This was posted 4 years 4 months 15 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

[eBay Plus] 50pcs Disposable Face Mask 3 Layer Protective $11.85 Delivered @ edragon_australia eBay

601
[eBay Plus] 50pcs Disposable Face Mask 3 Layer Protective $11.85 Delivered @ edragon_australia eBay
Go to Deal
Cashback
PTatvamasi on 07/09/2020 - 22:01 ebay.com.au (2629 clicks)
Last edited 07/09/2020 - 23:05 by 1 other user
PARTY21

50pcs Disposable Face Mask Bulk Pack Face Masks

CE Certificate: EN 149:2001+A1:2009 FFP2 NR 2016/425 (Personal Protective Equipment)
Uniquely designed: Comfortable elastic earloop,extra-soft ear loops eliminate pressure to the ears.
The inner layer is made of soft facial tissue, no dye, gentle to the skin.
Muti-Function：Keep your mouth covered and protected from pollution, fluids and dust with our Disposable Face Mask.
Comfortable : Face Non-Woven Fabrics is made of non-woven fabric for easy breathability. Use of elastic ear loops means that it fits most.

Original Coupon Deal

Health & Beauty Surgical Mask

Related Stores

eBay Australia
eBay Australia
Marketplace
eBay Australia edragon_australia
eBay Australia edragon_australia

closed Comments

  • sanmigueelbeer on 07/09/2020 - 22:10
    +14

    FDA Certified

    Lies.

    Brand Name: Unbranded

    Trusted brand right there.

    • ocoolio on 08/09/2020 - 06:59
      -3

      Issues with product / retailer, neg vote

  • resubaehtgnolhcs on 07/09/2020 - 22:20
    +28

    FDA Certified

    FDA doesn't certify masks - it has been covered here many times! If you are claiming this, than it is a false claim and brings everything else you say into disrepute.

    • BarginGrabber on 07/09/2020 - 22:23
      +8

      From the FDA website:

      Q: I would like to purchase masks for COVID-19. How do I know if they are counterfeit or fraudulent?

      A: The FDA does not issue any kind of certification to demonstrate a manufacturer is in compliance with the FDA’s requirements.

  • IceTooth on 07/09/2020 - 22:31
    +2

    made in?

  • BarginGrabber on 07/09/2020 - 22:37
    +3

    Here is another thing to note:

    it states that it is a "face mask" and not "surgical mask".

    From the FDA website:

    Face masks marketed to the general public for general non-medical purposes, such as use in construction and other industrial applications, are not medical devices. Face masks, when they are intended for a medical purpose such as source control (including uses related to COVID-19) and surgical masks are medical devices.

    TGA also states what to look out for here:

    https://www.tga.gov.au/face-masks-and-respirators-are-regula…

    • AustriaBargain on 08/09/2020 - 10:31

      Okay so what cheap 50 pack of masks should we buy. I'm in SA so we haven't "needed" masks yet, but anything's possible with Commander Cuckoo Bananas in charge.

      • BarginGrabber on 08/09/2020 - 13:59
        +1

        So, a good 90% of the Ebay stuff I can't guarantee they are safe to use. Look out for terms like "Non-medical", "face mask" (instead of surgical) on the boxes in the Ebay listing. Click on that TGA link and scroll down, it will tell you what to look out for.

        You're better off going to your local chemist and getting 50 pack for $30-40.

        I know it is more expensive, but at least you know you are not taking a risk there.

        You could always get a reusable one, but personally I'm not a big fan of them. There is a reason doctors will throw away their masks after using it.

      • [Deactivated] on 08/09/2020 - 14:33

        There are Youtube videos showing how to differentiate between good and poor masks. Look for minimum 3 layers, one of them being "melt-blown". There have been a few such products offered on OzB at low cost previously. Take certification claims and standards stamps without supporting evidence with a huge grain of salt.

        If this deal is still going I'd happily recommend the product (as advertised) a LONG way ahead of the product in the above deal. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/562474

        An ARTG number was no guarantee of quality but the TGA is (supposedly) slowly working their way through ARTG listings to check registered devices. Not sure I'd rely on that myself at this point but no ARTG number means the seller cannot offer the product as a medical device. This seller shouldn't be misleading consumers with words like PPE but they make no claims about this masks ability to defend against bacterial or other pathogens. They are apparently good as dust masks.

        • Franc-T on 12/09/2020 - 15:08
          +1

          Thanks, Ive bought two lots of identical (from picture) masks and one was a lot worse quality than the other. Took a punt and have ordered from your linked deal.

  • Kooratz on 07/09/2020 - 22:37

    Better make your own

  • xuqi on 08/09/2020 - 00:25

    Apparently 'not easy to fall off' too.

  • joefan88 on 08/09/2020 - 02:00
    +1

    Postage $10 , title wrong!!

    • Tatvamasi on 08/09/2020 - 06:03
      +1

      1 pack is free postage.

  • tatnal on 08/09/2020 - 07:12

    Does anyone know if there is somewhere to check ATG numbers. Example this listing https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/TGA-Registered-3ply-Disposable-L…

    • m2000 on 08/09/2020 - 08:39

      shoud find it somewhere here (if real?)
      https://www.tga.gov.au/searching-australian-register-therape…

    • [Deactivated] on 08/09/2020 - 14:34

      https://tga-search.clients.funnelback.com/s/search.html?quer….

      Moosh (Australia) Pty Ltd - Mask, surgical, single use

      ARTG ID: 337338
      Product name: Mask, surgical, single use
      Sponsor: Moosh (Australia) Pty Ltd
      Manufacturer: Fujian Kang Chen Daily Necessities Co Ltd

      • sanmigueelbeer on 08/09/2020 - 16:33
        +2

        Manufacturer: Fujian Kang Chen Daily Necessities Co Ltd

        The manufacturer is found in the FDA's list of Respirator Models Removed from Appendix A (dated removed: 06 June 2020).

        The two respirator model numbers removed are: K0450, 57793

        I know the FDA list is "respirators" and it is different to a face mask - Caveat emptor.

        • [Deactivated] on 08/09/2020 - 17:35
          +1

          Good sleuthing smb. Seems it's just another case of meaningless/deceptive and unregulated labeling on Chinese-made goods. Sadly it's difficult not to be skeptical about their certification stamps on any product not made for large reputable companies. In some cases it may not matter but for health and electrical products it's very much caveat emptor.

  • coin saver on 08/09/2020 - 07:35

    Posted in error

  • GoldenDragon888 on 08/09/2020 - 08:50

    How come eBay allows this item to be listed but not the ones HelloPam did?

  • chickensalad12 on 08/09/2020 - 09:04
    +1

    Out of curiosity, how many people are using these single use masks versus a fabric washable masks?

    I stopped using the single use when I could finally get a hold of a few reusable ones, but it seems wasteful to continue using single use.

    • PainToad on 08/09/2020 - 09:19
      +1

      The outside of the mask collects everything it's protecting you from… So disposable is best unless your changing your fabric ones multiple times a day and washing them daily.

      • melbstheburn on 08/09/2020 - 09:26
        +1

        I'm using disposable masks, they offer far better protection than reusable ones

    • IdBuyThat4aDollar on 08/09/2020 - 09:26

      I found the reusable ones fogged up may glassed a lot more than single use.

      • eagerfisherman on 08/09/2020 - 10:01

        The trick is to get a reusable with the bendable metal strip so you can press down along the nose.

        For whatever reason, so many reusables cheap out on these….even though they're in every single disposable mask. Very annoying.

        • IdBuyThat4aDollar on 08/09/2020 - 10:08

          yeah agreed. The reusable ones I have either don't have the metal strip, or they aren't as firm as the disposable ones.

          • Trishool on 08/09/2020 - 13:55
            +1

            @IdBuyThat4aDollar: Got some reusable ones from Cotton On (3 for $25 + delivery or C&C) which have the nose wire so work well and dont fog up my glasses much (they do a little, depends on how big a breather you are and how cold it is).

    • Mokr on 08/09/2020 - 10:02
      -5

      if i'm going for a walk i use the dispoable ones, they are lighter

      plus i don't throw it after every use

      just re use them till they start stinking

      • Love a bargain on 08/09/2020 - 11:58
        +3

        Terrible idea to reuse disposable masks.

        1. They lose their efficacy after, up to, a few hours of use - from the moisture in our breathes.

        2. The outside of them collect virus that you might have come across. By having used masks lying around, you risk contaminating your own home. (& that's assuming you wash you hands immediately after removing it/ putting it on to reduce the risk that you might spread virus through your hands.) Plus, depending on how an used mask is handled, you also risk spreading the virus to the inside of the mask and inhale that the next time you put it on.

        3. The opposite of all the points in #2 above are also true if you carry the virus yourself.

        So, all in all, it's not about dirt that you can see or whether it smells, but the virus that you can't see. If you value your health and the health of those around you - don't reuse disposal masks.

        Reusable masks also needs to be thoroughly washed as soon as possible after use for all of the above reasons. (& remember that they don't generally provide the same level of protection as disposal surgical masks unless they are used with proper filters.)

        • Mokr on 08/09/2020 - 14:22
          -4

          bah, been doing it for months still covid negative

          covid doesn't last that long on surfaces

          • [Deactivated] on 08/09/2020 - 14:45
            +1

            @Mokr: How long exactly does the virus last outside a host? If perchance the virus was on your mask then the chances of it infecting others is massively increased. If an asymptomatic carrier had the same attitude as you then we'd be in even deeper schtook than we already are. Masks are not primarily about protecting you, they're to protect others.

            Your cause and effect conclusion is also horribly flawed. Millions of Australians not wearing masks also don't have Covid-19 because they haven't been in close contact with a carrier. People not following guidelines and advice is exactly why some parts of Australia are in lockdown. Do the right thing

            • Mokr on 08/09/2020 - 14:51

              @[Deactivated]: Masks are not primarily about protecting you, they're to protect others.

              which i'm doing by wearing a mask…

              • [Deactivated] on 08/09/2020 - 15:00
                +1

                @Mokr: Clearly not. Read the guidelines - the concept of disposables and regular, proper cleaning of re-usables is simple enough. If you were to incidentally acquire C19 then your overused mask would offer much reduced protection to others. Unless you're being tested every few days or are almost totally isolated then you have no way of knowing if you are a carrier. A good percentage of infected peope have no significant symptoms.

                Amazingly (perhaps not) we're 3/4 of a year down the track yet still people complacently and/or culpably ignore advice on masks, sanitizing and social distancing. If you don't care for yourself then the least you can do is try to understand the effects on the lives, jobs and economic situations of millions of others.

                • Mokr on 08/09/2020 - 15:08

                  @[Deactivated]: A good percentage of infected people have no significant symptoms.

                  1/5000 hit rate according to our CHO - the majority of people have symptoms. Look at QLD 7k tests for 1 infected.

                  If we were in some crazy outbreak place then yes i would be way more vigilant, but odds wise its very slim in aus.

                  • [Deactivated] on 08/09/2020 - 15:13
                    +1

                    @Mokr: Agreed, depends on where you are. The point re symptoms is not that they don't exist per se but that are so mild as not to be recognised (or are ignored for many reasons) by the carrier - as recent TV ads are trying to convey.

                    The answer to my question btw is essentially this: not enough data exists to be precise about Covid-19 lifespans outside a host but tests, and experiences with similar corona viruses, suggest anything from a few hours to more than 5 days (some say 9 days in ideal circumstances) depending of surface, temp etc. Probably a lot longer than you thought?

                    • Mokr on 08/09/2020 - 15:18

                      @[Deactivated]: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30561-2/fulltext

                      In my opinion, the chance of transmission through inanimate surfaces is very small, and only in instances where an infected person coughs or sneezes on the surface, and someone else touches that surface soon after the cough or sneeze (within 1–2 h). I do not disagree with erring on the side of caution, but this can go to extremes not justified by the data.

                      • [Deactivated] on 08/09/2020 - 15:39

                        @Mokr: Nothing is black and white wrt transmission but the evidence (as poor as it is) for transmission via transfer from a carrier onto a shared object and touching is far stronger than for aerosol - in areas where the virus is known to exist. Much of what Melb is experiencing seems to have emanated from security "guard" interactions with people in isolation - in rooms which weren't properly and regularly sanitized and where neither the guards nor the people in quarantine took the situation seriously (ignorance and lack of training are no excuse imo, this was months after the Jan/Feb alarm bells were sounded). The enquiry should shed more light but in case you missed it: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/how-hotel-quaran…

        • fredblogs on 08/09/2020 - 14:24

          If he’s going for a walk and the closest person is on the other side of the street, how many viruses do you expect will be on the mask?

  • OzBoganYeah on 08/09/2020 - 09:28

    Has anyone bought these before? The quality is a bit dubious but the price is tempting…

    • Trishool on 08/09/2020 - 14:00
      +1

      Based on your comment alone I wouldn't buy them (price tempting + dubious quality). Sounds shifty to me.

    • subywagon on 08/09/2020 - 10:12
      +7

      Stop spreading BS "facts".

        • scrimshaw on 08/09/2020 - 11:35
          +7

          Did you fully read the results from that paper? You appeared to have completely misunderstood the salient points of the report. And you also contradicted your first comment. I think it is best understood if it is broken up into paragraphs. Let us read this part again:

          A total of 19 randomised controlled trials were included in this study – 8 in community settings, 6 in healthcare settings and 5 as source control. Most of these randomised controlled trials used different interventions and outcome measures.

          In the community, masks appeared to be effective with and without hand hygiene, and both together are more protective.

          Randomised controlled trials in health care workers showed that respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently. Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective. When used by sick patients randomised controlled trials suggested protection of well contacts.

          The Conclusion

          The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic.

          What this paper adds

          • In the community, masks may be more protective for well people.
          • In healthcare settings continuous use of respirators, is more protective compared to the medical masks, and medical masks are more protective than cloth masks. Depending on the fabric and design, some cloth masks may not be safe for healthcare workers.
          • The use of masks by sick patients is likely protective, and coronaviruses can be emitted in normal breathing, in fine airborne particles.

          • 1st-Amendment on 08/09/2020 - 11:56
            -5

            @scrimshaw: "appeared", "could", "may" "suggested" etc All very vague from a scientific standards point of view. Certainly not enough justification to warrant state sanctioned violence.
            As I stated, some studies show differing results, this report is less is not as convincing as you make out.
            What's also interesting is that Sweden's Chief Medical Officer called the science on masks "weak", and after their initial hit, they now have lower rates than Victoria. Why do you think that is? (genuine question)

            • scrimshaw on 08/09/2020 - 12:27
              +6

              @1st-Amendment: The fact that you are mis-quoting and extracting the wrong information out of a study shows that you might be under the influence of confirmation bias — aka cherry picking information that strengthens your beliefs and ignoring contrary information that refutes them.

              Essentially for the first few months of COVID you might have read from mass-media that "masks are ineffective" quoting the WHO, (and I have read that too, from Reddit, Facebook and whatsapp messages).

              And no matter how many articles you read in the following months you've already made up your mind about the topic and subsequent searches for more information just leads you further down the rabbit hole but you mentally tire of the research and say "well, the science is weak, but I'm just going to stick to my original suspicion that masks are useless, after all. and I'll let everyone know that they can stop wearing masks".

              I would suggest tackling the issue with an open mind and not just quoting or re-reading stuff that fits your initial belief. Clear your mental browser history and start over. Science is an ongoing pursuit, it's never 100% correct, but we do get down to the bottom of it eventually.

              • 1st-Amendment on 08/09/2020 - 14:58
                -2

                @scrimshaw: You seem to have made a whole bunch of assumptions there, and also made quotes out of thin air. None of this is true, I'm merely making the point that masks seem to be over-inflated in their perceived effectiveness, and that there's no hard science to support the level enforcement that is currently being dished out.
                Your last sentence is spot on, have you applied that same approach to your own viewpoint? I try to base my opinions on data and evidence so am happy to be shown some that paint a different picture. But currently today there is very little evidence that casual unspecified mask wearing in public has much of an effect.

                • [Deactivated] on 08/09/2020 - 15:56

                  @1st-Amendment: What level of enforcement exactly? Lockdown, compulsory masks (wow what a huge impost in areas of high transmission), distancing, sanitizing? The evidence for the first three is largely anecdotal, for obvious reasons. It will be years before all the data and experiences from different societies and countries are synthesised and analysed. Meanwhile we only have to look OS to see what haphazard policy has delivered. Some probably haven't noticed but your nic provides clues as to why you misrespresented the paper.

              • subywagon on 08/09/2020 - 15:22
                +2

                @scrimshaw:

                The fact that you are mis-quoting and extracting the wrong information out of a study shows that you might be under the influence of confirmation bias

                All these types are. That was my exact thought when I saw their first post.

                I'm not even going to bother posting numerous links to counter their argument. Their mind is already made up regardless of how "science works" as they put it.

                Also 1st-Amendment, I've never listened to Dan Andrews. I'm not from Victoria. I'd have no idea what his voice sounds like. I listen to scientists.

            • PainToad on 08/09/2020 - 12:41
              +2

              @1st-Amendment:

              state sanctioned violence

              …..facepalm

            • [Deactivated] on 08/09/2020 - 15:45
              +1

              @1st-Amendment: "State sanctioned violence". Lol. Pity they can't legislate against stupidity and innoculate against hyperbolic and ignorant bs.

        • mooney on 08/09/2020 - 11:36
          +3

          Dear 1st-Amendment… you need to learn to read.

          I just read that bloody link. Funny how it states (and I quote):

          "Conclusion
          The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic. The studies of masks as source control also suggest a benefit, and may be important during the COVID-19 pandemic in universal community face mask use as well as in health care settings."

          Only negative was for HEALTH CARE workers only using face masks:
          "Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective."

          However in same health care setting face masks were helpful: "When used by sick patients randomised controlled trials suggested protection of well contacts."

          TLDR: Face Masks DO offer benefits against spread of COVID-19, so please keep wearing them people! :)

          • 1st-Amendment on 09/09/2020 - 11:30
            -2

            @mooney: So you even pointed out the flaw in the report, did you even notice it?

            "Only negative was for HEALTH CARE workers only using face masks"

            "However in same health care setting face masks were helpful"

            So healthcare workers had negative effects, while at the same time being helpful?
            And while healthcare workers had negative effects this doesn't apply to anyone else?

            Do you also know what "controlled trial" is? I'll give you a hint, it isn't random people doing random stuff as per the government instructions for face mask covering.

            • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2020 - 11:56
              +1

              @1st-Amendment: Your comprehension and scientific literacy eaves a lot to be desired. The paper was about the effectiveness of masks in particular situations. We didn't actually need a scientific analysis to tell us that masks alone weren't adequate protection for health workers in close contact with severely ill C19 patients - the fact that some contracted the disease (and some died as a result of putting their lives in danger for the sake of others) was evidence enough. Your logic suggests that they might just as well have removed all PPE because ultimately some of it was not 100% effective. Dangerously ignorant rubbish.

            • mooney on 09/09/2020 - 13:10
              +2

              @1st-Amendment: Man your reading comprehension is not good at all.

              What this means (and I will try to keep it simple for you) is:

              1) If the healthcare worker wears the mask, but not the sick people then face masks dont give the required protection.

              2) If SICK people wear face masks they offer protection for the healthcare workers.

              One of the key points of these face masks which seems to be avoiding your understanding is that they are most effective at stopping SICK people expelling their germs, the cheapy face masks are not designed to be filters against airborne particles, although the appear to offer some elevated protection.

              Here is a link that gives a really simple infographic on how face masks help. Even you might be able to understand:
              https://www.gannawarra.vic.gov.au/News-Media/Wear-a-mask-and…

        • eagerfisherman on 08/09/2020 - 11:43

          Nope, I don't know why I bothered.

        • I Smell Pennies on 08/09/2020 - 10:45
          +2

          I didn't downvote you but maybe just stop talking that will help

        • subywagon on 08/09/2020 - 15:36
          +1

          Why bother wasting our time? You've already made up your mind and can't even comprehend the evidence that you have provided.

    • Mr Bargain Hunter on 08/09/2020 - 11:08

      Dragging this guy down in negs won’t change his mind, it’ll probably make him angrier. This is how all the trump supporters are all fired up
      Here’s an article with links to experimental results:
      https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-abou…

      WHO and CDC changed their stances with developing situations, causing the confusion and doubt

      • eagerfisherman on 08/09/2020 - 11:49

        Nothing will change their mind.

        Not if you gave them a super mask and literally blasted COVID in their face with 100% effectiveness in preventing infection.

        If you did so, the response would be, "well obviously COVID wasn't real then, just like I thought #plandemic".

        There is always another, stupider bar, they're happy to go under. It's infinite.

      • 1st-Amendment on 08/09/2020 - 11:50

        No anger friend, interesting assumption though…

    • phoenixpan on 08/09/2020 - 13:27

      Yeah yeah, after so many countries and cities have demonstrated how they screwed up. Do you really believe in your Googling skill worth more than all the efforts CDCs put in?

      • 1st-Amendment on 08/09/2020 - 14:50

        CDCs? Or do you mean the CDC, as in the US government agency? Which specific countries do you mean? NZ has no mask law and they seem to be going ok? Closer to home, NSW has no mask laws and are doing much better than Victoria. How is this? Maybe the masks are more hype than reality?
        It's actually the Swedish Chief Medical officer that called this out, so when do you decide to believe one expert over another?

        • subywagon on 08/09/2020 - 15:33
          +4

          NZ has no mask law and they seem to be going ok?

          You've got no idea what you are talking about mate, maybe you do need us to do your research for you? Taken directly from the NZ Ministry of Health:

          "From 11.59 pm on Sunday 30 August 2020 all people in New Zealand must, unless they have an exemption, wear a mask or face covering on buses, trains, ferries and on all flights at Alert Level 2 and above.

          A mask or face covering needs to cover both your nose and mouth. It is important not to touch your mask or face covering and then your face with your hands while you are wearing it."

          • [Deactivated] on 08/09/2020 - 21:43
            +1

            @subywagon: Classic case of false equivalence, a growing problem in supposedly educated societies, especially in particular demographics. The situations in Melb and NZ are not even vaguely similar.

            • 1st-Amendment on 09/09/2020 - 11:20

              @[Deactivated]: So what conditions need to be met to be considered equivalent? Herein lies the flaw in the logic…

              • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2020 - 13:20
                +1

                @1st-Amendment: As dangerous as it is in your case, I'll leave you to work that out. You could start with the statistics in both areas, then move to the cultural responses of individuals in each country. Here's a hint - Covid-19 is only transmitted where infected people exist in the community.

          • phoenixpan on 09/09/2020 - 01:18
            +3

            @subywagon: I don't even bother to reply after I saw him bite back…this is a person who only sees what he wants to see, no cure for that. But thanks for stepping in mate.

            • 1st-Amendment on 09/09/2020 - 11:23
              -1

              @phoenixpan: You just replied. And by 'bite back' you mean replied?
              That's how discussions work, you say something, I say something, we flesh out the detail. Kids these days…

        • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2020 - 13:07
          +1

          It's actually the Swedish Chief Medical officer that called this out, so when do you decide to believe one expert over another?

          Called what out precisely? Anders Tegnell took a measured approach to lockdown, hoping for herd immunity. He's subsequently admitted this was a mistake. You need to read more closely and more regularly, and not jump to erroneous conclusions because they suit your uninformed views. Google, read and absorb. The advice re masks - just a small part of the picture - has changed as anecdotal evidence came to hand. This is completely understandable because most countries had limited knowledge of and experience in managing a corona virus epidemic, let alone a pandemic. It's one way scienctific knowledge is developed and refined.

          Plenty more like this on Sweden's experience. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52903717

          • 1st-Amendment on 09/09/2020 - 14:20

            @[Deactivated]:

            Called what out precisely?

            The lack of science around masks, you know exactly what I said in the OP

            https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/coronavirus…

            and not jump to erroneous conclusions

            We were talking compulsory masks, you sent me a link where Anders Tegnell commented that his strategy around isolation of the elderly was wrong. Is this an erroneous conclusion of which you speak?

            In the last few weeks Sweden with much less lock downs and no compulsory masks has lower rates than Melbourne. How does your mask theory explain that?

            Right now today, there is very little evidence that supports compulsory and police enforced mask use. If you have some then present it, or accept that masks are mostly just security theatre.

            • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2020 - 15:18
              +2

              @1st-Amendment: If you actually read more you'd know that the advice re masks and the understanding of why they work has changed considerably since he made that statement. Australian (and other) experts had similar views - which were based on theories and tests surrounding public aerosol transmission (still open to considerable debate) during the MERS and SARS outbreaks. As it turns out masks are now seen as one effective means of limiting public transmission because they limit carriers transferring the virus to their hands and then onto other surfaces and/or people. The exact reason they work is still not well understood - it's ANECDOTAL. You might care to look at Taiwan's response sometime.

              I don't have a theory about masks, I follow expert advice based on the best available evidence because unlike you I don't think I know better than experts responsible for public health. That said if you bothered to read you wouldn't need to ask why public mask use is now seen as one part of the approach to limiting public transmission.

              In the last few weeks Sweden with much less lock downs and no compulsory masks has lower rates than Melbourne. How does your mask theory explain that?

              Again you need to improve your basic scientific understanding. Look up correlation and causation and see if you can understand the difference. There are likely to be many reasons why one society has better outcomes than others. Personally my liberal brain suggests there's something in the fact that Sweden is a social democracy and hence people are more likely to be responsible and care for their fellow citizens. Almost certainly they have far fewer selfish, ignorant, irresponsible "freedom" junkies than this country -people who think compulsory wearing of masks in areas of public transmission is a huge impost and that it's okay to go to work sick (as happened in aged care) for example.

              In Melb we're seeing the results of pre-mask infection and transmission. If that wasn't the case then numbers wouldn't be declining. Simple enough to understand that correlation (which itself is not proof of causation). As I've already said - masks are just one part of the approach.

              Here's what Australia's ICEG says in case you want to broaden your mind. An easily understood and reasonably comprehensive summary. Enjoy: https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2020…

              • 1st-Amendment on 10/09/2020 - 13:28

                @[Deactivated]: You seem to have devoted a lot of time to trying to convince yourself that your opinion is based on science yet have provided not a single scientific study to support it.

                Personally my liberal brain suggests…

                Lol, this sums your logic up beautifully. Thanks for that.

                • [Deactivated] on 10/09/2020 - 16:05
                  +1

                  @1st-Amendment: I don't exist to spoonfeed the intellectually lazy or willfully ignorant, there's any number of credible sources which discuss the efficacy of masks and reasons for public health decisions - including the one in the post immediately above your reply.

                  The "logic" (it isn't logic, try consulting a dictionary sometime) you refer to was a term I concocted to explain to people that this was purely a gut feeling rather than anything based on data and knowledge - hence the word "liberal". Simple enough in the context of the discussion although I can appreciate how you'd misinterpret my meaning. I know as much about Swedish culture as you do about public heath simply because I don't read Swedish and haven't looked at their social media/forums to get some semblance of their broad national psyche, although the fact that they have continued to support democratic socialism for many decades tells me something. Clear for you now?

                  Your intentional misrepresentation of one study, your lack of knowledge of NZ mask rules, your attempt to compare their situation with Melb's, your puerile comment that compulsory mask wearing in public is "state sanctioned violence", and your unwillingness to read any of the myriad credible advice relating to masks tells me more than I need to know about how your opinions are derived.

                  • 1st-Amendment on 10/09/2020 - 17:51

                    @[Deactivated]:

                    there's any number of credible sources

                    Yet you can't produce a single one. Maybe it's that liberal brain…

                    • [Deactivated] on 10/09/2020 - 18:47
                      -1

                      @1st-Amendment: You mean apart from the one I provided from the Aus expert group that you STILL haven't read? Is the problem that your search engine isn't working or is your mum still changing your nappy by chance? When she next visits ask her to explain the second paragraph in my previous reply.

                      • 1st-Amendment on 10/09/2020 - 22:30

                        @[Deactivated]: You mean the press release? This is what passes for science to the liberal brain?
                        Thanks for the demonstration, this has turned out exactly as expected.

                        • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2020 - 10:10
                          +1

                          @1st-Amendment: No doubt it has. What's the old saying - you can lead an equus asinus to water but you can't make him drink, or something along those lines. Although public utterances from certain demographics suggest otherwise, our brains are quite capable of synthesising more than a heading. Your should give it a try some time. Here's some more shocking news for you - scientific and heath organisations regularly put out press releases, especially in times of crisis. If you don't understand the purpose of such things perhaps a friend can help. There are many reasons for ignorance, some understandable and therefore forgivable. Willful ignorance on the other hand deserves public derision.

                          The fact that certain self-interested people - conspiracy theorists, "sovereign citizens", conservatives etc - are completely taken in by headlines from their favourite nut job "news" outlets and can't be bothered sourcing and reading credible sources of information doesn't negate either the existence or the credibility of the latter. They'll survive long after the 'let's celebrate stupidity' era is dead and buried.

                          Wrt Covid-19, there's a wealth of good information and advice on the Au Health website, including more from the expert group on masks. When you get a few free hours you might consider taking just a tiny bit of it in. Hope springs eternal.

                          • 1st-Amendment on 12/09/2020 - 13:00

                            @[Deactivated]: No science, thanks for the confirmation.

                            • [Deactivated] on 12/09/2020 - 15:19
                              +1

                              @1st-Amendment: Your brain so full it can't understand basic information or is your comprehension and ideological blindness as bad as it appears? I didn't confirm anything of the sort - which you'd know if you bothered to inform yourself - but you simply think you know better than experts and love to wallow in your own ignorance. As I said - willful ignorance is typical of a particular demographic. This is a bargain website, I suggest you stick to its purpose and try and break your deal duck. Like reading and absorbing good information, it's not a difficult task.

                              • 1st-Amendment on 14/09/2020 - 10:03
                                -2

                                @[Deactivated]: Wibble, wibble… no science, just more ad hominem and strawmen, the standard 'liberal brain' logical fallacies.

                                Why do 7 of the 8 states and territories not enforce mask use if 'the experts' said they work? The argument from authority, another logical fallacy, but liberal brains and logic are usually mutually exclusive…

                                • [Deactivated] on 14/09/2020 - 14:20

                                  @1st-Amendment: Lol. Still hanging on to the illusion that your knowledge is much better than the combined knowledge of medical experts responsible for public health despite copping a hammering on a deals website? You fit the Dunning-Kruger demographic to a tee. The fact that you haven't bothered to read the science and the sound reasons behind mandatory masks in particular circumstances apparently means they doesn't exist in you little world. Thanks heavens you don't work in any responsible position in public health.

                                  I presume the question is your attempt at a joke? If not then reading comments in this deal and googling for information might help, assuming you can overcome your addiction to willful ignorance.

                                  You'll have to explain the "logical fallacy" you managed to discover. Writing the words doesn't mean you have any grasp of what the term actually means. You've already shown above that you have no idea what logic is.

                                  Instead of wasting your time here I suggest you write a letter to a Murdoch newspaper or a conservative politician. You're sure to get an equally ignorant but sympathetic ear there.

                                  • 1st-Amendment on 14/09/2020 - 18:00

                                    @[Deactivated]: Argument from authority, ad hominem, strawman… rinse, repeat…
                                    But keep going, if that makes you 'feel' better…

                                    • [Deactivated] on 14/09/2020 - 23:44

                                      @1st-Amendment: Given you're unlikely to ever read any of the literature how about we settle for throwing a virtual party when you finally work out why most states and territories don't have compulsory mask orders.

  • seamonkey on 08/09/2020 - 10:24
    -5

    This thread is cancer. Let's all hug each other people, especially in 2020. C'mon dudes/dudettes.

    • ocoolio on 08/09/2020 - 11:51

      You seem to be confused: this is not a tread about life and happiness in general.

      This is a bargain post, and as such, this is not really a deal (for reasons mentioned above).

      Let's all hug each other people

      You might find comfort in the forums or on Reddit. This part of the site is about bargains.

    • subywagon on 08/09/2020 - 15:34
      +2

      Let's all hug each other people

      That would break the social distancing rules….

  • dcash on 08/09/2020 - 15:52

    I don't get why everyone gets so worked up about masks, and whether they are TGA listed, made in China vs somewhere else, or the myriad other things people get so worked up over. At the end of the day, they are all disposable single use face masks, all provide better than no protection, and a long way less than complete protection. I mean seriously, what else do you really want?

    As to masks sold on Echo Bay, they are currently only allowing their "preferred" sellers to sell face masks, which speaks nothing about quality and/or value, and everything about Echo Bay's dodgy practices. My advice, buy whatever masks you like, from any place other than Echo Bay!

    • ocoolio on 08/09/2020 - 17:51
      +2

      all provide better than no protection

      Please read up on it a bit before making an unfortunately incorrect statement. Not knowing is one thing, but being confidently wrong is dangerous. Viruses are incredibly small, smaller than smoke in the air. Even N95 masks provide mediocre protection against them.

      Low-quality masks can't filter out even sawdust, let alone microscopic particles when you take a breath (the airflow is substantial, it simply sucks it through the mask). These masks may catch some of the droplets from your coughs, but only before they get fully saturated.

      • dcash on 08/09/2020 - 18:11

        Why would the average person be using a "fully saturated" mask in any case? We're not talking about medical personnel, we're talking about masks that average everyday Australians would wear while out on a shopping trip etc. If there was any reason for the mask to get "fully saturated", the wearer clearly should not be out and about in the first place.

        As to a mask that can't even filter sawdust, I've certainly never seen such a thing.

        • phoenixpan on 09/09/2020 - 01:40

          fishnet he means?

      • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2020 - 14:00
        +1

        I've read plenty and that statement is broadly correct for public transmission, even moreso where community transmission is not a big issue but mask wearing is still compulsory (ie large areas of Melb). dcash's error is implying that all masks are (sort of) equal. If you're an accidental carrier the barrier won't be anywhere near as effective in masks which don't have particular characteristics - eg min 3 layers, a melt-blown layer, decent nose clip etc.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join