Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 273 of 289 < 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 >

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 04 Jun 24 8.32am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Doctors and nurses are usually fully emotionally developed. We won't know the effects of masks on children for years. They weren’t required for children under 11 and exceptions were made for those who could not wear them easily. So I fail to see what the problem could possibly be. It didn’t last long and provided a form of comfort blanket reassurance to children and parents alike. I therefore think the idea of any “effect” becoming evident later is illusionary and nothing more than scaremongering. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 04 Jun 24 8.32am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Doctors and nurses are usually fully emotionally developed. We won't know the effects of masks on children for years.

They weren’t required for children under 11 and exceptions were made for those who could not wear them easily. So I fail to see what the problem could possibly be. It didn’t last long and provided a form of comfort blanket reassurance to children and parents alike. I therefore think the idea of any “effect” becoming evident later is illusionary and nothing more than scaremongering.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 04 Jun 24 9.43am
It's quite shameful and ignorant to take this position. Everyone with children saw what went on, firstly wearing masks for most of the day causes breathing issues for even perfectly healthy people. Most of those masks would have been cheap products and pointless anyway but the children were fed nonsense about safety the same with the public. Regardless there will have been mental issues both from being held back educationally....which has affects at a young age, to social effects, paranoia encouragement and the reinforcement of overly risk averse behaviour, which encourages neurotic tendencies. Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jun 2024 9.43am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

04 Jun 24 9.43am

It's quite shameful and ignorant to take this position.

Everyone with children saw what went on, firstly wearing masks for most of the day causes breathing issues for even perfectly healthy people.

Most of those masks would have been cheap products and pointless anyway but the children were fed nonsense about safety the same with the public.

Regardless there will have been mental issues both from being held back educationally....which has affects at a young age, to social effects, paranoia encouragement and the reinforcement of overly risk averse behaviour, which encourages neurotic tendencies.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jun 2024 9.43am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 04 Jun 24 11.57am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle They weren’t required for children under 11 and exceptions were made for those who could not wear them easily. So I fail to see what the problem could possibly be. It didn’t last long and provided a form of comfort blanket reassurance to children and parents alike. I therefore think the idea of any “effect” becoming evident later is illusionary and nothing more than scaremongering. [Link] Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 04 Jun 24 11.57am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

[Link]

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 04 Jun 24 12.27pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle They weren’t required for children under 11 and exceptions were made for those who could not wear them easily. So I fail to see what the problem could possibly be. It didn’t last long and provided a form of comfort blanket reassurance to children and parents alike. I therefore think the idea of any “effect” becoming evident later is illusionary and nothing more than scaremongering. In Scotland children over 5 were required to wear masks. How is it scaremongering to point something out after the event? If facemasks were so efficient then what was the transmission rate from unmasked children to older family members?
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

04 Jun 24 12.27pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

In Scotland children over 5 were required to wear masks.
How is it scaremongering to point something out after the event?
If facemasks were so efficient then what was the transmission rate from unmasked children to older family members?

Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare 04 Jun 24 3.34pm
[Link] "Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths". -uk telegraph
Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare

04 Jun 24 3.34pm

[Link]

"Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths". -uk telegraph

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 04 Jun 24 3.36pm
Originally posted by ASCPFC [Link] That is sensible advice which was followed. Trying to balance risk and reward is not a perfect science and even more difficult in a crisis. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 04 Jun 24 3.36pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

[Link]

That is sensible advice which was followed. Trying to balance risk and reward is not a perfect science and even more difficult in a crisis.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 04 Jun 24 3.40pm
Originally posted by eaglesdare [Link] "Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths". -uk telegraph So “could” many things. Research is never wasted so if done, and the vaccines eliminated as a contributing factor, as has been shown by other research, will you accept that as final? For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 04 Jun 24 3.40pm

Originally posted by eaglesdare

[Link]

"Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths". -uk telegraph

So “could” many things. Research is never wasted so if done, and the vaccines eliminated as a contributing factor, as has been shown by other research, will you accept that as final?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 04 Jun 24 3.48pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle In Scotland children over 5 were required to wear masks. How is it scaremongering to point something out after the event? If facemasks were so efficient then what was the transmission rate from unmasked children to older family members? I am unaware of the rules in Scotland, who always wanted to go one step further than England, but assume the same exceptions were allowed. Scaremongering that reduces people’s trust in the health advice they are given diminishes compliance. For situations involving everyone, everyone must follow the rules. This has little to do with the efficiency, or otherwise, of the original face masks in the Covid pandemic. It is more to do with the need to reassure the public and ensure their compliance with preventative measures. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 04 Jun 24 3.48pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

I am unaware of the rules in Scotland, who always wanted to go one step further than England, but assume the same exceptions were allowed. Scaremongering that reduces people’s trust in the health advice they are given diminishes compliance. For situations involving everyone, everyone must follow the rules.

This has little to do with the efficiency, or otherwise, of the original face masks in the Covid pandemic. It is more to do with the need to reassure the public and ensure their compliance with preventative measures.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 04 Jun 24 4.02pm
Anyone suffering breathing difficulties, child or not, was exempted from wearing a mask. We learned quickly what the limitations were and began to use different masks in different places. Or none at all when social distancing was protection enough. They were a belt and braces response to a crisis, which made people feel better, even if the actual protection was minimal. It was the closure of schools during the lockdowns that really impacted children. Not the masks. That was always problematic and a tricky decision which was reversed as quickly as possible and remedial steps taken. I very much doubt that more than very tiny numbers suffered anything more than a temporary feeling of isolation, which has by now been fully overcome. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 04 Jun 24 4.02pm

Anyone suffering breathing difficulties, child or not, was exempted from wearing a mask. We learned quickly what the limitations were and began to use different masks in different places. Or none at all when social distancing was protection enough. They were a belt and braces response to a crisis, which made people feel better, even if the actual protection was minimal.

It was the closure of schools during the lockdowns that really impacted children. Not the masks. That was always problematic and a tricky decision which was reversed as quickly as possible and remedial steps taken. I very much doubt that more than very tiny numbers suffered anything more than a temporary feeling of isolation, which has by now been fully overcome.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 04 Jun 24 6.30pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I am unaware of the rules in Scotland, who always wanted to go one step further than England, but assume the same exceptions were allowed. Scaremongering that reduces people’s trust in the health advice they are given diminishes compliance. For situations involving everyone, everyone must follow the rules. This has little to do with the efficiency, or otherwise, of the original face masks in the Covid pandemic. It is more to do with the need to reassure the public and ensure their compliance with preventative measures. Yes, compliance. That magic word which convinced people they needed a mask standing up in a restaurant but not sitting down or that their unmasked child couldn't pass Covid on to them.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

04 Jun 24 6.30pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Yes, compliance. That magic word which convinced people they needed a mask standing up in a restaurant but not sitting down or that their unmasked child couldn't pass Covid on to them.

Alert a moderator to this post

Eden Eagle Kent 04 Jun 24 7.28pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Anyone suffering breathing difficulties, child or not, was exempted from wearing a mask. We learned quickly what the limitations were and began to use different masks in different places. Or none at all when social distancing was protection enough. They were a belt and braces response to a crisis, which made people feel better, even if the actual protection was minimal. It was the closure of schools during the lockdowns that really impacted children. Not the masks. That was always problematic and a tricky decision which was reversed as quickly as possible and remedial steps taken. I very much doubt that more than very tiny numbers suffered anything more than a temporary feeling of isolation, which has by now been fully overcome. You are spouting some ignorant nonsense on this point WE!
Alert a moderator to this post

Eden Eagle

Kent 04 Jun 24 7.28pm