Cases up a little on last week, but growth rate on front page has actually fallen as it's a smaller rise than last week. If Omicron is as widespread as Sage keep saying, surely cases should be growing faster than tests by now.
No, because it out-competes Delta. So as Omicron grows, Delta falls. And it is probably still at a relatively low level so the increased rate of increase is still hidden in the stats.
Apparently they health agency think its now 1/3 of new cases in London. If that's true, we are going to see just how good vaccines etc are in the next week.
Cases up a little on last week, but growth rate on front page has actually fallen as it's a smaller rise than last week. If Omicron is as widespread as Sage keep saying, surely cases should be growing faster than tests by now.
Yes it all looks a bit meh again. The bigger news today will be that from RSA. If they drop again it could be quite interesting.
Yep, once again lockdown fanatics in a race against time to push this useless government in to a decision before it's clear they're wrong. Government just made it in October, but this time they're desperate for a distraction.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Mask mandates do not work,
At best they delay but do not stop COVID speeding.
But if we assume that masks themselves do slow the spared a bit, which I think is credible, then by having people chose whether or not they where one, then people are able to chose make a chose as to how much risk they face. as a result people who are at risk because of age or pre-existing condition can mask up while those of us who are not can chose to not mask.
As a result we still keep on having infections till we reach heard immunity, but we the people who have court it are disproportionately those who where happy with the risk, and therefor less vonrable people have caught it, and slightly less hospitalisation and death.
Which is good.
That this is only a very small effect, is simply because masks are not that effective in the big scheme of things.
Masks, when widely adopted, can help bring the R number below 1. The more people wear masks, and the better the technique, and the better the quality of mask, the more likely you can shrink the incidence of the virus towards zero. See Fig 1 and the associated text: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
Whether or not you think that's sustainable or desirable is another matter. But they do work, fact.
I write this without prejudice and as a pro-European.
However, any sporting organisation (especially motorsport) run by the French (which seems to be most of them) is institutionally corrupt and it is the plucky Brit that normally takes the spanking.
I learned this lesson as a 4 year old in 1966 when the winning Mini Coopers were disqualified from the Monte Carlo Rally on a lighting infringement. The French scrutineers decided the Minis had the wrong bulbs in the headlights- like that would have any effect on performance! Anyway several other teams were also disqualified over lighting issues before the 1966 Monte Carlo Rally win could be awarded to the Citroen team.
A lesson learned well, and early. Sorry Lewis.
One of many reasons that I find motorsport boring is that it is a sport for lawyers.
I agree, but I wasn't confining my analysis to motorsport. Sepp Blatter (nominally French) and Michel Platini (genuinely French) spring to mind also.
Cases up a little on last week, but growth rate on front page has actually fallen as it's a smaller rise than last week. If Omicron is as widespread as Sage keep saying, surely cases should be growing faster than tests by now.
Not really. Omicron accounts for an estimated 2.5% of cases. Not sure that 1 239 can be described as "widespread". There could easily be an exponential spread of the new variant completely offset by a small decline in Delta. Really too early to tell.
Edit. I see @JohnLilburne made the point earlier. On a previous page so I missed it.
Up about 5k cases on last Sunday and about general roughly on trend in terms of up bit over 10% week on week.
When you do your graph thing today Malmesbury, and this isn’t criticism of your role or your work, but it occurred to me if it is very very bad or very good news I don’t have a clue or feel for it - How creative can you get with your graphs Malmsy, so at glance we know it good day or bad day? For a very good day How about surfers surfing the wave? Or ups and downs Flowers in the garden in a primary school book? For sad day Can you do one with bats and pangolins? On scary day something like Prof Quatermass glares at in black and white like Daphne Orams sine wave oscillator screen?
The ending was completely outside the rules. Starting to think Merc should have ordered bottas to park up in the middle of the track before the restart - might as well start the court case holding the ball if you're just going to be robbed blind otherwise.
My question is simply this: had they insisted that all the cars unlapped themselves would there have been any race left? My guess is there might have been a mile and a bit of track for Max to give it a go - fair and square under the rules - but again I’m no expert.
Nah, safety car would have come in at the end of lap 58, Lewis wins behind the safety car. It's the calculation that Mercedes made when they didn't bring him in on the second SC lap which could still have brought him out in front of Max.
Thanks - so to me it looks like an open and shut case - Max only won because the Race Director directly contravened the rules.
Cases up a little on last week, but growth rate on front page has actually fallen as it's a smaller rise than last week. If Omicron is as widespread as Sage keep saying, surely cases should be growing faster than tests by now.
No, because it out-competes Delta. So as Omicron grows, Delta falls. And it is probably still at a relatively low level so the increased rate of increase is still hidden in the stats.
Yes, and if it was at 30% of cases in London on Friday — as Gove said, and that's looking backwards as we should all remember — we ought to see cases climb sharply in London this week. I think we will know if we have a big problem by this coming Friday.
The joy of being a filthy neutral is that I'm not really invested in what happens next. My sympathies to those who are, as I imagine it might get quite testy.
Cases up a little on last week, but growth rate on front page has actually fallen as it's a smaller rise than last week. If Omicron is as widespread as Sage keep saying, surely cases should be growing faster than tests by now.
Not really. Omicron accounts for an estimated 2.5% of cases. Not sure that 1 239 can be described as "widespread". There could easily be an exponential spread of the new variant completely offset by a small decline in Delta. Really too early to tell.
The raw number means nothing as they only sequence a very small fraction of tests to discover what is Omicron. It is the rate of the increase in the number that means something and it is doubling roughly every 2 days.
Health agency believe 1/3 of new cases in London are now Omicron.
The joy of being a filthy neutral is that I'm not really invested in what happens next. My sympathies to those who are, as I imagine it might get quite testy.
Play nicely kids.
They could finish the race three laps before the safety car and penalise Hamilton 15 seconds for that first lap incident.
Cases up a little on last week, but growth rate on front page has actually fallen as it's a smaller rise than last week. If Omicron is as widespread as Sage keep saying, surely cases should be growing faster than tests by now.
Not really. Omicron accounts for an estimated 2.5% of cases. Not sure that 1 239 can be described as "widespread". There could easily be an exponential spread of the new variant completely offset by a small decline in Delta. Really too early to tell.
Edit. I see @JohnLilburne made the point earlier. On a previous page so I missed it.
1,239 detected. I thought much grander claims were being made for actual numbers, such that it should be having a meaningful impact by now.
The ending was completely outside the rules. Starting to think Merc should have ordered bottas to park up in the middle of the track before the restart - might as well start the court case holding the ball if you're just going to be robbed blind otherwise.
My question is simply this: had they insisted that all the cars unlapped themselves would there have been any race left? My guess is there might have been a mile and a bit of track for Max to give it a go - fair and square under the rules - but again I’m no expert.
Nah, safety car would have come in at the end of lap 58, Lewis wins behind the safety car. It's the calculation that Mercedes made when they didn't bring him in on the second SC lap which could still have brought him out in front of Max.
Thanks - so to me it looks like an open and shut case - Max only won because the Race Director directly contravened the rules.
That’s big.
Hence the Mercedes protest. The whole strategic calculation changes if this is written in the rules that only the cars between the top two are allowed through and the race will restart on the same lap and not the following lap as the regulations state.
“...and the message ‘LAPPED CARS MAY MOW OVERTAKE’ has been sent to all competitors...”
“...once the last lapped car has passed the leader...”
Shit, I missed this...
“...the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the FOLLOWING lap.” (my capitals).
Yup, those that were let through were able to do so before the start of the final lap, if Mick Schumacher had to come through the safety car would have gone past the start line and that's the end of the race.
Masi was screwed whatever he did. Red flag the race and people complain that he's stuck Max up Lewis's arse and HE'LL TRY AND CRASH. Don't red flag and hope they shift the car so we get some racing. They go slow and ah shit we may finish behind the SC. Then "we're done", snap decision, bunch them up and 1 lap shootout.
I don't think Masi is the best race director F1 has ever had...
You stick to the rules and regs and tell the bitching parties about the rules and regs. It's really that simple, that's why they exist in the first place. Making it up has just created a ridiculous situation and I wouldn't be surprised if Mercedes take this to CAS and win with the race flagged at lap 57.
Which would replace silly with silly. Mercedes have a better shot at Verstappen alongside and momentarily ahead of Hamilton behind the safety car. Wasn't an overtake though as the regulations talk about...
Why is it silly? Those are regulations? It's the rulebook. Red Bull could have bitched a lot about a SC finish but the rule book is the rule book. This way Mercedes might actually have grounds to have the last lap voided because the restart rules weren't properly followed.
Silly is "have the last lap voided". You can't do that in the rules. So you are replacing breaking the rules with breaking the rules.
The ending was completely outside the rules. Starting to think Merc should have ordered bottas to park up in the middle of the track before the restart - might as well start the court case holding the ball if you're just going to be robbed blind otherwise.
My question is simply this: had they insisted that all the cars unlapped themselves would there have been any race left? My guess is there might have been a mile and a bit of track for Max to give it a go - fair and square under the rules - but again I’m no expert.
Nah, safety car would have come in at the end of lap 58, Lewis wins behind the safety car. It's the calculation that Mercedes made when they didn't bring him in on the second SC lap which could still have brought him out in front of Max.
Thanks - so to me it looks like an open and shut case - Max only won because the Race Director directly contravened the rules.
That’s big.
Not really. They seem to be making it up as they go along, and as the FIA are judge, jury and executioner, I don't see what can be done.
Any other leader would be, oh Starmer is 10 points ahead
Trust you're enjoying this Horse and it is giving you a boost.
After all, it is quite funny to watch Johnson flopping (which sounds like a bad porn movie but couldn't be worse than the actualité).
It is - although mostly it's the counsellor who has got me feeling a lot more in control. Things a lot brighter these last couple of weeks although COVID has got me down worrying about any lockdowns etc.
But yes I am glad to have some of my predictions be validated and to see Starmer performing as I always suspected he would.
If good polls make me happy and that makes me a saddo, well I'll be a saddo then.
Professor from SA just on BBC news saying there is no pressure on hospitals in SA from Omicron, that's why they have no lockdown
If you look at daily hospitalisations during the 2nd wave in UK, between the end of Oct 20 and Mid Feb 21, hospitalisations topped out at over 4000 per day and were over 1500 p/d for every day of that three and a half month period. The average (mean) was about 2600 over that period.
Currently we have about 800 p/d because we have the vaccines and boosters.
Beat me over the head with this post next spring if I'm wrong but I'll be amazed if we get near 2600 as a peak let alone as an average.
Average between now and Mid Feb? - I'd guess 1200.
For those who know. How do they know how many omicron cases there are? AIUI only 1 in 10 are sampled and sequenced. Is this just an extrapolation from a statistical sample?
Providing that the sampling is random, and that they adjust estimates appropriately to account for the characteristics of the sampled population, then it ought to be possible to estimate the prevelence accurately.
Thanks. That's what I had assumed. Was just confused by a figure accurate to 4 places. I presume they don't say "estimated" to avoid confusion then.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking. The figures today are for the number of tests where the PCR test shows the S-gene dropout, as some PCR testing can show this and most of them will be Omicron, or where the test has been sequenced. So those are an accurate count.
The randomly sampled tests that are sequenced are used to estimate prevalance, which is where we get the "many times larger" claims from. Those figures are used to esimate how common a variant is if we account for the asymptomatic cases, the untested cases, test errors, and bulk of tests being unsequenced.
So the test count of cases is accurate, and the random sampling for sequencing is also used to estimate prevelance with less accuracy but good enough to work with.
Cheers. I had a feeling it must be a bit more complex than that. PB really is great for this kind of detailed answer. Thanks.
Up about 5k cases on last Sunday and about general roughly on trend in terms of up bit over 10% week on week.
When you do your graph thing today Malmesbury, and this isn’t criticism of your role or your work, but it occurred to me if it is very very bad or very good news I don’t have a clue or feel for it - How creative can you get with your graphs Malmsy, so at glance we know it good day or bad day? For a very good day How about surfers surfing the wave? Or ups and downs Flowers in the garden in a primary school book? For sad day Can you do one with bats and pangolins? On scary day something like Prof Quatermass glares at in black and white like Daphne Orams sine wave oscillator screen?
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
“...and the message ‘LAPPED CARS MAY MOW OVERTAKE’ has been sent to all competitors...”
“...once the last lapped car has passed the leader...”
Shit, I missed this...
“...the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the FOLLOWING lap.” (my capitals).
Yup, those that were let through were able to do so before the start of the final lap, if Mick Schumacher had to come through the safety car would have gone past the start line and that's the end of the race.
Masi was screwed whatever he did. Red flag the race and people complain that he's stuck Max up Lewis's arse and HE'LL TRY AND CRASH. Don't red flag and hope they shift the car so we get some racing. They go slow and ah shit we may finish behind the SC. Then "we're done", snap decision, bunch them up and 1 lap shootout.
I don't think Masi is the best race director F1 has ever had...
You stick to the rules and regs and tell the bitching parties about the rules and regs. It's really that simple, that's why they exist in the first place. Making it up has just created a ridiculous situation and I wouldn't be surprised if Mercedes take this to CAS and win with the race flagged at lap 57.
Which would replace silly with silly. Mercedes have a better shot at Verstappen alongside and momentarily ahead of Hamilton behind the safety car. Wasn't an overtake though as the regulations talk about...
Why is it silly? Those are regulations? It's the rulebook. Red Bull could have bitched a lot about a SC finish but the rule book is the rule book. This way Mercedes might actually have grounds to have the last lap voided because the restart rules weren't properly followed.
Silly is "have the last lap voided". You can't do that in the rules. So you are replacing breaking the rules with breaking the rules.
As much as I think the situation is disgraceful, I suspect you’re right.
Perhaps that’s why Mercedes have gone for the overtake under the safety car as well? The stewards might say that Verstappen shouldn’t suffer because of Masi’s fuck up. But he could be made to suffer for his own infringement.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Mask mandates do not work,
At best they delay but do not stop COVID speeding.
But if we assume that masks themselves do slow the spared a bit, which I think is credible, then by having people chose whether or not they where one, then people are able to chose make a chose as to how much risk they face. as a result people who are at risk because of age or pre-existing condition can mask up while those of us who are not can chose to not mask.
As a result we still keep on having infections till we reach heard immunity, but we the people who have court it are disproportionately those who where happy with the risk, and therefor less vonrable people have caught it, and slightly less hospitalisation and death.
Which is good.
That this is only a very small effect, is simply because masks are not that effective in the big scheme of things.
Masks, when widely adopted, can help bring the R number below 1. The more people wear masks, and the better the technique, and the better the quality of mask, the more likely you can shrink the incidence of the virus towards zero. See Fig 1 and the associated text: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
Whether or not you think that's sustainable or desirable is another matter. But they do work, fact.
There aren't people still claiming masks don't work at all, are there?
Up about 5k cases on last Sunday and about general roughly on trend in terms of up bit over 10% week on week.
When you do your graph thing today Malmesbury, and this isn’t criticism of your role or your work, but it occurred to me if it is very very bad or very good news I don’t have a clue or feel for it - How creative can you get with your graphs Malmsy, so at glance we know it good day or bad day? For a very good day How about surfers surfing the wave? Or ups and downs Flowers in the garden in a primary school book? For sad day Can you do one with bats and pangolins? On scary day something like Prof Quatermass glares at in black and white like Daphne Orams sine wave oscillator screen?
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Mask mandates do not work,
At best they delay but do not stop COVID speeding.
But if we assume that masks themselves do slow the spared a bit, which I think is credible, then by having people chose whether or not they where one, then people are able to chose make a chose as to how much risk they face. as a result people who are at risk because of age or pre-existing condition can mask up while those of us who are not can chose to not mask.
As a result we still keep on having infections till we reach heard immunity, but we the people who have court it are disproportionately those who where happy with the risk, and therefor less vonrable people have caught it, and slightly less hospitalisation and death.
Which is good.
That this is only a very small effect, is simply because masks are not that effective in the big scheme of things.
Masks, when widely adopted, can help bring the R number below 1. The more people wear masks, and the better the technique, and the better the quality of mask, the more likely you can shrink the incidence of the virus towards zero. See Fig 1 and the associated text: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
Whether or not you think that's sustainable or desirable is another matter. But they do work, fact.
There aren't people still claiming masks don't work at all, are there?
Hamilton's 40 on Betfair for SPOTY, which may be eminently hedgeable if he gets given the title.
After his gracious behaviour after being robbed by fate/Masi, he might be a contender even if the results stands.
Much like Damon Hill in 1994.
That's why I backed him. I still think Raducanu should and will deservedly get it, but £4 @ 50 gives me insurance against a sympathy vote for Hamilton.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
“...and the message ‘LAPPED CARS MAY MOW OVERTAKE’ has been sent to all competitors...”
“...once the last lapped car has passed the leader...”
Shit, I missed this...
“...the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the FOLLOWING lap.” (my capitals).
Yup, those that were let through were able to do so before the start of the final lap, if Mick Schumacher had to come through the safety car would have gone past the start line and that's the end of the race.
Masi was screwed whatever he did. Red flag the race and people complain that he's stuck Max up Lewis's arse and HE'LL TRY AND CRASH. Don't red flag and hope they shift the car so we get some racing. They go slow and ah shit we may finish behind the SC. Then "we're done", snap decision, bunch them up and 1 lap shootout.
I don't think Masi is the best race director F1 has ever had...
You stick to the rules and regs and tell the bitching parties about the rules and regs. It's really that simple, that's why they exist in the first place. Making it up has just created a ridiculous situation and I wouldn't be surprised if Mercedes take this to CAS and win with the race flagged at lap 57.
Which would replace silly with silly. Mercedes have a better shot at Verstappen alongside and momentarily ahead of Hamilton behind the safety car. Wasn't an overtake though as the regulations talk about...
Why is it silly? Those are regulations? It's the rulebook. Red Bull could have bitched a lot about a SC finish but the rule book is the rule book. This way Mercedes might actually have grounds to have the last lap voided because the restart rules weren't properly followed.
Silly is "have the last lap voided". You can't do that in the rules. So you are replacing breaking the rules with breaking the rules.
As much as I think the situation is disgraceful, I suspect you’re right.
Perhaps that’s why Mercedes have gone for the overtake under the safety car as well? The stewards might say that Verstappen shouldn’t suffer because of Masi’s fuck up. But he could be made to suffer for his own infringement.
They're trying for a 5 second time penalty. No chance - there was no overtake.
Sport is this. What ifs and maybes. In a title race this tight a whole stack of things could have been done differently throughout the season that would have created a wholly different end.
Just heard Luca is 6-2 up against Higgins in the final but someone’s fallen over in the crowd so they’re starting again 8-8 final frame decider Rolling on the floor laughing @F1 Billiards 🏎
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Utter nonsense. And worse than that, dangerous.
How is it nonsense? Or dangerous?
What is dangerous is making the vulnerable as likely to be infected as the low-risk. Its bloody counterproductive in fact which is why hospitalisations have ended up higher in nations with mask mandates than those without them.
The sooner the low-risk unvaccinated people get infected the better. That builds even more herd immunity than we already have, preventing it and ensuring the high-risk are as likely to be infected as the low-risk is stupid.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
Because without a mandate people in England won't wear one.
Good!
Educate those who are bothered wear a properly fitted FFP2 or better mask.
For everyone else, let them get their natural immunity booster if that's what they'd prefer.
Free choice.
I'm not sure it matters how many studies people can come up with on efficacy of masks in lab settings. We just had a live study in the British isles with England being the control group, and it's not obvious that mask mandates moved the dial one way or the other in any meaningful way.
Since they're not cost free from very many perspectives, it is ergo not a worthwhile measure. And would be better replaced by prescribing FFP3 masks to vulnerable category patients, as I suggested to my mp in the summer.
But we've long ago left the station of trying to actively manage this in the most efficient way. It's all just about doing something anything to avoid criticism at the enquiry and using it as a new battle front in the culture wars.
The studies linked to earlier were real-world, not lab studies.
Ironically enough, there was a lab study done which seemed to indicate cloth masks INCREASE the amount large particles detected when participants talked/coughed into a tube that was designed to measure droplets etc. The confounding effect was the machine was apparently picking up small fibres which are obviously harmless from a Covid point of view. I didn't include that link because it's been deliberately misused by anti-science jerks to try to show that masks make Covid transmission more likely.
To reiterate, the studies I linked to show real world transmission reductions.
What do you make of the live experiment we've just had in the UK? It must be among the most rigorous there's been, given up until the summer the UK had largely had identical policies to covid, roughly equal rates of prior transmission, vaccine penetration, demographics and societal norms. For the purposes of forming specifically UK policy on this subject, there can be no more relevant and useful experiment out there.
You're just ignoring it because you've picked a side in the culture wars and like to look down on anyone taking a broader view of the cost/ benefits of mask mandates, because it makes you feel morally and intellectually superior.
Oh, and which side do you think I'm on? If you know anything about me, you'll know that what I care most about is a fact-based approach. When people back up their argument with lies, and I call that out, is that some superiority complex? No, it's basic fucking standards. That's where we all should be starting from. I have carefully been trying to avoid saying masks should or should not be mandate because I see both sides. All I'm doing here is calling out lies that one side is using. Your implication that this is me taking sides WOULD be true if the anti-mask-mandate side had no other arguments. But they do. There are valid arguments against mask mandates. But, as a point of fact, "they don't work" isn't one of them.
Professor from SA just on BBC news saying there is no pressure on hospitals in SA from Omicron, that's why they have no lockdown
Yeh, but we have modellers who say the graphs says his report from actual real life must be wrong.
At first I thought it was a global thing: let’s all airily ignore the South Africans. Thanks to @MoonRabbit , I have since learned that it’s probably just us that are airily ignoring the South Africans. Maybe colonial attitudes die hard among our elite. Dunno.
Cases up a little on last week, but growth rate on front page has actually fallen as it's a smaller rise than last week. If Omicron is as widespread as Sage keep saying, surely cases should be growing faster than tests by now.
Not really. Omicron accounts for an estimated 2.5% of cases. Not sure that 1 239 can be described as "widespread". There could easily be an exponential spread of the new variant completely offset by a small decline in Delta. Really too early to tell.
The raw number means nothing as they only sequence a very small fraction of tests to discover what is Omicron. It is the rate of the increase in the number that means something and it is doubling roughly every 2 days.
Health agency believe 1/3 of new cases in London are now Omicron.
In many ways it is good that it is concentrated in one region, we can watch London hospitalisation stats
“...and the message ‘LAPPED CARS MAY MOW OVERTAKE’ has been sent to all competitors...”
“...once the last lapped car has passed the leader...”
Shit, I missed this...
“...the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the FOLLOWING lap.” (my capitals).
Yup, those that were let through were able to do so before the start of the final lap, if Mick Schumacher had to come through the safety car would have gone past the start line and that's the end of the race.
Masi was screwed whatever he did. Red flag the race and people complain that he's stuck Max up Lewis's arse and HE'LL TRY AND CRASH. Don't red flag and hope they shift the car so we get some racing. They go slow and ah shit we may finish behind the SC. Then "we're done", snap decision, bunch them up and 1 lap shootout.
I don't think Masi is the best race director F1 has ever had...
You stick to the rules and regs and tell the bitching parties about the rules and regs. It's really that simple, that's why they exist in the first place. Making it up has just created a ridiculous situation and I wouldn't be surprised if Mercedes take this to CAS and win with the race flagged at lap 57.
Which would replace silly with silly. Mercedes have a better shot at Verstappen alongside and momentarily ahead of Hamilton behind the safety car. Wasn't an overtake though as the regulations talk about...
Why is it silly? Those are regulations? It's the rulebook. Red Bull could have bitched a lot about a SC finish but the rule book is the rule book. This way Mercedes might actually have grounds to have the last lap voided because the restart rules weren't properly followed.
Silly is "have the last lap voided". You can't do that in the rules. So you are replacing breaking the rules with breaking the rules.
That's entirely the point, the rules were broken and now there needs to be a fix.
I think the Government should mandate the higher quality masks on public transport now.
Ski resorts this year - has to be surgical grade or FFP2 AND you have to wear them on the ski lifts.
Not when skiing though - which is ironic because I wear a mask when skiing anyway!
I'm considering ordering a new set of the higher quality ones, I already use surgical grade but I think FP2 is even better right? On public transport in Germany, I think it has to be FP2.
The cloth masks are worse, although much better than nothing.
Has any research been done on reusing "single-use" masks and how effectiveness breaks down over time?
Any other leader would be, oh Starmer is 10 points ahead
Trust you're enjoying this Horse and it is giving you a boost.
After all, it is quite funny to watch Johnson flopping (which sounds like a bad porn movie but couldn't be worse than the actualité).
To use that old PB narrative. Did everyone stock up on enough popcorn?
I'm certainly sitting back and enjoying the show.
Only evens now to be still PM at the next party conf. I keep topping up against the flow but I might be trying to catch a falling knife. VERY interesting times.
@Stocky Thank you also for your kind PM, I am sorry I had not acknowledged it until now. I am seeing the counsellor once a week which is helping me to cope. Although I am nervous and worried about a future lockdown which has got me down.
Bookies have paid out on the WDC. Bit surprised. Chance of a reversal is slim but not zero.
Its zero. They can void today's race and Verstappen is still the world champion. "Just delete the last lap" is not a sanction available.
They're asking for a 5 sec penalty for Max overtaking under the SC.
Yes I know. But he didn't overtake. Having nose slightly ahead for a second is not an overtake - and as the "place was given back" we then go back to the lap 1 incident where the stewards lets Lewis leave the track and keep the advantage.
Or we can go back through the whole season where one then the other had done stuff to edge the other. This is sport.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
One of the sickest jokes of this whole thing is Merc probably have more chance on the safety car overtake appeal than the blatent undeniable cheating from the race director appeal - Max did gain a lasting advantage by blocking Lewis from undertaking a normal safety car restart, and far more importantly, it allows the powers that be to deny they've ever made a mistake.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
Because without a mandate people in England won't wear one.
Good!
Educate those who are bothered wear a properly fitted FFP2 or better mask.
For everyone else, let them get their natural immunity booster if that's what they'd prefer.
Free choice.
I'm not sure it matters how many studies people can come up with on efficacy of masks in lab settings. We just had a live study in the British isles with England being the control group, and it's not obvious that mask mandates moved the dial one way or the other in any meaningful way.
Since they're not cost free from very many perspectives, it is ergo not a worthwhile measure. And would be better replaced by prescribing FFP3 masks to vulnerable category patients, as I suggested to my mp in the summer.
But we've long ago left the station of trying to actively manage this in the most efficient way. It's all just about doing something anything to avoid criticism at the enquiry and using it as a new battle front in the culture wars.
The studies linked to earlier were real-world, not lab studies.
Ironically enough, there was a lab study done which seemed to indicate cloth masks INCREASE the amount large particles detected when participants talked/coughed into a tube that was designed to measure droplets etc. The confounding effect was the machine was apparently picking up small fibres which are obviously harmless from a Covid point of view. I didn't include that link because it's been deliberately misused by anti-science jerks to try to show that masks make Covid transmission more likely.
To reiterate, the studies I linked to show real world transmission reductions.
What do you make of the live experiment we've just had in the UK? It must be among the most rigorous there's been, given up until the summer the UK had largely had identical policies to covid, roughly equal rates of prior transmission, vaccine penetration, demographics and societal norms. For the purposes of forming specifically UK policy on this subject, there can be no more relevant and useful experiment out there.
You're just ignoring it because you've picked a side in the culture wars and like to look down on anyone taking a broader view of the cost/ benefits of mask mandates, because it makes you feel morally and intellectually superior.
Oh, and which side do you think I'm on? If you know anything about me, you'll know that what I care most about is a fact-based approach. When people back up their argument with lies, and I call that out, is that some superiority complex? No, it's basic fucking standards. That's where we all should be starting from. I have carefully been trying to avoid saying masks should or should not be mandate because I see both sides. All I'm doing here is calling out lies that one side is using. Your implication that this is me taking sides WOULD be true if the anti-mask-mandate side had no other arguments. But they do. There are valid arguments against mask mandates. But, as a point of fact, "they don't work" isn't one of them.
They don't work. Hospitalisations are running long-term as high or higher in nations with mask mandates. Because they're not protecting the vulnerable.
Masking the vulnerable but unmasking the low-risk works better as it means the low-risk get natural immunity which protects the vulnerable.
All you're doing is demonstrating that masks reduce infections in the short-term and taking that as reducing infections = working. No, reducing infections amongst the low-risk from what should naturally occur isn't working, its counterproductive dangerous bullshit.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Utter nonsense. And worse than that, dangerous.
How is it nonsense? Or dangerous?
What is dangerous is making the vulnerable as likely to be infected as the low-risk. Its bloody counterproductive in fact which is why hospitalisations have ended up higher in nations with mask mandates than those without them.
The sooner the low-risk unvaccinated people get infected the better. That builds even more herd immunity than we already have, preventing it and ensuring the high-risk are as likely to be infected as the low-risk is stupid.
Indeed. What is dangerous to you about other people dying?
I think the Government should mandate the higher quality masks on public transport now.
Ski resorts this year - has to be surgical grade or FFP2 AND you have to wear them on the ski lifts.
Not when skiing though - which is ironic because I wear a mask when skiing anyway!
I'm considering ordering a new set of the higher quality ones, I already use surgical grade but I think FP2 is even better right? On public transport in Germany, I think it has to be FP2.
The cloth masks are worse, although much better than nothing.
Has any research been done on reusing "single-use" masks and how effectiveness breaks down over time?
I like the AB mask (below) which you put filters in. It was a Which? best buy for comfort, not fogging-up glasses and filtration. AND it's washable, so more environmentally friendly..
But I don't think it qualifies as surgical grade or FFP2.
“...and the message ‘LAPPED CARS MAY MOW OVERTAKE’ has been sent to all competitors...”
“...once the last lapped car has passed the leader...”
Shit, I missed this...
“...the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the FOLLOWING lap.” (my capitals).
Yup, those that were let through were able to do so before the start of the final lap, if Mick Schumacher had to come through the safety car would have gone past the start line and that's the end of the race.
Masi was screwed whatever he did. Red flag the race and people complain that he's stuck Max up Lewis's arse and HE'LL TRY AND CRASH. Don't red flag and hope they shift the car so we get some racing. They go slow and ah shit we may finish behind the SC. Then "we're done", snap decision, bunch them up and 1 lap shootout.
I don't think Masi is the best race director F1 has ever had...
You stick to the rules and regs and tell the bitching parties about the rules and regs. It's really that simple, that's why they exist in the first place. Making it up has just created a ridiculous situation and I wouldn't be surprised if Mercedes take this to CAS and win with the race flagged at lap 57.
Which would replace silly with silly. Mercedes have a better shot at Verstappen alongside and momentarily ahead of Hamilton behind the safety car. Wasn't an overtake though as the regulations talk about...
Why is it silly? Those are regulations? It's the rulebook. Red Bull could have bitched a lot about a SC finish but the rule book is the rule book. This way Mercedes might actually have grounds to have the last lap voided because the restart rules weren't properly followed.
Silly is "have the last lap voided". You can't do that in the rules. So you are replacing breaking the rules with breaking the rules.
That's entirely the point, the rules were broken and now there needs to be a fix.
Sure. And under the rules the fix removes round 23 completely and Max Verstappen is world champion thanks to one more race win. Well we say "race", it was Belgium.
You can't fix rules being broken by having some other rules broken.
Cases up a little on last week, but growth rate on front page has actually fallen as it's a smaller rise than last week. If Omicron is as widespread as Sage keep saying, surely cases should be growing faster than tests by now.
Not really. Omicron accounts for an estimated 2.5% of cases. Not sure that 1 239 can be described as "widespread". There could easily be an exponential spread of the new variant completely offset by a small decline in Delta. Really too early to tell.
Edit. I see @JohnLilburne made the point earlier. On a previous page so I missed it.
1,239 detected. I thought much grander claims were being made for actual numbers, such that it should be having a meaningful impact by now.
Fair enough. Was just putting a counter argument as a non-expert. We'll know soon enough anyway.
Mask mandates reduce the transmission rate of the virus, and therefore reduce the number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths. This is true. But to what end? Assuming that the intention is not to mandate masks indefinitely, what is the strategy intended to achieve? There are a number of possibilities I can think of.
1. Eradication of Covid. This is now likely to be impossible, though it appears to be the strategy still being pursued by China. It will be interesting to see how that works out for them.
2. Delay infections until better treatments or vaccines are available. If this were the case then I'd expect to see a lot more urgency over the development of further vaccines, such as the nasal spray options, but the urgency appears to have entirely disappeared from further vaccine development.
3. Reduce the run-rate of infections to reduce the load on the NHS. The NHS is certainly under strain, but it's not the the same sort of strain as during the first couple of waves. This feels a lot more like a permanent additional strain that we have to work out how the NHS is going to cope with on an indefinite basis. I feel that using a mask mandate in these circumstances is tantamount to using a mask mandate indefinitely. There will never come a point where removing a mask mandate does not cause additional strain on the NHS.
I think the key point is that how we approach a chronic situation is different to how we approach an acute situation. We need sustainable policies for the long-term to reduce the strain on the NHS and to help it treat people int he most efficient manner. Mask mandates are not that.
“...and the message ‘LAPPED CARS MAY MOW OVERTAKE’ has been sent to all competitors...”
“...once the last lapped car has passed the leader...”
Shit, I missed this...
“...the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the FOLLOWING lap.” (my capitals).
Yup, those that were let through were able to do so before the start of the final lap, if Mick Schumacher had to come through the safety car would have gone past the start line and that's the end of the race.
Masi was screwed whatever he did. Red flag the race and people complain that he's stuck Max up Lewis's arse and HE'LL TRY AND CRASH. Don't red flag and hope they shift the car so we get some racing. They go slow and ah shit we may finish behind the SC. Then "we're done", snap decision, bunch them up and 1 lap shootout.
I don't think Masi is the best race director F1 has ever had...
You stick to the rules and regs and tell the bitching parties about the rules and regs. It's really that simple, that's why they exist in the first place. Making it up has just created a ridiculous situation and I wouldn't be surprised if Mercedes take this to CAS and win with the race flagged at lap 57.
Which would replace silly with silly. Mercedes have a better shot at Verstappen alongside and momentarily ahead of Hamilton behind the safety car. Wasn't an overtake though as the regulations talk about...
Why is it silly? Those are regulations? It's the rulebook. Red Bull could have bitched a lot about a SC finish but the rule book is the rule book. This way Mercedes might actually have grounds to have the last lap voided because the restart rules weren't properly followed.
Silly is "have the last lap voided". You can't do that in the rules. So you are replacing breaking the rules with breaking the rules.
That's entirely the point, the rules were broken and now there needs to be a fix.
Sure. And under the rules the fix removes round 23 completely and Max Verstappen is world champion thanks to one more race win. Well we say "race", it was Belgium.
You can't fix rules being broken by having some other rules broken.
The sanction being asked for has happened before and is within the rules. Again, you don't seem to know much about F1, seems more like you're just up for an argument.
Up about 5k cases on last Sunday and about general roughly on trend in terms of up bit over 10% week on week.
When you do your graph thing today Malmesbury, and this isn’t criticism of your role or your work, but it occurred to me if it is very very bad or very good news I don’t have a clue or feel for it - How creative can you get with your graphs Malmsy, so at glance we know it good day or bad day? For a very good day How about surfers surfing the wave? Or ups and downs Flowers in the garden in a primary school book? For sad day Can you do one with bats and pangolins? On scary day something like Prof Quatermass glares at in black and white like Daphne Orams sine wave oscillator screen?
“...and the message ‘LAPPED CARS MAY MOW OVERTAKE’ has been sent to all competitors...”
“...once the last lapped car has passed the leader...”
Shit, I missed this...
“...the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the FOLLOWING lap.” (my capitals).
Yup, those that were let through were able to do so before the start of the final lap, if Mick Schumacher had to come through the safety car would have gone past the start line and that's the end of the race.
Masi was screwed whatever he did. Red flag the race and people complain that he's stuck Max up Lewis's arse and HE'LL TRY AND CRASH. Don't red flag and hope they shift the car so we get some racing. They go slow and ah shit we may finish behind the SC. Then "we're done", snap decision, bunch them up and 1 lap shootout.
I don't think Masi is the best race director F1 has ever had...
You stick to the rules and regs and tell the bitching parties about the rules and regs. It's really that simple, that's why they exist in the first place. Making it up has just created a ridiculous situation and I wouldn't be surprised if Mercedes take this to CAS and win with the race flagged at lap 57.
Which would replace silly with silly. Mercedes have a better shot at Verstappen alongside and momentarily ahead of Hamilton behind the safety car. Wasn't an overtake though as the regulations talk about...
Why is it silly? Those are regulations? It's the rulebook. Red Bull could have bitched a lot about a SC finish but the rule book is the rule book. This way Mercedes might actually have grounds to have the last lap voided because the restart rules weren't properly followed.
Silly is "have the last lap voided". You can't do that in the rules. So you are replacing breaking the rules with breaking the rules.
That's entirely the point, the rules were broken and now there needs to be a fix.
Sure. And under the rules the fix removes round 23 completely and Max Verstappen is world champion thanks to one more race win. Well we say "race", it was Belgium.
You can't fix rules being broken by having some other rules broken.
Yes you can. I’m not sure what remedies the CAB can impose but winding the race back a lap wouldn’t be “breaking the rules” if it’s in their gift.
Mask mandates reduce the transmission rate of the virus, and therefore reduce the number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths. This is true. But to what end? Assuming that the intention is not to mandate masks indefinitely, what is the strategy intended to achieve? There are a number of possibilities I can think of.
1. Eradication of Covid. This is now likely to be impossible, though it appears to be the strategy still being pursued by China. It will be interesting to see how that works out for them.
2. Delay infections until better treatments or vaccines are available. If this were the case then I'd expect to see a lot more urgency over the development of further vaccines, such as the nasal spray options, but the urgency appears to have entirely disappeared from further vaccine development.
3. Reduce the run-rate of infections to reduce the load on the NHS. The NHS is certainly under strain, but it's not the the same sort of strain as during the first couple of waves. This feels a lot more like a permanent additional strain that we have to work out how the NHS is going to cope with on an indefinite basis. I feel that using a mask mandate in these circumstances is tantamount to using a mask mandate indefinitely. There will never come a point where removing a mask mandate does not cause additional strain on the NHS.
I think the key point is that how we approach a chronic situation is different to how we approach an acute situation. We need sustainable policies for the long-term to reduce the strain on the NHS and to help it treat people int he most efficient manner. Mask mandates are not that.
I did hear that there are significant numbers awaiting discharge from hospital but cannot be decanted to care homes and are therefore bed-blockers now. Not sure if this is true.
Hamilton's 40 on Betfair for SPOTY, which may be eminently hedgeable if he gets given the title.
After his gracious behaviour after being robbed by fate/Masi, he might be a contender even if the results stands.
Took it brilliantly, yes. My sense fwiw is that Race Control busted a gut to put on a dramatic on-track climax for the watching world. I doubt they'd have done the same if the race had been mid season or if the title had already been decided. I think it was that, rather than specific 'fix' for MV and RB. Dodgy nevertheless.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
Because without a mandate people in England won't wear one.
Good!
Educate those who are bothered wear a properly fitted FFP2 or better mask.
For everyone else, let them get their natural immunity booster if that's what they'd prefer.
Free choice.
I'm not sure it matters how many studies people can come up with on efficacy of masks in lab settings. We just had a live study in the British isles with England being the control group, and it's not obvious that mask mandates moved the dial one way or the other in any meaningful way.
Since they're not cost free from very many perspectives, it is ergo not a worthwhile measure. And would be better replaced by prescribing FFP3 masks to vulnerable category patients, as I suggested to my mp in the summer.
But we've long ago left the station of trying to actively manage this in the most efficient way. It's all just about doing something anything to avoid criticism at the enquiry and using it as a new battle front in the culture wars.
The studies linked to earlier were real-world, not lab studies.
Ironically enough, there was a lab study done which seemed to indicate cloth masks INCREASE the amount large particles detected when participants talked/coughed into a tube that was designed to measure droplets etc. The confounding effect was the machine was apparently picking up small fibres which are obviously harmless from a Covid point of view. I didn't include that link because it's been deliberately misused by anti-science jerks to try to show that masks make Covid transmission more likely.
To reiterate, the studies I linked to show real world transmission reductions.
What do you make of the live experiment we've just had in the UK? It must be among the most rigorous there's been, given up until the summer the UK had largely had identical policies to covid, roughly equal rates of prior transmission, vaccine penetration, demographics and societal norms. For the purposes of forming specifically UK policy on this subject, there can be no more relevant and useful experiment out there.
You're just ignoring it because you've picked a side in the culture wars and like to look down on anyone taking a broader view of the cost/ benefits of mask mandates, because it makes you feel morally and intellectually superior.
Oh, and which side do you think I'm on? If you know anything about me, you'll know that what I care most about is a fact-based approach. When people back up their argument with lies, and I call that out, is that some superiority complex? No, it's basic fucking standards. That's where we all should be starting from. I have carefully been trying to avoid saying masks should or should not be mandate because I see both sides. All I'm doing here is calling out lies that one side is using. Your implication that this is me taking sides WOULD be true if the anti-mask-mandate side had no other arguments. But they do. There are valid arguments against mask mandates. But, as a point of fact, "they don't work" isn't one of them.
Scotland and Wales have had stricter mask wearing rules but to be fair the estimates show Scotland at 1 jn 80, England 1 in 60 and Wales 1 in 50 so I cannot see the argument as proven by either side
My attitude is I will wear a mask in shops, (I do not use public transport) as a matter of respect for others despite having a medical condition that is not conducive to wearing masks.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Utter nonsense. And worse than that, dangerous.
How is it nonsense? Or dangerous?
What is dangerous is making the vulnerable as likely to be infected as the low-risk. Its bloody counterproductive in fact which is why hospitalisations have ended up higher in nations with mask mandates than those without them.
The sooner the low-risk unvaccinated people get infected the better. That builds even more herd immunity than we already have, preventing it and ensuring the high-risk are as likely to be infected as the low-risk is stupid.
Indeed. What is dangerous to you about other people dying?
If I was wearing a mask while encouraging others not to then you'd have a point.
You don't. Until it was the law I was following my own advice and not wearing a mask. I knew I could reduce my own risk by wearing an FFP2 mask but I'm not worried about being vulnerable so I would rather take my chances with the vaccine being enough and save the masks for the vulnerable instead.
One of the sickest jokes of this whole thing is Merc probably have more chance on the safety car overtake appeal than the blatent undeniable cheating from the race director appeal - Max did gain a lasting advantage by blocking Lewis from undertaking a normal safety car restart, and far more importantly, it allows the powers that be to deny they've ever made a mistake.
Huh? As I said earlier I expected Lewis to win and think it would have been hugely deserved and his best championship. But some of these complaints are just silly now.
How on earth did Verstappen block a normal safety car restart? He was not alongside at the point when Hamilton took off, was he?
And "cheating from the race director" - what is he punting for Red Bull? If so why did he bat aside their appeals over Hamilton's lasting advantage after the lap 1 incident? Or the long hold backs of both Bottas and Hamilton in Jeddah formation laps?
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Utter nonsense. And worse than that, dangerous.
How is it nonsense? Or dangerous?
What is dangerous is making the vulnerable as likely to be infected as the low-risk. Its bloody counterproductive in fact which is why hospitalisations have ended up higher in nations with mask mandates than those without them.
The sooner the low-risk unvaccinated people get infected the better. That builds even more herd immunity than we already have, preventing it and ensuring the high-risk are as likely to be infected as the low-risk is stupid.
What specifically are you doing to ensure you and your family are infected pronto then? It is the logical end point of your argument. As a responsible citizen you should call round here and stay with me till you test positive. But you aren't doing that, are you?
I think the Government should mandate the higher quality masks on public transport now.
Ski resorts this year - has to be surgical grade or FFP2 AND you have to wear them on the ski lifts.
Not when skiing though - which is ironic because I wear a mask when skiing anyway!
I'm considering ordering a new set of the higher quality ones, I already use surgical grade but I think FP2 is even better right? On public transport in Germany, I think it has to be FP2.
The cloth masks are worse, although much better than nothing.
Has any research been done on reusing "single-use" masks and how effectiveness breaks down over time?
FFP3 is what you want. They really aren't very expensive and fit much better.
Up about 5k cases on last Sunday and about general roughly on trend in terms of up bit over 10% week on week.
When you do your graph thing today Malmesbury, and this isn’t criticism of your role or your work, but it occurred to me if it is very very bad or very good news I don’t have a clue or feel for it - How creative can you get with your graphs Malmsy, so at glance we know it good day or bad day? For a very good day How about surfers surfing the wave? Or ups and downs Flowers in the garden in a primary school book? For sad day Can you do one with bats and pangolins? On scary day something like Prof Quatermass glares at in black and white like Daphne Orams sine wave oscillator screen?
Masks prevent YOU from transmitting the virus to somebody else, so not wearing a mask means you are wanting to transmit the virus to somebody vulnerable. I consider that incredibly selfish.
Is wearing a mask so goddamn difficult, for goodness sake get a grip - I wore one for two hours during a musical last night
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
One of the sickest jokes of this whole thing is Merc probably have more chance on the safety car overtake appeal than the blatent undeniable cheating from the race director appeal - Max did gain a lasting advantage by blocking Lewis from undertaking a normal safety car restart, and far more importantly, it allows the powers that be to deny they've ever made a mistake.
Huh? As I said earlier I expected Lewis to win and think it would have been hugely deserved and his best championship. But some of these complaints are just silly now.
How on earth did Verstappen block a normal safety car restart? He was not alongside at the point when Hamilton took off, was he?
And "cheating from the race director" - what is he punting for Red Bull? If so why did he bat aside their appeals over Hamilton's lasting advantage after the lap 1 incident? Or the long hold backs of both Bottas and Hamilton in Jeddah formation laps?
Last response as there's no point debating with someone just up for an argument who doesn't understand basics of the situation. Max pulled alongside and slightly ahead at the optimal spot to restart, blocking Lewis from controlling the restart at the point he would have chosen to gone. As if they gift he'd already received wasn't enough.
I think the Government should mandate the higher quality masks on public transport now.
Ski resorts this year - has to be surgical grade or FFP2 AND you have to wear them on the ski lifts.
Not when skiing though - which is ironic because I wear a mask when skiing anyway!
I'm considering ordering a new set of the higher quality ones, I already use surgical grade but I think FP2 is even better right? On public transport in Germany, I think it has to be FP2.
The cloth masks are worse, although much better than nothing.
Has any research been done on reusing "single-use" masks and how effectiveness breaks down over time?
FFP3 is what you want. They really aren't very expensive and fit much better.
Do you have any links? These are still single-use or reusable?
Masks prevent YOU from transmitting the virus to somebody else, so not wearing a mask means you are wanting to transmit the virus to somebody vulnerable. I consider that incredibly selfish.
Is wearing a mask so goddamn difficult, for goodness sake get a grip - I wore one for two hours during a musical last night
“...and the message ‘LAPPED CARS MAY MOW OVERTAKE’ has been sent to all competitors...”
“...once the last lapped car has passed the leader...”
Shit, I missed this...
“...the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the FOLLOWING lap.” (my capitals).
Yup, those that were let through were able to do so before the start of the final lap, if Mick Schumacher had to come through the safety car would have gone past the start line and that's the end of the race.
Masi was screwed whatever he did. Red flag the race and people complain that he's stuck Max up Lewis's arse and HE'LL TRY AND CRASH. Don't red flag and hope they shift the car so we get some racing. They go slow and ah shit we may finish behind the SC. Then "we're done", snap decision, bunch them up and 1 lap shootout.
I don't think Masi is the best race director F1 has ever had...
You stick to the rules and regs and tell the bitching parties about the rules and regs. It's really that simple, that's why they exist in the first place. Making it up has just created a ridiculous situation and I wouldn't be surprised if Mercedes take this to CAS and win with the race flagged at lap 57.
Which would replace silly with silly. Mercedes have a better shot at Verstappen alongside and momentarily ahead of Hamilton behind the safety car. Wasn't an overtake though as the regulations talk about...
Why is it silly? Those are regulations? It's the rulebook. Red Bull could have bitched a lot about a SC finish but the rule book is the rule book. This way Mercedes might actually have grounds to have the last lap voided because the restart rules weren't properly followed.
Silly is "have the last lap voided". You can't do that in the rules. So you are replacing breaking the rules with breaking the rules.
That's entirely the point, the rules were broken and now there needs to be a fix.
Sure. And under the rules the fix removes round 23 completely and Max Verstappen is world champion thanks to one more race win. Well we say "race", it was Belgium.
You can't fix rules being broken by having some other rules broken.
The sanction being asked for has happened before and is within the rules. Again, you don't seem to know much about F1, seems more like you're just up for an argument.
To be fair, I've been watching F1 for decades, knew two engineers at different teams (both of whom are now out of the sport), and knew a senior F1 bod reasonably well as a 'customer'.
And yet I've frequently thought that I don't know much about F1...
Any other leader would be, oh Starmer is 10 points ahead
Trust you're enjoying this Horse and it is giving you a boost.
After all, it is quite funny to watch Johnson flopping (which sounds like a bad porn movie but couldn't be worse than the actualité).
To use that old PB narrative. Did everyone stock up on enough popcorn?
I'm certainly sitting back and enjoying the show.
Only evens now to be still PM at the next party conf. I keep topping up against the flow but I might be trying to catch a falling knife. VERY interesting times.
I would suggest that Christmas may just have saved Boris for an immediate challenge when he loses North Shropshire but depending on the situation in the early new year he may find the 1922 knocking on his door inviting him to consider his position
Mind you a political commentator today just cautioned that Boris is a fighter and to write him off may just be premature
Hamilton's 40 on Betfair for SPOTY, which may be eminently hedgeable if he gets given the title.
After his gracious behaviour after being robbed by fate/Masi, he might be a contender even if the results stands.
Took it brilliantly, yes. My sense fwiw is that Race Control busted a gut to put on a dramatic on-track climax for the watching world. I doubt they'd have done the same if the race had been mid season or if the title had already been decided. I think it was that, rather than specific 'fix' for MV and RB. Dodgy nevertheless.
Agreed. It was clearly for admirable racing reasons. But it does appear that they have contravened the rules by not insisting that all the trailing cars had to up lap themselves. So often is the road to Hell paved with good intentions.
Comments
See Fig 1 and the associated text: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
Whether or not you think that's sustainable or desirable is another matter. But they do work, fact.
Perhaps Brexit wasn't such a bad idea after all?
Not sure that 1 239 can be described as "widespread".
There could easily be an exponential spread of the new variant completely offset by a small decline in Delta.
Really too early to tell.
Edit. I see @JohnLilburne made the point earlier. On a previous page so I missed it.
That’s big.
After all, it is quite funny to watch Johnson flopping (which sounds like a bad porn movie but couldn't be worse than the actualité).
The joy of being a filthy neutral is that I'm not really invested in what happens next. My sympathies to those who are, as I imagine it might get quite testy.
Play nicely kids.
Health agency believe 1/3 of new cases in London are now Omicron.
Thereby pissing off absolutely everybody...
The clerk of the course not doing things properly is a much bigger infringement that is very hard to argue against.
But yes I am glad to have some of my predictions be validated and to see Starmer performing as I always suspected he would.
If good polls make me happy and that makes me a saddo, well I'll be a saddo then.
Hope you are well.
Currently we have about 800 p/d because we have the vaccines and boosters.
Beat me over the head with this post next spring if I'm wrong but I'll be amazed if we get near 2600 as a peak let alone as an average.
Average between now and Mid Feb? - I'd guess 1200.
PB really is great for this kind of detailed answer. Thanks.
Keir Starmer must resign
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
I'm certainly sitting back and enjoying the show.
Perhaps that’s why Mercedes have gone for the overtake under the safety car as well? The stewards might say that Verstappen shouldn’t suffer because of Masi’s fuck up. But he could be made to suffer for his own infringement.
Here’s the type of scary thing I was thinking of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y87zVGRwGfQ
Not when skiing though - which is ironic because I wear a mask when skiing anyway!
Sport is this. What ifs and maybes. In a title race this tight a whole stack of things could have been done differently throughout the season that would have created a wholly different end.
Just heard Luca is 6-2 up against Higgins in the final but someone’s fallen over in the crowd so they’re starting again 8-8 final frame decider Rolling on the floor laughing
@F1
Billiards 🏎
What is dangerous is making the vulnerable as likely to be infected as the low-risk. Its bloody counterproductive in fact which is why hospitalisations have ended up higher in nations with mask mandates than those without them.
The sooner the low-risk unvaccinated people get infected the better. That builds even more herd immunity than we already have, preventing it and ensuring the high-risk are as likely to be infected as the low-risk is stupid.
If you know anything about me, you'll know that what I care most about is a fact-based approach. When people back up their argument with lies, and I call that out, is that some superiority complex? No, it's basic fucking standards. That's where we all should be starting from.
I have carefully been trying to avoid saying masks should or should not be mandate because I see both sides. All I'm doing here is calling out lies that one side is using. Your implication that this is me taking sides WOULD be true if the anti-mask-mandate side had no other arguments. But they do. There are valid arguments against mask mandates. But, as a point of fact, "they don't work" isn't one of them.
The cloth masks are worse, although much better than nothing.
Has any research been done on reusing "single-use" masks and how effectiveness breaks down over time?
Hope you are well.
Or we can go back through the whole season where one then the other had done stuff to edge the other. This is sport.
Masking the vulnerable but unmasking the low-risk works better as it means the low-risk get natural immunity which protects the vulnerable.
All you're doing is demonstrating that masks reduce infections in the short-term and taking that as reducing infections = working. No, reducing infections amongst the low-risk from what should naturally occur isn't working, its counterproductive dangerous bullshit.
I like the AB mask (below) which you put filters in. It was a Which? best buy for comfort, not fogging-up glasses and filtration. AND it's washable, so more environmentally friendly..
But I don't think it qualifies as surgical grade or FFP2.
https://www.boots.com/the-body-doctor-reusable-antibacterial-mask-10285764
You can't fix rules being broken by having some other rules broken.
We'll know soon enough anyway.
1. Eradication of Covid. This is now likely to be impossible, though it appears to be the strategy still being pursued by China. It will be interesting to see how that works out for them.
2. Delay infections until better treatments or vaccines are available. If this were the case then I'd expect to see a lot more urgency over the development of further vaccines, such as the nasal spray options, but the urgency appears to have entirely disappeared from further vaccine development.
3. Reduce the run-rate of infections to reduce the load on the NHS. The NHS is certainly under strain, but it's not the the same sort of strain as during the first couple of waves. This feels a lot more like a permanent additional strain that we have to work out how the NHS is going to cope with on an indefinite basis. I feel that using a mask mandate in these circumstances is tantamount to using a mask mandate indefinitely. There will never come a point where removing a mask mandate does not cause additional strain on the NHS.
I think the key point is that how we approach a chronic situation is different to how we approach an acute situation. We need sustainable policies for the long-term to reduce the strain on the NHS and to help it treat people int he most efficient manner. Mask mandates are not that.
I don’t know but I doubt you know.
My attitude is I will wear a mask in shops, (I do not use public transport) as a matter of respect for others despite having a medical condition that is not conducive to wearing masks.
You don't. Until it was the law I was following my own advice and not wearing a mask. I knew I could reduce my own risk by wearing an FFP2 mask but I'm not worried about being vulnerable so I would rather take my chances with the vaccine being enough and save the masks for the vulnerable instead.
How on earth did Verstappen block a normal safety car restart? He was not alongside at the point when Hamilton took off, was he?
And "cheating from the race director" - what is he punting for Red Bull? If so why did he bat aside their appeals over Hamilton's lasting advantage after the lap 1 incident? Or the long hold backs of both Bottas and Hamilton in Jeddah formation laps?
It is the logical end point of your argument.
As a responsible citizen you should call round here and stay with me till you test positive.
But you aren't doing that, are you?
Is wearing a mask so goddamn difficult, for goodness sake get a grip - I wore one for two hours during a musical last night
That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble.
But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
And yet I've frequently thought that I don't know much about F1...
Mind you a political commentator today just cautioned that Boris is a fighter and to write him off may just be premature