Some of the responses to the harassment of Chris Whitty in St James's Park have been way out of proportion. The men were a pair of rowdies who were beside themselves with glee when they saw a man in real life whom they recognised from the telly. Yes they manhandled him, they were overbearing, and they unsettled him, and yes they may need a stiff talking to by the police, or perhaps a small fine and an order to make sure they don't do it again, but they don't seem to be "thugs" on whom the "whole weight of the law" should be brought to bear, having acted in a way that is "absolutely appalling". Perhaps scribblers and politicians might like to meet some real thugs one day and see what they're like.
Schools Minister Nick "Those scenes should never have occurred in our society" Gibb should probably get out some more.
Any rise in interest rates has the potential to change the political landscape very, very quickly. The government will be hoping that current inflationary pressures are a blip. If they're not, there could be real trouble ahead.
I have been suggesting house price deflation on the back of consumer inflation and interest rate rises from increased money circulation could be catastrophic. I keep being told that I am focusing on the economics of the 1980s and we are these days insulated from such a fiasco.
The population of the country was stable for most of the 1980s.
UK pop 1971: 55.9 million UK pop 1981: 56.4 million UK pop 1991: 57.4 million
What was the undoing of Blair? Perhaps Iraq. He exited stage left before he got booted out, thus preserving his self-importance.
Boris Johnson is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. With Blair you get the impression he really DOES think he's brilliant whereas with Boris Johnson there's always a gnawing doubt around the edges.
Of course, everyone is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. Even @contrarian.
Blair's self-belief is indestructible. He still is adamant he was correct over Iraq. There is not a scintilla of doubt there.
But, it surely can be argued that Boris' psychology is a safer one for a top politician.
It is better to have some self-doubt, because you are then more ready to back-track, if that is what is needed.
And sometimes the best course for a politician is a U-turn.
Are we perhaps confusing self-doubt with doubt? Boris has the latter, perhaps because he does not readily grasp complex issues and might be functionally innumerate, but not the former. He may not know what to do but is absolutely sure he is the best person to do it.
90% of politicians are innumerate. Boris, to his small credit, recognises his limitations in this area. Most do not.
That is inflation. Specifically, it is inflation in house prices. Do you mean inflation in those goods which are monitored for the "baskets" used for the headline measures like RPI or CPI, which might be used to determine pay rises, pension rises, and mobile phone bill rises? Or something else?
What was the undoing of Blair? Perhaps Iraq. He exited stage left before he got booted out, thus preserving his self-importance.
Boris Johnson is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. With Blair you get the impression he really DOES think he's brilliant whereas with Boris Johnson there's always a gnawing doubt around the edges.
Of course, everyone is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. Even @contrarian.
Blair's self-belief is indestructible. He still is adamant he was correct over Iraq. There is not a scintilla of doubt there.
But, it surely can be argued that Boris' psychology is a safer one for a top politician.
It is better to have some self-doubt, because you are then more ready to back-track, if that is what is needed.
And sometimes the best course for a politician is a U-turn.
Are we perhaps confusing self-doubt with doubt? Boris has the latter, perhaps because he does not readily grasp complex issues and might be functionally innumerate, but not the former. He may not know what to do but is absolutely sure he is the best person to do it.
90% of politicians are innumerate. Boris, to his small credit, recognises his limitations in this area. Most do not.
Didn't he say (probably just to curry favour with his audience) that he'd like to have been a scientist?
That is inflation. Specifically, it is inflation in house prices. Do you mean inflation in those goods which are monitored for the "baskets" used for the headline measures like RPI or CPI, which might be used to determine pay rises, pension rises, and mobile phone bill rises? Or something else?
Some of the responses to the harassment of Chris Whitty in St James's Park have been way out of proportion. The men were a pair of rowdies who were beside themselves with glee when they saw a man in real life whom they recognised from the telly. Yes they manhandled him, they were overbearing, and they unsettled him, and yes they may need a stiff talking to by the police, or perhaps a small fine and an order to make sure they don't do it again, but they don't seem to be "thugs" on whom the "whole weight of the law" should be brought to bear, having acted in a way that is "absolutely appalling". Perhaps scribblers and politicians might like to meet some real thugs one day and see what they're like.
Schools Minister Nick "Those scenes should never have occurred in our society" Gibb should probably get out some more.
On the other hand, I would not be surprised if Witty has received death threats given his current role, which might put a different perspective on things.
Any rise in interest rates has the potential to change the political landscape very, very quickly. The government will be hoping that current inflationary pressures are a blip. If they're not, there could be real trouble ahead.
I have been suggesting house price deflation on the back of consumer inflation and interest rate rises from increased money circulation could be catastrophic. I keep being told that I am focusing on the economics of the 1980s and we are these days insulated from such a fiasco.
We are not completely insulated from that.
We have learnt a lot economically since the 80s and there are much more deflationary pressures in the system now than there were. But there's definitely a possibility for inflation in the future.
His attempt to re-write history on Hancock's resignation is risible.
Lying is to Johnson what shit is to a fly.
Just to add a note of caution to all those who spend so.much time insulting Boris, most of which is justified, PB Tories inc myself wasted eons of time calling Blair a liar and a lot worse, and he won 3 elections because the opposition was so awful......
Very true and good points.
What was the undoing of Blair? Perhaps Iraq. He exited stage left before he got booted out, thus preserving his self-importance.
Boris Johnson is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. With Blair you get the impression he really DOES think he's brilliant whereas with Boris Johnson there's always a gnawing doubt around the edges. I knew someone similar: constantly bending the truth because it shored up their own insecure foundation.
Johnson may well go on to win another election, perhaps more than one. But I am frequently surprised at the venom he generates, including amongst those who once thought he was Apollo. I've talked to Londoners who say he was an absolutely crap mayor.
I think Johnson's lustre is starting to fade a LOT faster than Blair's did. That's probably because he is about one hundred times more of a pathological, even sociopathic, liar than Blair. Boris Johnson doesn't simply bend the truth, there is no truth. His inner core is mendacity.
That, and Blair never had a catastrophe to deal with like Covid. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the man was very lucky indeed - inherited a strong financial position in 1997, presided over a decade of relative calm and prosperity, and left not long before the GFC that Brown then had to deal with.
If he'd had to lock everyone up for a year circa 1999, whilst hospitals and care homes all over the country filled up with corpses, then the shine might've come off him a great deal faster than it did as well.
The thing with Boris lying is that it plays in to his bumbling demeanor. He only ever seems to have a loose grasp of the facts, so if he gets something wrong is he lying? Anyone who has watched a spy drama knows that one way to beat a lie detector is to think you are telling the truth.
This also plays into the ABC CDE split. Lawyerly types like like Starmer appeal more to ABC types because it is important in their lives that you formulate your words carefully and stand by what you say. But those less educated have to rely judgement and can smell the BS a mile off. Take the fence sitting ambiguous Brexit position Labour took in the last parliament. They were very careful to use precisely the words that could be used by both sides to hope - but eventually the fence collapsed beneath them. Is that lying any different to Boris saying that he wouldn't have a border up the Irish sea?
The thing about Johnson's sacking Hancock lie is that it does not pass any sniff test. It is just laughable. He is very lucky not to be facing a LOTO who has the ability to make hay with such a thing.
In a sense it probably isn't a lie. It was perhaps a slip. My instinct is that after the Cummings revelations Johnson would like to have sacked Hancock but realised that to do so would like he was responding to those revelations. It is quite likely that the footage was taken by the security service who informed the PM some time ago who kept it as ammunition and then more recently then leaked it to a friendly journalist to force Hancock's resignation.
Some of the responses to the harassment of Chris Whitty in St James's Park have been way out of proportion. The men were a pair of rowdies who were beside themselves with glee when they saw a man in real life whom they recognised from the telly. Yes they manhandled him, they were overbearing, and they unsettled him, and yes they may need a stiff talking to by the police, or perhaps a small fine and an order to make sure they don't do it again, but they don't seem to be "thugs" on whom the "whole weight of the law" should be brought to bear, having acted in a way that is "absolutely appalling". Perhaps scribblers and politicians might like to meet some real thugs one day and see what they're like.
Schools Minister Nick "Those scenes should never have occurred in our society" Gibb should probably get out some more.
They definitely look the sort of chaps with whom a stiff talking to would have a great deal of resonance.
I notice that the Labour price is shortening (down to 5 from 7) and Galloway is lengthening (from 18 to 28) but it's such a thin market that it's probably a couple of single individuals. The consensus view seems to be that Galloway won't do remotely as well as pundits like Hodges predicted, but the Tories will still win. The weird Larbrokes market is back to 1/6 on Labour beating Galloway, which is still sensational value IMO.
Anecdata: Earwigging on parents' conversations at the schools gates this morning: topic of conversation #1, huge annoyance at ongoing restrictions. View that if the south east was having to face this level of year closures/school closures, the situation would be rather different. Unlike last year, not one 'keep them safe/better safe than sorry' type view raised; just impatience for the whole charade to be over.
I don't want to sound like one of those people who blame everything on Labour even while they're in opposition, but listening to the BBC news (following its typical pattern of brief summary of government position followed by lengthy and emotive spiel from Labour spokesman of why the government is wrong) I can't help feeling Labour are putting themselves on the wrong side of this argument: the mood music I am getting from Jonathan Ashworth is that they are going to criticise the government for bringing restrictions to an end too early. And this could be why they are still behind in the polls despite the Conservatives steering us inexpertly through the worst calamity of my lifetime.
The main point of face coverings is to prevent transmission outward from the wearer and also to increase confidence in the general public to head to the shops. Chance of it stopping you err... catching it pretty much nil.
This.
If one infectious person is inside somewhere poorly ventilated for a reasonable length of time without a face covering then we can assume the air is suffused with Covid aerosols. All the non-infected people wearing face coverings are at greater risk of acquiring the infection.
If the infectious individual had worn a simple cloth face covering then that would reduce the aerosols they release by a significant factor - making everyone else safer.
For the hospital staff we know that they are working in an environment certain to be suffused with Covid aerosol. A high-quality fitted face mask is required to protect them from infection, unsurprisingly.
Wearing a lower quality face mask may be of some benefit in terms of them not spreading the infection beyond the Covid wards.
Some of the responses to the harassment of Chris Whitty in St James's Park have been way out of proportion. The men were a pair of rowdies who were beside themselves with glee when they saw a man in real life whom they recognised from the telly. Yes they manhandled him, they were overbearing, and they unsettled him, and yes they may need a stiff talking to by the police, or perhaps a small fine and an order to make sure they don't do it again, but they don't seem to be "thugs" on whom the "whole weight of the law" should be brought to bear, having acted in a way that is "absolutely appalling". Perhaps scribblers and politicians might like to meet some real thugs one day and see what they're like.
Schools Minister Nick "Those scenes should never have occurred in our society" Gibb should probably get out some more.
On the other hand, I would not be surprised if Witty has received death threats given his current role, which might put a different perspective on things.
He has.
In addition, there seems to be a bit of a lack of awareness of how these things feel from his side. Perhaps it looks like a bit a jape to some people - but on the other end it can be terrifying. Much as some idiots think that a bit of drink and "banter" on public transport is just some fun. I've seen that reduce people on the receiving end to serious panic attacks....
Lol, a bunch of already-rich actors moaning again. How’s about they make something people want to watch? Plenty of people are making six figures from Youtube and podcasts.
Alternatively, there’s an organisation already given £4bn of public money every year, that doesn’t have to chase ratings. I wonder if any of these Luvvies, or the hacks writing that piece, have heard of it?
To be fair, I think there are significant issues with the entertainment industry. Financially, there seems to be an inverted pyramid of wealth, with vast incomes at the top, and very little income for those at the bottom. (In fact it's just like many other industries.)
ISTR that Bros were left essentially penniless after their success, as it turned out that all the cars and clothes they were given actually came out of their earnings in advance. Also, it took years for other successful artists to get money from their hits. Some delay is understandable as money trickles through the system, but not multiple years.
You would have expected the Internet to have democratised content creation; it might just have created new ways for the big corps to exploit talent.
That doesn't mean that the famous people stating this are the right messengers; but there are issues. I'm unsure this proposal does much to address those issues. For one thing, it's just another area where 'administration fees' could soak up vast amounts of the income.
(IANAE; just my views from the outside)
Oh, completely, the music industry in particular is full of exploitative contracts and behaviours, and we all know that Hollywood Accounting ensures that movies don’t make money because that would mean shareholders in the venture getting paid returns.
This famous article from Courtney Love is 20 years old, and not much has changed really since then, at least not as far as the record companies are concerned. https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ The only way you ever make money as a musician, is by playing live.
It used to be the other way round, I think, and tours were loss leaders to promote album sales. Then most venues were smaller and tickets were cheaper, and I don't recall seeing merchandise on sale.
Yes, looking back to the 90s, an album cost two or three times as much as seeing a band live. Now seeing a band live costs five or six times as much as an album.
What was the undoing of Blair? Perhaps Iraq. He exited stage left before he got booted out, thus preserving his self-importance.
Boris Johnson is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. With Blair you get the impression he really DOES think he's brilliant whereas with Boris Johnson there's always a gnawing doubt around the edges.
Of course, everyone is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. Even @contrarian.
Blair's self-belief is indestructible. He still is adamant he was correct over Iraq. There is not a scintilla of doubt there.
But, it surely can be argued that Boris' psychology is a safer one for a top politician.
It is better to have some self-doubt, because you are then more ready to back-track, if that is what is needed.
And sometimes the best course for a politician is a U-turn.
Are we perhaps confusing self-doubt with doubt? Boris has the latter, perhaps because he does not readily grasp complex issues and might be functionally innumerate, but not the former. He may not know what to do but is absolutely sure he is the best person to do it.
90% of politicians are innumerate. Boris, to his small credit, recognises his limitations in this area. Most do not.
Do you have a quote on that?
Interesting, if so. Many journalists/politicians regard numeracy as "cold", "unfreeling" etc
There was an interesting war game thing a few years back on the TV - some second rank politicians trying to deal with terrorist attacks/disasters in London.
One refused to order closing flood gates in the London Underground, on the basis that it would be "writing off" the people behind the doors. So when the system flooded, 10x the number died.
The politician in question aggressively rejected the idea that trying to save the greatest number was a good idea - that was "unfeeling".
Those two football matches were quite fantastic. Can't help thinking England are incapable of that kind of play. Nor are our referees capable of letting the game free flow like that. Kind of sums up the nation really. Oh and for all of Paul Pogba's self-congratulatory brilliance it was him who gave the ball away in the 90th minute, directly causing the Swiss equaliser.
Meanwhile, you can still get an astonishing 22-1 on Sajid Javid for next Conservative leader. This is a true value bet.
yes I can just about forgive Pogba's routine when scoring but you do have to be good and he aint that good imho.
The trainers have been on the pitch seemingly constantly in this euro championship as presumably players are rolling around more . This kills football for me , Its frankly ridiculous and seems to have got to the stage where players are kicking the ball out for a player who has cramp. For all the good goals and skill , this euros is quite boring and childish .
Having 5 subs as well just adds to the disjointed play
And whilst I am at it , the format of it is ludicrous and unfair . Having about ten hosts makes the group games so unfair
This has been the best Euros, ever, by far. I agree with some of the issues but players being petty and annoying has always been the case, as has tournament football being unfair, it is the essence of tournament football. Enjoy!
Amusingly I recall many here were saying England would be better off coming second in our group to avoid the "Group of Death" runners up in the next round, that never seemed the right attitude at all.
Its interesting to note that last night our group's runners up, Croatia, were eliminated by Spain who'd won their group. Spain now face Switzerland, then the winner of Belgium v Italy.
England now host Germany in front of 40k fans at Wembley, then Sweden or Ukraine, then Czech Republic or Denmark.
As a path to the final I'd far rather Germany at Wembley, then Sweden or Ukraine, then Czech Republic or Denmark than face Spain, then Switzerland, then Belgium or Italy.
We were much better off winning our group afterall!
Those two football matches were quite fantastic. Can't help thinking England are incapable of that kind of play. Nor are our referees capable of letting the game free flow like that. Kind of sums up the nation really. Oh and for all of Paul Pogba's self-congratulatory brilliance it was him who gave the ball away in the 90th minute, directly causing the Swiss equaliser.
Meanwhile, you can still get an astonishing 22-1 on Sajid Javid for next Conservative leader. This is a true value bet.
yes I can just about forgive Pogba's routine when scoring but you do have to be good and he aint that good imho.
The trainers have been on the pitch seemingly constantly in this euro championship as presumably players are rolling around more . This kills football for me , Its frankly ridiculous and seems to have got to the stage where players are kicking the ball out for a player who has cramp. For all the good goals and skill , this euros is quite boring and childish .
Having 5 subs as well just adds to the disjointed play
And whilst I am at it , the format of it is ludicrous and unfair . Having about ten hosts makes the group games so unfair
This has been the best Euros, ever, by far. I agree with some of the issues but players being petty and annoying has always been the case, as has tournament football being unfair, it is the essence of tournament football. Enjoy!
Pogba scored one of the goals of the tournament, played a beautiful ball to Mbappe late on that my Nan would have finished, and is considered to be the Player of the Tournament by some. He is absolutely world class
What was the undoing of Blair? Perhaps Iraq. He exited stage left before he got booted out, thus preserving his self-importance.
Boris Johnson is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. With Blair you get the impression he really DOES think he's brilliant whereas with Boris Johnson there's always a gnawing doubt around the edges.
Of course, everyone is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. Even @contrarian.
Blair's self-belief is indestructible. He still is adamant he was correct over Iraq. There is not a scintilla of doubt there.
But, it surely can be argued that Boris' psychology is a safer one for a top politician.
It is better to have some self-doubt, because you are then more ready to back-track, if that is what is needed.
And sometimes the best course for a politician is a U-turn.
Are we perhaps confusing self-doubt with doubt? Boris has the latter, perhaps because he does not readily grasp complex issues and might be functionally innumerate, but not the former. He may not know what to do but is absolutely sure he is the best person to do it.
90% of politicians are innumerate. Boris, to his small credit, recognises his limitations in this area. Most do not.
Do you have a quote on that?
Interesting, if so. Many journalists/politicians regard numeracy as "cold", "unfreeling" etc
There was an interesting war game thing a few years back on the TV - some second rank politicians trying to deal with terrorist attacks/disasters in London.
One refused to order closing flood gates in the London Underground, on the basis that it would be "writing off" the people behind the doors. So when the system flooded, 10x the number died.
The politician in question aggressively rejected the idea that trying to save the greatest number was a good idea - that was "unfeeling".
Well precisely, you can have the best system in the world but if people are going off "feelings" then the systems won't work.
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
It depends on the baseline risks in each scenario. If working on a Covid ward without a mask gives you 1000* times the risk of someone not working on the ward then PPE that reduces that to 47 times the risk is pretty damn effective (95% effective, in fact).
*Number plucked from my behind, to illustrate the point. It may be that the PPE issued really wasn't significantly effective, say if baseline risk of no mask was 50 times not being on ward. But without baseline risk, you can't make a judgement. I'm quibbling about the abuse of stats, not necessarily that the PPE provided was/was significantly protective - I don't have data for that and neither do you.
Edit: to add a different, but comparable example, this paper says that combined seat belt and airbag use reduces risk of mortality in a car by ~80%. However, the risk of mortality will still be somewhat higher than staying at home and not getting in the car in the first place. Are seat belts and airbags therefore ineffective?
What was the undoing of Blair? Perhaps Iraq. He exited stage left before he got booted out, thus preserving his self-importance.
Boris Johnson is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. With Blair you get the impression he really DOES think he's brilliant whereas with Boris Johnson there's always a gnawing doubt around the edges.
Of course, everyone is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. Even @contrarian.
Blair's self-belief is indestructible. He still is adamant he was correct over Iraq. There is not a scintilla of doubt there.
But, it surely can be argued that Boris' psychology is a safer one for a top politician.
It is better to have some self-doubt, because you are then more ready to back-track, if that is what is needed.
And sometimes the best course for a politician is a U-turn.
Are we perhaps confusing self-doubt with doubt? Boris has the latter, perhaps because he does not readily grasp complex issues and might be functionally innumerate, but not the former. He may not know what to do but is absolutely sure he is the best person to do it.
90% of politicians are innumerate. Boris, to his small credit, recognises his limitations in this area. Most do not.
Do you have a quote on that?
Interesting, if so. Many journalists/politicians regard numeracy as "cold", "unfreeling" etc
There was an interesting war game thing a few years back on the TV - some second rank politicians trying to deal with terrorist attacks/disasters in London.
One refused to order closing flood gates in the London Underground, on the basis that it would be "writing off" the people behind the doors. So when the system flooded, 10x the number died.
The politician in question aggressively rejected the idea that trying to save the greatest number was a good idea - that was "unfeeling".
When people are actually faced with war and emergency, leaders move very quickly towards acting for the greatest good of the greatest number, and doing whatever is necessary to achieve that. We were discussing the bombing of German cities the other day. Probably not one politician in ten would have supported the idea pre-war, but during the course of the war it became consensus.
Mr. F, when a problem or controversy is considered a theoretical thing, many are inclined to be soft or compromising. When it becomes concrete, such people often lurch in the other direction. As we say in 2011 when the looting prompted calls for rubber or actual bullets to be used (from Lib Dems, no less).
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
It depends on the baseline risks in each scenario. If working on a Covid ward without a mask gives you 1000* times the risk of someone not working on the ward then PPE that reduces that to 47 times the risk is pretty damn effective (95% effective, in fact).
*Number plucked from my behind, to illustrate the point. It may be that the PPE issued really wasn't significantly effective, say if baseline risk of no mask was 50 times not being on ward. But without baseline risk, you can't make a judgement. I'm quibbling about the abuse of stats, not necessarily that the PPE provided was/was significantly protective - I don't have data for that and neither do you.
I know I don't, but the mask was supposed to be PPE. Those masks do not work from a risk assessment perspective as any PPE that leaves the user 47 times more likely to affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work would never ever qualify as PPE, especially when there is PPE available which reduces the risks to virtually zero.
What was the undoing of Blair? Perhaps Iraq. He exited stage left before he got booted out, thus preserving his self-importance.
Boris Johnson is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. With Blair you get the impression he really DOES think he's brilliant whereas with Boris Johnson there's always a gnawing doubt around the edges.
Of course, everyone is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. Even @contrarian.
Blair's self-belief is indestructible. He still is adamant he was correct over Iraq. There is not a scintilla of doubt there.
But, it surely can be argued that Boris' psychology is a safer one for a top politician.
It is better to have some self-doubt, because you are then more ready to back-track, if that is what is needed.
And sometimes the best course for a politician is a U-turn.
Are we perhaps confusing self-doubt with doubt? Boris has the latter, perhaps because he does not readily grasp complex issues and might be functionally innumerate, but not the former. He may not know what to do but is absolutely sure he is the best person to do it.
90% of politicians are innumerate. Boris, to his small credit, recognises his limitations in this area. Most do not.
Do you have a quote on that?
Interesting, if so. Many journalists/politicians regard numeracy as "cold", "unfreeling" etc
There was an interesting war game thing a few years back on the TV - some second rank politicians trying to deal with terrorist attacks/disasters in London.
One refused to order closing flood gates in the London Underground, on the basis that it would be "writing off" the people behind the doors. So when the system flooded, 10x the number died.
The politician in question aggressively rejected the idea that trying to save the greatest number was a good idea - that was "unfeeling".
When people are actually faced with war and emergency, leaders move very quickly towards acting for the greatest good of the greatest number, and doing whatever is necessary to achieve that. We were discussing the bombing of German cities the other day. Probably not one politician in ten would have supported the idea pre-war, but during the course of the war it became consensus.
And yet our politicians had to be dragged kicking and screaming to dealing with the border, even then with the traffic light system, rather than accepting the greatest good is letting the jobs related to outside the border go for longer while we save the ones inside it.
Those two football matches were quite fantastic. Can't help thinking England are incapable of that kind of play. Nor are our referees capable of letting the game free flow like that. Kind of sums up the nation really. Oh and for all of Paul Pogba's self-congratulatory brilliance it was him who gave the ball away in the 90th minute, directly causing the Swiss equaliser.
Meanwhile, you can still get an astonishing 22-1 on Sajid Javid for next Conservative leader. This is a true value bet.
yes I can just about forgive Pogba's routine when scoring but you do have to be good and he aint that good imho.
The trainers have been on the pitch seemingly constantly in this euro championship as presumably players are rolling around more . This kills football for me , Its frankly ridiculous and seems to have got to the stage where players are kicking the ball out for a player who has cramp. For all the good goals and skill , this euros is quite boring and childish .
Having 5 subs as well just adds to the disjointed play
And whilst I am at it , the format of it is ludicrous and unfair . Having about ten hosts makes the group games so unfair
This has been the best Euros, ever, by far. I agree with some of the issues but players being petty and annoying has always been the case, as has tournament football being unfair, it is the essence of tournament football. Enjoy!
Pogba scored one of the goals of the tournament, played a beautiful ball to Mbappe late on that my Nan would have finished, and is considered to be the Player of the Tournament by some. He is absolutely world class
Some of the responses to the harassment of Chris Whitty in St James's Park have been way out of proportion. The men were a pair of rowdies who were beside themselves with glee when they saw a man in real life whom they recognised from the telly. Yes they manhandled him, they were overbearing, and they unsettled him, and yes they may need a stiff talking to by the police, or perhaps a small fine and an order to make sure they don't do it again, but they don't seem to be "thugs" on whom the "whole weight of the law" should be brought to bear, having acted in a way that is "absolutely appalling". Perhaps scribblers and politicians might like to meet some real thugs one day and see what they're like.
Schools Minister Nick "Those scenes should never have occurred in our society" Gibb should probably get out some more.
On the other hand, I would not be surprised if Witty has received death threats given his current role, which might put a different perspective on things.
He has.
In addition, there seems to be a bit of a lack of awareness of how these things feel from his side. Perhaps it looks like a bit a jape to some people - but on the other end it can be terrifying. Much as some idiots think that a bit of drink and "banter" on public transport is just some fun. I've seen that reduce people on the receiving end to serious panic attacks....
What they did was assault.
Yes, I agree. It's not the first time that Chris Whitty has been harassed when simply going about his business either.
The vilification of scientists, who are entitled to have different views, on social media and elsewhere contributes to a febrile atmosphere in which I suspect a lot of those who have raised their heads above the parapet do not feel safe. Even on the (usually) civilised PB platform we have one prominent and respected poster who repeatedly refers to those he disagrees with as "wanker scientists" and worse. It's not helpful.
People don't move house that often. What they do is fuel their cars and buy food and goods. The price of oil is 80% higher than a year ago. Food prices are on the up driven by commodity prices, Covid costs and now the transport crisis.
Those two football matches were quite fantastic. Can't help thinking England are incapable of that kind of play. Nor are our referees capable of letting the game free flow like that. Kind of sums up the nation really. Oh and for all of Paul Pogba's self-congratulatory brilliance it was him who gave the ball away in the 90th minute, directly causing the Swiss equaliser.
Meanwhile, you can still get an astonishing 22-1 on Sajid Javid for next Conservative leader. This is a true value bet.
yes I can just about forgive Pogba's routine when scoring but you do have to be good and he aint that good imho.
The trainers have been on the pitch seemingly constantly in this euro championship as presumably players are rolling around more . This kills football for me , Its frankly ridiculous and seems to have got to the stage where players are kicking the ball out for a player who has cramp. For all the good goals and skill , this euros is quite boring and childish .
Having 5 subs as well just adds to the disjointed play
And whilst I am at it , the format of it is ludicrous and unfair . Having about ten hosts makes the group games so unfair
This has been the best Euros, ever, by far. I agree with some of the issues but players being petty and annoying has always been the case, as has tournament football being unfair, it is the essence of tournament football. Enjoy!
I agree this has been the best Euros ever. Belgium has been the team I've most enjoyed watching. I like watching Lukaku run. Like Emile Heskey in his prime
On @Cocky_cockney 's point about referees: one of my biggest frustrations about football is the way the advantage rule is played, or not. In rugby, if an offence is committed by the defending side but the attacking side continues to attack, play is allowed to go on until it becomes apparent that the attacking side have not gained an advantage by doing so, and only once it becomes apparent there is no advantage to the attacking side is play brought back for the free kick/penalty - this can be a minute or so further on. In football, the referee has to make a split second decision on whether an advantage will be gleaned or not. Simply playing this rule more like rugby would make the game much better. But football won't, for the same reason that the ten-yard rule didn't catch on: it's frustratingly hard to get even very simple rules into footballers' heads. You have to structure a sports rules so that the consequences for a team of cheating and getting caught are worse than the consequences of not cheating. Almost all sports do this better than football.
As a counterpoint, I've just heard an opinion from a colleague (not necessarily football's keenest observer), who has declared that what he has observed from this tournament is that footballers aren't very good at football. None of them. Tennis players, he thinks, are much better at tennis than footballers are at football. Not sure I necessarily agree.
What was the undoing of Blair? Perhaps Iraq. He exited stage left before he got booted out, thus preserving his self-importance.
Boris Johnson is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. With Blair you get the impression he really DOES think he's brilliant whereas with Boris Johnson there's always a gnawing doubt around the edges.
Of course, everyone is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. Even @contrarian.
Blair's self-belief is indestructible. He still is adamant he was correct over Iraq. There is not a scintilla of doubt there.
But, it surely can be argued that Boris' psychology is a safer one for a top politician.
It is better to have some self-doubt, because you are then more ready to back-track, if that is what is needed.
And sometimes the best course for a politician is a U-turn.
Are we perhaps confusing self-doubt with doubt? Boris has the latter, perhaps because he does not readily grasp complex issues and might be functionally innumerate, but not the former. He may not know what to do but is absolutely sure he is the best person to do it.
90% of politicians are innumerate. Boris, to his small credit, recognises his limitations in this area. Most do not.
Do you have a quote on that?
Interesting, if so. Many journalists/politicians regard numeracy as "cold", "unfreeling" etc
There was an interesting war game thing a few years back on the TV - some second rank politicians trying to deal with terrorist attacks/disasters in London.
One refused to order closing flood gates in the London Underground, on the basis that it would be "writing off" the people behind the doors. So when the system flooded, 10x the number died.
The politician in question aggressively rejected the idea that trying to save the greatest number was a good idea - that was "unfeeling".
I remember that.
They refused to have a hijacked plane shot down which was then crashed into parliament and they still claimed they had made the right choice.
I think Amanda Platell was one of the 'experts' and Sayeeda Warsi appeared on a second program (and did rather better).
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
It depends on the baseline risks in each scenario. If working on a Covid ward without a mask gives you 1000* times the risk of someone not working on the ward then PPE that reduces that to 47 times the risk is pretty damn effective (95% effective, in fact).
*Number plucked from my behind, to illustrate the point. It may be that the PPE issued really wasn't significantly effective, say if baseline risk of no mask was 50 times not being on ward. But without baseline risk, you can't make a judgement. I'm quibbling about the abuse of stats, not necessarily that the PPE provided was/was significantly protective - I don't have data for that and neither do you.
I know I don't, but the mask was supposed to be PPE. Those masks do not work from a risk assessment perspective as any PPE that leaves the user 47 times more likely to affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work would never ever qualify as PPE, especially when there is PPE available which reduces the risks to virtually zero.
The baseline is not PPE vs not doing the job. It is PPE vs not having PPE.
If the job is essential then carrying out work even with PPE can be more dangerous than not carrying out work - but if that work is esssential it still needs to be done.
Rather than criticise Labour’s stirring of religious hatred in Batley & Spen, Sir Keir has chosen to retweet this
‘ On July 1st, vote for unity over division. Vote for a candidate who knows this community, understands this community and will still be here in this community long after the outsiders and cameras have gone’
What was the undoing of Blair? Perhaps Iraq. He exited stage left before he got booted out, thus preserving his self-importance.
Boris Johnson is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. With Blair you get the impression he really DOES think he's brilliant whereas with Boris Johnson there's always a gnawing doubt around the edges.
Of course, everyone is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. Even @contrarian.
Blair's self-belief is indestructible. He still is adamant he was correct over Iraq. There is not a scintilla of doubt there.
But, it surely can be argued that Boris' psychology is a safer one for a top politician.
It is better to have some self-doubt, because you are then more ready to back-track, if that is what is needed.
And sometimes the best course for a politician is a U-turn.
Are we perhaps confusing self-doubt with doubt? Boris has the latter, perhaps because he does not readily grasp complex issues and might be functionally innumerate, but not the former. He may not know what to do but is absolutely sure he is the best person to do it.
90% of politicians are innumerate. Boris, to his small credit, recognises his limitations in this area. Most do not.
Do you have a quote on that?
Interesting, if so. Many journalists/politicians regard numeracy as "cold", "unfreeling" etc
There was an interesting war game thing a few years back on the TV - some second rank politicians trying to deal with terrorist attacks/disasters in London.
One refused to order closing flood gates in the London Underground, on the basis that it would be "writing off" the people behind the doors. So when the system flooded, 10x the number died.
The politician in question aggressively rejected the idea that trying to save the greatest number was a good idea - that was "unfeeling".
Well precisely, you can have the best system in the world but if people are going off "feelings" then the systems won't work.
Flood gates exist for a reason. 🤦♂️
I don't know if anyone else remembers the film 'The Cruel Sea' back in the 50's. IIRC there was scene where the commander of the Royal Naval convoy escort is faced with a choice of stopping to pick up a few survivors from a sunken ship and risking being a target for the enemy submarine he knows to be nearby and sailing straight through them, knowing they'll be killed. He chooses to save his ship, and to continue to protect the convoy he is escorting.
What was the undoing of Blair? Perhaps Iraq. He exited stage left before he got booted out, thus preserving his self-importance.
Boris Johnson is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. With Blair you get the impression he really DOES think he's brilliant whereas with Boris Johnson there's always a gnawing doubt around the edges.
Of course, everyone is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. Even @contrarian.
Blair's self-belief is indestructible. He still is adamant he was correct over Iraq. There is not a scintilla of doubt there.
But, it surely can be argued that Boris' psychology is a safer one for a top politician.
It is better to have some self-doubt, because you are then more ready to back-track, if that is what is needed.
And sometimes the best course for a politician is a U-turn.
Are we perhaps confusing self-doubt with doubt? Boris has the latter, perhaps because he does not readily grasp complex issues and might be functionally innumerate, but not the former. He may not know what to do but is absolutely sure he is the best person to do it.
90% of politicians are innumerate. Boris, to his small credit, recognises his limitations in this area. Most do not.
Do you have a quote on that?
Interesting, if so. Many journalists/politicians regard numeracy as "cold", "unfreeling" etc
There was an interesting war game thing a few years back on the TV - some second rank politicians trying to deal with terrorist attacks/disasters in London.
One refused to order closing flood gates in the London Underground, on the basis that it would be "writing off" the people behind the doors. So when the system flooded, 10x the number died.
The politician in question aggressively rejected the idea that trying to save the greatest number was a good idea - that was "unfeeling".
When people are actually faced with war and emergency, leaders move very quickly towards acting for the greatest good of the greatest number, and doing whatever is necessary to achieve that. We were discussing the bombing of German cities the other day. Probably not one politician in ten would have supported the idea pre-war, but during the course of the war it became consensus.
Some people do. Many don't.
Consider the considerable resistance to the plan to get the Germans to mis-target the V2 rockets. Since there was little else to stop them (apart from over running the launch areas), the plan was to use the double agent system to convince the Germans that they were falling "long" - so they would "correct" and mostly hit countryside and not London.
There was was a sustained campaign in the Civil service (and elsewhere) among those who knew to try and stop this being done.
Amusingly I recall many here were saying England would be better off coming second in our group to avoid the "Group of Death" runners up in the next round, that never seemed the right attitude at all.
Its interesting to note that last night our group's runners up, Croatia, were eliminated by Spain who'd won their group. Spain now face Switzerland, then the winner of Belgium v Italy.
England now host Germany in front of 40k fans at Wembley, then Sweden or Ukraine, then Czech Republic or Denmark.
As a path to the final I'd far rather Germany at Wembley, then Sweden or Ukraine, then Czech Republic or Denmark than face Spain, then Switzerland, then Belgium or Italy.
We were much better off winning our group afterall!
3rd in the group was the dream. But, yes, this is looking good. The final beckons.
Those two football matches were quite fantastic. Can't help thinking England are incapable of that kind of play. Nor are our referees capable of letting the game free flow like that. Kind of sums up the nation really. Oh and for all of Paul Pogba's self-congratulatory brilliance it was him who gave the ball away in the 90th minute, directly causing the Swiss equaliser.
Meanwhile, you can still get an astonishing 22-1 on Sajid Javid for next Conservative leader. This is a true value bet.
yes I can just about forgive Pogba's routine when scoring but you do have to be good and he aint that good imho.
The trainers have been on the pitch seemingly constantly in this euro championship as presumably players are rolling around more . This kills football for me , Its frankly ridiculous and seems to have got to the stage where players are kicking the ball out for a player who has cramp. For all the good goals and skill , this euros is quite boring and childish .
Having 5 subs as well just adds to the disjointed play
And whilst I am at it , the format of it is ludicrous and unfair . Having about ten hosts makes the group games so unfair
This has been the best Euros, ever, by far. I agree with some of the issues but players being petty and annoying has always been the case, as has tournament football being unfair, it is the essence of tournament football. Enjoy!
Pogba scored one of the goals of the tournament, played a beautiful ball to Mbappe late on that my Nan would have finished, and is considered to be the Player of the Tournament by some. He is absolutely world class
Yes, I'm sure your Nan would have stroked that gorgeous pass in to the far corner with her right foot rather than making Mbappe's error of being determined to finish it with his left.
Amusingly I recall many here were saying England would be better off coming second in our group to avoid the "Group of Death" runners up in the next round, that never seemed the right attitude at all.
Its interesting to note that last night our group's runners up, Croatia, were eliminated by Spain who'd won their group. Spain now face Switzerland, then the winner of Belgium v Italy.
England now host Germany in front of 40k fans at Wembley, then Sweden or Ukraine, then Czech Republic or Denmark.
As a path to the final I'd far rather Germany at Wembley, then Sweden or Ukraine, then Czech Republic or Denmark than face Spain, then Switzerland, then Belgium or Italy.
We were much better off winning our group afterall!
3rd in the group was the dream. But, yes, this is looking good. The final beckons.
Those two football matches were quite fantastic. Can't help thinking England are incapable of that kind of play. Nor are our referees capable of letting the game free flow like that. Kind of sums up the nation really. Oh and for all of Paul Pogba's self-congratulatory brilliance it was him who gave the ball away in the 90th minute, directly causing the Swiss equaliser.
Meanwhile, you can still get an astonishing 22-1 on Sajid Javid for next Conservative leader. This is a true value bet.
yes I can just about forgive Pogba's routine when scoring but you do have to be good and he aint that good imho.
The trainers have been on the pitch seemingly constantly in this euro championship as presumably players are rolling around more . This kills football for me , Its frankly ridiculous and seems to have got to the stage where players are kicking the ball out for a player who has cramp. For all the good goals and skill , this euros is quite boring and childish .
Having 5 subs as well just adds to the disjointed play
And whilst I am at it , the format of it is ludicrous and unfair . Having about ten hosts makes the group games so unfair
This has been the best Euros, ever, by far. I agree with some of the issues but players being petty and annoying has always been the case, as has tournament football being unfair, it is the essence of tournament football. Enjoy!
I agree this has been the best Euros ever. Belgium has been the team I've most enjoyed watching. I like watching Lukaku run. Like Emile Heskey in his prime
On @Cocky_cockney 's point about referees: one of my biggest frustrations about football is the way the advantage rule is played, or not. In rugby, if an offence is committed by the defending side but the attacking side continues to attack, play is allowed to go on until it becomes apparent that the attacking side have not gained an advantage by doing so, and only once it becomes apparent there is no advantage to the attacking side is play brought back for the free kick/penalty - this can be a minute or so further on. In football, the referee has to make a split second decision on whether an advantage will be gleaned or not. Simply playing this rule more like rugby would make the game much better. But football won't, for the same reason that the ten-yard rule didn't catch on: it's frustratingly hard to get even very simple rules into footballers' heads. You have to structure a sports rules so that the consequences for a team of cheating and getting caught are worse than the consequences of not cheating. Almost all sports do this better than football.
As a counterpoint, I've just heard an opinion from a colleague (not necessarily football's keenest observer), who has declared that what he has observed from this tournament is that footballers aren't very good at football. None of them. Tennis players, he thinks, are much better at tennis than footballers are at football. Not sure I necessarily agree.
Tennis players is likely based on watching Djokovic, Federer and Nadal. That would be like watching football teams comprised solely of Messis, Ronaldos and Peles, which I am sure would be more impressive.
In this tournament there are some players who are not in the top 5000 footballers in the world. No-one really watches much tennis played by anyone outside the top 100, and most only watch the top 10. It is not really a fair comparison.
Amusingly I recall many here were saying England would be better off coming second in our group to avoid the "Group of Death" runners up in the next round, that never seemed the right attitude at all.
Its interesting to note that last night our group's runners up, Croatia, were eliminated by Spain who'd won their group. Spain now face Switzerland, then the winner of Belgium v Italy.
England now host Germany in front of 40k fans at Wembley, then Sweden or Ukraine, then Czech Republic or Denmark.
As a path to the final I'd far rather Germany at Wembley, then Sweden or Ukraine, then Czech Republic or Denmark than face Spain, then Switzerland, then Belgium or Italy.
We were much better off winning our group afterall!
You are right Philip. I confess I did say 2nd might be easier route.
People don't move house that often. What they do is fuel their cars and buy food and goods. The price of oil is 80% higher than a year ago. Food prices are on the up driven by commodity prices, Covid costs and now the transport crisis.
Inflation is on its way...
Rather disingenuous on the oil.
A litre of petrol now is the same as it was two years ago.
A barrel of Brent Crude now is the same as what it was throughout 2018 and 2019.
In no normal circumstances would 2021 prices reverting to 2019 prices be considered "inflationary". If the prices stabilise here then there will be temporary inflation that works out of the system. Or prices could take off in a cycle, but that hasn't happened (yet).
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
It depends on the baseline risks in each scenario. If working on a Covid ward without a mask gives you 1000* times the risk of someone not working on the ward then PPE that reduces that to 47 times the risk is pretty damn effective (95% effective, in fact).
*Number plucked from my behind, to illustrate the point. It may be that the PPE issued really wasn't significantly effective, say if baseline risk of no mask was 50 times not being on ward. But without baseline risk, you can't make a judgement. I'm quibbling about the abuse of stats, not necessarily that the PPE provided was/was significantly protective - I don't have data for that and neither do you.
I know I don't, but the mask was supposed to be PPE. Those masks do not work from a risk assessment perspective as any PPE that leaves the user 47 times more likely to affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work would never ever qualify as PPE, especially when there is PPE available which reduces the risks to virtually zero.
The baseline is not PPE vs not doing the job. It is PPE vs not having PPE.
If the job is essential then carrying out work even with PPE can be more dangerous than not carrying out work - but if that work is esssential it still needs to be done.
My whole point is that masks were sold to the public as a tool to prevent infection.
I find it astonishing that there is defence of something on here that leaves the user 47 times more likely to be infected than someone not in that position. 47 times more likely means that it does not work as an item of PPE.
What was the undoing of Blair? Perhaps Iraq. He exited stage left before he got booted out, thus preserving his self-importance.
Boris Johnson is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. With Blair you get the impression he really DOES think he's brilliant whereas with Boris Johnson there's always a gnawing doubt around the edges.
Of course, everyone is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. Even @contrarian.
Blair's self-belief is indestructible. He still is adamant he was correct over Iraq. There is not a scintilla of doubt there.
But, it surely can be argued that Boris' psychology is a safer one for a top politician.
It is better to have some self-doubt, because you are then more ready to back-track, if that is what is needed.
And sometimes the best course for a politician is a U-turn.
Are we perhaps confusing self-doubt with doubt? Boris has the latter, perhaps because he does not readily grasp complex issues and might be functionally innumerate, but not the former. He may not know what to do but is absolutely sure he is the best person to do it.
90% of politicians are innumerate. Boris, to his small credit, recognises his limitations in this area. Most do not.
Do you have a quote on that?
Interesting, if so. Many journalists/politicians regard numeracy as "cold", "unfreeling" etc
There was an interesting war game thing a few years back on the TV - some second rank politicians trying to deal with terrorist attacks/disasters in London.
One refused to order closing flood gates in the London Underground, on the basis that it would be "writing off" the people behind the doors. So when the system flooded, 10x the number died.
The politician in question aggressively rejected the idea that trying to save the greatest number was a good idea - that was "unfeeling".
When people are actually faced with war and emergency, leaders move very quickly towards acting for the greatest good of the greatest number, and doing whatever is necessary to achieve that. We were discussing the bombing of German cities the other day. Probably not one politician in ten would have supported the idea pre-war, but during the course of the war it became consensus.
Some people do. Many don't.
Consider the considerable resistance to the plan to get the Germans to mis-target the V2 rockets. Since there was little else to stop them (apart from over running the launch areas), the plan was to use the double agent system to convince the Germans that they were falling "long" - so they would "correct" and mostly hit countryside and not London.
There was was a sustained campaign in the Civil service (and elsewhere) among those who knew to try and stop this being done.
What was the undoing of Blair? Perhaps Iraq. He exited stage left before he got booted out, thus preserving his self-importance.
Boris Johnson is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. With Blair you get the impression he really DOES think he's brilliant whereas with Boris Johnson there's always a gnawing doubt around the edges.
Of course, everyone is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. Even @contrarian.
Blair's self-belief is indestructible. He still is adamant he was correct over Iraq. There is not a scintilla of doubt there.
But, it surely can be argued that Boris' psychology is a safer one for a top politician.
It is better to have some self-doubt, because you are then more ready to back-track, if that is what is needed.
And sometimes the best course for a politician is a U-turn.
Are we perhaps confusing self-doubt with doubt? Boris has the latter, perhaps because he does not readily grasp complex issues and might be functionally innumerate, but not the former. He may not know what to do but is absolutely sure he is the best person to do it.
90% of politicians are innumerate. Boris, to his small credit, recognises his limitations in this area. Most do not.
Do you have a quote on that?
Interesting, if so. Many journalists/politicians regard numeracy as "cold", "unfreeling" etc
There was an interesting war game thing a few years back on the TV - some second rank politicians trying to deal with terrorist attacks/disasters in London.
One refused to order closing flood gates in the London Underground, on the basis that it would be "writing off" the people behind the doors. So when the system flooded, 10x the number died.
The politician in question aggressively rejected the idea that trying to save the greatest number was a good idea - that was "unfeeling".
Ha, no I don't, I'm sorry. It was a figure plucked out of my arse with the intention of grumpily dismissing the abilities of an entire profession. On reflection, apologies. Though I do vaguely remember some stats about the paucity of our politicians' qualifications on the 'numbers' side.
I do think it's broadly right, though, for a given value of 'innumerate' (by which actually most people are innumerate). Most politicians dress to the arts rather than the sciences. Few really intuitively understand numbers. Few understand exponential growth, for example (either that it quickly leads to big numbers or that it doesn't go on forever). Few understand uncertainty. Few understand probability. Few understand opportunity costs. Few really instinctively grasp the difference between a billion and a trillion.
Those two football matches were quite fantastic. Can't help thinking England are incapable of that kind of play. Nor are our referees capable of letting the game free flow like that. Kind of sums up the nation really. Oh and for all of Paul Pogba's self-congratulatory brilliance it was him who gave the ball away in the 90th minute, directly causing the Swiss equaliser.
Meanwhile, you can still get an astonishing 22-1 on Sajid Javid for next Conservative leader. This is a true value bet.
yes I can just about forgive Pogba's routine when scoring but you do have to be good and he aint that good imho.
The trainers have been on the pitch seemingly constantly in this euro championship as presumably players are rolling around more . This kills football for me , Its frankly ridiculous and seems to have got to the stage where players are kicking the ball out for a player who has cramp. For all the good goals and skill , this euros is quite boring and childish .
Having 5 subs as well just adds to the disjointed play
And whilst I am at it , the format of it is ludicrous and unfair . Having about ten hosts makes the group games so unfair
Those two football matches were quite fantastic. Can't help thinking England are incapable of that kind of play. Nor are our referees capable of letting the game free flow like that. Kind of sums up the nation really. Oh and for all of Paul Pogba's self-congratulatory brilliance it was him who gave the ball away in the 90th minute, directly causing the Swiss equaliser.
Meanwhile, you can still get an astonishing 22-1 on Sajid Javid for next Conservative leader. This is a true value bet.
yes I can just about forgive Pogba's routine when scoring but you do have to be good and he aint that good imho.
The trainers have been on the pitch seemingly constantly in this euro championship as presumably players are rolling around more . This kills football for me , Its frankly ridiculous and seems to have got to the stage where players are kicking the ball out for a player who has cramp. For all the good goals and skill , this euros is quite boring and childish .
Having 5 subs as well just adds to the disjointed play
And whilst I am at it , the format of it is ludicrous and unfair . Having about ten hosts makes the group games so unfair
This has been the best Euros, ever, by far. I agree with some of the issues but players being petty and annoying has always been the case, as has tournament football being unfair, it is the essence of tournament football. Enjoy!
Pogba scored one of the goals of the tournament, played a beautiful ball to Mbappe late on that my Nan would have finished, and is considered to be the Player of the Tournament by some. He is absolutely world class
Yes, I'm sure your Nan would have stroked that gorgeous pass in to the far corner with her right foot rather than making Mbappe's error of being determined to finish it with his left.
Those two football matches were quite fantastic. Can't help thinking England are incapable of that kind of play. Nor are our referees capable of letting the game free flow like that. Kind of sums up the nation really. Oh and for all of Paul Pogba's self-congratulatory brilliance it was him who gave the ball away in the 90th minute, directly causing the Swiss equaliser.
Meanwhile, you can still get an astonishing 22-1 on Sajid Javid for next Conservative leader. This is a true value bet.
yes I can just about forgive Pogba's routine when scoring but you do have to be good and he aint that good imho.
The trainers have been on the pitch seemingly constantly in this euro championship as presumably players are rolling around more . This kills football for me , Its frankly ridiculous and seems to have got to the stage where players are kicking the ball out for a player who has cramp. For all the good goals and skill , this euros is quite boring and childish .
Having 5 subs as well just adds to the disjointed play
And whilst I am at it , the format of it is ludicrous and unfair . Having about ten hosts makes the group games so unfair
This has been the best Euros, ever, by far. I agree with some of the issues but players being petty and annoying has always been the case, as has tournament football being unfair, it is the essence of tournament football. Enjoy!
Pogba scored one of the goals of the tournament, played a beautiful ball to Mbappe late on that my Nan would have finished, and is considered to be the Player of the Tournament by some. He is absolutely world class
A proper enigma, yes if France had got to the final I think very likely player of the tournament. The change in system didnt suit him or France at all, they should have just played Dubois at left back rather than trying to squeeze in their better players.
Amusingly I recall many here were saying England would be better off coming second in our group to avoid the "Group of Death" runners up in the next round, that never seemed the right attitude at all.
Its interesting to note that last night our group's runners up, Croatia, were eliminated by Spain who'd won their group. Spain now face Switzerland, then the winner of Belgium v Italy.
England now host Germany in front of 40k fans at Wembley, then Sweden or Ukraine, then Czech Republic or Denmark.
As a path to the final I'd far rather Germany at Wembley, then Sweden or Ukraine, then Czech Republic or Denmark than face Spain, then Switzerland, then Belgium or Italy.
We were much better off winning our group afterall!
3rd in the group was the dream. But, yes, this is looking good. The final beckons.
Yes ironically the Czechs draw to the Semis is better than ours, but only just. The Dutch are not much an easier team than the Germans, nor the Danes much easier than the Swedes.
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
It depends on the baseline risks in each scenario. If working on a Covid ward without a mask gives you 1000* times the risk of someone not working on the ward then PPE that reduces that to 47 times the risk is pretty damn effective (95% effective, in fact).
*Number plucked from my behind, to illustrate the point. It may be that the PPE issued really wasn't significantly effective, say if baseline risk of no mask was 50 times not being on ward. But without baseline risk, you can't make a judgement. I'm quibbling about the abuse of stats, not necessarily that the PPE provided was/was significantly protective - I don't have data for that and neither do you.
I know I don't, but the mask was supposed to be PPE. Those masks do not work from a risk assessment perspective as any PPE that leaves the user 47 times more likely to affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work would never ever qualify as PPE, especially when there is PPE available which reduces the risks to virtually zero.
I think you are dealing with too little information and just focusing on the '47 times' figure. People who do jobs that involve risk are always much more likely to be impacted than someone who isn't involved no matter how good the safety regime is. Eg A coalminer or scaffolder are much more than 47 times more at risk than me as I have no plans of going down a coalmine or up scaffolding.
My risk is limited to breaking the fall of the scaffolder as he falls from the scaffolding onto me.
What was the undoing of Blair? Perhaps Iraq. He exited stage left before he got booted out, thus preserving his self-importance.
Boris Johnson is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. With Blair you get the impression he really DOES think he's brilliant whereas with Boris Johnson there's always a gnawing doubt around the edges.
Of course, everyone is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. Even @contrarian.
Blair's self-belief is indestructible. He still is adamant he was correct over Iraq. There is not a scintilla of doubt there.
But, it surely can be argued that Boris' psychology is a safer one for a top politician.
It is better to have some self-doubt, because you are then more ready to back-track, if that is what is needed.
And sometimes the best course for a politician is a U-turn.
Are we perhaps confusing self-doubt with doubt? Boris has the latter, perhaps because he does not readily grasp complex issues and might be functionally innumerate, but not the former. He may not know what to do but is absolutely sure he is the best person to do it.
90% of politicians are innumerate. Boris, to his small credit, recognises his limitations in this area. Most do not.
Do you have a quote on that?
Interesting, if so. Many journalists/politicians regard numeracy as "cold", "unfreeling" etc
There was an interesting war game thing a few years back on the TV - some second rank politicians trying to deal with terrorist attacks/disasters in London.
One refused to order closing flood gates in the London Underground, on the basis that it would be "writing off" the people behind the doors. So when the system flooded, 10x the number died.
The politician in question aggressively rejected the idea that trying to save the greatest number was a good idea - that was "unfeeling".
Ha, no I don't, I'm sorry. It was a figure plucked out of my arse with the intention of grumpily dismissing the abilities of an entire profession. On reflection, apologies. Though I do vaguely remember some stats about the paucity of our politicians' qualifications on the 'numbers' side.
I do think it's broadly right, though, for a given value of 'innumerate' (by which actually most people are innumerate). Most politicians dress to the arts rather than the sciences. Few really intuitively understand numbers. Few understand exponential growth, for example (either that it quickly leads to big numbers or that it doesn't go on forever). Few understand uncertainty. Few understand probability. Few understand opportunity costs. Few really instinctively grasp the difference between a billion and a trillion.
It's a long, long time ago now, but I found the concept of compound interest both terrifying and interesting.
What was the undoing of Blair? Perhaps Iraq. He exited stage left before he got booted out, thus preserving his self-importance.
Boris Johnson is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. With Blair you get the impression he really DOES think he's brilliant whereas with Boris Johnson there's always a gnawing doubt around the edges.
Of course, everyone is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. Even @contrarian.
Blair's self-belief is indestructible. He still is adamant he was correct over Iraq. There is not a scintilla of doubt there.
But, it surely can be argued that Boris' psychology is a safer one for a top politician.
It is better to have some self-doubt, because you are then more ready to back-track, if that is what is needed.
And sometimes the best course for a politician is a U-turn.
Are we perhaps confusing self-doubt with doubt? Boris has the latter, perhaps because he does not readily grasp complex issues and might be functionally innumerate, but not the former. He may not know what to do but is absolutely sure he is the best person to do it.
90% of politicians are innumerate. Boris, to his small credit, recognises his limitations in this area. Most do not.
Do you have a quote on that?
Interesting, if so. Many journalists/politicians regard numeracy as "cold", "unfreeling" etc
There was an interesting war game thing a few years back on the TV - some second rank politicians trying to deal with terrorist attacks/disasters in London.
One refused to order closing flood gates in the London Underground, on the basis that it would be "writing off" the people behind the doors. So when the system flooded, 10x the number died.
The politician in question aggressively rejected the idea that trying to save the greatest number was a good idea - that was "unfeeling".
Well precisely, you can have the best system in the world but if people are going off "feelings" then the systems won't work.
Flood gates exist for a reason. 🤦♂️
I don't know if anyone else remembers the film 'The Cruel Sea' back in the 50's. IIRC there was scene where the commander of the Royal Naval convoy escort is faced with a choice of stopping to pick up a few survivors from a sunken ship and risking being a target for the enemy submarine he knows to be nearby and sailing straight through them, knowing they'll be killed. He chooses to save his ship, and to continue to protect the convoy he is escorting.
There is one scene where he does stop for such survivors.
Later his choice is to attack the submarine that may or may not be beneath some survivors - and kill them. Or not.
The book and the film are a magnificent tribute to those who fought in the Battle of the Atlantic. The complete reverse of the John Wayne type of war film. Some ordinary, flawed, people do their best or worst. Or somewhere in between.
I do not recall SKS giving the Welsh or Scots permish to finish early at work when their teams were playing.
That would have been up to Drakeford and Sturgeon, or even Boris, surely?
Why? SKS is the Leader of the Opposition in the UK Parliament.
I though Labour were burnishing their credentials as the party that can keep the UK together?
Anyhow, whatever, I suspect SKS's tweet will not go down well in W & S.
To be fair to Starmer Wales is still solid Labour anyway and the SNP would support him over Boris anyway too.
It is England where Labour needs to make gains from the Tories for him to become PM.
However on the tweet itself unless an employee starts early to finish early for the match I don't see why employers should let their employees finish early unless they have taken the afternoon as leave
Those two football matches were quite fantastic. Can't help thinking England are incapable of that kind of play. Nor are our referees capable of letting the game free flow like that. Kind of sums up the nation really. Oh and for all of Paul Pogba's self-congratulatory brilliance it was him who gave the ball away in the 90th minute, directly causing the Swiss equaliser.
Meanwhile, you can still get an astonishing 22-1 on Sajid Javid for next Conservative leader. This is a true value bet.
yes I can just about forgive Pogba's routine when scoring but you do have to be good and he aint that good imho.
The trainers have been on the pitch seemingly constantly in this euro championship as presumably players are rolling around more . This kills football for me , Its frankly ridiculous and seems to have got to the stage where players are kicking the ball out for a player who has cramp. For all the good goals and skill , this euros is quite boring and childish .
Having 5 subs as well just adds to the disjointed play
And whilst I am at it , the format of it is ludicrous and unfair . Having about ten hosts makes the group games so unfair
This has been the best Euros, ever, by far. I agree with some of the issues but players being petty and annoying has always been the case, as has tournament football being unfair, it is the essence of tournament football. Enjoy!
Pogba scored one of the goals of the tournament, played a beautiful ball to Mbappe late on that my Nan would have finished, and is considered to be the Player of the Tournament by some. He is absolutely world class
Yes, I'm sure your Nan would have stroked that gorgeous pass in to the far corner with her right foot rather than making Mbappe's error of being determined to finish it with his left.
Sexist
You what? I was bigging up your Nan, you twit, and agreeing with you.
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
It depends on the baseline risks in each scenario. If working on a Covid ward without a mask gives you 1000* times the risk of someone not working on the ward then PPE that reduces that to 47 times the risk is pretty damn effective (95% effective, in fact).
*Number plucked from my behind, to illustrate the point. It may be that the PPE issued really wasn't significantly effective, say if baseline risk of no mask was 50 times not being on ward. But without baseline risk, you can't make a judgement. I'm quibbling about the abuse of stats, not necessarily that the PPE provided was/was significantly protective - I don't have data for that and neither do you.
I know I don't, but the mask was supposed to be PPE. Those masks do not work from a risk assessment perspective as any PPE that leaves the user 47 times more likely to affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work would never ever qualify as PPE, especially when there is PPE available which reduces the risks to virtually zero.
The baseline is not PPE vs not doing the job. It is PPE vs not having PPE.
If the job is essential then carrying out work even with PPE can be more dangerous than not carrying out work - but if that work is esssential it still needs to be done.
My whole point is that masks were sold to the public as a tool to prevent infection.
I find it astonishing that there is defence of something on here that leaves the user 47 times more likely to be infected than someone not in that position. 47 times more likely means that it does not work as an item of PPE.
You're full of shit. That's not how statistics work. Protection is rarely 100% and doesn't need to be 100% to be considered protective.
A condom is 97% effective but if in a year you have sex 100 times with a condom you're infinitely more likely to face a pregnancy than if you never have sex in that year - and far less likely to face a pregnancy than if you have sex 100 times without any form of protection.
Those two football matches were quite fantastic. Can't help thinking England are incapable of that kind of play. Nor are our referees capable of letting the game free flow like that. Kind of sums up the nation really. Oh and for all of Paul Pogba's self-congratulatory brilliance it was him who gave the ball away in the 90th minute, directly causing the Swiss equaliser.
Meanwhile, you can still get an astonishing 22-1 on Sajid Javid for next Conservative leader. This is a true value bet.
yes I can just about forgive Pogba's routine when scoring but you do have to be good and he aint that good imho.
The trainers have been on the pitch seemingly constantly in this euro championship as presumably players are rolling around more . This kills football for me , Its frankly ridiculous and seems to have got to the stage where players are kicking the ball out for a player who has cramp. For all the good goals and skill , this euros is quite boring and childish .
Having 5 subs as well just adds to the disjointed play
And whilst I am at it , the format of it is ludicrous and unfair . Having about ten hosts makes the group games so unfair
This has been the best Euros, ever, by far. I agree with some of the issues but players being petty and annoying has always been the case, as has tournament football being unfair, it is the essence of tournament football. Enjoy!
Pogba scored one of the goals of the tournament, played a beautiful ball to Mbappe late on that my Nan would have finished, and is considered to be the Player of the Tournament by some. He is absolutely world class
Yes, I'm sure your Nan would have stroked that gorgeous pass in to the far corner with her right foot rather than making Mbappe's error of being determined to finish it with his left.
Sexist
You what? I was bigging up your Nan, you twit, and agreeing with you.
A very strange decision to hit that with his left foot.
I do not recall SKS giving the Welsh or Scots permish to finish early at work when their teams were playing.
That would have been up to Drakeford and Sturgeon, or even Boris, surely?
Why? SKS is the Leader of the Opposition in the UK Parliament.
I though Labour were burnishing their credentials as the party that can keep the UK together?
Anyhow, whatever, I suspect SKS's tweet will not go down well in W & S.
To be fair to Starmer Wales is still solid Labour anyway and the SNP would support him over Boris anyway too.
It is England where Labour needs to make gains from the Tories for him to become PM.
However on the tweet itself unless an employee starts early to finish early for the match I don't see why employers should let their employees finish early unless they have taken the afternoon as leave
The point is that most people in W & S (whether supporting the Nationalists or not) are irritated by the way the UK is seemingly run for the English.
Let's leave aside whether this notion is true or not. Let us just accept it as a fact that people feel that way (whether warranted or not).
In that circumstance, tweeting that everyone should finish work early so they can watch England is pretty dumb & tin-eared. He did not do if for the Wales or Scotland games.
As it happens, given the vile outpouring on here of Cymru-phobia from TSE after Wales v Denmark, I am no longer neutral.
What was the undoing of Blair? Perhaps Iraq. He exited stage left before he got booted out, thus preserving his self-importance.
Boris Johnson is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. With Blair you get the impression he really DOES think he's brilliant whereas with Boris Johnson there's always a gnawing doubt around the edges.
Of course, everyone is a lot less self-secure than Tony Blair. Even @contrarian.
Blair's self-belief is indestructible. He still is adamant he was correct over Iraq. There is not a scintilla of doubt there.
But, it surely can be argued that Boris' psychology is a safer one for a top politician.
It is better to have some self-doubt, because you are then more ready to back-track, if that is what is needed.
And sometimes the best course for a politician is a U-turn.
Are we perhaps confusing self-doubt with doubt? Boris has the latter, perhaps because he does not readily grasp complex issues and might be functionally innumerate, but not the former. He may not know what to do but is absolutely sure he is the best person to do it.
90% of politicians are innumerate. Boris, to his small credit, recognises his limitations in this area. Most do not.
Do you have a quote on that?
Interesting, if so. Many journalists/politicians regard numeracy as "cold", "unfreeling" etc
There was an interesting war game thing a few years back on the TV - some second rank politicians trying to deal with terrorist attacks/disasters in London.
One refused to order closing flood gates in the London Underground, on the basis that it would be "writing off" the people behind the doors. So when the system flooded, 10x the number died.
The politician in question aggressively rejected the idea that trying to save the greatest number was a good idea - that was "unfeeling".
Well precisely, you can have the best system in the world but if people are going off "feelings" then the systems won't work.
Flood gates exist for a reason. 🤦♂️
I don't know if anyone else remembers the film 'The Cruel Sea' back in the 50's. IIRC there was scene where the commander of the Royal Naval convoy escort is faced with a choice of stopping to pick up a few survivors from a sunken ship and risking being a target for the enemy submarine he knows to be nearby and sailing straight through them, knowing they'll be killed. He chooses to save his ship, and to continue to protect the convoy he is escorting.
There is one scene where he does stop for such survivors.
Later his choice is to attack the submarine that may or may not be beneath some survivors - and kill them. Or not.
The book and the film are a magnificent tribute to those who fought in the Battle of the Atlantic. The complete reverse of the John Wayne type of war film. Some ordinary, flawed, people do their best or worst. Or somewhere in between.
Your memory is better than mine. But you are right; a tribute to those who didn't want to fight, but thought it best, and did it. In a misquote!
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
It depends on the baseline risks in each scenario. If working on a Covid ward without a mask gives you 1000* times the risk of someone not working on the ward then PPE that reduces that to 47 times the risk is pretty damn effective (95% effective, in fact).
*Number plucked from my behind, to illustrate the point. It may be that the PPE issued really wasn't significantly effective, say if baseline risk of no mask was 50 times not being on ward. But without baseline risk, you can't make a judgement. I'm quibbling about the abuse of stats, not necessarily that the PPE provided was/was significantly protective - I don't have data for that and neither do you.
I know I don't, but the mask was supposed to be PPE. Those masks do not work from a risk assessment perspective as any PPE that leaves the user 47 times more likely to affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work would never ever qualify as PPE, especially when there is PPE available which reduces the risks to virtually zero.
The baseline is not PPE vs not doing the job. It is PPE vs not having PPE.
If the job is essential then carrying out work even with PPE can be more dangerous than not carrying out work - but if that work is esssential it still needs to be done.
My whole point is that masks were sold to the public as a tool to prevent infection.
I find it astonishing that there is defence of something on here that leaves the user 47 times more likely to be infected than someone not in that position. 47 times more likely means that it does not work as an item of PPE.
You're full of shit. That's not how statistics work. Protection is rarely 100% and doesn't need to be 100% to be considered protective.
A condom is 97% effective but if in a year you have sex 100 times with a condom you're infinitely more likely to face a pregnancy than if you never have sex in that year - and far less likely to face a pregnancy than if you have sex 100 times without any form of protection.
Nice, do you read some of your posts??
You are comparing simething in a condom that is 97% effective with a mask whose percentage effectiveness would be below 1%. Do you not get the concept of 47 times more likely to catch Covid than some not in that position?
I do risk assessments daily, I could never, ever recommend PPE which left some twice as likely to be affected by the risk than someone not doing the work and you are defending something that leaves the user 47 times more likley to affected. And Im full of shit??
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
It depends on the baseline risks in each scenario. If working on a Covid ward without a mask gives you 1000* times the risk of someone not working on the ward then PPE that reduces that to 47 times the risk is pretty damn effective (95% effective, in fact).
*Number plucked from my behind, to illustrate the point. It may be that the PPE issued really wasn't significantly effective, say if baseline risk of no mask was 50 times not being on ward. But without baseline risk, you can't make a judgement. I'm quibbling about the abuse of stats, not necessarily that the PPE provided was/was significantly protective - I don't have data for that and neither do you.
I know I don't, but the mask was supposed to be PPE. Those masks do not work from a risk assessment perspective as any PPE that leaves the user 47 times more likely to affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work would never ever qualify as PPE, especially when there is PPE available which reduces the risks to virtually zero.
The baseline is not PPE vs not doing the job. It is PPE vs not having PPE.
If the job is essential then carrying out work even with PPE can be more dangerous than not carrying out work - but if that work is esssential it still needs to be done.
My whole point is that masks were sold to the public as a tool to prevent infection.
I find it astonishing that there is defence of something on here that leaves the user 47 times more likely to be infected than someone not in that position. 47 times more likely means that it does not work as an item of PPE.
This is nonsense. See my other post. Many jobs will have a much bigger risk of doing the job than not doing the job of 47 eg coal miner, scaffolder, or just working in a factory. The important factor is 47 times what.
And as Philip points out the job needed doing. At the time the choice was the PPE we had, no PPE or abandon patients. The last choice is unacceptable and no PPE presumably had a bigger risk than 47, so 47 times the risk was the best risk available.
I do not recall SKS giving the Welsh or Scots permish to finish early at work when their teams were playing.
Maybe Keir Starmer has got contacts in Scotland who've told him about all the German flags that are currently flying in people's gardens, as they are where my sister lives in Dundee. Funnily enough the very same gardens were festooned with "Yes" banners in 2014, conspicuously-consumerist Christmas style. Sick or what.
When someone is as disgustingly unpleasant as that, it's always somebody else's fault - and almost always the fault of whoever they're being so disgustingly unpleasant towards. Takes time to wrap your head around the bigoted "mind".
Media editors need to cover the problem here, or else one could turn around and find there's been a Latvian-type sequence of events that would have been preventable had it been recognised.
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
It depends on the baseline risks in each scenario. If working on a Covid ward without a mask gives you 1000* times the risk of someone not working on the ward then PPE that reduces that to 47 times the risk is pretty damn effective (95% effective, in fact).
*Number plucked from my behind, to illustrate the point. It may be that the PPE issued really wasn't significantly effective, say if baseline risk of no mask was 50 times not being on ward. But without baseline risk, you can't make a judgement. I'm quibbling about the abuse of stats, not necessarily that the PPE provided was/was significantly protective - I don't have data for that and neither do you.
I know I don't, but the mask was supposed to be PPE. Those masks do not work from a risk assessment perspective as any PPE that leaves the user 47 times more likely to affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work would never ever qualify as PPE, especially when there is PPE available which reduces the risks to virtually zero.
The baseline is not PPE vs not doing the job. It is PPE vs not having PPE.
If the job is essential then carrying out work even with PPE can be more dangerous than not carrying out work - but if that work is esssential it still needs to be done.
My whole point is that masks were sold to the public as a tool to prevent infection.
I find it astonishing that there is defence of something on here that leaves the user 47 times more likely to be infected than someone not in that position. 47 times more likely means that it does not work as an item of PPE.
You're full of shit. That's not how statistics work. Protection is rarely 100% and doesn't need to be 100% to be considered protective.
A condom is 97% effective but if in a year you have sex 100 times with a condom you're infinitely more likely to face a pregnancy than if you never have sex in that year - and far less likely to face a pregnancy than if you have sex 100 times without any form of protection.
Nice, do you read some of your posts??
You are comparing simething in a condom that is 97% effective with a mask whose percentage effectiveness would be below 1%. Do you not get the concept of 47 times more likely to catch Covid than some not in that position?
I do risk assessments daily, I could never, ever recommend PPE which left some twice as likely to be affected by the risk than someone not doing the work and you are defending something that leaves the user 47 times more likley to affected. And Im full of shit??
You don't understand it. 47 times more likely to catch Covid while working in a Covid positive ward versus those not working on a Covid positive ward doesn't make PPE worthless. It makes it not 100% effective.
If you face the option of simply not doing the work then your work is not essential. Others don't have that luxury.
Risk assessment has never been about removing 100% of risk in one fell swoop. If you can do that, great, but that's not how real life risk assessments work.
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
It depends on the baseline risks in each scenario. If working on a Covid ward without a mask gives you 1000* times the risk of someone not working on the ward then PPE that reduces that to 47 times the risk is pretty damn effective (95% effective, in fact).
*Number plucked from my behind, to illustrate the point. It may be that the PPE issued really wasn't significantly effective, say if baseline risk of no mask was 50 times not being on ward. But without baseline risk, you can't make a judgement. I'm quibbling about the abuse of stats, not necessarily that the PPE provided was/was significantly protective - I don't have data for that and neither do you.
I know I don't, but the mask was supposed to be PPE. Those masks do not work from a risk assessment perspective as any PPE that leaves the user 47 times more likely to affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work would never ever qualify as PPE, especially when there is PPE available which reduces the risks to virtually zero.
I think you are dealing with too little information and just focusing on the '47 times' figure. People who do jobs that involve risk are always much more likely to be impacted than someone who isn't involved no matter how good the safety regime is. Eg A coalminer or scaffolder are much more than 47 times more at risk than me as I have no plans of going down a coalmine or up scaffolding.
My risk is limited to breaking the fall of the scaffolder as he falls from the scaffolding onto me.
You really haven't worked in the H & S world that exists now. A scaffolder must wear a harness attached to a fixed point at all times, meaning that he cannot fall. I recommend a read of H & S Advisor. https://www.safety-adviser.co.uk/
I do not recall SKS giving the Welsh or Scots permish to finish early at work when their teams were playing.
That would have been up to Drakeford and Sturgeon, or even Boris, surely?
Why? SKS is the Leader of the Opposition in the UK Parliament.
I though Labour were burnishing their credentials as the party that can keep the UK together?
Anyhow, whatever, I suspect SKS's tweet will not go down well in W & S.
To be fair to Starmer Wales is still solid Labour anyway and the SNP would support him over Boris anyway too.
It is England where Labour needs to make gains from the Tories for him to become PM.
However on the tweet itself unless an employee starts early to finish early for the match I don't see why employers should let their employees finish early unless they have taken the afternoon as leave
The point is that most people in W & S (whether supporting the Nationalists or not) are irritated by the way the UK is seemingly run for the English.
Let's leave aside whether this notion is true or not. Let us just accept it as a fact that people feel that way (whether warranted or not).
In that circumstance, tweeting that everyone should finish work early so they can watch England is pretty dumb & tin-eared. He did not do if for the Wales or Scotland games.
As it happens, given the vile outpouring on here of Cymru-phobia from TSE after Wales v Denmark, I am no longer neutral.
I hope leaden & plodding England get thrashed.
Be fair, Wales big game was played at the weekend not a weekday, and Scotland didn’t have a do or die game at 5pm where most will have been at work. Obviously some people work weekends, and others later than 5pm, but in general this is the only one of the British teams meaningful games that would clash with a normal working day
People don't move house that often. What they do is fuel their cars and buy food and goods. The price of oil is 80% higher than a year ago. Food prices are on the up driven by commodity prices, Covid costs and now the transport crisis.
Inflation is on its way...
Rather disingenuous on the oil.
A litre of petrol now is the same as it was two years ago.
A barrel of Brent Crude now is the same as what it was throughout 2018 and 2019.
In no normal circumstances would 2021 prices reverting to 2019 prices be considered "inflationary". If the prices stabilise here then there will be temporary inflation that works out of the system. Or prices could take off in a cycle, but that hasn't happened (yet).
OK lets look further. 43% increase over 5 years. The trendline is definitely upwards. That increases the prices business and consumers are paying. Which is inflation.
Rather than criticise Labour’s stirring of religious hatred in Batley & Spen, Sir Keir has chosen to retweet this
‘ On July 1st, vote for unity over division. Vote for a candidate who knows this community, understands this community and will still be here in this community long after the outsiders and cameras have gone’
Narendra Modi has made a career out of stirring religious hatred. As Chief Minister of the Indian state of Gujarat he presided over communal violence that left 1,000-2,000 dead. The US State Department banned Modi from travelling to the US on the basis of his alleged role in the attacks. The UK and several other European countries also imposed a travel ban on him. Academic Martha Nussbaum writes that "there is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government." The UK government has seen fit to get as close as possible to the Modi government, even while Modi has pushed through new measures constraining the civil rights of religious minorities in India. (And even at the expense of UK public health, delaying putting India on the red list as the Delta variant became widespread in India). So I don't think it is problematic to draw attention to the Tories' policy of sucking up to Modi, especially in the context of the Tories' shameful record on Islamophobia. And labelling criticism of Modi as religious hatred is - dare I say it - simply gas-lighting when Modi himself is demonstrably guilty of stirring up religious hatred in India. Folks on here are always saying judge people by what they do, not the colour of their skin or their religion. But it seems that Modi can't be criticised, because he's a Hindu.
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
It depends on the baseline risks in each scenario. If working on a Covid ward without a mask gives you 1000* times the risk of someone not working on the ward then PPE that reduces that to 47 times the risk is pretty damn effective (95% effective, in fact).
*Number plucked from my behind, to illustrate the point. It may be that the PPE issued really wasn't significantly effective, say if baseline risk of no mask was 50 times not being on ward. But without baseline risk, you can't make a judgement. I'm quibbling about the abuse of stats, not necessarily that the PPE provided was/was significantly protective - I don't have data for that and neither do you.
I know I don't, but the mask was supposed to be PPE. Those masks do not work from a risk assessment perspective as any PPE that leaves the user 47 times more likely to affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work would never ever qualify as PPE, especially when there is PPE available which reduces the risks to virtually zero.
I think you are dealing with too little information and just focusing on the '47 times' figure. People who do jobs that involve risk are always much more likely to be impacted than someone who isn't involved no matter how good the safety regime is. Eg A coalminer or scaffolder are much more than 47 times more at risk than me as I have no plans of going down a coalmine or up scaffolding.
My risk is limited to breaking the fall of the scaffolder as he falls from the scaffolding onto me.
You really haven't worked in the H & S world that exists now. A scaffolder must wear a harness attached to a fixed point at all times, meaning that he cannot fall. I recommend a read of H & S Advisor. https://www.safety-adviser.co.uk/
And yet 26% of all workplace fatalities are from falling from heights.
So no risk has not been reduced to zero. Harnesses can fail, other forms of protection can fail. Doesn't make the protection not worth having and the baseline if you need to work from a height is not to your risk of falling if you remain on the ground.
If immigrants cause high house prices, why is it that house prices have gone up so much when immigration has been so low over the last 18 months?
Demand, supply and financing availability determine prices.
Immigration is an additional, but not the only, source of new household formation.
For example let’s say that two mid 40-somethings have a mid life crisis and an affair with a work colleague resulting in two broken marriages. That will result in either 1 or 2 new households being formed.
I do not recall SKS giving the Welsh or Scots permish to finish early at work when their teams were playing.
Maybe Keir Starmer has got contacts in Scotland who've told him about all the German flags that are currently flying in people's gardens, as they are where my sister lives in Dundee. Funnily enough the very same gardens were festooned with "Yes" banners in 2014, conspicuously-consumerist Christmas style. Sick or what.
When someone is as disgustingly unpleasant as that, it's always somebody else's fault - and almost always the fault of whoever they're being so disgustingly unpleasant towards. Takes time to wrap your head around the bigoted "mind".
Funnily enough, when the English behave like that to the Scots or Welsh, it is just "bantz" rather than "disgustingly unpleasant".
Go read some of the postings on pb.com after the Welsh game.
Now that I am off work thanks to kindly old SKS, I should be able to get my German flag up in my garden in time.
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
You claimed the PPE “clearly does not offer any protection”. That is not true.
It doesn’t offer as good protection as better specced items, but you can’t prove that it offers none.
Mr. Boy, Islamophobia remains an utterly stupid term.
Islam's an idea and should not be beyond critique, question, ridicule, or mockery. Anti-Muslim bigotry should be referred to as just that.
I'd be less inclined to weigh in on language if it weren't for the rather obvious intimidation and mobocracy of religious zealots, and the craven capitulation of the political class, when it comes to the matter of blasphemy and trying to impose such nonsense and the country generally.
Matt Hancock’s resignation as health secretary was inevitable. The anger from people who abided by social distancing rules Hancock designed and ignored, coupled with his hypocrisy in having called for others in similar circumstances to resign, made his position untenable – even if it took him 24 hours to accept the reality. However, it is what the Hancock affair reveals about the general lack of standards in this government that should cause greater concern – as should the fact that standards are meant to be set and enforced by the prime minister.
I'd say the relevant point is that SKS is using the President of India as mud to sling.
The Labour Party group Labour Friends of India seem to think there is a problem.
They were the ones Mr Starmer was at an event with when he said he would "rebuild links with the Indian community" last year. Obvious SKS thought there was a weakness in that relationship. How do you think it is now?
Never mind that his own front benchers have also shaken hands with Modi. And that SKS has spent the last weekend chiselling away about hypocrisy and double standards. Gun. Foot. Bang.
It's exactly the same as Labour mocking Theresa May for being pally with Trump. The idea that was offensive to British people of American background is ridiculous. But apparently Indians are those meek brown people who are loyal followers to their anointed leader. That's frankly patronizing and offensive to them.
Modi is one of the most sectarian bigots on the world stage. He stands against everything British values are supposed to believe in. People have died because of riots he has incited. It is entirely legitimate to call out politicians trying to copy up to him.
Hmmm - being offended on behalf of "brown people", when the Lab Friends of India dare to express an opinion that says there is a problem. And the Leader of the party himself acknowledges that there is a problem that needs addressing.
If without a harness your risk from falling from scaffolding is a million times higher than your risk of falling at ground level - but with a harness your risk from falling from scaffolding is 47x higher than your risk of falling at ground level - so 99.995% of the risk of being on scaffolding has been eliminated . . . then I wonder if @NerysHughes would deem the harness worthless?
If immigrants cause high house prices, why is it that house prices have gone up so much when immigration has been so low over the last 18 months?
Because people who haven't been able to have a holiday etc have nothing better to do or spend their money on than look for a new home?
Because a poxy flat in the city may be nice when you're young, working and not spending much time at home and have a social life in the city but when you're at home and possibly face a future working there more then suddenly a house seems much more attractive?
Or when volume falls the banks are even more eager to lend ever larger amounts?
That Labour ad is repulsive. Forget the “it’s a photo of one politician” nonsense, it’s naked communalism, not even a dog whistle, exploiting the worst religious bigotries of the subcontinent. Bigotries this country had a big role in entrenching in the run up to partition.
A grown up political party shouldn’t be coming within a mile of it. What with that and Priti’s African migrant camps were really excelling as a country this week aren’t we.
Both major parties have been indulging sub-continent communalism for a while now. Look at the Goldsmith campaign against Sadiq Khan in 2016 for a prime example. I agree it's awful and immensely unhealthy.
Think too, of the effect on a refugee of escaping a criminal African regime, getting to Britain, and then being flown back to a neighbouring country to be 'processed'! Terrifying.
Maybe they shouldn't travel through many safe countries to reach Britain, on a path that is deadly, dangerous, illegal and fuelling criminals then?
Which African regime do we border? France?
If you speak English as a second language and several members of your family, even extended family, are here.....
Doesn’t fit the definition of asylum seekers who are required to claim in the first sage country. Very understandable that they might have a preference for the UK
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
It depends on the baseline risks in each scenario. If working on a Covid ward without a mask gives you 1000* times the risk of someone not working on the ward then PPE that reduces that to 47 times the risk is pretty damn effective (95% effective, in fact).
*Number plucked from my behind, to illustrate the point. It may be that the PPE issued really wasn't significantly effective, say if baseline risk of no mask was 50 times not being on ward. But without baseline risk, you can't make a judgement. I'm quibbling about the abuse of stats, not necessarily that the PPE provided was/was significantly protective - I don't have data for that and neither do you.
I know I don't, but the mask was supposed to be PPE. Those masks do not work from a risk assessment perspective as any PPE that leaves the user 47 times more likely to affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work would never ever qualify as PPE, especially when there is PPE available which reduces the risks to virtually zero.
I think you are dealing with too little information and just focusing on the '47 times' figure. People who do jobs that involve risk are always much more likely to be impacted than someone who isn't involved no matter how good the safety regime is. Eg A coalminer or scaffolder are much more than 47 times more at risk than me as I have no plans of going down a coalmine or up scaffolding.
My risk is limited to breaking the fall of the scaffolder as he falls from the scaffolding onto me.
You really haven't worked in the H & S world that exists now. A scaffolder must wear a harness attached to a fixed point at all times, meaning that he cannot fall. I recommend a read of H & S Advisor. https://www.safety-adviser.co.uk/
I agree that the masks used were inadequate for the environment of a ward of Covid patients.
The environment of a supermarket is very different, so the question of what precautions are required, and whether they are effective, is very different.
I do not recall SKS giving the Welsh or Scots permish to finish early at work when their teams were playing.
That would have been up to Drakeford and Sturgeon, or even Boris, surely?
Why? SKS is the Leader of the Opposition in the UK Parliament.
I though Labour were burnishing their credentials as the party that can keep the UK together?
Anyhow, whatever, I suspect SKS's tweet will not go down well in W & S.
To be fair to Starmer Wales is still solid Labour anyway and the SNP would support him over Boris anyway too.
It is England where Labour needs to make gains from the Tories for him to become PM.
However on the tweet itself unless an employee starts early to finish early for the match I don't see why employers should let their employees finish early unless they have taken the afternoon as leave
The point is that most people in W & S (whether supporting the Nationalists or not) are irritated by the way the UK is seemingly run for the English.
Let's leave aside whether this notion is true or not. Let us just accept it as a fact that people feel that way (whether warranted or not).
In that circumstance, tweeting that everyone should finish work early so they can watch England is pretty dumb & tin-eared. He did not do if for the Wales or Scotland games.
As it happens, given the vile outpouring on here of Cymru-phobia from TSE after Wales v Denmark, I am no longer neutral.
I hope leaden & plodding England get thrashed.
Boris to be fair to him has consistently tweeted support for the Welsh and Scottish teams in the Euros as well as the English team as he correctly should have as PM of the whole UK not just England. Let us not forget Scotland and Wales also have their own Parliaments within the UK unlike England. Indeed Drakeford this morning is calling for even more powers for the Senedd within the UK
Starmer however is not currently UK PM, there is already a non Tory majority in Scotland and Wales whose MPs would make him PM, it is England where he needs more Labour MPs if he is to become PM.
This story completely vindicates my views on masks. Even when standard issue masks were worn correctly by NHS staff, those caring for Covid patients were 47 times more likley to catch covid then those staff working elsewhere. 47 times!!!!! Clearly there masks offer virtually no protection. When these staff switched to face fitted FFP3 masks, the risk of infection reduced to virtually zero.
These results clearly demonstrate exactly what I have been saying for over a year. A bit of cloth over your face does nothing to prevent Coivd spread, yet when mask wearing became mandatory people thought they were invincible and stopped social distancing in shops. I stand by my view that mandatory mask wearing has increased Covid infection as the masks people wear do nothing, yet they think they do.
A piece of cloth over your face is better than nothing.
An N95 mask is better than that.
An FFP3 mask, properly fitted, is better than the N95. Ask anyone who works in a saw mill, or a car paint shop.
Its not better than nothing if you stop social distancing and thats what happened. Read the report , 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing a N95 mask.
How many more interactions with COVID carriers did they have?
Obviously loads, but the mask is supposed to be PPE, and if you are 47 times more likely to catch Covid wearing it than if you were not working in that area, it clearly does not offer any protection.
I have always looked at this from the dust standpoint.
I have done facefitting training and have worn a FFP3 mask correctly whilst working in a very dusty environment.
A normal cheap dust mask is hopeless in comparison to a face fitted FFP3 mask.
When mask wearing became mandatory people genuinely believed they offered protection and as this report demonstrates they simply don't.
I do risk assessments daily and if I recommended a PPE product that still meant you were 47 times more likely to be affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work then I would be laughed at. That is what has happened here.
Your post is statistically inept
Why? When you complete a risk assessment it is to determine the action to take to reduce the risk.
The way the HSE want you to do this is to remove the issue, i.e. for dust ensure that you work in a ventilated area there by reducing the requirement for a dust mask.
Clearly whilst working on a Covid ward you cannot get rid of the risk of Covid, therefore suitable PPE would have to worn to offer protection. The PPE that was used still meant that you were 47 times more likely to catch Covid than someone not working on the ward. Therefore the protection offered to the user is neglible and the risk to them has not been mitigated at all.
It depends on the baseline risks in each scenario. If working on a Covid ward without a mask gives you 1000* times the risk of someone not working on the ward then PPE that reduces that to 47 times the risk is pretty damn effective (95% effective, in fact).
*Number plucked from my behind, to illustrate the point. It may be that the PPE issued really wasn't significantly effective, say if baseline risk of no mask was 50 times not being on ward. But without baseline risk, you can't make a judgement. I'm quibbling about the abuse of stats, not necessarily that the PPE provided was/was significantly protective - I don't have data for that and neither do you.
I know I don't, but the mask was supposed to be PPE. Those masks do not work from a risk assessment perspective as any PPE that leaves the user 47 times more likely to affected by the risk than someone not carrying out the work would never ever qualify as PPE, especially when there is PPE available which reduces the risks to virtually zero.
The baseline is not PPE vs not doing the job. It is PPE vs not having PPE.
If the job is essential then carrying out work even with PPE can be more dangerous than not carrying out work - but if that work is esssential it still needs to be done.
My whole point is that masks were sold to the public as a tool to prevent infection.
I find it astonishing that there is defence of something on here that leaves the user 47 times more likely to be infected than someone not in that position. 47 times more likely means that it does not work as an item of PPE.
You're full of shit. That's not how statistics work. Protection is rarely 100% and doesn't need to be 100% to be considered protective.
A condom is 97% effective but if in a year you have sex 100 times with a condom you're infinitely more likely to face a pregnancy than if you never have sex in that year - and far less likely to face a pregnancy than if you have sex 100 times without any form of protection.
Nice, do you read some of your posts??
You are comparing simething in a condom that is 97% effective with a mask whose percentage effectiveness would be below 1%. Do you not get the concept of 47 times more likely to catch Covid than some not in that position?
I do risk assessments daily, I could never, ever recommend PPE which left some twice as likely to be affected by the risk than someone not doing the work and you are defending something that leaves the user 47 times more likley to affected. And Im full of shit??
You really don't get stats do you? You say you could not recommend something which left someone twice as likely at risk than someone not doing the work. I believe you are a builder? Everyone of your workers is more than twice as likely to be at risk than me every day by the nature of their work. So you do precisely that. In fact many many more times at risk. That doesn't mean their risk is high.
The point is my risk in very very very small indeed. Your workers risk is many many times greater but still a small number. Obviously if you didn't take proper health and safety precautions it might be a very large risk.
Mr. Boy, Islamophobia remains an utterly stupid term.
Islam's an idea and should not be beyond critique, question, ridicule, or mockery. Anti-Muslim bigotry should be referred to as just that.
I'd be less inclined to weigh in on language if it weren't for the rather obvious intimidation and mobocracy of religious zealots, and the craven capitulation of the political class, when it comes to the matter of blasphemy and trying to impose such nonsense and the country generally.
Craven capitulation comes in many forms. For the Tories it means cosying up to Modi, a thoroughly nasty religious fanatic and communal pot-stirrer of the very worst sort.
Rather than criticise Labour’s stirring of religious hatred in Batley & Spen, Sir Keir has chosen to retweet this
‘ On July 1st, vote for unity over division. Vote for a candidate who knows this community, understands this community and will still be here in this community long after the outsiders and cameras have gone’
Narendra Modi has made a career out of stirring religious hatred. As Chief Minister of the Indian state of Gujarat he presided over communal violence that left 1,000-2,000 dead. The US State Department banned Modi from travelling to the US on the basis of his alleged role in the attacks. The UK and several other European countries also imposed a travel ban on him. Academic Martha Nussbaum writes that "there is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government." The UK government has seen fit to get as close as possible to the Modi government, even while Modi has pushed through new measures constraining the civil rights of religious minorities in India. (And even at the expense of UK public health, delaying putting India on the red list as the Delta variant became widespread in India). So I don't think it is problematic to draw attention to the Tories' policy of sucking up to Modi, especially in the context of the Tories' shameful record on Islamophobia. And labelling criticism of Modi as religious hatred is - dare I say it - simply gas-lighting when Modi himself is demonstrably guilty of stirring up religious hatred in India. Folks on here are always saying judge people by what they do, not the colour of their skin or their religion. But it seems that Modi can't be criticised, because he's a Hindu.
Completely missing the point
This is like Corbyn era Labour putting a pic of a Tory with Netanyahu on a leaflet going for the Muslim vote. You can say this or that about Israel, but it would be fanning the flames, and many people would be livid about it. What it shows is both Corbyn and Starmer era Labour use enemies of Islam as bait for the Muslim Vote.
This after Sir Keir explicitly said “ We must not allow issues of the sub-continent to divide communities here” last year
People don't move house that often. What they do is fuel their cars and buy food and goods. The price of oil is 80% higher than a year ago. Food prices are on the up driven by commodity prices, Covid costs and now the transport crisis.
Inflation is on its way...
Rather disingenuous on the oil.
A litre of petrol now is the same as it was two years ago.
A barrel of Brent Crude now is the same as what it was throughout 2018 and 2019.
In no normal circumstances would 2021 prices reverting to 2019 prices be considered "inflationary". If the prices stabilise here then there will be temporary inflation that works out of the system. Or prices could take off in a cycle, but that hasn't happened (yet).
OK lets look further. 43% increase over 5 years. The trendline is definitely upwards. That increases the prices business and consumers are paying. Which is inflation.
Or lets look forther. 16% decrease over 10 years.
The price of oil fluctuates, but nobody would have thought last year's price was sustainable.
Comments
Schools Minister Nick "Those scenes should never have occurred in our society" Gibb should probably get out some more.
UK pop 1971: 55.9 million
UK pop 1981: 56.4 million
UK pop 1991: 57.4 million
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom
Average increase of 75,000 per year between 1971 and 1991.
We have learnt a lot economically since the 80s and there are much more deflationary pressures in the system now than there were. But there's definitely a possibility for inflation in the future.
I don't want to sound like one of those people who blame everything on Labour even while they're in opposition, but listening to the BBC news (following its typical pattern of brief summary of government position followed by lengthy and emotive spiel from Labour spokesman of why the government is wrong) I can't help feeling Labour are putting themselves on the wrong side of this argument: the mood music I am getting from Jonathan Ashworth is that they are going to criticise the government for bringing restrictions to an end too early. And this could be why they are still behind in the polls despite the Conservatives steering us inexpertly through the worst calamity of my lifetime.
If one infectious person is inside somewhere poorly ventilated for a reasonable length of time without a face covering then we can assume the air is suffused with Covid aerosols. All the non-infected people wearing face coverings are at greater risk of acquiring the infection.
If the infectious individual had worn a simple cloth face covering then that would reduce the aerosols they release by a significant factor - making everyone else safer.
For the hospital staff we know that they are working in an environment certain to be suffused with Covid aerosol. A high-quality fitted face mask is required to protect them from infection, unsurprisingly.
Wearing a lower quality face mask may be of some benefit in terms of them not spreading the infection beyond the Covid wards.
In addition, there seems to be a bit of a lack of awareness of how these things feel from his side. Perhaps it looks like a bit a jape to some people - but on the other end it can be terrifying. Much as some idiots think that a bit of drink and "banter" on public transport is just some fun. I've seen that reduce people on the receiving end to serious panic attacks....
What they did was assault.
Interesting, if so. Many journalists/politicians regard numeracy as "cold", "unfreeling" etc
There was an interesting war game thing a few years back on the TV - some second rank politicians trying to deal with terrorist attacks/disasters in London.
One refused to order closing flood gates in the London Underground, on the basis that it would be "writing off" the people behind the doors. So when the system flooded, 10x the number died.
The politician in question aggressively rejected the idea that trying to save the greatest number was a good idea - that was "unfeeling".
Its interesting to note that last night our group's runners up, Croatia, were eliminated by Spain who'd won their group. Spain now face Switzerland, then the winner of Belgium v Italy.
England now host Germany in front of 40k fans at Wembley, then Sweden or Ukraine, then Czech Republic or Denmark.
As a path to the final I'd far rather Germany at Wembley, then Sweden or Ukraine, then Czech Republic or Denmark than face Spain, then Switzerland, then Belgium or Italy.
We were much better off winning our group afterall!
Flood gates exist for a reason. 🤦♂️
*Number plucked from my behind, to illustrate the point. It may be that the PPE issued really wasn't significantly effective, say if baseline risk of no mask was 50 times not being on ward. But without baseline risk, you can't make a judgement. I'm quibbling about the abuse of stats, not necessarily that the PPE provided was/was significantly protective - I don't have data for that and neither do you.
Edit: to add a different, but comparable example, this paper says that combined seat belt and airbag use reduces risk of mortality in a car by ~80%. However, the risk of mortality will still be somewhat higher than staying at home and not getting in the car in the first place. Are seat belts and airbags therefore ineffective?
Good luck to England ahead of today's game against Germany.
Staff should be allowed to finish early so they can watch the match. #euro2020
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1409791010259996674
The vilification of scientists, who are entitled to have different views, on social media and elsewhere contributes to a febrile atmosphere in which I suspect a lot of those who have raised their heads above the parapet do not feel safe. Even on the (usually) civilised PB platform we have one prominent and respected poster who repeatedly refers to those he disagrees with as "wanker scientists" and worse. It's not helpful.
Inflation is on its way...
On @Cocky_cockney 's point about referees: one of my biggest frustrations about football is the way the advantage rule is played, or not. In rugby, if an offence is committed by the defending side but the attacking side continues to attack, play is allowed to go on until it becomes apparent that the attacking side have not gained an advantage by doing so, and only once it becomes apparent there is no advantage to the attacking side is play brought back for the free kick/penalty - this can be a minute or so further on. In football, the referee has to make a split second decision on whether an advantage will be gleaned or not. Simply playing this rule more like rugby would make the game much better. But football won't, for the same reason that the ten-yard rule didn't catch on: it's frustratingly hard to get even very simple rules into footballers' heads.
You have to structure a sports rules so that the consequences for a team of cheating and getting caught are worse than the consequences of not cheating. Almost all sports do this better than football.
As a counterpoint, I've just heard an opinion from a colleague (not necessarily football's keenest observer), who has declared that what he has observed from this tournament is that footballers aren't very good at football. None of them. Tennis players, he thinks, are much better at tennis than footballers are at football. Not sure I necessarily agree.
They refused to have a hijacked plane shot down which was then crashed into parliament and they still claimed they had made the right choice.
I think Amanda Platell was one of the 'experts' and Sayeeda Warsi appeared on a second program (and did rather better).
If the job is essential then carrying out work even with PPE can be more dangerous than not carrying out work - but if that work is esssential it still needs to be done.
‘ On July 1st, vote for unity over division. Vote for a candidate who knows this community, understands this community and will still be here in this community long after the outsiders and cameras have gone’
https://twitter.com/kimleadbeater/status/1409238823108755457?s=21
Maybe he hasn’t seen it
He chooses to save his ship, and to continue to protect the convoy he is escorting.
Man of the people.
Consider the considerable resistance to the plan to get the Germans to mis-target the V2 rockets. Since there was little else to stop them (apart from over running the launch areas), the plan was to use the double agent system to convince the Germans that they were falling "long" - so they would "correct" and mostly hit countryside and not London.
There was was a sustained campaign in the Civil service (and elsewhere) among those who knew to try and stop this being done.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/01/long-covid-snapshot-poll-finds-million-people-symptoms-uk
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57584295
And they are right on this one, aren’t they?
In this tournament there are some players who are not in the top 5000 footballers in the world. No-one really watches much tennis played by anyone outside the top 100, and most only watch the top 10. It is not really a fair comparison.
A litre of petrol now is the same as it was two years ago.
A barrel of Brent Crude now is the same as what it was throughout 2018 and 2019.
In no normal circumstances would 2021 prices reverting to 2019 prices be considered "inflationary". If the prices stabilise here then there will be temporary inflation that works out of the system. Or prices could take off in a cycle, but that hasn't happened (yet).
I find it astonishing that there is defence of something on here that leaves the user 47 times more likely to be infected than someone not in that position. 47 times more likely means that it does not work as an item of PPE.
I do think it's broadly right, though, for a given value of 'innumerate' (by which actually most people are innumerate). Most politicians dress to the arts rather than the sciences. Few really intuitively understand numbers. Few understand exponential growth, for example (either that it quickly leads to big numbers or that it doesn't go on forever). Few understand uncertainty. Few understand probability. Few understand opportunity costs. Few really instinctively grasp the difference between a billion and a trillion.
Fry & Laurie's World's Worst Football Coach sketch:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__G4RrlGmVk
I though Labour were burnishing their credentials as the party that can keep the UK together?
Anyhow, whatever, I suspect SKS's tweet will not go down well in W & S.
My risk is limited to breaking the fall of the scaffolder as he falls from the scaffolding onto me.
Later his choice is to attack the submarine that may or may not be beneath some survivors - and kill them. Or not.
The book and the film are a magnificent tribute to those who fought in the Battle of the Atlantic. The complete reverse of the John Wayne type of war film. Some ordinary, flawed, people do their best or worst. Or somewhere in between.
It is England where Labour needs to make gains from the Tories for him to become PM.
However on the tweet itself unless an employee starts early to finish early for the match I don't see why employers should let their employees finish early unless they have taken the afternoon as leave
A condom is 97% effective but if in a year you have sex 100 times with a condom you're infinitely more likely to face a pregnancy than if you never have sex in that year - and far less likely to face a pregnancy than if you have sex 100 times without any form of protection.
Let's leave aside whether this notion is true or not. Let us just accept it as a fact that people feel that way (whether warranted or not).
In that circumstance, tweeting that everyone should finish work early so they can watch England is pretty dumb & tin-eared. He did not do if for the Wales or Scotland games.
As it happens, given the vile outpouring on here of Cymru-phobia from TSE after Wales v Denmark, I am no longer neutral.
I hope leaden & plodding England get thrashed.
In a misquote!
You are comparing simething in a condom that is 97% effective with a mask whose percentage effectiveness would be below 1%. Do you not get the concept of 47 times more likely to catch Covid than some not in that position?
I do risk assessments daily, I could never, ever recommend PPE which left some twice as likely to be affected by the risk than someone not doing the work and you are defending something that leaves the user 47 times more likley to affected. And Im full of shit??
And as Philip points out the job needed doing. At the time the choice was the PPE we had, no PPE or abandon patients. The last choice is unacceptable and no PPE presumably had a bigger risk than 47, so 47 times the risk was the best risk available.
When someone is as disgustingly unpleasant as that, it's always somebody else's fault - and almost always the fault of whoever they're being so disgustingly unpleasant towards. Takes time to wrap your head around the bigoted "mind".
Media editors need to cover the problem here, or else one could turn around and find there's been a Latvian-type sequence of events that would have been preventable had it been recognised.
If you face the option of simply not doing the work then your work is not essential. Others don't have that luxury.
Risk assessment has never been about removing 100% of risk in one fell swoop. If you can do that, great, but that's not how real life risk assessments work.
Not a great by-election when you need to specify which particular potential smear one is referring to.
The UK government has seen fit to get as close as possible to the Modi government, even while Modi has pushed through new measures constraining the civil rights of religious minorities in India. (And even at the expense of UK public health, delaying putting India on the red list as the Delta variant became widespread in India).
So I don't think it is problematic to draw attention to the Tories' policy of sucking up to Modi, especially in the context of the Tories' shameful record on Islamophobia.
And labelling criticism of Modi as religious hatred is - dare I say it - simply gas-lighting when Modi himself is demonstrably guilty of stirring up religious hatred in India. Folks on here are always saying judge people by what they do, not the colour of their skin or their religion. But it seems that Modi can't be criticised, because he's a Hindu.
So no risk has not been reduced to zero. Harnesses can fail, other forms of protection can fail. Doesn't make the protection not worth having and the baseline if you need to work from a height is not to your risk of falling if you remain on the ground.
Immigration is an additional, but not the only, source of new household formation.
For example let’s say that two mid 40-somethings have a mid life crisis and an affair with a work colleague resulting in two broken marriages. That will result in either 1 or 2 new households being formed.
Go read some of the postings on pb.com after the Welsh game.
Now that I am off work thanks to kindly old SKS, I should be able to get my German flag up in my garden in time.
It doesn’t offer as good protection as better specced items, but you can’t prove that it offers none.
Islam's an idea and should not be beyond critique, question, ridicule, or mockery. Anti-Muslim bigotry should be referred to as just that.
I'd be less inclined to weigh in on language if it weren't for the rather obvious intimidation and mobocracy of religious zealots, and the craven capitulation of the political class, when it comes to the matter of blasphemy and trying to impose such nonsense and the country generally.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/hancock-resignation-johnson-failiure
Look in the mirror a little?
The environment of a supermarket is very different, so the question of what precautions are required, and whether they are effective, is very different.
https://twitter.com/fmwales/status/1409801548125900804?s=20
Starmer however is not currently UK PM, there is already a non Tory majority in Scotland and Wales whose MPs would make him PM, it is England where he needs more Labour MPs if he is to become PM.
https://twitter.com/Beck_Sall/status/1408896237659623430?s=20
The point is my risk in very very very small indeed. Your workers risk is many many times greater but still a small number. Obviously if you didn't take proper health and safety precautions it might be a very large risk.
This is like Corbyn era Labour putting a pic of a Tory with Netanyahu on a leaflet going for the Muslim vote. You can say this or that about Israel, but it would be fanning the flames, and many people would be livid about it. What it shows is both Corbyn and Starmer era Labour use enemies of Islam as bait for the Muslim
Vote.
This after Sir Keir explicitly said “ We must not allow issues of the sub-continent to divide communities here” last year
The price of oil fluctuates, but nobody would have thought last year's price was sustainable.