Guitar shop experiences?

What's Hot
123457»

Comments

  • ColsCols Frets: 4017

    Hopefully an actual medical professional will be able to confirm, but I’m reasonably sure this is not the case.  
    The ones with ruined and wrecked faces after doing a 12 hour shift are those working on COVID wards, where the staff need protection against the ever-present risk of getting infected themselves.  Hence, FFP2 mask.

    In an operating theatre, the patient needs to be protected against infection of surgical wounds through exhaled bacteria from the surgeon, and the surgeon needs to be protected against blood splatter from the patient.  Hence, surgical mask.
    The masks worn in operating theatre settings are FFP3, FFP2, and FFP1. The surgeon won't be wearing an FFP1 mask, but the nurses assisting might. Because they're often not in direct contact with the wound being operated on. The surgeon will be wearing FFP2 and FFP3. They will be wearing visors too.

    Mrs Cols has been in for two surgical procedures over the course of the pandemic, so I asked her how the operating team was kitted out.  Standard surgical masks all round.  Not an FFP2 mask in sight.

    Before coming in for both ops she had to take a PCR test and self-isolate to ensure she didn’t pose a risk to the hospital staff.  I imagine it’s a different story if you’re A&E staff having to do emergency surgery on some random person who’s just been pasted over the road by a speeding car.  In that case there’s no information on whether or not the patient may be infectious, and additional respiratory protection would be mandated.

     My position is - and has always been - certain masks work, certain masks just offer a dash of comfort with a huge dollop of delusion. I have seen mask wearers out in public doing very unhealthy and uncaring things. But that never gets brought up, never even enters the discussion. Why is that? I'd suggest delusion.
    If I understand you correctly your position is:

    1.   If we are to wear face coverings, they should be the most effective type available.
    2.  The use of these is not a replacement for other protective measures.  People should not feel they can behave in an unsafe manner simply because they’ve got their masks on.

    That seems sensible enough.  Any kind of personal protective equipment is a last line of defence after other measures have been put in place and the risk still isn’t reduced to an acceptable level.  To make an analogy - in a laboratory we wear gloves and safety glasses when handling anything harmful which could be harmful through skin or eye contact.  This doesn’t mean we then gaily dip our gloved hands in concentrated acid and splash it about everywhere, confident that our PPE will keep us safe.  We work in a safe manner and wear the gloves and glasses to further reduce the residual risk, because accidental acid burns are ouchy.

    Certainly you’ve seen people out wearing masks just for the show of it and behaving unsafely.  I’ve seen it too; wearing one with their noses poking out is a particular favourite, as is jumping on to the tube and pulling it down once they’re out of sight of any staff which might give them a bollocking.

    I’ve also seen plenty of people who wear masks in public who are wearing them properly, conscientious about maintaining social distance, using hand sanitiser stations and avoiding direct contact with others.

    What I haven’t seen is any evidence that people who choose not to wear face coverings are being more careful about any of the other aspects.  Rather the opposite, I’m afraid.

    I’d regard "Western Countries" as being Western Europe, the United States and Canada.  All are wealthy industrialised nations with advanced healthcare systems and shared cultural norms, and would therefore be a logical grouping for comparison.  Looking at this group, the UK is performing abysmally in comparison to its peers.
    Well yes. When you're looking at a cherry picked selection in order to stack the deck, then yes.... you will obviously get the result you want.

    You’d chosen a definition of "Western Countries" which also encompassed Central America, Latin America and Eastern Europe.  Once these are taken into account, the UK is “about average”.  In other words, at least we’re doing better than the likes of Brazil, Peru and Slovakia.

    I’m not convinced your grouping makes sense for the purposes of comparison.  
    It is an internationally used grouping. Not my grouping:
    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/western-countries

    Other sources say differently.  The eminent Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntingdon defined the Western world as it as United States and Canada, Western and Central Europe, Australia, Oceania and most of the Philippines.  Very few interpretations other than the link you’ve posted include Latin America.

    I deliberately left Australia and New Zealand out, as pointing out that they continue to do a lot better than the UK in pandemic control does seem to annoy you.

    In any case, if the purpose of grouping is to benchmark against other comparable countries the Western Europe/US/Canada definition makes more sense.  

    For example, I could point at the high COVID mortality in children in Brazil to argue for the urgent vaccination of all school children.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-56696907

    And you might reasonably argue “But Cols - in Brazil they have a much worse healthcare system.  And all those favelas with poor sanitation and everyone crammed in together.  Your comparison isn’t fair”.

    So why should you feel it’s appropriate to include it in your own comparison, along with the rest of Latin America, Central America and Eastern Europe?

    The parliamentary report highlighted that in 2020 the UK did significantly worse in terms of COVID deaths than many countries - especially compared to those in East Asia even though they were much closer geographically to where the virus first appeared.  The purpose of the report is not to assign blame, but to understand both successes and failures in the government response to COVID so that lessons can be learned for the future and failures are not repeated.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • LoFiLoFi Frets: 505
    chris78 said:
    Other measures would be way more effective than wearing a mask of course and that’s the point. See what peach are doing very well for example. Way more sensible than getting people to wear a mask and cram in.
    Going back a bit, I'd be interested to know whether this is a more effective approach (in terms of revenue, rather than infection control).

    While I can understand that someone that makes an appointment is likely to be a much more motivated buyer, and that it removes the problem of tyre-kickers, you also remove revenue from casual buyers/impulse buys.

    I've no idea whether I'm typical, but I've spent literally thousands over the years that I hadn't intended to, just because I had some time to kill or happened to be wandering past a music shop (and even more if you include going in for e.g. a guitar pedal and ending up buying something from the keys department - something that couldn't happen with Anderton's appointment system, since you book into a specific dept).
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • DominicDominic Frets: 10227
    I'm very happy to wear a mask in a guitar shop
    .......it stops them seeing it's me whose making the awful dissonant row in the corner with a bad sweet child o mine !
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.