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.
That's a very good point. In fact, Ireland has just changed its policy and is now offering AZ (and J&J) to under-40s.
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.
I think we're back to the where we were at the very beginning of this pandemic before it was known quite how many people would end up in hospital.
The government expects you to be exposed to the virus. Not at exactly the same time as everyone else, but sometime soon. Given that, why would the government need to require any mitigation if the NHS will cope?
It might actually be better to get this Delta variant than the Omega variant which will no doubt turn up soon.
The UK's rise in Delta cases (per capita) is higher than many countries experiencing significant surges in Asia and Africa were Delta is dominant. The difference is the UK's minimal rise in deaths and 86% adults vaccination rate (≥ 1 dose)
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?
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...
No, because the bubble system is being abandoned. That's the biggest thing from this for me.
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.
That's a very good point. In fact, Ireland has just changed its policy and is now offering AZ (and J&J) to under-40s.
Ireland is not into the demand limitation asymptote for it's rollout.
Its a bit of a hobby horse for Dr John Campbell, but he is talking about a new paper on this issue.....basically ~2-3x more likely to be hospitalised in those with Vitamin D deficiency.
@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.
Okay, but the point I'm making is that mask zealotry goes beyond wanting them enforced 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.
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...
No, because the bubble system is being abandoned. That's the biggest thing from this for me.
And, even more crucially, self-isolation for contacts. The double jabbed and children both to be exempted. The test and trace system, for all the good it has done to date, might as well be shut down at the end of August.
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.
But the two groups you've mentioned that's going to happen whenever we unlockdown. If they can't get the vaccine then that's unfortunate for them and they will need to take better precautions such as an FFP3 mask. For people who the vaccine doesn't take in they're still in that situation whether we unlockdown now or in another month or three months.
So once again, what exactly are you suggesting we should do? Stay locked down forever, keep social distancing and masks forever? No vaccine is ever going to be 100% effective. That's the reality we all have to live with, the NHS included. If we need to increase resources for healthcare to deal with that new reality then we should do that, the alternative isn't acceptable.
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.
That's a very good point. In fact, Ireland has just changed its policy and is now offering AZ (and J&J) to under-40s.
Ireland is not into the demand limitation asymptote for it's rollout.
True. It might not make sense in the UK, especially since the mRNA vaccines are faster-acting.
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.
That's a very good point. In fact, Ireland has just changed its policy and is now offering AZ (and J&J) to under-40s.
No point, we've already hit the demand wall for first doses. If we get an additional 1.5% of adults done this week it would be an achievement.
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...
No, because the bubble system is being abandoned. That's the biggest thing from this for me.
Yes I know this has been a huge and frustrating issue for you. I agree also. It is ludicrous to have so many children self-isolate. And vaccinated adults, for that matter, which is my particular bugbear.
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.
The MRHA made that assessment, as is their job, and came out in favour.
I wouldn't make it compulsory (except in Health and Social care) but reasonable to make it available.
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?
Its been done Chris. Its over.
Every adult has been vaccinated (or been offered a vaccine) at least already.
As for kids the JCVI isn't yet convinced that the benefit outweighs the risks.
So what are you suggesting we wait for? The vaccine rollout is done.
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
@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.
With a prevalence of 1/200 or so, and probably higher in the working age range, there is probably an infectious Delta case in every second tube carriage at peak times.
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.
The MRHA made that assessment, as is their job, and came out in favour.
I wouldn't make it compulsory (except in Health and Social care) but reasonable to make it available.
Yes, this is what I'd say. Make it available for those who want it. I'm sure there's loads of 14-17 year olds who would have it.
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.
Burnham is preferred to Sunak on the latest Redfield polling as preferred PM, though Boris is preferred to both still and all 3 are preferred to Starmer.
No government in history has won a general election after more than 13 years in power since universal suffrage in 1918 so even if the Tories do win the next general election I cannot see them winning another election after that
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Post-vaccination Covid seems to be no worse than flu, absolutely.
And the vaccine rollout is done.
If people want to shield, that's their choice, its not on everyone else to do so.
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?
Its been done Chris. Its over.
Every adult has been vaccinated (or been offered a vaccine) at least already.
As for kids the JCVI isn't yet convinced that the benefit outweighs the risks.
So what are you suggesting we wait for? The vaccine rollout is done.
See previous reply to same question. Containng information you must/should be aware of already,
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
While the CFR is now approaching flu, the morbidity is not. Flu rarely has long term impact on survivors. Covid does.
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
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.
I think we're back to the where we were at the very beginning of this pandemic before it was known quite how many people would end up in hospital.
The government expects you to be exposed to the virus. Not at exactly the same time as everyone else, but sometime soon. Given that, why would the government need to require any mitigation if the NHS will cope?
It might actually be better to get this Delta variant than the Omega variant which will no doubt turn up soon.
I did wonder if they were hoping that a lot of people will get it, trivially, over the summer, so we will have more immunity come autumn and winter.
@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.
With a prevalence of 1/200 or so, and probably higher in the working age range, there is probably an infectious Delta case in every second tube carriage at peak times.
and from the 19th that person is going to be unmasked...
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.
The MRHA made that assessment, as is their job, and came out in favour.
I wouldn't make it compulsory (except in Health and Social care) but reasonable to make it available.
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.
But the two groups you've mentioned that's going to happen whenever we unlockdown.
No, of course it isn't, because the higher the level of immunity we achieve the fewer will be the case numbers.
Again - it should be so obvious, and I don't know whether people can't understand it or they just wilfully ignore it because minor inconveniences like wearing masks for a few weeks longer really mean more to them than savng other people's lives.
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.
The MRHA made that assessment, as is their job, and came out in favour.
I wouldn't make it compulsory (except in Health and Social care) but reasonable to make it available.
Why do you think the JCVI decided as it did?
No idea. The MRHA has the legal responsibility to approve medicines on the basis of risks and benefits. The JVCI takes in other issues, such as cost and logistics.
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?
Its been done Chris. Its over.
Every adult has been vaccinated (or been offered a vaccine) at least already.
As for kids the JCVI isn't yet convinced that the benefit outweighs the risks.
So what are you suggesting we wait for? The vaccine rollout is done.
See previous reply to same question. Containng information you must/should be aware of already,
Yes, nothing new.
The virus is spreading amongst those who are not vulnerable to Covid and to whom the JCVI think the risk is so negligible that they're not convinced the vaccine is even worth it.
The people who were vulnerable to the virus have been vaccinated, twice. All other adults are eligible too. Time to move on.
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.
But the two groups you've mentioned that's going to happen whenever we unlockdown.
No, of course it isn't, because the higher the level of immunity we achieve the fewer will be the case numbers.
Again - it should be so obvious, and I don't know whether people can't understand it or they just wilfully ignore it because minor inconveniences like wearing masks for a few weeks longer really mean more to them than savng other people's lives.
Because case numbers don't matter a jot if they're not causing hospitalisations and deaths. Hospitalisations and deaths with "high case numbers" now are below flu numbers, so the data shows Covid is less risk than the flu now post-vaccine.
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
I really thought everyone understood that the purpose of wearing masks was to protect other people from infection by the mask-wearer.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
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.
Burnham is preferred to Sunak on the latest Redfield polling as preferred PM, though Boris is preferred to both still and all 3 are preferred to Starmer.
No government in history has won a general election after more than 13 years in power since universal suffrage in 1918 so even if the Tories do win the next general election I cannot see them winning another election after that
That rather depends on whether or not the available alternative continues to fall below the threshold of acceptability for a critical fraction of the electorate. I'm sure you'd concur that an unpopular Opposition can't get back in simply by sitting on its arse and waiting for Buggins' turn.
There is no absolute barrier to lengthy periods of single party power in democratic systems.
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.
The MRHA made that assessment, as is their job, and came out in favour.
I wouldn't make it compulsory (except in Health and Social care) but reasonable to make it available.
Why do you think the JCVI decided as it did?
No idea. The MRHA has the legal responsibility to approve medicines on the basis of risks and benefits. The JVCI takes in other issues, such as cost and logistics.
You think they decided that it's case not proven for vaccinating children because of costs and logistics?
The one thing Starmer has absolutely got on his side is that the Labour Party is useless at getting rid of bad leaders.
Maybe the quiet forensic man will turn up the volume.
There needs to be a new extended metaphor. 'I am the forensic man, and I am no longer going to be a silent witness to Tory destruction of our public services!'
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.
But the two groups you've mentioned that's going to happen whenever we unlockdown.
No, of course it isn't, because the higher the level of immunity we achieve the fewer will be the case numbers.
Again - it should be so obvious, and I don't know whether people can't understand it or they just wilfully ignore it because minor inconveniences like wearing masks for a few weeks longer really mean more to them than savng other people's lives.
Because case numbers don't matter a jot if they're not causing hospitalisations and deaths. Hospitalisations and deaths with "high case numbers" now are below flu numbers, so the data shows Covid is less risk than the flu now post-vaccine.
They do of course in that they're very likely to produce variants. There's more likelihood that variants will be benign than deadly, but there's a big risk.
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.
But the two groups you've mentioned that's going to happen whenever we unlockdown. If they can't get the vaccine then that's unfortunate for them and they will need to take better precautions such as an FFP3 mask. For people who the vaccine doesn't take in they're still in that situation whether we unlockdown now or in another month or three months.
So once again, what exactly are you suggesting we should do? Stay locked down forever, keep social distancing and masks forever? No vaccine is ever going to be 100% effective. That's the reality we all have to live with, the NHS included. If we need to increase resources for healthcare to deal with that new reality then we should do that, the alternative isn't acceptable.
Exactly ... Chris "we" (those on the other side of the argument to you) have given a VERY BIG DAMN about the vulnerable for 18 months now but enough is enough ... time to give a damn about those who have lost their livelihoods (like those in the hospitality industry), those who have lost a critical time in their education and their formative teenage years (like my daughter), those who have not seen their family in Scotland for nearly two years (like me) and on and on. If not now, when?
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.
But the two groups you've mentioned that's going to happen whenever we unlockdown.
No, of course it isn't, because the higher the level of immunity we achieve the fewer will be the case numbers.
Again - it should be so obvious, and I don't know whether people can't understand it or they just wilfully ignore it because minor inconveniences like wearing masks for a few weeks longer really mean more to them than savng other people's lives.
But we know that not to be the case with Delta. It's got very high efficacy at protection from hospitalisation but it hits only 90% against symptomatic infection. The herd immunity level is something like 85% double jabbed or infected in a population, there's simply no way we're going to get to that level without an exit wave of infections. It's simply better to do it now in the summer than later on. Your path means restrictions until at least next April.
I'm more than happy to get kids jabbed but ultimately the JCVI says otherwise, it's stupid but that's the reality we're dealing with so under 18s will get acquired immunity over the summer rather than over the autumn when they'll be much more likely to give it to their 87 year old granny who didn't take well to the vaccine because it will be raining and granny can't go outside in the rain or cold.
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.
I think we're back to the where we were at the very beginning of this pandemic before it was known quite how many people would end up in hospital.
The government expects you to be exposed to the virus. Not at exactly the same time as everyone else, but sometime soon. Given that, why would the government need to require any mitigation if the NHS will cope?
It might actually be better to get this Delta variant than the Omega variant which will no doubt turn up soon.
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.
But the two groups you've mentioned that's going to happen whenever we unlockdown.
No, of course it isn't, because the higher the level of immunity we achieve the fewer will be the case numbers.
Again - it should be so obvious, and I don't know whether people can't understand it or they just wilfully ignore it because minor inconveniences like wearing masks for a few weeks longer really mean more to them than savng other people's lives.
Because case numbers don't matter a jot if they're not causing hospitalisations and deaths. Hospitalisations and deaths with "high case numbers" now are below flu numbers, so the data shows Covid is less risk than the flu now post-vaccine.
Well, if you believe COVID-19 is a disease that is so unusual that it has paranormal powers and somehow senses how many cases there are, and reduces its severity in inverse proportion to the number of cases, then perhaps that would make sense, from your very special perspective.
But let's try to retain our sanity and remain on the planet Earth. If we let case numbers rise without restraint, there are going to be many more hospitalisations and deaths than there would be otherwise.
The hospitalisaton rate at the moment is around 3%. Thanks to the vaccines it is lower than it was 6 months ago - perhaps a half or a third. But if we get to a million cases a week, which we may do in a month or so, then it should be within the abilities of most people here to work out how many people will be hospitalised every day.
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...
No, because the bubble system is being abandoned. That's the biggest thing from this for me.
And, even more crucially, self-isolation for contacts. The double jabbed and children both to be exempted. The test and trace system, for all the good it has done to date, might as well be shut down at the end of August.
Has that been confirmed? Last I heard it wasn’t expected yet.
That would make a huge difference in schools. For every child with Covid, an average of six have had to isolate.
Would have been more if the government hadn’t been ordering schools to break their own rules.
The one thing Starmer has absolutely got on his side is that the Labour Party is useless at getting rid of bad leaders.
Maybe the quiet forensic man will turn up the volume.
There needs to be a new extended metaphor. 'I am the forensic man, and I am no longer going to be a silent witness to Tory destruction of our public services!'
Alternatively - 'I am the forensic man - elect me to say 'abra-cadaver' and transform our public services with the power of forensic socialism!'
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
I really thought everyone understood that the purpose of wearing masks was to protect other people from infection by the mask-wearer.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
I think it's quite dangerous to start ascribing blame to people who have passed on the virus.
It might actually be better to get this Delta variant than the Omega variant which will no doubt turn up soon.
That seems to me to be almost certain to be the case. Remember when Kent covid was worrying everyone six months ago? I'm sure something similar will happen with the Indian variant as well. Nothing other than jabbing people matters or will make much of a difference, all the other measures are marginal. Get vaccinating, because you don't want your country to be unprotected when an even more virulent strain emerges.
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
I really thought everyone understood that the purpose of wearing masks was to protect other people from infection by the mask-wearer.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
But FFP3 masks exist and they protect both the wearer and other people. We just got efficacy data on that subject a few days ago which showed that they were highly effective at preventing infection in healthcare staff who have very high contact with COVID positive patients. So once again, it's personal responsibility.
The one thing Starmer has absolutely got on his side is that the Labour Party is useless at getting rid of bad leaders.
Maybe the quiet forensic man will turn up the volume.
There needs to be a new extended metaphor. 'I am the forensic man, and I am no longer going to be a silent witness to Tory destruction of our public services!'
I am the forensic man, I come from 'round your way, and I will be (What will you be?) I'll be forensic.
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.
The MRHA made that assessment, as is their job, and came out in favour.
I wouldn't make it compulsory (except in Health and Social care) but reasonable to make it available.
Why do you think the JCVI decided as it did?
No idea. The MRHA has the legal responsibility to approve medicines on the basis of risks and benefits. The JVCI takes in other issues, such as cost and logistics.
You think they decided that it's case not proven for vaccinating children because of costs and logistics?
There could be other reasons, but the MRHA decides on safety and efficacy.
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.
I think we're back to the where we were at the very beginning of this pandemic before it was known quite how many people would end up in hospital.
The government expects you to be exposed to the virus. Not at exactly the same time as everyone else, but sometime soon. Given that, why would the government need to require any mitigation if the NHS will cope?
It might actually be better to get this Delta variant than the Omega variant which will no doubt turn up soon.
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.
But the two groups you've mentioned that's going to happen whenever we unlockdown.
No, of course it isn't, because the higher the level of immunity we achieve the fewer will be the case numbers.
Again - it should be so obvious, and I don't know whether people can't understand it or they just wilfully ignore it because minor inconveniences like wearing masks for a few weeks longer really mean more to them than savng other people's lives.
Because case numbers don't matter a jot if they're not causing hospitalisations and deaths. Hospitalisations and deaths with "high case numbers" now are below flu numbers, so the data shows Covid is less risk than the flu now post-vaccine.
Well, if you believe COVID-19 is a disease that is so unusual that it has paranormal powers and somehow senses how many cases there are, and reduces its severity in inverse proportion to the number of cases, then perhaps that would make sense, from your very special perspective.
But let's try to retain our sanity and remain on the planet Earth. If we let case numbers rise without restraint, there are going to be many more hospitalisations and deaths than there would be otherwise.
The hospitalisaton rate at the moment is around 3%. Thanks to the vaccines it is lower than it was 6 months ago - perhaps a half or a third. But if we get to a million cases a week, which we may do in a month or so, then it should be within the abilities of most people here to work out how many people will be hospitalised every day.
With our vaccine rates and our population size, where are we going to get a million cases a week from?
That would require all the unvaccinated to be reinfected roughly fortnightly and a fair chunk of vaccinated to be infected at least once.
The one thing Starmer has absolutely got on his side is that the Labour Party is useless at getting rid of bad leaders.
Maybe the quiet forensic man will turn up the volume.
There needs to be a new extended metaphor. 'I am the forensic man, and I am no longer going to be a silent witness to Tory destruction of our public services!'
Alternatively - 'I am the forensic man - elect me to say 'abra-cadaver' and transform our public services with the power of forensic socialism!'
Alternatively, 'I am the forensic man, and I am here to take 'LAB' off the 'SLAB'!
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
I really thought everyone understood that the purpose of wearing masks was to protect other people from infection by the mask-wearer.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
I think it's quite dangerous to start ascribing blame to people who have passed on the virus.
Abstractly anyone that's passed on the virus is certainly to be despised.
I presume you're just saying that the digging out and naming and shaming isn't wise?
The one thing Starmer has absolutely got on his side is that the Labour Party is useless at getting rid of bad leaders.
Maybe the quiet forensic man will turn up the volume.
There needs to be a new extended metaphor. 'I am the forensic man, and I am no longer going to be a silent witness to Tory destruction of our public services!'
Alternatively - 'I am the forensic man - elect me to say 'abra-cadaver' and transform our public services with the power of forensic socialism!'
Alternatively, 'I am the forensic man, and I am here to take 'LAB' off the 'SLAB'!
I 100% agree with the idea that it's time to unlock, we've nearly finished vaccinating all those who want (other than perhaps kids) and will be left with the holdouts only very soon. We can't do any more than that. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WANT PERSONALLY.
But the MESSAGING of that briefing was fucking awful. That wasn't a Freedom Day pre-announcement (and thus in itself a total waste of time - why say "we've not decided anything but when we do decide it, which we haven't, it'll be these things, which we've not decided yet"??), that was a THE MISSILES HAVE FAILED press conference, which was the complete fucking opposite of what it actually is and what it needed to be to actually get people to stop cowering away in fear even if they are jabbed.
In essence all three of them boiled it down to "the vaccines are so incredibly amazing that we have to open up now because the deaths we're still going to have will be worst in the winter so we might as well get them out of the way now". It might all be well and true and responsible but it is most definitely NOT the PR-friendly message that will go down well with the public, and now we will have at least a fortnight of everyone shitting themselves because the fucking government just did their best to give them the intention that things were actually getting worse than they are already and those people essentially will be badgering the government relentlessly to roll back on most of that because the government already spent a year and a half terrorising them and then said "well, it's over now, but it's not reeally over, we just can't go on like this any more".
Absolute total car crash. Whitty presented a fairly nuanced but complex message that will inevitably be mis-interpreted, and Vallance basically did his best to go "hey, I'm on your side, these cases are giving me the shits".
Society has proven itself to be a giant flywheel, and having effectively ground the thing to a halt it needs a huge input to get it going properly again, and that wasn't it, it was a half-assed botch of an attempt that will end up having done more harm than good in getting the country up and operating properly again.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 38m The more I think about it, the more I think this is a massive moment. The news clips basically have Starmer opposing the lifting of lockdown. There’s no spinning that now. Labour’s against returning to normal over the summer. That’s a major political gamble.
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
I really thought everyone understood that the purpose of wearing masks was to protect other people from infection by the mask-wearer.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
The "risk" to other people of me not wearing a mask is infinitesimally small statistically ... how much more infinitesimally small would you like it be? We are way past the point where masks are doing more harm than good (if they ever had any effectiveness). They are a powerful symbol and a very harmful one. They need to go.
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
I really thought everyone understood that the purpose of wearing masks was to protect other people from infection by the mask-wearer.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
I think it's quite dangerous to start ascribing blame to people who have passed on the virus.
Don't worry, he can't help it. The smartest guy in the room always assumes everyone else around him is wrong, stupid or both.
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
I really thought everyone understood that the purpose of wearing masks was to protect other people from infection by the mask-wearer.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
"Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people"
Masks are hot, stuffy and uncomfortable. People need to get their vaccine and rely on the vaccine to protect them, instead of relying upon me wearing a mask to protect them.
If you're unvaccinated and I asymptomatically pass you the virus then that's your own damned fault. If you're vaccinated then let the vaccine do its job, not masks.
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
I really thought everyone understood that the purpose of wearing masks was to protect other people from infection by the mask-wearer.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
I think it's quite dangerous to start ascribing blame to people who have passed on the virus.
It would depend on how negligent they have been imo. For example if someone tests positive, yet decides to go to the pub anyway, I think it reasonable to ascribe blame.
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
I really thought everyone understood that the purpose of wearing masks was to protect other people from infection by the mask-wearer.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
But FFP3 masks exist and they protect both the wearer and other people. We just got efficacy data on that subject a few days ago which showed that they were highly effective at preventing infection in healthcare staff who have very high contact with COVID positive patients. So once again, it's personal responsibility.
So your current solution is to ask people who previously were the ones not wearing masks to wear masks to protect themselves.
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
I really thought everyone understood that the purpose of wearing masks was to protect other people from infection by the mask-wearer.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
I think it's quite dangerous to start ascribing blame to people who have passed on the virus.
It would depend on how negligent they have been imo. For example if someone tests positive, yet decides to go to the pub anyway, I think it reasonable to ascribe blame.
Like that SNP MP, whatever her name was, who tested positive and caught a Pendolino home.
On cheerier matters - I'm watching tennis on the telly. It is far from my favourite spectator sport. But I'm getting a glow of happy familiarity. Wimbledon 2021 is almost exactly like every Wimbledon in history. There's Sue Barker. Still. And Martina Navratilova. And Roger Federer is still playing! And everything about it looks entirely and uncompromisingly normal. This is making me happy.
But we know that not to be the case with Delta. It's got very high efficacy at protection from hospitalisation but it hits only 90% against symptomatic infection. The herd immunity level is something like 85% double jabbed or infected in a population, there's simply no way we're going to get to that level without an exit wave of infections.
Your figures are way out.
The hospitalisation efficacy rests on numbers that mostly aren't even statistically significant, yet everyone laps them up as Gospel.
The efficacy against symptomatic infection for AstraZeneca is only about 60%.
So, absolutely, vaccination alone is not going to achieve herd immunity. I agree that a third wave is going to happen. But the point is that if it happens when vaccination is complete (I mean including second doses, for the terminally slow) then it will be a much smaller wave than it will be if we go for broke now. And preferably after vaccinating children. Don't blame me for the procrastination about that! I'm sure it will have to happen sooner or later.
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
I really thought everyone understood that the purpose of wearing masks was to protect other people from infection by the mask-wearer.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
But FFP3 masks exist and they protect both the wearer and other people. We just got efficacy data on that subject a few days ago which showed that they were highly effective at preventing infection in healthcare staff who have very high contact with COVID positive patients. So once again, it's personal responsibility.
So your current solution is to ask people who previously were the ones not wearing masks to wear masks to protect themselves.
Different groups of people. I'd be shocked if anyone ineligible for the vaccine wasn't already extremely careful with mask wearing.
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
I really thought everyone understood that the purpose of wearing masks was to protect other people from infection by the mask-wearer.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
But FFP3 masks exist and they protect both the wearer and other people. We just got efficacy data on that subject a few days ago which showed that they were highly effective at preventing infection in healthcare staff who have very high contact with COVID positive patients. So once again, it's personal responsibility.
So your current solution is to ask people who previously were the ones not wearing masks to wear masks to protect themselves.
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
I really thought everyone understood that the purpose of wearing masks was to protect other people from infection by the mask-wearer.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
I think it's quite dangerous to start ascribing blame to people who have passed on the virus.
It would depend on how negligent they have been imo. For example if someone tests positive, yet decides to go to the pub anyway, I think it reasonable to ascribe blame.
Like that SNP MP, whatever her name was, who tested positive and caught a Pendolino home.
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
I really thought everyone understood that the purpose of wearing masks was to protect other people from infection by the mask-wearer.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
But FFP3 masks exist and they protect both the wearer and other people. We just got efficacy data on that subject a few days ago which showed that they were highly effective at preventing infection in healthcare staff who have very high contact with COVID positive patients. So once again, it's personal responsibility.
So your current solution is to ask people who previously were the ones not wearing masks to wear masks to protect themselves.
Different groups of people.
Are sure about that - there will be crossover....
Numbering in the low thousands. People who are exempt from masks are usually people with chronic breathing difficulties, people who can't get the vaccine are usually immunosuppressed or heavily immunocompromised. The latter groups will have been wearing masks already and as I said, are probably extremely cautious and will have got the best masks money can buy because it's their only line of defence.
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
I really thought everyone understood that the purpose of wearing masks was to protect other people from infection by the mask-wearer.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
"Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people"
Masks are hot, stuffy and uncomfortable. People need to get their vaccine and rely on the vaccine to protect them, instead of relying upon me wearing a mask to protect them.
If you're unvaccinated and I asymptomatically pass you the virus then that's your own damned fault. If you're vaccinated then let the vaccine do its job, not masks.
I think you understand very well that it is not only the unvaccinated you are potentially going to be infecting - and that even some of the unvaccinated are so for absolutely no fault of their own - but also people for whom the vaccine doesn't work well, and others who are just plain unlucky.
But thank you for at least some degree of honesty.
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
I really thought everyone understood that the purpose of wearing masks was to protect other people from infection by the mask-wearer.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
I think it's quite dangerous to start ascribing blame to people who have passed on the virus.
It would depend on how negligent they have been imo. For example if someone tests positive, yet decides to go to the pub anyway, I think it reasonable to ascribe blame.
It's a slippery slope. What about when cases were rising and the pubs were closed?
And I would still like a better idea from you as to why the JCVI hasn't given the green light for children being vaccinated. Vista and logistics (??) don't quite do 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.
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.
But the two groups you've mentioned that's going to happen whenever we unlockdown.
No, of course it isn't, because the higher the level of immunity we achieve the fewer will be the case numbers.
Again - it should be so obvious, and I don't know whether people can't understand it or they just wilfully ignore it because minor inconveniences like wearing masks for a few weeks longer really mean more to them than savng other people's lives.
Because case numbers don't matter a jot if they're not causing hospitalisations and deaths. Hospitalisations and deaths with "high case numbers" now are below flu numbers, so the data shows Covid is less risk than the flu now post-vaccine.
Well, if you believe COVID-19 is a disease that is so unusual that it has paranormal powers and somehow senses how many cases there are, and reduces its severity in inverse proportion to the number of cases, then perhaps that would make sense, from your very special perspective.
But let's try to retain our sanity and remain on the planet Earth. If we let case numbers rise without restraint, there are going to be many more hospitalisations and deaths than there would be otherwise.
The hospitalisaton rate at the moment is around 3%. Thanks to the vaccines it is lower than it was 6 months ago - perhaps a half or a third. But if we get to a million cases a week, which we may do in a month or so, then it should be within the abilities of most people here to work out how many people will be hospitalised every day.
Its not paranormal. The hospitalisations are disproportionately from the people who've refused the vaccines, who are more exposed to being infected. As the cases rise they are increasingly asymptomatic or mild symptoms as the virus runs into the vaccine.
If we let case numbers rise without restraint then the vaccine will do its job and yes there will be some hospitalisations and deaths but that is part of the circle of life. People get sick and die sometimes.
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
I really thought everyone understood that the purpose of wearing masks was to protect other people from infection by the mask-wearer.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
But FFP3 masks exist and they protect both the wearer and other people. We just got efficacy data on that subject a few days ago which showed that they were highly effective at preventing infection in healthcare staff who have very high contact with COVID positive patients. So once again, it's personal responsibility.
So your current solution is to ask people who previously were the ones not wearing masks to wear masks to protect themselves.
Different groups of people.
Are sure about that - there will be crossover....
Numbering in the low thousands. People who are exempt from masks are usually people with chronic breathing difficulties, people who can't get the vaccine are usually immunosuppressed or heavily immunocompromised. The latter groups will have been wearing masks already and as I said, are probably extremely cautious and will have got the best masks money can buy because it's their only line of defence.
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
I really thought everyone understood that the purpose of wearing masks was to protect other people from infection by the mask-wearer.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
"Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people"
Masks are hot, stuffy and uncomfortable. People need to get their vaccine and rely on the vaccine to protect them, instead of relying upon me wearing a mask to protect them.
If you're unvaccinated and I asymptomatically pass you the virus then that's your own damned fault. If you're vaccinated then let the vaccine do its job, not masks.
I think you understand very well that it is not only the unvaccinated you are potentially going to be infecting - and that even some of the unvaccinated are so for absolutely no fault of their own - but also people for whom the vaccine doesn't work well, and others who are just plain unlucky.
But thank you for at least some degree of honesty.
It's a slippery slope. What about when cases were rising and the pubs were closed?
And I would still like a better idea from you as to why the JCVI hasn't given the green light for children being vaccinated. Vista and logistics (??) don't quite do it
Not sure why you're demanding an answer from @Foxy on this - he's not a member of the JCVI as far as I know!
However, if I may jump in, a possible explanation is simply that they don't have spare supplies of the mRNA vaccines at the moment, and don't want to slow down the rollout for the existing eligible groups. They may also be waiting for more data on both side-effects and the effects of the disease in the under-18s.
But we know that not to be the case with Delta. It's got very high efficacy at protection from hospitalisation but it hits only 90% against symptomatic infection. The herd immunity level is something like 85% double jabbed or infected in a population, there's simply no way we're going to get to that level without an exit wave of infections.
Your figures are way out.
The hospitalisation efficacy rests on numbers that mostly aren't even statistically significant, yet everyone laps them up as Gospel.
The efficacy against symptomatic infection for AstraZeneca is only about 60%.
So, absolutely, vaccination alone is not going to achieve herd immunity. I agree that a third wave is going to happen. But the point is that if it happens when vaccination is complete (I mean including second doses, for the terminally slow) then it will be a much smaller wave than it will be if we go for broke now. And preferably after vaccinating children. Don't blame me for the procrastination about that! I'm sure it will have to happen sooner or later.
Here are the most up to date numbers, I mean if you're going to lie so brazenly at least make it more than trivial to research.
I think it's quite dangerous to start ascribing blame to people who have passed on the virus.
People are also on uncertain ground moralising about masks full-stop. After all, if failing to wear a mask on a train once it is no longer required constitutes a moral failing and shows that you don't care enough about the welfare of others, then what about the two-thirds of the adult population (probably including similar proportions of the health and care workers whom we are invited to lionise) who are overweight or obese?
Right, so evidently if you pass an obese person waddling down the road you can't catch fattism from them, but does that mean that obesity does no harm to others? Obviously not. Fatties cost an astronomical sum in medical care that would not be necessary if they looked after themselves, and will inevitably contribute to waiting lists in which people who have taken care of their health but lucked out anyway may find themselves stuck behind loads of fatties in the queue.
One could therefore conclude that, save perhaps where fat people have disabilities or metabolic disorders that make their weight very difficult to control, they are all selfish, rotten people who don't care about the vast quantities of tax that are wasted on them (which could either be kept by taxpayers or better spent elsewhere) or the valuable healthcare capacity that they chew up, and that consequently they care for no-one and nothing beyond stuffing their own tummies and hate Our Beloved NHS.
And that's just one example. It really isn't all that hard to tar everybody with the "you don't care about other people" brush if you try.
Its a bit of a hobby horse for Dr John Campbell, but he is talking about a new paper on this issue.....basically ~2-3x more likely to be hospitalised in those with Vitamin D deficiency.
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.
I think we're back to the where we were at the very beginning of this pandemic before it was known quite how many people would end up in hospital.
The government expects you to be exposed to the virus. Not at exactly the same time as everyone else, but sometime soon. Given that, why would the government need to require any mitigation if the NHS will cope?
It might actually be better to get this Delta variant than the Omega variant which will no doubt turn up soon.
Funnily enough, I’d have been fine with their keeping masks on the Tube and buses only, as long as they sold masks from dispensers and had a proper recycling scheme for them.
My problem is that I am a very absent minded person and often forget my mask, meaning I either have to send my young son into Boots to buy one, or if alone break the law by entering a shop without one to buy one, or just walk home.
I have taken all three options several times over the past 18 months.
Should have kept mandatory mask rule for public transport otherwise I agree with approach. Needs a propaganda push of the mask message "Indoors and in a crowd? Do the right thing and wear a mask."
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 38m The more I think about it, the more I think this is a massive moment. The news clips basically have Starmer opposing the lifting of lockdown. There’s no spinning that now. Labour’s against returning to normal over the summer. That’s a major political gamble.
If Covid had affected people last year the way it is this, post vaccination - ie lots of cases with v few deaths, there’s no way they’d have closed the country down is 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.
I think we're back to the where we were at the very beginning of this pandemic before it was known quite how many people would end up in hospital.
The government expects you to be exposed to the virus. Not at exactly the same time as everyone else, but sometime soon. Given that, why would the government need to require any mitigation if the NHS will cope?
It might actually be better to get this Delta variant than the Omega variant which will no doubt turn up soon.
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...
No, because the bubble system is being abandoned. That's the biggest thing from this for me.
And, even more crucially, self-isolation for contacts. The double jabbed and children both to be exempted. The test and trace system, for all the good it has done to date, might as well be shut down at the end of August.
Has that been confirmed? Last I heard it wasn’t expected yet.
That would make a huge difference in schools. For every child with Covid, an average of six have had to isolate.
Would have been more if the government hadn’t been ordering schools to break their own rules.
I'm quite sure that the Prime Minister said that in plain English in his statement. In fact, here's the relevant excerpt:
You will have to self-isolate if you test positive or are told to do so by NHS Test and Trace. But we are looking to move to a different regime for fully vaccinated contacts of those testing positive, and also for children. And tomorrow the Education Secretary will announce our plans to maintain key protections but remove bubbles and contact isolation for pupils.
I'm assuming that this will probably involve some kind of (largely useless) additional testing regime to be announced by your favourite member of the cabinet, but the substance of the remarks seems pretty straightforward: bye-bye to bubbles and bye-bye to self-isolation for schoolchildren.
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).
I would just say you really should think before coming out with the "COVID is no worse than flu" mantra.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
Yes, it's their personal responsibility to wear a mask which protects them. It's sad for them but the nation needs to move on from this and over time we will hit herd immunity and that final bit will go for them too.
I really thought everyone understood that the purpose of wearing masks was to protect other people from infection by the mask-wearer.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
"Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people"
Masks are hot, stuffy and uncomfortable. People need to get their vaccine and rely on the vaccine to protect them, instead of relying upon me wearing a mask to protect them.
If you're unvaccinated and I asymptomatically pass you the virus then that's your own damned fault. If you're vaccinated then let the vaccine do its job, not masks.
What if someone is vaccinated and you asymptomatically pass it on to them and they then go down with it? A fried of mine was double vaxxed and still ended up with a nasty case of covid. It will happen to more and more people after restrictions have gone. Surely wearing a mask around Tesco's or wherever for an hour or so is not too great a sacrifice to help prevent that.
It's a slippery slope. What about when cases were rising and the pubs were closed?
And I would still like a better idea from you as to why the JCVI hasn't given the green light for children being vaccinated. Vista and logistics (??) don't quite do it
Not sure why you're demanding an answer from @Foxy on this - he's not a member of the JCVI as far as I know!
However, if I may jump in, a possible explanation is simply that they don't have spare supplies of the mRNA vaccines at the moment, and don't want to slow down the rollout for the existing eligible groups. They may also be waiting for more data on both side-effects and the effects of the disease in the under-18s.
Not demanding, just asking a professional.
Supply? Not how they described it today. It was all about evidence and data. I don't think they are lying little shits. Do you?
So what's the betting a significant new variant turns up in the next 7 days?
Unlikely. The Zerocovidians would be cock-a-hoop if it did but this isn't like a computer model where they can just magic the outcome they want into existence.
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...
No, because the bubble system is being abandoned. That's the biggest thing from this for me.
Yes I know this has been a huge and frustrating issue for you. I agree also. It is ludicrous to have so many children self-isolate. And vaccinated adults, for that matter, which is my particular bugbear.
There are loads of children at our neighbourhood isolating, sitting at home with sod all to do, because one kid in their year has tested positive, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the kid who has tested positive, nor a single one of his or her classmates. The whole system is completely and utterly bonkers.
Was it necessary to call the controlling program the 'Hive Mind'? The real threat won't be Skynet it'll be that thing deciding the most efficient way to organise our shopping needs requires it to control our movements as tightly as the robotic crates in that warehouse.
I do like that guy though - he has a knack for explaining things concisely, and appearing genuinely interested in teh subject matter.
Summary: There does seem to be a somewhat worrying reluctance to get jabbed in the under-40s. Also, allowing as at July 19th, there will still be around 15m adults under 50 without 2 dose protection.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 38m The more I think about it, the more I think this is a massive moment. The news clips basically have Starmer opposing the lifting of lockdown. There’s no spinning that now. Labour’s against returning to normal over the summer. That’s a major political gamble.
If Covid had affected people last year the way it is this, post vaccination - ie lots of cases with v few deaths, there’s no way they’d have closed the country down is there?
No, that’s right, and this is the absolutely key point which people still don’t seem to grasp.
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...
No, because the bubble system is being abandoned. That's the biggest thing from this for me.
And, even more crucially, self-isolation for contacts. The double jabbed and children both to be exempted. The test and trace system, for all the good it has done to date, might as well be shut down at the end of August.
Has that been confirmed? Last I heard it wasn’t expected yet.
That would make a huge difference in schools. For every child with Covid, an average of six have had to isolate.
Would have been more if the government hadn’t been ordering schools to break their own rules.
I'm quite sure that the Prime Minister said that in plain English in his statement. In fact, here's the relevant excerpt:
You will have to self-isolate if you test positive or are told to do so by NHS Test and Trace. But we are looking to move to a different regime for fully vaccinated contacts of those testing positive, and also for children. And tomorrow the Education Secretary will announce our plans to maintain key protections but remove bubbles and contact isolation for pupils.
I'm assuming that this will probably involve some kind of (largely useless) additional testing regime to be announced by your favourite member of the cabinet, but the substance of the remarks seems pretty straightforward: bye-bye to bubbles and bye-bye to self-isolation for schoolchildren.
But we know that not to be the case with Delta. It's got very high efficacy at protection from hospitalisation but it hits only 90% against symptomatic infection. The herd immunity level is something like 85% double jabbed or infected in a population, there's simply no way we're going to get to that level without an exit wave of infections.
Your figures are way out.
The hospitalisation efficacy rests on numbers that mostly aren't even statistically significant, yet everyone laps them up as Gospel.
The efficacy against symptomatic infection for AstraZeneca is only about 60%.
So, absolutely, vaccination alone is not going to achieve herd immunity. I agree that a third wave is going to happen. But the point is that if it happens when vaccination is complete (I mean including second doses, for the terminally slow) then it will be a much smaller wave than it will be if we go for broke now. And preferably after vaccinating children. Don't blame me for the procrastination about that! I'm sure it will have to happen sooner or later.
Here are the most up to date numbers, I mean if you're going to lie so brazenly at least make it more than trivial to research.
Those numbers are for the Alpha variant, and thus no longer relevant
Comments
The government expects you to be exposed to the virus. Not at exactly the same time as everyone else, but sometime soon. Given that, why would the government need to require any mitigation if the NHS will cope?
It might actually be better to get this Delta variant than the Omega variant which will no doubt turn up soon.
https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1412090970796003338?s=20
Vitamin D and hospital risk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W8tWkT2BC0
There are going to be big arguments over this.
So once again, what exactly are you suggesting we should do? Stay locked down forever, keep social distancing and masks forever? No vaccine is ever going to be 100% effective. That's the reality we all have to live with, the NHS included. If we need to increase resources for healthcare to deal with that new reality then we should do that, the alternative isn't acceptable.
I wouldn't make it compulsory (except in Health and Social care) but reasonable to make it available.
Every adult has been vaccinated (or been offered a vaccine) at least already.
As for kids the JCVI isn't yet convinced that the benefit outweighs the risks.
So what are you suggesting we wait for? The vaccine rollout is done.
If you can be vaccinated, and if the vaccine is effective, maybe it is. But what about the people who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine won't be effective?
Are you really saying it's too much trouble for you to wear a mask to protect people in that situation?
No government in history has won a general election after more than 13 years in power since universal suffrage in 1918 so even if the Tories do win the next general election I cannot see them winning another election after that
And the vaccine rollout is done.
If people want to shield, that's their choice, its not on everyone else to do so.
Again - it should be so obvious, and I don't know whether people can't understand it or they just wilfully ignore it because minor inconveniences like wearing masks for a few weeks longer really mean more to them than savng other people's lives.
The virus is spreading amongst those who are not vulnerable to Covid and to whom the JCVI think the risk is so negligible that they're not convinced the vaccine is even worth it.
The people who were vulnerable to the virus have been vaccinated, twice. All other adults are eligible too. Time to move on.
Please, please, please. Just be clear and just say "Yes, it's too much trouble to me to wear a mask to protect other people".
There is no absolute barrier to lengthy periods of single party power in democratic systems.
I'm more than happy to get kids jabbed but ultimately the JCVI says otherwise, it's stupid but that's the reality we're dealing with so under 18s will get acquired immunity over the summer rather than over the autumn when they'll be much more likely to give it to their 87 year old granny who didn't take well to the vaccine because it will be raining and granny can't go outside in the rain or cold.
If Omega turns up soon we are truly screwed.
But let's try to retain our sanity and remain on the planet Earth. If we let case numbers rise without restraint, there are going to be many more hospitalisations and deaths than there would be otherwise.
The hospitalisaton rate at the moment is around 3%. Thanks to the vaccines it is lower than it was 6 months ago - perhaps a half or a third. But if we get to a million cases a week, which we may do in a month or so, then it should be within the abilities of most people here to work out how many people will be hospitalised every day.
That would make a huge difference in schools. For every child with Covid, an average of six have had to isolate.
Would have been more if the government hadn’t been ordering schools to break their own rules.
(What will you be?)
I'll be forensic.
That would require all the unvaccinated to be reinfected roughly fortnightly and a fair chunk of vaccinated to be infected at least once.
*Oh, is that my coat - thanks.
I presume you're just saying that the digging out and naming and shaming isn't wise?
I 100% agree with the idea that it's time to unlock, we've nearly finished vaccinating all those who want (other than perhaps kids) and will be left with the holdouts only very soon. We can't do any more than that. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WANT PERSONALLY.
But the MESSAGING of that briefing was fucking awful. That wasn't a Freedom Day pre-announcement (and thus in itself a total waste of time - why say "we've not decided anything but when we do decide it, which we haven't, it'll be these things, which we've not decided yet"??), that was a THE MISSILES HAVE FAILED press conference, which was the complete fucking opposite of what it actually is and what it needed to be to actually get people to stop cowering away in fear even if they are jabbed.
In essence all three of them boiled it down to "the vaccines are so incredibly amazing that we have to open up now because the deaths we're still going to have will be worst in the winter so we might as well get them out of the way now". It might all be well and true and responsible but it is most definitely NOT the PR-friendly message that will go down well with the public, and now we will have at least a fortnight of everyone shitting themselves because the fucking government just did their best to give them the intention that things were actually getting worse than they are already and those people essentially will be badgering the government relentlessly to roll back on most of that because the government already spent a year and a half terrorising them and then said "well, it's over now, but it's not reeally over, we just can't go on like this any more".
Absolute total car crash. Whitty presented a fairly nuanced but complex message that will inevitably be mis-interpreted, and Vallance basically did his best to go "hey, I'm on your side, these cases are giving me the shits".
Society has proven itself to be a giant flywheel, and having effectively ground the thing to a halt it needs a huge input to get it going properly again, and that wasn't it, it was a half-assed botch of an attempt that will end up having done more harm than good in getting the country up and operating properly again.
Christ almighty.
@DPJHodges
·
38m
The more I think about it, the more I think this is a massive moment. The news clips basically have Starmer opposing the lifting of lockdown. There’s no spinning that now. Labour’s against returning to normal over the summer. That’s a major political gamble.
Masks are hot, stuffy and uncomfortable. People need to get their vaccine and rely on the vaccine to protect them, instead of relying upon me wearing a mask to protect them.
If you're unvaccinated and I asymptomatically pass you the virus then that's your own damned fault. If you're vaccinated then let the vaccine do its job, not masks.
The hospitalisation efficacy rests on numbers that mostly aren't even statistically significant, yet everyone laps them up as Gospel.
The efficacy against symptomatic infection for AstraZeneca is only about 60%.
So, absolutely, vaccination alone is not going to achieve herd immunity. I agree that a third wave is going to happen. But the point is that if it happens when vaccination is complete (I mean including second doses, for the terminally slow) then it will be a much smaller wave than it will be if we go for broke now. And preferably after vaccinating children. Don't blame me for the procrastination about that! I'm sure it will have to happen sooner or later.
But thank you for at least some degree of honesty.
And at this point I take my leave of you people.
And I would still like a better idea from you as to why the JCVI hasn't given the green light for children being vaccinated. Vista and logistics (??) don't quite do it
If we let case numbers rise without restraint then the vaccine will do its job and yes there will be some hospitalisations and deaths but that is part of the circle of life. People get sick and die sometimes.
However, if I may jump in, a possible explanation is simply that they don't have spare supplies of the mRNA vaccines at the moment, and don't want to slow down the rollout for the existing eligible groups. They may also be waiting for more data on both side-effects and the effects of the disease in the under-18s.
Right, so evidently if you pass an obese person waddling down the road you can't catch fattism from them, but does that mean that obesity does no harm to others? Obviously not. Fatties cost an astronomical sum in medical care that would not be necessary if they looked after themselves, and will inevitably contribute to waiting lists in which people who have taken care of their health but lucked out anyway may find themselves stuck behind loads of fatties in the queue.
One could therefore conclude that, save perhaps where fat people have disabilities or metabolic disorders that make their weight very difficult to control, they are all selfish, rotten people who don't care about the vast quantities of tax that are wasted on them (which could either be kept by taxpayers or better spent elsewhere) or the valuable healthcare capacity that they chew up, and that consequently they care for no-one and nothing beyond stuffing their own tummies and hate Our Beloved NHS.
And that's just one example. It really isn't all that hard to tar everybody with the "you don't care about other people" brush if you try.
Labour are trying to play both ends of a disappointing stick.
However, I think we are already up to Lambda, so there aren't 19 left.
https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants/
My problem is that I am a very absent minded person and often forget my mask, meaning I either have to send my young son into Boots to buy one, or if alone break the law by entering a shop without one to buy one, or just walk home.
I have taken all three options several times over the past 18 months.
You will have to self-isolate if you test positive or are told to do so by NHS Test and Trace. But we are looking to move to a different regime for fully vaccinated contacts of those testing positive, and also for children. And tomorrow the Education Secretary will announce our plans to maintain key protections but remove bubbles and contact isolation for pupils.
I'm assuming that this will probably involve some kind of (largely useless) additional testing regime to be announced by your favourite member of the cabinet, but the substance of the remarks seems pretty straightforward: bye-bye to bubbles and bye-bye to self-isolation for schoolchildren.
Next 13 days - 100% (as that's sods law).
Supply? Not how they described it today. It was all about evidence and data. I don't think they are lying little shits. Do you?
I do like that guy though - he has a knack for explaining things concisely, and appearing genuinely interested in teh subject matter.
https://twitter.com/john_actuary/status/1412109134711906310
Summary: There does seem to be a somewhat worrying reluctance to get jabbed in the under-40s. Also, allowing as at July 19th, there will still be around 15m adults under 50 without 2 dose protection.