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.
Hugely opaque advice/rules/laws/regulations seemed to work during and for lockdown.
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.
And in six months when millions are unemployed and public services are collapsing, you will still be wondering about the R number.
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.
So, manslaughter, drunk driving...?
The law agrees with me.
There must be criminal intent to be manslaughter - either killing with the intent of murder but where a partial defence applies, or conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death that results in death, or conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm that resulted in death.
Similarly with drink driving if you drink and you intentionally get behind the wheels then you have done a dangerous activity that risks great harm upon others.
As I said I'm not convinced simply not wearing a mask reaches that threshold to be mandated by law, but it remains the right thing to do voluntarily.
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.
What outrage about going to the Park?
I just recall a few faked up photos, a media panic, a few gullibles believing the media panic, and the Mayor of Tyneside having a fit.
Though I am surprised about the Police Federation comments on enforcement - our police enforced lockdown well with only 0.1% of the fines used in say Spain.
Police forces do not have the resources or powers to enforce facemask use in shops, senior officers said today as ministers refused to rule out requiring them in offices next.
Shops must take responsibility for facemask use by declining entry to anyone not wearing one and only call in police as a last resort, officers said.
Facemasks will become compulsory in shops from a week on Friday, with £100 fines for those who do not cover up. Ministers will make wearing masks compulsory under public health powers already used on public transport.
John Apter, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, wrote on Twitter that “we simply don’t have the resources” to enforce compulsory masks.
He wrote: “I imagine vast majority of people will comply, if all stores make it a condition of entry that you wear a mask, then that would be a start and negate the reliance on police . . . my expectation would be for shops to refuse entry if a customer refused to wear a mask (and wasn’t exempt). The police should only get involved as a last resort.”
Ken Marsh, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, told Today on BBC Radio 4: “Shopkeepers need to step up to the plate and take some responsibility. They can quite easily put signs up on their doors ‘No mask on, no entry, this is private property’.
“That’s the first point we need to get across because this cannot all be laid on the shoulders of the police yet again. The second point is it will be nigh-on impossible for enforcement because you won’t have a police officer on every shop door because there isn’t enough of us.
“If a shopkeeper calls the police because someone hasn’t got a mask on, they haven’t got the power to detain them so that person can just walk away. We’ll be driving around and around London looking for people who aren’t wearing masks, it’s absolutely absurd.”
Ministers are now facing calls to require masks in other closed spaces. When asked if offices would follow, George Eustice, the environment secretary, said: “We take one step at a time.”
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.
So you don't think manslaughter by gross negligence should be criminal, then? Well, it's a view.
And where do you stand on recklessness?
For example, if I go out joyriding and accidentally kill someone, it was never my intention to cause them or anyone else physical harm, I was just looking to have fun... it was simply a possible result which might arise from my actions and that I really ought to have thought about.
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
So 23% aren't. It is disappointing that the UK left has become more authoritarian than the right (or more virtue-signalling, or more detached from reality). Viruses have surrounded us for all human history
Even vaccines are a last resort. The first line of defence is the immune system. If a person is in good metabolic health - look it up - and has a high serum vitamin D, level, please explain how s/he can become a risk to others and spread SARS-COV-2.
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.
Do you not understand that "going back to our old lives" is impossible? Too many people will voluntarily follow lockdown and that will cause economic devastation. Getting people confident enough to venture out and socialise/spend money is the only way back to normality. The US is about to go through a second unnecessary virus contraction because the first lockdown wasn't properly followed and didn't last long enough. Now cases and deaths are climbing and people are scared to go out again. I have friends in California who are now back to staying indoors because they don't want to risk getting the virus and be off work.
The "let it rip" solution isn't a solution. You're clearly too stupid to understand this.
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!
In today's issue of "not understanding exponential growth"
For a less snarky response, let's say hypothetically wearing a mask in California is reducing their R from 1.6 to 1.5, whereas in the UK it'll reduce our R from 0.8 to 0.75.
In California that would mean we'd be seeing a disastrous growth in cases, but at the same time that masks would be saving thousands of lives.
In the UK that would initially mean a small improvement in our rate of cases coming down. But while it'd be small in terms of raw number of cases, it'd be significant in terms of our ability to reopen, because it means that we could add back in something else that increases our R value. Or, alternatively, we could wait with the lower R and it'd take significantly less time for our numbers to get low enough for test-and-trace to become more viable as a way of controlling the virus.
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.
Do you not understand that "going back to our old lives" is impossible? Too many people will voluntarily follow lockdown and that will cause economic devastation. Getting people confident enough to venture out and socialise/spend money is the only way back to normality. The US is about to go through a second unnecessary virus contraction because the first lockdown wasn't properly followed and didn't last long enough. Now cases and deaths are climbing and people are scared to go out again. I have friends in California who are now back to staying indoors because they don't want to risk getting the virus and be off work.
The "let it rip" solution isn't a solution. You're clearly too stupid to understand this.
US deaths on 13 July were one tenth of their peak in early May. That's one tenth.
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.
So you don't think manslaughter by gross negligence should be criminal, then? Well, it's a view.
And where do you stand on recklessness?
No, I think manslaughter by gross negligence falls under the purview of 'deliberately causing harm to others'. Even if you didn't intend death, the gross negligence was a harm.
I think that if no harm was intended, no gross negligence was committed, no other criminal activity was committed and someone still dies due to a tragic accident then that should not be convicted as manslaughter.
Will presentation of an inhaler be accepted as justification for not wearing a mask?
I suffer from copd and do not like wearing a face mask
However, in the wider context and concern as the economy opens more I will wear one in the shops and confined spaces. I do not use public transport so I do not need to worry in that respect
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?
I pay full whack under those circumstances because: I don’t want to be a massive hypocrite given the time I’ve had off from school over the last ten years without it affecting my pay; On a more selfish level I don’t want my cleaner to struggle in when ill and infect me. If you don’t trust her not to take advantage of you then why do you trust her to clean your house?
Police forces do not have the resources or powers to enforce facemask use in shops, senior officers said today as ministers refused to rule out requiring them in offices next.
Shops must take responsibility for facemask use by declining entry to anyone not wearing one and only call in police as a last resort, officers said.
Facemasks will become compulsory in shops from a week on Friday, with £100 fines for those who do not cover up. Ministers will make wearing masks compulsory under public health powers already used on public transport.
John Apter, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, wrote on Twitter that “we simply don’t have the resources” to enforce compulsory masks.
He wrote: “I imagine vast majority of people will comply, if all stores make it a condition of entry that you wear a mask, then that would be a start and negate the reliance on police . . . my expectation would be for shops to refuse entry if a customer refused to wear a mask (and wasn’t exempt). The police should only get involved as a last resort.”
Ken Marsh, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, told Today on BBC Radio 4: “Shopkeepers need to step up to the plate and take some responsibility. They can quite easily put signs up on their doors ‘No mask on, no entry, this is private property’.
“That’s the first point we need to get across because this cannot all be laid on the shoulders of the police yet again. The second point is it will be nigh-on impossible for enforcement because you won’t have a police officer on every shop door because there isn’t enough of us.
“If a shopkeeper calls the police because someone hasn’t got a mask on, they haven’t got the power to detain them so that person can just walk away. We’ll be driving around and around London looking for people who aren’t wearing masks, it’s absolutely absurd.”
Ministers are now facing calls to require masks in other closed spaces. When asked if offices would follow, George Eustice, the environment secretary, said: “We take one step at a time.”
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.
Do you not understand that "going back to our old lives" is impossible? Too many people will voluntarily follow lockdown and that will cause economic devastation. Getting people confident enough to venture out and socialise/spend money is the only way back to normality. The US is about to go through a second unnecessary virus contraction because the first lockdown wasn't properly followed and didn't last long enough. Now cases and deaths are climbing and people are scared to go out again. I have friends in California who are now back to staying indoors because they don't want to risk getting the virus and be off work.
The "let it rip" solution isn't a solution. You're clearly too stupid to understand this.
US deaths on 13 July were one tenth of their peak in early May. That's one tenth.
Apparently that is the 'the week-end effect'
And hospitalisations are back to their peak and new cases are beyond what they were. Deaths are a lagging indicator.
The doctor was right about the two weeks. A two week lockdown would achieve nothing.
True. Also, regarding the original tweet, she's not an expert, just a celebrity GP. Fine to have her on the radio talking about viruses in general terms, but unless there's more in her CV that I'm unaware of, she doesn't have the background to be an 'expert' on population health measures to manage a pandemic.
The recent rise in US hospitalisations is not alarming
Our economy is. Its completely alarming. An Johnson is about to deal it yet another blow.
So you are just ignoring all the posts this morning correcting you by giving actual figures for the US which showed you were typing absolute twaddle earlier.
Do you actually check to see if what you are typing is correct before you type it or are you just trying to wind people up.
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.
Do you not understand that "going back to our old lives" is impossible? Too many people will voluntarily follow lockdown and that will cause economic devastation. Getting people confident enough to venture out and socialise/spend money is the only way back to normality. The US is about to go through a second unnecessary virus contraction because the first lockdown wasn't properly followed and didn't last long enough. Now cases and deaths are climbing and people are scared to go out again. I have friends in California who are now back to staying indoors because they don't want to risk getting the virus and be off work.
The "let it rip" solution isn't a solution. You're clearly too stupid to understand this.
US deaths on 13 July were one tenth of their peak in early May. That's one tenth.
Apparently that is the 'the week-end effect'
Yet ICUs are full and deaths from similar (probably more profitable) diseases are way higher than other years.
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!
In today's issue of "not understanding exponential growth"
For a less snarky response, let's say hypothetically wearing a mask in California is reducing their R from 1.6 to 1.5, whereas in the UK it'll reduce our R from 0.8 to 0.75.
In California that would mean we'd be seeing a disastrous growth in cases, but at the same time that masks would be saving thousands of lives.
In the UK that would initially mean a small improvement in our rate of cases coming down. But while it'd be small in terms of raw number of cases, it'd be significant in terms of our ability to reopen, because it means that we could add back in something else that increases our R value. Or, alternatively, we could wait with the lower R and it'd take significantly less time for our numbers to get low enough for test-and-trace to become more viable as a way of controlling the virus.
You are obsessing about R as millions stand to lose their jobs and our country goes bankrupt in short order.
Imagine the worst possible economic situation for the UK. Its worse than that.
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.
Do you not understand that "going back to our old lives" is impossible? Too many people will voluntarily follow lockdown and that will cause economic devastation. Getting people confident enough to venture out and socialise/spend money is the only way back to normality. The US is about to go through a second unnecessary virus contraction because the first lockdown wasn't properly followed and didn't last long enough. Now cases and deaths are climbing and people are scared to go out again. I have friends in California who are now back to staying indoors because they don't want to risk getting the virus and be off work.
The "let it rip" solution isn't a solution. You're clearly too stupid to understand this.
US deaths on 13 July were one tenth of their peak in early May. That's one tenth.
Apparently that is the 'the week-end effect'
It's not down by a factor of ten. Check out the weekly trend plot here:
Ministers are now facing calls to require masks in other closed spaces. When asked if offices would follow, George Eustice, the environment secretary, said: “We take one step at a time.”
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?
I pay full whack under those circumstances because: I don’t want to be a massive hypocrite given the time I’ve had off from school over the last ten years without it affecting my pay; On a more selfish level I don’t want my cleaner to struggle in when ill and infect me. If you don’t trust her not to take advantage of you then why do you trust her to clean your house?
I think the last comment nails it - it's about the relationship. Unless the finance becomes a significant matter - and a couple of hours a week even for a period will not be.
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
Get some anti-fog spray intended for motorcycle helmet visors for your glasses. The Muc-Off brand Anti-Fog is good.
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!
In today's issue of "not understanding exponential growth"
For a less snarky response, let's say hypothetically wearing a mask in California is reducing their R from 1.6 to 1.5, whereas in the UK it'll reduce our R from 0.8 to 0.75.
In California that would mean we'd be seeing a disastrous growth in cases, but at the same time that masks would be saving thousands of lives.
In the UK that would initially mean a small improvement in our rate of cases coming down. But while it'd be small in terms of raw number of cases, it'd be significant in terms of our ability to reopen, because it means that we could add back in something else that increases our R value. Or, alternatively, we could wait with the lower R and it'd take significantly less time for our numbers to get low enough for test-and-trace to become more viable as a way of controlling the virus.
You are obsessing about R as millions stand to lose their jobs and our country goes bankrupt in short order.
Imagine the worst possible economic situation for the UK. Its worse than that.
Getting and keeping the R down is key to saving the economy.
In the UK we are busy and rapidly lifting restrictions with an aim to see the furlough scheme wound down and an effective return to normal in forthcoming weeks.
In the USA which prematurely reopened deaths are climbing again and lifted lockdown restrictions are being reimposed.
We do not want to see lockdown restrictions reimposed like they are being in Texas and Florida etc
He's just missing the bigger picture, which is that cases have not come down as much as in the rest of Europe, which puts us on the back foot when it comes to Brexit negotiations.
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
Get some anti-fog spray intended for motorcycle helmet visors for your glasses. The Muc-Off brand Anti-Fog is good.
You are obsessing about R as millions stand to lose their jobs and our country goes bankrupt in short order.
Imagine the worst possible economic situation for the UK. Its worse than that.
If only we'd locked down earlier, the damage to the economy- and the death toll- would have been much lower.
And to reiterate what I said in the post you quoted, if masks reduce R, that translates into being able to reopen the economy more, sooner. And the harm that masks do- to the economy, and to people's wellbeing- is negligible compared to lockdown.
I was going to start looking at spread betting but then they axed the points markets I was interested in and only head the places. That's much less to my liking.
On masks: an approach to take, from Government, might be that when the national level of R falls below a certain threshold (substantially under 1) they're no longer nationally required, but that if local R figures rise then they can be reimposed on a local basis.
It shouldn't be R, which is dependent on behaviour and won't fall as the infection rate drops. It should be based on prevalence. I would argue it already could be, as we now have postcode level data (pillar 1 and 2) on new infections, so should be able to define 'safe' areas which need fewer measures, and less safe which need more.
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.
Do you not understand that "going back to our old lives" is impossible? Too many people will voluntarily follow lockdown and that will cause economic devastation. Getting people confident enough to venture out and socialise/spend money is the only way back to normality. The US is about to go through a second unnecessary virus contraction because the first lockdown wasn't properly followed and didn't last long enough. Now cases and deaths are climbing and people are scared to go out again. I have friends in California who are now back to staying indoors because they don't want to risk getting the virus and be off work.
The "let it rip" solution isn't a solution. You're clearly too stupid to understand this.
US deaths on 13 July were one tenth of their peak in early May. That's one tenth.
Apparently that is the 'the week-end effect'
It's not down by a factor of ten. Check out the weekly trend plot here:
You are obsessing about R as millions stand to lose their jobs and our country goes bankrupt in short order.
Imagine the worst possible economic situation for the UK. Its worse than that.
If only we'd locked down earlier, the damage to the economy- and the death toll- would have been much lower.
I'm not remotely convinced by that.
Many countries that prematurely locked down are now really struggling. South Africa is an example, they were praised for locking down swiftly and their excess death toll was negative while ours was at its peak . . . but now they're suffering and entering a peak as we are exiting our lockdown.
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.
So you don't think manslaughter by gross negligence should be criminal, then? Well, it's a view.
And where do you stand on recklessness?
No, I think manslaughter by gross negligence falls under the purview of 'deliberately causing harm to others'. Even if you didn't intend death, the gross negligence was a harm.
I think that if no harm was intended, no gross negligence was committed, no other criminal activity was committed and someone still dies due to a tragic accident then that should not be convicted as manslaughter.
Gross negligence by definition is not DELIBERATELY causing harm - it's being criminally incompetent. People who are negligent don't think to themselves "this will cause harm to others, but what the hell". It's the doctor who doesn't check the bottle properly and delivers a lethal dose, and the electrician who leaves live wires hanging out of the walls when working at a primary school.
I was going to start looking at spread betting but then they axed the points markets I was interested in and only head the places. That's much less to my liking.
On masks: an approach to take, from Government, might be that when the national level of R falls below a certain threshold (substantially under 1) they're no longer nationally required, but that if local R figures rise then they can be reimposed on a local basis.
It shouldn't be R, which is dependent on behaviour and won't fall as the infection rate drops. It should be based on prevalence. I would argue it already could be, as we now have postcode level data (pillar 1 and 2) on new infections, so should be able to define 'safe' areas which need fewer measures, and less safe which need more.
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!
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.
Do you not understand that "going back to our old lives" is impossible? Too many people will voluntarily follow lockdown and that will cause economic devastation. Getting people confident enough to venture out and socialise/spend money is the only way back to normality. The US is about to go through a second unnecessary virus contraction because the first lockdown wasn't properly followed and didn't last long enough. Now cases and deaths are climbing and people are scared to go out again. I have friends in California who are now back to staying indoors because they don't want to risk getting the virus and be off work.
The "let it rip" solution isn't a solution. You're clearly too stupid to understand this.
US deaths on 13 July were one tenth of their peak in early May. That's one tenth.
Apparently that is the 'the week-end effect'
And hospitalisations are back to their peak and new cases are beyond what they were. Deaths are a lagging indicator.
Ken Marsh, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, told Today on BBC Radio 4: “Shopkeepers need to step up to the plate and take some responsibility. They can quite easily put signs up on their doors ‘No mask on, no entry, this is private property’.
Also, simply refusing to serve anyone not wearing a mask should deal with customers in small shops without automatic tills. If someone actually hangs about demanding to be served and making a nuisance of themselves, then call the police.
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!
Will presentation of an inhaler be accepted as justification for not wearing a mask?
Why? They aren't permanently welded onto your face.
Because masks are expected to cover both nose and mouth. That could be problematic for peoplw suffering from Asthma and COPD.
That's a reasonable exception in severe cases, although not sure how it will be managed. For people with mild asthma, probably not.
Retail assistants are not likely though to be medically qualified to make such judgements. I am simply wondering whether a shop would refuse admittance to a customer able to produce an inhaler.
You are obsessing about R as millions stand to lose their jobs and our country goes bankrupt in short order.
Imagine the worst possible economic situation for the UK. Its worse than that.
If only we'd locked down earlier, the damage to the economy- and the death toll- would have been much lower.
I'm not remotely convinced by that.
Many countries that prematurely locked down are now really struggling. South Africa is an example, they were praised for locking down swiftly and their excess death toll was negative while ours was at its peak . . . but now they're suffering and entering a peak as we are exiting our lockdown.
South Africa will overtake us with recorded cases today. They have been catching up fast.
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!
In today's issue of "not understanding exponential growth"
For a less snarky response, let's say hypothetically wearing a mask in California is reducing their R from 1.6 to 1.5, whereas in the UK it'll reduce our R from 0.8 to 0.75.
In California that would mean we'd be seeing a disastrous growth in cases, but at the same time that masks would be saving thousands of lives.
In the UK that would initially mean a small improvement in our rate of cases coming down. But while it'd be small in terms of raw number of cases, it'd be significant in terms of our ability to reopen, because it means that we could add back in something else that increases our R value. Or, alternatively, we could wait with the lower R and it'd take significantly less time for our numbers to get low enough for test-and-trace to become more viable as a way of controlling the virus.
You are obsessing about R as millions stand to lose their jobs and our country goes bankrupt in short order.
Imagine the worst possible economic situation for the UK. Its worse than that.
I'm probably wasting my time, but I'll give it a go.
It's not a choice between the economy and health. They are inextricably linked. If the virus spreads, and infections and deaths rise rapidly, then that would do more damage to the economy than the current, quite modest, measures to reduce virus spread.
If the virus spreads significantly, schools would not re-open, offices would stay closed, people would stop going out - and so on. The economy would suffer even more.
Will presentation of an inhaler be accepted as justification for not wearing a mask?
Why? They aren't permanently welded onto your face.
Because masks are expected to cover both nose and mouth. That could be problematic for peoplw suffering from Asthma and COPD.
That's a reasonable exception in severe cases, although not sure how it will be managed. For people with mild asthma, probably not.
I have inhalers for my asthma and copd and do not like face masks and I really could not fly long haul to my sons in Vancouver. However, for sensible use and the greater good I will wear a face mask
Indeed, avoiding covid with my conditions is far more important, and I will take all sensible measures
Will presentation of an inhaler be accepted as justification for not wearing a mask?
Why? They aren't permanently welded onto your face.
Because masks are expected to cover both nose and mouth. That could be problematic for peoplw suffering from Asthma and COPD.
That's a reasonable exception in severe cases, although not sure how it will be managed. For people with mild asthma, probably not.
I have inhalers for my asthma and copd and do not like face masks and I really could not fly long haul to my sons in Vancouver. However, for sensible use and the greater good I will wear a face mask
Indeed, avoiding covid with my conditions is far more important, and I will take all sensible measures
Yeah, if you have a really bad condition you don't want to be in the shop in the first place. Better to get stuff delivered to you.
Will presentation of an inhaler be accepted as justification for not wearing a mask?
Why? They aren't permanently welded onto your face.
Because masks are expected to cover both nose and mouth. That could be problematic for peoplw suffering from Asthma and COPD.
That's a reasonable exception in severe cases, although not sure how it will be managed. For people with mild asthma, probably not.
I have inhalers for my asthma and copd and do not like face masks and I really could not fly long haul to my sons in Vancouver. However, for sensible use and the greater good I will wear a face mask
Indeed, avoiding covid with my conditions is far more important, and I will take all sensible measures
But how would retailers respond if you were minded not to wear a mask given your medical conditions? I am not sure many would refuse entry to a regular customer who produces an inhaler to explain non-compliance.
You are obsessing about R as millions stand to lose their jobs and our country goes bankrupt in short order.
Imagine the worst possible economic situation for the UK. Its worse than that.
If only we'd locked down earlier, the damage to the economy- and the death toll- would have been much lower.
I'm not remotely convinced by that.
Many countries that prematurely locked down are now really struggling. South Africa is an example, they were praised for locking down swiftly and their excess death toll was negative while ours was at its peak . . . but now they're suffering and entering a peak as we are exiting our lockdown.
Why do you think that is? I can see three options that make sense:
1. They lifted the lockdown in an unsafe way, which we're not going to do. In that case, we presumably also wouldn't have lifted the lockdown in an unsafe way if we'd entered it two weeks earlier, so the only difference is we'd have saved tens of thousands of lives.
2. They lifted the lockdown in an unsafe way, which we're also going to do- perhaps because it's inherently impossible to lift lockdown to the extent that we want to safely. In that case, the fact that we haven't hit our second peak yet doesn't mean we're doing better than them, it just means we're slower.
3. For some other reason, the trajectory of the virus has just been different in the two countries and lockdown has affected it in different ways. In that case, we shouldn't be comparing them.
Will presentation of an inhaler be accepted as justification for not wearing a mask?
Why? They aren't permanently welded onto your face.
Because masks are expected to cover both nose and mouth. That could be problematic for peoplw suffering from Asthma and COPD.
That's a reasonable exception in severe cases, although not sure how it will be managed. For people with mild asthma, probably not.
I have inhalers for my asthma and copd and do not like face masks and I really could not fly long haul to my sons in Vancouver. However, for sensible use and the greater good I will wear a face mask
Indeed, avoiding covid with my conditions is far more important, and I will take all sensible measures
Yeah, if you have a really bad condition you don't want to be in the shop in the first place. Better to get stuff delivered to you.
We have had weekly home deliveries from Asda for the last two years and use Amazon a lot
However, I have been to Asda and B&Q and were impressed with their measures
Will presentation of an inhaler be accepted as justification for not wearing a mask?
Why? They aren't permanently welded onto your face.
Because masks are expected to cover both nose and mouth. That could be problematic for peoplw suffering from Asthma and COPD.
That's a reasonable exception in severe cases, although not sure how it will be managed. For people with mild asthma, probably not.
I have inhalers for my asthma and copd and do not like face masks and I really could not fly long haul to my sons in Vancouver. However, for sensible use and the greater good I will wear a face mask
Indeed, avoiding covid with my conditions is far more important, and I will take all sensible measures
But how would retailers respond if you were minded not to wear a mask given your medical conditions? I am not sure many would refuse entry to a regular customer who produces an inhaler to explain non-compliance.
I am a responsible adult and would not compromise shop staff in that way and would wear a mask
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!
In today's issue of "not understanding exponential growth"
For a less snarky response, let's say hypothetically wearing a mask in California is reducing their R from 1.6 to 1.5, whereas in the UK it'll reduce our R from 0.8 to 0.75.
In California that would mean we'd be seeing a disastrous growth in cases, but at the same time that masks would be saving thousands of lives.
In the UK that would initially mean a small improvement in our rate of cases coming down. But while it'd be small in terms of raw number of cases, it'd be significant in terms of our ability to reopen, because it means that we could add back in something else that increases our R value. Or, alternatively, we could wait with the lower R and it'd take significantly less time for our numbers to get low enough for test-and-trace to become more viable as a way of controlling the virus.
You are obsessing about R as millions stand to lose their jobs and our country goes bankrupt in short order.
Imagine the worst possible economic situation for the UK. Its worse than that.
I'm probably wasting my time, but I'll give it a go.
It's not a choice between the economy and health. They are inextricably linked. If the virus spreads, and infections and deaths rise rapidly, then that would do more damage to the economy than the current, quite modest, measures to reduce virus spread.
If the virus spreads significantly, schools would not re-open, offices would stay closed, people would stop going out - and so on. The economy would suffer even more.
There's one other thing. It would be lovely not to have had Covid-19 happen, to not have these rubbish choices to make, to just carry on like before.
But that option doesn't seem to be on the table; the situation in the American south seems set to show us what happens if you try that. Sweden (more deaths, slower decline, evidence of economic damage beginning to come in) shows the effect of half-cocked measures.
Sometimes, the fates send humanity a googly to deal with. We don't get steady uninterrupted growth in prosperity. I'm sure that it would have seemed more profitable for the UK not to have taken part in World War II. But that wasn't really an option, was it?
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.
So you don't think manslaughter by gross negligence should be criminal, then? Well, it's a view.
And where do you stand on recklessness?
No, I think manslaughter by gross negligence falls under the purview of 'deliberately causing harm to others'. Even if you didn't intend death, the gross negligence was a harm.
I think that if no harm was intended, no gross negligence was committed, no other criminal activity was committed and someone still dies due to a tragic accident then that should not be convicted as manslaughter.
Gross negligence by definition is not DELIBERATELY causing harm - it's being criminally incompetent. People who are negligent don't think to themselves "this will cause harm to others, but what the hell". It's the doctor who doesn't check the bottle properly and delivers a lethal dose, and the electrician who leaves live wires hanging out of the walls when working at a primary school.
People who are grossly negligent are deliberately causing a risk of harm. They may not be deliberately seeking death but they are deliberately not doing what they should knowing the consequences.
Hence a child who takes apart an electrical product while their parents are asleep . . . versus a trained and qualified electrician leaving live wires hanging out of the walls at a primary school . . . are two completely different propositions. The electrician knew better but took a shortcut anyway.
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!
In today's issue of "not understanding exponential growth"
For a less snarky response, let's say hypothetically wearing a mask in California is reducing their R from 1.6 to 1.5, whereas in the UK it'll reduce our R from 0.8 to 0.75.
In California that would mean we'd be seeing a disastrous growth in cases, but at the same time that masks would be saving thousands of lives.
In the UK that would initially mean a small improvement in our rate of cases coming down. But while it'd be small in terms of raw number of cases, it'd be significant in terms of our ability to reopen, because it means that we could add back in something else that increases our R value. Or, alternatively, we could wait with the lower R and it'd take significantly less time for our numbers to get low enough for test-and-trace to become more viable as a way of controlling the virus.
You are obsessing about R as millions stand to lose their jobs and our country goes bankrupt in short order.
Imagine the worst possible economic situation for the UK. Its worse than that.
It’s. A. Natural. Disaster.
The biggest in our lifetimes. Unsurprisingly, it’s disastrous. That’s what disasters do.
Will presentation of an inhaler be accepted as justification for not wearing a mask?
Why? They aren't permanently welded onto your face.
Because masks are expected to cover both nose and mouth. That could be problematic for peoplw suffering from Asthma and COPD.
That's a reasonable exception in severe cases, although not sure how it will be managed. For people with mild asthma, probably not.
I have inhalers for my asthma and copd and do not like face masks and I really could not fly long haul to my sons in Vancouver. However, for sensible use and the greater good I will wear a face mask
Indeed, avoiding covid with my conditions is far more important, and I will take all sensible measures
But how would retailers respond if you were minded not to wear a mask given your medical conditions? I am not sure many would refuse entry to a regular customer who produces an inhaler to explain non-compliance.
Will presentation of an inhaler be accepted as justification for not wearing a mask?
Why? They aren't permanently welded onto your face.
Because masks are expected to cover both nose and mouth. That could be problematic for peoplw suffering from Asthma and COPD.
That's a reasonable exception in severe cases, although not sure how it will be managed. For people with mild asthma, probably not.
I have inhalers for my asthma and copd and do not like face masks and I really could not fly long haul to my sons in Vancouver. However, for sensible use and the greater good I will wear a face mask
Indeed, avoiding covid with my conditions is far more important, and I will take all sensible measures
But how would retailers respond if you were minded not to wear a mask given your medical conditions? I am not sure many would refuse entry to a regular customer who produces an inhaler to explain non-compliance.
I am a responsible adult and would not compromise shop staff in that way and would wear a mask
I am simply pointing out that there are others who suffer your medical conditions who will take a different view to yourself. How will retailers react to them? The fact that we have coped for months through the apparent peak of the pandemic without this measure hardly conveys any sense that wearing a mask is absolutely essential - whatever economic justification there might be in encouraging a return to work etc.
He's just missing the bigger picture, which is that cases have not come down as much as in the rest of Europe, which puts us on the back foot when it comes to Brexit negotiations.
I would argue our cases per day are very similar to those in Germany, France and Spain. The descent may have been slower, but we are in the same place now.
Will presentation of an inhaler be accepted as justification for not wearing a mask?
Why? They aren't permanently welded onto your face.
Because masks are expected to cover both nose and mouth. That could be problematic for peoplw suffering from Asthma and COPD.
I am in that position. But precisely because of that I really do not want to catch this disease. So I will wear a mask, have my inhaler with me and try and avoid situations which trigger my asthma.
Will presentation of an inhaler be accepted as justification for not wearing a mask?
Why? They aren't permanently welded onto your face.
Because masks are expected to cover both nose and mouth. That could be problematic for peoplw suffering from Asthma and COPD.
That's a reasonable exception in severe cases, although not sure how it will be managed. For people with mild asthma, probably not.
I have inhalers for my asthma and copd and do not like face masks and I really could not fly long haul to my sons in Vancouver. However, for sensible use and the greater good I will wear a face mask
Indeed, avoiding covid with my conditions is far more important, and I will take all sensible measures
But how would retailers respond if you were minded not to wear a mask given your medical conditions? I am not sure many would refuse entry to a regular customer who produces an inhaler to explain non-compliance.
Will presentation of an inhaler be accepted as justification for not wearing a mask?
Why? They aren't permanently welded onto your face.
Because masks are expected to cover both nose and mouth. That could be problematic for peoplw suffering from Asthma and COPD.
That's a reasonable exception in severe cases, although not sure how it will be managed. For people with mild asthma, probably not.
I have inhalers for my asthma and copd and do not like face masks and I really could not fly long haul to my sons in Vancouver. However, for sensible use and the greater good I will wear a face mask
Indeed, avoiding covid with my conditions is far more important, and I will take all sensible measures
But how would retailers respond if you were minded not to wear a mask given your medical conditions? I am not sure many would refuse entry to a regular customer who produces an inhaler to explain non-compliance.
I am a responsible adult and would not compromise shop staff in that way and would wear a mask
I am simply pointing out that there are others who suffer your medical conditions who will take a different view to yourself. How will retailers react to them? The fact that we have coped for months through the apparent peak of the pandemic without this measure hardly conveys any sense that wearing a mask is absolutely essential - whatever economic justification there might be in encouraging a return to work etc.
In those circumstances they should not go in a shop
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!
In today's issue of "not understanding exponential growth"
For a less snarky response, let's say hypothetically wearing a mask in California is reducing their R from 1.6 to 1.5, whereas in the UK it'll reduce our R from 0.8 to 0.75.
In California that would mean we'd be seeing a disastrous growth in cases, but at the same time that masks would be saving thousands of lives.
In the UK that would initially mean a small improvement in our rate of cases coming down. But while it'd be small in terms of raw number of cases, it'd be significant in terms of our ability to reopen, because it means that we could add back in something else that increases our R value. Or, alternatively, we could wait with the lower R and it'd take significantly less time for our numbers to get low enough for test-and-trace to become more viable as a way of controlling the virus.
You are obsessing about R as millions stand to lose their jobs and our country goes bankrupt in short order.
Imagine the worst possible economic situation for the UK. Its worse than that.
There is no easy way out. Ignoring the virus won't save the economy.
I was going to start looking at spread betting but then they axed the points markets I was interested in and only head the places. That's much less to my liking.
On masks: an approach to take, from Government, might be that when the national level of R falls below a certain threshold (substantially under 1) they're no longer nationally required, but that if local R figures rise then they can be reimposed on a local basis.
It shouldn't be R, which is dependent on behaviour and won't fall as the infection rate drops. It should be based on prevalence. I would argue it already could be, as we now have postcode level data (pillar 1 and 2) on new infections, so should be able to define 'safe' areas which need fewer measures, and less safe which need more.
Both R and prevalence matter.
Yes, but I am fed up with people thinking R will fall. It only falls if we change behaviour, not as cases decrease. Lockdown reduced R to below 1, and keeping it there while opening up will eventually send prevalence to zero or close to (as in Scotland it seems). The risk for the UK is ultimately re-importing cases. NZ has this issue to address, or stay isolated forever.
Will presentation of an inhaler be accepted as justification for not wearing a mask?
Why? They aren't permanently welded onto your face.
Because masks are expected to cover both nose and mouth. That could be problematic for peoplw suffering from Asthma and COPD.
I am in that position. But precisely because of that I really do not want to catch this disease. So I will wear a mask, have my inhaler with me and try and avoid situations which trigger my asthma.
We are on the same page and I expect most everyone with these conditions will do the same
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?
There are absolutely loads of shops (e.g. boutiques) that nobody has to go to – they are there as an elective leisure activity. Now, shopping for leisure is not my thing – I can barely think of a worse way of spending my Saturday but I am given to the view that lots of people enjoy it. Those people are probably massively under-represented on PB as it's not really a retail therapy demographic is it?
If the government wanted to mandate masks, why not do so just for essential retail? Nobody needs to go to And Other Stories or Whistles and yet I dare say their businesses will be massively compromised by the mask rule as it takes all of the enjoyment out of shopping for their customers.
Ditto the stupid rule that people can't try on clothes. Why bother going shopping then? Might as well buy online.
Yet again, blunt, thoughtless policymaking from government.
He's just missing the bigger picture, which is that cases have not come down as much as in the rest of Europe, which puts us on the back foot when it comes to Brexit negotiations.
I would argue our cases per day are very similar to those in Germany, France and Spain. The descent may have been slower, but we are in the same place now.
We are running at around 60-80 deaths per day by date of death which is around double what we're seeing in Italy, France and around 3x Germany.
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.
So you don't think manslaughter by gross negligence should be criminal, then? Well, it's a view.
And where do you stand on recklessness?
No, I think manslaughter by gross negligence falls under the purview of 'deliberately causing harm to others'. Even if you didn't intend death, the gross negligence was a harm.
I think that if no harm was intended, no gross negligence was committed, no other criminal activity was committed and someone still dies due to a tragic accident then that should not be convicted as manslaughter.
Gross negligence by definition is not DELIBERATELY causing harm - it's being criminally incompetent. People who are negligent don't think to themselves "this will cause harm to others, but what the hell". It's the doctor who doesn't check the bottle properly and delivers a lethal dose, and the electrician who leaves live wires hanging out of the walls when working at a primary school.
People who are grossly negligent are deliberately causing a risk of harm. They may not be deliberately seeking death but they are deliberately not doing what they should knowing the consequences.
Hence a child who takes apart an electrical product while their parents are asleep . . . versus a trained and qualified electrician leaving live wires hanging out of the walls at a primary school . . . are two completely different propositions. The electrician knew better but took a shortcut anyway.
But does disagreeing with this month's Government view on this amount to being grossly negligent? The Government has contradicted itself on this on such a regular basis that it is hardly unreasonable - or grossly negligent - for people to believe that its view will change again at pretty short notice.There is a perceived lack of competence here - which in turn has undermined the Government's authority.
Sweden seems to be doing better than the USA in controlling the virus and better than the UK on the economy.
Being "better" than the USA or UK is nothing to be proud of when it comes to Covid. Norway, Denmark and Japan are more the countries you want to be using as good examples.
Contrarian is right. The absolutely only way to get the plebs back into line and spending money is to let the Rona let rip. People spend more in shops when their friends / family have died a horrible death.
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?
There are absolutely loads of shops (e.g. boutiques) that nobody has to go to – they are there as an elective leisure activity. Now, shopping for leisure is not my thing – I can barely think of a worse way of spending my Saturday but I am given to the view that lots of people enjoy it. Those people are probably massively under-represented on PB as it's not really a retail therapy demographic is it?
You and @NickPalmer (and as you note others on PB also) obviously not SATC fans.
Will presentation of an inhaler be accepted as justification for not wearing a mask?
Why? They aren't permanently welded onto your face.
Because masks are expected to cover both nose and mouth. That could be problematic for peoplw suffering from Asthma and COPD.
I am in that position. But precisely because of that I really do not want to catch this disease. So I will wear a mask, have my inhaler with me and try and avoid situations which trigger my asthma.
Fair enough - but there is provision in the regulations - apparently - for those with 'breathing difficulties' to be exempt from wearing masks. What is meant by 'breathing difficulties'?
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!
In today's issue of "not understanding exponential growth"
For a less snarky response, let's say hypothetically wearing a mask in California is reducing their R from 1.6 to 1.5, whereas in the UK it'll reduce our R from 0.8 to 0.75.
In California that would mean we'd be seeing a disastrous growth in cases, but at the same time that masks would be saving thousands of lives.
In the UK that would initially mean a small improvement in our rate of cases coming down. But while it'd be small in terms of raw number of cases, it'd be significant in terms of our ability to reopen, because it means that we could add back in something else that increases our R value. Or, alternatively, we could wait with the lower R and it'd take significantly less time for our numbers to get low enough for test-and-trace to become more viable as a way of controlling the virus.
You are obsessing about R as millions stand to lose their jobs and our country goes bankrupt in short order.
Imagine the worst possible economic situation for the UK. Its worse than that.
It’s. A. Natural. Disaster.
The biggest in our lifetimes. Unsurprisingly, it’s disastrous. That’s what disasters do.
We are lucky. We will never wake up one morning and find we have to rebuild much of San Francisco Bay or Naples or Istanbul or Tokyo. But, perhaps it also means we also lack the ability to think of COVID in this way.
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.
Do you not understand that "going back to our old lives" is impossible? Too many people will voluntarily follow lockdown and that will cause economic devastation. Getting people confident enough to venture out and socialise/spend money is the only way back to normality. The US is about to go through a second unnecessary virus contraction because the first lockdown wasn't properly followed and didn't last long enough. Now cases and deaths are climbing and people are scared to go out again. I have friends in California who are now back to staying indoors because they don't want to risk getting the virus and be off work.
The "let it rip" solution isn't a solution. You're clearly too stupid to understand this.
US deaths on 13 July were one tenth of their peak in early May. That's one tenth.
Apparently that is the 'the week-end effect'
It's not down by a factor of ten. Check out the weekly trend plot here:
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?
There are absolutely loads of shops (e.g. boutiques) that nobody has to go to – they are there as an elective leisure activity. Now, shopping for leisure is not my thing – I can barely think of a worse way of spending my Saturday but I am given to the view that lots of people enjoy it. Those people are probably massively under-represented on PB as it's not really a retail therapy demographic is it?
You and @NickPalmer (and as you note others on PB also) obviously not SATC fans.
No I am certainly not! Yet my wife is and she has already almost given up on the shops because she isn't able to try on clothes. I dare say insisting she wears a mask will be the final straw.
He's just missing the bigger picture, which is that cases have not come down as much as in the rest of Europe, which puts us on the back foot when it comes to Brexit negotiations.
I would argue our cases per day are very similar to those in Germany, France and Spain. The descent may have been slower, but we are in the same place now.
We are running at around 60-80 deaths per day by date of death which is around double what we're seeing in Italy, France and around 3x Germany.
I'm not arguing we are in a great place but new infections is similar across the four countries, around 200 to 600.
Will presentation of an inhaler be accepted as justification for not wearing a mask?
Why? They aren't permanently welded onto your face.
Because masks are expected to cover both nose and mouth. That could be problematic for peoplw suffering from Asthma and COPD.
I am in that position. But precisely because of that I really do not want to catch this disease. So I will wear a mask, have my inhaler with me and try and avoid situations which trigger my asthma.
Fair enough - but there is provision in the regulations - apparently - for those with 'breathing difficulties' to be exempt from wearing masks. What is meant by 'breathing difficulties'?
Cyclefree's position is entirely sensible - but there will be those (for example someone who's had Covid, and is suffering long term effects, the most common of which is dyspnea) who aren't at high risk from the virus, but suffer from difficulty in breathing.
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.
Do you not understand that "going back to our old lives" is impossible? Too many people will voluntarily follow lockdown and that will cause economic devastation. Getting people confident enough to venture out and socialise/spend money is the only way back to normality. The US is about to go through a second unnecessary virus contraction because the first lockdown wasn't properly followed and didn't last long enough. Now cases and deaths are climbing and people are scared to go out again. I have friends in California who are now back to staying indoors because they don't want to risk getting the virus and be off work.
The "let it rip" solution isn't a solution. You're clearly too stupid to understand this.
US deaths on 13 July were one tenth of their peak in early May. That's one tenth.
There are absolutely loads of shops (e.g. boutiques) that nobody has to go to – they are there as an elective leisure activity. Now, shopping for leisure is not my thing – I can barely think of a worse way of spending my Saturday but I am given to the view that lots of people enjoy it. Those people are probably massively under-represented on PB as it's not really a retail therapy demographic is it?
You and @NickPalmer (and as you note others on PB also) obviously not SATC fans.
SATC=Sex and the City? Right, shopping:sex ratio far too high. I was once in a holiday cottage with nothing to do except read The Devil Wore Prada, and found it completely incomprehensible, like reading a Latin text about Martians.
I remember going to Selfridges and asking where the trousers were - they asked "Which brand?" and there were about a dozen different areas each with their own brand, so ideally one should go to them all and try each in turn. I gave up and bought a £10 pair in Tesco which I still wear happily, years later.
But Anabob is of course right that we're not typical of everyone, and nor is this forum. If it's fun, why not? But then should be fun even in a mask?
Will presentation of an inhaler be accepted as justification for not wearing a mask?
Why? They aren't permanently welded onto your face.
Because masks are expected to cover both nose and mouth. That could be problematic for peoplw suffering from Asthma and COPD.
I am in that position. But precisely because of that I really do not want to catch this disease. So I will wear a mask, have my inhaler with me and try and avoid situations which trigger my asthma.
In a similar position. However, had to have a blood test this morning, which entails visiting the nearest hospital, about 10 miles away. It's only a small unit; a satellite really. I've never seen the blood test waiting room as empty, but everyone was very friendly and efficient. One had to wear a mask, and I did. Incidentally, there was suggestion on the radio this morning that wiping one's glasses over with a drop of washing up liquid prevents misting up, and if my experience is any guide, it did.
Just flashed up on BBC screen: 'UK's mobile providers must remove 5G kit by Chinese firm Huawei from networks by 2027, over security fears'. Apologies if posted already.
This latest measure applies to just in shops and I wonder whether it will spill over into most aspects of life outside the home. It is a bit of a faff getting masks on and off so if you are going shopping you’ll probably wear it all the time
Have you left the house yet Mike? Because regardless of the merits or otherwise of the new measure I think all observation based experience of people’s approach when needing to wear masks is that the above is absolutely not true. Most people don’t like wearing masks, and will remove them at the first opportunity. Maybe it’s different in Bedford.
and if you are removing them and then putting them back on they are at best ineffective and probably spreading germs more. This is such a stupid policy that it beggars belief so many people are happy with it
Yes, fiddling with masks by taking them on and off constantly with contaminated hands, particularly fiddling with the nose bit is likely to contaminate more.
It takes time to adapt to the no touch techniques that professional mask wearers adopt. Micropore along the top, change every few hours, dispose of properly, wash hands or sanitise whenever handling them etc. I have got used to it over the decades.
Went on the tube for first time since lockdown yesterday.
Had N95 mask, used hand gel on hands before putting on and taking off, no adjusting or touching whilst on was needed, put away in resealable food bag. Re-used for return journey and plan to re-use a half dozen times again. Is the re-use part terrible?
I use a compact UV steriliser between daily uses. this means I get by with 3-4 masks to hand and always have a cleaned one.
OK, I have not checked every possible figure/calculation for cases/deaths/GDP. But still, the current trend is in the right direction for Sweden. Lets see how this develops.
Comments
There must be criminal intent to be manslaughter - either killing with the intent of murder but where a partial defence applies, or conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death that results in death, or conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm that resulted in death.
Similarly with drink driving if you drink and you intentionally get behind the wheels then you have done a dangerous activity that risks great harm upon others.
As I said I'm not convinced simply not wearing a mask reaches that threshold to be mandated by law, but it remains the right thing to do voluntarily.
Beware lift buttons..
I just recall a few faked up photos, a media panic, a few gullibles believing the media panic, and the Mayor of Tyneside having a fit.
Though I am surprised about the Police Federation comments on enforcement - our police enforced lockdown well with only 0.1% of the fines used in say Spain.
Our economy is. Its completely alarming. An Johnson is about to deal it yet another blow.
That's not a blow its what is required to revive the economy. Why would you want to keep social distancing going on for longer?
Shops must take responsibility for facemask use by declining entry to anyone not wearing one and only call in police as a last resort, officers said.
Facemasks will become compulsory in shops from a week on Friday, with £100 fines for those who do not cover up. Ministers will make wearing masks compulsory under public health powers already used on public transport.
John Apter, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, wrote on Twitter that “we simply don’t have the resources” to enforce compulsory masks.
He wrote: “I imagine vast majority of people will comply, if all stores make it a condition of entry that you wear a mask, then that would be a start and negate the reliance on police . . . my expectation would be for shops to refuse entry if a customer refused to wear a mask (and wasn’t exempt). The police should only get involved as a last resort.”
Ken Marsh, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, told Today on BBC Radio 4: “Shopkeepers need to step up to the plate and take some responsibility. They can quite easily put signs up on their doors ‘No mask on, no entry, this is private property’.
“That’s the first point we need to get across because this cannot all be laid on the shoulders of the police yet again. The second point is it will be nigh-on impossible for enforcement because you won’t have a police officer on every shop door because there isn’t enough of us.
“If a shopkeeper calls the police because someone hasn’t got a mask on, they haven’t got the power to detain them so that person can just walk away. We’ll be driving around and around London looking for people who aren’t wearing masks, it’s absolutely absurd.”
Ministers are now facing calls to require masks in other closed spaces. When asked if offices would follow, George Eustice, the environment secretary, said: “We take one step at a time.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/coronavirus-dont-expect-us-to-enforce-facemask-use-say-police-chiefs-68hnmv8wb
And where do you stand on recklessness?
For example, if I go out joyriding and accidentally kill someone, it was never my intention to cause them or anyone else physical harm, I was just looking to have fun... it was simply a possible result which might arise from my actions and that I really ought to have thought about.
https://news.sky.com/story/viruses-raining-down-from-earths-atmosphere-say-scientists-11239059
Even vaccines are a last resort. The first line of defence is the immune system. If a person is in good metabolic health - look it up - and has a high serum vitamin D, level, please explain how s/he can become a risk to others and spread SARS-COV-2.
That is pretty much the page of the book I am on.
The "let it rip" solution isn't a solution. You're clearly too stupid to understand this.
In California that would mean we'd be seeing a disastrous growth in cases, but at the same time that masks would be saving thousands of lives.
In the UK that would initially mean a small improvement in our rate of cases coming down. But while it'd be small in terms of raw number of cases, it'd be significant in terms of our ability to reopen, because it means that we could add back in something else that increases our R value. Or, alternatively, we could wait with the lower R and it'd take significantly less time for our numbers to get low enough for test-and-trace to become more viable as a way of controlling the virus.
Apparently that is the 'the week-end effect'
I think that if no harm was intended, no gross negligence was committed, no other criminal activity was committed and someone still dies due to a tragic accident then that should not be convicted as manslaughter.
However, in the wider context and concern as the economy opens more I will wear one in the shops and confined spaces. I do not use public transport so I do not need to worry in that respect
I don’t want to be a massive hypocrite given the time I’ve had off from school over the last ten years without it affecting my pay;
On a more selfish level I don’t want my cleaner to struggle in when ill and infect me.
If you don’t trust her not to take advantage of you then why do you trust her to clean your house?
Do you actually check to see if what you are typing is correct before you type it or are you just trying to wind people up.
Imagine the worst possible economic situation for the UK. Its worse than that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/coronavirus-us-cases-deaths/
Sweden seems to be doing better than the USA in controlling the virus and better than the UK on the economy.
In the UK we are busy and rapidly lifting restrictions with an aim to see the furlough scheme wound down and an effective return to normal in forthcoming weeks.
In the USA which prematurely reopened deaths are climbing again and lifted lockdown restrictions are being reimposed.
We do not want to see lockdown restrictions reimposed like they are being in Texas and Florida etc
And to reiterate what I said in the post you quoted, if masks reduce R, that translates into being able to reopen the economy more, sooner. And the harm that masks do- to the economy, and to people's wellbeing- is negligible compared to lockdown.
Many countries that prematurely locked down are now really struggling. South Africa is an example, they were praised for locking down swiftly and their excess death toll was negative while ours was at its peak . . . but now they're suffering and entering a peak as we are exiting our lockdown.
It's not a choice between the economy and health. They are inextricably linked. If the virus spreads, and infections and deaths rise rapidly, then that would do more damage to the economy than the current, quite modest, measures to reduce virus spread.
If the virus spreads significantly, schools would not re-open, offices would stay closed, people would stop going out - and so on. The economy would suffer even more.
Indeed, avoiding covid with my conditions is far more important, and I will take all sensible measures
1. They lifted the lockdown in an unsafe way, which we're not going to do. In that case, we presumably also wouldn't have lifted the lockdown in an unsafe way if we'd entered it two weeks earlier, so the only difference is we'd have saved tens of thousands of lives.
2. They lifted the lockdown in an unsafe way, which we're also going to do- perhaps because it's inherently impossible to lift lockdown to the extent that we want to safely. In that case, the fact that we haven't hit our second peak yet doesn't mean we're doing better than them, it just means we're slower.
3. For some other reason, the trajectory of the virus has just been different in the two countries and lockdown has affected it in different ways. In that case, we shouldn't be comparing them.
However, I have been to Asda and B&Q and were impressed with their measures
But that option doesn't seem to be on the table; the situation in the American south seems set to show us what happens if you try that. Sweden (more deaths, slower decline, evidence of economic damage beginning to come in) shows the effect of half-cocked measures.
Sometimes, the fates send humanity a googly to deal with. We don't get steady uninterrupted growth in prosperity. I'm sure that it would have seemed more profitable for the UK not to have taken part in World War II. But that wasn't really an option, was it?
Hence a child who takes apart an electrical product while their parents are asleep . . . versus a trained and qualified electrician leaving live wires hanging out of the walls at a primary school . . . are two completely different propositions. The electrician knew better but took a shortcut anyway.
A.
Natural.
Disaster.
The biggest in our lifetimes.
Unsurprisingly, it’s disastrous.
That’s what disasters do.
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1282978143591006208
If the government wanted to mandate masks, why not do so just for essential retail? Nobody needs to go to And Other Stories or Whistles and yet I dare say their businesses will be massively compromised by the mask rule as it takes all of the enjoyment out of shopping for their customers.
Ditto the stupid rule that people can't try on clothes. Why bother going shopping then? Might as well buy online.
Yet again, blunt, thoughtless policymaking from government.
NEW THREAD
https://twitter.com/joanguirado/status/1282047961183195136?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1282047961183195136|twgr^&ref_url=https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/world-news/spaniards-share-dismay-over-drunken-18592386
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
"In truth, signing up Bulgaria means another eurozone crisis is now inevitable,"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/07/13/letting-bulgaria-join-eurozone-hardly-answer-problems/
I remember going to Selfridges and asking where the trousers were - they asked "Which brand?" and there were about a dozen different areas each with their own brand, so ideally one should go to them all and try each in turn. I gave up and bought a £10 pair in Tesco which I still wear happily, years later.
But Anabob is of course right that we're not typical of everyone, and nor is this forum. If it's fun, why not? But then should be fun even in a mask?
One had to wear a mask, and I did.
Incidentally, there was suggestion on the radio this morning that wiping one's glasses over with a drop of washing up liquid prevents misting up, and if my experience is any guide, it did.
Apologies if posted already.