It's not because the mayor knows everyone just starts getting alternative transport and if it went to court it would end up with all the same losses of terms of service and EULA cases.
Additionally, anyone who tries to enforce them has no legal basis to challenge anyone on why they may be exempt from masks, which is why mask wearing has never been enforced in the UK. People can simply say "I am exempt from this rule" and they have to accept it and move on.
It's an entirely pointless exercise to continue mandating masks and Sadiq is just trying to show that he's "responsible" but as we saw last time, people will naturally stop wearing them.
I agree with much of that, but the fact that it hasn't been properly enforced, and that there was this utterly ridiculous exemption on no basis, is the government's fault. One of many missteps.
I just don't see what you want to achieve with mask wearing. People who want to protect themselves can get higher grade masks if they want. Making those of us who can live with a small amount of risk wear shitty cloth masks that don't work isn't helping anyone.
You're still stuck in the default "must stop the virus" stage of this. I think that's the issue, once you accept that we can't stop it you'll realise that all of the NPIs have to go. The best we can do is reduce case severity, three doses of vaccine for the over 50s and two doses for the under 50s seems to do that very well. Everything else is window dressing.
Now that we have the vaccines and boosters largely done (although it's a pity that the programme seems to have stalled now), the stage we should be at now is not to stop the virus, which I agree is impossible in the medium term, but to slow it down to help the pressure on the NHS. Assuming we don't get hit by some new nasty surprise, in which case all bets would be off, we are talking a small number of weeks for this.
What evidence do you have to suggest that masks on the tube or any public transport would actually slow it down? The general studies into COVID transmission have all shown that the biggest R reductions come from school closures and WFH mandates. I think masks were rated as fairly negligible, the government's own report into them for masks in schools pointed this out as well and said they were entirely performative and a useful reminder to be careful or something similarly idiotic.
There's plenty of evidence. Google 'effect mask mandates' and you'll get lots of scientific studies.
You also have to look at the other side of the coin. Of all the measures a government can take, mask mandates on public transport and other key places are without any doubt the least expensive, the least disruptive, and have the least adverse effect on people's lives.
I agree mandating them is schools is probably not effective enough to justify the downside, which is why I haven't argued for that.
The key thing is start from the evidence and work towards the policy.
The key thing is to look at hospital capacity and weigh that against what is to many a significant infringement both of their wellbeing and liberty (not to over-dramatise).
Just as with lockdown fans who should state the acreage of their gardens and paddocks and the number of bedrooms in their houses I really would like to know the frequency of use of public transport of those who advocate masks on public transport nationally.
I'm guessing Richard you are not a huge user of the Northern Line or Greater Anglia.
Alan Duncan got this spot on. I'm just listening to Connor Burns saying Johnson is honest and a man of integrity and he should know as he was his PPS.
Duncan said he used to follow him with a pooper scooper as did everyone who worked for him. Beyond that he didn't have a good word to say about him. He was a liar lazy self obsessed and an all round useless slob.
I wonder why people like Connor Burns are prepared to step up to the plate for someone famously disloyal and to risk his own reputation doing so.?
It's not because the mayor knows everyone just starts getting alternative transport and if it went to court it would end up with all the same losses of terms of service and EULA cases.
Additionally, anyone who tries to enforce them has no legal basis to challenge anyone on why they may be exempt from masks, which is why mask wearing has never been enforced in the UK. People can simply say "I am exempt from this rule" and they have to accept it and move on.
It's an entirely pointless exercise to continue mandating masks and Sadiq is just trying to show that he's "responsible" but as we saw last time, people will naturally stop wearing them.
I agree with much of that, but the fact that it hasn't been properly enforced, and that there was this utterly ridiculous exemption on no basis, is the government's fault. One of many missteps.
I just don't see what you want to achieve with mask wearing. People who want to protect themselves can get higher grade masks if they want. Making those of us who can live with a small amount of risk wear shitty cloth masks that don't work isn't helping anyone.
You're still stuck in the default "must stop the virus" stage of this. I think that's the issue, once you accept that we can't stop it you'll realise that all of the NPIs have to go. The best we can do is reduce case severity, three doses of vaccine for the over 50s and two doses for the under 50s seems to do that very well. Everything else is window dressing.
Now that we have the vaccines and boosters largely done (although it's a pity that the programme seems to have stalled now), the stage we should be at now is not to stop the virus, which I agree is impossible in the medium term, but to slow it down to help the pressure on the NHS. Assuming we don't get hit by some new nasty surprise, in which case all bets would be off, we are talking a small number of weeks for this.
What evidence do you have to suggest that masks on the tube or any public transport would actually slow it down? The general studies into COVID transmission have all shown that the biggest R reductions come from school closures and WFH mandates. I think masks were rated as fairly negligible, the government's own report into them for masks in schools pointed this out as well and said they were entirely performative and a useful reminder to be careful or something similarly idiotic.
There's plenty of evidence. Google 'effect mask mandates' and you'll get lots of scientific studies.
You also have to look at the other side of the coin. Of all the measures a government can take, mask mandates on public transport and other key places are without any doubt the least expensive, the least disruptive, and have the least adverse effect on people's lives.
I agree mandating them is schools is probably not effective enough to justify the downside, which is why I haven't argued for that.
The key thing is start from the evidence and work towards the policy.
Those were done before Omicron, we're at q completely different stage of the pandemic than when those studies were conducted. Once again I'd like to point out that the one paper that was written for masks in Omicron said they would be entirely performative.
You're applying wild COVID and Alpha COVID studies to Omicron, but Omicron is something like 16x more transmissive than them.
Sadiq Khan has announced that masks will continue to be mandatory on all Transport for London services, including the tube.
He can say what he likes, there's no legal basis for them beyond Thursday.
Of course there's a legal basis, it's the conditions of carriage. (As well as common sense and basic courtesy to others).
Richard that way lies masks forever. It should be a risk-based measure. Tell me Khan isn't doing this to differentiate himself from the govt. Hospitalisations and hospital capacity in no way justify any restrictive measures.
No one worried pre-Covid about people wearing masks in case they had the flu. For the jabbed this is what it appears Omicron is like. So why masks now, anywhere?
Public transport is a very special case. Many people can't avoid it, and passengers are frequently crammed together. Of all the places where a mask mandate might be worth having, public transport is the most obviously desirable, until this thing is over. Which ain't quite yet, although we're making very good progress.
Those who are concerned can acquire the stronger masks, then...
I'd say mask observance was down to 80% on public transport this weekend. I expect it to be more like 30% tomorrow....
It's nearly two years into the pandemic now, and I think that we (or a very large fraction of us, at any rate) are absolutely fed up with restrictions. All of them. Including, perhaps especially, the dreaded masks. They'll melt away like snow on warm ground the nanosecond the rules change back.
On the whole yes. But there will imo be a legacy of mask wearing in crowded indoor spaces practiced by a small but not trivial minority.
Sadiq Khan has announced that masks will continue to be mandatory on all Transport for London services, including the tube.
He can say what he likes, there's no legal basis for them beyond Thursday.
Of course there's a legal basis, it's the conditions of carriage. (As well as common sense and basic courtesy to others).
Richard that way lies masks forever. It should be a risk-based measure. Tell me Khan isn't doing this to differentiate himself from the govt. Hospitalisations and hospital capacity in no way justify any restrictive measures.
No one worried pre-Covid about people wearing masks in case they had the flu. For the jabbed this is what it appears Omicron is like. So why masks now, anywhere?
Public transport is a very special case. Many people can't avoid it, and passengers are frequently crammed together. Of all the places where a mask mandate might be worth having, public transport is the most obviously desirable, until this thing is over. Which ain't quite yet, although we're making very good progress.
Those who are concerned can acquire the stronger masks, then...
I'd say mask observance was down to 80% on public transport this weekend. I expect it to be more like 30% tomorrow....
It's nearly two years into the pandemic now, and I think that we (or a very large fraction of us, at any rate) are absolutely fed up with restrictions. All of them. Including, perhaps especially, the dreaded masks. They'll melt away like snow on warm ground the nanosecond the rules change back.
On the whole yes. But there will imo be a legacy of mask wearing in crowded indoor spaces practiced by a small but not trivial minority.
That's fine with me, as long as the number continues to dwindle and they don't harass us with zealous righteousness in the meantime.
Sadiq Khan has announced that masks will continue to be mandatory on all Transport for London services, including the tube.
He can say what he likes, there's no legal basis for them beyond Thursday.
Of course there's a legal basis, it's the conditions of carriage. (As well as common sense and basic courtesy to others).
Richard that way lies masks forever. It should be a risk-based measure. Tell me Khan isn't doing this to differentiate himself from the govt. Hospitalisations and hospital capacity in no way justify any restrictive measures.
No one worried pre-Covid about people wearing masks in case they had the flu. For the jabbed this is what it appears Omicron is like. So why masks now, anywhere?
Public transport is a very special case. Many people can't avoid it, and passengers are frequently crammed together. Of all the places where a mask mandate might be worth having, public transport is the most obviously desirable, until this thing is over. Which ain't quite yet, although we're making very good progress.
Those who are concerned can acquire the stronger masks, then...
I'd say mask observance was down to 80% on public transport this weekend. I expect it to be more like 30% tomorrow....
It's nearly two years into the pandemic now, and I think that we (or a very large fraction of us, at any rate) are absolutely fed up with restrictions. All of them. Including, perhaps especially, the dreaded masks. They'll melt away like snow on warm ground the nanosecond the rules change back.
On the whole yes. But there will imo be a legacy of mask wearing in crowded indoor spaces practiced by a small but not trivial minority.
I generally hate them, but being outside in the very cold weather, walking the dogs or between shops, they are actually very comfortable. So I will probably continue to use them occasionally, but probably only in deep winter and not primarily for infection control
Apols if I have missed a discussion this already, but should Labour not now get Christian Wakeford to step down and force a Red Wall by-election? if they cant win that seat back now they never will and a win in the Red Wall is presumably a massive addition to the current narrative of a failing Boris and keeps the whole story front and centre in the media
They can't force him to, he wouldn't have switched if that was a condition, there's no real need for him to do so, doing so carries risk since it's not possible to predict what will happen between now and the by election (eg Johnson being replaced by someone useful) and persuading an MP to switch across is probably better than a by election win anyway, since the latter happens fairly frequently and the former is comparatively rare.
All in all, I'd say the likelihood of a by election as a result of this defection is close to zero.
On reflection, agree. There is too much risk. Labour's performance in the last few by-elections has been poor and, even considering there may have been tactical voting, there is a big risk its voters don't really come out. Especially as it sounds as though many on the left wing in the seat may not be happy with him as a MP anyway.
Perhaps a more interesting question is whether we get any more defections from Red Wall seats who follow the same logic as Wakeford i.e. I need to save my career, better to move now. My guess is not for now but could happen.
I guess it would be high risk and thus not really Starmers bag, but isn't he more likely to win it now at the height of the current fiasco than in a couple of years when there is a GE? Defections with no by-election always seem grubby, not sure this really helps Labour done this way (unless there are more coming)
Yes, but... if he wins a by election now, he still has to defend the seat at the GE! There's no upside to a by election, and a huge potential downside.
Yes I guess the huge potential downside bit is true, but I disagree about no upside IF HE WINS. It looks less grubby, it proves Labour is 'back' in those seats, it keeps a partygate story in the media that isnt just more of the same, it shows Labour driving the agenda. I find myself wonder 'what would Tony do', he tended to get this stuff right
I've been looking back at posters' comments on the now infamous 20th May 2020.
This one from the much-missed @Black_Rook gives some context from that day:
"Recently home from work and just catching up on the news of zero new Covid diagnoses in London in a 24-hour period.
It is also more than a week since Boris Johnson dumped the Stay Home message and started encouraging people to go back to work. One is therefore entitled to wonder what has happened to the much-feared disease spike caused by passengers allegedly cramming back into buses and the Tube, going back into workplaces, and spending as much time as they please enjoying sunny parks. Indeed, if this continues to fail to materialise for very much longer then it'll be the best news since this whole miserable saga began."
According to the media (speaking today) we were in the height of lockdown back then.
The "height of lockdown" nonsense for May 20 is typical of our journalists. Ten of thousands of people went to the beach that day,
Well I remember the third weekend in May, which was, I think, when we were given permission to leave our immediate area. I took my daughters for a walk in the Peak District. (I've just looked it up - it was on the 16th May). Driving anywhere felt like a real novelty. People were friendly, but wary, giving each other a very wide berth. It wasn't the height of lockdown, but we were pretty restricted.
Looking back through those photos from April and May 2020 makes me want to weep with rage: the weird, filmic almost unnatural quality of the light creating a strange juxtaposition to the world falling apart, my children's busy lives shrinking and shrinking away. I suspect a lot of people feel a powerful emotional response when they consider that time in particular. Which is why Boris is the target of such emotional fury. (Of course, some already felt this way about him following Brexit.)
I've been looking back at posters' comments on the now infamous 20th May 2020.
This one from the much-missed @Black_Rook gives some context from that day:
"Recently home from work and just catching up on the news of zero new Covid diagnoses in London in a 24-hour period.
It is also more than a week since Boris Johnson dumped the Stay Home message and started encouraging people to go back to work. One is therefore entitled to wonder what has happened to the much-feared disease spike caused by passengers allegedly cramming back into buses and the Tube, going back into workplaces, and spending as much time as they please enjoying sunny parks. Indeed, if this continues to fail to materialise for very much longer then it'll be the best news since this whole miserable saga began."
According to the media (speaking today) we were in the height of lockdown back then.
The Rook is actively posting under a new name now, of course.
I didn't know that. Are you sure, I've not picked up any similarities?
Good luck to anyone who wants to wear a mask I wish them all health and happiness. Like those who wear masks in their car when they are alone or who wear them walking alone along the road or...or...
Like the Niqab it is their inalienable right to do so. Not for me, however.
I've been looking back at posters' comments on the now infamous 20th May 2020.
This one from the much-missed @Black_Rook gives some context from that day:
"Recently home from work and just catching up on the news of zero new Covid diagnoses in London in a 24-hour period.
It is also more than a week since Boris Johnson dumped the Stay Home message and started encouraging people to go back to work. One is therefore entitled to wonder what has happened to the much-feared disease spike caused by passengers allegedly cramming back into buses and the Tube, going back into workplaces, and spending as much time as they please enjoying sunny parks. Indeed, if this continues to fail to materialise for very much longer then it'll be the best news since this whole miserable saga began."
According to the media (speaking today) we were in the height of lockdown back then.
The Rook is actively posting under a new name now, of course.
I didn't know that. Are you sure, I've not picked up any similarities?
Thinking about it, the defection of Christian Wakeford is a double-win for Starmer.
1. The fact that a Tory MP is prepared to join Labour makes Labour more electable.
2. His defection helps Boris as it makes Tory MPs less keen to act to remove if it means joining the group of rebels to which Wakeford belonged. Boris staying is, of course, a great boon to Starmer.
The defection has been managed cleverly by the Labour team.
This attitude really annoys me because you're really not looking at the best evidence, you are operating on belief. The point surely is that targeted use of FFP3 would have a far superior impact on hospital admissions than the use of cloth masks that are improperly and not universally worn by the masses. It would also happily have the side effect of negatively impacting far fewer people from a social/civil liberties perspective.
Actually, the people who are acting on belief rather than evidence are those, well represented here, who start from the fact that they don't like masks and then ignore all the evidence that they are quite effective.
I don't know whether targeted use of FFP3 masks would 'have a far superior impact'. Do you have any evidence for that? If so, that would be an alternative policy, although I don't think any government has such a policy. I'm not an expert, but my guess is that the problem would be that they are not easy to use properly.
Of course there's no reason not to do both, and vulnerable people probably should protect themselves with good-quality masks.
Well that long established narrative on here that "Boris" was a political genius covered in Teflon and Kier Starmer was crap seems to have largely vanished.
Apols if I have missed a discussion this already, but should Labour not now get Christian Wakeford to step down and force a Red Wall by-election? if they cant win that seat back now they never will and a win in the Red Wall is presumably a massive addition to the current narrative of a failing Boris and keeps the whole story front and centre in the media
They can't force him to, he wouldn't have switched if that was a condition, there's no real need for him to do so, doing so carries risk since it's not possible to predict what will happen between now and the by election (eg Johnson being replaced by someone useful) and persuading an MP to switch across is probably better than a by election win anyway, since the latter happens fairly frequently and the former is comparatively rare.
All in all, I'd say the likelihood of a by election as a result of this defection is close to zero.
On reflection, agree. There is too much risk. Labour's performance in the last few by-elections has been poor and, even considering there may have been tactical voting, there is a big risk its voters don't really come out. Especially as it sounds as though many on the left wing in the seat may not be happy with him as a MP anyway.
Perhaps a more interesting question is whether we get any more defections from Red Wall seats who follow the same logic as Wakeford i.e. I need to save my career, better to move now. My guess is not for now but could happen.
I guess it would be high risk and thus not really Starmers bag, but isn't he more likely to win it now at the height of the current fiasco than in a couple of years when there is a GE? Defections with no by-election always seem grubby, not sure this really helps Labour done this way (unless there are more coming)
I would like to see a by election in Bury South, perhaps timed for a number of months down the road once the Tories are in deeper chaos/ a new Tory leader is place to keep the pressure on.
I can't see how Labour would not win Bury S at a hypothetical by election or the next election unless the Tories had more than a 10% lead.
The only other issue is potential divisions in the CLP.
Yes, but I don't think the defection will turn out to be good for Labour. It won't be a huge negative but he looks like selfish opportunist and his views may cause ructions.
Those were done before Omicron, we're at q completely different stage of the pandemic than when those studies were conducted. Once again I'd like to point out that the one paper that was written for masks in Omicron said they would be entirely performative.
You're applying wild COVID and Alpha COVID studies to Omicron, but Omicron is something like 16x more transmissive than them.
Yes, that's a fair point, but only to the extent that we don't have much evidence yet as regards Omicron. One paper is not really much, is it?
Sadiq Khan has announced that masks will continue to be mandatory on all Transport for London services, including the tube.
He can say what he likes, there's no legal basis for them beyond Thursday.
Of course there's a legal basis, it's the conditions of carriage. (As well as common sense and basic courtesy to others).
Richard that way lies masks forever. It should be a risk-based measure. Tell me Khan isn't doing this to differentiate himself from the govt. Hospitalisations and hospital capacity in no way justify any restrictive measures.
No one worried pre-Covid about people wearing masks in case they had the flu. For the jabbed this is what it appears Omicron is like. So why masks now, anywhere?
Public transport is a very special case. Many people can't avoid it, and passengers are frequently crammed together. Of all the places where a mask mandate might be worth having, public transport is the most obviously desirable, until this thing is over. Which ain't quite yet, although we're making very good progress.
Those who are concerned can acquire the stronger masks, then...
I'd say mask observance was down to 80% on public transport this weekend. I expect it to be more like 30% tomorrow....
It's nearly two years into the pandemic now, and I think that we (or a very large fraction of us, at any rate) are absolutely fed up with restrictions. All of them. Including, perhaps especially, the dreaded masks. They'll melt away like snow on warm ground the nanosecond the rules change back.
On the whole yes. But there will imo be a legacy of mask wearing in crowded indoor spaces practiced by a small but not trivial minority.
That's fine with me, as long as the number continues to dwindle and they don't harass us with zealous righteousness in the meantime.
Indeed. And hopefully the opposite - "oh ffs look at that masked up little mouse" - will also not be prevalent.
Sadiq Khan has announced that masks will continue to be mandatory on all Transport for London services, including the tube.
He can say what he likes, there's no legal basis for them beyond Thursday.
Of course there's a legal basis, it's the conditions of carriage. (As well as common sense and basic courtesy to others).
Richard that way lies masks forever. It should be a risk-based measure. Tell me Khan isn't doing this to differentiate himself from the govt. Hospitalisations and hospital capacity in no way justify any restrictive measures.
No one worried pre-Covid about people wearing masks in case they had the flu. For the jabbed this is what it appears Omicron is like. So why masks now, anywhere?
Public transport is a very special case. Many people can't avoid it, and passengers are frequently crammed together. Of all the places where a mask mandate might be worth having, public transport is the most obviously desirable, until this thing is over. Which ain't quite yet, although we're making very good progress.
This thing is over. Everyone who wants a vaccine should have had three already now.
If vaccines aren't the end for you, what is?
Effective vaccines and an unattainable guarantee against more virulent strains.
We have very, very effective vaccines and there is no way to ever guarantee against more virulent strains.
As I've said before, the horseshoe theory doesn't just apply to communism and fascism, it seems to apply well to antivaxxers and lockdown enthusiasts. The two extremes seems to have more in common than either would care to admit as lockdown enthusiasts start sharing antivaxx memes in order to be able to deny this is over.
Indeed for all his undoubted intelligence, Ishmael himself does that. Described vaccines as as useful as "chocolate fireguards" or "jelly dildos" or some such as I recall.
I've been looking back at posters' comments on the now infamous 20th May 2020.
This one from the much-missed @Black_Rook gives some context from that day:
"Recently home from work and just catching up on the news of zero new Covid diagnoses in London in a 24-hour period.
It is also more than a week since Boris Johnson dumped the Stay Home message and started encouraging people to go back to work. One is therefore entitled to wonder what has happened to the much-feared disease spike caused by passengers allegedly cramming back into buses and the Tube, going back into workplaces, and spending as much time as they please enjoying sunny parks. Indeed, if this continues to fail to materialise for very much longer then it'll be the best news since this whole miserable saga began."
According to the media (speaking today) we were in the height of lockdown back then.
The "height of lockdown" nonsense for May 20 is typical of our journalists. Ten of thousands of people went to the beach that day,
Well I remember the third weekend in May, which was, I think, when we were given permission to leave our immediate area. I took my daughters for a walk in the Peak District. (I've just looked it up - it was on the 16th May). Driving anywhere felt like a real novelty. People were friendly, but wary, giving each other a very wide berth. It wasn't the height of lockdown, but we were pretty restricted.
Looking back through those photos from April and May 2020 makes me want to weep with rage: the weird, filmic almost unnatural quality of the light creating a strange juxtaposition to the world falling apart, my children's busy lives shrinking and shrinking away. I suspect a lot of people feel a powerful emotional response when they consider that time in particular. Which is why Boris is the target of such emotional fury. (Of course, some already felt this way about him following Brexit.)
Had lunch today with a friend I hadn't seen for some time - potted shrimp then supreme of guinea fowl if you're wondering - and he started off saying how nice lockdown was, time with the family, open spaces, exercise, etc.
I asked him about the online schooling and his children (he has two). His face changed instantly. Terrible, really horrible, an awful time, youngest definitely set back in his education, etc.
It's easy to forget, even if you were affected, how for many people it was a pretty horrific time.
This attitude really annoys me because you're really not looking at the best evidence, you are operating on belief. The point surely is that targeted use of FFP3 would have a far superior impact on hospital admissions than the use of cloth masks that are improperly and not universally worn by the masses. It would also happily have the side effect of negatively impacting far fewer people from a social/civil liberties perspective.
Actually, the people who are acting on belief rather than evidence are those, well represented here, who start from the fact that they don't like masks and then ignore all the evidence that they are quite effective.
I don't know whether targeted use of FFP3 masks would 'have a far superior impact'. Do you have any evidence for that? If so, that would be an alternative policy, although I don't think any government has such a policy. I'm not an expert, but my guess is that the problem would be that they are not easy to use properly.
Of course there's no reason not to do both, and vulnerable people probably should protect themselves with good-quality masks.
I've been looking back at posters' comments on the now infamous 20th May 2020.
This one from the much-missed @Black_Rook gives some context from that day:
"Recently home from work and just catching up on the news of zero new Covid diagnoses in London in a 24-hour period.
It is also more than a week since Boris Johnson dumped the Stay Home message and started encouraging people to go back to work. One is therefore entitled to wonder what has happened to the much-feared disease spike caused by passengers allegedly cramming back into buses and the Tube, going back into workplaces, and spending as much time as they please enjoying sunny parks. Indeed, if this continues to fail to materialise for very much longer then it'll be the best news since this whole miserable saga began."
According to the media (speaking today) we were in the height of lockdown back then.
The Rook is actively posting under a new name now, of course.
I didn't know that. Are you sure, I've not picked up any similarities?
It's not because the mayor knows everyone just starts getting alternative transport and if it went to court it would end up with all the same losses of terms of service and EULA cases.
Additionally, anyone who tries to enforce them has no legal basis to challenge anyone on why they may be exempt from masks, which is why mask wearing has never been enforced in the UK. People can simply say "I am exempt from this rule" and they have to accept it and move on.
It's an entirely pointless exercise to continue mandating masks and Sadiq is just trying to show that he's "responsible" but as we saw last time, people will naturally stop wearing them.
I agree with much of that, but the fact that it hasn't been properly enforced, and that there was this utterly ridiculous exemption on no basis, is the government's fault. One of many missteps.
I just don't see what you want to achieve with mask wearing. People who want to protect themselves can get higher grade masks if they want. Making those of us who can live with a small amount of risk wear shitty cloth masks that don't work isn't helping anyone.
You're still stuck in the default "must stop the virus" stage of this. I think that's the issue, once you accept that we can't stop it you'll realise that all of the NPIs have to go. The best we can do is reduce case severity, three doses of vaccine for the over 50s and two doses for the under 50s seems to do that very well. Everything else is window dressing.
Now that we have the vaccines and boosters largely done (although it's a pity that the programme seems to have stalled now), the stage we should be at now is not to stop the virus, which I agree is impossible in the medium term, but to slow it down to help the pressure on the NHS. Assuming we don't get hit by some new nasty surprise, in which case all bets would be off, we are talking a small number of weeks for this.
What evidence do you have to suggest that masks on the tube or any public transport would actually slow it down? The general studies into COVID transmission have all shown that the biggest R reductions come from school closures and WFH mandates. I think masks were rated as fairly negligible, the government's own report into them for masks in schools pointed this out as well and said they were entirely performative and a useful reminder to be careful or something similarly idiotic.
There's plenty of evidence. Google 'effect mask mandates' and you'll get lots of scientific studies.
You also have to look at the other side of the coin. Of all the measures a government can take, mask mandates on public transport and other key places are without any doubt the least expensive, the least disruptive, and have the least adverse effect on people's lives.
I agree mandating them is schools is probably not effective enough to justify the downside, which is why I haven't argued for that.
The key thing is start from the evidence and work towards the policy.
A lot of papers have been published on mask wearing. It doesn't necessarily follow that they show the kind of effect that justifies general mask mandates.
Insofar as I'm aware only one major study has ever been conducted into the efficacy of mask wearing against Covid-19 amongst the general population - the 2020 Danmask trial, which suggested that masking was weakly effective at best against even the original Wuhan strain. The rest of the mask studies are, variously, small in scale, methodologically flawed, unable to separate the effect of masking from other mitigations, irrelevant to community use (e.g. examinations of the use of medical grade masks in medical settings,) or are simply statistical analyses that bundle together groups of these deficient studies to create a larger sample size, and then draw dubious conclusions from the data.
Debunk these studies and you're left with various weak justifications - "they make frightened people feel safer," "they remind everyone there's an emergency on," "it's not that big a deal, it's only a mask" - none of which is sufficient excuse for bludgeoning people into wearing anything. Compulsory masking because "something must be done" should be rejected.
I've been looking back at posters' comments on the now infamous 20th May 2020.
This one from the much-missed @Black_Rook gives some context from that day:
"Recently home from work and just catching up on the news of zero new Covid diagnoses in London in a 24-hour period.
It is also more than a week since Boris Johnson dumped the Stay Home message and started encouraging people to go back to work. One is therefore entitled to wonder what has happened to the much-feared disease spike caused by passengers allegedly cramming back into buses and the Tube, going back into workplaces, and spending as much time as they please enjoying sunny parks. Indeed, if this continues to fail to materialise for very much longer then it'll be the best news since this whole miserable saga began."
According to the media (speaking today) we were in the height of lockdown back then.
The Rook is actively posting under a new name now, of course.
I didn't know that. Are you sure, I've not picked up any similarities?
I've been looking back at posters' comments on the now infamous 20th May 2020.
This one from the much-missed @Black_Rook gives some context from that day:
"Recently home from work and just catching up on the news of zero new Covid diagnoses in London in a 24-hour period.
It is also more than a week since Boris Johnson dumped the Stay Home message and started encouraging people to go back to work. One is therefore entitled to wonder what has happened to the much-feared disease spike caused by passengers allegedly cramming back into buses and the Tube, going back into workplaces, and spending as much time as they please enjoying sunny parks. Indeed, if this continues to fail to materialise for very much longer then it'll be the best news since this whole miserable saga began."
According to the media (speaking today) we were in the height of lockdown back then.
The Rook is actively posting under a new name now, of course.
I didn't know that. Are you sure, I've not picked up any similarities?
I picked it up with my famous sense for the "tells" of language.
I'm dead impressed. I'm such a mug at times.
Well I had no idea. And now I have to work out when Black Rook left, who has joined since then, and which of those has a Black-Rookie type view of the world. This is very hard. I have a guess, but I'm no more than 20% sure I am right.
It's been a major issue in the US for months now. AT&T and Verizon have delayed their rollouts already but, given how much they have spent on 5G, they are keen to get going. However, the FAA and the airlines have been kicking and screaming. Seems to have reached a crescendo with the airlines claiming there is a very substantial risk from the rollout
Strangely, the roll out of 5G on these frequencies in Europe has not caused plane crashes.
How many 737 Maxs fly in europe.
It's an interesting topic. For those who don't know - there was/is a claim of potential interference between really ancient altimeter equipment and some frequencies used for 5G.
The FAA is claiming there will be a problem. When asked to detail what the problem is, they have.. difficulty.. in providing an actual answer.
The suggestion is that some really really crap and ancient altimeters might be effected by frequencies they are not *designed or specified* to use.
The speculation is that the FAA, burnt by the 737 MAX stuff, realised that they hadn't sent out requirements to update/check altimeters to adhere to their noted frequencies. So decided to play this one as a show stopper.
Sadiq Khan has announced that masks will continue to be mandatory on all Transport for London services, including the tube.
He can say what he likes, there's no legal basis for them beyond Thursday.
Of course there's a legal basis, it's the conditions of carriage. (As well as common sense and basic courtesy to others).
Richard that way lies masks forever. It should be a risk-based measure. Tell me Khan isn't doing this to differentiate himself from the govt. Hospitalisations and hospital capacity in no way justify any restrictive measures.
No one worried pre-Covid about people wearing masks in case they had the flu. For the jabbed this is what it appears Omicron is like. So why masks now, anywhere?
Public transport is a very special case. Many people can't avoid it, and passengers are frequently crammed together. Of all the places where a mask mandate might be worth having, public transport is the most obviously desirable, until this thing is over. Which ain't quite yet, although we're making very good progress.
Those who are concerned can acquire the stronger masks, then...
I'd say mask observance was down to 80% on public transport this weekend. I expect it to be more like 30% tomorrow....
It's nearly two years into the pandemic now, and I think that we (or a very large fraction of us, at any rate) are absolutely fed up with restrictions. All of them. Including, perhaps especially, the dreaded masks. They'll melt away like snow on warm ground the nanosecond the rules change back.
On the whole yes. But there will imo be a legacy of mask wearing in crowded indoor spaces practiced by a small but not trivial minority.
That's fine with me, as long as the number continues to dwindle and they don't harass us with zealous righteousness in the meantime.
Indeed. And hopefully the opposite - "oh ffs look at that masked up little mouse" - will also not be prevalent.
Indeed. There will be a large number of vulnerable people who will still be, well, vulnerable.
My 2p worth of speculation as to the COVID "blip". The sharp rise before Xmas was driven by it being in London. It tailed off and fell as rural areas of the South rose to the top of the cases per 100k chart. That spread North. Now it is the conurbations of the NE and NW which are dominant. Hence faster spread? Just a theory.
My 2p worth of speculation:
its not so much areas as age groups, if you look at the cases by age group, you start to see a trend. the age groups are not available for the UK as a whole, and they are delayed so the last available is 14 Jan. However I think we can see a trend, if we look at the latest data and compare to the day before.
0-4: up 5-9: up 10-14: up 15-19: up (very slightly) 20-24: down 25-29: down 30-34: down 35-39: down 40-44: down 45-49: down 50-54: down 55-59: down 60-64: down 65-69: down 70-74: down 75-79: down 80-84: down 85-89: down 90+: down
If this has continued since the 14 Jan, then eventually the drop in the old groups attenuates out and the rise in the younger groups becomes more significant and then overall cases rise, which I think is what we are seeing.
Why did this not start the day schools went back? well I don't really know, other than to say this is what we observed in September when schools went back then, (a delay before cases started rising) perhaps is become of all the testing in the first week, and/or the incubation period?
Does this matter? well its obviously sad that its rising at all, but of all the age groups this is likely to be the least badly affected with hospitalisation and/or death.
Will it spread to other age groups? this is the great unknown, but its worth noting that from Sep-Dec, it mostly stayed in the kids with some spill over to the parents age groups 30-50 but not much beyond that, so this could be the same.
How long will it last? Don't know, but my guess would be not long, 2-4 weeks perhaps, but that's a just my feeling not based on much.
Anybody else with their 2p worth?
Could the blip be a mirage cause by the switch from PCR to LFTs?
I suspect Cummings & co have more dirt to dish. I can't see how Boris can conduct any sort of sensible interview for the foreseeable future and his lamentable character is firmly established in the mind of the public at large. I suppose he might last a few months though.
I suspect Cummings & co have more dirt to dish. I can't see how Boris can conduct any sort of sensible interview for the foreseeable future and his lamentable character is firmly established in the mind of the public at large. I suppose he might last a few months though.
Sadiq Khan has announced that masks will continue to be mandatory on all Transport for London services, including the tube.
He can say what he likes, there's no legal basis for them beyond Thursday.
Of course there's a legal basis, it's the conditions of carriage. (As well as common sense and basic courtesy to others).
Richard that way lies masks forever. It should be a risk-based measure. Tell me Khan isn't doing this to differentiate himself from the govt. Hospitalisations and hospital capacity in no way justify any restrictive measures.
No one worried pre-Covid about people wearing masks in case they had the flu. For the jabbed this is what it appears Omicron is like. So why masks now, anywhere?
Public transport is a very special case. Many people can't avoid it, and passengers are frequently crammed together. Of all the places where a mask mandate might be worth having, public transport is the most obviously desirable, until this thing is over. Which ain't quite yet, although we're making very good progress.
Those who are concerned can acquire the stronger masks, then...
I'd say mask observance was down to 80% on public transport this weekend. I expect it to be more like 30% tomorrow....
It's nearly two years into the pandemic now, and I think that we (or a very large fraction of us, at any rate) are absolutely fed up with restrictions. All of them. Including, perhaps especially, the dreaded masks. They'll melt away like snow on warm ground the nanosecond the rules change back.
On the whole yes. But there will imo be a legacy of mask wearing in crowded indoor spaces practiced by a small but not trivial minority.
That's fine with me, as long as the number continues to dwindle and they don't harass us with zealous righteousness in the meantime.
Indeed. And hopefully the opposite - "oh ffs look at that masked up little mouse" - will also not be prevalent.
Indeed. There will be a large number of vulnerable people who will still be, well, vulnerable.
Absolutely. But there will have been damage to such people by creating a climate of fear for them. Now, the virus created the fear, not any measures to counteract it but nevertheless we now likely have a cohort that is terrified as a result of the emphatic way the govt achieved and announced the restrictions and hence are likely to be in masks for ever more.
Apols if I have missed a discussion this already, but should Labour not now get Christian Wakeford to step down and force a Red Wall by-election? if they cant win that seat back now they never will and a win in the Red Wall is presumably a massive addition to the current narrative of a failing Boris and keeps the whole story front and centre in the media
They can't force him to, he wouldn't have switched if that was a condition, there's no real need for him to do so, doing so carries risk since it's not possible to predict what will happen between now and the by election (eg Johnson being replaced by someone useful) and persuading an MP to switch across is probably better than a by election win anyway, since the latter happens fairly frequently and the former is comparatively rare.
All in all, I'd say the likelihood of a by election as a result of this defection is close to zero.
On reflection, agree. There is too much risk. Labour's performance in the last few by-elections has been poor and, even considering there may have been tactical voting, there is a big risk its voters don't really come out. Especially as it sounds as though many on the left wing in the seat may not be happy with him as a MP anyway.
Perhaps a more interesting question is whether we get any more defections from Red Wall seats who follow the same logic as Wakeford i.e. I need to save my career, better to move now. My guess is not for now but could happen.
I guess it would be high risk and thus not really Starmers bag, but isn't he more likely to win it now at the height of the current fiasco than in a couple of years when there is a GE? Defections with no by-election always seem grubby, not sure this really helps Labour done this way (unless there are more coming)
Yes, but... if he wins a by election now, he still has to defend the seat at the GE! There's no upside to a by election, and a huge potential downside.
Yes I guess the huge potential downside bit is true, but I disagree about no upside IF HE WINS. It looks less grubby, it proves Labour is 'back' in those seats, it keeps a partygate story in the media that isnt just more of the same, it shows Labour driving the agenda. I find myself wonder 'what would Tony do', he tended to get this stuff right
By election wouldn't be for weeks; the story will likely be over by then and limited national coverage during the campaign. Also Bury South isn't really Red Wall, it's a long standing suburban marginal.
Anyway, put yourself in Starmer's shoes. How do you persuade your newest MP to gamble his £90k pa job on the notion that his new local party, who (at best) don't know him from Adam and (at worst) actively hate his guts, will campaign hard enough to keep him from joining the dole queue two years early?
Sadiq Khan has announced that masks will continue to be mandatory on all Transport for London services, including the tube.
He can say what he likes, there's no legal basis for them beyond Thursday.
Of course there's a legal basis, it's the conditions of carriage. (As well as common sense and basic courtesy to others).
Richard that way lies masks forever. It should be a risk-based measure. Tell me Khan isn't doing this to differentiate himself from the govt. Hospitalisations and hospital capacity in no way justify any restrictive measures.
No one worried pre-Covid about people wearing masks in case they had the flu. For the jabbed this is what it appears Omicron is like. So why masks now, anywhere?
Public transport is a very special case. Many people can't avoid it, and passengers are frequently crammed together. Of all the places where a mask mandate might be worth having, public transport is the most obviously desirable, until this thing is over. Which ain't quite yet, although we're making very good progress.
This thing is over. Everyone who wants a vaccine should have had three already now.
If vaccines aren't the end for you, what is?
Effective vaccines and an unattainable guarantee against more virulent strains.
We have very, very effective vaccines and there is no way to ever guarantee against more virulent strains.
As I've said before, the horseshoe theory doesn't just apply to communism and fascism, it seems to apply well to antivaxxers and lockdown enthusiasts. The two extremes seems to have more in common than either would care to admit as lockdown enthusiasts start sharing antivaxx memes in order to be able to deny this is over.
Indeed for all his undoubted intelligence, Ishmael himself does that. Described vaccines as as useful as "chocolate fireguards" or "jelly dildos" or some such as I recall.
They are not so ineffective that I do not scrupulously take them (and not just to get the pass). My point was the downgrading of expectations from 90% chance you will not catch the disease, to probably help a bit in limiting severity, and everyone suddenly saying that's the best you can expect.
Sadiq Khan has announced that masks will continue to be mandatory on all Transport for London services, including the tube.
He can say what he likes, there's no legal basis for them beyond Thursday.
Of course there's a legal basis, it's the conditions of carriage. (As well as common sense and basic courtesy to others).
Richard that way lies masks forever. It should be a risk-based measure. Tell me Khan isn't doing this to differentiate himself from the govt. Hospitalisations and hospital capacity in no way justify any restrictive measures.
No one worried pre-Covid about people wearing masks in case they had the flu. For the jabbed this is what it appears Omicron is like. So why masks now, anywhere?
Public transport is a very special case. Many people can't avoid it, and passengers are frequently crammed together. Of all the places where a mask mandate might be worth having, public transport is the most obviously desirable, until this thing is over. Which ain't quite yet, although we're making very good progress.
It's over to the extent that the mortality rate appears now not to be significantly greater than that for the flu. For those jabbed. We didn't wear masks on the tube in bad flu "seasons" (imagine that - a flu "season" regular as clockwork). The risks now are similar to a flu season.
It is also not a costless exercise. As Julia Donaldson puts it, mask wearing is dystopian and has an overall detrimental effect on society.
Let those who want to wear an FFP3 (or whatever it is) mask wear one. The rest need not bother.
Indeed I think what often gets lost in these debates is that nobody (as far as I know??) is calling for masks to be banned, merely that they ought not be mandated. As you say, people are and indeed should be at liberty to don a FFP3 or indeed any other style of medical mask, should they so wish.
I've been looking back at posters' comments on the now infamous 20th May 2020.
This one from the much-missed @Black_Rook gives some context from that day:
"Recently home from work and just catching up on the news of zero new Covid diagnoses in London in a 24-hour period.
It is also more than a week since Boris Johnson dumped the Stay Home message and started encouraging people to go back to work. One is therefore entitled to wonder what has happened to the much-feared disease spike caused by passengers allegedly cramming back into buses and the Tube, going back into workplaces, and spending as much time as they please enjoying sunny parks. Indeed, if this continues to fail to materialise for very much longer then it'll be the best news since this whole miserable saga began."
According to the media (speaking today) we were in the height of lockdown back then.
The Rook is actively posting under a new name now, of course.
I didn't know that. Are you sure, I've not picked up any similarities?
I picked it up with my famous sense for the "tells" of language.
I'm dead impressed. I'm such a mug at times.
Well I had no idea. And now I have to work out when Black Rook left, who has joined since then, and which of those has a Black-Rookie type view of the world. This is very hard. I have a guess, but I'm no more than 20% sure I am right.
Who cares. It is the view not the purveyor of the view that is important. I liked Black Rock's postings but can't be arsed to work out whether he has a new ID.
It's not because the mayor knows everyone just starts getting alternative transport and if it went to court it would end up with all the same losses of terms of service and EULA cases.
Additionally, anyone who tries to enforce them has no legal basis to challenge anyone on why they may be exempt from masks, which is why mask wearing has never been enforced in the UK. People can simply say "I am exempt from this rule" and they have to accept it and move on.
It's an entirely pointless exercise to continue mandating masks and Sadiq is just trying to show that he's "responsible" but as we saw last time, people will naturally stop wearing them.
I agree with much of that, but the fact that it hasn't been properly enforced, and that there was this utterly ridiculous exemption on no basis, is the government's fault. One of many missteps.
I just don't see what you want to achieve with mask wearing. People who want to protect themselves can get higher grade masks if they want. Making those of us who can live with a small amount of risk wear shitty cloth masks that don't work isn't helping anyone.
You're still stuck in the default "must stop the virus" stage of this. I think that's the issue, once you accept that we can't stop it you'll realise that all of the NPIs have to go. The best we can do is reduce case severity, three doses of vaccine for the over 50s and two doses for the under 50s seems to do that very well. Everything else is window dressing.
Now that we have the vaccines and boosters largely done (although it's a pity that the programme seems to have stalled now), the stage we should be at now is not to stop the virus, which I agree is impossible in the medium term, but to slow it down to help the pressure on the NHS. Assuming we don't get hit by some new nasty surprise, in which case all bets would be off, we are talking a small number of weeks for this.
What evidence do you have to suggest that masks on the tube or any public transport would actually slow it down? The general studies into COVID transmission have all shown that the biggest R reductions come from school closures and WFH mandates. I think masks were rated as fairly negligible, the government's own report into them for masks in schools pointed this out as well and said they were entirely performative and a useful reminder to be careful or something similarly idiotic.
There's plenty of evidence. Google 'effect mask mandates' and you'll get lots of scientific studies.
You also have to look at the other side of the coin. Of all the measures a government can take, mask mandates on public transport and other key places are without any doubt the least expensive, the least disruptive, and have the least adverse effect on people's lives.
I agree mandating them is schools is probably not effective enough to justify the downside, which is why I haven't argued for that.
The key thing is start from the evidence and work towards the policy.
A lot of papers have been published on mask wearing. It doesn't necessarily follow that they show the kind of effect that justifies general mask mandates.
Insofar as I'm aware only one major study has ever been conducted into the efficacy of mask wearing against Covid-19 amongst the general population - the 2020 Danmask trial, which suggested that masking was weakly effective at best against even the original Wuhan strain. The rest of the mask studies are, variously, small in scale, methodologically flawed, unable to separate the effect of masking from other mitigations, irrelevant to community use (e.g. examinations of the use of medical grade masks in medical settings,) or are simply statistical analyses that bundle together groups of these deficient studies to create a larger sample size, and then draw dubious conclusions from the data.
Debunk these studies and you're left with various weak justifications - "they make frightened people feel safer," "they remind everyone there's an emergency on," "it's not that big a deal, it's only a mask" - none of which is sufficient excuse for bludgeoning people into wearing anything. Compulsory masking because "something must be done" should be rejected.
Which you have not done. Pre-Omicron, masks worked. Intra-Omicron, we aren't sure. There's your starter on efficacy. Now make arguments for the harm masks cause, weigh them against each other, and make a policy.
This attitude really annoys me because you're really not looking at the best evidence, you are operating on belief. The point surely is that targeted use of FFP3 would have a far superior impact on hospital admissions than the use of cloth masks that are improperly and not universally worn by the masses. It would also happily have the side effect of negatively impacting far fewer people from a social/civil liberties perspective.
Actually, the people who are acting on belief rather than evidence are those, well represented here, who start from the fact that they don't like masks and then ignore all the evidence that they are quite effective.
I don't know whether targeted use of FFP3 masks would 'have a far superior impact'. Do you have any evidence for that? If so, that would be an alternative policy, although I don't think any government has such a policy. I'm not an expert, but my guess is that the problem would be that they are not easy to use properly.
Of course there's no reason not to do both, and vulnerable people probably should protect themselves with good-quality masks.
Yes, there's been plenty of work done that FFP3 are somewhere between 99%-100% effective at protecting the wearer. I have asked my MP multiple times to explain why this fact has not been well publicised and why they haven't handed them out on the NHS to the severely immuno suppressed, for example people on chemo. All I get is "yes this is an interesting idea let me ask the Health Sec".
Instead we still get the inanities of hand washing, when we could and should be doing far more to protect those for whom vaccines are only partially efficacious.
As for would this be more or less effective than generalised mask mandates, I refer you to Max's comments concerning the government's own statements about their likely impact on R at this stage of the game.
I'm not an expert, but my guess is that the problem would be that they are not easy to use properly.
This is the thing. We bought FFP2 masks after recommendations on here, and we watched an HSE video to help us put the things on properly, but I still struggle not to have significant air leakage towards my glasses.
When used in the NHS masks would be properly fit tested, and you could expect to have much higher standards of mask-wearing than among medically vulnerable members of the public.
It's possible that imperfect wearing of low-grade masks by the vast majority of the population has more of an effect on inhibiting spread/reducing hospitalisations than imperfect wearing of high-grade masks by only the vulnerable population.
But this argument is only now relevant for planning for the next pandemic - should we teach people how to wear masks properly as part of a pandemic preparedness plan, perhaps?
Given the effect of vaccines arguing about nuances of mask wearing at this stage of the pandemic is splitting hairs. I think it will be much more beneficial for the government to introduce measures to restore confidence and encourage people back out of their homes and into society.
It's not because the mayor knows everyone just starts getting alternative transport and if it went to court it would end up with all the same losses of terms of service and EULA cases.
Additionally, anyone who tries to enforce them has no legal basis to challenge anyone on why they may be exempt from masks, which is why mask wearing has never been enforced in the UK. People can simply say "I am exempt from this rule" and they have to accept it and move on.
It's an entirely pointless exercise to continue mandating masks and Sadiq is just trying to show that he's "responsible" but as we saw last time, people will naturally stop wearing them.
I agree with much of that, but the fact that it hasn't been properly enforced, and that there was this utterly ridiculous exemption on no basis, is the government's fault. One of many missteps.
I just don't see what you want to achieve with mask wearing. People who want to protect themselves can get higher grade masks if they want. Making those of us who can live with a small amount of risk wear shitty cloth masks that don't work isn't helping anyone.
You're still stuck in the default "must stop the virus" stage of this. I think that's the issue, once you accept that we can't stop it you'll realise that all of the NPIs have to go. The best we can do is reduce case severity, three doses of vaccine for the over 50s and two doses for the under 50s seems to do that very well. Everything else is window dressing.
Now that we have the vaccines and boosters largely done (although it's a pity that the programme seems to have stalled now), the stage we should be at now is not to stop the virus, which I agree is impossible in the medium term, but to slow it down to help the pressure on the NHS. Assuming we don't get hit by some new nasty surprise, in which case all bets would be off, we are talking a small number of weeks for this.
What evidence do you have to suggest that masks on the tube or any public transport would actually slow it down? The general studies into COVID transmission have all shown that the biggest R reductions come from school closures and WFH mandates. I think masks were rated as fairly negligible, the government's own report into them for masks in schools pointed this out as well and said they were entirely performative and a useful reminder to be careful or something similarly idiotic.
There's plenty of evidence. Google 'effect mask mandates' and you'll get lots of scientific studies.
You also have to look at the other side of the coin. Of all the measures a government can take, mask mandates on public transport and other key places are without any doubt the least expensive, the least disruptive, and have the least adverse effect on people's lives.
I agree mandating them is schools is probably not effective enough to justify the downside, which is why I haven't argued for that.
The key thing is start from the evidence and work towards the policy.
A lot of papers have been published on mask wearing. It doesn't necessarily follow that they show the kind of effect that justifies general mask mandates.
Insofar as I'm aware only one major study has ever been conducted into the efficacy of mask wearing against Covid-19 amongst the general population - the 2020 Danmask trial, which suggested that masking was weakly effective at best against even the original Wuhan strain. The rest of the mask studies are, variously, small in scale, methodologically flawed, unable to separate the effect of masking from other mitigations, irrelevant to community use (e.g. examinations of the use of medical grade masks in medical settings,) or are simply statistical analyses that bundle together groups of these deficient studies to create a larger sample size, and then draw dubious conclusions from the data.
Debunk these studies and you're left with various weak justifications - "they make frightened people feel safer," "they remind everyone there's an emergency on," "it's not that big a deal, it's only a mask" - none of which is sufficient excuse for bludgeoning people into wearing anything. Compulsory masking because "something must be done" should be rejected.
Which you have not done. Pre-Omicron, masks worked. Intra-Omicron, we aren't sure. There's your starter on efficacy. Now make arguments for the harm masks cause, weigh them against each other, and make a policy.
Fortunately they're going on the scrapheap imminently* so I don't need to bother.
*except insofar as my employer is concerned - I wouldn't be surprised if we were all still shuffling around the corridors at work in the horrid things next Winter, more's the pity
My 2p worth of speculation as to the COVID "blip". The sharp rise before Xmas was driven by it being in London. It tailed off and fell as rural areas of the South rose to the top of the cases per 100k chart. That spread North. Now it is the conurbations of the NE and NW which are dominant. Hence faster spread? Just a theory.
My 2p worth of speculation:
its not so much areas as age groups, if you look at the cases by age group, you start to see a trend. the age groups are not available for the UK as a whole, and they are delayed so the last available is 14 Jan. However I think we can see a trend, if we look at the latest data and compare to the day before.
0-4: up 5-9: up 10-14: up 15-19: up (very slightly) 20-24: down 25-29: down 30-34: down 35-39: down 40-44: down 45-49: down 50-54: down 55-59: down 60-64: down 65-69: down 70-74: down 75-79: down 80-84: down 85-89: down 90+: down
If this has continued since the 14 Jan, then eventually the drop in the old groups attenuates out and the rise in the younger groups becomes more significant and then overall cases rise, which I think is what we are seeing.
Why did this not start the day schools went back? well I don't really know, other than to say this is what we observed in September when schools went back then, (a delay before cases started rising) perhaps is become of all the testing in the first week, and/or the incubation period?
Does this matter? well its obviously sad that its rising at all, but of all the age groups this is likely to be the least badly affected with hospitalisation and/or death.
Will it spread to other age groups? this is the great unknown, but its worth noting that from Sep-Dec, it mostly stayed in the kids with some spill over to the parents age groups 30-50 but not much beyond that, so this could be the same.
How long will it last? Don't know, but my guess would be not long, 2-4 weeks perhaps, but that's a just my feeling not based on much.
Anybody else with their 2p worth?
Could the blip be a mirage cause by the switch from PCR to LFTs?
When the big falls started, the youngest and lest animated groups didn't join the "group". Now the older 2, 10-14 and 15-19 have joined the main group, leaving 0-9 behind.
I've been looking back at posters' comments on the now infamous 20th May 2020.
This one from the much-missed @Black_Rook gives some context from that day:
"Recently home from work and just catching up on the news of zero new Covid diagnoses in London in a 24-hour period.
It is also more than a week since Boris Johnson dumped the Stay Home message and started encouraging people to go back to work. One is therefore entitled to wonder what has happened to the much-feared disease spike caused by passengers allegedly cramming back into buses and the Tube, going back into workplaces, and spending as much time as they please enjoying sunny parks. Indeed, if this continues to fail to materialise for very much longer then it'll be the best news since this whole miserable saga began."
According to the media (speaking today) we were in the height of lockdown back then.
The Rook is actively posting under a new name now, of course.
I didn't know that. Are you sure, I've not picked up any similarities?
Apols if I have missed a discussion this already, but should Labour not now get Christian Wakeford to step down and force a Red Wall by-election? if they cant win that seat back now they never will and a win in the Red Wall is presumably a massive addition to the current narrative of a failing Boris and keeps the whole story front and centre in the media
They can't force him to, he wouldn't have switched if that was a condition, there's no real need for him to do so, doing so carries risk since it's not possible to predict what will happen between now and the by election (eg Johnson being replaced by someone useful) and persuading an MP to switch across is probably better than a by election win anyway, since the latter happens fairly frequently and the former is comparatively rare.
All in all, I'd say the likelihood of a by election as a result of this defection is close to zero.
On reflection, agree. There is too much risk. Labour's performance in the last few by-elections has been poor and, even considering there may have been tactical voting, there is a big risk its voters don't really come out. Especially as it sounds as though many on the left wing in the seat may not be happy with him as a MP anyway.
Perhaps a more interesting question is whether we get any more defections from Red Wall seats who follow the same logic as Wakeford i.e. I need to save my career, better to move now. My guess is not for now but could happen.
I guess it would be high risk and thus not really Starmers bag, but isn't he more likely to win it now at the height of the current fiasco than in a couple of years when there is a GE? Defections with no by-election always seem grubby, not sure this really helps Labour done this way (unless there are more coming)
Yes, but... if he wins a by election now, he still has to defend the seat at the GE! There's no upside to a by election, and a huge potential downside.
Yes I guess the huge potential downside bit is true, but I disagree about no upside IF HE WINS. It looks less grubby, it proves Labour is 'back' in those seats, it keeps a partygate story in the media that isnt just more of the same, it shows Labour driving the agenda. I find myself wonder 'what would Tony do', he tended to get this stuff right
By election wouldn't be for weeks; the story will likely be over by then and limited national coverage during the campaign. Also Bury South isn't really Red Wall, it's a long standing suburban marginal.
Anyway, put yourself in Starmer's shoes. How do you persuade your newest MP to gamble his £90k pa job on the notion that his new local party, who (at best) don't know him from Adam and (at worst) actively hate his guts, will campaign hard enough to keep him from joining the dole queue two years early?
If I thought it was the right plan then, in Starmers shoes, I would have made it condition of him joining so I wouldnt need to be persuading him. But I can see why he just wants to bank the benefit and move on with safety first and a one day stunt. Not sure it really is going to prove a benefit longer term, I personally find it has an unpleasant aroma of playing politics which is not the look Starmer is going for right now.
I suspect Cummings & co have more dirt to dish. I can't see how Boris can conduct any sort of sensible interview for the foreseeable future and his lamentable character is firmly established in the mind of the public at large. I suppose he might last a few months though.
Grays report is the moment that Boris goes or survives and of course on Cummings he will have been interviewed by Sue Gray and she will be able to compare his statement with both Boris and Martin Reynolds statements
I believe it is Martin Reynolds resignation letter (absolutely expect him to receive his P45) that could be dramatic as he could finish off Boris or discredit Cummings more than he already is
It is high drama but while Boris has survived another week I hope he will be out of office very soon
It's not because the mayor knows everyone just starts getting alternative transport and if it went to court it would end up with all the same losses of terms of service and EULA cases.
Additionally, anyone who tries to enforce them has no legal basis to challenge anyone on why they may be exempt from masks, which is why mask wearing has never been enforced in the UK. People can simply say "I am exempt from this rule" and they have to accept it and move on.
It's an entirely pointless exercise to continue mandating masks and Sadiq is just trying to show that he's "responsible" but as we saw last time, people will naturally stop wearing them.
I agree with much of that, but the fact that it hasn't been properly enforced, and that there was this utterly ridiculous exemption on no basis, is the government's fault. One of many missteps.
I just don't see what you want to achieve with mask wearing. People who want to protect themselves can get higher grade masks if they want. Making those of us who can live with a small amount of risk wear shitty cloth masks that don't work isn't helping anyone.
You're still stuck in the default "must stop the virus" stage of this. I think that's the issue, once you accept that we can't stop it you'll realise that all of the NPIs have to go. The best we can do is reduce case severity, three doses of vaccine for the over 50s and two doses for the under 50s seems to do that very well. Everything else is window dressing.
Now that we have the vaccines and boosters largely done (although it's a pity that the programme seems to have stalled now), the stage we should be at now is not to stop the virus, which I agree is impossible in the medium term, but to slow it down to help the pressure on the NHS. Assuming we don't get hit by some new nasty surprise, in which case all bets would be off, we are talking a small number of weeks for this.
What evidence do you have to suggest that masks on the tube or any public transport would actually slow it down? The general studies into COVID transmission have all shown that the biggest R reductions come from school closures and WFH mandates. I think masks were rated as fairly negligible, the government's own report into them for masks in schools pointed this out as well and said they were entirely performative and a useful reminder to be careful or something similarly idiotic.
There's plenty of evidence. Google 'effect mask mandates' and you'll get lots of scientific studies.
You also have to look at the other side of the coin. Of all the measures a government can take, mask mandates on public transport and other key places are without any doubt the least expensive, the least disruptive, and have the least adverse effect on people's lives.
I agree mandating them is schools is probably not effective enough to justify the downside, which is why I haven't argued for that.
The key thing is start from the evidence and work towards the policy.
A lot of papers have been published on mask wearing. It doesn't necessarily follow that they show the kind of effect that justifies general mask mandates.
Insofar as I'm aware only one major study has ever been conducted into the efficacy of mask wearing against Covid-19 amongst the general population - the 2020 Danmask trial, which suggested that masking was weakly effective at best against even the original Wuhan strain. The rest of the mask studies are, variously, small in scale, methodologically flawed, unable to separate the effect of masking from other mitigations, irrelevant to community use (e.g. examinations of the use of medical grade masks in medical settings,) or are simply statistical analyses that bundle together groups of these deficient studies to create a larger sample size, and then draw dubious conclusions from the data.
Debunk these studies and you're left with various weak justifications - "they make frightened people feel safer," "they remind everyone there's an emergency on," "it's not that big a deal, it's only a mask" - none of which is sufficient excuse for bludgeoning people into wearing anything. Compulsory masking because "something must be done" should be rejected.
Which you have not done. Pre-Omicron, masks worked. Intra-Omicron, we aren't sure. There's your starter on efficacy. Now make arguments for the harm masks cause, weigh them against each other, and make a policy.
Pre-Omicron masks worked.
Did they work pre-March 2020.
The studies I've looked at have been about Covid, and before Omicron. I don't know of any reliable data on mask mandates versus Covid pre-March 2020, for one fairly obvious reason.
Generally, masks can prevent infectious transmission, though.
Yes I imagine they can. The issue is they are not a costless measure. And pre-Covid we felt that whatever undoubted benefit they provided against infectious transmission was not sufficient to justify their mandated wearing.
If you have the flu be a responsible citizen and stay at home until you feel better. If you have Covid be a responsible citizen and stay at home until you feel better.
Oh and don't go to visit any 95-yr old monarchs is also a good rule.
The key problem in terms of effectiveness of masks vs omicron, is omicron is so infectious, that you can have your FFP3 mask properly fitted on the tube, but any interactions you have in public with no mask you still stand a very high chance of catching omicron should you been in a venue where there is an infectious person and inter-household spread is many times higher than previous variants.
Basically unless you are never going to meet anybody and live on your own, you are going to be exposed to Omicron at some point.
Very vulnerable people it would be very sensible to be masked up with an FFP3 mask, but those living any sort of normal life you are going to be regularly exposed to Omicron regardless of mask wearing on the Tube.
Regardless of the pros and cons of masks, and despite the subject being really boring, I do find the discussion on here a bit one-sided.
Take London transport. The anti-maskers declare that they refuse to wear a mask, or won't use the tube, and therefore a return to normal will be delayed unless Khan lifts his ludicrous rules. But what they ignore is that there's another set of people, perhaps roughly the same size, who won't use the tube if people are not wearing masks, because they don't feel safe. It really doesn't matter if they're wrong - they may be older, still nervous about Covid, and noting that it's still leading to a fair few deaths. In brief, behavioural changes brought about by the lifting of all restrictions do not all flow in the same direction.
I just watched that. I have never heard of him. What an irritating moron.
On the train today x2. First this morning = masks: 100% (apart from me who can make a Starbucks [apols] coffee last over an hour).
This afternoon = 50%. mask wearing.
Just the hint that they will no longer be mandated has pre-empted action from people.
Yes, I mused earlier that I thought that that might happen. Lame duck law now – who is going to enforce a law that expires at midnight tomorrow week?
Certainly works for me. I walked into my dry cleaners this arvo and thought: Fuck it, why wear a mask? They are going anyway
My previously masked dry cleaning guys clearly felt the same. Usually they wear masks. Not today
I am so impressed with the on the ground work you do.You've told us so many times that no one at all in your area is wearing masks any more, and yet you still manage to find someone who has _only_just_ stopped wearing one. You must be having to go miles to find them by now.
I think Leon has been fairly clear that people in London are wearing them, performatively, in shops, then cheerfully discarding them where they are not required. Seeing people not wearing them where they ARE required is new news.
The only shop where I can be consistently sure of being in a majority of non-maskers round here is One Stop.
Apropos of nothing in particular, I think the word "performative" is one of the words of the pandemic. I don't think I recall ever seeing it until around a year ago. Now, its usage is abundant and terribly fashionable.
Very often by the same people who blather on about the what gaslighting means and how it isn't really a thing. PB is rich in students of human behaviour, often C- students but students nevertheless.
Well that long established narrative on here that "Boris" was a political genius covered in Teflon and Kier Starmer was crap seems to have largely vanished.
Yes, but I don't think the defection will turn out to be good for Labour. It won't be a huge negative but he looks like selfish opportunist and his views may cause ructions.
He does seem mouthy sort.
It’s only a few months ago the unions and Corbynista neutered Starmer’s big plans at conference and heckled him, the back catalogue of their new comrade is going to feed these lefty’s red meat in the coming weeks. Evidence? Our own Big John Knows went from 3 post a week (normally after the pubs shut) to more than five in an hour, so something stirred him up.
But a cross the floor still has to go down in positive column for Starmer I suppose because of the attention it gets outside Westminster bubble.
I just watched that. I have never heard of him. What an irritating moron.
On the train today x2. First this morning = masks: 100% (apart from me who can make a Starbucks [apols] coffee last over an hour).
This afternoon = 50%. mask wearing.
Just the hint that they will no longer be mandated has pre-empted action from people.
Yes, I mused earlier that I thought that that might happen. Lame duck law now – who is going to enforce a law that expires at midnight tomorrow week?
Certainly works for me. I walked into my dry cleaners this arvo and thought: Fuck it, why wear a mask? They are going anyway
My previously masked dry cleaning guys clearly felt the same. Usually they wear masks. Not today
I am so impressed with the on the ground work you do.You've told us so many times that no one at all in your area is wearing masks any more, and yet you still manage to find someone who has _only_just_ stopped wearing one. You must be having to go miles to find them by now.
I think Leon has been fairly clear that people in London are wearing them, performatively, in shops, then cheerfully discarding them where they are not required. Seeing people not wearing them where they ARE required is new news.
The only shop where I can be consistently sure of being in a majority of non-maskers round here is One Stop.
Apropos of nothing in particular, I think the word "performative" is one of the words of the pandemic. I don't think I recall ever seeing it until around a year ago. Now, its usage is abundant and terribly fashionable.
Very often by the same people who blather on about the what gaslighting means and how it isn't really a thing. PB is rich in students of human behaviour, often C- students but students nevertheless.
If I knew what gaslighting meant I would make some arch, wry joke incorporating what you said in your post to mock gaslight you but I don't so I won't.
Regardless of the pros and cons of masks, and despite the subject being really boring, I do find the discussion on here a bit one-sided.
Take London transport. The anti-maskers declare that they refuse to wear a mask, or won't use the tube, and therefore a return to normal will be delayed unless Khan lifts his ludicrous rules. But what they ignore is that there's another set of people, perhaps roughly the same size, who won't use the tube if people are not wearing masks, because they don't feel safe. It really doesn't matter if they're wrong - they may be older, still nervous about Covid, and noting that it's still leading to a fair few deaths. In brief, behavioural changes brought about by the lifting of all restrictions do not all flow in the same direction.
So masks for evermore on the tube. Fair enough if that's what Sadiq says. Doesn't make sense to me, that said.
Regardless of the pros and cons of masks, and despite the subject being really boring, I do find the discussion on here a bit one-sided.
Take London transport. The anti-maskers declare that they refuse to wear a mask, or won't use the tube, and therefore a return to normal will be delayed unless Khan lifts his ludicrous rules. But what they ignore is that there's another set of people, perhaps roughly the same size, who won't use the tube if people are not wearing masks, because they don't feel safe. It really doesn't matter if they're wrong - they may be older, still nervous about Covid, and noting that it's still leading to a fair few deaths. In brief, behavioural changes brought about by the lifting of all restrictions do not all flow in the same direction.
That's why I think government messaging has to switch from a mode of "here are today's Covid restrictions" to one of "this is good public health advice to follow for normal daily life" with a message that the emergency phase of the pandemic is over thanks to mass vaccination.
They have to provide a reassuring message of the extent to which the risk has been reduced, coupled with, these are the long-term things people should do out of respect for each other (such as voluntarily staying at home if you know you are infectious).
I've been looking back at posters' comments on the now infamous 20th May 2020.
This one from the much-missed @Black_Rook gives some context from that day:
"Recently home from work and just catching up on the news of zero new Covid diagnoses in London in a 24-hour period.
It is also more than a week since Boris Johnson dumped the Stay Home message and started encouraging people to go back to work. One is therefore entitled to wonder what has happened to the much-feared disease spike caused by passengers allegedly cramming back into buses and the Tube, going back into workplaces, and spending as much time as they please enjoying sunny parks. Indeed, if this continues to fail to materialise for very much longer then it'll be the best news since this whole miserable saga began."
According to the media (speaking today) we were in the height of lockdown back then.
The "height of lockdown" nonsense for May 20 is typical of our journalists. Ten of thousands of people went to the beach that day,
Well I remember the third weekend in May, which was, I think, when we were given permission to leave our immediate area. I took my daughters for a walk in the Peak District. (I've just looked it up - it was on the 16th May). Driving anywhere felt like a real novelty. People were friendly, but wary, giving each other a very wide berth. It wasn't the height of lockdown, but we were pretty restricted.
Looking back through those photos from April and May 2020 makes me want to weep with rage: the weird, filmic almost unnatural quality of the light creating a strange juxtaposition to the world falling apart, my children's busy lives shrinking and shrinking away. I suspect a lot of people feel a powerful emotional response when they consider that time in particular. Which is why Boris is the target of such emotional fury. (Of course, some already felt this way about him following Brexit.)
Had lunch today with a friend I hadn't seen for some time - potted shrimp then supreme of guinea fowl if you're wondering - and he started off saying how nice lockdown was, time with the family, open spaces, exercise, etc.
I asked him about the online schooling and his children (he has two). His face changed instantly. Terrible, really horrible, an awful time, youngest definitely set back in his education, etc.
It's easy to forget, even if you were affected, how for many people it was a pretty horrific time.
The worst memory - worse than jovially trying to get through each day with three children under ten without having anything at all to do, anyone to see, anywhere beyond walking distance to go, even the swings in the park taken away; worse than trying to educate them and keep them active and at the same time trying to do some sort of job - so bad that I have basically repressed it, with it coming as a shock whenever it pops unbidden into my mind, as just now, when looking at photos from May 2020 - was the feeling on waking every single day: the pleasant 20 to 30 seconds of waking up followed by the sudden feeling of dread and despair and hopelessness in the stomach as I remembered what was going on in the world, that today would be just like yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that... the feeling that didn't truly go away until the 20 to 30 seconds before drifting off to sleep. That didn't really stop happening until I was persuaded to go to a doctor in October and take some antidepressants. Just in time for lockdown 2. So while rationally I do not care that Boris and his mates had some after work drinks, emotionally I want to punch him in the face again and again and again. It's not because I think he is evil, nor incompetent (his competence isn't his greatest asset, but people more competent than him were queueing up to demand more lockdown); it's that the suffering of 2020 provokes a visceral emotional response and needs someone to blame. I need a scapegoat.
However, my keenness that the Conservative Party defenestrate him is largely rational. Rishi, or Liz, or Penny, or Jeremy would almost certainly do a better job. His moment has passed.
Regardless of the pros and cons of masks, and despite the subject being really boring, I do find the discussion on here a bit one-sided.
Take London transport. The anti-maskers declare that they refuse to wear a mask, or won't use the tube, and therefore a return to normal will be delayed unless Khan lifts his ludicrous rules. But what they ignore is that there's another set of people, perhaps roughly the same size, who won't use the tube if people are not wearing masks, because they don't feel safe. It really doesn't matter if they're wrong - they may be older, still nervous about Covid, and noting that it's still leading to a fair few deaths. In brief, behavioural changes brought about by the lifting of all restrictions do not all flow in the same direction.
So masks for evermore on the tube. Fair enough if that's what Sadiq says. Doesn't make sense to me, that said.
Don't be daft. Not for ever more. You're just proving my point about being one-sided. I suspect/hope by the spring that people who are currently nervous won't be any longer, so no more masks. The idea that anybody likes wearing a mask is ludicrous.
I suspect Cummings & co have more dirt to dish. I can't see how Boris can conduct any sort of sensible interview for the foreseeable future and his lamentable character is firmly established in the mind of the public at large. I suppose he might last a few months though.
Grays report is the moment that Boris goes or survives and of course on Cummings he will have been interviewed by Sue Gray and she will be able to compare his statement with both Boris and Martin Reynolds statements
I believe it is Martin Reynolds resignation letter (absolutely expect him to receive his P45) that could be dramatic as he could finish off Boris or discredit Cummings more than he already is
It is high drama but while Boris has survived another week I hope he will be out of office very soon
Martin Reynolds P45? I expect him to be offered a plum ambassadorial role in the ME as a thank-you for his loyal service (with the emphasis on loyal).
Regardless of the pros and cons of masks, and despite the subject being really boring, I do find the discussion on here a bit one-sided.
Take London transport. The anti-maskers declare that they refuse to wear a mask, or won't use the tube, and therefore a return to normal will be delayed unless Khan lifts his ludicrous rules. But what they ignore is that there's another set of people, perhaps roughly the same size, who won't use the tube if people are not wearing masks, because they don't feel safe. It really doesn't matter if they're wrong - they may be older, still nervous about Covid, and noting that it's still leading to a fair few deaths. In brief, behavioural changes brought about by the lifting of all restrictions do not all flow in the same direction.
It actually speaks to a wider issue. We need proper education of the real risk. Everybody has become so transfixed by the daily updates where its currently at 200-300 deaths per day that this still causes a lot of worry in people, and that most people have totally lost sight of the actual real risk of covid versus everything else in the world.
I am not saying that's covid done, pandemic over, but I think this daily beaming of just the covid stats for 2 years has totally warped people perception of the covid versus cancer, heart attacks etc.
We really need to start educating the public that not only is COVID not going away but here it is in relation to lots of other things that people don't ever worry themselves on a daily basis about.
There has been all sorts of public polling where the public think the risks of being hospitalised are orders of magnitude different to reality.
I just watched that. I have never heard of him. What an irritating moron.
On the train today x2. First this morning = masks: 100% (apart from me who can make a Starbucks [apols] coffee last over an hour).
This afternoon = 50%. mask wearing.
Just the hint that they will no longer be mandated has pre-empted action from people.
Yes, I mused earlier that I thought that that might happen. Lame duck law now – who is going to enforce a law that expires at midnight tomorrow week?
Certainly works for me. I walked into my dry cleaners this arvo and thought: Fuck it, why wear a mask? They are going anyway
My previously masked dry cleaning guys clearly felt the same. Usually they wear masks. Not today
I am so impressed with the on the ground work you do.You've told us so many times that no one at all in your area is wearing masks any more, and yet you still manage to find someone who has _only_just_ stopped wearing one. You must be having to go miles to find them by now.
I think Leon has been fairly clear that people in London are wearing them, performatively, in shops, then cheerfully discarding them where they are not required. Seeing people not wearing them where they ARE required is new news.
The only shop where I can be consistently sure of being in a majority of non-maskers round here is One Stop.
Apropos of nothing in particular, I think the word "performative" is one of the words of the pandemic. I don't think I recall ever seeing it until around a year ago. Now, its usage is abundant and terribly fashionable.
Very often by the same people who blather on about the what gaslighting means and how it isn't really a thing. PB is rich in students of human behaviour, often C- students but students nevertheless.
If I knew what gaslighting meant I would make some arch, wry joke incorporating what you said in your post to mock gaslight you but I don't so I won't.
I suspect Cummings & co have more dirt to dish. I can't see how Boris can conduct any sort of sensible interview for the foreseeable future and his lamentable character is firmly established in the mind of the public at large. I suppose he might last a few months though.
Grays report is the moment that Boris goes or survives and of course on Cummings he will have been interviewed by Sue Gray and she will be able to compare his statement with both Boris and Martin Reynolds statements
I believe it is Martin Reynolds resignation letter (absolutely expect him to receive his P45) that could be dramatic as he could finish off Boris or discredit Cummings more than he already is
It is high drama but while Boris has survived another week I hope he will be out of office very soon
It has though been a pretty decent fight back today though, for the first time in about 3 months. The Boris fight back is just about eclipsing the defection as the big news, the front pages will be along later to show this.
They need to keep Boris away from interviews though, as yesterday done him more damage to himself.
It’s also true though, that when Norman eased up over Christmas the polls closed up quickly, so maybe it isn’t lasting damage, and a few weeks of better news cycle and Boris can come back?
Yes, but I don't think the defection will turn out to be good for Labour. It won't be a huge negative but he looks like selfish opportunist and his views may cause ructions.
He does seem mouthy sort.
It’s only a few months ago the unions and Corbynista neutered Starmer’s big plans at conference and heckled him, the back catalogue of their new comrade is going to feed these lefty’s red meat in the coming weeks. Evidence? Our own Big John Knows went from 3 post a week (normally after the pubs shut) to more than five in an hour, so something stirred him up.
But a cross the floor still has to go down in positive column for Starmer I suppose because of the attention it gets outside Westminster bubble.
Definitely positive for Starmer.
I think it will make the ultra-left look a bit more ridiculous with their demands for Labour "purity" - which is also what Starmer wants.
He (the actual defector) will be rapidly kicked into the Lords, is my guess. Unless he gets a massive majority next election - which is probably unlikely.
Regardless of the pros and cons of masks, and despite the subject being really boring, I do find the discussion on here a bit one-sided.
Take London transport. The anti-maskers declare that they refuse to wear a mask, or won't use the tube, and therefore a return to normal will be delayed unless Khan lifts his ludicrous rules. But what they ignore is that there's another set of people, perhaps roughly the same size, who won't use the tube if people are not wearing masks, because they don't feel safe. It really doesn't matter if they're wrong - they may be older, still nervous about Covid, and noting that it's still leading to a fair few deaths. In brief, behavioural changes brought about by the lifting of all restrictions do not all flow in the same direction.
So masks for evermore on the tube. Fair enough if that's what Sadiq says. Doesn't make sense to me, that said.
Don't be daft. Not for ever more. You're just proving my point about being one-sided. I suspect/hope by the spring that people who are currently nervous won't be any longer, so no more masks. The idea that anybody likes wearing a mask is ludicrous.
Not likes but feels safe and comforted. That is a big habit to break. Let's suppose that Omicron or a variant is with us forever more. Flu season, Omicron season. When do you suggest the moment will arrive when nervous people won't be nervous any more. And if you can envisage that scenario, what is different today. Just one more push, just a few fewer deaths? What state will you be able to say - this is it.
Did you really even know how many deaths "flu and pneumonia" caused pre-pandemic? I didn't (ans: around 30,000/year).
Multiple things can be true at the same time. A desire to save his seat would not be enough by itself - if it were, we'd get loads more defections in various directions, and we don't. It took Brexit to cause any last time.
Regardless of the pros and cons of masks, and despite the subject being really boring, I do find the discussion on here a bit one-sided.
Take London transport. The anti-maskers declare that they refuse to wear a mask, or won't use the tube, and therefore a return to normal will be delayed unless Khan lifts his ludicrous rules. But what they ignore is that there's another set of people, perhaps roughly the same size, who won't use the tube if people are not wearing masks, because they don't feel safe. It really doesn't matter if they're wrong - they may be older, still nervous about Covid, and noting that it's still leading to a fair few deaths. In brief, behavioural changes brought about by the lifting of all restrictions do not all flow in the same direction.
That's why I think government messaging has to switch from a mode of "here are today's Covid restrictions" to one of "this is good public health advice to follow for normal daily life" with a message that the emergency phase of the pandemic is over thanks to mass vaccination.
They have to provide a reassuring message of the extent to which the risk has been reduced, coupled with, these are the long-term things people should do out of respect for each other (such as voluntarily staying at home if you know you are infectious).
One thing that I hope might come out of this miserable episode in our history is some pushback against the culture of presenteeism in workplaces - often caused by employers with very unsympathetic sickness and absence policies.
And, going forward, one way in which the dreaded masks might still be useful is for people who are coughing and spluttering and not particularly well, but cannot avoid leaving the house. Not everyone can get that online food delivery slot (or, in some cases, is even computer literate enough to try to book one.) Not everyone can avoid the need to go to a medical appointment or a pharmacy when they're snotty. Not everyone has help to take the kids to school and back. Not everyone has somebody else around to walk the dog for them.
I've been looking back at posters' comments on the now infamous 20th May 2020.
This one from the much-missed @Black_Rook gives some context from that day:
"Recently home from work and just catching up on the news of zero new Covid diagnoses in London in a 24-hour period.
It is also more than a week since Boris Johnson dumped the Stay Home message and started encouraging people to go back to work. One is therefore entitled to wonder what has happened to the much-feared disease spike caused by passengers allegedly cramming back into buses and the Tube, going back into workplaces, and spending as much time as they please enjoying sunny parks. Indeed, if this continues to fail to materialise for very much longer then it'll be the best news since this whole miserable saga began."
According to the media (speaking today) we were in the height of lockdown back then.
The "height of lockdown" nonsense for May 20 is typical of our journalists. Ten of thousands of people went to the beach that day,
Well I remember the third weekend in May, which was, I think, when we were given permission to leave our immediate area. I took my daughters for a walk in the Peak District. (I've just looked it up - it was on the 16th May). Driving anywhere felt like a real novelty. People were friendly, but wary, giving each other a very wide berth. It wasn't the height of lockdown, but we were pretty restricted.
Looking back through those photos from April and May 2020 makes me want to weep with rage: the weird, filmic almost unnatural quality of the light creating a strange juxtaposition to the world falling apart, my children's busy lives shrinking and shrinking away. I suspect a lot of people feel a powerful emotional response when they consider that time in particular. Which is why Boris is the target of such emotional fury. (Of course, some already felt this way about him following Brexit.)
Had lunch today with a friend I hadn't seen for some time - potted shrimp then supreme of guinea fowl if you're wondering - and he started off saying how nice lockdown was, time with the family, open spaces, exercise, etc.
I asked him about the online schooling and his children (he has two). His face changed instantly. Terrible, really horrible, an awful time, youngest definitely set back in his education, etc.
It's easy to forget, even if you were affected, how for many people it was a pretty horrific time.
The worst memory - worse than jovially trying to get through each day with three children under ten without having anything at all to do, anyone to see, anywhere beyond walking distance to go, even the swings in the park taken away; worse than trying to educate them and keep them active and at the same time trying to do some sort of job - so bad that I have basically repressed it, with it coming as a shock whenever it pops unbidden into my mind, as just now, when looking at photos from May 2020 - was the feeling on waking every single day: the pleasant 20 to 30 seconds of waking up followed by the sudden feeling of dread and despair and hopelessness in the stomach as I remembered what was going on in the world, that today would be just like yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that... the feeling that didn't truly go away until the 20 to 30 seconds before drifting off to sleep. That didn't really stop happening until I was persuaded to go to a doctor in October and take some antidepressants. Just in time for lockdown 2. So while rationally I do not care that Boris and his mates had some after work drinks, emotionally I want to punch him in the face again and again and again. It's not because I think he is evil, nor incompetent (his competence isn't his greatest asset, but people more competent than him were queueing up to demand more lockdown); it's that the suffering of 2020 provokes a visceral emotional response and needs someone to blame. I need a scapegoat.
However, my keenness that the Conservative Party defenestrate him is largely rational. Rishi, or Liz, or Penny, or Jeremy would almost certainly do a better job. His moment has passed.
Sorry if this is personal - but was there follow up after the antidepressants?
The reason I ask, is a good friend, long ago, got given pills for far too long, rather than getting the help they needed after the pills had stabilised the initial situation.
Regardless of the pros and cons of masks, and despite the subject being really boring, I do find the discussion on here a bit one-sided.
Take London transport. The anti-maskers declare that they refuse to wear a mask, or won't use the tube, and therefore a return to normal will be delayed unless Khan lifts his ludicrous rules. But what they ignore is that there's another set of people, perhaps roughly the same size, who won't use the tube if people are not wearing masks, because they don't feel safe. It really doesn't matter if they're wrong - they may be older, still nervous about Covid, and noting that it's still leading to a fair few deaths. In brief, behavioural changes brought about by the lifting of all restrictions do not all flow in the same direction.
On my train yesterday there was some panhandler handing out absurdly priced tissues with a note attached and taking money for them from passengers.
He was wearing a mask of course, and it occurred to me that he and just about every hustler on commuter trains will more difficult for LT to identify going forward, encouraging them in numbers and aggression.
Do we really have to re-watch the Sweeney to learn that masks protect criminals from identification?
Regardless of the pros and cons of masks, and despite the subject being really boring, I do find the discussion on here a bit one-sided.
Take London transport. The anti-maskers declare that they refuse to wear a mask, or won't use the tube, and therefore a return to normal will be delayed unless Khan lifts his ludicrous rules. But what they ignore is that there's another set of people, perhaps roughly the same size, who won't use the tube if people are not wearing masks, because they don't feel safe. It really doesn't matter if they're wrong - they may be older, still nervous about Covid, and noting that it's still leading to a fair few deaths. In brief, behavioural changes brought about by the lifting of all restrictions do not all flow in the same direction.
So masks for evermore on the tube. Fair enough if that's what Sadiq says. Doesn't make sense to me, that said.
Don't be daft. Not for ever more. You're just proving my point about being one-sided. I suspect/hope by the spring that people who are currently nervous won't be any longer, so no more masks. The idea that anybody likes wearing a mask is ludicrous.
Not likes but feels safe and comforted. That is a big habit to break. Let's suppose that Omicron or a variant is with us forever more. Flu season, Omicron season. When do you suggest the moment will arrive when nervous people won't be nervous any more. And if you can envisage that scenario, what is different today. Just one more push, just a few fewer deaths? What state will you be able to say - this is it.
Did you really even know how many deaths "flu and pneumonia" caused pre-pandemic? I didn't (ans: around 30,000/year).
I haven't been wearing a mask since December (I am exempt) - it is interesting watching the look of fear that this engenders in some, envy in others.
Just 3 people have asked me about it - one in Boots, one in the post office, and one at a book fair.
I've been travelling to and from London for much of that time. Staying, eating, drinking and making merry in South London as well as Dorset. Not a sniffle.
I suspect Cummings & co have more dirt to dish. I can't see how Boris can conduct any sort of sensible interview for the foreseeable future and his lamentable character is firmly established in the mind of the public at large. I suppose he might last a few months though.
Grays report is the moment that Boris goes or survives and of course on Cummings he will have been interviewed by Sue Gray and she will be able to compare his statement with both Boris and Martin Reynolds statements
I believe it is Martin Reynolds resignation letter (absolutely expect him to receive his P45) that could be dramatic as he could finish off Boris or discredit Cummings more than he already is
It is high drama but while Boris has survived another week I hope he will be out of office very soon
It has though been a pretty decent fight back today though, for the first time in about 3 months. The Boris fight back is just about eclipsing the defection as the big news, the front pages will be along later to show this.
They need to keep Boris away from interviews though, as yesterday done him more damage to himself.
It’s also true though, that when Norman eased up over Christmas the polls closed up quickly, so maybe it isn’t lasting damage, and a few weeks of better news cycle and Boris can come back?
I am not sure about Boris surviving but I am sure next week is going to be a big week in politics
A good and reassuring thread on Omicron FFS alias Omicron sub-variant BA2
"As its been getting increasing attention recently, I'm going to write a short thread on what we currently know about BA.2. -what is BA.2? -what is BA.2 doing currently? -Should we be concerned about it?"
In brief, yes it is probably a bit more infectious than Omicron Classic - hence its rise in Denmark (and, surely, elsewhere, in time) - but it doesn't seem any more virulent and it doesn't seem to reinfect. It is a cause for mild concern, but no more, right now. Tho we need more data
On the other hand Denmark is in a bit of a pickle:
"1/2 The 12th national record in Europe today comes in #Denmark.
38,759 #Covid19 cases detected in the last 24 hours. That's >5,000 higher than yesterday's old record and a rise of more than 50% on last Wednesday.
The 7 day rate now reaches 4,970 AD/M which means that 0.5% of #Denmark's entire population is being infected with #Covid19 every day. Almost 3.5% in the last seven days alone. 16 more Covid-linked deaths. Covid patients hospitalised up 11 to 821 The ICU patient number is up one to 50"
Meanwhile, there are SOME - not many but SOME - experts who are seriously anxious that BA2 may mean reinfections - ie getting Delta or Omicron Classic will not defend you from Omicron FFS
The country that seems most odd is France, 460k infections reported yesterday and seemingly no end in sight. In the meantime it looks as though the ONS death data for England and Wales has decoupled from the dashboard data indicating around 30% of deaths for January are "with COVID" because around 10m people have had it in the last 28 days.
Do we have age profile data for France? The concern I (and some others) had was that some countries have large numbers of elderly people without any vaccinations at all. These "large numbers" are not huge vs the population as a whole. But given the enormous differential in outcomes for COVID based on age...
France is quite similar to us, rather than say Italy.. Median Age = 42.3 For UK it is 40.6. Italy = 47.
France UK
Fascinating. I wonder why there is that sharp drop in population at around 73 in France? And the peak and then drop at about the same age in the UK? At fist I thought something to do with the end of the war but that doesn't work as it is a few years out.
73 is roughly 1949/50 birthdate. I'm intrigued by the hollowing out of the profile for ages 63-73 in the UK, which is birthdates of 1950-1960. Which seems to be missing in France.
It's various post-war sociological things I expect. Which may be delayed returns (Uk servicemen were demobbed over several years) generating more births, or NHS starting up, or rationing stopping people feeling confident, or waiting for stable new jobs, or various things.
As to why France is not hollowed out then, I am not sure. Did France's greater agrarian base help them recover more quickly?
I'm not sure how quickly French came home from eg Labour camps, or were demobbed from the Free French forces.
Or impact of war casualties, or which country had a larger baby boom post-war.
I did wonder about wartime effects - eg 70k UK war brides or 200k babies in France due to the occupation, but that would need some detailed work.
The UK data is based on 2020 numbers, so a 73 age would be 1947 birth.
I presume the immediate dip is then due to the austerity measures and food rationing?
Thanks for that.
Readingup about baby booms, France had the largest one in Eueope, and ours was split between 1940s and 1960s.
With the age data, think the way to read it was from top to bottom. There's some nice animations out there.
So, as stated, UK has a brief post-war boom but it takes until the 60s for the real boom to come through. You can even see the effect of the end of the 1970s in the data for the UK.
I post the USA as a final comparison.
note a smaller immediate boom, but then a large sustained growth in population.
That's brilliant. Cheers BiP
Richard, can you post link for the Great Growing Turnip that is UK age/gender profile?
VERY cool as a graphic graphic!
Even more tragic, seeing impact of war (esp WWI) and depression so starkly illustrated; the moving timeline magnifies impact, at least for me.
I suspect Cummings & co have more dirt to dish. I can't see how Boris can conduct any sort of sensible interview for the foreseeable future and his lamentable character is firmly established in the mind of the public at large. I suppose he might last a few months though.
Grays report is the moment that Boris goes or survives and of course on Cummings he will have been interviewed by Sue Gray and she will be able to compare his statement with both Boris and Martin Reynolds statements
I believe it is Martin Reynolds resignation letter (absolutely expect him to receive his P45) that could be dramatic as he could finish off Boris or discredit Cummings more than he already is
It is high drama but while Boris has survived another week I hope he will be out of office very soon
Why should Reynolds be able to discredit Cummings? The only question is whether he wants to lie to defend his boss or not. Too many other people have backed up Cummings account for a single, already discredited, civil servant to be able to change the narrative.
Yes, but I don't think the defection will turn out to be good for Labour. It won't be a huge negative but he looks like selfish opportunist and his views may cause ructions.
He does seem mouthy sort.
It’s only a few months ago the unions and Corbynista neutered Starmer’s big plans at conference and heckled him, the back catalogue of their new comrade is going to feed these lefty’s red meat in the coming weeks. Evidence? Our own Big John Knows went from 3 post a week (normally after the pubs shut) to more than five in an hour, so something stirred him up.
But a cross the floor still has to go down in positive column for Starmer I suppose because of the attention it gets outside Westminster bubble.
Definitely positive for Starmer.
I think it will make the ultra-left look a bit more ridiculous with their demands for Labour "purity" - which is also what Starmer wants.
He (the actual defector) will be rapidly kicked into the Lords, is my guess. Unless he gets a massive majority next election - which is probably unlikely.
Too young for the Lords surely, by about 60 years. He’d dramatically bring the average age down there to about 109. 😴
Why did Leon call Pagel, Lady Pagel, has someone slipped a Royal Garter on her? For services to what!
Catching up it seems that intensive care numbers are down to the levels they were in July last year. The vaccines are working versus OMICRON THE PAPER TIGER as I called it last year.
Given that intensive care numbers are so very low and those who are going in are primarily doing so by choice (choosing to be unvaccinated) there really is no excuse whatsoever to enforce masks or any other garbage on those who've done the right thing and got their jabs.
This nonsense needs to be over now. Let the unvaccinated own the consequences of their choice. Their decision, their responsibility. The numbers of boosted people going into intensive care must be very low.
I've been looking back at posters' comments on the now infamous 20th May 2020.
This one from the much-missed @Black_Rook gives some context from that day:
"Recently home from work and just catching up on the news of zero new Covid diagnoses in London in a 24-hour period.
It is also more than a week since Boris Johnson dumped the Stay Home message and started encouraging people to go back to work. One is therefore entitled to wonder what has happened to the much-feared disease spike caused by passengers allegedly cramming back into buses and the Tube, going back into workplaces, and spending as much time as they please enjoying sunny parks. Indeed, if this continues to fail to materialise for very much longer then it'll be the best news since this whole miserable saga began."
According to the media (speaking today) we were in the height of lockdown back then.
The "height of lockdown" nonsense for May 20 is typical of our journalists. Ten of thousands of people went to the beach that day,
Well I remember the third weekend in May, which was, I think, when we were given permission to leave our immediate area. I took my daughters for a walk in the Peak District. (I've just looked it up - it was on the 16th May). Driving anywhere felt like a real novelty. People were friendly, but wary, giving each other a very wide berth. It wasn't the height of lockdown, but we were pretty restricted.
Looking back through those photos from April and May 2020 makes me want to weep with rage: the weird, filmic almost unnatural quality of the light creating a strange juxtaposition to the world falling apart, my children's busy lives shrinking and shrinking away. I suspect a lot of people feel a powerful emotional response when they consider that time in particular. Which is why Boris is the target of such emotional fury. (Of course, some already felt this way about him following Brexit.)
Had lunch today with a friend I hadn't seen for some time - potted shrimp then supreme of guinea fowl if you're wondering - and he started off saying how nice lockdown was, time with the family, open spaces, exercise, etc.
I asked him about the online schooling and his children (he has two). His face changed instantly. Terrible, really horrible, an awful time, youngest definitely set back in his education, etc.
It's easy to forget, even if you were affected, how for many people it was a pretty horrific time.
The worst memory - worse than jovially trying to get through each day with three children under ten without having anything at all to do, anyone to see, anywhere beyond walking distance to go, even the swings in the park taken away; worse than trying to educate them and keep them active and at the same time trying to do some sort of job - so bad that I have basically repressed it, with it coming as a shock whenever it pops unbidden into my mind, as just now, when looking at photos from May 2020 - was the feeling on waking every single day: the pleasant 20 to 30 seconds of waking up followed by the sudden feeling of dread and despair and hopelessness in the stomach as I remembered what was going on in the world, that today would be just like yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that... the feeling that didn't truly go away until the 20 to 30 seconds before drifting off to sleep. That didn't really stop happening until I was persuaded to go to a doctor in October and take some antidepressants. Just in time for lockdown 2. So while rationally I do not care that Boris and his mates had some after work drinks, emotionally I want to punch him in the face again and again and again. It's not because I think he is evil, nor incompetent (his competence isn't his greatest asset, but people more competent than him were queueing up to demand more lockdown); it's that the suffering of 2020 provokes a visceral emotional response and needs someone to blame. I need a scapegoat.
However, my keenness that the Conservative Party defenestrate him is largely rational. Rishi, or Liz, or Penny, or Jeremy would almost certainly do a better job. His moment has passed.
Sorry if this is personal - but was there follow up after the antidepressants?
The reason I ask, is a good friend, long ago, got given pills for far too long, rather than getting the help they needed after the pills had stabilised the initial situation.
No there wasn't. But nor did I pursue it myself. I was advised to take them for six months and then arrange a review. At first, I was counting down the hours until I could take the next one. They aren't supposed to work instantly, but they did for me. For the first couple of weeks I felt fine for about 14 hours a day. To start with it felt like I needed to up the dose, but I resisted the temptation - knowing I would feel well again in a few hours meant I could do it. And gradually I went from coping for 12 hours a day to coping for 16, to 24, to longer than 24. I didn't need the next tablet so urgently. And almost by accident I cut down to one every two days, then one every three days. After about 5 months I didn't take any more.
They worked for me, but I wouldn't be in a hurry to go back on them. The best thing I got from them was the experience that how I was feeling was just a chemical imbalance in my brain. Knowing that - actually having that demonstrated to me physically - made depression less depressing.
Multiple things can be true at the same time. A desire to save his seat would not be enough by itself - if it were, we'd get loads more defections in various directions, and we don't. It took Brexit to cause any last time.
Indeed, it is a pretty big thing for a politician to switch sides. There are all the people they have got to know along the way who will probably not speak to them anymore and then the people on the side they switch to who will view them as an outsider. I can't imagine it is just about saving his place in the HoC.
Sadiq Khan has announced that masks will continue to be mandatory on all Transport for London services, including the tube.
He can say what he likes, there's no legal basis for them beyond Thursday.
Of course there's a legal basis, it's the conditions of carriage. (As well as common sense and basic courtesy to others).
Richard that way lies masks forever. It should be a risk-based measure. Tell me Khan isn't doing this to differentiate himself from the govt. Hospitalisations and hospital capacity in no way justify any restrictive measures.
No one worried pre-Covid about people wearing masks in case they had the flu. For the jabbed this is what it appears Omicron is like. So why masks now, anywhere?
Public transport is a very special case. Many people can't avoid it, and passengers are frequently crammed together. Of all the places where a mask mandate might be worth having, public transport is the most obviously desirable, until this thing is over. Which ain't quite yet, although we're making very good progress.
Those who are concerned can acquire the stronger masks, then...
I'd say mask observance was down to 80% on public transport this weekend. I expect it to be more like 30% tomorrow....
It's nearly two years into the pandemic now, and I think that we (or a very large fraction of us, at any rate) are absolutely fed up with restrictions. All of them. Including, perhaps especially, the dreaded masks. They'll melt away like snow on warm ground the nanosecond the rules change back.
On the whole yes. But there will imo be a legacy of mask wearing in crowded indoor spaces practiced by a small but not trivial minority.
I generally hate them, but being outside in the very cold weather, walking the dogs or between shops, they are actually very comfortable. So I will probably continue to use them occasionally, but probably only in deep winter and not primarily for infection control
The bandana style masks are quite useful in winter.
I suspect Cummings & co have more dirt to dish. I can't see how Boris can conduct any sort of sensible interview for the foreseeable future and his lamentable character is firmly established in the mind of the public at large. I suppose he might last a few months though.
Grays report is the moment that Boris goes or survives and of course on Cummings he will have been interviewed by Sue Gray and she will be able to compare his statement with both Boris and Martin Reynolds statements
I believe it is Martin Reynolds resignation letter (absolutely expect him to receive his P45) that could be dramatic as he could finish off Boris or discredit Cummings more than he already is
It is high drama but while Boris has survived another week I hope he will be out of office very soon
Why should Reynolds be able to discredit Cummings? The only question is whether he wants to lie to defend his boss or not. Too many other people have backed up Cummings account for a single, already discredited, civil servant to be able to change the narrative.
I am only commenting on a possible scenario where Reynolds contradicts Cummings but equally he could condemn Boris
Sue Gray is interviewing Cummings so let's see how she comments in her report
I've been looking back at posters' comments on the now infamous 20th May 2020.
This one from the much-missed @Black_Rook gives some context from that day:
"Recently home from work and just catching up on the news of zero new Covid diagnoses in London in a 24-hour period.
It is also more than a week since Boris Johnson dumped the Stay Home message and started encouraging people to go back to work. One is therefore entitled to wonder what has happened to the much-feared disease spike caused by passengers allegedly cramming back into buses and the Tube, going back into workplaces, and spending as much time as they please enjoying sunny parks. Indeed, if this continues to fail to materialise for very much longer then it'll be the best news since this whole miserable saga began."
According to the media (speaking today) we were in the height of lockdown back then.
The "height of lockdown" nonsense for May 20 is typical of our journalists. Ten of thousands of people went to the beach that day,
Well I remember the third weekend in May, which was, I think, when we were given permission to leave our immediate area. I took my daughters for a walk in the Peak District. (I've just looked it up - it was on the 16th May). Driving anywhere felt like a real novelty. People were friendly, but wary, giving each other a very wide berth. It wasn't the height of lockdown, but we were pretty restricted.
Looking back through those photos from April and May 2020 makes me want to weep with rage: the weird, filmic almost unnatural quality of the light creating a strange juxtaposition to the world falling apart, my children's busy lives shrinking and shrinking away. I suspect a lot of people feel a powerful emotional response when they consider that time in particular. Which is why Boris is the target of such emotional fury. (Of course, some already felt this way about him following Brexit.)
Had lunch today with a friend I hadn't seen for some time - potted shrimp then supreme of guinea fowl if you're wondering - and he started off saying how nice lockdown was, time with the family, open spaces, exercise, etc.
I asked him about the online schooling and his children (he has two). His face changed instantly. Terrible, really horrible, an awful time, youngest definitely set back in his education, etc.
It's easy to forget, even if you were affected, how for many people it was a pretty horrific time.
The worst memory - worse than jovially trying to get through each day with three children under ten without having anything at all to do, anyone to see, anywhere beyond walking distance to go, even the swings in the park taken away; worse than trying to educate them and keep them active and at the same time trying to do some sort of job - so bad that I have basically repressed it, with it coming as a shock whenever it pops unbidden into my mind, as just now, when looking at photos from May 2020 - was the feeling on waking every single day: the pleasant 20 to 30 seconds of waking up followed by the sudden feeling of dread and despair and hopelessness in the stomach as I remembered what was going on in the world, that today would be just like yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that... the feeling that didn't truly go away until the 20 to 30 seconds before drifting off to sleep. That didn't really stop happening until I was persuaded to go to a doctor in October and take some antidepressants. Just in time for lockdown 2. So while rationally I do not care that Boris and his mates had some after work drinks, emotionally I want to punch him in the face again and again and again. It's not because I think he is evil, nor incompetent (his competence isn't his greatest asset, but people more competent than him were queueing up to demand more lockdown); it's that the suffering of 2020 provokes a visceral emotional response and needs someone to blame. I need a scapegoat.
However, my keenness that the Conservative Party defenestrate him is largely rational. Rishi, or Liz, or Penny, or Jeremy would almost certainly do a better job. His moment has passed.
Sorry if this is personal - but was there follow up after the antidepressants?
The reason I ask, is a good friend, long ago, got given pills for far too long, rather than getting the help they needed after the pills had stabilised the initial situation.
That, with respect, is a somewhat dated and discredited model (that pills are the initial sticking plaster, but just a stopgap till you start working on your ishoos.) If you find a med that works for you, your best option can be to stick with it indefinitely or run the risk of a relapse: talking therapies are only about as effective as meds.
Horses for courses of course and if this is an isolated episode for @cookie brought on by specific and we hope not-to-be-repeated circumstances, you could be right in this instance.
I've been looking back at posters' comments on the now infamous 20th May 2020.
This one from the much-missed @Black_Rook gives some context from that day:
"Recently home from work and just catching up on the news of zero new Covid diagnoses in London in a 24-hour period.
It is also more than a week since Boris Johnson dumped the Stay Home message and started encouraging people to go back to work. One is therefore entitled to wonder what has happened to the much-feared disease spike caused by passengers allegedly cramming back into buses and the Tube, going back into workplaces, and spending as much time as they please enjoying sunny parks. Indeed, if this continues to fail to materialise for very much longer then it'll be the best news since this whole miserable saga began."
According to the media (speaking today) we were in the height of lockdown back then.
The "height of lockdown" nonsense for May 20 is typical of our journalists. Ten of thousands of people went to the beach that day,
Well I remember the third weekend in May, which was, I think, when we were given permission to leave our immediate area. I took my daughters for a walk in the Peak District. (I've just looked it up - it was on the 16th May). Driving anywhere felt like a real novelty. People were friendly, but wary, giving each other a very wide berth. It wasn't the height of lockdown, but we were pretty restricted.
Looking back through those photos from April and May 2020 makes me want to weep with rage: the weird, filmic almost unnatural quality of the light creating a strange juxtaposition to the world falling apart, my children's busy lives shrinking and shrinking away. I suspect a lot of people feel a powerful emotional response when they consider that time in particular. Which is why Boris is the target of such emotional fury. (Of course, some already felt this way about him following Brexit.)
Had lunch today with a friend I hadn't seen for some time - potted shrimp then supreme of guinea fowl if you're wondering - and he started off saying how nice lockdown was, time with the family, open spaces, exercise, etc.
I asked him about the online schooling and his children (he has two). His face changed instantly. Terrible, really horrible, an awful time, youngest definitely set back in his education, etc.
It's easy to forget, even if you were affected, how for many people it was a pretty horrific time.
The worst memory - worse than jovially trying to get through each day with three children under ten without having anything at all to do, anyone to see, anywhere beyond walking distance to go, even the swings in the park taken away; worse than trying to educate them and keep them active and at the same time trying to do some sort of job - so bad that I have basically repressed it, with it coming as a shock whenever it pops unbidden into my mind, as just now, when looking at photos from May 2020 - was the feeling on waking every single day: the pleasant 20 to 30 seconds of waking up followed by the sudden feeling of dread and despair and hopelessness in the stomach as I remembered what was going on in the world, that today would be just like yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that... the feeling that didn't truly go away until the 20 to 30 seconds before drifting off to sleep. That didn't really stop happening until I was persuaded to go to a doctor in October and take some antidepressants. Just in time for lockdown 2. So while rationally I do not care that Boris and his mates had some after work drinks, emotionally I want to punch him in the face again and again and again. It's not because I think he is evil, nor incompetent (his competence isn't his greatest asset, but people more competent than him were queueing up to demand more lockdown); it's that the suffering of 2020 provokes a visceral emotional response and needs someone to blame. I need a scapegoat.
However, my keenness that the Conservative Party defenestrate him is largely rational. Rishi, or Liz, or Penny, or Jeremy would almost certainly do a better job. His moment has passed.
Sorry if this is personal - but was there follow up after the antidepressants?
The reason I ask, is a good friend, long ago, got given pills for far too long, rather than getting the help they needed after the pills had stabilised the initial situation.
No there wasn't. But nor did I pursue it myself. I was advised to take them for six months and then arrange a review. At first, I was counting down the hours until I could take the next one. They aren't supposed to work instantly, but they did for me. For the first couple of weeks I felt fine for about 14 hours a day. To start with it felt like I needed to up the dose, but I resisted the temptation - knowing I would feel well again in a few hours meant I could do it. And gradually I went from coping for 12 hours a day to coping for 16, to 24, to longer than 24. I didn't need the next tablet so urgently. And almost by accident I cut down to one every two days, then one every three days. After about 5 months I didn't take any more.
They worked for me, but I wouldn't be in a hurry to go back on them. The best thing I got from them was the experience that how I was feeling was just a chemical imbalance in my brain. Knowing that - actually having that demonstrated to me physically - made depression less depressing.
My daughter has been working for a public body and had the chance of a traineeship with them. She asked about working from home. Oh yes came the enthusiastic response you will never need to come into the office. And your training course ? Oh that will all be online too.
She now has a traineeship with a firm where you go to work and learn from those about you. She hands her notice in tomorrow.
The people in the public body are really nice. But they are generally middle aged or with young children. They simply cannot fathom how horrendous a prospect WFH is to someone starting out with a 1 bedroom flat looking for mates and, indeed, a mate.
Regardless of the pros and cons of masks, and despite the subject being really boring, I do find the discussion on here a bit one-sided.
Take London transport. The anti-maskers declare that they refuse to wear a mask, or won't use the tube, and therefore a return to normal will be delayed unless Khan lifts his ludicrous rules. But what they ignore is that there's another set of people, perhaps roughly the same size, who won't use the tube if people are not wearing masks, because they don't feel safe. It really doesn't matter if they're wrong - they may be older, still nervous about Covid, and noting that it's still leading to a fair few deaths. In brief, behavioural changes brought about by the lifting of all restrictions do not all flow in the same direction.
It actually speaks to a wider issue. We need proper education of the real risk. Everybody has become so transfixed by the daily updates where its currently at 200-300 deaths per day that this still causes a lot of worry in people, and that most people have totally lost sight of the actual real risk of covid versus everything else in the world.
I am not saying that's covid done, pandemic over, but I think this daily beaming of just the covid stats for 2 years has totally warped people perception of the covid versus cancer, heart attacks etc.
We really need to start educating the public that not only is COVID not going away but here it is in relation to lots of other things that people don't ever worry themselves on a daily basis about.
There has been all sorts of public polling where the public think the risks of being hospitalised are orders of magnitude different to reality.
I read recently that in Australia, on average, people rated your chances of death if you contracted covid as at about 33% (to be fair, I don't know how recent this was - but even if was April 2020 it's pretty shocking.
I suspect Cummings & co have more dirt to dish. I can't see how Boris can conduct any sort of sensible interview for the foreseeable future and his lamentable character is firmly established in the mind of the public at large. I suppose he might last a few months though.
Grays report is the moment that Boris goes or survives and of course on Cummings he will have been interviewed by Sue Gray and she will be able to compare his statement with both Boris and Martin Reynolds statements
I believe it is Martin Reynolds resignation letter (absolutely expect him to receive his P45) that could be dramatic as he could finish off Boris or discredit Cummings more than he already is
It is high drama but while Boris has survived another week I hope he will be out of office very soon
It has though been a pretty decent fight back today though, for the first time in about 3 months. The Boris fight back is just about eclipsing the defection as the big news, the front pages will be along later to show this.
They need to keep Boris away from interviews though, as yesterday done him more damage to himself.
It’s also true though, that when Norman eased up over Christmas the polls closed up quickly, so maybe it isn’t lasting damage, and a few weeks of better news cycle and Boris can come back?
I am not sure about Boris surviving but I am sure next week is going to be a big week in politics
Every day that goes past without his resignation is a disaster for the country and the Conservative Party. It is rare I find myself agreeing with David Davis (Bozo pretending he didn't know the quote was yet another lie ffs!).
Regardless of the pros and cons of masks, and despite the subject being really boring, I do find the discussion on here a bit one-sided.
Take London transport. The anti-maskers declare that they refuse to wear a mask, or won't use the tube, and therefore a return to normal will be delayed unless Khan lifts his ludicrous rules. But what they ignore is that there's another set of people, perhaps roughly the same size, who won't use the tube if people are not wearing masks, because they don't feel safe. It really doesn't matter if they're wrong - they may be older, still nervous about Covid, and noting that it's still leading to a fair few deaths. In brief, behavioural changes brought about by the lifting of all restrictions do not all flow in the same direction.
I feel a deal of sympathy about what many people have endured during lockdown, and their financial sacrifices, I can even manage a bit for those neurotic about masks. What I find a pain in the hole is the screeching solipsism of the freedom lovers: why should I, citizen X, with life circumstances Y have to endure restrictions Z which are inconvenient to X and Y.
Also contra the assertion that it's the lockdown busybodies ramming their views down people's throats, on here afaics it's the Covid libertarians who are most often in finger prodding mode, demanding justifications for why The Man is oppressing them (despite in many cases having voted for The Man).
I just watched that. I have never heard of him. What an irritating moron.
On the train today x2. First this morning = masks: 100% (apart from me who can make a Starbucks [apols] coffee last over an hour).
This afternoon = 50%. mask wearing.
Just the hint that they will no longer be mandated has pre-empted action from people.
Yes, I mused earlier that I thought that that might happen. Lame duck law now – who is going to enforce a law that expires at midnight tomorrow week?
Certainly works for me. I walked into my dry cleaners this arvo and thought: Fuck it, why wear a mask? They are going anyway
My previously masked dry cleaning guys clearly felt the same. Usually they wear masks. Not today
I am so impressed with the on the ground work you do.You've told us so many times that no one at all in your area is wearing masks any more, and yet you still manage to find someone who has _only_just_ stopped wearing one. You must be having to go miles to find them by now.
I think Leon has been fairly clear that people in London are wearing them, performatively, in shops, then cheerfully discarding them where they are not required. Seeing people not wearing them where they ARE required is new news.
The only shop where I can be consistently sure of being in a majority of non-maskers round here is One Stop.
Apropos of nothing in particular, I think the word "performative" is one of the words of the pandemic. I don't think I recall ever seeing it until around a year ago. Now, its usage is abundant and terribly fashionable.
Very often by the same people who blather on about the what gaslighting means and how it isn't really a thing. PB is rich in students of human behaviour, often C- students but students nevertheless.
It's a very specific thing, you change the curtains from green to blue and your spouse says Why the blue curtains and you say They've been blue ever since we've been here, you are going mad. It isn't just lying to people.
My daughter has been working for a public body and had the chance of a traineeship with them. She asked about working from home. Oh yes came the enthusiastic response you will never need to come into the office. And your training course ? Oh that will all be online too.
She now has a traineeship with a firm where you go to work and learn from those about you. She hands her notice in tomorrow.
The people in the public body are really nice. But they are generally middle aged or with young children. They simply cannot fathom how horrendous a prospect WFH is to someone starting out with a 1 bedroom flat looking for mates and, indeed, a mate.
Unfortunately many people will only ever see the WFH option from the perspective of how it suits their own lifestyle rather than thinking about those around them (partic young people) and also their employer.
I just watched that. I have never heard of him. What an irritating moron.
On the train today x2. First this morning = masks: 100% (apart from me who can make a Starbucks [apols] coffee last over an hour).
This afternoon = 50%. mask wearing.
Just the hint that they will no longer be mandated has pre-empted action from people.
Yes, I mused earlier that I thought that that might happen. Lame duck law now – who is going to enforce a law that expires at midnight tomorrow week?
Certainly works for me. I walked into my dry cleaners this arvo and thought: Fuck it, why wear a mask? They are going anyway
My previously masked dry cleaning guys clearly felt the same. Usually they wear masks. Not today
I am so impressed with the on the ground work you do.You've told us so many times that no one at all in your area is wearing masks any more, and yet you still manage to find someone who has _only_just_ stopped wearing one. You must be having to go miles to find them by now.
I think Leon has been fairly clear that people in London are wearing them, performatively, in shops, then cheerfully discarding them where they are not required. Seeing people not wearing them where they ARE required is new news.
The only shop where I can be consistently sure of being in a majority of non-maskers round here is One Stop.
Apropos of nothing in particular, I think the word "performative" is one of the words of the pandemic. I don't think I recall ever seeing it until around a year ago. Now, its usage is abundant and terribly fashionable.
Very often by the same people who blather on about the what gaslighting means and how it isn't really a thing. PB is rich in students of human behaviour, often C- students but students nevertheless.
It's a very specific thing, you change the curtains from green to blue and your spouse says Why the blue curtains and you say They've been blue ever since we've been here, you are going mad. It isn't just lying to people.
Some of my clients seem to use it in the context that X told me something I don’t accept or agree with. It has lost all meaning in common usage but I agree with you.
My daughter has been working for a public body and had the chance of a traineeship with them. She asked about working from home. Oh yes came the enthusiastic response you will never need to come into the office. And your training course ? Oh that will all be online too.
She now has a traineeship with a firm where you go to work and learn from those about you. She hands her notice in tomorrow.
The people in the public body are really nice. But they are generally middle aged or with young children. They simply cannot fathom how horrendous a prospect WFH is to someone starting out with a 1 bedroom flat looking for mates and, indeed, a mate.
Unfortunately many people will only ever see the WFH option from the perspective of how it suits their own lifestyle rather than thinking about those around them (partic young people) and also their employer.
Comments
Just as with lockdown fans who should state the acreage of their gardens and paddocks and the number of bedrooms in their houses I really would like to know the frequency of use of public transport of those who advocate masks on public transport nationally.
I'm guessing Richard you are not a huge user of the Northern Line or Greater Anglia.
Duncan said he used to follow him with a pooper scooper as did everyone who worked for him. Beyond that he didn't have a good word to say about him. He was a liar lazy self obsessed and an all round useless slob.
I wonder why people like Connor Burns are prepared to step up to the plate for someone famously disloyal and to risk his own reputation doing so.?
You're applying wild COVID and Alpha COVID studies to Omicron, but Omicron is something like 16x more transmissive than them.
It wasn't the height of lockdown, but we were pretty restricted.
Looking back through those photos from April and May 2020 makes me want to weep with rage: the weird, filmic almost unnatural quality of the light creating a strange juxtaposition to the world falling apart, my children's busy lives shrinking and shrinking away.
I suspect a lot of people feel a powerful emotional response when they consider that time in particular. Which is why Boris is the target of such emotional fury. (Of course, some already felt this way about him following Brexit.)
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1483855849345155072
Like the Niqab it is their inalienable right to do so. Not for me, however.
I'm such a mug at times.
I don't know whether targeted use of FFP3 masks would 'have a far superior impact'. Do you have any evidence for that? If so, that would be an alternative policy, although I don't think any government has such a policy. I'm not an expert, but my guess is that the problem would be that they are not easy to use properly.
Of course there's no reason not to do both, and vulnerable people probably should protect themselves with good-quality masks.
I can't see how Labour would not win Bury S at a hypothetical by election or the next election unless the Tories had more than a 10% lead.
The only other issue is potential divisions in the CLP.
I asked him about the online schooling and his children (he has two). His face changed instantly. Terrible, really horrible, an awful time, youngest definitely set back in his education, etc.
It's easy to forget, even if you were affected, how for many people it was a pretty horrific time.
Even the tiniest little thing, I notice.
Insofar as I'm aware only one major study has ever been conducted into the efficacy of mask wearing against Covid-19 amongst the general population - the 2020 Danmask trial, which suggested that masking was weakly effective at best against even the original Wuhan strain. The rest of the mask studies are, variously, small in scale, methodologically flawed, unable to separate the effect of masking from other mitigations, irrelevant to community use (e.g. examinations of the use of medical grade masks in medical settings,) or are simply statistical analyses that bundle together groups of these deficient studies to create a larger sample size, and then draw dubious conclusions from the data.
Debunk these studies and you're left with various weak justifications - "they make frightened people feel safer," "they remind everyone there's an emergency on," "it's not that big a deal, it's only a mask" - none of which is sufficient excuse for bludgeoning people into wearing anything. Compulsory masking because "something must be done" should be rejected.
And now I have to work out when Black Rook left, who has joined since then, and which of those has a Black-Rookie type view of the world.
This is very hard.
I have a guess, but I'm no more than 20% sure I am right.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/01/at-airlines-threaten-mass-flight-cancelations/
The FAA is claiming there will be a problem. When asked to detail what the problem is, they have.. difficulty.. in providing an actual answer.
The suggestion is that some really really crap and ancient altimeters might be effected by frequencies they are not *designed or specified* to use.
The speculation is that the FAA, burnt by the 737 MAX stuff, realised that they hadn't sent out requirements to update/check altimeters to adhere to their noted frequencies. So decided to play this one as a show stopper.
Could it have been another way. Not sure.
Anyway, put yourself in Starmer's shoes. How do you persuade your newest MP to gamble his £90k pa job on the notion that his new local party, who (at best) don't know him from Adam and (at worst) actively hate his guts, will campaign hard enough to keep him from joining the dole queue two years early?
Did they work pre-March 2020.
Instead we still get the inanities of hand washing, when we could and should be doing far more to protect those for whom vaccines are only partially efficacious.
As for would this be more or less effective than generalised mask mandates, I refer you to Max's comments concerning the government's own statements about their likely impact on R at this stage of the game.
When used in the NHS masks would be properly fit tested, and you could expect to have much higher standards of mask-wearing than among medically vulnerable members of the public.
It's possible that imperfect wearing of low-grade masks by the vast majority of the population has more of an effect on inhibiting spread/reducing hospitalisations than imperfect wearing of high-grade masks by only the vulnerable population.
But this argument is only now relevant for planning for the next pandemic - should we teach people how to wear masks properly as part of a pandemic preparedness plan, perhaps?
Given the effect of vaccines arguing about nuances of mask wearing at this stage of the pandemic is splitting hairs. I think it will be much more beneficial for the government to introduce measures to restore confidence and encourage people back out of their homes and into society.
*except insofar as my employer is concerned - I wouldn't be surprised if we were all still shuffling around the corridors at work in the horrid things next Winter, more's the pity
I think it is about vaccination....
But anyway, Chilean Red and Bag of Nuts time.
I believe it is Martin Reynolds resignation letter (absolutely expect him to receive his P45) that could be dramatic as he could finish off Boris or discredit Cummings more than he already is
It is high drama but while Boris has survived another week I hope he will be out of office very soon
If you have the flu be a responsible citizen and stay at home until you feel better. If you have Covid be a responsible citizen and stay at home until you feel better.
Oh and don't go to visit any 95-yr old monarchs is also a good rule.
Basically unless you are never going to meet anybody and live on your own, you are going to be exposed to Omicron at some point.
Very vulnerable people it would be very sensible to be masked up with an FFP3 mask, but those living any sort of normal life you are going to be regularly exposed to Omicron regardless of mask wearing on the Tube.
Take London transport. The anti-maskers declare that they refuse to wear a mask, or won't use the tube, and therefore a return to normal will be delayed unless Khan lifts his ludicrous rules. But what they ignore is that there's another set of people, perhaps roughly the same size, who won't use the tube if people are not wearing masks, because they don't feel safe. It really doesn't matter if they're wrong - they may be older, still nervous about Covid, and noting that it's still leading to a fair few deaths. In brief, behavioural changes brought about by the lifting of all restrictions do not all flow in the same direction.
E
I
R
It’s only a few months ago the unions and Corbynista neutered Starmer’s big plans at conference and heckled him, the back catalogue of their new comrade is going to feed these lefty’s red meat in the coming weeks. Evidence? Our own Big John Knows went from 3 post a week (normally after the pubs shut) to more than five in an hour, so something stirred him up.
But a cross the floor still has to go down in positive column for Starmer I suppose because of the attention it gets outside Westminster bubble.
D+
They have to provide a reassuring message of the extent to which the risk has been reduced, coupled with, these are the long-term things people should do out of respect for each other (such as voluntarily staying at home if you know you are infectious).
That didn't really stop happening until I was persuaded to go to a doctor in October and take some antidepressants. Just in time for lockdown 2.
So while rationally I do not care that Boris and his mates had some after work drinks, emotionally I want to punch him in the face again and again and again. It's not because I think he is evil, nor incompetent (his competence isn't his greatest asset, but people more competent than him were queueing up to demand more lockdown); it's that the suffering of 2020 provokes a visceral emotional response and needs someone to blame. I need a scapegoat.
However, my keenness that the Conservative Party defenestrate him is largely rational. Rishi, or Liz, or Penny, or Jeremy would almost certainly do a better job. His moment has passed.
I am not saying that's covid done, pandemic over, but I think this daily beaming of just the covid stats for 2 years has totally warped people perception of the covid versus cancer, heart attacks etc.
We really need to start educating the public that not only is COVID not going away but here it is in relation to lots of other things that people don't ever worry themselves on a daily basis about.
There has been all sorts of public polling where the public think the risks of being hospitalised are orders of magnitude different to reality.
They need to keep Boris away from interviews though, as yesterday done him more damage to himself.
It’s also true though, that when Norman eased up over Christmas the polls closed up quickly, so maybe it isn’t lasting damage, and a few weeks of better news cycle and Boris can come back?
I think it will make the ultra-left look a bit more ridiculous with their demands for Labour "purity" - which is also what Starmer wants.
He (the actual defector) will be rapidly kicked into the Lords, is my guess. Unless he gets a massive majority next election - which is probably unlikely.
Did you really even know how many deaths "flu and pneumonia" caused pre-pandemic? I didn't (ans: around 30,000/year).
And, going forward, one way in which the dreaded masks might still be useful is for people who are coughing and spluttering and not particularly well, but cannot avoid leaving the house. Not everyone can get that online food delivery slot (or, in some cases, is even computer literate enough to try to book one.) Not everyone can avoid the need to go to a medical appointment or a pharmacy when they're snotty. Not everyone has help to take the kids to school and back. Not everyone has somebody else around to walk the dog for them.
I know you can see your own, but not others, Shirley?
The reason I ask, is a good friend, long ago, got given pills for far too long, rather than getting the help they needed after the pills had stabilised the initial situation.
Can you see mine when you click my profile? (I can't see yours by the way.)
He was wearing a mask of course, and it occurred to me that he and just about every hustler on commuter trains will more difficult for LT to identify going forward, encouraging them in numbers and aggression.
Do we really have to re-watch the Sweeney to learn that masks protect criminals from identification?
Just 3 people have asked me about it - one in Boots, one in the post office, and one at a book fair.
I've been travelling to and from London for much of that time. Staying, eating, drinking and making merry in South London as well as Dorset. Not a sniffle.
VERY cool as a graphic graphic!
Even more tragic, seeing impact of war (esp WWI) and depression so starkly illustrated; the moving timeline magnifies impact, at least for me.
Why did Leon call Pagel, Lady Pagel, has someone slipped a Royal Garter on her? For services to what!
Given that intensive care numbers are so very low and those who are going in are primarily doing so by choice (choosing to be unvaccinated) there really is no excuse whatsoever to enforce masks or any other garbage on those who've done the right thing and got their jabs.
This nonsense needs to be over now. Let the unvaccinated own the consequences of their choice. Their decision, their responsibility. The numbers of boosted people going into intensive care must be very low.
I was advised to take them for six months and then arrange a review.
At first, I was counting down the hours until I could take the next one. They aren't supposed to work instantly, but they did for me. For the first couple of weeks I felt fine for about 14 hours a day.
To start with it felt like I needed to up the dose, but I resisted the temptation - knowing I would feel well again in a few hours meant I could do it.
And gradually I went from coping for 12 hours a day to coping for 16, to 24, to longer than 24. I didn't need the next tablet so urgently. And almost by accident I cut down to one every two days, then one every three days. After about 5 months I didn't take any more.
They worked for me, but I wouldn't be in a hurry to go back on them. The best thing I got from them was the experience that how I was feeling was just a chemical imbalance in my brain. Knowing that - actually having that demonstrated to me physically - made depression less depressing.
Sue Gray is interviewing Cummings so let's see how she comments in her report
And by the way I want Boris gone
Horses for courses of course and if this is an isolated episode for @cookie brought on by specific and we hope not-to-be-repeated circumstances, you could be right in this instance.
Oh yes came the enthusiastic response you will never need to come into the office.
And your training course ? Oh that will all be online too.
She now has a traineeship with a firm where you go to work and learn from those about you. She hands her notice in tomorrow.
The people in the public body are really nice. But they are generally middle aged or with young children. They simply cannot fathom how horrendous a prospect WFH is to someone starting out with a 1 bedroom flat looking for mates and, indeed, a mate.
Also contra the assertion that it's the lockdown busybodies ramming their views down people's throats, on here afaics it's the Covid libertarians who are most often in finger prodding mode, demanding justifications for why The Man is oppressing them (despite in many cases having voted for The Man).