Fear works.

Add the narcissistic virtue signalling and the government literally had an army pushing it for free.

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

This is obviously true. Something you would do well to bear in mind as you frequently struggle to recognise the truth.

In this case what that article actually said was simple. That a study in a hospital showed that infection rates for Covid, within the Hospital itself, did not materially change during a specific period, whether masks were worn by patients on not. It went on to say that this did not mean that masks were worthless.

Of course, being the Mail, it used a clickbait headline, which is then picked up by those with prejudicial views as confirmation of their biases.

They could be a multitude of reasons why that happened, with the level of infections rising and falling during the pandemic. So to draw any kind of broad brush conclusions from a single report is nonsensical. All the evidence will be compiled by our own detailed enquiry, and by others across the world, and any lessons to be learned on how to respond to a similar future incident will be learned from them.

Not from a Mail headline and certainly not from a bunch of zealots on a football forum.

Masks were used during a period of uncertainty and ignorance as much to reassure as to protect. A belt and braces approach to an unknown threat makes perfect sense to everyone, except those who believe they have the answer to everything.

If masks protected against bs I would wear one every time I read the Hol.

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.

The fear motive is one of the strongest. That's true.

When the vast majority of your population are afraid of a new threat you must do all you can to allay that fear.

Using masks was as much about that as any certainty they would work, although logic suggests restricting heavy viral loads being spread would help.

This wasn't using fear. It was responding to fear.

We will now hold an enquiry and learn the lessons. Best wait for that than think they have already been determined by the Mail.

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.

If we ever had a "lack of self-awareness" contest it would be one in which I would concede defeat immediately.

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.

And the biggest and most complete data-gathering exercises ever conducted on a population, gathering everything from medical records and mobile phone numbers, to seeing increases in population monitoring, including (but not limited to) increased CCTV, data-gathering at supermarket check-outs, the reduction in cash transactions, data-bases sharing information. etc.

I disengage, I turn the page.

That's the inevitable consequence of the technology being available. It's not the technology which is of concern but the use of the data it provides. Just so long as that improves our lives I am completely in favour of it. So long as you are a law-abiding citizen no-one has anything to fear. Those who scream about their privacy being invaded seem likely to me to be wanting to keep things private for dubious reasons. Unless all the data is made available to everyone, what does it matter? If it helps better decisions to be made, the personal price is nothing.

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.