Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
No. It's good manners to wash your hands, not cough or sneeze over others, stay at home if you're unwell and treat others with respect.
Covering your face with a mask is a bit rude and lazy, scares children, and prevents basic daily quality social interactions.
*****Tyson is completely right. Wear a mask and protect your fellow citizens you stupid selfish c*nt
No. I will not wear a mask. Never...
Religious objection ?
I think by and large that masks are a pointless placebo. They only work in specific and very given close proximity situations.
Wearing them in general otherwise is just a sign of a nervous and personally insecure person who fears losing control - and just wants to be seen to be doing "something" - and make themselves feel better, and also feel superior to others.
It is therefore that which is the truly selfish act: it socially isolates you, as well as others, takes the equipment away from others who might really need it and prevents society returning to anything like normal. We all have no social interaction indoors. The last thing we want when we're outside is also having no-one to see and talk to.
I'd prefer being behind a screen or wearing a transparent visor (if necessary) to covering your face. Obscuring your face is horrible.
It's funny. There used to be a regular poster on here who was a successful international author who used to make similar arguments about face coverings but he seems to have disappeared now.
Beyond parody.
Do you have an argument, or just ad hominem?
You already know the argument very well. The virus is spread by water droplets. Face coverings will stop a lot of larger droplets.
Right, so you don't have an argument. You just want to row in behind whoever you think is better able to make it on this site than you are.
Social distancing (or isolation if infected) is far more effective in managing infection risk that than mask wearing.
I'm far more worried about people with crap sweaty masks constantly touching their face, adjusting them and then touching surfaces thereafter.
Is there a place for masks? Sure: in very specific close proximity situations representing high risk.
But not in general - no - where they take away far more than they add, and even subtract something.
I am fairly sceptical about public use of masks.
There is a genuine issue of supply, and poor technique is very frequent.
While they may have some benefit in preventing transmission, they have limited effect on protecting the individual...
Isn't the first bit more or less the entire argument in favour of them, though ? All the modelling (and arguably the experience of notions that practice it) suggests that near universal mask wearing is very effective in suppressing the spread of infection. (Though I recognise that there is no conclusive evidence on this point)
As far as protecting the individual in the absence of widespread use is concerned, much of that is down to individual competence in usage anyway. It's fairly pointless to lecture others about it if the government isn't actively promoting universal usage, but personally I wear one in any confined space with numbers of other people in it.
The benefit that masks have in preventing transmission may be largely illusory.
The argument, of course, is that a cough from someone with the virus wouldn`t be transmitted beyond the mask. However, if someone has the virus and is coughing you shouldn`t be out in public anyway. Masks may encourage an infected person from leaving his/her house when he/she shouldn`t.
If you have no virus then the mask is pointless. If you have the virus but don`t know it then you won`t be coughing.
They make the the wearer feel good and virtuous. That`s the benefit I think. (Assuming you regard this as a benefit.)
We've known for some time that one of the reasons this thing has been so hard to control is that you don't have to have a cough to spread it.
As for the rest, that is you opinion, which you're welcome to.
I can't believe anyone who really wanted to see their parents hasn't done so since lockdown. Just stand 20 feet away and have a chat, no one is going to arrest you.
I only see my family 2-3 times a year anyway and even I could figure that out, it does seem strange if people have literally stopped.
Some honest polling woud be interesting. I suspect from what I hear many people have already for a while been implementing their own sensible measures.
Have you seen/heard the article about moths pollenating on the BBC website/radio today?
Indeed. It's been known for a long time that moths are very important in the pollination process. I think what is new is that moths are even more mobile than was suspected. Again, there's reason not to be surprised by this. Moths that have been trapped, marked and released don't commonly get recaught the next night suggesting that moths have a good old wander about (as long as there is a suitable number of their favoured plant to seek out - and if not, they won't thrive in that area anyway).
If only they made honey...
It could mean they are very intelligent and make sure they don't get caught again
No. It's good manners to wash your hands, not cough or sneeze over others, stay at home if you're unwell and treat others with respect.
Covering your face with a mask is a bit rude and lazy, scares children, and prevents basic daily quality social interactions.
*****
Tyson is completely right. Wear a mask and protect your fellow citizens you stupid selfish c*nt
No. I will not wear a mask. Never...
Religious objection ?
I think by and large that masks are a pointless placebo. They only work in specific and very given close proximity situations.
Wearing them in general otherwise is just a sign of a nervous and personally insecure person who fears losing control - and just wants to be seen to be doing "something" - and make themselves feel better, and also feel superior to others.
It is therefore that which is the truly selfish act: it socially isolates you, as well as others, takes the equipment away from others who might really need it and prevents society returning to anything like normal. We all have no social interaction indoors. The last thing we want when we're outside is also having no-one to see and talk to.
I'd prefer being behind a screen or wearing a transparent visor (if necessary) to covering your face. Obscuring your face is horrible.
It's funny. There used to be a regular poster on here who was a successful international author who used to make similar arguments about face coverings but he seems to have disappeared now.
Beyond parody.
Do you have an argument, or just ad hominem?
You already know the argument very well. The virus is spread by water droplets. Face coverings will stop a lot of larger droplets.
Right, so you don't have an argument. You just want to row in behind whoever you think is better able to make it on this site than you are.
Social distancing (or isolation if infected) is far more effective in managing infection risk that than mask wearing.
I'm far more worried about people with crap sweaty masks constantly touching their face, adjusting them and then touching surfaces thereafter.
Is there a place for masks? Sure: in very specific close proximity situations representing high risk.
But not in general - no - where they take away far more than they add, and even subtract something.
I am fairly sceptical about public use of masks.
There is a genuine issue of supply, and poor technique is very frequent.
While they may have some benefit in preventing transmission, they have limited effect on protecting the individual...
Isn't the first bit more or less the entire argument in favour of them, though ? All the modelling (and arguably the experience of notions that practice it) suggests that near universal mask wearing is very effective in suppressing the spread of infection. (Though I recognise that there is no conclusive evidence on this point)
As far as protecting the individual in the absence of widespread use is concerned, much of that is down to individual competence in usage anyway. It's fairly pointless to lecture others about it if the government isn't actively promoting universal usage, but personally I wear one in any confined space with numbers of other people in it.
The benefit that masks have in preventing transmission may be largely illusory.
The argument, of course, is that a cough from someone with the virus wouldn`t be transmitted beyond the mask. However, if someone has the virus and is coughing you shouldn`t be out in public anyway. Masks may encourage an infected person from leaving his/her house when he/she shouldn`t.
If you have no virus then the mask is pointless. If you have the virus but don`t know it then you won`t be coughing.
They make the the wearer feel good and virtuous. That`s the benefit I think. (Assuming you regard this as a benefit.)
There is also some protection from the wearer emitting saliva while speaking (assuming the mask is not pulled down for this).
I wonder how many of the keyboard warriors here who think the law is/should be the only thing that matters not the advice are of the opinion that since the "two metre rule" is advice and not law that they don't need to follow it? I wonder how many here are not socially distancing because its not actually legally enforceable?
I wonder if Boris were to announce that the government no longer thought we need to stay two metres apart how many geniuses here would be saying "oh great, but as I read your law I never had to keep two metres apart".
The interesting point is that, given the dire state our finances are going to be in very shortly, this treasury briefing was no where near as bad as I had expected. I still believe that reality will be significantly worse than this both in terms of tax rises and service cuts.
I still maintain now would be a very good time to save £100 billion by scrapping HS2. It was an unnecessary vanity project even in good times. Now it is unaffordable idiocy.
No. It's good manners to wash your hands, not cough or sneeze over others, stay at home if you're unwell and treat others with respect.
Covering your face with a mask is a bit rude and lazy, scares children, and prevents basic daily quality social interactions.
*****
Tyson is completely right. Wear a mask and protect your fellow citizens you stupid selfish c*nt
No. I will not wear a mask. Never...
Religious objection ?
I think by and large that masks are a pointless placebo. They only work in specific and very given close proximity situations.
Wearing them in general otherwise is just a sign of a nervous and personally insecure person who fears losing control - and just wants to be seen to be doing "something" - and make themselves feel better, and also feel superior to others.
It is therefore that which is the truly selfish act: it socially isolates you, as well as others, takes the equipment away from others who might really need it and prevents society returning to anything like normal. We all have no social interaction indoors. The last thing we want when we're outside is also having no-one to see and talk to.
I'd prefer being behind a screen or wearing a transparent visor (if necessary) to covering your face. Obscuring your face is horrible.
It's funny. There used to be a regular poster on here who was a successful international author who used to make similar arguments about face coverings but he seems to have disappeared now.
Beyond parody.
Do you have an argument, or just ad hominem?
You already know the argument very well. The virus is spread by water droplets. Face coverings will stop a lot of larger droplets.
Right, so you don't have an argument. You just want to row in behind whoever you think is better able to make it on this site than you are.
Social distancing (or isolation if infected) is far more effective in managing infection risk that than mask wearing.
I'm far more worried about people with crap sweaty masks constantly touching their face, adjusting them and then touching surfaces thereafter.
Is there a place for masks? Sure: in very specific close proximity situations representing high risk.
But not in general - no - where they take away far more than they add, and even subtract something.
I am fairly sceptical about public use of masks.
There is a genuine issue of supply, and poor technique is very frequent.
While they may have some benefit in preventing transmission, they have limited effect on protecting the individual...
Isn't the first bit more or less the entire argument in favour of them, though ? All the modelling (and arguably the experience of notions that practice it) suggests that near universal mask wearing is very effective in suppressing the spread of infection. (Though I recognise that there is no conclusive evidence on this point)
As far as protecting the individual in the absence of widespread use is concerned, much of that is down to individual competence in usage anyway. It's fairly pointless to lecture others about it if the government isn't actively promoting universal usage, but personally I wear one in any confined space with numbers of other people in it.
The benefit that masks have in preventing transmission may be largely illusory.
The argument, of course, is that a cough from someone with the virus wouldn`t be transmitted beyond the mask. However, if someone has the virus and is coughing you shouldn`t be out in public anyway. Masks may encourage an infected person from leaving his/her house when he/she shouldn`t.
If you have no virus then the mask is pointless. If you have the virus but don`t know it then you won`t be coughing.
They make the the wearer feel good and virtuous. That`s the benefit I think. (Assuming you regard this as a benefit.)
There is also some protection from the wearer emitting saliva while speaking (assuming the mask is not pulled down for this).
You`d have to be close for this to be a risk. And I did say "largely" illusory.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
Just had a WhatsApp message from my Brother north of the border "have I got this right, you are NOT allowed to visit both parents at once but can wander round a total stranger's house with an estate agent? Can't visit your parents as their son but can visit them if they employ you as a cleaner? Is this the realm of the utterly insane and deluded?"
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
I can't believe anyone who really wanted to see their parents hasn't done so since lockdown. Just stand 20 feet away and have a chat, no one is going to arrest you.
I only see my family 2-3 times a year anyway and even I could figure that out, it does seem strange if people have literally stopped.
Some honest polling woud be interesting. I suspect from what I hear many people have already for a while been implementing their own sensible measures.
Let's not pretend the lockdown is being taken seriously by millions, in my small coastal town there's a thriving social life in people's gardens. I've been invited to a card school this afternoon but I'm playing golf.
People are quietly and sensibly getting on with their lives
The feeble need to be amused constantly
How's that "stay home" advice being adhered to in Scotland, malcy?
I can only speak personally from isolation and I am staying at home , have been since February. I live on very outskirts of town and traffic very light , only people I see are the ones walking dogs and a few joggers, horse riders.
No. It's good manners to wash your hands, not cough or sneeze over others, stay at home if you're unwell and treat others with respect.
Covering your face with a mask is a bit rude and lazy, scares children, and prevents basic daily quality social interactions.
*****Tyson is completely right. Wear a mask and protect your fellow citizens you stupid selfish c*nt
No. I will not wear a mask. Never...
Religious objection ?
I think by and large that masks are a pointless placebo. They only work in specific and very given close proximity situations.
Wearing them in general otherwise is just a sign of a nervous and personally insecure person who fears losing control - and just wants to be seen to be doing "something" - and make themselves feel better, and also feel superior to others.
It is therefore that which is the truly selfish act: it socially isolates you, as well as others, takes the equipment away from others who might really need it and prevents society returning to anything like normal. We all have no social interaction indoors. The last thing we want when we're outside is also having no-one to see and talk to.
I'd prefer being behind a screen or wearing a transparent visor (if necessary) to covering your face. Obscuring your face is horrible.
It's funny. There used to be a regular poster on here who was a successful international author who used to make similar arguments about face coverings but he seems to have disappeared now.
Beyond parody.
Do you have an argument, or just ad hominem?
You already know the argument very well. The virus is spread by water droplets. Face coverings will stop a lot of larger droplets.
Right, so you don't have an argument. You just want to row in behind whoever you think is better able to make it on this site than you are.
Social distancing (or isolation if infected) is far more effective in managing infection risk that than mask wearing.
I'm far more worried about people with crap sweaty masks constantly touching their face, adjusting them and then touching surfaces thereafter.
Is there a place for masks? Sure: in very specific close proximity situations representing high risk.
But not in general - no - where they take away far more than they add, and even subtract something.
I am fairly sceptical about public use of masks.
There is a genuine issue of supply, and poor technique is very frequent.
While they may have some benefit in preventing transmission, they have limited effect on protecting the individual...
Isn't the first bit more or less the entire argument in favour of them, though ? All the modelling (and arguably the experience of notions that practice it) suggests that near universal mask wearing is very effective in suppressing the spread of infection. (Though I recognise that there is no conclusive evidence on this point)
As far as protecting the individual in the absence of widespread use is concerned, much of that is down to individual competence in usage anyway. It's fairly pointless to lecture others about it if the government isn't actively promoting universal usage, but personally I wear one in any confined space with numbers of other people in it.
The benefit that masks have in preventing transmission may be largely illusory.
The argument, of course, is that a cough from someone with the virus wouldn`t be transmitted beyond the mask. However, if someone has the virus and is coughing you shouldn`t be out in public anyway. Masks may encourage an infected person from leaving his/her house when he/she shouldn`t.
If you have no virus then the mask is pointless. If you have the virus but don`t know it then you won`t be coughing.
They make the the wearer feel good and virtuous. That`s the benefit I think. (Assuming you regard this as a benefit.)
We've known for some time that one of the reasons this thing has been so hard to control is that you don't have to have a cough to spread it.
As for the rest, that is you opinion, which you're welcome to.
I`m not interested in opinions - it`s the facts I`m after.
I think we also know that surface to surface transmission is the more usual route?
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
Just had a WhatsApp message from my Brother north of the border "have I got this right, you are NOT allowed to visit both parents at once but can wander round a total stranger's house with an estate agent? Can't visit your parents as their son but can visit them if they employ you as a cleaner? Is this the realm of the utterly insane and deluded?"
Philip...?
Its the realm of trying to keep social distancing while getting the market going yes.
You've always been allowed to visit your parents if you need to do so, eg to drop off supplies if they're shielding.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
The benefit that masks have in preventing transmission may be largely illusory.
The argument, of course, is that a cough from someone with the virus wouldn`t be transmitted beyond the mask.
However, if someone has the virus and is coughing you shouldn`t be out in public anyway. Masks may encourage an infected person from leaving his/her house when he/she shouldn`t.
I agree with you, but is it known that speaking/breathing do not transmit infection?
Hopefully some effort is taking place to find answers to these type of questions.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
"Try not to" is excellent. Good effort. But it's not never, that implies. Or is it never? And same, for example, with your other half?
With regards to Philip's various straw men, the public want clarity as to how they should act to keep themselves and their relatives safe. It cannot be safe to let a cleaner into your parents home if it is not safe to let their child into their home. That the government have so frequently contradicted this bullshit shows you that they haven't a clue how it works either, hence the "use good old fashioned common sense" and pivot to attacking workshy scroungers on the furlough scheme they have just extended.
Other countries have managed a simple set of instructions. Its no wonder our infection rates are so high. And the advice to go where the fuck you like for a day out. Tourist spots up here are already in the media like Cumbria saying DO NOT COME. Its an absolute fucking shambles. And people can see that its an absolute fucking shambles. Hence the collapsing approval ratings for the government. Just wait until the VE Day spike takes hold and see which direction it accelerates in...
I can't believe anyone who really wanted to see their parents hasn't done so since lockdown. Just stand 20 feet away and have a chat, no one is going to arrest you.
I only see my family 2-3 times a year anyway and even I could figure that out, it does seem strange if people have literally stopped.
Some honest polling woud be interesting. I suspect from what I hear many people have already for a while been implementing their own sensible measures.
Let's not pretend the lockdown is being taken seriously by millions, in my small coastal town there's a thriving social life in people's gardens. I've been invited to a card school this afternoon but I'm playing golf.
People are quietly and sensibly getting on with their lives
The feeble need to be amused constantly
How's that "stay home" advice being adhered to in Scotland, malcy?
You can't play golf in the beautiful outdoors.
You can't know if a Nike employee was the first case in Scotland.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
A pint is fine..no more
It's been proven time and time again that any alcohol consumed reduces your ability to drive safely. So no a pint is not "fine".
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
A pint is fine..no more
Everyone should use their own common sense as they should with this advice.
If I'm having a meal and want a drink then I'll stick to a single shandy and no more than that. I would never drink shandies if I'm not driving. I know I'll be well under the limit if I do that and I don't want to get anywhere close to the limit.
People who try to push themselves to the limit are far more likely to go over it.
No. It's good manners to wash your hands, not cough or sneeze over others, stay at home if you're unwell and treat others with respect.
Covering your face with a mask is a bit rude and lazy, scares children, and prevents basic daily quality social interactions.
*****Tyson is completely right. Wear a mask and protect your fellow citizens you stupid selfish c*nt
No. I will not wear a mask. Never...
Religious objection ?
I think by and large that masks are a pointless placebo. They only work in specific and very given close proximity situations.
Wearing them in general otherwise is just a sign of a nervous and personally insecure person who fears losing control - and just wants to be seen to be doing "something" - and make themselves feel better, and also feel superior to others.
It is therefore that which is the truly selfish act: it socially isolates you, as well as others, takes the equipment away from others who might really need it and prevents society returning to anything like normal. We all have no social interaction indoors. The last thing we want when we're outside is also having no-one to see and talk to.
I'd prefer being behind a screen or wearing a transparent visor (if necessary) to covering your face. Obscuring your face is horrible.
It's funny. There used to be a regular poster on here who was a successful international author who used to make similar arguments about face coverings but he seems to have disappeared now.
Beyond parody.
Do you have an argument, or just ad hominem?
You already know the argument very well. The virus is spread by water droplets. Face coverings will stop a lot of larger droplets.
Right, so you don't have an argument. You just want to row in behind whoever you think is better able to make it on this site than you are.
Social distancing (or isolation if infected) is far more effective in managing infection risk that than mask wearing.
I'm far more worried about people with crap sweaty masks constantly touching their face, adjusting them and then touching surfaces thereafter.
Is there a place for masks? Sure: in very specific close proximity situations representing high risk.
But not in general - no - where they take away far more than they add, and even subtract something.
I am fairly sceptical about public use of masks.
There is a genuine issue of supply, and poor technique is very frequent.
While they may have some benefit in preventing transmission, they have limited effect on protecting the individual...
Isn't the first bit more or less the entire argument in favour of them, though ? All the modelling (and arguably the experience of notions that practice it) suggests that near universal mask wearing is very effective in suppressing the spread of infection. (Though I recognise that there is no conclusive evidence on this point)
As far as protecting the individual in the absence of widespread use is concerned, much of that is down to individual competence in usage anyway. It's fairly pointless to lecture others about it if the government isn't actively promoting universal usage, but personally I wear one in any confined space with numbers of other people in it.
The benefit that masks have in preventing transmission may be largely illusory.
The argument, of course, is that a cough from someone with the virus wouldn`t be transmitted beyond the mask. However, if someone has the virus and is coughing you shouldn`t be out in public anyway. Masks may encourage an infected person from leaving his/her house when he/she shouldn`t.
If you have no virus then the mask is pointless. If you have the virus but don`t know it then you won`t be coughing.
They make the the wearer feel good and virtuous. That`s the benefit I think. (Assuming you regard this as a benefit.)
We've known for some time that one of the reasons this thing has been so hard to control is that you don't have to have a cough to spread it.
As for the rest, that is you opinion, which you're welcome to.
I`m not interested in opinions - it`s the facts I`m after.
I think we also know that surface to surface transmission is the more usual route?
No.
That was originally the theory; evidence tends to suggest that the principal transmission route is respiratory.
The benefit that masks have in preventing transmission may be largely illusory.
The argument, of course, is that a cough from someone with the virus wouldn`t be transmitted beyond the mask.
However, if someone has the virus and is coughing you shouldn`t be out in public anyway. Masks may encourage an infected person from leaving his/her house when he/she shouldn`t.
I agree with you, but is it known that speaking/breathing do not transmit infection?
Hopefully some effort is taking place to find answers to these type of questions.
That`s why I said "largely illusory". The point is this: if the health benefits are true but slight, does this warrant the raft of non-health reasons to not wear a mask.
If the health reasons were strong enough to tip the balance then I`d be in favour of them. But at this moment I remain unconvinced.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
"Try not to" is excellent. Good effort. But it's not never, that implies. Or is it never? And same, for example, with your other half?
Do you guys never drink and drive?
No.
I have DESIGNATED DRIVER tattooed on my forehead. Apparently.
No. It's good manners to wash your hands, not cough or sneeze over others, stay at home if you're unwell and treat others with respect.
Covering your face with a mask is a bit rude and lazy, scares children, and prevents basic daily quality social interactions.
*****
Tyson is completely right. Wear a mask and protect your fellow citizens you stupid selfish c*nt
No. I will not wear a mask. Never...
Religious objection ?
I think by and large that masks are a pointless placebo. They only work in specific and very given close proximity situations.
Wearing them in general otherwise is just a sign of a nervous and personally insecure person who fears losing control - and just wants to be seen to be doing "something" - and make themselves feel better, and also feel superior to others.
It is therefore that which is the truly selfish act: it socially isolates you, as well as others, takes the equipment away from others who might really need it and prevents society returning to anything like normal. We all have no social interaction indoors. The last thing we want when we're outside is also having no-one to see and talk to.
I'd prefer being behind a screen or wearing a transparent visor (if necessary) to covering your face. Obscuring your face is horrible.
It's funny. There used to be a regular poster on here who was a successful international author who used to make similar arguments about face coverings but he seems to have disappeared now.
Beyond parody.
Do you have an argument, or just ad hominem?
You already know the argument very well. The virus is spread by water droplets. Face coverings will stop a lot of larger droplets.
Right, so you don't have an argument. You just want to row in behind whoever you think is better able to make it on this site than you are.
Social distancing (or isolation if infected) is far more effective in managing infection risk that than mask wearing.
I'm far more worried about people with crap sweaty masks constantly touching their face, adjusting them and then touching surfaces thereafter.
Is there a place for masks? Sure: in very specific close proximity situations representing high risk.
But not in general - no - where they take away far more than they add, and even subtract something.
I am fairly sceptical about public use of masks.
There is a genuine issue of supply, and poor technique is very frequent.
While they may have some benefit in preventing transmission, they have limited effect on protecting the individual...
Isn't the first bit more or less the entire argument in favour of them, though ? All the modelling (and arguably the experience of notions that practice it) suggests that near universal mask wearing is very effective in suppressing the spread of infection. (Though I recognise that there is no conclusive evidence on this point)
As far as protecting the individual in the absence of widespread use is concerned, much of that is down to individual competence in usage anyway. It's fairly pointless to lecture others about it if the government isn't actively promoting universal usage, but personally I wear one in any confined space with numbers of other people in it.
The benefit that masks have in preventing transmission may be largely illusory.
The argument, of course, is that a cough from someone with the virus wouldn`t be transmitted beyond the mask. However, if someone has the virus and is coughing you shouldn`t be out in public anyway. Masks may encourage an infected person from leaving his/her house when he/she shouldn`t.
If you have no virus then the mask is pointless. If you have the virus but don`t know it then you won`t be coughing.
They make the the wearer feel good and virtuous. That`s the benefit I think. (Assuming you regard this as a benefit.)
There is also some protection from the wearer emitting saliva while speaking (assuming the mask is not pulled down for this).
You`d have to be close for this to be a risk. And I did say "largely" illusory.
Hence social distancing and depending how loud is the speaker. There have been suggestions that this is why religious services were common hotspots, as saliva is projected further during singing and chanting. There might be implications for schools: my advice to pupils is not to sit in the front row while @ydoethur is banging on about @Newton's #SecondLaw but the authorities haven't said anything and I'm sure they know what they are (not) talking about. Insert customary rant about research needed.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
A pint is fine..no more
Everyone should use their own common sense as they should with this advice.
If I'm having a meal and want a drink then I'll stick to a single shandy and no more than that. I would never drink shandies if I'm not driving. I know I'll be well under the limit if I do that and I don't want to get anywhere close to the limit.
People who try to push themselves to the limit are far more likely to go over it.
You drinking a shandy and then driving is keeping within the law although violates the government's advice of "don't drink and drive". So you are deliberately ignoring the government's advice.
Which is fine, we're all grown ups. But why are you criticising @Rochdale for doing exactly the same thing wrt exercise?
No. It's good manners to wash your hands, not cough or sneeze over others, stay at home if you're unwell and treat others with respect.
Covering your face with a mask is a bit rude and lazy, scares children, and prevents basic daily quality social interactions.
*****Tyson is completely right. Wear a mask and protect your fellow citizens you stupid selfish c*nt
No. I will not wear a mask. Never...
Religious objection ?
I think by and large that masks are a pointless placebo. They only work in specific and very given close proximity situations.
Wearing them in general otherwise is just a sign of a nervous and personally insecure person who fears losing control - and just wants to be seen to be doing "something" - and make themselves feel better, and also feel superior to others.
It is therefore that which is the truly selfish act: it socially isolates you, as well as others, takes the equipment away from others who might really need it and prevents society returning to anything like normal. We all have no social interaction indoors. The last thing we want when we're outside is also having no-one to see and talk to.
I'd prefer being behind a screen or wearing a transparent visor (if necessary) to covering your face. Obscuring your face is horrible.
It's funny. There used to be a regular poster on here who was a successful international author who used to make similar arguments about face coverings but he seems to have disappeared now.
Beyond parody.
Do you have an argument, or just ad hominem?
You already know the argument very well. The virus is spread by water droplets. Face coverings will stop a lot of larger droplets.
Right, so you don't have an argument. You just want to row in behind whoever you think is better able to make it on this site than you are.
Social distancing (or isolation if infected) is far more effective in managing infection risk that than mask wearing.
I'm far more worried about people with crap sweaty masks constantly touching their face, adjusting them and then touching surfaces thereafter.
Is there a place for masks? Sure: in very specific close proximity situations representing high risk.
But not in general - no - where they take away far more than they add, and even subtract something.
I am fairly sceptical about public use of masks.
There is a genuine issue of supply, and poor technique is very frequent.
While they may have some benefit in preventing transmission, they have limited effect on protecting the individual...
Isn't the first bit more or less the entire argument in favour of them, though ? All the modelling (and arguably the experience of notions that practice it) suggests that near universal mask wearing is very effective in suppressing the spread of infection. (Though I recognise that there is no conclusive evidence on this point)
As far as protecting the individual in the absence of widespread use is concerned, much of that is down to individual competence in usage anyway. It's fairly pointless to lecture others about it if the government isn't actively promoting universal usage, but personally I wear one in any confined space with numbers of other people in it.
The benefit that masks have in preventing transmission may be largely illusory.
The argument, of course, is that a cough from someone with the virus wouldn`t be transmitted beyond the mask. However, if someone has the virus and is coughing you shouldn`t be out in public anyway. Masks may encourage an infected person from leaving his/her house when he/she shouldn`t.
If you have no virus then the mask is pointless. If you have the virus but don`t know it then you won`t be coughing.
They make the the wearer feel good and virtuous. That`s the benefit I think. (Assuming you regard this as a benefit.)
We've known for some time that one of the reasons this thing has been so hard to control is that you don't have to have a cough to spread it.
As for the rest, that is you opinion, which you're welcome to.
I`m not interested in opinions - it`s the facts I`m after.
I think we also know that surface to surface transmission is the more usual route?
No.
I didn`t mean to argue the point Nigel - I was asking a question to you because you have shown that you have looked deeply into many scientific aspects of this thing. My mistake, I thought that surface transmission was the main risk. I`m always happy to be corrected.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
A pint is fine..no more
It's been proven time and time again that any alcohol consumed reduces your ability to drive safely. So no a pint is not "fine".
You can't hold the wheel and a pint glass. Safely, anyway.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
"Try not to" is excellent. Good effort. But it's not never, that implies. Or is it never? And same, for example, with your other half?
Do you guys never drink and drive?
No.
I have DESIGNATED DRIVER tattooed on my forehead. Apparently.
I don't drink and drive - even a shandy - because I hate that feeling of anxiety that around the next corner plod will be waiting to ban me from driving. It's the fear part of fear and greed for me.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
"Try not to" is excellent. Good effort. But it's not never, that implies. Or is it never? And same, for example, with your other half?
Do you guys never drink and drive?
I try to stick to the advice, I don't always but I use my own common sense.
The most I've ever drank and drove was I once had a glass of wine and drove - I was on holiday but got an urgent phone call and needed to get to someone in an emergency, I'd had one glass of wine. I debated with my wife as to whether it was safe to do so or not, I really didn't want to after drinking one glass. Determined in the end I should be safe so I did.
If you really want to visit your parents for your or their mental health or any other reason then my advice would be the same as my attitude with drinking - to use your common sense. Its against the advice to do so, but if you really want to then be smart about it. I'd rather not drink anything and drive but if I really want a beer with a meal I'll have one shandy. If you're going to visit your parents maybe do it in a garden socially distanced.
The law isn't involved there, but the advice is. Try to stick to the advice, if you can't or really don't want to then try to stick as close to it as you can. Use your own common sense, what on earth is wrong with that?
No. It's good manners to wash your hands, not cough or sneeze over others, stay at home if you're unwell and treat others with respect.
Covering your face with a mask is a bit rude and lazy, scares children, and prevents basic daily quality social interactions.
*****Tyson is completely right. Wear a mask and protect your fellow citizens you stupid selfish c*nt
No. I will not wear a mask. Never...
Religious objection ?
I think by and large that masks are a pointless placebo. They only work in specific and very given close proximity situations.
Wearing them in general otherwise is just a sign of a nervous and personally insecure person who fears losing control - and just wants to be seen to be doing "something" - and make themselves feel better, and also feel superior to others.
It is therefore that which is the truly selfish act: it socially isolates you, as well as others, takes the equipment away from others who might really need it and prevents society returning to anything like normal. We all have no social interaction indoors. The last thing we want when we're outside is also having no-one to see and talk to.
I'd prefer being behind a screen or wearing a transparent visor (if necessary) to covering your face. Obscuring your face is horrible.
It's funny. There used to be a regular poster on here who was a successful international author who used to make similar arguments about face coverings but he seems to have disappeared now.
Beyond parody.
Do you have an argument, or just ad hominem?
You already know the argument very well. The virus is spread by water droplets. Face coverings will stop a lot of larger droplets.
Right, so you don't have an argument. You just want to row in behind whoever you think is better able to make it on this site than you are.
Social distancing (or isolation if infected) is far more effective in managing infection risk that than mask wearing.
I'm far more worried about people with crap sweaty masks constantly touching their face, adjusting them and then touching surfaces thereafter.
Is there a place for masks? Sure: in very specific close proximity situations representing high risk.
But not in general - no - where they take away far more than they add, and even subtract something.
I am fairly sceptical about public use of masks.
There is a genuine issue of supply, and poor technique is very frequent.
While they may have some benefit in preventing transmission, they have limited effect on protecting the individual...
Isn't the first bit more or less the entire argument in favour of them, though ? All the modelling (and arguably the experience of notions that practice it) suggests that near universal mask wearing is very effective in suppressing the spread of infection. (Though I recognise that there is no conclusive evidence on this point)
As far as protecting the individual in the absence of widespread use is concerned, much of that is down to individual competence in usage anyway. It's fairly pointless to lecture others about it if the government isn't actively promoting universal usage, but personally I wear one in any confined space with numbers of other people in it.
The benefit that masks have in preventing transmission may be largely illusory.
The argument, of course, is that a cough from someone with the virus wouldn`t be transmitted beyond the mask. However, if someone has the virus and is coughing you shouldn`t be out in public anyway. Masks may encourage an infected person from leaving his/her house when he/she shouldn`t.
If you have no virus then the mask is pointless. If you have the virus but don`t know it then you won`t be coughing.
They make the the wearer feel good and virtuous. That`s the benefit I think. (Assuming you regard this as a benefit.)
We've known for some time that one of the reasons this thing has been so hard to control is that you don't have to have a cough to spread it.
As for the rest, that is you opinion, which you're welcome to.
I`m not interested in opinions - it`s the facts I`m after.
I think we also know that surface to surface transmission is the more usual route?
No.
I didn`t mean to argue the point Nigel - I was asking a question to you because you have shown that you have looked deeply into many scientific aspects of this thing. My mistake, I thought that surface transmission was the main risk. I`m always happy to be corrected.
No problem - I added to my somewhat abrupt response.
No. It's good manners to wash your hands, not cough or sneeze over others, stay at home if you're unwell and treat others with respect.
Covering your face with a mask is a bit rude and lazy, scares children, and prevents basic daily quality social interactions.
*****
Tyson is completely right. Wear a mask and protect your fellow citizens you stupid selfish c*nt
No. I will not wear a mask. Never...
Religious objection ?
I think by and large that masks are a pointless placebo. They only work in specific and very given close proximity situations.
Wearing them in general otherwise is just a sign of a nervous and personally insecure person who fears losing control - and just wants to be seen to be doing "something" - and make themselves feel better, and also feel superior to others.
It is therefore that which is the truly selfish act: it socially isolates you, as well as others, takes the equipment away from others who might really need it and prevents society returning to anything like normal. We all have no social interaction indoors. The last thing we want when we're outside is also having no-one to see and talk to.
I'd prefer being behind a screen or wearing a transparent visor (if necessary) to covering your face. Obscuring your face is horrible.
It's funny. There used to be a regular poster on here who was a successful international author who used to make similar arguments about face coverings but he seems to have disappeared now.
Beyond parody.
Do you have an argument, or just ad hominem?
You already know the argument very well. The virus is spread by water droplets. Face coverings will stop a lot of larger droplets.
Right, so you don't have an argument. You just want to row in behind whoever you think is better able to make it on this site than you are.
Social distancing (or isolation if infected) is far more effective in managing infection risk that than mask wearing.
I'm far more worried about people with crap sweaty masks constantly touching their face, adjusting them and then touching surfaces thereafter.
Is there a place for masks? Sure: in very specific close proximity situations representing high risk.
But not in general - no - where they take away far more than they add, and even subtract something.
I am fairly sceptical about public use of masks.
There is a genuine issue of supply, and poor technique is very frequent.
While they may have some benefit in preventing transmission, they have limited effect on protecting the individual...
Isn't the first bit more or less the entire argument in favour of them, though ? All the modelling (and arguably the experience of notions that practice it) suggests that near universal mask wearing is very effective in suppressing the spread of infection. (Though I recognise that there is no conclusive evidence on this point)
As far as protecting the individual in the absence of widespread use is concerned, much of that is down to individual competence in usage anyway. It's fairly pointless to lecture others about it if the government isn't actively promoting universal usage, but personally I wear one in any confined space with numbers of other people in it.
The benefit that masks have in preventing transmission may be largely illusory.
The argument, of course, is that a cough from someone with the virus wouldn`t be transmitted beyond the mask. However, if someone has the virus and is coughing you shouldn`t be out in public anyway. Masks may encourage an infected person from leaving his/her house when he/she shouldn`t.
If you have no virus then the mask is pointless. If you have the virus but don`t know it then you won`t be coughing.
They make the the wearer feel good and virtuous. That`s the benefit I think. (Assuming you regard this as a benefit.)
There is also some protection from the wearer emitting saliva while speaking (assuming the mask is not pulled down for this).
You`d have to be close for this to be a risk. And I did say "largely" illusory.
Hence social distancing and depending how loud is the speaker. There have been suggestions that this is why religious services were common hotspots, as saliva is projected further during singing and chanting. There might be implications for schools: my advice to pupils is not to sit in the front row while @ydoethur is banging on about @Newton's #SecondLaw...
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
A pint is fine..no more
Everyone should use their own common sense as they should with this advice.
If I'm having a meal and want a drink then I'll stick to a single shandy and no more than that. I would never drink shandies if I'm not driving. I know I'll be well under the limit if I do that and I don't want to get anywhere close to the limit.
People who try to push themselves to the limit are far more likely to go over it.
You drinking a shandy and then driving is keeping within the law although violates the government's advice of "don't drink and drive". So you are deliberately ignoring the government's advice.
Which is fine, we're all grown ups. But why are you criticising @Rochdale for doing exactly the same thing wrt exercise?
I'm not criticising Rochdale for breaking the advice while using common sense. I'm not criticising anyone for doing so.
I am criticising Rochdale for treating the advice as utterly meaningless and treating a change in the advice as utterly meaningless.
Can you see the difference? Try to stick to the advice, if you can't then stay as close to it as you can. Don't try to get as close to the legal limits as you can just because you can.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
A pint is fine..no more
It's been proven time and time again that any alcohol consumed reduces your ability to drive safely. So no a pint is not "fine".
In.my book.it is and i diubt it dimishes my responses at all. Its when you get over 2 pts you get to problem territory
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
"Try not to" is excellent. Good effort. But it's not never, that implies. Or is it never? And same, for example, with your other half?
Do you guys never drink and drive?
I try to stick to the advice, I don't always but I use my own common sense.
The most I've ever drank and drove was I once had a glass of wine and drove - I was on holiday but got an urgent phone call and needed to get to someone in an emergency, I'd had one glass of wine. I debated with my wife as to whether it was safe to do so or not, I really didn't want to after drinking one glass. Determined in the end I should be safe so I did.
If you really want to visit your parents for your or their mental health or any other reason then my advice would be the same as my attitude with drinking - to use your common sense. Its against the advice to do so, but if you really want to then be smart about it. I'd rather not drink anything and drive but if I really want a beer with a meal I'll have one shandy. If you're going to visit your parents maybe do it in a garden socially distanced.
The law isn't involved there, but the advice is. Try to stick to the advice, if you can't or really don't want to then try to stick as close to it as you can. Use your own common sense, what on earth is wrong with that?
Nothing at all but as I wrote above, there is advice and there is the law. You have described how you ignored one and adhered to the other in that instance. Which is fine. But now you are (or seem to be) criticising @Rochdale for doing exactly the same.
May I recommend 'More or Less' on R4 (both this week and last week's episodes). Useful proper scientific info on masks, social distancing, ethnic minority differences in mortality and last but not least the testing numbers.
In particular may I suggest anyone trying to defend the Govt 100,000 claim listen first to the umpteen not insignificant flaws in this number.
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
A pint is fine..no more
It's been proven time and time again that any alcohol consumed reduces your ability to drive safely. So no a pint is not "fine".
In.my book.it is and i diubt it dimishes my responses at all. Its when you get over 2 pts you get to problem territory
I think the law on cleaners etc into your home is OK actually. Just before the lockdown we had a plumber into our house, a cleaner like him is someone that works in your home whereas family and friends are people that once in your house you aren't socially distancing from.
No. It's good manners to wash your hands, not cough or sneeze over others, stay at home if you're unwell and treat others with respect.
Covering your face with a mask is a bit rude and lazy, scares children, and prevents basic daily quality social interactions.
*****
Tyson is completely right. Wear a mask and protect your fellow citizens you stupid selfish c*nt
No. I will not wear a mask. Never...
Religious objection ?
I think by and large that masks are a pointless placebo. They only work in specific and very given close proximity situations.
Wearing them in general otherwise is just a sign of a nervous and personally insecure person who fears losing control - and just wants to be seen to be doing "something" - and make themselves feel better, and also feel superior to others.
It is therefore that which is the truly selfish act: it socially isolates you, as well as others, takes the equipment away from others who might really need it and prevents society returning to anything like normal. We all have no social interaction indoors. The last thing we want when we're outside is also having no-one to see and talk to.
I'd prefer being behind a screen or wearing a transparent visor (if necessary) to covering your face. Obscuring your face is horrible.
It's funny. There used to be a regular poster on here who was a successful international author who used to make similar arguments about face coverings but he seems to have disappeared now.
Beyond parody.
Do you have an argument, or just ad hominem?
You already know the argument very well. The virus is spread by water droplets. Face coverings will stop a lot of larger droplets.
Right, so you don't have an argument. You just want to row in behind whoever you think is better able to make it on this site than you are.
Social distancing (or isolation if infected) is far more effective in managing infection risk that than mask wearing.
I'm far more worried about people with crap sweaty masks constantly touching their face, adjusting them and then touching surfaces thereafter.
Is there a place for masks? Sure: in very specific close proximity situations representing high risk.
But not in general - no - where they take away far more than they add, and even subtract something.
I am fairly sceptical about public use of masks.
There is a genuine issue of supply, and poor technique is very frequent.
While they may have some benefit in preventing transmission, they have limited effect on protecting the individual...
Isn't the first bit more or less the entire argument in favour of them, though ? All the modelling (and arguably the experience of notions that practice it) suggests that near universal mask wearing is very effective in suppressing the spread of infection. (Though I recognise that there is no conclusive evidence on this point)
As far as protecting the individual in the absence of widespread use is concerned, much of that is down to individual competence in usage anyway. It's fairly pointless to lecture others about it if the government isn't actively promoting universal usage, but personally I wear one in any confined space with numbers of other people in it.
The benefit that masks have in preventing transmission may be largely illusory.
The argument, of course, is that a cough from someone with the virus wouldn`t be transmitted beyond the mask. However, if someone has the virus and is coughing you shouldn`t be out in public anyway. Masks may encourage an infected person from leaving his/her house when he/she shouldn`t.
If you have no virus then the mask is pointless. If you have the virus but don`t know it then you won`t be coughing.
They make the the wearer feel good and virtuous. That`s the benefit I think. (Assuming you regard this as a benefit.)
There is also some protection from the wearer emitting saliva while speaking (assuming the mask is not pulled down for this).
You`d have to be close for this to be a risk. And I did say "largely" illusory.
Hence social distancing and depending how loud is the speaker. There have been suggestions that this is why religious services were common hotspots, as saliva is projected further during singing and chanting. There might be implications for schools: my advice to pupils is not to sit in the front row while @ydoethur is banging on about @Newton's #SecondLaw...
Sound advice - he's an historian.
He's history is the expression I heard from his students. (old joke)
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
A pint is fine..no more
Everyone should use their own common sense as they should with this advice.
If I'm having a meal and want a drink then I'll stick to a single shandy and no more than that. I would never drink shandies if I'm not driving. I know I'll be well under the limit if I do that and I don't want to get anywhere close to the limit.
People who try to push themselves to the limit are far more likely to go over it.
You drinking a shandy and then driving is keeping within the law although violates the government's advice of "don't drink and drive". So you are deliberately ignoring the government's advice.
Which is fine, we're all grown ups. But why are you criticising @Rochdale for doing exactly the same thing wrt exercise?
I'm not criticising Rochdale for breaking the advice while using common sense. I'm not criticising anyone for doing so.
I am criticising Rochdale for treating the advice as utterly meaningless and treating a change in the advice as utterly meaningless.
Can you see the difference? Try to stick to the advice, if you can't then stay as close to it as you can. Don't try to get as close to the legal limits as you can just because you can.
He is not treating it as meaningless. He is looking at the advice and at the law and then deciding what is best for himself and deciding then that a shandy is fine. Just as you do.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
A pint is fine..no more
Everyone should use their own common sense as they should with this advice.
If I'm having a meal and want a drink then I'll stick to a single shandy and no more than that. I would never drink shandies if I'm not driving. I know I'll be well under the limit if I do that and I don't want to get anywhere close to the limit.
People who try to push themselves to the limit are far more likely to go over it.
I would counsel against a shandy if the aim is to avoid alcohol. Shandies can be quite intoxicating depending on the beer to lemonade ratio.
With regards to Philip's various straw men, the public want clarity as to how they should act to keep themselves and their relatives safe. It cannot be safe to let a cleaner into your parents home if it is not safe to let their child into their home. That the government have so frequently contradicted this bullshit shows you that they haven't a clue how it works either, hence the "use good old fashioned common sense" and pivot to attacking workshy scroungers on the furlough scheme they have just extended.
Other countries have managed a simple set of instructions. Its no wonder our infection rates are so high. And the advice to go where the fuck you like for a day out. Tourist spots up here are already in the media like Cumbria saying DO NOT COME. Its an absolute fucking shambles. And people can see that its an absolute fucking shambles. Hence the collapsing approval ratings for the government. Just wait until the VE Day spike takes hold and see which direction it accelerates in...
The public have clarity. The public has their own common sense too.
A cleaner is more necessary than you, if your parents require a cleaner.
The advice is clear do what you need to do: work, shopping, exercise etc, try and keep a safe distance, and avoid what you don't need to do - social visits etc
Its not a shambles. The evidence is that people are safer socially distanced outside. If people need time out then its better to have people dispersed in wide open spaces like beauty spots than it is to have them crowded within tiny parks within their urban spaces.
Just because people don't like the advice or want their own preferred social actions prioritised doesn't make it a shambles. Stop trying to get the government to answer every bloody stupid hypothetical question and think for yourself. So long as you're not gormless you should be able to think.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
A pint is fine..no more
Everyone should use their own common sense as they should with this advice.
If I'm having a meal and want a drink then I'll stick to a single shandy and no more than that. I would never drink shandies if I'm not driving. I know I'll be well under the limit if I do that and I don't want to get anywhere close to the limit.
People who try to push themselves to the limit are far more likely to go over it.
I would counsel against a shandy if the aim is to avoid alcohol. Shandies can be quite intoxicating depending on the beer to lemonade ratio.
To be fair, nothing improves something like a Carling or a Fosters than a dash of lemonade.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
A pint is fine..no more
Everyone should use their own common sense as they should with this advice.
If I'm having a meal and want a drink then I'll stick to a single shandy and no more than that. I would never drink shandies if I'm not driving. I know I'll be well under the limit if I do that and I don't want to get anywhere close to the limit.
People who try to push themselves to the limit are far more likely to go over it.
You drinking a shandy and then driving is keeping within the law although violates the government's advice of "don't drink and drive". So you are deliberately ignoring the government's advice.
Which is fine, we're all grown ups. But why are you criticising @Rochdale for doing exactly the same thing wrt exercise?
I'm not criticising Rochdale for breaking the advice while using common sense. I'm not criticising anyone for doing so.
I am criticising Rochdale for treating the advice as utterly meaningless and treating a change in the advice as utterly meaningless.
Can you see the difference? Try to stick to the advice, if you can't then stay as close to it as you can. Don't try to get as close to the legal limits as you can just because you can.
He is not treating it as meaningless. He is looking at the advice and at the law and then deciding what is best for himself and deciding then that a shandy is fine. Just as you do.
No issue with that. But that's not what he said when he responded to a change in the advice regarding allowing exercise multiple times per day within the advice and responded with this comment:
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
That is what triggered this conversation. Anyone self-aware enough to know they were breaking the advice before and now the advice has changed should appreciate that, not be mocking the government for making a meaningless change.
I wonder if - as a largely services driven economy with a fairly well virtually connected populace - if our GDP figures perhaps might not be quite as bad as expected.
We don't rely as heavily on manufacturing as other countries do for their income, and we've perhaps been able to keep more going from home than we'd thought.
There are a lot of studies that show that many people's productivity improves dramatically when they work from home. Obviously not everybody's - especially people with small children.
They tend to be in the kind of jobs where productivity is a subjective concept and very difficult to measure, though.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
A pint is fine..no more
Everyone should use their own common sense as they should with this advice.
If I'm having a meal and want a drink then I'll stick to a single shandy and no more than that. I would never drink shandies if I'm not driving. I know I'll be well under the limit if I do that and I don't want to get anywhere close to the limit.
People who try to push themselves to the limit are far more likely to go over it.
I would counsel against a shandy if the aim is to avoid alcohol. Shandies can be quite intoxicating depending on the beer to lemonade ratio.
To be fair, nothing improves something like a Carling or a Fosters than a dash of lemonade.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
A pint is fine..no more
It's been proven time and time again that any alcohol consumed reduces your ability to drive safely. So no a pint is not "fine".
In.my book.it is and i diubt it dimishes my responses at all. Its when you get over 2 pts you get to problem territory
Your feelings don't undo scientific proof.
The limit is the limit. Period. Your scientific evidence is about as useful as the flat earth societu. People cope with alcohol in different ways. I have seen on tv cop programmes people having had 4 pts and been under the limit. It depends on your metabolic rate to a large extent.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
A pint is fine..no more
It's been proven time and time again that any alcohol consumed reduces your ability to drive safely. So no a pint is not "fine".
In.my book.it is and i diubt it dimishes my responses at all. Its when you get over 2 pts you get to problem territory
Your feelings don't undo scientific proof.
I agree. After 2 pints I feel totally sober and in control of all my faculties. However I have had 2 pints and got on a bike and it became apparent very quickly that my 'feelings' are not indeed 'facts'.
I am criticising Rochdale for treating the advice as utterly meaningless and treating a change in the advice as utterly meaningless.
Can you see the difference? Try to stick to the advice, if you can't then stay as close to it as you can. Don't try to get as close to the legal limits as you can just because you can.
OK lets look at the advice. Which advice do I stick to? Raab on his first Monday interview? Raab on his second? Raab on his third? It definitely isn't Raab on his 4th interview of Monday morning as they pulled him because every interview he gave that morning contradicted the previous one.
Or how about listening to the PM. Do we listen to the advice of Sunday's broadcast? Of Monday's documents? Of Monday's press conference. He contradicted himself FFS.
How can you insist that people obey the advice when the advice keeps changing? From one minister to the next? Or when they are really tired from one interview to the next. This is why we need simple clear and unambiguous policies. Can. Can't. Avoid. Said once clearly and repeated clearly. And with respect to it this is why we have Laws. So that a minister can't make it up as they go along. The police have now gone on record saying that this is now unpoliceable and unenforceable, How can you possibly come on here repeatedly insisting its ok when the police say its not?
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
A pint is fine..no more
Everyone should use their own common sense as they should with this advice.
If I'm having a meal and want a drink then I'll stick to a single shandy and no more than that. I would never drink shandies if I'm not driving. I know I'll be well under the limit if I do that and I don't want to get anywhere close to the limit.
People who try to push themselves to the limit are far more likely to go over it.
I would counsel against a shandy if the aim is to avoid alcohol. Shandies can be quite intoxicating depending on the beer to lemonade ratio.
To be fair, nothing improves something like a Carling or a Fosters than a dash of lemonade.
All alcohol will impair your driving to some degree, but the limits are in place for a good reason. They're based off your blood alcohol so different people can drink different amounts for the same impairment.
If you're a 16 stone rugby playing 25 year old male then your reflexes will probably be better after 3 pints than a 7 stone 75 year old lady after a couple of glasses of sherry.
All alcohol will impair your driving to some degree, but the limits are in place for a good reason. They're based off your blood alcohol so different people can drink different amounts for the same impairment.
If you're a 16 stone rugby playing 25 year old male then your reflexes will probably be better after 3 pints than a 7 stone 75 year old lady after a couple of glasses of sherry.
Name me a 16 stone rugby playing 25 year old that stops at 3 pints.....
Strange because his advice is to avoid public transport and he just said now (I watched the interview) he uses his car. He did say for those having to use public transport for them to use social distancing and wear a face covering if in close contact
Maybe best to listen to what he says rather than a journalists version
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
A pint is fine..no more
Everyone should use their own common sense as they should with this advice.
If I'm having a meal and want a drink then I'll stick to a single shandy and no more than that. I would never drink shandies if I'm not driving. I know I'll be well under the limit if I do that and I don't want to get anywhere close to the limit.
People who try to push themselves to the limit are far more likely to go over it.
I would counsel against a shandy if the aim is to avoid alcohol. Shandies can be quite intoxicating depending on the beer to lemonade ratio.
To be fair, nothing improves something like a Carling or a Fosters than a dash of lemonade.
I have no problem with enjoying other religions festivals, and often get Christmas and Easter greetings from Muslim or Hindu colleagues. It seems polite to reciprocate.
All alcohol will impair your driving to some degree, but the limits are in place for a good reason. Their based off your blood alcohol so different people can drink different amounts for the same impairment.
If you're a 16 stone rugby playing 25 year old male then your reflexes will probably be better after 3 pints than a 7 stone 75 year old lady after a couple of glasses of sherry.
Although I agree with that there is the issue of the effect of alcohol giving one confidence (it is a depressant). So modest amounts of alcohol can have the effect of making someone feel like a better driver and drive more recklessly and be unaware of it and being involved in a serious accident. The person who is wasted will probably not be able to get in their car or wrap it around the nearest tree and not involve anyone else.
No issue with that. But that's not what he said when he responded to a change in the advice regarding allowing exercise multiple times per day within the advice and responded with this comment:
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
That is what triggered this conversation. Anyone self-aware enough to know they were breaking the advice before and now the advice has changed should appreciate that, not be mocking the government for making a meaningless change.
And then you ridiculed him because he was following the law and not the advice.
"I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!"
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
You do realise that advice and the law are not the same thing don't you? And for good reason too.
I bet you read the Highway Code and think "that only says should, so that's just advice I'm not doing it" . . . in wet weather the Highway Code says you should leave a bigger gap between vehicles due to the fact that the wet weather means you may need a bigger gap if you need to slow down suddenly. I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!
You must be in the group of people who has never had any size of alcoholic drink and then driven.
Congratulations.
I try not to yes, its bloody stupid to drink and drive.
A pint is fine..no more
Everyone should use their own common sense as they should with this advice.
If I'm having a meal and want a drink then I'll stick to a single shandy and no more than that. I would never drink shandies if I'm not driving. I know I'll be well under the limit if I do that and I don't want to get anywhere close to the limit.
People who try to push themselves to the limit are far more likely to go over it.
I would counsel against a shandy if the aim is to avoid alcohol. Shandies can be quite intoxicating depending on the beer to lemonade ratio.
To be fair, nothing improves something like a Carling or a Fosters than a dash of lemonade.
Strange because his advice is to avoid public transport and he just said now (I watched the interview) he uses his car. He did say for those having to use public transport for them to use social distancing and wear a face covering if in close contact
Maybe best to listen to what he says rather than a journalists version
I read it. He knows there are a Lot of workers who have to travel by public transport regardless. They COULD instruct everyone to wear a mask. Videos of how to make a mask have been doing the rounds. But they won't. Because it doesn't affect them. And they don't care.
Well, unlike the debt figures we start in a fairly good place. The ONS statistics from 21st April state that in the period ending 31st December 2019: There were an estimated 29.33 million UK nationals working in the UK, a record high and 227,000 more than a year earlier. There were an estimated 2.31 million EU nationals working in the UK, 36,000 more than a year earlier. There were an estimated 1.34 million non-EU nationals working in the UK, 49,000 more than a year earlier.
It is not easy to identify how many are employed in tourism, for example, from these figures. Within retail the supermarkets are gaining employment for home deliveries, online sales, marshalling customers etc. Many shops, however, are unlikely to open again. An overall fall is likely. The 1.7m in accommodation and food seems likely to me to take the hardest hit. Manufacturing (3m) is going to be mixed with some production being reshored and some businesses really struggling in getting parts etc from abroad. I think construction will do quite well. The key is going to be maintaining domestic demand. That means no tax increases in the immediate future and very large deficits. I think with sensible policies it should be possible to keep job losses to maybe 2m. That could be recovered in 2-3 years if the jobs machine can be turned back on. But if demand falls significantly we could have a return to the large scale structural unemployment of the past.
Very interesting, whilst at the same time not providing the clear-cut wear it/don't answer I was hoping for, but that seems to be down to disputes over efficacy.
You don't stick to advice, you use it. That is (I believe) Mr Thompson's point.
The law is I hope simple and clear, but therefore not exhaustive. Advice can fill this out, but there are practical limits. So everyone needs to think for themselves, and if they cannot, then stay at home.
Strange because his advice is to avoid public transport and he just said now (I watched the interview) he uses his car. He did say for those having to use public transport for them to use social distancing and wear a face covering if in close contact
Maybe best to listen to what he says rather than a journalists version
I read it. He knows there are a Lot of workers who have to travel by public transport regardless. They COULD instruct everyone to wear a mask. Videos of how to make a mask have been doing the rounds. But they won't. Because it doesn't affect them. And they don't care.
Strange because his advice is to avoid public transport and he just said now (I watched the interview) he uses his car. He did say for those having to use public transport for them to use social distancing and wear a face covering if in close contact
Maybe best to listen to what he says rather than a journalists version
I read it. He knows there are a Lot of workers who have to travel by public transport regardless. They COULD instruct everyone to wear a mask. Videos of how to make a mask have been doing the rounds. But they won't. Because it doesn't affect them. And they don't care.
As I said, Michael Green is a Coward.
You read it I watched and listened to it - spot the difference
All alcohol will impair your driving to some degree, but the limits are in place for a good reason. They're based off your blood alcohol so different people can drink different amounts for the same impairment.
If you're a 16 stone rugby playing 25 year old male then your reflexes will probably be better after 3 pints than a 7 stone 75 year old lady after a couple of glasses of sherry.
The legal limits are based on blood alcohol levels because that's evidence that can more easily be gathered to prosecute you with.
Very interesting, whilst at the same time not providing the clear-cut wear it/don't answer I was hoping for, but that seems to be down to disputes over efficacy.
My pleasure. I always find it an excellent programme. Also whenever they make a mistake they put their hands up straight away and of course there is no apparent bias just maths and science.
May I recommend 'More or Less' on R4 (both this week and last week's episodes). Useful proper scientific info on masks, social distancing, ethnic minority differences in mortality and last but not least the testing numbers.
In particular may I suggest anyone trying to defend the Govt 100,000 claim listen first to the umpteen not insignificant flaws in this number.
Also the epsiode about international comparisons - UK may not be fairing as badly as initially appears. I`m still getting to grips with this episode, and I`ll listed to it again.
Having said that, I guess nobody knows how effective they are. Common sense suggests that if you are outside keeping your distance they aren't going to do much if you aren't coughing.
I tend to put one on when I leave the house when I'm going to go into a shop to save having to put it on later. If I'm just going to the park to kick a ball round with my son I keep it in my pocket.
Very interesting, whilst at the same time not providing the clear-cut wear it/don't answer I was hoping for, but that seems to be down to disputes over efficacy.
My pleasure. I always find it an excellent programme. Also whenever they make a mistake they put their hands up straight away and of course there is no apparent bias just maths and science.
I also listened this morning. There was also an interesting piece about Vitamin D. One non-peer reviewed report that in a small test there was a very large correlation between getting a virus and having a low level of Vit D.
Comments
If you want to boost the economy using borrowed money, a tax cut makes more sense. History suggests any public works programme smaller than a world war has little effect on the economy.
Congratulations.
As for the rest, that is you opinion, which you're welcome to.
I wonder if Boris were to announce that the government no longer thought we need to stay two metres apart how many geniuses here would be saying "oh great, but as I read your law I never had to keep two metres apart".
Philip...?
I think we also know that surface to surface transmission is the more usual route?
You've always been allowed to visit your parents if you need to do so, eg to drop off supplies if they're shielding.
Hopefully some effort is taking place to find answers to these type of questions.
Do you guys never drink and drive?
Other countries have managed a simple set of instructions. Its no wonder our infection rates are so high. And the advice to go where the fuck you like for a day out. Tourist spots up here are already in the media like Cumbria saying DO NOT COME. Its an absolute fucking shambles. And people can see that its an absolute fucking shambles. Hence the collapsing approval ratings for the government. Just wait until the VE Day spike takes hold and see which direction it accelerates in...
You can't know if a Nike employee was the first case in Scotland.
You can't get tested if you work in a care home.
You can't get tested just about anywhere.
If I'm having a meal and want a drink then I'll stick to a single shandy and no more than that. I would never drink shandies if I'm not driving. I know I'll be well under the limit if I do that and I don't want to get anywhere close to the limit.
People who try to push themselves to the limit are far more likely to go over it.
That was originally the theory; evidence tends to suggest that the principal transmission route is respiratory.
If the health reasons were strong enough to tip the balance then I`d be in favour of them. But at this moment I remain unconvinced.
I have DESIGNATED DRIVER tattooed on my forehead. Apparently.
Which is fine, we're all grown ups. But why are you criticising @Rochdale for doing exactly the same thing wrt exercise?
I don't drink and drive - even a shandy - because I hate that feeling of anxiety that around the next corner plod will be waiting to ban me from driving. It's the fear part of fear and greed for me.
The most I've ever drank and drove was I once had a glass of wine and drove - I was on holiday but got an urgent phone call and needed to get to someone in an emergency, I'd had one glass of wine. I debated with my wife as to whether it was safe to do so or not, I really didn't want to after drinking one glass. Determined in the end I should be safe so I did.
If you really want to visit your parents for your or their mental health or any other reason then my advice would be the same as my attitude with drinking - to use your common sense. Its against the advice to do so, but if you really want to then be smart about it. I'd rather not drink anything and drive but if I really want a beer with a meal I'll have one shandy. If you're going to visit your parents maybe do it in a garden socially distanced.
The law isn't involved there, but the advice is. Try to stick to the advice, if you can't or really don't want to then try to stick as close to it as you can. Use your own common sense, what on earth is wrong with that?
I am criticising Rochdale for treating the advice as utterly meaningless and treating a change in the advice as utterly meaningless.
Can you see the difference? Try to stick to the advice, if you can't then stay as close to it as you can. Don't try to get as close to the legal limits as you can just because you can.
Which I find strange.
In particular may I suggest anyone trying to defend the Govt 100,000 claim listen first to the umpteen not insignificant flaws in this number.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
A cleaner is more necessary than you, if your parents require a cleaner.
The advice is clear do what you need to do: work, shopping, exercise etc, try and keep a safe distance, and avoid what you don't need to do - social visits etc
Its not a shambles. The evidence is that people are safer socially distanced outside. If people need time out then its better to have people dispersed in wide open spaces like beauty spots than it is to have them crowded within tiny parks within their urban spaces.
Just because people don't like the advice or want their own preferred social actions prioritised doesn't make it a shambles. Stop trying to get the government to answer every bloody stupid hypothetical question and think for yourself. So long as you're not gormless you should be able to think.
Thanks Boris. As someone who was following The Law - which your government passed - I was already going out multiple times a day to exercise when the weather was nice and I needed it. Happily you have now absolutely cleared up the advice, nobody at all is confused hence your approval ratings surging to record highs!
Great job.
That is what triggered this conversation. Anyone self-aware enough to know they were breaking the advice before and now the advice has changed should appreciate that, not be mocking the government for making a meaningless change.
They tend to be in the kind of jobs where productivity is a subjective concept and very difficult to measure, though.
Or how about listening to the PM. Do we listen to the advice of Sunday's broadcast? Of Monday's documents? Of Monday's press conference. He contradicted himself FFS.
How can you insist that people obey the advice when the advice keeps changing? From one minister to the next? Or when they are really tired from one interview to the next. This is why we need simple clear and unambiguous policies. Can. Can't. Avoid. Said once clearly and repeated clearly. And with respect to it this is why we have Laws. So that a minister can't make it up as they go along. The police have now gone on record saying that this is now unpoliceable and unenforceable, How can you possibly come on here repeatedly insisting its ok when the police say its not?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/may/13/grant-shapps-would-not-get-on-crowed-bus-tube-coronavirus-lockdown-eased
If you're a 16 stone rugby playing 25 year old male then your reflexes will probably be better after 3 pints than a 7 stone 75 year old lady after a couple of glasses of sherry.
Maybe best to listen to what he says rather than a journalists version
"I bet you are so clever you spotted that's not the law so you can freely tailgate someone at 70mph during a storm. What a guy!"
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
As I said, Michael Green is a Coward.
Well, unlike the debt figures we start in a fairly good place. The ONS statistics from 21st April state that in the period ending 31st December 2019:
There were an estimated 29.33 million UK nationals working in the UK, a record high and 227,000 more than a year earlier.
There were an estimated 2.31 million EU nationals working in the UK, 36,000 more than a year earlier.
There were an estimated 1.34 million non-EU nationals working in the UK, 49,000 more than a year earlier.
The UK jobs miracle may have lost a bit of momentum but it had not stopped. There were 800k vacancies.
Of the 33m working just over 7m were employed in the public sector. 4m are employed in retail and 1.7m in accommodation and food. Overall thought the official classifications are not particularly reflective of our modern economy: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/employmentbyindustryemp13
It is not easy to identify how many are employed in tourism, for example, from these figures. Within retail the supermarkets are gaining employment for home deliveries, online sales, marshalling customers etc. Many shops, however, are unlikely to open again. An overall fall is likely. The 1.7m in accommodation and food seems likely to me to take the hardest hit. Manufacturing (3m) is going to be mixed with some production being reshored and some businesses really struggling in getting parts etc from abroad. I think construction will do quite well. The key is going to be maintaining domestic demand. That means no tax increases in the immediate future and very large deficits. I think with sensible policies it should be possible to keep job losses to maybe 2m. That could be recovered in 2-3 years if the jobs machine can be turned back on. But if demand falls significantly we could have a return to the large scale structural unemployment of the past.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/more-or-less-behind-the-stats/id267300884?i=1000471187873
Very interesting, whilst at the same time not providing the clear-cut wear it/don't answer I was hoping for, but that seems to be down to disputes over efficacy.
The law is I hope simple and clear, but therefore not exhaustive. Advice can fill this out, but there are practical limits. So everyone needs to think for themselves, and if they cannot, then stay at home.
The Police would prefer things to be simple and easy. The world is not like that, tough.
Having said that, I guess nobody knows how effective they are. Common sense suggests that if you are outside keeping your distance they aren't going to do much if you aren't coughing.
I tend to put one on when I leave the house when I'm going to go into a shop to save having to put it on later. If I'm just going to the park to kick a ball round with my son I keep it in my pocket.