are quite often simply wrong. That’s the problem with cutting journalists and focussing on the Hello/OK market.

ETA: found it - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... t_wave.pdf

What is scandalous about analysing what was known last year based on what is known now? That’s just scientific method. That ‘40%’ figure quoted by the Mail is utterly misleading. Towards the end the report states:
“the complete prevention of nosocomial transmission would have led to approximately 1% impact on the number of infections in the English epidemic overall.”

Thanks for looking. My posts hint at disbelief from all parties. Don't believe any of the spin these days as it's not completely factual or balanced.

How about these irish getting dentist appointments to be able to go to Tenerife? Sneaky buggers. Also Tenerife isnt on the red list so we can get all sorts from all over coming in from their hols. Not very well thought out scheme the latest one kicking in Monday.

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/202 ... us-travel/

[Foz]

[Simon]

It's hard to argue against his points.

[Rich B]

Except look what happened with Xmas. There's huge criticism of the approach taken allowing mixing purely because its "Xmas". If they suggest the same for Easter then the criticism will be 10x worse.

[Simon]

Yes I agree. But now we have the vaccines rolling out. By end of April all the over 50's and the vulnerables from all age groups will have been done. I'm not going to accept not seeing my folks etc from 1st May onwards. I just won't accept that.

[Rich B]

Ok, don't accept it then!

[Simon]

[Jobbo]

The source is SAGE, experts apparently in everything related so must be true

Enjoy your cheap vino, probably good for keeping away nasty bugs

The source is the Daily Mail, since that’s what you’ve linked to. I can’t find the SAGE report they refer to. I am sure some sort of report exists, but the Mail put their own spin on everything and are quite often simply wrong. That’s the problem with cutting journalists and focussing on the Hello/OK market.

ETA: found it - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... t_wave.pdf

What is scandalous about analysing what was known last year based on what is known now? That’s just scientific method. That ‘40%’ figure quoted by the Mail is utterly misleading. Towards the end the report states:
“the complete prevention of nosocomial transmission would have led to approximately 1% impact on the number of infections in the English epidemic overall.”

Thanks for looking. My posts hint at disbelief from all parties. Don't believe any of the spin these days as it's not completely factual or balanced.

Spin? You posted a Daily Mail link, I posted the scientific report. Only one of those contains spin.

Your posts hint at credulity

[Broccers]

The source is the Daily Mail, since that’s what you’ve linked to. I can’t find the SAGE report they refer to. I am sure some sort of report exists, but the Mail put their own spin on everything and are quite often simply wrong. That’s the problem with cutting journalists and focussing on the Hello/OK market.

ETA: found it - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... t_wave.pdf

What is scandalous about analysing what was known last year based on what is known now? That’s just scientific method. That ‘40%’ figure quoted by the Mail is utterly misleading. Towards the end the report states:
“the complete prevention of nosocomial transmission would have led to approximately 1% impact on the number of infections in the English epidemic overall.”

Thanks for looking. My posts hint at disbelief from all parties. Don't believe any of the spin these days as it's not completely factual or balanced.

Spin? You posted a Daily Mail link, I posted the scientific report. Only one of those contains spin.

Your posts hint at credulity

Both can be inaccurate, the mail mostly it is

[unzippy]

Past Year - "Look at New Zealand, look how well their doing on COVID. Just shows how inept our Political leaders are"

UK introduces 5% of New Zealand's measures - OUTRAGOUS!!!!!

Genuine LOL.

Also Victoria in Aussie are back into a 5day Lvl4 lockdown tonight - zero fucking about. I don't get how people can still think the full on measures are a bad idea.

Birthday dinner at https://escagrill.com.au/, cancelled