Sitting here for CV19 booster. 😀 Son gets result of positive PCR test. 😱
Don’t need this.
Wife due to have CT scan for cancer investigation on Tuesday😬🤞 Father in law alas has days/ weeks left with lung cancer. 😔 Work having reorg to having to reapply for job. 😡
When life comes at you, it really comes at you.
I’m so sorry. You have my best wishes.
I’m not sure I should do this (mods please delete this or ban me if I’m overstepping a line) but if you need any pro-bono employment law advice on the work re-org then DM me.
(Again - mods - if that’s advertising/solicitation (excuse the pun) huge apologies and please delete)
Sitting here for CV19 booster. 😀 Son gets result of positive PCR test. 😱
Don’t need this.
Wife due to have CT scan for cancer investigation on Tuesday😬🤞 Father in law alas has days/ weeks left with lung cancer. 😔 Work having reorg to having to reapply for job. 😡
When life comes at you, it really comes at you.
I’m so sorry. You have my best wishes.
I’m not sure I should do this (mods please delete this or ban me if I’m overstepping a line) but if you need any pro-bono employment law advice on the work re-org then DM me.
(Again - mods - if that’s advertising/solicitation (excuse the pun) huge apologies and please delete)
By the way, my 34 year old friend says he can’t book his booster. Sounds like someone went early and they’ve shut it down for 30 somethings.
Can't book as in no slots or can't book as in the system says too young?
Think they have realised half the nation's under 40s are trying to book before tomorrow's official announcement.
Yeah. I fail to understand. As a 55yo I couldn't get an appointment before last Wednesday. How do they intend to ramp up capacity so quickly? Or are they going to open it up but with appointments in late January?
Presumably not as far ahead as late January, but you do wonder if the under 40s are going to have to be shunted to after Christmas at least. I'm 45 and my own appointment isn't until Friday 17th.
We are doing half a million a day. Can't see how everyone over 30 is going to be done by New Year. Or even close.
Johnson press conference at 8pm.... any ideas what that's about?
Resignation?
Would be good for Lab. if so.
I agree. So you are not one of these people saying Labour are only polling well now under SKS because BJ is shit?
It is helping though. I am surprised it has taken voters so long to catch up with us. I doubt many are laughing heartily with the fat ***** stranded on a zip wire waving two toy Union flags any more.
By the way, my 34 year old friend says he can’t book his booster. Sounds like someone went early and they’ve shut it down for 30 somethings.
Can't book as in no slots or can't book as in the system says too young?
Think they have realised half the nation's under 40s are trying to book before tomorrow's official announcement.
Yeah. I fail to understand. As a 55yo I couldn't get an appointment before last Wednesday. How do they intend to ramp up capacity so quickly? Or are they going to open it up but with appointments in late January?
Presumably not as far ahead as late January, but you do wonder if the under 40s are going to have to be shunted to after Christmas at least. I'm 45 and my own appointment isn't until Friday 17th.
I managed to get mine for next Sunday but only because you tipped me off about the early opening of bookings.
The biggest lie of the year has to now be the vaccine programme.
Good start then complacency and the boosters have been woeful
Lie doesn't begin to cover it. We were sold vaccines as the route out of restrictions. If, with nearly 90% of everyone over 12 now having had at least one shot, we still end up back in another bloody lockdown - my God, what will the country say?
The country will "say" we like lockdowns. Steve Baker meanwhile will try to do something against it.
The notion that everyone likes lockdowns is a myth. A lot of people do like lockdowns, particularly frightened old people (who are numerous and constitute the Government's core vote, hence the fact that their voice is so loud,) but there's a great many of us whom are heartily sick of them and a lot of those will disobey.
A sufficient number of people refusing to comply and spreading plague around each others' households is one of a number of mechanisms by which another lockdown attempt might eventually fail. Other possibilities include the disease being too transmissible for even lockdown to suppress adequately, and too many key workers being taken out of circulation by self-isolation requirements at the same time.
Sitting here for CV19 booster. 😀 Son gets result of positive PCR test. 😱
Don’t need this.
Wife due to have CT scan for cancer investigation on Tuesday😬🤞 Father in law alas has days/ weeks left with lung cancer. 😔 Work having reorg to having to reapply for job. 😡
When life comes at you, it really comes at you.
I’m so sorry. You have my best wishes.
I’m not sure I should do this (mods please delete this or ban me if I’m overstepping a line) but if you need any pro-bono employment law advice on the work re-org then DM me.
(Again - mods - if that’s advertising/solicitation (excuse the pun) huge apologies and please delete)
We can't have people soliciting on these boards.
It's Political Betting not Porn Betting.
I am with Tom Lehrer:
Don't solicit for your sister: that's not nice Unless you get a good percentage of the price.
We spent the entire summer being complacent and not getting prepared. Yet again we have repeated mistakes again, anytime people raised concerns, they were shouted down
Service Unavailable - Zero size object The server is temporarily unable to service your request. Please try again later. Reference #15.7fe41602.1639330770.3601f31c
Percentages of people who have had a 3rd dose of vaccine in England and Scotland
Experimental. Not to be trusted. The management take no all responsibility for the numbers in this item. The management take no responsibility. Your mileage will vary. May contain nuts. May contain nutters, May contain trained Marxist nutters.
I'm upset that no-one has said anything rude about this one.
Tower Hamlets is fucked, it looks like.
As is most of London, according to that. I'm moving to the safety of Hart or Stratford-upon-Avon.
We spent the entire summer being complacent and not getting prepared. Yet again we have repeated mistakes again, anytime people raised concerns, they were shouted down
@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.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
By the way, my 34 year old friend says he can’t book his booster. Sounds like someone went early and they’ve shut it down for 30 somethings.
Can't book as in no slots or can't book as in the system says too young?
Think they have realised half the nation's under 40s are trying to book before tomorrow's official announcement.
Yeah. I fail to understand. As a 55yo I couldn't get an appointment before last Wednesday. How do they intend to ramp up capacity so quickly? Or are they going to open it up but with appointments in late January?
Presumably not as far ahead as late January, but you do wonder if the under 40s are going to have to be shunted to after Christmas at least. I'm 45 and my own appointment isn't until Friday 17th.
I'm 46. My original appointment was on the 29th, but last Wednesday, I cancelled and rebooked for yesterday.
Sitting here for CV19 booster. 😀 Son gets result of positive PCR test. 😱
Don’t need this.
Wife due to have CT scan for cancer investigation on Tuesday😬🤞 Father in law alas has days/ weeks left with lung cancer. 😔 Work having reorg to having to reapply for job. 😡
When life comes at you, it really comes at you.
Blimey. That is a lot to deal with. Sorry to hear this. Best wishes and hope it all some how works out.
We spent the entire summer being complacent and not getting prepared. Yet again we have repeated mistakes again, anytime people raised concerns, they were shouted down
Yes Yes No Hell No How exactly?
Masks on public transport and in shops should never have been removed, we should have spent the summer getting cases down and getting capacity freed up. I did say the cases were too high and I did call for masks to be brought back and I was called silly by you and some others
By the way, my 34 year old friend says he can’t book his booster. Sounds like someone went early and they’ve shut it down for 30 somethings.
Can't book as in no slots or can't book as in the system says too young?
Think they have realised half the nation's under 40s are trying to book before tomorrow's official announcement.
Yeah. I fail to understand. As a 55yo I couldn't get an appointment before last Wednesday. How do they intend to ramp up capacity so quickly? Or are they going to open it up but with appointments in late January?
Anecdotally everyone has been able to get appointments within the next couple of weeks before Xmas, I expect a lot of slots have been added for this week and next. I've got mine in Friday, my sister has her one on Wednesday, my brother-in-law has his tomorrow. All of my friends are booked in for this week or early next week. This is London though so it could be a case of lower demand.
I don't think people mean FFP3 do they? It's FFP2 that are the better ones, FFP3 aren't the equivalent to the US 95 from what I just Googled
No, FFP3 are better than FFP2 AIUI. See eg.
"The British Standard BS EN 149:2001 covers disposable filtering facepiece (FFP) respirators. FFP respirators are classified as FFP1, FFP2 and FFP3 according to the level of protection afforded as assessed by specified laboratory tests, with FFP3 offering the most protection. In order to aid the correct selection of ‘adequate’ RPE assigned protection factors (APF) have been derived, and for FFP respirators these are 4, 10 and 20 respectively. The APF is the ratio of pollutant outside the device to that inside the device and is defined by British Standard BS EN 529:2005 as the ‘level of respiratory protection that can realistically be expected to be achieved in the workplace by 95% of adequately trained and supervised wearers using a properly functioning and correctly fitted respiratory protective device and is based on the 5th percentile of the Workplace Protection Factor (WPF) data’. APFs are published by both BS EN 529:2005 and by HSE in its RPE guidance HSG53 (HSE 2005a). Table 1 shows the efficiency requirement levels for the three classes of filtering facepieces from British Standards, together with their assigned protection factors"
I certainly hope so as I've spent a morning rummaging around in a very dusty woodwork room in a FFP3!
A relative made himself very unpopular with his workforce by forcing them to uses FFP3, noddy suits, gloves etc when handling fibre glass insulation on his building sites.
His theory is that he will be able to sleep in his old age, without hearing a lot of people coughing themselves to death, in his dreams.
Had exactly that sentiment when getting the old garage at our house demolished - a previous owner had lined it with asbestos cement sheeting which was deteriorating so I never used it except as a dump for junk. Very relieved when the chaps tooled up with noddy suits and a complete airlock and shower/changing room in their trailer.
By the way, my 34 year old friend says he can’t book his booster. Sounds like someone went early and they’ve shut it down for 30 somethings.
Can't book as in no slots or can't book as in the system says too young?
Think they have realised half the nation's under 40s are trying to book before tomorrow's official announcement.
Yeah. I fail to understand. As a 55yo I couldn't get an appointment before last Wednesday. How do they intend to ramp up capacity so quickly? Or are they going to open it up but with appointments in late January?
Presumably not as far ahead as late January, but you do wonder if the under 40s are going to have to be shunted to after Christmas at least. I'm 45 and my own appointment isn't until Friday 17th.
We are doing half a million a day. Can't see how everyone over 30 is going to be done by New Year. Or even close.
@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.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Philip has almost fallen into the anti-COVID/anti-vax hole and it's sad. Masks do work, it's proven to be true and if he denies that then he may as well say the Earth is flat
Rachel Wearmouth @REWearmouth · 4h The @metpoliceuk has confirmed to me that the force has not changed its position & still does NOT plan to investigate Downing Street/Boris Johnson for Covid rule-breaking
===
Will the state be paying back to students they fined for having parties in the same month?
Service Unavailable - Zero size object The server is temporarily unable to service your request. Please try again later. Reference #15.7fe41602.1639330770.3601f31c
It's good that there's clearly a lot of demand from my age cohort, generally it seems like people are really up for the third dose. I know of two people who weren't going to get vaccinated who have now got their first doses done as well.
Percentages of people who have had a 3rd dose of vaccine in England and Scotland
Experimental. Not to be trusted. The management take no all responsibility for the numbers in this item. The management take no responsibility. Your mileage will vary. May contain nuts. May contain nutters, May contain trained Marxist nutters.
I'm upset that no-one has said anything rude about this one.
Tower Hamlets is fucked, it looks like.
There’s so much to take in tonight, sorry I’m in back of car being driven home!
So it’s better to be at top of this graph than bottom? 55.61 Chelsea. I’ll have a go at saying something rude. Average age of London is probably lowest in country, vast amount not even allowed to book jabs yet - but then when you say fucked it’s not younger age groups most at risk?
We spent the entire summer being complacent and not getting prepared. Yet again we have repeated mistakes again, anytime people raised concerns, they were shouted down
Yes Yes No Hell No How exactly?
Masks on public transport and in shops should never have been removed, we should have spent the summer getting cases down and getting capacity freed up. I did say the cases were too high and I did call for masks to be brought back and I was called silly by you and some others
We've had them all along in Scotland. Much to some PBers' disgust.
Should it be a surprise that F1 having been bought by a US media business it now has the sporting integrity of WWE…
It has ever been this since Bernie took it over. The camaraderie in dangerous adversity from the drivers of1960s and 70s gave way to the cynicism we saw today. I had a letter published in the Times critical of Schumacher after he took Damon out in 1994 (?). A complete waste of effort on my part as nothing has changed.
We spent the entire summer being complacent and not getting prepared. Yet again we have repeated mistakes again, anytime people raised concerns, they were shouted down
Yes Yes No Hell No How exactly?
Masks on public transport and in shops should never have been removed, we should have spent the summer getting cases down and getting capacity freed up. I did say the cases were too high and I did call for masks to be brought back and I was called silly by you and some others
We've had them all along in Scotland. Much to some PBers' disgust.
With marginal, if any, differences to the Delta wave in England.
By the way, my 34 year old friend says he can’t book his booster. Sounds like someone went early and they’ve shut it down for 30 somethings.
Can't book as in no slots or can't book as in the system says too young?
Think they have realised half the nation's under 40s are trying to book before tomorrow's official announcement.
Yeah. I fail to understand. As a 55yo I couldn't get an appointment before last Wednesday. How do they intend to ramp up capacity so quickly? Or are they going to open it up but with appointments in late January?
Anecdotally everyone has been able to get appointments within the next couple of weeks before Xmas, I expect a lot of slots have been added for this week and next. I've got mine in Friday, my sister has her one on Wednesday, my brother-in-law has his tomorrow. All of my friends are booked in for this week or early next week. This is London though so it could be a case of lower demand.
We spent the entire summer being complacent and not getting prepared. Yet again we have repeated mistakes again, anytime people raised concerns, they were shouted down
Yes Yes No Hell No How exactly?
Masks on public transport and in shops should never have been removed, we should have spent the summer getting cases down and getting capacity freed up. I did say the cases were too high and I did call for masks to be brought back and I was called silly by you and some others
We've had them all along in Scotland. Much to some PBers' disgust.
Are tartan ones popular up there? Clan based covid coverings?
We spent the entire summer being complacent and not getting prepared. Yet again we have repeated mistakes again, anytime people raised concerns, they were shouted down
Yes Yes No Hell No How exactly?
Masks on public transport and in shops should never have been removed, we should have spent the summer getting cases down and getting capacity freed up. I did say the cases were too high and I did call for masks to be brought back and I was called silly by you and some others
We've had them all along in Scotland. Much to some PBers' disgust.
Because it impedes their civil liberties or some such rubbish.
Just wear a mask ffs, is it that difficult to do.
Was on the Tube last night, 15 drunk "lads" get on, no masks, holding cans and bottles of booze, clearly drunk and off to spread COVID around the Tube network and around London.
We spent the entire summer being complacent and not getting prepared. Yet again we have repeated mistakes again, anytime people raised concerns, they were shouted down
Yes Yes No Hell No How exactly?
Masks on public transport and in shops should never have been removed, we should have spent the summer getting cases down and getting capacity freed up. I did say the cases were too high and I did call for masks to be brought back and I was called silly by you and some others
We've had them all along in Scotland. Much to some PBers' disgust.
With marginal, if any, differences to the Delta wave in England.
Plus all the negatives of mask-wearing so Nippy can do something just to be different from evil England.
Sitting here for CV19 booster. 😀 Son gets result of positive PCR test. 😱
Don’t need this.
Wife due to have CT scan for cancer investigation on Tuesday😬🤞 Father in law alas has days/ weeks left with lung cancer. 😔 Work having reorg to having to reapply for job. 😡
When life comes at you, it really comes at you.
I’m so sorry. You have my best wishes.
I’m not sure I should do this (mods please delete this or ban me if I’m overstepping a line) but if you need any pro-bono employment law advice on the work re-org then DM me.
(Again - mods - if that’s advertising/solicitation (excuse the pun) huge apologies and please delete)
Wow. That’s so kind. I’m speechless
This maybe naive, foolish or short term, but I’m not focusing on work for now. I have a bit of time there I think (It all kicks off in the new year). But I will certainly bear your generous offer in mind.
In the meantime a very grumpy teenager needs food. Just hoping that CV19 does not interfere with hospital visits.
While Europe is the sport's traditional base, the championship operates globally, with 13 of the 23 races in the 2021 season taking place outside Europe. With the annual cost of running a mid-tier team – designing, building, and maintaining cars, pay, transport – being US$120 million,[7][needs update] its financial and political battles are widely reported. Its high profile and popularity have created a major merchandising environment, which has resulted in large investments from sponsors and budgets (in the hundreds of millions for the constructors). On 23 January 2017, Liberty Media confirmed the completion of the acquisition of Delta Topco, the company that controls Formula One, from private-equity firm CVC Capital Partners for $8 billion.[8][9]
The last race is a fix and Max Verstappen is a cheat
@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.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
By the way, my 34 year old friend says he can’t book his booster. Sounds like someone went early and they’ve shut it down for 30 somethings.
Can't book as in no slots or can't book as in the system says too young?
Think they have realised half the nation's under 40s are trying to book before tomorrow's official announcement.
Yeah. I fail to understand. As a 55yo I couldn't get an appointment before last Wednesday. How do they intend to ramp up capacity so quickly? Or are they going to open it up but with appointments in late January?
Presumably not as far ahead as late January, but you do wonder if the under 40s are going to have to be shunted to after Christmas at least. I'm 45 and my own appointment isn't until Friday 17th.
We are doing half a million a day. Can't see how everyone over 30 is going to be done by New Year. Or even close.
I'm 39 and have got mine booked for Thursday.
It's already open to all under 40s now.
Bully for you. Maybe you ought to be out catching the real thing instead to open up a slot and prevent suppressing short term cases? With your family.
Percentages of people who have had a 3rd dose of vaccine in England and Scotland
Experimental. Not to be trusted. The management take no all responsibility for the numbers in this item. The management take no responsibility. Your mileage will vary. May contain nuts. May contain nutters, May contain trained Marxist nutters.
I'm upset that no-one has said anything rude about this one.
Tower Hamlets is fucked, it looks like.
There’s so much to take in tonight, sorry I’m in back of car being driven home!
So it’s better to be at top of this graph than bottom? 55.61 Chelsea. I’ll have a go at saying something rude. Average age of London is probably lowest in country, vast amount not even allowed to book jabs yet - but then when you say fucked it’s not younger age groups most at risk?
Is that okay? 🙂
Being at the top is better.
The problem with Tower Hamlets etc is the low take up in the older age groups. They have quite a few 80+ with no vaccinations at all.
The fatality rate for COVID for 80+ with no vaccination has been 30%+ in the past.
yes, 1/3rd of 80+ getting COVID, no vaccinations, will die from it.
That's Black Death rates.
This thing kills old people, literally, like the plague.
I'll do absolute numbers in a bit. But the issue is really, over 40s with *no protection at all*.
Devan Sinha @DevanSinha · 29m If the message isn't ONE MILLIION boosters a day until Christmas, it's just tinkering at the edges with broadly annoying and disruptive restrictions that won't do very much.
A door to door service would be good, getting to the vulnerable home bound and ensuring uptake up 95%+.
We spent the entire summer being complacent and not getting prepared. Yet again we have repeated mistakes again, anytime people raised concerns, they were shouted down
Yes Yes No Hell No How exactly?
Masks on public transport and in shops should never have been removed, we should have spent the summer getting cases down and getting capacity freed up. I did say the cases were too high and I did call for masks to be brought back and I was called silly by you and some others
We've had them all along in Scotland. Much to some PBers' disgust.
Are tartan ones popular up there? Clan based covid coverings?
Never even occurred to me to think about it. A lot of us aren't Gaels anyway, so tartan is out. I'd have to wear one likt his -
Devan Sinha @DevanSinha · 29m If the message isn't ONE MILLIION boosters a day until Christmas, it's just tinkering at the edges with broadly annoying and disruptive restrictions that won't do very much.
A door to door service would be good, getting to the vulnerable home bound and ensuring uptake up 95%+.
Yes, the vaccine programme is extremely passive. There's simply not enough proactive outreach to the over 60s.
Julie McHamish @julesmchamish The growth rate in cases in London in the ages 20-44 - are insaneFace with open mouth. The majority of these age groups have at best had 2 vaccines, not many will have had a booster. Growth rate in week to 7 Dec #Omicron
By the way, my 34 year old friend says he can’t book his booster. Sounds like someone went early and they’ve shut it down for 30 somethings.
Can't book as in no slots or can't book as in the system says too young?
Think they have realised half the nation's under 40s are trying to book before tomorrow's official announcement.
Yeah. I fail to understand. As a 55yo I couldn't get an appointment before last Wednesday. How do they intend to ramp up capacity so quickly? Or are they going to open it up but with appointments in late January?
Presumably not as far ahead as late January, but you do wonder if the under 40s are going to have to be shunted to after Christmas at least. I'm 45 and my own appointment isn't until Friday 17th.
I'm 46. My original appointment was on the 29th, but last Wednesday, I cancelled and rebooked for yesterday.
Yes, that'd be about right. I didn't know that the check before you rebook facility was available until yesterday, thanks to the wonder of PB.
We spent the entire summer being complacent and not getting prepared. Yet again we have repeated mistakes again, anytime people raised concerns, they were shouted down
Yes Yes No Hell No How exactly?
Masks on public transport and in shops should never have been removed, we should have spent the summer getting cases down and getting capacity freed up. I did say the cases were too high and I did call for masks to be brought back and I was called silly by you and some others
We've had them all along in Scotland. Much to some PBers' disgust.
Are tartan ones popular up there? Clan based covid coverings?
Never even occurred to me to think about it. A lot of us aren't Gaels anyway, so tartan is out. I'd have to wear one likt his -
Mads Albertsen @MadsAlbertsen85 #Omicron update from Denmark. Approx. 15% of cases are now Omicron. It will start to markedly impact the overall case numbers next week. If the growth rate continues, we will see more than twice the amount of cases within a few days.
Mads Albertsen @MadsAlbertsen85 · 2h Soon hopefully. Nightlife was closed in DK on friday + people asked to work from home and on the 15th kids 5-14 are to be homeschooled. Will slow it down, unsure if it is enough.
By the way, my 34 year old friend says he can’t book his booster. Sounds like someone went early and they’ve shut it down for 30 somethings.
Can't book as in no slots or can't book as in the system says too young?
Think they have realised half the nation's under 40s are trying to book before tomorrow's official announcement.
Yeah. I fail to understand. As a 55yo I couldn't get an appointment before last Wednesday. How do they intend to ramp up capacity so quickly? Or are they going to open it up but with appointments in late January?
Presumably not as far ahead as late January, but you do wonder if the under 40s are going to have to be shunted to after Christmas at least. I'm 45 and my own appointment isn't until Friday 17th.
We are doing half a million a day. Can't see how everyone over 30 is going to be done by New Year. Or even close.
I'm 39 and have got mine booked for Thursday.
It's already open to all under 40s now.
Bully for you. Maybe you ought to be out catching the real thing instead to open up a slot and prevent suppressing short term cases? With your family.
Again boosting immunity is the only way to get out of this.
There are two ways to boost immunity: vaccines and infections.
Vaccines should be the preference. Once vaccinated, infections are the only thing left.
NPIs don't boost immunity. They don't get us out of this, they just drag it out. The virus will still be there post-NPIs.
@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.
It's important to note that many inputs influence the overall incidence rate. Demographics, geography, weather, mask-wearing and other behaviours, and so on. It would be a gross fallacy to expect all masked jurisdictions to have lower incidence than all non-masked ones.
Let me use an analogy. Higher-paid people tend to have more money in the bank than lower paid ones. But if you look at individuals, you can easily find a high-paid person with a lower bank balance than a low-paid one. Perhaps they've had a big expense recently. Perhaps they spend uncontrollably. Perhaps they've squirrelled their wealth into non-cash assets. And so on. If you look two particular bank balances and find they're similar, and conclude that pay rate makes no difference, you'd be making the small-sample fallacy. A proper statistical analysis can mitigate these effects by controlling for other known variables. It's similar to what goes on in MRP polls.
That's reasonable, but the absence of any clear and significant difference between England (as control group) and the three jurisdictions that have retained mask mandates - and other mitigations on top of that, lest we forget - throughout late Summer and Autumn, strikes one as rather odd if these kinds of low-level interventions are meant to be of value. Some of the details are also peculiar: Scotland appears to have had a huge spike in its case rate at the end of the Summer, consistent with the fact that Scottish school holidays begin and end earlier than in the remainder of the UK, despite the fact that mask wearing in secondary schools was never ditched. Why is that?
Anyway it would be helpful were someone with an appropriate statistical background to crunch the numbers.
Because there are factors BIGGER than masks. Obviously Covid-like infections will thrive more when children are inside a school 6 hours a day than when they're sat in their room or running through fields of barley. Masks interfere with transmission, they don't stop every case.
For a more extreme example, think condoms. Condoms prevent pregnancy. But sometimes you can use a condom and get pregnant, and sometimes you can not get pregnant despite not using a condom. Condoms are obviously way more effective at their job than masks, but that's just matters of degree.
The other main difference is that you usually recover from Covid, but people rarely recover from having children.
Percentages of people who have had a 3rd dose of vaccine in England and Scotland
Experimental. Not to be trusted. The management take no all responsibility for the numbers in this item. The management take no responsibility. Your mileage will vary. May contain nuts. May contain nutters, May contain trained Marxist nutters.
I'm upset that no-one has said anything rude about this one.
Tower Hamlets is fucked, it looks like.
There’s so much to take in tonight, sorry I’m in back of car being driven home!
So it’s better to be at top of this graph than bottom? 55.61 Chelsea. I’ll have a go at saying something rude. Average age of London is probably lowest in country, vast amount not even allowed to book jabs yet - but then when you say fucked it’s not younger age groups most at risk?
Is that okay? 🙂
Being at the top is better.
The problem with Tower Hamlets etc is the low take up in the older age groups. They have quite a few 80+ with no vaccinations at all.
The fatality rate for COVID for 80+ with no vaccination has been 30%+ in the past.
yes, 1/3rd of 80+ getting COVID, no vaccinations, will die from it.
That's Black Death rates.
This thing kills old people, literally, like the plague.
I'll do absolute numbers in a bit. But the issue is really, over 40s with *no protection at all*.
My mum and Dad have had it. My Dad said “I don’t want to die before your mother, my ears deserve a few years of peace”
While Europe is the sport's traditional base, the championship operates globally, with 13 of the 23 races in the 2021 season taking place outside Europe. With the annual cost of running a mid-tier team – designing, building, and maintaining cars, pay, transport – being US$120 million,[7][needs update] its financial and political battles are widely reported. Its high profile and popularity have created a major merchandising environment, which has resulted in large investments from sponsors and budgets (in the hundreds of millions for the constructors). On 23 January 2017, Liberty Media confirmed the completion of the acquisition of Delta Topco, the company that controls Formula One, from private-equity firm CVC Capital Partners for $8 billion.[8][9]
The last race is a fix and Max Verstappen is a cheat
By the way, my 34 year old friend says he can’t book his booster. Sounds like someone went early and they’ve shut it down for 30 somethings.
Can't book as in no slots or can't book as in the system says too young?
Think they have realised half the nation's under 40s are trying to book before tomorrow's official announcement.
Yeah. I fail to understand. As a 55yo I couldn't get an appointment before last Wednesday. How do they intend to ramp up capacity so quickly? Or are they going to open it up but with appointments in late January?
Presumably not as far ahead as late January, but you do wonder if the under 40s are going to have to be shunted to after Christmas at least. I'm 45 and my own appointment isn't until Friday 17th.
I'm 46. My original appointment was on the 29th, but last Wednesday, I cancelled and rebooked for yesterday.
Yes, that'd be about right. I didn't know that the check before you rebook facility was available until yesterday, thanks to the wonder of PB.
My best guess is that there's ca. 5-6m slots for vaccines this week and another 3-4m next week until Thursday. At best we could do 10m extra doses by the 23rd, taking us to 34m triple dosed. Over the week between Xmas and new year we might get 1-2m done then from January 3rd onwards we should get 3-4m per week. I think there's surge capacity this week for sure because getting as many done before Xmas as possible makes a lot of sense.
We spent the entire summer being complacent and not getting prepared. Yet again we have repeated mistakes again, anytime people raised concerns, they were shouted down
Yes Yes No Hell No How exactly?
Masks on public transport and in shops should never have been removed, we should have spent the summer getting cases down and getting capacity freed up. I did say the cases were too high and I did call for masks to be brought back and I was called silly by you and some others
Pathetic, if we'd gotten cases down what would that have done?
They'd still be rising exponentially now, but with lower immunity in the population.
What would that achieve? We'd be in a dramatically worse situation now.
Devan Sinha @DevanSinha · 29m If the message isn't ONE MILLIION boosters a day until Christmas, it's just tinkering at the edges with broadly annoying and disruptive restrictions that won't do very much.
A door to door service would be good, getting to the vulnerable home bound and ensuring uptake up 95%+.
As I've said a couple of times passim, booster doses seem to be rather hard to get in Cambridgeshire. No idea why this is.
Philip now stands with drunk twats on the Tube, well done Philip
People are just trying to live their lives - focus on yourself
If people could be a little bit more courteous and also you know, not break the law twice that would be nice. People are dying out there and people can't even be bothered to put a mask on for a 10 minute Tube journey. Utterly pathetic
@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.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
Johnson press conference at 8pm.... any ideas what that's about?
Resignation?
Would be good for Lab. if so.
I agree. So you are not one of these people saying Labour are only polling well now under SKS because BJ is shit?
It is helping though. I am surprised it has taken voters so long to catch up with us. I doubt many are laughing heartily with the fat ***** stranded on a zip wire waving two toy Union flags any more.
Yes we regain self-respect by saying loud and clear that we deserve better as a country. It's good to see and I hope it's genuine sea change rather than blip.
Philip now stands with drunk twats on the Tube, well done Philip
People are just trying to live their lives - focus on yourself
If people could be a little bit more courteous and also you know, not break the law twice that would be nice. People are dying out there and people can't even be bothered to put a mask on for a 10 minute Tube journey. Utterly pathetic
So what? People aren't courteous - easier to deal with when you accept that.
Philip now stands with drunk twats on the Tube, well done Philip
People are just trying to live their lives - focus on yourself
If people could be a little bit more courteous and also you know, not break the law twice that would be nice. People are dying out there and people can't even be bothered to put a mask on for a 10 minute Tube journey. Utterly pathetic
So what? People aren't courteous - easier to deal with when you accept that.
Devan Sinha @DevanSinha · 29m If the message isn't ONE MILLIION boosters a day until Christmas, it's just tinkering at the edges with broadly annoying and disruptive restrictions that won't do very much.
A door to door service would be good, getting to the vulnerable home bound and ensuring uptake up 95%+.
Yes, the vaccine programme is extremely passive. There's simply not enough proactive outreach to the over 60s.
Yes, it needs some radical thinking.
Off the top of my head, how about something like a National Vaccination Day? Massive advertising campaign, vaccines available in as many locations as capacity can cope with, free public transport to get to a vaccination site, mobile vaccination units cruising around, employers and schools etc. have agreed to give time off work for vaccinations etc.... You get the idea.
@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.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
This should be headline news. I imagine the tory rebels have loads of evidence from SA to use in the debate on Tuesday
The conservative rebels are going to be seen as completely out of touch after tonight's press conference
Well that’s the point of the pre recorded message yes. But Nerys Hughes is pointing out rebels can produce facts to counter argue Boris is out of touch.
It’s going to need a proper HoC debate you would agree?
@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.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
@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.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
"That's fine, just don't complain when I carry on vomiting ludicrous nonsense all over the place."
@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.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
The first lockdown address was pre-recorded, I think.
Here we go.
no, they have briefed the press already, no new restrictions (yet). It is all get your booster, be careful, things are looking dicey.
Then what's the point of this recording?
To urge boosters? Right now he's so unpopular he'd get a better takeup of them if he banned us all from getting them on the grounds they interfered with his Christmas plans.
This should be headline news. I imagine the tory rebels have loads of evidence from SA to use in the debate on Tuesday
The conservative rebels are going to be seen as completely out of touch after tonight's press conference
Out of touch ? Have you watched the video of the Doctor from SA, they are completely in touch. Omicron is a much milder disease than Delta
The raising of the level to 4 has made this announcement tonight inevitable and believe you me, the vast majority of the country will support strengthened measures and the need for the booster doses
This should be headline news. I imagine the tory rebels have loads of evidence from SA to use in the debate on Tuesday
The conservative rebels are going to be seen as completely out of touch after tonight's press conference
Well that’s the point of the pre recorded message yes. But Nerys Hughes is pointing out rebels can produce facts to counter argue Boris is out of touch.
It’s going to need a proper HoC debate you would agree?
@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.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
Reducing viral load is important and masks have been proven to do that in combination with the vaccines.
Making a contribution in trying to prevent severe outcomes for when people are exposed to this damn virus is a no brainer to me. It's the right thing to do, a compassionate human thing to do.
This should be headline news. I imagine the tory rebels have loads of evidence from SA to use in the debate on Tuesday
The conservative rebels are going to be seen as completely out of touch after tonight's press conference
There is no press conference.
Has it been cancelled?
It is a recorded address to the nation.
The coward is avoiding the press.
Here is another theory....Witty and Valance have requested more restrictions and Boris has gone for the "common sense" fudge. Witty made it clear he wasn't happy with Plan B the other day and they have clearly been showing Boris new data today, and they won't stand up next to him this time.
Devan Sinha @DevanSinha · 29m If the message isn't ONE MILLIION boosters a day until Christmas, it's just tinkering at the edges with broadly annoying and disruptive restrictions that won't do very much.
A door to door service would be good, getting to the vulnerable home bound and ensuring uptake up 95%+.
Yes, the vaccine programme is extremely passive. There's simply not enough proactive outreach to the over 60s.
Yes, it needs some radical thinking.
Off the top of my head, how about something like a National Vaccination Day? Massive advertising campaign, vaccines available in as many locations as capacity can cope with, free public transport to get to a vaccination site, mobile vaccination units cruising around, employers and schools etc. have agreed to give time off work for vaccinations etc.... You get the idea.
Yes, a few big publicity events and days to get it done.
Down in the paddock. Real sense of confusion and frustration at how everything has played out. Red Bull are in championship T-shirt’s but celebrations seem to have died down a bit. Big uncertainty about what happens next.
@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.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
Not true. My goal was only to tell you that masks work and for you to understand that. I guess I got halfway there.
It leaps out at me because my dad married someone whose mother was a Hong Konger living in Hong Kong.
But my mother probably won’t want anything to do with these new arrivals considering she “voted Brexit to keep Yorkshire for the British, and the country’s too full now”
Comments
It's Political Betting not Porn Betting.
PB rocks.
A sufficient number of people refusing to comply and spreading plague around each others' households is one of a number of mechanisms by which another lockdown attempt might eventually fail. Other possibilities include the disease being too transmissible for even lockdown to suppress adequately, and too many key workers being taken out of circulation by self-isolation requirements at the same time.
Don't solicit for your sister: that's not nice
Unless you get a good percentage of the price.
We spent the entire summer being complacent and not getting prepared. Yet again we have repeated mistakes again, anytime people raised concerns, they were shouted down
Service Unavailable - Zero size object
The server is temporarily unable to service your request. Please try again later.
Reference #15.7fe41602.1639330770.3601f31c
I'm moving to the safety of Hart or Stratford-upon-Avon.
Yes
No
Hell No
How exactly?
Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
The worlds most stupid “sport”
"Corbyn should jump off a cliff and keep doing so until he stops darkening our doors. "
Is that still allowed?
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/06/1009374/asbestos-could-be-a-powerful-weapon-against-climate-change-you-read-that-right/
It's already open to all under 40s now.
@REWearmouth
·
4h
The
@metpoliceuk
has confirmed to me that the force has not changed its position & still does NOT plan to investigate Downing Street/Boris Johnson for Covid rule-breaking
===
Will the state be paying back to students they fined for having parties in the same month?
So it’s better to be at top of this graph than bottom? 55.61 Chelsea. I’ll have a go at saying something rude. Average age of London is probably lowest in country, vast amount not even allowed to book jabs yet - but then when you say fucked it’s not younger age groups most at risk?
Is that okay? 🙂
A nice figure is:
Just wear a mask ffs, is it that difficult to do.
Was on the Tube last night, 15 drunk "lads" get on, no masks, holding cans and bottles of booze, clearly drunk and off to spread COVID around the Tube network and around London.
I call those people pricks
This maybe naive, foolish or short term, but I’m not focusing on work for now. I have a bit of time there I think (It all kicks off in the new year). But I will certainly bear your generous offer in mind.
In the meantime a very grumpy teenager needs food. Just hoping that CV19 does not interfere with hospital visits.
The last race is a fix and Max Verstappen is a cheat
lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
The problem with Tower Hamlets etc is the low take up in the older age groups. They have quite a few 80+ with no vaccinations at all.
The fatality rate for COVID for 80+ with no vaccination has been 30%+ in the past.
yes, 1/3rd of 80+ getting COVID, no vaccinations, will die from it.
That's Black Death rates.
This thing kills old people, literally, like the plague.
I'll do absolute numbers in a bit. But the issue is really, over 40s with *no protection at all*.
@DevanSinha
·
29m
If the message isn't ONE MILLIION boosters a day until Christmas, it's just tinkering at the edges with broadly annoying and disruptive restrictions that won't do very much.
A door to door service would be good, getting to the vulnerable home bound and ensuring uptake up 95%+.
https://darachcroft.com/news/shepherds-plaid-maud
Edit 2022 season
@julesmchamish
The growth rate in cases in London in the ages 20-44 - are insaneFace with open mouth. The majority of these age groups have at best had 2 vaccines, not many will have had a booster. Growth rate in week to 7 Dec #Omicron
20-24 76%
25-29 67%
30-34 42%
I love those Coo. They know they have a brilliant hair cut every time the camera comes out.
@MadsAlbertsen85
#Omicron update from Denmark. Approx. 15% of cases are now Omicron. It will start to markedly impact the overall case numbers next week. If the growth rate continues, we will see more than twice the amount of cases within a few days.
Mads Albertsen
@MadsAlbertsen85
·
2h
Soon hopefully. Nightlife was closed in DK on friday + people asked to work from home and on the 15th kids 5-14 are to be homeschooled. Will slow it down, unsure if it is enough.
There are two ways to boost immunity: vaccines and infections.
Vaccines should be the preference. Once vaccinated, infections are the only thing left.
NPIs don't boost immunity. They don't get us out of this, they just drag it out. The virus will still be there post-NPIs.
For a more extreme example, think condoms. Condoms prevent pregnancy. But sometimes you can use a condom and get pregnant, and sometimes you can not get pregnant despite not using a condom. Condoms are obviously way more effective at their job than masks, but that's just matters of degree.
The other main difference is that you usually recover from Covid, but people rarely recover from having children.
Mercedes are sore losers, Mikey this is not fair Mikey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Formula_One&oldid=1059957232
They'd still be rising exponentially now, but with lower immunity in the population.
What would that achieve? We'd be in a dramatically worse situation now.
No means no.
Exactly 2 years since Bad Thing happened btw.
Just wear a mask, really not difficult
Off the top of my head, how about something like a National Vaccination Day? Massive advertising campaign, vaccines available in as many locations as capacity can cope with, free public transport to get to a vaccination site, mobile vaccination units cruising around, employers and schools etc. have agreed to give time off work for vaccinations etc.... You get the idea.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
Tom Cary
@tomcary_tel
Red Bull spokesperson says they're "a race team and have no QC/legal representation" in this hearing.
Very amateurish, you should always lawyer your.
It’s going to need a proper HoC debate you would agree?
The Prime Minister will address the nation at 8pm to clarify his position on the safety car
https://twitter.com/OBMRacing/status/1470085086280404999
You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
Here we go.
The coward is avoiding the press.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
To urge boosters? Right now he's so unpopular he'd get a better takeup of them if he banned us all from getting them on the grounds they interfered with his Christmas plans.
One of my favourite authors.
Making a contribution in trying to prevent severe outcomes for when people are exposed to this damn virus is a no brainer to me. It's the right thing to do, a compassionate human thing to do.
https://twitter.com/natesaundersF1/status/1470090992317607947
I guess I got halfway there.
This bit is sad “ Hong Kongers warn of 'social conflict' as new arrivals to UK struggle to find jobs, housing and school places “
https://news.sky.com/story/hong-kongers-warn-of-social-conflict-as-new-arrivals-to-uk-struggle-to-find-jobs-housing-and-school-places-12491700
It leaps out at me because my dad married someone whose mother was a Hong Konger living in Hong Kong.
But my mother probably won’t want anything to do with these new arrivals considering she “voted Brexit to keep Yorkshire for the British, and the country’s too full now”