politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How long before Johnson’s “should” wear masks become a legal r
Comments
-
His energy levels on the things he does like doing is pretty incredible.kinabalu said:
The US President and all he does is sleep, watch TV, tweet, eat cheeseburgers and drink cans of coca cola. Quite remarkable. We will not see his like again.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Anybody who needs PB to find Trumpsky's tsunami of tweets must live a VERY sheltered life.logical_song said:
Not sure I agree. Sometimes PB is the best place to get news from all sources in one spot.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Realize you mean well - BUT would you please stop polluting PB with DT tweets! Easy enough to find this garbage without having it dumped in our little garden reasoned discourse!Scott_xP said:
Say what you like about Trump, he can't be ignored - at least not until after November or more likely January.0 -
Who would get your vote now, if anyone?houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
0 -
Re: public transport, here in Seattle pre-Covid, yours truly used it once or more a day on average. But have NOT boarded a bus since before St Patrick's Day.TheScreamingEagles said:
Isn't that more down to the government saying don't use public transport unless it is absolutely essential.Mortimer said:
If that were true, I'd expect public transport usage to have returned to something like normal after masks were mandated. But it hasn'tPhilip_Thompson said:
I think quite the opposite. If masks stop the spread of the virus then people will have less reason to be afraid so will go out more.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
1) Community spread is very, very low at the moment. And non essential shops have been open for a decent length of time without any evidence of an uptick.
2) Retail spending is very, very low at the moment.
3) Essential retail aside (i.e. where there are generally queues), I've not seen anywhere near the levels of shopping since the lockdown has been lifted. Crowds are non existent. I bought two measly items in Cornwall today and was thanked so effusively by struggling shopkeepers
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
For others the reverse may be true, I suspect they'd be happier if everyone was wearing masks. But that logic doesn't seem to have driven usage of trains up, for example, after masks were made mandatory.
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
Plus the evidence both here and elsewhere is that people quite quickly get used to masks. That they can become normalised and something you stop noticing.
If it becomes culturally normal until there's a vaccine to wear a mask whenever you're indoors in the same way as you don't smoke indoors then that will help us get back to normal faster.
However, later this week will take the bus (2 actually) down to King County Elections to attend observer training course for the August 4, 2020. Then bus it back to my humble abode. FYI, primary ballots will be mailed to all WA active registered voters later this week for our all vote-by-mail election.
Usually like riding the bus, this time not so eager, but also not fearful. Just cautious. So will be wearing mask (the good kind, N95) and gloves, and taking along some clorox wipes for good measure.
AND man-spreading like nobody's business - yes, this seat is definitely taken!0 -
My gut feeling is that masks wont be mandated until such a time as any easing of restrictions goes into reverse.Andy_Cooke said:
If they reduce transmission further, which all indications are that they do, they can push down prevalence of the endemic disease still further, prevent resurgent spikes, and possibly allow us to formalise a 1m rule safely.Malmesbury said:
The point is that masks everywhere won't allow much, if any, easing of restrictions.Andy_Cooke said:
True. But masks might be the equivalent of a steel-toe-capped boot in the happy-sack of a covid-19 that's lying prone but is very capable of scrabbling back to its feet to resume its attack.Malmesbury said:
There is no evidence that is so - masks may help to slow the spread, but the big effect in all this is the social distancing.MaxPB said:
We might be, but wearing masks could, in theory, allow us to lift a huge number of those restrictions. I think it's a pretty small sacrifice and instead of any stupid common sense approach which loads of people would ignore, a mandated one would get almost universal uptake and get rid of a whole bunch of COVID bullshit - specifically queueing to get into shops.TOPPING said:
Nigel I realise you have been touched tragically by COVID. But at the same time, the basic point that Hitchens is making is that we have had a huge restrictions of our liberty of a kind without precedent.Nigelb said:
Does the numpty not realise that the whole point of such a mask policy is to make it safer to get people out of their homes and back to something like normal life ?Andy_JS said:
That is a valid point to make.
The key was not to overwhelm the NHS which, left unchecked, COVID might have lead to.
But we are a zillion miles from that now.
Reopening gyms, beauticians, and so forth, on top of the controlled reopening of pubs, restaurants, and cinemas, is a calculated and very real risk, and it takes very little for R to head back above one. Especially as more and more people are taking the attitude that “it’s all over, isn’t it?”
Shaving another 0.2 or 0.3 off of R gives us a lot more flex there, and reduces the chances of going back on some of the restriction-lifting we’ve seen recently and minimises the potential incidence of local lockdowns.
It would be perverse messaging, for example, to reopen gyms and pools (where people clearly don't wear masks) whilst tighten restrictions on casual retail. Especially given casual retail has been open for a long time now with no obvious impact on public health...0 -
Good japes.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
No one - what's the point? A Conservative government with a majority of 80 and they are still gutless and inept.kle4 said:
Who would get your vote now, if anyone?houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
Maybe if an anti-wokeness party was set up with the intention of pushing the Tories rightwards.0 -
This is an extraordinary disparity.
No doubt there are confounding factors (age, underlying health conditions etc) which account for some difference but even so...
NHS data reveals 'huge variation' in Covid-19 death rates across England
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/13/nhs-data-reveals-huge-variation-in-covid-19-death-rates-across-england
A wide disparity in coronavirus mortality rates has emerged in English hospitals, with data seen by the Guardian showing that one hospital trust in south-west England had a death rate from the disease of 80% while in one London trust it was just 12.5%...
Also, how many cases did those outliers have ? If it's only a handful, random variation could greatly skew the statistics.
...Doctors pointed out that some trusts’ apparently high mortality rates could be skewed because they were based on them having treated fewer than 100 patients by 15 May, which makes their rates less reliable. But other trusts with notably high or low mortality had treated up to 2,350 patients over the same period, so their rates are more likely to be reliable....0 -
Well it sounds like you were just Brexit Party on holiday anywayhoundtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
0 -
But the Labour administration couldn't deploy its Scottish MPs in (as I assume you mean) retained domestic business kept in England. It could certainly control business in Pmt. But any progress would as you say earlier be dependent on the Tories in Westminster Pmt. Or am I missing something?Philip_Thompson said:
The English wouldn't get what they voted for.Carnyx said:
Indeed. I was being perhaps a bit disingenuous in not admitting that possibility, and you are right to pick me up on that.Philip_Thompson said:
England's always going to be there though, its the Scottish MPs at Westminster that are more of an issue.Carnyx said:
No, he doesn't. It shows how much the TORIES need England (and some of Wales and their NI allies) to win. The SNP are never going to vote for a Tory PM, are they?HYUFD said:
Tory majority of 69 without Scottish seats from the SNP (even including the 18 NI seats), Tory majority of just 16 with Scottish seats from the SNP, shows how much Starmer needs Scotland to become PMCorrectHorseBattery said:Electoral Calculus seat projection:
Conservative Party: 333 (-32)
Labour Party: 229 (+27)
SNP: 53 (+5)
Liberal Democrat: 11 (-)
Plaid Cymru: 4 (-)
Green Party: 1 (-)
Speaker: 1 (-)
2015 redux
And SNP MPs are no substitute for Labour MPs. Remember the SNP abstain on English-only matters so the complete Horlicks of a situation would be one with a Labour MP backed by SNP MPs - but a Tory majority if SNP abstain. English only laws would have a Tory veto on them. Plus the SNP would demand an independence referendum but if they win that then it means a Tory majority government in Westminster again.
What a mess that would be!
But on the other hand the English would get what they voted for (with the important effect of UK wide matters such as budget etc under the Barnett exception).
In any case, would SLAB MPs for Scottish seats now not be unable to vote on English matters thanks to the changes Mr Cameron brought in? They've (the regulations for EVEL) have not been much in public debate of late but the SNP self-denyong ordinance rather negates the need anyway.
And, now I think about it, it is only a mess from a Labour point of view. Not, arguably, a SNP or Tory one. And perhaps closer to a majority public view, even.
In that scenario even though the English voted majority Tory then matters that are considered "devolved" would be decided by a Labour government. It'd be like the First Minister of Scotland being a Tory because England voted Tory.0 -
Down here in the SW we have been mercifully excused from much of the community spread. However, we also have a relatively aged population, and a lot of care homes.Nigelb said:This is an extraordinary disparity.
No doubt there are confounding factors (age, underlying health conditions etc) which account for some difference but even so...
NHS data reveals 'huge variation' in Covid-19 death rates across England
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/13/nhs-data-reveals-huge-variation-in-covid-19-death-rates-across-england
A wide disparity in coronavirus mortality rates has emerged in English hospitals, with data seen by the Guardian showing that one hospital trust in south-west England had a death rate from the disease of 80% while in one London trust it was just 12.5%...
Also, how many cases did those outliers have ? If it's only a handful, random variation could greatly skew the statistics.
...Doctors pointed out that some trusts’ apparently high mortality rates could be skewed because they were based on them having treated fewer than 100 patients by 15 May, which makes their rates less reliable. But other trusts with notably high or low mortality had treated up to 2,350 patients over the same period, so their rates are more likely to be reliable....
So I suspect its a combination of both your points that have led to the disparity.0 -
Funny. But glass houses ...kle4 said:
Good japes.TheScreamingEagles said:1 -
Oops, thanks for the correction!Theuniondivvie said:
To be scrupulously fair it was SLab who got rid of smoking in pubs, with strong SNP & LD support. It's probably the one real achievement they can point back to.Carnyx said:
This masks business (and the fact that the Scots have just got on with it, cf. the chap on PB who IIRC compared Scotland to the Gulag cos he had to wear a mask) reminds me of smoking in pubs. When it was banned in Scotland, it was decried by the Unionists as an attack on liberty by the nasty SNP. Now ... just as you say re normalisation.Philip_Thompson said:
I think quite the opposite. If masks stop the spread of the virus then people will have less reason to be afraid so will go out more.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
1) Community spread is very, very low at the moment. And non essential shops have been open for a decent length of time without any evidence of an uptick.
2) Retail spending is very, very low at the moment.
3) Essential retail aside (i.e. where there are generally queues), I've not seen anywhere near the levels of shopping since the lockdown has been lifted. Crowds are non existent. I bought two measly items in Cornwall today and was thanked so effusively by struggling shopkeepers
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
For others the reverse may be true, I suspect they'd be happier if everyone was wearing masks. But that logic doesn't seem to have driven usage of trains up, for example, after masks were made mandatory.
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
Plus the evidence both here and elsewhere is that people quite quickly get used to masks. That they can become normalised and something you stop noticing.
If it becomes culturally normal until there's a vaccine to wear a mask whenever you're indoors in the same way as you don't smoke indoors then that will help us get back to normal faster.
But, as others have noted, very hard cheese on deaf lipreaders and the hard of hearing.
Needless to say the nasty party opposed it. Perhaps someone will persuade the current incarnation that bringing back the fags would be a real vote winner in 2021. They'll need something..0 -
No it doesn't, the Tories currently have a UK wide majority of 80, just an even bigger England only majority of 157Carnyx said:
No, he doesn't. It shows how much the TORIES need England (and some of Wales and their NI allies) to win. The SNP are never going to vote for a Tory PM, are they?HYUFD said:
Tory majority of 69 without Scottish seats from the SNP (even including the 18 NI seats), Tory majority of just 16 with Scottish seats from the SNP, shows how much Starmer needs Scotland to become PMCorrectHorseBattery said:Electoral Calculus seat projection:
Conservative Party: 333 (-32)
Labour Party: 229 (+27)
SNP: 53 (+5)
Liberal Democrat: 11 (-)
Plaid Cymru: 4 (-)
Green Party: 1 (-)
Speaker: 1 (-)
2015 redux0 -
-
We were, to be fair, discussing the much more marginal scenario your posting postulated, not the current situation (from the last elecvtion, when Mr Corbyn was LOTO).HYUFD said:
No it doesn't, the Tories currently have a UK wide majority of 80, just an even bigger England only majority of 157Carnyx said:
No, he doesn't. It shows how much the TORIES need England (and some of Wales and their NI allies) to win. The SNP are never going to vote for a Tory PM, are they?HYUFD said:
Tory majority of 69 without Scottish seats from the SNP (even including the 18 NI seats), Tory majority of just 16 with Scottish seats from the SNP, shows how much Starmer needs Scotland to become PMCorrectHorseBattery said:Electoral Calculus seat projection:
Conservative Party: 333 (-32)
Labour Party: 229 (+27)
SNP: 53 (+5)
Liberal Democrat: 11 (-)
Plaid Cymru: 4 (-)
Green Party: 1 (-)
Speaker: 1 (-)
2015 redux1 -
-
I agree with you.houndtang said:
No one - what's the point? A Conservative government with a majority of 80 and they are still gutless and inept.kle4 said:
Who would get your vote now, if anyone?houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
Maybe if an anti-wokeness party was set up with the intention of pushing the Tories rightwards.
It's pathetic.0 -
Well, who'd have thunk that the scourge of the snowflakes would be so melty himself?
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1282455134333816834?s=20
0 -
Actually, there's now quite a lot of work demonstrating that a wide range of masks provide very considerable protection against coughs/sneezes, and reasonable protection against finer aerosols.geoffw said:We just don't know about the physical effectiveness of non-medical masks per se to slow the epidemic, i.e. their effect on the transmission of aerosols and droplets. But it does seem clear that they have an effect on peoples' behaviour. They are a signalling device indicating that the wearer is (a) aware, concerned and cautious, and (b) that he/she is taking personal responsibility for not passing it on to others. As such they discourage others from coming too close. Therefore they work whether or not they are physically effective. Soon people will indeed be wearing them in shops etc. But then discarding them when the virus is is no longer viral (!) will be an obstacle in the move back to normality. Early discarders will face opprobrium and the speed at which we move will depend on the most anxious overcoming their fears.
When both the virus shedder and the potentially vulnerable individual are both wearing masks, the protection increases.3 -
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.0 -
-
-
So, in Scotland wearing masks in shops is mandatory. The latest figures suggest that in 10 out of 14 health areas there are currently no cases at all in hospital. There have been no deaths at all for a few days now. For the majority of Scotland, including Tayside where I live, Covid is no longer present.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-daily-data-for-scotland/#page-top
So why do we all have to wear masks? Why are no restaurants open until Wednesday? Why is there such uncertainty about whether our kids will return to school or be examined if they do? Why is our very important tourist industry being damaged in this way? Why can't I get a haircut yet? Why are the courts not open for business and dealing with criminals?
In February, March and April the position was very different and this horrible virus was endemic. But the response now is completely disproportionate and untargeted. The economic damage will kill. Be in no doubt about that. Our leaders are being as irresponsible now as they were when they thought letting people jet in from all around the world without quarantine was a good idea.
1 -
-
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about being seen to passionately pretend to care about masks) and disincentivises going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: "fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered."
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As borne out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.0 -
I may be being contrary here but the lack of mask wearing by others is what puts me off going shopping.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about pretending to care about masks) and disincentives going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered.
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As both out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.
Which is why we are once again using Amazon for far too much..4 -
Boris Johnson is right on this, it is no big deal.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about being seen to passionately pretend to care about masks) and disincentivises going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: "fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered."
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As borne out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.0 -
Really? Why?eek said:
I may be being contrary here but the lack of mask wearing by others is what puts me off going shopping.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about pretending to care about masks) and disincentives going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered.
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As both out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.
Which is why we are once again using Amazon for far too much..
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I couldn't give two figs about what anyone has on their visage, so long as they stay 2m away.
It's contaminated surfaces that are more convincing vectors for transmitting the disease - the products people pick up and put down - and no-one is recommending people wear gloves the whole time.
It's what people touch that worries me. And only that. Masks just piss me off in a myriad of ways.
Not wearing one. End of.0 -
Labour have EHRC report. Prepare popcorn0
-
He isn't right. And it is a big deal.Mexicanpete said:
Boris Johnson is right on this, it is no big deal.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about being seen to passionately pretend to care about masks) and disincentivises going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: "fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered."
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As borne out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.0 -
like Tony Blair?? not sure that is advantageous tbh. A lying toerag who took us into an illegal war and was unable to stand up to his loony chancellor...HYUFD said:0 -
What bollocks! If you wearing a mask protects me from contracting your Covid-19 infection, and vice-versa, it is a big deal if you won't wear one. In this instance nuts to your human rights and civil liberties!Casino_Royale said:
He isn't right. And it is a big deal.Mexicanpete said:
Boris Johnson is right on this, it is no big deal.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about being seen to passionately pretend to care about masks) and disincentivises going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: "fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered."
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As borne out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.0 -
The scientific consensus is that contaminated surfaces are unlikely to be a major vector.Casino_Royale said:
Really? Why?eek said:
I may be being contrary here but the lack of mask wearing by others is what puts me off going shopping.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about pretending to care about masks) and disincentives going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered.
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As both out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.
Which is why we are once again using Amazon for far too much..
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I couldn't give two figs about what anyone has on their visage, so long as they stay 2m away.
It's contaminated surfaces that are more convincing vectors for transmitting the disease - the products people pick up and put down - and no-one is recommending people wear gloves the whole time.
It's what people touch that worries me. And only that. Masks just piss me off in a myriad of ways.
Not wearing one. End of.
https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/12821846964665548830 -
This analysis states in disguised form that the job is underpaid and so relies on people arriving from much poorer economies to do it for the pay offered. This needs reforming.Mexicanpete said:
Anecdote alert.Philip_Thompson said:
Why?CorrectHorseBattery said:The care worker immigration policy is an absolute travesty.
Tory pricks.
Anyone can be a care worker. There's nothing stopping anyone who wants to be a caring individual from joining the sector. I know people who have lost their jobs that are thinking of doing it because they think it will be secure employment for years to come which is not unreasonable.
My experience of workers in the care home sector is thus, generally (but not exclusively) domestically sourced care home workers are less well educated, equipped and therefore less well suited to what is a responsible role requiring a degree of common sense and aptitude to their Eastern European counterparts..
The job description in more down market care homes does not demand that the applicant for a post is not brain dead, but it would be an advantage. It is not scientific but I have seen it for myself, generally Eastern European sourced care home workers are more efficient and effective than home grown ones.
0 -
Fuck off. YOU are talking bollocks.Mexicanpete said:
What bollocks! If you wearing a mask protects me from contracting your Covid-19 infection, and vice-versa, it is a big deal if you won't wear one. In this instance nuts to your human rights and civil liberties!Casino_Royale said:
He isn't right. And it is a big deal.Mexicanpete said:
Boris Johnson is right on this, it is no big deal.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about being seen to passionately pretend to care about masks) and disincentivises going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: "fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered."
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As borne out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.
There is virtually zero risk.
You statist twat.0 -
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:0 -
When I go round a supermarket the days of people keeping 2m apart ended months ago. Now most of the time people push past you to grab the items they want...Casino_Royale said:
Really? Why?eek said:
I may be being contrary here but the lack of mask wearing by others is what puts me off going shopping.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about pretending to care about masks) and disincentives going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered.
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As both out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.
Which is why we are once again using Amazon for far too much..
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I couldn't give two figs about what anyone has on their visage, so long as they stay 2m away.
It's contaminated surfaces that are more convincing vectors for transmitting the disease - the products people pick up and put down - and no-one is recommending people wear gloves the whole time.
It's what people touch that worries me. And only that. Masks just piss me off in a myriad of ways.
Not wearing one. End of.0 -
Scientists have changed their minds. Surface transmission is minimal; it is all about airborne droplets. My firm has just mandated masks at work.Casino_Royale said:
Really? Why?eek said:
I may be being contrary here but the lack of mask wearing by others is what puts me off going shopping.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about pretending to care about masks) and disincentives going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered.
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As both out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.
Which is why we are once again using Amazon for far too much..
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I couldn't give two figs about what anyone has on their visage, so long as they stay 2m away.
It's contaminated surfaces that are more convincing vectors for transmitting the disease - the products people pick up and put down - and no-one is recommending people wear gloves the whole time.
It's what people touch that worries me. And only that. Masks just piss me off in a myriad of ways.
Not wearing one. End of.1 -
That's not scientific consensus. That's someone venturing a guess.williamglenn said:
The scientific consensus is that contaminated surfaces are unlikely to be a major vector.Casino_Royale said:
Really? Why?eek said:
I may be being contrary here but the lack of mask wearing by others is what puts me off going shopping.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about pretending to care about masks) and disincentives going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered.
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As both out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.
Which is why we are once again using Amazon for far too much..
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I couldn't give two figs about what anyone has on their visage, so long as they stay 2m away.
It's contaminated surfaces that are more convincing vectors for transmitting the disease - the products people pick up and put down - and no-one is recommending people wear gloves the whole time.
It's what people touch that worries me. And only that. Masks just piss me off in a myriad of ways.
Not wearing one. End of.
https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1282184696466554883
If it wasn't a vector people wouldn't be washing their hands all the time and disinfecting everything.0 -
In England you now can get a haircut and restaurants are open but both Scotland and England are correct to require maskwearing to get people back into shops with confidence and reduce the threat of spreadDavidL said:So, in Scotland wearing masks in shops is mandatory. The latest figures suggest that in 10 out of 14 health areas there are currently no cases at all in hospital. There have been no deaths at all for a few days now. For the majority of Scotland, including Tayside where I live, Covid is no longer present.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-daily-data-for-scotland/#page-top
So why do we all have to wear masks? Why are no restaurants open until Wednesday? Why is there such uncertainty about whether our kids will return to school or be examined if they do? Why is our very important tourist industry being damaged in this way? Why can't I get a haircut yet? Why are the courts not open for business and dealing with criminals?
In February, March and April the position was very different and this horrible virus was endemic. But the response now is completely disproportionate and untargeted. The economic damage will kill. Be in no doubt about that. Our leaders are being as irresponsible now as they were when they thought letting people jet in from all around the world without quarantine was a good idea.0 -
In many respects the less holds barred it is the more ammunition for Starmer to get rid of the shameless anti-Semites.CorrectHorseBattery said:Labour have EHRC report. Prepare popcorn
1 -
Countries with widespread mask use (Looking at Japan here) seem to have had the least disruptive locdowns. Some people prefer to wear them, others can't abide them (My other half doesn't like them for instance). A 2nd wave of Covid would definitely destroy confidence most though - so as we open more and more up the more mask usage becomes normalised for shopping the better.0
-
In fairness, that is perhaps not a 'consensus' but perhaps more of a suspicion - but 'major' is also important, in a time where people are much more aware of basic hygiene, and out and about and touching things much less (so that mode may already be somewhat suppressed, giving a misleading impression of its potential importance).williamglenn said:
The scientific consensus is that contaminated surfaces are unlikely to be a major vector.Casino_Royale said:
Really? Why?eek said:
I may be being contrary here but the lack of mask wearing by others is what puts me off going shopping.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about pretending to care about masks) and disincentives going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered.
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As both out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.
Which is why we are once again using Amazon for far too much..
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I couldn't give two figs about what anyone has on their visage, so long as they stay 2m away.
It's contaminated surfaces that are more convincing vectors for transmitting the disease - the products people pick up and put down - and no-one is recommending people wear gloves the whole time.
It's what people touch that worries me. And only that. Masks just piss me off in a myriad of ways.
Not wearing one. End of.
https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1282184696466554883
t is certainly an interesting thread anyway.
I do wonder how you could prove/disprove fomites transmission when for instance the much touted PHE phone app would presumably do nothing to detect mutial contact through a door handle several minutes or tens of minutes apart.0 -
Prolonged sustained close contact in closed environments: I agree.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Scientists have changed their minds. Surface transmission is minimal; it is all about airborne droplets. My firm has mandated masks at work.Casino_Royale said:
Really? Why?eek said:
I may be being contrary here but the lack of mask wearing by others is what puts me off going shopping.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about pretending to care about masks) and disincentives going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered.
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As both out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.
Which is why we are once again using Amazon for far too much..
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I couldn't give two figs about what anyone has on their visage, so long as they stay 2m away.
It's contaminated surfaces that are more convincing vectors for transmitting the disease - the products people pick up and put down - and no-one is recommending people wear gloves the whole time.
It's what people touch that worries me. And only that. Masks just piss me off in a myriad of ways.
Not wearing one. End of.
It's the mask fascism that bothers me. Most encounters in public are very fleeting.
And scientists may change their mind again. They are doing so constantly.0 -
+1 - what you want is names plus just enough evidence to provide concrete reasons to fire them...Mexicanpete said:
In many respects the less holds barred it is the more ammunition for Starmer to get rid of the shameless anti-Semites.CorrectHorseBattery said:Labour have EHRC report. Prepare popcorn
1 -
That's what I would clampdown on.eek said:
When I go round a supermarket the days of people keeping 2m apart ended months ago. Now most of the time people push past you to grab the items they want...Casino_Royale said:
Really? Why?eek said:
I may be being contrary here but the lack of mask wearing by others is what puts me off going shopping.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about pretending to care about masks) and disincentives going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered.
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As both out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.
Which is why we are once again using Amazon for far too much..
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I couldn't give two figs about what anyone has on their visage, so long as they stay 2m away.
It's contaminated surfaces that are more convincing vectors for transmitting the disease - the products people pick up and put down - and no-one is recommending people wear gloves the whole time.
It's what people touch that worries me. And only that. Masks just piss me off in a myriad of ways.
Not wearing one. End of.
I pulled a couple up on it yesterday.2 -
This masks business makes me wonder if Mr Gove is positioning himself for the Brexiter vote come a new Leader election, in view of the views expressed here.1
-
Exactly.eek said:
+1 - what you want is names plus just enough evidence to provide concrete reasons to fire them...Mexicanpete said:
In many respects the less holds barred it is the more ammunition for Starmer to get rid of the shameless anti-Semites.CorrectHorseBattery said:Labour have EHRC report. Prepare popcorn
0 -
Are we at risk of over egging how damning it will prove to be?Mexicanpete said:
In many respects the less holds barred it is the more ammunition for Starmer to get rid of the shameless anti-Semites.CorrectHorseBattery said:Labour have EHRC report. Prepare popcorn
1 -
BREAKING NEWS - an uninformed source from outside the inner circle of the Trump campaign says that, at the upcoming Republican National Convention in Jacksonville, the President will announce that Mike Pence is being replaced as VP running mate by . . . wait for it . . . Kanye West.0
-
deleted as needlessly provocative on reflection.2
-
And people having nowhere to go.TheScreamingEagles said:
Isn't that more down to the government saying don't use public transport unless it is absolutely essential.Mortimer said:
If that were true, I'd expect public transport usage to have returned to something like normal after masks were mandated. But it hasn'tPhilip_Thompson said:
I think quite the opposite. If masks stop the spread of the virus then people will have less reason to be afraid so will go out more.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
1) Community spread is very, very low at the moment. And non essential shops have been open for a decent length of time without any evidence of an uptick.
2) Retail spending is very, very low at the moment.
3) Essential retail aside (i.e. where there are generally queues), I've not seen anywhere near the levels of shopping since the lockdown has been lifted. Crowds are non existent. I bought two measly items in Cornwall today and was thanked so effusively by struggling shopkeepers
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
For others the reverse may be true, I suspect they'd be happier if everyone was wearing masks. But that logic doesn't seem to have driven usage of trains up, for example, after masks were made mandatory.
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
Plus the evidence both here and elsewhere is that people quite quickly get used to masks. That they can become normalised and something you stop noticing.
If it becomes culturally normal until there's a vaccine to wear a mask whenever you're indoors in the same way as you don't smoke indoors then that will help us get back to normal faster.0 -
Correlation does not imply causation.Pulpstar said:Countries with widespread mask use (Looking at Japan here) seem to have had the least disruptive locdowns. Some people prefer to wear them, others can't abide them (My other half doesn't like them for instance). A 2nd wave of Covid would definitely destroy confidence most though - so as we open more and more up the more mask usage becomes normalised for shopping the better.
I see no evidence that masks are either necessary or will make a material difference to virus reduction or keeping it at current levels.
So far as I can see this is almost entirely behavioural economics as a confidence placebo.
[NB: This does NOT mean being reckless or selfish. Social distancing, handwashing, hygiene and precaution with symptoms 100% of the time are necessary, as are masks in very close proximity environments - like the tube.]0 -
It will be disappointing if it doesn't name names.kle4 said:
Are we at risk of over egging how damning it will prove to be?Mexicanpete said:
In many respects the less holds barred it is the more ammunition for Starmer to get rid of the shameless anti-Semites.CorrectHorseBattery said:Labour have EHRC report. Prepare popcorn
0 -
The more time goes by, the more I think that statement should be reversed.Jonathan said:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"NickPalmer said:
That's am interesting idea, but I've not previously heard of deliberate confusion as a tool of good government. Wouldn't it meet your coxswain analogy if Johnson and Gove and everyone else in Government had an agreed statement, even a non-madatory one, such as, "It would be helpful if people would carry masks and put them on if they see the conditions are becoming crowded?" Why is it better for different Ministers to say different things from each other? And are they really Macchiavellian enough for it be a deliberate plan?TheWhiteRabbit said:
I fundamentally disagree.NickPalmer said:On topic, an underlying problem is that the Government appears reluctant to have definite policies one way or the other. Should we work at home if possible or go to the office if possible? Should we wear masks in crowded shops, or is it purely a matter of preference? As in previous stages of the pandemic, when people of good will genuinely struggled to understand who they could meet and under what circumstances, there is a curious inability to give us even non-binding guidance that everyone can understand.
This is, I think, partly a side-effect of Boris's personal style, which is to breeze through complexity with cheerful epigrams and broad common sense. If we were debating something like what kind of history should be taught in schools, that could be a sensible approach. For matters of life and death, less so.
I know many on this board obsess about U-turns. But what the person in the street hears is the general tone of the government.
The government is more akin to the coxswain, one hand on the tiller. It is attempting to guide the population in a general direction, by applying just as much force as is required for the result. It is fundamentally a different sort of policy making than "definite policies".
I do think the above criticism was correct for a week in March and it may again be in a second wave scenario. But right now, direction of travel is the name of the game.0 -
Masks are not 'necessary' for most people some of the time. But surely the key time when the masks ARE crucial is when someome becomes infectious - often without knowing it. And thise people are the most dangerous of all in terms of causingf new outbreaks. Of course, we don't know who they are till it is too late ... hence the logic of habitual mask wearing.Casino_Royale said:
Correlation does not imply causation.Pulpstar said:Countries with widespread mask use (Looking at Japan here) seem to have had the least disruptive locdowns. Some people prefer to wear them, others can't abide them (My other half doesn't like them for instance). A 2nd wave of Covid would definitely destroy confidence most though - so as we open more and more up the more mask usage becomes normalised for shopping the better.
I see no evidence that masks are either necessary or will make a material difference to virus reduction or keeping it at current levels.
So far as I can see this is almost entirely behavioural economics as a confidence placebo.
[NB: This does NOT mean being reckless or selfish. Social distancing, handwashing, hygiene and precaution with symptoms 100% of the time are necessary, as are masks in very close proximity environments - like the tube.]1 -
None taken!Casino_Royale said:
Fuck off. YOU are talking bollocks.Mexicanpete said:
What bollocks! If you wearing a mask protects me from contracting your Covid-19 infection, and vice-versa, it is a big deal if you won't wear one. In this instance nuts to your human rights and civil liberties!Casino_Royale said:
He isn't right. And it is a big deal.Mexicanpete said:
Boris Johnson is right on this, it is no big deal.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about being seen to passionately pretend to care about masks) and disincentivises going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: "fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered."
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As borne out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.
There is virtually zero risk.
You statist twat.0 -
Just take it easy man...Mexicanpete said:
None taken!Casino_Royale said:
Fuck off. YOU are talking bollocks.Mexicanpete said:
What bollocks! If you wearing a mask protects me from contracting your Covid-19 infection, and vice-versa, it is a big deal if you won't wear one. In this instance nuts to your human rights and civil liberties!Casino_Royale said:
He isn't right. And it is a big deal.Mexicanpete said:
Boris Johnson is right on this, it is no big deal.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about being seen to passionately pretend to care about masks) and disincentivises going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: "fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered."
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As borne out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.
There is virtually zero risk.
You statist twat.1 -
Why do you see a massive philosophical difference between making masks compulsory on public transport and making masks compulsory in shops?Casino_Royale said:
Correlation does not imply causation.Pulpstar said:Countries with widespread mask use (Looking at Japan here) seem to have had the least disruptive locdowns. Some people prefer to wear them, others can't abide them (My other half doesn't like them for instance). A 2nd wave of Covid would definitely destroy confidence most though - so as we open more and more up the more mask usage becomes normalised for shopping the better.
I see no evidence that masks are either necessary or will make a material difference to virus reduction or keeping it at current levels.
So far as I can see this is almost entirely behavioural economics as a confidence placebo.
[NB: This does NOT mean being reckless or selfish. Social distancing, handwashing, hygiene and precaution with symptoms 100% of the time are necessary, as are masks in very close proximity environments - like the tube.]2 -
Latest data on cases.
Number of cases have plateaued. R is now about 1. Slightly above 1 in London. Incidence per million is still low overall though there are several hotspots as highlighted by Malmesbury in his spreadsheet.
0 -
Most reports like this are damp squibs.kle4 said:
Are we at risk of over egging how damning it will prove to be?Mexicanpete said:
In many respects the less holds barred it is the more ammunition for Starmer to get rid of the shameless anti-Semites.CorrectHorseBattery said:Labour have EHRC report. Prepare popcorn
My guess would be it will conclude Labour was grossly complacent about rampant anti-Semitism among its members. However, that’s a far cry from calling it institutionally anti-Semitic, which could be open to legal challenge.
The fact we all know that it was institutionally antisemitic under Corbyn is another issue.0 -
Probably accurate, but that would be a dreadful shame.ydoethur said:
Most reports like this are damp squibs.kle4 said:
Are we at risk of over egging how damning it will prove to be?Mexicanpete said:
In many respects the less holds barred it is the more ammunition for Starmer to get rid of the shameless anti-Semites.CorrectHorseBattery said:Labour have EHRC report. Prepare popcorn
My guess would be it will conclude Labour was grossly complacent about rampant anti-Semitism among its members. However, that’s a far cry from calling it institutionally anti-Semitic, which could be open to legal challenge.
The fact we all know that it was institutionally antisemitic under Corbyn is another issue.0 -
Fact check.Mexicanpete said:
It will be disappointing if it doesn't name names.kle4 said:
Are we at risk of over egging how damning it will prove to be?Mexicanpete said:
In many respects the less holds barred it is the more ammunition for Starmer to get rid of the shameless anti-Semites.CorrectHorseBattery said:Labour have EHRC report. Prepare popcorn
Labour have the draft report, not the final report0 -
The EHRC have the intestinal fortitude of a mouse.Mexicanpete said:
Probably accurate, but that would be a dreadful shame.ydoethur said:
Most reports like this are damp squibs.kle4 said:
Are we at risk of over egging how damning it will prove to be?Mexicanpete said:
In many respects the less holds barred it is the more ammunition for Starmer to get rid of the shameless anti-Semites.CorrectHorseBattery said:Labour have EHRC report. Prepare popcorn
My guess would be it will conclude Labour was grossly complacent about rampant anti-Semitism among its members. However, that’s a far cry from calling it institutionally anti-Semitic, which could be open to legal challenge.
The fact we all know that it was institutionally antisemitic under Corbyn is another issue.
They hedge everything to avoid upsetting their client groups.1 -
Lmao ! Even if that astonishingly was true not sure it helps Trump much given his base isn’t exactly black friendly .SeaShantyIrish2 said:BREAKING NEWS - an uninformed source from outside the inner circle of the Trump campaign says that, at the upcoming Republican National Convention in Jacksonville, the President will announce that Mike Pence is being replaced as VP running mate by . . . wait for it . . . Kanye West.
0 -
I am not sure how that makes a difference, unless the current regime, including Starmer are keen to protect the guilty.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Fact check.Mexicanpete said:
It will be disappointing if it doesn't name names.kle4 said:
Are we at risk of over egging how damning it will prove to be?Mexicanpete said:
In many respects the less holds barred it is the more ammunition for Starmer to get rid of the shameless anti-Semites.CorrectHorseBattery said:Labour have EHRC report. Prepare popcorn
Labour have the draft report, not the final report0 -
Consistent with Biden doing well in States he has no hope of winning.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:0 -
I assume it allows labour to comment on it's findings to the ECHR before public releaseMexicanpete said:
I am not sure how that makes a difference, unless the current regime, including Starmer are keen to protect the guilty.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Fact check.Mexicanpete said:
It will be disappointing if it doesn't name names.kle4 said:
Are we at risk of over egging how damning it will prove to be?Mexicanpete said:
In many respects the less holds barred it is the more ammunition for Starmer to get rid of the shameless anti-Semites.CorrectHorseBattery said:Labour have EHRC report. Prepare popcorn
Labour have the draft report, not the final report
Maybe due diligence. but I am not a lawyer0 -
He will get his nose rubbed in it yet again the snivelling little yellow bellied creepOnlyLivingBoy said:
It's so obvious Gove is only against it because the SNP are in favour. Gove hates the SNP with the kind of blind fury that only a Scottish Tory Unionist can muster.Nigelb said:
However long it takes to get figures on mask compliance in Scotland.OnlyLivingBoy said:A week?
0 -
Could be. It's a battle between test, track and trace which is bearing down on it, and relaxing of guidelines which is causing it to rise somewhat. The incidence is low so it is currently manageable but could take off again.Pulpstar said:
Endemic steady state ?Barnesian said:Latest data on cases.
Number of cases have plateaued. R is now about 1. Slightly above 1 in London. Incidence per million is still low overall though there are several hotspots as highlighted by Malmesbury in his spreadsheet.0 -
Personally have always favored Ted Nugent as Trumpsky running mate, no doubt would do better job being the Voice of Reason (relatively speaking) on the ticket than GOP's current VP Bobble-head.nico67 said:
Lmao ! Even if that astonishingly was true not sure it helps Trump much given his base isn’t exactly black friendly .SeaShantyIrish2 said:BREAKING NEWS - an uninformed source from outside the inner circle of the Trump campaign says that, at the upcoming Republican National Convention in Jacksonville, the President will announce that Mike Pence is being replaced as VP running mate by . . . wait for it . . . Kanye West.
0 -
If true, it would be more about neutralising the attacks from the other side and goading them into bad positioning.nico67 said:
Lmao ! Even if that astonishingly was true not sure it helps Trump much given his base isn’t exactly black friendly .SeaShantyIrish2 said:BREAKING NEWS - an uninformed source from outside the inner circle of the Trump campaign says that, at the upcoming Republican National Convention in Jacksonville, the President will announce that Mike Pence is being replaced as VP running mate by . . . wait for it . . . Kanye West.
0 -
I don't understand your problem with masks.Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.
The scientific evidence is they work and the more they minimise R the less we need other actions to take the burden.
I'd rather masks than alternative restrictions.3 -
It was shortage of masks more like, so they just lied through their teeth as usual.NerysHughes said:
Wasn't the main scientific evidence against face coverings was that they gave people too much confidence and social distancing was much more effective than face coverings?MaxPB said:
We might be, but wearing masks could, in theory, allow us to lift a huge number of those restrictions. I think it's a pretty small sacrifice and instead of any stupid common sense approach which loads of people would ignore, a mandated one would get almost universal uptake and get rid of a whole bunch of COVID bullshit - specifically queueing to get into shops.TOPPING said:
Nigel I realise you have been touched tragically by COVID. But at the same time, the basic point that Hitchens is making is that we have had a huge restrictions of our liberty of a kind without precedent.Nigelb said:
Does the numpty not realise that the whole point of such a mask policy is to make it safer to get people out of their homes and back to something like normal life ?Andy_JS said:
That is a valid point to make.
The key was not to overwhelm the NHS which, left unchecked, COVID might have lead to.
But we are a zillion miles from that now.1 -
Personally think Biden (and Dem for Gov) closer than than in Big Sky Country, and also (though to lesser degree) in Show Me State.Peter_the_Punter said:
Consistent with Biden doing well in States he has no hope of winning.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:
This November think MO will vote for Our Fearless Leader, but MT may (emphasis on conditional) go for Uncle Joe. But only if he really does NOT need it (like Obama winning IN in 2008).0 -
Lets take a counter point. Say it vindicates the party, pronounces the membership as no more antisemitic than the public at large. Then what?ydoethur said:
The EHRC have the intestinal fortitude of a mouse.Mexicanpete said:
Probably accurate, but that would be a dreadful shame.ydoethur said:
Most reports like this are damp squibs.kle4 said:
Are we at risk of over egging how damning it will prove to be?Mexicanpete said:
In many respects the less holds barred it is the more ammunition for Starmer to get rid of the shameless anti-Semites.CorrectHorseBattery said:Labour have EHRC report. Prepare popcorn
My guess would be it will conclude Labour was grossly complacent about rampant anti-Semitism among its members. However, that’s a far cry from calling it institutionally anti-Semitic, which could be open to legal challenge.
The fact we all know that it was institutionally antisemitic under Corbyn is another issue.
They hedge everything to avoid upsetting their client groups.0 -
There will be widespread talks of coverups and whitewash.MightyAlex said:
Lets take a counter point. Say it vindicates the party, pronounces the membership as no more antisemitic than the public at large. Then what?ydoethur said:
The EHRC have the intestinal fortitude of a mouse.Mexicanpete said:
Probably accurate, but that would be a dreadful shame.ydoethur said:
Most reports like this are damp squibs.kle4 said:
Are we at risk of over egging how damning it will prove to be?Mexicanpete said:
In many respects the less holds barred it is the more ammunition for Starmer to get rid of the shameless anti-Semites.CorrectHorseBattery said:Labour have EHRC report. Prepare popcorn
My guess would be it will conclude Labour was grossly complacent about rampant anti-Semitism among its members. However, that’s a far cry from calling it institutionally anti-Semitic, which could be open to legal challenge.
The fact we all know that it was institutionally antisemitic under Corbyn is another issue.
They hedge everything to avoid upsetting their client groups.
Which won’t be good for either Labour or the EHRC.0 -
No, there is a scientific consensus on mask wearing. Your personal feelings are quite irrelevant to the general public health, if you don't want to wear one you'll need to stay indoors.Casino_Royale said:
That's not scientific consensus. That's someone venturing a guess.williamglenn said:
The scientific consensus is that contaminated surfaces are unlikely to be a major vector.Casino_Royale said:
Really? Why?eek said:
I may be being contrary here but the lack of mask wearing by others is what puts me off going shopping.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about pretending to care about masks) and disincentives going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered.
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As both out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.
Which is why we are once again using Amazon for far too much..
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I couldn't give two figs about what anyone has on their visage, so long as they stay 2m away.
It's contaminated surfaces that are more convincing vectors for transmitting the disease - the products people pick up and put down - and no-one is recommending people wear gloves the whole time.
It's what people touch that worries me. And only that. Masks just piss me off in a myriad of ways.
Not wearing one. End of.
https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1282184696466554883
If it wasn't a vector people wouldn't be washing their hands all the time and disinfecting everything.0 -
If it is, it nails Johnson's true Brexit colours to the mast!Pulpstar said:
Dunno if it's a straight leave/remain split.Carnyx said:This masks business makes me wonder if Mr Gove is positioning himself for the Brexiter vote come a new Leader election, in view of the views expressed here.
He read the wrong letter out.0 -
We point out the EHRC is an antisemitic body?MightyAlex said:
Lets take a counter point. Say it vindicates the party, pronounces the membership as no more antisemitic than the public at large. Then what?ydoethur said:
The EHRC have the intestinal fortitude of a mouse.Mexicanpete said:
Probably accurate, but that would be a dreadful shame.ydoethur said:
Most reports like this are damp squibs.kle4 said:
Are we at risk of over egging how damning it will prove to be?Mexicanpete said:
In many respects the less holds barred it is the more ammunition for Starmer to get rid of the shameless anti-Semites.CorrectHorseBattery said:Labour have EHRC report. Prepare popcorn
My guess would be it will conclude Labour was grossly complacent about rampant anti-Semitism among its members. However, that’s a far cry from calling it institutionally anti-Semitic, which could be open to legal challenge.
The fact we all know that it was institutionally antisemitic under Corbyn is another issue.
They hedge everything to avoid upsetting their client groups.
Edit to add many members of Labour are not antisemitic0 -
I'm in favour of compulsory masks in shops, but I'm certainly not claiming the libertarian label. Are you still doing so ?Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand your problem with masks.Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.
The scientific evidence is they work and the more they minimise R the less we need other actions to take the burden.
I'd rather masks than alternative restrictions.0 -
Mr Thompson back on the sensible Tory list!Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand your problem with masks.Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.
The scientific evidence is they work and the more they minimise R the less we need other actions to take the burden.
I'd rather masks than alternative restrictions.0 -
If we're going to get to the bizarre situation where they're to be mandatory in shops, where people pass fleetingly, and not pubs, where people stay in one place, I think there will be an awful lot of people not going to shops apart for essentials. Probably myself included.MaxPB said:
No, there is a scientific consensus on mask wearing. Your personal feelings are quite irrelevant to the general public health, if you don't want to wear one you'll need to stay indoors.Casino_Royale said:
That's not scientific consensus. That's someone venturing a guess.williamglenn said:
The scientific consensus is that contaminated surfaces are unlikely to be a major vector.Casino_Royale said:
Really? Why?eek said:
I may be being contrary here but the lack of mask wearing by others is what puts me off going shopping.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about pretending to care about masks) and disincentives going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered.
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As both out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.
Which is why we are once again using Amazon for far too much..
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I couldn't give two figs about what anyone has on their visage, so long as they stay 2m away.
It's contaminated surfaces that are more convincing vectors for transmitting the disease - the products people pick up and put down - and no-one is recommending people wear gloves the whole time.
It's what people touch that worries me. And only that. Masks just piss me off in a myriad of ways.
Not wearing one. End of.
https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1282184696466554883
If it wasn't a vector people wouldn't be washing their hands all the time and disinfecting everything.
0 -
But that's the point, it'd be an absurd mess.Carnyx said:
But the Labour administration couldn't deploy its Scottish MPs in (as I assume you mean) retained domestic business kept in England. It could certainly control business in Pmt. But any progress would as you say earlier be dependent on the Tories in Westminster Pmt. Or am I missing something?Philip_Thompson said:
The English wouldn't get what they voted for.Carnyx said:
Indeed. I was being perhaps a bit disingenuous in not admitting that possibility, and you are right to pick me up on that.Philip_Thompson said:
England's always going to be there though, its the Scottish MPs at Westminster that are more of an issue.Carnyx said:
No, he doesn't. It shows how much the TORIES need England (and some of Wales and their NI allies) to win. The SNP are never going to vote for a Tory PM, are they?HYUFD said:
Tory majority of 69 without Scottish seats from the SNP (even including the 18 NI seats), Tory majority of just 16 with Scottish seats from the SNP, shows how much Starmer needs Scotland to become PMCorrectHorseBattery said:Electoral Calculus seat projection:
Conservative Party: 333 (-32)
Labour Party: 229 (+27)
SNP: 53 (+5)
Liberal Democrat: 11 (-)
Plaid Cymru: 4 (-)
Green Party: 1 (-)
Speaker: 1 (-)
2015 redux
And SNP MPs are no substitute for Labour MPs. Remember the SNP abstain on English-only matters so the complete Horlicks of a situation would be one with a Labour MP backed by SNP MPs - but a Tory majority if SNP abstain. English only laws would have a Tory veto on them. Plus the SNP would demand an independence referendum but if they win that then it means a Tory majority government in Westminster again.
What a mess that would be!
But on the other hand the English would get what they voted for (with the important effect of UK wide matters such as budget etc under the Barnett exception).
In any case, would SLAB MPs for Scottish seats now not be unable to vote on English matters thanks to the changes Mr Cameron brought in? They've (the regulations for EVEL) have not been much in public debate of late but the SNP self-denyong ordinance rather negates the need anyway.
And, now I think about it, it is only a mess from a Labour point of view. Not, arguably, a SNP or Tory one. And perhaps closer to a majority public view, even.
In that scenario even though the English voted majority Tory then matters that are considered "devolved" would be decided by a Labour government. It'd be like the First Minister of Scotland being a Tory because England voted Tory.
For devolved matters like Health and Education we'd have a Labour Secretary of State in a Labour executive that requires Tory MPs to pass its legislation.
It would be like a majority of Scottish MSPs being SNP but the Scottish Government being Tory, with a Tory Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport and a Tory Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills . . . but all justified as it would take the SNP majority of MSPs to pass legislation the Tory executive wanted to pass.1 -
I'm a shop owner - though admittedly one without skin in the game as I don't intend to reopen in the short-medium term - who would feel very hard done to if shops had to mandate masks, but pubs didn't....Pulpstar said:
I'm in favour of compulsory masks in shops, but I'm certainly not claiming the libertarian label. Are you still doing so ?Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand your problem with masks.Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.
The scientific evidence is they work and the more they minimise R the less we need other actions to take the burden.
I'd rather masks than alternative restrictions.0 -
You really have to go out of your way to avoid going to the shops at all though !Mortimer said:
If we're going to get to the bizarre situation where they're to be mandatory in shops, where people pass fleetingly, and not pubs, where people stay in one place, I think there will be an awful lot of people not going to shops apart for essentials. Probably myself included.MaxPB said:
No, there is a scientific consensus on mask wearing. Your personal feelings are quite irrelevant to the general public health, if you don't want to wear one you'll need to stay indoors.Casino_Royale said:
That's not scientific consensus. That's someone venturing a guess.williamglenn said:
The scientific consensus is that contaminated surfaces are unlikely to be a major vector.Casino_Royale said:
Really? Why?eek said:
I may be being contrary here but the lack of mask wearing by others is what puts me off going shopping.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about pretending to care about masks) and disincentives going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered.
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As both out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.
Which is why we are once again using Amazon for far too much..
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I couldn't give two figs about what anyone has on their visage, so long as they stay 2m away.
It's contaminated surfaces that are more convincing vectors for transmitting the disease - the products people pick up and put down - and no-one is recommending people wear gloves the whole time.
It's what people touch that worries me. And only that. Masks just piss me off in a myriad of ways.
Not wearing one. End of.
https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1282184696466554883
If it wasn't a vector people wouldn't be washing their hands all the time and disinfecting everything.
Also tricky to drink with a mask.0 -
On the other hand pubs and restaurants will require taking people's contact details for tracing, which you wouldn't be required to do before letting people in your shop.Mortimer said:
I'm a shop owner - though admittedly one without skin in the game as I don't intend to reopen in the short-medium term - who would feel very hard done to if shops had to mandate masks, but pubs didn't....Pulpstar said:
I'm in favour of compulsory masks in shops, but I'm certainly not claiming the libertarian label. Are you still doing so ?Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand your problem with masks.Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.
The scientific evidence is they work and the more they minimise R the less we need other actions to take the burden.
I'd rather masks than alternative restrictions.0 -
The best polls for Biden are in places he really doesn't need. Texas is classic. He's polling brilliantly there but if he takes it he's won by a landslide anyway. If he were doing as well in the true swing states or the rust belt, I'd pretty much want to call the contest now.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Personally think Biden (and Dem for Gov) closer than than in Big Sky Country, and also (though to lesser degree) in Show Me State.Peter_the_Punter said:
Consistent with Biden doing well in States he has no hope of winning.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:
This November think MO will vote for Our Fearless Leader, but MT may (emphasis on conditional) go for Uncle Joe. But only if he really does NOT need it (like Obama winning IN in 2008).
As it is, it reminds me of one of those championship fights where the contender builds up a solid points lead over the first eight rounds but he can't put the defending champ away, and you just know the champ always has a puncher's chance.
It's never over until it's over.0 -
Shops will see a breakdown of the 2 metre rule. Many are reliant on recycled air. I now wear a mask for shopping. To me that is in part mitigating the breakdown of 2 metres separation.Pulpstar said:
I'm in favour of compulsory masks in shops, but I'm certainly not claiming the libertarian label. Are you still doing so ?Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand your problem with masks.Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.
The scientific evidence is they work and the more they minimise R the less we need other actions to take the burden.
I'd rather masks than alternative restrictions.
If i have to wear a mask in shops for a year or two i really am not concerned.
Will we see a noticible reduction in global population as an effect of covid? Much earlier in the pandemic there was talk of damage to male fertility, but I havent seen anything on that more recently.0 -
Wouldn’t it rather defeat the object of reopening if pubs had to order patrons to wear masks?Mortimer said:
I'm a shop owner - though admittedly one without skin in the game as I don't intend to reopen in the short-medium term - who would feel very hard done to if shops had to mandate masks, but pubs didn't....Pulpstar said:
I'm in favour of compulsory masks in shops, but I'm certainly not claiming the libertarian label. Are you still doing so ?Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand your problem with masks.Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.
The scientific evidence is they work and the more they minimise R the less we need other actions to take the burden.
I'd rather masks than alternative restrictions.0 -
Managed without non essentials for 3 months...Pulpstar said:
You really have to go out of your way to avoid going to the shops at all though !Mortimer said:
If we're going to get to the bizarre situation where they're to be mandatory in shops, where people pass fleetingly, and not pubs, where people stay in one place, I think there will be an awful lot of people not going to shops apart for essentials. Probably myself included.MaxPB said:
No, there is a scientific consensus on mask wearing. Your personal feelings are quite irrelevant to the general public health, if you don't want to wear one you'll need to stay indoors.Casino_Royale said:
That's not scientific consensus. That's someone venturing a guess.williamglenn said:
The scientific consensus is that contaminated surfaces are unlikely to be a major vector.Casino_Royale said:
Really? Why?eek said:
I may be being contrary here but the lack of mask wearing by others is what puts me off going shopping.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about pretending to care about masks) and disincentives going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered.
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As both out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.
Which is why we are once again using Amazon for far too much..
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I couldn't give two figs about what anyone has on their visage, so long as they stay 2m away.
It's contaminated surfaces that are more convincing vectors for transmitting the disease - the products people pick up and put down - and no-one is recommending people wear gloves the whole time.
It's what people touch that worries me. And only that. Masks just piss me off in a myriad of ways.
Not wearing one. End of.
https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1282184696466554883
If it wasn't a vector people wouldn't be washing their hands all the time and disinfecting everything.
Also tricky to drink with a mask.
I totally agree that it would be farcical in pubs. Where it is arguably more necessary. But I don't think thats a good enough argument for requiring it in shops...0 -
Evening All
So the next issue threatening to tear the nation in twain is or are face masks.
I suppose the first question is any attempt to enforce wearing is going to be unenforceable unless you want squads of "mask enforcers" marching down every High Street and checking any and every corner shop.
It will be enforcement by public humiliation. 10 people in a shop are wearing a mask, you aren't. Everyone's going to be looking at you and pointing and the British don't do well with public humiliation - that probably explains why Maoism has never caught on though periodic public self-denunciation is probably good for the soul.
I wear a mask in shops - have done all the time- but, as my brother's experience has suggested, you really need a full hazmat suit to go to the Co-Op. It's my brother's view he picked up something an asymptomatic person had just put back and that's how he was re-infected.
Libraries sanitise a book - Tesco's don't sanitise baked beans.0 -
You're eating and drinking in pubs and restaurants. Can't be done with a mask.ydoethur said:
Wouldn’t it rather defeat the object of reopening if pubs had to order patrons to wear masks?Mortimer said:
I'm a shop owner - though admittedly one without skin in the game as I don't intend to reopen in the short-medium term - who would feel very hard done to if shops had to mandate masks, but pubs didn't....Pulpstar said:
I'm in favour of compulsory masks in shops, but I'm certainly not claiming the libertarian label. Are you still doing so ?Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand your problem with masks.Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.
The scientific evidence is they work and the more they minimise R the less we need other actions to take the burden.
I'd rather masks than alternative restrictions.0 -
Exactly it is no big deal if you are in a confined space with the great unwashed, only fools and morons could have an issue with it.philiph said:
Shops will see a breakdown of the 2 metre rule. Many are reliant on recycled air. I now wear a mask for shopping. To me that is in part mitigating the breakdown of 2 metres separation.Pulpstar said:
I'm in favour of compulsory masks in shops, but I'm certainly not claiming the libertarian label. Are you still doing so ?Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand your problem with masks.Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.
The scientific evidence is they work and the more they minimise R the less we need other actions to take the burden.
I'd rather masks than alternative restrictions.
If i have to wear a mask in shops for a year or two i really am not concerned.
Will we see a noticible reduction in global population as an effect of covid? Much earlier in the pandemic there was talk of damage to male fertility, but I havent seen anything on that more recently.0 -
Probably. But the point I'm making is not that I'm pro masks in pubs. That would clearly be crackers.ydoethur said:
Wouldn’t it rather defeat the object of reopening if pubs had to order patrons to wear masks?Mortimer said:
I'm a shop owner - though admittedly one without skin in the game as I don't intend to reopen in the short-medium term - who would feel very hard done to if shops had to mandate masks, but pubs didn't....Pulpstar said:
I'm in favour of compulsory masks in shops, but I'm certainly not claiming the libertarian label. Are you still doing so ?Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand your problem with masks.Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.
The scientific evidence is they work and the more they minimise R the less we need other actions to take the burden.
I'd rather masks than alternative restrictions.
My point is that if it isn't necessary in pubs, where people are in a stationary position in relatively close contact with others, drinking, how is it necessary for fleeting encounters, largely distanced, in shops?1 -
I have a feeling the mask wearing requirement is preparing for spikes in infections that are expected at some point but aren't necessarily happening now. People get into the habit of wearing them now. Behavioural/political question is whether to mandate them now or recommend them now and mandate them when the spikes occur.Mortimer said:
My gut feeling is that masks wont be mandated until such a time as any easing of restrictions goes into reverse.Andy_Cooke said:
If they reduce transmission further, which all indications are that they do, they can push down prevalence of the endemic disease still further, prevent resurgent spikes, and possibly allow us to formalise a 1m rule safely.
Reopening gyms, beauticians, and so forth, on top of the controlled reopening of pubs, restaurants, and cinemas, is a calculated and very real risk, and it takes very little for R to head back above one. Especially as more and more people are taking the attitude that “it’s all over, isn’t it?”
Shaving another 0.2 or 0.3 off of R gives us a lot more flex there, and reduces the chances of going back on some of the restriction-lifting we’ve seen recently and minimises the potential incidence of local lockdowns.
It would be perverse messaging, for example, to reopen gyms and pools (where people clearly don't wear masks) whilst tighten restrictions on casual retail. Especially given casual retail has been open for a long time now with no obvious impact on public health...0 -
But there should be rigidly applied rules within the pub about separation, sanitization between customers, mask wearing when moving about table service only and a clear emphasis on no physical contact outside immediate family. Then it should be reasonably safe.Pulpstar said:
You're eating and drinking in pubs and restaurants. Can't be done with a mask.ydoethur said:
Wouldn’t it rather defeat the object of reopening if pubs had to order patrons to wear masks?Mortimer said:
I'm a shop owner - though admittedly one without skin in the game as I don't intend to reopen in the short-medium term - who would feel very hard done to if shops had to mandate masks, but pubs didn't....Pulpstar said:
I'm in favour of compulsory masks in shops, but I'm certainly not claiming the libertarian label. Are you still doing so ?Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand your problem with masks.Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.
The scientific evidence is they work and the more they minimise R the less we need other actions to take the burden.
I'd rather masks than alternative restrictions.1
