Can anyone explain the weird politics of mask-wearing? – politicalbetting.com

theProle said:

Farooq said:

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

tlg86 said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

MaxPB said:

One of the reasons I think masks are a poor idea is because we probably want everyone to catch this ASAP before waning immunity catches up with us. Reducing transmission with delta is just delaying everyone catching it. With alpha we were in a position where we could prevent 80% of people getting COVID. With delta that number is basically zero. It's better for them to get it within the first 12 weeks after they are fully vaccinated or after their booster shot for older people.

Personally if I were susceptible to getting COVID, I'd want it now, not in December months after my Pfizer immunity had waned and the NHS was going through its annual winter crisis.

I am 60 and double jabbed and I don't want to catch covid. We took an aged auntie out for lunch who was 90, (auntie not the lunch), she has been double jabbed but nothing is 100% for either of us. I don't want to be responsible for infecting her so we wore masks in the car and whilst walking to the table in the restaurant. Obviously we took the masks off to eat, but we were a good metre apart. (We live in Wales btw). Everyone in the restaurant was obeying the rules.

I don't think those precautions would make much difference to be honest. If one you has it, you'll likely pass it on to the other.

That's the all-or-nothing myth. Catching Covid isn't like being pregnant. Viral load is an important factor. In a few cases it can make the difference between serious illness and mild.
It still really is better to be wearing masks when you can, it can save someone's life.

I was thinking more about the not wearing a mask when you're sitting down facing each other. What's the point of wearing a mask for the car ride?

Enclosed space, lots of recycling going on. The more virus you breathe in, the more likely you are to get seriously ill.

Maybe, but if you're worried about it, why go in a car together?

Again with the all-or-nothing fallacy. Some people have a risk appetite that sits in that space between hermitage and orgy.
People wear seatbelts to lower the chances of nasty outcomes, but still take the chance of getting in the car in the first place. This is similar, in some ways.

I think vaccinations are much more similar to seatbelts.

Personally I'm sceptical about how much difference masks make. If wearing masks makes people feel that bit safer, then that's absolutely fine. But I suspect they don't make much difference and you won't get me wearing one unless absolutely forced to (in a hospital, for example).

Is your scepticism rooted in scientific evidence, a gut instinct, or something else?

Well, people were weren't wearing masks at the start of COVID and we got cases down through lockdown. Then masks came in and cases went up in the autumn.

Now, maybe cases would have come down faster with masks and gone up faster without them, but the reality is, they don't make much difference. And I think they don't make much difference partly because people only wear them in certain situations. So to go back to the start of this, I think not wearing them in the pub/restaurant makes wearing them in the car pointless.

That was a lot of words for "gut instinct".
Don't be afraid of admitting you have an opinion that's not scientifically based. We all do about something or other.

Nope. My words were facts.

I'm a logical thinker. My view on the visit to the pub with the 90 year old relative is:

Masks in car might reduce the chance of passing on COVID by 50%.

But not wearing a mask when seated in the pub means that if one of you has it, there's probably a 95% chance of passing it on.

So wearing a mask in only the car might reduce the chance of transmission by 2.5%.

And I think I'm being generous with those percentages.

You're a logical thinker... but you keep coming back to the same error: viral load is important. It's not just the chance of infection yes/no that you need to think about, it's also how serious the infection is. Covid is analogue, not digital.

It's like driving up a residential street at 60mph, and reasoning that it's the same risk as driving at 31mph, because both are above the limit.

Is there much evidence that viral load matters?
Given that there was a lot of household transmission during lockdowns, where one person caught it outside the home, and then the rest of the household were cooped up with them, you would expect an obvious trend where those who got ill through household transmission got it much worse than those who got ill outside the home, given that within the home, viral loads are almost certainly going to be much higher. The fact that no such trend was obvious suggests it doesn't make a lot of difference.

Yes there's a lot of evidence and yes in the first wave especially it was noticeable that those who caught it in the household got more sick than those who had first caught it and brought it to the household.

UK motorists face queues and closures at petrol stations https://on.ft.com/3AH5kyl

isam said:

...

Scott_xP said:

Does this guy read PB?

Waiting for the first Brexiter to give the hottest take that turning off and on immigrant workers as needed was really what Brexit was all about.

Bonus prizes for the ones saying it that three weeks ago were stressing it was actually long term pay increases in specific sectors.

https://twitter.com/AlexLeoPhillips/status/1441747851848126467

Well it is both, so I will happily claim the prize

Are you going to open the door and show me a goat or a car?

According to @Scott_P this is his life's work

And Brentford have just scored v Liverpool

another_richard said:

timple said:

I think its well understood that the main reason to wear a mask is not to protect yourself - its to protect others so when you cough or sneeze you don't send a plume of virus into the vicinity. You may be asymptomatic - but for others it can kill them - truly a virus of our times.

If you accept that the political divide is well understood.

Who are you supposed to be protecting ?

Anti-vaxxers ?

Precisely.

Its pure gesturism. So yes the political divide is well understood.

Vaccines work. FFP3 masks work. Cloth masks are a gesture.

Its well past time to get back to normal and if the antivaxxers get it, the sooner the better.

Farooq said:

another_richard said:

timple said:

I think its well understood that the main reason to wear a mask is not to protect yourself - its to protect others so when you cough or sneeze you don't send a plume of virus into the vicinity. You may be asymptomatic - but for others it can kill them - truly a virus of our times.

If you accept that the political divide is well understood.

Who are you supposed to be protecting ?

Anti-vaxxers ?

And those who can't have the vaccine, and those for whom the vaccine doesn't work.

Imagine you were able to drive 10 million miles. If you did that, there would be a good chance that you would be killed or seriously injured. Thankfully, most of us don't drive quite so much so the risk isn't that high. But, of course, law averages means that some of us get unlucky (okay, driving standards matter, but you can be in the wrong place at the wrong time and we are all capable of ****ing up no matter how good we think we might be).

Unless someone is locking themselves away, they will come into contact with COVID at some point in the next year. It is like we are driving 10s of millions of miles in the next year or so.

So if Conservative MPs aren't wearing masks but other MPs are then what is the comparative rate of covid infection of the two groups since parliament returned ?

If its similar then masks are proven pointless.

Philip_Thompson said:

another_richard said:

timple said:

I think its well understood that the main reason to wear a mask is not to protect yourself - its to protect others so when you cough or sneeze you don't send a plume of virus into the vicinity. You may be asymptomatic - but for others it can kill them - truly a virus of our times.

If you accept that the political divide is well understood.

Who are you supposed to be protecting ?

Anti-vaxxers ?

Precisely.

Its pure gesturism. So yes the political divide is well understood.

Vaccines work. FFP3 masks work. Cloth masks are a gesture.

Its well past time to get back to normal and if the antivaxxers get it, the sooner the better.

There's been evidence presented that cloith masks work - here on PB, today - and you are still denying it?

another_richard said:

So if Conservative MPs aren't wearing masks but other MPs are then what is the comparative rate of covid infection of the two groups since parliament returned ?

If its similar then masks are proven pointless.

Why not just look at the actual studies done on the effectiveness of masks?

Farooq said:

another_richard said:

timple said:

I think its well understood that the main reason to wear a mask is not to protect yourself - its to protect others so when you cough or sneeze you don't send a plume of virus into the vicinity. You may be asymptomatic - but for others it can kill them - truly a virus of our times.

If you accept that the political divide is well understood.

Who are you supposed to be protecting ?

Anti-vaxxers ?

And those who can't have the vaccine, and those for whom the vaccine doesn't work.

So you think everyone should wear a mask forever just in case they might happen to be shedding virus and be close to someone vulnerable.

Are there any other health and safety restrictions you would like to enforce ?

another_richard said:

So if Conservative MPs aren't wearing masks but other MPs are then what is the comparative rate of covid infection of the two groups since parliament returned ?

If its similar then masks are proven pointless.

Not a particularly large sample. Nor under control conditions.
Folk are very exercised about this. It is a choice.

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

So if Conservative MPs aren't wearing masks but other MPs are then what is the comparative rate of covid infection of the two groups since parliament returned ?

If its similar then masks are proven pointless.

There have been lots of empirical studies of mask effectiveness, using far, far, far larger sample sizes than a couple of hundred (vaccinated) people.

My guess, fwiw, is that there will be no cases of Covid in the HoC. Everyone will be double vaccinated. And everyone will be regularly tested.

But it also misses the big point. Masks exist to stop you spreading the disease to others. You wear a mask for the same reason a surgeon wears a mask - to stop you from spreading viral matter.

I'm sorry, but that last bit is bollocks. Surgeons were wearing masks pre-COVID. Unless you think we should all wear masks all of the time forever more, that's a terrible analogy.

isam said:

...

Scott_xP said:

Does this guy read PB?

Waiting for the first Brexiter to give the hottest take that turning off and on immigrant workers as needed was really what Brexit was all about.

Bonus prizes for the ones saying it that three weeks ago were stressing it was actually long term pay increases in specific sectors.

https://twitter.com/AlexLeoPhillips/status/1441747851848126467

Well it is both, so I will happily claim the prize

Are you going to open the door and show me a goat or a car?

The Brexit vote was *largely* a reaction against the establishment. This reaction came from primarily the (white) working class who to a certain degree (maybe justifiably) felt unloved. I mention certain because as with all things in life there is some level of self responsibility that needs to be considered. Take educational aspiration and attainment - this is exceptionally low within the white working class when compared to the immigrant working class. This is luckily beginning to change in London as the immigrant working class lift the white working class from the bottom. The feeling of being at the bottom is of course very un-empowering and leads to the feeling that immigrants are coming here taking jobs and stealing opportunities. There has to be a massive *cultural* shift (I fear very little can be done at the policy maker's level) within the white working class for this to change.

RochdalePioneers said:

another_richard said:

Farooq said:

another_richard said:

timple said:

I think its well understood that the main reason to wear a mask is not to protect yourself - its to protect others so when you cough or sneeze you don't send a plume of virus into the vicinity. You may be asymptomatic - but for others it can kill them - truly a virus of our times.

If you accept that the political divide is well understood.

Who are you supposed to be protecting ?

Anti-vaxxers ?

And those who can't have the vaccine, and those for whom the vaccine doesn't work.

So you think everyone should wear a mask forever just in case they might happen to be shedding virus and be close to someone vulnerable.

Are there any other health and safety restrictions you would like to enforce ?

I do have to goggle at the absurd absolutism. Nobody is proposing masks forever

In which case if not now, then when?

We've stopped wearing masks over the summer and it's been a great success. But if you're against dropping them in the summer do you propose the autumn? Winter? Next year? Next summer?

Can you put a date on it? Or a threshold?

RochdalePioneers said:

another_richard said:

Farooq said:

another_richard said:

timple said:

I think its well understood that the main reason to wear a mask is not to protect yourself - its to protect others so when you cough or sneeze you don't send a plume of virus into the vicinity. You may be asymptomatic - but for others it can kill them - truly a virus of our times.

If you accept that the political divide is well understood.

Who are you supposed to be protecting ?

Anti-vaxxers ?

And those who can't have the vaccine, and those for whom the vaccine doesn't work.

So you think everyone should wear a mask forever just in case they might happen to be shedding virus and be close to someone vulnerable.

Are there any other health and safety restrictions you would like to enforce ?

I do have to goggle at the absurd absolutism. Nobody is proposing masks forever

At present, about 1/70 people have covid. We know that it is most infectious in its pre-symptomatic phase and that the numbers who have it are fairly evenly divided between vaxxed and unvaxxed. So there is at present a significant risk. Perhaps several MPs have it at any moment, but we cannot simply compare sides of the house as MPs are in contact in many other places with many other people.

If the numbers were a tenth of current numbers, then the balance would be different, and if a hundredth then much less, but they are not.

dixiedean said:

another_richard said:

So if Conservative MPs aren't wearing masks but other MPs are then what is the comparative rate of covid infection of the two groups since parliament returned ?

If its similar then masks are proven pointless.

Not a particularly large sample. Nor under control conditions.
Folk are very exercised about this. It is a choice.

Rational choice is good.

Irrational posturing isn't.

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

another_richard said:

timple said:

I think its well understood that the main reason to wear a mask is not to protect yourself - its to protect others so when you cough or sneeze you don't send a plume of virus into the vicinity. You may be asymptomatic - but for others it can kill them - truly a virus of our times.

If you accept that the political divide is well understood.

Who are you supposed to be protecting ?

Anti-vaxxers ?

And those who can't have the vaccine, and those for whom the vaccine doesn't work.

Imagine you were able to drive 10 million miles. If you did that, there would be a good chance that you would be killed or seriously injured. Thankfully, most of us don't drive quite so much so the risk isn't that high. But, of course, law averages means that some of us get unlucky (okay, driving standards matter, but you can be in the wrong place at the wrong time and we are all capable of ****ing up no matter how good we think we might be).

Unless someone is locking themselves away, they will come into contact with COVID at some point in the next year. It is like we are driving 10s of millions of miles in the next year or so.

Just as a sort of pedantic/trivial point, the driving stats aren't as bad as this. My understanding of the bar for being killed or seriously injured (KSI) is in patient hospitalisation. I have already had a KSI whilst cycling, hit a pothole at about 40 mph and broke my arm requiring surgery under general anaesthetic. You really need to look at the stats for people being killed, as seriously injured is not necessarily a life changing event based on this experience. And the reality is that the number of deaths compared to driving miles are miniscule, even in the case of motorcycling, which I also do despite people telling me I am completely crazy.

noneoftheabove said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Jonathan said:

Local fuel stations empty. Buying milk and eggs it was interesting to hear Boris mentioned ahead in the queue. ‘Doesn’t live in the real world’ apparently.

Yes, the irritation is widespread. From a couple of of my most Tory relatives to the young urbanites, speaking to people this weekend he's definitely going to take a hit.

He went after the French last week, so it will be probably be the turn of the BBC to be next weeks recovery scapegoat. Gives him an early chance to play the Dorries card and get the left to say something stupid about her too.

Noticeable shortages here in largely Covid-free Cheltenham. No diesel available but some petrol and motorists queuing mostly patiently. (Well there were one or two other noisy impatient bastards as well as me, but most drivers were being pretty civilised.)

More surprising were the ominous shortages in Waitrose. No muesli dog biscuits, ffs.

The border collie is not best pleased.

isam said:

RochdalePioneers said:

another_richard said:

Farooq said:

another_richard said:

timple said:

I think its well understood that the main reason to wear a mask is not to protect yourself - its to protect others so when you cough or sneeze you don't send a plume of virus into the vicinity. You may be asymptomatic - but for others it can kill them - truly a virus of our times.

If you accept that the political divide is well understood.

Who are you supposed to be protecting ?

Anti-vaxxers ?

And those who can't have the vaccine, and those for whom the vaccine doesn't work.

So you think everyone should wear a mask forever just in case they might happen to be shedding virus and be close to someone vulnerable.

Are there any other health and safety restrictions you would like to enforce ?

I do have to goggle at the absurd absolutism. Nobody is proposing masks forever

How many people are there who can't have the vaccine, and who we therefore need to wear masks for? And for how long must we continue to wear them?

And why is large scale societal intervention justified for this group, and not for others?

IE: we still permit nuts, but some people have extreme nut allergies.

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

So if Conservative MPs aren't wearing masks but other MPs are then what is the comparative rate of covid infection of the two groups since parliament returned ?

If its similar then masks are proven pointless.

There have been lots of empirical studies of mask effectiveness, using far, far, far larger sample sizes than a couple of hundred (vaccinated) people.

My guess, fwiw, is that there will be no cases of Covid in the HoC. Everyone will be double vaccinated. And everyone will be regularly tested.

But it also misses the big point. Masks exist to stop you spreading the disease to others. You wear a mask for the same reason a surgeon wears a mask - to stop you from spreading viral matter.

The real question that you're not thinking about - why should we stop the spread of COVID now that 90% of the nation's adults are vaccinated? COVID is endemic, we aren't going to eradicate it so let's just live with it.

This is a very odd discussion.

We shouldn't be asking do masks work?

We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)

Peter_the_Punter said:

noneoftheabove said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Jonathan said:

Local fuel stations empty. Buying milk and eggs it was interesting to hear Boris mentioned ahead in the queue. ‘Doesn’t live in the real world’ apparently.

Yes, the irritation is widespread. From a couple of of my most Tory relatives to the young urbanites, speaking to people this weekend he's definitely going to take a hit.

He went after the French last week, so it will be probably be the turn of the BBC to be next weeks recovery scapegoat. Gives him an early chance to play the Dorries card and get the left to say something stupid about her too.

Noticeable shortages here in largely Covid-free Cheltenham. No diesel available but some petrol and motorists queuing mostly patiently. (Well there were one or two other noisy impatient bastards as well as me, but most drivers were being pretty civilised.)

More surprising were the ominous shortages in Waitrose. No muesli dog biscuits, ffs.

The border collie is not best pleased.

Are you annoyed about the dog biscuits too?

darkage said:

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

another_richard said:

timple said:

I think its well understood that the main reason to wear a mask is not to protect yourself - its to protect others so when you cough or sneeze you don't send a plume of virus into the vicinity. You may be asymptomatic - but for others it can kill them - truly a virus of our times.

If you accept that the political divide is well understood.

Who are you supposed to be protecting ?

Anti-vaxxers ?

And those who can't have the vaccine, and those for whom the vaccine doesn't work.

Imagine you were able to drive 10 million miles. If you did that, there would be a good chance that you would be killed or seriously injured. Thankfully, most of us don't drive quite so much so the risk isn't that high. But, of course, law averages means that some of us get unlucky (okay, driving standards matter, but you can be in the wrong place at the wrong time and we are all capable of ****ing up no matter how good we think we might be).

Unless someone is locking themselves away, they will come into contact with COVID at some point in the next year. It is like we are driving 10s of millions of miles in the next year or so.

Just as a sort of pedantic/trivial point, the driving stats aren't as bad as this. My understanding of the bar for being killed or seriously injured (KSI) is in patient hospitalisation. I have already had a KSI whilst cycling, hit a pothole at about 40 mph and broke my arm requiring surgery under general anaesthetic. You really need to look at the stats for people being killed, as seriously injured is not necessarily a life changing event based on this experience. And the reality is that the number of deaths compared to driving miles are miniscule, even in the case of motorcycling, which I also do despite people telling me I am completely crazy.

My KSI's consist of falling down stairs, playing rugby and beaten up by a jealous boyfriend.
Motorcycling completely safe.
But I wouldn't go in a helicopter no matter how much you paid me. These things are not provable conclusively by stats.

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

This is a very odd discussion.

We shouldn't be asking do masks work?

We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)

The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.

Good question.
Is there an official government aim re covid at the moment? I'm not aware of an explicit one.

murali_s said:

isam said:

...

Scott_xP said:

Does this guy read PB?

Waiting for the first Brexiter to give the hottest take that turning off and on immigrant workers as needed was really what Brexit was all about.

Bonus prizes for the ones saying it that three weeks ago were stressing it was actually long term pay increases in specific sectors.

https://twitter.com/AlexLeoPhillips/status/1441747851848126467

Well it is both, so I will happily claim the prize

Are you going to open the door and show me a goat or a car?

There has to be a massive *cultural* shift (I fear very little can be done at the policy maker's level) within the white working class for this to change.

the people....Had forfeited the confidence of the government... Would it not in that case be simpler for the government To dissolve the people And elect another?

” The reason we’re having all these issues is entirely because of Brexit and nothing else.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/24/food-petrol-shortages-brexit-goods-johnson-botched-deal

IanB2 said:

” The reason we’re having all these issues is entirely because of Brexit and nothing else.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/24/food-petrol-shortages-brexit-goods-johnson-botched-deal

Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian? Well, there we are then! QED.

Farooq said:

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

This is a very odd discussion.

We shouldn't be asking do masks work?

We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)

The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.

Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?

The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)

Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?

Better to get COVID out of the way now before flu takes off in Dec-Apr.

Farooq said:

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

This is a very odd discussion.

We shouldn't be asking do masks work?

We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)

The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.

Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?

The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)

Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?

Massively better as despite protestations of health workers that they're "stretched" right now, we know full well that it will be worse in the winter.

So get it over and done with now rather than in the winter.

Prevarication and postponing the infections to the winter is the worst possible idea.

IanB2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

IanB2 said:

” The reason we’re having all these issues is entirely because of Brexit and nothing else.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/24/food-petrol-shortages-brexit-goods-johnson-botched-deal

Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian? Well, there we are then! QED.

It must be wonderful to be so open minded.

Is that a comment about Freedland? If it was "entirely because of Brexit and nothing else", why are similar issues occurring in other countries?

Farooq said:

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

This is a very odd discussion.

We shouldn't be asking do masks work?

We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)

The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.

Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?

The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)

Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?

Because natural immunity seems to be absolutely brilliant at preventing reinfection. Especially among people who get it after being vaccinated. Someone who gets it now is almost certainly someone who is not going to get it in December.

Farooq said:

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

This is a very odd discussion.

We shouldn't be asking do masks work?

We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)

The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.

Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?

The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)

Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?

Better to get COVID out of the way now before flu takes off in Dec-Apr.

You're not quite saying the thing that underpins the logic of this argument: that having Covid burn through the population will add strain on the NHS. That's the logic, isn't it? Spread the strain out over 6 months instead of 4. Have people dying in hospital now instead of in January.
It's that acknowledgement that having Covid spread wide will kill people, that's what I'm after. Because it's true, isn't it?

So what if it is? Everyone in the country is going to get it. You're looking for some idiotic gotcha moment but none of us are politicians and you aren't Robert Peston. At least I hope you aren't.

Farooq said:

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

This is a very odd discussion.

We shouldn't be asking do masks work?

We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)

The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.

Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?

The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)

Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?

Better to get COVID out of the way now before flu takes off in Dec-Apr.

You're not quite saying the thing that underpins the logic of this argument: that having Covid burn through the population will add strain on the NHS. That's the logic, isn't it? Spread the strain out over 6 months instead of 4. Have people dying in hospital now instead of in January.
It's that acknowledgement that having Covid spread wide will kill people, that's what I'm after. Because it's true, isn't it?

Well, ummm, yes. Especially those who have chosen not to get vaccinated.

I'm not sure that that article can be described as empty-headed, in any way. To a certain extent it simply lays out an unsurprising but important fact, that many of the current issues are related to Brexit, and that the British political and media class have merely become nervous of describing this head-on.

CarlottaVance said:

IanB2 said:

” The reason we’re having all these issues is entirely because of Brexit and nothing else.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/24/food-petrol-shortages-brexit-goods-johnson-botched-deal

Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian? Well, there we are then! QED.

The article is fair enough from a remain audience but throughout the desire exists of wanting cheap EU labour which as we know depresses wages

The number of EU drivers going home is 14,000 and of course they would help, but ultimately we have to train our workforce and pay higher wages

I expect Boris will take a hit, but just at the time a labour party should be trending high in the polls they are publicly arguing over internal issues of no interest to the voter who wants an electable opposition

Farooq said:

MaxPB said:

Farooq said:

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

This is a very odd discussion.

We shouldn't be asking do masks work?

We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)

The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.

Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?

The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)

Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?

Better to get COVID out of the way now before flu takes off in Dec-Apr.

You're not quite saying the thing that underpins the logic of this argument: that having Covid burn through the population will add strain on the NHS. That's the logic, isn't it? Spread the strain out over 6 months instead of 4. Have people dying in hospital now instead of in January.
It's that acknowledgement that having Covid spread wide will kill people, that's what I'm after. Because it's true, isn't it?

So what if it is? Everyone in the country is going to get it. You're looking for some idiotic gotcha moment but none of us are politicians and you aren't Robert Peston. At least I hope you aren't.

I'm not after a gotcha, I'm just checking that you're advocating what I think you're advocating.
There are other things you could advocate to prevent strain on the NHS. I'll just note that masks also help prevent the spread of flu. Some people might like the idea of saving lives lost to both Covid and flu. And perhaps better planning and money for the NHS to cope with what appears to be a predictable time of difficulty. There are different ways forward.

What's your proposal? That its better to postpone antivaxxer infections from now to the winter crisis?

I don't agree. I hope as many antivaxxers as possible get the virus now.

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sky suggesting Merkel may still be Chancellor for some time to come

Yes, she'll remain in office while a new coalition is negotiated after the election. Even if the result is clear that will take some time.

Also, don't forget the SPD hold the Finance Ministry and Justice Ministry posts already anyway.

If as likely they win most seats tomorrow it will not be like the 1997 Labour landslide and a complete change of government as the SPD are already part of the government, just the CDU/CSU will likely be replaced as their coalition partners by the FDP and Greens.

The Union have closed the gap though to 1% in the latest poll as Merkel attends an eve of poll rally with Laschet in his hometown of Aachen

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58689239

WhisperingOracle said:

I'm not sure that that article can be described as empty-headed. To a certain extent it simply lays out an unsurprising but important fact, that many of the current issues are related to Brexit, and that the British political and media class have merely become nervous of describing that head-on.

If Brexit was the sole cause then that would be different, but it is multi faceted with covid, lost driving tests, older drivers retiring, and the terrible work conditions and pay making it very complex

And let's not forget Europe have a shortage of half a million drivers

There are some who are trying to make this all about Brexit for their own political motives but it is not

ydoethur said:

SandyRentool said:

Regarding those unable to be jabbed for medical reasons, FFP3 masks will protect them. No reason for the other 99% of the population to wear a face covering.

While I would yield to nobody in my disdain for the mask fetish some people seem to have bought into, I would say I don’t think I would ask a pregnant woman to wear an FFP3 mask. I don’t find it terribly easy with full lung capacity.

They can shield, or wear an FFP3 mask, or take their chances.

Same as anyone else.

EDIT: Oh and they should be vaccinated. The vaccine is available to pregnant women already.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

WhisperingOracle said:

I'm not sure that that article can be described as empty-headed. To a certain extent it simply lays out an unsurprising but important fact, that many of the current issues are related to Brexit, and that the British political and media class have merely become nervous of describing that head-on.

If Brexit was the sole cause then that would be different, but it is multi faceted with covid, lost driving tests, older drivers retiring, and the terrible work conditions and pay making it very complex

And let's not forget Europe have a shortage of half a million drivers

There are some who are trying to make this all about Brexit for their own political motives but it is not

We did cover this in quite a lot of detail yesterday, to be fair. Europe are having the same shortages of drivers, but not of supplies, because drivers are more mobile around the EU.

That isn't a politically motivated point, but more the structural difference between being in a single market and free movement area, and not.

SandyRentool said:

Off topic, I am tucking in to the second half of a very tasty pork stir fry we made yesterday. Of course the food purist may object to the use of macaroni in place of noodles and the use of balsamic*, but bugger that - it is yummy.

So often, the second portion seems to be tastier than the first. Spending a night in the fridge enhances the flavour.

*Yes, we still have three to choose from.

I've never even heard of stir fry macaroni, that sounds yummy.

Do you need to parboil it first? Or straight to the stir fry?

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

SandyRentool said:

Regarding those unable to be jabbed for medical reasons, FFP3 masks will protect them. No reason for the other 99% of the population to wear a face covering.

While I would yield to nobody in my disdain for the mask fetish some people seem to have bought into, I would say I don’t think I would ask a pregnant woman to wear an FFP3 mask. I don’t find it terribly easy with full lung capacity.

They can shield, or wear an FFP3 mask, or take their chances.

Same as anyone else.

EDIT: Oh and they should be vaccinated. The vaccine is available to pregnant women already.

At least one pregnant woman of my acquaintance (a colleague) has been advised not to get vaccinated while pregnant. I think this is because the advice didn’t change until she was in her third trimester.

WhisperingOracle said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

WhisperingOracle said:

I'm not sure that that article can be described as empty-headed. To a certain extent it simply lays out an unsurprising but important fact, that many of the current issues are related to Brexit, and that the British political and media class have merely become nervous of describing that head-on.

If Brexit was the sole cause then that would be different, but it is multi faceted with covid, lost driving tests, older drivers retiring, and the terrible work conditions and pay making it very complex

And let's not forget Europe have a shortage of half a million drivers

There are some who are trying to make this all about Brexit for their own political motives but it is not

We did cover this in quite a lot of detail yesterday, to be fair. Europe are having the same shortages of drivers, but not of supplies, because drivers are more mobile around the EU.

We do not have a shortage of fuel supplies, but if 500, 000 drivers are not available it does not matter how flexible the others are they cannot make up the difference

Farooq said:

MaxPB said:

Farooq said:

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

This is a very odd discussion.

We shouldn't be asking do masks work?

We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)

The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.

Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?

The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)

Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?

Better to get COVID out of the way now before flu takes off in Dec-Apr.

You're not quite saying the thing that underpins the logic of this argument: that having Covid burn through the population will add strain on the NHS. That's the logic, isn't it? Spread the strain out over 6 months instead of 4. Have people dying in hospital now instead of in January.
It's that acknowledgement that having Covid spread wide will kill people, that's what I'm after. Because it's true, isn't it?

So what if it is? Everyone in the country is going to get it. You're looking for some idiotic gotcha moment but none of us are politicians and you aren't Robert Peston. At least I hope you aren't.

I'm not after a gotcha, I'm just checking that you're advocating what I think you're advocating.
There are other things you could advocate to prevent strain on the NHS. I'll just note that masks also help prevent the spread of flu. Some people might like the idea of saving lives lost to both Covid and flu. And perhaps better planning and money for the NHS to cope with what appears to be a predictable time of difficulty. There are different ways forward.

But two years ago we as a society couldn't give a monkey's about the risk of spreading flu in crowded settings. Now that vaccination has reduced the threat from Covid to roughly match that from flu, why should we take measures that were considered unnecessary in the past?

SandyRentool said:

Off topic, I am tucking in to the second half of a very tasty pork stir fry we made yesterday. Of course the food purist may object to the use of macaroni in place of noodles and the use of balsamic*, but bugger that - it is yummy.

So often, the second portion seems to be tastier than the first. Spending a night in the fridge enhances the flavour.

*Yes, we still have three to choose from.

Personally, if I’d spent a night in the fridge I’d be grateful for anything to eat.

Wow.

Brentford 3 - 3 Liverpool

Will be a shame to drop points if we can't get a fourth, but Breford deserve a point as it stands.

ydoethur said:

SandyRentool said:

Regarding those unable to be jabbed for medical reasons, FFP3 masks will protect them. No reason for the other 99% of the population to wear a face covering.

While I would yield to nobody in my disdain for the mask fetish some people seem to have bought into, I would say I don’t think I would ask a pregnant woman to wear an FFP3 mask. I don’t find it terribly easy with full lung capacity.

I'd ask a pregnant woman why she wasn't vaccinated.

Daveyboy1961 said:

SandyRentool said:

Farooq said:

MaxPB said:

Farooq said:

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

tlg86 said:

Farooq said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

This is a very odd discussion.

We shouldn't be asking do masks work?

We should be asking given where we are with vaccinations and antibodies, why do we need extensive restrictions?

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that the only remaining defensible mask requirement is on public transport. (And, if we're honest, only really when it's busy. The problem is that that is a very hard condition to enforce.)

The question is even more basic, IMO, is it now a public health goal to prevent COVID from spreading? The answer, in the UK at least, is probably a pretty resounding no. We need COVID to spread as widely as possible and get as many people into the natural immunity funnel as possible before the NHS winter crisis.

Why do you think there will be a crisis in the NHS in the winter?

The weekly death stats suggest we're starting to catch up on those who dodged the reaper last winter (no flu etc.). I'm not sure if that feeds through into those who end up in hospital, but if it does, then it will probably be a tough winter. (Obviously, people dying isn't as much of a problem for the NHS as people getting ill and taking up beds.)

Ok, and how does Covid feed into that? How does letting it spread rapidly through the population now help in any way?

Better to get COVID out of the way now before flu takes off in Dec-Apr.

You're not quite saying the thing that underpins the logic of this argument: that having Covid burn through the population will add strain on the NHS. That's the logic, isn't it? Spread the strain out over 6 months instead of 4. Have people dying in hospital now instead of in January.
It's that acknowledgement that having Covid spread wide will kill people, that's what I'm after. Because it's true, isn't it?

So what if it is? Everyone in the country is going to get it. You're looking for some idiotic gotcha moment but none of us are politicians and you aren't Robert Peston. At least I hope you aren't.

I'm not after a gotcha, I'm just checking that you're advocating what I think you're advocating.
There are other things you could advocate to prevent strain on the NHS. I'll just note that masks also help prevent the spread of flu. Some people might like the idea of saving lives lost to both Covid and flu. And perhaps better planning and money for the NHS to cope with what appears to be a predictable time of difficulty. There are different ways forward.

But two years ago we as a society couldn't give a monkey's about the risk of spreading flu in crowded settings. Now that vaccination has reduced the threat from Covid to roughly match that from flu, why should we take measures that were considered unnecessary in the past?

Perhaps the last 2 years has made a lot of us review our own mortality?

I do it every day !!!!!

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sky suggesting Merkel may still be Chancellor for some time to come

How?

Apparently the election is unlikely to provide a clear government and coalition talks may well extend into 22

oic

I think it will be SPD/FDP/Grn or SPD/FDP/Linke at a push.

On the German election, I reckon another grand coalition but with the SPD having the top dog.