Realize you mean well - BUT would you please stop polluting PB with DT tweets! Easy enough to find this garbage without having it dumped in our little garden reasoned discourse!
Not sure I agree. Sometimes PB is the best place to get news from all sources in one spot. Say what you like about Trump, he can't be ignored - at least not until after November or more likely January.
Anybody who needs PB to find Trumpsky's tsunami of tweets must live a VERY sheltered life.
The US President and all he does is sleep, watch TV, tweet, eat cheeseburgers and drink cans of coca cola. Quite remarkable. We will not see his like again.
It's not US chips, it's chips derived from US technology. It means they can't use TSMC foundries or TSMC will face sanctions from the US government. TSMC aren't a US company, however.
America is going after the whole spectrum of semiconductor technologies that are relevant to Huawei's business, from fabs to IP licensing, from EDA tools to chips, from US companies and companies that do business with the US (which is basically everyone).
Such zero sum games are potentially very dangerous, though.
Two thirds of the world's advanced semiconductor manufacturing are based very close indeed to China. A serious national security worry for all western leaders is what might happen should China seize Taiwan - for now an unlikely scenario, but by no means impossible, and growing more possible every year.
Without Taiwanese fab capacity, the fallback is... S Korea.
Japan as well. Europe in particular has very little in the way of silicon production capacity which is a huge concern given how important the industry is.
Japan doesn't host any of the really high end fabs; there are really only three companies with that kind of tech capacity - Intel, TSMS, and Samsung.
Though both Japan and Europe supply equipment for those facilities.
Tried wearing one the other day. Apart from comedy condensation (managed to fiddle with it a bit to remedy that) found it pretty uncomfortable. Breathing wasn't ideal. And breathing's one of my favourite things.
I’ve bought a few from Hugo Boss, really easy to wear and not restricting.
Re the Johnson vs Michael split on masks. I wonder if this is Michael flexing his muscles - metaphorically - and also sending a subtle message to the country. Those who follow politics know that this is a Dom and Michael duopoly government with Johnson kept around for shits and giggles and votes, but most people will not know this. They will be thinking Johnson is in charge. Perhaps Michael has become irritated with this and is tipping us the wink.
On the topic itself - masks - I'm for mandatory in shops. It does not have to be policed - c.f. wearing of seatbelts - all it requires is for Johnson to appear as "Boris" in a TV address and say that the government instructs it. This will be sufficient. No need for a law. I really cannot see the downside in doing this. But perhaps Michael (or Dom) has put his foot down.
Voters elected Boris to be PM not Gove or Cummings, Boris making clear masks should be worn this afternoon was a much needed expression of prime ministerial authority
Ah so he's done it then, has he. Sorry, I was behind the curve.
So where does this leave Michael and his good manners?
Does the numpty not realise that the whole point of such a mask policy is to make it safer to get people out of their homes and back to something like normal life ?
Re the Johnson vs Michael split on masks. I wonder if this is Michael flexing his muscles - metaphorically - and also sending a subtle message to the country. Those who follow politics know that this is a Dom and Michael duopoly government with Johnson kept around for shits and giggles and votes, but most people will not know this. They will be thinking Johnson is in charge. Perhaps Michael has become irritated with this and is tipping us the wink.
On the topic itself - masks - I'm for mandatory in shops. It does not have to be policed - c.f. wearing of seatbelts - all it requires is for Johnson to appear as "Boris" in a TV address and say that the government instructs it. This will be sufficient. No need for a law. I really cannot see the downside in doing this. But perhaps Michael (or Dom) has put his foot down.
Voters elected Boris to be PM not Gove or Cummings, Boris making clear masks should be worn this afternoon was a much needed expression of prime ministerial authority
Haha, that is quite funny. Surely not even you really believe The Clown has the slightest vestige of "prime ministerial authority". He is a side show. Once more he is the compare on HIGNFY, except the two main protagonists are not Hislop and Merton, but Gove and Cummings, with the two of them showing their complete contempt for the fool who is sitting between them.
I'll admit that masks in shops is not a policy I'm particularly looking forward to, but I'm sort of resigned. I supported them for public transport, but I thought the idea was to allow buses and trains to run closer to capacity - when I see a bus, that doesn't seem to have happened so much.
And I have sort of liked the near silence of a large supermarket or out of town store during COVID, I've not felt threatened with infection by people ambling by at near 2m distances and being barely within contact radius for 20 seconds or so, or standing at a slightly exaggerated range having a couple of functional words with a shop assistant whilst positioning myself at an angle and pretending to be David Caruso.
I'm afraid at a personal level mask wearing will primarily make me feel less normal rather than more safe, and I'll probably go to shops even a little less than over the last few months. This is not so much a complaint about public policy direction, rather a personal preference.
My psychology is the opposite. I have been wearing masks when going to the shops (as infrequently as is necessary) in the knowledge that this won't stop me getting infected, as long as others DON'T wear masks. Full compliance would give me a lot more confidence.
Re the Johnson vs Michael split on masks. I wonder if this is Michael flexing his muscles - metaphorically - and also sending a subtle message to the country. Those who follow politics know that this is a Dom and Michael duopoly government with Johnson kept around for shits and giggles and votes, but most people will not know this. They will be thinking Johnson is in charge. Perhaps Michael has become irritated with this and is tipping us the wink.
On the topic itself - masks - I'm for mandatory in shops. It does not have to be policed - c.f. wearing of seatbelts - all it requires is for Johnson to appear as "Boris" in a TV address and say that the government instructs it. This will be sufficient. No need for a law. I really cannot see the downside in doing this. But perhaps Michael (or Dom) has put his foot down.
Voters elected Boris to be PM not Gove or Cummings, Boris making clear masks should be worn this afternoon was a much needed expression of prime ministerial authority
Haha, that is quite funny. Surely not even you really believe The Clown has the slightest vestige of "prime ministerial authority". He is a side show. Once more he is the compare on HIGNFY, except the two main protagonists are not Hislop and Merton, but Gove and Cummings, with the two of them showing their complete contempt for the fool who is sitting between them.
Johnson has made too many mistakes during this crisis. Time for the Tories to choose a new leader.
I'll admit that masks in shops is not a policy I'm particularly looking forward to, but I'm sort of resigned. I supported them for public transport, but I thought the idea was to allow buses and trains to run closer to capacity - when I see a bus, that doesn't seem to have happened so much.
And I have sort of liked the near silence of a large supermarket or out of town store during COVID, I've not felt threatened with infection by people ambling by at near 2m distances and being barely within contact radius for 20 seconds or so, or standing at a slightly exaggerated range having a couple of functional words with a shop assistant whilst positioning myself at an angle and pretending to be David Caruso.
I'm afraid at a personal level mask wearing will primarily make me feel less normal rather than more safe, and I'll probably go to shops even a little less than over the last few months. This is not so much a complaint about public policy direction, rather a personal preference.
My psychology is the opposite. I have been wearing masks when going to the shops (as infrequently as is necessary) in the knowledge that this won't stop me getting infected, as long as others DON'T wear masks. Full compliance would give me a lot more confidence.
I get the counter psychology, and I don't object to a masks decision against my own preference. But I've taken to heart the WHO advice to use masks where social distancing isn't possible, and I've been quite content with the social distancing in shops up until now. I also get the sense that the low uptake of masks in socially distanced shops has had only a very small impact on the severity of the UK's outbreak, although I suspect there are workplaces where they haven't been mandated but would have been more beneficial.
Re the Johnson vs Michael split on masks. I wonder if this is Michael flexing his muscles - metaphorically - and also sending a subtle message to the country. Those who follow politics know that this is a Dom and Michael duopoly government with Johnson kept around for shits and giggles and votes, but most people will not know this. They will be thinking Johnson is in charge. Perhaps Michael has become irritated with this and is tipping us the wink.
On the topic itself - masks - I'm for mandatory in shops. It does not have to be policed - c.f. wearing of seatbelts - all it requires is for Johnson to appear as "Boris" in a TV address and say that the government instructs it. This will be sufficient. No need for a law. I really cannot see the downside in doing this. But perhaps Michael (or Dom) has put his foot down.
Voters elected Boris to be PM not Gove or Cummings, Boris making clear masks should be worn this afternoon was a much needed expression of prime ministerial authority
Johnson off message? His handlers won't be pleased. There will be consequences.
Does the numpty not realise that the whole point of such a mask policy is to make it safer to get people out of their homes and back to something like normal life ?
Nigel I realise you have been touched tragically by COVID. But at the same time, the basic point that Hitchens is making is that we have had a huge restrictions of our liberty of a kind without precedent.
That is a valid point to make.
The key was not to overwhelm the NHS which, left unchecked, COVID might have lead to.
It's not US chips, it's chips derived from US technology. It means they can't use TSMC foundries or TSMC will face sanctions from the US government. TSMC aren't a US company, however.
America is going after the whole spectrum of semiconductor technologies that are relevant to Huawei's business, from fabs to IP licensing, from EDA tools to chips, from US companies and companies that do business with the US (which is basically everyone).
Such zero sum games are potentially very dangerous, though.
Two thirds of the world's advanced semiconductor manufacturing are based very close indeed to China. A serious national security worry for all western leaders is what might happen should China seize Taiwan - for now an unlikely scenario, but by no means impossible, and growing more possible every year.
Without Taiwanese fab capacity, the fallback is... S Korea.
Japan as well. Europe in particular has very little in the way of silicon production capacity which is a huge concern given how important the industry is.
Japan doesn't host any of the really high end fabs; there are really only three companies with that kind of tech capacity - Intel, TSMS, and Samsung.
Though both Japan and Europe supply equipment for those facilities.
Japan supplies a huge proportion of the world's flash memory and camera sensors, Korea specialises in DRAM, and TSMC/Intel in microprocessors. However, it is worrying how dependent the world is on Taiwan for processors, basically all of the world's phones run on chips fabbed in a TSMC foundry.
Re the Johnson vs Michael split on masks. I wonder if this is Michael flexing his muscles - metaphorically - and also sending a subtle message to the country. Those who follow politics know that this is a Dom and Michael duopoly government with Johnson kept around for shits and giggles and votes, but most people will not know this. They will be thinking Johnson is in charge. Perhaps Michael has become irritated with this and is tipping us the wink.
On the topic itself - masks - I'm for mandatory in shops. It does not have to be policed - c.f. wearing of seatbelts - all it requires is for Johnson to appear as "Boris" in a TV address and say that the government instructs it. This will be sufficient. No need for a law. I really cannot see the downside in doing this. But perhaps Michael (or Dom) has put his foot down.
Voters elected Boris to be PM not Gove or Cummings, Boris making clear masks should be worn this afternoon was a much needed expression of prime ministerial authority
Haha, that is quite funny. Surely not even you really believe The Clown has the slightest vestige of "prime ministerial authority". He is a side show. Once more he is the compare on HIGNFY, except the two main protagonists are not Hislop and Merton, but Gove and Cummings, with the two of them showing their complete contempt for the fool who is sitting between them.
Johnson has made too many mistakes during this crisis. Time for the Tories to choose a new leader.
Who would your choice be as a matter of interest?
I would in the past have said Gove but I've rather gone off him.
Does the numpty not realise that the whole point of such a mask policy is to make it safer to get people out of their homes and back to something like normal life ?
Nigel I realise you have been touched tragically by COVID. But at the same time, the basic point that Hitchens is making is that we have had a huge restrictions of our liberty of a kind without precedent.
That is a valid point to make.
The key was not to overwhelm the NHS which, left unchecked, COVID might have lead to.
But we are a zillion miles from that now.
We might be, but wearing masks could, in theory, allow us to lift a huge number of those restrictions. I think it's a pretty small sacrifice and instead of any stupid common sense approach which loads of people would ignore, a mandated one would get almost universal uptake and get rid of a whole bunch of COVID bullshit - specifically queueing to get into shops.
Re the Johnson vs Michael split on masks. I wonder if this is Michael flexing his muscles - metaphorically - and also sending a subtle message to the country. Those who follow politics know that this is a Dom and Michael duopoly government with Johnson kept around for shits and giggles and votes, but most people will not know this. They will be thinking Johnson is in charge. Perhaps Michael has become irritated with this and is tipping us the wink.
On the topic itself - masks - I'm for mandatory in shops. It does not have to be policed - c.f. wearing of seatbelts - all it requires is for Johnson to appear as "Boris" in a TV address and say that the government instructs it. This will be sufficient. No need for a law. I really cannot see the downside in doing this. But perhaps Michael (or Dom) has put his foot down.
Voters elected Boris to be PM not Gove or Cummings, Boris making clear masks should be worn this afternoon was a much needed expression of prime ministerial authority
Haha, that is quite funny. Surely not even you really believe The Clown has the slightest vestige of "prime ministerial authority". He is a side show. Once more he is the compare on HIGNFY, except the two main protagonists are not Hislop and Merton, but Gove and Cummings, with the two of them showing their complete contempt for the fool who is sitting between them.
Johnson has made too many mistakes during this crisis. Time for the Tories to choose a new leader.
Who would your choice be as a matter of interest?
I would in the past have said Gove but I've rather gone off him.
Is this going to be the same as when Cons on here say "Lab really should have picked Yvette Cooper to be leader" to much uproar and derision from Lab types?
On topic, an underlying problem is that the Government appears reluctant to have definite policies one way or the other. Should we work at home if possible or go to the office if possible? Should we wear masks in crowded shops, or is it purely a matter of preference? As in previous stages of the pandemic, when people of good will genuinely struggled to understand who they could meet and under what circumstances, there is a curious inability to give us even non-binding guidance that everyone can understand.
This is, I think, partly a side-effect of Boris's personal style, which is to breeze through complexity with cheerful epigrams and broad common sense. If we were debating something like what kind of history should be taught in schools, that could be a sensible approach. For matters of life and death, less so.
Does the numpty not realise that the whole point of such a mask policy is to make it safer to get people out of their homes and back to something like normal life ?
Nigel I realise you have been touched tragically by COVID. But at the same time, the basic point that Hitchens is making is that we have had a huge restrictions of our liberty of a kind without precedent.
That is a valid point to make.
The key was not to overwhelm the NHS which, left unchecked, COVID might have lead to.
But we are a zillion miles from that now.
We might be, but wearing masks could, in theory, allow us to lift a huge number of those restrictions. I think it's a pretty small sacrifice and instead of any stupid common sense approach which loads of people would ignore, a mandated one would get almost universal uptake and get rid of a whole bunch of COVID bullshit - specifically queueing to get into shops.
Wasn't the main scientific evidence against face coverings was that they gave people too much confidence and social distancing was much more effective than face coverings?
Has he noticed that the state already does, and has done without his complaint for quite some time. When in public or in shops, everyone has to wear a covering for their genitals. I really hope he continues to comply with that stricture at least.
Does the numpty not realise that the whole point of such a mask policy is to make it safer to get people out of their homes and back to something like normal life ?
Nigel I realise you have been touched tragically by COVID. But at the same time, the basic point that Hitchens is making is that we have had a huge restrictions of our liberty of a kind without precedent.
That is a valid point to make.
The key was not to overwhelm the NHS which, left unchecked, COVID might have lead to.
But we are a zillion miles from that now.
We might be, but wearing masks could, in theory, allow us to lift a huge number of those restrictions. I think it's a pretty small sacrifice and instead of any stupid common sense approach which loads of people would ignore, a mandated one would get almost universal uptake and get rid of a whole bunch of COVID bullshit - specifically queueing to get into shops.
There is no evidence that is so - masks may help to slow the spread, but the big effect in all this is the social distancing.
Re the Johnson vs Michael split on masks. I wonder if this is Michael flexing his muscles - metaphorically - and also sending a subtle message to the country. Those who follow politics know that this is a Dom and Michael duopoly government with Johnson kept around for shits and giggles and votes, but most people will not know this. They will be thinking Johnson is in charge. Perhaps Michael has become irritated with this and is tipping us the wink.
On the topic itself - masks - I'm for mandatory in shops. It does not have to be policed - c.f. wearing of seatbelts - all it requires is for Johnson to appear as "Boris" in a TV address and say that the government instructs it. This will be sufficient. No need for a law. I really cannot see the downside in doing this. But perhaps Michael (or Dom) has put his foot down.
Voters elected Boris to be PM not Gove or Cummings, Boris making clear masks should be worn this afternoon was a much needed expression of prime ministerial authority
Haha, that is quite funny. Surely not even you really believe The Clown has the slightest vestige of "prime ministerial authority". He is a side show. Once more he is the compare on HIGNFY, except the two main protagonists are not Hislop and Merton, but Gove and Cummings, with the two of them showing their complete contempt for the fool who is sitting between them.
Quite. Johnson has no personal authority since he is an incompetent buffoon. And he derives no authority from the office he holds, since he was put there by foreign involvement with the electoral process. Our government is not legitimate.
Does the numpty not realise that the whole point of such a mask policy is to make it safer to get people out of their homes and back to something like normal life ?
Nigel I realise you have been touched tragically by COVID. But at the same time, the basic point that Hitchens is making is that we have had a huge restrictions of our liberty of a kind without precedent.
That is a valid point to make.
The key was not to overwhelm the NHS which, left unchecked, COVID might have lead to.
But we are a zillion miles from that now.
If that was the crucial point of the lockdown, it's hats off to Johnson, mission accomplished! Surely there was more to it than just that?
I would hope moving on from dodging the overwhelming the NHS bullet, where possible, the Government is trying to return the nation back to normality with as few people contracting and dying of Covid-19 as possible. The precautions make sense, otherwise it's back to the herd immunity free-for-all which saw us with Europe's highest mortality rate.
Masks and other precautions are a small price to pay
Has he noticed that the state already does, and has done without his complaint for quite some time. When in public or in shops, everyone has to wear a covering for their genitals. I really hope he continues to comply with that stricture at least.
- It's another of those "where do you draw the line?" arguments.
Does the numpty not realise that the whole point of such a mask policy is to make it safer to get people out of their homes and back to something like normal life ?
Nigel I realise you have been touched tragically by COVID. But at the same time, the basic point that Hitchens is making is that we have had a huge restrictions of our liberty of a kind without precedent.
That is a valid point to make.
The key was not to overwhelm the NHS which, left unchecked, COVID might have lead to.
But we are a zillion miles from that now.
We might be, but wearing masks could, in theory, allow us to lift a huge number of those restrictions. I think it's a pretty small sacrifice and instead of any stupid common sense approach which loads of people would ignore, a mandated one would get almost universal uptake and get rid of a whole bunch of COVID bullshit - specifically queueing to get into shops.
There is no evidence that is so - masks may help to slow the spread, but the big effect in all this is the social distancing.
True. But masks might be the equivalent of a steel-toe-capped boot in the happy-sack of a covid-19 that's lying prone but is very capable of scrabbling back to its feet to resume its attack.
Re the Johnson vs Michael split on masks. I wonder if this is Michael flexing his muscles - metaphorically - and also sending a subtle message to the country. Those who follow politics know that this is a Dom and Michael duopoly government with Johnson kept around for shits and giggles and votes, but most people will not know this. They will be thinking Johnson is in charge. Perhaps Michael has become irritated with this and is tipping us the wink.
On the topic itself - masks - I'm for mandatory in shops. It does not have to be policed - c.f. wearing of seatbelts - all it requires is for Johnson to appear as "Boris" in a TV address and say that the government instructs it. This will be sufficient. No need for a law. I really cannot see the downside in doing this. But perhaps Michael (or Dom) has put his foot down.
Voters elected Boris to be PM not Gove or Cummings, Boris making clear masks should be worn this afternoon was a much needed expression of prime ministerial authority
Haha, that is quite funny. Surely not even you really believe The Clown has the slightest vestige of "prime ministerial authority". He is a side show. Once more he is the compare on HIGNFY, except the two main protagonists are not Hislop and Merton, but Gove and Cummings, with the two of them showing their complete contempt for the fool who is sitting between them.
Johnson has made too many mistakes during this crisis. Time for the Tories to choose a new leader.
Who would your choice be as a matter of interest?
I would in the past have said Gove but I've rather gone off him.
Is this going to be the same as when Cons on here say "Lab really should have picked Yvette Cooper to be leader" to much uproar and derision from Lab types?
This is what I'm hoping for, yes. Bet Andy won't play ball though. Bet he either ignores me or he deflects and obscures.
On topic, an underlying problem is that the Government appears reluctant to have definite policies one way or the other. Should we work at home if possible or go to the office if possible? Should we wear masks in crowded shops, or is it purely a matter of preference? As in previous stages of the pandemic, when people of good will genuinely struggled to understand who they could meet and under what circumstances, there is a curious inability to give us even non-binding guidance that everyone can understand.
This is, I think, partly a side-effect of Boris's personal style, which is to breeze through complexity with cheerful epigrams and broad common sense. If we were debating something like what kind of history should be taught in schools, that could be a sensible approach. For matters of life and death, less so.
I fundamentally disagree.
I know many on this board obsess about U-turns. But what the person in the street hears is the general tone of the government.
The government is more akin to the coxswain, one hand on the tiller. It is attempting to guide the population in a general direction, by applying just as much force as is required for the result. It is fundamentally a different sort of policy making than "definite policies".
I do think the above criticism was correct for a week in March and it may again be in a second wave scenario. But right now, direction of travel is the name of the game.
Does the numpty not realise that the whole point of such a mask policy is to make it safer to get people out of their homes and back to something like normal life ?
Nigel I realise you have been touched tragically by COVID. But at the same time, the basic point that Hitchens is making is that we have had a huge restrictions of our liberty of a kind without precedent.
That is a valid point to make.
The key was not to overwhelm the NHS which, left unchecked, COVID might have lead to.
But we are a zillion miles from that now.
If that was the crucial point of the lockdown, it's hats off to Johnson, mission accomplished! Surely there was more to it than just that?
I would hope moving on from dodging the overwhelming the NHS bullet, where possible, the Government is trying to return the nation back to normality with as few people contracting and dying of Covid-19 as possible. The precautions make sense, otherwise it's back to the herd immunity free-for-all which saw us with Europe's highest mortality rate.
Masks and other precautions are a small price to pay
Yes I understand that and yes, the NHS wasn't overwhelmed and we all saw pictures of places where it was.
But this is nevertheless imposing draconian restrictions of a type not seen before. Is it worth the avoided (or not as it turns out) 20,000-50,000 deaths? A difficult question and not one I'm paid to answer.
But given that our health service is now far from being overwhelmed, and that people are now very wary of social interaction or at least are wary of interacting with vulnerable people, perhaps policy should change.
I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
1) Community spread is very, very low at the moment. And non essential shops have been open for a decent length of time without any evidence of an uptick. 2) Retail spending is very, very low at the moment. 3) Essential retail aside (i.e. where there are generally queues), I've not seen anywhere near the levels of shopping since the lockdown has been lifted. Crowds are non existent. I bought two measly items in Cornwall today and was thanked so effusively by struggling shopkeepers
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
For others the reverse may be true, I suspect they'd be happier if everyone was wearing masks. But that logic doesn't seem to have driven usage of trains up, for example, after masks were made mandatory.
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
I'll admit that masks in shops is not a policy I'm particularly looking forward to, but I'm sort of resigned. I supported them for public transport, but I thought the idea was to allow buses and trains to run closer to capacity - when I see a bus, that doesn't seem to have happened so much.
And I have sort of liked the near silence of a large supermarket or out of town store during COVID, I've not felt threatened with infection by people ambling by at near 2m distances and being barely within contact radius for 20 seconds or so, or standing at a slightly exaggerated range having a couple of functional words with a shop assistant whilst positioning myself at an angle and pretending to be David Caruso.
I'm afraid at a personal level mask wearing will primarily make me feel less normal rather than more safe, and I'll probably go to shops even a little less than over the last few months. This is not so much a complaint about public policy direction, rather a personal preference.
There's an interesting psychology here. OTOH, if everybody is wearing masks you feel safer in the knowledge that it will be muting the virus a little bit. OTOH, you feel less safe because it looks abnormal and creepy and forces you to worry. I guess different people will feel either one or the other depending on their brain chemistry.
Does the numpty not realise that the whole point of such a mask policy is to make it safer to get people out of their homes and back to something like normal life ?
Nigel I realise you have been touched tragically by COVID. But at the same time, the basic point that Hitchens is making is that we have had a huge restrictions of our liberty of a kind without precedent.
That is a valid point to make.
The key was not to overwhelm the NHS which, left unchecked, COVID might have lead to.
But we are a zillion miles from that now.
We might be, but wearing masks could, in theory, allow us to lift a huge number of those restrictions. I think it's a pretty small sacrifice and instead of any stupid common sense approach which loads of people would ignore, a mandated one would get almost universal uptake and get rid of a whole bunch of COVID bullshit - specifically queueing to get into shops.
Wasn't the main scientific evidence against face coverings was that they gave people too much confidence and social distancing was much more effective than face coverings?
It was a good cover (no pun intended) for lack of supplies I expect. No supplies are plentiful the line has changed.
Does the numpty not realise that the whole point of such a mask policy is to make it safer to get people out of their homes and back to something like normal life ?
Nigel I realise you have been touched tragically by COVID. But at the same time, the basic point that Hitchens is making is that we have had a huge restrictions of our liberty of a kind without precedent.
That is a valid point to make.
The key was not to overwhelm the NHS which, left unchecked, COVID might have lead to.
But we are a zillion miles from that now.
We might be, but wearing masks could, in theory, allow us to lift a huge number of those restrictions. I think it's a pretty small sacrifice and instead of any stupid common sense approach which loads of people would ignore, a mandated one would get almost universal uptake and get rid of a whole bunch of COVID bullshit - specifically queueing to get into shops.
Wasn't the main scientific evidence against face coverings was that they gave people too much confidence and social distancing was much more effective than face coverings?
That was from the same behavioural scientists who made all of the terrible decisions at the beginning of the crisis.
Show people how to wear them properly and they will. It works all across Asia.
Re the Johnson vs Michael split on masks. I wonder if this is Michael flexing his muscles - metaphorically - and also sending a subtle message to the country. Those who follow politics know that this is a Dom and Michael duopoly government with Johnson kept around for shits and giggles and votes, but most people will not know this. They will be thinking Johnson is in charge. Perhaps Michael has become irritated with this and is tipping us the wink.
On the topic itself - masks - I'm for mandatory in shops. It does not have to be policed - c.f. wearing of seatbelts - all it requires is for Johnson to appear as "Boris" in a TV address and say that the government instructs it. This will be sufficient. No need for a law. I really cannot see the downside in doing this. But perhaps Michael (or Dom) has put his foot down.
Voters elected Boris to be PM not Gove or Cummings, Boris making clear masks should be worn this afternoon was a much needed expression of prime ministerial authority
Haha, that is quite funny. Surely not even you really believe The Clown has the slightest vestige of "prime ministerial authority". He is a side show. Once more he is the compare on HIGNFY, except the two main protagonists are not Hislop and Merton, but Gove and Cummings, with the two of them showing their complete contempt for the fool who is sitting between them.
Quite. Johnson has no personal authority since he is an incompetent buffoon. And he derives no authority from the office he holds, since he was put there by foreign involvement with the electoral process. Our government is not legitimate.
Boris won the biggest Tory majority since Thatcher in 1987 with no foreign interference last year at all
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.
I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
1) Community spread is very, very low at the moment. And non essential shops have been open for a decent length of time without any evidence of an uptick. 2) Retail spending is very, very low at the moment. 3) Essential retail aside (i.e. where there are generally queues), I've not seen anywhere near the levels of shopping since the lockdown has been lifted. Crowds are non existent. I bought two measly items in Cornwall today and was thanked so effusively by struggling shopkeepers
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
For others the reverse may be true, I suspect they'd be happier if everyone was wearing masks. But that logic doesn't seem to have driven usage of trains up, for example, after masks were made mandatory.
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people don't wear masks spread will grow again regardless by which time it will be too late to stop another peak, they should be made mandatory to complement the increase in testing
Re the Johnson vs Michael split on masks. I wonder if this is Michael flexing his muscles - metaphorically - and also sending a subtle message to the country. Those who follow politics know that this is a Dom and Michael duopoly government with Johnson kept around for shits and giggles and votes, but most people will not know this. They will be thinking Johnson is in charge. Perhaps Michael has become irritated with this and is tipping us the wink.
On the topic itself - masks - I'm for mandatory in shops. It does not have to be policed - c.f. wearing of seatbelts - all it requires is for Johnson to appear as "Boris" in a TV address and say that the government instructs it. This will be sufficient. No need for a law. I really cannot see the downside in doing this. But perhaps Michael (or Dom) has put his foot down.
Voters elected Boris to be PM not Gove or Cummings, Boris making clear masks should be worn this afternoon was a much needed expression of prime ministerial authority
Haha, that is quite funny. Surely not even you really believe The Clown has the slightest vestige of "prime ministerial authority". He is a side show. Once more he is the compare on HIGNFY, except the two main protagonists are not Hislop and Merton, but Gove and Cummings, with the two of them showing their complete contempt for the fool who is sitting between them.
Quite. Johnson has no personal authority since he is an incompetent buffoon. And he derives no authority from the office he holds, since he was put there by foreign involvement with the electoral process. Our government is not legitimate.
Boris won the biggest Tory majority since Thatcher in 1987 with no foreign interference last year at all
If Labour is taking all its extra support since the election from the LDs, it'll be interesting to see if that continues after the LDs have chosen a new leader. It could be that they're so low at the moment because they don't have effective leadership.
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.
Does the numpty not realise that the whole point of such a mask policy is to make it safer to get people out of their homes and back to something like normal life ?
Nigel I realise you have been touched tragically by COVID. But at the same time, the basic point that Hitchens is making is that we have had a huge restrictions of our liberty of a kind without precedent.
That is a valid point to make.
The key was not to overwhelm the NHS which, left unchecked, COVID might have lead to.
But we are a zillion miles from that now.
I don't disagree with that point - but the idea of masks is that mandating their use would allow other restrictions to be eased while reducing the likelihood of a resurgence. I don't want another lockdown (& I don't think the country can afford it, and some might even not comply with it), which is why I favour mask usage.
On topic, an underlying problem is that the Government appears reluctant to have definite policies one way or the other. Should we work at home if possible or go to the office if possible? Should we wear masks in crowded shops, or is it purely a matter of preference? As in previous stages of the pandemic, when people of good will genuinely struggled to understand who they could meet and under what circumstances, there is a curious inability to give us even non-binding guidance that everyone can understand.
This is, I think, partly a side-effect of Boris's personal style, which is to breeze through complexity with cheerful epigrams and broad common sense. If we were debating something like what kind of history should be taught in schools, that could be a sensible approach. For matters of life and death, less so.
I fundamentally disagree.
I know many on this board obsess about U-turns. But what the person in the street hears is the general tone of the government.
The government is more akin to the coxswain, one hand on the tiller. It is attempting to guide the population in a general direction, by applying just as much force as is required for the result. It is fundamentally a different sort of policy making than "definite policies".
I do think the above criticism was correct for a week in March and it may again be in a second wave scenario. But right now, direction of travel is the name of the game.
That's am interesting idea, but I've not previously heard of deliberate confusion as a tool of good government. Wouldn't it meet your coxswain analogy if Johnson and Gove and everyone else in Government had an agreed statement, even a non-madatory one, such as, "It would be helpful if people would carry masks and put them on if they see the conditions are becoming crowded?" Why is it better for different Ministers to say different things from each other? And are they really Macchiavellian enough for it be a deliberate plan?
The care worker immigration policy is an absolute travesty.
Tory pricks.
It's daft isn't it. It's possible to develop technologies that enable fruit and vegetables to be harvested without so much use of humans, and what use there is is is skilled. It'll take a while and we might be short of fruit and veg for a few years. However, so far as I'm aware it isn't possible to do so when caring for aged and sick humans.
Patel surely has relatives in the caring and allied professions who could put her straight. If she hasn't asked or listened she's just foolish and/or cruel. And TBH, the latter's not my face-to-face (or letter) experience of her.
Edited for FFS.
I suppose the calculation is that COVID will create so much unemployment that there will be no shortage of potential care workers.
Electoral Calculus seat projection: Conservative Party: 333 (-32) Labour Party: 229 (+27) SNP: 53 (+5) Liberal Democrat: 11 (-) Plaid Cymru: 4 (-) Green Party: 1 (-) Speaker: 1 (-)
2015 redux
Tory majority of 69 without Scottish seats from the SNP (even including the 18 NI seats), Tory majority of just 16 with Scottish seats from the SNP, shows how much Starmer needs Scotland to become PM
Re the Johnson vs Michael split on masks. I wonder if this is Michael flexing his muscles - metaphorically - and also sending a subtle message to the country. Those who follow politics know that this is a Dom and Michael duopoly government with Johnson kept around for shits and giggles and votes, but most people will not know this. They will be thinking Johnson is in charge. Perhaps Michael has become irritated with this and is tipping us the wink.
On the topic itself - masks - I'm for mandatory in shops. It does not have to be policed - c.f. wearing of seatbelts - all it requires is for Johnson to appear as "Boris" in a TV address and say that the government instructs it. This will be sufficient. No need for a law. I really cannot see the downside in doing this. But perhaps Michael (or Dom) has put his foot down.
Voters elected Boris to be PM not Gove or Cummings, Boris making clear masks should be worn this afternoon was a much needed expression of prime ministerial authority
Haha, that is quite funny. Surely not even you really believe The Clown has the slightest vestige of "prime ministerial authority". He is a side show. Once more he is the compare on HIGNFY, except the two main protagonists are not Hislop and Merton, but Gove and Cummings, with the two of them showing their complete contempt for the fool who is sitting between them.
Quite. Johnson has no personal authority since he is an incompetent buffoon. And he derives no authority from the office he holds, since he was put there by foreign involvement with the electoral process. Our government is not legitimate.
Boris won the biggest Tory majority since Thatcher in 1987 with no foreign interference last year at all
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.
There is also the point that mandating their use now would ensure everyone gets hold of them and get used to using them. Trying to do that simultaneously with a major recurrence would be much more difficult.
On topic, an underlying problem is that the Government appears reluctant to have definite policies one way or the other. Should we work at home if possible or go to the office if possible? Should we wear masks in crowded shops, or is it purely a matter of preference? As in previous stages of the pandemic, when people of good will genuinely struggled to understand who they could meet and under what circumstances, there is a curious inability to give us even non-binding guidance that everyone can understand.
This is, I think, partly a side-effect of Boris's personal style, which is to breeze through complexity with cheerful epigrams and broad common sense. If we were debating something like what kind of history should be taught in schools, that could be a sensible approach. For matters of life and death, less so.
I fundamentally disagree.
I know many on this board obsess about U-turns. But what the person in the street hears is the general tone of the government.
The government is more akin to the coxswain, one hand on the tiller. It is attempting to guide the population in a general direction, by applying just as much force as is required for the result. It is fundamentally a different sort of policy making than "definite policies".
I do think the above criticism was correct for a week in March and it may again be in a second wave scenario. But right now, direction of travel is the name of the game.
That's am interesting idea, but I've not previously heard of deliberate confusion as a tool of good government. Wouldn't it meet your coxswain analogy if Johnson and Gove and everyone else in Government had an agreed statement, even a non-madatory one, such as, "It would be helpful if people would carry masks and put them on if they see the conditions are becoming crowded?" Why is it better for different Ministers to say different things from each other? And are they really Macchiavellian enough for it be a deliberate plan?
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
Re the Johnson vs Michael split on masks. I wonder if this is Michael flexing his muscles - metaphorically - and also sending a subtle message to the country. Those who follow politics know that this is a Dom and Michael duopoly government with Johnson kept around for shits and giggles and votes, but most people will not know this. They will be thinking Johnson is in charge. Perhaps Michael has become irritated with this and is tipping us the wink.
On the topic itself - masks - I'm for mandatory in shops. It does not have to be policed - c.f. wearing of seatbelts - all it requires is for Johnson to appear as "Boris" in a TV address and say that the government instructs it. This will be sufficient. No need for a law. I really cannot see the downside in doing this. But perhaps Michael (or Dom) has put his foot down.
Voters elected Boris to be PM not Gove or Cummings, Boris making clear masks should be worn this afternoon was a much needed expression of prime ministerial authority
Haha, that is quite funny. Surely not even you really believe The Clown has the slightest vestige of "prime ministerial authority". He is a side show. Once more he is the compare on HIGNFY, except the two main protagonists are not Hislop and Merton, but Gove and Cummings, with the two of them showing their complete contempt for the fool who is sitting between them.
Quite. Johnson has no personal authority since he is an incompetent buffoon. And he derives no authority from the office he holds, since he was put there by foreign involvement with the electoral process. Our government is not legitimate.
Boris won the biggest Tory majority since Thatcher in 1987 with no foreign interference last year at all
Not proven.
Isn't the onus on the person making the claim to prove it?
Just been down to our (small) town's centre. Few people about, although not a many as there would 'normally' be as no-one's commuting to London. However, I was the only person out of the 20 or so I saw who was wearing a mask. Admittedly the staff in the Post Office/Store are behind plastic.
And the chart shows a nasty spike not far away a few days ago.
The care worker immigration policy is an absolute travesty.
Tory pricks.
Why?
Anyone can be a care worker. There's nothing stopping anyone who wants to be a caring individual from joining the sector. I know people who have lost their jobs that are thinking of doing it because they think it will be secure employment for years to come which is not unreasonable.
Electoral Calculus seat projection: Conservative Party: 333 (-32) Labour Party: 229 (+27) SNP: 53 (+5) Liberal Democrat: 11 (-) Plaid Cymru: 4 (-) Green Party: 1 (-) Speaker: 1 (-)
2015 redux
Tory majority of 69 without Scottish seats from the SNP (even including the 18 NI seats), Tory majority of just 16 with Scottish seats from the SNP, shows how much Starmer needs Scotland to become PM
No, he doesn't. It shows how much the TORIES need England (and some of Wales and their NI allies) to win. The SNP are never going to vote for a Tory PM, are they?
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.
Hitch and his fruitcake fraternity are never done saying 'enough'. Much of their angst stems from the majority of folk don't really give a fcuk either way but will conform to what the majority are doing, with an added glow of virtue on being told it's for the general good.
Has he noticed that the state already does, and has done without his complaint for quite some time. When in public or in shops, everyone has to wear a covering for their genitals. I really hope he continues to comply with that stricture at least.
- It's another of those "where do you draw the line?" arguments.
For Hitchens, it's easy: where it affects him and what he wants to do right now.
Re the Johnson vs Michael split on masks. I wonder if this is Michael flexing his muscles - metaphorically - and also sending a subtle message to the country. Those who follow politics know that this is a Dom and Michael duopoly government with Johnson kept around for shits and giggles and votes, but most people will not know this. They will be thinking Johnson is in charge. Perhaps Michael has become irritated with this and is tipping us the wink.
On the topic itself - masks - I'm for mandatory in shops. It does not have to be policed - c.f. wearing of seatbelts - all it requires is for Johnson to appear as "Boris" in a TV address and say that the government instructs it. This will be sufficient. No need for a law. I really cannot see the downside in doing this. But perhaps Michael (or Dom) has put his foot down.
Voters elected Boris to be PM not Gove or Cummings, Boris making clear masks should be worn this afternoon was a much needed expression of prime ministerial authority
Haha, that is quite funny. Surely not even you really believe The Clown has the slightest vestige of "prime ministerial authority". He is a side show. Once more he is the compare on HIGNFY, except the two main protagonists are not Hislop and Merton, but Gove and Cummings, with the two of them showing their complete contempt for the fool who is sitting between them.
Quite. Johnson has no personal authority since he is an incompetent buffoon. And he derives no authority from the office he holds, since he was put there by foreign involvement with the electoral process. Our government is not legitimate.
Boris won the biggest Tory majority since Thatcher in 1987 with no foreign interference last year at all
Not proven.
Isn't the onus on the person making the claim to prove it?
A lot of this could be cleared up if Boris Johnson would release the Russia report, but he's more interested in putting Chris Grayling in charge of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Perhaps the middle ground would be to give shops the choice - mandate masks OR have social distancing.
Would be fascinating to see how that shook out. My gut instinct is smaller less busy shops without queues atm would keep to current rules, larger shops with frequent queues would switch.
Hitch and his fruitcake fraternity are never done saying 'enough'. Much of their angst stems from the majority of folk don't really give a fcuk either way but will conform to what the majority are doing, with an added glow of virtue on being told it's for the general good.
How long has the suppression of Lord Sumption by the BBC been going on for?
Hitch never talks about that these days, nor Sweden by the looks of it.
Perhaps the middle ground would be to give shops the choice - mandate masks OR have social distancing.
Would be fascinating to see how that shook out. My gut instinct is smaller less busy shops without queues atm would keep to current rules, larger shops with frequent queues would switch.
Hmm. The staff would complain about being faced by non-mask-wearing customers. If it's important enough public health wise it becomes a H&S issue. But in small, non-unionised workplaces ...
Does the numpty not realise that the whole point of such a mask policy is to make it safer to get people out of their homes and back to something like normal life ?
Nigel I realise you have been touched tragically by COVID. But at the same time, the basic point that Hitchens is making is that we have had a huge restrictions of our liberty of a kind without precedent.
That is a valid point to make.
The key was not to overwhelm the NHS which, left unchecked, COVID might have lead to.
But we are a zillion miles from that now.
The point Hitchens is (deliberately) missing is that the inconvenience of wearing masks is a replacement for the other more draconian measures, not an addition. Here in Scotland masks are required in shops, but in my local supermarket the one-way system has been removed, and all the self-serve checkouts are open, not just every other one. Oh, and hospital patients may now receive visitors.
Electoral Calculus seat projection: Conservative Party: 333 (-32) Labour Party: 229 (+27) SNP: 53 (+5) Liberal Democrat: 11 (-) Plaid Cymru: 4 (-) Green Party: 1 (-) Speaker: 1 (-)
2015 redux
Tory majority of 69 without Scottish seats from the SNP (even including the 18 NI seats), Tory majority of just 16 with Scottish seats from the SNP, shows how much Starmer needs Scotland to become PM
No, he doesn't. It shows how much the TORIES need England (and some of Wales and their NI allies) to win. The SNP are never going to vote for a Tory PM, are they?
HYUFD prefers it that way, keeps the possibility of truncheoning thrawn Scottish grannies alive.
Bottom line is that we know antibody response tends to fall off fairly quickly over time. As it does with many respiratory viruses. What we really don't know is what that means for continuing immunity (and also whether it might be different in the case of vaccine + booster shot).
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.
Curious what you have against masks. It’s such a nothing thing to do that protects others more than yourself.
Has he noticed that the state already does, and has done without his complaint for quite some time. When in public or in shops, everyone has to wear a covering for their genitals. I really hope he continues to comply with that stricture at least.
- It's another of those "where do you draw the line?" arguments.
For Hitchens, it's easy: where it affects him and what he wants to do right now.
I sense his main ideological driver is his older brother. You can take any issue - any issue - and Peter's position on it will be the dead opposite of what Christopher's was or would be if he were still alive and taking positions.
I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
1) Community spread is very, very low at the moment. And non essential shops have been open for a decent length of time without any evidence of an uptick. 2) Retail spending is very, very low at the moment. 3) Essential retail aside (i.e. where there are generally queues), I've not seen anywhere near the levels of shopping since the lockdown has been lifted. Crowds are non existent. I bought two measly items in Cornwall today and was thanked so effusively by struggling shopkeepers
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
For others the reverse may be true, I suspect they'd be happier if everyone was wearing masks. But that logic doesn't seem to have driven usage of trains up, for example, after masks were made mandatory.
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
I think quite the opposite. If masks stop the spread of the virus then people will have less reason to be afraid so will go out more.
Plus the evidence both here and elsewhere is that people quite quickly get used to masks. That they can become normalised and something you stop noticing.
If it becomes culturally normal until there's a vaccine to wear a mask whenever you're indoors in the same way as you don't smoke indoors then that will help us get back to normal faster.
Does the numpty not realise that the whole point of such a mask policy is to make it safer to get people out of their homes and back to something like normal life ?
Nigel I realise you have been touched tragically by COVID. But at the same time, the basic point that Hitchens is making is that we have had a huge restrictions of our liberty of a kind without precedent.
That is a valid point to make.
The key was not to overwhelm the NHS which, left unchecked, COVID might have lead to.
But we are a zillion miles from that now.
We might be, but wearing masks could, in theory, allow us to lift a huge number of those restrictions. I think it's a pretty small sacrifice and instead of any stupid common sense approach which loads of people would ignore, a mandated one would get almost universal uptake and get rid of a whole bunch of COVID bullshit - specifically queueing to get into shops.
There is no evidence that is so - masks may help to slow the spread, but the big effect in all this is the social distancing.
True. But masks might be the equivalent of a steel-toe-capped boot in the happy-sack of a covid-19 that's lying prone but is very capable of scrabbling back to its feet to resume its attack.
The point is that masks everywhere won't allow much, if any, easing of restrictions.
Has he noticed that the state already does, and has done without his complaint for quite some time. When in public or in shops, everyone has to wear a covering for their genitals. I really hope he continues to comply with that stricture at least.
- It's another of those "where do you draw the line?" arguments.
For Hitchens, it's easy: where it affects him and what he wants to do right now.
I sense his main ideological driver is his older brother. You can take any issue - any issue - and Peter's position on it will be the dead opposite of what Christopher's was or would be if he were still alive and taking positions.
The islamic faith ?
Though it must be difficult for Peter to know he'll never match his brother.
Electoral Calculus seat projection: Conservative Party: 333 (-32) Labour Party: 229 (+27) SNP: 53 (+5) Liberal Democrat: 11 (-) Plaid Cymru: 4 (-) Green Party: 1 (-) Speaker: 1 (-)
2015 redux
Tory majority of 69 without Scottish seats from the SNP (even including the 18 NI seats), Tory majority of just 16 with Scottish seats from the SNP, shows how much Starmer needs Scotland to become PM
No, he doesn't. It shows how much the TORIES need England (and some of Wales and their NI allies) to win. The SNP are never going to vote for a Tory PM, are they?
HYUFD prefers it that way, keeps the possibility of truncheoning thrawn Scottish grannies alive.
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.
Curious what you have against masks. It’s such a nothing thing to do that protects others more than yourself.
I don't have anything against them per se. I wear them on my commute by train.
However, with a background in retail (heck, I have a shop myself - though at the moment we're staying closed because our online is 99% of the biz and is therefore to be prioritised), I am becoming increasingly concerned that if we do anything more to put people off non essential purchasing, our recession will become a depression in no time at all.
I'm currently in the posh end of Cornwall, and am staggered how quiet the shops are. Almost no one is walking around in masks, though almost everyone is being sensible by keeping distance etc. But as soon as I see a mask my gut reaction is to be fearful, again. We made two small non essential purchases today - the shopkeepers were effusively grateful.
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.
I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
1) Community spread is very, very low at the moment. And non essential shops have been open for a decent length of time without any evidence of an uptick. 2) Retail spending is very, very low at the moment. 3) Essential retail aside (i.e. where there are generally queues), I've not seen anywhere near the levels of shopping since the lockdown has been lifted. Crowds are non existent. I bought two measly items in Cornwall today and was thanked so effusively by struggling shopkeepers
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
For others the reverse may be true, I suspect they'd be happier if everyone was wearing masks. But that logic doesn't seem to have driven usage of trains up, for example, after masks were made mandatory.
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
I think quite the opposite. If masks stop the spread of the virus then people will have less reason to be afraid so will go out more.
Plus the evidence both here and elsewhere is that people quite quickly get used to masks. That they can become normalised and something you stop noticing.
If it becomes culturally normal until there's a vaccine to wear a mask whenever you're indoors in the same way as you don't smoke indoors then that will help us get back to normal faster.
If that were true, I'd expect public transport usage to have returned to something like normal after masks were mandated. But it hasn't
I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
1) Community spread is very, very low at the moment. And non essential shops have been open for a decent length of time without any evidence of an uptick. 2) Retail spending is very, very low at the moment. 3) Essential retail aside (i.e. where there are generally queues), I've not seen anywhere near the levels of shopping since the lockdown has been lifted. Crowds are non existent. I bought two measly items in Cornwall today and was thanked so effusively by struggling shopkeepers
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
For others the reverse may be true, I suspect they'd be happier if everyone was wearing masks. But that logic doesn't seem to have driven usage of trains up, for example, after masks were made mandatory.
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
I think quite the opposite. If masks stop the spread of the virus then people will have less reason to be afraid so will go out more.
Plus the evidence both here and elsewhere is that people quite quickly get used to masks. That they can become normalised and something you stop noticing.
If it becomes culturally normal until there's a vaccine to wear a mask whenever you're indoors in the same way as you don't smoke indoors then that will help us get back to normal faster.
This masks business (and the fact that the Scots have just got on with it, cf. the chap on PB who IIRC compared Scotland to the Gulag cos he had to wear a mask) reminds me of smoking in pubs. When it was banned in Scotland, it was decried by the Unionists as an attack on liberty by the nasty SNP. Now ... just as you say re normalisation.
But, as others have noted, very hard cheese on deaf lipreaders and the hard of hearing.
Does the numpty not realise that the whole point of such a mask policy is to make it safer to get people out of their homes and back to something like normal life ?
Nigel I realise you have been touched tragically by COVID. But at the same time, the basic point that Hitchens is making is that we have had a huge restrictions of our liberty of a kind without precedent.
That is a valid point to make.
The key was not to overwhelm the NHS which, left unchecked, COVID might have lead to.
But we are a zillion miles from that now.
The point Hitchens is (deliberately) missing is that the inconvenience of wearing masks is a replacement for the other more draconian measures, not an addition. Here in Scotland masks are required in shops, but in my local supermarket the one-way system has been removed, and all the self-serve checkouts are open, not just every other one. Oh, and hospital patients may now receive visitors.
In certain circumstances I get the masks thing. But I don't think we can legislate peoples' behaviour until further notice.
The NHS has adequate capacity and I get that the government was scared at the outset that it would be overwhelmed. But that is not the case now. We understand a whole lot more primarily about who is at risk and the profile (and comorbidities) of those who have died of the virus. Plus our behaviour has been changed dramatically.
This more than or at least as much as anything will help to prevent mass deaths occurring.
Electoral Calculus seat projection: Conservative Party: 333 (-32) Labour Party: 229 (+27) SNP: 53 (+5) Liberal Democrat: 11 (-) Plaid Cymru: 4 (-) Green Party: 1 (-) Speaker: 1 (-)
2015 redux
Tory majority of 69 without Scottish seats from the SNP (even including the 18 NI seats), Tory majority of just 16 with Scottish seats from the SNP, shows how much Starmer needs Scotland to become PM
No, he doesn't. It shows how much the TORIES need England (and some of Wales and their NI allies) to win. The SNP are never going to vote for a Tory PM, are they?
HYUFD prefers it that way, keeps the possibility of truncheoning thrawn Scottish grannies alive.
I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
1) Community spread is very, very low at the moment. And non essential shops have been open for a decent length of time without any evidence of an uptick. 2) Retail spending is very, very low at the moment. 3) Essential retail aside (i.e. where there are generally queues), I've not seen anywhere near the levels of shopping since the lockdown has been lifted. Crowds are non existent. I bought two measly items in Cornwall today and was thanked so effusively by struggling shopkeepers
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
For others the reverse may be true, I suspect they'd be happier if everyone was wearing masks. But that logic doesn't seem to have driven usage of trains up, for example, after masks were made mandatory.
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
I think quite the opposite. If masks stop the spread of the virus then people will have less reason to be afraid so will go out more.
Plus the evidence both here and elsewhere is that people quite quickly get used to masks. That they can become normalised and something you stop noticing.
If it becomes culturally normal until there's a vaccine to wear a mask whenever you're indoors in the same way as you don't smoke indoors then that will help us get back to normal faster.
If that were true, I'd expect public transport usage to have returned to something like normal after masks were mandated. But it hasn't
Isn't that more down to the government saying don't use public transport unless it is absolutely essential.
We just don't know about the physical effectiveness of non-medical masks per se to slow the epidemic, i.e. their effect on the transmission of aerosols and droplets. But it does seem clear that they have an effect on peoples' behaviour. They are a signalling device indicating that the wearer is (a) aware, concerned and cautious, and (b) that he/she is taking personal responsibility for not passing it on to others. As such they discourage others from coming too close. Therefore they work whether or not they are physically effective. Soon people will indeed be wearing them in shops etc. But then discarding them when the virus is is no longer viral (!) will be an obstacle in the move back to normality. Early discarders will face opprobrium and the speed at which we move will depend on the most anxious overcoming their fears.
Perhaps the middle ground would be to give shops the choice - mandate masks OR have social distancing.
Would be fascinating to see how that shook out. My gut instinct is smaller less busy shops without queues atm would keep to current rules, larger shops with frequent queues would switch.
There have apparently been shops in the USA which *prohibit* mask-wearing, because they objected to customers "pandering to the virus nonsense". Not sure if they're still keeping it up.
Has he noticed that the state already does, and has done without his complaint for quite some time. When in public or in shops, everyone has to wear a covering for their genitals. I really hope he continues to comply with that stricture at least.
- It's another of those "where do you draw the line?" arguments.
For Hitchens, it's easy: where it affects him and what he wants to do right now.
I sense his main ideological driver is his older brother. You can take any issue - any issue - and Peter's position on it will be the dead opposite of what Christopher's was or would be if he were still alive and taking positions.
The islamic faith ?
Though it must be difficult for Peter to know he'll never match his brother.
Opposite on that too, in every sense. PH religious and supportive of religion generally. CH aggressively atheist. CH in favour of ban the burka, PH against. CH in favour of western military intervention in the Middle East. PH isolationist.
Electoral Calculus seat projection: Conservative Party: 333 (-32) Labour Party: 229 (+27) SNP: 53 (+5) Liberal Democrat: 11 (-) Plaid Cymru: 4 (-) Green Party: 1 (-) Speaker: 1 (-)
2015 redux
Tory majority of 69 without Scottish seats from the SNP (even including the 18 NI seats), Tory majority of just 16 with Scottish seats from the SNP, shows how much Starmer needs Scotland to become PM
No, he doesn't. It shows how much the TORIES need England (and some of Wales and their NI allies) to win. The SNP are never going to vote for a Tory PM, are they?
HYUFD prefers it that way, keeps the possibility of truncheoning thrawn Scottish grannies alive.
Perhaps the middle ground would be to give shops the choice - mandate masks OR have social distancing.
Would be fascinating to see how that shook out. My gut instinct is smaller less busy shops without queues atm would keep to current rules, larger shops with frequent queues would switch.
There have apparently been shops in the USA which *prohibit* mask-wearing, because they objected to customers "pandering to the virus nonsense". Not sure if they're still keeping it up.
Well that is somewhat crackers - but doesn't surprise me at all!
Given what we know about Covid, IF you are still walking around in ANY enclosed public space without a mask OR within +6 feet of other people outside, that is a SURE sign you are a FUCKING IDIOT,
Electoral Calculus seat projection: Conservative Party: 333 (-32) Labour Party: 229 (+27) SNP: 53 (+5) Liberal Democrat: 11 (-) Plaid Cymru: 4 (-) Green Party: 1 (-) Speaker: 1 (-)
2015 redux
Tory majority of 69 without Scottish seats from the SNP (even including the 18 NI seats), Tory majority of just 16 with Scottish seats from the SNP, shows how much Starmer needs Scotland to become PM
No, he doesn't. It shows how much the TORIES need England (and some of Wales and their NI allies) to win. The SNP are never going to vote for a Tory PM, are they?
England's always going to be there though, its the Scottish MPs at Westminster that are more of an issue.
And SNP MPs are no substitute for Labour MPs. Remember the SNP abstain on English-only matters so the complete Horlicks of a situation would be one with a Labour MP backed by SNP MPs - but a Tory majority if SNP abstain. English only laws would have a Tory veto on them. Plus the SNP would demand an independence referendum but if they win that then it means a Tory majority government in Westminster again.
I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
1) Community spread is very, very low at the moment. And non essential shops have been open for a decent length of time without any evidence of an uptick. 2) Retail spending is very, very low at the moment. 3) Essential retail aside (i.e. where there are generally queues), I've not seen anywhere near the levels of shopping since the lockdown has been lifted. Crowds are non existent. I bought two measly items in Cornwall today and was thanked so effusively by struggling shopkeepers
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
For others the reverse may be true, I suspect they'd be happier if everyone was wearing masks. But that logic doesn't seem to have driven usage of trains up, for example, after masks were made mandatory.
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
I think quite the opposite. If masks stop the spread of the virus then people will have less reason to be afraid so will go out more.
Plus the evidence both here and elsewhere is that people quite quickly get used to masks. That they can become normalised and something you stop noticing.
If it becomes culturally normal until there's a vaccine to wear a mask whenever you're indoors in the same way as you don't smoke indoors then that will help us get back to normal faster.
If that were true, I'd expect public transport usage to have returned to something like normal after masks were mandated. But it hasn't
I, like millions of others, can now WFH and avoid the cost and time of the commute. Public transport is in for a permanent drop in demand.
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.
What have you got against masks?
I'm not anti mask, and own several, as I've explained below I'm anti making masks mandatory in shops now for a multitude of reasons.
The care worker immigration policy is an absolute travesty.
Tory pricks.
Why?
Anyone can be a care worker. There's nothing stopping anyone who wants to be a caring individual from joining the sector. I know people who have lost their jobs that are thinking of doing it because they think it will be secure employment for years to come which is not unreasonable.
Anecdote alert.
My experience of workers in the care home sector is thus, generally (but not exclusively) domestically sourced care home workers are less well educated, equipped and therefore less well suited to what is a responsible role requiring a degree of common sense and aptitude to their Eastern European counterparts..
The job description in more down market care homes does not demand that the applicant for a post is not brain dead, but it would be an advantage. It is not scientific but I have seen it for myself, generally Eastern European sourced care home workers are more efficient and effective than home grown ones.
Electoral Calculus seat projection: Conservative Party: 333 (-32) Labour Party: 229 (+27) SNP: 53 (+5) Liberal Democrat: 11 (-) Plaid Cymru: 4 (-) Green Party: 1 (-) Speaker: 1 (-)
2015 redux
Tory majority of 69 without Scottish seats from the SNP (even including the 18 NI seats), Tory majority of just 16 with Scottish seats from the SNP, shows how much Starmer needs Scotland to become PM
No, he doesn't. It shows how much the TORIES need England (and some of Wales and their NI allies) to win. The SNP are never going to vote for a Tory PM, are they?
England's always going to be there though, its the Scottish MPs at Westminster that are more of an issue.
And SNP MPs are no substitute for Labour MPs. Remember the SNP abstain on English-only matters so the complete Horlicks of a situation would be one with a Labour MP backed by SNP MPs - but a Tory majority if SNP abstain. English only laws would have a Tory veto on them. Plus the SNP would demand an independence referendum but if they win that then it means a Tory majority government in Westminster again.
What a mess that would be!
Indeed. I was being perhaps a bit disingenuous in not admitting that possibility, and you are right to pick me up on that.
But on the other hand the English would get what they voted for (with the important effect of UK wide matters such as budget etc under the Barnett exception).
In any case, would SLAB MPs for Scottish seats now not be unable to vote on English matters thanks to the changes Mr Cameron brought in? They've (the regulations for EVEL) have not been much in public debate of late but the SNP self-denyong ordinance rather negates the need anyway.
And, now I think about it, it is only a mess from a Labour point of view. Not, arguably, a SNP or Tory one. And perhaps closer to a majority public view, even.
I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
Electoral Calculus seat projection: Conservative Party: 333 (-32) Labour Party: 229 (+27) SNP: 53 (+5) Liberal Democrat: 11 (-) Plaid Cymru: 4 (-) Green Party: 1 (-) Speaker: 1 (-)
2015 redux
Tory majority of 69 without Scottish seats from the SNP (even including the 18 NI seats), Tory majority of just 16 with Scottish seats from the SNP, shows how much Starmer needs Scotland to become PM
No, he doesn't. It shows how much the TORIES need England (and some of Wales and their NI allies) to win. The SNP are never going to vote for a Tory PM, are they?
England's always going to be there though, its the Scottish MPs at Westminster that are more of an issue.
And SNP MPs are no substitute for Labour MPs. Remember the SNP abstain on English-only matters so the complete Horlicks of a situation would be one with a Labour MP backed by SNP MPs - but a Tory majority if SNP abstain. English only laws would have a Tory veto on them. Plus the SNP would demand an independence referendum but if they win that then it means a Tory majority government in Westminster again.
What a mess that would be!
Indeed. I was being perhaps a bit disingenuous in not admitting that possibility, and you are right to pick me up on that.
But on the other hand the English would get what they voted for (with the important effect of UK wide matters such as budget etc under the Barnett exception).
In any case, would SLAB MPs for Scottish seats now not be unable to vote on English matters thanks to the changes Mr Cameron brought in? They've (the regulations for EVEL) have not been much in public debate of late but the SNP self-denyong ordinance rather negates the need anyway.
And, now I think about it, it is only a mess from a Labour point of view. Not, arguably, a SNP or Tory one. And perhaps closer to a majority public view, even.
The English wouldn't get what they voted for.
In that scenario even though the English voted majority Tory then matters that are considered "devolved" would be decided by a Labour government. It'd be like the First Minister of Scotland being a Tory because England voted Tory.
Does the numpty not realise that the whole point of such a mask policy is to make it safer to get people out of their homes and back to something like normal life ?
Nigel I realise you have been touched tragically by COVID. But at the same time, the basic point that Hitchens is making is that we have had a huge restrictions of our liberty of a kind without precedent.
That is a valid point to make.
The key was not to overwhelm the NHS which, left unchecked, COVID might have lead to.
But we are a zillion miles from that now.
We might be, but wearing masks could, in theory, allow us to lift a huge number of those restrictions. I think it's a pretty small sacrifice and instead of any stupid common sense approach which loads of people would ignore, a mandated one would get almost universal uptake and get rid of a whole bunch of COVID bullshit - specifically queueing to get into shops.
There is no evidence that is so - masks may help to slow the spread, but the big effect in all this is the social distancing.
True. But masks might be the equivalent of a steel-toe-capped boot in the happy-sack of a covid-19 that's lying prone but is very capable of scrabbling back to its feet to resume its attack.
The point is that masks everywhere won't allow much, if any, easing of restrictions.
If they reduce transmission further, which all indications are that they do, they can push down prevalence of the endemic disease still further, prevent resurgent spikes, and possibly allow us to formalise a 1m rule safely.
Reopening gyms, beauticians, and so forth, on top of the controlled reopening of pubs, restaurants, and cinemas, is a calculated and very real risk, and it takes very little for R to head back above one. Especially as more and more people are taking the attitude that “it’s all over, isn’t it?”
Shaving another 0.2 or 0.3 off of R gives us a lot more flex there, and reduces the chances of going back on some of the restriction-lifting we’ve seen recently and minimises the potential incidence of local lockdowns.
I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
1) Community spread is very, very low at the moment. And non essential shops have been open for a decent length of time without any evidence of an uptick. 2) Retail spending is very, very low at the moment. 3) Essential retail aside (i.e. where there are generally queues), I've not seen anywhere near the levels of shopping since the lockdown has been lifted. Crowds are non existent. I bought two measly items in Cornwall today and was thanked so effusively by struggling shopkeepers
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
For others the reverse may be true, I suspect they'd be happier if everyone was wearing masks. But that logic doesn't seem to have driven usage of trains up, for example, after masks were made mandatory.
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
I think quite the opposite. If masks stop the spread of the virus then people will have less reason to be afraid so will go out more.
Plus the evidence both here and elsewhere is that people quite quickly get used to masks. That they can become normalised and something you stop noticing.
If it becomes culturally normal until there's a vaccine to wear a mask whenever you're indoors in the same way as you don't smoke indoors then that will help us get back to normal faster.
This masks business (and the fact that the Scots have just got on with it, cf. the chap on PB who IIRC compared Scotland to the Gulag cos he had to wear a mask) reminds me of smoking in pubs. When it was banned in Scotland, it was decried by the Unionists as an attack on liberty by the nasty SNP. Now ... just as you say re normalisation.
But, as others have noted, very hard cheese on deaf lipreaders and the hard of hearing.
To be scrupulously fair it was SLab who got rid of smoking in pubs, with strong SNP & LD support. It's probably the one real achievement they can point back to.
Needless to say the nasty party opposed it. Perhaps someone will persuade the current incarnation that bringing back the fags would be a real vote winner in 2021. They'll need something..
Comments
Though both Japan and Europe supply equipment for those facilities.
https://news.sky.com/story/starmers-first-100-days-labour-leader-seen-as-clean-break-from-corbyn-poll-12027350
So where does this leave Michael and his good manners?
I've heard quite enough from P. Hitchens.
Simply doing nowt was never an option.
That is a valid point to make.
The key was not to overwhelm the NHS which, left unchecked, COVID might have lead to.
But we are a zillion miles from that now.
Really? Has he met this Peter Hitchens?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/05/french-attempts-to-outlaw-the-burqa-strike-a-blow-for-the-rights-of-women.html
I would in the past have said Gove but I've rather gone off him.
This is, I think, partly a side-effect of Boris's personal style, which is to breeze through complexity with cheerful epigrams and broad common sense. If we were debating something like what kind of history should be taught in schools, that could be a sensible approach. For matters of life and death, less so.
When in public or in shops, everyone has to wear a covering for their genitals. I really hope he continues to comply with that stricture at least.
I would hope moving on from dodging the overwhelming the NHS bullet, where possible, the Government is trying to return the nation back to normality with as few people contracting and dying of Covid-19 as possible. The precautions make sense, otherwise it's back to the herd immunity free-for-all which saw us with Europe's highest mortality rate.
Masks and other precautions are a small price to pay
Work to do Mr Keir, work to do.
Conservative Party: 333 (-32)
Labour Party: 229 (+27)
SNP: 53 (+5)
Liberal Democrat: 11 (-)
Plaid Cymru: 4 (-)
Green Party: 1 (-)
Speaker: 1 (-)
2015 redux
I know many on this board obsess about U-turns. But what the person in the street hears is the general tone of the government.
The government is more akin to the coxswain, one hand on the tiller. It is attempting to guide the population in a general direction, by applying just as much force as is required for the result. It is fundamentally a different sort of policy making than "definite policies".
I do think the above criticism was correct for a week in March and it may again be in a second wave scenario. But right now, direction of travel is the name of the game.
But this is nevertheless imposing draconian restrictions of a type not seen before. Is it worth the avoided (or not as it turns out) 20,000-50,000 deaths? A difficult question and not one I'm paid to answer.
But given that our health service is now far from being overwhelmed, and that people are now very wary of social interaction or at least are wary of interacting with vulnerable people, perhaps policy should change.
1) Community spread is very, very low at the moment. And non essential shops have been open for a decent length of time without any evidence of an uptick.
2) Retail spending is very, very low at the moment.
3) Essential retail aside (i.e. where there are generally queues), I've not seen anywhere near the levels of shopping since the lockdown has been lifted. Crowds are non existent. I bought two measly items in Cornwall today and was thanked so effusively by struggling shopkeepers
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
For others the reverse may be true, I suspect they'd be happier if everyone was wearing masks. But that logic doesn't seem to have driven usage of trains up, for example, after masks were made mandatory.
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
Show people how to wear them properly and they will. It works all across Asia.
I don't want another lockdown (& I don't think the country can afford it, and some might even not comply with it), which is why I favour mask usage.
However, I was the only person out of the 20 or so I saw who was wearing a mask. Admittedly the staff in the Post Office/Store are behind plastic.
And the chart shows a nasty spike not far away a few days ago.
Anyone can be a care worker. There's nothing stopping anyone who wants to be a caring individual from joining the sector. I know people who have lost their jobs that are thinking of doing it because they think it will be secure employment for years to come which is not unreasonable.
Brexit and lackeys over competence and oversight.
Would be fascinating to see how that shook out. My gut instinct is smaller less busy shops without queues atm would keep to current rules, larger shops with frequent queues would switch.
Hitch never talks about that these days, nor Sweden by the looks of it.
Here in Scotland masks are required in shops, but in my local supermarket the one-way system has been removed, and all the self-serve checkouts are open, not just every other one. Oh, and hospital patients may now receive visitors.
https://twitter.com/PranMan/status/1282269185503043585
https://twitter.com/florian_krammer/status/1282657959026331648
Bottom line is that we know antibody response tends to fall off fairly quickly over time. As it does with many respiratory viruses.
What we really don't know is what that means for continuing immunity (and also whether it might be different in the case of vaccine + booster shot).
And, of course, this in the replies...
https://twitter.com/FrankBednarz/status/1282661276867530753
Plus the evidence both here and elsewhere is that people quite quickly get used to masks. That they can become normalised and something you stop noticing.
If it becomes culturally normal until there's a vaccine to wear a mask whenever you're indoors in the same way as you don't smoke indoors then that will help us get back to normal faster.
Though it must be difficult for Peter to know he'll never match his brother.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtymNiYlSD4
However, with a background in retail (heck, I have a shop myself - though at the moment we're staying closed because our online is 99% of the biz and is therefore to be prioritised), I am becoming increasingly concerned that if we do anything more to put people off non essential purchasing, our recession will become a depression in no time at all.
I'm currently in the posh end of Cornwall, and am staggered how quiet the shops are. Almost no one is walking around in masks, though almost everyone is being sensible by keeping distance etc. But as soon as I see a mask my gut reaction is to be fearful, again. We made two small non essential purchases today - the shopkeepers were effusively grateful.
But, as others have noted, very hard cheese on deaf lipreaders and the hard of hearing.
The NHS has adequate capacity and I get that the government was scared at the outset that it would be overwhelmed. But that is not the case now. We understand a whole lot more primarily about who is at risk and the profile (and comorbidities) of those who have died of the virus. Plus our behaviour has been changed dramatically.
This more than or at least as much as anything will help to prevent mass deaths occurring.
And SNP MPs are no substitute for Labour MPs. Remember the SNP abstain on English-only matters so the complete Horlicks of a situation would be one with a Labour MP backed by SNP MPs - but a Tory majority if SNP abstain. English only laws would have a Tory veto on them. Plus the SNP would demand an independence referendum but if they win that then it means a Tory majority government in Westminster again.
What a mess that would be!
My experience of workers in the care home sector is thus, generally (but not exclusively) domestically sourced care home workers are less well educated, equipped and therefore less well suited to what is a responsible role requiring a degree of common sense and aptitude to their Eastern European counterparts..
The job description in more down market care homes does not demand that the applicant for a post is not brain dead, but it would be an advantage. It is not scientific but I have seen it for myself, generally Eastern European sourced care home workers are more efficient and effective than home grown ones.
But on the other hand the English would get what they voted for (with the important effect of UK wide matters such as budget etc under the Barnett exception).
In any case, would SLAB MPs for Scottish seats now not be unable to vote on English matters thanks to the changes Mr Cameron brought in? They've (the regulations for EVEL) have not been much in public debate of late but the SNP self-denyong ordinance rather negates the need anyway.
And, now I think about it, it is only a mess from a Labour point of view. Not, arguably, a SNP or Tory one. And perhaps closer to a majority public view, even.
In that scenario even though the English voted majority Tory then matters that are considered "devolved" would be decided by a Labour government. It'd be like the First Minister of Scotland being a Tory because England voted Tory.
Reopening gyms, beauticians, and so forth, on top of the controlled reopening of pubs, restaurants, and cinemas, is a calculated and very real risk, and it takes very little for R to head back above one. Especially as more and more people are taking the attitude that “it’s all over, isn’t it?”
Shaving another 0.2 or 0.3 off of R gives us a lot more flex there, and reduces the chances of going back on some of the restriction-lifting we’ve seen recently and minimises the potential incidence of local lockdowns.
Needless to say the nasty party opposed it. Perhaps someone will persuade the current incarnation that bringing back the fags would be a real vote winner in 2021. They'll need something..