This latest measure applies to just in shops and I wonder whether it will spill over into most aspects of life outside the home. It is a bit of a faff getting masks on and off so if you are going shopping you’ll probably wear it all the time
Have you left the house yet Mike? Because regardless of the merits or otherwise of the new measure I think all observation based experience of people’s approach when needing to wear masks is that the above is absolutely not true. Most people don’t like wearing masks, and will remove them at the first opportunity. Maybe it’s different in Bedford.
and if you are removing them and then putting them back on they are at best ineffective and probably spreading germs more. This is such a stupid policy that it beggars belief so many people are happy with it
Yes, fiddling with masks by taking them on and off constantly with contaminated hands, particularly fiddling with the nose bit is likely to contaminate more.
It takes time to adapt to the no touch techniques that professional mask wearers adopt. Micropore along the top, change every few hours, dispose of properly, wash hands or sanitise whenever handling them etc. I have got used to it over the decades.
Though of course such considerations don’t affect at all masks reducing the amount of infected aerosol someone with the disease creates around them.
There’s an overall benefit even if almost everyone is incompetent in taking them in and off - and the best time for people to practice is when infection rates are relatively low.
Mock? Why would it "mock" a V-shaped recovery? It shows the down-slope. It doesn't show the recovery period. All right, arguably it shows the up-tick of the release of the harshest restrictions right at the furthest edge, but that's in no way incompatible with a v-shaped recovery. In fact, it shows exactly what you'd expect if you had not only a v-shaped recovery, but one beginning faster than you could plausibly expect, anyway.
That was my thought as well. I can well believe as we get future figures we wont get a perfectly v shaped one, I'd expect that, but a downward slope which was expected doesnt mock an upward slope that hasn't even had the chance to happen or not happen.
I think scott may have posted the wrong tweet by mistake because it had the work mock in it.
Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out
Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.
It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.
I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:
Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.
But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?
As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
Go to a pub, drink beer, get tipsy, don't wear a mask.
Go to a shop to buy a pint of milk, wear a mask.
There is not much logic to this position.
I don't need to go to the pub, I do need to go to shops even were I to try to purchase most things from Amazon
The Government is activley encouraging people to go to pubs and restaurants in August.
Because people's jobs, livelihoods and mental health rely upon that being an option. But it's still a choice whereas shopping is essential.
Plus at a restaurant I sit at a table and don't come into contact with lots of other diners. In a shop I'm constantly moving around and going into the air stream of other shoppers or having them come into mine even while trying to keep a distance.
Why is going shopping essential?
You can order anything online.
Going shopping is a social thing to do. The high street will collapse now. British people will simply not go in shops.
Take betting shops, why would anyone go in one now if you have to wear a mask.
There will be mass redundancies.
I live in the Eastleigh area, in the past month there have been 3 cases in the whole of the area, and now I have to wear a mask to go to Tesco's. When there were 1003 cases in a month I did not have to. Please explain that one.
Because, with hindsight (and probably with reasonable foresight) not requiring wearing a mask much earlier was a mistake. A mistake that contributed to the slow decline of the virus in the UK, causing more death and a delay to the unlocking.
But just because we didn't do the right thing then isn't a reason to not do the right thing now. It's like the old adage about planting trees. The best time to do it was in the past, the next best time is now.
And whilst infection numbers are low now, they are higher than most other parts of Europe. And unchecked, it took about a month to go from 3 cases to 1003 cases in the spring. If wearing a face covering helps keep case numbers low, it's surely worth doing.
Hard to persuade the thick numpties like this who are roaming the streets unfortunately.
Good news for the bonfire of red tape! One of our supermarket customers has just emailed me with a list of information we need to provide so that we can continue to supply foodstuffs within our our country. Huzzah!
Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out
Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.
It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.
I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:
Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.
But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?
As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
We did that with a lockdown. Do you want to stay locked down forever?
Do I wish in an ideal world we needed masks? Of course not! But we don't live in an ideal world.
If the choice though is between locking us down and stopping our civil liberties ... Or saying we can go out and about and get on with our lives but wear a mask ... Then the mask is the lesser evil.
I won't be going to football if I have to wear a mask. I mean, I can't go to Arsenal without changes to public transport rules anyway, but still.
And there's little point going to the Emirates at the moment even when Arsenal are playing
But is this another pandemic measure that should have been brought in earlier?
Probably. Unlike a restriction on travelling to and from say France it does make sense to bring it in now mind.
The argument that it should have been done earlier so cant be done now is as robust as over 75s should get a free tv license mainly because they have had one in the past. We are not tied to the past and are allowed to change things for the better!
This is not a change for the better.
Perfectly fine to argue that, its just some are arguing we shouldnt do it now simply because we didnt do it earlier, that makes no sense. I can see both sides on face masks, its complex and therefore happy for the govt to make the decision for me. There are definitely disadvantages to the policy as well as definite advantages.
I'm happy that you're happy but I'm not. I think masks are a terrible and depressing development.
I will challenge and test Government policy at all times.
I hope you do too.
Wearing one is indeed a bit depressing. But its covid that is terrible, not the measures we need to manage it. Whether we need to do this or not, whether it is right to do this or not, is a balancing decision beyond most of our capability. It may even be beyond govt capability to get it right, but at least they are working on it full time with detailed advice and guidance that the public dont have.
Yes it's depressing, but in the Pandemic league table of depressing things. No.1 is death from Covid. No.2 is hopsitalisation due to Covid
No.5 is Lockdown.
No.20 is people wearing masks.
To be honest, I am surprised that masks make number 20.
I don't think they will help that much except in crowded situations. Given what I have seen, I think that the most effective parts of lockdown are
- breaking up regular meetings of groups (mostly) - stopping the interaction of people *bridging* groups - everyone standing back a bit from each other. No one ever did 100% 2m, but 1m most of the time was a big, big help.
Masks are a bit on top.
It's worth noting that in the US, with the whole insanely out-of-control culture war, masks have become a symbol. But there real problem they are facing, is people not following the three points above.
Scottish police said they did not have to issue any fines over weekend and people were complying , though you can be sure we have similar morons to the whiners on here who will try to break the law.
This latest measure applies to just in shops and I wonder whether it will spill over into most aspects of life outside the home. It is a bit of a faff getting masks on and off so if you are going shopping you’ll probably wear it all the time
Have you left the house yet Mike? Because regardless of the merits or otherwise of the new measure I think all observation based experience of people’s approach when needing to wear masks is that the above is absolutely not true. Most people don’t like wearing masks, and will remove them at the first opportunity. Maybe it’s different in Bedford.
Every day I go for cycle ride of about an hour (now wearing a mask) and I am just reporting what I notice
Why would you do that?
You must be the only one. I don't see any cyclists wearing a mask - and nor do I think they need to.
Clearly you havent been walking along the pavement when some panting cyclist goes by.
The only person I've called out for plain bad manners during the pandemic was a cyclist on a very narrow pavement. And yes they were over 18 years old.
Masks or no, I value my social distance and feel like I am quite prepared to tell fellow shoppers to bog off into their own space where necessary and possible.
Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out
Couldn't agree more.
The issue with Covid-19 is what happens behind the scenes in textile and meat factories and care homes (not this).
I think this isn't about the science. It's the Government gambling it will increase consumer confidence to go out to boost the economy.
I must say I have my doubts about that.
Looks at the news about Kent and massive border controls - I wonder if the mask announcement hid another piece of news...
Kent is going to be a lorry park, will be lovely for residents. Many blue passports will be waved.
Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out
Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.
It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.
I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:
Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.
But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?
As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
Go to a pub, drink beer, get tipsy, don't wear a mask.
Go to a shop to buy a pint of milk, wear a mask.
There is not much logic to this position.
There isn't. The risk-based logic is to close the pubs and insist on masks, unfortunately.
I think that logic only works if you consider risk=covid specific health. There are other risks, very much including health ones, by keeping the hospitality sector closed. Its all a balancing act, not a clear cut decision either way.
Good point and a corrective to my comment on a lack of logic. Thing is, dealing with Covid-19 is a marathon not a sprint. If this thing is going to last at least another winter, we can't keep hospitality closed permanently like we might do for a few weeks. Equally we need to get people used to following good hygiene practice without thinking about it, hence the masks.
This article explains you need to put measures in place now, including the wearing of masks, to minimise the death toll this winter
I think this policy change is politically motivated as currently COVID cases are declining, so why do this now? There are a number of ways in which this policy could unravel such as shops losing business and the public staying at home.
Because the evidence for the efficacy of masks has steadily increased to a point here even a reluctant government can’t ignore it. And a population used to wearing masks is massively preferable to a second lockdown, if we don’t have a vaccine this winter.
There are no excess deaths at the moment . Why on earth is something so depressing ,going to cause aggression and disgusting litter (with little upside as people -especially people who don't want to - wear masks wrongly and keep fiddling with them?) being imposed now? It will cause economic damage as well . There must be lots of people like me who have been deliberately going out (not using public transport due to needing to wear a mask) walking to shops some distance away to buy stuff (clothes ,books , electrics) who wont be doing that after this rule comes in.
My expectation is you'll keep going out and just get used to wearing a mask.
Wearing a mask during a pandemic is more libertarian than having a lockdown or other solutions. That so many people are blithely saying 'why don't we shut the pubs again instead of having masks' really bothers me. So people should be driven into penury because some people can't be arsed to wear a mask?
Except most people and especially those forced to wear a mask do not wear them correctly and keep fiddling with them and taking them off . If its not even effective it is stupid to impose.
Scottish police said they did not have to issue any fines over weekend and people were complying , though you can be sure we have similar morons to the whiners on here who will try to break the law.
The big unknown is how many will just not go to the shops but continue online purchases and home food deliveries
Scottish police said they did not have to issue any fines over weekend and people were complying , though you can be sure we have similar morons to the whiners on here who will try to break the law.
The CMO being one, as I recall.
Although her English opposite number was caught fiddling with Staatz and the Prime Minister wanted to test his eyesight.
Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out
Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.
It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.
I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:
Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.
But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?
As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
Go to a pub, drink beer, get tipsy, don't wear a mask.
Go to a shop to buy a pint of milk, wear a mask.
There is not much logic to this position.
I don't need to go to the pub, I do need to go to shops even were I to try to purchase most things from Amazon
The Government is activley encouraging people to go to pubs and restaurants in August.
Because people's jobs, livelihoods and mental health rely upon that being an option. But it's still a choice whereas shopping is essential.
Plus at a restaurant I sit at a table and don't come into contact with lots of other diners. In a shop I'm constantly moving around and going into the air stream of other shoppers or having them come into mine even while trying to keep a distance.
Why is going shopping essential?
You can order anything online.
Going shopping is a social thing to do. The high street will collapse now. British people will simply not go in shops.
Take betting shops, why would anyone go in one now if you have to wear a mask.
There will be mass redundancies.
I live in the Eastleigh area, in the past month there have been 3 cases in the whole of the area, and now I have to wear a mask to go to Tesco's. When there were 1003 cases in a month I did not have to. Please explain that one.
This government is very slow in introducing sensible measures. That’s it.
On Today programme and I have no idea who this was or whether he knew what he was talking about but statement was made that Covid deaths fall into 2 batches. There are those that die in the early stages and then those who die much later from the damage done eg heart failure. They are all recorded as Covid deaths. He claims that many of those dying now are the latter who are March/April victims. If true that is encouraging and must be easy to identify the numbers in each group. Not heard this before.
Quite so. It was already less convenient and probably more expensive, now theres additional hassle and you'll get a virus to boot. Why go back even in 6 months?
If you like eating very fresh bread for instance it is quite difficult to do that with weekly ordering online, without paying absurdly high delivery charges.
Scottish police said they did not have to issue any fines over weekend and people were complying , though you can be sure we have similar morons to the whiners on here who will try to break the law.
The big unknown is how many will just not go to the shops but continue online purchases and home food deliveries
This is what makes the economic effect so unpredictable, whole sectors of the economy are just imploding, maybe forever, yet some of the resulting changes in behaviour will provide huge, enduring increases in productivity...
All that graphic about growth shows is that an extended lockdown was, after all, the worst policy decision by any British government ever, in history.
The economy been destroyed permanently, the measures to alleviate it riddled with abuses, the ongoing nanny stating is a massive impediment to recovery, and the medical profession is wreaking havoc with its ''winter is coming'' fear project.
On top of all this we have through the compulsory wearing of masks in shops, a desperate attempt by a completely beleaguered government to prove to everybody its strategy is right.
The cowardice and incompetence know no bounds.
Soon is will be apparent that our 350bn deficit isn;t temporary but permanent, we can't afford to service our debt, and the inevitable result is a massive decline in public services and living standards.
How many more times. There is no new normal. We either go back to our lives and accept the risks, or live far poorer lives.
You choose, because your government is far too afraid to.
Agree with David Henig. The UK has gone from complacency to fear in its relations with China without coming up with any strategy for how to deal with China.
In fact, the UK government doesn't have any strategy on anything: China, Covid 19, Brexit, the Union, relations with the US and other parts of the world.
* Apart from an "Empty Fortress Strategy" - slip in a Chinese reference here - that doesn't seem to be delivering.
Scottish police said they did not have to issue any fines over weekend and people were complying , though you can be sure we have similar morons to the whiners on here who will try to break the law.
The big unknown is how many will just not go to the shops but continue online purchases and home food deliveries
This is what makes the economic effect so unpredictable, whole sectors of the economy are just imploding, maybe forever, yet some of the resulting changes in behaviour will provide huge, enduring increases in productivity...
If we just look at this in any rational way it is very scary for millions who may catch covid or be a victim of the earthquake in the world's economies
On reflection I suspect this change by HMG has been prompted by the report today of a possible 120,000 more deaths between this winter and june 2021
This country does seem to be reluctant to wear face masks and mandating them is probably the only way to change behaviour, and hopefully mitigate some of the worse fears for this winter and beyond
All that graphic about growth shows is that an extended lockdown was, after all, the worst policy decision by any British government ever, in history.
Rubbish. It doesn’t even begin to compare with the legendary clusterfuck of Robert the Steward, who decided to attack Durham in 1349 while all the English were nicely distracted by this new plague...and then dispersing his army when the infection hit so it was swiftly carried to every corner of Scotland.
Agree with David Henig. The UK has gone from complacency to fear in its relations with China without coming up with any strategy for how to deal with China.
In fact, the UK government doesn't have any strategy on anything: China, Covid 19, Brexit, the Union, relations with the US and other parts of the world.
* Apart from an "Empty Fortress Strategy" - slip in a Chinese reference here - that doesn't seem to be delivering.
The mask wearing thing is already going totally off the rails as the police federation says it can't been enforced.
Of course it can't. You could see scuffles and fights breaking out as mask wearers try to enforce the rules at the few remaining shops that have customers. Who would want to shop in places like that?
Fraser Nelson's comment makes no sense. It's in June/July you'd expect to see GDP recover sharply.
It also shows how bad using GDP as a measure for anything is. GDP per head would reveal exactly how bad it is - the drop won't be 20% it will be 30-35%
Scottish police said they did not have to issue any fines over weekend and people were complying , though you can be sure we have similar morons to the whiners on here who will try to break the law.
The big unknown is how many will just not go to the shops but continue online purchases and home food deliveries
This is what makes the economic effect so unpredictable, whole sectors of the economy are just imploding, maybe forever, yet some of the resulting changes in behaviour will provide huge, enduring increases in productivity...
There are several things to balance off. "Continue online purchases" is not sustainable. The big supermarkets lose money on every delivery, and have had to throw a bucket of money at rapid expansion - systems, vehicles, drivers, an army of in-store pickers. Direct to Consumer sales is quite exciting and new for many businesses but places its own strain on the delivery networks and every case of (for example) Punk IPA that I order direct from BrewDog is a case not being sold on tap in a pub or from a shop. Great margin for BrewDog who get to keep the retailer margin as well as their own, less good for everyone else. A concerted switch to "continue online purchases" isn't just the death of the high street, its the death of supermarkets, pubs, corner shops, wholesalers.
Then we have the last mile issue. It cannot be remotely sensible or sustainable to have an army of jobber contractor drivers scuttling about in diesel vans delivering 5 times a day all the D2C orders you've made. Whats more how do you take delivery if you have to work? Or drop your kids at school? Or take a big dump? I am hopeful that a hub and spoke model can be built, using local shops as the collection point. That way all the fresh stuff you need to buy remains fresh, and there you can collect your box of online beers, but a Coffee from the Costa machine, a sandwich from the newly created local lunchy lunchy operator before heading back to your WFH office.
All that graphic about growth shows is that an extended lockdown was, after all, the worst policy decision by any British government ever, in history.
Rubbish. It doesn’t even begin to compare with the legendary clusterfuck of Robert the Steward, who decided to attack Durham in 1349 while all the English were nicely distracted by this new plague...and then dispersing his army when the infection hit so it was swiftly carried to every corner of Scotland.
I'm a physics teacher, not a historian, but is there any evidence that Robert the Steward didn't go to Durham to attack it, but instead went for childcare and an eye test?
All that graphic about growth shows is that an extended lockdown was, after all, the worst policy decision by any British government ever, in history.
The economy been destroyed permanently, the measures to alleviate it riddled with abuses, the ongoing nanny stating is a massive impediment to recovery, and the medical profession is wreaking havoc with its ''winter is coming'' fear project.
On top of all this we have through the compulsory wearing of masks in shops, a desperate attempt by a completely beleaguered government to prove to everybody its strategy is right.
The cowardice and incompetence know no bounds.
Soon is will be apparent that our 350bn deficit isn;t temporary but permanent, we can't afford to service our debt, and the inevitable result is a massive decline in public services and living standards.
How many more times. There is no new normal. We either go back to our lives and accept the risks, or live far poorer lives.
You choose, because your government is far too afraid to.
Yes, if we assume that a 1% reduction in GDP causes 8-10k premature deaths, I estimate that shuttering the economy, of which lockdown was by far the biggest component, will cause around 120-150k premature deaths, three to four times as many as have died with the Chinese virus. When you add in a similar number of deaths from the collapse in health service productivity (35k alone from less cancer screening), it's clear that even on its own terms, lockdown has been a spectacular disaster.
Looking at the detail of the GDP figures - there was a continued drop in social activities which led to another big contraction in the hospitality sector. This is why it was 1.8% growth instead of the ~5% expected. Masks are the key to getting this sector back up and running and any whining from libertarians and other objectors should be ignored.
Construction was up 8%, production was up 6%, manufacturing was up 8% but services only grew by 0.9%, spot the difference. I actually think it's these numbers, not the fear of a second wave which has changed the government's decision on mask wearing.
June will bring big gains in the other two sectors again but lowish growth from a low base in services. Hopefully July will prove to have made a difference and the further easing as we go forwards will help too.
One final thing on masks, I have a lot of European friends and I'm married to a European. In all of these countries mask wearing has become normal for indoor activity. No one gives a shit and in Italy they've basically done away with social distancing indoors where masks are required. From what they all say their European family and friends won't come to this country to visit them or on holiday until we have mandatory masks. It is holding back a whole sector of the economy. The people who are allowed to come aren't doing so, the government needs to get our and advertise that masks are being made mandatory all across Europe and Asia so we rescue the August and September tourism season
Fraser Nelson's comment makes no sense. It's in June/July you'd expect to see GDP recover sharply.
It also shows how bad using GDP as a measure for anything is. GDP per head would reveal exactly how bad it is - the drop won't be 20% it will be 30-35%
Not sure I follow that, our population hasn't changed.
The mask wearing thing is already going totally off the rails as the police federation says it can't been enforced.
Of course it can't. You could see scuffles and fights breaking out as mask wearers try to enforce the rules at the few remaining shops that have customers. Who would want to shop in places like that?
Its manifestly completely counter productive.
Another Johnson disaster.
If everybody wears masks more people will go shopping, why can’t you just accept that you have to wear one and get on with it? It’s no big deal doesn’t get in the way of shopping or talking to people, may reduce the possibility of a second wave and shows solidarity with fellow citizens doing their bit to limit risk whilst boosting the economy.
Almost as if Johnson wants the Scottish Tories to get shafted at the Holyrood election in May.
Aren't all those standards currently set at national and EU level? The only power grab I see here is Sturgeon looking for more points to score and insert her independence wedge that bit further.
All that graphic about growth shows is that an extended lockdown was, after all, the worst policy decision by any British government ever, in history.
The economy been destroyed permanently, the measures to alleviate it riddled with abuses, the ongoing nanny stating is a massive impediment to recovery, and the medical profession is wreaking havoc with its ''winter is coming'' fear project.
On top of all this we have through the compulsory wearing of masks in shops, a desperate attempt by a completely beleaguered government to prove to everybody its strategy is right.
The cowardice and incompetence know no bounds.
Soon is will be apparent that our 350bn deficit isn;t temporary but permanent, we can't afford to service our debt, and the inevitable result is a massive decline in public services and living standards.
How many more times. There is no new normal. We either go back to our lives and accept the risks, or live far poorer lives.
You choose, because your government is far too afraid to.
Without lockdown there would have been 500 000 Covid deaths on some estimates, instead we have less than a tenth of that and face masks are vital to reduce further spread of the virus as we reopen the economy
So, this masks in shops thing, it seems to me a no brainer and really not a big deal. Make it mandatory and most people will comply. Just like seatbelts in cars. Does not need policing. Say it's mandatory and 90% will comply. Say it's recommended but isn't mandatory and 50% will comply. The extra 40% is worth having as virus mitigation. There are enough genuinely tough decisions and complex issues that governments need to grapple with without turning the easy stuff into a production.
On Today programme and I have no idea who this was or whether he knew what he was talking about but statement was made that Covid deaths fall into 2 batches. There are those that die in the early stages and then those who die much later from the damage done eg heart failure. They are all recorded as Covid deaths. He claims that many of those dying now are the latter who are March/April victims. If true that is encouraging and must be easy to identify the numbers in each group. Not heard this before.
Once again, I am surprised at what I thought was common knowledge, not being commonly known.
COVID19 kills in a number of ways. One outcome is that the patient is left on life support, their body massively damaged.
I have a suspicion that a couple of the small spikes in deaths we have seen recently, were down shutting off life support for small groups of patients on the same day.
Fraser Nelson's comment makes no sense. It's in June/July you'd expect to see GDP recover sharply.
It also shows how bad using GDP as a measure for anything is. GDP per head would reveal exactly how bad it is - the drop won't be 20% it will be 30-35%
Really? The population hasn't increased since March.
Fraser Nelson's comment makes no sense. It's in June/July you'd expect to see GDP recover sharply.
Obviously. May was a month of complete lockdown. How was output to recover? Even June will show only a modest recovery. July is the first month that will give any sort of clue about what sort of recovery we can hope for.
There are no excess deaths at the moment . Why on earth is something so depressing ,going to cause aggression and disgusting litter (with little upside as people -especially people who don't want to - wear masks wrongly and keep fiddling with them?) being imposed now? It will cause economic damage as well . There must be lots of people like me who have been deliberately going out (not using public transport due to needing to wear a mask) walking to shops some distance away to buy stuff (clothes ,books , electrics) who wont be doing that after this rule comes in.
My expectation is you'll keep going out and just get used to wearing a mask.
Wearing a mask during a pandemic is more libertarian than having a lockdown or other solutions. That so many people are blithely saying 'why don't we shut the pubs again instead of having masks' really bothers me. So people should be driven into penury because some people can't be arsed to wear a mask?
Except most people and especially those forced to wear a mask do not wear them correctly and keep fiddling with them and taking them off . If its not even effective it is stupid to impose.
Not half as stupid as you I bet.
No more cask strength turnip juice, for you, this morning. Back to the regular....
There are no excess deaths at the moment . Why on earth is something so depressing ,going to cause aggression and disgusting litter (with little upside as people -especially people who don't want to - wear masks wrongly and keep fiddling with them?) being imposed now? It will cause economic damage as well . There must be lots of people like me who have been deliberately going out (not using public transport due to needing to wear a mask) walking to shops some distance away to buy stuff (clothes ,books , electrics) who wont be doing that after this rule comes in.
My expectation is you'll keep going out and just get used to wearing a mask.
Wearing a mask during a pandemic is more libertarian than having a lockdown or other solutions. That so many people are blithely saying 'why don't we shut the pubs again instead of having masks' really bothers me. So people should be driven into penury because some people can't be arsed to wear a mask?
Except most people and especially those forced to wear a mask do not wear them correctly and keep fiddling with them and taking them off . If its not even effective it is stupid to impose.
Even if you're not wearing them properly having a barrier in front of your mouth and nose reduces the vapor that you exhale.
I was brought up to believe if you cough or sneeze you should cover your mouth of nose when you do that. I find it horrifically bad manners when I see someone just coughing or sneezing without bothering to do so. This to me is just a logical continuation - if you might be exhaling the virus just cover your damn mouth and nose. It's not rocket science.
Far better than continuing with lockdowns. I see no reason a libertarian would prefer a lockdown over cloth masks.
The mask wearing thing is already going totally off the rails as the police federation says it can't been enforced.
Of course it can't. You could see scuffles and fights breaking out as mask wearers try to enforce the rules at the few remaining shops that have customers. Who would want to shop in places like that?
Its manifestly completely counter productive.
Another Johnson disaster.
If everybody wears masks more people will go shopping, why can’t you just accept that you have to wear one and get on with it? It’s no big deal doesn’t get in the way of shopping or talking to people, may reduce the possibility of a second wave and shows solidarity with fellow citizens doing their bit to limit risk whilst boosting the economy.
I don;t see why I should accept the advice of people whose actions to date, far from 'boosting' the economy, have actually destroyed it. You and the other lockdown loons lost the right to lecture others weeks ago.
You need to stop dictating and start listening. OF course you won't because that would mean admitting your gargantuan errors.
Errors which are becoming more apparent with each day.
Scottish police said they did not have to issue any fines over weekend and people were complying , though you can be sure we have similar morons to the whiners on here who will try to break the law.
The big unknown is how many will just not go to the shops but continue online purchases and home food deliveries
This is what makes the economic effect so unpredictable, whole sectors of the economy are just imploding, maybe forever, yet some of the resulting changes in behaviour will provide huge, enduring increases in productivity...
There are several things to balance off. "Continue online purchases" is not sustainable. The big supermarkets lose money on every delivery, and have had to throw a bucket of money at rapid expansion - systems, vehicles, drivers, an army of in-store pickers. Direct to Consumer sales is quite exciting and new for many businesses but places its own strain on the delivery networks and every case of (for example) Punk IPA that I order direct from BrewDog is a case not being sold on tap in a pub or from a shop. Great margin for BrewDog who get to keep the retailer margin as well as their own, less good for everyone else. A concerted switch to "continue online purchases" isn't just the death of the high street, its the death of supermarkets, pubs, corner shops, wholesalers.
Then we have the last mile issue. It cannot be remotely sensible or sustainable to have an army of jobber contractor drivers scuttling about in diesel vans delivering 5 times a day all the D2C orders you've made. Whats more how do you take delivery if you have to work? Or drop your kids at school? Or take a big dump? I am hopeful that a hub and spoke model can be built, using local shops as the collection point. That way all the fresh stuff you need to buy remains fresh, and there you can collect your box of online beers, but a Coffee from the Costa machine, a sandwich from the newly created local lunchy lunchy operator before heading back to your WFH office.
You're assuming that prices stay the same, though. Do you have a link to the losses being made by supermarkets thjrough home deliveries? If they increase prices by, say, 20%, and in particular delviery charges isn't that going to change? Sainsbury charge me £1 for a home delivery for a week's shop costing £50+ - they could increase it to £5 and hardly affect consumer behaviour at all. I'm not saying it'll be welcome, and clearly there is a risk of gallopping inflation, but if people want to have home deliveries as the main solution, the market will adjust to make that profitable.
Working from home there is zero problem with taking delivery, and on the one occasion when I was briuefly unavailable they left the stuff at the door, and that's fine too.
Getting stuff delivered to a local shop and having to go and pick it up sounds like a big faff to me - I'd rather queue at Sainsbury than line up outside a small shop taking one customer at a time. But that's just me - if most people like it, the market will adjust to that too. Leftist though I am in macroeconomics and taxation matters, I trust the market to sort out changes in consumer preferences: the role of Government should be to ease the pain in change.
The mask wearing thing is already going totally off the rails as the police federation says it can't been enforced.
Of course it can't. You could see scuffles and fights breaking out as mask wearers try to enforce the rules at the few remaining shops that have customers. Who would want to shop in places like that?
Its manifestly completely counter productive.
Another Johnson disaster.
The police also told us that lockdown itself couldn't be enforced. It turned out that compliance was very high, because the average citizen isn't stupid and has a sense both of self-preservation and of responsibility to others. The same will be true here - if Belgium can do it, then why can't we?
Wearing masks is also likely to suppress a second wave and make people feel safer in public, the lack of such confidence in safety now being the biggest obstacle to the resumption of normal economy activity.
How's the 'do nothing, it'll be fine strategy' working out in the US?
The mask wearing thing is already going totally off the rails as the police federation says it can't been enforced.
Of course it can't. You could see scuffles and fights breaking out as mask wearers try to enforce the rules at the few remaining shops that have customers. Who would want to shop in places like that?
Its manifestly completely counter productive.
Another Johnson disaster.
If everybody wears masks more people will go shopping, why can’t you just accept that you have to wear one and get on with it? It’s no big deal doesn’t get in the way of shopping or talking to people, may reduce the possibility of a second wave and shows solidarity with fellow citizens doing their bit to limit risk whilst boosting the economy.
It's amazing, those who criticise the lockdown are now criticising measures to end it. It's almost as if the just want to bitch about absolutely everything and they aren't worth bothering with.
Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out
Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.
It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.
I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:
Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.
But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?
As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
We did that with a lockdown. Do you want to stay locked down forever?
Do I wish in an ideal world we needed masks? Of course not! But we don't live in an ideal world.
If the choice though is between locking us down and stopping our civil liberties ... Or saying we can go out and about and get on with our lives but wear a mask ... Then the mask is the lesser evil.
I won't be going to football if I have to wear a mask. I mean, I can't go to Arsenal without changes to public transport rules anyway, but still.
You won't be going to football while there's transmission anyway. If masks bring transmission to an end sooner then you can start seeing your Gunners sooner.
Why not? I'm struggling to see why being in a football ground on a much reduced capacity is more dangerous than being in a shop to be honest.
But I'm more than happy to let other go who really really want to see games live. Being at a game is better than watching on TV as you can see the whole pitch all of the time, but it won't be especially enjoyable if I'm not able to go with my friends. Going to football is a social occasion.
The NRL shows the first phase of how spectators will be brought back
All that graphic about growth shows is that an extended lockdown was, after all, the worst policy decision by any British government ever, in history.
The economy been destroyed permanently, the measures to alleviate it riddled with abuses, the ongoing nanny stating is a massive impediment to recovery, and the medical profession is wreaking havoc with its ''winter is coming'' fear project.
On top of all this we have through the compulsory wearing of masks in shops, a desperate attempt by a completely beleaguered government to prove to everybody its strategy is right.
The cowardice and incompetence know no bounds.
Soon is will be apparent that our 350bn deficit isn;t temporary but permanent, we can't afford to service our debt, and the inevitable result is a massive decline in public services and living standards.
How many more times. There is no new normal. We either go back to our lives and accept the risks, or live far poorer lives.
You choose, because your government is far too afraid to.
Without lockdown there would have been 500 000 Covid deaths on some estimates, instead we have less than a tenth of that and face masks are vital to reduce further spread of the virus as we reopen the economy
Peak of infections was prior to lockdown. Lockdown would have helped to keep reducing infections, but to say that it saved 450,000 lives is pushing reality a bit. Washing hands and social distancing were the main reasons infections came down quickly.
All that graphic about growth shows is that an extended lockdown was, after all, the worst policy decision by any British government ever, in history.
The economy been destroyed permanently, the measures to alleviate it riddled with abuses, the ongoing nanny stating is a massive impediment to recovery, and the medical profession is wreaking havoc with its ''winter is coming'' fear project.
On top of all this we have through the compulsory wearing of masks in shops, a desperate attempt by a completely beleaguered government to prove to everybody its strategy is right.
The cowardice and incompetence know no bounds.
Soon is will be apparent that our 350bn deficit isn;t temporary but permanent, we can't afford to service our debt, and the inevitable result is a massive decline in public services and living standards.
How many more times. There is no new normal. We either go back to our lives and accept the risks, or live far poorer lives.
You choose, because your government is far too afraid to.
Indeed. They should have just let people die. Then as our friends family and colleagues were dropping around us we could have enjoyed the government's "Bulldog Spirit" advertising campaigns insisting that we keep going to the pub despite the growing death tolls associated with going to the pub.
Tens of thousands dead who shouldn't have been because of this government. And you want tens of thousands more? How does a big death toll avoid the economic calamity in your opinion? Do people carry on regardless despite the American style hell surrounding them?
The mask wearing thing is already going totally off the rails as the police federation says it can't been enforced.
Of course it can't. You could see scuffles and fights breaking out as mask wearers try to enforce the rules at the few remaining shops that have customers. Who would want to shop in places like that?
Its manifestly completely counter productive.
Another Johnson disaster.
If everybody wears masks more people will go shopping, why can’t you just accept that you have to wear one and get on with it? It’s no big deal doesn’t get in the way of shopping or talking to people, may reduce the possibility of a second wave and shows solidarity with fellow citizens doing their bit to limit risk whilst boosting the economy.
I don;t see why I should accept the advice of people whose actions to date, far from 'boosting' the economy, have actually destroyed it. You and the other lockdown loons lost the right to lecture others weeks ago.
You need to stop dictating and start listening. OF course you won't because that would mean admitting your gargantuan errors.
Errors which are becoming more apparent with each day.
Enjoy staying indoors or paying your £100 fines then. 🤷♂️
Almost as if Johnson wants the Scottish Tories to get shafted at the Holyrood election in May.
If you are Cummings and want a complete remaking of the levers of power what better prize than the end of the Union? Then you can remake England in thine own image.
The mask wearing thing is already going totally off the rails as the police federation says it can't been enforced.
Of course it can't. You could see scuffles and fights breaking out as mask wearers try to enforce the rules at the few remaining shops that have customers. Who would want to shop in places like that?
Its manifestly completely counter productive.
Another Johnson disaster.
The police also told us that lockdown itself couldn't be enforced. It turned out that compliance was very high, because the average citizen isn't stupid and has a sense both of self-preservation and of responsibility to others. The same will be true here - if Belgium can do it, then why can't we?
Wearing masks is also likely to suppress a second wave and make people feel safer in public, the lack of such confidence in safety now being the biggest obstacle to the resumption of normal economy activity.
How's the 'do nothing, it'll be fine strategy' working out in the US?
US deaths yesterday less than a tenth of the level they were at in May.
But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?
I don't speak for the government but the UK seems to be gradually rolling back the most disruptive measures, while making the less disruptive ones semi-permanent.
This seems like the right general approach to me: Containment is a game of averages, if your infection rate is stable or a little bit below 1 but you want to be able to do something that increases the average number of people an infected person infects - say reopening schools - you need to counter that with something else that decreases the average number of people an infected person infects.
Exactly.
Think of it as if you're playing a role-playing game. There are a bunch of factors that push R down and a bunch that push R up.
For the sake of argument, take the following effects as correct and accurate; in reality, all are fuzzy, but the directions are probably right.
We know that if you go to the suite of factors that we called "lockdown" (different in each country, of course), you can get R down to around 0.6.
Add people going around outside with social distancing. R+0.01 Reopen non-essential shops and schools with social distancing. R+0.15 Reopen pubs and restaurants with social distancing and maximal outside use. R+0.15 Get people back to work if they can't work from home. R+0.1 Reopen gyms, cinemas, beauticians with social distancing. R+0.15 Impose masks in shops. R-0.2 Impose masks in pubs and restaurants. R-0.2
What do you do? It's certainly true that going for the full suite of lockdown measures (sans masks) gets R down to an acceptable level. It's also true that if you were to impose masks in pubs and restaurants it'd get R down still further. But might make eating a meal a bit of a challenge (ie it's impractical).
I think people seem to have this love of either-or absolutist situations. Either it's safe or it's not. When in reality, it's all a fuzzy shifting of probabilities. You're x% less likely to be infected if mass are imposed in shops. You're not certainly safe, nor were you certain to be infected before. That's just how probability works (albeit, as Tetlock and Gardner have pointed out, the human brain isn't set up to deal with fuzzy shades of grey and probabilities).
The Gov't can't avoid a technical as well as an actual recession now. If the timeline had been a month earlier, we'd have never had a recession as the uptick would have all been in quarter 2 but the Gov't isn't going to get that lucky - the GDP drop being between March and April ensures it.
The mask wearing thing is already going totally off the rails as the police federation says it can't been enforced.
Of course it can't. You could see scuffles and fights breaking out as mask wearers try to enforce the rules at the few remaining shops that have customers. Who would want to shop in places like that?
Its manifestly completely counter productive.
Another Johnson disaster.
The police also told us that lockdown itself couldn't be enforced. It turned out that compliance was very high, because the average citizen isn't stupid and has a sense both of self-preservation and of responsibility to others. The same will be true here - if Belgium can do it, then why can't we?
Wearing masks is also likely to suppress a second wave and make people feel safer in public, the lack of such confidence in safety now being the biggest obstacle to the resumption of normal economy activity.
How's the 'do nothing, it'll be fine strategy' working out in the US?
US deaths yesterday less than a tenth of the level they were at in May.
Face masks. I don’t like them. I am going to wear them. It’s the right thing to do. Sometimes it’s not about me.
On the ONS figures, from the frontline the May numbers are no surprise at all: it was a horrible month. June was a lot better, so expect a much bigger bounce when those numbers come out. However, conditions are really, really tough still and parts of the US going back into lockdowns is a very ominous sign. Keep an eye on Spain, too.
Unfortunately, Sunak's mini-budget was tinkering at the edges of what could well be a catastrophe. The government is going to have to get a whole lot more proactive. And imposing billlions of extra costs on business come January really isn't going to help.
Another day, another batshit announcement from the government. Lets talk about masks. I haven't work one in anger yet, and I was going into shops (sometimes several in an afternoon to check stock availability / how people are shopping etc to help us keep food on the shelves) for both shopping and work reasons without a mask. When supermarkets were strictly limiting the number of punters in circulation and enforcing one way systems it felt OK. Yesterday lunchtime in Aldi was the first time it really didn't feel OK and I decided I'd need a mask on next time.
So do I support masks? Yes. But straight away. A lot of people have bought masks. Every supermarket now sells masks. You can make one out of a sock in a minute for temporary use. Mask up. Not a week on Friday. Where as I and others have pointed out we have the absurdity of it being safe to not wear a mask to go into the pub and get hammered but not safe to not wear a mask when you buy a bag of crisps at the shop on the way home.
You can't make distinctions between "essential" and "non-essential" either. This is either being done for public health reasons or it is not. We're trying to crush the virus or we're not. Half-arsed wear one here here and here but not there there or there is stupid. I suspect the call now is that unless we wear a mask we're going to carry on with infection levels well above our neighbours including Scotland and therefore we either squash it or we will be on no-travel lists quickly.
Boris has said you should wear a covering in shops now, but it is not mandatory until next Friday. So please - wear your masks now folks!
Even a dead cat bounces. Hardly something to celebrate when its so small.
The big contraction was in hospitality which was still completely shut in May, other sectors grew at between 6 and 8 points in May. June will tell the same story.
All that graphic about growth shows is that an extended lockdown was, after all, the worst policy decision by any British government ever, in history.
The economy been destroyed permanently, the measures to alleviate it riddled with abuses, the ongoing nanny stating is a massive impediment to recovery, and the medical profession is wreaking havoc with its ''winter is coming'' fear project.
On top of all this we have through the compulsory wearing of masks in shops, a desperate attempt by a completely beleaguered government to prove to everybody its strategy is right.
The cowardice and incompetence know no bounds.
Soon is will be apparent that our 350bn deficit isn;t temporary but permanent, we can't afford to service our debt, and the inevitable result is a massive decline in public services and living standards.
How many more times. There is no new normal. We either go back to our lives and accept the risks, or live far poorer lives.
You choose, because your government is far too afraid to.
Indeed. They should have just let people die. Then as our friends family and colleagues were dropping around us we could have enjoyed the government's "Bulldog Spirit" advertising campaigns insisting that we keep going to the pub despite the growing death tolls associated with going to the pub.
Tens of thousands dead who shouldn't have been because of this government. And you want tens of thousands more? How does a big death toll avoid the economic calamity in your opinion? Do people carry on regardless despite the American style hell surrounding them?
Hw many more times. Poverty and destitution kill. That isn't projection, it isn't prediction, its fact.
And we are going to get a massive dose of both.
I wonder if the medical establishment will be quite so worried about a second wave when we tell them our current economic performance involves slashing their salaries.
Going shopping is a social thing to do. The high street will collapse now. British people will simply not go in shops. .
Quite so. It was already less convenient and probably more expensive, now theres additional hassle and you'll get a virus to boot. Why go back even in 6 months?
People differ in their motivations as well as their habits. The idea that shopping is a social thing to do is something that I don't share, indeed one that's never even occurred to me. My ideal shop is a brisk trot round a supermarket at 930pm with no other customers at all and a fast automatic checkout. If I run into strangers who start chatting about the weather, or a checkout assistant starts pretending to extol the virtues of whatever they're currently pushing, it's just tiresome. That's not misanthropy - I just want to choose my friends, and see them when we jointly want to.
Maybe that's a bit of a male thing though? I'm not saying it's better - just different from Nerys.
The mask wearing thing is already going totally off the rails as the police federation says it can't been enforced.
Of course it can't. You could see scuffles and fights breaking out as mask wearers try to enforce the rules at the few remaining shops that have customers. Who would want to shop in places like that?
Its manifestly completely counter productive.
Another Johnson disaster.
The police also told us that lockdown itself couldn't be enforced. It turned out that compliance was very high, because the average citizen isn't stupid and has a sense both of self-preservation and of responsibility to others. The same will be true here - if Belgium can do it, then why can't we?
Wearing masks is also likely to suppress a second wave and make people feel safer in public, the lack of such confidence in safety now being the biggest obstacle to the resumption of normal economy activity.
How's the 'do nothing, it'll be fine strategy' working out in the US?
US deaths yesterday less than a tenth of the level they were at in May.
So what's your point?
Weekend reporting.
I think the reason is rather different - a lot of deaths are being recorded as pneumonia
I can understand the exemption for shop workers (Though many may well choose to wear a mask too). The workers are there for many hours, that's a long time with a mask. If you're shopping it's an hour tops. Also means I could probably avoid wearing a mask by sticking on one of my white office shirts and proper trousers.
Fraser Nelson's comment makes no sense. It's in June/July you'd expect to see GDP recover sharply.
Obviously. May was a month of complete lockdown. How was output to recover? Even June will show only a modest recovery. July is the first month that will give any sort of clue about what sort of recovery we can hope for.
May was always going to be bad for the reasons you identify - the issue is that it is a lot worse than most were predicting (though I have no idea why anyone was predicting that in the first place!).
Another day, another batshit announcement from the government. Lets talk about masks. I haven't work one in anger yet, and I was going into shops (sometimes several in an afternoon to check stock availability / how people are shopping etc to help us keep food on the shelves) for both shopping and work reasons without a mask. When supermarkets were strictly limiting the number of punters in circulation and enforcing one way systems it felt OK. Yesterday lunchtime in Aldi was the first time it really didn't feel OK and I decided I'd need a mask on next time.
So do I support masks? Yes. But straight away. A lot of people have bought masks. Every supermarket now sells masks. You can make one out of a sock in a minute for temporary use. Mask up. Not a week on Friday. Where as I and others have pointed out we have the absurdity of it being safe to not wear a mask to go into the pub and get hammered but not safe to not wear a mask when you buy a bag of crisps at the shop on the way home.
You can't make distinctions between "essential" and "non-essential" either. This is either being done for public health reasons or it is not. We're trying to crush the virus or we're not. Half-arsed wear one here here and here but not there there or there is stupid. I suspect the call now is that unless we wear a mask we're going to carry on with infection levels well above our neighbours including Scotland and therefore we either squash it or we will be on no-travel lists quickly.
Boris has said you should wear a covering in shops now, but it is not mandatory until next Friday. So please - wear your masks now folks!
But it is "safe" not to have to wear them until the 24th!!!!!
The mask wearing thing is already going totally off the rails as the police federation says it can't been enforced.
Of course it can't. You could see scuffles and fights breaking out as mask wearers try to enforce the rules at the few remaining shops that have customers. Who would want to shop in places like that?
Its manifestly completely counter productive.
Another Johnson disaster.
The police also told us that lockdown itself couldn't be enforced. It turned out that compliance was very high, because the average citizen isn't stupid and has a sense both of self-preservation and of responsibility to others. The same will be true here - if Belgium can do it, then why can't we?
Wearing masks is also likely to suppress a second wave and make people feel safer in public, the lack of such confidence in safety now being the biggest obstacle to the resumption of normal economy activity.
How's the 'do nothing, it'll be fine strategy' working out in the US?
US deaths yesterday less than a tenth of the level they were at in May.
So what's your point?
Weekend reporting.
I think the reason is rather different - a lot of deaths are being recorded as pneumonia
Alternatively it could be that the virus is simply subsiding, as the great Dr Gupta and her Oxford team predicted, and at the same time we are getting much better at treating it, as we were always bound to, being resourceful creatures.
Honestly the delusion on here is staggering. Its a mile thick.
Scottish police said they did not have to issue any fines over weekend and people were complying , though you can be sure we have similar morons to the whiners on here who will try to break the law.
The big unknown is how many will just not go to the shops but continue online purchases and home food deliveries
This is what makes the economic effect so unpredictable, whole sectors of the economy are just imploding, maybe forever, yet some of the resulting changes in behaviour will provide huge, enduring increases in productivity...
There are several things to balance off. "Continue online purchases" is not sustainable. The big supermarkets lose money on every delivery, and have had to throw a bucket of money at rapid expansion - systems, vehicles, drivers, an army of in-store pickers. Direct to Consumer sales is quite exciting and new for many businesses but places its own strain on the delivery networks and every case of (for example) Punk IPA that I order direct from BrewDog is a case not being sold on tap in a pub or from a shop. Great margin for BrewDog who get to keep the retailer margin as well as their own, less good for everyone else. A concerted switch to "continue online purchases" isn't just the death of the high street, its the death of supermarkets, pubs, corner shops, wholesalers.
Then we have the last mile issue. It cannot be remotely sensible or sustainable to have an army of jobber contractor drivers scuttling about in diesel vans delivering 5 times a day all the D2C orders you've made. Whats more how do you take delivery if you have to work? Or drop your kids at school? Or take a big dump? I am hopeful that a hub and spoke model can be built, using local shops as the collection point. That way all the fresh stuff you need to buy remains fresh, and there you can collect your box of online beers, but a Coffee from the Costa machine, a sandwich from the newly created local lunchy lunchy operator before heading back to your WFH office.
You're assuming that prices stay the same, though. Do you have a link to the losses being made by supermarkets thjrough home deliveries? If they increase prices by, say, 20%, and in particular delviery charges isn't that going to change? Sainsbury charge me £1 for a home delivery for a week's shop costing £50+ - they could increase it to £5 and hardly affect consumer behaviour at all. I'm not saying it'll be welcome, and clearly there is a risk of gallopping inflation, but if people want to have home deliveries as the main solution, the market will adjust to make that profitable.
Working from home there is zero problem with taking delivery, and on the one occasion when I was briuefly unavailable they left the stuff at the door, and that's fine too.
Getting stuff delivered to a local shop and having to go and pick it up sounds like a big faff to me - I'd rather queue at Sainsbury than line up outside a small shop taking one customer at a time. But that's just me - if most people like it, the market will adjust to that too. Leftist though I am in macroeconomics and taxation matters, I trust the market to sort out changes in consumer preferences: the role of Government should be to ease the pain in change.
A very considerable amount of business is done by corner shops (the 24 hour, newsagent/food shop/mobile accessory type) acting as pickup and drop points for various parcel services, already.
The main issue with costs of home delivery is that, it is generally done on a very ad hoc basis - someone with a trolley shopping in the local store on your behalf, quite often.
If the big chains go all Occado and start delivering from warehouses, efficiencies will go up and costs will go down.
The mask wearing thing is already going totally off the rails as the police federation says it can't been enforced.
Of course it can't. You could see scuffles and fights breaking out as mask wearers try to enforce the rules at the few remaining shops that have customers. Who would want to shop in places like that?
Its manifestly completely counter productive.
Another Johnson disaster.
The police also told us that lockdown itself couldn't be enforced. It turned out that compliance was very high, because the average citizen isn't stupid and has a sense both of self-preservation and of responsibility to others. The same will be true here - if Belgium can do it, then why can't we?
Wearing masks is also likely to suppress a second wave and make people feel safer in public, the lack of such confidence in safety now being the biggest obstacle to the resumption of normal economy activity.
How's the 'do nothing, it'll be fine strategy' working out in the US?
US deaths yesterday less than a tenth of the level they were at in May.
So what's your point?
First, that deaths are a lagging indicator, and likely to rise in the coming weeks since cases are exploding now. Second, that letting the disease run rampant is forcing measures for opening up the economy to stall or even reverse. Third, normal life can't return while citizens are afraid that going out in public will expose them to a dangerous illness that can result in death or permanent damage to their health.
Suppress the disease, save the economy. There's no way around the first step, terribly painful though it is.
All that graphic about growth shows is that an extended lockdown was, after all, the worst policy decision by any British government ever, in history.
The economy been destroyed permanently, the measures to alleviate it riddled with abuses, the ongoing nanny stating is a massive impediment to recovery, and the medical profession is wreaking havoc with its ''winter is coming'' fear project.
On top of all this we have through the compulsory wearing of masks in shops, a desperate attempt by a completely beleaguered government to prove to everybody its strategy is right.
The cowardice and incompetence know no bounds.
Soon is will be apparent that our 350bn deficit isn;t temporary but permanent, we can't afford to service our debt, and the inevitable result is a massive decline in public services and living standards.
How many more times. There is no new normal. We either go back to our lives and accept the risks, or live far poorer lives.
You choose, because your government is far too afraid to.
Without lockdown there would have been 500 000 Covid deaths on some estimates, instead we have less than a tenth of that and face masks are vital to reduce further spread of the virus as we reopen the economy
Scottish police said they did not have to issue any fines over weekend and people were complying , though you can be sure we have similar morons to the whiners on here who will try to break the law.
The big unknown is how many will just not go to the shops but continue online purchases and home food deliveries
This is what makes the economic effect so unpredictable, whole sectors of the economy are just imploding, maybe forever, yet some of the resulting changes in behaviour will provide huge, enduring increases in productivity...
There are several things to balance off. "Continue online purchases" is not sustainable. The big supermarkets lose money on every delivery, and have had to throw a bucket of money at rapid expansion - systems, vehicles, drivers, an army of in-store pickers. Direct to Consumer sales is quite exciting and new for many businesses but places its own strain on the delivery networks and every case of (for example) Punk IPA that I order direct from BrewDog is a case not being sold on tap in a pub or from a shop. Great margin for BrewDog who get to keep the retailer margin as well as their own, less good for everyone else. A concerted switch to "continue online purchases" isn't just the death of the high street, its the death of supermarkets, pubs, corner shops, wholesalers.
Then we have the last mile issue. It cannot be remotely sensible or sustainable to have an army of jobber contractor drivers scuttling about in diesel vans delivering 5 times a day all the D2C orders you've made. Whats more how do you take delivery if you have to work? Or drop your kids at school? Or take a big dump? I am hopeful that a hub and spoke model can be built, using local shops as the collection point. That way all the fresh stuff you need to buy remains fresh, and there you can collect your box of online beers, but a Coffee from the Costa machine, a sandwich from the newly created local lunchy lunchy operator before heading back to your WFH office.
Sainsbury charge me £1 for a home delivery for a week's shop costing £50+ - they could increase it to £5 and hardly affect consumer behaviour at all.
Bless you Nick. A great proponent of (some) animals' welfare.
You can take the boy out of a socialist paradise-believing Labour Party whereby the laws of economics can be suspended, but you can't take the socialist paradise-believing...
Price elasticity of demand is your friend, here, Nick.
Fraser Nelson's comment makes no sense. It's in June/July you'd expect to see GDP recover sharply.
Obviously. May was a month of complete lockdown. How was output to recover? Even June will show only a modest recovery. July is the first month that will give any sort of clue about what sort of recovery we can hope for.
May was always going to be bad for the reasons you identify - the issue is that it is a lot worse than most were predicting (though I have no idea why anyone was predicting that in the first place!).
Indeed, the consensus forecast was wrong. Though if you look at the individual sectors those that starting unlocking in May saw decent growth. It's the 15% of the economy that depends on people (and tourists) going out and enjoying themselves that's really going to struggle until there's a vaccine. If that sector gets back to even 60% of where it was pre virus I'd be astonished.
Another day, another batshit announcement from the government. Lets talk about masks. I haven't work one in anger yet, and I was going into shops (sometimes several in an afternoon to check stock availability / how people are shopping etc to help us keep food on the shelves) for both shopping and work reasons without a mask. When supermarkets were strictly limiting the number of punters in circulation and enforcing one way systems it felt OK. Yesterday lunchtime in Aldi was the first time it really didn't feel OK and I decided I'd need a mask on next time.
So do I support masks? Yes. But straight away. A lot of people have bought masks. Every supermarket now sells masks. You can make one out of a sock in a minute for temporary use. Mask up. Not a week on Friday. Where as I and others have pointed out we have the absurdity of it being safe to not wear a mask to go into the pub and get hammered but not safe to not wear a mask when you buy a bag of crisps at the shop on the way home.
You can't make distinctions between "essential" and "non-essential" either. This is either being done for public health reasons or it is not. We're trying to crush the virus or we're not. Half-arsed wear one here here and here but not there there or there is stupid. I suspect the call now is that unless we wear a mask we're going to carry on with infection levels well above our neighbours including Scotland and therefore we either squash it or we will be on no-travel lists quickly.
Boris has said you should wear a covering in shops now, but it is not mandatory until next Friday. So please - wear your masks now folks!
But it is "safe" not to have to wear them until the 24th!!!!!
Joined up government it is not.
If they made it mandatory immediately, people would be whining that the evil Torieees had given them no notice and they couldn't go to the shops because they didn't have a mask. Give me a break.
"Asked to model a "reasonable" worst-case scenario, they suggest a range between 24,500 and 251,000 of virus-related deaths in hospitals alone, peaking in January and February.
To date, there have been 44,830 official deaths in the UK, but this has slowed with 1,100 in July.
The estimate does not take into account any lockdowns, treatments or vaccines."
The mask wearing thing is already going totally off the rails as the police federation says it can't been enforced.
Of course it can't. You could see scuffles and fights breaking out as mask wearers try to enforce the rules at the few remaining shops that have customers. Who would want to shop in places like that?
Its manifestly completely counter productive.
Another Johnson disaster.
If everybody wears masks more people will go shopping, why can’t you just accept that you have to wear one and get on with it? It’s no big deal doesn’t get in the way of shopping or talking to people, may reduce the possibility of a second wave and shows solidarity with fellow citizens doing their bit to limit risk whilst boosting the economy.
I don;t see why I should accept the advice of people whose actions to date, far from 'boosting' the economy, have actually destroyed it. You and the other lockdown loons lost the right to lecture others weeks ago.
You need to stop dictating and start listening. OF course you won't because that would mean admitting your gargantuan errors.
Errors which are becoming more apparent with each day.
You've got to be just deliberately trolling now. No-one could be dumb enough to believe a fantasy that everything would have been fine without lockdown. Especially when, say, Sweden (no lockdown but significant social distancing efforts) had a worse economic outcome than its neighbours (lockdown and quashing the deaths and hopsitalisation rates far better and sooner).
If it's an attempt to mock denialists with an extremist tongue-in-cheek portrayal, it's fun but a bit implausible.
The mask wearing thing is already going totally off the rails as the police federation says it can't been enforced.
Of course it can't. You could see scuffles and fights breaking out as mask wearers try to enforce the rules at the few remaining shops that have customers. Who would want to shop in places like that?
Its manifestly completely counter productive.
Another Johnson disaster.
The police also told us that lockdown itself couldn't be enforced. It turned out that compliance was very high, because the average citizen isn't stupid and has a sense both of self-preservation and of responsibility to others. The same will be true here - if Belgium can do it, then why can't we?
Wearing masks is also likely to suppress a second wave and make people feel safer in public, the lack of such confidence in safety now being the biggest obstacle to the resumption of normal economy activity.
How's the 'do nothing, it'll be fine strategy' working out in the US?
US deaths yesterday less than a tenth of the level they were at in May.
So what's your point?
Weekend reporting.
I think the reason is rather different - a lot of deaths are being recorded as pneumonia
Alternatively it could be that the virus is simply subsiding, as the great Dr Gupta and her Oxford team predicted, and at the same time we are getting much better at treating it, as we were always bound to, being resourceful creatures.
Honestly the delusion on here is staggering. Its a mile thick.
If that is the case why are a lot of US states reporting 100% usage in ICUs?
But then again what I find staggering is the number of people who post without ever checking facts behind they statement.
Now I'm not saying you are wrong but full ICUs and staggeringly high pneumonia deaths compared to previous years tells me things aren't normal....
Going shopping is a social thing to do. The high street will collapse now. British people will simply not go in shops. .
Quite so. It was already less convenient and probably more expensive, now theres additional hassle and you'll get a virus to boot. Why go back even in 6 months?
People differ in their motivations as well as their habits. The idea that shopping is a social thing to do is something that I don't share, indeed one that's never even occurred to me. My ideal shop is a brisk trot round a supermarket at 930pm with no other customers at all and a fast automatic checkout. If I run into strangers who start chatting about the weather, or a checkout assistant starts pretending to extol the virtues of whatever they're currently pushing, it's just tiresome. That's not misanthropy - I just want to choose my friends, and see them when we jointly want to.
Maybe that's a bit of a male thing though? I'm not saying it's better - just different from Nerys.
Exactly. The idea that shopping is a social thing is ridiculous. Just ask those people in the Portobello Road or Camden Lock Market or Bluewater or Aix-en-Provence or any antique shop in the land or...or...
My most reliable economic indicator is half finished project cars for sale on forums and FB groups. They are the ultimate discretionary expense and the first thing to go as confidence evaporates. By this metric we are fucked harder than a Sub Lt left alone with Lord Mountbatten. I could have had a 996 vert for about 40% of its parted out value last night. Petrolheads are running for the exits.
Almost as if Johnson wants the Scottish Tories to get shafted at the Holyrood election in May.
Aren't all those standards currently set at national and EU level? The only power grab I see here is Sturgeon looking for more points to score and insert her independence wedge that bit further.
Your arse, the powers are currently held by Scotland and are the European standards, plans are England will set any standard they want and Scotland will have no say in the matter. It is a big big deal to Scotland, England can eat chlorinated chicken and hormone filled beef as much as it wants.
Mr. 43, if that's a Kongming reference I'd mention that Sima Yi retreated.
He did, but the psychology is interesting. "Empty Fortress" wasn't original to Zhuge Liang. Sima Yi's son recognised it as such and counselled attack. Sima Yi held back because he suspected Zhuge Liang of double-bluff, ie he was pretending it was an Empty Fortress when in fact the city was stuffed with soldiers and so didn't risk attacking. Sima Yi's son was a good strategist, Sima Yi was a better strategist, while Zhuge Liang was a great strategist because he had worked out Sima Yi would think this way. He was also in a desperate situation and took a risk he wouldn't normally take.
The "Romance of the Three KIngdoms" is what you might call historical fiction. It's historically based but plenty of invention too. It was also somewhat propagandist with a bias to the South against the North. Interesting period in Chinese history.
* meant to say. No-one coming across Johnson's "Empty Fortress" will assume he is a risk-averse strategist. Which is why it isn't working.
But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?
I don't speak for the government but the UK seems to be gradually rolling back the most disruptive measures, while making the less disruptive ones semi-permanent.
This seems like the right general approach to me: Containment is a game of averages, if your infection rate is stable or a little bit below 1 but you want to be able to do something that increases the average number of people an infected person infects - say reopening schools - you need to counter that with something else that decreases the average number of people an infected person infects.
Exactly.
Think of it as if you're playing a role-playing game. There are a bunch of factors that push R down and a bunch that push R up.
For the sake of argument, take the following effects as correct and accurate; in reality, all are fuzzy, but the directions are probably right.
We know that if you go to the suite of factors that we called "lockdown" (different in each country, of course), you can get R down to around 0.6.
Add people going around outside with social distancing. R+0.01 Reopen non-essential shops and schools with social distancing. R+0.15 Reopen pubs and restaurants with social distancing and maximal outside use. R+0.15 Get people back to work if they can't work from home. R+0.1 Reopen gyms, cinemas, beauticians with social distancing. R+0.15 Impose masks in shops. R-0.2 Impose masks in pubs and restaurants. R-0.2
What do you do? It's certainly true that going for the full suite of lockdown measures (sans masks) gets R down to an acceptable level. It's also true that if you were to impose masks in pubs and restaurants it'd get R down still further. But might make eating a meal a bit of a challenge (ie it's impractical).
I think people seem to have this love of either-or absolutist situations. Either it's safe or it's not. When in reality, it's all a fuzzy shifting of probabilities. You're x% less likely to be infected if mass are imposed in shops. You're not certainly safe, nor were you certain to be infected before. That's just how probability works (albeit, as Tetlock and Gardner have pointed out, the human brain isn't set up to deal with fuzzy shades of grey and probabilities).
The problem with this sort of analysis is that it assumes that the virus is sitting in wait, looking for further opportunities to spread beyond the slave factories of Leicester back into the broader community. In some parts of the country that is true, there is still enough ambient virus around to make these sort of measures an appropriate response. In most of the country, however, unless you go to an infected care home you are unlikely to find any virus to be exposed to. In most of Scotland you can't even find it in hospital because the last patients have long since been discharged.
Masks in March, April May, possibly even June made a lot of sense and would probably have allowed us to come out of lockdown faster. Now? In localised areas of risk yes. Across the entire country? Just daft.
May? We didn't begin to relax aspects of the lockdown until the weekend of VE day and even then non-essential shops didn't reopen until early to mid June.
A day in the life of a busy teacher this September:
1. Went to the gym nice and early. Ran myself into a sweaty mess. No mask, no risk from exhaling and sweat in an air-conditioned room. 2. Off to school on the bus. Mask on the bus of course as its not safe to be in an enclosed space with people 3. Arrive at school. Mask off because no risk to anyone 4. Long day, fancy a pint. So back on the bus. Masked obviously because danger. 5. Stop at the shop for a packet of tabs. Masked to ensure I don't breathe in anyone's exhalings in an air-conditioned room 6. Pub. No mask. No need. The air in pubs is always fresh and clean.
Using my common sense throughout to assess what is safe and not safe.
"Asked to model a "reasonable" worst-case scenario, they suggest a range between 24,500 and 251,000 of virus-related deaths in hospitals alone, peaking in January and February.
To date, there have been 44,830 official deaths in the UK, but this has slowed with 1,100 in July.
The estimate does not take into account any lockdowns, treatments or vaccines."
There are no excess deaths at the moment . Why on earth is something so depressing ,going to cause aggression and disgusting litter (with little upside as people -especially people who don't want to - wear masks wrongly and keep fiddling with them?) being imposed now? It will cause economic damage as well . There must be lots of people like me who have been deliberately going out (not using public transport due to needing to wear a mask) walking to shops some distance away to buy stuff (clothes ,books , electrics) who wont be doing that after this rule comes in.
My expectation is you'll keep going out and just get used to wearing a mask.
Wearing a mask during a pandemic is more libertarian than having a lockdown or other solutions. That so many people are blithely saying 'why don't we shut the pubs again instead of having masks' really bothers me. So people should be driven into penury because some people can't be arsed to wear a mask?
Except most people and especially those forced to wear a mask do not wear them correctly and keep fiddling with them and taking them off . If its not even effective it is stupid to impose.
Not half as stupid as you I bet.
No more cask strength turnip juice, for you, this morning. Back to the regular....
The mask wearing thing is already going totally off the rails as the police federation says it can't been enforced.
Of course it can't. You could see scuffles and fights breaking out as mask wearers try to enforce the rules at the few remaining shops that have customers. Who would want to shop in places like that?
Its manifestly completely counter productive.
Another Johnson disaster.
The police also told us that lockdown itself couldn't be enforced. It turned out that compliance was very high, because the average citizen isn't stupid and has a sense both of self-preservation and of responsibility to others. The same will be true here - if Belgium can do it, then why can't we?
Wearing masks is also likely to suppress a second wave and make people feel safer in public, the lack of such confidence in safety now being the biggest obstacle to the resumption of normal economy activity.
How's the 'do nothing, it'll be fine strategy' working out in the US?
US deaths yesterday less than a tenth of the level they were at in May.
So what's your point?
Weekend reporting.
I think the reason is rather different - a lot of deaths are being recorded as pneumonia
Alternatively it could be that the virus is simply subsiding, as the great Dr Gupta and her Oxford team predicted, and at the same time we are getting much better at treating it, as we were always bound to, being resourceful creatures.
Honestly the delusion on here is staggering. Its a mile thick.
If that is the case why are a lot of US states reporting 100% usage in ICUs?
But then again what I find staggering is the number of people who post without ever checking facts behind they statement.
Now I'm not saying you are wrong but full ICUs and staggeringly high pneumonia deaths compared to previous years tells me things aren't normal....
Almost as if Johnson wants the Scottish Tories to get shafted at the Holyrood election in May.
Aren't all those standards currently set at national and EU level? The only power grab I see here is Sturgeon looking for more points to score and insert her independence wedge that bit further.
Yeah, ironically, the SNP want to hand those powers, that they are supposedly so upset about, straight back to the EU. Likewise powers over access to Scotland's fishing waters. The grievance-mongering has become a growth industry. About the only thing that hasn't slowed down during lockdown.
The mask wearing thing is already going totally off the rails as the police federation says it can't been enforced.
Of course it can't. You could see scuffles and fights breaking out as mask wearers try to enforce the rules at the few remaining shops that have customers. Who would want to shop in places like that?
Its manifestly completely counter productive.
Another Johnson disaster.
If everybody wears masks more people will go shopping, why can’t you just accept that you have to wear one and get on with it? It’s no big deal doesn’t get in the way of shopping or talking to people, may reduce the possibility of a second wave and shows solidarity with fellow citizens doing their bit to limit risk whilst boosting the economy.
I don;t see why I should accept the advice of people whose actions to date, far from 'boosting' the economy, have actually destroyed it. You and the other lockdown loons lost the right to lecture others weeks ago.
You need to stop dictating and start listening. OF course you won't because that would mean admitting your gargantuan errors.
Errors which are becoming more apparent with each day.
You've got to be just deliberately trolling now. No-one could be dumb enough to believe a fantasy that everything would have been fine without lockdown. Especially when, say, Sweden (no lockdown but significant social distancing efforts) had a worse economic outcome than its neighbours (lockdown and quashing the deaths and hopsitalisation rates far better and sooner).
If it's an attempt to mock denialists with an extremist tongue-in-cheek portrayal, it's fun but a bit implausible.
Well maybe wear a mask to show you care for those with immunodeficiency due to medical conditions and don’t expect them to lock themselves away until they die.
But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?
I don't speak for the government but the UK seems to be gradually rolling back the most disruptive measures, while making the less disruptive ones semi-permanent.
This seems like the right general approach to me: Containment is a game of averages, if your infection rate is stable or a little bit below 1 but you want to be able to do something that increases the average number of people an infected person infects - say reopening schools - you need to counter that with something else that decreases the average number of people an infected person infects.
Exactly.
Think of it as if you're playing a role-playing game. There are a bunch of factors that push R down and a bunch that push R up.
For the sake of argument, take the following effects as correct and accurate; in reality, all are fuzzy, but the directions are probably right.
We know that if you go to the suite of factors that we called "lockdown" (different in each country, of course), you can get R down to around 0.6.
Add people going around outside with social distancing. R+0.01 Reopen non-essential shops and schools with social distancing. R+0.15 Reopen pubs and restaurants with social distancing and maximal outside use. R+0.15 Get people back to work if they can't work from home. R+0.1 Reopen gyms, cinemas, beauticians with social distancing. R+0.15 Impose masks in shops. R-0.2 Impose masks in pubs and restaurants. R-0.2
What do you do? It's certainly true that going for the full suite of lockdown measures (sans masks) gets R down to an acceptable level. It's also true that if you were to impose masks in pubs and restaurants it'd get R down still further. But might make eating a meal a bit of a challenge (ie it's impractical).
I think people seem to have this love of either-or absolutist situations. Either it's safe or it's not. When in reality, it's all a fuzzy shifting of probabilities. You're x% less likely to be infected if mass are imposed in shops. You're not certainly safe, nor were you certain to be infected before. That's just how probability works (albeit, as Tetlock and Gardner have pointed out, the human brain isn't set up to deal with fuzzy shades of grey and probabilities).
The problem with this sort of analysis is that it assumes that the virus is sitting in wait, looking for further opportunities to spread beyond the slave factories of Leicester back into the broader community. In some parts of the country that is true, there is still enough ambient virus around to make these sort of measures an appropriate response. In most of the country, however, unless you go to an infected care home you are unlikely to find any virus to be exposed to. In most of Scotland you can't even find it in hospital because the last patients have long since been discharged.
Masks in March, April May, possibly even June made a lot of sense and would probably have allowed us to come out of lockdown faster. Now? In localised areas of risk yes. Across the entire country? Just daft.
It's not, David. The whole point is that masks will allow shops which are currently open at 30% of capacity to run at 70-80% of capacity. It removes the big motivation of not going out shopping (queues) and it also removes the health concern aspect of going outside in general.
Additionally if there is going to be a second wave having a population that is confident at mask wearing like Asian countries is better than asking people to learn to do it properly when getting it wrong really can make everything worse.
But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?
I don't speak for the government but the UK seems to be gradually rolling back the most disruptive measures, while making the less disruptive ones semi-permanent.
This seems like the right general approach to me: Containment is a game of averages, if your infection rate is stable or a little bit below 1 but you want to be able to do something that increases the average number of people an infected person infects - say reopening schools - you need to counter that with something else that decreases the average number of people an infected person infects.
Exactly.
Think of it as if you're playing a role-playing game. There are a bunch of factors that push R down and a bunch that push R up.
For the sake of argument, take the following effects as correct and accurate; in reality, all are fuzzy, but the directions are probably right.
We know that if you go to the suite of factors that we called "lockdown" (different in each country, of course), you can get R down to around 0.6.
Add people going around outside with social distancing. R+0.01 Reopen non-essential shops and schools with social distancing. R+0.15 Reopen pubs and restaurants with social distancing and maximal outside use. R+0.15 Get people back to work if they can't work from home. R+0.1 Reopen gyms, cinemas, beauticians with social distancing. R+0.15 Impose masks in shops. R-0.2 Impose masks in pubs and restaurants. R-0.2
What do you do? It's certainly true that going for the full suite of lockdown measures (sans masks) gets R down to an acceptable level. It's also true that if you were to impose masks in pubs and restaurants it'd get R down still further. But might make eating a meal a bit of a challenge (ie it's impractical).
I think people seem to have this love of either-or absolutist situations. Either it's safe or it's not. When in reality, it's all a fuzzy shifting of probabilities. You're x% less likely to be infected if mass are imposed in shops. You're not certainly safe, nor were you certain to be infected before. That's just how probability works (albeit, as Tetlock and Gardner have pointed out, the human brain isn't set up to deal with fuzzy shades of grey and probabilities).
The problem with this sort of analysis is that it assumes that the virus is sitting in wait, looking for further opportunities to spread beyond the slave factories of Leicester back into the broader community. In some parts of the country that is true, there is still enough ambient virus around to make these sort of measures an appropriate response. In most of the country, however, unless you go to an infected care home you are unlikely to find any virus to be exposed to. In most of Scotland you can't even find it in hospital because the last patients have long since been discharged.
Masks in March, April May, possibly even June made a lot of sense and would probably have allowed us to come out of lockdown faster. Now? In localised areas of risk yes. Across the entire country? Just daft.
Buy we know it does exist within the community and it can cause a chain reaction of compound growth if things fail. As we are seeing in some states in the USA.
If we wear masks and feel a bit daft but stay safe that's better than having to enter a second lockdown as some US states are having to do.
Comments
(a) higher than now
(b) lower than now
There’s an overall benefit even if almost everyone is incompetent in taking them in and off - and the best time for people to practice is when infection rates are relatively low.
I think scott may have posted the wrong tweet by mistake because it had the work mock in it.
Cruel. But fair.
It is strange that Mark Drakeford in Wales ruled it out yesterday but no doubt he will follow England on this
To date here in Wales I see very few masks or face coverings in use
I don't think they will help that much except in crowded situations. Given what I have seen, I think that the most effective parts of lockdown are
- breaking up regular meetings of groups (mostly)
- stopping the interaction of people *bridging* groups
- everyone standing back a bit from each other. No one ever did 100% 2m, but 1m most of the time was a big, big help.
Masks are a bit on top.
It's worth noting that in the US, with the whole insanely out-of-control culture war, masks have become a symbol. But there real problem they are facing, is people not following the three points above.
This article explains you need to put measures in place now, including the wearing of masks, to minimise the death toll this winter
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1282817816723369993
And a population used to wearing masks is massively preferable to a second lockdown, if we don’t have a vaccine this winter.
Although her English opposite number was caught fiddling with Staatz and the Prime Minister wanted to test his eyesight.
The economy been destroyed permanently, the measures to alleviate it riddled with abuses, the ongoing nanny stating is a massive impediment to recovery, and the medical profession is wreaking havoc with its ''winter is coming'' fear project.
On top of all this we have through the compulsory wearing of masks in shops, a desperate attempt by a completely beleaguered government to prove to everybody its strategy is right.
The cowardice and incompetence know no bounds.
Soon is will be apparent that our 350bn deficit isn;t temporary but permanent, we can't afford to service our debt, and the inevitable result is a massive decline in public services and living standards.
How many more times. There is no new normal. We either go back to our lives and accept the risks, or live far poorer lives.
You choose, because your government is far too afraid to.
In all the lockdown, just about four during the shopping trips I've made. Two of which I think were the same woman.
In fact, the UK government doesn't have any strategy on anything: China, Covid 19, Brexit, the Union, relations with the US and other parts of the world.
* Apart from an "Empty Fortress Strategy" - slip in a Chinese reference here - that doesn't seem to be delivering.
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1282938543023808514
On reflection I suspect this change by HMG has been prompted by the report today of a possible 120,000 more deaths between this winter and june 2021
This country does seem to be reluctant to wear face masks and mandating them is probably the only way to change behaviour, and hopefully mitigate some of the worse fears for this winter and beyond
There, a nice Churchill comparison for Johnson.
Have a good morning.
Of course it can't. You could see scuffles and fights breaking out as mask wearers try to enforce the rules at the few remaining shops that have customers. Who would want to shop in places like that?
Its manifestly completely counter productive.
Another Johnson disaster.
Then we have the last mile issue. It cannot be remotely sensible or sustainable to have an army of jobber contractor drivers scuttling about in diesel vans delivering 5 times a day all the D2C orders you've made. Whats more how do you take delivery if you have to work? Or drop your kids at school? Or take a big dump? I am hopeful that a hub and spoke model can be built, using local shops as the collection point. That way all the fresh stuff you need to buy remains fresh, and there you can collect your box of online beers, but a Coffee from the Costa machine, a sandwich from the newly created local lunchy lunchy operator before heading back to your WFH office.
Construction was up 8%, production was up 6%, manufacturing was up 8% but services only grew by 0.9%, spot the difference. I actually think it's these numbers, not the fear of a second wave which has changed the government's decision on mask wearing.
June will bring big gains in the other two sectors again but lowish growth from a low base in services. Hopefully July will prove to have made a difference and the further easing as we go forwards will help too.
One final thing on masks, I have a lot of European friends and I'm married to a European. In all of these countries mask wearing has become normal for indoor activity. No one gives a shit and in Italy they've basically done away with social distancing indoors where masks are required. From what they all say their European family and friends won't come to this country to visit them or on holiday until we have mandatory masks. It is holding back a whole sector of the economy. The people who are allowed to come aren't doing so, the government needs to get our and advertise that masks are being made mandatory all across Europe and Asia so we rescue the August and September tourism season
COVID19 kills in a number of ways. One outcome is that the patient is left on life support, their body massively damaged.
I have a suspicion that a couple of the small spikes in deaths we have seen recently, were down shutting off life support for small groups of patients on the same day.
I was brought up to believe if you cough or sneeze you should cover your mouth of nose when you do that. I find it horrifically bad manners when I see someone just coughing or sneezing without bothering to do so. This to me is just a logical continuation - if you might be exhaling the virus just cover your damn mouth and nose. It's not rocket science.
Far better than continuing with lockdowns. I see no reason a libertarian would prefer a lockdown over cloth masks.
You need to stop dictating and start listening. OF course you won't because that would mean admitting your gargantuan errors.
Errors which are becoming more apparent with each day.
Working from home there is zero problem with taking delivery, and on the one occasion when I was briuefly unavailable they left the stuff at the door, and that's fine too.
Getting stuff delivered to a local shop and having to go and pick it up sounds like a big faff to me - I'd rather queue at Sainsbury than line up outside a small shop taking one customer at a time. But that's just me - if most people like it, the market will adjust to that too. Leftist though I am in macroeconomics and taxation matters, I trust the market to sort out changes in consumer preferences: the role of Government should be to ease the pain in change.
Wearing masks is also likely to suppress a second wave and make people feel safer in public, the lack of such confidence in safety now being the biggest obstacle to the resumption of normal economy activity.
How's the 'do nothing, it'll be fine strategy' working out in the US?
We are totally screwed.
Washing hands and social distancing were the main reasons infections came down quickly.
Tens of thousands dead who shouldn't have been because of this government. And you want tens of thousands more? How does a big death toll avoid the economic calamity in your opinion? Do people carry on regardless despite the American style hell surrounding them?
So what's your point?
Think of it as if you're playing a role-playing game. There are a bunch of factors that push R down and a bunch that push R up.
For the sake of argument, take the following effects as correct and accurate; in reality, all are fuzzy, but the directions are probably right.
We know that if you go to the suite of factors that we called "lockdown" (different in each country, of course), you can get R down to around 0.6.
Add people going around outside with social distancing. R+0.01
Reopen non-essential shops and schools with social distancing. R+0.15
Reopen pubs and restaurants with social distancing and maximal outside use. R+0.15
Get people back to work if they can't work from home. R+0.1
Reopen gyms, cinemas, beauticians with social distancing. R+0.15
Impose masks in shops. R-0.2
Impose masks in pubs and restaurants. R-0.2
What do you do?
It's certainly true that going for the full suite of lockdown measures (sans masks) gets R down to an acceptable level.
It's also true that if you were to impose masks in pubs and restaurants it'd get R down still further. But might make eating a meal a bit of a challenge (ie it's impractical).
I think people seem to have this love of either-or absolutist situations. Either it's safe or it's not. When in reality, it's all a fuzzy shifting of probabilities. You're x% less likely to be infected if mass are imposed in shops. You're not certainly safe, nor were you certain to be infected before. That's just how probability works (albeit, as Tetlock and Gardner have pointed out, the human brain isn't set up to deal with fuzzy shades of grey and probabilities).
On the ONS figures, from the frontline the May numbers are no surprise at all: it was a horrible month. June was a lot better, so expect a much bigger bounce when those numbers come out. However, conditions are really, really tough still and parts of the US going back into lockdowns is a very ominous sign. Keep an eye on Spain, too.
Unfortunately, Sunak's mini-budget was tinkering at the edges of what could well be a catastrophe. The government is going to have to get a whole lot more proactive. And imposing billlions of extra costs on business come January really isn't going to help.
And we are going to get a massive dose of both.
I wonder if the medical establishment will be quite so worried about a second wave when we tell them our current economic performance involves slashing their salaries.
Maybe that's a bit of a male thing though? I'm not saying it's better - just different from Nerys.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jun/03/facebook-posts/claim-florida-undercounting-covid-19-deaths-uses-f/
Also means I could probably avoid wearing a mask by sticking on one of my white office shirts and proper trousers.
Joined up government it is not.
Honestly the delusion on here is staggering. Its a mile thick.
The main issue with costs of home delivery is that, it is generally done on a very ad hoc basis - someone with a trolley shopping in the local store on your behalf, quite often.
If the big chains go all Occado and start delivering from warehouses, efficiencies will go up and costs will go down.
Suppress the disease, save the economy. There's no way around the first step, terribly painful though it is.
You can take the boy out of a socialist paradise-believing Labour Party whereby the laws of economics can be suspended, but you can't take the socialist paradise-believing...
Price elasticity of demand is your friend, here, Nick.
To date, there have been 44,830 official deaths in the UK, but this has slowed with 1,100 in July.
The estimate does not take into account any lockdowns, treatments or vaccines."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53392148
I'm having distinct doubts about the quality of UK scientists' fag packets....
"Hey Dave, how many winter deaths in a second wave of Covid?"
"About 25,000 mate. Actually, call it 24,500 - makes it looks like I gave a shit."
"Oh...really? I was thinking quarter of a million - sounds more likely to get me some funding."
"Well then, you've got to say it's 251,000 - to make it look like you haven't just pulled that number out your arse."
"Fair point, dude.... Was it that obvious?"
No-one could be dumb enough to believe a fantasy that everything would have been fine without lockdown. Especially when, say, Sweden (no lockdown but significant social distancing efforts) had a worse economic outcome than its neighbours (lockdown and quashing the deaths and hopsitalisation rates far better and sooner).
If it's an attempt to mock denialists with an extremist tongue-in-cheek portrayal, it's fun but a bit implausible.
But then again what I find staggering is the number of people who post without ever checking facts behind they statement.
Now I'm not saying you are wrong but full ICUs and staggeringly high pneumonia deaths compared to previous years tells me things aren't normal....
The "Romance of the Three KIngdoms" is what you might call historical fiction. It's historically based but plenty of invention too. It was also somewhat propagandist with a bias to the South against the North. Interesting period in Chinese history.
* meant to say. No-one coming across Johnson's "Empty Fortress" will assume he is a risk-averse strategist. Which is why it isn't working.
Masks in March, April May, possibly even June made a lot of sense and would probably have allowed us to come out of lockdown faster. Now? In localised areas of risk yes. Across the entire country? Just daft.
Some of the commentary is aggressively stupid.
1. Went to the gym nice and early. Ran myself into a sweaty mess. No mask, no risk from exhaling and sweat in an air-conditioned room.
2. Off to school on the bus. Mask on the bus of course as its not safe to be in an enclosed space with people
3. Arrive at school. Mask off because no risk to anyone
4. Long day, fancy a pint. So back on the bus. Masked obviously because danger.
5. Stop at the shop for a packet of tabs. Masked to ensure I don't breathe in anyone's exhalings in an air-conditioned room
6. Pub. No mask. No need. The air in pubs is always fresh and clean.
Using my common sense throughout to assess what is safe and not safe.
Is looking ugly for the US - very ugly.
Additionally if there is going to be a second wave having a population that is confident at mask wearing like Asian countries is better than asking people to learn to do it properly when getting it wrong really can make everything worse.
If we wear masks and feel a bit daft but stay safe that's better than having to enter a second lockdown as some US states are having to do.