Manchester United have been hit by an outbreak of COVID-19 which meant Sunday’s group training could not take place as planned.
Ralf Rangnick’s side were only able to complete individual non-contact outdoor sessions after a small number of players and staff returned positive lateral flow tests this morning.
The individuals who tested positive for the virus were sent home before the training session.
It is understood the whole group who travelled to Norwich have tested negative. The Premier League have been made aware of the situation.
As it stands, it is unclear whether their Premier League game against Brentford on Tuesday will go ahead.
The emergence of the highly-transmissible omicron variant has caused cases to rise in the UK and has seen significant outbreaks at other clubs.
I think the Government should mandate the higher quality masks on public transport now.
Ski resorts this year - has to be surgical grade or FFP2 AND you have to wear them on the ski lifts.
Not when skiing though - which is ironic because I wear a mask when skiing anyway!
I'm considering ordering a new set of the higher quality ones, I already use surgical grade but I think FP2 is even better right? On public transport in Germany, I think it has to be FP2.
The cloth masks are worse, although much better than nothing.
Has any research been done on reusing "single-use" masks and how effectiveness breaks down over time?
FFP3 is what you want. They really aren't very expensive and fit much better.
Do you have any links? These are still single-use or reusable?
The likes of screwfix, zoro, toolstation all sell every variety under the sun from one use to reuseable to full death vadar jobbies. Just search for FFP3 and a big selection will come up.
I found Zoro particular good, not a company I had heard of before the pandemic, but apparently a very big company in the US.
One caveat - the high quality masks such as FFP2 and FFP3 often have valves for exhalant air, so they don't filter air going out (so don't protect other folk, though one is muich better off oneself anyway). This is not an issue for DIY work of course!
Bookies have paid out on the WDC. Bit surprised. Chance of a reversal is slim but not zero.
Its zero. They can void today's race and Verstappen is still the world champion. "Just delete the last lap" is not a sanction available.
They're asking for a 5 sec penalty for Max overtaking under the SC.
Yes I know. But he didn't overtake. Having nose slightly ahead for a second is not an overtake - and as the "place was given back" we then go back to the lap 1 incident where the stewards lets Lewis leave the track and keep the advantage.
Or we can go back through the whole season where one then the other had done stuff to edge the other. This is sport.
I'm not arguing it should be reversed - it shouldn't - it's just I'd have expected the bookies to have waited a while. They paid out within 2 minutes.
I think the Government should mandate the higher quality masks on public transport now.
Ski resorts this year - has to be surgical grade or FFP2 AND you have to wear them on the ski lifts.
Not when skiing though - which is ironic because I wear a mask when skiing anyway!
I'm considering ordering a new set of the higher quality ones, I already use surgical grade but I think FP2 is even better right? On public transport in Germany, I think it has to be FP2.
The cloth masks are worse, although much better than nothing.
Has any research been done on reusing "single-use" masks and how effectiveness breaks down over time?
FFP3 is what you want. They really aren't very expensive and fit much better.
Do you have any links? These are still single-use or reusable?
The likes of screwfix, zoro, toolstation all sell every variety under the sun from one use to reuseable to full death vadar jobbies. Just search for FFP3 and a big selection will come up.
I found Zoro particular good, not a company I had heard of before the pandemic, but apparently a very big company in the US.
One caveat - the high quality masks such as FFP2 and FFP3 often have valves for exhalant air, so they don't filter air going out (so don't protect other folk, though one is muich better off oneself anyway). This is not an issue for DIY work of course!
“...and the message ‘LAPPED CARS MAY MOW OVERTAKE’ has been sent to all competitors...”
“...once the last lapped car has passed the leader...”
Shit, I missed this...
“...the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the FOLLOWING lap.” (my capitals).
Yup, those that were let through were able to do so before the start of the final lap, if Mick Schumacher had to come through the safety car would have gone past the start line and that's the end of the race.
Masi was screwed whatever he did. Red flag the race and people complain that he's stuck Max up Lewis's arse and HE'LL TRY AND CRASH. Don't red flag and hope they shift the car so we get some racing. They go slow and ah shit we may finish behind the SC. Then "we're done", snap decision, bunch them up and 1 lap shootout.
I don't think Masi is the best race director F1 has ever had...
You stick to the rules and regs and tell the bitching parties about the rules and regs. It's really that simple, that's why they exist in the first place. Making it up has just created a ridiculous situation and I wouldn't be surprised if Mercedes take this to CAS and win with the race flagged at lap 57.
Which would replace silly with silly. Mercedes have a better shot at Verstappen alongside and momentarily ahead of Hamilton behind the safety car. Wasn't an overtake though as the regulations talk about...
Why is it silly? Those are regulations? It's the rulebook. Red Bull could have bitched a lot about a SC finish but the rule book is the rule book. This way Mercedes might actually have grounds to have the last lap voided because the restart rules weren't properly followed.
Silly is "have the last lap voided". You can't do that in the rules. So you are replacing breaking the rules with breaking the rules.
That's entirely the point, the rules were broken and now there needs to be a fix.
Sure. And under the rules the fix removes round 23 completely and Max Verstappen is world champion thanks to one more race win. Well we say "race", it was Belgium.
You can't fix rules being broken by having some other rules broken.
Yes you can. I’m not sure what remedies the CAB can impose but winding the race back a lap wouldn’t be “breaking the rules” if it’s in their gift.
I don’t know but I doubt you know.
If someone can point me in the direction of the regulation allowing this? The race was not suspended so none of the applicable elements about last full lap apply. Nor have any of the pundits pointed to regulations allowing this having pulled and picked at various other regulations.
It doesn't exist. @maaarsh saying I am picking an argument doesn't make me wrong. And as I have said repeatedly Lewis deserved to win. But "deserved to" isn't the same as "has done". Seems fairly clear Masi got it wrong - initially I thought he'd let them all past. But I don't see "deliberate cheating to let Max win" as keeps being suggested.
This is sport. Shit happens. Should have had Hamilton on tyres that weren't clinging to life.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
Because without a mandate people in England won't wear one.
Good!
Educate those who are bothered wear a properly fitted FFP2 or better mask.
For everyone else, let them get their natural immunity booster if that's what they'd prefer.
Free choice.
I'm not sure it matters how many studies people can come up with on efficacy of masks in lab settings. We just had a live study in the British isles with England being the control group, and it's not obvious that mask mandates moved the dial one way or the other in any meaningful way.
Since they're not cost free from very many perspectives, it is ergo not a worthwhile measure. And would be better replaced by prescribing FFP3 masks to vulnerable category patients, as I suggested to my mp in the summer.
But we've long ago left the station of trying to actively manage this in the most efficient way. It's all just about doing something anything to avoid criticism at the enquiry and using it as a new battle front in the culture wars.
The studies linked to earlier were real-world, not lab studies.
Ironically enough, there was a lab study done which seemed to indicate cloth masks INCREASE the amount large particles detected when participants talked/coughed into a tube that was designed to measure droplets etc. The confounding effect was the machine was apparently picking up small fibres which are obviously harmless from a Covid point of view. I didn't include that link because it's been deliberately misused by anti-science jerks to try to show that masks make Covid transmission more likely.
To reiterate, the studies I linked to show real world transmission reductions.
What do you make of the live experiment we've just had in the UK? It must be among the most rigorous there's been, given up until the summer the UK had largely had identical policies to covid, roughly equal rates of prior transmission, vaccine penetration, demographics and societal norms. For the purposes of forming specifically UK policy on this subject, there can be no more relevant and useful experiment out there.
You're just ignoring it because you've picked a side in the culture wars and like to look down on anyone taking a broader view of the cost/ benefits of mask mandates, because it makes you feel morally and intellectually superior.
Oh, and which side do you think I'm on? If you know anything about me, you'll know that what I care most about is a fact-based approach. When people back up their argument with lies, and I call that out, is that some superiority complex? No, it's basic fucking standards. That's where we all should be starting from. I have carefully been trying to avoid saying masks should or should not be mandate because I see both sides. All I'm doing here is calling out lies that one side is using. Your implication that this is me taking sides WOULD be true if the anti-mask-mandate side had no other arguments. But they do. There are valid arguments against mask mandates. But, as a point of fact, "they don't work" isn't one of them.
Scotland and Wales have had stricter mask wearing rules but to be fair the estimates show Scotland at 1 jn 80, England 1 in 60 and Wales 1 in 50 so I cannot see the argument as proven by either side
My attitude is I will wear a mask in shops, (I do not use public transport) as a matter of respect for others despite having a medical condition that is not conducive to wearing masks.
It's important to note that many inputs influence the overall incidence rate. Demographics, geography, weather, mask-wearing and other behaviours, and so on. It would be a gross fallacy to expect all masked jurisdictions to have lower incidence than all non-masked ones.
Let me use an analogy. Higher-paid people tend to have more money in the bank than lower paid ones. But if you look at individuals, you can easily find a high-paid person with a lower bank balance than a low-paid one. Perhaps they've had a big expense recently. Perhaps they spend uncontrollably. Perhaps they've squirrelled their wealth into non-cash assets. And so on. If you look two particular bank balances and find they're similar, and conclude that pay rate makes no difference, you'd be making the small-sample fallacy. A proper statistical analysis can mitigate these effects by controlling for other known variables. It's similar to what goes on in MRP polls.
It is certainly complex but I wear a mask to respect other people no matter I do struggle if it is for more than 30 minutes or so
I think the Government should mandate the higher quality masks on public transport now.
Ski resorts this year - has to be surgical grade or FFP2 AND you have to wear them on the ski lifts.
Not when skiing though - which is ironic because I wear a mask when skiing anyway!
I'm considering ordering a new set of the higher quality ones, I already use surgical grade but I think FP2 is even better right? On public transport in Germany, I think it has to be FP2.
The cloth masks are worse, although much better than nothing.
Has any research been done on reusing "single-use" masks and how effectiveness breaks down over time?
FFP3 is what you want. They really aren't very expensive and fit much better.
Do you have any links? These are still single-use or reusable?
The likes of screwfix, zoro, toolstation all sell every variety under the sun from one use to reuseable to full death vadar jobbies. Just search for FFP3 and a big selection will come up.
I found Zoro particular good, not a company I had heard of before the pandemic, but apparently a very big company in the US.
I personally don't trust a lot of the listings on Amazon.
Agree entirely re Amazon and the like.
I use Hewats of Edinburgh - a medical and workwear specialist - because I was already buying their surgical gloves for DIY etc anyway. But other suppliers are available.
I think the Government should mandate the higher quality masks on public transport now.
Ski resorts this year - has to be surgical grade or FFP2 AND you have to wear them on the ski lifts.
Not when skiing though - which is ironic because I wear a mask when skiing anyway!
I'm considering ordering a new set of the higher quality ones, I already use surgical grade but I think FP2 is even better right? On public transport in Germany, I think it has to be FP2.
The cloth masks are worse, although much better than nothing.
Has any research been done on reusing "single-use" masks and how effectiveness breaks down over time?
FFP3 is what you want. They really aren't very expensive and fit much better.
Do you have any links? These are still single-use or reusable?
The likes of screwfix, zoro, toolstation all sell every variety under the sun from one use to reuseable to full death vadar jobbies. Just search for FFP3 and a big selection will come up.
I found Zoro particular good, not a company I had heard of before the pandemic, but apparently a very big company in the US.
One caveat - the high quality masks such as FFP2 and FFP3 often have valves for exhalant air, so they don't filter air going out (so don't protect other folk, though one is muich better off oneself anyway). This is not an issue for DIY work of course!
Yes that's a good point.
Should have said, sorry, not aimed at you but to help CHB ...
One of the sickest jokes of this whole thing is Merc probably have more chance on the safety car overtake appeal than the blatent undeniable cheating from the race director appeal - Max did gain a lasting advantage by blocking Lewis from undertaking a normal safety car restart, and far more importantly, it allows the powers that be to deny they've ever made a mistake.
Huh? As I said earlier I expected Lewis to win and think it would have been hugely deserved and his best championship. But some of these complaints are just silly now.
How on earth did Verstappen block a normal safety car restart? He was not alongside at the point when Hamilton took off, was he?
And "cheating from the race director" - what is he punting for Red Bull? If so why did he bat aside their appeals over Hamilton's lasting advantage after the lap 1 incident? Or the long hold backs of both Bottas and Hamilton in Jeddah formation laps?
Last response as there's no point debating with someone just up for an argument who doesn't understand basics of the situation. Max pulled alongside and slightly ahead at the optimal spot to restart, blocking Lewis from controlling the restart at the point he would have chosen to gone. As if they gift he'd already received wasn't enough.
I understand it entirely. "Up for an argument" = "disagrees with me".
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Utter nonsense. And worse than that, dangerous.
How is it nonsense? Or dangerous?
What is dangerous is making the vulnerable as likely to be infected as the low-risk. Its bloody counterproductive in fact which is why hospitalisations have ended up higher in nations with mask mandates than those without them.
The sooner the low-risk unvaccinated people get infected the better. That builds even more herd immunity than we already have, preventing it and ensuring the high-risk are as likely to be infected as the low-risk is stupid.
What specifically are you doing to ensure you and your family are infected pronto then? It is the logical end point of your argument. As a responsible citizen you should call round here and stay with me till you test positive. But you aren't doing that, are you?
What I was specifically doing is after getting my vaccine living my life naturally without a mask or any other interventions and letting nature take its course. If I got infected, I got infected. I may have been already and never know if I was asymptomatic but just let nature take its course.
In other words I was practicing what I preach. While my grandparents I know were wearing their masks. Good, that's sensible risk segmentation. If they get infected it'd be more serious than if I did, so they should be masked up and I shouldn't.
UK COVID Alert Level increased from Level 3 to Level 4
epidemic is in general circulation; transmission is high and direct COVID pressure on healthcare services is widespread and substantial or rising
Here we go....Boris up again on Monday?
I'm expecting the lockdown to be announced on the next scheduled review date, next Saturday, Dec 18. That'll allow the Parliamentary by-election on Thursday to be cleared first, but enable rules to (presumably) be railroaded through just in time to persuade that fraction of the population that's still very frightened, scrupulously law-abiding, or still willing to listen to Johnson's bullshit (no laughing at the back) to cancel Christmas.
- Cases. Some evidence that cases are actually flattening out out the rise. R is still just above 1 - Hospitalisations. Rising, but R is only just above 1 - Deaths. Appear to be flat (ish)
To sum up on the new Malmesbury Scale...
0-10 0 = All COVID vanished last night 10 = Zombie Reverse Vampire Apocalypse. Think Bicester, 1987, Friday night, chucking out time.
Given the above indicators I award the current situation a 6/10 - Same Shit, Different Day, Not Much Change.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Utter nonsense. And worse than that, dangerous.
How is it nonsense? Or dangerous?
What is dangerous is making the vulnerable as likely to be infected as the low-risk. Its bloody counterproductive in fact which is why hospitalisations have ended up higher in nations with mask mandates than those without them.
The sooner the low-risk unvaccinated people get infected the better. That builds even more herd immunity than we already have, preventing it and ensuring the high-risk are as likely to be infected as the low-risk is stupid.
Indeed. What is dangerous to you about other people dying?
If I was wearing a mask while encouraging others not to then you'd have a point.
You don't. Until it was the law I was following my own advice and not wearing a mask. I knew I could reduce my own risk by wearing an FFP2 mask but I'm not worried about being vulnerable so I would rather take my chances with the vaccine being enough and save the masks for the vulnerable instead.
Maybe the best thing would be for the law to be changed so that people don't need to wear a mask provided they have "I don't give a toss about other people's lives" tattooed on their foreheads.
It would probably be a public service in the long run.
- Cases. Some evidence that cases are actually flattening out out the rise. R is still just above 1 - Hospitalisations. Rising, but R is only just above 1 - Deaths. Appear to be flat (ish)
To sum up on the new Malmesbury Scale...
0-10 0 = All COVID vanished last night 10 = Zombie Reverse Vampire Apocalypse. Think Bicester, 1987, Friday night, chucking out time.
Given the above indicators I award the current situation a 6/10 - Same Shit, Different Day, Not Much Change.
Manchester United have been hit by an outbreak of COVID-19 which meant Sunday’s group training could not take place as planned.
Ralf Rangnick’s side were only able to complete individual non-contact outdoor sessions after a small number of players and staff returned positive lateral flow tests this morning.
The individuals who tested positive for the virus were sent home before the training session.
It is understood the whole group who travelled to Norwich have tested negative. The Premier League have been made aware of the situation.
As it stands, it is unclear whether their Premier League game against Brentford on Tuesday will go ahead.
The emergence of the highly-transmissible omicron variant has caused cases to rise in the UK and has seen significant outbreaks at other clubs.
UK COVID Alert Level increased from Level 3 to Level 4
epidemic is in general circulation; transmission is high and direct COVID pressure on healthcare services is widespread and substantial or rising
Here we go....Boris up again on Monday?
I'm expecting the lockdown to be announced on the next scheduled review date, next Saturday, Dec 18. That'll allow the Parliamentary by-election on Thursday to be cleared first, but enable rules to (presumably) be railroaded through just in time to persuade that fraction of the population that's still very frightened, scrupulously law-abiding, or still willing to listen to Johnson's bullshit (no laughing at the back) to cancel Christmas.
Parliament closes for Christmas on Tuesday after the days business
What is materially different under Level 4 and Level 3? I didn’t even know we had levels any more, and if someone had asked me what level we were at an hour ago, I would have had no idea.
Probably just a ruse to put pressure on the rebels on Tuesday’s vote. I suspect it won’t work.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Utter nonsense. And worse than that, dangerous.
How is it nonsense? Or dangerous?
What is dangerous is making the vulnerable as likely to be infected as the low-risk. Its bloody counterproductive in fact which is why hospitalisations have ended up higher in nations with mask mandates than those without them.
The sooner the low-risk unvaccinated people get infected the better. That builds even more herd immunity than we already have, preventing it and ensuring the high-risk are as likely to be infected as the low-risk is stupid.
What specifically are you doing to ensure you and your family are infected pronto then? It is the logical end point of your argument. As a responsible citizen you should call round here and stay with me till you test positive. But you aren't doing that, are you?
What I was specifically doing is after getting my vaccine living my life naturally without a mask or any other interventions and letting nature take its course. If I got infected, I got infected. I may have been already and never know if I was asymptomatic but just let nature take its course.
In other words I was practicing what I preach. While my grandparents I know were wearing their masks. Good, that's sensible risk segmentation. If they get infected it'd be more serious than if I did, so they should be masked up and I shouldn't.
Yes. But if you get yourself deliberately infected ASAP. you could make it easier on yourself and not infect your grandparents or anybody else. But you don't.
- Cases. Some evidence that cases are actually flattening out out the rise. R is still just above 1 - Hospitalisations. Rising, but R is only just above 1 - Deaths. Appear to be flat (ish)
To sum up on the new Malmesbury Scale...
0-10 0 = All COVID vanished last night 10 = Zombie Reverse Vampire Apocalypse. Think Bicester, 1987, Friday night, chucking out time.
Given the above indicators I award the current situation a 6/10 - Same Shit, Different Day, Not Much Change.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Utter nonsense. And worse than that, dangerous.
How is it nonsense? Or dangerous?
What is dangerous is making the vulnerable as likely to be infected as the low-risk. Its bloody counterproductive in fact which is why hospitalisations have ended up higher in nations with mask mandates than those without them.
The sooner the low-risk unvaccinated people get infected the better. That builds even more herd immunity than we already have, preventing it and ensuring the high-risk are as likely to be infected as the low-risk is stupid.
Indeed. What is dangerous to you about other people dying?
If I was wearing a mask while encouraging others not to then you'd have a point.
You don't. Until it was the law I was following my own advice and not wearing a mask. I knew I could reduce my own risk by wearing an FFP2 mask but I'm not worried about being vulnerable so I would rather take my chances with the vaccine being enough and save the masks for the vulnerable instead.
Maybe the best thing would be for the law to be changed so that people don't need to wear a mask provided they have "I don't give a toss about other people's lives" tattooed on their foreheads.
It would probably be a public service in the long run.
People shouldn't be out and about with Covid whether they have a mask on or not. A downside of blanket mask directives is that people who have Covid think it's Ok to leave their houses as long as they have a mask on - it's not Ok and this point should be continually and loudly repeated I think.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Utter nonsense. And worse than that, dangerous.
How is it nonsense? Or dangerous?
What is dangerous is making the vulnerable as likely to be infected as the low-risk. Its bloody counterproductive in fact which is why hospitalisations have ended up higher in nations with mask mandates than those without them.
The sooner the low-risk unvaccinated people get infected the better. That builds even more herd immunity than we already have, preventing it and ensuring the high-risk are as likely to be infected as the low-risk is stupid.
Indeed. What is dangerous to you about other people dying?
If I was wearing a mask while encouraging others not to then you'd have a point.
You don't. Until it was the law I was following my own advice and not wearing a mask. I knew I could reduce my own risk by wearing an FFP2 mask but I'm not worried about being vulnerable so I would rather take my chances with the vaccine being enough and save the masks for the vulnerable instead.
Maybe the best thing would be for the law to be changed so that people don't need to wear a mask provided they have "I don't give a toss about other people's lives" tattooed on their foreheads.
It would probably be a public service in the long run.
Wouldn’t it be more effective to simply state fund FFP3 masks for the vulnerable?
I detect a cunning plan. Total lockdown announced starting Thursday 16 December. Polling stations in North Shropshire all closed. In the interests of democracy, by-election to go ahead but will just be based on postal votes already received. Tories win. Job done. Lockdown lifted on Friday 17 December.
- Cases. Some evidence that cases are actually flattening out out the rise. R is still just above 1 - Hospitalisations. Rising, but R is only just above 1 - Deaths. Appear to be flat (ish)
To sum up on the new Malmesbury Scale...
0-10 0 = All COVID vanished last night 10 = Zombie Reverse Vampire Apocalypse. Think Bicester, 1987, Friday night, chucking out time.
Given the above indicators I award the current situation a 6/10 - Same Shit, Different Day, Not Much Change.
🧟♀️ For those of us in a hurry it’s important to know wether to simply wear a mask, or aim for the head
Actually, Brazil 2003 is an example of a race result being changed after the event because of a **** up by race direction. So that precedent is there.
It's not really a very good precedent. They didn't change the result, just the moment at which the result was measured because a race official hadn't seen that Fisichella had started another lap before the red flag and counted back the wrong number. I don't see how that is an option here.
Anyone arguing masks don't work at all is a muppet frankly and best ignored
Bit unfair on Kermit & Co, surely.
Just spent a long and fairly energetic morning in what FrancisUrquhart calls a Darth Vader jobbie clearing out my late father's sawdust-laden workshop, as it happens.
The best analogy I can think of for what happened in F1 today is imagine in the Euros football final, Italy were 1 - 0 down with two minutes of extra time to go.
On top of that they’ve had a man sent off, two injured and used all their subs so playing with 8 men.
Then a wayward Italian clearance hits a beach ball that’s been thrown on the pitch and freakishly goes in the England goal (as happened in a Liverpool/Sunderland match).
As extra time ends the fourth official announces that Italy are allowed to make 3 extra substitutions so that they have an equal amount of penalty takers and so Italy bring on fresh brilliant penalty takers from their bench.
Everyone would say “that’s patently ridiculous, not only were England winning until a freak situation happened right at the death but also you’ve changed the rules ahead of the crucial stage which inherently benefits the opposition……”
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Utter nonsense. And worse than that, dangerous.
How is it nonsense? Or dangerous?
What is dangerous is making the vulnerable as likely to be infected as the low-risk. Its bloody counterproductive in fact which is why hospitalisations have ended up higher in nations with mask mandates than those without them.
The sooner the low-risk unvaccinated people get infected the better. That builds even more herd immunity than we already have, preventing it and ensuring the high-risk are as likely to be infected as the low-risk is stupid.
Indeed. What is dangerous to you about other people dying?
If I was wearing a mask while encouraging others not to then you'd have a point.
You don't. Until it was the law I was following my own advice and not wearing a mask. I knew I could reduce my own risk by wearing an FFP2 mask but I'm not worried about being vulnerable so I would rather take my chances with the vaccine being enough and save the masks for the vulnerable instead.
Maybe the best thing would be for the law to be changed so that people don't need to wear a mask provided they have "I don't give a toss about other people's lives" tattooed on their foreheads.
It would probably be a public service in the long run.
Wouldn’t it be more effective to simply state fund FFP3 masks for the vulnerable?
- Cases. Some evidence that cases are actually flattening out out the rise. R is still just above 1 - Hospitalisations. Rising, but R is only just above 1 - Deaths. Appear to be flat (ish)
To sum up on the new Malmesbury Scale...
0-10 0 = All COVID vanished last night 10 = Zombie Reverse Vampire Apocalypse. Think Bicester, 1987, Friday night, chucking out time.
Given the above indicators I award the current situation a 6/10 - Same Shit, Different Day, Not Much Change.
🧟♀️ For those of us in a hurry it’s important to know wether to simply wear a mask, or aim for the head
Red Bull meeting with the stewards over. If you can read anything into the look on Christian Horner’s face as he walked through the paddock, he did not look a happy chap
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
Because without a mandate people in England won't wear one.
Good!
Educate those who are bothered wear a properly fitted FFP2 or better mask.
For everyone else, let them get their natural immunity booster if that's what they'd prefer.
Free choice.
I'm not sure it matters how many studies people can come up with on efficacy of masks in lab settings. We just had a live study in the British isles with England being the control group, and it's not obvious that mask mandates moved the dial one way or the other in any meaningful way.
Since they're not cost free from very many perspectives, it is ergo not a worthwhile measure. And would be better replaced by prescribing FFP3 masks to vulnerable category patients, as I suggested to my mp in the summer.
But we've long ago left the station of trying to actively manage this in the most efficient way. It's all just about doing something anything to avoid criticism at the enquiry and using it as a new battle front in the culture wars.
The studies linked to earlier were real-world, not lab studies.
Ironically enough, there was a lab study done which seemed to indicate cloth masks INCREASE the amount large particles detected when participants talked/coughed into a tube that was designed to measure droplets etc. The confounding effect was the machine was apparently picking up small fibres which are obviously harmless from a Covid point of view. I didn't include that link because it's been deliberately misused by anti-science jerks to try to show that masks make Covid transmission more likely.
To reiterate, the studies I linked to show real world transmission reductions.
What do you make of the live experiment we've just had in the UK? It must be among the most rigorous there's been, given up until the summer the UK had largely had identical policies to covid, roughly equal rates of prior transmission, vaccine penetration, demographics and societal norms. For the purposes of forming specifically UK policy on this subject, there can be no more relevant and useful experiment out there.
You're just ignoring it because you've picked a side in the culture wars and like to look down on anyone taking a broader view of the cost/ benefits of mask mandates, because it makes you feel morally and intellectually superior.
Oh, and which side do you think I'm on? If you know anything about me, you'll know that what I care most about is a fact-based approach. When people back up their argument with lies, and I call that out, is that some superiority complex? No, it's basic fucking standards. That's where we all should be starting from. I have carefully been trying to avoid saying masks should or should not be mandate because I see both sides. All I'm doing here is calling out lies that one side is using. Your implication that this is me taking sides WOULD be true if the anti-mask-mandate side had no other arguments. But they do. There are valid arguments against mask mandates. But, as a point of fact, "they don't work" isn't one of them.
Scotland and Wales have had stricter mask wearing rules but to be fair the estimates show Scotland at 1 jn 80, England 1 in 60 and Wales 1 in 50 so I cannot see the argument as proven by either side
My attitude is I will wear a mask in shops, (I do not use public transport) as a matter of respect for others despite having a medical condition that is not conducive to wearing masks.
It's important to note that many inputs influence the overall incidence rate. Demographics, geography, weather, mask-wearing and other behaviours, and so on. It would be a gross fallacy to expect all masked jurisdictions to have lower incidence than all non-masked ones.
Let me use an analogy. Higher-paid people tend to have more money in the bank than lower paid ones. But if you look at individuals, you can easily find a high-paid person with a lower bank balance than a low-paid one. Perhaps they've had a big expense recently. Perhaps they spend uncontrollably. Perhaps they've squirrelled their wealth into non-cash assets. And so on. If you look two particular bank balances and find they're similar, and conclude that pay rate makes no difference, you'd be making the small-sample fallacy. A proper statistical analysis can mitigate these effects by controlling for other known variables. It's similar to what goes on in MRP polls.
It is certainly complex but I wear a mask to respect other people no matter I do struggle if it is for more than 30 minutes or so
Importantly, masks work even when not everyone is able to wear them. I sympathise with the difficulty even if I don't share it. We need to take discomfort (and worse) into account when deciding what the right course of action is. I admire the effort you make despite your struggle.
Thank you but we all need to be responsible (are you listening Boris)
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Utter nonsense. And worse than that, dangerous.
How is it nonsense? Or dangerous?
What is dangerous is making the vulnerable as likely to be infected as the low-risk. Its bloody counterproductive in fact which is why hospitalisations have ended up higher in nations with mask mandates than those without them.
The sooner the low-risk unvaccinated people get infected the better. That builds even more herd immunity than we already have, preventing it and ensuring the high-risk are as likely to be infected as the low-risk is stupid.
Indeed. What is dangerous to you about other people dying?
If I was wearing a mask while encouraging others not to then you'd have a point.
You don't. Until it was the law I was following my own advice and not wearing a mask. I knew I could reduce my own risk by wearing an FFP2 mask but I'm not worried about being vulnerable so I would rather take my chances with the vaccine being enough and save the masks for the vulnerable instead.
Maybe the best thing would be for the law to be changed so that people don't need to wear a mask provided they have "I don't give a toss about other people's lives" tattooed on their foreheads.
It would probably be a public service in the long run.
Wouldn’t it be more effective to simply state fund FFP3 masks for the vulnerable?
I do sometimes wonder why that hasn't been done.
I understand initially the idea of telling people to make their own cloth ones. But we really should have switched to public education about what the different gradings mean to enable people to make an informed choice.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
Because without a mandate people in England won't wear one.
Good!
Educate those who are bothered wear a properly fitted FFP2 or better mask.
For everyone else, let them get their natural immunity booster if that's what they'd prefer.
Free choice.
I'm not sure it matters how many studies people can come up with on efficacy of masks in lab settings. We just had a live study in the British isles with England being the control group, and it's not obvious that mask mandates moved the dial one way or the other in any meaningful way.
Since they're not cost free from very many perspectives, it is ergo not a worthwhile measure. And would be better replaced by prescribing FFP3 masks to vulnerable category patients, as I suggested to my mp in the summer.
But we've long ago left the station of trying to actively manage this in the most efficient way. It's all just about doing something anything to avoid criticism at the enquiry and using it as a new battle front in the culture wars.
The studies linked to earlier were real-world, not lab studies.
Ironically enough, there was a lab study done which seemed to indicate cloth masks INCREASE the amount large particles detected when participants talked/coughed into a tube that was designed to measure droplets etc. The confounding effect was the machine was apparently picking up small fibres which are obviously harmless from a Covid point of view. I didn't include that link because it's been deliberately misused by anti-science jerks to try to show that masks make Covid transmission more likely.
To reiterate, the studies I linked to show real world transmission reductions.
What do you make of the live experiment we've just had in the UK? It must be among the most rigorous there's been, given up until the summer the UK had largely had identical policies to covid, roughly equal rates of prior transmission, vaccine penetration, demographics and societal norms. For the purposes of forming specifically UK policy on this subject, there can be no more relevant and useful experiment out there.
You're just ignoring it because you've picked a side in the culture wars and like to look down on anyone taking a broader view of the cost/ benefits of mask mandates, because it makes you feel morally and intellectually superior.
Oh, and which side do you think I'm on? If you know anything about me, you'll know that what I care most about is a fact-based approach. When people back up their argument with lies, and I call that out, is that some superiority complex? No, it's basic fucking standards. That's where we all should be starting from. I have carefully been trying to avoid saying masks should or should not be mandate because I see both sides. All I'm doing here is calling out lies that one side is using. Your implication that this is me taking sides WOULD be true if the anti-mask-mandate side had no other arguments. But they do. There are valid arguments against mask mandates. But, as a point of fact, "they don't work" isn't one of them.
Scotland and Wales have had stricter mask wearing rules but to be fair the estimates show Scotland at 1 jn 80, England 1 in 60 and Wales 1 in 50 so I cannot see the argument as proven by either side
My attitude is I will wear a mask in shops, (I do not use public transport) as a matter of respect for others despite having a medical condition that is not conducive to wearing masks.
It's important to note that many inputs influence the overall incidence rate. Demographics, geography, weather, mask-wearing and other behaviours, and so on. It would be a gross fallacy to expect all masked jurisdictions to have lower incidence than all non-masked ones.
Let me use an analogy. Higher-paid people tend to have more money in the bank than lower paid ones. But if you look at individuals, you can easily find a high-paid person with a lower bank balance than a low-paid one. Perhaps they've had a big expense recently. Perhaps they spend uncontrollably. Perhaps they've squirrelled their wealth into non-cash assets. And so on. If you look two particular bank balances and find they're similar, and conclude that pay rate makes no difference, you'd be making the small-sample fallacy. A proper statistical analysis can mitigate these effects by controlling for other known variables. It's similar to what goes on in MRP polls.
That's reasonable, but the absence of any clear and significant difference between England (as control group) and the three jurisdictions that have retained mask mandates - and other mitigations on top of that, lest we forget - throughout late Summer and Autumn, strikes one as rather odd if these kinds of low-level interventions are meant to be of value. Some of the details are also peculiar: Scotland appears to have had a huge spike in its case rate at the end of the Summer, consistent with the fact that Scottish school holidays begin and end earlier than in the remainder of the UK, despite the fact that mask wearing in secondary schools was never ditched. Why is that?
Anyway it would be helpful were someone with an appropriate statistical background to crunch the numbers.
Red Bull meeting with the stewards over. If you can read anything into the look on Christian Horner’s face as he walked through the paddock, he did not look a happy chap
I detect a cunning plan. Total lockdown announced starting Thursday 16 December. Polling stations in North Shropshire all closed. In the interests of democracy, by-election to go ahead but will just be based on postal votes already received. Tories win. Job done. Lockdown lifted on Friday 17 December.
Michael Masi has clearly been hired as a senior adviser to government
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Utter nonsense. And worse than that, dangerous.
How is it nonsense? Or dangerous?
What is dangerous is making the vulnerable as likely to be infected as the low-risk. Its bloody counterproductive in fact which is why hospitalisations have ended up higher in nations with mask mandates than those without them.
The sooner the low-risk unvaccinated people get infected the better. That builds even more herd immunity than we already have, preventing it and ensuring the high-risk are as likely to be infected as the low-risk is stupid.
Indeed. What is dangerous to you about other people dying?
If I was wearing a mask while encouraging others not to then you'd have a point.
You don't. Until it was the law I was following my own advice and not wearing a mask. I knew I could reduce my own risk by wearing an FFP2 mask but I'm not worried about being vulnerable so I would rather take my chances with the vaccine being enough and save the masks for the vulnerable instead.
Maybe the best thing would be for the law to be changed so that people don't need to wear a mask provided they have "I don't give a toss about other people's lives" tattooed on their foreheads.
It would probably be a public service in the long run.
Wouldn’t it be more effective to simply state fund FFP3 masks for the vulnerable?
Who knows, without a scientific evaluation of the people who are some weighted mixture of too stupid to understand a simple statement, or too selfish to care?
UK chief medical officers: "Data on severity will become clearer over the coming weeks but hospitalisations from Omicron are already occurring and these are likely to increase rapidly"
I detect a cunning plan. Total lockdown announced starting Thursday 16 December. Polling stations in North Shropshire all closed. In the interests of democracy, by-election to go ahead but will just be based on postal votes already received. Tories win. Job done. Lockdown lifted on Friday 17 December.
I was on my coastal walk at that time, and my notes say I watched the start of the GP, but then I discovered the campsite had a bath. So I missed most of a really eventful race because a bath took precedence ...
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Utter nonsense. And worse than that, dangerous.
How is it nonsense? Or dangerous?
What is dangerous is making the vulnerable as likely to be infected as the low-risk. Its bloody counterproductive in fact which is why hospitalisations have ended up higher in nations with mask mandates than those without them.
The sooner the low-risk unvaccinated people get infected the better. That builds even more herd immunity than we already have, preventing it and ensuring the high-risk are as likely to be infected as the low-risk is stupid.
Indeed. What is dangerous to you about other people dying?
If I was wearing a mask while encouraging others not to then you'd have a point.
You don't. Until it was the law I was following my own advice and not wearing a mask. I knew I could reduce my own risk by wearing an FFP2 mask but I'm not worried about being vulnerable so I would rather take my chances with the vaccine being enough and save the masks for the vulnerable instead.
Maybe the best thing would be for the law to be changed so that people don't need to wear a mask provided they have "I don't give a toss about other people's lives" tattooed on their foreheads.
It would probably be a public service in the long run.
Wouldn’t it be more effective to simply state fund FFP3 masks for the vulnerable?
I do sometimes wonder why that hasn't been done.
I understand initially the idea of telling people to make their own cloth ones. But we really should have switched to public education about what the different gradings mean to enable people to make an informed choice.
Indeed, and generally on how to use them properly. That would help eradicate one of the anti-maskers' few decent arguments - that people don't use them properly.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
Nah, disagree. A certain percentage of cases end up in hospital. If cases are too high then you start having capacity issues. Cases at 40-50k is a great level, at 150k not so much.
Depends on the severity really. 150k cases of Omicron per day may only present the same number of severe cases in a largely immunised population as 20-30k Delta cases per day, a least that's what the SA Delta to Omicron comparison indicates.
Indeed. 150k was a random number. My point is that there is a level of cases that is manageable and a level which is not
Sitting here for CV19 booster. 😀 Son gets result of positive PCR test. 😱
Don’t need this.
Wife due to have CT scan for cancer investigation on Tuesday😬🤞 Father in law alas has days/ weeks left with lung cancer. 😔 Work having reorg to having to reapply for job. 😡
I reckon this will be a "be careful", "use your common sense", but things are looking worse and if they continue to do so we will be forced to introduce further restrictions.
It is clear the SAGE lot will have been showing him loads of scary graphs all day.
Nadhim Zahawi mentioned that Boris is doing a vaccine update tonight, on Trevor Phillips earlier. So I don't think we are going to see anything dramatic.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Utter nonsense. And worse than that, dangerous.
How is it nonsense? Or dangerous?
What is dangerous is making the vulnerable as likely to be infected as the low-risk. Its bloody counterproductive in fact which is why hospitalisations have ended up higher in nations with mask mandates than those without them.
The sooner the low-risk unvaccinated people get infected the better. That builds even more herd immunity than we already have, preventing it and ensuring the high-risk are as likely to be infected as the low-risk is stupid.
Indeed. What is dangerous to you about other people dying?
If I was wearing a mask while encouraging others not to then you'd have a point.
You don't. Until it was the law I was following my own advice and not wearing a mask. I knew I could reduce my own risk by wearing an FFP2 mask but I'm not worried about being vulnerable so I would rather take my chances with the vaccine being enough and save the masks for the vulnerable instead.
Maybe the best thing would be for the law to be changed so that people don't need to wear a mask provided they have "I don't give a toss about other people's lives" tattooed on their foreheads.
It would probably be a public service in the long run.
People shouldn't be out and about with Covid whether they have a mask on or not. A downside of blanket mask directives is that people who have Covid think it's Ok to leave their houses as long as they have a mask on - it's not Ok and this point should be continually and loudly repeated I think.
How stupid must you be if you think that's an argument against wearing masks? The mind boggles.
Really and truly, the human race is too stupid to survive!
Sitting here for CV19 booster. 😀 Son gets result of positive PCR test. 😱
Don’t need this.
Wife due to have CT scan for cancer investigation on Tuesday😬🤞 Father in law alas has days/ weeks left with lung cancer. 😔 Work having reorg to having to reapply for job. 😡
Sitting here for CV19 booster. 😀 Son gets result of positive PCR test. 😱
Don’t need this.
Wife due to have CT scan for cancer investigation on Tuesday😬🤞 Father in law alas has days/ weeks left with lung cancer. 😔 Work having reorg to having to reapply for job. 😡
I don't think people mean FFP3 do they? It's FFP2 that are the better ones, FFP3 aren't the equivalent to the US 95 from what I just Googled
No, FFP3 are better than FFP2 AIUI. See eg.
"The British Standard BS EN 149:2001 covers disposable filtering facepiece (FFP) respirators. FFP respirators are classified as FFP1, FFP2 and FFP3 according to the level of protection afforded as assessed by specified laboratory tests, with FFP3 offering the most protection. In order to aid the correct selection of ‘adequate’ RPE assigned protection factors (APF) have been derived, and for FFP respirators these are 4, 10 and 20 respectively. The APF is the ratio of pollutant outside the device to that inside the device and is defined by British Standard BS EN 529:2005 as the ‘level of respiratory protection that can realistically be expected to be achieved in the workplace by 95% of adequately trained and supervised wearers using a properly functioning and correctly fitted respiratory protective device and is based on the 5th percentile of the Workplace Protection Factor (WPF) data’. APFs are published by both BS EN 529:2005 and by HSE in its RPE guidance HSG53 (HSE 2005a). Table 1 shows the efficiency requirement levels for the three classes of filtering facepieces from British Standards, together with their assigned protection factors"
Yes. He'll burble away about the wonderful booster programme. The one that couldn't jab me on time last week. But apparently can do everyone over 30 next week.
Nadhim Zahawi mentioned that Boris is doing a vaccine update tonight, on Trevor Phillips earlier. So I don't think we are going to see anything dramatic.
We are getting primed here.....I am absolutely convinced of this....its the same pattern as always.
Sitting here for CV19 booster. 😀 Son gets result of positive PCR test. 😱
Don’t need this.
Wife due to have CT scan for cancer investigation on Tuesday😬🤞 Father in law alas has days/ weeks left with lung cancer. 😔 Work having reorg to having to reapply for job. 😡
When life comes at you, it really comes at you.
Sorry to hear that.
I hope things work out as best as possible for you and your family
Not really sure what the point is. Politics is not a controlled experiment where Boris has not spent the last few weeks nausing things up. Maybe if Jezza were still around Boris wouldn't have felt like letting his hair down at a Christmas business meeting. A little of column A and a little of column B.
Johnson addressing the nation at 8 o'clock and for once his boosterism is exactly what's needed. Big push on 3rd jabs has to be the number one priority.
UK COVID Alert Level increased from Level 3 to Level 4
epidemic is in general circulation; transmission is high and direct COVID pressure on healthcare services is widespread and substantial or rising
Here we go....Boris up again on Monday?
I'm expecting the lockdown to be announced on the next scheduled review date, next Saturday, Dec 18. That'll allow the Parliamentary by-election on Thursday to be cleared first, but enable rules to (presumably) be railroaded through just in time to persuade that fraction of the population that's still very frightened, scrupulously law-abiding, or still willing to listen to Johnson's bullshit (no laughing at the back) to cancel Christmas.
Parliament closes for Christmas on Tuesday after the days business
Easy enough recalled.
(NB I'm usually wrong about anything to do with politics. I've decided that if I keep predicting new dates for the next lockdown then, as with those weird American cults that keep trying to prophesy the Rapture, it will never happen. No need to thank me.)
I detect a cunning plan. Total lockdown announced starting Thursday 16 December. Polling stations in North Shropshire all closed. In the interests of democracy, by-election to go ahead but will just be based on postal votes already received. Tories win. Job done. Lockdown lifted on Friday 17 December.
As per page 178 of the foreign office report on Belarus election. At least someone’s reading through their red boxes.
Sitting here for CV19 booster. 😀 Son gets result of positive PCR test. 😱
Don’t need this.
Wife due to have CT scan for cancer investigation on Tuesday😬🤞 Father in law alas has days/ weeks left with lung cancer. 😔 Work having reorg to having to reapply for job. 😡
When life comes at you, it really comes at you.
That shouldn't be a like. Best of luck. Anecdotal positives are coming thick and fast.
I don't think people mean FFP3 do they? It's FFP2 that are the better ones, FFP3 aren't the equivalent to the US 95 from what I just Googled
No, FFP3 are better than FFP2 AIUI. See eg.
"The British Standard BS EN 149:2001 covers disposable filtering facepiece (FFP) respirators. FFP respirators are classified as FFP1, FFP2 and FFP3 according to the level of protection afforded as assessed by specified laboratory tests, with FFP3 offering the most protection. In order to aid the correct selection of ‘adequate’ RPE assigned protection factors (APF) have been derived, and for FFP respirators these are 4, 10 and 20 respectively. The APF is the ratio of pollutant outside the device to that inside the device and is defined by British Standard BS EN 529:2005 as the ‘level of respiratory protection that can realistically be expected to be achieved in the workplace by 95% of adequately trained and supervised wearers using a properly functioning and correctly fitted respiratory protective device and is based on the 5th percentile of the Workplace Protection Factor (WPF) data’. APFs are published by both BS EN 529:2005 and by HSE in its RPE guidance HSG53 (HSE 2005a). Table 1 shows the efficiency requirement levels for the three classes of filtering facepieces from British Standards, together with their assigned protection factors"
I certainly hope so as I've spent a morning rummaging around in a very dusty woodwork room in a FFP3!
That's not what I meant, apologies for my poor posting.
I meant, Boots etc are selling the FFP2 ones which are the ones I see most people wearing when they go for higher quality ones. And FFP2 I think are very effective, FFP3 moreso but not a huge difference for COVID from what I call.
I believe FFP2 is equivalent to 95 for the US?
N95 and FFP2 are similar kinds of respiratory masks. These masks supposedly protect both the wearer and people around them. The World Health Organisation cites studies which show the filtration systems of FFP2 and N95 masks are 94 and 95 per cent effective respectively. Their enhanced effectiveness has led to countries such as Austria and Germany making them a requirement on public transport. FFP3 masks are the most effective, followed by FFP2/N95, then surgical masks and, finally, cloth masks.
Comments
epidemic is in general circulation; transmission is high and direct COVID pressure on healthcare services is widespread and substantial or rising
COVID ones of course.
Edit - Here's Chris Hope confirming it.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1470073779296641028
It doesn't exist. @maaarsh saying I am picking an argument doesn't make me wrong. And as I have said repeatedly Lewis deserved to win. But "deserved to" isn't the same as "has done". Seems fairly clear Masi got it wrong - initially I thought he'd let them all past. But I don't see "deliberate cheating to let Max win" as keeps being suggested.
This is sport. Shit happens. Should have had Hamilton on tyres that weren't clinging to life.
I use Hewats of Edinburgh - a medical and workwear specialist - because I was already buying their surgical gloves for DIY etc anyway. But other suppliers are available.
In other words I was practicing what I preach. While my grandparents I know were wearing their masks. Good, that's sensible risk segmentation. If they get infected it'd be more serious than if I did, so they should be masked up and I shouldn't.
- Cases. Some evidence that cases are actually flattening out out the rise. R is still just above 1
- Hospitalisations. Rising, but R is only just above 1
- Deaths. Appear to be flat (ish)
To sum up on the new Malmesbury Scale...
0-10
0 = All COVID vanished last night
10 = Zombie Reverse Vampire Apocalypse. Think Bicester, 1987, Friday night, chucking out time.
Given the above indicators I award the current situation a 6/10 - Same Shit, Different Day, Not Much Change.
It would probably be a public service in the long run.
Probably just a ruse to put pressure on the rebels on Tuesday’s vote. I suspect it won’t work.
BoJo just running away now
https://twitter.com/charwrites_/status/1470016071264522241
Just spent a long and fairly energetic morning in what FrancisUrquhart calls a Darth Vader jobbie clearing out my late father's sawdust-laden workshop, as it happens.
On top of that they’ve had a man sent off, two injured and used all their subs so playing with 8 men.
Then a wayward Italian clearance hits a beach ball that’s been thrown on the pitch and freakishly goes in the England goal (as happened in a Liverpool/Sunderland match).
As extra time ends the fourth official announces that Italy are allowed to make 3 extra substitutions so that they have an equal amount of penalty takers and so Italy bring on fresh brilliant penalty takers from their bench.
Everyone would say “that’s patently ridiculous, not only were England winning until a freak situation happened right at the death but also you’ve changed the rules ahead of the crucial stage which inherently benefits the opposition……”
Edit - attached to wrong post!! Apologies
A! Marine! Can! Wear! His! Respirator! And! Still! Give! The! Enemy! The! Good! News! With! His! M14! At! 500! Yards!
https://twitter.com/ianparkesf1/status/1470075911961731074
Anyway it would be helpful were someone with an appropriate statistical background to crunch the numbers.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1470076735408549892?s=20
God knows what will happen if Russian invade Ukraine and this clown is still in charge.
Edit - Johnson is not expected to announce any new Covid restrictions.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/12/johnson-to-address-nation-on-booster-jabs-amid-omicron-concerns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Brazilian_Grand_Prix#Timekeeping_error
A race much more remembered for this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ts07b7uo7E
I was on my coastal walk at that time, and my notes say I watched the start of the GP, but then I discovered the campsite had a bath. So I missed most of a really eventful race because a bath took precedence ...
If everyone added PB to their news-feed, with the different views and intelligence on display here, we'd all be in a better position.
We are about to re-enter a world where everyone is frightened of catching Covid from people who haven't got Covid (and vice versa).
Sitting here for CV19 booster. 😀
Son gets result of positive PCR test. 😱
Don’t need this.
Wife due to have CT scan for cancer investigation on Tuesday😬🤞
Father in law alas has days/ weeks left with lung cancer. 😔
Work having reorg to having to reapply for job. 😡
When life comes at you, it really comes at you.
It is clear the SAGE lot will have been showing him loads of scary graphs all day.
This may make Boris's rebels look out of touch as the country will support measures to keep people safe
So, we're closer to Zombie Apocalypse than End of Pandemic then. A sobering thought.
Really and truly, the human race is too stupid to survive!
"The British Standard BS EN 149:2001 covers disposable filtering facepiece (FFP) respirators.
FFP respirators are classified as FFP1, FFP2 and FFP3 according to the level of protection
afforded as assessed by specified laboratory tests, with FFP3 offering the most protection. In
order to aid the correct selection of ‘adequate’ RPE assigned protection factors (APF) have
been derived, and for FFP respirators these are 4, 10 and 20 respectively. The APF is the ratio
of pollutant outside the device to that inside the device and is defined by British Standard BS
EN 529:2005 as the ‘level of respiratory protection that can realistically be expected to be
achieved in the workplace by 95% of adequately trained and supervised wearers using a
properly functioning and correctly fitted respiratory protective device and is based on the 5th
percentile of the Workplace Protection Factor (WPF) data’. APFs are published by both BS
EN 529:2005 and by HSE in its RPE guidance HSG53 (HSE 2005a). Table 1 shows the
efficiency requirement levels for the three classes of filtering facepieces from British Standards,
together with their assigned protection factors"
https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr619.pdf
I certainly hope so as I've spent a morning rummaging around in a very dusty woodwork room in a FFP3!
The one that couldn't jab me on time last week.
But apparently can do everyone over 30 next week.
Everton are poor.
I hope things work out as best as possible for you and your family
The last time the UK was at level four was in May"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59629916
(NB I'm usually wrong about anything to do with politics. I've decided that if I keep predicting new dates for the next lockdown then, as with those weird American cults that keep trying to prophesy the Rapture, it will never happen. No need to thank me.)
Anecdotal positives are coming thick and fast.
I meant, Boots etc are selling the FFP2 ones which are the ones I see most people wearing when they go for higher quality ones. And FFP2 I think are very effective, FFP3 moreso but not a huge difference for COVID from what I call.
I believe FFP2 is equivalent to 95 for the US?
N95 and FFP2 are similar kinds of respiratory masks. These masks supposedly protect both the wearer and people around them. The World Health Organisation cites studies which show the filtration systems of FFP2 and N95 masks are 94 and 95 per cent effective respectively. Their enhanced effectiveness has led to countries such as Austria and Germany making them a requirement on public transport. FFP3 masks are the most effective, followed by FFP2/N95, then surgical masks and, finally, cloth masks.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-are-n95-and-ffp2-face-masks
These look really interesting but unsure of effectiveness