politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sunak now level-pegging with Johnson on who would make the “be

LadyG said:

Alistair said:

LadyG said:

He’s right. This is a devastating letter

https://twitter.com/douglaskmurray/status/1283059552410361858?s=21

https://twitter.com/curaffairs/status/1283060423504338951?s=19

The atmos at the paper sounds absolutely toxic. I’ve heard similar about other big media organizations, some in the UK, but the NYT is probably the worst.

Just checking, is this the same Bari Weiss who famously led a years long campaign to get professors at Columbia fired based on almost entirely made up 'evidence' because she didn't like their speech.

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Matt Hancock thinks shops should call the police if they see a person in a shop without a mask.

Yeah like I really want to go to a shop where the staff are stalinist style government informers sneaking on me to the police at their earliest opportunity.

That's exactly the kind of place I would want to patronise with my custom.

Hancock has totally lost his mind.

This government has totally lost its mind.

You could just wear a mask like a sane person would.

And you should stop endangering my life by driving a car. Think of the pollution threat to me and the risk of injury to yourself and others. Think of the strain you are putting on the NHS.

The sane thing to do is stop, clearly.

You're making a category error. Pollution and the risk of accidents are incremental. There's no exponential network effect in the way there is with an easily transmissible virus. Masks are a common sense way to mitigate some of the risk of carrying out normal activities with the minimum of disruption.

Where is the evidence of an incremental effect with the virus? Death rates started falling before lockdown even started. Now they are on the floor.

We were told there would be second waves after BLM, Bournemouth, Brighton, the list goes on.

Nothing except falls.

Why should we accept the advice of people whose polices are wrecking our lives, our prosperity, our freedom and our mental health?

Just stop. Stop.

eek said:

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

This is what I can’t grasp either.

It’s Tuesday, usually the worst day of the week, yet the deaths announced are very few. The mitigation strategies have clearly worked.

Why then, introduce a fairly draconian one now? I just can’t understand the thinking,

Because Brexit has reached the f**king embarrassing stage of we haven't got a deal with the EU and we've just pissed off one of the other two economic giants...

Today's mask argument has completely hid the need for a 15,000 space lorry processing site in Ashford...

Which leads to an interesting question linked to the header.

Imagine, hypothetically if you like, that the Johnson government's implementation of Brexit shows strong signs of being a clustershambles. Just hypothetically.

Now imagine that you are a youngish centre-right politician. You've made it a long way up the greasy pole, but you are naturally ambitious for more. You support the concept of Brexit, but you are planning on a career for many years after 2021. You also have enough of a numerate business background to be able to read the warning signs.

Obviously, you don't want to be one to push the emergency STOP button, even if you can locate it. (Someone seems to have disconnected the one which was there last month). But at the same time, you can see the warning lights flashing all around.

Just hypothetically, what do you do and when? Because I wouldn't have a clue. Might be why I'm not Chancel... not that I mean him, anyway.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Andy_JS said:

Quote from the Bari Weiss / New York Times letter.

"But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else."

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

That is a brilliant letter.

"I've been mocked by many people over the past few years for writing about the campus culture wars...they told me it was a sideshow. But this was always why it mattered: The people who graduated from those campuses would rise to power inside key institutions and transform them."

eristdoof said:

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

30 year old is Sars-Cov-2 positive but doesn't know it. Goes to boutique without a mask. Infects a 32 year old not wearing a mask.
32 year old visits parents and infects a 60 year old parent. 60 year old spends 5 weeks in hospital.

Yes, although that could happen in other settings too: pubs, schools, garden parties etc.

There is a chance of the transmission you describe, but social distancing makes it a low chance. Are you suggesting we wear masks for all and every public activity?

LadyG said:

Make it all go away

A strange sentiment from someone who has been enjoying it far too much for far too long.

Latest data on reported cases.

Overall incidence is low (except for some hot spots) but cases are no longer falling.
R=1 for England and 1.15 for London. On a knife edge as restrictions are further relaxed. Control depends critically on test track and trace (whack-a-mole) and people keeping alert and behaving sensibly.

LadyG said:

Alistair said:

LadyG said:

Alistair said:

LadyG said:

He’s right. This is a devastating letter

https://twitter.com/douglaskmurray/status/1283059552410361858?s=21

https://twitter.com/curaffairs/status/1283060423504338951?s=19

The atmos at the paper sounds absolutely toxic. I’ve heard similar about other big media organizations, some in the UK, but the NYT is probably the worst.

Just checking, is this the same Bari Weiss who famously led a years long campaign to get professors at Columbia fired based on almost entirely made up 'evidence' because she didn't like their speech.

It matters not. Her letter is too good. It cannot be ignored. A bomb maybe just dropped on the NYT

You have to admire it merely as an exercise in writing. If you want to resign and give the boss a good kicking on the way out, that’s how to do it

She spent the last two years whining about lack of free speech... from her column in the New York Times.

Anabobazina said:

eristdoof said:

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

30 year old is Sars-Cov-2 positive but doesn't know it. Goes to boutique without a mask. Infects a 32 year old not wearing a mask.
32 year old visits parents and infects a 60 year old parent. 60 year old spends 5 weeks in hospital.

Yes, although that could happen in other settings too: pubs, schools, garden parties etc.

There is a chance of the transmission you describe, but social distancing makes it a low chance. Are you suggesting we wear masks for all and every public activity?

In pubs you should wear masks when walking around. When you are at your own table you don't need to wear a mask.

Garden parties it is easy to keep your distance, and you are outside.

etc.

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

For you and me, that’s true.

But, although you might not believe it, many millions of women consider shopping a leisure activity. They spend hours a week doing it.

Some men, too, although very few PBers.

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Matt Hancock thinks shops should call the police if they see a person in a shop without a mask.

Yeah like I really want to go to a shop where the staff are stalinist style government informers sneaking on me to the police at their earliest opportunity.

That's exactly the kind of place I would want to patronise with my custom.

Hancock has totally lost his mind.

This government has totally lost its mind.

You could just wear a mask like a sane person would.

And you should stop endangering my life by driving a car. Think of the pollution threat to me and the risk of injury to yourself and others. Think of the strain you are putting on the NHS.

The sane thing to do is stop, clearly.

You're making a category error. Pollution and the risk of accidents are incremental. There's no exponential network effect in the way there is with an easily transmissible virus. Masks are a common sense way to mitigate some of the risk of carrying out normal activities with the minimum of disruption.

Where is the evidence of an incremental effect with the virus? Death rates started falling before lockdown even started. Now they are on the floor.

We were told there would be second waves after BLM, Bournemouth, Brighton, the list goes on.

Nothing except falls.

Why should we accept the advice of people whose polices are wrecking our lives, our prosperity, our freedom and our mental health?

Just stop. Stop.

So your motivation for refusing to wear a mask is ultimately just to stick it to the man rather than any rational or ethical calculation on your own part.

He has shown his working to be fair to him.

You might not agree with him.

But he is right about BLM, Bournemouth and Brighton.

contrarian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

This is what I can’t grasp either.

It’s Tuesday, usually the worst day of the week, yet the deaths announced are very few. The mitigation strategies have clearly worked.

Why then, introduce a fairly draconian one now? I just can’t understand the thinking,

Because we need to lift the Draconian restrictions. Social distancing is an evil that may have been a necessary evil but is a burdensome restriction on liberty.

As we lift those burdens alternative solutions are required to take their place.

Or instead of a mask would you rather be a lockdown Nazi keeping us locked up forever but no masks while we are locked at home?

No of course not. Yet if that is the case, why not say that? ‘We are bringing in shopping masks ahead of binning the 1m rule later’.

Of course, someone somehow might have said that - but the government’s messaging is so dire I got lost in the fog of war.

The governments been lifting the lockdown for a while now. They have said they're trying to reduce it from 2m to 1m+ and masks fall under the 1m+

Why are we listening to people who predicted all of these measures would fire the starting gun on the titanic second wave?

We are not.

We should ignore the extremists on both sides ...

Sensible people didn't do that but are saying to wear masks.

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Especially since the wearing of masks will allow for a whole raft of other interference to be rolled back. It's honestly such a weird stand from the libertarian right wingers.

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Anabobazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

This is what I can’t grasp either.

It’s Tuesday, usually the worst day of the week, yet the deaths announced are very few. The mitigation strategies have clearly worked.

Why then, introduce a fairly draconian one now? I just can’t understand the thinking,

Because we need to lift the Draconian restrictions. Social distancing is an evil that may have been a necessary evil but is a burdensome restriction on liberty.

As we lift those burdens alternative solutions are required to take their place.

Or instead of a mask would you rather be a lockdown Nazi keeping us locked up forever but no masks while we are locked at home?

No of course not. Yet if that is the case, why not say that? ‘We are bringing in shopping masks ahead of binning the 1m rule later’.

Of course, someone somehow might have said that - but the government’s messaging is so dire I got lost in the fog of war.

The governments been lifting the lockdown for a while now. They have said they're trying to reduce it from 2m to 1m+ and masks fall under the 1m+

I must have missed that.

It’s hard to imagine the shopping masks and the 1m rule are linked - I mean they might be but it’s very odd to implement them a month apart if so!

They should be linked but they aren't..

Why Boris and Cummings, the Laurel and Hardy of this Government....

I should add as it's appropriate here someone tried to apply change management processes to Covid 19 in a blog post yesterday - I've really seen a worse example of a Change Management project in my life.

Carole Fucking Baskin.

https://twitter.com/DailyMailCeleb/status/1283075056692867073

Anabobazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

This is what I can’t grasp either.

It’s Tuesday, usually the worst day of the week, yet the deaths announced are very few. The mitigation strategies have clearly worked.

Why then, introduce a fairly draconian one now? I just can’t understand the thinking,

Because we need to lift the Draconian restrictions. Social distancing is an evil that may have been a necessary evil but is a burdensome restriction on liberty.

As we lift those burdens alternative solutions are required to take their place.

Or instead of a mask would you rather be a lockdown Nazi keeping us locked up forever but no masks while we are locked at home?

No of course not. Yet if that is the case, why not say that? ‘We are bringing in shopping masks ahead of binning the 1m rule later’.

Of course, someone somehow might have said that - but the government’s messaging is so dire I got lost in the fog of war.

The governments been lifting the lockdown for a while now. They have said they're trying to reduce it from 2m to 1m+ and masks fall under the 1m+

I must have missed that.

It’s hard to imagine the shopping masks and the 1m rule are linked - I mean they might be but it’s very odd to implement them a month apart if so!

The rate of reduction in the R has definitely slowed down since we reopened non-essential shops and there has been a levelling off in the number of deaths as well. Mask wearing will hopefully the decline in both to restart. By death date England is seeing between 60 and 80 deaths per day, that figure is now not falling. There is a reason for that.

williamglenn said:

Anabobazina said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

For you and me, that’s true.

But, although you might not believe it, many millions of women consider shopping a leisure activity. They spend hours a week doing it.

Some men, too, although very few PBers.

Wearing a mask does not stop you enjoying shopping as a leisure activity. It facilitates it.

Leisure activity? Search on Amazon for whatever it is that you need. Find it and click buy. A day or two later it arrives. The only leisure is putting your feet up between click and delivery.

https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1283076703137542148

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

This is what I can’t grasp either.

It’s Tuesday, usually the worst day of the week, yet the deaths announced are very few. The mitigation strategies have clearly worked.

Why then, introduce a fairly draconian one now? I just can’t understand the thinking,

People staying at home is the measure that worked.
If you want more people out and about, working and shopping, then you need other measures to compensate.

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

This is what I can’t grasp either.

It’s Tuesday, usually the worst day of the week, yet the deaths announced are very few. The mitigation strategies have clearly worked.

Why then, introduce a fairly draconian one now? I just can’t understand the thinking,

Because Brexit has reached the f**king embarrassing stage of we haven't got a deal with the EU and we've just pissed off one of the other two economic giants...

Today's mask argument has completely hid the need for a 15,000 space lorry processing site in Ashford...

Which leads to an interesting question linked to the header.

Imagine, hypothetically if you like, that the Johnson government's implementation of Brexit shows strong signs of being a clustershambles. Just hypothetically.

Now imagine that you are a youngish centre-right politician. You've made it a long way up the greasy pole, but you are naturally ambitious for more. You support the concept of Brexit, but you are planning on a career for many years after 2021. You also have enough of a numerate business background to be able to read the warning signs.

Obviously, you don't want to be one to push the emergency STOP button, even if you can locate it. (Someone seems to have disconnected the one which was there last month). But at the same time, you can see the warning lights flashing all around.

Just hypothetically, what do you do and when? Because I wouldn't have a clue. Might be why I'm not Chancel... not that I mean him, anyway.

Most of the time it wouldn't matter as its usually possible to fix problems retrospectively (yes there is still pain but you can correct the mistake).

For Brexit I'm not sure if the mistakes that are likely to be made this week are fixable (one mistake has already been made as we've confirmed China is no longer a friend, I believe us telling the EU the same is due to occur tomorrow).

Well yes. The poll tax is the textbook example of a bad mistake that was reversed, and the price was the PM's head and the seat loss in 1992. This has the potential to be much worse and harder to fix. But also harder to pre-empt.

So if you're Ri... illy ambitious (think I got away with that one) and a cabinet minister, what do you do?

Rishi just has to prepare for the inevitable fall of Boris. He doesn't need to be the cause of it.

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

This is what I can’t grasp either.

It’s Tuesday, usually the worst day of the week, yet the deaths announced are very few. The mitigation strategies have clearly worked.

Why then, introduce a fairly draconian one now? I just can’t understand the thinking,

Because Brexit has reached the f**king embarrassing stage of we haven't got a deal with the EU and we've just pissed off one of the other two economic giants...

Today's mask argument has completely hid the need for a 15,000 space lorry processing site in Ashford...

Which leads to an interesting question linked to the header.

Imagine, hypothetically if you like, that the Johnson government's implementation of Brexit shows strong signs of being a clustershambles. Just hypothetically.

Now imagine that you are a youngish centre-right politician. You've made it a long way up the greasy pole, but you are naturally ambitious for more. You support the concept of Brexit, but you are planning on a career for many years after 2021. You also have enough of a numerate business background to be able to read the warning signs.

Obviously, you don't want to be one to push the emergency STOP button, even if you can locate it. (Someone seems to have disconnected the one which was there last month). But at the same time, you can see the warning lights flashing all around.

Just hypothetically, what do you do and when? Because I wouldn't have a clue. Might be why I'm not Chancel... not that I mean him, anyway.

Most of the time it wouldn't matter as its usually possible to fix problems retrospectively (yes there is still pain but you can correct the mistake).

For Brexit I'm not sure if the mistakes that are likely to be made this week are fixable (one mistake has already been made as we've confirmed China is no longer a friend, I believe us telling the EU the same is due to occur tomorrow).

Well yes. The poll tax is the textbook example of a bad mistake that was reversed, and the price was the PM's head and the seat loss in 1992. This has the potential to be much worse and harder to fix. But also harder to pre-empt.

So if you're Ri... illy ambitious (think I got away with that one) and a cabinet minister, what do you do?

As my second paragraph says - you can't do anything by Friday next week (probably Friday this week if we are honest) the damage will be irreversible. Heck I suspect the first thing you will do is keep Boris around until mid 2022 after it's all played out (and the Scottish "Not a Referendum" Referendum has been held).

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

The government that brought that rule in hadn;t just imposed a house arrest on its citizens four months, and hadn't destroyed its own economy permanently, or moved 11 million workers onto its payroll

So I credited them with a modicum of sense.

Mortimer said:

MaxPB said:

Mortimer said:

Anabobazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

This is what I can’t grasp either.

It’s Tuesday, usually the worst day of the week, yet the deaths announced are very few. The mitigation strategies have clearly worked.

Why then, introduce a fairly draconian one now? I just can’t understand the thinking,

Because we need to lift the Draconian restrictions. Social distancing is an evil that may have been a necessary evil but is a burdensome restriction on liberty.

As we lift those burdens alternative solutions are required to take their place.

Or instead of a mask would you rather be a lockdown Nazi keeping us locked up forever but no masks while we are locked at home?

No of course not. Yet if that is the case, why not say that? ‘We are bringing in shopping masks ahead of binning the 1m rule later’.

Of course, someone somehow might have said that - but the government’s messaging is so dire I got lost in the fog of war.

The governments been lifting the lockdown for a while now. They have said they're trying to reduce it from 2m to 1m+ and masks fall under the 1m+

I must have missed that.

It’s hard to imagine the shopping masks and the 1m rule are linked - I mean they might be but it’s very odd to implement them a month apart if so!

Been travelling all day. Several stops at non essential shops, spent some disposable income on non essentials (some crockery, some nice books) - asked the small shopkeepers whether they thought masks would help their sales or not. All leant against, unprompted by my views.

I get it for supermarkets. I get it for essential shops that one has to patronise and have to have queuing. But mandatory for rare bookshops? Or for boutiques? Just feels like the wrong time.

I'll be wearing a mask, as I don't personally have a problem with them and have been doing so on trains for ages - but I won't be as keen to make ad hoc stops in non essential shops whilst they're mandatory.

Shopping is a pleasure for me, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

I fear for high street retail.

Why?

Because it takes the pleasure out of it.

I spend maybe 2 or 3 hours a week shopping for clothes, antiques, books, journals etc - its a joy. I'm sure I won't be alone.

You just need to get a fancy mask that's comfortable to wear and you'll soon get used to it.

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Nobody cares about taking your liberties away. We already have a perfectly system to funnel more and more wealth and power into a small number of hands. The beneficiaries are too busy partying on Little Saint James to care about making you wear a fucking mask.

IanB2 said:

Mortimer said:

MaxPB said:

Mortimer said:

Anabobazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

This is what I can’t grasp either.

It’s Tuesday, usually the worst day of the week, yet the deaths announced are very few. The mitigation strategies have clearly worked.

Why then, introduce a fairly draconian one now? I just can’t understand the thinking,

Because we need to lift the Draconian restrictions. Social distancing is an evil that may have been a necessary evil but is a burdensome restriction on liberty.

As we lift those burdens alternative solutions are required to take their place.

Or instead of a mask would you rather be a lockdown Nazi keeping us locked up forever but no masks while we are locked at home?

No of course not. Yet if that is the case, why not say that? ‘We are bringing in shopping masks ahead of binning the 1m rule later’.

Of course, someone somehow might have said that - but the government’s messaging is so dire I got lost in the fog of war.

The governments been lifting the lockdown for a while now. They have said they're trying to reduce it from 2m to 1m+ and masks fall under the 1m+

I must have missed that.

It’s hard to imagine the shopping masks and the 1m rule are linked - I mean they might be but it’s very odd to implement them a month apart if so!

Been travelling all day. Several stops at non essential shops, spent some disposable income on non essentials (some crockery, some nice books) - asked the small shopkeepers whether they thought masks would help their sales or not. All leant against, unprompted by my views.

I get it for supermarkets. I get it for essential shops that one has to patronise and have to have queuing. But mandatory for rare bookshops? Or for boutiques? Just feels like the wrong time.

I'll be wearing a mask, as I don't personally have a problem with them and have been doing so on trains for ages - but I won't be as keen to make ad hoc stops in non essential shops whilst they're mandatory.

Shopping is a pleasure for me, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

I fear for high street retail.

Why?

Because it takes the pleasure out of it.

I spend maybe 2 or 3 hours a week shopping for clothes, antiques, books, journals etc - its a joy. I'm sure I won't be alone.

Think of all that time you’ll have to redeploy into something more useful.

My bank balance will definitely grow, thats for sure.

coach said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

coach said:

I'm told Starmer is a working class boy from South London, I'm genuinely pleased to hear it.

But he doesn't sound like one, something happened on his journey

Perhaps he realised that in a class-ridden country like England he had to modify his accent to be taken seriously. It may have even been subconscious. He doesn't sound particularly posh, kind of neutral educated middle class, certainly nothing like Johnson or Cameron, or indeed Sunak.
I agree he doesn't sound very South London though, I've never heard him call anyone "fam".

Or that he actually went to a fee paying school in Reigate but it suits him to pretend he's proper working class.

I loathe the whole class system but let's not pretend we're something we're not

I though he went to a grammar school that became fee paying while he was there and his non fee paying status was grandfathered? His background is quite obviously working class, he has prospered owing to his own skill and ambition rather than parental wealth or a network of patronage. Personally I think that's pretty admirable, and it's sad that is even worthy of note as it should be the sort of thing that is commonplace.

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

The government that brought that rule in hadn;t just imposed a house arrest on its citizens four months, and hadn't destroyed its own economy permanently, or moved 11 million workers onto its payroll

So I credited them with a modicum of sense.

What do you think the common sense way to deal with a pandemic is? Tell everyone to make their own decisions? It would be very naive to think that wouldn't lead to a collapse in economic activity.

Stereotomy said:

Mortimer said:

Because it takes the pleasure out of it.

I spend maybe 2 or 3 hours a week shopping for clothes, antiques, books, journals etc - its a joy. I'm sure I won't be alone.

Why does it take the pleasure out of it? Personally I'm much happier shopping if I think there's less of a chance of catching or spreading the virus. A bit of cloth on my face doesn't impede my comfort- I don't even notice it after a while.

Its a good question. I suppose it is escapism.

I wear mine 2 or 3 times a week on the train, I definitely notice it.

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

Or underpants, for that matter.

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

The government that brought that rule in hadn;t just imposed a house arrest on its citizens four months, and hadn't destroyed its own economy permanently, or moved 11 million workers onto its payroll

So I credited them with a modicum of sense.

In what way is the UK economy permanently damaged?

Don't forget that it was just over ten years from the end of the Second World War - when government debt-to-GDP was 350%, millions were homeless, and much of the Britain's production was destroyed - to "you've never had it so good."

Anyone who thinks our economy has been permanently damaged by four months of economic activity 25% below normal levels is deranged, deluded or retarded.

Which are you?

All of the above?

(Though I don't think you're supposed to use the last word anymore - naught step for Mr Smithson Jr)

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Path to glory. Go shopping without one. Get caught and fined. Refuse to pay fine. Go to trial as a test case. Lose and go to jail. In jail write book, "Maskerado: How one man said 'No!' to the British State telling him what to wear at Tesco".

On release, it all takes off. Best seller. Point made. Fortune made.

But I foresee a problem with step 2. I sense this will not be aggressively policed and so you will probably struggle to get into trouble. You may need to start shouting in the shop - "look, no mask, no mask!" - to get the requisite attention.

Mortimer said:

MaxPB said:

Mortimer said:

Anabobazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

This is what I can’t grasp either.

It’s Tuesday, usually the worst day of the week, yet the deaths announced are very few. The mitigation strategies have clearly worked.

Why then, introduce a fairly draconian one now? I just can’t understand the thinking,

Because we need to lift the Draconian restrictions. Social distancing is an evil that may have been a necessary evil but is a burdensome restriction on liberty.

As we lift those burdens alternative solutions are required to take their place.

Or instead of a mask would you rather be a lockdown Nazi keeping us locked up forever but no masks while we are locked at home?

No of course not. Yet if that is the case, why not say that? ‘We are bringing in shopping masks ahead of binning the 1m rule later’.

Of course, someone somehow might have said that - but the government’s messaging is so dire I got lost in the fog of war.

The governments been lifting the lockdown for a while now. They have said they're trying to reduce it from 2m to 1m+ and masks fall under the 1m+

I must have missed that.

It’s hard to imagine the shopping masks and the 1m rule are linked - I mean they might be but it’s very odd to implement them a month apart if so!

Been travelling all day. Several stops at non essential shops, spent some disposable income on non essentials (some crockery, some nice books) - asked the small shopkeepers whether they thought masks would help their sales or not. All leant against, unprompted by my views.

I get it for supermarkets. I get it for essential shops that one has to patronise and have to have queuing. But mandatory for rare bookshops? Or for boutiques? Just feels like the wrong time.

I'll be wearing a mask, as I don't personally have a problem with them and have been doing so on trains for ages - but I won't be as keen to make ad hoc stops in non essential shops whilst they're mandatory.

Shopping is a pleasure for me, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

I fear for high street retail.

Why?

Because it takes the pleasure out of it.

I spend maybe 2 or 3 hours a week shopping for clothes, antiques, books, journals etc - its a joy. I'm sure I won't be alone.

In what way does wearing a mask take the joy out? I wear a mask out at the moment and find that I just forget I have it on after about 5 minutes.

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

The government that brought that rule in hadn;t just imposed a house arrest on its citizens four months, and hadn't destroyed its own economy permanently, or moved 11 million workers onto its payroll

So I credited them with a modicum of sense.

In what way is the UK economy permanently damaged?

Don't forget that it was just over ten years from the end of the Second World War - when government debt-to-GDP was 350%, millions were homeless, and much of the Britain's production was destroyed - to "you've never had it so good."

Anyone who thinks our economy has been permanently damaged by four months of economic activity 25% below normal levels is deranged, deluded or retarded.

Which are you?

I think that city centres won't look the same even after we've seen the back of this. A large proportion of offices are going to be smaller and that means fewer cafes, bars and pubs for those workers who do come into the office on a regular basis.

I disagree, at least outside London. Pretty much everyone I know who is currently WFH is sick of it and wants to be back in the office.

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

The government that brought that rule in hadn;t just imposed a house arrest on its citizens four months, and hadn't destroyed its own economy permanently, or moved 11 million workers onto its payroll

So I credited them with a modicum of sense.

In what way is the UK economy permanently damaged?

Don't forget that it was just over ten years from the end of the Second World War - when government debt-to-GDP was 350%, millions were homeless, and much of the Britain's production was destroyed - to "you've never had it so good."

Anyone who thinks our economy has been permanently damaged by four months of economic activity 25% below normal levels is deranged, deluded or retarded.

Which are you?

All 3 sounds about right to me.

MaxPB said:

Mortimer said:

MaxPB said:

Mortimer said:

Anabobazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

This is what I can’t grasp either.

It’s Tuesday, usually the worst day of the week, yet the deaths announced are very few. The mitigation strategies have clearly worked.

Why then, introduce a fairly draconian one now? I just can’t understand the thinking,

Because we need to lift the Draconian restrictions. Social distancing is an evil that may have been a necessary evil but is a burdensome restriction on liberty.

As we lift those burdens alternative solutions are required to take their place.

Or instead of a mask would you rather be a lockdown Nazi keeping us locked up forever but no masks while we are locked at home?

No of course not. Yet if that is the case, why not say that? ‘We are bringing in shopping masks ahead of binning the 1m rule later’.

Of course, someone somehow might have said that - but the government’s messaging is so dire I got lost in the fog of war.

The governments been lifting the lockdown for a while now. They have said they're trying to reduce it from 2m to 1m+ and masks fall under the 1m+

I must have missed that.

It’s hard to imagine the shopping masks and the 1m rule are linked - I mean they might be but it’s very odd to implement them a month apart if so!

Been travelling all day. Several stops at non essential shops, spent some disposable income on non essentials (some crockery, some nice books) - asked the small shopkeepers whether they thought masks would help their sales or not. All leant against, unprompted by my views.

I get it for supermarkets. I get it for essential shops that one has to patronise and have to have queuing. But mandatory for rare bookshops? Or for boutiques? Just feels like the wrong time.

I'll be wearing a mask, as I don't personally have a problem with them and have been doing so on trains for ages - but I won't be as keen to make ad hoc stops in non essential shops whilst they're mandatory.

Shopping is a pleasure for me, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

I fear for high street retail.

Why?

Because it takes the pleasure out of it.

I spend maybe 2 or 3 hours a week shopping for clothes, antiques, books, journals etc - its a joy. I'm sure I won't be alone.

In what way does wearing a mask take the joy out? I wear a mask out at the moment and find that I just forget I have it on after about 5 minutes.

Its a personal thing. It takes away the escapism, for me.

Like I said, I'm not going to die in a ditch over it.

Sincerely hope I am wrong, but I fear it will actively discourage non essential shopping on the high street. So do the non essential shopkeepers I've spoken to.

I expect it will probably drive online sales up. Most of my business is online, so perversely I'll probably benefit.

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

The government that brought that rule in hadn;t just imposed a house arrest on its citizens four months, and hadn't destroyed its own economy permanently, or moved 11 million workers onto its payroll

So I credited them with a modicum of sense.

In what way is the UK economy permanently damaged?

Don't forget that it was just over ten years from the end of the Second World War - when government debt-to-GDP was 350%, millions were homeless, and much of the Britain's production was destroyed - to "you've never had it so good."

Anyone who thinks our economy has been permanently damaged by four months of economic activity 25% below normal levels is deranged, deluded or retarded.

Which are you?

I think that city centres won't look the same even after we've seen the back of this. A large proportion of offices are going to be smaller and that means fewer cafes, bars and pubs for those workers who do come into the office on a regular basis.

I disagree, at least outside London. Pretty much everyone I know who is currently WFH is sick of it and wants to be back in the office.

How many people over 40 with kids do you know? That seems to be the dividing line IMO, under 40s are raring to go back, over 40s much less so.

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

The government that brought that rule in hadn;t just imposed a house arrest on its citizens four months, and hadn't destroyed its own economy permanently, or moved 11 million workers onto its payroll

So I credited them with a modicum of sense.

In what way is the UK economy permanently damaged?

Don't forget that it was just over ten years from the end of the Second World War - when government debt-to-GDP was 350%, millions were homeless, and much of the Britain's production was destroyed - to "you've never had it so good."

Anyone who thinks our economy has been permanently damaged by four months of economic activity 25% below normal levels is deranged, deluded or retarded.

Which are you?

I think that city centres won't look the same even after we've seen the back of this. A large proportion of offices are going to be smaller and that means fewer cafes, bars and pubs for those workers who do come into the office on a regular basis.

I disagree, at least outside London. Pretty much everyone I know who is currently WFH is sick of it and wants to be back in the office.

I'm seriously trying to work out how I move to what I suspect would be the preferred long term solution of 2 days a week in the office and 3 days from home...

The problem is 2 days in the office is going to cost me as much as 5 days at the moment...

kinabalu said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Path to glory. Go shopping without one. Get caught and fined. Refuse to pay fine. Go to trial as a test case. Lose and go to jail. In jail write book, "Maskerado: How one man said 'No!' to the British State telling him what to wear at Tesco".

On release, it all takes off. Best seller. Point made. Fortune made.

But I foresee a problem with step 2. I sense this will not be aggressively policed and so you will probably struggle to get into trouble. You may need to start shouting in the shop - "look, no mask, no mask!" - to get the requisite attention.

Or possibly go full libertarian commando, no mask and naked from the waist down. That'd get their attention.

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

I think that city centres won't look the same even after we've seen the back of this. A large proportion of offices are going to be smaller and that means fewer cafes, bars and pubs for those workers who do come into the office on a regular basis.

I disagree, at least outside London. Pretty much everyone I know who is currently WFH is sick of it and wants to be back in the office.

The opposite is true in my office (90 people in a Surrey town). Management understood that several people had expressed interest in partial reopening and asked around - almost everyone said no thanks, including some who had been thought interested. The big hurdle for many is public transport - few can afford to live near work, and travelling by train is seen as too scary. We've put it off till a review in October.

But besides these anecdata, isn't there some polling on this?

kinabalu said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Path to glory. Go shopping without one. Get caught and fined. Refuse to pay fine. Go to trial as a test case. Lose and go to jail. In jail write book, "Maskerado: How one man said 'No!' to the British State telling him what to wear at Tesco".

On release, it all takes off. Best seller. Point made. Fortune made.

But I foresee a problem with step 2. I sense this will not be aggressively policed and so you will probably struggle to get into trouble. You may need to start shouting in the shop - "look, no mask, no mask!" - to get the requisite attention.

Or else step 2 is get beaten to a pulp by mask-wearing vigilante shoppers.

"Sorry officer, from behind the till here I couldn't see their faces. They all had masks on, see...."

glw said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Because the US sanctions only affect future equipment, the government does not believe there is a security justification for removing 2G, 3G and 4G equipment supplied by Huawei.

So the whole thing is a complete fucking waste of time and won't make any difference. This Government is hopeless

They are right on this. There is not security issue, in the sense of backdoors and the like, it's an issue for the future as the US does everything it can to limit Huawei's ability to operate by cutting off access to technology suppliers of all sorts. So current kit works, and doesn't seem to be any worse from a security point of view than the alternatives, of which there are few. Getting rid of that existing kit would cost a lot of money, and likely make security worse as we'd be more dedendent on fewer suppliers.

It will be time to replace legacy and broadband Huawei equipment when it is at its end-of-life and hopefully there are some alternatives to the likes of Nokia and Ericsson.

How many Tories lined up for jobs with Nokia and Ericsson then

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

The government that brought that rule in hadn;t just imposed a house arrest on its citizens four months, and hadn't destroyed its own economy permanently, or moved 11 million workers onto its payroll

So I credited them with a modicum of sense.

In what way is the UK economy permanently damaged?

Don't forget that it was just over ten years from the end of the Second World War - when government debt-to-GDP was 350%, millions were homeless, and much of the Britain's production was destroyed - to "you've never had it so good."

Anyone who thinks our economy has been permanently damaged by four months of economic activity 25% below normal levels is deranged, deluded or retarded.

Which are you?

I think that city centres won't look the same even after we've seen the back of this. A large proportion of offices are going to be smaller and that means fewer cafes, bars and pubs for those workers who do come into the office on a regular basis.

I disagree, at least outside London. Pretty much everyone I know who is currently WFH is sick of it and wants to be back in the office.

Nah. I know several people who are hoping it lasts as long as possible, including one who is raising all sorts of issues with her employer in the hope that it delays their being required back in the office.

Cancel Culture

https://twitter.com/jdpoc/status/1282778881699844096?s=19

To level the playing field, they could always make mask wearing a requirement for buying things online?

Malmesbury said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

This is what I can’t grasp either.

It’s Tuesday, usually the worst day of the week, yet the deaths announced are very few. The mitigation strategies have clearly worked.

Why then, introduce a fairly draconian one now? I just can’t understand the thinking,

People staying at home is the measure that worked.
If you want more people out and about, working and shopping, then you need other measures to compensate.

Its about stamping out the last of it - down to a very low level.

Hence the "100 locations" where there are interventions etc...

Just strikes me - masks are now for the long haul, I guess. Perhaps until a vaccine.

Nigelb said:

This is a quite remarkable story about next generation aquaculture:

Will Your Next Salmon Come from a Massive Land Tank in Florida?
https://www.politico.com/news/agenda/2020/07/14/florida-bluehouse-fish-farm-352495
...Atlantic Sapphire plans to grow 220,000 annual tons of salmon, or 44 percent of current U.S. consumption, on a 160-acre tract that once grew about 5,000 annual tons of tomatoes. As one industry expert quipped to me: That’s a lotta lox. To put it another way, the goal is to produce about 15 percent as many tons of food as Florida’s citrus industry produced last year on about 0.03 percent as much land...

be like their chlorinated chicken , hormone riddled beef etc, rotten.

MaxPB said:

Anabobazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

This is what I can’t grasp either.

It’s Tuesday, usually the worst day of the week, yet the deaths announced are very few. The mitigation strategies have clearly worked.

Why then, introduce a fairly draconian one now? I just can’t understand the thinking,

Because we need to lift the Draconian restrictions. Social distancing is an evil that may have been a necessary evil but is a burdensome restriction on liberty.

As we lift those burdens alternative solutions are required to take their place.

Or instead of a mask would you rather be a lockdown Nazi keeping us locked up forever but no masks while we are locked at home?

No of course not. Yet if that is the case, why not say that? ‘We are bringing in shopping masks ahead of binning the 1m rule later’.

Of course, someone somehow might have said that - but the government’s messaging is so dire I got lost in the fog of war.

The governments been lifting the lockdown for a while now. They have said they're trying to reduce it from 2m to 1m+ and masks fall under the 1m+

I must have missed that.

It’s hard to imagine the shopping masks and the 1m rule are linked - I mean they might be but it’s very odd to implement them a month apart if so!

The rate of reduction in the R has definitely slowed down since we reopened non-essential shops and there has been a levelling off in the number of deaths as well. Mask wearing will hopefully the decline in both to restart. By death date England is seeing between 60 and 80 deaths per day, that figure is now not falling. There is a reason for that.

True, but there are some big differences around the country. Perhaps mask wearing should be introduced in the areas where the virus is most prevalent.

Alistair said:

Cancel Culture

https://twitter.com/jdpoc/status/1282778881699844096?s=19

Some very fine people on both sides.