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.
This is probably a fringe view, but here goes:
I'm fortunate in that I only really need to wear a mask whilst shopping or going to pick or drop off my son at school. Of these, the school run is by far the most frequent.
I used to do lots of walking, and would often wear a balaclava in cold weather. I found wearing a mask outside in winter to be a blessing as it helped keep my face warm. Not so much in hot weather, though. For this reason, I may well wear a mask on the school run during winter, especially as the various lurgies are out and about more then.
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!
Well if you thought I had half a brain then that is further proof that you're an idiot, isn't it.
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.
--AS
He gave reasons why the data did not yet justify giving the vaccine to children. As did I.
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.
Yeah it's been approved by the MHRA. Don't see what justification there is not to offer it.
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.
And that was why I would have gone for Jess Philips at the last leadership election.. You need someone who can appeal to the same audience as the opposition and she could have done so...
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.
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
Except that the Lib Dems would not support Brown, since he had lost the election, but Labour would not change leader and told the Lib Dems to get lost. Cameron offered a full coalition, not just confidence and supply, and we were being told that if it did not get agreed that the markets would crash and the Lib Dems would get the blame. However the coalition ended being a trap and I can think of no circumstances at all where the Lib Dems would enter a coalition with the Tories ever again. As OGH said the other day, the Tories having shafted the Lib Dems and then shafted the DUP are "uncoalitionable".
Eventually this Baby Trump government will go the way of the 97 Tories and the Chief Onanist will be out, and I think the rumours of several fun scandals are probably true. However it will be the next locals before we will really be able to read the runes.
In any event SKS can now afford to take a few more risks and set out an anti Baby Trump agenda, so his room for manouvre is increasing as the Onanist faces months of the kind of humilation that only a total narcissist like him could really brazen out.
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.
Yep - it's a complete screw up - as the easiest way to vaccinate them would be in-situ in schools and they could do the first batch this week and the second vaccine when they returned in early September.
Reading the guardian live feed... Whitty said modelling suggests admissions would peak before we get to the level they were in January.
That personally doesn't seem like a great metric for success... hospitals were overwhelmed then and I'd rather we didn't go anywhere near that.
That said, it's encouraging that the scientists feel able to cautiously back this. I guess the vaccine effectiveness is so good that we can handle even big increases in cases with delta variant.
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
I rather default to assume insecurity on his behalf.
Not at all. I explained this afternoon why I am imbued with a superhuman sense of self worth.
But the point remains - I said during our discussion the other day that it was reasonable not to offer vaccines to children given the current understanding of benefits and risks.
IOW just what Whitty and Valance said.
You said: Why [does he] persist "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Perhaps you could email Whitty and Valance to ask them the same thing.
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!
Well if you thought I had half a brain then that is further proof that you're an idiot, isn't it.
You're telling me you don't understand that "at least half a brain" means - well - erm - how on earth can I explain it more simply? Not less than
I don't know. Maybe the moral is just give up on "influencers" understanding even the most basic features of arithmetic.
Let alone exponential growth, and how many hospital admissions we'll have if there are a million positive tests a week, and the hospitalisation rate is still 3%
But who cares? You're not one of the NHS workers who will have to cope with the consequences, I guess. Nor am I, thank God.
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.
Edit: --T
That was straightforward enough. Whenever I mentioned hospitalisation of children, all you'd ever say in return was on the mortality rates. I asked why you ignored the figures on hospitalisation and stated that was my concern. You challenged whether that happened; I linked to the age data from the coronavirus dashboard.
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.
Only a tiny proportion of people are very fussed about wearing masks; it is after all the tiniest of tiny inconveniences. A far greater number are concerned about others NOT wearing masks. (See the polling on this). More importantly, the latter group are rational, the former group, not so much...
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.
That's some exceptionally lazy reading given that not only cases have not stopped going up, they are still growing exponentially. How on earth did you reach that conclusion?
The good news keeps coming, got a pub booked for Wednesday and Sunday (because any final will be great to watch in a pub) for all 6 of us. It's not a fan park but it will do. Traipsing all the way to Richmond for it but 100% worth it.
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.
Yeah it's been approved by the MHRA. Don't see what justification there is not to offer it.
There is no justification - the issue is that this government doesn't think of solutions, it waits until there is only 1 possible option left on the table and then takes it.
See for instance Boris's handling of Matt Hancock last week and everything else where multiple options were available.
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.
Edit: --T
That was straightforward enough. Whenever I mentioned hospitalisation of children, all you'd ever say in return was on the mortality rates. I asked why you ignored the figures on hospitalisation and stated that was my concern. You challenged whether that happened; I linked to the age data from the coronavirus dashboard.
My point was then as now that it is by no means certain that the benefits outweigh the risks for vaccinating children. And it turns out that the JCVI agrees with me.
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.
Only a tiny proportion of people are very fussed about wearing masks; it is after all the tiniest of tiny inconveniences. A far greater number are concerned about others NOT wearing masks. (See the polling on this). More importantly, the latter group are rational, the former group, not so much...
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.
And that was why I would have gone for Jess Philips at the last leadership election.. You need someone who can appeal to the same audience as the opposition and she could have done so...
I actually dislike Jess Phillips intensely ....
But, I think you (& also @isam ) are 100 per cent right on this -- she would have been a great pick for Labour to win GE 2024..
Maybe she will be a still better pick after SKS has lost GE 2024.
Jess is improving (& I find her less annoying than I once did).
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.
"if the benefit to the double jabbed is almost nil". Yes, that presumes that if you are double jabbed you can't catch covid, get ill and die. Go ask a doctor, that isn't remotely the case.
We're opening back up. If the message really is "let it rip" and there is no warning of "this can still kill you" then they really are daft.
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.
Edit: --T
That was straightforward enough. Whenever I mentioned hospitalisation of children, all you'd ever say in return was on the mortality rates. I asked why you ignored the figures on hospitalisation and stated that was my concern. You challenged whether that happened; I linked to the age data from the coronavirus dashboard.
My point was then as now that it is by no means certain that the benefits outweigh the risks for vaccinating children. And it turns out that the JCVI agrees with me.
It wouldn't be MHRA approved if it was. The JCVI I'm afraid is a far more political body than the MHRA right now.
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.
Did you wear a mask during previous flu epidemics?
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.
Only a tiny proportion of people are very fussed about wearing masks; it is after all the tiniest of tiny inconveniences. A far greater number are concerned about others NOT wearing masks. (See the polling on this). More importantly, the latter group are rational, the former group, not so much...
But no one's asking them to stop?
No, they are asking for the right to infect others unnecessarily.
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
Except that the Lib Dems would not support Brown, since he had lost the election, but Labour would not change leader and told the Lib Dems to get lost. Cameron offered a full coalition, not just confidence and supply, and we were being told that if it did not get agreed that the markets would crash and the Lib Dems would get the blame. However the coalition ended being a trap and I can think of no circumstances at all where the Lib Dems would enter a coalition with the Tories ever again. As OGH said the other day, the Tories having shafted the Lib Dems and then shafted the DUP are "uncoalitionable".
Eventually this Baby Trump government will go the way of the 97 Tories and the Chief Onanist will be out, and I think the rumours of several fun scandals are probably true. However it will be the next locals before we will really be able to read the runes.
In any event SKS can now afford to take a few more risks and set out an anti Baby Trump agenda, so his room for manouvre is increasing as the Onanist faces months of the kind of humilation that only a total narcissist like him could really brazen out.
Brown did offer to stand down in 2010. On the question of traps, it was also reported that the Conservatives were surprised that LibDems seemed not to know what was in their own manifesto. (Same may be true of Conservatives in 2019.)
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.
What surge will the specifically struggle with?
An NHS short of resources, a huge backlog of cases on anything that isn't Covid, and a stack of people off sick (albeit not many of them in hospital dying) with Covid. When its any other public health crisis resources are thrown in. Not apparently for post freedom day Covid.
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.
"if the benefit to the double jabbed is almost nil". Yes, that presumes that if you are double jabbed you can't catch covid, get ill and die. Go ask a doctor, that isn't remotely the case.
We're opening back up. If the message really is "let it rip" and there is no warning of "this can still kill you" then they really are daft.
I think the issue is that for better or worse, today's society will not tolerate being locked up for years, which is the logical conclusion of what you suggest. If being double jabbed still leaves you vulnerable to Covid (and of course it does) then there is no time when we could open up.
@Richard_Nabavi - if masks are mandated on public transport, I won't be going to the office. Far safer for me to work from home than to travel on public transport.
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.
Only a tiny proportion of people are very fussed about wearing masks; it is after all the tiniest of tiny inconveniences. A far greater number are concerned about others NOT wearing masks. (See the polling on this). More importantly, the latter group are rational, the former group, not so much...
But no one's asking them to stop?
No, they are asking for the right to infect others unnecessarily.
Death will continue to do its thing to each and every one of us whether I wear a mask on the bus or not.
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.
Edit: --T
That was straightforward enough. Whenever I mentioned hospitalisation of children, all you'd ever say in return was on the mortality rates. I asked why you ignored the figures on hospitalisation and stated that was my concern. You challenged whether that happened; I linked to the age data from the coronavirus dashboard.
My point was then as now that it is by no means certain that the benefits outweigh the risks for vaccinating children. And it turns out that the JCVI agrees with me.
It wouldn't be MHRA approved if it was. The JCVI I'm afraid is a far more political body than the MHRA right now.
That's right I'm sure it is a political body. What do they gain, politically, from their view on giving jabs to children?
@Richard_Nabavi - if masks are mandated on public transport, I won't be going to the office. Far safer for me to work from home than to travel on public transport.
Eh? That's most wonderfully irrational (unless you meant to add a 'not' to the first sentence)
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.
Only a tiny proportion of people are very fussed about wearing masks; it is after all the tiniest of tiny inconveniences. A far greater number are concerned about others NOT wearing masks. (See the polling on this). More importantly, the latter group are rational, the former group, not so much...
But no one's asking them to stop?
No, they are asking for the right to infect others unnecessarily.
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus. We know that "zero covid" is impossible everywhere, and trying to suppress the virus only leads to more variants.
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.
Did you wear a mask during previous flu epidemics?
At least wait for "Freedom Day" before telling us COVID-19 is just like flu.
But perhaps you're pitching for some kind of exceptional achievement award in sheer offensiveness and stupidity?
There we go then. That's pretty much it. The Deep Medical State is not taking over. I hope some of our more excitable posters are slightly reassured by this development.
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.
Only a tiny proportion of people are very fussed about wearing masks; it is after all the tiniest of tiny inconveniences. A far greater number are concerned about others NOT wearing masks. (See the polling on this). More importantly, the latter group are rational, the former group, not so much...
But no one's asking them to stop?
No, they are asking for the right to infect others unnecessarily.
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus.
Quite possibly so, of course.
But for God's sake, how FOR FUCK'S SAKE wouldn't it make more sense to do it as much as possible by vaccination rather than infection?
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus.
Indeed so. In the meantime, we have very good but not perfect or universal protection from the vaccines, which is why opening up is the right thing to do, BUT it should be done with sensible non-intrusive, non-disruptive mitigations.
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.
Did you wear a mask during previous flu epidemics?
At least wait for "Freedom Day" before telling us COVID-19 is just like flu.
But perhaps you're pitching for some kind of exceptional achievement award in sheer offensiveness and stupidity?
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
Except that the Lib Dems would not support Brown, since he had lost the election, but Labour would not change leader and told the Lib Dems to get lost. Cameron offered a full coalition, not just confidence and supply, and we were being told that if it did not get agreed that the markets would crash and the Lib Dems would get the blame. However the coalition ended being a trap and I can think of no circumstances at all where the Lib Dems would enter a coalition with the Tories ever again. As OGH said the other day, the Tories having shafted the Lib Dems and then shafted the DUP are "uncoalitionable".
Eventually this Baby Trump government will go the way of the 97 Tories and the Chief Onanist will be out, and I think the rumours of several fun scandals are probably true. However it will be the next locals before we will really be able to read the runes.
In any event SKS can now afford to take a few more risks and set out an anti Baby Trump agenda, so his room for manouvre is increasing as the Onanist faces months of the kind of humilation that only a total narcissist like him could really brazen out.
Brown did offer to stand down in 2010. On the question of traps, it was also reported that the Conservatives were surprised that LibDems seemed not to know what was in their own manifesto. (Same may be true of Conservatives in 2019.)
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.
Only a tiny proportion of people are very fussed about wearing masks; it is after all the tiniest of tiny inconveniences. A far greater number are concerned about others NOT wearing masks. (See the polling on this). More importantly, the latter group are rational, the former group, not so much...
But no one's asking them to stop?
No, they are asking for the right to infect others unnecessarily.
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus.
Quite possibly so, of course.
But for God's sake, how FOR FUCK'S SAKE wouldn't it make more sense to do it as much as possible by vaccination rather than infection?
Isn't that exactly what has been done? Everyone who wants it can now get 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
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.
Only a tiny proportion of people are very fussed about wearing masks; it is after all the tiniest of tiny inconveniences. A far greater number are concerned about others NOT wearing masks. (See the polling on this). More importantly, the latter group are rational, the former group, not so much...
But no one's asking them to stop?
No, they are asking for the right to infect others unnecessarily.
Then get an FFP3 mask? Pretty sure they'll be two a penny after the 19th.
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
Except that the Lib Dems would not support Brown, since he had lost the election, but Labour would not change leader and told the Lib Dems to get lost. Cameron offered a full coalition, not just confidence and supply, and we were being told that if it did not get agreed that the markets would crash and the Lib Dems would get the blame. However the coalition ended being a trap and I can think of no circumstances at all where the Lib Dems would enter a coalition with the Tories ever again. As OGH said the other day, the Tories having shafted the Lib Dems and then shafted the DUP are "uncoalitionable".
Eventually this Baby Trump government will go the way of the 97 Tories and the Chief Onanist will be out, and I think the rumours of several fun scandals are probably true. However it will be the next locals before we will really be able to read the runes.
In any event SKS can now afford to take a few more risks and set out an anti Baby Trump agenda, so his room for manouvre is increasing as the Onanist faces months of the kind of humilation that only a total narcissist like him could really brazen out.
Reckon that "markets will crash" assumption will actually be tested next time. Rather than blindly asserted.
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.
Did you wear a mask during previous flu epidemics?
At least wait for "Freedom Day" before telling us COVID-19 is just like flu.
But perhaps you're pitching for some kind of exceptional achievement award in sheer offensiveness and stupidity?
Chris you keep on being you.
And your comments remain as absolutely vacuous as ever.
@Richard_Nabavi - if masks are mandated on public transport, I won't be going to the office. Far safer for me to work from home than to travel on public transport.
Eh? That's most wonderfully irrational (unless you meant to add a 'not' to the first sentence)
No. I don't like masks. I get that there may be some benefit in having them when people have no option but to go somewhere. But I'm fine working from home. Surely you understand that there's less chance of me infecting others if I'm at home rather than on a train.
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.
Only a tiny proportion of people are very fussed about wearing masks; it is after all the tiniest of tiny inconveniences. A far greater number are concerned about others NOT wearing masks. (See the polling on this). More importantly, the latter group are rational, the former group, not so much...
But no one's asking them to stop?
No, they are asking for the right to infect others unnecessarily.
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus.
Quite possibly so, of course.
But for God's sake, how FOR FUCK'S SAKE wouldn't it make more sense to do it as much as possible by vaccination rather than infection?
Your anger makes me very happy inside. It fuels my excitement for the 19th knowing it will make you more and more angry as the day approaches.
@Richard_Nabavi - if masks are mandated on public transport, I won't be going to the office. Far safer for me to work from home than to travel on public transport.
Um how does that logic work
Some is infectious - 80% chance of getting infected if you sit near them on the train for 20 minutes. With a mask that 80% chance is not an 80% chance it is a 10% or so chance.
If masks aren't required on public transport I will be far less likely to go via train than I would if masks were required.
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus.
Indeed so. In the meantime, we have very good but not perfect or universal protection from the vaccines, which is why opening up is the right thing to do, BUT it should be done with sensible non-intrusive, non-disruptive mitigations.
It is being done with exactly those things.
You want to wear a mask? Wear a mask. We have heard when Chris Whitty would wear one which is quite a lot. That's great.
But you would give Covid to the bus driver. You're not about to snog him. He has a perspex screen, you both have been vaccinated. What quantum of risk, exactly, do you both face?
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.
Only a tiny proportion of people are very fussed about wearing masks; it is after all the tiniest of tiny inconveniences. A far greater number are concerned about others NOT wearing masks. (See the polling on this). More importantly, the latter group are rational, the former group, not so much...
But no one's asking them to stop?
No, they are asking for the right to infect others unnecessarily.
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus.
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.
Only a tiny proportion of people are very fussed about wearing masks; it is after all the tiniest of tiny inconveniences. A far greater number are concerned about others NOT wearing masks. (See the polling on this). More importantly, the latter group are rational, the former group, not so much...
But no one's asking them to stop?
No, they are asking for the right to infect others unnecessarily.
Death will continue to do its thing to each and every one of us whether I wear a mask on the bus or not.
Do you own a smoke alarm? If so, perhaps you understand the concept of reducing mitigatable risks?
The purpose of the restrictions was to prevent cases overwhelming the NHS. They won't now. We have normality. Anything else you can't cope with is therefore your own problem.
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.
Edit: --T
That was straightforward enough. Whenever I mentioned hospitalisation of children, all you'd ever say in return was on the mortality rates. I asked why you ignored the figures on hospitalisation and stated that was my concern. You challenged whether that happened; I linked to the age data from the coronavirus dashboard.
My point was then as now that it is by no means certain that the benefits outweigh the risks for vaccinating children. And it turns out that the JCVI agrees with me.
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.
Did you wear a mask during previous flu epidemics?
At least wait for "Freedom Day" before telling us COVID-19 is just like flu.
But perhaps you're pitching for some kind of exceptional achievement award in sheer offensiveness and stupidity?
Chris you keep on being you.
And your comments remain as absolutely vacuous as ever.
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
Starmer's not going to be the next PM. Any sniff of a Lab/LD/SNP coalition would frighten the living daylights out of middle England, and without those seats, Labour have zero chance of achieving anything. A few people seem to rate Burnham, though on what evidence I don't know. He's never going to be PM either. It'll be Boris then Sunak and then probably another Tory.
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.
Edit: --T
That was straightforward enough. Whenever I mentioned hospitalisation of children, all you'd ever say in return was on the mortality rates. I asked why you ignored the figures on hospitalisation and stated that was my concern. You challenged whether that happened; I linked to the age data from the coronavirus dashboard.
My point was then as now that it is by no means certain that the benefits outweigh the risks for vaccinating children. And it turns out that the JCVI agrees with me.
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus.
Indeed so. In the meantime, we have very good but not perfect or universal protection from the vaccines, which is why opening up is the right thing to do, BUT it should be done with sensible non-intrusive, non-disruptive mitigations.
It is being done with exactly those things.
You want to wear a mask? Wear a mask. We have heard when Chris Whitty would wear one which is quite a lot. That's great.
But you would give Covid to the bus driver. You're not about to snog him. He has a perspex screen, you both have been vaccinated. What quantum of risk, exactly, do you both face?
You are making the assumption there that the driver has been vaccinated, you can hope he has been but some people haven't been vaccinated (I'm not aware of any bus drivers but I know train drivers who cannot have the vaccines).
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus.
Indeed so. In the meantime, we have very good but not perfect or universal protection from the vaccines, which is why opening up is the right thing to do, BUT it should be done with sensible non-intrusive, non-disruptive mitigations.
It is being done with exactly those things.
You want to wear a mask? Wear a mask. We have heard when Chris Whitty would wear one which is quite a lot. That's great.
But you would give Covid to the bus driver. You're not about to snog him. He has a perspex screen, you both have been vaccinated. What quantum of risk, exactly, do you both face?
You are making the assumption there that the driver has been vaccinated, you can hope he has been but some people haven't been vaccinated (I'm not aware of any bus drivers but I know train drivers who cannot have the vaccines).
Train drivers? I have never been within 200 yards of a train driver unless there has been a big metal barrier between us.
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
Except that the Lib Dems would not support Brown, since he had lost the election, but Labour would not change leader and told the Lib Dems to get lost. Cameron offered a full coalition, not just confidence and supply, and we were being told that if it did not get agreed that the markets would crash and the Lib Dems would get the blame. However the coalition ended being a trap and I can think of no circumstances at all where the Lib Dems would enter a coalition with the Tories ever again. As OGH said the other day, the Tories having shafted the Lib Dems and then shafted the DUP are "uncoalitionable".
Eventually this Baby Trump government will go the way of the 97 Tories and the Chief Onanist will be out, and I think the rumours of several fun scandals are probably true. However it will be the next locals before we will really be able to read the runes.
In any event SKS can now afford to take a few more risks and set out an anti Baby Trump agenda, so his room for manouvre is increasing as the Onanist faces months of the kind of humilation that only a total narcissist like him could really brazen out.
Brown did offer to stand down in 2010. On the question of traps, it was also reported that the Conservatives were surprised that LibDems seemed not to know what was in their own manifesto. (Same may be true of Conservatives in 2019.)
You sure about Brown's offer?
Yes. After the election and while parties were still negotiating, Gordon Brown offered to step down as Prime Minister. I've just checked David Cameron's memoirs and it is in there.
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus.
Indeed so. In the meantime, we have very good but not perfect or universal protection from the vaccines, which is why opening up is the right thing to do, BUT it should be done with sensible non-intrusive, non-disruptive mitigations.
Must say I don't get the public transport thing. Voluntary masks seems an ideal way of preventing it becoming financially viable any time soon. Or getting folk back into work.
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.
Edit: --T
That was straightforward enough. Whenever I mentioned hospitalisation of children, all you'd ever say in return was on the mortality rates. I asked why you ignored the figures on hospitalisation and stated that was my concern. You challenged whether that happened; I linked to the age data from the coronavirus dashboard.
My point was then as now that it is by no means certain that the benefits outweigh the risks for vaccinating children. And it turns out that the JCVI agrees with me.
I also agree with you at the moment.
IT IS END OF DAYS.
Do think on it overnight. There's always a tomorrow.
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus.
Indeed so. In the meantime, we have very good but not perfect or universal protection from the vaccines, which is why opening up is the right thing to do, BUT it should be done with sensible non-intrusive, non-disruptive mitigations.
It is being done with exactly those things.
You want to wear a mask? Wear a mask. We have heard when Chris Whitty would wear one which is quite a lot. That's great.
But you would give Covid to the bus driver. You're not about to snog him. He has a perspex screen, you both have been vaccinated. What quantum of risk, exactly, do you both face?
You are making the assumption there that the driver has been vaccinated, you can hope he has been but some people haven't been vaccinated (I'm not aware of any bus drivers but I know train drivers who cannot have the vaccines).
Train drivers? I have never been within 200 yards of a train driver unless there has been a big metal barrier between us.
My point is that if there are train drivers who cannot use the vaccine (skilled job), I find it incredibly hard to believe that all bus drivers have been vaccinated because it's likely some cannot take the vaccine.
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.
In Guernsey it was the Scientists/Medics who were unanimous in recommending opening up and the politicians who were divided. It’s all very well arguing “delay” without thinking through the consequences - delay opening up until the Autumn - not a good idea!
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus.
Indeed so. In the meantime, we have very good but not perfect or universal protection from the vaccines, which is why opening up is the right thing to do, BUT it should be done with sensible non-intrusive, non-disruptive mitigations.
It is being done with exactly those things.
You want to wear a mask? Wear a mask. We have heard when Chris Whitty would wear one which is quite a lot. That's great.
But you would give Covid to the bus driver. You're not about to snog him. He has a perspex screen, you both have been vaccinated. What quantum of risk, exactly, do you both face?
You are making the assumption there that the driver has been vaccinated, you can hope he has been but some people haven't been vaccinated (I'm not aware of any bus drivers but I know train drivers who cannot have the vaccines).
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
Starmer's not going to be the next PM. Any sniff of a Lab/LD/SNP coalition would frighten the living daylights out of middle England, and without those seats, Labour have zero chance of achieving anything. A few people seem to rate Burnham, though on what evidence I don't know. He's never going to be PM either. It'll be Boris then Sunak and then probably another Tory.
I expect Boris to retire before 2024. If he does then the next Prime Minister will be a Conservative. The Saj was on good form in the Commons today, I thought, but there will be plenty of time to judge him.
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus.
Indeed so. In the meantime, we have very good but not perfect or universal protection from the vaccines, which is why opening up is the right thing to do, BUT it should be done with sensible non-intrusive, non-disruptive mitigations.
Masks are neither non-intrusive nor non disruptive. People do not want to wear them. Watch as they melt away as soon as an element of choice is allowed. Even the virtue signallers who claim they will be wearing masks forever will abandon them. Soon, away from when we are forced, they will be the preserve of the hideously ugly.
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.
"if the benefit to the double jabbed is almost nil". Yes, that presumes that if you are double jabbed you can't catch covid, get ill and die. Go ask a doctor, that isn't remotely the case.
We're opening back up. If the message really is "let it rip" and there is no warning of "this can still kill you" then they really are daft.
I think the issue is that for better or worse, today's society will not tolerate being locked up for years, which is the logical conclusion of what you suggest. If being double jabbed still leaves you vulnerable to Covid (and of course it does) then there is no time when we could open up.
That wouldn't fly.
I'm not suggesting that happen. I am suggesting that when big Covid infections swamp local resources - as other public health outbreaks can do - that the NHS divert resources accordingly. Javid told one of his own backbenchers that he was on his own.
@Richard_Nabavi - if masks are mandated on public transport, I won't be going to the office. Far safer for me to work from home than to travel on public transport.
Um how does that logic work
Some is infectious - 80% chance of getting infected if you sit near them on the train for 20 minutes. With a mask that 80% chance is not an 80% chance it is a 10% or so chance.
If masks aren't required on public transport I will be far less likely to go via train than I would if masks were required.
This same argument is going to happen in offices across the country. Once I'm double jabbed I won't care one bit (to be honest, I'm not that bothered now with one jab).
But someone on our all office call last month asked "why don't people have to wear a mask in the office?" And there was the awkward answer of "well, they don't have to legally" and mentioned people working in supermarkets not having to wear them, etc.
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.
Only a tiny proportion of people are very fussed about wearing masks; it is after all the tiniest of tiny inconveniences. A far greater number are concerned about others NOT wearing masks. (See the polling on this). More importantly, the latter group are rational, the former group, not so much...
But no one's asking them to stop?
No, they are asking for the right to infect others unnecessarily.
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus.
Quite possibly so, of course.
But for God's sake, how FOR FUCK'S SAKE wouldn't it make more sense to do it as much as possible by vaccination rather than infection?
Isn't that exactly what has been done? Everyone who wants it can now get it.
This is my problem in comprehending these "learned" discussions.
Do you not know - or do you not care - or what? - that a single dose has much less efficacy than two doses.
Ditto that the virus is currently spreading most rapidly through the age groups that are not being vaccinated, and for which vaccination is not even available here, whether they or their parents want it? In contrast with much of Europe?
But the loony herd mentality here will carry on banging the drum for the crazy policy of casting aside all caution and going for broke. And the crazies will carry on trying to ridicule anyone here with a different opinion. And the crazies now include some of the people running the site, apparently.
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus.
Indeed so. In the meantime, we have very good but not perfect or universal protection from the vaccines, which is why opening up is the right thing to do, BUT it should be done with sensible non-intrusive, non-disruptive mitigations.
It is being done with exactly those things.
You want to wear a mask? Wear a mask. We have heard when Chris Whitty would wear one which is quite a lot. That's great.
But you would give Covid to the bus driver. You're not about to snog him. He has a perspex screen, you both have been vaccinated. What quantum of risk, exactly, do you both face?
Yes, I've been double-vaccinated, so I'm of little danger to anyone else. But, for the moment, not everyone has. The current danger is mainly from unvaccinated youngsters, infecting each other and, as we can see from the current figures, possibly falling ill themselves, or infecting more vulnerable people for whom the vaccines aren't 100% effective. If the 'cost' (in economic, social, and liberty terms) of mandatory mask wearing was high, it might be sensible to accept those increased infections and serious illnesses. But since the cost is vanishingly close to zero on all three fronts (probably indeed negative on two of them), it is not sensible.
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
Starmer's not going to be the next PM. Any sniff of a Lab/LD/SNP coalition would frighten the living daylights out of middle England, and without those seats, Labour have zero chance of achieving anything. A few people seem to rate Burnham, though on what evidence I don't know. He's never going to be PM either. It'll be Boris then Sunak and then probably another Tory.
Labour's chronic weakness means that the theory that a critical mass of the English won't tolerate handing any power over to Scots Nats is going to be tested to destruction over the coming years.
As ever, the only apparent sustainable solutions to this thorny problem are (i) a federal system providing for an English Parliament, (ii) the replacement of the SNP by a pro-Union party as the dominant political force in Scotland, or (iii) divorce. And there's bugger all chance of (i) and (ii)...
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus.
Indeed so. In the meantime, we have very good but not perfect or universal protection from the vaccines, which is why opening up is the right thing to do, BUT it should be done with sensible non-intrusive, non-disruptive mitigations.
It is being done with exactly those things.
You want to wear a mask? Wear a mask. We have heard when Chris Whitty would wear one which is quite a lot. That's great.
But you would give Covid to the bus driver. You're not about to snog him. He has a perspex screen, you both have been vaccinated. What quantum of risk, exactly, do you both face?
Yes, I've been double-vaccinated, so I'm of little danger to anyone else. But, for the moment, not everyone has. The current danger is mainly from unvaccinated youngsters, infecting each other and, as we can see from the current figures, possibly falling ill themselves, or infecting more vulnerable people for whom the vaccines aren't 100% effective. If the 'cost' (in economic, social, and liberty terms) of mandatory mask wearing was high, it might be sensible to accept those increased infections and serious illnesses. But since the cost is vanishingly close to zero on all three fronts (probably indeed negative on two of them), it is not sensible.
I can exclusively reveal that on Lothian Buses, unvaccinated youngsters never wore masks.
William Hague was also pretty devastating when it came to PMQs but made no headroom.
Starmer's problem is multi-faceted. There is the woke issue. His personality doesn't help as it comes across as somewhat insincere and saying what he thinks people want to hear. The main thing is his brand - he's viewed by many of those he needs to win back in traditional Red Wall seats as a hardcore Remainer. Labour would be better off with Burnham - he wouldn't win either but at least he would give a better impression Labour has accepted the Brexit vote and he would not come across as another one of the North London metro elite.
If Starmer is "somewhat insincere", how would you judge the PM? The epitome of sincerity and honesty? Ye gods.
But, but, but Boris being a lying shit is priced in with voters which apparently makes it just fine, for reasons not entirely clear to me.
@Richard_Nabavi - if masks are mandated on public transport, I won't be going to the office. Far safer for me to work from home than to travel on public transport.
Um how does that logic work
Some is infectious - 80% chance of getting infected if you sit near them on the train for 20 minutes. With a mask that 80% chance is not an 80% chance it is a 10% or so chance.
If masks aren't required on public transport I will be far less likely to go via train than I would if masks were required.
This same argument is going to happen in offices across the country. Once I'm double jabbed I won't care one bit (to be honest, I'm not that bothered now with one jab).
But someone on our all office call last month asked "why don't people have to wear a mask in the office?" And there was the awkward answer of "well, they don't have to legally" and mentioned people working in supermarkets not having to wear them, etc.
Offices and schools you are working with the same group of people every day..
That just isn't the case on the train - it's very much a mixing pot of x00 people from x00 different places.
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus.
Indeed so. In the meantime, we have very good but not perfect or universal protection from the vaccines, which is why opening up is the right thing to do, BUT it should be done with sensible non-intrusive, non-disruptive mitigations.
It is being done with exactly those things.
You want to wear a mask? Wear a mask. We have heard when Chris Whitty would wear one which is quite a lot. That's great.
But you would give Covid to the bus driver. You're not about to snog him. He has a perspex screen, you both have been vaccinated. What quantum of risk, exactly, do you both face?
Yes, I've been double-vaccinated, so I'm of little danger to anyone else. But, for the moment, not everyone has. The current danger is mainly from unvaccinated youngsters, infecting each other and, as we can see from the current figures, possibly falling ill themselves, or infecting more vulnerable people for whom the vaccines aren't 100% effective. If the 'cost' (in economic, social, and liberty terms) of mandatory mask wearing was high, it might be sensible to accept those increased infections and serious illnesses. But since the cost is vanishingly close to zero on all three fronts (probably indeed negative on two of them), it is not sensible.
I don't think it is close to zero. I think there is a significant psychological cost of being in an environment where people are wearing masks. Can't quantify it, obvs.
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.
Only a tiny proportion of people are very fussed about wearing masks; it is after all the tiniest of tiny inconveniences. A far greater number are concerned about others NOT wearing masks. (See the polling on this). More importantly, the latter group are rational, the former group, not so much...
But no one's asking them to stop?
No, they are asking for the right to infect others unnecessarily.
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus.
Quite possibly so, of course.
But for God's sake, how FOR FUCK'S SAKE wouldn't it make more sense to do it as much as possible by vaccination rather than infection?
Isn't that exactly what has been done? Everyone who wants it can now get it.
But not teenagers - which means come September it's going to be isolation roulette again...
I am not really sure what the point of that press conference was in terms of they announced Freedom Day, without announcing Freedom Day. Why didn't they either just announce it for certain or wait a week?
I must confess that I, along with 99.9% of the population, missed SKS's "lethal" performance at last week's PMQs. Shameful I know for someone that posts on this board but it gives some small insight into what the vast majority of the population might think. Last week they were more likely thinking about lockdown regulations, whether they can plan a holiday and how England might get on in a football match.
Has anyone asked the question on revisiting the AZ risk/benefit analysis in the light of much higher case numbers? When the decision was taken case numbers (and hence benefits of being vaccinated) were much lower.
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.
Only a tiny proportion of people are very fussed about wearing masks; it is after all the tiniest of tiny inconveniences. A far greater number are concerned about others NOT wearing masks. (See the polling on this). More importantly, the latter group are rational, the former group, not so much...
But no one's asking them to stop?
No, they are asking for the right to infect others unnecessarily.
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus.
Quite possibly so, of course.
But for God's sake, how FOR FUCK'S SAKE wouldn't it make more sense to do it as much as possible by vaccination rather than infection?
Isn't that exactly what has been done? Everyone who wants it can now get it.
This is my problem in comprehending these "learned" discussions.
Do you not know - or do you not care - or what? - that a single dose has much less efficacy than two doses.
Ditto that the virus is currently spreading most rapidly through the age groups that are not being vaccinated, and for which vaccination is not even available here, whether they or their parents want it? In contrast with much of Europe?
But the loony herd mentality here will carry on banging the drum for the crazy policy of casting aside all caution and going for broke. And the crazies will carry on trying to ridicule anyone here with a different opinion. And the crazies now include some of the people running the site, apparently.
It's not crazy. We have reduced the CFR of COVID to approaching that of seasonal flu. Or even less. We have reduced it to an acceptable level of risk. Anyone worried about catching it on public transport can wear an FFP13 mask. Anyone worried about catching it in the pub, can not go to one. Personally I am looking forward to travelling home by train from Newcastle on the 19th unmasked (and having a few non-socially distanced drinks beforehand).
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.
Only a tiny proportion of people are very fussed about wearing masks; it is after all the tiniest of tiny inconveniences. A far greater number are concerned about others NOT wearing masks. (See the polling on this). More importantly, the latter group are rational, the former group, not so much...
But no one's asking them to stop?
No, they are asking for the right to infect others unnecessarily.
Herd immunity remains the only way out of this situation, whether by vaccination or by catching the virus.
Quite possibly so, of course.
But for God's sake, how FOR FUCK'S SAKE wouldn't it make more sense to do it as much as possible by vaccination rather than infection?
Your anger makes me very happy inside. It fuels my excitement for the 19th knowing it will make you more and more angry as the day approaches.
Not at all. It's been obvious for a long time that it's going to happen.
What's been not quite so obvious is that ALL the safeguards such as mask-wearing would be totally discarded, for purely political reasons.
It says something about you, of course, that you're "excited" about it, and that you feel "very happy inside" about other people's concerns.
Fortunately I don't feel particularly at risk myself. I'm not that old, I'm in good health, I'm fully vaccinated. I'm not actually obliged to travel or to have close contact with a lot of people.
But I do feel concerned about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccines aren't going to be effective. They don't have any choice. With case numbers sky-high, if all the protective measures are abaondoned for political reasons, they are either going to be put at risk, or they are going to be forced back into isolation.
Those - and the health workers who have to deal with the consequences - are the people I'm concerned about. I get the impression that you and most of the people here couldn't give a damn about them.
Listening to the Welsh news they have shown Boris removing restrictions, but saying this does not apply to Wales
They go on to say it will be the middle of next week before the Welsh government decides that they may, may not, may, may not follow England but who knows
It is clear Drakeford is going to have to change his 'we are keeping you locking down until 2022' otherwise he is going to see widespread disobedience and no doubt further legal challenges from disadvantaged Welsh businesses
Has anyone asked the question on revisiting the AZ risk/benefit analysis in the light of much higher case numbers? When the decision was taken case numbers (and hence benefits of being vaccinated) were much lower.
We're heading into demand limitation for 1st doses, as 2nds follow 1sts a change would be moot. Trials on u-18s have been stopped so it won't be MHRA approved for that age bracket - basically there's no point in the Astra jab outside of boosters in the UK now.
Comments
I'm fortunate in that I only really need to wear a mask whilst shopping or going to pick or drop off my son at school. Of these, the school run is by far the most frequent.
I used to do lots of walking, and would often wear a balaclava in cold weather. I found wearing a mask outside in winter to be a blessing as it helped keep my face warm. Not so much in hot weather, though. For this reason, I may well wear a mask on the school run during winter, especially as the various lurgies are out and about more then.
--T
Freedom, back in the office after nearly 17 months away.
Time to go plan this fun.
Eventually this Baby Trump government will go the way of the 97 Tories and the Chief Onanist will be out, and I think the rumours of several fun scandals are probably true. However it will be the next locals before we will really be able to read the runes.
In any event SKS can now afford to take a few more risks and set out an anti Baby Trump agenda, so his room for manouvre is increasing as the Onanist faces months of the kind of humilation that only a total narcissist like him could really brazen out.
By end September everyone would have been done.
That personally doesn't seem like a great metric for success... hospitals were overwhelmed then and I'd rather we didn't go anywhere near that.
That said, it's encouraging that the scientists feel able to cautiously back this. I guess the vaccine effectiveness is so good that we can handle even big increases in cases with delta variant.
A number of MPs agree.
But the point remains - I said during our discussion the other day that it was reasonable not to offer vaccines to children given the current understanding of benefits and risks.
IOW just what Whitty and Valance said.
You said: Why [does he] persist "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Perhaps you could email Whitty and Valance to ask them the same thing.
I don't know. Maybe the moral is just give up on "influencers" understanding even the most basic features of arithmetic.
Let alone exponential growth, and how many hospital admissions we'll have if there are a million positive tests a week, and the hospitalisation rate is still 3%
But who cares? You're not one of the NHS workers who will have to cope with the consequences, I guess. Nor am I, thank God.
Whenever I mentioned hospitalisation of children, all you'd ever say in return was on the mortality rates.
I asked why you ignored the figures on hospitalisation and stated that was my concern.
You challenged whether that happened; I linked to the age data from the coronavirus dashboard.
https://twitter.com/BristOliver/status/1412065361550352385?s=20
See for instance Boris's handling of Matt Hancock last week and everything else where multiple options were available.
But, I think you (& also @isam ) are 100 per cent right on this -- she would have been a great pick for Labour to win GE 2024..
Maybe she will be a still better pick after SKS has lost GE 2024.
Jess is improving (& I find her less annoying than I once did).
https://twitter.com/BristOliver/status/1412059284381356034?s=20
We're opening back up. If the message really is "let it rip" and there is no warning of "this can still kill you" then they really are daft.
That wouldn't fly.
He does far better when questioned, but it's not an escape from berk-ville.
But perhaps you're pitching for some kind of exceptional achievement award in sheer offensiveness and stupidity?
But for God's sake, how FOR FUCK'S SAKE wouldn't it make more sense to do it as much as possible by vaccination rather than infection?
Rather than blindly asserted.
Some is infectious - 80% chance of getting infected if you sit near them on the train for 20 minutes.
With a mask that 80% chance is not an 80% chance it is a 10% or so chance.
If masks aren't required on public transport I will be far less likely to go via train than I would if masks were required.
You want to wear a mask? Wear a mask. We have heard when Chris Whitty would wear one which is quite a lot. That's great.
But you would give Covid to the bus driver. You're not about to snog him. He has a perspex screen, you both have been vaccinated. What quantum of risk, exactly, do you both face?
Voluntary masks seems an ideal way of preventing it becoming financially viable any time soon.
Or getting folk back into work.
People do not want to wear them. Watch as they melt away as soon as an element of choice is allowed. Even the virtue signallers who claim they will be wearing masks forever will abandon them. Soon, away from when we are forced, they will be the preserve of the hideously ugly.
How many robots does it take to run a grocery store?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssZ_8cqfBlE
But someone on our all office call last month asked "why don't people have to wear a mask in the office?" And there was the awkward answer of "well, they don't have to legally" and mentioned people working in supermarkets not having to wear them, etc.
Do you not know - or do you not care - or what? - that a single dose has much less efficacy than two doses.
Ditto that the virus is currently spreading most rapidly through the age groups that are not being vaccinated, and for which vaccination is not even available here, whether they or their parents want it? In contrast with much of Europe?
But the loony herd mentality here will carry on banging the drum for the crazy policy of casting aside all caution and going for broke. And the crazies will carry on trying to ridicule anyone here with a different opinion. And the crazies now include some of the people running the site, apparently.
As ever, the only apparent sustainable solutions to this thorny problem are (i) a federal system providing for an English Parliament, (ii) the replacement of the SNP by a pro-Union party as the dominant political force in Scotland, or (iii) divorce. And there's bugger all chance of (i) and (ii)...
That just isn't the case on the train - it's very much a mixing pot of x00 people from x00 different places.
The Senator Who Decided to Tell the Truth
A Michigan Republican spent eight months searching for evidence of election fraud, but all he found was lies.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/06/michigan-republican-truth-election-fraud/619326/
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1412093760473817091/photo/1
What's been not quite so obvious is that ALL the safeguards such as mask-wearing would be totally discarded, for purely political reasons.
It says something about you, of course, that you're "excited" about it, and that you feel "very happy inside" about other people's concerns.
Fortunately I don't feel particularly at risk myself. I'm not that old, I'm in good health, I'm fully vaccinated. I'm not actually obliged to travel or to have close contact with a lot of people.
But I do feel concerned about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccines aren't going to be effective. They don't have any choice. With case numbers sky-high, if all the protective measures are abaondoned for political reasons, they are either going to be put at risk, or they are going to be forced back into isolation.
Those - and the health workers who have to deal with the consequences - are the people I'm concerned about. I get the impression that you and most of the people here couldn't give a damn about them.
They go on to say it will be the middle of next week before the Welsh government decides that they may, may not, may, may not follow England but who knows
It is clear Drakeford is going to have to change his 'we are keeping you locking down until 2022' otherwise he is going to see widespread disobedience and no doubt further legal challenges from disadvantaged Welsh businesses