What's new

Coronavirus: Impact on Theme Parks

coasteraddict10

New Member
Why are people still pretending that Masks work even though it's now demonstrably false just from the case numbers after countries have implemented mask mandates? Also;


'There was no increase in wound infections when masks were discarded in I 980; in fact there was a significant (p<o.o5) decrease.'

'The conclusion is that the wearing of a mask has very little relevance to the wellbeing of patients undergoing routine general surgery and it is a standard practice that could be abandoned.'



'if masks did work then any difference in infection rates would be small when infection rates are low: assuming 20% asymptomatics and a risk reduction of 40% for wearing masks, 200 000 people would need to wear one to prevent one new infection per week.'

Also, note, asymptomatics are 80% of all cases.


If you want to wear one out of consideration for those around you who are still anxious about what's going on then feel perfectly free to do so.
 

Dar

Member

'if masks did work then any difference in infection rates would be small when infection rates are low: assuming 20% asymptomatics and a risk reduction of 40% for wearing masks, 200 000 people would need to wear one to prevent one new infection per week.'
Come on, if you're going to cherry pick a quote you could at least pick one further into the text, that actually says what you think it does. That document is from June, when the number of new cases in Norway was under 50, so the advice (for Norway) was based around that. It even says so in the sentence before the one you posted:

"Given the low prevalence of COVID-19 currently, even if facemasks are assumed to be effective, the difference in infection rates between using facemasks and not using facemasks would be small. " (emphasis added)

It even says in the conclusion (on the next page, not even that far away) that if the situation (in Norway) worsens, then masks should be considered:

"In the current epidemiological situation in Norway, wearing facemasks to reduce the spread of COVID-19 is not recommended for individuals in the community without respiratory symptoms who are not in near contact with people who are known to be infected. If the epidemiological situation worsens substantially in a geographical area, the use of facemasks as a precautionary measure should be reconsidered."

I'm not a scientician but our current cases of 6,000 is 'substantially worse' than 50.

If you want to wear one out of consideration for those around you who are still anxious about what's going on then feel perfectly free to do so.
Thank you your highness, I'll print this out to remind myself that it's OK to wear my mask, I'm just anxious about infecting all the old people that live in my village.
 

Nicky Borrill

Active Member
Come on, if you're going to cherry pick a quote you could at least pick one further into the text, that actually says what you think it does. That document is from June, when the number of new cases in Norway was under 50, so the advice (for Norway) was based around that. It even says so in the sentence before the one you posted:

"Given the low prevalence of COVID-19 currently, even if facemasks are assumed to be effective, the difference in infection rates between using facemasks and not using facemasks would be small. " (emphasis added)

It even says in the conclusion (on the next page, not even that far away) that if the situation (in Norway) worsens, then masks should be considered:

"In the current epidemiological situation in Norway, wearing facemasks to reduce the spread of COVID-19 is not recommended for individuals in the community without respiratory symptoms who are not in near contact with people who are known to be infected. If the epidemiological situation worsens substantially in a geographical area, the use of facemasks as a precautionary measure should be reconsidered."

I'm not a scientician but our current cases of 6,000 is 'substantially worse' than 50.



Thank you your highness, I'll print this out to remind myself that it's OK to wear my mask, I'm just anxious about infecting all the old people that live in my village.
Owned 😂😂😂

(Man I feel like a teenager again, haven’t used that phrase in quite some time... But it was just called for here!)

To add something constructive to the discussion, @coasteraddict10 I would argue that, at the moment at least, it seems not to be ‘demonstrably false’ at all. Otherwise how can you explain why doubling rates are nowhere near what they were?

Looking at the current rise, it’s taken 5 weeks and 5 days for cases to rise from a 7 day avg of 1052 on Aug 14th to 4501 on Sept 23rd.... 40 days!!!

Back before masks, It took just 2 weeks 6 days for cases to rise from a 7 day avg of 1087 on Mar 26th to 4885 on Apr 15th... Just 20 days...

In other words, the curve is currently rising half as quickly.

Obviously I’m aware there is more at play here, some immunity, more adherence to other distancing measures and so on... But it hardly supports your claim that the current rise is proof of masks being useless, does it?
 
Last edited:

coasteraddict10

New Member
Come on, if you're going to cherry pick a quote you could at least pick one further into the text, that actually says what you think it does. That document is from June, when the number of new cases in Norway was under 50, so the advice (for Norway) was based around that. It even says so in the sentence before the one you posted:

"Given the low prevalence of COVID-19 currently, even if facemasks are assumed to be effective, the difference in infection rates between using facemasks and not using facemasks would be small. " (emphasis added)

It even says in the conclusion (on the next page, not even that far away) that if the situation (in Norway) worsens, then masks should be considered:

"In the current epidemiological situation in Norway, wearing facemasks to reduce the spread of COVID-19 is not recommended for individuals in the community without respiratory symptoms who are not in near contact with people who are known to be infected. If the epidemiological situation worsens substantially in a geographical area, the use of facemasks as a precautionary measure should be reconsidered."

I'm not a scientician but our current cases of 6,000 is 'substantially worse' than 50.



Thank you your highness, I'll print this out to remind myself that it's OK to wear my mask, I'm just anxious about infecting all the old people that live in my village.
You know that the case numbers are meaningless due to the problems with the PCR tests right? Also convenient that you ignore the study on infections in surgery and the other article.

If you're not symptomatic you're not going to infect the old people in your village.
 

davidm

Well-Known Member
If you're not symptomatic you're not going to infect the old people in your village.
Ummm....

If you don't have the virus you are not going to infect the old people in the village.

If you do have the virus and you are symptomatic you are not going to infect the old people in the village because you are going to stay at home isolating like a good human being.

If you do have the virus and you are not symptomatic and you are wandering around your village without a mask, you might infect the old people in the village.

If you do have the virus and you are not symptomatic and you are wandering around your village wearing a mask, you are less likely to infect the old people in the village.
 

coasteraddict10

New Member
Owned 😂😂😂

(Man I feel like a teenager again, haven’t used that phrase in quite some time... But it was just called for here!)

To add something constructive to the discussion, @coasteraddict10 I would argue that, at the moment at least, it seems not to be ‘demonstrably false’ at all. Otherwise how can you explain why doubling rates are nowhere near what they were?

Looking at the current rise, it’s taken 5 weeks and 5 days for cases to rise from a 7 day avg of 1052 on Aug 14th to 4501 on Sept 23rd.... 40 days!!!

Back before masks, It took just 2 weeks 6 days for cases to rise from a 7 day avg of 1087 on Mar 26th to 4885 on Apr 15th... Just 20 days...

In other words, the curve is currently rising half as quickly.

Obviously I’m aware there is more at play here, some immunity, more adherence to other distancing measures and so on... But it hardly supports your claim that the current rise is proof of masks being useless, does it?
Now go look at other countries such as Czech Republic, Colombia, Argentina and many others who implemented mask mandate very early on and had massive outbreaks in the virus.

The reason why current cases are rising slower is because there's high immunity within the population so the virus has fewer options to spread too.

Ummm....

If you don't have the virus you are not going to infect the old people in the village.

If you do have the virus and you are symptomatic you are not going to infect the old people in the village because you are going to stay at home isolating like a good human being.

If you do have the virus and you are not symptomatic and you are wandering around your village without a mask, you might infect the old people in the village.

If you do have the virus and you are not symptomatic and you are wandering around your village wearing a mask, you are less likely to infect the old people in the village.
If you're asymptomatic you're not going to be infectious.
 

Hixee

Flojector
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Social Media Team
Whilst I disagree with your opinion about "needing to wear masks", you're entitled to hold it. However, stating that asymptomatic people can't be infections is just a simply incorrect fact. No opinion to be had here.

Asymptomatic people, of almost any infectious disease, can be infectious. They might be less-so than a symptomatic person, but they still can. Get your facts straight.
 

witchfinder

Member
Also convenient that you ignore the study on infections in surgery and the other article.
Maybe because that's pretty irrelevant. The possibility of infecting a wound due to not wearing a mask in surgery is completely different to the possibility of infecting other members of the population with an airborne virus due to not wearing a mask out in public. :rolleyes:

Also that PDF you linked was research done in 1981! A lot has happened since then 😆
 

Smithy

Well-Known Member
Look lads can we just ban this idiot?

Like, I'm all for letting people join and free speech and all that, but when you're outright spouting lies as facts, do you really deserve to be allowed to continue posting? Especially given the subject matter. Dis-information is a serious issue and some knobhead who's seen a few Facebook videos and suddenly thinks that equates his knowledge to that of epidemiologists is beyond laughable.
 

Will

Active Member
I'm going off this topic - it used to have some useful updates in, but for the last month or so has just been The Great [Mask] Debate

To throw in my two cents, as daft as it sounds, just buy a couple of washable ones, decorated with something you like. Suddenly, it feels like you're just wearing a hat or t-shirt, but doing your bit for society (and your friends and family!) at the same time. You can even get them as 'gooniform' if you so desire*

I hated the damned things when we were living in the era of throwaway blue things, but now the market's saturated with more comfortable and probably more effective products, I'm even used to having to demist my glasses every five minutes or so. They're also better for the environment than the throwaway blue things, if that's your thing.

*though please don't pay Merlin's prices
 

gad198

New Member
coasteraddict10 is making a point about masks that is easier to prove visually. The mask demonstrations start at the 7:30 mark:


Keep in mind that smoke particles are larger than virus particles, so if the overwhelming majority of masks are not effective containing smoke particles...
 

Edward M

Well-Known Member
coasteraddict10 is making a point about masks that is easier to prove visually. The mask demonstrations start at the 7:30 mark:


Keep in mind that smoke particles are larger than virus particles, so if the overwhelming majority of masks are not effective containing smoke particles...
Sorry grandma, I saw a video of a man vaping with a mask on, so it's time for you to die.

Why on God's green Earth does every person with an internet connection think they know more than the most renowned scientists in the world? Ya, this topic is gonna be tough one to try and keep disinformation out of. Block one guy, and another will just crawl out of the woodworks and replace him.
 

Nicky Borrill

Active Member
coasteraddict10 is making a point about masks that is easier to prove visually. The mask demonstrations start at the 7:30 mark:


Keep in mind that smoke particles are larger than virus particles, so if the overwhelming majority of masks are not effective containing smoke particles...
It’s not the particles that they are supposed to catch, it’s the droplets that contain large doses of the virus. The ones you exhale when coughing, sneezing or even talking. However as evident in that video, masks still help to reduce the distance at which even the smallest particles travel. This is why distancing is still important.


Interesting point to note though, did you know that Propylene Glycol used to make E-Liquid for E-Cigarettes has been used for decades to kill air borne viruses. Originally used in the 50’s (I think) in hospital air conditioning to keep viruses down, there’s lots of research going back to the 40’s on it’s effect on influenza and other viruses. None, that I know of, on covid... However perhaps instead of masks we should all be vaping like a trooper and exhaling clouds every time we breath 🙈😂😂😂






(P.s whilst interesting, and worth looking into if you’re bored this was also tongue in cheek, I know of zero research into covid and pg, so please don’t start trying to sanitise surfaces, room air or anything else with vapour)
 
Last edited:
Have to say I thought both videos were interesting and made valid points.
No one is a pandemic expert here (at least not that I know of). People are just roller coaster fans posting their views on something that has fundamentally changed our hobby this year.

I have no problem if the site owner would ban questioning of government advice.
I truly don't think it stops people from discussing it though. It just moves it away from here. If it upsets you too much or think people are too easily swayed by it, sure it is a valid point but it will just happen elsewhere I'm sure. See YouTube (or OurTube if you want to call it that now as it is appeasing to advertisers often) and the growth of BitChute.

It's interesting because much of the centralised traffic gained on Reddit, Twitter and Facebook seems to have come straight from forum post readers and writers over the last 10 years. If they crack down on certain speech there to appease to advertisers or government officials some or many people will just move to other platforms again. Maybe most discussion will be decentralised again soon.

Since mask wearing requirements are now prevalent everywhere in Theme Parks fully and / or in queue lines & rides (except The Netherlands it seems - anyone can explain that? - they even banned it on rides initially when parks opened!) I think this discussion was inevitable.
 
Last edited:

Hixee

Flojector
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Social Media Team
I think, @AndrewRollercoaster, you're right. But I do feel the need to stress again the point I made earlier in response to @coasteraddict10, and maybe this time formally state this for the record on behalf of CF.

Provided things are kept civil, I/we have no problem with the effectiveness of masks being discussed. There is a debate as to their effectiveness, and one that I'm not qualified to truly weigh in on, but I'm happy for that debate to happen*. What I will not tolerate, however, it outright fictional statements that are not a matter of opinion. Users posting content of that nature (e.g. "If you're asymptomatic you're not going to be infectious.") will be warned/banned for spam. Users debating the effectiveness of masks (e.g. "new evidence suggests they're super amazeballs, regardless of what this other study says") are fine.

And it all goes without saying, regardless of what side of the fence you sit on, that the debate must remain civil. Anyone calling names, inciting violence, or just generally being an arse, will be treated the same way we would anywhere else on these forums. If you want a grown-up discussion, have it like a grown-up. If you don't, this isn't the place for you.

*For what it's worth, my personal opinion is simple. Wearing the mask isn't going to make it worse, so there's not really any 'loss' to me to wear one.
 

roomraider

Best Topic Starter
*For what it's worth, my personal opinion is simple. Wearing the mask isn't going to make it worse, so there's not really any 'loss' to me to wear one.
This 100%. I've never understood the people complaining about wearing a mask. It's a piece of fabric that may help save people's lives. It's not like people are being asked to do something that drasticly affects their well being. It's a tiny bit uncomfortable at times sure but is it really badly affecting people to wear one?

As Hixee says. It's not making things worse and it doesn't make my life measureably worse by wearing one so why wouldn't I?

Plus I like the feeling of looking like I'm going to Rob a bank when I walk into one and that being just fine now :)
 
Top