"different regime for those fully vaccinated" for self-isolation.
Hmm.
Assume it's basically going in the dustbin for the double-jabbed and for kids as well, which should in practice mean that test and trace effectively ends in September. Contact tracing is inefficient as it is; I doubt that the minority of vaccine refusers are being any more co-operative in use e.g. of the tracing apps than they are with the jabs.
I don’t get this nonsense about Sir Keir’s problem being he hasn’t been able to meet people in person. How many normal voters meet politicians? Or watch their speeches in person?? Very few
They watch them on tv, and the public have had ample opportunity to do that
I think pictures of politicians surrounded by smiling widget makers/children/fork lift truck drivers when they are all huddled around does have an effect.
Also, in masks, when a PM is seen in and surrounded by people in masks there is an air of "I'm handling this emergency". When the LotO does the same there is the sense of "he's just a passenger like all of us in this".
Back in 1997, Labour were preparing for a landslide election victory. Now compare that front bench to the current one. It's absolutely startling. And there's something just plain odd about Starmer. He appears to be a hybrid of Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband. At best he's a caretaker leader, and until Labour chance upon someone even vaguely attractive to the majority, they will remain in perpetual opposition.
Labour have few good MPs. They have some fantastically bad ones.
Talking about bad ones - I hear Abbott had another shocker last week
No doubt. She's far from the worst though. She's certainly spent time and effort to try to improve the community in her constituency, although with little effect.
Most of us want to return to 'normality' , but the post-Covid world will have a different normality.
There are wide-open goals here for all sides: covid has had a massively disruptive effect. Johnson, Starmer or Davey (ha!) need to find and communicate a vision for the country that melds the desire for normality with a forward-looking agenda that might be unthinkable in ordinary times.
This may seem to be right on Labour's pitch, but with Brexit Johnson has shown that he can deliver the unthinkable, even if some don't like it. On the other hand, Starmer might be competent, but he's not exactly inspirational, and too many people behind him will want a hard-left agenda that has alrady been rejected twice by the electorate.
So, what prospectus can the parties offer the electorate that makes the most out of this opportunity for change, without frightening the horses too much?
We did some thinking on this at work and came up with 7 "new normals" that will shape the future (some of these are not new but will be accelerated):
1. Big Government 2. Wellbeing 3. Environmental Issues 4. Anti-globalization 5. Risk-averse decision-making 6. Social-distancing 7. Collective Responsibility
Hang on, doesn't this shoot the narrative fox of some on here that people will give up their masks?
The majority of Britons say face masks should continue to be mandatory on both public transport (71%), as well as in shops and some enclosed public spaces (66%) beyond when restrictions are lifted
70% of Britons say they'd feel less safe if in a crowded or un-ventilated place and people were not wearing face masks
This is the case among a majority of all age groups
One thing that all of the iSage and other zero COVID types have yet to answer is what they would do if vaccines aren't enough reach herd immunity.
If the vaccines don't work, then the answer is really very simple, a lot more people will get ill and some of them will die.
There do seem to be people who have the idea that we can choose "no covid" as a population, that's really not an option, in the medium to long term essentially everybody will either get covid or the vaccine will protect them. Once you realase that "no covid" isn't viable it all becomes a lot simpler, vaccinating everybody we can is the only rational response.
The answer is keep some level of restrictions to prevent exponential case growth while throwing money at better vaccines.
The question for the anti-lockdown brigade is what the maximum number of deaths they would be willing to have to pretend we are back to normal.
It depends on who is dying, really. If it's people who have refused the vaccine then it's of no consequence. They made their choice. If it's people 85+ with a million and one underlying conditions who are in death's waiting room then no amount of restrictions are going to make a difference. One of the reasons we have negative excess deaths at the moment is because COVID got a lot of low hanging fruit in waves one and two.
The government has steadfastly refused to reveal information on vaccinated vs unvaccinated stats. I think it would be extremely revealing and smash the case for any continued measures.
There’s a case for maintaining mask mandates (for now) on things like buses.
Half a dozen unvaccinated passengers in... say... Newham on a bus can easily result in a very high viral load.
Not such a big deal for passengers who get on and off, but a big deal for bus drivers, who will spend six or seven hours a day on a bus.
And - one would suspect - the efficacy of vaccines drops with the viral load one receives.
The one thing I've been surprised about in all of this is that the Government didn't keep masks on public transport, with some kind of time limit stated - whether that be "when all adults have been offered both vaccines" or "until next Spring." I wouldn't be surprised if they came back in the Winter.
Been travelling - why is Twitter all of a tizzy because a Communist was asked if she was a Communist?
Because she said that her belief system, which informs and dictates how every element of how a society should be run, has nothing to do with her views on how society should be run.
She didn't handle the question well, it must be said. Interviewers will ask unfair or unreasonable questions sometimes, but it rarely looks good to whinge and refuse to engage the point without even a token response to the point. Politicians struggle with it often.
Given she could have very simply answered the point whilst also objecting to the question, a failure to do so is pretty telling.
On the subject of Covid, is it my imagination or do UK cases appear to have peaked?
My lazy reading of the numbers suggests that - at the very least - case numbers have stopped going up.
The rate of increase has dropped from a peak of 74% last week, to 53% today. Even if the rate of increase declines from now on, case numbers will still rise for a while to come.
Back in 1997, Labour were preparing for a landslide election victory. Now compare that front bench to the current one. It's absolutely startling. And there's something just plain odd about Starmer. He appears to be a hybrid of Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband. At best he's a caretaker leader, and until Labour chance upon someone even vaguely attractive to the majority, they will remain in perpetual opposition.
Brown could have become PM in 2010 if the LDs had backed him, similarly Starmer does not need a majority in 2023/4 given the SNP and LDs would give him confidence and supply and the DUP would abstain unless the Irish Sea border is removed, he just needs to deprive the Tories of their majority.
Burnham is probably Labour's only chance of an overall majority and he is the heir in waiting if Starmer falls short and the Tories win a majority again in 2024
Hang on, doesn't this shoot the narrative fox of some on here that people will give up their masks?
The majority of Britons say face masks should continue to be mandatory on both public transport (71%), as well as in shops and some enclosed public spaces (66%) beyond when restrictions are lifted
70% of Britons say they'd feel less safe if in a crowded or un-ventilated place and people were not wearing face masks
This is the case among a majority of all age groups
Most of us want to return to 'normality' , but the post-Covid world will have a different normality.
There are wide-open goals here for all sides: covid has had a massively disruptive effect. Johnson, Starmer or Davey (ha!) need to find and communicate a vision for the country that melds the desire for normality with a forward-looking agenda that might be unthinkable in ordinary times.
This may seem to be right on Labour's pitch, but with Brexit Johnson has shown that he can deliver the unthinkable, even if some don't like it. On the other hand, Starmer might be competent, but he's not exactly inspirational, and too many people behind him will want a hard-left agenda that has alrady been rejected twice by the electorate.
So, what prospectus can the parties offer the electorate that makes the most out of this opportunity for change, without frightening the horses too much?
A lot of people don't want a different normality.
I don't, either. But the old 'normal' will, for many people, not be there. Not just in terms of loved ones who are no longer with us; but also of working practices and locations, or businesses shuttered for good.
Hang on, doesn't this shoot the narrative fox of some on here that people will give up their masks?
The majority of Britons say face masks should continue to be mandatory on both public transport (71%), as well as in shops and some enclosed public spaces (66%) beyond when restrictions are lifted
70% of Britons say they'd feel less safe if in a crowded or un-ventilated place and people were not wearing face masks
This is the case among a majority of all age groups
One thing that all of the iSage and other zero COVID types have yet to answer is what they would do if vaccines aren't enough reach herd immunity.
If the vaccines don't work, then the answer is really very simple, a lot more people will get ill and some of them will die.
There do seem to be people who have the idea that we can choose "no covid" as a population, that's really not an option, in the medium to long term essentially everybody will either get covid or the vaccine will protect them. Once you realase that "no covid" isn't viable it all becomes a lot simpler, vaccinating everybody we can is the only rational response.
The answer is keep some level of restrictions to prevent exponential case growth while throwing money at better vaccines.
The question for the anti-lockdown brigade is what the maximum number of deaths they would be willing to have to pretend we are back to normal.
It depends on who is dying, really. If it's people who have refused the vaccine then it's of no consequence. They made their choice. If it's people 85+ with a million and one underlying conditions who are in death's waiting room then no amount of restrictions are going to make a difference. One of the reasons we have negative excess deaths at the moment is because COVID got a lot of low hanging fruit in waves one and two.
The government has steadfastly refused to reveal information on vaccinated vs unvaccinated stats. I think it would be extremely revealing and smash the case for any continued measures.
In the US as far back as May 2021, 99% of deaths with Covid-19 were of the unvaccinated.
Assuming the 19th now goes ahead I will hold my hands up and admit I was wrong. I really did think that the medical and scientific bods would have one last heave to hold onto the measures. I do wonder how much difference Javid has made, the change in tone has been almost a full 180 turn from Hancock.
Hang on, doesn't this shoot the narrative fox of some on here that people will give up their masks?
The majority of Britons say face masks should continue to be mandatory on both public transport (71%), as well as in shops and some enclosed public spaces (66%) beyond when restrictions are lifted
70% of Britons say they'd feel less safe if in a crowded or un-ventilated place and people were not wearing face masks
This is the case among a majority of all age groups
Javid has said they aren't making a decision on this until next Monday
So did Boris. Monday 12th is "go/no go" decision day for already-decided measures on unlockdown day on the 19th.
Curious. So having billed this as Freedom Day nailed to the floor is happening won't be moved, they haven't actually made the decision yet.
Interesting piece of spin. Will hope for a HURRAH from the papers tomorrow, another HURRAH next Tuesday when today's announcement is locked in, then again fortnight tomorrow after coming into effect.
71% of Britons say facemasks should continue to be mandatory on public transport and 66% say they should continue to be mandatory in shops even once restrictions are lifted
People can still do so after 19th, it will be their choice entirely but they can. I hope as many as possible do, but if not fair enough.
I will still be keeping mine on certainly until I get my second dose in August and probably on the tube still after that, otherwise I will largely get back to normal as the PM has suggested.
If you are not double jabbed however it is clear you will likely have to have a staycation summer break for ever unless you can get enough time to quarantine, even to holiday in Spain
Hang on, doesn't this shoot the narrative fox of some on here that people will give up their masks?
The majority of Britons say face masks should continue to be mandatory on both public transport (71%), as well as in shops and some enclosed public spaces (66%) beyond when restrictions are lifted
70% of Britons say they'd feel less safe if in a crowded or un-ventilated place and people were not wearing face masks
This is the case among a majority of all age groups
Back in 1997, Labour were preparing for a landslide election victory. Now compare that front bench to the current one. It's absolutely startling. And there's something just plain odd about Starmer. He appears to be a hybrid of Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband. At best he's a caretaker leader, and until Labour chance upon someone even vaguely attractive to the majority, they will remain in perpetual opposition.
Back in 1997 we didn't have social media, 24 hour news and instant asynchronous communications. At that point going into politics was something people can aspire to and imagine doing.
Now I look at what MPs have to put up with and think its really just not worth the hassle.
1997 was also 18 years into a Tory government, we are now only 11 years into a Tory government, so the correct comparison is Kinnock's 1990 Shadow Cabinet, not Blair's 1997 Shadow Cabinet
Javid has said they aren't making a decision on this until next Monday
So did Boris. Monday 12th is "go/no go" decision day for already-decided measures on unlockdown day on the 19th.
Curious. So having billed this as Freedom Day nailed to the floor is happening won't be moved, they haven't actually made the decision yet.
Interesting piece of spin. Will hope for a HURRAH from the papers tomorrow, another HURRAH next Tuesday when today's announcement is locked in, then again fortnight tomorrow after coming into effect.
Or, next week on 12th they will look at the figures and somehow back out of it?
Hang on, doesn't this shoot the narrative fox of some on here that people will give up their masks?
The majority of Britons say face masks should continue to be mandatory on both public transport (71%), as well as in shops and some enclosed public spaces (66%) beyond when restrictions are lifted
70% of Britons say they'd feel less safe if in a crowded or un-ventilated place and people were not wearing face masks
This is the case among a majority of all age groups
I was just saying that to my gf. A lot will still wear them, until no ones even getting Covid - fair enough
In that case they'll be in them forever.
No one getting COVID is clearly not going to happen. But people should wear them in crowds (e.g. the Tube) as long as the death rate is above a bad flu year.
Assuming the 19th now goes ahead I will hold my hands up and admit I was wrong. I really did think that the medical and scientific bods would have one last heave to hold onto the measures. I do wonder how much difference Javid has made, the change in tone has been almost a full 180 turn from Hancock.
Hang on, doesn't this shoot the narrative fox of some on here that people will give up their masks?
The majority of Britons say face masks should continue to be mandatory on both public transport (71%), as well as in shops and some enclosed public spaces (66%) beyond when restrictions are lifted
70% of Britons say they'd feel less safe if in a crowded or un-ventilated place and people were not wearing face masks
This is the case among a majority of all age groups
Then those people can continue to wear them. That's the beauty of the policy. No one is saying you can't wear them if you want to do so.
Err, I think you've missed the entire point. The problem is whether other people are wearing masks.
Frankly I think it's completely barmy not continuing with compulsory masks on public transport, which can be very crowded and where many people don't have any choice but to use it. Also the staff are at risk. It's a virtually cost-free measure, it has zero negative impact on the economy (probably a positive impact, because many higher-risk people will be discouraged from using it if others aren't wearing masks), and it is the most trivial infringement on liberty which it is possible to imagine.
In other places it's a bit more nuanced; people sitting in a restaurant without masks, and having to put them on to find the loo, is a ridiculous charade. Shops should I think be left to the discretion of the owners, but with a strong recommendation for supermarkets to keep masks so that the elderly don't feel unsafe when doing essential shopping.
One thing that all of the iSage and other zero COVID types have yet to answer is what they would do if vaccines aren't enough reach herd immunity.
If the vaccines don't work, then the answer is really very simple, a lot more people will get ill and some of them will die.
There do seem to be people who have the idea that we can choose "no covid" as a population, that's really not an option, in the medium to long term essentially everybody will either get covid or the vaccine will protect them. Once you realase that "no covid" isn't viable it all becomes a lot simpler, vaccinating everybody we can is the only rational response.
The answer is keep some level of restrictions to prevent exponential case growth while throwing money at better vaccines.
The question for the anti-lockdown brigade is what the maximum number of deaths they would be willing to have to pretend we are back to normal.
It depends on who is dying, really. If it's people who have refused the vaccine then it's of no consequence. They made their choice. If it's people 85+ with a million and one underlying conditions who are in death's waiting room then no amount of restrictions are going to make a difference. One of the reasons we have negative excess deaths at the moment is because COVID got a lot of low hanging fruit in waves one and two.
The government has steadfastly refused to reveal information on vaccinated vs unvaccinated stats. I think it would be extremely revealing and smash the case for any continued measures.
In the US as far back as May 2021, 99% of deaths with Covid-19 were of the unvaccinated.
1% of a big number can still be a very big number. And many people have medical or age related reasons they cannot take the vaccine.
Back in 1997, Labour were preparing for a landslide election victory. Now compare that front bench to the current one. It's absolutely startling. And there's something just plain odd about Starmer. He appears to be a hybrid of Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband. At best he's a caretaker leader, and until Labour chance upon someone even vaguely attractive to the majority, they will remain in perpetual opposition.
Back in 1997 we didn't have social media, 24 hour news and instant asynchronous communications. At that point going into politics was something people can aspire to and imagine doing.
Now I look at what MPs have to put up with and think its really just not worth the hassle.
1997 was also 18 years into a Tory government, we are now only 11 years into a Tory government, so the correct comparison is Kinnock's 1990 Shadow Cabinet, not Blair's 1997 Shadow Cabinet
Not really I'm looking at current intakes and who would really want to be an MP. There are way easier ways of actually making a difference and way easier ways of earning money.
Javid has said they aren't making a decision on this until next Monday
So did Boris. Monday 12th is "go/no go" decision day for already-decided measures on unlockdown day on the 19th.
Curious. So having billed this as Freedom Day nailed to the floor is happening won't be moved, they haven't actually made the decision yet.
Interesting piece of spin. Will hope for a HURRAH from the papers tomorrow, another HURRAH next Tuesday when today's announcement is locked in, then again fortnight tomorrow after coming into effect.
Tbh this looks normal to me because it is what we did at work for the past couple of decades: first plan; then schedule; finally go/no go. I suppose you are right most of the public won't understand what HMG is up to.
If the cases are doubling every nine days we're going to be on 100k cases on July the 19th?
If I've heard correctly, Whitty has said that the available models suggest that hospitalisations should peak before the healthcare system comes under the kind of pressure it suffered in previous waves.
Hang on, doesn't this shoot the narrative fox of some on here that people will give up their masks?
The majority of Britons say face masks should continue to be mandatory on both public transport (71%), as well as in shops and some enclosed public spaces (66%) beyond when restrictions are lifted
70% of Britons say they'd feel less safe if in a crowded or un-ventilated place and people were not wearing face masks
This is the case among a majority of all age groups
I was just saying that to my gf. A lot will still wear them, until no ones even getting Covid - fair enough
In that case they'll be in them forever.
No one getting COVID is clearly not going to happen. But people should wear them in crowds (e.g. the Tube) as long as the death rate is above a bad flu year.
Do we usually get daily flu/respiratory disease death rates at 5pm on the BBC?
If the cases are doubling every nine days we're going to be on 100k cases on July the 19th?
If I've heard correctly, Whitty has said that the available models suggest that hospitalisations should peak before the healthcare system comes under the kind of pressure it suffered in previous waves.
That's the relevant metric. Cases don't matter.
I know, I'm just thinking of how the prats of ISAGE are going to present freedom day.
Final warning to the likes of @contrarian to get vaxxed lol
Thoughts and prayers for Contrarian.
He said we'd never be free and the restrictions would never end.
Not at all. His, and Steve Baker's, god help us, were hugely important voices throughout the lockdown.
Bollocks.
His failure to get vaccinated at the earliest opportunity is why stage four was delayed.
Ah. Failure to get vaccinated.
Well we have already had Maestro Whitty acknowledge that it has not yet been proved that the benefits outweigh the risks for children to be vaccinated. Do children, apart from their height (!) have any biological or physiological barrier to pass on the virus?
Chris Whitty just endorsed the PM's argument that opening up now is better than opening up in the autumn/winter when the virus will have a natural advantage. Again it's a complex issue but Twitter's brilliant at turning everything into proxy culture war.
Hang on, doesn't this shoot the narrative fox of some on here that people will give up their masks?
The majority of Britons say face masks should continue to be mandatory on both public transport (71%), as well as in shops and some enclosed public spaces (66%) beyond when restrictions are lifted
70% of Britons say they'd feel less safe if in a crowded or un-ventilated place and people were not wearing face masks
This is the case among a majority of all age groups
Then those people can continue to wear them. That's the beauty of the policy. No one is saying you can't wear them if you want to do so.
Err, I think you've missed the entire point. The problem is whether other people are wearing masks.
Frankly I think it's completely barmy not continuing with compulsory masks on public transport, which can be very crowded and where many people don't have any choice but to use it. Also the staff are at risk. It's a virtually cost-free measure, it has zero negative impact on the economy (probably a positive impact, because many higher-risk people will be discouraged from using it if others aren't wearing masks), and it is the most trivial infringement on liberty which it is possible to imagine.
In other places it's a bit more nuanced; people sitting in a restaurant without masks, and having to put them on to find the loo, is a ridiculous charade. Shops should I think be left to the discretion of the owners, but with a strong recommendation for supermarkets to keep masks so that the elderly don't feel unsafe when doing essential shopping.
Masks on public transport seems only sane at the moment - as you say it will encourage usage of public transport rather than discouraging it. For restaurants and shops your logic also follows - let people decide what they wish to do.
The real difficulty is this change is nuanced and neither this Government or our media can cope with nuance.
Back in 1997, Labour were preparing for a landslide election victory. Now compare that front bench to the current one. It's absolutely startling. And there's something just plain odd about Starmer. He appears to be a hybrid of Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband. At best he's a caretaker leader, and until Labour chance upon someone even vaguely attractive to the majority, they will remain in perpetual opposition.
Brown could have become PM in 2010 if the LDs had backed him, similarly Starmer does not need a majority in 2023/4 given the SNP and LDs would give him confidence and supply and the DUP would abstain unless the Irish Sea border is removed, he just needs to deprive the Tories of their majority.
Burnham is probably Labour's only chance of an overall majority and he is the heir in waiting if Starmer falls short and the Tories win a majority again in 2024
I will say three words - 'Labour Party Conference'. It's all that really matters. In my view neither Burnham or Starmer are going to do well.
Final warning to the likes of @contrarian to get vaxxed lol
Thoughts and prayers for Contrarian.
He said we'd never be free and the restrictions would never end.
Not at all. His, and Steve Baker's, god help us, were hugely important voices throughout the lockdown.
Bollocks.
His failure to get vaccinated at the earliest opportunity is why stage four was delayed.
No it wasn't. The problems with demand were tiny. Stage 4 was delayed because Matt Hancock sat on a stack of evidence about how well the vaccines were working, and because he was being advised by some who sought to extend lockdowns indefinitely for their own various reasons and he wasn't bright or strong enough to stand up to them.
One thing that all of the iSage and other zero COVID types have yet to answer is what they would do if vaccines aren't enough reach herd immunity.
If the vaccines don't work, then the answer is really very simple, a lot more people will get ill and some of them will die.
There do seem to be people who have the idea that we can choose "no covid" as a population, that's really not an option, in the medium to long term essentially everybody will either get covid or the vaccine will protect them. Once you realase that "no covid" isn't viable it all becomes a lot simpler, vaccinating everybody we can is the only rational response.
The answer is keep some level of restrictions to prevent exponential case growth while throwing money at better vaccines.
The question for the anti-lockdown brigade is what the maximum number of deaths they would be willing to have to pretend we are back to normal.
We had 50,000 flu deaths about 3 years ago and most people weren't aware of it.
I remember it being covered a lot in the media. But yes, 50,000 deaths a year I could accept. I worry it will be many times more than that until we have a vaccine for kids.
Mandatory masks was necessary the past year to as it was likely the only way to get mass usage - we did not have a culture of using them generally, and as such I don't think relying on people's common sense could be risked during a period unprotected with vaccination.
Now, however, people can take the additional measure to protect themselves or others if they want, we can rely on that common sense approach, with the chance of a nationally significant situation developing far less.
Hang on, doesn't this shoot the narrative fox of some on here that people will give up their masks?
The majority of Britons say face masks should continue to be mandatory on both public transport (71%), as well as in shops and some enclosed public spaces (66%) beyond when restrictions are lifted
70% of Britons say they'd feel less safe if in a crowded or un-ventilated place and people were not wearing face masks
This is the case among a majority of all age groups
Then those people can continue to wear them. That's the beauty of the policy. No one is saying you can't wear them if you want to do so.
Err, I think you've missed the entire point. The problem is whether other people are wearing masks.
Frankly I think it's completely barmy not continuing with compulsory masks on public transport, which can be very crowded and where many people don't have any choice but to use it. Also the staff are at risk. It's a virtually cost-free measure, it has zero negative impact on the economy (probably a positive impact, because many higher-risk people will be discouraged from using it if others aren't wearing masks), and it is the most trivial infringement on liberty which it is possible to imagine.
In other places it's a bit more nuanced; people sitting in a restaurant without masks, and having to put them on to find the loo, is a ridiculous charade. Shops should I think be left to the discretion of the owners, but with a strong recommendation for supermarkets to keep masks so that the elderly don't feel unsafe when doing essential shopping.
People who are concerned enough can get an FFP3 mask with particulate filters. Personally I will probably only wear a mask on a busy tube train and only until such time that we've reached herd immunity. If it's not busy or I'm on the platform I won't bother.
Hang on, doesn't this shoot the narrative fox of some on here that people will give up their masks?
The majority of Britons say face masks should continue to be mandatory on both public transport (71%), as well as in shops and some enclosed public spaces (66%) beyond when restrictions are lifted
70% of Britons say they'd feel less safe if in a crowded or un-ventilated place and people were not wearing face masks
This is the case among a majority of all age groups
Then those people can continue to wear them. That's the beauty of the policy. No one is saying you can't wear them if you want to do so.
Err, I think you've missed the entire point. The problem is whether other people are wearing masks.
Frankly I think it's completely barmy not continuing with compulsory masks on public transport, which can be very crowded and where many people don't have any choice but to use it. Also the staff are at risk. It's a virtually cost-free measure, it has zero negative impact on the economy (probably a positive impact, because many higher-risk people will be discouraged from using it if others aren't wearing masks), and it is the most trivial infringement on liberty which it is possible to imagine.
In other places it's a bit more nuanced; people sitting in a restaurant without masks, and having to put them on to find the loo, is a ridiculous charade. Shops should I think be left to the discretion of the owners, but with a strong recommendation for supermarkets to keep masks so that the elderly don't feel unsafe when doing essential shopping.
Masks on public transport seems only sane at the moment - as you say it will encourage usage of public transport rather than discouraging it. For restaurants and shops your logic also follows - let people decide what they wish to do.
The real difficulty is this change is nuanced and neither this Government or our media can cope with nuance.
Masks are a nuisance.
Let the bodies pile high! Frankly, who cares if a few old people die? Or even a lot, for that matter.
One thing that all of the iSage and other zero COVID types have yet to answer is what they would do if vaccines aren't enough reach herd immunity.
If the vaccines don't work, then the answer is really very simple, a lot more people will get ill and some of them will die.
There do seem to be people who have the idea that we can choose "no covid" as a population, that's really not an option, in the medium to long term essentially everybody will either get covid or the vaccine will protect them. Once you realase that "no covid" isn't viable it all becomes a lot simpler, vaccinating everybody we can is the only rational response.
Indeed, last count I saw was over 200 mammalian species can be infected with SARS-CoV-2, so there is no way we are removing it from all the potential and actual reservoirs out there. Without achieving herd immunity through a combination of vaccination and infection (and possibly even with that), we will see periodic outbreaks.
Vaccines not yet shown definitely to be appropriate for children.
PAGING @Andy_Cooke you need to get onto the JCVI pronto, son, to tell them they've got it all wrong.
I suspect it looks at what figures you care about. The risk of side effects from the vaccine being greater than the level of illness a teenage gets from Covid probably means there is zero medical reason for having the vaccine.
However the length of illness, the amount of time being contagious and other factors mean its probably sensible to vaccinate children. At least then there shouldn't be the need to isolate everyone when cases break out.
Hang on, doesn't this shoot the narrative fox of some on here that people will give up their masks?
The majority of Britons say face masks should continue to be mandatory on both public transport (71%), as well as in shops and some enclosed public spaces (66%) beyond when restrictions are lifted
70% of Britons say they'd feel less safe if in a crowded or un-ventilated place and people were not wearing face masks
This is the case among a majority of all age groups
Then those people can continue to wear them. That's the beauty of the policy. No one is saying you can't wear them if you want to do so.
Err, I think you've missed the entire point. The problem is whether other people are wearing masks.
Frankly I think it's completely barmy not continuing with compulsory masks on public transport, which can be very crowded and where many people don't have any choice but to use it. Also the staff are at risk. It's a virtually cost-free measure, it has zero negative impact on the economy (probably a positive impact, because many higher-risk people will be discouraged from using it if others aren't wearing masks), and it is the most trivial infringement on liberty which it is possible to imagine.
In other places it's a bit more nuanced; people sitting in a restaurant without masks, and having to put them on to find the loo, is a ridiculous charade. Shops should I think be left to the discretion of the owners, but with a strong recommendation for supermarkets to keep masks so that the elderly don't feel unsafe when doing essential shopping.
Masks on public transport seems only sane at the moment - as you say it will encourage usage of public transport rather than discouraging it. For restaurants and shops your logic also follows - let people decide what they wish to do.
The real difficulty is this change is nuanced and neither this Government or our media can cope with nuance.
Masks are a nuisance.
Let the bodies pile high! Frankly, who cares if a few old people die? Or even a lot, for that matter.
HoC: Sir Peter Bottomley gives a shout-out to teachers. (And maybe a friendly reprimand of the Saj's rant against the SNP Health Spox Philippa Whitford).
Hang on, doesn't this shoot the narrative fox of some on here that people will give up their masks?
The majority of Britons say face masks should continue to be mandatory on both public transport (71%), as well as in shops and some enclosed public spaces (66%) beyond when restrictions are lifted
70% of Britons say they'd feel less safe if in a crowded or un-ventilated place and people were not wearing face masks
This is the case among a majority of all age groups
I was just saying that to my gf. A lot will still wear them, until no ones even getting Covid - fair enough
In that case they'll be in them forever.
Even if that is the case, why does it matter to you? Can't see it affects you at all.
I'll be wearing a mask on public transport this winter whatever the government is saying at the time. For what little effort it takes I'd sooner be safe than sorry but it's down to personal choice. Even prior to Covid places like the Tube in winter have always been virus spreaders. If all it does it save me getting a bad cold after someone has sneezed all over me in a crowded train I'd take that as making it worthwhile.
Vaccines not yet shown definitely to be appropriate for children.
PAGING @Andy_Cooke you need to get onto the JCVI pronto, son, to tell them they've got it all wrong.
I suspect it looks at what figures you care about. The risk of side effects from the vaccine being greater than the level of illness a teenage gets from Covid probably means there is zero medical reason for having the vaccine.
However the length of illness, the amount of time being contagious and other factors mean its probably sensible to vaccinate children. At least then there shouldn't be the need to isolate everyone when cases break out.
The figures that JCVI, Whitty and Valance care about show that it is far from certain.
One thing that all of the iSage and other zero COVID types have yet to answer is what they would do if vaccines aren't enough reach herd immunity.
If the vaccines don't work, then the answer is really very simple, a lot more people will get ill and some of them will die.
There do seem to be people who have the idea that we can choose "no covid" as a population, that's really not an option, in the medium to long term essentially everybody will either get covid or the vaccine will protect them. Once you realase that "no covid" isn't viable it all becomes a lot simpler, vaccinating everybody we can is the only rational response.
Indeed, last count I saw was over 200 mammalian species can be infected with SARS-CoV-2, so there is no way we are removing it from all the potential and actual reservoirs out there. Without achieving herd immunity through a combination of vaccination and infection (and possibly even with that), we will see periodic outbreaks.
Prof Francois Balloux @BallouxFrancois I have some revelations to make.
Essentially everyone is expected to catch #COVID19, multiple times during their life. As such, the relevant question is not if people will get exposed to the virus but when they catch it for the first time.
One thing that all of the iSage and other zero COVID types have yet to answer is what they would do if vaccines aren't enough reach herd immunity.
If the vaccines don't work, then the answer is really very simple, a lot more people will get ill and some of them will die.
There do seem to be people who have the idea that we can choose "no covid" as a population, that's really not an option, in the medium to long term essentially everybody will either get covid or the vaccine will protect them. Once you realase that "no covid" isn't viable it all becomes a lot simpler, vaccinating everybody we can is the only rational response.
Indeed, last count I saw was over 200 mammalian species can be infected with SARS-CoV-2, so there is no way we are removing it from all the potential and actual reservoirs out there. Without achieving herd immunity through a combination of vaccination and infection (and possibly even with that), we will see periodic outbreaks.
Just imagine the job of going round the houses demanding the cats to be put down and thrown into the incinerator. (Dogs, not so much, but they would be at risk too.)
Chris Whitty just endorsed the PM's argument that opening up now is better than opening up in the autumn/winter when the virus will have a natural advantage. Again it's a complex issue but Twitter's brilliant at turning everything into proxy culture war.
Oh - such a complex issue, whether we should open up now when vaccination gives us something like 50% immunity, against a virus with an R number of 5-7.
Or wait until as many people as possible are fully vaccinated.
I suppose morons find pretty much anything "complex", though.
Chris Whitty just endorsed the PM's argument that opening up now is better than opening up in the autumn/winter when the virus will have a natural advantage. Again it's a complex issue but Twitter's brilliant at turning everything into proxy culture war.
Is it ideal to unlockdown now? Probably not, it would be better if we had done 90% of adults twice and started making headway with 12-17 year olds. However, there is no ideal scenario because if we wait for that then we start looking at a final step unlockdown in September which means any exit wave will hit in October just as flu season starts.
Every choice on this has got pros and cons. Currently the pros absolutely outweigh the cons. Having an exit wave over the summer when there is going to be less transmission because events are more likely to be outdoors plus there will be less chance of overwhelming the NHS with COVID patients as well as flu patients.
Vaccines not yet shown definitely to be appropriate for children.
PAGING @Andy_Cooke you need to get onto the JCVI pronto, son, to tell them they've got it all wrong.
I suspect it looks at what figures you care about. The risk of side effects from the vaccine being greater than the level of illness a teenage gets from Covid probably means there is zero medical reason for having the vaccine.
However the length of illness, the amount of time being contagious and other factors mean its probably sensible to vaccinate children. At least then there shouldn't be the need to isolate everyone when cases break out.
This does get into the ethical dilemmas of the good of the individual vs the good of the society. Clearly, from a public health perspective, vaccination of children makes sense. But from an individual outcome of the kid being vaccinated, I doubt it is at all clear cut which is the lower risk option.
Hang on, doesn't this shoot the narrative fox of some on here that people will give up their masks?
The majority of Britons say face masks should continue to be mandatory on both public transport (71%), as well as in shops and some enclosed public spaces (66%) beyond when restrictions are lifted
70% of Britons say they'd feel less safe if in a crowded or un-ventilated place and people were not wearing face masks
This is the case among a majority of all age groups
Then those people can continue to wear them. That's the beauty of the policy. No one is saying you can't wear them if you want to do so.
Err, I think you've missed the entire point. The problem is whether other people are wearing masks.
Frankly I think it's completely barmy not continuing with compulsory masks on public transport, which can be very crowded and where many people don't have any choice but to use it. Also the staff are at risk. It's a virtually cost-free measure, it has zero negative impact on the economy (probably a positive impact, because many higher-risk people will be discouraged from using it if others aren't wearing masks), and it is the most trivial infringement on liberty which it is possible to imagine.
In other places it's a bit more nuanced; people sitting in a restaurant without masks, and having to put them on to find the loo, is a ridiculous charade. Shops should I think be left to the discretion of the owners, but with a strong recommendation for supermarkets to keep masks so that the elderly don't feel unsafe when doing essential shopping.
Masks on public transport seems only sane at the moment - as you say it will encourage usage of public transport rather than discouraging it. For restaurants and shops your logic also follows - let people decide what they wish to do.
The real difficulty is this change is nuanced and neither this Government or our media can cope with nuance.
Masks are a nuisance.
Let the bodies pile high! Frankly, who cares if a few old people die? Or even a lot, for that matter.
The dead don't have a vote.
Elderly people who don't die after being ill, do, however, continue to have a vote as do the loved ones of both them and those who do die....
And your approach - may lose the current Government a few votes.
Chris Whitty just endorsed the PM's argument that opening up now is better than opening up in the autumn/winter when the virus will have a natural advantage. Again it's a complex issue but Twitter's brilliant at turning everything into proxy culture war.
Oh - such a complex issue, whether we should open up now when vaccination gives us something like 50% immunity, against a virus with an R number of 5-7.
Or wait until as many people as possible are fully vaccinated.
I suppose morons find pretty much anything "complex", though.
Don't be harsh on yourself, you're not a moron, just the PB jester on this topic.
One of the big mistakes you can make in looking at political leaders is to assume everyone thinks just the same as you.
If I was choosing a Labour leader to appeal to a longstanding LibDem party member, I'd chose someone like SKS.
Urban & urbane, cultured, forensic, suave, professional, Europhile. Not very imaginative & innovative, but hard-working. Not a very inspiring speaker, but solid & stolid. Thinking vigorously in the box, but never outside.
Unsurprisingly, OGH is besotted with him.
Whether SKS will appeal to Northern voters, or voters in Scotland or Wales, is a very different matter.
But, that is the far more important question.
I expect Labour's vote in the highly affluent University seats (like Cambridge) will break all records, next time round.
Vaccines not yet shown definitely to be appropriate for children.
PAGING @Andy_Cooke you need to get onto the JCVI pronto, son, to tell them they've got it all wrong.
I suspect it looks at what figures you care about. The risk of side effects from the vaccine being greater than the level of illness a teenage gets from Covid probably means there is zero medical reason for having the vaccine.
However the length of illness, the amount of time being contagious and other factors mean its probably sensible to vaccinate children. At least then there shouldn't be the need to isolate everyone when cases break out.
Yes I think it's from a medical perspective rather than a life perspective. How damaging is it to kids to have to isolate for 10 days every time there's a ping on that idiotic app? I'd get rid of the app and vaccinate them, personally, but I don't make the decisions.
Tory MP for Cleethorpes stands up and points out that their pox rates are alarmingly high. Would the SofS lease ensure that if it continues to worsen that more resources are given them to cope?
Javid: No. Pox rates are going to rise significantly everywhere. Case rates do not matter, only hospitalisation and death rates.
That last part is odd - surely if local government and health authorities are going to struggle with the expected surge then they should be given assistance. "No" seems to be pretty much the "let it rip" approach that he angrily denied minutes ago.
Can you not just copy and paste the text rather than using screenshots?
The whole point of disabling Twitter embeds was to stop the site crashing, more pics means the site crashes and Robert will disable image embeds.
Um - browsers have supported inline images since circa 1992 - it's a known problem and all browsers support it. Back at on the other PB when it had its messageboard - posting images was called the dark arts simply because few people knew the correct syntax to do it (and that still holds true here).
The issue with twitter is that the Javascript they used to embed the tweets on a page is a pile of donkey cack...
Back in 1997, Labour were preparing for a landslide election victory. Now compare that front bench to the current one. It's absolutely startling. And there's something just plain odd about Starmer. He appears to be a hybrid of Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband. At best he's a caretaker leader, and until Labour chance upon someone even vaguely attractive to the majority, they will remain in perpetual opposition.
Brown could have become PM in 2010 if the LDs had backed him, similarly Starmer does not need a majority in 2023/4 given the SNP and LDs would give him confidence and supply and the DUP would abstain unless the Irish Sea border is removed, he just needs to deprive the Tories of their majority.
Burnham is probably Labour's only chance of an overall majority and he is the heir in waiting if Starmer falls short and the Tories win a majority again in 2024
Lab + LD's totalled 315 seats. That wasn't enough for a majority although 4 Irish votes would have made it closer. Such a Government would have been open to ambush at any time, and makes no allowance for the fact that the Labour Party was 'tired' and needed to refresh itself. Much like the Tory Party was in 2019 when Johnson purged pretty well all the Old Guard.
Chris Whitty just endorsed the PM's argument that opening up now is better than opening up in the autumn/winter when the virus will have a natural advantage. Again it's a complex issue but Twitter's brilliant at turning everything into proxy culture war.
Oh - such a complex issue, whether we should open up now when vaccination gives us something like 50% immunity, against a virus with an R number of 5-7.
Or wait until as many people as possible are fully vaccinated.
I suppose morons find pretty much anything "complex", though.
Don't be harsh on yourself, you're not a moron, just the PB jester on this topic.
And I used to think you had at least half a brain!
Vaccines not yet shown definitely to be appropriate for children.
PAGING @Andy_Cooke you need to get onto the JCVI pronto, son, to tell them they've got it all wrong.
Why do you have to be such a dick about it? Andy has contributed some excellent analysis.
--AS
He has contributed some fantastic analysis. But he was a complete dick about this.
"Why [does he] persist "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there". He asked me, rhetorically.
Whereas my argument was precisely that put forward by Whitty and Valance today.
I've never found Andy to be anything but measured and polite (much more polite than I would be). And I don't think that Whitty said quite what you think he said.
Tory MP for Cleethorpes stands up and points out that their pox rates are alarmingly high. Would the SofS lease ensure that if it continues to worsen that more resources are given them to cope?
Javid: No. Pox rates are going to rise significantly everywhere. Case rates do not matter, only hospitalisation and death rates.
That last part is odd - surely if local government and health authorities are going to struggle with the expected surge then they should be given assistance. "No" seems to be pretty much the "let it rip" approach that he angrily denied minutes ago.
I guess back to normal includes the underfunding of public services...
On Friday, the MHRA announced that it had concluded that the jab is safe and effectiveness in the younger age group, after conducting a ‘rigorous’ review of the vaccine alongside the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) – the government’s independent advisory body.
The MHRA added that no new side effects were identified in 12- to 15-year-olds, with the safety data in children found to be comparable to that observed in young adults.
The majority of side effects in the younger age group – similar to young adults – were mild to moderate and related to reactogenicity, including a sore arm or tiredness.
“We have in place a comprehensive safety surveillance strategy for monitoring the safety of all UK-approved COVID-19 vaccines and this surveillance will include the 12- to 15-year age group,” said June Raine, chief executive of the MHRA.
Hang on, doesn't this shoot the narrative fox of some on here that people will give up their masks?
The majority of Britons say face masks should continue to be mandatory on both public transport (71%), as well as in shops and some enclosed public spaces (66%) beyond when restrictions are lifted
70% of Britons say they'd feel less safe if in a crowded or un-ventilated place and people were not wearing face masks
This is the case among a majority of all age groups
Then those people can continue to wear them. That's the beauty of the policy. No one is saying you can't wear them if you want to do so.
Err, I think you've missed the entire point. The problem is whether other people are wearing masks.
Frankly I think it's completely barmy not continuing with compulsory masks on public transport, which can be very crowded and where many people don't have any choice but to use it. Also the staff are at risk. It's a virtually cost-free measure, it has zero negative impact on the economy (probably a positive impact, because many higher-risk people will be discouraged from using it if others aren't wearing masks), and it is the most trivial infringement on liberty which it is possible to imagine.
In other places it's a bit more nuanced; people sitting in a restaurant without masks, and having to put them on to find the loo, is a ridiculous charade. Shops should I think be left to the discretion of the owners, but with a strong recommendation for supermarkets to keep masks so that the elderly don't feel unsafe when doing essential shopping.
IT'S NOT COST FREE. If we force people to wear a mask they will make other choices. People who previously got public transport will drive or cycle instead. Public transport is on something of a precipice and needs to be made more attractive, not less.
Similarly shops. I'll continue to shop to stay alive of course. But I'm not going to shop for pleasure if I have to wear a mask to do so. I'll use the internet.
If masks work, and we need to wear them, so be it. But the benefit to the double jabbed is almost nil. We shouldn't have to wear them purely 'to make people feel safe'. This is what happens when you spend 18 months trying to terrify people into submission.
Comments
The vaccines have weakened the link between infections and death.
Oh to be the smartest person in the room.
Also, in masks, when a PM is seen in and surrounded by people in masks there is an air of "I'm handling this emergency". When the LotO does the same there is the sense of "he's just a passenger like all of us in this".
imo.
1. Big Government
2. Wellbeing
3. Environmental Issues
4. Anti-globalization
5. Risk-averse decision-making
6. Social-distancing
7. Collective Responsibility
Reads like a Labour Party manifesto!
The majority of Britons say face masks should continue to be mandatory on both public transport (71%), as well as in shops and some enclosed public spaces (66%) beyond when restrictions are lifted
70% of Britons say they'd feel less safe if in a crowded or un-ventilated place and people were not wearing face masks
This is the case among a majority of all age groups
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1412074455141163012
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics/uk-next-prime-minister/prime-minister-after-boris-johnson-betting-1.160843673
If it relies upon self-testing then if people just don't bother to test then is that monitorable?
Given she could have very simply answered the point whilst also objecting to the question, a failure to do so is pretty telling.
Burnham is probably Labour's only chance of an overall majority and he is the heir in waiting if Starmer falls short and the Tories win a majority again in 2024
Maybe that's why people like it?
He said we'd never be free and the restrictions would never end.
Vaccines not yet shown definitely to be appropriate for children.
PAGING @Andy_Cooke you need to get onto the JCVI pronto, son, to tell them they've got it all wrong.
Interesting piece of spin. Will hope for a HURRAH from the papers tomorrow, another HURRAH next Tuesday when today's announcement is locked in, then again fortnight tomorrow after coming into effect.
If you are not double jabbed however it is clear you will likely have to have a staycation summer break for ever unless you can get enough time to quarantine, even to holiday in Spain
Edit: or do you mean that likely 100s of thousands of people will be expected to send PCR tests off every day for 10 days?
Hancock had become completely blinkered imho.
Frankly I think it's completely barmy not continuing with compulsory masks on public transport, which can be very crowded and where many people don't have any choice but to use it. Also the staff are at risk. It's a virtually cost-free measure, it has zero negative impact on the economy (probably a positive impact, because many higher-risk people will be discouraged from using it if others aren't wearing masks), and it is the most trivial infringement on liberty which it is possible to imagine.
In other places it's a bit more nuanced; people sitting in a restaurant without masks, and having to put them on to find the loo, is a ridiculous charade. Shops should I think be left to the discretion of the owners, but with a strong recommendation for supermarkets to keep masks so that the elderly don't feel unsafe when doing essential shopping.
That's the relevant metric. Cases don't matter.
His failure to get vaccinated at the earliest opportunity is why stage four was delayed.
Well we have already had Maestro Whitty acknowledge that it has not yet been proved that the benefits outweigh the risks for children to be vaccinated. Do children, apart from their height (!) have any biological or physiological barrier to pass on the virus?
@contrarian made the same assessment.
Chris Whitty just endorsed the PM's argument that opening up now is better than opening up in the autumn/winter when the virus will have a natural advantage. Again it's a complex issue but Twitter's brilliant at turning everything into proxy culture war.
https://twitter.com/jason_manc/status/1412085495727800321
For restaurants and shops your logic also follows - let people decide what they wish to do.
The real difficulty is this change is nuanced and neither this Government or our media can cope with nuance.
Now, however, people can take the additional measure to protect themselves or others if they want, we can rely on that common sense approach, with the chance of a nationally significant situation developing far less.
If anything I think they made more an argument to keep wearing them, just they aren't going to force you do so and use your own judgement.
It's clear they are really worried about this winter.
Let the bodies pile high! Frankly, who cares if a few old people die? Or even a lot, for that matter.
The dead don't have a vote.
Because he is delivering good news, obvs. And also because Whitty and Valance are onside.
And also for the next pandemic.
However the length of illness, the amount of time being contagious and other factors mean its probably sensible to vaccinate children. At least then there shouldn't be the need to isolate everyone when cases break out.
I'll be wearing a mask on public transport this winter whatever the government is saying at the time. For what little effort it takes I'd sooner be safe than sorry but it's down to personal choice. Even prior to Covid places like the Tube in winter have always been virus spreaders. If all it does it save me getting a bad cold after someone has sneezed all over me in a crowded train I'd take that as making it worthwhile.
Unlike Andy, who was very certain indeed.
@BallouxFrancois
I have some revelations to make.
Essentially everyone is expected to catch #COVID19, multiple times during their life. As such, the relevant question is not if people will get exposed to the virus but when they catch it for the first time.
That was the bad news.
1/
Or wait until as many people as possible are fully vaccinated.
I suppose morons find pretty much anything "complex", though.
--AS
The whole point of disabling Twitter embeds was to stop the site crashing, more pics means the site crashes and Robert will disable image embeds.
Elderly people who don't die after being ill, do, however, continue to have a vote as do the loved ones of both them and those who do die....
And your approach - may lose the current Government a few votes.
One of the big mistakes you can make in looking at political leaders is to assume everyone thinks just the same as you.
If I was choosing a Labour leader to appeal to a longstanding LibDem party member, I'd chose someone like SKS.
Urban & urbane, cultured, forensic, suave, professional, Europhile. Not very imaginative & innovative, but hard-working. Not a very inspiring speaker, but solid & stolid. Thinking vigorously in the box, but never outside.
Unsurprisingly, OGH is besotted with him.
Whether SKS will appeal to Northern voters, or voters in Scotland or Wales, is a very different matter.
But, that is the far more important question.
I expect Labour's vote in the highly affluent University seats (like Cambridge) will break all records, next time round.
"Why [does he] persist "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there". He asked me, rhetorically.
Whereas my argument was precisely that put forward by Whitty and Valance today.
Edit: --T
Javid: No. Pox rates are going to rise significantly everywhere. Case rates do not matter, only hospitalisation and death rates.
That last part is odd - surely if local government and health authorities are going to struggle with the expected surge then they should be given assistance. "No" seems to be pretty much the "let it rip" approach that he angrily denied minutes ago.
The issue with twitter is that the Javascript they used to embed the tweets on a page is a pile of donkey cack...
Much like the Tory Party was in 2019 when Johnson purged pretty well all the Old Guard.
--AS
On Friday, the MHRA announced that it had concluded that the jab is safe and effectiveness in the younger age group, after conducting a ‘rigorous’ review of the vaccine alongside the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) – the government’s independent advisory body.
The MHRA added that no new side effects were identified in 12- to 15-year-olds, with the safety data in children found to be comparable to that observed in young adults.
The majority of side effects in the younger age group – similar to young adults – were mild to moderate and related to reactogenicity, including a sore arm or tiredness.
“We have in place a comprehensive safety surveillance strategy for monitoring the safety of all UK-approved COVID-19 vaccines and this surveillance will include the 12- to 15-year age group,” said June Raine, chief executive of the MHRA.
If we force people to wear a mask they will make other choices. People who previously got public transport will drive or cycle instead. Public transport is on something of a precipice and needs to be made more attractive, not less.
Similarly shops. I'll continue to shop to stay alive of course. But I'm not going to shop for pleasure if I have to wear a mask to do so. I'll use the internet.
If masks work, and we need to wear them, so be it. But the benefit to the double jabbed is almost nil. We shouldn't have to wear them purely 'to make people feel safe'.
This is what happens when you spend 18 months trying to terrify people into submission.