In one column masks reduce the transmission of covid.
On the other column, they steam up your glasses, you get a bit hot, some feel a bit constrained and you look silly.
No brainier.
Absolutely. Post-vaccines the latter is more important.
If you're an anti-vaxxer relying upon others wearing masks, perhaps buy an FFP3 mask instead?
Covid seems to be spreading pretty fast despite vaccines.
Just been whattsapped by our management.
My hospital has gone to OPEL level 4. 90 people in ED, 40 awaiting beds and some waiting 4 hours in ambulances last night unable to offload. Ambulances being diverted now (though nearest places are 30+ miles away).
Looks like the shit hitting the fan again. Happy Freedom Day.
Interesting. Several years ago a relative of mine was dating a guy who was keen to join the police. He passed the fitness test with flying colours, but everyone was amazed when he failed the psychological assessment. Shouldn't have been as it transpired he was a bit of a nutjob after all: started stalking her when the relationship ended (because of his infidelity), threatening behaviour etc. So the police got it right on that occasion.
@Cyclefree a friend resigned from the compliance department of a major investment bank that prided itself on its “ethical “ credentials, because his bosses expected him to ignore breaches of their professed standards. As he put it, if you are truly ethical, you don’t need to loudly proclaim the fact.
A decade ago I worked at a business unit of an Irish multi-national. In the boardroom they had the company ethics literally on the wall. Had fun in a management meeting about where the business was struggling in pointing behind me and saying "its starts by us not upholding any of our own values".
The Irish financial regulator once wrote a paper on ethics. Unfortunately, they knew so little about it that they spelt it wrong throughout the document and called it "ethitical conduct".
(Though if you wanted to be fair, "ethitical" is used in Hindi English. But somehow I don't think that what was inspiring the Irish.)
Burnham wriggling on R4 - if mask wearing is so important why not mandate it on Manchester trams? Passes the buck to the government.
Why not indeed? They surely have the right to make it a condition of travel (with suitable exemptions). I don't see any incompatibility between the withdrawal of the legal regulatory framework by the government and the need for the suppliers of services to give proper consideration to the risks to their staff and the fellow users of their services.
We have had posters here proudly announce that they are going to tell anyone who asks them to mask up to "f**k off". Presumably to the front line transport/waiting/shp staff who are making such requests. It's probably just the beer talking, but no need for such rudeness.
I'm teetotal. And yes I will tell anyone who insists I wear a mask to fuck off.
I will be telling any patient or relative who abuses our reception or nursing staff to go away. They will need to apologise and comply if they want to be seen.
Would that be legal?
Hasn't it long been the case that non-critical care can be withheld from patients committing verbal or physical abuse?
Not sure whether it (withholding care) ever happens much in practice.
For abuse absolutely. But he said "they will need to apologise and comply [with mask wearing?] if they want to be seen".
Is that legal?
Ah, yes - sorry. Missed that.
I assume any organisation can impose whatever measures it wishes on it's premises. For the NHS (and other public sector) it could presumably be overruled by staff higher in NHS, Javid etc. In practice a patient could presumably claim an exemption and likely not be challenged on it?
Yes I'm not sure that the NHS could discriminate against someone who is not breaking the law. @Foxy might easily be talking bollocks here but perhaps he can enlighten us.
Telling an NHS receptionist to F off could very well be, albeit in a minor and very limited way, breaking the law. It would be unlikely to be in the public interest to prosecute but a receptionist would have a complaint. From the CPS website -
“ These offences contrary to the Public Order Act 1986 relate to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or display of visible representations, which:
- Are likely to cause fear of, or to provoke, immediate violence: section 4; - Intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress: section 4A; or - Are likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress (threatening or abusive words or behaviour only): section 5.
2. It is a defence to section 4A and section 5 for the accused to demonstrate that their conduct was reasonable, which must be interpreted in accordance with the freedom of expression and other freedoms. If these freedoms are engaged, a justification for interference (by prosecution) with them must be convincingly established. A prosecution may only proceed if necessary and proportionate.”
So abuse aside which I believe falls into a separate category, if someone rocks up to an NHS facility without a mask, is it legal for the NHS to say go away?
Does your second point, including "the freedom of expression and other freedoms" speak to that?
It is unlikely that not wearing a mask would fall under freedom of expression even in the states. As for mask wearing, sure, you can kick someone out of a hospital for smoking and short term the risk to public health of being exposed to second hand smoke from one cigarette is far less.
Interesting. Thanks.
Is the withholding treatment element relevant. Bloke comes in ( @Carnyx is making a similar point) with a broken leg - or worse - and no mask, and refuses to put one on.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
What is this anti white discrimination of which you speak?
Positive discrimination for ethnic applicants. Not everyone thinks this is the way to address balance issues.
It proved to be a roaring success in the Chicago Fire Dept. Not.
They literally set a different passing grade for promotion for different ethnicities.
There were absolutely no instances of lying about ethnic background or antagonism or even violence. Absolutely not. No sir....
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
It's cheaper than the increase in insurance will be if you don't do the course.
If you can still do online courses Teesside is the cheapest place in the country that does them (that will save you a few £s)..
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
Assuming you are double-vaccinated + 14 days why on earth would you be bothered whether there are antivaxxers present or not? We must stop this divisiveness.
Anti-vaxers are blocking those freedoms for the 3.8m severely critically vulnerable, those who have no choice unlike the anti-vaxers.
Who's freedom matters more those who have done all they can to do the right thing and through no fault of their own are still vulnerable, despite being vaccinated, or those who don't give a shit about the rest of society ?
In Philip_Thompson's world the only person and thing that matters is Philip_Thompson's slight dislike and inconvenience of wearing a mask.
No. I'm quite capable of speaking for myself.
In my world individual responsibility means getting vaccinated.
If you want more than a vaccine, get an FFP3 mask.
I'm double vaccinated. I've done my bit.
Philip, I really don't understand this attitude. The vast majority of those who are now being infected are vaccinated because the vast majority of us are. Vaccination massively reduces the risks but as the vaxxed get into the tens of millions inevitably a small percentage of that figure amounts to a reasonable number.
So if you are one of those merely protected from serious illness by these wonderful vaccines but become a carrier are you really going to expose others to the virus you carry because you can't be arsed to wear a mask? I would honestly have expected better of you. In crowded indoor environments it will be selfish to choose not to wear a mask and those who make that choice will not have done their bit.
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
Assuming you are double-vaccinated + 14 days why on earth would you be bothered whether there are antivaxxers present or not? We must stop this divisiveness.
Anti-vaxers are blocking those freedoms for the 3.8m severely critically vulnerable, those who have no choice unlike the anti-vaxers.
Who's freedom matters more those who have done all they can to do the right thing and through no fault of their own are still vulnerable, despite being vaccinated, or those who don't give a shit about the rest of society ?
It does not follow that people who have done as they have been advised and got vaccinated and who take responsibility for their own health don't give a shit about society! Why don't you think that the bad manners are on the other side; those who want to constrain the lives of other people rather than taking responsibility for their own health? Aren't they the selfish ones?
The SCV are being told not to mix with the un-vaxxed.
What are they meant to do ?
The SCV are losing their freedoms as a result of those anti-vaxxers.
Give them their freedom back again and let the anti-vaxxers chose whether or not they also want the freedom that taking two jabs gives them.
You are valuing the freedom of the selfish more highly than those SCV people who have done all they can to do the right thing.
Burnham wriggling on R4 - if mask wearing is so important why not mandate it on Manchester trams? Passes the buck to the government.
Why not indeed? They surely have the right to make it a condition of travel (with suitable exemptions). I don't see any incompatibility between the withdrawal of the legal regulatory framework by the government and the need for the suppliers of services to give proper consideration to the risks to their staff and the fellow users of their services.
We have had posters here proudly announce that they are going to tell anyone who asks them to mask up to "f**k off". Presumably to the front line transport/waiting/shp staff who are making such requests. It's probably just the beer talking, but no need for such rudeness.
I'm teetotal. And yes I will tell anyone who insists I wear a mask to fuck off.
I will be telling any patient or relative who abuses our reception or nursing staff to go away. They will need to apologise and comply if they want to be seen.
Would that be legal?
Hasn't it long been the case that non-critical care can be withheld from patients committing verbal or physical abuse?
Not sure whether it (withholding care) ever happens much in practice.
For abuse absolutely. But he said "they will need to apologise and comply [with mask wearing?] if they want to be seen".
Is that legal?
Ah, yes - sorry. Missed that.
I assume any organisation can impose whatever measures it wishes on it's premises. For the NHS (and other public sector) it could presumably be overruled by staff higher in NHS, Javid etc. In practice a patient could presumably claim an exemption and likely not be challenged on it?
Yes I'm not sure that the NHS could discriminate against someone who is not breaking the law. @Foxy might easily be talking bollocks here but perhaps he can enlighten us.
Telling an NHS receptionist to F off could very well be, albeit in a minor and very limited way, breaking the law. It would be unlikely to be in the public interest to prosecute but a receptionist would have a complaint. From the CPS website -
“ These offences contrary to the Public Order Act 1986 relate to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or display of visible representations, which:
- Are likely to cause fear of, or to provoke, immediate violence: section 4; - Intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress: section 4A; or - Are likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress (threatening or abusive words or behaviour only): section 5.
2. It is a defence to section 4A and section 5 for the accused to demonstrate that their conduct was reasonable, which must be interpreted in accordance with the freedom of expression and other freedoms. If these freedoms are engaged, a justification for interference (by prosecution) with them must be convincingly established. A prosecution may only proceed if necessary and proportionate.”
So abuse aside which I believe falls into a separate category, if someone rocks up to an NHS facility without a mask, is it legal for the NHS to say go away?
Does your second point, including "the freedom of expression and other freedoms" speak to that?
It is unlikely that not wearing a mask would fall under freedom of expression even in the states. As for mask wearing, sure, you can kick someone out of a hospital for smoking and short term the risk to public health of being exposed to second hand smoke from one cigarette is far less.
Interesting. Thanks.
Is the withholding treatment element relevant. Bloke comes in ( @Carnyx is making a similar point) with a broken leg - or worse - and no mask, and refuses to put one on.
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
No thanks. Don’t want to live in some kind of paperwork state.
Silly objection. You already show a ticket to get in to a show or on to a train. A paperwork state is one where you can be arbitrarily asked in the street to prove who you are.
In 10 years time the state will know who and where you are at all times anyway via cctv and facial recognition. Paperwork is very last millennium.
Let’s imagine I was immune compromised due to my HIV status, and for other reasons I am not vaxxed.
(This is not true, it’s for the sake of argument).
What status precisely am I supposed to show Bob Jobsworth the Train Inspector?
I believe the domestic (Can't be international as different countries might like to know if you're actually vaccinated or not) vaccine QR code is pari passu for those who can't be vaccinated and the vaccinated.
I’m afraid I still find it an unnecessary infringement on my rights to go about my business as a citizen.
The health emergency would have to be much worse to justify even this “minor” imposition.
3.8m people have been told not to mix with un-vaxxed.
What is your advise to them in terms of them re-gaining freedoms again ?
What 3.8m?
The 3.8m who cannot be vaccinated..
This figure doesn’t make sense to me. Vax rates are 95% or higher in some cohorts.
Let’s assume 5% of adult population cannot be vaxxed, that’s only 2.5m people.
Steve Braclay touring studios talking about the gov't trusting 'British common sense'. But the ONLY example he can give is an empty train, late at night, versus a crowded train, during rush hour. The value of clear guidance is precisely about how to behave BETWEEN such extremes. https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1414868734662021120
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Did you ask when the speed camera/gun was last calibrated?
More than half the time they haven't done so to the schedule in the manufacturers maintenance requirements.....
I've only seen a few people wearing mask exemption lanyards. One was yesterday - a shopworker in Huntingdon. Zero problems with that.
However: at half term I took the little 'un to an attraction in Essex. There was a queue to get in, and behind us was a family of five. The adults and two eldest children (late teenagers, from their looks) all wore mask exemption lanyards. The youngest child (who would not have to wear a mask) did not.
Rather unkindly, I did wonder what medical condition(s) meant they had to have mask exemptions.
They did not keep their distance, and crowded in towards the rest of the queue. They occasionally swore as they talked. The two adults and one of the teenagers then lit cigarettes whilst in the queue ...
"an attraction in Essex"... Story immediately sounds implausible.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Did one of those a few years ago; it was rather an interesting morning, with the spin off that I met a chap who does double glazing REPAIRS. He won't re-do your house, but if you've got a couple of windows that have started misting up, he's your man. Not expensive, but very efficient.
The other feature of the course was that everyone was miserable about being there, except, of course, the guys who were being paid to run the course. There's usually a bit of banter after a course, but not this time!
In one column masks reduce the transmission of covid.
On the other column, they steam up your glasses, you get a bit hot, some feel a bit constrained and you look silly.
No brainier.
Absolutely. Post-vaccines the latter is more important.
If you're an anti-vaxxer relying upon others wearing masks, perhaps buy an FFP3 mask instead?
Covid seems to be spreading pretty fast despite vaccines.
Among the unvaccinated.
We don't know that - especially given the fact the current infection / hospital numbers don't exactly correlate with eariler infection / hospital numbers.
I suspect an awful lot of people currently catching Covid are doubly vaccinated but are getting milder symptoms.
12% of people in hospital are double jabbed and 88% are unvaccinated. We know that kids and younger people don't really go to hospital for this either. That 88% is largely going to be people who refused the vaccine aged 50+.
The vaccines currently yield a reduction of 97% in hospital numbers for double jabbed people. Someone over 50 has got around a 9% chance of being hospitalised by COVID, now they have a 0.24% chance of going to hospital. The same as they'd have for the flu or any number of infections.
Once again, if double jabbed people can catch it but experience few to no symptoms is it something worth destroying the country over? In about 4 weeks all adults who want to be should be double jabbed. We're reopening before that to get our exit wave out before autumn. The exit wave is primarily going to hit the unvaccinated by choice. Those hospitalisations are going to happen whether we reopen in July, August or October or even April next year.
Finally, anyone who wants to can go and buy an FFP3 mask. If you feel uncomfortable for a while in the new/old normal then go and buy a pack of them. They aren't expensive and give very good two way protection. That is your responsibility. In a post vaccine world individual responsibility must be returned. Collective responsibility only made sense before vaccines.
I agree, it's up to everyone to decide for themselves now. I have bought an FFP3 mask for the first time, solely to wear occasionally if needs arise - eg spending a couple of hours on a crowded train or plane. I'd put a mask on in a medical facility as it just seems the right thing to do. If others don't then that's fine if it is not mandatory.
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
Assuming you are double-vaccinated + 14 days why on earth would you be bothered whether there are antivaxxers present or not? We must stop this divisiveness.
Anti-vaxers are blocking those freedoms for the 3.8m severely critically vulnerable, those who have no choice unlike the anti-vaxers.
Who's freedom matters more those who have done all they can to do the right thing and through no fault of their own are still vulnerable, despite being vaccinated, or those who don't give a shit about the rest of society ?
In Philip_Thompson's world the only person and thing that matters is Philip_Thompson's slight dislike and inconvenience of wearing a mask.
No. I'm quite capable of speaking for myself.
In my world individual responsibility means getting vaccinated.
If you want more than a vaccine, get an FFP3 mask.
I'm double vaccinated. I've done my bit.
So you agree with what I said - as you've said nothing that goes against my point....
No it absolutely does go against your point.
In my world I am responsible for my own actions, you are responsible for your actions.
That doesn't mean that you don't matter, it just means you're responsible for taking care of yourself, I can't do it for you.
I think contrarian and Dura_Ace and other antivaxxers lives do matter, but I can't take their jab for them. They need to go get their own jab, nobody else can do it for them.
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
No thanks. Don’t want to live in some kind of paperwork state.
Silly objection. You already show a ticket to get in to a show or on to a train. A paperwork state is one where you can be arbitrarily asked in the street to prove who you are.
In 10 years time the state will know who and where you are at all times anyway via cctv and facial recognition. Paperwork is very last millennium.
Let’s imagine I was immune compromised due to my HIV status, and for other reasons I am not vaxxed.
(This is not true, it’s for the sake of argument).
What status precisely am I supposed to show Bob Jobsworth the Train Inspector?
I believe the domestic (Can't be international as different countries might like to know if you're actually vaccinated or not) vaccine QR code is pari passu for those who can't be vaccinated and the vaccinated.
I’m afraid I still find it an unnecessary infringement on my rights to go about my business as a citizen.
The health emergency would have to be much worse to justify even this “minor” imposition.
3.8m people have been told not to mix with un-vaxxed.
What is your advise to them in terms of them re-gaining freedoms again ?
What 3.8m?
The 3.8m who cannot be vaccinated..
This figure doesn’t make sense to me. Vax rates are 95% or higher in some cohorts.
Let’s assume 5% of adult population cannot be vaxxed, that’s only 2.5m people.
The SCV have been vaccinated.
My wife is one of the 3.8m SCV, she is double jabbed, she has been told not to mix with the un-vaxxed.
Those anti-vaxxers get their freedoms back.
My SCV wife does not, despite taking both the jabs etc.
@Cyclefree a friend resigned from the compliance department of a major investment bank that prided itself on its “ethical “ credentials, because his bosses expected him to ignore breaches of their professed standards. As he put it, if you are truly ethical, you don’t need to loudly proclaim the fact.
A decade ago I worked at a business unit of an Irish multi-national. In the boardroom they had the company ethics literally on the wall. Had fun in a management meeting about where the business was struggling in pointing behind me and saying "its starts by us not upholding any of our own values".
The Irish financial regulator once wrote a paper on ethics. Unfortunately, they knew so little about it that they spelt it wrong throughout the document and called it "ethitical conduct".
(Though if you wanted to be fair, "ethitical" is used in Hindi English. But somehow I don't think that what was inspiring the Irish.)
@Cyclefree a friend resigned from the compliance department of a major investment bank that prided itself on its “ethical “ credentials, because his bosses expected him to ignore breaches of their professed standards. As he put it, if you are truly ethical, you don’t need to loudly proclaim the fact.
A decade ago I worked at a business unit of an Irish multi-national. In the boardroom they had the company ethics literally on the wall. Had fun in a management meeting about where the business was struggling in pointing behind me and saying "its starts by us not upholding any of our own values".
The Irish financial regulator once wrote a paper on ethics. Unfortunately, they knew so little about it that they spelt it wrong throughout the document and called it "ethitical conduct".
(Though if you wanted to be fair, "ethitical" is used in Hindi English. But somehow I don't think that what was inspiring the Irish.)
Are you sure about "Ethitical"? Never heard any of my Indian relatives use it!
I've only seen a few people wearing mask exemption lanyards. One was yesterday - a shopworker in Huntingdon. Zero problems with that.
However: at half term I took the little 'un to an attraction in Essex. There was a queue to get in, and behind us was a family of five. The adults and two eldest children (late teenagers, from their looks) all wore mask exemption lanyards. The youngest child (who would not have to wear a mask) did not.
Rather unkindly, I did wonder what medical condition(s) meant they had to have mask exemptions.
They did not keep their distance, and crowded in towards the rest of the queue. They occasionally swore as they talked. The two adults and one of the teenagers then lit cigarettes whilst in the queue ...
"an attraction in Essex"... Story immediately sounds implausible.
Anyway I must be off. Glad to have - mostly - changed the discussion to something other than football despite @Leon thinking it is the MOST IMPORTANT TOPIC IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW.
I've only seen a few people wearing mask exemption lanyards. One was yesterday - a shopworker in Huntingdon. Zero problems with that.
However: at half term I took the little 'un to an attraction in Essex. There was a queue to get in, and behind us was a family of five. The adults and two eldest children (late teenagers, from their looks) all wore mask exemption lanyards. The youngest child (who would not have to wear a mask) did not.
Rather unkindly, I did wonder what medical condition(s) meant they had to have mask exemptions.
They did not keep their distance, and crowded in towards the rest of the queue. They occasionally swore as they talked. The two adults and one of the teenagers then lit cigarettes whilst in the queue ...
Yeah this is the sort of mindset that people will need to jettison. People are going to behave anti-socially whatever happens and you need to learn to live with it.
It's not going to be easy because we have had 18 months of grooming from the govt. Shaking that off will take some doing. But we are going to have to make an effort to do so.
I agree: people swearing and smoking whilst in the queue for a family attraction is a mindset they should jettison. Not sure what the government has to do with it, though...
What’s wrong with swearing and smoking? Both activities, are - as far as I know - legal.
Absolutely nothing, most of the time, and particularly in private.
But this was in the queue for a family attraction, with lots of kids about, excited for the day ahead. It was not particularly pleasant. In fact, given the situation I'd argue that it was fairly obnoxious behaviour - the no-mask lanyards being a funny addition.
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
No thanks. Don’t want to live in some kind of paperwork state.
Silly objection. You already show a ticket to get in to a show or on to a train. A paperwork state is one where you can be arbitrarily asked in the street to prove who you are.
In 10 years time the state will know who and where you are at all times anyway via cctv and facial recognition. Paperwork is very last millennium.
Let’s imagine I was immune compromised due to my HIV status, and for other reasons I am not vaxxed.
(This is not true, it’s for the sake of argument).
What status precisely am I supposed to show Bob Jobsworth the Train Inspector?
I believe the domestic (Can't be international as different countries might like to know if you're actually vaccinated or not) vaccine QR code is pari passu for those who can't be vaccinated and the vaccinated.
I’m afraid I still find it an unnecessary infringement on my rights to go about my business as a citizen.
The health emergency would have to be much worse to justify even this “minor” imposition.
3.8m people have been told not to mix with un-vaxxed.
What is your advise to them in terms of them re-gaining freedoms again ?
What 3.8m?
The 3.8m who cannot be vaccinated..
There aren't 3.8m who can't be vaccinated. There are 3.8m people in whom we don't know how well the vaccine works but initial studies with two doses are very positive and with these people third doses might be a good alternative to them staying locked up forever. I've heard elsewhere that the number of ineligible adults is "a couple of hundred thousand".
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
What is this anti white discrimination of which you speak?
Positive discrimination for ethnic applicants. Not everyone thinks this is the way to address balance issues.
It proved to be a roaring success in the Chicago Fire Dept. Not.
They literally set a different passing grade for promotion for different ethnicities.
There were absolutely no instances of lying about ethnic background or antagonism or even violence. Absolutely not. No sir....
I have suddenly realised that it may be useful to flaunt my BAME credentials.
I am 1/8 Indian, which would would have been “enough” under various abhorrent laws formerly deployed in the southern US.
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
Assuming you are double-vaccinated + 14 days why on earth would you be bothered whether there are antivaxxers present or not? We must stop this divisiveness.
Anti-vaxers are blocking those freedoms for the 3.8m severely critically vulnerable, those who have no choice unlike the anti-vaxers.
Who's freedom matters more those who have done all they can to do the right thing and through no fault of their own are still vulnerable, despite being vaccinated, or those who don't give a shit about the rest of society ?
In Philip_Thompson's world the only person and thing that matters is Philip_Thompson's slight dislike and inconvenience of wearing a mask.
No. I'm quite capable of speaking for myself.
In my world individual responsibility means getting vaccinated.
If you want more than a vaccine, get an FFP3 mask.
I'm double vaccinated. I've done my bit.
So you agree with what I said - as you've said nothing that goes against my point....
No it absolutely does go against your point.
In my world I am responsible for my own actions, you are responsible for your actions.
That doesn't mean that you don't matter, it just means you're responsible for taking care of yourself, I can't do it for you.
I think contrarian and Dura_Ace and other antivaxxers lives do matter, but I can't take their jab for them. They need to go get their own jab, nobody else can do it for them.
My point was that you don't care for anyone but yourself - which you continue to prove...
Simple question - Next Tuesday, you are on a train, the person sat opposite you has a sunflower lanyard. Do you wear a mask while sitting opposite her?
@Cyclefree a friend resigned from the compliance department of a major investment bank that prided itself on its “ethical “ credentials, because his bosses expected him to ignore breaches of their professed standards. As he put it, if you are truly ethical, you don’t need to loudly proclaim the fact.
A decade ago I worked at a business unit of an Irish multi-national. In the boardroom they had the company ethics literally on the wall. Had fun in a management meeting about where the business was struggling in pointing behind me and saying "its starts by us not upholding any of our own values".
The Irish financial regulator once wrote a paper on ethics. Unfortunately, they knew so little about it that they spelt it wrong throughout the document and called it "ethitical conduct".
(Though if you wanted to be fair, "ethitical" is used in Hindi English. But somehow I don't think that what was inspiring the Irish.)
Are you sure about "Ethitical"? Never heard any of my Indian relatives use it!
I was told it. No idea if true. It sounds made up to me.
In one column masks reduce the transmission of covid.
On the other column, they steam up your glasses, you get a bit hot, some feel a bit constrained and you look silly.
No brainier.
Absolutely. Post-vaccines the latter is more important.
If you're an anti-vaxxer relying upon others wearing masks, perhaps buy an FFP3 mask instead?
Covid seems to be spreading pretty fast despite vaccines.
Among the unvaccinated.
We don't know that - especially given the fact the current infection / hospital numbers don't exactly correlate with eariler infection / hospital numbers.
I suspect an awful lot of people currently catching Covid are doubly vaccinated but are getting milder symptoms.
12% of people in hospital are double jabbed and 88% are unvaccinated. We know that kids and younger people don't really go to hospital for this either. That 88% is largely going to be people who refused the vaccine aged 50+.
The vaccines currently yield a reduction of 97% in hospital numbers for double jabbed people. Someone over 50 has got around a 9% chance of being hospitalised by COVID, now they have a 0.24% chance of going to hospital. The same as they'd have for the flu or any number of infections.
Once again, if double jabbed people can catch it but experience few to no symptoms is it something worth destroying the country over? In about 4 weeks all adults who want to be should be double jabbed. We're reopening before that to get our exit wave out before autumn. The exit wave is primarily going to hit the unvaccinated by choice. Those hospitalisations are going to happen whether we reopen in July, August or October or even April next year.
Finally, anyone who wants to can go and buy an FFP3 mask. If you feel uncomfortable for a while in the new/old normal then go and buy a pack of them. They aren't expensive and give very good two way protection. That is your responsibility. In a post vaccine world individual responsibility must be returned. Collective responsibility only made sense before vaccines.
Those numbers don't look right. Are you sure you aren't confusing the VE against hospitalization with the reduced conditional probability of hospitalization, given symptomatic infection?
--AS
That is how vaccine efficacy is being calculated by PHE, the cumulative reduction in likelihood of being hospitalised. At the moment it's about 96% with two doses two weeks after the second dose and about 55% for one dose two weeks after the first dose.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
It's cheaper than the increase in insurance will be if you don't do the course.
If you can still do online courses Teesside is the cheapest place in the country that does them (that will save you a few £s)..
Your insurance will go up even with the course, as I discovered (56mph in a small 50mph section of the A1). I live on a 20mph limit road and am happy about that, so I have no problem reciprocating on other 20mph roads, I think it's a sensible speed limit in residential areas, roads with cyclists etc (and in London traffic it's often not a binding constraint anyway). You just need to change your mindset a bit as a driver and then it's fine.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
Some years ago one of my councillors received a considerable number of complaints about speeding on the routes to a local school from mothers of young children who walked home. I had purchased a speed gun and did a control to estimate the extent of the problem. It was pretty bad, so I took my evidence to the local plods. They were very sympathetic and a few weeks later reported back that they had stopped and charged over 40 offenders. Who were these inconsiderate lunatics? Other mother dropping off or collecting their children from the school.
F1: markets just starting to go up on Ladbrokes. Remarkable that Norris is only 4 for a podium.
Silverstone is much more of a Mercedes track than recent events, and they’ve got major upgrades this weekend. I’d expect to see two Mercs and MV on the podium, but the weird qualifying format does have potential to mess things up.
It’s already been pointed out how great it would be for Lewis, as an example, if Bottas and Max were to come together in the sprint race.
Anyway I must be off. Glad to have - mostly - changed the discussion to something other than football despite @Leon thinking it is the MOST IMPORTANT TOPIC IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW.
I will stop teasing him now.
Have a lovely day all.
Hope you do, and that your daughter has a profitable one!
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
No thanks. Don’t want to live in some kind of paperwork state.
Silly objection. You already show a ticket to get in to a show or on to a train. A paperwork state is one where you can be arbitrarily asked in the street to prove who you are.
In 10 years time the state will know who and where you are at all times anyway via cctv and facial recognition. Paperwork is very last millennium.
Let’s imagine I was immune compromised due to my HIV status, and for other reasons I am not vaxxed.
(This is not true, it’s for the sake of argument).
What status precisely am I supposed to show Bob Jobsworth the Train Inspector?
I believe the domestic (Can't be international as different countries might like to know if you're actually vaccinated or not) vaccine QR code is pari passu for those who can't be vaccinated and the vaccinated.
I’m afraid I still find it an unnecessary infringement on my rights to go about my business as a citizen.
The health emergency would have to be much worse to justify even this “minor” imposition.
3.8m people have been told not to mix with un-vaxxed.
What is your advise to them in terms of them re-gaining freedoms again ?
What 3.8m?
The 3.8m who cannot be vaccinated..
This figure doesn’t make sense to me. Vax rates are 95% or higher in some cohorts.
Let’s assume 5% of adult population cannot be vaxxed, that’s only 2.5m people.
What exactly are you complaining about the number 3.8m or something else?
Steve Braclay touring studios talking about the gov't trusting 'British common sense'. But the ONLY example he can give is an empty train, late at night, versus a crowded train, during rush hour. The value of clear guidance is precisely about how to behave BETWEEN such extremes. https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1414868734662021120
Guidance could be clearer, to be sure, but it also cannot cover every eventuality, which is what some people in effect demand when every single scenario does not have a specific example in guidance and that specific lack is used as criticism - we saw that last year.
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
No thanks. Don’t want to live in some kind of paperwork state.
Silly objection. You already show a ticket to get in to a show or on to a train. A paperwork state is one where you can be arbitrarily asked in the street to prove who you are.
In 10 years time the state will know who and where you are at all times anyway via cctv and facial recognition. Paperwork is very last millennium.
Let’s imagine I was immune compromised due to my HIV status, and for other reasons I am not vaxxed.
(This is not true, it’s for the sake of argument).
What status precisely am I supposed to show Bob Jobsworth the Train Inspector?
I believe the domestic (Can't be international as different countries might like to know if you're actually vaccinated or not) vaccine QR code is pari passu for those who can't be vaccinated and the vaccinated.
I’m afraid I still find it an unnecessary infringement on my rights to go about my business as a citizen.
The health emergency would have to be much worse to justify even this “minor” imposition.
3.8m people have been told not to mix with un-vaxxed.
What is your advise to them in terms of them re-gaining freedoms again ?
What 3.8m?
The 3.8m who cannot be vaccinated..
This figure doesn’t make sense to me. Vax rates are 95% or higher in some cohorts.
Let’s assume 5% of adult population cannot be vaxxed, that’s only 2.5m people.
The SCV have been vaccinated.
My wife is one of the 3.8m SCV, she is double jabbed, she has been told not to mix with the un-vaxxed.
Those anti-vaxxers get their freedoms back.
My SCV wife does not, despite taking both the jabs etc.
I presume this is because jabbing is not 100% effective?
I know someone - also double jabbed - who undergoing chemo for lukaemia. I presume she is in the same position.
I feel like, if you are extremely vulnerable, you are vulnerable regardless. We need to look at covid now as equivalent to a bad winter flu. What do the extremely vulnerable do in those circs?
F1: markets just starting to go up on Ladbrokes. Remarkable that Norris is only 4 for a podium.
Silverstone is much more of a Mercedes track than recent events, and they’ve got major upgrades this weekend. I’d expect to see two Mercs and MV on the podium, but the weird qualifying format does have potential to mess things up.
It’s already been pointed out how great it would be for Lewis, as an example, if Bottas and Max were to come together in the sprint race.
I thought it was going to be about "freedom day"....
Same data but on a log axis - now you can see that hospital admissions are now growing at almost the same rate as cases. Roughly doubling every 11 days. V unsettling. Especially given cases have further to rise. So what next? https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1414658909239918595/photo/1
Ummm
I'm not sure that's unsettling at all. Admissions seem to lag cases by a very short period, and cases are flattening off right now.
Unless you think that admissions will continue to rise, uncoupled from flattening (or declining) case numbers. Which would be an odd attitude.
The government are forecasting an explosion in cases. 100k new cases a day says Javid. Which means worrying numbers in hospital does it not.
Good for them.
Case growth is slowing, ZOE reports an absolute decline in the number of unvaccinated people with Covid, more and more people are double-vaccinated, and schools are about to go on holiday. (If nothing else, the last will dramatically lower the number of people *testing* positive for CV19.)
It may be that cases reach 100,000 per day, but my money is against it.
Numbers have been stuck on 30-35K for the last 6 days. It would be good if this proves to be the peak.
And in the 6 days before that they were stuck in the range 24-28K And in the 23rd to the 27th they were stuck in the range 14-18K And from the 9th to the 15th they were stuck in the range 7500-8000 And at the end of may they were stuck in the range of 3100-4100 and had definitely peaked.
I don't think we are at the peak, but the rate of growth is slowing. Also in Scotland, cases are declining. i expect that to happen in England too when the the schools close and s the footy is now over. Going to the pub to watch the Olympics is not quite as popular...
Also, given the GMT +8 time zone, practically impossible.
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
Assuming you are double-vaccinated + 14 days why on earth would you be bothered whether there are antivaxxers present or not? We must stop this divisiveness.
Anti-vaxers are blocking those freedoms for the 3.8m severely critically vulnerable, those who have no choice unlike the anti-vaxers.
Who's freedom matters more those who have done all they can to do the right thing and through no fault of their own are still vulnerable, despite being vaccinated, or those who don't give a shit about the rest of society ?
In Philip_Thompson's world the only person and thing that matters is Philip_Thompson's slight dislike and inconvenience of wearing a mask.
No. I'm quite capable of speaking for myself.
In my world individual responsibility means getting vaccinated.
If you want more than a vaccine, get an FFP3 mask.
I'm double vaccinated. I've done my bit.
Philip, I really don't understand this attitude. The vast majority of those who are now being infected are vaccinated because the vast majority of us are. Vaccination massively reduces the risks but as the vaxxed get into the tens of millions inevitably a small percentage of that figure amounts to a reasonable number.
So if you are one of those merely protected from serious illness by these wonderful vaccines but become a carrier are you really going to expose others to the virus you carry because you can't be arsed to wear a mask? I would honestly have expected better of you. In crowded indoor environments it will be selfish to choose not to wear a mask and those who make that choice will not have done their bit.
I was talking to someone last week who confidently claimed that if you were double vaxed you couldn’t pass it on. As her doctorate is in immunology I was more inclined to believe her than I would have been otherwise, but does anyone know if any research has been done on this?
Burnham wriggling on R4 - if mask wearing is so important why not mandate it on Manchester trams? Passes the buck to the government.
Why not indeed? They surely have the right to make it a condition of travel (with suitable exemptions). I don't see any incompatibility between the withdrawal of the legal regulatory framework by the government and the need for the suppliers of services to give proper consideration to the risks to their staff and the fellow users of their services.
We have had posters here proudly announce that they are going to tell anyone who asks them to mask up to "f**k off". Presumably to the front line transport/waiting/shp staff who are making such requests. It's probably just the beer talking, but no need for such rudeness.
I'm teetotal. And yes I will tell anyone who insists I wear a mask to fuck off.
I will be telling any patient or relative who abuses our reception or nursing staff to go away. They will need to apologise and comply if they want to be seen.
Would that be legal?
Hasn't it long been the case that non-critical care can be withheld from patients committing verbal or physical abuse?
Not sure whether it (withholding care) ever happens much in practice.
For abuse absolutely. But he said "they will need to apologise and comply [with mask wearing?] if they want to be seen".
Is that legal?
Ah, yes - sorry. Missed that.
I assume any organisation can impose whatever measures it wishes on it's premises. For the NHS (and other public sector) it could presumably be overruled by staff higher in NHS, Javid etc. In practice a patient could presumably claim an exemption and likely not be challenged on it?
Yes I'm not sure that the NHS could discriminate against someone who is not breaking the law. @Foxy might easily be talking bollocks here but perhaps he can enlighten us.
Telling an NHS receptionist to F off could very well be, albeit in a minor and very limited way, breaking the law. It would be unlikely to be in the public interest to prosecute but a receptionist would have a complaint. From the CPS website -
“ These offences contrary to the Public Order Act 1986 relate to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or display of visible representations, which:
- Are likely to cause fear of, or to provoke, immediate violence: section 4; - Intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress: section 4A; or - Are likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress (threatening or abusive words or behaviour only): section 5.
2. It is a defence to section 4A and section 5 for the accused to demonstrate that their conduct was reasonable, which must be interpreted in accordance with the freedom of expression and other freedoms. If these freedoms are engaged, a justification for interference (by prosecution) with them must be convincingly established. A prosecution may only proceed if necessary and proportionate.”
So abuse aside which I believe falls into a separate category, if someone rocks up to an NHS facility without a mask, is it legal for the NHS to say go away?
Does your second point, including "the freedom of expression and other freedoms" speak to that?
It is unlikely that not wearing a mask would fall under freedom of expression even in the states. As for mask wearing, sure, you can kick someone out of a hospital for smoking and short term the risk to public health of being exposed to second hand smoke from one cigarette is far less.
Interesting. Thanks.
Is the withholding treatment element relevant. Bloke comes in ( @Carnyx is making a similar point) with a broken leg - or worse - and no mask, and refuses to put one on.
Can they refuse to treat him?
That’s an ethical issue, not a legal one.
What is the patient's legal position I wonder (not saying you know!).
Does he sit there in the hospital foyer demanding to be seen and what is the resolution?
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
It's cheaper than the increase in insurance will be if you don't do the course.
If you can still do online courses Teesside is the cheapest place in the country that does them (that will save you a few £s)..
Your insurance will go up even with the course, as I discovered (56mph in a small 50mph section of the A1). I live on a 20mph limit road and am happy about that, so I have no problem reciprocating on other 20mph roads, I think it's a sensible speed limit in residential areas, roads with cyclists etc (and in London traffic it's often not a binding constraint anyway). You just need to change your mindset a bit as a driver and then it's fine.
Don't remember mine going up, or even being asked about it.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Did you ask when the speed camera/gun was last calibrated?
More than half the time they haven't done so to the schedule in the manufacturers maintenance requirements.....
Don't try that in Kent - I know the person who runs that...
Steve Braclay touring studios talking about the gov't trusting 'British common sense'. But the ONLY example he can give is an empty train, late at night, versus a crowded train, during rush hour. The value of clear guidance is precisely about how to behave BETWEEN such extremes. https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1414868734662021120
Yes, I heard Barclay this morning - it was gruesome. I just knew he was going to parrot Johnson's empty/full train analogy. Who is wearing a mask on an empty train now anyway!
Anyway I must be off. Glad to have - mostly - changed the discussion to something other than football despite @Leon thinking it is the MOST IMPORTANT TOPIC IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW.
I will stop teasing him now.
Have a lovely day all.
Great header BTW (and I'm not talking about football).
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
No thanks. Don’t want to live in some kind of paperwork state.
Silly objection. You already show a ticket to get in to a show or on to a train. A paperwork state is one where you can be arbitrarily asked in the street to prove who you are.
In 10 years time the state will know who and where you are at all times anyway via cctv and facial recognition. Paperwork is very last millennium.
Let’s imagine I was immune compromised due to my HIV status, and for other reasons I am not vaxxed.
(This is not true, it’s for the sake of argument).
What status precisely am I supposed to show Bob Jobsworth the Train Inspector?
I believe the domestic (Can't be international as different countries might like to know if you're actually vaccinated or not) vaccine QR code is pari passu for those who can't be vaccinated and the vaccinated.
I’m afraid I still find it an unnecessary infringement on my rights to go about my business as a citizen.
The health emergency would have to be much worse to justify even this “minor” imposition.
3.8m people have been told not to mix with un-vaxxed.
What is your advise to them in terms of them re-gaining freedoms again ?
What 3.8m?
The 3.8m who cannot be vaccinated..
This figure doesn’t make sense to me. Vax rates are 95% or higher in some cohorts.
Let’s assume 5% of adult population cannot be vaxxed, that’s only 2.5m people.
The SCV have been vaccinated.
My wife is one of the 3.8m SCV, she is double jabbed, she has been told not to mix with the un-vaxxed.
Those anti-vaxxers get their freedoms back.
My SCV wife does not, despite taking both the jabs etc.
She should ask for an antibody test. Honestly, the evidence behind this new decision is very flimsy and looks like the same idiotic "abundance of caution" they're taking on vaccines for 12-17 year olds.
Steve Braclay touring studios talking about the gov't trusting 'British common sense'. But the ONLY example he can give is an empty train, late at night, versus a crowded train, during rush hour. The value of clear guidance is precisely about how to behave BETWEEN such extremes. https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1414868734662021120
Guidance could be clearer, to be sure, but it also cannot cover every eventuality, which is what some people in effect demand when every single scenario does not have a specific example in guidance and that specific lack is used as criticism - we saw that last year.
Not to mention that, if the rule is "all must wear a mask on public transport", it can be enforced with a look and a tut 99% of the time. But if the rule depends on subjective judgments, it creates the conditions for fractiousness, arguments and even fights. https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1414870043113009161
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
No thanks. Don’t want to live in some kind of paperwork state.
Silly objection. You already show a ticket to get in to a show or on to a train. A paperwork state is one where you can be arbitrarily asked in the street to prove who you are.
In 10 years time the state will know who and where you are at all times anyway via cctv and facial recognition. Paperwork is very last millennium.
Let’s imagine I was immune compromised due to my HIV status, and for other reasons I am not vaxxed.
(This is not true, it’s for the sake of argument).
What status precisely am I supposed to show Bob Jobsworth the Train Inspector?
I believe the domestic (Can't be international as different countries might like to know if you're actually vaccinated or not) vaccine QR code is pari passu for those who can't be vaccinated and the vaccinated.
I’m afraid I still find it an unnecessary infringement on my rights to go about my business as a citizen.
The health emergency would have to be much worse to justify even this “minor” imposition.
3.8m people have been told not to mix with un-vaxxed.
What is your advise to them in terms of them re-gaining freedoms again ?
What 3.8m?
The 3.8m who cannot be vaccinated..
This figure doesn’t make sense to me. Vax rates are 95% or higher in some cohorts.
Let’s assume 5% of adult population cannot be vaxxed that’s only 2.5m people.
The number of adults that can't be vaccinated is going to be way way way less than 5%. More like 0.005%, probably not even that.
Having reviewed all the available evidence for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said these vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant people in high-risk groups which have been prioritised for vaccination, and should be offered to breastfeeding people in these groups. (Also the view of the MHRA and JCVI here)
HIV - it is possible that their immune response to the vaccine may be weaker, and that they may therefore be less well protected - I'd guess this is the group that would benefit most from vaccine passports frankly.
Which leaves people allergic to Polysorbate 80, PEG, a previous vaccination in the course and perhaps sadly a few dementia patients (Unable/unwilling to consent ?)
won't be vaccinated - now that's a different matter.
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
No thanks. Don’t want to live in some kind of paperwork state.
Silly objection. You already show a ticket to get in to a show or on to a train. A paperwork state is one where you can be arbitrarily asked in the street to prove who you are.
In 10 years time the state will know who and where you are at all times anyway via cctv and facial recognition. Paperwork is very last millennium.
Let’s imagine I was immune compromised due to my HIV status, and for other reasons I am not vaxxed.
(This is not true, it’s for the sake of argument).
What status precisely am I supposed to show Bob Jobsworth the Train Inspector?
I believe the domestic (Can't be international as different countries might like to know if you're actually vaccinated or not) vaccine QR code is pari passu for those who can't be vaccinated and the vaccinated.
I’m afraid I still find it an unnecessary infringement on my rights to go about my business as a citizen.
The health emergency would have to be much worse to justify even this “minor” imposition.
3.8m people have been told not to mix with un-vaxxed.
What is your advise to them in terms of them re-gaining freedoms again ?
What 3.8m?
The 3.8m who cannot be vaccinated..
This figure doesn’t make sense to me. Vax rates are 95% or higher in some cohorts.
Let’s assume 5% of adult population cannot be vaxxed, that’s only 2.5m people.
What exactly are you complaining about the number 3.8m or something else?
Am just trying to understand the issue.
It sounds like (to use round numbers) 4m are extremely vulnerable, but half of those are vaxxable.
Edit: just seem the note above. Ok, so pretty much everyone is vaxxable.
And we know the vaccines work v well.
So @ManchesterKurt, what is your solution? True vulnerability is going to be a fraction of the 3.9m.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
It's cheaper than the increase in insurance will be if you don't do the course.
If you can still do online courses Teesside is the cheapest place in the country that does them (that will save you a few £s)..
Your insurance will go up even with the course, as I discovered (56mph in a small 50mph section of the A1). I live on a 20mph limit road and am happy about that, so I have no problem reciprocating on other 20mph roads, I think it's a sensible speed limit in residential areas, roads with cyclists etc (and in London traffic it's often not a binding constraint anyway). You just need to change your mindset a bit as a driver and then it's fine.
Don't remember mine going up, or even being asked about it.
I wasn't asked, they sent me a sniffy letter saying "it has come to our attention..."
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
No thanks. Don’t want to live in some kind of paperwork state.
Silly objection. You already show a ticket to get in to a show or on to a train. A paperwork state is one where you can be arbitrarily asked in the street to prove who you are.
In 10 years time the state will know who and where you are at all times anyway via cctv and facial recognition. Paperwork is very last millennium.
Let’s imagine I was immune compromised due to my HIV status, and for other reasons I am not vaxxed.
(This is not true, it’s for the sake of argument).
What status precisely am I supposed to show Bob Jobsworth the Train Inspector?
I believe the domestic (Can't be international as different countries might like to know if you're actually vaccinated or not) vaccine QR code is pari passu for those who can't be vaccinated and the vaccinated.
I’m afraid I still find it an unnecessary infringement on my rights to go about my business as a citizen.
The health emergency would have to be much worse to justify even this “minor” imposition.
3.8m people have been told not to mix with un-vaxxed.
What is your advise to them in terms of them re-gaining freedoms again ?
What 3.8m?
The 3.8m who cannot be vaccinated..
This figure doesn’t make sense to me. Vax rates are 95% or higher in some cohorts.
Let’s assume 5% of adult population cannot be vaxxed, that’s only 2.5m people.
The SCV have been vaccinated.
My wife is one of the 3.8m SCV, she is double jabbed, she has been told not to mix with the un-vaxxed.
Those anti-vaxxers get their freedoms back.
My SCV wife does not, despite taking both the jabs etc.
I presume this is because jabbing is not 100% effective?
I know someone - also double jabbed - who undergoing chemo for lukaemia. I presume she is in the same position.
I feel like, if you are extremely vulnerable, you are vulnerable regardless. We need to look at covid now as equivalent to a bad winter flu. What do the extremely vulnerable do in those circs?
My wife takes the guidance of the health services, gets the annual flu jab etc (as do I to even though I would not qualify normally).
Problem is this is not the flu and many people are putting 3.8m people at risk and valuing their freedoms above those people like my wife.
In this case that means she loses her freedom's whilst those anti-vaxxers get their freedom's back.
one does the right thing for society, the other doesn't.
In one column masks reduce the transmission of covid.
On the other column, they steam up your glasses, you get a bit hot, some feel a bit constrained and you look silly.
No brainier.
Absolutely. Post-vaccines the latter is more important.
If you're an anti-vaxxer relying upon others wearing masks, perhaps buy an FFP3 mask instead?
Covid seems to be spreading pretty fast despite vaccines.
Among the unvaccinated.
We don't know that - especially given the fact the current infection / hospital numbers don't exactly correlate with eariler infection / hospital numbers.
I suspect an awful lot of people currently catching Covid are doubly vaccinated but are getting milder symptoms.
12% of people in hospital are double jabbed and 88% are unvaccinated. We know that kids and younger people don't really go to hospital for this either. That 88% is largely going to be people who refused the vaccine aged 50+.
The vaccines currently yield a reduction of 97% in hospital numbers for double jabbed people. Someone over 50 has got around a 9% chance of being hospitalised by COVID, now they have a 0.24% chance of going to hospital. The same as they'd have for the flu or any number of infections.
Once again, if double jabbed people can catch it but experience few to no symptoms is it something worth destroying the country over? In about 4 weeks all adults who want to be should be double jabbed. We're reopening before that to get our exit wave out before autumn. The exit wave is primarily going to hit the unvaccinated by choice. Those hospitalisations are going to happen whether we reopen in July, August or October or even April next year.
Finally, anyone who wants to can go and buy an FFP3 mask. If you feel uncomfortable for a while in the new/old normal then go and buy a pack of them. They aren't expensive and give very good two way protection. That is your responsibility. In a post vaccine world individual responsibility must be returned. Collective responsibility only made sense before vaccines.
Those numbers don't look right. Are you sure you aren't confusing the VE against hospitalization with the reduced conditional probability of hospitalization, given symptomatic infection?
--AS
12 double jabbed, the remainder either un-vaccinated or only single jabbed. The bit in bold was missed out.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
What is this anti white discrimination of which you speak?
Positive discrimination for ethnic applicants. Not everyone thinks this is the way to address balance issues.
It proved to be a roaring success in the Chicago Fire Dept. Not.
They literally set a different passing grade for promotion for different ethnicities.
There were absolutely no instances of lying about ethnic background or antagonism or even violence. Absolutely not. No sir....
I have suddenly realised that it may be useful to flaunt my BAME credentials.
I am 1/8 Indian, which would would have been “enough” under various abhorrent laws formerly deployed in the southern US.
That would have, indeed, been enough to get you a lowered mark in the Chicago Fire Dept. promotion exams, IIRC.
Some years ago, I was chatting with some lawyers who were a bit vexed by a problem that had been passed down to them. The then government wanted to legislate to ban the use of the "N" word. The problem was, that 99% of the use of the word, in the modern UK, is by gentlemen of the Hip Hop music varietal.
Apparently the problem had been passed around the law firms for ideas... So they'd been asked by their bosses to come up with ideas to bring mack to the firm, which in turn they could pass up to the Cabinet Office and get brownie points for.
Being me, I suggested a categorisation of the individuals rights to use the word based on whether or not they had more than one grandparents "worth" of suitable parentage... they thought this a great idea.
I actually had to stop them from sending that up the line. While malicious, even I have limits....
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
Assuming you are double-vaccinated + 14 days why on earth would you be bothered whether there are antivaxxers present or not? We must stop this divisiveness.
Anti-vaxers are blocking those freedoms for the 3.8m severely critically vulnerable, those who have no choice unlike the anti-vaxers.
Who's freedom matters more those who have done all they can to do the right thing and through no fault of their own are still vulnerable, despite being vaccinated, or those who don't give a shit about the rest of society ?
It does not follow that people who have done as they have been advised and got vaccinated and who take responsibility for their own health don't give a shit about society! Why don't you think that the bad manners are on the other side; those who want to constrain the lives of other people rather than taking responsibility for their own health? Aren't they the selfish ones?
The SCV are being told not to mix with the un-vaxxed.
What are they meant to do ?
The SCV are losing their freedoms as a result of those anti-vaxxers.
Give them their freedom back again and let the anti-vaxxers chose whether or not they also want the freedom that taking two jabs gives them.
You are valuing the freedom of the selfish more highly than those SCV people who have done all they can to do the right thing.
FFS it's not the "freedom of the selfish" it's just straightforward living in a liberal democracy - with the principles and liberties that this implies - not arguing from personal interest as you are clearly doing.
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
Assuming you are double-vaccinated + 14 days why on earth would you be bothered whether there are antivaxxers present or not? We must stop this divisiveness.
Anti-vaxers are blocking those freedoms for the 3.8m severely critically vulnerable, those who have no choice unlike the anti-vaxers.
Who's freedom matters more those who have done all they can to do the right thing and through no fault of their own are still vulnerable, despite being vaccinated, or those who don't give a shit about the rest of society ?
In Philip_Thompson's world the only person and thing that matters is Philip_Thompson's slight dislike and inconvenience of wearing a mask.
No. I'm quite capable of speaking for myself.
In my world individual responsibility means getting vaccinated.
If you want more than a vaccine, get an FFP3 mask.
I'm double vaccinated. I've done my bit.
Philip, I really don't understand this attitude. The vast majority of those who are now being infected are vaccinated because the vast majority of us are. Vaccination massively reduces the risks but as the vaxxed get into the tens of millions inevitably a small percentage of that figure amounts to a reasonable number.
So if you are one of those merely protected from serious illness by these wonderful vaccines but become a carrier are you really going to expose others to the virus you carry because you can't be arsed to wear a mask? I would honestly have expected better of you. In crowded indoor environments it will be selfish to choose not to wear a mask and those who make that choice will not have done their bit.
But everyone at risk of serious illness should be double vaccinated by then.
So what if I get infected asymptomatically and pass the virus to someone else double vaccinated who gets it asymptomatically?
If any adult isn't vaccinated then that's on them. Either they're antivaxx in which case that's their choice, or they're incapable of vaccinating in which case they should shield until this wave burns out so it's moot.
And the sooner this wave burns out, the sooner those incapable of being vaccinated can stop shielding. So flattening the curve and dragging it out makes no sense to me.
PS I don't go into especially crowded venues. I don't take public transportation and simply the shops. I won't be wearing a mask in shops from 19th.
Steve Braclay touring studios talking about the gov't trusting 'British common sense'. But the ONLY example he can give is an empty train, late at night, versus a crowded train, during rush hour. The value of clear guidance is precisely about how to behave BETWEEN such extremes. https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1414868734662021120
Guidance could be clearer, to be sure, but it also cannot cover every eventuality, which is what some people in effect demand when every single scenario does not have a specific example in guidance and that specific lack is used as criticism - we saw that last year.
Not to mention that, if the rule is "all must wear a mask on public transport", it can be enforced with a look and a tut 99% of the time. But if the rule depends on subjective judgments, it creates the conditions for fractiousness, arguments and even fights. https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1414870043113009161
I did say things could be clearer, there will always be areas of improvement not least because government guidance is frequently badly written and, occasionally, downright wrong (and we've covered many times before how the police repeatedly fail to understand the difference between guidance and law). The point was not even good guidance covers every situation, yet people will critique it on lack of very very particularised detail for their own specific scenarios.
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
No thanks. Don’t want to live in some kind of paperwork state.
Silly objection. You already show a ticket to get in to a show or on to a train. A paperwork state is one where you can be arbitrarily asked in the street to prove who you are.
In 10 years time the state will know who and where you are at all times anyway via cctv and facial recognition. Paperwork is very last millennium.
Let’s imagine I was immune compromised due to my HIV status, and for other reasons I am not vaxxed.
(This is not true, it’s for the sake of argument).
What status precisely am I supposed to show Bob Jobsworth the Train Inspector?
I believe the domestic (Can't be international as different countries might like to know if you're actually vaccinated or not) vaccine QR code is pari passu for those who can't be vaccinated and the vaccinated.
I’m afraid I still find it an unnecessary infringement on my rights to go about my business as a citizen.
The health emergency would have to be much worse to justify even this “minor” imposition.
3.8m people have been told not to mix with un-vaxxed.
What is your advise to them in terms of them re-gaining freedoms again ?
What 3.8m?
The 3.8m who cannot be vaccinated..
This figure doesn’t make sense to me. Vax rates are 95% or higher in some cohorts.
Let’s assume 5% of adult population cannot be vaxxed that’s only 2.5m people.
The number of adults that can't be vaccinated is going to be way way way less than 5%. More like 0.005%, probably not even that.
Having reviewed all the available evidence for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said these vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant people in high-risk groups which have been prioritised for vaccination, and should be offered to breastfeeding people in these groups. (Also the view of the MHRA and JCVI here)
HIV - it is possible that their immune response to the vaccine may be weaker, and that they may therefore be less well protected - I'd guess this is the group that would benefit most from vaccine passports frankly.
Which leaves people allergic to Polysorbate 80, PEG, a previous vaccination in the course and perhaps sadly a few dementia patients (Unable/unwilling to consent ?)
won't be vaccinated - now that's a different matter.
There is an issue with immune suppressed people - there are a number of medical conditions where suppressing the immune system is either a side effect of treatment, or actually the treatment.
They can be vaccinated, but it won't do a number of people much good.
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
No thanks. Don’t want to live in some kind of paperwork state.
Silly objection. You already show a ticket to get in to a show or on to a train. A paperwork state is one where you can be arbitrarily asked in the street to prove who you are.
In 10 years time the state will know who and where you are at all times anyway via cctv and facial recognition. Paperwork is very last millennium.
Let’s imagine I was immune compromised due to my HIV status, and for other reasons I am not vaxxed.
(This is not true, it’s for the sake of argument).
What status precisely am I supposed to show Bob Jobsworth the Train Inspector?
I believe the domestic (Can't be international as different countries might like to know if you're actually vaccinated or not) vaccine QR code is pari passu for those who can't be vaccinated and the vaccinated.
I’m afraid I still find it an unnecessary infringement on my rights to go about my business as a citizen.
The health emergency would have to be much worse to justify even this “minor” imposition.
3.8m people have been told not to mix with un-vaxxed.
What is your advise to them in terms of them re-gaining freedoms again ?
Vaccinated people can still pass on Covid. Who has told 3.8m people not to mix - specifically - with the unvaxed?
The chance of a fully vaccinated person passing covid to another fully vaccinated is estimated at 1 in 200,000....
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
Assuming you are double-vaccinated + 14 days why on earth would you be bothered whether there are antivaxxers present or not? We must stop this divisiveness.
Anti-vaxers are blocking those freedoms for the 3.8m severely critically vulnerable, those who have no choice unlike the anti-vaxers.
Who's freedom matters more those who have done all they can to do the right thing and through no fault of their own are still vulnerable, despite being vaccinated, or those who don't give a shit about the rest of society ?
It does not follow that people who have done as they have been advised and got vaccinated and who take responsibility for their own health don't give a shit about society! Why don't you think that the bad manners are on the other side; those who want to constrain the lives of other people rather than taking responsibility for their own health? Aren't they the selfish ones?
The SCV are being told not to mix with the un-vaxxed.
What are they meant to do ?
The SCV are losing their freedoms as a result of those anti-vaxxers.
Give them their freedom back again and let the anti-vaxxers chose whether or not they also want the freedom that taking two jabs gives them.
You are valuing the freedom of the selfish more highly than those SCV people who have done all they can to do the right thing.
FFS it's not the "freedom of the selfish" it's just straightforward living in a liberal democracy - with the principles and liberties that this implies - not arguing from personal interest as you are clearly doing.
You are totally ignoring the freedom and liberty of other people.
Where is the freedom for my wife to travel on a bus when there will be loads of un-vaxxed on there ?
It is freedom for the unsocial selfish of society to think that their actions have no consequence for the vulnerable.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
So are we now saying after 30 years that 30mph is unsafe for cyclists and children? If a cyclist ior a child is killed at 20mph do we then drop it to 10mph? A
t what point does the responsibility rest with parents to ensure children don't run out into the road or cyclists follow the same rules of the road as drivers instead of weaving in and out, ignoring traffic lights and one way systems and mounting the pavement whenever they feel like it?
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
No thanks. Don’t want to live in some kind of paperwork state.
Silly objection. You already show a ticket to get in to a show or on to a train. A paperwork state is one where you can be arbitrarily asked in the street to prove who you are.
In 10 years time the state will know who and where you are at all times anyway via cctv and facial recognition. Paperwork is very last millennium.
Let’s imagine I was immune compromised due to my HIV status, and for other reasons I am not vaxxed.
(This is not true, it’s for the sake of argument).
What status precisely am I supposed to show Bob Jobsworth the Train Inspector?
I believe the domestic (Can't be international as different countries might like to know if you're actually vaccinated or not) vaccine QR code is pari passu for those who can't be vaccinated and the vaccinated.
I’m afraid I still find it an unnecessary infringement on my rights to go about my business as a citizen.
The health emergency would have to be much worse to justify even this “minor” imposition.
3.8m people have been told not to mix with un-vaxxed.
What is your advise to them in terms of them re-gaining freedoms again ?
What 3.8m?
The 3.8m who cannot be vaccinated..
This figure doesn’t make sense to me. Vax rates are 95% or higher in some cohorts.
Let’s assume 5% of adult population cannot be vaxxed, that’s only 2.5m people.
The SCV have been vaccinated.
My wife is one of the 3.8m SCV, she is double jabbed, she has been told not to mix with the un-vaxxed.
Those anti-vaxxers get their freedoms back.
My SCV wife does not, despite taking both the jabs etc.
I presume this is because jabbing is not 100% effective?
I know someone - also double jabbed - who undergoing chemo for lukaemia. I presume she is in the same position.
I feel like, if you are extremely vulnerable, you are vulnerable regardless. We need to look at covid now as equivalent to a bad winter flu. What do the extremely vulnerable do in those circs?
My wife takes the guidance of the health services, gets the annual flu jab etc (as do I to even though I would not qualify normally).
Problem is this is not the flu and many people are putting 3.8m people at risk and valuing their freedoms above those people like my wife.
In this case that means she loses her freedom's whilst those anti-vaxxers get their freedom's back.
one does the right thing for society, the other doesn't.
It is a real concern. But not only one way. Let's take @Cocky_cockney. Articulated very clearly this morning reasons for him (?) not wearing a mask. Those who are clinically vulnerable are seeking to impose distress and anxiety on people like him.
I've only seen a few people wearing mask exemption lanyards. One was yesterday - a shopworker in Huntingdon. Zero problems with that.
However: at half term I took the little 'un to an attraction in Essex. There was a queue to get in, and behind us was a family of five. The adults and two eldest children (late teenagers, from their looks) all wore mask exemption lanyards. The youngest child (who would not have to wear a mask) did not.
Rather unkindly, I did wonder what medical condition(s) meant they had to have mask exemptions.
They did not keep their distance, and crowded in towards the rest of the queue. They occasionally swore as they talked. The two adults and one of the teenagers then lit cigarettes whilst in the queue ...
"an attraction in Essex"... Story immediately sounds implausible.
It was the excellent Mountfitchet Castle. They've discovered the perfect market for small children: murder and torture! We've also spent many a happy day at Audley End.
Steve Braclay touring studios talking about the gov't trusting 'British common sense'. But the ONLY example he can give is an empty train, late at night, versus a crowded train, during rush hour. The value of clear guidance is precisely about how to behave BETWEEN such extremes. https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1414868734662021120
Guidance could be clearer, to be sure, but it also cannot cover every eventuality, which is what some people in effect demand when every single scenario does not have a specific example in guidance and that specific lack is used as criticism - we saw that last year.
This.
The people demanding 'clear guidance' from the government for every conceivable possibility are the same people who criticize the government for every decision they take.
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
No thanks. Don’t want to live in some kind of paperwork state.
Silly objection. You already show a ticket to get in to a show or on to a train. A paperwork state is one where you can be arbitrarily asked in the street to prove who you are.
In 10 years time the state will know who and where you are at all times anyway via cctv and facial recognition. Paperwork is very last millennium.
Let’s imagine I was immune compromised due to my HIV status, and for other reasons I am not vaxxed.
(This is not true, it’s for the sake of argument).
What status precisely am I supposed to show Bob Jobsworth the Train Inspector?
I believe the domestic (Can't be international as different countries might like to know if you're actually vaccinated or not) vaccine QR code is pari passu for those who can't be vaccinated and the vaccinated.
I’m afraid I still find it an unnecessary infringement on my rights to go about my business as a citizen.
The health emergency would have to be much worse to justify even this “minor” imposition.
3.8m people have been told not to mix with un-vaxxed.
What is your advise to them in terms of them re-gaining freedoms again ?
Vaccinated people can still pass on Covid. Who has told 3.8m people not to mix - specifically - with the unvaxed?
The chance of a fully vaccinated person passing covid to another fully vaccinated is estimated at 1 in 200,000....
Given current infection rates in places like South Tyneside that doesn't feel right...
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
No thanks. Don’t want to live in some kind of paperwork state.
Silly objection. You already show a ticket to get in to a show or on to a train. A paperwork state is one where you can be arbitrarily asked in the street to prove who you are.
In 10 years time the state will know who and where you are at all times anyway via cctv and facial recognition. Paperwork is very last millennium.
Let’s imagine I was immune compromised due to my HIV status, and for other reasons I am not vaxxed.
(This is not true, it’s for the sake of argument).
What status precisely am I supposed to show Bob Jobsworth the Train Inspector?
I believe the domestic (Can't be international as different countries might like to know if you're actually vaccinated or not) vaccine QR code is pari passu for those who can't be vaccinated and the vaccinated.
I’m afraid I still find it an unnecessary infringement on my rights to go about my business as a citizen.
The health emergency would have to be much worse to justify even this “minor” imposition.
3.8m people have been told not to mix with un-vaxxed.
What is your advise to them in terms of them re-gaining freedoms again ?
What 3.8m?
The 3.8m who cannot be vaccinated..
This figure doesn’t make sense to me. Vax rates are 95% or higher in some cohorts.
Let’s assume 5% of adult population cannot be vaxxed that’s only 2.5m people.
The number of adults that can't be vaccinated is going to be way way way less than 5%. More like 0.005%, probably not even that.
Having reviewed all the available evidence for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said these vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant people in high-risk groups which have been prioritised for vaccination, and should be offered to breastfeeding people in these groups. (Also the view of the MHRA and JCVI here)
HIV - it is possible that their immune response to the vaccine may be weaker, and that they may therefore be less well protected - I'd guess this is the group that would benefit most from vaccine passports frankly.
Which leaves people allergic to Polysorbate 80, PEG, a previous vaccination in the course and perhaps sadly a few dementia patients (Unable/unwilling to consent ?)
won't be vaccinated - now that's a different matter.
There is an issue with immune suppressed people - there are a number of medical conditions where suppressing the immune system is either a side effect of treatment, or actually the treatment.
They can be vaccinated, but it won't do a number of people much good.
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
Assuming you are double-vaccinated + 14 days why on earth would you be bothered whether there are antivaxxers present or not? We must stop this divisiveness.
Anti-vaxers are blocking those freedoms for the 3.8m severely critically vulnerable, those who have no choice unlike the anti-vaxers.
Who's freedom matters more those who have done all they can to do the right thing and through no fault of their own are still vulnerable, despite being vaccinated, or those who don't give a shit about the rest of society ?
It does not follow that people who have done as they have been advised and got vaccinated and who take responsibility for their own health don't give a shit about society! Why don't you think that the bad manners are on the other side; those who want to constrain the lives of other people rather than taking responsibility for their own health? Aren't they the selfish ones?
The SCV are being told not to mix with the un-vaxxed.
What are they meant to do ?
The SCV are losing their freedoms as a result of those anti-vaxxers.
Give them their freedom back again and let the anti-vaxxers chose whether or not they also want the freedom that taking two jabs gives them.
You are valuing the freedom of the selfish more highly than those SCV people who have done all they can to do the right thing.
FFS it's not the "freedom of the selfish" it's just straightforward living in a liberal democracy - with the principles and liberties that this implies - not arguing from personal interest as you are clearly doing.
You are totally ignoring the freedom and liberty of other people.
Where is the freedom for my wife to travel on a bus when there will be loads of un-vaxxed on there ?
It is freedom for the unsocial selfish of society to think that their actions have no consequence for the vulnerable.
The risk, even to the 3.9m, is low - presuming they are double vaxxed.
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
Assuming you are double-vaccinated + 14 days why on earth would you be bothered whether there are antivaxxers present or not? We must stop this divisiveness.
Anti-vaxers are blocking those freedoms for the 3.8m severely critically vulnerable, those who have no choice unlike the anti-vaxers.
Who's freedom matters more those who have done all they can to do the right thing and through no fault of their own are still vulnerable, despite being vaccinated, or those who don't give a shit about the rest of society ?
In Philip_Thompson's world the only person and thing that matters is Philip_Thompson's slight dislike and inconvenience of wearing a mask.
No. I'm quite capable of speaking for myself.
In my world individual responsibility means getting vaccinated.
If you want more than a vaccine, get an FFP3 mask.
I'm double vaccinated. I've done my bit.
So you agree with what I said - as you've said nothing that goes against my point....
No it absolutely does go against your point.
In my world I am responsible for my own actions, you are responsible for your actions.
That doesn't mean that you don't matter, it just means you're responsible for taking care of yourself, I can't do it for you.
I think contrarian and Dura_Ace and other antivaxxers lives do matter, but I can't take their jab for them. They need to go get their own jab, nobody else can do it for them.
My point was that you don't care for anyone but yourself - which you continue to prove...
Simple question - Next Tuesday, you are on a train, the person sat opposite you has a sunflower lanyard. Do you wear a mask while sitting opposite her?
No I do care for others I just can't take actions for them, that they need to take themselves.
Next Tuesday I won't be on a train. I drive.
Next Tuesday your hypothetical person wearing a sunflower lanyard, are they wearing an FFP3 mask? Are they double vaccinated? Both of those questions affect them much more than whether I wear a mask or not.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
So are we now saying after 30 years that 30mph is unsafe for cyclists and children? If a cyclist ior a child is killed at 20mph do we then drop it to 10mph? A
t what point does the responsibility rest with parents to ensure children don't run out into the road or cyclists follow the same rules of the road as drivers instead of weaving in and out, ignoring traffic lights and one way systems and mounting the pavement whenever they feel like it?
The weird thing for me is that a lot of the areas in my area which have been made into 20mph zones are places where people could hardly ever get over 20mph anyway, either due to the length of road (like it is a very small close) or because the need to weave around parked cars and oncoming traffic made it very unlikely.
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
No thanks. Don’t want to live in some kind of paperwork state.
Silly objection. You already show a ticket to get in to a show or on to a train. A paperwork state is one where you can be arbitrarily asked in the street to prove who you are.
In 10 years time the state will know who and where you are at all times anyway via cctv and facial recognition. Paperwork is very last millennium.
Let’s imagine I was immune compromised due to my HIV status, and for other reasons I am not vaxxed.
(This is not true, it’s for the sake of argument).
What status precisely am I supposed to show Bob Jobsworth the Train Inspector?
I believe the domestic (Can't be international as different countries might like to know if you're actually vaccinated or not) vaccine QR code is pari passu for those who can't be vaccinated and the vaccinated.
I’m afraid I still find it an unnecessary infringement on my rights to go about my business as a citizen.
The health emergency would have to be much worse to justify even this “minor” imposition.
3.8m people have been told not to mix with un-vaxxed.
What is your advise to them in terms of them re-gaining freedoms again ?
Vaccinated people can still pass on Covid. Who has told 3.8m people not to mix - specifically - with the unvaxed?
The chance of a fully vaccinated person passing covid to another fully vaccinated is estimated at 1 in 200,000....
Given current infection rates in places like South Tyneside that doesn't feel right...
1/200,000 for each encounter of two random vaccinated bods who don't know each other's vaccination status ?
Did you ask when the speed camera/gun was last calibrated?
More than half the time they haven't done so to the schedule in the manufacturers maintenance requirements.....
Also training records for the cop operating it.
My solicitor has got me off 50% of the speeding offences of which I was guilty. Including one where I should definitely have gone to jail.
Back to the joy joy of police behaviour - they spent a vast amount of money harassing the solicitor who made quite a little practise out of pointing out that the evidence from speed guns etc was often inadmissible.
The unkind pointed out that the cost of actually calibrating the devices and training the users was considerably less than illegal farce they perpetrated.
@Cyclefree paints a disturbing picture. What Couzens did to Sarah Everard was evil. The Metropolitan Police seem to stagger from one crisis to the next, learning nothing.
And yet – and forgive me for not being familiar with the case – it is not clear that the two are causally connected. If Couzens had been discovered earlier and thrown out of the police, as he clearly should have been, or not recruited in the first place, how would this have saved Sarah Everard's life?
Couzens kidnapped, raped and murdered Sarah Everard but not in his role as a police officer. This was not like, for instance, tasering and kicking Dalian Atkinson to death or shooting Jean Charles de Menezes for running for the tube, or shooting Harry Stanley for carrying a chair leg, where the assailants' police standing was crucial.
Moving on, yes, the clues were there, as they often are. But we need to be careful that we do not rule out the rehabilitation of offenders. That man was convicted of flashing, or these days, that woman sent an offensive tweet. We have in the recent past had actors and reporters who in past lives had served time for murder: I'm not sure that could happen now.
But yes, on the big picture, there do seem to be systemic problems with the Met and other police forces. Lessons, one suspects, will not be learned.
Fact that it looks like his chums in the police covered up his escalating offences contributed a lot to it happening is pretty bad. Disaster after disaster but worst that seems to happen is they get promoted.
And Cressida Dick was very senior at the time that Jean Charles de Menezes met his death, and participated in the cover-up.
She wasn’t simply very senior, she was Gold Command, in charge of the operation. It was her decision to take the shot.
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
Assuming you are double-vaccinated + 14 days why on earth would you be bothered whether there are antivaxxers present or not? We must stop this divisiveness.
Anti-vaxers are blocking those freedoms for the 3.8m severely critically vulnerable, those who have no choice unlike the anti-vaxers.
Who's freedom matters more those who have done all they can to do the right thing and through no fault of their own are still vulnerable, despite being vaccinated, or those who don't give a shit about the rest of society ?
It does not follow that people who have done as they have been advised and got vaccinated and who take responsibility for their own health don't give a shit about society! Why don't you think that the bad manners are on the other side; those who want to constrain the lives of other people rather than taking responsibility for their own health? Aren't they the selfish ones?
The SCV are being told not to mix with the un-vaxxed.
What are they meant to do ?
The SCV are losing their freedoms as a result of those anti-vaxxers.
Give them their freedom back again and let the anti-vaxxers chose whether or not they also want the freedom that taking two jabs gives them.
You are valuing the freedom of the selfish more highly than those SCV people who have done all they can to do the right thing.
FFS it's not the "freedom of the selfish" it's just straightforward living in a liberal democracy - with the principles and liberties that this implies - not arguing from personal interest as you are clearly doing.
You are totally ignoring the freedom and liberty of other people.
Where is the freedom for my wife to travel on a bus when there will be loads of un-vaxxed on there ?
It is freedom for the unsocial selfish of society to think that their actions have no consequence for the vulnerable.
...and we are back to the old old libertarian point.
"My freedom to swing my fists ends where your nose begins".....
F1: markets just starting to go up on Ladbrokes. Remarkable that Norris is only 4 for a podium.
Silverstone is much more of a Mercedes track than recent events, and they’ve got major upgrades this weekend. I’d expect to see two Mercs and MV on the podium, but the weird qualifying format does have potential to mess things up.
It’s already been pointed out how great it would be for Lewis, as an example, if Bottas and Max were to come together in the sprint race.
Their only major upgrade of the season - and the worst weekend to introduce it, since the qualifying on Friday mean they only have one practice session in which to conduct meaningful testing.
In one column masks reduce the transmission of covid.
On the other column, they steam up your glasses, you get a bit hot, some feel a bit constrained and you look silly.
No brainier.
Absolutely. Post-vaccines the latter is more important.
If you're an anti-vaxxer relying upon others wearing masks, perhaps buy an FFP3 mask instead?
Covid seems to be spreading pretty fast despite vaccines.
Among the unvaccinated.
We don't know that - especially given the fact the current infection / hospital numbers don't exactly correlate with eariler infection / hospital numbers.
I suspect an awful lot of people currently catching Covid are doubly vaccinated but are getting milder symptoms.
12% of people in hospital are double jabbed and 88% are unvaccinated. We know that kids and younger people don't really go to hospital for this either. That 88% is largely going to be people who refused the vaccine aged 50+.
The vaccines currently yield a reduction of 97% in hospital numbers for double jabbed people. Someone over 50 has got around a 9% chance of being hospitalised by COVID, now they have a 0.24% chance of going to hospital. The same as they'd have for the flu or any number of infections.
Once again, if double jabbed people can catch it but experience few to no symptoms is it something worth destroying the country over? In about 4 weeks all adults who want to be should be double jabbed. We're reopening before that to get our exit wave out before autumn. The exit wave is primarily going to hit the unvaccinated by choice. Those hospitalisations are going to happen whether we reopen in July, August or October or even April next year.
Finally, anyone who wants to can go and buy an FFP3 mask. If you feel uncomfortable for a while in the new/old normal then go and buy a pack of them. They aren't expensive and give very good two way protection. That is your responsibility. In a post vaccine world individual responsibility must be returned. Collective responsibility only made sense before vaccines.
Those numbers don't look right. Are you sure you aren't confusing the VE against hospitalization with the reduced conditional probability of hospitalization, given symptomatic infection?
--AS
That is how vaccine efficacy is being calculated by PHE, the cumulative reduction in likelihood of being hospitalised. At the moment it's about 96% with two doses two weeks after the second dose and about 55% for one dose two weeks after the first dose.
Yes, cumulative reduction. Not reduction in moving from infection to hospitalization.
You said "Someone over 50 has got around a 9% chance of being hospitalised by COVID", so this is the conditional probability, given that they have (symptomatic? or just PCR confirmed) infection. Then you concluded "now they have a 0.24% chance of going to hospital". I think this is incorrect because (aside from the arithmetic not quite working out, but I assume rounding) it double counts the reduction in risk of infection by vaccination. The 96% reduction is reduction amongst all people, not those infected, isn't it?
I think the true conditional probability of hospitalization given symptomatic infection and vaccination must be about 1-3% for over 50s. Happy to be proved wrong.
@Cyclefree a friend resigned from the compliance department of a major investment bank that prided itself on its “ethical “ credentials, because his bosses expected him to ignore breaches of their professed standards. As he put it, if you are truly ethical, you don’t need to loudly proclaim the fact.
A decade ago I worked at a business unit of an Irish multi-national. In the boardroom they had the company ethics literally on the wall. Had fun in a management meeting about where the business was struggling in pointing behind me and saying "its starts by us not upholding any of our own values".
The Irish financial regulator once wrote a paper on ethics. Unfortunately, they knew so little about it that they spelt it wrong throughout the document and called it "ethitical conduct".
(Though if you wanted to be fair, "ethitical" is used in Hindi English. But somehow I don't think that what was inspiring the Irish.)
Are you sure about "Ethitical"? Never heard any of my Indian relatives use it!
I was told it. No idea if true. It sounds made up to me.
I don't really understand the government position on mask wearing on public transport. In the grand scheme of things it seems a very minor requirement.
Politically, its poor politics, as its so obvious they will get attacked for it and from a health point of view of all the possible covid restrictions it seems like a low cost sensible thing to have in place, that doesn't effect business.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
What is this anti white discrimination of which you speak?
Positive discrimination for ethnic applicants. Not everyone thinks this is the way to address balance issues.
It proved to be a roaring success in the Chicago Fire Dept. Not.
They literally set a different passing grade for promotion for different ethnicities.
There were absolutely no instances of lying about ethnic background or antagonism or even violence. Absolutely not. No sir....
I have suddenly realised that it may be useful to flaunt my BAME credentials.
I am 1/8 Indian, which would would have been “enough” under various abhorrent laws formerly deployed in the southern US.
More than enough under those horrific laws - “one drop” was enough. In Virginia there was a “Racial Integrity Act 1924” that made exemption for the descendants of Pocahontas
@Cyclefree paints a disturbing picture. What Couzens did to Sarah Everard was evil. The Metropolitan Police seem to stagger from one crisis to the next, learning nothing.
And yet – and forgive me for not being familiar with the case – it is not clear that the two are causally connected. If Couzens had been discovered earlier and thrown out of the police, as he clearly should have been, or not recruited in the first place, how would this have saved Sarah Everard's life?
Couzens kidnapped, raped and murdered Sarah Everard but not in his role as a police officer. This was not like, for instance, tasering and kicking Dalian Atkinson to death or shooting Jean Charles de Menezes for running for the tube, or shooting Harry Stanley for carrying a chair leg, where the assailants' police standing was crucial.
Moving on, yes, the clues were there, as they often are. But we need to be careful that we do not rule out the rehabilitation of offenders. That man was convicted of flashing, or these days, that woman sent an offensive tweet. We have in the recent past had actors and reporters who in past lives had served time for murder: I'm not sure that could happen now.
But yes, on the big picture, there do seem to be systemic problems with the Met and other police forces. Lessons, one suspects, will not be learned.
Fact that it looks like his chums in the police covered up his escalating offences contributed a lot to it happening is pretty bad. Disaster after disaster but worst that seems to happen is they get promoted.
And Cressida Dick was very senior at the time that Jean Charles de Menezes met his death, and participated in the cover-up.
She wasn’t simply very senior, she was Gold Command, in charge of the operation. It was her decision to take the shot.
As always the government shows the lack of a rigorous hard-headed final vetting of policy before it is announced. Masks should have remained mandatory on public transport.
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
Assuming you are double-vaccinated + 14 days why on earth would you be bothered whether there are antivaxxers present or not? We must stop this divisiveness.
Anti-vaxers are blocking those freedoms for the 3.8m severely critically vulnerable, those who have no choice unlike the anti-vaxers.
Who's freedom matters more those who have done all they can to do the right thing and through no fault of their own are still vulnerable, despite being vaccinated, or those who don't give a shit about the rest of society ?
In Philip_Thompson's world the only person and thing that matters is Philip_Thompson's slight dislike and inconvenience of wearing a mask.
No. I'm quite capable of speaking for myself.
In my world individual responsibility means getting vaccinated.
If you want more than a vaccine, get an FFP3 mask.
I'm double vaccinated. I've done my bit.
So you agree with what I said - as you've said nothing that goes against my point....
No it absolutely does go against your point.
In my world I am responsible for my own actions, you are responsible for your actions.
That doesn't mean that you don't matter, it just means you're responsible for taking care of yourself, I can't do it for you.
I think contrarian and Dura_Ace and other antivaxxers lives do matter, but I can't take their jab for them. They need to go get their own jab, nobody else can do it for them.
My point was that you don't care for anyone but yourself - which you continue to prove...
Simple question - Next Tuesday, you are on a train, the person sat opposite you has a sunflower lanyard. Do you wear a mask while sitting opposite her?
No I do care for others I just can't take actions for them, that they need to take themselves.
Next Tuesday I won't be on a train. I drive.
Next Tuesday your hypothetical person wearing a sunflower lanyard, are they wearing an FFP3 mask? Are they double vaccinated? Both of those questions affect them much more than whether I wear a mask or not.
So your solution for the person who is wearing a lanyard because they cannot wear a mask is for them to wear an even worse (for breathing purposes) mask..
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
So are we now saying after 30 years that 30mph is unsafe for cyclists and children? If a cyclist ior a child is killed at 20mph do we then drop it to 10mph? A
t what point does the responsibility rest with parents to ensure children don't run out into the road or cyclists follow the same rules of the road as drivers instead of weaving in and out, ignoring traffic lights and one way systems and mounting the pavement whenever they feel like it?
I was knocked off my bicycle when following all the rules of the road.
Take your victim-blaming elsewhere.
There are diminishing returns when reducing speed limits. It's perfectly possible to support reducing them to 20mph and oppose reducing them further.
Any limit is necessarily arbitrary. Would you get rid of them all?
@Cyclefree paints a disturbing picture. What Couzens did to Sarah Everard was evil. The Metropolitan Police seem to stagger from one crisis to the next, learning nothing.
And yet – and forgive me for not being familiar with the case – it is not clear that the two are causally connected. If Couzens had been discovered earlier and thrown out of the police, as he clearly should have been, or not recruited in the first place, how would this have saved Sarah Everard's life?
Couzens kidnapped, raped and murdered Sarah Everard but not in his role as a police officer. This was not like, for instance, tasering and kicking Dalian Atkinson to death or shooting Jean Charles de Menezes for running for the tube, or shooting Harry Stanley for carrying a chair leg, where the assailants' police standing was crucial.
Moving on, yes, the clues were there, as they often are. But we need to be careful that we do not rule out the rehabilitation of offenders. That man was convicted of flashing, or these days, that woman sent an offensive tweet. We have in the recent past had actors and reporters who in past lives had served time for murder: I'm not sure that could happen now.
But yes, on the big picture, there do seem to be systemic problems with the Met and other police forces. Lessons, one suspects, will not be learned.
Fact that it looks like his chums in the police covered up his escalating offences contributed a lot to it happening is pretty bad. Disaster after disaster but worst that seems to happen is they get promoted.
And Cressida Dick was very senior at the time that Jean Charles de Menezes met his death, and participated in the cover-up.
She wasn’t simply very senior, she was Gold Command, in charge of the operation. It was her decision to take the shot.
It would have been disgraceful, apparently, to suggest that because she was in charge of the operation, that she was in any way responsible for it.
I particularly liked the excuse that it was a bit noisy in the room - too many people talking.
So, a boss who can't even shout "SHUT THE F&*K UP!"...
What's the line... "You are not a superior officer. merely a higher ranking one" ???
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
No thanks. Don’t want to live in some kind of paperwork state.
Silly objection. You already show a ticket to get in to a show or on to a train. A paperwork state is one where you can be arbitrarily asked in the street to prove who you are.
In 10 years time the state will know who and where you are at all times anyway via cctv and facial recognition. Paperwork is very last millennium.
Let’s imagine I was immune compromised due to my HIV status, and for other reasons I am not vaxxed.
(This is not true, it’s for the sake of argument).
What status precisely am I supposed to show Bob Jobsworth the Train Inspector?
I believe the domestic (Can't be international as different countries might like to know if you're actually vaccinated or not) vaccine QR code is pari passu for those who can't be vaccinated and the vaccinated.
I’m afraid I still find it an unnecessary infringement on my rights to go about my business as a citizen.
The health emergency would have to be much worse to justify even this “minor” imposition.
3.8m people have been told not to mix with un-vaxxed.
What is your advise to them in terms of them re-gaining freedoms again ?
What 3.8m?
The 3.8m who cannot be vaccinated..
This figure doesn’t make sense to me. Vax rates are 95% or higher in some cohorts.
Let’s assume 5% of adult population cannot be vaxxed, that’s only 2.5m people.
The SCV have been vaccinated.
My wife is one of the 3.8m SCV, she is double jabbed, she has been told not to mix with the un-vaxxed.
Those anti-vaxxers get their freedoms back.
My SCV wife does not, despite taking both the jabs etc.
I presume this is because jabbing is not 100% effective?
I know someone - also double jabbed - who undergoing chemo for lukaemia. I presume she is in the same position.
I feel like, if you are extremely vulnerable, you are vulnerable regardless. We need to look at covid now as equivalent to a bad winter flu. What do the extremely vulnerable do in those circs?
My wife takes the guidance of the health services, gets the annual flu jab etc (as do I to even though I would not qualify normally).
Problem is this is not the flu and many people are putting 3.8m people at risk and valuing their freedoms above those people like my wife.
In this case that means she loses her freedom's whilst those anti-vaxxers get their freedom's back.
one does the right thing for society, the other doesn't.
It is a real concern. But not only one way. Let's take @Cocky_cockney. Articulated very clearly this morning reasons for him (?) not wearing a mask. Those who are clinically vulnerable are seeking to impose distress and anxiety on people like him.
Is there a hierarchy of needs? No idea.
Surely the clinically vulnerable have always been at risk of all sorts of infections and need to act accordingly.
Best that the two groups stay apart to protect the former.
So which group has been told to modify their behaviour?
Yep, the selfish get to carry on with impunity.
What are you proposing? Compulsory anti-vaccination?
The reality is that we have very high vax rates in this country - a tremendous asset which we should now leverage to unlock, unlock, unlock.
I am ok with mandatory masks on public transport if it makes people feel safer, but pretty much everything else should go.
Follow France's lead: If you are not jabbed, you are excluded from public activities - transport, eating, drinking, entertainment. The the vulnerable can attend these venues knowing that there are no anti-vaxxers in attendance.
No thanks. Don’t want to live in some kind of paperwork state.
Silly objection. You already show a ticket to get in to a show or on to a train. A paperwork state is one where you can be arbitrarily asked in the street to prove who you are.
In 10 years time the state will know who and where you are at all times anyway via cctv and facial recognition. Paperwork is very last millennium.
Let’s imagine I was immune compromised due to my HIV status, and for other reasons I am not vaxxed.
(This is not true, it’s for the sake of argument).
What status precisely am I supposed to show Bob Jobsworth the Train Inspector?
I believe the domestic (Can't be international as different countries might like to know if you're actually vaccinated or not) vaccine QR code is pari passu for those who can't be vaccinated and the vaccinated.
I’m afraid I still find it an unnecessary infringement on my rights to go about my business as a citizen.
The health emergency would have to be much worse to justify even this “minor” imposition.
3.8m people have been told not to mix with un-vaxxed.
What is your advise to them in terms of them re-gaining freedoms again ?
What 3.8m?
The 3.8m who cannot be vaccinated..
This figure doesn’t make sense to me. Vax rates are 95% or higher in some cohorts.
Let’s assume 5% of adult population cannot be vaxxed, that’s only 2.5m people.
The SCV have been vaccinated.
My wife is one of the 3.8m SCV, she is double jabbed, she has been told not to mix with the un-vaxxed.
Those anti-vaxxers get their freedoms back.
My SCV wife does not, despite taking both the jabs etc.
I presume this is because jabbing is not 100% effective?
I know someone - also double jabbed - who undergoing chemo for lukaemia. I presume she is in the same position.
I feel like, if you are extremely vulnerable, you are vulnerable regardless. We need to look at covid now as equivalent to a bad winter flu. What do the extremely vulnerable do in those circs?
My wife takes the guidance of the health services, gets the annual flu jab etc (as do I to even though I would not qualify normally).
Problem is this is not the flu and many people are putting 3.8m people at risk and valuing their freedoms above those people like my wife.
In this case that means she loses her freedom's whilst those anti-vaxxers get their freedom's back.
one does the right thing for society, the other doesn't.
It is a real concern. But not only one way. Let's take @Cocky_cockney. Articulated very clearly this morning reasons for him (?) not wearing a mask. Those who are clinically vulnerable are seeking to impose distress and anxiety on people like him.
Is there a hierarchy of needs? No idea.
Surely the clinically vulnerable have always been at risk of all sorts of infections and need to act accordingly.
Well it's easy for me to agree with that as I am not clinically vulnerable.
But I also think that we as a nation have altered greatly our perception of acceptable risk these past 18 months.
In one column masks reduce the transmission of covid.
On the other column, they steam up your glasses, you get a bit hot, some feel a bit constrained and you look silly.
No brainier.
Absolutely. Post-vaccines the latter is more important.
If you're an anti-vaxxer relying upon others wearing masks, perhaps buy an FFP3 mask instead?
Covid seems to be spreading pretty fast despite vaccines.
Among the unvaccinated.
We don't know that - especially given the fact the current infection / hospital numbers don't exactly correlate with eariler infection / hospital numbers.
I suspect an awful lot of people currently catching Covid are doubly vaccinated but are getting milder symptoms.
12% of people in hospital are double jabbed and 88% are unvaccinated. We know that kids and younger people don't really go to hospital for this either. That 88% is largely going to be people who refused the vaccine aged 50+.
The vaccines currently yield a reduction of 97% in hospital numbers for double jabbed people. Someone over 50 has got around a 9% chance of being hospitalised by COVID, now they have a 0.24% chance of going to hospital. The same as they'd have for the flu or any number of infections.
Once again, if double jabbed people can catch it but experience few to no symptoms is it something worth destroying the country over? In about 4 weeks all adults who want to be should be double jabbed. We're reopening before that to get our exit wave out before autumn. The exit wave is primarily going to hit the unvaccinated by choice. Those hospitalisations are going to happen whether we reopen in July, August or October or even April next year.
Finally, anyone who wants to can go and buy an FFP3 mask. If you feel uncomfortable for a while in the new/old normal then go and buy a pack of them. They aren't expensive and give very good two way protection. That is your responsibility. In a post vaccine world individual responsibility must be returned. Collective responsibility only made sense before vaccines.
Those numbers don't look right. Are you sure you aren't confusing the VE against hospitalization with the reduced conditional probability of hospitalization, given symptomatic infection?
--AS
That is how vaccine efficacy is being calculated by PHE, the cumulative reduction in likelihood of being hospitalised. At the moment it's about 96% with two doses two weeks after the second dose and about 55% for one dose two weeks after the first dose.
Yes, cumulative reduction. Not reduction in moving from infection to hospitalization.
You said "Someone over 50 has got around a 9% chance of being hospitalised by COVID", so this is the conditional probability, given that they have (symptomatic? or just PCR confirmed) infection. Then you concluded "now they have a 0.24% chance of going to hospital". I think this is incorrect because (aside from the arithmetic not quite working out, but I assume rounding) it double counts the reduction in risk of infection by vaccination. The 96% reduction is reduction amongst all people, not those infected, isn't it?
I think the true conditional probability of hospitalization given symptomatic infection and vaccination must be about 1-3% for over 50s. Happy to be proved wrong.
--AS
From my browsing of Covid Twitter these lo so many months more than anything else that sounds about right. But remember I’m a solicitor. We don’t do maths.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
So are we now saying after 30 years that 30mph is unsafe for cyclists and children? If a cyclist ior a child is killed at 20mph do we then drop it to 10mph? A
t what point does the responsibility rest with parents to ensure children don't run out into the road or cyclists follow the same rules of the road as drivers instead of weaving in and out, ignoring traffic lights and one way systems and mounting the pavement whenever they feel like it?
Counterintuitively, there is evidence that introduction of 20mph zones increases the number of accidents. As you would expect, the tone of this varies from source to source. The Daily Mail and Express are fairly unequivocal, as is 'Car Throttle', which doesn't sound a disinterested source. The Guardian is more non-commital, merely quoting a DfT report that says there is no evidence that 20mph zones reduced accidents. Other speed reduction advocacy groups, as you would expect, claim the opposite. The picture is at best muddy.
Why should a reduction in speeds increase accidents? Law of unintended consequences. Basically, traffic is a complex system and simple inputs do not necessarily have simple outputs. People will make different route choices and drive with different amounts of care in different circumstances.
I thought it was going to be about "freedom day"....
Same data but on a log axis - now you can see that hospital admissions are now growing at almost the same rate as cases. Roughly doubling every 11 days. V unsettling. Especially given cases have further to rise. So what next? https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1414658909239918595/photo/1
Ummm
I'm not sure that's unsettling at all. Admissions seem to lag cases by a very short period, and cases are flattening off right now.
Unless you think that admissions will continue to rise, uncoupled from flattening (or declining) case numbers. Which would be an odd attitude.
The government are forecasting an explosion in cases. 100k new cases a day says Javid. Which means worrying numbers in hospital does it not.
Good for them.
Case growth is slowing, ZOE reports an absolute decline in the number of unvaccinated people with Covid, more and more people are double-vaccinated, and schools are about to go on holiday. (If nothing else, the last will dramatically lower the number of people *testing* positive for CV19.)
It may be that cases reach 100,000 per day, but my money is against it.
Numbers have been stuck on 30-35K for the last 6 days. It would be good if this proves to be the peak.
And in the 6 days before that they were stuck in the range 24-28K And in the 23rd to the 27th they were stuck in the range 14-18K And from the 9th to the 15th they were stuck in the range 7500-8000 And at the end of may they were stuck in the range of 3100-4100 and had definitely peaked.
I don't think we are at the peak, but the rate of growth is slowing. Also in Scotland, cases are declining. i expect that to happen in England too when the the schools close and s the footy is now over. Going to the pub to watch the Olympics is not quite as popular...
Looking at reported cases in England (so removing Scotland from the equation) against day of the week:
The step up usually comes between Tuesday and Thursday. Then it flattens from Thursday to Friday to Saturday to Sunday (and occasionally Monday).
The acid test will be Wednesday. If there's no big uptick today or tomorrow, it'll be very encouraging. If not, we're still in the cycle (even if it's less of a proportionate jump than before)
Steve Braclay touring studios talking about the gov't trusting 'British common sense'. But the ONLY example he can give is an empty train, late at night, versus a crowded train, during rush hour. The value of clear guidance is precisely about how to behave BETWEEN such extremes. https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1414868734662021120
I'll give him some common sense.
Pox is spiking. It'll get worse before it gets better. If you want to keep the new looser restrictions wear a fucking mask. Dickheads.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
So are we now saying after 30 years that 30mph is unsafe for cyclists and children? If a cyclist ior a child is killed at 20mph do we then drop it to 10mph? A
t what point does the responsibility rest with parents to ensure children don't run out into the road or cyclists follow the same rules of the road as drivers instead of weaving in and out, ignoring traffic lights and one way systems and mounting the pavement whenever they feel like it?
20mph in a school zone or other with high volumes of pedestrians absolutely makes sense.
The risks of 20, 30 and 40 to a pedestrian are dramatically different.
@Cyclefree paints a disturbing picture. What Couzens did to Sarah Everard was evil. The Metropolitan Police seem to stagger from one crisis to the next, learning nothing.
And yet – and forgive me for not being familiar with the case – it is not clear that the two are causally connected. If Couzens had been discovered earlier and thrown out of the police, as he clearly should have been, or not recruited in the first place, how would this have saved Sarah Everard's life?
Couzens kidnapped, raped and murdered Sarah Everard but not in his role as a police officer. This was not like, for instance, tasering and kicking Dalian Atkinson to death or shooting Jean Charles de Menezes for running for the tube, or shooting Harry Stanley for carrying a chair leg, where the assailants' police standing was crucial.
Moving on, yes, the clues were there, as they often are. But we need to be careful that we do not rule out the rehabilitation of offenders. That man was convicted of flashing, or these days, that woman sent an offensive tweet. We have in the recent past had actors and reporters who in past lives had served time for murder: I'm not sure that could happen now.
But yes, on the big picture, there do seem to be systemic problems with the Met and other police forces. Lessons, one suspects, will not be learned.
Fact that it looks like his chums in the police covered up his escalating offences contributed a lot to it happening is pretty bad. Disaster after disaster but worst that seems to happen is they get promoted.
And Cressida Dick was very senior at the time that Jean Charles de Menezes met his death, and participated in the cover-up.
She wasn’t simply very senior, she was Gold Command, in charge of the operation. It was her decision to take the shot.
It would have been disgraceful, apparently, to suggest that because she was in charge of the operation, that she was in any way responsible for it.
I particularly liked the excuse that it was a bit noisy in the room - too many people talking.
So, a boss who can't even shout "SHUT THE F&*K UP!"...
What's the line... "You are not a superior officer. merely a higher ranking one" ???
From the classic military movie 'Down Periscope'?!
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
So are we now saying after 30 years that 30mph is unsafe for cyclists and children? If a cyclist ior a child is killed at 20mph do we then drop it to 10mph? A
t what point does the responsibility rest with parents to ensure children don't run out into the road or cyclists follow the same rules of the road as drivers instead of weaving in and out, ignoring traffic lights and one way systems and mounting the pavement whenever they feel like it?
Counterintuitively, there is evidence that introduction of 20mph zones increases the number of accidents. As you would expect, the tone of this varies from source to source. The Daily Mail and Express are fairly unequivocal, as is 'Car Throttle', which doesn't sound a disinterested source. The Guardian is more non-commital, merely quoting a DfT report that says there is no evidence that 20mph zones reduced accidents. Other speed reduction advocacy groups, as you would expect, claim the opposite. The picture is at best muddy.
Why should a reduction in speeds increase accidents? Law of unintended consequences. Basically, traffic is a complex system and simple inputs do not necessarily have simple outputs. People will make different route choices and drive with different amounts of care in different circumstances.
Then there is the “shared space”/“naked streets” movement who claim some success. The road traffic equivalent of a herd immunity by infection strategy.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
So are we now saying after 30 years that 30mph is unsafe for cyclists and children? If a cyclist ior a child is killed at 20mph do we then drop it to 10mph? A
t what point does the responsibility rest with parents to ensure children don't run out into the road or cyclists follow the same rules of the road as drivers instead of weaving in and out, ignoring traffic lights and one way systems and mounting the pavement whenever they feel like it?
My understanding, and this is based largely on what I learned at my speed awareness course so perhaps it is all lies perpetuated by the road safety industry, is that at 20mph you will almost never kill the person you hit, at 40mph you will almost always kill them, and at 30mph it's a throw of the dice. So anywhere you have a decent chance of a kid running out in front of you, 20 seems reasonable. As for parents' responsibility, you can teach your kids about road safety till you're blue in the face, but the way kids' brains work, they can easily walk into the road without looking, run after a ball or whatever, unless you're physically holding onto them. And at the end of the day, I think a kid has more right to walk down their street without living in fear than some random person has to drive down their street at potentially life-threatening speeds. This is what I mean by a change of mindset, drivers need to understand that they do not sit at the top of a hierarchy of people using the space. I say all of this as a driver, but also a parent, a resident and (occasional) cyclist.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
What is this anti white discrimination of which you speak?
Positive discrimination for ethnic applicants. Not everyone thinks this is the way to address balance issues.
It proved to be a roaring success in the Chicago Fire Dept. Not.
They literally set a different passing grade for promotion for different ethnicities.
There were absolutely no instances of lying about ethnic background or antagonism or even violence. Absolutely not. No sir....
I have suddenly realised that it may be useful to flaunt my BAME credentials.
I am 1/8 Indian, which would would have been “enough” under various abhorrent laws formerly deployed in the southern US.
More than enough under those horrific laws - “one drop” was enough. In Virginia there was a “Racial Integrity Act 1924” that made exemption for the descendants of Pocahontas
I thought it was going to be about "freedom day"....
Same data but on a log axis - now you can see that hospital admissions are now growing at almost the same rate as cases. Roughly doubling every 11 days. V unsettling. Especially given cases have further to rise. So what next? https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1414658909239918595/photo/1
Ummm
I'm not sure that's unsettling at all. Admissions seem to lag cases by a very short period, and cases are flattening off right now.
Unless you think that admissions will continue to rise, uncoupled from flattening (or declining) case numbers. Which would be an odd attitude.
The government are forecasting an explosion in cases. 100k new cases a day says Javid. Which means worrying numbers in hospital does it not.
Good for them.
Case growth is slowing, ZOE reports an absolute decline in the number of unvaccinated people with Covid, more and more people are double-vaccinated, and schools are about to go on holiday. (If nothing else, the last will dramatically lower the number of people *testing* positive for CV19.)
It may be that cases reach 100,000 per day, but my money is against it.
Numbers have been stuck on 30-35K for the last 6 days. It would be good if this proves to be the peak.
And in the 6 days before that they were stuck in the range 24-28K And in the 23rd to the 27th they were stuck in the range 14-18K And from the 9th to the 15th they were stuck in the range 7500-8000 And at the end of may they were stuck in the range of 3100-4100 and had definitely peaked.
I don't think we are at the peak, but the rate of growth is slowing. Also in Scotland, cases are declining. i expect that to happen in England too when the the schools close and s the footy is now over. Going to the pub to watch the Olympics is not quite as popular...
Looking at reported cases in England (so removing Scotland from the equation) against day of the week:
The step up usually comes between Tuesday and Thursday. Then it flattens from Thursday to Friday to Saturday to Sunday (and occasionally Monday).
The acid test will be Wednesday. If there's no big uptick today or tomorrow, it'll be very encouraging. If not, we're still in the cycle (even if it's less of a proportionate jump than before)
Yup...
The day to day regional changes are already looking lower, before the usual 3-5 day cut off...
I've been busy so have only just caught up with this thread but I found it interesting. The dismissive attitude of one poster towards it might explain why so few women post on this board. Thanks to Cyclefree for writing it and OGH for posting it.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
What is this anti white discrimination of which you speak?
Positive discrimination for ethnic applicants. Not everyone thinks this is the way to address balance issues.
It proved to be a roaring success in the Chicago Fire Dept. Not.
They literally set a different passing grade for promotion for different ethnicities.
There were absolutely no instances of lying about ethnic background or antagonism or even violence. Absolutely not. No sir....
I have suddenly realised that it may be useful to flaunt my BAME credentials.
I am 1/8 Indian, which would would have been “enough” under various abhorrent laws formerly deployed in the southern US.
More than enough under those horrific laws - “one drop” was enough. In Virginia there was a “Racial Integrity Act 1924” that made exemption for the descendants of Pocahontas
Alabama only voted to remove its miscegenation statute in 2000, by 60:40.
I am a great admirer of Southern music, food, charm, and chutzpah and saddened it is stained with this shite.
I agree 100%. It serves as a reminder that one can love a culture but be abhorred by aspects of it. Something we left(ish) English would do well to remember.
As always the government shows the lack of a rigorous hard-headed final vetting of policy before it is announced. Masks should have remained mandatory on public transport.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
So are we now saying after 30 years that 30mph is unsafe for cyclists and children? If a cyclist ior a child is killed at 20mph do we then drop it to 10mph? A
t what point does the responsibility rest with parents to ensure children don't run out into the road or cyclists follow the same rules of the road as drivers instead of weaving in and out, ignoring traffic lights and one way systems and mounting the pavement whenever they feel like it?
Counterintuitively, there is evidence that introduction of 20mph zones increases the number of accidents. As you would expect, the tone of this varies from source to source. The Daily Mail and Express are fairly unequivocal, as is 'Car Throttle', which doesn't sound a disinterested source. The Guardian is more non-commital, merely quoting a DfT report that says there is no evidence that 20mph zones reduced accidents. Other speed reduction advocacy groups, as you would expect, claim the opposite. The picture is at best muddy.
Why should a reduction in speeds increase accidents? Law of unintended consequences. Basically, traffic is a complex system and simple inputs do not necessarily have simple outputs. People will make different route choices and drive with different amounts of care in different circumstances.
Then there is the “shared space”/“naked streets” movement who claim some success. The road traffic equivalent of a herd immunity by infection strategy.
It is more interesting than that. Interviews with drivers showed that what upsets them about the "naked streets" layouts is that they have to consciously drive, rather than set their brain on "automatically stay between the lines".
It is exactly that semi-conscious mind state for driving where accidents happen...
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
So are we now saying after 30 years that 30mph is unsafe for cyclists and children? If a cyclist ior a child is killed at 20mph do we then drop it to 10mph? A
t what point does the responsibility rest with parents to ensure children don't run out into the road or cyclists follow the same rules of the road as drivers instead of weaving in and out, ignoring traffic lights and one way systems and mounting the pavement whenever they feel like it?
My understanding, and this is based largely on what I learned at my speed awareness course so perhaps it is all lies perpetuated by the road safety industry, is that at 20mph you will almost never kill the person you hit, at 40mph you will almost always kill them, and at 30mph it's a throw of the dice. So anywhere you have a decent chance of a kid running out in front of you, 20 seems reasonable. As for parents' responsibility, you can teach your kids about road safety till you're blue in the face, but the way kids' brains work, they can easily walk into the road without looking, run after a ball or whatever, unless you're physically holding onto them. And at the end of the day, I think a kid has more right to walk down their street without living in fear than some random person has to drive down their street at potentially life-threatening speeds. This is what I mean by a change of mindset, drivers need to understand that they do not sit at the top of a hierarchy of people using the space. I say all of this as a driver, but also a parent, a resident and (occasional) cyclist.
We didn't do the control experiment (ie have them be hit by a car at 20mph and then 40mph) but when a mate of mine was hit by a car doing 30mph the medics said that at 40mph they would have been dead.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
It's cheaper than the increase in insurance will be if you don't do the course.
If you can still do online courses Teesside is the cheapest place in the country that does them (that will save you a few £s)..
Your insurance will go up even with the course, as I discovered (56mph in a small 50mph section of the A1). I live on a 20mph limit road and am happy about that, so I have no problem reciprocating on other 20mph roads, I think it's a sensible speed limit in residential areas, roads with cyclists etc (and in London traffic it's often not a binding constraint anyway). You just need to change your mindset a bit as a driver and then it's fine.
The problem is that for too many the mindset is Cocky's I'll do what I like and fuck you" approach. My old street was tight, residential and had blind 90 degree bends built deliberately to slow traffic. So it was spot the twat with drivers who would floor it in 2nd off every corner then slam on for the next one, because its their RIGHT.
The authorities don't help though. Speed limits need to be proportionate, both to the statistical risk and to the *visible* risk. A 20mph limit on tight streets should be a given, but people learn to disregard silly speed limits slapped on as a blanket where there is no obvious need.
Reports on Afghanistan and the Taliban advance often seem to focus on the failings on the government side, but why have they been so stubbornly successful? Are they just very well organised? Are they really popular among the people? Because the former can be countered a lot more than if the latter.
Comments
Is the withholding treatment element relevant. Bloke comes in ( @Carnyx is making a similar point) with a broken leg - or worse - and no mask, and refuses to put one on.
Can they refuse to treat him?
They literally set a different passing grade for promotion for different ethnicities.
There were absolutely no instances of lying about ethnic background or antagonism or even violence. Absolutely not. No sir....
If you can still do online courses Teesside is the cheapest place in the country that does them (that will save you a few £s)..
So if you are one of those merely protected from serious illness by these wonderful vaccines but become a carrier are you really going to expose others to the virus you carry because you can't be arsed to wear a mask? I would honestly have expected better of you. In crowded indoor environments it will be selfish to choose not to wear a mask and those who make that choice will not have done their bit.
What are they meant to do ?
The SCV are losing their freedoms as a result of those anti-vaxxers.
Give them their freedom back again and let the anti-vaxxers chose whether or not they also want the freedom that taking two jabs gives them.
You are valuing the freedom of the selfish more highly than those SCV people who have done all they can to do the right thing.
Vax rates are 95% or higher in some cohorts.
Let’s assume 5% of adult population cannot be vaxxed, that’s only 2.5m people.
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1414868734662021120
More than half the time they haven't done so to the schedule in the manufacturers maintenance requirements.....
The other feature of the course was that everyone was miserable about being there, except, of course, the guys who were being paid to run the course. There's usually a bit of banter after a course, but not this time!
In my world I am responsible for my own actions, you are responsible for your actions.
That doesn't mean that you don't matter, it just means you're responsible for taking care of yourself, I can't do it for you.
I think contrarian and Dura_Ace and other antivaxxers lives do matter, but I can't take their jab for them. They need to go get their own jab, nobody else can do it for them.
My wife is one of the 3.8m SCV, she is double jabbed, she has been told not to mix with the un-vaxxed.
Those anti-vaxxers get their freedoms back.
My SCV wife does not, despite taking both the jabs etc.
I will stop teasing him now.
Have a lovely day all.
But this was in the queue for a family attraction, with lots of kids about, excited for the day ahead. It was not particularly pleasant. In fact, given the situation I'd argue that it was fairly obnoxious behaviour - the no-mask lanyards being a funny addition.
I am 1/8 Indian, which would would have been “enough” under various abhorrent laws formerly deployed in the southern US.
Simple question - Next Tuesday, you are on a train, the person sat opposite you has a sunflower lanyard. Do you wear a mask while sitting opposite her?
I live on a 20mph limit road and am happy about that, so I have no problem reciprocating on other 20mph roads, I think it's a sensible speed limit in residential areas, roads with cyclists etc (and in London traffic it's often not a binding constraint anyway). You just need to change your mindset a bit as a driver and then it's fine.
It’s already been pointed out how great it would be for Lewis, as an example, if Bottas and Max were to come together in the sprint race.
I know someone - also double jabbed - who undergoing chemo for lukaemia. I presume she is in the same position.
I feel like, if you are extremely vulnerable, you are vulnerable regardless. We need to look at covid now as equivalent to a bad winter flu. What do the extremely vulnerable do in those circs?
Does he sit there in the hospital foyer demanding to be seen and what is the resolution?
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1414870043113009161
Having reviewed all the available evidence for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said these vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant people in high-risk groups which have been prioritised for vaccination, and should be offered to breastfeeding people in these groups. (Also the view of the MHRA and JCVI here)
HIV - it is possible that their immune response to the vaccine may be weaker, and that they may therefore be less well protected - I'd guess this is the group that would benefit most from vaccine passports frankly.
Which leaves people allergic to Polysorbate 80, PEG, a previous vaccination in the course and perhaps sadly a few dementia patients (Unable/unwilling to consent ?)
won't be vaccinated - now that's a different matter.
It sounds like (to use round numbers) 4m are extremely vulnerable, but half of those are vaxxable.
Edit: just seem the note above.
Ok, so pretty much everyone is vaxxable.
And we know the vaccines work v well.
So @ManchesterKurt, what is your solution? True vulnerability is going to be a fraction of the 3.9m.
Problem is this is not the flu and many people are putting 3.8m people at risk and valuing their freedoms above those people like my wife.
In this case that means she loses her freedom's whilst those anti-vaxxers get their freedom's back.
one does the right thing for society, the other doesn't.
Some years ago, I was chatting with some lawyers who were a bit vexed by a problem that had been passed down to them. The then government wanted to legislate to ban the use of the "N" word. The problem was, that 99% of the use of the word, in the modern UK, is by gentlemen of the Hip Hop music varietal.
Apparently the problem had been passed around the law firms for ideas... So they'd been asked by their bosses to come up with ideas to bring mack to the firm, which in turn they could pass up to the Cabinet Office and get brownie points for.
Being me, I suggested a categorisation of the individuals rights to use the word based on whether or not they had more than one grandparents "worth" of suitable parentage... they thought this a great idea.
I actually had to stop them from sending that up the line. While malicious, even I have limits....
So what if I get infected asymptomatically and pass the virus to someone else double vaccinated who gets it asymptomatically?
If any adult isn't vaccinated then that's on them. Either they're antivaxx in which case that's their choice, or they're incapable of vaccinating in which case they should shield until this wave burns out so it's moot.
And the sooner this wave burns out, the sooner those incapable of being vaccinated can stop shielding. So flattening the curve and dragging it out makes no sense to me.
PS I don't go into especially crowded venues. I don't take public transportation and simply the shops. I won't be wearing a mask in shops from 19th.
They can be vaccinated, but it won't do a number of people much good.
My solicitor has got me off 50% of the speeding offences of which I was guilty. Including one where I should definitely have gone to jail.
Where is the freedom for my wife to travel on a bus when there will be loads of un-vaxxed on there ?
It is freedom for the unsocial selfish of society to think that their actions have no consequence for the vulnerable.
t what point does the responsibility rest with parents to ensure children don't run out into the road or cyclists follow the same rules of the road as drivers instead of weaving in and out, ignoring traffic lights and one way systems and mounting the pavement whenever they feel like it?
Is there a hierarchy of needs? No idea.
It was the excellent Mountfitchet Castle. They've discovered the perfect market for small children: murder and torture! We've also spent many a happy day at Audley End.
The people demanding 'clear guidance' from the government for every conceivable possibility are the same people who criticize the government for every decision they take.
The government’s advice is unhelpful, I suggest.
Next Tuesday I won't be on a train. I drive.
Next Tuesday your hypothetical person wearing a sunflower lanyard, are they wearing an FFP3 mask? Are they double vaccinated? Both of those questions affect them much more than whether I wear a mask or not.
The unkind pointed out that the cost of actually calibrating the devices and training the users was considerably less than illegal farce they perpetrated.
"My freedom to swing my fists ends where your nose begins".....
All freedoms eventually intersect.
You said "Someone over 50 has got around a 9% chance of being hospitalised by COVID", so this is the conditional probability, given that they have (symptomatic? or just PCR confirmed) infection. Then you concluded "now they have a 0.24% chance of going to hospital". I think this is incorrect because (aside from the arithmetic not quite working out, but I assume rounding) it double counts the reduction in risk of infection by vaccination. The 96% reduction is reduction amongst all people, not those infected, isn't it?
I think the true conditional probability of hospitalization given symptomatic infection and vaccination must be about 1-3% for over 50s. Happy to be proved wrong.
--AS
Politically, its poor politics, as its so obvious they will get attacked for it and from a health point of view of all the possible covid restrictions it seems like a low cost sensible thing to have in place, that doesn't effect business.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/13/afghanistan-stunned-by-scale-and-speed-of-security-forces-collapse
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924#The_Pocahontas_exception
Take your victim-blaming elsewhere.
There are diminishing returns when reducing speed limits. It's perfectly possible to support reducing them to 20mph and oppose reducing them further.
Any limit is necessarily arbitrary. Would you get rid of them all?
I particularly liked the excuse that it was a bit noisy in the room - too many people talking.
So, a boss who can't even shout "SHUT THE F&*K UP!"...
What's the line... "You are not a superior officer. merely a higher ranking one" ???
But I also think that we as a nation have altered greatly our perception of acceptable risk these past 18 months.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6166915/UK-councils-wasting-money-20mph-speed-limit-zones-cause-accidents-road-deaths.html
Why should a reduction in speeds increase accidents? Law of unintended consequences. Basically, traffic is a complex system and simple inputs do not necessarily have simple outputs. People will make different route choices and drive with different amounts of care in different circumstances.
The step up usually comes between Tuesday and Thursday. Then it flattens from Thursday to Friday to Saturday to Sunday (and occasionally Monday).
The acid test will be Wednesday. If there's no big uptick today or tomorrow, it'll be very encouraging. If not, we're still in the cycle (even if it's less of a proportionate jump than before)
Pox is spiking.
It'll get worse before it gets better.
If you want to keep the new looser restrictions wear a fucking mask.
Dickheads.
The risks of 20, 30 and 40 to a pedestrian are dramatically different.
As for parents' responsibility, you can teach your kids about road safety till you're blue in the face, but the way kids' brains work, they can easily walk into the road without looking, run after a ball or whatever, unless you're physically holding onto them. And at the end of the day, I think a kid has more right to walk down their street without living in fear than some random person has to drive down their street at potentially life-threatening speeds. This is what I mean by a change of mindset, drivers need to understand that they do not sit at the top of a hierarchy of people using the space. I say all of this as a driver, but also a parent, a resident and (occasional) cyclist.
I am a great admirer of Southern music, food, charm, and chutzpah and saddened it is stained with this shite.
The day to day regional changes are already looking lower, before the usual 3-5 day cut off...
It is exactly that semi-conscious mind state for driving where accidents happen...
The authorities don't help though. Speed limits need to be proportionate, both to the statistical risk and to the *visible* risk. A 20mph limit on tight streets should be a given, but people learn to disregard silly speed limits slapped on as a blanket where there is no obvious need.