Men are less likely to wear masks – another sign that toxic masculinity kills

[Nalaar]

Sure, but the word is some (or I prefer few). And you will have some women doing likewise due to a warped notion of 'not doing what a men tells me' mentality I suspect.

Exactly.

[B0ycey]

Individuals have choices to make on the risks they are prepared to take. Some may contend they are not at risk and will pay little regard to advice and instructions.

Tim Martin has announced plans for the chain of Wetherspoon pubs:



The pubs of the near future could have protective screens between tables, bar staff wearing goggles and dedicated workers to enforce physical distancing, according to a vision set out by the pub chain JD Wetherspoon.

The company, whose outspoken chairman, Tim Martin, has previously faced criticism for playing down the risk of Covid-19, said it was spending £11m on measures to ensure its 874 UK pubs can reopen this summer.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/22/jd-wetherspoon-pubs-reopen-lockdown-staff-goggles">https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ff-goggles">https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/22/jd-wetherspoon-pubs-reopen-lockdown-staff-goggles



It's up to punters what they think about these precautions, and those being taken by other establishments elsewhere...

Well really, in terms of masks, I am talking about legal legislation. That is men (or in reality the young) don't wear them because they don't have to as the risk to their personal health is small but if you make it compulsory to wear them they would (but there be a few who will rebel I suspect). But in specific scenarios it would make more sense to make masks compulsory rather than try and enact social distancing anyways. But that wouldn't include pubs as you need your mouth to drink and eat.

[patman post]

That assumes any of his staff return and how successful the boycott of Wetherspoon's is.

At the moment there is no indication of either. But given the unemployment rate and the dearth of real drinking in a pub environment, it could work out. In the end I guess it will depend on how punters enjoy — and conform — to Martin's ideas.

Meanwhile, retail alcohol sales have surged by 31%, so maybe we're enjoying home boozing at prices even lower than Wetherspoon's...



https://harpers.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/27006/Retail_alcohol_sales_surge_31_25.html">https://harpers.co.uk/news/fullstory.ph ... 31_25.html">https://harpers.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/27006/Retail_alcohol_sales_surge_31_25.html

[B0ycey]

But you agree that some men, because of their warped views of masculinity, will not wear masks, yes?

Sure, but the word is some (or I prefer few). And you will have some women doing likewise due to a warped notion of 'not doing what a men tells me' mentality I suspect.

[papasmurf]

Individuals have choices to make on the risks they are prepared to take. Some may contend they are not at risk and will pay little regard to advice and instructions.

Tim Martin has announced plans for the chain of Wetherspoon pubs:

That assumes any of his staff return and how successful the boycott of Wetherspoon's is.

[Nalaar]

Does one case prove a gender narrative? That is if one women said she wants to be a housewive, does that mean all women want to be housewives?



The reality is that men do wear masks. But like women, they are more likely to be older from my personal visual experience. I do not believe Trump or like minded idiots speaks for men in general.

But you agree that some men, because of their warped views of masculinity, will not wear masks, yes?

[patman post]

Sure, I agree. There is other contamination areas than just nasel. Be that is why you have advice such as wash your hands that will have to remain.



But my point was actually that social distancing isn't feasible to be maintained everywhere. And where it isn't you should have something else in place rather than try and incorporate the policy for the sakes of it. It doesn't stop surfaces from being contaminated, but social distancing doesn't either.

Individuals have choices to make on the risks they are prepared to take. Some may contend they are not at risk and will pay little regard to advice and instructions.

Tim Martin has announced plans for the chain of Wetherspoon pubs:



The pubs of the near future could have protective screens between tables, bar staff wearing goggles and dedicated workers to enforce physical distancing, according to a vision set out by the pub chain JD Wetherspoon.

The company, whose outspoken chairman, Tim Martin, has previously faced criticism for playing down the risk of Covid-19, said it was spending £11m on measures to ensure its 874 UK pubs can reopen this summer.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/22/jd-wetherspoon-pubs-reopen-lockdown-staff-goggles">https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ff-goggles">https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/22/jd-wetherspoon-pubs-reopen-lockdown-staff-goggles



It's up to punters what they think about these precautions, and those being taken by other establishments elsewhere...

[B0ycey]

That depends on whether or not you believe the reasons the men themselves give.



When someone says 'I don't need to wear a mask because I'm a real man' etc, do you think they are lying about that reason?

Does one case prove a gender narrative? That is if one women said she wants to be a housewive, does that mean all women want to be housewives?



The reality is that men do wear masks. But like women, they are more likely to be older from my personal visual experience. I do not believe Trump or like minded idiots speaks for men in general.

[B0ycey]

I'm unconvinced by your 100% argument. Contamination from surfaces, clothes, hair, etc, will always accounts for some infection spread.

But it's possible that government is reluctant to make mask-wearing mandatory because of the reactions we are now seeing to other instructions.

TfL says passengers should wear masks on all bus, train and tube journeys, and it has introduced hand santiser points across its networks. That's probably as strong as government wants to go in encroaching on personal choice, however misguided/uncaring/stupid some of the public are...

Sure, I agree. There is other contamination areas than just nasel. Be that is why you have advice such as wash your hands that will have to remain.



But my point was actually that social distancing isn't feasible to be maintained everywhere. And where it isn't you should have something else in place rather than try and incorporate the policy for the sakes of it. It doesn't stop surfaces from being contaminated, but social distancing doesn't either.

[Nalaar]

Sure, but then we have an issue with policy. That is if men don't use them, is that due to "toxic masculinity" or because they don't have to.

That depends on whether or not you believe the reasons the men themselves give.



When someone says 'I don't need to wear a mask because I'm a real man' etc, do you think they are lying about that reason?

[patman post]

Sure, but then we have an issue with policy. That is if men don't use them, is that due to "toxic masculinity" or because they don't have to. And really I don't think the issue is gender based anyways. It's usually age from my personal observation.



Also what I find interesting in that if everyone used them (100%), then there is no significant risk of spread at all. So why do they not become mandatory to use on say public transport or anyway where social distancing isn't feasible. If you are forced to use them or punished for refusing then you will more likely see everyone using them regardless of gender/age. The BS that there isn't enough data on masks should be lowered now as the NHS isn't short on them anymore and masks should be part of the strategy to reduce social distancing otherwise the continued over populating of transport will still be a major issue in six months time without a solution out of it.

I'm unconvinced by your 100% argument. Contamination from surfaces, clothes, hair, etc, will always accounts for some infection spread.

But it's possible that government is reluctant to make mask-wearing mandatory because of the reactions we are now seeing to other instructions.

TfL says passengers should wear masks on all bus, train and tube journeys, and it has introduced hand santiser points across its networks. That's probably as strong as government wants to go in encroaching on personal choice, however misguided/uncaring/stupid some of the public are...

[B0ycey]

That's true for the simple cloth masks. So by extension, the larger proportion of the population that wears them (say above 60%), the greater the protection for everyone.

There are also masks that protect the wearer...

Sure, but then we have an issue with policy. That is if men don't use them, is that due to "toxic masculinity" or because they don't have to. And really I don't think the issue is gender based anyways. It's usually age from my personal observation.



Also what I find interesting in that if everyone used them (100%), then there is no significant risk of spread at all. So why do they not become mandatory to use on say public transport or anyway where social distancing isn't feasible. If you are forced to use them or punished for refusing then you will more likely see everyone using them regardless of gender/age. The BS that there isn't enough data on masks should be lowered now as the NHS isn't short on them anymore and masks should be part of the strategy to reduce social distancing otherwise the continued over populating of transport will still be a major issue in six months time without a solution out of it.

[patman post]

But doesn't wearing a mask only prevent you from infecting others rather than stopping you yourself from getting infected?

That's true for the simple cloth masks. So by extension, the larger proportion of the population that wears them (say above 60%), the greater the protection for everyone.

There are also masks that protect the wearer...

[B0ycey]

But doesn't wearing a mask only prevent you from infecting others rather than stopping you yourself from getting infected?



The true reason for this is phenomena is probaby due to cost and convenience in accordance to risk. That is those who aren't at statical risk don't really wear them and those who are do. Although if the government wants everyone to wear a mask then they should make it a condition for leaving the house. I for one would agree that mask wearing should be mandatory to enter anywhere where social distancing is either difficult or impossible to maintain and perhaps indoor outlets like shops and supermarkets. But what's do you actual think will be achieved by wearing a mask when social distancing can be maintained like walking around the park?

[cromwell]

Yeah but not from the sides and "a sgnificant backward jet was observed" too.



Tbh you can 3D print N95's very, very cheaply and easily - the USAF and RAF have been doing this. Why aren't we able to get scientifically proven masks for pennies as should be the case?

Because members of the HoC haven't shares in it.