• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Chinese "Devil Virus" - anyone worried?

Forums Unread posts
Aidan O' Neill said:
What about a more progressive tax system where the smaller companies pay less and taxes on profits are tiered. I definitely agree with reducing tax on smaller business, but bigger companies would just use it to fatten the wallets of already wealthy people.
Click to expand...
Anything that lessons the tax burden for small / sole prop. businesses (don't forget they have to pay Nat Ins contributions for employees too). They may even be able to afford an employee or two then.

For large businesses how about a tax break if they reinvest showing that they increase plant and personnel (obviously there would be a need for high vigilance to prevent misuse of funds) again it could lead to increased business, profits and bonuses (and higher employment) as owners/investors aren't going to invest funds without the likelihood of further lining their pockets, nature of the beast.

Whatever I really believe a tax overhaul is necessary to incentivise. Without it, as Dantes said, they'd be better off investing it in bonds/shares.
 
Judge Jules said:
Fair and understandable points, but the Govt.would have had to corral an awful lot of medics and scientists to support their message, not all of whom by any means would have been easily amenable to such tactics. I guess we'll find out one way or the other before too long.

Stay safe, mate.
Click to expand...
Actually one other advantage I had forgotten about. According to whoever bothers to track this kind of thing people touch their faces upwards of a thousand times a day. The chances of that happening when wearing a mask are massively reduced which, regardless of whether the mask has any filtering value, is surely a huge reduction in transmission just from people touching infected doorknobs, handles, bus & rain hand rails etc. etc. before they get to where they are going and wash their hands.

I imagine a bondage gag / mask might also work !
 
Frogfish said:
Anything that lessons the tax burden for small / sole prop. businesses (don't forget they have to pay Nat Ins contributions for employees too). They may even be able to afford an employee or two then.

For large businesses how about a tax break if they reinvest showing that they increase plant and personnel (obviously there would be a need for high vigilance to prevent misuse of funds) again it could lead to increased business, profits and bonuses (and higher employment) as owners/investors aren't going to invest funds without the likelihood of further lining their pockets, nature of the beast.

Whatever I really believe a tax overhaul is necessary to incentivise. Without it, as Dantes said, they'd be better off investing it in bonds/shares.
Click to expand...


Shockingly, I prefer the way Trump did it by lowering taxes and simplifying the rules. If you introduce a tier system, or reinvestment tax breaks, or other elaborate incentives then you're just helping them with one hand (lower taxes) and slapping them across the face with the other (unnecessarily complex accounting and administrative work to get your head round new tax rules).
 
Frogfish said:
Actually one other advantage I had forgotten about. According to whoever bothers to track this kind of thing people touch their faces upwards of a thousand times a day. The chances of that happening when wearing a mask are massively reduced which, regardless of whether the mask has any filtering value, is surely a huge reduction in transmission just from people touching infected doorknobs, handles, bus & rain hand rails etc. etc. before they get to where they are going and wash their hands.

I imagine a bondage gag / mask might also work !
Click to expand...

Voice of experience? 😉

As it happens, one of the reasons I've heard quoted by doctors here who aren't in favour of face masks is precisely that wearing them would lead to more, not less, face touching because the sensation will be unfamiliar to a large majority of people in the UK, and not necessarily comfortable even after they're got used to them. I get that experience in the Far East suggests people do get accustomed to them in time, but (a) whether that's transferable to a Western populace is moot and (b) it isn't clear how much damage might have been done in the meantime.

Watch this space, as the barmaid said to the vicar.
 
dantes said:
Shockingly, I prefer the way Trump did it by lowering taxes and simplifying the rules. If you introduce a tier system, or reinvestment tax breaks, or other elaborate incentives then you're just helping them with one hand (lower taxes) and slapping them across the face with the other (unnecessarily complex accounting and administrative work to get your head round new tax rules).
Click to expand...
I think the larger companies can afford top level accountants and lawyers to handle that for them 😉
 
Judge Jules said:
Voice of experience? 😉

As it happens, one of the reasons I've heard quoted by doctors here who aren't in favour of face masks is precisely that wearing them would lead to more, not less, face touching because the sensation will be unfamiliar to a large majority of people in the UK, and not necessarily comfortable even after they're got used to them. I get that experience in the Far East suggests people do get accustomed to them in time, but (a) whether that's transferable to a Western populace is moot and (b) it isn't clear how much damage might have been done in the meantime.

Watch this space, as the barmaid said to the vicar.
Click to expand...

Haha touches nose ... 😱

Hmm more or less than a thousand times a day ? I highly doubt they'd be putting fingers behind the mask more often than usual face-touching (voice of experience) 🙂
 
It's almost impossible to pick your nose without touching your face though.

I'm getting better at it, but I have a big nose.

I really feel for people with small nostrils or stubby fingers. Or both. Those people are fucked now.
 
Frogfish said:
Anything that lessons the tax burden for small / sole prop. businesses (don't forget they have to pay Nat Ins contributions for employees too). They may even be able to afford an employee or two then.

For large businesses how about a tax break if they reinvest showing that they increase plant and personnel (obviously there would be a need for high vigilance to prevent misuse of funds) again it could lead to increased business, profits and bonuses (and higher employment) as owners/investors aren't going to invest funds without the likelihood of further lining their pockets, nature of the beast.

Whatever I really believe a tax overhaul is necessary to incentivise. Without it, as Dantes said, they'd be better off investing it in bonds/shares.
Click to expand...

I know it's the nature of the beast but big companies are already finding loopholes and engage in massive amounts of legal tax evasion, giving them more of a break will really just lead to more money for board members and CEOs and maybe some higher dividends..
 
dantes said:
Don't hold your breath on the scientists figuring this one out. It's a complex process involving lots of engineering and fluid mechanics which medical researchers have no idea about. They don't even have an idea of medicine.

My assumption would be that wearing a mask will lower the spread of the disease, because when people cough it contains the spread of droplets. However, if you don't have the disease, then my assumption would be that wearing a mask is dumb. Your nostrils and mouth has a relatively small surface area (even smaller if you have lots of nasal hair and keep your god damn mouth shut, poor the harry kane may god rest his soul), so the odds are on your side of walking through the open air and not inhaling a dangerous concentration of the virus. But if you slap a great big absorbent bit of cloth over your nose and mouth, well you've increased the surface area for capturing droplets. Then you start breathing through that porous as fuck mask and the rest is history. If you work in a confined place with lots of sick people, then the surface area argument goes out the window, you need the mask to protect yourself. Outdoors, it's better to let others wear masks to contain their coughs and hoover up the droplets for you. Whilst you look out for number one and go commando.
Click to expand...


Face masks pose an interesting problem.

Sick People wearing face masks prevent them from spreading it to others.
Healthy People wearing face masks probably doesn't help them much (unless they're a healthcare worker).
And no one knows who is sick, and who isn't, until symptoms appear.

So if only 20% of people wear the mask all the time, those people are idiots and aren't doing themselves any favours.

But if 99.9% of people wear masks all the time, spread in the community will be drastically decreased. A few people will touch their faces from time to time, wear the mask wrongly etc but because the risk of it being out there is already reduced, they won't endanger themselves (or other) too much.

It follows similar principles as herd immunity but without the massive dying.
You need a determined, socially-minded society - and sufficient masks - for this to work.
 
There isn't the evidence for your penultimate paragraph. If that changes, fair enough. At the moment though, the medical profession here in the UK isn't buying it.
 
masks4allgraph.jpeg
 
NYC now requires face coverings for everyone – a complete U-turn from their earlier stance that only sick people need masks. I would imagine UK will follow suit fairly soon.
 
Hyena said:
Face masks pose an interesting problem.

Sick People wearing face masks prevent them from spreading it to others.
Healthy People wearing face masks probably doesn't help them much (unless they're a healthcare worker).
And no one knows who is sick, and who isn't, until symptoms appear.

So if only 20% of people wear the mask all the time, those people are idiots and aren't doing themselves any favours.

But if 99.9% of people wear masks all the time, spread in the community will be drastically decreased. A few people will touch their faces from time to time, wear the mask wrongly etc but because the risk of it being out there is already reduced, they won't endanger themselves (or other) too much.

It follows similar principles as herd immunity but without the massive dying.
You need a determined, socially-minded society - and sufficient masks - for this to work.
Click to expand...

It's more like a game theory principle. Like the prisoner's dilemma. If you wear a mask you're increasing your own individual risk. But if everyone else comes to the same conclusion, then you're all going to die. In a communist dictatorship such decisions are not for people to make. In the UK, thoughts and prayers are needed if your life depends upon the scumbag elements of the population following the same principle.

I for one would propose an optimal solution that everyone wears a mask, except for dantes.
 
Judge Jules said:
Except that if you look at the attributions by the country names of that second group you find masks cited as the major factor in only one case.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if it's the major factor though (isolation clearly better but not always feasible) so long as it's a factor. Which really isn't in doubt.
 
It does if (a) it can also be counter-productive and (b) it prevents vital supplies from reaching the front line, both of which have been referred to frequently by medical commentators in the UK context. I wonder if there's been any research on whether those things have happened in the countries concerned, Japan included.
 
Judge Jules said:
It does if (a) it can also be counter-productive and (b) it prevents vital supplies from reaching the front line, both of which have been referred to frequently by medical commentators in the UK context. I wonder if there's been any research on whether those things have happened in the countries concerned, Japan included.
Click to expand...

In what way would you consider masks to be counterproductive? Genuine question as everything I've read, which isn't much, says they're of net benefit.
 
According to doctors I've heard interviewed here they pose a real risk of increasing one's own exposure as they can trap viruses shed by others. Even the right kind can do this if not handled correctly.
 
I'm getting around the whole "to wear a mask or not debate" by simply holding my breath whenever I'm out in public. I can manage half an hour, which is fine if I'm going to the small supermarket at the square near us but I'll need to hold my breath for an hour if I want to go to one of the larger supermarkets.
 
Judge Jules said:
According to doctors I've heard interviewed here they pose a real risk of increasing one's own exposure as they can trap viruses shed by others. Even the right kind can do this if not handled correctly.
Click to expand...

But if they trap the virus (I assume by droplets) does that not mean the droplets were destined for your face anyway?
 
Athens said:
I'm getting around the whole "to wear a mask or not debate" by simply holding my breath whenever I'm out in public. I can manage half an hour, which is fine if I'm going to the small supermarket at the square near us but I'll need to hold my breath for an hour if I want to go to one of the larger supermarkets.
Click to expand...

I just inhale when no one is close, and exhale forcibly when anyone passes nearby. This has the added safety benefit of people moving away from me pretty sharpish as I blow out in their direction.
 
Aidan O' Neill said:
But if they trap the virus (I assume by droplets) does that not mean the droplets were destined for your face anyway?
Click to expand...

Yes, but as long as the mask is on your face you're holding them in place in a manner which wouldn't apply without one. Should a point arrive at which UK medics advise that on balance the science shows the risk to be worth taking, I'll go ahead and take it. As long as they're not convinced, though, neither am I.
 
I think this argument about whether or not to wear a mask is about as scientific as the arguments for not wearing a helmet while cycling.

And let's be clear , there is no scientific basis for the argument. It was a throwaway comment in an interview by one GP based on no evidence.

Actions as always are more important than words. That every single doctor on the front line insists on wearing a mask should be the end of the matter.

A politically appointed scientist is likely to give you the answer most favourable to the government of the day. Since they didn't bother their arse sourcing PPE equipment that answer will be there's no evidence that masks help. Until that answer is later proven wrong.
 
Last edited:
If it was just coming from the medics who turn up at the Downing St.press conferences I'd agree, but it isn't. There have been any number of medics, virologists and other research scientists interviewed on Radio 4 and 5 and the unanimity of their scepticism about wearing facemasks in the community has been striking, especially when it's been absent in other respects.
 
Judge Jules said:
If it was just coming from the medics who turn up at the Downing St.press conferences I'd agree, but it isn't. There have been any number of medics, virologists and other research scientists interviewed on Radio 4 and 5 and the unanimity of their scepticism about wearing facemasks in the community has been striking, especially when it's been absent in other respects.
Click to expand...

You have a few people who are giving an opinion. I can find only two doctors saying that.

That isn't evidence that masks increase the risk of getting Coronavirus. There is zero scientific evidence for that proposition.
 
I haven't heard them saying that. What they have been saying is that it might, and that there's no satisfactory evidence for the contrary proposition either.
 
I probably got the wrong end of the stick totally but I thought that the wide spread use of mask in the community was to reduce the chances of the wearer spreading the virus rather than protecting the wearer from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom