Lets put it like this. When I go to Germany next month it'll be mandatory mask wearing with pox rates less than a quarter they are here. So when I then fly into London for the few days that follow it would be illogical to adopt the Tories' view and say "no risk, no mask".
Yes I have been double jabbed. But pox is still running rampant and still making people ill and still giving double-jabbed people like my mum long Covid.
Well fuck that. If me wearing a mask makes some people on the blue side of politics react, I honestly don't care. We will get through this pandemic. We haven't yet.
The vast majority of people on the blue side think you should be free to wear whatever you damn well like. They just don’t want you telling them what to wear.
Yes its amusing that Rochdale has been moaning about the fact that a mask mandate isn't legally mandated - then he thinks him wearing a mask will get a reaction? What twisted projectionism.
I couldn't care less what other people wear. Its a shame if people feel they need to wear a mask, and I think its silly - but its their choice and I'll respect that.
People can wear a mask until they die decades from now for all I care. Some of Asian origin did pre-pandemic. Just don't expect others to do so.
You've made it amply clear you don't give a toss about anyone.
I do give a toss about people which is why I think the vulnerable who need protection should get the advice to wear a proper FFP3 mask that actually does the job instead of a cloth mask placebo.
As for antivaxxers - they've made their choice. Its not my job to be masked up to protect others from their own decisions. Why should it be? 🤷♂️
What is wrong with a placebo? I thought you were a libertarian?
I'm not sure that that article can be described as empty-headed. To a certain extent it simply lays out an unsurprising but important fact, that many of the current issues are related to Brexit, and that the British political and media class have merely become nervous of describing that head-on.
If Brexit was the sole cause then that would be different, but it is multi faceted with covid, lost driving tests, older drivers retiring, and the terrible work conditions and pay making it very complex
And let's not forget Europe have a shortage of half a million drivers
There are some who are trying to make this all about Brexit for their own political motives but it is not
We did cover this in quite a lot of detail yesterday, to be fair. Europe are having the same shortages of drivers, but not of supplies, because drivers are more mobile around the EU.
That isn't a politically motivated point, but more the structural difference between being in a single market and free movement area, and not.
Bollocks.
There's no real shortage in this country either, but there's a media-induced panic fuelled by those with an agenda to push. That's it.
I am not sure you are entirely right, or even right at all, come to think of it.
But that matters not a jot. The optics today look horrible for the Government (and for Brexit) whoever is to blame.
I don't think it looks terrible at all. Everyone I've spoken to about it in real life is making fun of the panic buying morons who are behind this.
Of course it does! In exactly the same way it looked terrible for the Blair Government in 2000.
Whether it moves the polls is another matter. If it doesn't, Johnson is the second coming, and the Almighty is a Conservative.
This is completely different to 2000. In 2000 the stations weren't able to be refuelled due to the blockades which led to thousands and eventually almost all (from memory) stations running out of fuel. Since they weren't able to be refuelled this dragged on for weeks.
This is a couple of days of idiot-led hysteria but the fuel stations are already being refuelled. So this time next week there'll be people with egg on their face and full tanks. Not the same thing at all.
Plus of course in 2000 high taxes the government had introduced was behind the protests and the protests (initially) had overwhelming support in polls because the public were annoyed at petrol prices themselves. And it highlighted just how much of the price was tax. Hysteria isn't taxed unfortunately.
It is almost copybook. What was behind the 2000 protests were blockades of fuel depots by Bryndley Williams, who later became a Tory AM, and that idiot farmer from Monmouth and a bunch of hauliers backed by William Hague. And the tanker hauliers wouldn't scab their colleagues.
We panicked, we ran the pumps dry and we ran out of fuel. The end result was the same.
Sometimes you spend hours arguing black is white, and white is black.
That's like saying that today's 3-3 thriller at Brentford is the same as the 0-0 draw at Birmingham today because two teams came to a stadium and kicked a ball.
Yes there was a panic in both, but from there it followed a completely different path. In 2000 the empty pumps were not getting refuelled which meant life ground to a halt. I was learning to drive at the time and had my test booked for the end of September and my lessons were cancelled for weeks as it was simply impossible to get fuel.
That's not happening now. Some idiots went and got fuel today. Big whoop. There's still fuel in pumps tonight (without a queue at my local Tesco just now when I went there to get some groceries) and what's more is the tankers are going around the country refueling the pumps, which didn't happen in 2000.
This is a flash in the pan, its not an end to fuel for weeks on end.
Lets put it like this. When I go to Germany next month it'll be mandatory mask wearing with pox rates less than a quarter they are here. So when I then fly into London for the few days that follow it would be illogical to adopt the Tories' view and say "no risk, no mask".
Yes I have been double jabbed. But pox is still running rampant and still making people ill and still giving double-jabbed people like my mum long Covid.
Well fuck that. If me wearing a mask makes some people on the blue side of politics react, I honestly don't care. We will get through this pandemic. We haven't yet.
The vast majority of people on the blue side think you should be free to wear whatever you damn well like. They just don’t want you telling them what to wear.
Yes its amusing that Rochdale has been moaning about the fact that a mask mandate isn't legally mandated - then he thinks him wearing a mask will get a reaction? What twisted projectionism.
I couldn't care less what other people wear. Its a shame if people feel they need to wear a mask, and I think its silly - but its their choice and I'll respect that.
People can wear a mask until they die decades from now for all I care. Some of Asian origin did pre-pandemic. Just don't expect others to do so.
You've made it amply clear you don't give a toss about anyone.
I do give a toss about people which is why I think the vulnerable who need protection should get the advice to wear a proper FFP3 mask that actually does the job instead of a cloth mask placebo.
As for antivaxxers - they've made their choice. Its not my job to be masked up to protect others from their own decisions. Why should it be? 🤷♂️
What is wrong with a placebo? I thought you were a libertarian?
If you're deliberately giving people a placebo, when there's a working and approved alternative available, without informing them its a placebo - then unless they've knowingly subscribed to a trial knowing a placebo is an option then that's not good ethics.
We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)
The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.
Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?
The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)
Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?
Better to get COVID out of the way now before flu takes off in Dec-Apr.
You're not quite saying the thing that underpins the logic of this argument: that having Covid burn through the population will add strain on the NHS. That's the logic, isn't it? Spread the strain out over 6 months instead of 4. Have people dying in hospital now instead of in January. It's that acknowledgement that having Covid spread wide will kill people, that's what I'm after. Because it's true, isn't it?
So what if it is? Everyone in the country is going to get it. You're looking for some idiotic gotcha moment but none of us are politicians and you aren't Robert Peston. At least I hope you aren't.
I'm not after a gotcha, I'm just checking that you're advocating what I think you're advocating. There are other things you could advocate to prevent strain on the NHS. I'll just note that masks also help prevent the spread of flu. Some people might like the idea of saving lives lost to both Covid and flu. And perhaps better planning and money for the NHS to cope with what appears to be a predictable time of difficulty. There are different ways forward.
What's your proposal? That its better to postpone antivaxxer infections from now to the winter crisis?
I don't agree. I hope as many antivaxxers as possible get the virus now.
I genuinely don't have one, I'm just asking questions. I'll be honest, I don't much like what I'm hearing.
I also think the NHS isn't in a great place now to cope with the extra demand this policy will inflict. Oh, and there's the practicality. I've been treating this as abstract, but in concrete terms it'll take a time for infection rates to get up to cover everyone. I don't think it would be remotely done and dusted by December, and then you'll have only made the problem you were trying to fix so much worse.
I don't think you understand how this works. Well over 90% of the adults in this country have antibodies already. There's bugger all room for the virus to spread without reinfections or hitting the vaccinated who are extremely protected (and doubly so after an infection).
The virus is rapidly running out of people to infect. Pretty much just children who aren't open to the vaccine and had the bloody stupid bubbles earlier in the year.
Every infection that happens now is quite one fewer that can happen in the winter. The more the merrier now.
But the antibodies don't protect completely. It's not mumps. So it's not running out of people in that sense.
Wasting your breath Carnyx, you are talking to an empty head.
Hello Malky. Just finished some mutton curry and some decent Cotes de Rhone. More geese flying south overhead but pleasant enough weather over here.
Hi, yes been quite a few flying over last week or so, dry and mild here today but looks like we can expect lots of rain tomorrow afternoon. Beef stir fry for me tonight, having a late dinner pretending we are Spanish. PS : Geese are great sight and sound great as well, heating will be on soon.
We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)
The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.
Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?
The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)
Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?
Better to get COVID out of the way now before flu takes off in Dec-Apr.
You're not quite saying the thing that underpins the logic of this argument: that having Covid burn through the population will add strain on the NHS. That's the logic, isn't it? Spread the strain out over 6 months instead of 4. Have people dying in hospital now instead of in January. It's that acknowledgement that having Covid spread wide will kill people, that's what I'm after. Because it's true, isn't it?
So what if it is? Everyone in the country is going to get it. You're looking for some idiotic gotcha moment but none of us are politicians and you aren't Robert Peston. At least I hope you aren't.
I'm not after a gotcha, I'm just checking that you're advocating what I think you're advocating. There are other things you could advocate to prevent strain on the NHS. I'll just note that masks also help prevent the spread of flu. Some people might like the idea of saving lives lost to both Covid and flu. And perhaps better planning and money for the NHS to cope with what appears to be a predictable time of difficulty. There are different ways forward.
What's your proposal? That its better to postpone antivaxxer infections from now to the winter crisis?
I don't agree. I hope as many antivaxxers as possible get the virus now.
I genuinely don't have one, I'm just asking questions. I'll be honest, I don't much like what I'm hearing.
I also think the NHS isn't in a great place now to cope with the extra demand this policy will inflict. Oh, and there's the practicality. I've been treating this as abstract, but in concrete terms it'll take a time for infection rates to get up to cover everyone. I don't think it would be remotely done and dusted by December, and then you'll have only made the problem you were trying to fix so much worse.
I don't think you understand how this works. Well over 90% of the adults in this country have antibodies already. There's bugger all room for the virus to spread without reinfections or hitting the vaccinated who are extremely protected (and doubly so after an infection).
The virus is rapidly running out of people to infect. Pretty much just children who aren't open to the vaccine and had the bloody stupid bubbles earlier in the year.
Every infection that happens now is quite one fewer that can happen in the winter. The more the merrier now.
But the antibodies don't protect completely. It's not mumps. So it's not running out of people in that sense.
Wasting your breath Carnyx, you are talking to an empty head.
Hello Malky. Just finished some mutton curry and some decent Cotes de Rhone. More geese flying south overhead but pleasant enough weather over here.
Hi, yes been quite a few flying over last week or so, dry and mild here today but looks like we can expect lots of rain tomorrow afternoon. Beef stir fry for me tonight, having a late dinner pretending we are Spanish.
CORRECTION - don't you really mean, "pretending we are CATALAN"???
This mask debate is really boring, so I may as well join in.
For those who don't want to ever wear masks, that's up to them. I rarely wear one. But, for example, my local bakery has a sign on the door politely asking customers to wear a mask (the staff all wear one), so out of respect I put a mask on when buying bread. Similarly, my local bus company has notices asking passengers to wear one, so I oblige on my quite frequent bus journeys.
What's wrong with a bit of common courtesy? If you're asked (politely) to stick a mask on, why not do it - even if you think it's unnecessary? It's not a big deal, and nor is it virtue signaling.
Unfortunately there are plenty nasty selfish bellends around and some of them post on here as we see.
This mask debate is really boring, so I may as well join in.
For those who don't want to ever wear masks, that's up to them. I rarely wear one. But, for example, my local bakery has a sign on the door politely asking customers to wear a mask (the staff all wear one), so out of respect I put a mask on when buying bread. Similarly, my local bus company has notices asking passengers to wear one, so I oblige on my quite frequent bus journeys.
What's wrong with a bit of common courtesy? If you're asked (politely) to stick a mask on, why not do it - even if you think it's unnecessary? It's not a big deal.
Quite right. I am very happy not wearing mask in all manner of crowded places (pubs, concerts etc), but if on a train or in a supermarket I tend to wear one out of respect for those who are still more nervous or at risk but have to use those services.
What I found I infuriating was the rules around wearing a mask while entering or going to the bathroom in a restaurant or pub, but fine to be without one otherwise. As if that will make a blind bit of difference.
OT boxing. Anthony Joshua is still favourite to win tonight's fight but money has been coming for Usyk who is now 2/1 across the board from 9/4. Unless he stops the fight to rescue a small puppy, it is hard to see this affecting the SPotY market.
I'm not sure that that article can be described as empty-headed. To a certain extent it simply lays out an unsurprising but important fact, that many of the current issues are related to Brexit, and that the British political and media class have merely become nervous of describing that head-on.
If Brexit was the sole cause then that would be different, but it is multi faceted with covid, lost driving tests, older drivers retiring, and the terrible work conditions and pay making it very complex
And let's not forget Europe have a shortage of half a million drivers
There are some who are trying to make this all about Brexit for their own political motives but it is not
We did cover this in quite a lot of detail yesterday, to be fair. Europe are having the same shortages of drivers, but not of supplies, because drivers are more mobile around the EU.
That isn't a politically motivated point, but more the structural difference between being in a single market and free movement area, and not.
Bollocks.
There's no real shortage in this country either, but there's a media-induced panic fuelled by those with an agenda to push. That's it.
I am not sure you are entirely right, or even right at all, come to think of it.
But that matters not a jot. The optics today look horrible for the Government (and for Brexit) whoever is to blame.
I don't think it looks terrible at all. Everyone I've spoken to about it in real life is making fun of the panic buying morons who are behind this.
Of course it does! In exactly the same way it looked terrible for the Blair Government in 2000.
Whether it moves the polls is another matter. If it doesn't, Johnson is the second coming, and the Almighty is a Conservative.
This is completely different to 2000. In 2000 the stations weren't able to be refuelled due to the blockades which led to thousands and eventually almost all (from memory) stations running out of fuel. Since they weren't able to be refuelled this dragged on for weeks.
This is a couple of days of idiot-led hysteria but the fuel stations are already being refuelled. So this time next week there'll be people with egg on their face and full tanks. Not the same thing at all.
Plus of course in 2000 high taxes the government had introduced was behind the protests and the protests (initially) had overwhelming support in polls because the public were annoyed at petrol prices themselves. And it highlighted just how much of the price was tax. Hysteria isn't taxed unfortunately.
It is almost copybook. What was behind the 2000 protests were blockades of fuel depots by Bryndley Williams, who later became a Tory AM, and that idiot farmer from Monmouth and a bunch of hauliers backed by William Hague. And the tanker hauliers wouldn't scab their colleagues.
We panicked, we ran the pumps dry and we ran out of fuel. The end result was the same.
Sometimes you spend hours arguing black is white, and white is black.
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
And we will panic buy again tomorrow when the stations have been refilled.
If you think it won't have the same impact as 2000 that is entirely up to you. I would be surprised if it is laughed off as another comic Boris episode. You may be right of course, what do I know?
We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)
The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.
Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?
The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)
Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?
Better to get COVID out of the way now before flu takes off in Dec-Apr.
You're not quite saying the thing that underpins the logic of this argument: that having Covid burn through the population will add strain on the NHS. That's the logic, isn't it? Spread the strain out over 6 months instead of 4. Have people dying in hospital now instead of in January. It's that acknowledgement that having Covid spread wide will kill people, that's what I'm after. Because it's true, isn't it?
So what if it is? Everyone in the country is going to get it. You're looking for some idiotic gotcha moment but none of us are politicians and you aren't Robert Peston. At least I hope you aren't.
I'm not after a gotcha, I'm just checking that you're advocating what I think you're advocating. There are other things you could advocate to prevent strain on the NHS. I'll just note that masks also help prevent the spread of flu. Some people might like the idea of saving lives lost to both Covid and flu. And perhaps better planning and money for the NHS to cope with what appears to be a predictable time of difficulty. There are different ways forward.
What's your proposal? That its better to postpone antivaxxer infections from now to the winter crisis?
I don't agree. I hope as many antivaxxers as possible get the virus now.
I genuinely don't have one, I'm just asking questions. I'll be honest, I don't much like what I'm hearing.
I also think the NHS isn't in a great place now to cope with the extra demand this policy will inflict. Oh, and there's the practicality. I've been treating this as abstract, but in concrete terms it'll take a time for infection rates to get up to cover everyone. I don't think it would be remotely done and dusted by December, and then you'll have only made the problem you were trying to fix so much worse.
I don't think you understand how this works. Well over 90% of the adults in this country have antibodies already. There's bugger all room for the virus to spread without reinfections or hitting the vaccinated who are extremely protected (and doubly so after an infection).
The virus is rapidly running out of people to infect. Pretty much just children who aren't open to the vaccine and had the bloody stupid bubbles earlier in the year.
Every infection that happens now is quite one fewer that can happen in the winter. The more the merrier now.
But the antibodies don't protect completely. It's not mumps. So it's not running out of people in that sense.
Wasting your breath Carnyx, you are talking to an empty head.
Hello Malky. Just finished some mutton curry and some decent Cotes de Rhone. More geese flying south overhead but pleasant enough weather over here.
Geese! We had a group of around 40 go over yesterday. Looked just like a group of cyclists contending with a crosswind.
One goose playing catch up must have been back to the team car for the water bottles.
Lets put it like this. When I go to Germany next month it'll be mandatory mask wearing with pox rates less than a quarter they are here. So when I then fly into London for the few days that follow it would be illogical to adopt the Tories' view and say "no risk, no mask".
Yes I have been double jabbed. But pox is still running rampant and still making people ill and still giving double-jabbed people like my mum long Covid.
Well fuck that. If me wearing a mask makes some people on the blue side of politics react, I honestly don't care. We will get through this pandemic. We haven't yet.
The vast majority of people on the blue side think you should be free to wear whatever you damn well like. They just don’t want you telling them what to wear.
Yes its amusing that Rochdale has been moaning about the fact that a mask mandate isn't legally mandated - then he thinks him wearing a mask will get a reaction? What twisted projectionism.
I couldn't care less what other people wear. Its a shame if people feel they need to wear a mask, and I think its silly - but its their choice and I'll respect that.
People can wear a mask until they die decades from now for all I care. Some of Asian origin did pre-pandemic. Just don't expect others to do so.
You've made it amply clear you don't give a toss about anyone.
I do give a toss about people which is why I think the vulnerable who need protection should get the advice to wear a proper FFP3 mask that actually does the job instead of a cloth mask placebo.
As for antivaxxers - they've made their choice. Its not my job to be masked up to protect others from their own decisions. Why should it be? 🤷♂️
What is wrong with a placebo? I thought you were a libertarian?
If you're deliberately giving people a placebo, when there's a working and approved alternative available, without informing them its a placebo - then unless they've knowingly subscribed to a trial knowing a placebo is an option then that's not good ethics.
But nobody is deliberately giving anyone anything. It is personal choice.
I'm not sure that that article can be described as empty-headed. To a certain extent it simply lays out an unsurprising but important fact, that many of the current issues are related to Brexit, and that the British political and media class have merely become nervous of describing that head-on.
If Brexit was the sole cause then that would be different, but it is multi faceted with covid, lost driving tests, older drivers retiring, and the terrible work conditions and pay making it very complex
And let's not forget Europe have a shortage of half a million drivers
There are some who are trying to make this all about Brexit for their own political motives but it is not
We did cover this in quite a lot of detail yesterday, to be fair. Europe are having the same shortages of drivers, but not of supplies, because drivers are more mobile around the EU.
That isn't a politically motivated point, but more the structural difference between being in a single market and free movement area, and not.
Bollocks.
There's no real shortage in this country either, but there's a media-induced panic fuelled by those with an agenda to push. That's it.
I am not sure you are entirely right, or even right at all, come to think of it.
But that matters not a jot. The optics today look horrible for the Government (and for Brexit) whoever is to blame.
I don't think it looks terrible at all. Everyone I've spoken to about it in real life is making fun of the panic buying morons who are behind this.
Of course it does! In exactly the same way it looked terrible for the Blair Government in 2000.
Whether it moves the polls is another matter. If it doesn't, Johnson is the second coming, and the Almighty is a Conservative.
This is completely different to 2000. In 2000 the stations weren't able to be refuelled due to the blockades which led to thousands and eventually almost all (from memory) stations running out of fuel. Since they weren't able to be refuelled this dragged on for weeks.
This is a couple of days of idiot-led hysteria but the fuel stations are already being refuelled. So this time next week there'll be people with egg on their face and full tanks. Not the same thing at all.
Plus of course in 2000 high taxes the government had introduced was behind the protests and the protests (initially) had overwhelming support in polls because the public were annoyed at petrol prices themselves. And it highlighted just how much of the price was tax. Hysteria isn't taxed unfortunately.
It is almost copybook. What was behind the 2000 protests were blockades of fuel depots by Bryndley Williams, who later became a Tory AM, and that idiot farmer from Monmouth and a bunch of hauliers backed by William Hague. And the tanker hauliers wouldn't scab their colleagues.
We panicked, we ran the pumps dry and we ran out of fuel. The end result was the same.
Sometimes you spend hours arguing black is white, and white is black.
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
And we will panic buy again tomorrow when the stations have been refilled.
If you think it won't have the same impact as 2000 that is entirely up to you. I would be surprised if it is laughed off as another comic Boris episode. You may be right of course, what do I know?
There's only so many times you can panic buy petrol. Unless you are also panic driving as well?
We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)
The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.
Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?
The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)
Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?
Better to get COVID out of the way now before flu takes off in Dec-Apr.
You're not quite saying the thing that underpins the logic of this argument: that having Covid burn through the population will add strain on the NHS. That's the logic, isn't it? Spread the strain out over 6 months instead of 4. Have people dying in hospital now instead of in January. It's that acknowledgement that having Covid spread wide will kill people, that's what I'm after. Because it's true, isn't it?
So what if it is? Everyone in the country is going to get it. You're looking for some idiotic gotcha moment but none of us are politicians and you aren't Robert Peston. At least I hope you aren't.
I'm not after a gotcha, I'm just checking that you're advocating what I think you're advocating. There are other things you could advocate to prevent strain on the NHS. I'll just note that masks also help prevent the spread of flu. Some people might like the idea of saving lives lost to both Covid and flu. And perhaps better planning and money for the NHS to cope with what appears to be a predictable time of difficulty. There are different ways forward.
What's your proposal? That its better to postpone antivaxxer infections from now to the winter crisis?
I don't agree. I hope as many antivaxxers as possible get the virus now.
I genuinely don't have one, I'm just asking questions. I'll be honest, I don't much like what I'm hearing.
I also think the NHS isn't in a great place now to cope with the extra demand this policy will inflict. Oh, and there's the practicality. I've been treating this as abstract, but in concrete terms it'll take a time for infection rates to get up to cover everyone. I don't think it would be remotely done and dusted by December, and then you'll have only made the problem you were trying to fix so much worse.
I don't think you understand how this works. Well over 90% of the adults in this country have antibodies already. There's bugger all room for the virus to spread without reinfections or hitting the vaccinated who are extremely protected (and doubly so after an infection).
The virus is rapidly running out of people to infect. Pretty much just children who aren't open to the vaccine and had the bloody stupid bubbles earlier in the year.
Every infection that happens now is quite one fewer that can happen in the winter. The more the merrier now.
But the antibodies don't protect completely. It's not mumps. So it's not running out of people in that sense.
Wasting your breath Carnyx, you are talking to an empty head.
Hello Malky. Just finished some mutton curry and some decent Cotes de Rhone. More geese flying south overhead but pleasant enough weather over here.
Hi, yes been quite a few flying over last week or so, dry and mild here today but looks like we can expect lots of rain tomorrow afternoon. Beef stir fry for me tonight, having a late dinner pretending we are Spanish.
CORRECTION - don't you really mean, "pretending we are CATALAN"???
Lets put it like this. When I go to Germany next month it'll be mandatory mask wearing with pox rates less than a quarter they are here. So when I then fly into London for the few days that follow it would be illogical to adopt the Tories' view and say "no risk, no mask".
Yes I have been double jabbed. But pox is still running rampant and still making people ill and still giving double-jabbed people like my mum long Covid.
Well fuck that. If me wearing a mask makes some people on the blue side of politics react, I honestly don't care. We will get through this pandemic. We haven't yet.
COVID is endemic. You're talking about wearing a mask for the rest of your life. It isn't ever going away. We're already through the pandemic, you're the Japanese soldier in 1970 holding out on a tiny island thinking the war isn't over.
Bless. Once we have completed roll-out of vaccinations then transmission rates will drop.
The sad reality is that the UK has fallen well behind with vaccinations because people refuse to get it, has an endemic transmission rate significantly ahead of neighbouring countries, and let have the most aggressive "ditch masks and social distancing" views of anyone.
We've completed rollout of vaccines. It's done. Everyone who wants a vaccine can walk up and get one. What are you proposing? That the army (sans drivers, of course) march down the street and forcibly break down doors and jab this people who refused?
You're fighting a war that we've already lost/won depending on your perspective.
COVID is endemic. That's where we are. Deal with it.
Then we will have to accept the long term underling load on the NHS. On us being red listed by countries we want to travel to. On not getting clear of this when others do.
We could have got more people jabbed. Our neighbours managed it. Then again their leadership told people get the jab or else. Here Beaker told people it was over before it was, and so we're stuck with 30-40k new cases a day.
Ironically the one card he had left was to quote Kermit the Frog at the UN vaccine passports. I'm against these in principle, but they would have been effective in getting younger jab avoiders to get one.
Honestly, you're living in a complete dreamworld. None of the stuff you say is happening. Who cares if there's 30-40k cases per day? You've got yourself into a position where you're so far gone with opposing the government that you instinctively disagree with everything even when they're right. On going back to the old normal they are absolutely right. You want the delta cases now when there is high latent immunity and no NHS crisis, not in November and December with lower immunity and the annual NHS crisis.
Lots of the experts said as much when they supported the July 19th final restrictions being lifted.
Where we're at is unvaccinated people getting sick with COVID. That's a choice they made. The sooner all of those people are through the funnel the better.
With hindsight, I think the government got the delay to the 21st June reopening, and then the reopening on 19th July, correct. Probably not perfect, but correct enough. Certainly the prophecies of doom about reopening don't appear to have come to pass.
However: I wish people wouldn't be so blase about only the unvaccinated becoming sick. As far as I'm aware that isn't true, and we still have lots of people dying daily. We couldn't continue with the restrictions, but neither are we out of the woods yet.
I think the problem is that actually we are never going to be out of the woods. This is probably about as good as it is ever going to get but with a seasonal cycle imposed over the top. Just like seasonal flu. As such people have to decide whether they are going to make permanent changes to their lifestyle - masks, avoiding certain events etc - or if they are just going to accept that we have had one more small risk added to the many that already existed and that they want to get on with their lives without constantly worrying about about all the many things that may bring them down.
Absolutely right: as you are, quite often
Hypocodrical living is no living imo- What the hell are labour mps doing with masks on given this is the best situation it will be ever regards covid. They are basically saying they think masks should be worn for ever and worryingly will probably therefore impose it talaban like if they ever get into power. As a society we are getting more puritan by the day - the bbc website is featuring if the US golfers (who are not playing ) should be drinking beer on the 1st tee at the ryder cup by featuring a tweet saying "is it a good look" .Apart from that being an annoying phrase that is only beaten for annoyingness by "not good optics" they are thrashing the europeans so if they want to have a drink its fine for me
Sorry for the slight rant but getting annoyed by a world and Britain that is going insular (working at home is seemingly great for everyone ) , risk adverse ,puritan and robotic by the day
Yes indeed
London is certainly not going Puritan. It's rocking again tonight - have just been out
But I do worry about the small towns and cities, around the UK, which are somewhat older and more prone to caution. This is not condescension, most of my family live in place like this
We have to accept we have a new endemic respiratory virus which will probably shorten life expectancy by a few months, for a decade or two. We have really good vaccines, but they aren't perfect - yet. Although they will get better, as will the treatments
There it is. The young will be fine, the healthy will probably be fine, fat people should REALLY lose weight, the old are vulnerable, but not much more vulnerable than they were
We all die. Your chances of dying in any given year have increased by 0.1% (or whatever). It is no cause to upend society.
However, ON TOPIC I think we should rightly adopt the Asian courtesy that if you have a suspected cold or the Flu, you wear a mask TO PROTECT THOSE AROUND YOU. It is remarkable we don't do this already
No lifetime concessions to covid mask theatre. I've had enough.
I'm not sure that that article can be described as empty-headed. To a certain extent it simply lays out an unsurprising but important fact, that many of the current issues are related to Brexit, and that the British political and media class have merely become nervous of describing that head-on.
If Brexit was the sole cause then that would be different, but it is multi faceted with covid, lost driving tests, older drivers retiring, and the terrible work conditions and pay making it very complex
And let's not forget Europe have a shortage of half a million drivers
There are some who are trying to make this all about Brexit for their own political motives but it is not
We did cover this in quite a lot of detail yesterday, to be fair. Europe are having the same shortages of drivers, but not of supplies, because drivers are more mobile around the EU.
That isn't a politically motivated point, but more the structural difference between being in a single market and free movement area, and not.
Bollocks.
There's no real shortage in this country either, but there's a media-induced panic fuelled by those with an agenda to push. That's it.
I am not sure you are entirely right, or even right at all, come to think of it.
But that matters not a jot. The optics today look horrible for the Government (and for Brexit) whoever is to blame.
I don't think it looks terrible at all. Everyone I've spoken to about it in real life is making fun of the panic buying morons who are behind this.
Of course it does! In exactly the same way it looked terrible for the Blair Government in 2000.
Whether it moves the polls is another matter. If it doesn't, Johnson is the second coming, and the Almighty is a Conservative.
This is completely different to 2000. In 2000 the stations weren't able to be refuelled due to the blockades which led to thousands and eventually almost all (from memory) stations running out of fuel. Since they weren't able to be refuelled this dragged on for weeks.
This is a couple of days of idiot-led hysteria but the fuel stations are already being refuelled. So this time next week there'll be people with egg on their face and full tanks. Not the same thing at all.
Plus of course in 2000 high taxes the government had introduced was behind the protests and the protests (initially) had overwhelming support in polls because the public were annoyed at petrol prices themselves. And it highlighted just how much of the price was tax. Hysteria isn't taxed unfortunately.
It is almost copybook. What was behind the 2000 protests were blockades of fuel depots by Bryndley Williams, who later became a Tory AM, and that idiot farmer from Monmouth and a bunch of hauliers backed by William Hague. And the tanker hauliers wouldn't scab their colleagues.
We panicked, we ran the pumps dry and we ran out of fuel. The end result was the same.
Sometimes you spend hours arguing black is white, and white is black.
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
And we will panic buy again tomorrow when the stations have been refilled.
If you think it won't have the same impact as 2000 that is entirely up to you. I would be surprised if it is laughed off as another comic Boris episode. You may be right of course, what do I know?
How will the people who panic bought today panic buy again tomorrow?
Their tanks will already be full. They can't be refilled a second time.
We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)
The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.
Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?
The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)
Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?
Better to get COVID out of the way now before flu takes off in Dec-Apr.
You're not quite saying the thing that underpins the logic of this argument: that having Covid burn through the population will add strain on the NHS. That's the logic, isn't it? Spread the strain out over 6 months instead of 4. Have people dying in hospital now instead of in January. It's that acknowledgement that having Covid spread wide will kill people, that's what I'm after. Because it's true, isn't it?
So what if it is? Everyone in the country is going to get it. You're looking for some idiotic gotcha moment but none of us are politicians and you aren't Robert Peston. At least I hope you aren't.
I'm not after a gotcha, I'm just checking that you're advocating what I think you're advocating. There are other things you could advocate to prevent strain on the NHS. I'll just note that masks also help prevent the spread of flu. Some people might like the idea of saving lives lost to both Covid and flu. And perhaps better planning and money for the NHS to cope with what appears to be a predictable time of difficulty. There are different ways forward.
What's your proposal? That its better to postpone antivaxxer infections from now to the winter crisis?
I don't agree. I hope as many antivaxxers as possible get the virus now.
I genuinely don't have one, I'm just asking questions. I'll be honest, I don't much like what I'm hearing.
I also think the NHS isn't in a great place now to cope with the extra demand this policy will inflict. Oh, and there's the practicality. I've been treating this as abstract, but in concrete terms it'll take a time for infection rates to get up to cover everyone. I don't think it would be remotely done and dusted by December, and then you'll have only made the problem you were trying to fix so much worse.
I don't think you understand how this works. Well over 90% of the adults in this country have antibodies already. There's bugger all room for the virus to spread without reinfections or hitting the vaccinated who are extremely protected (and doubly so after an infection).
The virus is rapidly running out of people to infect. Pretty much just children who aren't open to the vaccine and had the bloody stupid bubbles earlier in the year.
Every infection that happens now is quite one fewer that can happen in the winter. The more the merrier now.
But the antibodies don't protect completely. It's not mumps. So it's not running out of people in that sense.
Wasting your breath Carnyx, you are talking to an empty head.
Hello Malky. Just finished some mutton curry and some decent Cotes de Rhone. More geese flying south overhead but pleasant enough weather over here.
Hi, yes been quite a few flying over last week or so, dry and mild here today but looks like we can expect lots of rain tomorrow afternoon. Beef stir fry for me tonight, having a late dinner pretending we are Spanish.
CORRECTION - don't you really mean, "pretending we are CATALAN"???
I'm not sure that that article can be described as empty-headed. To a certain extent it simply lays out an unsurprising but important fact, that many of the current issues are related to Brexit, and that the British political and media class have merely become nervous of describing that head-on.
If Brexit was the sole cause then that would be different, but it is multi faceted with covid, lost driving tests, older drivers retiring, and the terrible work conditions and pay making it very complex
And let's not forget Europe have a shortage of half a million drivers
There are some who are trying to make this all about Brexit for their own political motives but it is not
We did cover this in quite a lot of detail yesterday, to be fair. Europe are having the same shortages of drivers, but not of supplies, because drivers are more mobile around the EU.
That isn't a politically motivated point, but more the structural difference between being in a single market and free movement area, and not.
Bollocks.
There's no real shortage in this country either, but there's a media-induced panic fuelled by those with an agenda to push. That's it.
I am not sure you are entirely right, or even right at all, come to think of it.
But that matters not a jot. The optics today look horrible for the Government (and for Brexit) whoever is to blame.
I don't think it looks terrible at all. Everyone I've spoken to about it in real life is making fun of the panic buying morons who are behind this.
Of course it does! In exactly the same way it looked terrible for the Blair Government in 2000.
Whether it moves the polls is another matter. If it doesn't, Johnson is the second coming, and the Almighty is a Conservative.
This is completely different to 2000. In 2000 the stations weren't able to be refuelled due to the blockades which led to thousands and eventually almost all (from memory) stations running out of fuel. Since they weren't able to be refuelled this dragged on for weeks.
This is a couple of days of idiot-led hysteria but the fuel stations are already being refuelled. So this time next week there'll be people with egg on their face and full tanks. Not the same thing at all.
Plus of course in 2000 high taxes the government had introduced was behind the protests and the protests (initially) had overwhelming support in polls because the public were annoyed at petrol prices themselves. And it highlighted just how much of the price was tax. Hysteria isn't taxed unfortunately.
It is almost copybook. What was behind the 2000 protests were blockades of fuel depots by Bryndley Williams, who later became a Tory AM, and that idiot farmer from Monmouth and a bunch of hauliers backed by William Hague. And the tanker hauliers wouldn't scab their colleagues.
We panicked, we ran the pumps dry and we ran out of fuel. The end result was the same.
Sometimes you spend hours arguing black is white, and white is black.
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
And we will panic buy again tomorrow when the stations have been refilled.
If you think it won't have the same impact as 2000 that is entirely up to you. I would be surprised if it is laughed off as another comic Boris episode. You may be right of course, what do I know?
There's only so many times you can panic buy petrol. Unless you are also panic driving as well?
What is wrong with going out and doing 2 or 3 hundred miles so you can panic again.
We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)
The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.
Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?
The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)
Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?
Better to get COVID out of the way now before flu takes off in Dec-Apr.
You're not quite saying the thing that underpins the logic of this argument: that having Covid burn through the population will add strain on the NHS. That's the logic, isn't it? Spread the strain out over 6 months instead of 4. Have people dying in hospital now instead of in January. It's that acknowledgement that having Covid spread wide will kill people, that's what I'm after. Because it's true, isn't it?
So what if it is? Everyone in the country is going to get it. You're looking for some idiotic gotcha moment but none of us are politicians and you aren't Robert Peston. At least I hope you aren't.
I'm not after a gotcha, I'm just checking that you're advocating what I think you're advocating. There are other things you could advocate to prevent strain on the NHS. I'll just note that masks also help prevent the spread of flu. Some people might like the idea of saving lives lost to both Covid and flu. And perhaps better planning and money for the NHS to cope with what appears to be a predictable time of difficulty. There are different ways forward.
What's your proposal? That its better to postpone antivaxxer infections from now to the winter crisis?
I don't agree. I hope as many antivaxxers as possible get the virus now.
I genuinely don't have one, I'm just asking questions. I'll be honest, I don't much like what I'm hearing.
I also think the NHS isn't in a great place now to cope with the extra demand this policy will inflict. Oh, and there's the practicality. I've been treating this as abstract, but in concrete terms it'll take a time for infection rates to get up to cover everyone. I don't think it would be remotely done and dusted by December, and then you'll have only made the problem you were trying to fix so much worse.
I don't think you understand how this works. Well over 90% of the adults in this country have antibodies already. There's bugger all room for the virus to spread without reinfections or hitting the vaccinated who are extremely protected (and doubly so after an infection).
The virus is rapidly running out of people to infect. Pretty much just children who aren't open to the vaccine and had the bloody stupid bubbles earlier in the year.
Every infection that happens now is quite one fewer that can happen in the winter. The more the merrier now.
But the antibodies don't protect completely. It's not mumps. So it's not running out of people in that sense.
Wasting your breath Carnyx, you are talking to an empty head.
Hello Malky. Just finished some mutton curry and some decent Cotes de Rhone. More geese flying south overhead but pleasant enough weather over here.
Hi, yes been quite a few flying over last week or so, dry and mild here today but looks like we can expect lots of rain tomorrow afternoon. Beef stir fry for me tonight, having a late dinner pretending we are Spanish.
CORRECTION - don't you really mean, "pretending we are CATALAN"???
Lets put it like this. When I go to Germany next month it'll be mandatory mask wearing with pox rates less than a quarter they are here. So when I then fly into London for the few days that follow it would be illogical to adopt the Tories' view and say "no risk, no mask".
Yes I have been double jabbed. But pox is still running rampant and still making people ill and still giving double-jabbed people like my mum long Covid.
Well fuck that. If me wearing a mask makes some people on the blue side of politics react, I honestly don't care. We will get through this pandemic. We haven't yet.
The vast majority of people on the blue side think you should be free to wear whatever you damn well like. They just don’t want you telling them what to wear.
Yes its amusing that Rochdale has been moaning about the fact that a mask mandate isn't legally mandated - then he thinks him wearing a mask will get a reaction? What twisted projectionism.
I couldn't care less what other people wear. Its a shame if people feel they need to wear a mask, and I think its silly - but its their choice and I'll respect that.
People can wear a mask until they die decades from now for all I care. Some of Asian origin did pre-pandemic. Just don't expect others to do so.
You've made it amply clear you don't give a toss about anyone.
I do give a toss about people which is why I think the vulnerable who need protection should get the advice to wear a proper FFP3 mask that actually does the job instead of a cloth mask placebo.
As for antivaxxers - they've made their choice. Its not my job to be masked up to protect others from their own decisions. Why should it be? 🤷♂️
What is wrong with a placebo? I thought you were a libertarian?
If you're deliberately giving people a placebo, when there's a working and approved alternative available, without informing them its a placebo - then unless they've knowingly subscribed to a trial knowing a placebo is an option then that's not good ethics.
But nobody is deliberately giving anyone anything. It is personal choice.
Except people are giving people the misunderstanding that cloth masks work well. Rather than educate that FFP3 masks are what work well to protect the wearer.
I'm not sure that that article can be described as empty-headed. To a certain extent it simply lays out an unsurprising but important fact, that many of the current issues are related to Brexit, and that the British political and media class have merely become nervous of describing that head-on.
If Brexit was the sole cause then that would be different, but it is multi faceted with covid, lost driving tests, older drivers retiring, and the terrible work conditions and pay making it very complex
And let's not forget Europe have a shortage of half a million drivers
There are some who are trying to make this all about Brexit for their own political motives but it is not
We did cover this in quite a lot of detail yesterday, to be fair. Europe are having the same shortages of drivers, but not of supplies, because drivers are more mobile around the EU.
That isn't a politically motivated point, but more the structural difference between being in a single market and free movement area, and not.
Bollocks.
There's no real shortage in this country either, but there's a media-induced panic fuelled by those with an agenda to push. That's it.
I am not sure you are entirely right, or even right at all, come to think of it.
But that matters not a jot. The optics today look horrible for the Government (and for Brexit) whoever is to blame.
I don't think it looks terrible at all. Everyone I've spoken to about it in real life is making fun of the panic buying morons who are behind this.
Of course it does! In exactly the same way it looked terrible for the Blair Government in 2000.
Whether it moves the polls is another matter. If it doesn't, Johnson is the second coming, and the Almighty is a Conservative.
This is completely different to 2000. In 2000 the stations weren't able to be refuelled due to the blockades which led to thousands and eventually almost all (from memory) stations running out of fuel. Since they weren't able to be refuelled this dragged on for weeks.
This is a couple of days of idiot-led hysteria but the fuel stations are already being refuelled. So this time next week there'll be people with egg on their face and full tanks. Not the same thing at all.
Plus of course in 2000 high taxes the government had introduced was behind the protests and the protests (initially) had overwhelming support in polls because the public were annoyed at petrol prices themselves. And it highlighted just how much of the price was tax. Hysteria isn't taxed unfortunately.
It is almost copybook. What was behind the 2000 protests were blockades of fuel depots by Bryndley Williams, who later became a Tory AM, and that idiot farmer from Monmouth and a bunch of hauliers backed by William Hague. And the tanker hauliers wouldn't scab their colleagues.
We panicked, we ran the pumps dry and we ran out of fuel. The end result was the same.
Sometimes you spend hours arguing black is white, and white is black.
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
And we will panic buy again tomorrow when the stations have been refilled.
If you think it won't have the same impact as 2000 that is entirely up to you. I would be surprised if it is laughed off as another comic Boris episode. You may be right of course, what do I know?
There's only so many times you can panic buy petrol. Unless you are also panic driving as well?
What is wrong with going out and doing 2 or 3 hundred miles so you can panic again.
If someone is worried enough to go and panic buy today, they are hardly going to go out of their way to increase their consumption of petrol, are they?
We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)
The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.
Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?
The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)
Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?
Better to get COVID out of the way now before flu takes off in Dec-Apr.
You're not quite saying the thing that underpins the logic of this argument: that having Covid burn through the population will add strain on the NHS. That's the logic, isn't it? Spread the strain out over 6 months instead of 4. Have people dying in hospital now instead of in January. It's that acknowledgement that having Covid spread wide will kill people, that's what I'm after. Because it's true, isn't it?
So what if it is? Everyone in the country is going to get it. You're looking for some idiotic gotcha moment but none of us are politicians and you aren't Robert Peston. At least I hope you aren't.
I'm not after a gotcha, I'm just checking that you're advocating what I think you're advocating. There are other things you could advocate to prevent strain on the NHS. I'll just note that masks also help prevent the spread of flu. Some people might like the idea of saving lives lost to both Covid and flu. And perhaps better planning and money for the NHS to cope with what appears to be a predictable time of difficulty. There are different ways forward.
What's your proposal? That its better to postpone antivaxxer infections from now to the winter crisis?
I don't agree. I hope as many antivaxxers as possible get the virus now.
I genuinely don't have one, I'm just asking questions. I'll be honest, I don't much like what I'm hearing.
I also think the NHS isn't in a great place now to cope with the extra demand this policy will inflict. Oh, and there's the practicality. I've been treating this as abstract, but in concrete terms it'll take a time for infection rates to get up to cover everyone. I don't think it would be remotely done and dusted by December, and then you'll have only made the problem you were trying to fix so much worse.
I don't think you understand how this works. Well over 90% of the adults in this country have antibodies already. There's bugger all room for the virus to spread without reinfections or hitting the vaccinated who are extremely protected (and doubly so after an infection).
The virus is rapidly running out of people to infect. Pretty much just children who aren't open to the vaccine and had the bloody stupid bubbles earlier in the year.
Every infection that happens now is quite one fewer that can happen in the winter. The more the merrier now.
But the antibodies don't protect completely. It's not mumps. So it's not running out of people in that sense.
Wasting your breath Carnyx, you are talking to an empty head.
Hello Malky. Just finished some mutton curry and some decent Cotes de Rhone. More geese flying south overhead but pleasant enough weather over here.
Hi, yes been quite a few flying over last week or so, dry and mild here today but looks like we can expect lots of rain tomorrow afternoon. Beef stir fry for me tonight, having a late dinner pretending we are Spanish.
CORRECTION - don't you really mean, "pretending we are CATALAN"???
Well said.
Are you trying to basque in his reflected glory?
Bite your tongue - would Navarre dream of such a thing!
I'm not sure that that article can be described as empty-headed. To a certain extent it simply lays out an unsurprising but important fact, that many of the current issues are related to Brexit, and that the British political and media class have merely become nervous of describing that head-on.
If Brexit was the sole cause then that would be different, but it is multi faceted with covid, lost driving tests, older drivers retiring, and the terrible work conditions and pay making it very complex
And let's not forget Europe have a shortage of half a million drivers
There are some who are trying to make this all about Brexit for their own political motives but it is not
We did cover this in quite a lot of detail yesterday, to be fair. Europe are having the same shortages of drivers, but not of supplies, because drivers are more mobile around the EU.
That isn't a politically motivated point, but more the structural difference between being in a single market and free movement area, and not.
Bollocks.
There's no real shortage in this country either, but there's a media-induced panic fuelled by those with an agenda to push. That's it.
I am not sure you are entirely right, or even right at all, come to think of it.
But that matters not a jot. The optics today look horrible for the Government (and for Brexit) whoever is to blame.
I don't think it looks terrible at all. Everyone I've spoken to about it in real life is making fun of the panic buying morons who are behind this.
Of course it does! In exactly the same way it looked terrible for the Blair Government in 2000.
Whether it moves the polls is another matter. If it doesn't, Johnson is the second coming, and the Almighty is a Conservative.
This is completely different to 2000. In 2000 the stations weren't able to be refuelled due to the blockades which led to thousands and eventually almost all (from memory) stations running out of fuel. Since they weren't able to be refuelled this dragged on for weeks.
This is a couple of days of idiot-led hysteria but the fuel stations are already being refuelled. So this time next week there'll be people with egg on their face and full tanks. Not the same thing at all.
Plus of course in 2000 high taxes the government had introduced was behind the protests and the protests (initially) had overwhelming support in polls because the public were annoyed at petrol prices themselves. And it highlighted just how much of the price was tax. Hysteria isn't taxed unfortunately.
It is almost copybook. What was behind the 2000 protests were blockades of fuel depots by Bryndley Williams, who later became a Tory AM, and that idiot farmer from Monmouth and a bunch of hauliers backed by William Hague. And the tanker hauliers wouldn't scab their colleagues.
We panicked, we ran the pumps dry and we ran out of fuel. The end result was the same.
Sometimes you spend hours arguing black is white, and white is black.
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
And we will panic buy again tomorrow when the stations have been refilled.
If you think it won't have the same impact as 2000 that is entirely up to you. I would be surprised if it is laughed off as another comic Boris episode. You may be right of course, what do I know?
There's only so many times you can panic buy petrol. Unless you are also panic driving as well?
What is wrong with going out and doing 2 or 3 hundred miles so you can panic again.
If someone is worried enough to go and panic buy today, they are hardly going to go out of their way to increase their consumption of petrol, are they?
I'm not sure that that article can be described as empty-headed. To a certain extent it simply lays out an unsurprising but important fact, that many of the current issues are related to Brexit, and that the British political and media class have merely become nervous of describing that head-on.
If Brexit was the sole cause then that would be different, but it is multi faceted with covid, lost driving tests, older drivers retiring, and the terrible work conditions and pay making it very complex
And let's not forget Europe have a shortage of half a million drivers
There are some who are trying to make this all about Brexit for their own political motives but it is not
We did cover this in quite a lot of detail yesterday, to be fair. Europe are having the same shortages of drivers, but not of supplies, because drivers are more mobile around the EU.
That isn't a politically motivated point, but more the structural difference between being in a single market and free movement area, and not.
Bollocks.
There's no real shortage in this country either, but there's a media-induced panic fuelled by those with an agenda to push. That's it.
I am not sure you are entirely right, or even right at all, come to think of it.
But that matters not a jot. The optics today look horrible for the Government (and for Brexit) whoever is to blame.
I don't think it looks terrible at all. Everyone I've spoken to about it in real life is making fun of the panic buying morons who are behind this.
Of course it does! In exactly the same way it looked terrible for the Blair Government in 2000.
Whether it moves the polls is another matter. If it doesn't, Johnson is the second coming, and the Almighty is a Conservative.
This is completely different to 2000. In 2000 the stations weren't able to be refuelled due to the blockades which led to thousands and eventually almost all (from memory) stations running out of fuel. Since they weren't able to be refuelled this dragged on for weeks.
This is a couple of days of idiot-led hysteria but the fuel stations are already being refuelled. So this time next week there'll be people with egg on their face and full tanks. Not the same thing at all.
Plus of course in 2000 high taxes the government had introduced was behind the protests and the protests (initially) had overwhelming support in polls because the public were annoyed at petrol prices themselves. And it highlighted just how much of the price was tax. Hysteria isn't taxed unfortunately.
It is almost copybook. What was behind the 2000 protests were blockades of fuel depots by Bryndley Williams, who later became a Tory AM, and that idiot farmer from Monmouth and a bunch of hauliers backed by William Hague. And the tanker hauliers wouldn't scab their colleagues.
We panicked, we ran the pumps dry and we ran out of fuel. The end result was the same.
Sometimes you spend hours arguing black is white, and white is black.
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
And we will panic buy again tomorrow when the stations have been refilled.
If you think it won't have the same impact as 2000 that is entirely up to you. I would be surprised if it is laughed off as another comic Boris episode. You may be right of course, what do I know?
There's only so many times you can panic buy petrol. Unless you are also panic driving as well?
The point is that, for some time, filling stations were being resupplied at a slower rate than they were selling fuel. This became noticeable when a few stations actually started to run out of fuel, then chaos ensued. Unless the rate of supply increases or demand falls, the situation will continue to deteriorate, which, presumably, is why the government has just OKed 5000 visas for foreign drivers.
We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)
The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.
Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?
The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)
Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?
Better to get COVID out of the way now before flu takes off in Dec-Apr.
You're not quite saying the thing that underpins the logic of this argument: that having Covid burn through the population will add strain on the NHS. That's the logic, isn't it? Spread the strain out over 6 months instead of 4. Have people dying in hospital now instead of in January. It's that acknowledgement that having Covid spread wide will kill people, that's what I'm after. Because it's true, isn't it?
So what if it is? Everyone in the country is going to get it. You're looking for some idiotic gotcha moment but none of us are politicians and you aren't Robert Peston. At least I hope you aren't.
I'm not after a gotcha, I'm just checking that you're advocating what I think you're advocating. There are other things you could advocate to prevent strain on the NHS. I'll just note that masks also help prevent the spread of flu. Some people might like the idea of saving lives lost to both Covid and flu. And perhaps better planning and money for the NHS to cope with what appears to be a predictable time of difficulty. There are different ways forward.
What's your proposal? That its better to postpone antivaxxer infections from now to the winter crisis?
I don't agree. I hope as many antivaxxers as possible get the virus now.
I genuinely don't have one, I'm just asking questions. I'll be honest, I don't much like what I'm hearing.
I also think the NHS isn't in a great place now to cope with the extra demand this policy will inflict. Oh, and there's the practicality. I've been treating this as abstract, but in concrete terms it'll take a time for infection rates to get up to cover everyone. I don't think it would be remotely done and dusted by December, and then you'll have only made the problem you were trying to fix so much worse.
I don't think you understand how this works. Well over 90% of the adults in this country have antibodies already. There's bugger all room for the virus to spread without reinfections or hitting the vaccinated who are extremely protected (and doubly so after an infection).
The virus is rapidly running out of people to infect. Pretty much just children who aren't open to the vaccine and had the bloody stupid bubbles earlier in the year.
Every infection that happens now is quite one fewer that can happen in the winter. The more the merrier now.
But the antibodies don't protect completely. It's not mumps. So it's not running out of people in that sense.
Wasting your breath Carnyx, you are talking to an empty head.
Hello Malky. Just finished some mutton curry and some decent Cotes de Rhone. More geese flying south overhead but pleasant enough weather over here.
Hi, yes been quite a few flying over last week or so, dry and mild here today but looks like we can expect lots of rain tomorrow afternoon. Beef stir fry for me tonight, having a late dinner pretending we are Spanish.
CORRECTION - don't you really mean, "pretending we are CATALAN"???
Well said.
Are you trying to basque in his reflected glory?
Bite your tongue - would Navarre dream of such a thing!
On the petrol issue, I took my car for its MOT today running on reserves while the car beeped at me, but plan on not using it again until the panic buying has stopped, as we have no immediate need to use it.
I feel bad for those in a similar position but need their cars for their livelihood. Everyone else should take a deep breath and consider whether they really need to fill up until things calm down.
I'm not sure that that article can be described as empty-headed. To a certain extent it simply lays out an unsurprising but important fact, that many of the current issues are related to Brexit, and that the British political and media class have merely become nervous of describing that head-on.
If Brexit was the sole cause then that would be different, but it is multi faceted with covid, lost driving tests, older drivers retiring, and the terrible work conditions and pay making it very complex
And let's not forget Europe have a shortage of half a million drivers
There are some who are trying to make this all about Brexit for their own political motives but it is not
We did cover this in quite a lot of detail yesterday, to be fair. Europe are having the same shortages of drivers, but not of supplies, because drivers are more mobile around the EU.
That isn't a politically motivated point, but more the structural difference between being in a single market and free movement area, and not.
Bollocks.
There's no real shortage in this country either, but there's a media-induced panic fuelled by those with an agenda to push. That's it.
I am not sure you are entirely right, or even right at all, come to think of it.
But that matters not a jot. The optics today look horrible for the Government (and for Brexit) whoever is to blame.
I don't think it looks terrible at all. Everyone I've spoken to about it in real life is making fun of the panic buying morons who are behind this.
Of course it does! In exactly the same way it looked terrible for the Blair Government in 2000.
Whether it moves the polls is another matter. If it doesn't, Johnson is the second coming, and the Almighty is a Conservative.
This is completely different to 2000. In 2000 the stations weren't able to be refuelled due to the blockades which led to thousands and eventually almost all (from memory) stations running out of fuel. Since they weren't able to be refuelled this dragged on for weeks.
This is a couple of days of idiot-led hysteria but the fuel stations are already being refuelled. So this time next week there'll be people with egg on their face and full tanks. Not the same thing at all.
Plus of course in 2000 high taxes the government had introduced was behind the protests and the protests (initially) had overwhelming support in polls because the public were annoyed at petrol prices themselves. And it highlighted just how much of the price was tax. Hysteria isn't taxed unfortunately.
It is almost copybook. What was behind the 2000 protests were blockades of fuel depots by Bryndley Williams, who later became a Tory AM, and that idiot farmer from Monmouth and a bunch of hauliers backed by William Hague. And the tanker hauliers wouldn't scab their colleagues.
We panicked, we ran the pumps dry and we ran out of fuel. The end result was the same.
Sometimes you spend hours arguing black is white, and white is black.
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
And we will panic buy again tomorrow when the stations have been refilled.
If you think it won't have the same impact as 2000 that is entirely up to you. I would be surprised if it is laughed off as another comic Boris episode. You may be right of course, what do I know?
There's only so many times you can panic buy petrol. Unless you are also panic driving as well?
The point is that, for some time, filling stations were being resupplied at a slower rate than they were selling fuel. This became noticeable when a few stations actually started to run out of fuel, then chaos ensued. Unless the rate of supply increases or demand falls, the situation will continue to deteriorate, which, presumably, is why the government has just OKed 5000 visas for foreign drivers.
Demand will certainly fall because it seems like half the country decided to fill up today.
Well said. Flabbergasted by the Header. It is the Tories who are setting the example.
Conservative Peter Bone is self-isolating having taken a test for COVID-19 and testing positive. The Wellingborough MP [Con], who is double-vaccinated, said it felt like “really nasty flu” and he had taken to his bed but hoped to be on the mend soon. https://twitter.com/tvnewswatch/status/1439957872373374979/photo/1
Lets put it like this. When I go to Germany next month it'll be mandatory mask wearing with pox rates less than a quarter they are here. So when I then fly into London for the few days that follow it would be illogical to adopt the Tories' view and say "no risk, no mask".
Yes I have been double jabbed. But pox is still running rampant and still making people ill and still giving double-jabbed people like my mum long Covid.
Well fuck that. If me wearing a mask makes some people on the blue side of politics react, I honestly don't care. We will get through this pandemic. We haven't yet.
The vast majority of people on the blue side think you should be free to wear whatever you damn well like. They just don’t want you telling them what to wear.
Yes its amusing that Rochdale has been moaning about the fact that a mask mandate isn't legally mandated - then he thinks him wearing a mask will get a reaction? What twisted projectionism.
I couldn't care less what other people wear. Its a shame if people feel they need to wear a mask, and I think its silly - but its their choice and I'll respect that.
People can wear a mask until they die decades from now for all I care. Some of Asian origin did pre-pandemic. Just don't expect others to do so.
You've made it amply clear you don't give a toss about anyone.
I do give a toss about people which is why I think the vulnerable who need protection should get the advice to wear a proper FFP3 mask that actually does the job instead of a cloth mask placebo.
As for antivaxxers - they've made their choice. Its not my job to be masked up to protect others from their own decisions. Why should it be? 🤷♂️
What is wrong with a placebo? I thought you were a libertarian?
If you're deliberately giving people a placebo, when there's a working and approved alternative available, without informing them its a placebo - then unless they've knowingly subscribed to a trial knowing a placebo is an option then that's not good ethics.
But nobody is deliberately giving anyone anything. It is personal choice.
Except people are giving people the misunderstanding that cloth masks work well. Rather than educate that FFP3 masks are what work well to protect the wearer.
Are they? And are people wearing masks to protect the wearer? That certainly isn't my motivation on the occasions I wear one. And from much of the testimony here quite a few others too. What about those Christian cross pendants? Or indeed any religious garb?
We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)
The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.
Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?
The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)
Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?
Better to get COVID out of the way now before flu takes off in Dec-Apr.
You're not quite saying the thing that underpins the logic of this argument: that having Covid burn through the population will add strain on the NHS. That's the logic, isn't it? Spread the strain out over 6 months instead of 4. Have people dying in hospital now instead of in January. It's that acknowledgement that having Covid spread wide will kill people, that's what I'm after. Because it's true, isn't it?
So what if it is? Everyone in the country is going to get it. You're looking for some idiotic gotcha moment but none of us are politicians and you aren't Robert Peston. At least I hope you aren't.
I'm not after a gotcha, I'm just checking that you're advocating what I think you're advocating. There are other things you could advocate to prevent strain on the NHS. I'll just note that masks also help prevent the spread of flu. Some people might like the idea of saving lives lost to both Covid and flu. And perhaps better planning and money for the NHS to cope with what appears to be a predictable time of difficulty. There are different ways forward.
What's your proposal? That its better to postpone antivaxxer infections from now to the winter crisis?
I don't agree. I hope as many antivaxxers as possible get the virus now.
I genuinely don't have one, I'm just asking questions. I'll be honest, I don't much like what I'm hearing.
I also think the NHS isn't in a great place now to cope with the extra demand this policy will inflict. Oh, and there's the practicality. I've been treating this as abstract, but in concrete terms it'll take a time for infection rates to get up to cover everyone. I don't think it would be remotely done and dusted by December, and then you'll have only made the problem you were trying to fix so much worse.
I don't think you understand how this works. Well over 90% of the adults in this country have antibodies already. There's bugger all room for the virus to spread without reinfections or hitting the vaccinated who are extremely protected (and doubly so after an infection).
The virus is rapidly running out of people to infect. Pretty much just children who aren't open to the vaccine and had the bloody stupid bubbles earlier in the year.
Every infection that happens now is quite one fewer that can happen in the winter. The more the merrier now.
But the antibodies don't protect completely. It's not mumps. So it's not running out of people in that sense.
Wasting your breath Carnyx, you are talking to an empty head.
Hello Malky. Just finished some mutton curry and some decent Cotes de Rhone. More geese flying south overhead but pleasant enough weather over here.
Hi, yes been quite a few flying over last week or so, dry and mild here today but looks like we can expect lots of rain tomorrow afternoon. Beef stir fry for me tonight, having a late dinner pretending we are Spanish.
CORRECTION - don't you really mean, "pretending we are CATALAN"???
Well said.
Are you trying to basque in his reflected glory?
Bite your tongue - would Navarre dream of such a thing!
I was talking to Malc. But I apologise if I threw a Grenada the conversation.
This mask debate is really boring, so I may as well join in.
For those who don't want to ever wear masks, that's up to them. I rarely wear one. But, for example, my local bakery has a sign on the door politely asking customers to wear a mask (the staff all wear one), so out of respect I put a mask on when buying bread. Similarly, my local bus company has notices asking passengers to wear one, so I oblige on my quite frequent bus journeys.
What's wrong with a bit of common courtesy? If you're asked (politely) to stick a mask on, why not do it - even if you think it's unnecessary? It's not a big deal.
Quite right. I am very happy not wearing mask in all manner of crowded places (pubs, concerts etc), but if on a train or in a supermarket I tend to wear one out of respect for those who are still more nervous or at risk but have to use those services.
What I found I infuriating was the rules around wearing a mask while entering or going to the bathroom in a restaurant or pub, but fine to be without one otherwise. As if that will make a blind bit of difference.
People can use home delivery or click and collect if they don't want to expose themselves to a Covid risk at the supermarket.
In pre-vaccine days going to the supermarket was an unnecessary bonkers thing to do. I didn't go near. My brother in law did, caught Covid and passed it to the rest of his family. All had a reasonably mild dose, but back then the risk of serious illness was so much greater.
My attitude to the Covid risk has changed radically since I got fully jabbed up. Previously, I didn't want to enter any confined space or have anyone come to our house. Now, life as normal. My heartfelt gratitude to the scientists who developed the AZ vaccine and to those in the NHS who ensured that it got from the lab to my arm.
Lets put it like this. When I go to Germany next month it'll be mandatory mask wearing with pox rates less than a quarter they are here. So when I then fly into London for the few days that follow it would be illogical to adopt the Tories' view and say "no risk, no mask".
Yes I have been double jabbed. But pox is still running rampant and still making people ill and still giving double-jabbed people like my mum long Covid.
Well fuck that. If me wearing a mask makes some people on the blue side of politics react, I honestly don't care. We will get through this pandemic. We haven't yet.
The vast majority of people on the blue side think you should be free to wear whatever you damn well like. They just don’t want you telling them what to wear.
Yes its amusing that Rochdale has been moaning about the fact that a mask mandate isn't legally mandated - then he thinks him wearing a mask will get a reaction? What twisted projectionism.
I couldn't care less what other people wear. Its a shame if people feel they need to wear a mask, and I think its silly - but its their choice and I'll respect that.
People can wear a mask until they die decades from now for all I care. Some of Asian origin did pre-pandemic. Just don't expect others to do so.
You've made it amply clear you don't give a toss about anyone.
I do give a toss about people which is why I think the vulnerable who need protection should get the advice to wear a proper FFP3 mask that actually does the job instead of a cloth mask placebo.
As for antivaxxers - they've made their choice. Its not my job to be masked up to protect others from their own decisions. Why should it be? 🤷♂️
What is wrong with a placebo? I thought you were a libertarian?
If you're deliberately giving people a placebo, when there's a working and approved alternative available, without informing them its a placebo - then unless they've knowingly subscribed to a trial knowing a placebo is an option then that's not good ethics.
But nobody is deliberately giving anyone anything. It is personal choice.
Except people are giving people the misunderstanding that cloth masks work well. Rather than educate that FFP3 masks are what work well to protect the wearer.
Are they? And are people wearing masks to protect the wearer? That certainly isn't my motivation on the occasions I wear one. And from much of the testimony here quite a few others too. What about those Christian cross pendants? Or indeed any religious garb?
Some people are wearing cloth masks because they're vulnerable, we've had people here say it too - and that's concerning. The Government (and opposition, media and scientists) has done an absolutely terrible job at educating people on the difference between FFP3 and cloth masks.
But as for protecting others? That's the vaccine now. That's all that there is now in my humble opinion. Saying that we will wear masks to protect antivaxxers is completely wrongheaded, we should be telling the antivaxxers "get your f***ing vaccine or get Covid". Because that's how this ends, if not today then tomorrow or after that.
Twelve months ago an infection postponed was possibly an infection prevented due to the possibility of getting vaccines in the future. That's been and gone now.
This mask debate is really boring, so I may as well join in.
For those who don't want to ever wear masks, that's up to them. I rarely wear one. But, for example, my local bakery has a sign on the door politely asking customers to wear a mask (the staff all wear one), so out of respect I put a mask on when buying bread. Similarly, my local bus company has notices asking passengers to wear one, so I oblige on my quite frequent bus journeys.
What's wrong with a bit of common courtesy? If you're asked (politely) to stick a mask on, why not do it - even if you think it's unnecessary? It's not a big deal, and nor is it virtue signaling.
That is basically what I do in real life. I suppose I have an objection though to being asked to do things that I think are completely pointless to pander to people who are essentially mentally ill.
For instance, I was on a train in Scotland over the summer and the woman manning the buffet car was determined to uphold the 2 metre distancing rule. This led to her telling me to wait in the next carriage while she made my coffee, and then she made an announcement over the train PA system that I could come back to the buffet car as my coffee was now ready, much to the amusement (or frustration) of everyone on the train.
I'm not sure that that article can be described as empty-headed. To a certain extent it simply lays out an unsurprising but important fact, that many of the current issues are related to Brexit, and that the British political and media class have merely become nervous of describing that head-on.
If Brexit was the sole cause then that would be different, but it is multi faceted with covid, lost driving tests, older drivers retiring, and the terrible work conditions and pay making it very complex
And let's not forget Europe have a shortage of half a million drivers
There are some who are trying to make this all about Brexit for their own political motives but it is not
We did cover this in quite a lot of detail yesterday, to be fair. Europe are having the same shortages of drivers, but not of supplies, because drivers are more mobile around the EU.
That isn't a politically motivated point, but more the structural difference between being in a single market and free movement area, and not.
Bollocks.
There's no real shortage in this country either, but there's a media-induced panic fuelled by those with an agenda to push. That's it.
I am not sure you are entirely right, or even right at all, come to think of it.
But that matters not a jot. The optics today look horrible for the Government (and for Brexit) whoever is to blame.
I don't think it looks terrible at all. Everyone I've spoken to about it in real life is making fun of the panic buying morons who are behind this.
Of course it does! In exactly the same way it looked terrible for the Blair Government in 2000.
Whether it moves the polls is another matter. If it doesn't, Johnson is the second coming, and the Almighty is a Conservative.
This is completely different to 2000. In 2000 the stations weren't able to be refuelled due to the blockades which led to thousands and eventually almost all (from memory) stations running out of fuel. Since they weren't able to be refuelled this dragged on for weeks.
This is a couple of days of idiot-led hysteria but the fuel stations are already being refuelled. So this time next week there'll be people with egg on their face and full tanks. Not the same thing at all.
Plus of course in 2000 high taxes the government had introduced was behind the protests and the protests (initially) had overwhelming support in polls because the public were annoyed at petrol prices themselves. And it highlighted just how much of the price was tax. Hysteria isn't taxed unfortunately.
It is almost copybook. What was behind the 2000 protests were blockades of fuel depots by Bryndley Williams, who later became a Tory AM, and that idiot farmer from Monmouth and a bunch of hauliers backed by William Hague. And the tanker hauliers wouldn't scab their colleagues.
We panicked, we ran the pumps dry and we ran out of fuel. The end result was the same.
Sometimes you spend hours arguing black is white, and white is black.
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
And we will panic buy again tomorrow when the stations have been refilled.
If you think it won't have the same impact as 2000 that is entirely up to you. I would be surprised if it is laughed off as another comic Boris episode. You may be right of course, what do I know?
How will the people who panic bought today panic buy again tomorrow?
Their tanks will already be full. They can't be refilled a second time.
At circa 800 miles a week I will be empty in 4 working days.
There are also plenty of panic buyers yet to panic buy.
You (as is @RobD) are arguing this is wholly different to 2000, when it is wholly similar. I have already conceded it might not damage Johnson in the same way it damaged Blair, although I would be shocked if it didn't
I'm not sure that that article can be described as empty-headed. To a certain extent it simply lays out an unsurprising but important fact, that many of the current issues are related to Brexit, and that the British political and media class have merely become nervous of describing that head-on.
If Brexit was the sole cause then that would be different, but it is multi faceted with covid, lost driving tests, older drivers retiring, and the terrible work conditions and pay making it very complex
And let's not forget Europe have a shortage of half a million drivers
There are some who are trying to make this all about Brexit for their own political motives but it is not
We did cover this in quite a lot of detail yesterday, to be fair. Europe are having the same shortages of drivers, but not of supplies, because drivers are more mobile around the EU.
That isn't a politically motivated point, but more the structural difference between being in a single market and free movement area, and not.
Bollocks.
There's no real shortage in this country either, but there's a media-induced panic fuelled by those with an agenda to push. That's it.
I am not sure you are entirely right, or even right at all, come to think of it.
But that matters not a jot. The optics today look horrible for the Government (and for Brexit) whoever is to blame.
I don't think it looks terrible at all. Everyone I've spoken to about it in real life is making fun of the panic buying morons who are behind this.
Of course it does! In exactly the same way it looked terrible for the Blair Government in 2000.
Whether it moves the polls is another matter. If it doesn't, Johnson is the second coming, and the Almighty is a Conservative.
This is completely different to 2000. In 2000 the stations weren't able to be refuelled due to the blockades which led to thousands and eventually almost all (from memory) stations running out of fuel. Since they weren't able to be refuelled this dragged on for weeks.
This is a couple of days of idiot-led hysteria but the fuel stations are already being refuelled. So this time next week there'll be people with egg on their face and full tanks. Not the same thing at all.
Plus of course in 2000 high taxes the government had introduced was behind the protests and the protests (initially) had overwhelming support in polls because the public were annoyed at petrol prices themselves. And it highlighted just how much of the price was tax. Hysteria isn't taxed unfortunately.
It is almost copybook. What was behind the 2000 protests were blockades of fuel depots by Bryndley Williams, who later became a Tory AM, and that idiot farmer from Monmouth and a bunch of hauliers backed by William Hague. And the tanker hauliers wouldn't scab their colleagues.
We panicked, we ran the pumps dry and we ran out of fuel. The end result was the same.
Sometimes you spend hours arguing black is white, and white is black.
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
And we will panic buy again tomorrow when the stations have been refilled.
If you think it won't have the same impact as 2000 that is entirely up to you. I would be surprised if it is laughed off as another comic Boris episode. You may be right of course, what do I know?
How will the people who panic bought today panic buy again tomorrow?
Their tanks will already be full. They can't be refilled a second time.
At circa 800 miles a week I will be empty in 4 working days.
There are also plenty of panic buyers yet to panic buy.
You (as is @RobD) are arguing this is wholly different to 2000, when it is wholly similar. I have already conceded it might not damage Johnson in the same way it damaged Blair, although I would be shocked if it didn't
If you're doing 800 miles a week then refilling is not panic buying, its just normal daily activity and won't be affecting variance from the baseline.
That is not true but probably 99% of the people at the pumps today.
Do you not accept the fact that pumps getting refuelled is happening now, which didn't happen in 2000? Don't you see that as a key difference?
I'm not sure that that article can be described as empty-headed. To a certain extent it simply lays out an unsurprising but important fact, that many of the current issues are related to Brexit, and that the British political and media class have merely become nervous of describing that head-on.
If Brexit was the sole cause then that would be different, but it is multi faceted with covid, lost driving tests, older drivers retiring, and the terrible work conditions and pay making it very complex
And let's not forget Europe have a shortage of half a million drivers
There are some who are trying to make this all about Brexit for their own political motives but it is not
We did cover this in quite a lot of detail yesterday, to be fair. Europe are having the same shortages of drivers, but not of supplies, because drivers are more mobile around the EU.
That isn't a politically motivated point, but more the structural difference between being in a single market and free movement area, and not.
Bollocks.
There's no real shortage in this country either, but there's a media-induced panic fuelled by those with an agenda to push. That's it.
I am not sure you are entirely right, or even right at all, come to think of it.
But that matters not a jot. The optics today look horrible for the Government (and for Brexit) whoever is to blame.
I don't think it looks terrible at all. Everyone I've spoken to about it in real life is making fun of the panic buying morons who are behind this.
Of course it does! In exactly the same way it looked terrible for the Blair Government in 2000.
Whether it moves the polls is another matter. If it doesn't, Johnson is the second coming, and the Almighty is a Conservative.
This is completely different to 2000. In 2000 the stations weren't able to be refuelled due to the blockades which led to thousands and eventually almost all (from memory) stations running out of fuel. Since they weren't able to be refuelled this dragged on for weeks.
This is a couple of days of idiot-led hysteria but the fuel stations are already being refuelled. So this time next week there'll be people with egg on their face and full tanks. Not the same thing at all.
Plus of course in 2000 high taxes the government had introduced was behind the protests and the protests (initially) had overwhelming support in polls because the public were annoyed at petrol prices themselves. And it highlighted just how much of the price was tax. Hysteria isn't taxed unfortunately.
It is almost copybook. What was behind the 2000 protests were blockades of fuel depots by Bryndley Williams, who later became a Tory AM, and that idiot farmer from Monmouth and a bunch of hauliers backed by William Hague. And the tanker hauliers wouldn't scab their colleagues.
We panicked, we ran the pumps dry and we ran out of fuel. The end result was the same.
Sometimes you spend hours arguing black is white, and white is black.
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
And we will panic buy again tomorrow when the stations have been refilled.
If you think it won't have the same impact as 2000 that is entirely up to you. I would be surprised if it is laughed off as another comic Boris episode. You may be right of course, what do I know?
How will the people who panic bought today panic buy again tomorrow?
Their tanks will already be full. They can't be refilled a second time.
At circa 800 miles a week I will be empty in 4 working days.
There are also plenty of panic buyers yet to panic buy.
You (as is @RobD) are arguing this is wholly different to 2000, when it is wholly similar. I have already conceded it might not damage Johnson in the same way it damaged Blair, although I would be shocked if it didn't
Well, I would have thought you as a Johnson sceptic would certainly hope it wouldn’t damage Johnson the same way it did Blair - given Blair was undamaged by the fuel crisis beyond about a four week window.
We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)
The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.
Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?
The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)
Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?
Better to get COVID out of the way now before flu takes off in Dec-Apr.
You're not quite saying the thing that underpins the logic of this argument: that having Covid burn through the population will add strain on the NHS. That's the logic, isn't it? Spread the strain out over 6 months instead of 4. Have people dying in hospital now instead of in January. It's that acknowledgement that having Covid spread wide will kill people, that's what I'm after. Because it's true, isn't it?
So what if it is? Everyone in the country is going to get it. You're looking for some idiotic gotcha moment but none of us are politicians and you aren't Robert Peston. At least I hope you aren't.
I'm not after a gotcha, I'm just checking that you're advocating what I think you're advocating. There are other things you could advocate to prevent strain on the NHS. I'll just note that masks also help prevent the spread of flu. Some people might like the idea of saving lives lost to both Covid and flu. And perhaps better planning and money for the NHS to cope with what appears to be a predictable time of difficulty. There are different ways forward.
What's your proposal? That its better to postpone antivaxxer infections from now to the winter crisis?
I don't agree. I hope as many antivaxxers as possible get the virus now.
I genuinely don't have one, I'm just asking questions. I'll be honest, I don't much like what I'm hearing.
I also think the NHS isn't in a great place now to cope with the extra demand this policy will inflict. Oh, and there's the practicality. I've been treating this as abstract, but in concrete terms it'll take a time for infection rates to get up to cover everyone. I don't think it would be remotely done and dusted by December, and then you'll have only made the problem you were trying to fix so much worse.
I don't think you understand how this works. Well over 90% of the adults in this country have antibodies already. There's bugger all room for the virus to spread without reinfections or hitting the vaccinated who are extremely protected (and doubly so after an infection).
The virus is rapidly running out of people to infect. Pretty much just children who aren't open to the vaccine and had the bloody stupid bubbles earlier in the year.
Every infection that happens now is quite one fewer that can happen in the winter. The more the merrier now.
But the antibodies don't protect completely. It's not mumps. So it's not running out of people in that sense.
Wasting your breath Carnyx, you are talking to an empty head.
Hello Malky. Just finished some mutton curry and some decent Cotes de Rhone. More geese flying south overhead but pleasant enough weather over here.
Hi, yes been quite a few flying over last week or so, dry and mild here today but looks like we can expect lots of rain tomorrow afternoon. Beef stir fry for me tonight, having a late dinner pretending we are Spanish.
CORRECTION - don't you really mean, "pretending we are CATALAN"???
Well said.
Are you trying to basque in his reflected glory?
Bite your tongue - would Navarre dream of such a thing!
I was talking to Malc. But I apologise if I threw a Grenada the conversation.
Kindly watch your language and keep a Seville tongue!
I'm not sure that that article can be described as empty-headed. To a certain extent it simply lays out an unsurprising but important fact, that many of the current issues are related to Brexit, and that the British political and media class have merely become nervous of describing that head-on.
If Brexit was the sole cause then that would be different, but it is multi faceted with covid, lost driving tests, older drivers retiring, and the terrible work conditions and pay making it very complex
And let's not forget Europe have a shortage of half a million drivers
There are some who are trying to make this all about Brexit for their own political motives but it is not
We did cover this in quite a lot of detail yesterday, to be fair. Europe are having the same shortages of drivers, but not of supplies, because drivers are more mobile around the EU.
That isn't a politically motivated point, but more the structural difference between being in a single market and free movement area, and not.
Bollocks.
There's no real shortage in this country either, but there's a media-induced panic fuelled by those with an agenda to push. That's it.
I am not sure you are entirely right, or even right at all, come to think of it.
But that matters not a jot. The optics today look horrible for the Government (and for Brexit) whoever is to blame.
I don't think it looks terrible at all. Everyone I've spoken to about it in real life is making fun of the panic buying morons who are behind this.
Of course it does! In exactly the same way it looked terrible for the Blair Government in 2000.
Whether it moves the polls is another matter. If it doesn't, Johnson is the second coming, and the Almighty is a Conservative.
This is completely different to 2000. In 2000 the stations weren't able to be refuelled due to the blockades which led to thousands and eventually almost all (from memory) stations running out of fuel. Since they weren't able to be refuelled this dragged on for weeks.
This is a couple of days of idiot-led hysteria but the fuel stations are already being refuelled. So this time next week there'll be people with egg on their face and full tanks. Not the same thing at all.
Plus of course in 2000 high taxes the government had introduced was behind the protests and the protests (initially) had overwhelming support in polls because the public were annoyed at petrol prices themselves. And it highlighted just how much of the price was tax. Hysteria isn't taxed unfortunately.
It is almost copybook. What was behind the 2000 protests were blockades of fuel depots by Bryndley Williams, who later became a Tory AM, and that idiot farmer from Monmouth and a bunch of hauliers backed by William Hague. And the tanker hauliers wouldn't scab their colleagues.
We panicked, we ran the pumps dry and we ran out of fuel. The end result was the same.
Sometimes you spend hours arguing black is white, and white is black.
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
And we will panic buy again tomorrow when the stations have been refilled.
If you think it won't have the same impact as 2000 that is entirely up to you. I would be surprised if it is laughed off as another comic Boris episode. You may be right of course, what do I know?
There's only so many times you can panic buy petrol. Unless you are also panic driving as well?
The point is that, for some time, filling stations were being resupplied at a slower rate than they were selling fuel. This became noticeable when a few stations actually started to run out of fuel, then chaos ensued. Unless the rate of supply increases or demand falls, the situation will continue to deteriorate, which, presumably, is why the government has just OKed 5000 visas for foreign drivers.
Demand will certainly fall because it seems like half the country decided to fill up today.
For a short while, perhaps. But supply has to exceed demand on a sustained basis or else shortages will become ever more frequent.
Lets put it like this. When I go to Germany next month it'll be mandatory mask wearing with pox rates less than a quarter they are here. So when I then fly into London for the few days that follow it would be illogical to adopt the Tories' view and say "no risk, no mask".
Yes I have been double jabbed. But pox is still running rampant and still making people ill and still giving double-jabbed people like my mum long Covid.
Well fuck that. If me wearing a mask makes some people on the blue side of politics react, I honestly don't care. We will get through this pandemic. We haven't yet.
The vast majority of people on the blue side think you should be free to wear whatever you damn well like. They just don’t want you telling them what to wear.
Yes its amusing that Rochdale has been moaning about the fact that a mask mandate isn't legally mandated - then he thinks him wearing a mask will get a reaction? What twisted projectionism.
I couldn't care less what other people wear. Its a shame if people feel they need to wear a mask, and I think its silly - but its their choice and I'll respect that.
People can wear a mask until they die decades from now for all I care. Some of Asian origin did pre-pandemic. Just don't expect others to do so.
You've made it amply clear you don't give a toss about anyone.
I do give a toss about people which is why I think the vulnerable who need protection should get the advice to wear a proper FFP3 mask that actually does the job instead of a cloth mask placebo.
As for antivaxxers - they've made their choice. Its not my job to be masked up to protect others from their own decisions. Why should it be? 🤷♂️
What is wrong with a placebo? I thought you were a libertarian?
If you're deliberately giving people a placebo, when there's a working and approved alternative available, without informing them its a placebo - then unless they've knowingly subscribed to a trial knowing a placebo is an option then that's not good ethics.
But nobody is deliberately giving anyone anything. It is personal choice.
Except people are giving people the misunderstanding that cloth masks work well. Rather than educate that FFP3 masks are what work well to protect the wearer.
Are they? And are people wearing masks to protect the wearer? That certainly isn't my motivation on the occasions I wear one. And from much of the testimony here quite a few others too. What about those Christian cross pendants? Or indeed any religious garb?
Some people are wearing cloth masks because they're vulnerable, we've had people here say it too - and that's concerning. The Government (and opposition, media and scientists) has done an absolutely terrible job at educating people on the difference between FFP3 and cloth masks.
But as for protecting others? That's the vaccine now. That's all that there is now in my humble opinion. Saying that we will wear masks to protect antivaxxers is completely wrongheaded, we should be telling the antivaxxers "get your f***ing vaccine or get Covid". Because that's how this ends, if not today then tomorrow or after that.
Twelve months ago an infection postponed was possibly an infection prevented due to the possibility of getting vaccines in the future. That's been and gone now.
I see plenty of elderly folks wearing cloth or surgical masks, and I'm pretty confident that they are doing so for self protection. The government should be shouting loudly that if you are trying to protect yourself from infection you need an FFP3.
We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)
The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.
Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?
The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)
Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?
Better to get COVID out of the way now before flu takes off in Dec-Apr.
You're not quite saying the thing that underpins the logic of this argument: that having Covid burn through the population will add strain on the NHS. That's the logic, isn't it? Spread the strain out over 6 months instead of 4. Have people dying in hospital now instead of in January. It's that acknowledgement that having Covid spread wide will kill people, that's what I'm after. Because it's true, isn't it?
So what if it is? Everyone in the country is going to get it. You're looking for some idiotic gotcha moment but none of us are politicians and you aren't Robert Peston. At least I hope you aren't.
I'm not after a gotcha, I'm just checking that you're advocating what I think you're advocating. There are other things you could advocate to prevent strain on the NHS. I'll just note that masks also help prevent the spread of flu. Some people might like the idea of saving lives lost to both Covid and flu. And perhaps better planning and money for the NHS to cope with what appears to be a predictable time of difficulty. There are different ways forward.
What's your proposal? That its better to postpone antivaxxer infections from now to the winter crisis?
I don't agree. I hope as many antivaxxers as possible get the virus now.
I genuinely don't have one, I'm just asking questions. I'll be honest, I don't much like what I'm hearing.
I also think the NHS isn't in a great place now to cope with the extra demand this policy will inflict. Oh, and there's the practicality. I've been treating this as abstract, but in concrete terms it'll take a time for infection rates to get up to cover everyone. I don't think it would be remotely done and dusted by December, and then you'll have only made the problem you were trying to fix so much worse.
I don't think you understand how this works. Well over 90% of the adults in this country have antibodies already. There's bugger all room for the virus to spread without reinfections or hitting the vaccinated who are extremely protected (and doubly so after an infection).
The virus is rapidly running out of people to infect. Pretty much just children who aren't open to the vaccine and had the bloody stupid bubbles earlier in the year.
Every infection that happens now is quite one fewer that can happen in the winter. The more the merrier now.
But the antibodies don't protect completely. It's not mumps. So it's not running out of people in that sense.
Wasting your breath Carnyx, you are talking to an empty head.
Hello Malky. Just finished some mutton curry and some decent Cotes de Rhone. More geese flying south overhead but pleasant enough weather over here.
Hi, yes been quite a few flying over last week or so, dry and mild here today but looks like we can expect lots of rain tomorrow afternoon. Beef stir fry for me tonight, having a late dinner pretending we are Spanish.
CORRECTION - don't you really mean, "pretending we are CATALAN"???
Well said.
Are you trying to basque in his reflected glory?
Bite your tongue - would Navarre dream of such a thing!
I was talking to Malc. But I apologise if I threw a Grenada the conversation.
Kindly watch your language and keep a Seville tongue!
Lets put it like this. When I go to Germany next month it'll be mandatory mask wearing with pox rates less than a quarter they are here. So when I then fly into London for the few days that follow it would be illogical to adopt the Tories' view and say "no risk, no mask".
Yes I have been double jabbed. But pox is still running rampant and still making people ill and still giving double-jabbed people like my mum long Covid.
Well fuck that. If me wearing a mask makes some people on the blue side of politics react, I honestly don't care. We will get through this pandemic. We haven't yet.
The vast majority of people on the blue side think you should be free to wear whatever you damn well like. They just don’t want you telling them what to wear.
Yes its amusing that Rochdale has been moaning about the fact that a mask mandate isn't legally mandated - then he thinks him wearing a mask will get a reaction? What twisted projectionism.
I couldn't care less what other people wear. Its a shame if people feel they need to wear a mask, and I think its silly - but its their choice and I'll respect that.
People can wear a mask until they die decades from now for all I care. Some of Asian origin did pre-pandemic. Just don't expect others to do so.
You've made it amply clear you don't give a toss about anyone.
I do give a toss about people which is why I think the vulnerable who need protection should get the advice to wear a proper FFP3 mask that actually does the job instead of a cloth mask placebo.
As for antivaxxers - they've made their choice. Its not my job to be masked up to protect others from their own decisions. Why should it be? 🤷♂️
What is wrong with a placebo? I thought you were a libertarian?
If you're deliberately giving people a placebo, when there's a working and approved alternative available, without informing them its a placebo - then unless they've knowingly subscribed to a trial knowing a placebo is an option then that's not good ethics.
But nobody is deliberately giving anyone anything. It is personal choice.
Except people are giving people the misunderstanding that cloth masks work well. Rather than educate that FFP3 masks are what work well to protect the wearer.
Are they? And are people wearing masks to protect the wearer? That certainly isn't my motivation on the occasions I wear one. And from much of the testimony here quite a few others too. What about those Christian cross pendants? Or indeed any religious garb?
Saying that we will wear masks to protect antivaxxers is completely wrongheaded, we should be telling the antivaxxers "get your f***ing vaccine or get Covid".
But there you are again. It is absolutely none of your business what other people do with regard to masks, or why. Insulting folk who choose to wear a mask seems to be a remarkably common libertarian trait.
I have to visit my mother in hospital. All other journeys will have to cease until the loons stop filling up. There will be millions of cars full of fuel sitting on the roadside or in driveways/garages.
Camden is packed, glad we booked a table at the bar rather than queue up. Not seen it this packed for a long time, definitely pre-COVID.
London has forgotten that COVID exists. At least the under 40s have. Now for a painful evening with my wife's friends.
Are none of them hot?
Yeah some of them, but it's not as though I'm going to cheat on my wife. I'm not SeanT, Eadric Leon.
Also they're all in the world of anti-money laundering and talk shop endlessly until my wife gets frustrated and forces them to change the subject. That usually takes a bit of time as well.
Well said. Flabbergasted by the Header. It is the Tories who are setting the example.
Conservative Peter Bone is self-isolating having taken a test for COVID-19 and testing positive. The Wellingborough MP [Con], who is double-vaccinated, said it felt like “really nasty flu” and he had taken to his bed but hoped to be on the mend soon. https://twitter.com/tvnewswatch/status/1439957872373374979/photo/1
Rachel Burden of 5 live went down with and was double vaccinated and said much the same
Most people on the Northern Line were wearing masks (jncluding yours truly) when I checked out the brand new Battersea and Nine Elms tube stations on Tuesday, round about midday.
Lets put it like this. When I go to Germany next month it'll be mandatory mask wearing with pox rates less than a quarter they are here. So when I then fly into London for the few days that follow it would be illogical to adopt the Tories' view and say "no risk, no mask".
Yes I have been double jabbed. But pox is still running rampant and still making people ill and still giving double-jabbed people like my mum long Covid.
Well fuck that. If me wearing a mask makes some people on the blue side of politics react, I honestly don't care. We will get through this pandemic. We haven't yet.
The vast majority of people on the blue side think you should be free to wear whatever you damn well like. They just don’t want you telling them what to wear.
Yes its amusing that Rochdale has been moaning about the fact that a mask mandate isn't legally mandated - then he thinks him wearing a mask will get a reaction? What twisted projectionism.
I couldn't care less what other people wear. Its a shame if people feel they need to wear a mask, and I think its silly - but its their choice and I'll respect that.
People can wear a mask until they die decades from now for all I care. Some of Asian origin did pre-pandemic. Just don't expect others to do so.
You've made it amply clear you don't give a toss about anyone.
I do give a toss about people which is why I think the vulnerable who need protection should get the advice to wear a proper FFP3 mask that actually does the job instead of a cloth mask placebo.
As for antivaxxers - they've made their choice. Its not my job to be masked up to protect others from their own decisions. Why should it be? 🤷♂️
What is wrong with a placebo? I thought you were a libertarian?
If you're deliberately giving people a placebo, when there's a working and approved alternative available, without informing them its a placebo - then unless they've knowingly subscribed to a trial knowing a placebo is an option then that's not good ethics.
But nobody is deliberately giving anyone anything. It is personal choice.
Except people are giving people the misunderstanding that cloth masks work well. Rather than educate that FFP3 masks are what work well to protect the wearer.
Are they? And are people wearing masks to protect the wearer? That certainly isn't my motivation on the occasions I wear one. And from much of the testimony here quite a few others too. What about those Christian cross pendants? Or indeed any religious garb?
Saying that we will wear masks to protect antivaxxers is completely wrongheaded, we should be telling the antivaxxers "get your f***ing vaccine or get Covid".
But there you are again. It is absolutely none of your business what other people do with regard to masks, or why. Insulting folk who choose to wear a mask seems to be a remarkably common libertarian trait.
I'm not insulting folk who choose to wear a mask. They could wear a clove of garlic for all I care.
I'm insulting folk who think they can command others to wear a mask. Those nosy busybodies have it coming.
We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)
The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.
Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?
The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)
Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?
Better to get COVID out of the way now before flu takes off in Dec-Apr.
You're not quite saying the thing that underpins the logic of this argument: that having Covid burn through the population will add strain on the NHS. That's the logic, isn't it? Spread the strain out over 6 months instead of 4. Have people dying in hospital now instead of in January. It's that acknowledgement that having Covid spread wide will kill people, that's what I'm after. Because it's true, isn't it?
So what if it is? Everyone in the country is going to get it. You're looking for some idiotic gotcha moment but none of us are politicians and you aren't Robert Peston. At least I hope you aren't.
I'm not after a gotcha, I'm just checking that you're advocating what I think you're advocating. There are other things you could advocate to prevent strain on the NHS. I'll just note that masks also help prevent the spread of flu. Some people might like the idea of saving lives lost to both Covid and flu. And perhaps better planning and money for the NHS to cope with what appears to be a predictable time of difficulty. There are different ways forward.
What's your proposal? That its better to postpone antivaxxer infections from now to the winter crisis?
I don't agree. I hope as many antivaxxers as possible get the virus now.
I genuinely don't have one, I'm just asking questions. I'll be honest, I don't much like what I'm hearing.
I also think the NHS isn't in a great place now to cope with the extra demand this policy will inflict. Oh, and there's the practicality. I've been treating this as abstract, but in concrete terms it'll take a time for infection rates to get up to cover everyone. I don't think it would be remotely done and dusted by December, and then you'll have only made the problem you were trying to fix so much worse.
I don't think you understand how this works. Well over 90% of the adults in this country have antibodies already. There's bugger all room for the virus to spread without reinfections or hitting the vaccinated who are extremely protected (and doubly so after an infection).
The virus is rapidly running out of people to infect. Pretty much just children who aren't open to the vaccine and had the bloody stupid bubbles earlier in the year.
Every infection that happens now is quite one fewer that can happen in the winter. The more the merrier now.
But the antibodies don't protect completely. It's not mumps. So it's not running out of people in that sense.
Wasting your breath Carnyx, you are talking to an empty head.
Hello Malky. Just finished some mutton curry and some decent Cotes de Rhone. More geese flying south overhead but pleasant enough weather over here.
Hi, yes been quite a few flying over last week or so, dry and mild here today but looks like we can expect lots of rain tomorrow afternoon. Beef stir fry for me tonight, having a late dinner pretending we are Spanish.
CORRECTION - don't you really mean, "pretending we are CATALAN"???
Well said.
Are you trying to basque in his reflected glory?
Bite your tongue - would Navarre dream of such a thing!
I was talking to Malc. But I apologise if I threw a Grenada the conversation.
Kindly watch your language and keep a Seville tongue!
This mask debate is really boring, so I may as well join in.
For those who don't want to ever wear masks, that's up to them. I rarely wear one. But, for example, my local bakery has a sign on the door politely asking customers to wear a mask (the staff all wear one), so out of respect I put a mask on when buying bread. Similarly, my local bus company has notices asking passengers to wear one, so I oblige on my quite frequent bus journeys.
What's wrong with a bit of common courtesy? If you're asked (politely) to stick a mask on, why not do it - even if you think it's unnecessary? It's not a big deal, and nor is it virtue signaling.
That is basically what I do in real life. I suppose I have an objection though to being asked to do things that I think are completely pointless to pander to people who are essentially mentally ill.
For instance, I was on a train in Scotland over the summer and the woman manning the buffet car was determined to uphold the 2 metre distancing rule. This led to her telling me to wait in the next carriage while she made my coffee, and then she made an announcement over the train PA system that I could come back to the buffet car as my coffee was now ready, much to the amusement (or frustration) of everyone on the train.
I had a little respect left for you (not a lot, but some) until THAT post
I mean... you bought ScotRail coffee? Fucking animal.
This mask debate is really boring, so I may as well join in.
For those who don't want to ever wear masks, that's up to them. I rarely wear one. But, for example, my local bakery has a sign on the door politely asking customers to wear a mask (the staff all wear one), so out of respect I put a mask on when buying bread. Similarly, my local bus company has notices asking passengers to wear one, so I oblige on my quite frequent bus journeys.
What's wrong with a bit of common courtesy? If you're asked (politely) to stick a mask on, why not do it - even if you think it's unnecessary? It's not a big deal, and nor is it virtue signaling.
That is basically what I do in real life. I suppose I have an objection though to being asked to do things that I think are completely pointless to pander to people who are essentially mentally ill.
For instance, I was on a train in Scotland over the summer and the woman manning the buffet car was determined to uphold the 2 metre distancing rule. This led to her telling me to wait in the next carriage while she made my coffee, and then she made an announcement over the train PA system that I could come back to the buffet car as my coffee was now ready, much to the amusement (or frustration) of everyone on the train.
I had a little respect left for you (not a lot, but some) until THAT post
I mean... you bought ScotRail coffee? Fucking animal.
It was LNER
I humbly apologise.
In any case the LNER trains follow English law. Even after trundling past Lamberton Toll.
"If I should die, think only this of me: That there's some corner of a foreign field/ That is for ever England."
We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)
The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.
Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?
The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)
Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?
Better to get COVID out of the way now before flu takes off in Dec-Apr.
You're not quite saying the thing that underpins the logic of this argument: that having Covid burn through the population will add strain on the NHS. That's the logic, isn't it? Spread the strain out over 6 months instead of 4. Have people dying in hospital now instead of in January. It's that acknowledgement that having Covid spread wide will kill people, that's what I'm after. Because it's true, isn't it?
So what if it is? Everyone in the country is going to get it. You're looking for some idiotic gotcha moment but none of us are politicians and you aren't Robert Peston. At least I hope you aren't.
I'm not after a gotcha, I'm just checking that you're advocating what I think you're advocating. There are other things you could advocate to prevent strain on the NHS. I'll just note that masks also help prevent the spread of flu. Some people might like the idea of saving lives lost to both Covid and flu. And perhaps better planning and money for the NHS to cope with what appears to be a predictable time of difficulty. There are different ways forward.
What's your proposal? That its better to postpone antivaxxer infections from now to the winter crisis?
I don't agree. I hope as many antivaxxers as possible get the virus now.
I genuinely don't have one, I'm just asking questions. I'll be honest, I don't much like what I'm hearing.
I also think the NHS isn't in a great place now to cope with the extra demand this policy will inflict. Oh, and there's the practicality. I've been treating this as abstract, but in concrete terms it'll take a time for infection rates to get up to cover everyone. I don't think it would be remotely done and dusted by December, and then you'll have only made the problem you were trying to fix so much worse.
I don't think you understand how this works. Well over 90% of the adults in this country have antibodies already. There's bugger all room for the virus to spread without reinfections or hitting the vaccinated who are extremely protected (and doubly so after an infection).
The virus is rapidly running out of people to infect. Pretty much just children who aren't open to the vaccine and had the bloody stupid bubbles earlier in the year.
Every infection that happens now is quite one fewer that can happen in the winter. The more the merrier now.
But the antibodies don't protect completely. It's not mumps. So it's not running out of people in that sense.
Wasting your breath Carnyx, you are talking to an empty head.
Hello Malky. Just finished some mutton curry and some decent Cotes de Rhone. More geese flying south overhead but pleasant enough weather over here.
Hi, yes been quite a few flying over last week or so, dry and mild here today but looks like we can expect lots of rain tomorrow afternoon. Beef stir fry for me tonight, having a late dinner pretending we are Spanish.
CORRECTION - don't you really mean, "pretending we are CATALAN"???
Well said.
Are you trying to basque in his reflected glory?
Bite your tongue - would Navarre dream of such a thing!
I was talking to Malc. But I apologise if I threw a Grenada the conversation.
Kindly watch your language and keep a Seville tongue!
That could be oranged.
On the other hand, a PBer's computer/cellphone IS his/her/its/their Castile . . .
On the petrol issue, I took my car for its MOT today running on reserves while the car beeped at me, but plan on not using it again until the panic buying has stopped, as we have no immediate need to use it.
I feel bad for those in a similar position but need their cars for their livelihood. Everyone else should take a deep breath and consider whether they really need to fill up until things calm down.
My wife's passed it's MOT last week after doing 165 miles in the year
We have taken the collective decision not to refuel just yet !!!!
I'm not sure that that article can be described as empty-headed. To a certain extent it simply lays out an unsurprising but important fact, that many of the current issues are related to Brexit, and that the British political and media class have merely become nervous of describing that head-on.
If Brexit was the sole cause then that would be different, but it is multi faceted with covid, lost driving tests, older drivers retiring, and the terrible work conditions and pay making it very complex
And let's not forget Europe have a shortage of half a million drivers
There are some who are trying to make this all about Brexit for their own political motives but it is not
We did cover this in quite a lot of detail yesterday, to be fair. Europe are having the same shortages of drivers, but not of supplies, because drivers are more mobile around the EU.
That isn't a politically motivated point, but more the structural difference between being in a single market and free movement area, and not.
Bollocks.
There's no real shortage in this country either, but there's a media-induced panic fuelled by those with an agenda to push. That's it.
I am not sure you are entirely right, or even right at all, come to think of it.
But that matters not a jot. The optics today look horrible for the Government (and for Brexit) whoever is to blame.
I don't think it looks terrible at all. Everyone I've spoken to about it in real life is making fun of the panic buying morons who are behind this.
Of course it does! In exactly the same way it looked terrible for the Blair Government in 2000.
Whether it moves the polls is another matter. If it doesn't, Johnson is the second coming, and the Almighty is a Conservative.
This is completely different to 2000. In 2000 the stations weren't able to be refuelled due to the blockades which led to thousands and eventually almost all (from memory) stations running out of fuel. Since they weren't able to be refuelled this dragged on for weeks.
This is a couple of days of idiot-led hysteria but the fuel stations are already being refuelled. So this time next week there'll be people with egg on their face and full tanks. Not the same thing at all.
Plus of course in 2000 high taxes the government had introduced was behind the protests and the protests (initially) had overwhelming support in polls because the public were annoyed at petrol prices themselves. And it highlighted just how much of the price was tax. Hysteria isn't taxed unfortunately.
It is almost copybook. What was behind the 2000 protests were blockades of fuel depots by Bryndley Williams, who later became a Tory AM, and that idiot farmer from Monmouth and a bunch of hauliers backed by William Hague. And the tanker hauliers wouldn't scab their colleagues.
We panicked, we ran the pumps dry and we ran out of fuel. The end result was the same.
Sometimes you spend hours arguing black is white, and white is black.
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
And we will panic buy again tomorrow when the stations have been refilled.
If you think it won't have the same impact as 2000 that is entirely up to you. I would be surprised if it is laughed off as another comic Boris episode. You may be right of course, what do I know?
How will the people who panic bought today panic buy again tomorrow?
Their tanks will already be full. They can't be refilled a second time.
At circa 800 miles a week I will be empty in 4 working days.
There are also plenty of panic buyers yet to panic buy.
You (as is @RobD) are arguing this is wholly different to 2000, when it is wholly similar. I have already conceded it might not damage Johnson in the same way it damaged Blair, although I would be shocked if it didn't
If you're doing 800 miles a week then refilling is not panic buying, its just normal daily activity and won't be affecting variance from the baseline.
That is not true but probably 99% of the people at the pumps today.
Do you not accept the fact that pumps getting refuelled is happening now, which didn't happen in 2000? Don't you see that as a key difference?
As I recall in 2000 the first direct action only lasted around a week. By the time all the empty stations get refilled, remember there are only a finite number of tankers and drivers to go around, even if people stop panic buying NOW there will be empty stations until at least Wednesday. It is wholly similar.
Don't panic, maybe Johnson will have no adverse effect from this. It is nonetheless almost identical in its trajectory to last time.
Anyway I'm bored now, so let's give this battle to you as a win. It bears no similarity to 2000. There! I've conceded.
On the subject of Scot Rail, they closed off all their first class carriages until recently, so their staff could travel in a socially distanced manner, and of course, in maximum comfort. Never mind the lost revenue.
"Angela Rayner amongst a home crowd at the NW reception is heckled by someone who shouts “I think you can challenge him” and she replies: “I think you’ve had all the wine I’ve not had. I have wine envy, mate, but I’ll catch up.” https://t.co/lqf0QJfGud"
This mask debate is really boring, so I may as well join in.
For those who don't want to ever wear masks, that's up to them. I rarely wear one. But, for example, my local bakery has a sign on the door politely asking customers to wear a mask (the staff all wear one), so out of respect I put a mask on when buying bread. Similarly, my local bus company has notices asking passengers to wear one, so I oblige on my quite frequent bus journeys.
What's wrong with a bit of common courtesy? If you're asked (politely) to stick a mask on, why not do it - even if you think it's unnecessary? It's not a big deal, and nor is it virtue signaling.
That is basically what I do in real life. I suppose I have an objection though to being asked to do things that I think are completely pointless to pander to people who are essentially mentally ill.
For instance, I was on a train in Scotland over the summer and the woman manning the buffet car was determined to uphold the 2 metre distancing rule. This led to her telling me to wait in the next carriage while she made my coffee, and then she made an announcement over the train PA system that I could come back to the buffet car as my coffee was now ready, much to the amusement (or frustration) of everyone on the train.
I had a little respect left for you (not a lot, but some) until THAT post
I mean... you bought ScotRail coffee? Fucking animal.
It was LNER
I humbly apologise.
In any case the LNER trains follow English law. Even after trundling past Lamberton Toll.
"If I should die, think only this of me: That there's some corner of a foreign field/ That is for ever England."
Camden is packed, glad we booked a table at the bar rather than queue up. Not seen it this packed for a long time, definitely pre-COVID.
London has forgotten that COVID exists. At least the under 40s have. Now for a painful evening with my wife's friends.
Are none of them hot?
Yeah some of them, but it's not as though I'm going to cheat on my wife. I'm not SeanT, Eadric Leon.
Also they're all in the world of anti-money laundering and talk shop endlessly until my wife gets frustrated and forces them to change the subject. That usually takes a bit of time as well.
You can enjoy the view and let your thoughts wander...
"Angela Rayner amongst a home crowd at the NW reception is heckled by someone who shouts “I think you can challenge him” and she replies: “I think you’ve had all the wine I’ve not had. I have wine envy, mate, but I’ll catch up.” https://t.co/lqf0QJfGud"
Wine? That will destroy her image among working class northern beer drinkers…
This mask debate is really boring, so I may as well join in.
For those who don't want to ever wear masks, that's up to them. I rarely wear one. But, for example, my local bakery has a sign on the door politely asking customers to wear a mask (the staff all wear one), so out of respect I put a mask on when buying bread. Similarly, my local bus company has notices asking passengers to wear one, so I oblige on my quite frequent bus journeys.
What's wrong with a bit of common courtesy? If you're asked (politely) to stick a mask on, why not do it - even if you think it's unnecessary? It's not a big deal, and nor is it virtue signaling.
That is basically what I do in real life. I suppose I have an objection though to being asked to do things that I think are completely pointless to pander to people who are essentially mentally ill.
For instance, I was on a train in Scotland over the summer and the woman manning the buffet car was determined to uphold the 2 metre distancing rule. This led to her telling me to wait in the next carriage while she made my coffee, and then she made an announcement over the train PA system that I could come back to the buffet car as my coffee was now ready, much to the amusement (or frustration) of everyone on the train.
I had a little respect left for you (not a lot, but some) until THAT post
I mean... you bought ScotRail coffee? Fucking animal.
It was LNER
I humbly apologise.
In any case the LNER trains follow English law. Even after trundling past Lamberton Toll.
"If I should die, think only this of me: That there's some corner of a foreign field/ That is for ever England."
I don't think that is quite correct. I think the scottish social distancing rules applied but then changed at Berwick upon Tweed, or something like that. What I would say though, from observation on two different trips around Scotland this summer, is that the Scots were less enthusiastic about the Covid rules than their government.
"Angela Rayner amongst a home crowd at the NW reception is heckled by someone who shouts “I think you can challenge him” and she replies: “I think you’ve had all the wine I’ve not had. I have wine envy, mate, but I’ll catch up.” https://t.co/lqf0QJfGud"
Wine? That will destroy her image among working class northern beer drinkers…
One thing I like about Rayner is that she is not afraid to be herself.
"Angela Rayner amongst a home crowd at the NW reception is heckled by someone who shouts “I think you can challenge him” and she replies: “I think you’ve had all the wine I’ve not had. I have wine envy, mate, but I’ll catch up.” https://t.co/lqf0QJfGud"
Wine? That will destroy her image among working class northern beer drinkers…
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
Apart from the ones that are not being refilled
How many are of those and your source
There are only a finite number of tankers and drivers. Drivers hours are also an issue.
It will be physically impossible to restock at the rate you and Philip Thompson assume
I am not assuming anything but where is the evidence that are not restocking at the rate required bearing in mind the huge numbers who have already been fuelled
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
Apart from the ones that are not being refilled
How many are of those and your source
There are only a finite number of tankers and drivers. Drivers hours are also an issue.
It will be physically impossible to restock at the rate you and Philip Thompson assume
I am not assuming anything but where is the evidence that are not restocking at the rate required bearing in mind the huge numbers who have already been fuelled
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
Apart from the ones that are not being refilled
How many are of those and your source
There are only a finite number of tankers and drivers. Drivers hours are also an issue.
It will be physically impossible to restock at the rate you and Philip Thompson assume
I am not assuming anything but where is the evidence that are not restocking at the rate required bearing in mind the huge numbers who have already been fuelled
From experience it is just not physically possible. I am afraid I can't give you any evidence other than my encyclopaedic knowledge of transport scheduling.
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
Apart from the ones that are not being refilled
How many are of those and your source
There are only a finite number of tankers and drivers. Drivers hours are also an issue.
It will be physically impossible to restock at the rate you and Philip Thompson assume
I am not assuming anything but where is the evidence that are not restocking at the rate required bearing in mind the huge numbers who have already been fuelled
From experience it is just not physically possible. I am afraid I can't give you any evidence other than my encyclopaedic knowledge of transport scheduling.
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
Apart from the ones that are not being refilled
How many are of those and your source
There are only a finite number of tankers and drivers. Drivers hours are also an issue.
It will be physically impossible to restock at the rate you and Philip Thompson assume
I am not assuming anything but where is the evidence that are not restocking at the rate required bearing in mind the huge numbers who have already been fuelled
"Angela Rayner amongst a home crowd at the NW reception is heckled by someone who shouts “I think you can challenge him” and she replies: “I think you’ve had all the wine I’ve not had. I have wine envy, mate, but I’ll catch up.” https://t.co/lqf0QJfGud"
Wine? That will destroy her image among working class northern beer drinkers…
This mask debate is really boring, so I may as well join in.
For those who don't want to ever wear masks, that's up to them. I rarely wear one. But, for example, my local bakery has a sign on the door politely asking customers to wear a mask (the staff all wear one), so out of respect I put a mask on when buying bread. Similarly, my local bus company has notices asking passengers to wear one, so I oblige on my quite frequent bus journeys.
What's wrong with a bit of common courtesy? If you're asked (politely) to stick a mask on, why not do it - even if you think it's unnecessary? It's not a big deal, and nor is it virtue signaling.
That is basically what I do in real life. I suppose I have an objection though to being asked to do things that I think are completely pointless to pander to people who are essentially mentally ill.
For instance, I was on a train in Scotland over the summer and the woman manning the buffet car was determined to uphold the 2 metre distancing rule. This led to her telling me to wait in the next carriage while she made my coffee, and then she made an announcement over the train PA system that I could come back to the buffet car as my coffee was now ready, much to the amusement (or frustration) of everyone on the train.
I had a little respect left for you (not a lot, but some) until THAT post
I mean... you bought ScotRail coffee? Fucking animal.
It was LNER
I humbly apologise.
In any case the LNER trains follow English law. Even after trundling past Lamberton Toll.
"If I should die, think only this of me: That there's some corner of a foreign field/ That is for ever England."
I don't think that is quite correct. I think the scottish social distancing rules applied but then changed at Berwick upon Tweed, or something like that. What I would say though, from observation on two different trips around Scotland this summer, is that the Scots were less enthusiastic about the Covid rules than their government.
i can only talk about my corner of Aberdeenshire, but masks are everywhere in the local shop and the two supermarkets I visit. Everyone I see at the bus stop near my place is masked up getting on and off. Experiences may differ in the central belt, but I've not been there since all this kicked off, so I wouldn't know.
I guess the good weather helped but I found it to be beautiful part of the world. Cycled from Dundee to Aberdeen along the coastal path. Rolling hills, long sandy beaches, quirky military installations etc. No midges. Mostly free of english tourists. Everyone I met was very friendly.
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
Apart from the ones that are not being refilled
How many are of those and your source
There are only a finite number of tankers and drivers. Drivers hours are also an issue.
It will be physically impossible to restock at the rate you and Philip Thompson assume
I am not assuming anything but where is the evidence that are not restocking at the rate required bearing in mind the huge numbers who have already been fuelled
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
Apart from the ones that are not being refilled
How many are of those and your source
There are only a finite number of tankers and drivers. Drivers hours are also an issue.
It will be physically impossible to restock at the rate you and Philip Thompson assume
I am not assuming anything but where is the evidence that are not restocking at the rate required bearing in mind the huge numbers who have already been fuelled
From experience it is just not physically possible. I am afraid I can't give you any evidence other than my encyclopaedic knowledge of transport scheduling.
Do we need much knowledge here?
They couldnt keep up with deliveries with normal buying last week. (Otherwise they wouldnt have started shutting stores a couple of days ago).
The number of stores they have to refuel next week is far more than they failed to refuel last week.
It seems blatantly obvious there will be a bigger lag over the next week?
I'm not sure that that article can be described as empty-headed. To a certain extent it simply lays out an unsurprising but important fact, that many of the current issues are related to Brexit, and that the British political and media class have merely become nervous of describing that head-on.
If Brexit was the sole cause then that would be different, but it is multi faceted with covid, lost driving tests, older drivers retiring, and the terrible work conditions and pay making it very complex
And let's not forget Europe have a shortage of half a million drivers
There are some who are trying to make this all about Brexit for their own political motives but it is not
We did cover this in quite a lot of detail yesterday, to be fair. Europe are having the same shortages of drivers, but not of supplies, because drivers are more mobile around the EU.
That isn't a politically motivated point, but more the structural difference between being in a single market and free movement area, and not.
Bollocks.
There's no real shortage in this country either, but there's a media-induced panic fuelled by those with an agenda to push. That's it.
I am not sure you are entirely right, or even right at all, come to think of it.
But that matters not a jot. The optics today look horrible for the Government (and for Brexit) whoever is to blame.
I don't think it looks terrible at all. Everyone I've spoken to about it in real life is making fun of the panic buying morons who are behind this.
Of course it does! In exactly the same way it looked terrible for the Blair Government in 2000.
Whether it moves the polls is another matter. If it doesn't, Johnson is the second coming, and the Almighty is a Conservative.
This is completely different to 2000. In 2000 the stations weren't able to be refuelled due to the blockades which led to thousands and eventually almost all (from memory) stations running out of fuel. Since they weren't able to be refuelled this dragged on for weeks.
This is a couple of days of idiot-led hysteria but the fuel stations are already being refuelled. So this time next week there'll be people with egg on their face and full tanks. Not the same thing at all.
Plus of course in 2000 high taxes the government had introduced was behind the protests and the protests (initially) had overwhelming support in polls because the public were annoyed at petrol prices themselves. And it highlighted just how much of the price was tax. Hysteria isn't taxed unfortunately.
It is almost copybook. What was behind the 2000 protests were blockades of fuel depots by Bryndley Williams, who later became a Tory AM, and that idiot farmer from Monmouth and a bunch of hauliers backed by William Hague. And the tanker hauliers wouldn't scab their colleagues.
We panicked, we ran the pumps dry and we ran out of fuel. The end result was the same.
Sometimes you spend hours arguing black is white, and white is black.
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
And we will panic buy again tomorrow when the stations have been refilled.
If you think it won't have the same impact as 2000 that is entirely up to you. I would be surprised if it is laughed off as another comic Boris episode. You may be right of course, what do I know?
How will the people who panic bought today panic buy again tomorrow?
Their tanks will already be full. They can't be refilled a second time.
At circa 800 miles a week I will be empty in 4 working days.
There are also plenty of panic buyers yet to panic buy.
You (as is @RobD) are arguing this is wholly different to 2000, when it is wholly similar. I have already conceded it might not damage Johnson in the same way it damaged Blair, although I would be shocked if it didn't
If you're doing 800 miles a week then refilling is not panic buying, its just normal daily activity and won't be affecting variance from the baseline.
That is not true but probably 99% of the people at the pumps today.
Do you not accept the fact that pumps getting refuelled is happening now, which didn't happen in 2000? Don't you see that as a key difference?
As I recall in 2000 the first direct action only lasted around a week. By the time all the empty stations get refilled, remember there are only a finite number of tankers and drivers to go around, even if people stop panic buying NOW there will be empty stations until at least Wednesday. It is wholly similar.
Don't panic, maybe Johnson will have no adverse effect from this. It is nonetheless almost identical in its trajectory to last time.
Anyway I'm bored now, so let's give this battle to you as a win. It bears no similarity to 2000. There! I've conceded.
On 12/09/00 thousands of stations had ran out of fuel. On 13/09/00 only 5% of normal deliveries were able to be made. On 14/09/00 the protests began to end. On 16/09/00 supplies began to be restored.
Not from Wiki but ... On 20/09/00 I took (and passed) my Driver's Test - I think I might have had 1 lesson between the 16th and the 20th (my instructor had cancelled all lessons during the crisis) On 24/09/00 I drove to University just before my Fresher's Week began
Had supplies not been restored by the 20th my Test would have probably been cancelled, but they were restored already. Once supplies resumed, we were back to normal rapidly, despite the fact that we'd had weeks of no supply. Supplies have already resumed now, because they were never stopped in the first place, so this really is a flash in the pan.
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
Apart from the ones that are not being refilled
How many are of those and your source
There are only a finite number of tankers and drivers. Drivers hours are also an issue.
It will be physically impossible to restock at the rate you and Philip Thompson assume
I am not assuming anything but where is the evidence that are not restocking at the rate required bearing in mind the huge numbers who have already been fuelled
From experience it is just not physically possible. I am afraid I can't give you any evidence other than my encyclopaedic knowledge of transport scheduling.
Do we need much knowledge here?
They couldnt keep up with deliveries with normal buying last week. (Otherwise they wouldnt have started shutting stores a couple of days ago).
The number of stores they have to refuel next week is far more than they failed to refuel last week.
It seems blatantly obvious there will be a bigger lag over the next week?
"Angela Rayner amongst a home crowd at the NW reception is heckled by someone who shouts “I think you can challenge him” and she replies: “I think you’ve had all the wine I’ve not had. I have wine envy, mate, but I’ll catch up.” https://t.co/lqf0QJfGud"
Wine? That will destroy her image among working class northern beer drinkers…
She's just lost my vote.
She’s trying to win it back:
BREAKING: Angela Rayner says Downing Street are “racist”, “homophobic” Tory “scum”
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
Apart from the ones that are not being refilled
How many are of those and your source
There are only a finite number of tankers and drivers. Drivers hours are also an issue.
It will be physically impossible to restock at the rate you and Philip Thompson assume
I am not assuming anything but where is the evidence that are not restocking at the rate required bearing in mind the huge numbers who have already been fuelled
From experience it is just not physically possible. I am afraid I can't give you any evidence other than my encyclopaedic knowledge of transport scheduling.
Do we need much knowledge here?
They couldnt keep up with deliveries with normal buying last week. (Otherwise they wouldnt have started shutting stores a couple of days ago).
The number of stores they have to refuel next week is far more than they failed to refuel last week.
It seems blatantly obvious there will be a bigger lag over the next week?
The number of stores "shut" was virtually 0 prior to the media creating a story where none existed.
Even in normal circumstances sometimes sites can run out of fuel. Especially if people are looking to generate panic. In normal circumstances its a non-story and people move on to the next site, in this manic 24/7 news and Twitter world we live in now though people can create a story out of nothing.
"Angela Rayner amongst a home crowd at the NW reception is heckled by someone who shouts “I think you can challenge him” and she replies: “I think you’ve had all the wine I’ve not had. I have wine envy, mate, but I’ll catch up.” https://t.co/lqf0QJfGud"
Wine? That will destroy her image among working class northern beer drinkers…
She's just lost my vote.
She’s trying to win it back:
BREAKING: Angela Rayner says Downing Street are “racist”, “homophobic” Tory “scum”
This mask debate is really boring, so I may as well join in.
For those who don't want to ever wear masks, that's up to them. I rarely wear one. But, for example, my local bakery has a sign on the door politely asking customers to wear a mask (the staff all wear one), so out of respect I put a mask on when buying bread. Similarly, my local bus company has notices asking passengers to wear one, so I oblige on my quite frequent bus journeys.
What's wrong with a bit of common courtesy? If you're asked (politely) to stick a mask on, why not do it - even if you think it's unnecessary? It's not a big deal, and nor is it virtue signaling.
That is basically what I do in real life. I suppose I have an objection though to being asked to do things that I think are completely pointless to pander to people who are essentially mentally ill.
For instance, I was on a train in Scotland over the summer and the woman manning the buffet car was determined to uphold the 2 metre distancing rule. This led to her telling me to wait in the next carriage while she made my coffee, and then she made an announcement over the train PA system that I could come back to the buffet car as my coffee was now ready, much to the amusement (or frustration) of everyone on the train.
I had a little respect left for you (not a lot, but some) until THAT post
I mean... you bought ScotRail coffee? Fucking animal.
It was LNER
I humbly apologise.
In any case the LNER trains follow English law. Even after trundling past Lamberton Toll.
"If I should die, think only this of me: That there's some corner of a foreign field/ That is for ever England."
I don't think that is quite correct. I think the scottish social distancing rules applied but then changed at Berwick upon Tweed, or something like that. What I would say though, from observation on two different trips around Scotland this summer, is that the Scots were less enthusiastic about the Covid rules than their government.
i can only talk about my corner of Aberdeenshire, but masks are everywhere in the local shop and the two supermarkets I visit. Everyone I see at the bus stop near my place is masked up getting on and off. Experiences may differ in the central belt, but I've not been there since all this kicked off, so I wouldn't know.
I guess the good weather helped but I found it to be beautiful part of the world. Cycled from Dundee to Aberdeen along the coastal path. Rolling hills, long sandy beaches, quirky military installations etc. No midges. Mostly free of english tourists. Everyone I met was very friendly.
My son and his wife have just done the NC500 as their delayed honeymoon post there wedding in July in their converted campervan
Weather was mixed but in Applecross the rain lashed down and the wind howled rocking the campervan from side to side and needing ear plugs to go to sleep
Marginally better than a tent, but the scenery was fabulous, they traced his Mother's home in the war in Wick, and fell in love with the 'Heilan Coo's'
"Angela Rayner amongst a home crowd at the NW reception is heckled by someone who shouts “I think you can challenge him” and she replies: “I think you’ve had all the wine I’ve not had. I have wine envy, mate, but I’ll catch up.” https://t.co/lqf0QJfGud"
Wine? That will destroy her image among working class northern beer drinkers…
"Angela Rayner amongst a home crowd at the NW reception is heckled by someone who shouts “I think you can challenge him” and she replies: “I think you’ve had all the wine I’ve not had. I have wine envy, mate, but I’ll catch up.” https://t.co/lqf0QJfGud"
Wine? That will destroy her image among working class northern beer drinkers…
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
Apart from the ones that are not being refilled
How many are of those and your source
There are only a finite number of tankers and drivers. Drivers hours are also an issue.
It will be physically impossible to restock at the rate you and Philip Thompson assume
I am not assuming anything but where is the evidence that are not restocking at the rate required bearing in mind the huge numbers who have already been fuelled
From experience it is just not physically possible. I am afraid I can't give you any evidence other than my encyclopaedic knowledge of transport scheduling.
Do we need much knowledge here?
They couldnt keep up with deliveries with normal buying last week. (Otherwise they wouldnt have started shutting stores a couple of days ago).
The number of stores they have to refuel next week is far more than they failed to refuel last week.
It seems blatantly obvious there will be a bigger lag over the next week?
The number of stores "shut" was virtually 0 prior to the media creating a story where none existed.
Even in normal circumstances sometimes sites can run out of fuel. Especially if people are looking to generate panic. In normal circumstances its a non-story and people move on to the next site, in this manic 24/7 news and Twitter world we live in now though people can create a story out of nothing.
BP alone had 100 stores out of at least one fuel on Thursday before any panic buying. That is not near 0.
"Angela Rayner amongst a home crowd at the NW reception is heckled by someone who shouts “I think you can challenge him” and she replies: “I think you’ve had all the wine I’ve not had. I have wine envy, mate, but I’ll catch up.” https://t.co/lqf0QJfGud"
Wine? That will destroy her image among working class northern beer drinkers…
She's just lost my vote.
She’s trying to win it back:
BREAKING: Angela Rayner says Downing Street are “racist”, “homophobic” Tory “scum”
"Angela Rayner amongst a home crowd at the NW reception is heckled by someone who shouts “I think you can challenge him” and she replies: “I think you’ve had all the wine I’ve not had. I have wine envy, mate, but I’ll catch up.” https://t.co/lqf0QJfGud"
Wine? That will destroy her image among working class northern beer drinkers…
She's just lost my vote.
She’s trying to win it back:
BREAKING: Angela Rayner says Downing Street are “racist”, “homophobic” Tory “scum”
"Angela Rayner amongst a home crowd at the NW reception is heckled by someone who shouts “I think you can challenge him” and she replies: “I think you’ve had all the wine I’ve not had. I have wine envy, mate, but I’ll catch up.” https://t.co/lqf0QJfGud"
Wine? That will destroy her image among working class northern beer drinkers…
She's just lost my vote.
She’s trying to win it back:
BREAKING: Angela Rayner says Downing Street are “racist”, “homophobic” Tory “scum”
Except, unlike in 2000, the petrol stations are being refilled.
Apart from the ones that are not being refilled
How many are of those and your source
There are only a finite number of tankers and drivers. Drivers hours are also an issue.
It will be physically impossible to restock at the rate you and Philip Thompson assume
But the people filling up today will not be filling up tomorrow and likely not next week either.
So all what happens is some fuel purchases have been brought forward not that the amount being consumed has changed.
Ffs.
When we panic bought in 2000 we all had full tanks too. As a high miler I was left high and dry after a few days. Most who use a tank every three weeks were not inconvenienced past their initial bout of queueing. The same is true today.
No we haven't got a blockade of terminals, but like I keep saying, replenishing empty petrol stations is not without its challenges. Namely the numbers of tankers, drivers and driver's hours available.
I am sure unlike 2000 we will all laugh it off this time and Johnson will increase his polling lead.
Comments
Yes there was a panic in both, but from there it followed a completely different path. In 2000 the empty pumps were not getting refuelled which meant life ground to a halt. I was learning to drive at the time and had my test booked for the end of September and my lessons were cancelled for weeks as it was simply impossible to get fuel.
That's not happening now. Some idiots went and got fuel today. Big whoop. There's still fuel in pumps tonight (without a queue at my local Tesco just now when I went there to get some groceries) and what's more is the tankers are going around the country refueling the pumps, which didn't happen in 2000.
This is a flash in the pan, its not an end to fuel for weeks on end.
Beef stir fry for me tonight, having a late dinner pretending we are Spanish.
PS : Geese are great sight and sound great as well, heating will be on soon.
This isn't 2000.
What I found I infuriating was the rules around wearing a mask while entering or going to the bathroom in a restaurant or pub, but fine to be without one otherwise. As if that will make a blind bit of difference.
If you think it won't have the same impact as 2000 that is entirely up to you. I would be surprised if it is laughed off as another comic Boris episode. You may be right of course, what do I know?
One goose playing catch up must have been back to the team car for the water bottles.
Their tanks will already be full. They can't be refilled a second time.
I feel bad for those in a similar position but need their cars for their livelihood. Everyone else should take a deep breath and consider whether they really need to fill up until things calm down.
What about those Christian cross pendants? Or indeed any religious garb?
In pre-vaccine days going to the supermarket was an unnecessary bonkers thing to do. I didn't go near. My brother in law did, caught Covid and passed it to the rest of his family. All had a reasonably mild dose, but back then the risk of serious illness was so much greater.
My attitude to the Covid risk has changed radically since I got fully jabbed up. Previously, I didn't want to enter any confined space or have anyone come to our house. Now, life as normal. My heartfelt gratitude to the scientists who developed the AZ vaccine and to those in the NHS who ensured that it got from the lab to my arm.
London has forgotten that COVID exists. At least the under 40s have. Now for a painful evening with my wife's friends.
But as for protecting others? That's the vaccine now. That's all that there is now in my humble opinion. Saying that we will wear masks to protect antivaxxers is completely wrongheaded, we should be telling the antivaxxers "get your f***ing vaccine or get Covid". Because that's how this ends, if not today then tomorrow or after that.
Twelve months ago an infection postponed was possibly an infection prevented due to the possibility of getting vaccines in the future. That's been and gone now.
Was the same in Manchester earlier today. Its great to see isn't it? Have fun, or as much fun as you can with your wife's friends!
For instance, I was on a train in Scotland over the summer and the woman manning the buffet car was determined to uphold the 2 metre distancing rule. This led to her telling me to wait in the next carriage while she made my coffee, and then she made an announcement over the train PA system that I could come back to the buffet car as my coffee was now ready, much to the amusement (or frustration) of everyone on the train.
There are also plenty of panic buyers yet to panic buy.
You (as is @RobD) are arguing this is wholly different to 2000, when it is wholly similar. I have already conceded it might not damage Johnson in the same way it damaged Blair, although I would be shocked if it didn't
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Canada_Election_2021_Results_Map.svg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Canadian_Federal_Election_Cartogram_2021.svg
That is not true but probably 99% of the people at the pumps today.
Do you not accept the fact that pumps getting refuelled is happening now, which didn't happen in 2000? Don't you see that as a key difference?
Insulting folk who choose to wear a mask seems to be a remarkably common libertarian trait.
Also they're all in the world of anti-money laundering and talk shop endlessly until my wife gets frustrated and forces them to change the subject. That usually takes a bit of time as well.
And your point is ?
I'm insulting folk who think they can command others to wear a mask. Those nosy busybodies have it coming.
Though am still recovering from watching coverage of last Thursday's Isle of Man election!
"If I should die, think only this of me: That there's some corner of a foreign field/ That is for ever England."
We have taken the collective decision not to refuel just yet !!!!
Don't panic, maybe Johnson will have no adverse effect from this. It is nonetheless almost identical in its trajectory to last time.
Anyway I'm bored now, so let's give this battle to you as a win. It bears no similarity to 2000. There! I've conceded.
"Angela Rayner amongst a home crowd at the NW reception is heckled by someone who shouts “I think you can challenge him” and she replies: “I think you’ve had all the wine I’ve not had. I have wine envy, mate, but I’ll catch up.” https://t.co/lqf0QJfGud"
It will be physically impossible to restock at the rate you and Philip Thompson assume
Tanker driver fails to turn up in Kent, Britain runs dry of petrol.
Certainly true re: PB
So all what happens is some fuel purchases have been brought forward not that the amount being consumed has changed.
They couldnt keep up with deliveries with normal buying last week. (Otherwise they wouldnt have started shutting stores a couple of days ago).
The number of stores they have to refuel next week is far more than they failed to refuel last week.
It seems blatantly obvious there will be a bigger lag over the next week?
On 08/09/00 the protests started.
On 12/09/00 thousands of stations had ran out of fuel.
On 13/09/00 only 5% of normal deliveries were able to be made.
On 14/09/00 the protests began to end.
On 16/09/00 supplies began to be restored.
Not from Wiki but ...
On 20/09/00 I took (and passed) my Driver's Test - I think I might have had 1 lesson between the 16th and the 20th (my instructor had cancelled all lessons during the crisis)
On 24/09/00 I drove to University just before my Fresher's Week began
Had supplies not been restored by the 20th my Test would have probably been cancelled, but they were restored already. Once supplies resumed, we were back to normal rapidly, despite the fact that we'd had weeks of no supply. Supplies have already resumed now, because they were never stopped in the first place, so this really is a flash in the pan.
BREAKING: Angela Rayner says Downing Street are “racist”, “homophobic” Tory “scum”
https://twitter.com/politicsforali/status/1441858905294966789
Even in normal circumstances sometimes sites can run out of fuel. Especially if people are looking to generate panic. In normal circumstances its a non-story and people move on to the next site, in this manic 24/7 news and Twitter world we live in now though people can create a story out of nothing.
Probably be an uptick in rail travel next week.
Weather was mixed but in Applecross the rain lashed down and the wind howled rocking the campervan from side to side and needing ear plugs to go to sleep
Marginally better than a tent, but the scenery was fabulous, they traced his Mother's home in the war in Wick, and fell in love with the 'Heilan Coo's'
I'm never going to live that one down.
When we panic bought in 2000 we all had full tanks too. As a high miler I was left high and dry after a few days. Most who use a tank every three weeks were not inconvenienced past their initial bout of queueing. The same is true today.
No we haven't got a blockade of terminals, but like I keep saying, replenishing empty petrol stations is not without its challenges. Namely the numbers of tankers, drivers and driver's hours available.
I am sure unlike 2000 we will all laugh it off this time and Johnson will increase his polling lead.