A mask in your bike bag?

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
User avatar
foxyrider
Posts: 4998
Joined: 29 Aug 2011, 10:25am
Location: Sheffield, South Yorkshire

Re: A mask in your bike bag?

Postby foxyrider » 28 Jul 2020, 9:50pm

yes there is a mask in my bag 'just in case' i need to go in a shop or use the trains. So far its stayed in the bag.
Convention? what's that then?
Airnimal Chameleon touring, Orbit Pro hack, Orbit Photon audax, Focus Mares AX tour, Peugeot Carbon sportive, Owen Blower vintage race - all running Tulio's finest!

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3320
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: A mask in your bike bag?

Postby The utility cyclist » 28 Jul 2020, 11:03pm

No mask, don't wear one and will never be forced to wear one, given it's a request based on no science whatsoever it's ludicrous that so many sheeple are complying!
There's TWELVE times lower risk of dying WITH a positive for something (but not FROM) currently than the peak deaths FROM respiratory disease in 2018!
People talking about this that and the other and compliance but so much else that poses greater threat of harm to individuals and wider society/public health is ignored, the hypocrisy is staggering but not the least surprising from the brain dead in society.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 4674
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: A mask in your bike bag?

Postby Oldjohnw » 29 Jul 2020, 7:30am

The utility cyclist wrote:No mask, don't wear one and will never be forced to wear one, given it's a request based on no science whatsoever it's ludicrous that so many sheeple are complying!
There's TWELVE times lower risk of dying WITH a positive for something (but not FROM) currently than the peak deaths FROM respiratory disease in 2018!
People talking about this that and the other and compliance but so much else that poses greater threat of harm to individuals and wider society/public health is ignored, the hypocrisy is staggering but not the least surprising from the brain dead in society.


One day, I'm sure, the whole scientific and medical world will say, "He was right, after all".

Wearing a mask is not about you.
John

francovendee
Posts: 1462
Joined: 5 May 2009, 6:32am

Re: A mask in your bike bag?

Postby francovendee » 29 Jul 2020, 7:56am

Oldjohnw wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:No mask, don't wear one and will never be forced to wear one, given it's a request based on no science whatsoever it's ludicrous that so many sheeple are complying!
There's TWELVE times lower risk of dying WITH a positive for something (but not FROM) currently than the peak deaths FROM respiratory disease in 2018!
People talking about this that and the other and compliance but so much else that poses greater threat of harm to individuals and wider society/public health is ignored, the hypocrisy is staggering but not the least surprising from the brain dead in society.


One day, I'm sure, the whole scientific and medical world will say, "He was right, after all".

Wearing a mask is not about you.

I don't think that day will come!

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3319
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: A mask in your bike bag?

Postby Bmblbzzz » 29 Jul 2020, 12:05pm

The utility cyclist wrote:There's TWELVE times lower risk of dying WITH a positive for something (but not FROM) currently than the peak deaths FROM respiratory disease in 2018!

With a positive what for what thing? Your sentence doesn't make sense.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15820
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: A mask in your bike bag?

Postby mjr » 29 Jul 2020, 12:13pm

Bmblbzzz wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:There's TWELVE times lower risk of dying WITH a positive for something (but not FROM) currently than the peak deaths FROM respiratory disease in 2018!

With a positive what for what thing? Your sentence doesn't make sense.

Take it to the "arguing about stats" topic, please. Getting sense from TUC's half-quotes and misdirects is literally a whole discussion in itself.
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=136714
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

millimole
Posts: 596
Joined: 18 Feb 2007, 5:41pm
Location: Leicester

Re: A mask in your bike bag?

Postby millimole » 29 Jul 2020, 12:20pm

The utility cyclist wrote:No mask, don't wear one and will never be forced to wear one, given it's a request based on no science whatsoever it's ludicrous that so many sheeple are complying!
There's TWELVE times lower risk of dying WITH a positive for something (but not FROM) currently than the peak deaths FROM respiratory disease in 2018!
People talking about this that and the other and compliance but so much else that poses greater threat of harm to individuals and wider society/public health is ignored, the hypocrisy is staggering but not the least surprising from the brain dead in society.
I tend to agree that the scientific basis of mask wearing is somewhat shaky, and I certainly believe that there are other very serious public health issues that are ignored - and have been for a long time.
But unlike you I'm a rule taker, not a rule breaker. So, for a quiet life, and, on the basis that society is generally better for adherence to society's rules I'll be one of your sheep
Leicester; Riding my Hetchins since 1971; Audaxing on my Dawes; Riding to work on a Decathlon Hoprider

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3320
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: A mask in your bike bag?

Postby The utility cyclist » 29 Jul 2020, 1:03pm

Oldjohnw wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:No mask, don't wear one and will never be forced to wear one, given it's a request based on no science whatsoever it's ludicrous that so many sheeple are complying!
There's TWELVE times lower risk of dying WITH a positive for something (but not FROM) currently than the peak deaths FROM respiratory disease in 2018!
People talking about this that and the other and compliance but so much else that poses greater threat of harm to individuals and wider society/public health is ignored, the hypocrisy is staggering but not the least surprising from the brain dead in society.


One day, I'm sure, the whole scientific and medical world will say, "He was right, after all".

Wearing a mask is not about you.

Wearing masks is nothing to do with me or you or anyone else, it's not about public health in the slightest!

Not wearing is about standing up to the utter criminals using bunk science or no science whatsoever to force people against their will to do something that removes their innate rights. It's about all of us returning to what we had before, for all its flaws, what is happening now is sheer madness, it's also criminal and isn't based on anything except flawed science/methodology, many top scientists/experts globally have denounced the (over)reaction and the actual threat.
Masks/face coverings were solely brought in by Boris on the basis of giving shoppers more confidence, it does precisely the reverse.

There is no scientific logic behind face coverings, there's no evidence that face coverings are required or in fact serve any purpose except to aid a government in the sense of being seen to do something even if utterly pointless from a positive sense, this from a government that we know have absolutely no idea what they're doing and are unable to run the country, they rely on so called 'experts' whom are too @@@@ scared to actually think and use logic or proper science, or like Ferguson are known fantasists using modelling based on yet more flawed 'science'. he and ICL have loads of history of their fantasy modelling!

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3320
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: A mask in your bike bag?

Postby The utility cyclist » 29 Jul 2020, 1:07pm

Bmblbzzz wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:There's TWELVE times lower risk of dying WITH a positive for something (but not FROM) currently than the peak deaths FROM respiratory disease in 2018!

With a positive what for what thing? Your sentence doesn't make sense.

A positive for something, that means it could be anything, the test cannot isolate the alleged virus strain, we know this is a scientific fact, the test gives a positive for dead organic matter (admitted by WHO), so the positive could be a for a whole host of things that are not a virus strain described as SARS-COV-2, so the test tests a positive for something but we cannot be sure what that something is as false positives are so ridiculously frequent and no virus strain has been actually isolated using proper science.

Avail yourself of some actual proper science, not the BS coming out from various government/WHO controlled quarters.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3320
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: A mask in your bike bag?

Postby The utility cyclist » 29 Jul 2020, 1:10pm

millimole wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:No mask, don't wear one and will never be forced to wear one, given it's a request based on no science whatsoever it's ludicrous that so many sheeple are complying!
There's TWELVE times lower risk of dying WITH a positive for something (but not FROM) currently than the peak deaths FROM respiratory disease in 2018!
People talking about this that and the other and compliance but so much else that poses greater threat of harm to individuals and wider society/public health is ignored, the hypocrisy is staggering but not the least surprising from the brain dead in society.
I tend to agree that the scientific basis of mask wearing is somewhat shaky, and I certainly believe that there are other very serious public health issues that are ignored - and have been for a long time.
But unlike you I'm a rule taker, not a rule breaker. So, for a quiet life, and, on the basis that society is generally better for adherence to society's rules I'll be one of your sheep

I'm not breaking any rules, wearing a face covering is a request. There is no evidence that society is better for adherence, zero, in fact the actions/threats are doing massively more harm. Locking down and removing care in hospitals and in the community has done massively more harm, that's before you even get to killing off the economy and the half a trillion £ debt created!

Adhering to 'rules' that don't exist is part of the whole problem, happy clapping whilst ignoring facts, facts that actually is collated by a government organisation that proves the threat has never been more than any flu season.

Your not my sheep, you're one of the governments sheep.

Jdsk
Posts: 1309
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: A mask in your bike bag?

Postby Jdsk » 29 Jul 2020, 1:16pm

The utility cyclist wrote:There is no scientific logic behind face coverings...

"Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

Jonathan

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15820
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: A mask in your bike bag?

Postby mjr » 29 Jul 2020, 1:40pm

The utility cyclist wrote:I'm not breaking any rules, wearing a face covering is a request. There is no evidence that society is better for adherence, zero, in fact the actions/threats are doing massively more harm. Locking down and removing care in hospitals and in the community has done massively more harm, that's before you even get to killing off the economy and the half a trillion £ debt created!

It's a rule in some situations, brought in by law, and there is some evidence that it helps and less evidence that it harms - not conclusive yet, but a massive global experiment is currently underway!

Why not concentrate rallying support on the more definite failings in care and unnecessary ways that the economy has been harmed, rather than waste your time fanning the mask flames before there's anything conclusive to use on it? What are your priorities?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Phileas
Posts: 277
Joined: 18 Feb 2009, 6:12pm
Location: Bristol

Re: A mask in your bike bag?

Postby Phileas » 29 Jul 2020, 1:46pm

Jdsk wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:There is no scientific logic behind face coverings...

"Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

Jonathan

They’re lying (according to TUC):
The utility cyclist wrote:
Vorpal wrote:I guess 99% of scientists are wrong, yet again. [/sarcasm]

99% of scientists are too afraid to reveal the truth because they want to keep their jobs...

User avatar
NUKe
Posts: 3887
Joined: 23 Apr 2007, 11:07pm
Location: Suffolk

Re: A mask in your bike bag?

Postby NUKe » 29 Jul 2020, 1:49pm

the far eastern countries are very good at doing this , but they dont wear them because they are frightened of what they might get, but they dont want to pass on the virus if they are asymptomatic. Which is the way we should be thinking
NUKe
_____________________________________

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3319
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: A mask in your bike bag?

Postby Bmblbzzz » 29 Jul 2020, 2:31pm

The utility cyclist wrote:
Bmblbzzz wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:There's TWELVE times lower risk of dying WITH a positive for something (but not FROM) currently than the peak deaths FROM respiratory disease in 2018!

With a positive what for what thing? Your sentence doesn't make sense.

A positive for something, that means it could be anything, the test cannot isolate the alleged virus strain, we know this is a scientific fact, the test gives a positive for dead organic matter (admitted by WHO), so the positive could be a for a whole host of things that are not a virus strain described as SARS-COV-2, so the test tests a positive for something but we cannot be sure what that something is as false positives are so ridiculously frequent and no virus strain has been actually isolated using proper science.

Avail yourself of some actual proper science, not the BS coming out from various government/WHO controlled quarters.

There are three types of test for viral infection: for antigens, antibodies and the genetic matter of the virus itself. They are all specific to the virus being tested for. This doesn't mean they're necessarily reliable - that depends on how they're conducted, among other things - but the "dead organic matter" is very specific.