To mask or not to mask

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I therefore don't wear a mask, as it's clear to me that my lifestyle, work and general way of life suggests my chances of catching Covid-19 are significantly less than being run over in the car park outside work!

You can see a car, but you need an electron microscope to see a virus.
But the point has been made many times: you don't wear a mask to protect yourself. You do so to protect others.

[Sir Velo]

. I therefore don't wear a mask, as it's clear to me that my lifestyle, work and general way of life suggests my chances of catching Covid-19 are significantly less than being run over in the car park outside work!

Yes, but how are the rest of us supposed to know this? Do you go around with a T Shirt emblazoned with "I'm double jabbed and tested daily for COVID" on it? The problem is that people who have COVID don't have green faces, or three arms and legs you know.

That's actually part of the point of wearing a mask, a mark of courtesy and respect for others who may be more vulnerable than ourselves and who have no way of knowing who is infectious. So wear a mask and be a sensible chap, like I'm sure underneath the bluster you are!

[kernelbogey]

That's actually part of the point of wearing a mask, a mark of courtesy and respect for others who may be more vulnerable than ourselves and who have no way of knowing who is infectious.

[Andrew]

You can see a car, but you need an electron microscope to see a virus.
But the point has been made many times: you don't wear a mask to protect yourself. You do so to protect others.

Good analogy (I must say, this thread does have many good ones!) BUT unfortunately people are still run over with monotonous regularity, suggesting that seeing the problem doesn't make an awful lot of difference. In addition, the "wearing a mask to protect others" remark presupposes that the wearer has the virus, and I don't, so it's meaningless. A subsequent post points out that those double jabbed and regularly tested don't wear T-shirts stating this and, you're right, they don't. What many are doing is NOT wearing a mask, to indicate that they're sufficiently confident in their own health, the measures they've taken to avoid catching it and their overall attitude to not feel the need to wear one. In fact, it might be said that those still wearing the masks are indicating that they ARE infected and are preventing those healthy members of the community from catching it! (But that might be seen as disingenuous.....)

[kernelbogey]

In addition, the "wearing a mask to protect others" remark presupposes that the wearer has the virus, and I don't, so it's meaningless.

It's my understanding that one can be asymptomatic and yet infectious; and that one can be infected simply passing an unmasked infected person in the street.

[Pianoman]

Good analogy (I must say, this thread does have many good ones!) BUT unfortunately people are still run over with monotonous regularity, suggesting that seeing the problem doesn't make an awful lot of difference. In addition, the "wearing a mask to protect others" remark presupposes that the wearer has the virus, and I don't, so it's meaningless. A subsequent post points out that those double jabbed and regularly tested don't wear T-shirts stating this and, you're right, they don't. What many are doing is NOT wearing a mask, to indicate that they're sufficiently confident in their own health, the measures they've taken to avoid catching it and their overall attitude to not feel the need to wear one. In fact, it might be said that those still wearing the masks are indicating that they ARE infected and are preventing those healthy members of the community from catching it! (But that might be seen as disingenuous.....)

Well put

[french frank]

What many are doing is NOT wearing a mask, to indicate that they're sufficiently confident in their own health, the measures they've taken to avoid catching it and their overall attitude to not feel the need to wear one.

It doesn't really indicate that, does it? It can indicate that even though they haven't been jabbed at all (and maybe have no intention of being), have taken no tests of any kind but are nevertheless "confident" (with no evidence to support it) that their chance of being infected is minute. And anyway, it's a matter of personal choice, isn't it? Yes, for an individual the risk is small, but it was also small for the many people who did get the infection - and spread it around. That's why the advice is to keep wearing a mask indoors and in crowded places. And to comply when politely requested to wear a mask.

[AuntDaisy]

That's why the advice is to keep wearing a mask indoors and in crowded places. And to comply when politely requested to wear a mask.

Unless you're in the cabinet.

[french frank]

Unless you're in the cabinet.

It's still the government/health officials' advice! But there are always some - it shows how political/partisan it has become.

[AuntDaisy]

It's still the government/health officials' advice! But there are always some - it shows how political/partisan it has become.

Yes. No mexed massiging from this fine Government.

[oddoneout]

Good analogy (I must say, this thread does have many good ones!) BUT unfortunately people are still run over with monotonous regularity, suggesting that seeing the problem doesn't make an awful lot of difference. In addition, the "wearing a mask to protect others" remark presupposes that the wearer has the virus, and I don't, so it's meaningless. A subsequent post points out that those double jabbed and regularly tested don't wear T-shirts stating this and, you're right, they don't. What many are doing is NOT wearing a mask, to indicate that they're sufficiently confident in their own health, the measures they've taken to avoid catching it and their overall attitude to not feel the need to wear one. In fact, it might be said that those still wearing the masks are indicating that they ARE infected and are preventing those healthy members of the community from catching it! (But that might be seen as disingenuous.....)

A person seeing the car is only half of the issue, the driver of the car also needs to see the person, and both parties need not only to respond accordingly, but also be able to do so. So two parties are involved, neither of which has direct control over the other, not dissimilar indeed to the mask/not mask issue.
As for your last sentence yes, you could suggest that, but actually isn't it more accurate to interpret it as "I'm probably not infectious but prefer not to assume as my error could be someone else's illness".
I'm recommended to test twice weekly for my job (not mandatory) but since I'm casual staff(not working every day/ week) and have no close or confined space contact with the public I've not done so but do wear a mask indoors which is required, and even if not would be personal preference for those spaces I share with colleagues occasionally. The resumption of choir rehearsals has changed the situation so that now I will be testing each week before attending since that is a different set-up in terms of numbers, space, exposure time . The tests can only indicate the situation on the day, so in the period before the next test I can't guarantee I won't pass on the virus, although obviously the risk is very small when fully (and effectively) vaccinated.
But that is just my response; those I work with, and fellow choir members, all have their own take depending on their interpretation or individual circumstances.

[DracoM]

It's still the government/health officials' advice! But there are always some - it shows how political/partisan it has become.

But if only ONE person in a crowded room decides ' to exercise my personal choice as a loyal UK citizen' and thus to unmask, that person could be both rebel and spreader, and bring misery to dozens, and indeed potentially far more than dozens.

I live in a very much visited tourist destination. I intend to remain masked outdoors for a VERY long time.

[cloughie]

It doesn't really indicate that, does it? It can indicate that even though they haven't been jabbed at all (and maybe have no intention of being), have taken no tests of any kind but are nevertheless "confident" (with no evidence to support it) that their chance of being infected is minute. And anyway, it's a matter of personal choice, isn't it? Yes, for an individual the risk is small, but it was also small for the many people who did get the infection - and spread it around. That's why the advice is to keep wearing a mask indoors and in crowded places. And to comply when politely requested to wear a mask.

As was the case on Scilly last week when on one of the crowded boats going to one of the islands all on board follwed the request - though one young couple interpreted it as wearing the mask with nose uncovered - now whether they though this was fashionable or they always breathe through their mouths or maybe as is the case with some holiday makers they had left their brains at home!

[Prommer]

But if only ONE person in a crowded room decides ' to exercise my personal choice as a loyal UK citizen' and thus to unmask, that person could be both rebel and spreader, and bring misery to dozens, and indeed potentially far more than dozens.

I live in a very much visited tourist destination. I intend to remain masked outdoors for a VERY long time.

Double masking is recommended.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Good analogy (I must say, this thread does have many good ones!) BUT unfortunately people are still run over with monotonous regularity…

…though with much less frequency than those being infected with Covid-19.