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.
At least 75% of us are wearing masks against a risk that does not exist at the present time. Probably higher. Our government seems to lurch from painful and stupid inaction (eg quarantine) to gross over-reaction without any thought of the consequences. We need a lot more localised and evidence led responses. So people in Leicester should definitely be wearing masks right now and for at least another couple of months. People in Dundee really don't need to or to undertake social distancing either. There is no virus. Obviously if that changes the advice should change too.
That's like saying you should only wear a condom if you're having a one night stand if your partner knows they have HIV.
It really isn't. Yesterday there were 6 new cases of the virus in Scotland, a country of 5.3m people. I saw a suggestion it was another care home where residents tested positive. Like Keynes, if the facts change I will change my mind but right now our policies are having very negative economic effects to defend us from a non existent threat.
Then wear masks and unlock economic activity to maximum. That's the answer here.
So are you suggesting that wearing masks means that we can forget social distancing and everyone can return to work normally?
I really don't get the argument that weaing masks will mean that economic activity can return to the maximum.
Yes that's the whole damn point!
Would you rather have social distancing and lockdown ... Or wear a damn mask and get back to normal?
I'd rather get back to normal! Which would you prefer?
You are placing a whole lot of faith in something that the WHO still don't seem to think is the panacea that you do.
You see that growing UK war with China? The Huwawawi fuss? The aircraft-less carrier being dispatched?
China are bad.
Unless you are the Department for International Trade. Who have just sent me an email invitation to a webinar to learn how "to start selling food and drink products online from the UK into the Chinese market"
Those charts are scary if you've been made redundant. Vacancies are running at 40% of what they were this time last year but the number of job hunters is far higher.
There is a ton of shit coming for this government over the benefits system and sanctions etc, once millions who never thought they would go near the DWP find out what it entails. E.g. 35 hours a week filling in hundreds of applications to tick a box.
I wonder how many of the newly unemployed enjoyed raging about benefits scroungers in the pub of a Friday night?
If you worked more than 35 hours a week, 35 hours a week applying for jobs to get benefits is not that punitive.
Quite right, 35 hours is clearly not punitive enough. Let's have the scroungers spend 70 hours a week applying for jobs before they can qualify for benefits, then we can see if they're really motivated. It's obvious that the unemployed aren't just trying hard enough.
Or alternatively we could have a more decent, humane, civilised and respectful benefits system.
Interesting to read the debate on masks in the UK. For some of us, it's been compulsory to wear them everywhere outside the home for months now. People adapt to them, it's really not that bad but one does notice that communication becomes slightly more difficult - we read faces and lips subconsciously in normal times.
You live in an authoritarian country. We don't. That's part of the problem.
Those who haven't been wearing a mask but will now do so to obey the law will have every right to kick off when the law isn't enforced in full.
Perhaps I am being dense. I went to a supermarket this morning and was in store for fifteen minutes and probably near any other person for no more than fifteen seconds. Yesterday I went to a cafe and sat inside for thirty minutes with probably a dozen people I did not know. Yet as I understand it I will have to wear a facemask in the supermarket but not the cafe. In which am I more likely to catch or pass on Covid-19? And yes I know it is difficult to drink a coffee or a pint with a mask. A pint by a straw would be different!
Interesting to read the debate on masks in the UK. For some of us, it's been compulsory to wear them everywhere outside the home for months now. People adapt to them, it's really not that bad but one does notice that communication becomes slightly more difficult - we read faces and lips subconsciously in normal times.
You live in an authoritarian country. We don't. That's part of the problem.
Those who haven't been wearing a mask but will now do so to obey the law will have every right to kick off when the law isn't enforced in full.
Several European democracies have done the same. In Germany mask wearing is mandatory in shops, for example.
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.
At least 75% of us are wearing masks against a risk that does not exist at the present time. Probably higher. Our government seems to lurch from painful and stupid inaction (eg quarantine) to gross over-reaction without any thought of the consequences. We need a lot more localised and evidence led responses. So people in Leicester should definitely be wearing masks right now and for at least another couple of months. People in Dundee really don't need to or to undertake social distancing either. There is no virus. Obviously if that changes the advice should change too.
That's like saying you should only wear a condom if you're having a one night stand if your partner knows they have HIV.
It really isn't. Yesterday there were 6 new cases of the virus in Scotland, a country of 5.3m people. I saw a suggestion it was another care home where residents tested positive. Like Keynes, if the facts change I will change my mind but right now our policies are having very negative economic effects to defend us from a non existent threat.
Then wear masks and unlock economic activity to maximum. That's the answer here.
Max you're a numbers guy. What precautionary measures would you take for a 0.0001132% risk?
Edit: of catching a virus which you will almost certainly live through with very minor effects.
That's 5.3m x the risk rate given the size of the population, the individual risk is obviously very low but the national risk of a second lockdown is very high. Look at California, Serbia and countless other places which have had to reimpose lockdown measures. Masks are a basically pain free method of preventing that worst case scenario. I really, really don't understand the resistance among some people.
Because people are not completely stupid. Well, remainers aren't - can't speak for leavers.
If you tell them to do something transparently pointless or illogical they will fail to obey. Then when you need them to do something because the case incidence rate has gone up from 6 per 5.3m to 600 per 5.3m then they will not be in the mood to obey any new strictures.
Perhaps I am being dense. I went to a supermarket this morning and was in store for fifteen minutes and probably near any other person for no more than fifteen seconds. Yesterday I went to a cafe and sat inside for thirty minutes with probably a dozen people I did not know. Yet as I understand it I will have to wear a facemask in the supermarket but not the cafe. In which am I more likely to catch or pass on Covid-19? And yes I know it is difficult to drink a coffee or a pint with a mask. A pint by a straw would be different!
How many people are going to the shops vs. how many people are going to the cafe?
Interesting to read the debate on masks in the UK. For some of us, it's been compulsory to wear them everywhere outside the home for months now. People adapt to them, it's really not that bad but one does notice that communication becomes slightly more difficult - we read faces and lips subconsciously in normal times.
You live in an authoritarian country. We don't. That's part of the problem.
Those who haven't been wearing a mask but will now do so to obey the law will have every right to kick off when the law isn't enforced in full.
Several European democracies have done the same. In Germany mask wearing is mandatory in shops, for example.
They probably don't have arseholes like Dom Cummings breaking all the rules though.
Those charts are scary if you've been made redundant. Vacancies are running at 40% of what they were this time last year but the number of job hunters is far higher.
There is a ton of shit coming for this government over the benefits system and sanctions etc, once millions who never thought they would go near the DWP find out what it entails. E.g. 35 hours a week filling in hundreds of applications to tick a box.
I wonder how many of the newly unemployed enjoyed raging about benefits scroungers in the pub of a Friday night?
If you don't want to spend hours filling in applications then get a job.
Easier said than done with 4m jobseekers and 500k vacancies.
Well we aren't at 4m jobseekers yet and the ones who genuinely want a job and come across like they genuinely want one too will find it easier to get a job first.
Any evidence of that given that no one here has defined what a job seeker is.
I seriously suspect 4 million will be a vast underestimate.
Any evidence those 9 million were actively looking for work and the overwhelming majority were not blissfully happy taking 80% of their wages and would only start looking for work if and when it becomes necessary?
Oh they are currently blissfully happy taking their wages - their shock is yet to come.
Actually I've just found the universal credit claim figures from 1st March to 23rd June 3,403,530 claimed universal credit.
So yep that 4 million is an understatement as there was 1 million claiming before hand.
Being blunt something like 12-14 million people were not working on June 23rd....
Being on universal credit doesn't mean you are looking for work.
There is a mountain of difference between people not working and people looking for work. Those are two very, very different propositions.
Really? I seem to remember looking for work being a significant section within the specifications of the sanction management software I wrote for the universal credit appointment management system.
Now I know you have a habit of posting without thinking but that is a whole new level of being caught out...
UC now covers income-based ESA (for sick and disabled), in some regions.
Plus what used to be called tax credits etc ... Or housing benefit.
Universal credit is not simply jobseekers allowance.
Keep clutching at your straws
It's not a straw it's a fact. Are you claiming that everyone who is working (even if furloughed) and getting tax credits or housing benefits via Universal Credit is obliged to look for work despite the fact they already are working?
If those who are working are obliged to look for work or they face sanctions then that is an insane system. Is that seriously what you're claiming? Or did you make a mistake?
That figure of 3,403,350 is new claims - it's doesn't include people already claiming it
The people you are talking about (ESA transfers, tax credits, housing benefit) were already receiving it as all transfers (which yes, would usually be counted within new claims) have been postponed.
And for reference 2,571,795 households were claiming UC in Feb 2020 - which is the last figures available.
Yes, that's the whole fucking point of them. If everyone wears masks then we can basically eliminate social distancing. Japan and other Asian countries have shown that this is possible.
That's over-stating the case a little bit; Japan is still doing quite a lot of WFH, lots of places that are open are at reduced capacity, events are still largely stopped. Despite which we're still getting another bunch of cases in Tokyo and Osaka (centred on bars), now spilling out into surrounding areas. China had another outbreak, HK had another outbreak, masks alone don't seem to be enough.
Interesting to read the debate on masks in the UK. For some of us, it's been compulsory to wear them everywhere outside the home for months now. People adapt to them, it's really not that bad but one does notice that communication becomes slightly more difficult - we read faces and lips subconsciously in normal times.
You live in an authoritarian country. We don't. That's part of the problem.
Those who haven't been wearing a mask but will now do so to obey the law will have every right to kick off when the law isn't enforced in full.
Several European democracies have done the same. In Germany mask wearing is mandatory in shops, for example.
They probably don't have arseholes like Dom Cummings breaking all the rules though.
They are everywhere. Didn't an NZ advisor have to resign for doing something similar, and the chief medical advisor in Scotland?
Interesting to read the debate on masks in the UK. For some of us, it's been compulsory to wear them everywhere outside the home for months now. People adapt to them, it's really not that bad but one does notice that communication becomes slightly more difficult - we read faces and lips subconsciously in normal times.
You live in an authoritarian country. We don't. That's part of the problem.
Those who haven't been wearing a mask but will now do so to obey the law will have every right to kick off when the law isn't enforced in full.
Several European democracies have done the same. In Germany mask wearing is mandatory in shops, for example.
We police by consent. I hope our police forces are ready to intervene when the law isn't obeyed.
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.
Shown your fucking working.
Peak hospital admissions, 2nd April, peak deaths 8th April, work back from there.
What some people forget is that in April when we were getting 6000 postive tests we were only testing 8000 people. If we have the testing capacity in March that we have now we would have had at least 40-60,000 positive tests a day. Testing capacity in March was 2-3,000. If you had symptoms you were told to stay home. You were not allowed to get tested.
Therefore the only reliable way of working out the level of infections is hospital admissions and deaths.
Working back from there gets... when lockdown started.
Not forgetting unofficial lockdown began a few days prior to it being legally required.
It is actually a few days before lockdown which demonstrates that we were able to get the R figure below 1 without lockdown. Lockdown may have sustained R below 1 but to argue that lockdown saved 450,000 lives when the R figure was below 1 before lockdown is pushing reality a bit.
So - what's your argument? That we should do what we were doing that week? Which was:
- Encourage everyone to work from home if at all possible (transport levels fell off a cliff from a week before lockdown became official. I've been working from home since the 18th - I work at an MoD site and, after the announcement on the 16th by Boris of those measures, we had an announcement on the 17th that everyone's working from home if at all possible.) - Close schools (as of the 20th) - Discourage people from going to bars or restaurants and look at actually closing them - Close cinemas, gyms, beauticians - Encourage people to not go around unless absolutely essential?
Because that's significantly harsher than we are at the moment.
Got to be honest, it looks a bit like an attempt to convince people of a category error (either yourself or others), namely: - Those restrictions weren't called "lockdown" - "Lockdown" was therefore unnecessary - "No lockdown" implies no restrictions at all - Therefore no restrictions at all are necessary or ever were.
Because otherwise it's really a bit handwavy. We already know that we can have R below 1 with those above restrictions (the pre-23rd ones), and we'd prefer not to have to impose all of them again.
Interesting to read the debate on masks in the UK. For some of us, it's been compulsory to wear them everywhere outside the home for months now. People adapt to them, it's really not that bad but one does notice that communication becomes slightly more difficult - we read faces and lips subconsciously in normal times.
You live in an authoritarian country. We don't. That's part of the problem.
Those who haven't been wearing a mask but will now do so to obey the law will have every right to kick off when the law isn't enforced in full.
Several European democracies have done the same. In Germany mask wearing is mandatory in shops, for example.
We police by consent. I hope our police forces are ready to intervene when the law isn't obeyed.
Do they not police by consent in Germany? And of course, but I don't hold out much hope. They'll probably be too busy policing twitter.
You see that growing UK war with China? The Huwawawi fuss? The aircraft-less carrier being dispatched?
China are bad.
Unless you are the Department for International Trade. Who have just sent me an email invitation to a webinar to learn how "to start selling food and drink products online from the UK into the Chinese market"
If they're sending them British food that would be a significant escalation
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.
At least 75% of us are wearing masks against a risk that does not exist at the present time. Probably higher. Our government seems to lurch from painful and stupid inaction (eg quarantine) to gross over-reaction without any thought of the consequences. We need a lot more localised and evidence led responses. So people in Leicester should definitely be wearing masks right now and for at least another couple of months. People in Dundee really don't need to or to undertake social distancing either. There is no virus. Obviously if that changes the advice should change too.
That's like saying you should only wear a condom if you're having a one night stand if your partner knows they have HIV.
It really isn't. Yesterday there were 6 new cases of the virus in Scotland, a country of 5.3m people. I saw a suggestion it was another care home where residents tested positive. Like Keynes, if the facts change I will change my mind but right now our policies are having very negative economic effects to defend us from a non existent threat.
Then wear masks and unlock economic activity to maximum. That's the answer here.
So are you suggesting that wearing masks means that we can forget social distancing and everyone can return to work normally?
I really don't get the argument that weaing masks will mean that economic activity can return to the maximum.
Yes that's the whole damn point!
Would you rather have social distancing and lockdown ... Or wear a damn mask and get back to normal?
I'd rather get back to normal! Which would you prefer?
You are placing a whole lot of faith in something that the WHO still don't seem to think is the panacea that you do.
Social distancing and hand washing work.
Social distancing is economically and mentally catastrophic. We need to find a way to end social distancing
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....
It is the compulsion that makes people object to the mask wearing. If the Government told people not to wear masks, and insisted that it was anti-science, offered no protection, and was undesirable behaviour, most of the same people who are objecting to them would be proudly sporting them and laughing (behind their masks) at the sheep who were not.
I don't like wearing one, but I am going to get a stretchy 'snood' type one like the link Charles posted the other day, and that should be a lot more comfortable.
Yes, that's the whole fucking point of them. If everyone wears masks then we can basically eliminate social distancing. Japan and other Asian countries have shown that this is possible.
That's over-stating the case a little bit; Japan is still doing quite a lot of WFH, lots of places that are open are at reduced capacity, events are still largely stopped. Despite which we're still getting another bunch of cases in Tokyo and Osaka (centred on bars), now spilling out into surrounding areas. China had another outbreak, HK had another outbreak, masks alone don't seem to be enough.
Coupled with 1m group based distancing in bars, pubs and restaurants I think masks will allow for full capacity at shops, cinemas and other leisure venues. Also masks off at the table, on at all other times in bars, pubs and restaurants.
Perhaps I am being dense. I went to a supermarket this morning and was in store for fifteen minutes and probably near any other person for no more than fifteen seconds. Yesterday I went to a cafe and sat inside for thirty minutes with probably a dozen people I did not know. Yet as I understand it I will have to wear a facemask in the supermarket but not the cafe. In which am I more likely to catch or pass on Covid-19? And yes I know it is difficult to drink a coffee or a pint with a mask. A pint by a straw would be different!
As I stated earlier - shops are unavoidable, visiting a cafe and pub is a personal choice.
Perhaps I am being dense. I went to a supermarket this morning and was in store for fifteen minutes and probably near any other person for no more than fifteen seconds. Yesterday I went to a cafe and sat inside for thirty minutes with probably a dozen people I did not know. Yet as I understand it I will have to wear a facemask in the supermarket but not the cafe. In which am I more likely to catch or pass on Covid-19? And yes I know it is difficult to drink a coffee or a pint with a mask. A pint by a straw would be different!
Lowering R is effectively the accumulation of marginal gains.
You take the measures in each situation that best reduce the risk. Shops can stay open with people wearing masks, so why not have people wear them?
Cafe's can't, so you either shut them, or try and maintain social distancing as best you can.
Perhaps I am being dense. I went to a supermarket this morning and was in store for fifteen minutes and probably near any other person for no more than fifteen seconds. Yesterday I went to a cafe and sat inside for thirty minutes with probably a dozen people I did not know. Yet as I understand it I will have to wear a facemask in the supermarket but not the cafe. In which am I more likely to catch or pass on Covid-19? And yes I know it is difficult to drink a coffee or a pint with a mask. A pint by a straw would be different!
As I stated earlier - shops are unavoidable, visiting a cafe and pub is a personal choice.
Ah, so this isn't about macro numbers. Do those who work in cafes and pubs have much of a choice?
Those charts are scary if you've been made redundant. Vacancies are running at 40% of what they were this time last year but the number of job hunters is far higher.
There is a ton of shit coming for this government over the benefits system and sanctions etc, once millions who never thought they would go near the DWP find out what it entails. E.g. 35 hours a week filling in hundreds of applications to tick a box.
I wonder how many of the newly unemployed enjoyed raging about benefits scroungers in the pub of a Friday night?
If you don't want to spend hours filling in applications then get a job.
Easier said than done with 4m jobseekers and 500k vacancies.
Well we aren't at 4m jobseekers yet and the ones who genuinely want a job and come across like they genuinely want one too will find it easier to get a job first.
Any evidence of that given that no one here has defined what a job seeker is.
I seriously suspect 4 million will be a vast underestimate.
Any evidence those 9 million were actively looking for work and the overwhelming majority were not blissfully happy taking 80% of their wages and would only start looking for work if and when it becomes necessary?
Oh they are currently blissfully happy taking their wages - their shock is yet to come.
Actually I've just found the universal credit claim figures from 1st March to 23rd June 3,403,530 claimed universal credit.
So yep that 4 million is an understatement as there was 1 million claiming before hand.
Being blunt something like 12-14 million people were not working on June 23rd....
Being on universal credit doesn't mean you are looking for work.
There is a mountain of difference between people not working and people looking for work. Those are two very, very different propositions.
Really? I seem to remember looking for work being a significant section within the specifications of the sanction management software I wrote for the universal credit appointment management system.
Now I know you have a habit of posting without thinking but that is a whole new level of being caught out...
UC now covers income-based ESA (for sick and disabled), in some regions.
Plus what used to be called tax credits etc ... Or housing benefit.
Universal credit is not simply jobseekers allowance.
Keep clutching at your straws
It's not a straw it's a fact. Are you claiming that everyone who is working (even if furloughed) and getting tax credits or housing benefits via Universal Credit is obliged to look for work despite the fact they already are working?
If those who are working are obliged to look for work or they face sanctions then that is an insane system. Is that seriously what you're claiming? Or did you make a mistake?
That figure of 3,403,350 is new claims - it's doesn't include people already claiming it
The people you are talking about (ESA transfers, tax credits, housing benefit) were already receiving it as all transfers (which yes, would usually be counted within new claims) have been postponed.
And for reference 2,571,795 households were claiming UC in Feb 2020 - which is the last figures available.
But you're missing the fact that the sanctions etc that you were referring to have been suspended due to the pandemic. The government have basically encouraged the self employed who couldn't get support via other means to claim universal credit ... with the usual requirements waived ... and then after the pandemic people can return to what they were doing.
There is no obligation as it stands for all who claim to be actively jobseeking.
Perhaps I am being dense. I went to a supermarket this morning and was in store for fifteen minutes and probably near any other person for no more than fifteen seconds. Yesterday I went to a cafe and sat inside for thirty minutes with probably a dozen people I did not know. Yet as I understand it I will have to wear a facemask in the supermarket but not the cafe. In which am I more likely to catch or pass on Covid-19? And yes I know it is difficult to drink a coffee or a pint with a mask. A pint by a straw would be different!
As I stated earlier - shops are unavoidable, visiting a cafe and pub is a personal choice.
Ah, so this isn't about macro numbers. Do those who work in cafes and pubs have much of a choice?
Serving staff wearing masks and compulsory table service are two anecdotes I've heard from friends who have ventured into pubs and restaurants.
Those charts are scary if you've been made redundant. Vacancies are running at 40% of what they were this time last year but the number of job hunters is far higher.
There is a ton of shit coming for this government over the benefits system and sanctions etc, once millions who never thought they would go near the DWP find out what it entails. E.g. 35 hours a week filling in hundreds of applications to tick a box.
I wonder how many of the newly unemployed enjoyed raging about benefits scroungers in the pub of a Friday night?
If you don't want to spend hours filling in applications then get a job.
Easier said than done with 4m jobseekers and 500k vacancies.
Well we aren't at 4m jobseekers yet and the ones who genuinely want a job and come across like they genuinely want one too will find it easier to get a job first.
Any evidence of that given that no one here has defined what a job seeker is.
I seriously suspect 4 million will be a vast underestimate.
Any evidence those 9 million were actively looking for work and the overwhelming majority were not blissfully happy taking 80% of their wages and would only start looking for work if and when it becomes necessary?
Oh they are currently blissfully happy taking their wages - their shock is yet to come.
Actually I've just found the universal credit claim figures from 1st March to 23rd June 3,403,530 claimed universal credit.
So yep that 4 million is an understatement as there was 1 million claiming before hand.
Being blunt something like 12-14 million people were not working on June 23rd....
Being on universal credit doesn't mean you are looking for work.
There is a mountain of difference between people not working and people looking for work. Those are two very, very different propositions.
Really? I seem to remember looking for work being a significant section within the specifications of the sanction management software I wrote for the universal credit appointment management system.
Now I know you have a habit of posting without thinking but that is a whole new level of being caught out...
UC now covers income-based ESA (for sick and disabled), in some regions.
Plus what used to be called tax credits etc ... Or housing benefit.
Universal credit is not simply jobseekers allowance.
Keep clutching at your straws
It's not a straw it's a fact. Are you claiming that everyone who is working (even if furloughed) and getting tax credits or housing benefits via Universal Credit is obliged to look for work despite the fact they already are working?
If those who are working are obliged to look for work or they face sanctions then that is an insane system. Is that seriously what you're claiming? Or did you make a mistake?
Let's be clear:
I am talking about NEW Claims
No one is being transferred to universal credit at the moment if they are currently receiving housing benefit or tax credits.
So the only people claiming it are people's who situation has significantly changed which won't be those who have been furloughed...
So we have 3.4 million people who are so short of money they are asking the government for some because they situation has changed and it's not due to illness (as even if it was they won't be getting Limited Capability to work exceptions until they start doing medical checks again)
Interesting to read the debate on masks in the UK. For some of us, it's been compulsory to wear them everywhere outside the home for months now. People adapt to them, it's really not that bad but one does notice that communication becomes slightly more difficult - we read faces and lips subconsciously in normal times.
You live in an authoritarian country. We don't. That's part of the problem.
Those who haven't been wearing a mask but will now do so to obey the law will have every right to kick off when the law isn't enforced in full.
It will be, the Government confirmed police would have the power to fine those without a mask shopping £100
Tobes there, who unencumbered by qualifications pronounces on public health, Covid-19, economics, social policy, 'progressive eugenics' and education, accusing someone of being a journalist who thinks he's a scientist.
I am always stunned by people who will pontificate on stuff in public when there are people around who are much more qualified. I verge the other way. I am wary to write an article for publication and I have been concerned about presentations in case I make a fool of myself even though I should have the confidence that it is on a subject I know about. I wouldn't publish or present on something I was not expert in because the experts can run circles around me.
I am shocked that these people are too stupid to realise that they are stupid.
You see that growing UK war with China? The Huwawawi fuss? The aircraft-less carrier being dispatched?
China are bad.
Unless you are the Department for International Trade. Who have just sent me an email invitation to a webinar to learn how "to start selling food and drink products online from the UK into the Chinese market"
If they're sending them British food that would be a significant escalation
Those charts are scary if you've been made redundant. Vacancies are running at 40% of what they were this time last year but the number of job hunters is far higher.
There is a ton of shit coming for this government over the benefits system and sanctions etc, once millions who never thought they would go near the DWP find out what it entails. E.g. 35 hours a week filling in hundreds of applications to tick a box.
I wonder how many of the newly unemployed enjoyed raging about benefits scroungers in the pub of a Friday night?
If you worked more than 35 hours a week, 35 hours a week applying for jobs to get benefits is not that punitive.
Quite right, 35 hours is clearly not punitive enough. Let's have the scroungers spend 70 hours a week applying for jobs before they can qualify for benefits, then we can see if they're really motivated. It's obvious that the unemployed aren't just trying hard enough.
Or alternatively we could have a more decent, humane, civilised and respectful benefits system.
Compared to most of the world our benefits system is very humane, in most countries you cannot get unemployment benefits at all without having contributed first through insurance
It is the compulsion that makes people object to the mask wearing. If the Government told people not to wear masks, and insisted that it was anti-science, offered no protection, and was undesirable behaviour, most of the same people who are objecting to them would be proudly sporting them and laughing (behind their masks) at the sheep who were not.
I don't like wearing one, but I am going to get a stretchy 'snood' type one like the link Charles posted the other day, and that should be a lot more comfortable.
I disagree completely. For many people, it's the lack of compulsion that makes them object to mask wearing. Why the hell should I go to the hassle of wearing a mask if other people choose not to? That's why we have laws - to make people behave in way that doesn't inconvenience others! I've not worn a mask until now (apart from when delivering my mother's shopping), but I will happily do so if everyone else is obliged to wear one too.
Those charts are scary if you've been made redundant. Vacancies are running at 40% of what they were this time last year but the number of job hunters is far higher.
There is a ton of shit coming for this government over the benefits system and sanctions etc, once millions who never thought they would go near the DWP find out what it entails. E.g. 35 hours a week filling in hundreds of applications to tick a box.
I wonder how many of the newly unemployed enjoyed raging about benefits scroungers in the pub of a Friday night?
If you worked more than 35 hours a week, 35 hours a week applying for jobs to get benefits is not that punitive.
Quite right, 35 hours is clearly not punitive enough. Let's have the scroungers spend 70 hours a week applying for jobs before they can qualify for benefits, then we can see if they're really motivated. It's obvious that the unemployed aren't just trying hard enough.
Or alternatively we could have a more decent, humane, civilised and respectful benefits system.
Compared to most of the world our benefits system is very humane, in most countries you cannot get unemployment benefits at all without having contributed first through insurance
Which is why we now have Brexit - because we are happy to give Eastern Europeans money for 14 hours of work a week and even subsidies children that are still in Poland / Romania...
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.
At least 75% of us are wearing masks against a risk that does not exist at the present time. Probably higher. Our government seems to lurch from painful and stupid inaction (eg quarantine) to gross over-reaction without any thought of the consequences. We need a lot more localised and evidence led responses. So people in Leicester should definitely be wearing masks right now and for at least another couple of months. People in Dundee really don't need to or to undertake social distancing either. There is no virus. Obviously if that changes the advice should change too.
That's like saying you should only wear a condom if you're having a one night stand if your partner knows they have HIV.
It really isn't. Yesterday there were 6 new cases of the virus in Scotland, a country of 5.3m people. I saw a suggestion it was another care home where residents tested positive. Like Keynes, if the facts change I will change my mind but right now our policies are having very negative economic effects to defend us from a non existent threat.
Then wear masks and unlock economic activity to maximum. That's the answer here.
So are you suggesting that wearing masks means that we can forget social distancing and everyone can return to work normally?
I really don't get the argument that weaing masks will mean that economic activity can return to the maximum.
Yes that's the whole damn point!
Would you rather have social distancing and lockdown ... Or wear a damn mask and get back to normal?
I'd rather get back to normal! Which would you prefer?
You are placing a whole lot of faith in something that the WHO still don't seem to think is the panacea that you do.
Social distancing and hand washing work.
Social distancing is economically and mentally catastrophic. We need to find a way to end social distancing
Those charts are scary if you've been made redundant. Vacancies are running at 40% of what they were this time last year but the number of job hunters is far higher.
There is a ton of shit coming for this government over the benefits system and sanctions etc, once millions who never thought they would go near the DWP find out what it entails. E.g. 35 hours a week filling in hundreds of applications to tick a box.
I wonder how many of the newly unemployed enjoyed raging about benefits scroungers in the pub of a Friday night?
If you don't want to spend hours filling in applications then get a job.
Easier said than done with 4m jobseekers and 500k vacancies.
Well we aren't at 4m jobseekers yet and the ones who genuinely want a job and come across like they genuinely want one too will find it easier to get a job first.
Any evidence of that given that no one here has defined what a job seeker is.
I seriously suspect 4 million will be a vast underestimate.
Any evidence those 9 million were actively looking for work and the overwhelming majority were not blissfully happy taking 80% of their wages and would only start looking for work if and when it becomes necessary?
Oh they are currently blissfully happy taking their wages - their shock is yet to come.
Actually I've just found the universal credit claim figures from 1st March to 23rd June 3,403,530 claimed universal credit.
So yep that 4 million is an understatement as there was 1 million claiming before hand.
Being blunt something like 12-14 million people were not working on June 23rd....
Being on universal credit doesn't mean you are looking for work.
There is a mountain of difference between people not working and people looking for work. Those are two very, very different propositions.
Really? I seem to remember looking for work being a significant section within the specifications of the sanction management software I wrote for the universal credit appointment management system.
Now I know you have a habit of posting without thinking but that is a whole new level of being caught out...
UC now covers income-based ESA (for sick and disabled), in some regions.
Plus what used to be called tax credits etc ... Or housing benefit.
Universal credit is not simply jobseekers allowance.
Keep clutching at your straws
It's not a straw it's a fact. Are you claiming that everyone who is working (even if furloughed) and getting tax credits or housing benefits via Universal Credit is obliged to look for work despite the fact they already are working?
If those who are working are obliged to look for work or they face sanctions then that is an insane system. Is that seriously what you're claiming? Or did you make a mistake?
Let's be clear:
I am talking about NEW Claims
No one is being transferred to universal credit at the moment if they are currently receiving housing benefit or tax credits.
So the only people claiming it are people's who situation has significantly changed which won't be those who have been furloughed...
So we have 3.4 million people who are so short of money they are asking the government for some because they situation has changed and it's not due to illness (as even if it was they won't be getting Limited Capability to work exceptions until they start doing medical checks again)
So they're getting money but that wasn't what was discussed. The claim you made was that they were all looking for work and I said that's not necessarily true. You replied about sanctions ignoring the fact they have been suspended due to the pandemic.
Yes they maybe should be looking for work. Or they maybe are on it temporarily until they can get back to what they were doing before. But either way they are not necessarily actually looking for work which was my point all along.
Being out of work and looking for work are not the same thing.
Those charts are scary if you've been made redundant. Vacancies are running at 40% of what they were this time last year but the number of job hunters is far higher.
There is a ton of shit coming for this government over the benefits system and sanctions etc, once millions who never thought they would go near the DWP find out what it entails. E.g. 35 hours a week filling in hundreds of applications to tick a box.
I wonder how many of the newly unemployed enjoyed raging about benefits scroungers in the pub of a Friday night?
If you worked more than 35 hours a week, 35 hours a week applying for jobs to get benefits is not that punitive.
Quite right, 35 hours is clearly not punitive enough. Let's have the scroungers spend 70 hours a week applying for jobs before they can qualify for benefits, then we can see if they're really motivated. It's obvious that the unemployed aren't just trying hard enough.
Or alternatively we could have a more decent, humane, civilised and respectful benefits system.
Compared to most of the world our benefits system is very humane, in most countries you cannot get unemployment benefits at all without having contributed first through insurance
Which is why we now have Brexit - because we are happy to give Eastern Europeans money for 14 hours of work a week and even subsidies children that are still in Poland / Romania...
And free movement is ending and being replaced with a points based immigration system based on skills needed
It is the compulsion that makes people object to the mask wearing. If the Government told people not to wear masks, and insisted that it was anti-science, offered no protection, and was undesirable behaviour, most of the same people who are objecting to them would be proudly sporting them and laughing (behind their masks) at the sheep who were not.
I don't like wearing one, but I am going to get a stretchy 'snood' type one like the link Charles posted the other day, and that should be a lot more comfortable.
I am doing the same. I already wear snoods and scarves anyway so having them higher up on my face is not that much of a stretch (sorry!).
If it helps reduce the risk, even a little, so much the better.
Those charts are scary if you've been made redundant. Vacancies are running at 40% of what they were this time last year but the number of job hunters is far higher.
There is a ton of shit coming for this government over the benefits system and sanctions etc, once millions who never thought they would go near the DWP find out what it entails. E.g. 35 hours a week filling in hundreds of applications to tick a box.
I wonder how many of the newly unemployed enjoyed raging about benefits scroungers in the pub of a Friday night?
If you worked more than 35 hours a week, 35 hours a week applying for jobs to get benefits is not that punitive.
Quite right, 35 hours is clearly not punitive enough. Let's have the scroungers spend 70 hours a week applying for jobs before they can qualify for benefits, then we can see if they're really motivated. It's obvious that the unemployed aren't just trying hard enough.
Or alternatively we could have a more decent, humane, civilised and respectful benefits system.
Compared to most of the world our benefits system is very humane, in most countries you cannot get unemployment benefits at all without having contributed first through insurance
Which is why we now have Brexit - because we are happy to give Eastern Europeans money for 14 hours of work a week and even subsidies children that are still in Poland / Romania...
And free movement is ending and being replaced with a points based immigration system based on skills needed
Which is only required because we never implemented all the other options that were available to us while we were in the EU....
Those charts are scary if you've been made redundant. Vacancies are running at 40% of what they were this time last year but the number of job hunters is far higher.
There is a ton of shit coming for this government over the benefits system and sanctions etc, once millions who never thought they would go near the DWP find out what it entails. E.g. 35 hours a week filling in hundreds of applications to tick a box.
I wonder how many of the newly unemployed enjoyed raging about benefits scroungers in the pub of a Friday night?
If you worked more than 35 hours a week, 35 hours a week applying for jobs to get benefits is not that punitive.
Quite right, 35 hours is clearly not punitive enough. Let's have the scroungers spend 70 hours a week applying for jobs before they can qualify for benefits, then we can see if they're really motivated. It's obvious that the unemployed aren't just trying hard enough.
Or alternatively we could have a more decent, humane, civilised and respectful benefits system.
Compared to most of the world our benefits system is very humane, in most countries you cannot get unemployment benefits at all without having contributed first through insurance
Which is why we now have Brexit - because we are happy to give Eastern Europeans money for 14 hours of work a week and even subsidies children that are still in Poland / Romania...
And free movement is ending and being replaced with a points based immigration system based on skills needed
Will priority be given to people from countries with whom we have close trade deals?
Tobes there, who unencumbered by qualifications pronounces on public health, Covid-19, economics, social policy, 'progressive eugenics' and education, accusing someone of being a journalist who thinks he's a scientist.
I am always stunned by people who will pontificate on stuff in public when there are people around who are much more qualified. I verge the other way. I am wary to write an article for publication and I have been concerned about presentations in case I make a fool of myself even though I should have the confidence that it is on a subject I know about. I wouldn't publish or present on something I was not expert in because the experts can run circles around me.
I am shocked that these people are too stupid to realise that they are stupid.
Isn't that the gist of the Dunning-Krüger study? That stupid people are too stupid to realise they are stupid?
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?
What bollocks.
It is not a factor of 10 but more like 1.5 (you would have been better picking April where the factor is about 2.5). But more importantly the increase in deaths and more dramatically cases is rocketing. New cases are 3 times May's figures. This week they are likely to hit new records as they did last week and these records of cases are being broken by 5K to 10K each time.
Deaths have already jumped dramatically in the last week if you compare each day to the same day in the past week and of course deaths lag cases so expect those to start to climb significantly also.
Tobes there, who unencumbered by qualifications pronounces on public health, Covid-19, economics, social policy, 'progressive eugenics' and education, accusing someone of being a journalist who thinks he's a scientist.
I am always stunned by people who will pontificate on stuff in public when there are people around who are much more qualified. I verge the other way. I am wary to write an article for publication and I have been concerned about presentations in case I make a fool of myself even though I should have the confidence that it is on a subject I know about. I wouldn't publish or present on something I was not expert in because the experts can run circles around me.
I am shocked that these people are too stupid to realise that they are stupid.
Not only that, but making statements that are factually incorrect and easy to prove wrong, is just plain stupid. Dr. Adam Rutherford has a degree in evolutionary genetics, including a project under Steve Jones studying stalk-eyed flies. He was awarded a PhD in genetics in 2002 by University College London.
Perhaps I am being dense. I went to a supermarket this morning and was in store for fifteen minutes and probably near any other person for no more than fifteen seconds. Yesterday I went to a cafe and sat inside for thirty minutes with probably a dozen people I did not know. Yet as I understand it I will have to wear a facemask in the supermarket but not the cafe. In which am I more likely to catch or pass on Covid-19? And yes I know it is difficult to drink a coffee or a pint with a mask. A pint by a straw would be different!
As I stated earlier - shops are unavoidable, visiting a cafe and pub is a personal choice.
Ah, so this isn't about macro numbers. Do those who work in cafes and pubs have much of a choice?
Serving staff wearing masks and compulsory table service are two anecdotes I've heard from friends who have ventured into pubs and restaurants.
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.
At least 75% of us are wearing masks against a risk that does not exist at the present time. Probably higher. Our government seems to lurch from painful and stupid inaction (eg quarantine) to gross over-reaction without any thought of the consequences. We need a lot more localised and evidence led responses. So people in Leicester should definitely be wearing masks right now and for at least another couple of months. People in Dundee really don't need to or to undertake social distancing either. There is no virus. Obviously if that changes the advice should change too.
That's like saying you should only wear a condom if you're having a one night stand if your partner knows they have HIV.
It really isn't. Yesterday there were 6 new cases of the virus in Scotland, a country of 5.3m people. I saw a suggestion it was another care home where residents tested positive. Like Keynes, if the facts change I will change my mind but right now our policies are having very negative economic effects to defend us from a non existent threat.
Then wear masks and unlock economic activity to maximum. That's the answer here.
So are you suggesting that wearing masks means that we can forget social distancing and everyone can return to work normally?
I really don't get the argument that weaing masks will mean that economic activity can return to the maximum.
Yes that's the whole damn point!
Would you rather have social distancing and lockdown ... Or wear a damn mask and get back to normal?
I'd rather get back to normal! Which would you prefer?
You are placing a whole lot of faith in something that the WHO still don't seem to think is the panacea that you do.
Social distancing and hand washing work.
Social distancing is economically and mentally catastrophic. We need to find a way to end social distancing
And free movement is ending and being replaced with a points based immigration system based on skills needed
That's not correct, it's being replaced with a points-based immigration system based on *the government's perception* of skills needed. I'm not sure if you've ever interacted with a government, but if you have you'll appreciate that these are very different things.
What's the difference between a leader strong enough to admit to mistakes and to act in response to pleas from the public, and a leader who is weak and vacillating, unable to steer a steady course between the eddies of ephemeral public mood?
I might think that Johnson is developing the record of a well-greased weathervane, who flip-flops like a flopping flip-flopper, but the opinion polls suggest that he's still on the right side of the divide. A strong leader who listens, rather than a weak leader whose instinct is always wrong.
Perhaps the difference is simply captured by the personality question, brought to our attention by @isam ?
If you like a leader's personality than every flip-flop is proof that the leader will listen to their people. If you don't, then they're evidence of weakness and stupidity.
Those charts are scary if you've been made redundant. Vacancies are running at 40% of what they were this time last year but the number of job hunters is far higher.
There is a ton of shit coming for this government over the benefits system and sanctions etc, once millions who never thought they would go near the DWP find out what it entails. E.g. 35 hours a week filling in hundreds of applications to tick a box.
I wonder how many of the newly unemployed enjoyed raging about benefits scroungers in the pub of a Friday night?
If you worked more than 35 hours a week, 35 hours a week applying for jobs to get benefits is not that punitive.
Quite right, 35 hours is clearly not punitive enough. Let's have the scroungers spend 70 hours a week applying for jobs before they can qualify for benefits, then we can see if they're really motivated. It's obvious that the unemployed aren't just trying hard enough.
Or alternatively we could have a more decent, humane, civilised and respectful benefits system.
Compared to most of the world our benefits system is very humane, in most countries you cannot get unemployment benefits at all without having contributed first through insurance
Which is why we now have Brexit - because we are happy to give Eastern Europeans money for 14 hours of work a week and even subsidies children that are still in Poland / Romania...
And free movement is ending and being replaced with a points based immigration system based on skills needed
Which is only required because we never implemented all the other options that were available to us while we were in the EU....
So what?
Those other options were regarded as impossible to take and unpalatable so it's all moot.
Those charts are scary if you've been made redundant. Vacancies are running at 40% of what they were this time last year but the number of job hunters is far higher.
There is a ton of shit coming for this government over the benefits system and sanctions etc, once millions who never thought they would go near the DWP find out what it entails. E.g. 35 hours a week filling in hundreds of applications to tick a box.
I wonder how many of the newly unemployed enjoyed raging about benefits scroungers in the pub of a Friday night?
If you don't want to spend hours filling in applications then get a job.
Easier said than done with 4m jobseekers and 500k vacancies.
Well we aren't at 4m jobseekers yet and the ones who genuinely want a job and come across like they genuinely want one too will find it easier to get a job first.
Any evidence of that given that no one here has defined what a job seeker is.
I seriously suspect 4 million will be a vast underestimate.
Any evidence those 9 million were actively looking for work and the overwhelming majority were not blissfully happy taking 80% of their wages and would only start looking for work if and when it becomes necessary?
Oh they are currently blissfully happy taking their wages - their shock is yet to come.
Actually I've just found the universal credit claim figures from 1st March to 23rd June 3,403,530 claimed universal credit.
So yep that 4 million is an understatement as there was 1 million claiming before hand.
Being blunt something like 12-14 million people were not working on June 23rd....
Being on universal credit doesn't mean you are looking for work.
There is a mountain of difference between people not working and people looking for work. Those are two very, very different propositions.
Really? I seem to remember looking for work being a significant section within the specifications of the sanction management software I wrote for the universal credit appointment management system.
Now I know you have a habit of posting without thinking but that is a whole new level of being caught out...
UC now covers income-based ESA (for sick and disabled), in some regions.
Plus what used to be called tax credits etc ... Or housing benefit.
Universal credit is not simply jobseekers allowance.
Keep clutching at your straws
It's not a straw it's a fact. Are you claiming that everyone who is working (even if furloughed) and getting tax credits or housing benefits via Universal Credit is obliged to look for work despite the fact they already are working?
If those who are working are obliged to look for work or they face sanctions then that is an insane system. Is that seriously what you're claiming? Or did you make a mistake?
Let's be clear:
I am talking about NEW Claims
No one is being transferred to universal credit at the moment if they are currently receiving housing benefit or tax credits.
So the only people claiming it are people's who situation has significantly changed which won't be those who have been furloughed...
So we have 3.4 million people who are so short of money they are asking the government for some because they situation has changed and it's not due to illness (as even if it was they won't be getting Limited Capability to work exceptions until they start doing medical checks again)
So they're getting money but that wasn't what was discussed. The claim you made was that they were all looking for work and I said that's not necessarily true. You replied about sanctions ignoring the fact they have been suspended due to the pandemic.
Yes they maybe should be looking for work. Or they maybe are on it temporarily until they can get back to what they were doing before. But either way they are not necessarily actually looking for work which was my point all along.
Being out of work and looking for work are not the same thing.
Which would be a valid argument if the original argument had started from the basis that we had 4 million people jobseekers at the moment but it wasn't
The original statement was that there will be 4 million jobseekers after 500,000 vacancies at some point this autumn. And my argument was that it's likely to be more than 4 million job seekers and less than 500,000 vacancies
You are vulnerable and your cleaner doesn't come by agreement because she has a cold and it could jump to you.
What do you pay nothing, half or full amount, and why?
The sensible thing is to pay her the full amount, as it encourages her to be honest with you if she's not well. Although if it's every other week you might need to rethink things.
If you have to pay another cleaner in her absence, then half might be better for your finances.
Not paying her at all encourages her to turn up if she's sick and/or lie about it, which you really don't want.
And free movement is ending and being replaced with a points based immigration system based on skills needed
That's not correct, it's being replaced with a points-based immigration system based on *the government's perception* of skills needed. I'm not sure if you've ever interacted with a government, but if you have you'll appreciate that these are very different things.
Though if the job hits the income threshold then it doesn't matter whether the government thinks we need the skills or not. So the free market can decide for those vacancies.
Those charts are scary if you've been made redundant. Vacancies are running at 40% of what they were this time last year but the number of job hunters is far higher.
There is a ton of shit coming for this government over the benefits system and sanctions etc, once millions who never thought they would go near the DWP find out what it entails. E.g. 35 hours a week filling in hundreds of applications to tick a box.
I wonder how many of the newly unemployed enjoyed raging about benefits scroungers in the pub of a Friday night?
If you worked more than 35 hours a week, 35 hours a week applying for jobs to get benefits is not that punitive.
Quite right, 35 hours is clearly not punitive enough. Let's have the scroungers spend 70 hours a week applying for jobs before they can qualify for benefits, then we can see if they're really motivated. It's obvious that the unemployed aren't just trying hard enough.
Or alternatively we could have a more decent, humane, civilised and respectful benefits system.
Compared to most of the world our benefits system is very humane, in most countries you cannot get unemployment benefits at all without having contributed first through insurance
Which is why we now have Brexit - because we are happy to give Eastern Europeans money for 14 hours of work a week and even subsidies children that are still in Poland / Romania...
And free movement is ending and being replaced with a points based immigration system based on skills needed
Which is only required because we never implemented all the other options that were available to us while we were in the EU....
So what?
Those other options were regarded as impossible to take and unpalatable so it's all moot.
Let's see what January brings - I'm aware of a hell of a (none shock) announcement that is likely to appear in August / September unless we get a paperwork free deal with the EU. That 4 million and 500,000 estimate is going to be inaccurate.
You are vulnerable and your cleaner doesn't come by agreement because she has a cold and it could jump to you.
What do you pay nothing, half or full amount, and why?
Full but if the cleaner says no don't argue the toss.
If you want the cleaner at the end of this issue you pay the cleaner the full amount, otherwise yes, you could stop paying them but don't be surprised if they find another client and no longer have time to clean your house
Tobes there, who unencumbered by qualifications pronounces on public health, Covid-19, economics, social policy, 'progressive eugenics' and education, accusing someone of being a journalist who thinks he's a scientist.
I am always stunned by people who will pontificate on stuff in public when there are people around who are much more qualified. I verge the other way. I am wary to write an article for publication and I have been concerned about presentations in case I make a fool of myself even though I should have the confidence that it is on a subject I know about. I wouldn't publish or present on something I was not expert in because the experts can run circles around me.
I am shocked that these people are too stupid to realise that they are stupid.
Not only that, but making statements that are factually incorrect and easy to prove wrong, is just plain stupid. Dr. Adam Rutherford has a degree in evolutionary genetics, including a project under Steve Jones studying stalk-eyed flies. He was awarded a PhD in genetics in 2002 by University College London.
"Stalk-eyed flies" - qualified for politics, then.
It is the compulsion that makes people object to the mask wearing. If the Government told people not to wear masks, and insisted that it was anti-science, offered no protection, and was undesirable behaviour, most of the same people who are objecting to them would be proudly sporting them and laughing (behind their masks) at the sheep who were not.
I don't like wearing one, but I am going to get a stretchy 'snood' type one like the link Charles posted the other day, and that should be a lot more comfortable.
I disagree completely. For many people, it's the lack of compulsion that makes them object to mask wearing. Why the hell should I go to the hassle of wearing a mask if other people choose not to? That's why we have laws - to make people behave in way that doesn't inconvenience others! I've not worn a mask until now (apart from when delivering my mother's shopping), but I will happily do so if everyone else is obliged to wear one too.
I didn't suggest that compulsion would lead to less compliance - that would be ridiculous. I am suggesting that feeling compelled is what is leading to the strident objections - on both sides of the Atlantic.
Those charts are scary if you've been made redundant. Vacancies are running at 40% of what they were this time last year but the number of job hunters is far higher.
There is a ton of shit coming for this government over the benefits system and sanctions etc, once millions who never thought they would go near the DWP find out what it entails. E.g. 35 hours a week filling in hundreds of applications to tick a box.
I wonder how many of the newly unemployed enjoyed raging about benefits scroungers in the pub of a Friday night?
If you don't want to spend hours filling in applications then get a job.
Easier said than done with 4m jobseekers and 500k vacancies.
Well we aren't at 4m jobseekers yet and the ones who genuinely want a job and come across like they genuinely want one too will find it easier to get a job first.
Any evidence of that given that no one here has defined what a job seeker is.
I seriously suspect 4 million will be a vast underestimate.
Any evidence those 9 million were actively looking for work and the overwhelming majority were not blissfully happy taking 80% of their wages and would only start looking for work if and when it becomes necessary?
Oh they are currently blissfully happy taking their wages - their shock is yet to come.
Actually I've just found the universal credit claim figures from 1st March to 23rd June 3,403,530 claimed universal credit.
So yep that 4 million is an understatement as there was 1 million claiming before hand.
Being blunt something like 12-14 million people were not working on June 23rd....
Being on universal credit doesn't mean you are looking for work.
There is a mountain of difference between people not working and people looking for work. Those are two very, very different propositions.
Really? I seem to remember looking for work being a significant section within the specifications of the sanction management software I wrote for the universal credit appointment management system.
Now I know you have a habit of posting without thinking but that is a whole new level of being caught out...
UC now covers income-based ESA (for sick and disabled), in some regions.
Plus what used to be called tax credits etc ... Or housing benefit.
Universal credit is not simply jobseekers allowance.
Keep clutching at your straws
It's not a straw it's a fact. Are you claiming that everyone who is working (even if furloughed) and getting tax credits or housing benefits via Universal Credit is obliged to look for work despite the fact they already are working?
If those who are working are obliged to look for work or they face sanctions then that is an insane system. Is that seriously what you're claiming? Or did you make a mistake?
Let's be clear:
I am talking about NEW Claims
No one is being transferred to universal credit at the moment if they are currently receiving housing benefit or tax credits.
So the only people claiming it are people's who situation has significantly changed which won't be those who have been furloughed...
So we have 3.4 million people who are so short of money they are asking the government for some because they situation has changed and it's not due to illness (as even if it was they won't be getting Limited Capability to work exceptions until they start doing medical checks again)
So they're getting money but that wasn't what was discussed. The claim you made was that they were all looking for work and I said that's not necessarily true. You replied about sanctions ignoring the fact they have been suspended due to the pandemic.
Yes they maybe should be looking for work. Or they maybe are on it temporarily until they can get back to what they were doing before. But either way they are not necessarily actually looking for work which was my point all along.
Being out of work and looking for work are not the same thing.
Which would be a valid argument if the original argument had started from the basis that we had 4 million people jobseekers at the moment but it wasn't
The original statement was that there will be 4 million jobseekers after 500,000 vacancies at some point this autumn. And my argument was that it's likely to be more than 4 million job seekers and less than 500,000 vacancies
I think we've been talking cross-purposes then because I was talking present tense not future tense all along. My comment that you first replied to about 4 million was written in present tense talking about 'at the moment' not a hypothetical future scenario, hence the word "yet" which doesn't rule out it will happen in the future: "Well we aren't at 4m jobseekers yet and the ones who genuinely want a job and come across like they genuinely want one too will find it easier to get a job first."
The replier isn't far off. If a mask could be developed that *they* didn't want you to wear for some reason, it would take off like a rocket. Confederate flag masks? *innocentface*
Interesting to read the debate on masks in the UK. For some of us, it's been compulsory to wear them everywhere outside the home for months now. People adapt to them, it's really not that bad but one does notice that communication becomes slightly more difficult - we read faces and lips subconsciously in normal times.
You live in an authoritarian country. We don't. That's part of the problem.
Those who haven't been wearing a mask but will now do so to obey the law will have every right to kick off when the law isn't enforced in full.
Several European democracies have done the same. In Germany mask wearing is mandatory in shops, for example.
We police by consent. I hope our police forces are ready to intervene when the law isn't obeyed.
I don't think it will need policing because most people will comply and that's all we need - most people to comply. Putting myself in the head of a "masks are for pussies" type of bloke, just the fact it's officially mandatory would get me wearing one. Why? Well because now it's not me being a wuss it's the law. When people look at me I can catch their eye and shrug as if to say, "Well, you know, what can you do?"
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.
At least 75% of us are wearing masks against a risk that does not exist at the present time. Probably higher. Our government seems to lurch from painful and stupid inaction (eg quarantine) to gross over-reaction without any thought of the consequences. We need a lot more localised and evidence led responses. So people in Leicester should definitely be wearing masks right now and for at least another couple of months. People in Dundee really don't need to or to undertake social distancing either. There is no virus. Obviously if that changes the advice should change too.
That's like saying you should only wear a condom if you're having a one night stand if your partner knows they have HIV.
It really isn't. Yesterday there were 6 new cases of the virus in Scotland, a country of 5.3m people. I saw a suggestion it was another care home where residents tested positive. Like Keynes, if the facts change I will change my mind but right now our policies are having very negative economic effects to defend us from a non existent threat.
Then wear masks and unlock economic activity to maximum. That's the answer here.
So are you suggesting that wearing masks means that we can forget social distancing and everyone can return to work normally?
I really don't get the argument that weaing masks will mean that economic activity can return to the maximum.
Yes that's the whole damn point!
Would you rather have social distancing and lockdown ... Or wear a damn mask and get back to normal?
I'd rather get back to normal! Which would you prefer?
You are placing a whole lot of faith in something that the WHO still don't seem to think is the panacea that you do.
Social distancing and hand washing work.
Social distancing is economically and mentally catastrophic. We need to find a way to end social distancing
Those charts are scary if you've been made redundant. Vacancies are running at 40% of what they were this time last year but the number of job hunters is far higher.
There is a ton of shit coming for this government over the benefits system and sanctions etc, once millions who never thought they would go near the DWP find out what it entails. E.g. 35 hours a week filling in hundreds of applications to tick a box.
I wonder how many of the newly unemployed enjoyed raging about benefits scroungers in the pub of a Friday night?
If you don't want to spend hours filling in applications then get a job.
Easier said than done with 4m jobseekers and 500k vacancies.
Well we aren't at 4m jobseekers yet and the ones who genuinely want a job and come across like they genuinely want one too will find it easier to get a job first.
Any evidence of that given that no one here has defined what a job seeker is.
I seriously suspect 4 million will be a vast underestimate.
Any evidence those 9 million were actively looking for work and the overwhelming majority were not blissfully happy taking 80% of their wages and would only start looking for work if and when it becomes necessary?
Oh they are currently blissfully happy taking their wages - their shock is yet to come.
Actually I've just found the universal credit claim figures from 1st March to 23rd June 3,403,530 claimed universal credit.
So yep that 4 million is an understatement as there was 1 million claiming before hand.
Being blunt something like 12-14 million people were not working on June 23rd....
Being on universal credit doesn't mean you are looking for work.
There is a mountain of difference between people not working and people looking for work. Those are two very, very different propositions.
Really? I seem to remember looking for work being a significant section within the specifications of the sanction management software I wrote for the universal credit appointment management system.
Now I know you have a habit of posting without thinking but that is a whole new level of being caught out...
UC now covers income-based ESA (for sick and disabled), in some regions.
Plus what used to be called tax credits etc ... Or housing benefit.
Universal credit is not simply jobseekers allowance.
Keep clutching at your straws
It's not a straw it's a fact. Are you claiming that everyone who is working (even if furloughed) and getting tax credits or housing benefits via Universal Credit is obliged to look for work despite the fact they already are working?
If those who are working are obliged to look for work or they face sanctions then that is an insane system. Is that seriously what you're claiming? Or did you make a mistake?
Let's be clear:
I am talking about NEW Claims
No one is being transferred to universal credit at the moment if they are currently receiving housing benefit or tax credits.
So the only people claiming it are people's who situation has significantly changed which won't be those who have been furloughed...
So we have 3.4 million people who are so short of money they are asking the government for some because they situation has changed and it's not due to illness (as even if it was they won't be getting Limited Capability to work exceptions until they start doing medical checks again)
So they're getting money but that wasn't what was discussed. The claim you made was that they were all looking for work and I said that's not necessarily true. You replied about sanctions ignoring the fact they have been suspended due to the pandemic.
Yes they maybe should be looking for work. Or they maybe are on it temporarily until they can get back to what they were doing before. But either way they are not necessarily actually looking for work which was my point all along.
Being out of work and looking for work are not the same thing.
Which would be a valid argument if the original argument had started from the basis that we had 4 million people jobseekers at the moment but it wasn't
The original statement was that there will be 4 million jobseekers after 500,000 vacancies at some point this autumn. And my argument was that it's likely to be more than 4 million job seekers and less than 500,000 vacancies
I think we've been talking cross-purposes then because I was talking present tense not future tense all along. My comment that you first replied to about 4 million was written in present tense talking about 'at the moment' not a hypothetical future scenario, hence the word "yet" which doesn't rule out it will happen in the future: "Well we aren't at 4m jobseekers yet and the ones who genuinely want a job and come across like they genuinely want one too will find it easier to get a job first."
But as you proved yourself there is no sane definition of a jobseeker as you argued against the only figures that are vaguely usable.
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?
What bollocks.
It is not a factor of 10 but more like 1.5 (you would have been better picking April where the factor is about 2.5). But more importantly the increase in deaths and more dramatically cases is rocketing. New cases are 3 times May's figures. This week they are likely to hit new records as they did last week and these records of cases are being broken by 5K to 10K each time.
Deaths have already jumped dramatically in the last week if you compare each day to the same day in the past week and of course deaths lag cases so expect those to start to climb significantly also.
Those charts are scary if you've been made redundant. Vacancies are running at 40% of what they were this time last year but the number of job hunters is far higher.
There is a ton of shit coming for this government over the benefits system and sanctions etc, once millions who never thought they would go near the DWP find out what it entails. E.g. 35 hours a week filling in hundreds of applications to tick a box.
I wonder how many of the newly unemployed enjoyed raging about benefits scroungers in the pub of a Friday night?
If you don't want to spend hours filling in applications then get a job.
Easier said than done with 4m jobseekers and 500k vacancies.
Well we aren't at 4m jobseekers yet and the ones who genuinely want a job and come across like they genuinely want one too will find it easier to get a job first.
Any evidence of that given that no one here has defined what a job seeker is.
I seriously suspect 4 million will be a vast underestimate.
Any evidence those 9 million were actively looking for work and the overwhelming majority were not blissfully happy taking 80% of their wages and would only start looking for work if and when it becomes necessary?
Oh they are currently blissfully happy taking their wages - their shock is yet to come.
Actually I've just found the universal credit claim figures from 1st March to 23rd June 3,403,530 claimed universal credit.
So yep that 4 million is an understatement as there was 1 million claiming before hand.
Being blunt something like 12-14 million people were not working on June 23rd....
Being on universal credit doesn't mean you are looking for work.
There is a mountain of difference between people not working and people looking for work. Those are two very, very different propositions.
Really? I seem to remember looking for work being a significant section within the specifications of the sanction management software I wrote for the universal credit appointment management system.
Now I know you have a habit of posting without thinking but that is a whole new level of being caught out...
UC now covers income-based ESA (for sick and disabled), in some regions.
Plus what used to be called tax credits etc ... Or housing benefit.
Universal credit is not simply jobseekers allowance.
Keep clutching at your straws
It's not a straw it's a fact. Are you claiming that everyone who is working (even if furloughed) and getting tax credits or housing benefits via Universal Credit is obliged to look for work despite the fact they already are working?
If those who are working are obliged to look for work or they face sanctions then that is an insane system. Is that seriously what you're claiming? Or did you make a mistake?
Let's be clear:
I am talking about NEW Claims
No one is being transferred to universal credit at the moment if they are currently receiving housing benefit or tax credits.
So the only people claiming it are people's who situation has significantly changed which won't be those who have been furloughed...
So we have 3.4 million people who are so short of money they are asking the government for some because they situation has changed and it's not due to illness (as even if it was they won't be getting Limited Capability to work exceptions until they start doing medical checks again)
So they're getting money but that wasn't what was discussed. The claim you made was that they were all looking for work and I said that's not necessarily true. You replied about sanctions ignoring the fact they have been suspended due to the pandemic.
Yes they maybe should be looking for work. Or they maybe are on it temporarily until they can get back to what they were doing before. But either way they are not necessarily actually looking for work which was my point all along.
Being out of work and looking for work are not the same thing.
Which would be a valid argument if the original argument had started from the basis that we had 4 million people jobseekers at the moment but it wasn't
The original statement was that there will be 4 million jobseekers after 500,000 vacancies at some point this autumn. And my argument was that it's likely to be more than 4 million job seekers and less than 500,000 vacancies
I think we've been talking cross-purposes then because I was talking present tense not future tense all along. My comment that you first replied to about 4 million was written in present tense talking about 'at the moment' not a hypothetical future scenario, hence the word "yet" which doesn't rule out it will happen in the future: "Well we aren't at 4m jobseekers yet and the ones who genuinely want a job and come across like they genuinely want one too will find it easier to get a job first."
But as you proved yourself there is no sane definition of a jobseeker as you argued against the only figures that are vaguely usable.
By jobseeker I simply mean someone who is actually and actively looking for work.
The replier isn't far off. If a mask could be developed that *they* didn't want you to wear for some reason, it would take off like a rocket. Confederate flag masks? *innocentface*
Given that we are talking about the USA here I'm waiting for the first court case where someone not wearing a mask infects someone who then sues...
Weren't people in the far east often wearing masks before this whole Covid thing blew up? Was that because of Sars or air pollution or what?
I had always thought, pre-Covid, that the eg groups of Japanese tourists around Trafalgar Square were wearing them because they were under the impression that they were being thereby protected from the filthy London air.
Perhaps they were just being altruistic after 12 hours on a flight and didn't want to pass anything on to us.
Interesting to read the debate on masks in the UK. For some of us, it's been compulsory to wear them everywhere outside the home for months now. People adapt to them, it's really not that bad but one does notice that communication becomes slightly more difficult - we read faces and lips subconsciously in normal times.
You live in an authoritarian country. We don't. That's part of the problem.
Those who haven't been wearing a mask but will now do so to obey the law will have every right to kick off when the law isn't enforced in full.
Several European democracies have done the same. In Germany mask wearing is mandatory in shops, for example.
We police by consent. I hope our police forces are ready to intervene when the law isn't obeyed.
I don't think it will need policing because most people will comply and that's all we need - most people to comply. Putting myself in the head of a "masks are for pussies" type of bloke, just the fact it's officially mandatory would get me wearing one. Why? Well because now it's not me being a wuss it's the law. When people look at me I can catch their eye and shrug as if to say, "Well, you know, what can you do?"
And that was true during lockdown. Didn't stop the outrage against those going to the park. This for me is a much bigger deal as this is about protecting other people not yourself.
Those charts are scary if you've been made redundant. Vacancies are running at 40% of what they were this time last year but the number of job hunters is far higher.
There is a ton of shit coming for this government over the benefits system and sanctions etc, once millions who never thought they would go near the DWP find out what it entails. E.g. 35 hours a week filling in hundreds of applications to tick a box.
I wonder how many of the newly unemployed enjoyed raging about benefits scroungers in the pub of a Friday night?
If you don't want to spend hours filling in applications then get a job.
Easier said than done with 4m jobseekers and 500k vacancies.
Well we aren't at 4m jobseekers yet and the ones who genuinely want a job and come across like they genuinely want one too will find it easier to get a job first.
Any evidence of that given that no one here has defined what a job seeker is.
I seriously suspect 4 million will be a vast underestimate.
Any evidence those 9 million were actively looking for work and the overwhelming majority were not blissfully happy taking 80% of their wages and would only start looking for work if and when it becomes necessary?
Oh they are currently blissfully happy taking their wages - their shock is yet to come.
Actually I've just found the universal credit claim figures from 1st March to 23rd June 3,403,530 claimed universal credit.
So yep that 4 million is an understatement as there was 1 million claiming before hand.
Being blunt something like 12-14 million people were not working on June 23rd....
Being on universal credit doesn't mean you are looking for work.
There is a mountain of difference between people not working and people looking for work. Those are two very, very different propositions.
Really? I seem to remember looking for work being a significant section within the specifications of the sanction management software I wrote for the universal credit appointment management system.
Now I know you have a habit of posting without thinking but that is a whole new level of being caught out...
UC now covers income-based ESA (for sick and disabled), in some regions.
Plus what used to be called tax credits etc ... Or housing benefit.
Universal credit is not simply jobseekers allowance.
Keep clutching at your straws
It's not a straw it's a fact. Are you claiming that everyone who is working (even if furloughed) and getting tax credits or housing benefits via Universal Credit is obliged to look for work despite the fact they already are working?
If those who are working are obliged to look for work or they face sanctions then that is an insane system. Is that seriously what you're claiming? Or did you make a mistake?
Let's be clear:
I am talking about NEW Claims
No one is being transferred to universal credit at the moment if they are currently receiving housing benefit or tax credits.
So the only people claiming it are people's who situation has significantly changed which won't be those who have been furloughed...
So we have 3.4 million people who are so short of money they are asking the government for some because they situation has changed and it's not due to illness (as even if it was they won't be getting Limited Capability to work exceptions until they start doing medical checks again)
So they're getting money but that wasn't what was discussed. The claim you made was that they were all looking for work and I said that's not necessarily true. You replied about sanctions ignoring the fact they have been suspended due to the pandemic.
Yes they maybe should be looking for work. Or they maybe are on it temporarily until they can get back to what they were doing before. But either way they are not necessarily actually looking for work which was my point all along.
Being out of work and looking for work are not the same thing.
Which would be a valid argument if the original argument had started from the basis that we had 4 million people jobseekers at the moment but it wasn't
The original statement was that there will be 4 million jobseekers after 500,000 vacancies at some point this autumn. And my argument was that it's likely to be more than 4 million job seekers and less than 500,000 vacancies
I think we've been talking cross-purposes then because I was talking present tense not future tense all along. My comment that you first replied to about 4 million was written in present tense talking about 'at the moment' not a hypothetical future scenario, hence the word "yet" which doesn't rule out it will happen in the future: "Well we aren't at 4m jobseekers yet and the ones who genuinely want a job and come across like they genuinely want one too will find it easier to get a job first."
But as you proved yourself there is no sane definition of a jobseeker as you argued against the only figures that are vaguely usable.
By jobseeker I simply mean someone who is actually and actively looking for work.
We don't have figures on that at the minute.
On that definition you could never have actual figures as it includes anyone working looking for a better job....
The replier isn't far off. If a mask could be developed that *they* didn't want you to wear for some reason, it would take off like a rocket. Confederate flag masks? *innocentface*
Given that we are talking about the USA here I'm waiting for the first court case where someone not wearing a mask infects someone who then sues...
Indeed!
Perhaps those objecting so strongly should take comfort in the impossible task the deep state is facing to use any facial recognition software in the masked period. I'd imagine they're pulling their hair out.
I see from the ONS stats that for the 3rd week running we are below average weekly deaths
And yet you are keen on keeping social distancing going. Why?
Cause it works. I really don't mind it. Everyone is doing it and it has worked a treat. Yesterday RCS1000 mentioned that everyone in LA was wearing masks whilst shopping. Yet we have this. But hey mask wearing is the way forward!
Weren't people in the far east often wearing masks before this whole Covid thing blew up? Was that because of Sars or air pollution or what?
In Japan it's mainly pollen, or yellow sand which is when bits of the Gobi Desert fall out of the sky on us. However it's also customary to wear a mask if you go to work when you have a cold, which is partly a health measure and partly a virtue-signal to show you're working even though you have a cold.
It is the compulsion that makes people object to the mask wearing. If the Government told people not to wear masks, and insisted that it was anti-science, offered no protection, and was undesirable behaviour, most of the same people who are objecting to them would be proudly sporting them and laughing (behind their masks) at the sheep who were not.
I don't like wearing one, but I am going to get a stretchy 'snood' type one like the link Charles posted the other day, and that should be a lot more comfortable.
I disagree completely. For many people, it's the lack of compulsion that makes them object to mask wearing. Why the hell should I go to the hassle of wearing a mask if other people choose not to? That's why we have laws - to make people behave in way that doesn't inconvenience others! I've not worn a mask until now (apart from when delivering my mother's shopping), but I will happily do so if everyone else is obliged to wear one too.
I didn't suggest that compulsion would lead to less compliance - that would be ridiculous. I am suggesting that feeling compelled is what is leading to the strident objections - on both sides of the Atlantic.
In which case it is hard to see the point of your comment. It is blindingly obvious that some people will object to being compelled to do something they don't want to!
It is the compulsion that makes people object to the mask wearing. If the Government told people not to wear masks, and insisted that it was anti-science, offered no protection, and was undesirable behaviour, most of the same people who are objecting to them would be proudly sporting them and laughing (behind their masks) at the sheep who were not.
I don't like wearing one, but I am going to get a stretchy 'snood' type one like the link Charles posted the other day, and that should be a lot more comfortable.
I disagree completely. For many people, it's the lack of compulsion that makes them object to mask wearing. Why the hell should I go to the hassle of wearing a mask if other people choose not to? That's why we have laws - to make people behave in way that doesn't inconvenience others! I've not worn a mask until now (apart from when delivering my mother's shopping), but I will happily do so if everyone else is obliged to wear one too.
I didn't suggest that compulsion would lead to less compliance - that would be ridiculous. I am suggesting that feeling compelled is what is leading to the strident objections - on both sides of the Atlantic.
In which case it is hard to see the point of your comment. It is blindingly obvious that some people will object to being compelled to do something they don't want to!
I respect that. I've said that I don't think they should need to be compulsory but its the right thing to do to wear one, I stand by that. I don't need the government to boss me about telling me to do the right thing.
I object to a nannying government telling us how to live our lives - and I object to people saying that masks are bad per se or they shouldn't be worn per se.
Masks should be worn . . . but they should be worn because the wearer understands they should wear it and chooses to do so rather than because they're forced to do so.
It is the compulsion that makes people object to the mask wearing. If the Government told people not to wear masks, and insisted that it was anti-science, offered no protection, and was undesirable behaviour, most of the same people who are objecting to them would be proudly sporting them and laughing (behind their masks) at the sheep who were not.
I don't like wearing one, but I am going to get a stretchy 'snood' type one like the link Charles posted the other day, and that should be a lot more comfortable.
I disagree completely. For many people, it's the lack of compulsion that makes them object to mask wearing. Why the hell should I go to the hassle of wearing a mask if other people choose not to? That's why we have laws - to make people behave in way that doesn't inconvenience others! I've not worn a mask until now (apart from when delivering my mother's shopping), but I will happily do so if everyone else is obliged to wear one too.
I didn't suggest that compulsion would lead to less compliance - that would be ridiculous. I am suggesting that feeling compelled is what is leading to the strident objections - on both sides of the Atlantic.
In which case it is hard to see the point of your comment. It is blindingly obvious that some people will object to being compelled to do something they don't want to!
I respect that. I've said that I don't think they should need to be compulsory but its the right thing to do to wear one, I stand by that. I don't need the government to boss me about telling me to do the right thing.
I object to a nannying government telling us how to live our lives - and I object to people saying that masks are bad per se or they shouldn't be worn per se.
Masks should be worn . . . but they should be worn because the wearer understands they should wear it and chooses to do so rather than because they're forced to do so.
Is that so unreasonable?
And why don't you apply this argument to all crimes?
My wife and I have been to B & Q this morning and another garden centre and wore masks. Still steaming up my glasses a bit, but take them off for shopping as I only need them for reading
Also we both managed to get hair appointments, so bit by bit adjusting to a new normal
I see from the ONS stats that for the 3rd week running we are below average weekly deaths
And yet you are keen on keeping social distancing going. Why?
Cause it works. I really don't mind it. Everyone is doing it and it has worked a treat. Yesterday RCS1000 mentioned that everyone in LA was wearing masks whilst shopping. Yet we have this. But hey mask wearing is the way forward!
That is a very striking and worrying set of graphs when you consider the time lag between panels.
I hope that advances in treatment arising from the first wave, and possibly some attenuation of the virus, make the second wave less brutal for them, but it doesn't look pretty.
It is the compulsion that makes people object to the mask wearing. If the Government told people not to wear masks, and insisted that it was anti-science, offered no protection, and was undesirable behaviour, most of the same people who are objecting to them would be proudly sporting them and laughing (behind their masks) at the sheep who were not.
I don't like wearing one, but I am going to get a stretchy 'snood' type one like the link Charles posted the other day, and that should be a lot more comfortable.
I disagree completely. For many people, it's the lack of compulsion that makes them object to mask wearing. Why the hell should I go to the hassle of wearing a mask if other people choose not to? That's why we have laws - to make people behave in way that doesn't inconvenience others! I've not worn a mask until now (apart from when delivering my mother's shopping), but I will happily do so if everyone else is obliged to wear one too.
I didn't suggest that compulsion would lead to less compliance - that would be ridiculous. I am suggesting that feeling compelled is what is leading to the strident objections - on both sides of the Atlantic.
In which case it is hard to see the point of your comment. It is blindingly obvious that some people will object to being compelled to do something they don't want to!
I respect that. I've said that I don't think they should need to be compulsory but its the right thing to do to wear one, I stand by that. I don't need the government to boss me about telling me to do the right thing.
I object to a nannying government telling us how to live our lives - and I object to people saying that masks are bad per se or they shouldn't be worn per se.
Masks should be worn . . . but they should be worn because the wearer understands they should wear it and chooses to do so rather than because they're forced to do so.
Is that so unreasonable?
Yes, as some people will do the opposite out of dislike, spite, rebelling or stupidity.
It's easier to just mandate wear masks and hope the police don't need to push the point.
It is the compulsion that makes people object to the mask wearing. If the Government told people not to wear masks, and insisted that it was anti-science, offered no protection, and was undesirable behaviour, most of the same people who are objecting to them would be proudly sporting them and laughing (behind their masks) at the sheep who were not.
I don't like wearing one, but I am going to get a stretchy 'snood' type one like the link Charles posted the other day, and that should be a lot more comfortable.
I disagree completely. For many people, it's the lack of compulsion that makes them object to mask wearing. Why the hell should I go to the hassle of wearing a mask if other people choose not to? That's why we have laws - to make people behave in way that doesn't inconvenience others! I've not worn a mask until now (apart from when delivering my mother's shopping), but I will happily do so if everyone else is obliged to wear one too.
I didn't suggest that compulsion would lead to less compliance - that would be ridiculous. I am suggesting that feeling compelled is what is leading to the strident objections - on both sides of the Atlantic.
In which case it is hard to see the point of your comment. It is blindingly obvious that some people will object to being compelled to do something they don't want to!
I respect that. I've said that I don't think they should need to be compulsory but its the right thing to do to wear one, I stand by that. I don't need the government to boss me about telling me to do the right thing.
I object to a nannying government telling us how to live our lives - and I object to people saying that masks are bad per se or they shouldn't be worn per se.
Masks should be worn . . . but they should be worn because the wearer understands they should wear it and chooses to do so rather than because they're forced to do so.
Is that so unreasonable?
And why don't you apply this argument to all crimes?
I do apply that principle generally. The law should only be for when people are deliberately causing harm to others. When that's not the case, I don't think it should be against the law.
Not wearing a mask does risk harm to others but the risk isn't at an especially high level. Its the right thing to do to wear one and collectively it reduces transmission within the nation but doing the right thing should be a choice.
I do apply that principle generally. The law should only be for when people are deliberately causing harm to others. When that's not the case, I don't think it should be against the law.
- Positive test increase lag infections - Hospitalisations lag increases in positive tests - Deaths lag hospitalisations
Yes - which is why the recent steep increase in hospitalisations in the US is so alarming.
Attached to the fact that while Covid deaths in hospital are low in the US compared to elsewhere pneumonia deaths are far higher than they usually are.
It's almost as if treating pneumonia is more profitable (or easier to bill for) than treating Covid (which I suspect is the case).
I see from the ONS stats that for the 3rd week running we are below average weekly deaths
And yet you are keen on keeping social distancing going. Why?
Cause it works. I really don't mind it. Everyone is doing it and it has worked a treat. Yesterday RCS1000 mentioned that everyone in LA was wearing masks whilst shopping. Yet we have this. But hey mask wearing is the way forward!
My wife and I have been to B & Q this morning and another garden centre and wore masks. Still steaming up my glasses a bit, but take them off for shopping as I only need them for reading
Also we both managed to get hair appointments, so bit by bit adjusting to a new normal
You wear a mask and then take it off for shopping?
So - he and you would prefer lockdown and high levels of restrictions instead (what we used to decrease infections by 90%)? Why?
As the economic numbers roll in it is becoming clearer we either go back to our old lives or face an economic destitution that will kill far, far more people than COVID ever could.
Actually its probably already going to happen anyway.
My wife and I have been to B & Q this morning and another garden centre and wore masks. Still steaming up my glasses a bit, but take them off for shopping as I only need them for reading
Also we both managed to get hair appointments, so bit by bit adjusting to a new normal
You wear a mask and then take it off for shopping?
No, my glasses
Maybe I did not express myself properly, the mask stays on
Comments
Social distancing and hand washing work.
China are bad.
Unless you are the Department for International Trade. Who have just sent me an email invitation to a webinar to learn how "to start selling food and drink products online from the UK into the Chinese market"
Or alternatively we could have a more decent, humane, civilised and respectful benefits system.
Those who haven't been wearing a mask but will now do so to obey the law will have every right to kick off when the law isn't enforced in full.
Yesterday I went to a cafe and sat inside for thirty minutes with probably a dozen people I did not know. Yet as I understand it I will have to wear a facemask in the supermarket but not the cafe. In which am I more likely to catch or pass on Covid-19? And yes I know it is difficult to drink a coffee or a pint with a mask. A pint by a straw would be different!
If you tell them to do something transparently pointless or illogical they will fail to obey. Then when you need them to do something because the case incidence rate has gone up from 6 per 5.3m to 600 per 5.3m then they will not be in the mood to obey any new strictures.
The people you are talking about (ESA transfers, tax credits, housing benefit) were already receiving it as all transfers (which yes, would usually be counted within new claims) have been postponed.
And for reference 2,571,795 households were claiming UC in Feb 2020 - which is the last figures available.
- Encourage everyone to work from home if at all possible (transport levels fell off a cliff from a week before lockdown became official. I've been working from home since the 18th - I work at an MoD site and, after the announcement on the 16th by Boris of those measures, we had an announcement on the 17th that everyone's working from home if at all possible.)
- Close schools (as of the 20th)
- Discourage people from going to bars or restaurants and look at actually closing them
- Close cinemas, gyms, beauticians
- Encourage people to not go around unless absolutely essential?
Because that's significantly harsher than we are at the moment.
Got to be honest, it looks a bit like an attempt to convince people of a category error (either yourself or others), namely:
- Those restrictions weren't called "lockdown"
- "Lockdown" was therefore unnecessary
- "No lockdown" implies no restrictions at all
- Therefore no restrictions at all are necessary or ever were.
Because otherwise it's really a bit handwavy. We already know that we can have R below 1 with those above restrictions (the pre-23rd ones), and we'd prefer not to have to impose all of them again.
I don't like wearing one, but I am going to get a stretchy 'snood' type one like the link Charles posted the other day, and that should be a lot more comfortable.
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1282978805422764032?s=21
You take the measures in each situation that best reduce the risk. Shops can stay open with people wearing masks, so why not have people wear them?
Cafe's can't, so you either shut them, or try and maintain social distancing as best you can.
The two choices are independent.
There is no obligation as it stands for all who claim to be actively jobseeking.
I am talking about NEW Claims
No one is being transferred to universal credit at the moment if they are currently receiving housing benefit or tax credits.
So the only people claiming it are people's who situation has significantly changed which won't be those who have been furloughed...
So we have 3.4 million people who are so short of money they are asking the government for some because they situation has changed and it's not due to illness (as even if it was they won't be getting Limited Capability to work exceptions until they start doing medical checks again)
I am shocked that these people are too stupid to realise that they are stupid.
https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-how-japan-keeps-covid-19-under-control/a-52907069
Where have our civil liberties gone ... aren't even the Lib.Dems standing up for them?
Yes they maybe should be looking for work. Or they maybe are on it temporarily until they can get back to what they were doing before. But either way they are not necessarily actually looking for work which was my point all along.
Being out of work and looking for work are not the same thing.
You are vulnerable and your cleaner doesn't come by agreement because she has a cold and it could jump to you.
What do you pay nothing, half or full amount, and why?
https://twitter.com/ollywiseman/status/1282983209299521536?s=21
If it helps reduce the risk, even a little, so much the better.
https://twitter.com/arthistorynews/status/1282976916497207296?s=20
Dr. Adam Rutherford has a degree in evolutionary genetics, including a project under Steve Jones studying stalk-eyed flies. He was awarded a PhD in genetics in 2002 by University College London.
They're not only common in that picture the article has a detailed section on how it is a "civil duty" to wear a mask.
I might think that Johnson is developing the record of a well-greased weathervane, who flip-flops like a flopping flip-flopper, but the opinion polls suggest that he's still on the right side of the divide. A strong leader who listens, rather than a weak leader whose instinct is always wrong.
Perhaps the difference is simply captured by the personality question, brought to our attention by @isam ?
If you like a leader's personality than every flip-flop is proof that the leader will listen to their people. If you don't, then they're evidence of weakness and stupidity.
Those other options were regarded as impossible to take and unpalatable so it's all moot.
The original statement was that there will be 4 million jobseekers after 500,000 vacancies at some point this autumn. And my argument was that it's likely to be more than 4 million job seekers and less than 500,000 vacancies
If you have to pay another cleaner in her absence, then half might be better for your finances.
Not paying her at all encourages her to turn up if she's sick and/or lie about it, which you really don't want.
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1281865271733620739
https://twitter.com/TiceRichard/status/1282795164453474305?s=20
However 77% of Japanese are wearing facemasks and have been for months
https://www.statista.com/chart/21452/share-of-people-wearing-face-masks-per-country-covid-19/
- Positive test increase lag infections
- Hospitalisations lag increases in positive tests
- Deaths lag hospitalisations
We don't have figures on that at the minute.
Perhaps they were just being altruistic after 12 hours on a flight and didn't want to pass anything on to us.
https://twitter.com/mark_mclaughlin/status/742258507974643712?s=20
Perhaps those objecting so strongly should take comfort in the impossible task the deep state is facing to use any facial recognition software in the masked period. I'd imagine they're pulling their hair out.
Yesterday RCS1000 mentioned that everyone in LA was wearing masks whilst shopping. Yet we have this. But hey mask wearing is the way forward!
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-california-reimposes-restrictions-after-spike-in-new-cases-12028028
Or maybe having tried them out, that's the reason.
I object to a nannying government telling us how to live our lives - and I object to people saying that masks are bad per se or they shouldn't be worn per se.
Masks should be worn . . . but they should be worn because the wearer understands they should wear it and chooses to do so rather than because they're forced to do so.
Is that so unreasonable?
Also we both managed to get hair appointments, so bit by bit adjusting to a new normal
I hope that advances in treatment arising from the first wave, and possibly some attenuation of the virus, make the second wave less brutal for them, but it doesn't look pretty.
It's easier to just mandate wear masks and hope the police don't need to push the point.
Not wearing a mask does risk harm to others but the risk isn't at an especially high level. Its the right thing to do to wear one and collectively it reduces transmission within the nation but doing the right thing should be a choice.
It's almost as if treating pneumonia is more profitable (or easier to bill for) than treating Covid (which I suspect is the case).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2020/jun/18/coronavirus-map-us-latest-cases-state-by-state
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/07/03/covid-face-masks-states-require-public/5371503002/
Actually its probably already going to happen anyway.
Maybe I did not express myself properly, the mask stays on