They won’t overturn this IMO, although there is probably a good case for it.
I think the bad decisions about evened themselves out, frankly.
I would also say I think Hamilton had the faster car but for that very reason Verstappen was the better driver over the season. It wasn't until near the end Hamilton seemed to push himself a bit more.
So the outcome would seem about fair.
Except I don't think Mercedes has the fastest car for most of the season - hence the run of wins Verstappen clocked up. The regulation changes for the 2021 season really disadvantaged Merc, and it took them ages to turn it around.
John Higgins off to an excellent start - one shot, one messed up safety. Fortunate Brecel missed the pot.
I would've liked to have watched that but I've other plans. That said, from what I've seen it looks like John Higgins is heading for his fourth runners' up cheque of the season already.
How many was it that Ronnie chalked up in the whole of last season, five?
That much said, it's good to see Brecel on his way back up again at last.
- 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.
The interesting thing is whether Mercedes take it further
F1 is really a game for lawyers and cricket one for statisticians...
T20 is now a game run by computer modellers....maybe why then ones doing the covid modelling are so crap, all the good ones are on big salaries working for IPL teams.
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
The fact that the boffins and ministers are both still clearly wetting because they're unsure of exactly what Omicron will do makes life rather complicated.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, there's a plausible case to be made for immediate hard lockdown, starting next weekend for six weeks. But it would need to be strictly limited in duration, and the time would need to be used efficiently.
Terms would be the same as previous, except that the schools would break up early for Christmas but come back as normal after the New Year. The Government would also need to bring back business support schemes for the duration, and make it explicitly clear that the lockdown would end, and anybody who'd been closed would therefore be free to trade again, at the end of January, so that everyone knew where they stood.
This would be allied to a desperate and concerted effort to deliver the booster doses, including issuing instructions to the many GP surgeries that have stopped doing jabs to dump as much of their routine workload as they felt they could dare, ration appointments and release staff to restart vaccination clinics. Lockdown ought also to offer the NHS some relief from flu cases.
Then, at the end of the six weeks, revert to the status quo of July 19th and get on with it. Once everyone over 40 at least, and as many as possible of the younger recipients, who are willing to take the jabs have had them, then we're not going to get much more protection against this thing, and the hospitals will just have to cope with what's thrown at them.
Regardless of what the Government actually ends up doing with respect to NPIs, we're probably going to need to keep boosting in a continuous cycle every three months until further notice, using tweaked vaccines as and when they become available. That wouldn't foolproof us against variants but it's the maximum that can realistically be done in the longer term. We should not embark down the road of creating a national health state, where the assumption is made that the people are there to serve the NHS and not the other way around. Citizens shouldn't be expected to tolerate masks and social distancing forever.
If you close down hospitality over the Christmas period, it doesn't matter what support you offer much of it would not reopen. February is a bad month for them anyway with the poor weather and everyone busy.
I know, but the anecdata suggest that they are getting hammered with cancellations already, and if you're in Government and you've allowed yourself to be convinced by the disaster models then you have no good choices left.
Under my hypothetical the length of the shutdown is limited and, as dear leader of the nation, I would order the shuttered sectors to be hosed down with money. Not loans, direct state aid.
Well, it seems to come down to “The Race Director shall have overriding authority in the following matter(s) and the clerk of the course may give orders in respect of them only with his express agreement: the use of the safety car” so the lawyers can argue the definition of “use of” and possibly whether it was indeed the clerk of the course giving orders that had been given express agreement (as opposed to the Race Director issuing orders).
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. 😡
But I take it that the motor race is over, that the fastest driver won, and that the post mortem could be lengthy.
When's the next test match start? I understand the cricket stuff.
Please God no. Not cricket. I understand nothing about this thread. I understand nothing about cricket. They may be sport but if so they are the dullest activities in the world. So dull in fact that I have been forced to watch a documentary about the Shipman murders. Oh and write a header. 😉
Cricket is basically this thing where a bloke is trying to hit another bloke that he hates with a hard ball. The target hides behind a small fence, with a friend wielding a bat stood in front of it aiming to deflect the ball. Points are scored according to the relative success of the attempts to hit the cowering bloke, the attempts to hit the fence, and the attempts made by the one with the bat to deflect the ball.
Everybody stops at half-time for tea and cucumber sandwiches, and then the sides are reversed.
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
The fact that the boffins and ministers are both still clearly wetting because they're unsure of exactly what Omicron will do makes life rather complicated.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, there's a plausible case to be made for immediate hard lockdown, starting next weekend for six weeks. But it would need to be strictly limited in duration, and the time would need to be used efficiently.
Terms would be the same as previous, except that the schools would break up early for Christmas but come back as normal after the New Year. The Government would also need to bring back business support schemes for the duration, and make it explicitly clear that the lockdown would end, and anybody who'd been closed would therefore be free to trade again, at the end of January, so that everyone knew where they stood.
This would be allied to a desperate and concerted effort to deliver the booster doses, including issuing instructions to the many GP surgeries that have stopped doing jabs to dump as much of their routine workload as they felt they could dare, ration appointments and release staff to restart vaccination clinics. Lockdown ought also to offer the NHS some relief from flu cases.
Then, at the end of the six weeks, revert to the status quo of July 19th and get on with it. Once everyone over 40 at least, and as many as possible of the younger recipients, who are willing to take the jabs have had them, then we're not going to get much more protection against this thing, and the hospitals will just have to cope with what's thrown at them.
Regardless of what the Government actually ends up doing with respect to NPIs, we're probably going to need to keep boosting in a continuous cycle every three months until further notice, using tweaked vaccines as and when they become available. That wouldn't foolproof us against variants but it's the maximum that can realistically be done in the longer term. We should not embark down the road of creating a national health state, where the assumption is made that the people are there to serve the NHS and not the other way around. Citizens shouldn't be expected to tolerate masks and social distancing forever.
If you close down hospitality over the Christmas period, it doesn't matter what support you offer much of it would not reopen. February is a bad month for them anyway with the poor weather and everyone busy.
I know, but the anecdata suggest that they are getting hammered with cancellations already, and if you're in Government and you've allowed yourself to be convinced by the disaster models then you have no good choices left.
Under my hypothetical the length of the shutdown is limited and, as dear leader of the nation, I would order the shuttered sectors to be hosed down with money. Not loans, direct state aid.
But I take it that the motor race is over, that the fastest driver won, and that the post mortem could be lengthy.
When's the next test match start? I understand the cricket stuff.
Please God no. Not cricket. I understand nothing about this thread. I understand nothing about cricket. They may be sport but if so they are the dullest activities in the world. So dull in fact that I have been forced to watch a documentary about the Shipman murders. Oh and write a header. 😉
Cricket is basically this thing where a bloke is trying to hit another bloke that he hates with a hard ball. The target hides behind a small fence, with a friend wielding a bat stood in front of it aiming to deflect the ball. Points are scored according to the relative success of the attempts to hit the cowering bloke, the attempts to hit the fence, and the attempts made by the one with the bat to deflect the ball.
Everybody stops at half-time for tea and cucumber sandwiches, and then the sides are reversed.
He was just on telly with Trevor Phillips. Slated Johnson repeatedly. Said he was put there for two jobs, Brexit and seeing off Corbyn, which he’s now done. Then when specifically asked if BoJo had lost his confidence, dodged it and said he wasn’t going to take down a second PM and wanted him to succeed.
He who wields the knife…
Don’t see it.
Baker is someone who likes to wield power through influence not by being the main person in the firing line.
I also don’t think he would move against BJ nor will the anti-restrictions group as a whole - not because they like BJ but because there is no alternative for the moment. All the other named leading candidates (Sunak, Truss etc) are mistrusted. Harper might be an outside beg but I reckon many Red Wall MPs would not see him as popular enough there to help keep their seats.
I actually did have one person in mind and am thinking of writing a thread../
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
The fact that the boffins and ministers are both still clearly wetting because they're unsure of exactly what Omicron will do makes life rather complicated.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, there's a plausible case to be made for immediate hard lockdown, starting next weekend for six weeks. But it would need to be strictly limited in duration, and the time would need to be used efficiently.
Terms would be the same as previous, except that the schools would break up early for Christmas but come back as normal after the New Year. The Government would also need to bring back business support schemes for the duration, and make it explicitly clear that the lockdown would end, and anybody who'd been closed would therefore be free to trade again, at the end of January, so that everyone knew where they stood.
This would be allied to a desperate and concerted effort to deliver the booster doses, including issuing instructions to the many GP surgeries that have stopped doing jabs to dump as much of their routine workload as they felt they could dare, ration appointments and release staff to restart vaccination clinics. Lockdown ought also to offer the NHS some relief from flu cases.
Then, at the end of the six weeks, revert to the status quo of July 19th and get on with it. Once everyone over 40 at least, and as many as possible of the younger recipients, who are willing to take the jabs have had them, then we're not going to get much more protection against this thing, and the hospitals will just have to cope with what's thrown at them.
Regardless of what the Government actually ends up doing with respect to NPIs, we're probably going to need to keep boosting in a continuous cycle every three months until further notice, using tweaked vaccines as and when they become available. That wouldn't foolproof us against variants but it's the maximum that can realistically be done in the longer term. We should not embark down the road of creating a national health state, where the assumption is made that the people are there to serve the NHS and not the other way around. Citizens shouldn't be expected to tolerate masks and social distancing forever.
If you close down hospitality over the Christmas period, it doesn't matter what support you offer much of it would not reopen. February is a bad month for them anyway with the poor weather and everyone busy.
I know, but the anecdata suggest that they are getting hammered with cancellations already, and if you're in Government and you've allowed yourself to be convinced by the disaster models then you have no good choices left.
Under my hypothetical the length of the shutdown is limited and, as dear leader of the nation, I would order the shuttered sectors to be hosed down with money. Not loans, direct state aid.
But you're not PM. Johnson is.
I was making a theoretical case for a lockdown, not trying to predict the next turn of Government policy. I'm afraid that if they do end up going down that route, we'll end up stuck in it for months and then spend months more crawling out of it very, very slowly. 2021 redux.
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
The fact that the boffins and ministers are both still clearly wetting because they're unsure of exactly what Omicron will do makes life rather complicated.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, there's a plausible case to be made for immediate hard lockdown, starting next weekend for six weeks. But it would need to be strictly limited in duration, and the time would need to be used efficiently.
Terms would be the same as previous, except that the schools would break up early for Christmas but come back as normal after the New Year. The Government would also need to bring back business support schemes for the duration, and make it explicitly clear that the lockdown would end, and anybody who'd been closed would therefore be free to trade again, at the end of January, so that everyone knew where they stood.
This would be allied to a desperate and concerted effort to deliver the booster doses, including issuing instructions to the many GP surgeries that have stopped doing jabs to dump as much of their routine workload as they felt they could dare, ration appointments and release staff to restart vaccination clinics. Lockdown ought also to offer the NHS some relief from flu cases.
Then, at the end of the six weeks, revert to the status quo of July 19th and get on with it. Once everyone over 40 at least, and as many as possible of the younger recipients, who are willing to take the jabs have had them, then we're not going to get much more protection against this thing, and the hospitals will just have to cope with what's thrown at them.
Regardless of what the Government actually ends up doing with respect to NPIs, we're probably going to need to keep boosting in a continuous cycle every three months until further notice, using tweaked vaccines as and when they become available. That wouldn't foolproof us against variants but it's the maximum that can realistically be done in the longer term. We should not embark down the road of creating a national health state, where the assumption is made that the people are there to serve the NHS and not the other way around. Citizens shouldn't be expected to tolerate masks and social distancing forever.
If you close down hospitality over the Christmas period, it doesn't matter what support you offer much of it would not reopen. February is a bad month for them anyway with the poor weather and everyone busy.
I know, but the anecdata suggest that they are getting hammered with cancellations already, and if you're in Government and you've allowed yourself to be convinced by the disaster models then you have no good choices left.
Under my hypothetical the length of the shutdown is limited and, as dear leader of the nation, I would order the shuttered sectors to be hosed down with money. Not loans, direct state aid.
But you're not PM. Johnson is.
I was making a theoretical case for a lockdown, not trying to predict the next turn of Government policy. I'm afraid that if they do end up going down that route, we'll end up stuck in it for months and then spend months more crawling out of it very, very slowly. 2021 redux.
If we go into a new lockdown then hopefully the next Prime Minister takes us out of lockdown quite rapidly.
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
The fact that the boffins and ministers are both still clearly wetting because they're unsure of exactly what Omicron will do makes life rather complicated.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, there's a plausible case to be made for immediate hard lockdown, starting next weekend for six weeks. But it would need to be strictly limited in duration, and the time would need to be used efficiently.
Terms would be the same as previous, except that the schools would break up early for Christmas but come back as normal after the New Year. The Government would also need to bring back business support schemes for the duration, and make it explicitly clear that the lockdown would end, and anybody who'd been closed would therefore be free to trade again, at the end of January, so that everyone knew where they stood.
This would be allied to a desperate and concerted effort to deliver the booster doses, including issuing instructions to the many GP surgeries that have stopped doing jabs to dump as much of their routine workload as they felt they could dare, ration appointments and release staff to restart vaccination clinics. Lockdown ought also to offer the NHS some relief from flu cases.
Then, at the end of the six weeks, revert to the status quo of July 19th and get on with it. Once everyone over 40 at least, and as many as possible of the younger recipients, who are willing to take the jabs have had them, then we're not going to get much more protection against this thing, and the hospitals will just have to cope with what's thrown at them.
Regardless of what the Government actually ends up doing with respect to NPIs, we're probably going to need to keep boosting in a continuous cycle every three months until further notice, using tweaked vaccines as and when they become available. That wouldn't foolproof us against variants but it's the maximum that can realistically be done in the longer term. We should not embark down the road of creating a national health state, where the assumption is made that the people are there to serve the NHS and not the other way around. Citizens shouldn't be expected to tolerate masks and social distancing forever.
If you close down hospitality over the Christmas period, it doesn't matter what support you offer much of it would not reopen. February is a bad month for them anyway with the poor weather and everyone busy.
A flaw in @pigeon's proposal is that literally no one will believe it now. Six weeks and we boost loads and then we reopen. Bollx. Everyone knows Johnson is a liar and we have been here before.
But I take it that the motor race is over, that the fastest driver won, and that the post mortem could be lengthy.
When's the next test match start? I understand the cricket stuff.
Please God no. Not cricket. I understand nothing about this thread. I understand nothing about cricket. They may be sport but if so they are the dullest activities in the world. So dull in fact that I have been forced to watch a documentary about the Shipman murders. Oh and write a header. 😉
Cricket is basically this thing where a bloke is trying to hit another bloke that he hates with a hard ball. The target hides behind a small fence, with a friend wielding a bat stood in front of it aiming to deflect the ball. Points are scored according to the relative success of the attempts to hit the cowering bloke, the attempts to hit the fence, and the attempts made by the one with the bat to deflect the ball.
Everybody stops at half-time for tea and cucumber sandwiches, and then the sides are reversed.
Cricket is basically the most boring "sport" ever invented - except for golf
He was just on telly with Trevor Phillips. Slated Johnson repeatedly. Said he was put there for two jobs, Brexit and seeing off Corbyn, which he’s now done. Then when specifically asked if BoJo had lost his confidence, dodged it and said he wasn’t going to take down a second PM and wanted him to succeed.
He who wields the knife…
Don’t see it.
Baker is someone who likes to wield power through influence not by being the main person in the firing line.
I also don’t think he would move against BJ nor will the anti-restrictions group as a whole - not because they like BJ but because there is no alternative for the moment. All the other named leading candidates (Sunak, Truss etc) are mistrusted. Harper might be an outside beg but I reckon many Red Wall MPs would not see him as popular enough there to help keep their seats.
I actually did have one person in mind and am thinking of writing a thread../
I hope you do.
I know we don't always or even often see eye to eye but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
But I take it that the motor race is over, that the fastest driver won, and that the post mortem could be lengthy.
When's the next test match start? I understand the cricket stuff.
Please God no. Not cricket. I understand nothing about this thread. I understand nothing about cricket. They may be sport but if so they are the dullest activities in the world. So dull in fact that I have been forced to watch a documentary about the Shipman murders. Oh and write a header. 😉
Cricket is basically this thing where a bloke is trying to hit another bloke that he hates with a hard ball. The target hides behind a small fence, with a friend wielding a bat stood in front of it aiming to deflect the ball. Points are scored according to the relative success of the attempts to hit the cowering bloke, the attempts to hit the fence, and the attempts made by the one with the bat to deflect the ball.
Everybody stops at half-time for tea and cucumber sandwiches, and then the sides are reversed.
Cricket is basically the most boring "sport" ever invented - except for golf
The interesting thing is whether Mercedes take it further
F1 is really a game for lawyers and cricket one for statisticians...
F1 is really a game for undemocratic regimes. Hope F1 fans are OK with so many races this season being held in what Freedom House terms Not Free countries. Let's see now:
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. 😡
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I can’t imagine a lockdown over Christmas now, given that planes with family members onboard are already in the air and everyone is looking forward to it. It would bring down the government.
A lockdown in ‘Dry’ January is a different matter. Will probably depend on the South African numbers staying on course, and cutting through (everyone is ignoring them currently).
I think SAGE want it now, Boris wants to get through to Jan because Christmas cancelled he will be cremated toast rather than currently badly burned toast.
As I posted yesterday, my prediction in response to @Leon's call for predictions is very hard lockdown from 3rd Jan.
I will be writing to my MP the minute that is announced.
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I haven't called for anyone to die.
But do you have any evidence that mask mandates prevent deaths over the course of the pandemic, post-vaccines?
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I don't understand this attack line, because what grounds are there for thinking that PT thinks that he and his family are exempt from the risk he thinks we should all be running?
"Manchester United star Marcus Rashford has joined forces with Tom Kerridge to create a Christmas dinner that will feed six people - with a leftover Boxing Day dish - for just £10."
Mail
£10 is the xmas bonus you get on some benefits. So this is a v good idea.
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I haven't called for anyone to die.
But do you have any evidence that mask mandates prevent deaths over the course of the pandemic, post-vaccines?
Give over. Your attitude consistently is "people die, so what?" You assume *others* will die.
Well, it seems to come down to “The Race Director shall have overriding authority in the following matter(s) and the clerk of the course may give orders in respect of them only with his express agreement: the use of the safety car” so the lawyers can argue the definition of “use of” and possibly whether it was indeed the clerk of the course giving orders that had been given express agreement (as opposed to the Race Director issuing orders).
How does Massi justify giving Verstappen a clear run at Hamiltion by allowing only the lapped cars between car 33 and 44 to overtake the SC. and not giving Carlos Sainz in third place the same chance ? There were still lapped cars between Sainz and Verstappen.
The stewards in their appeal ruling have basically said it’s within the race director’s power to selectively apply the rules, in a way contrary to the procedure mandated by the regulations. Irrespective of today’s outcome, that’s a terrible precedent to set.
Per the central thesis of our rulers for the last 18 months, given those numbers South Africa will have no functioning health system within 10 days. Lets see.
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I haven't called for anyone to die.
But do you have any evidence that mask mandates prevent deaths over the course of the pandemic, post-vaccines?
Give over. Your attitude consistently is "people die, so what?" You assume *others* will die.
No its not.
Everyone dies eventually. That includes me and my loves ones too.
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I haven't called for anyone to die.
But do you have any evidence that mask mandates prevent deaths over the course of the pandemic, post-vaccines?
Give over. Your attitude consistently is "people die, so what?" You assume *others* will die.
No its not.
Everyone dies eventually. That includes me and my loves ones too.
Nobody is immortal.
If you could wear a mask to prevent the death of a loved one, you'd do it.
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I haven't called for anyone to die.
But do you have any evidence that mask mandates prevent deaths over the course of the pandemic, post-vaccines?
Give over. Your attitude consistently is "people die, so what?" You assume *others* will die.
No its not.
Everyone dies eventually. That includes me and my loves ones too.
Nobody is immortal.
If you could wear a mask to prevent the death of a loved one, you'd do it.
But it won't, everyone in the country is going to get COVID. Multiple times.
@Philip_Thompson please withdraw the accusation that @Farooq, @RochdalePioneers have bullied anyone. They have not, they've just questioned your views that you consider death a worthy outcome.
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I haven't called for anyone to die.
But do you have any evidence that mask mandates prevent deaths over the course of the pandemic, post-vaccines?
Give over. Your attitude consistently is "people die, so what?" You assume *others* will die.
Why do you assume he assumes that? Unless he has wholly irrational delusions of preferential immunity, he must be saying: these are risks we should all, including me and mine, be living with.
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp · 42m Guess we know that those delayed reported cases were quite substantial... But hopefully then this high number also represents a lot of backlog ...?
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I haven't called for anyone to die.
But do you have any evidence that mask mandates prevent deaths over the course of the pandemic, post-vaccines?
Give over. Your attitude consistently is "people die, so what?" You assume *others* will die.
No its not.
Everyone dies eventually. That includes me and my loves ones too.
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I haven't called for anyone to die.
But do you have any evidence that mask mandates prevent deaths over the course of the pandemic, post-vaccines?
Give over. Your attitude consistently is "people die, so what?" You assume *others* will die.
No its not.
Everyone dies eventually. That includes me and my loves ones too.
Nobody is immortal.
If you could wear a mask to prevent the death of a loved one, you'd do it.
What evidence do you have that masks lower death rates over the course of the pandemic?
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I haven't called for anyone to die.
But do you have any evidence that mask mandates prevent deaths over the course of the pandemic, post-vaccines?
Give over. Your attitude consistently is "people die, so what?" You assume *others* will die.
No its not.
Everyone dies eventually. That includes me and my loves ones too.
But I take it that the motor race is over, that the fastest driver won, and that the post mortem could be lengthy.
When's the next test match start? I understand the cricket stuff.
Please God no. Not cricket. I understand nothing about this thread. I understand nothing about cricket. They may be sport but if so they are the dullest activities in the world. So dull in fact that I have been forced to watch a documentary about the Shipman murders. Oh and write a header. 😉
Cricket is basically this thing where a bloke is trying to hit another bloke that he hates with a hard ball. The target hides behind a small fence, with a friend wielding a bat stood in front of it aiming to deflect the ball. Points are scored according to the relative success of the attempts to hit the cowering bloke, the attempts to hit the fence, and the attempts made by the one with the bat to deflect the ball.
Everybody stops at half-time for tea and cucumber sandwiches, and then the sides are reversed.
Cricket is basically the most boring "sport" ever invented - except for golf
Have you ever actually watched billiards?
There is a difference between spectating and watching. I found playing cricket a bit boring as for lot of time you don’t do anything. But I luuurrrrrvd playing rugby. 🏉
Per the central thesis of our rulers for the last 18 months, given those numbers South Africa will have no functioning health system within 10 days. Lets see.
The South Africans themselves seem insanely relaxed about the gathering apocalypse.
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I haven't called for anyone to die.
But do you have any evidence that mask mandates prevent deaths over the course of the pandemic, post-vaccines?
Give over. Your attitude consistently is "people die, so what?" You assume *others* will die.
No its not.
Everyone dies eventually. That includes me and my loves ones too.
Nobody is immortal.
A silly post.
Its not remotely silly.
It shouldn't need saying, but sadly it does so divorced from reality some people have become.
@Philip_Thompson please withdraw the accusation that @Farooq, @RochdalePioneers have bullied anyone. They have not, they've just questioned your views that you consider death a worthy outcome.
No withdrawal needed on my behalf. Leave it out there for us all to point and laugh at.
I notice we're not talking about Taiwan or New Zealand's approaches, how strange
Being trapped in your own country is pretty depressing. My mate hasn't been able to see his parents in the UK for almost three years because he can't guarantee getting back in the country. But sure, they win the COVID dick waving about infections, so that's nice.
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I haven't called for anyone to die.
But do you have any evidence that mask mandates prevent deaths over the course of the pandemic, post-vaccines?
Give over. Your attitude consistently is "people die, so what?" You assume *others* will die.
Why do you assume he assumes that? Unless he has wholly irrational delusions of preferential immunity, he must be saying: these are risks we should all, including me and mine, be living with.
Because nobody goes out saying "let people die of Covid so I can do what I like in liberty" assuming it will be they and their own doing the dying.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 2h If we boostered at 0.5m/day, that'd be 40 days. Omicron could well be over before then. And the booster will need at least *some* time to work. Basically, boosters by Christmas have a decent chance of mattering for omicron. Anything after that might not.
It's clear that we should have followed New Zealand and Taiwan.
Oddly, Taiwan has wide use of masks and has done since the beginning but what would they know?
Nobody is allowed into Taiwan without 14 day strict quaratine....as soon as they stopped it, they got a spike in cases. Masks in that case are irrelevant.
@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.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I haven't called for anyone to die.
But do you have any evidence that mask mandates prevent deaths over the course of the pandemic, post-vaccines?
Give over. Your attitude consistently is "people die, so what?" You assume *others* will die.
Why do you assume he assumes that? Unless he has wholly irrational delusions of preferential immunity, he must be saying: these are risks we should all, including me and mine, be living with.
Because nobody goes out saying "let people die of Covid so I can do what I like in liberty" assuming it will be they and their own doing the dying.
What makes you say that? It's just wrong. I support the motorway speed limit being 70 vs 20 despite the additional risk of fatal crashes, on a convenience vs risk basis, in the knowledge that the enhanced risk applies to me every bit as much as it applies to everyone else. Presumably, so do you.
It's clear that we should have followed New Zealand and Taiwan.
Oddly, Taiwan has wide use of masks and has done since the beginning but what would they know?
Nobody is allowed into Taiwan without 14 day strict quaratine....as soon as they stopped it, they got a spike in cases. Masks in that case are irrelevant.
Masks are not irrelevant. You cannot conclude this.
The UK should have closed its borders months ago, I called for this over and over and I was shouted down.
Off the top of my head, how about something like a National Vaccination Day? Massive advertising campaign, vaccines available in as many locations as capacity can cope with, free public transport to get to a vaccination site, mobile vaccination units cruising around, employers and schools etc. have agreed to give time off work for vaccinations etc.... You get the idea.
Yes, a few big publicity events and days to get it done.
When New Zealand did a National Vaccination Day, 130,000 doses were administered across the country. That would be the equivalent of not far off 1.5 million here so it shows what is possible.
There was an all-day Jabathon on the television - that might be a step too far.
Today's Anecdata:
1) Around 1% wearing masks at a packed football game.
2) Mrs Foxys friend at the vax booster clinic says getting a lot of no shows (and not done elsewhere as would show on the screens)
3) I was pinged today (asymptomatic) so have been for a PCR. LFT negative. Not required to isolate as fully vaxxed, but will wear an FFP3* for this week.
4) Antivax friend of my neighbour died of covid this week.
Looks bad to me. Leicester shaping up for a horrible holiday period. Stay safe out there...
*a correctly fitted FFP3 filters out aerosol viruses, an FFP2 larger droplets. They are far better and the results from Addenbrookes show that they should be used more by staff.
Can I comment about 2? I am now post 6 months from jab 2 by 6 days, yet in Wales we still have to wait for an invite from our health board in Wales. This is so infuriating especially in the light of Mrs Foxy's clinic turnout.
After watching Strictly - beautiful people in great shape wearing gorgeous costumes and fake tan - going straight to this fat pasty faced bastard, a bloke who can't even use a hairbrush and looks like he's slept a fortnight in his clothes, is pretty jarring. Just go, man.
It's clear that we should have followed New Zealand and Taiwan.
Oddly, Taiwan has wide use of masks and has done since the beginning but what would they know?
Nobody is allowed into Taiwan without 14 day strict quaratine....as soon as they stopped it, they got a spike in cases. Masks in that case are irrelevant.
Masks are not irrelevant. You cannot conclude this.
The UK should have closed its borders months ago, I called for this over and over and I was shouted down.
We are an island.
Nobody can get into society of Taiwan without effectively being negative. As soon as they got rid of that, they saw a big spike and they reinstated it.
Comments
How many was it that Ronnie chalked up in the whole of last season, five?
That much said, it's good to see Brecel on his way back up again at last.
Under my hypothetical the length of the shutdown is limited and, as dear leader of the nation, I would order the shuttered sectors to be hosed down with money. Not loans, direct state aid.
Everybody stops at half-time for tea and cucumber sandwiches, and then the sides are reversed.
Baker is someone who likes to wield power through influence not by being the main person in the firing line.
I also don’t think he would move against BJ nor will the anti-restrictions group as a whole - not because they like BJ but because there is no alternative for the moment. All the other named leading candidates (Sunak, Truss etc) are mistrusted. Harper might be an outside beg but I reckon many Red Wall MPs would not see him as popular enough there to help keep their seats.
I actually did have one person in mind and am thinking of writing a thread../
Not expecting it though!
Six week lockdown == open on 13th April.
I know we don't always or even often see eye to eye but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
Bahrain - Not Free
Azerbaijan - Not Free
Russia - Not Free
Turkey - Not Free
Qatar - Not Free
Saudi - Not Free
Abu Dhabi - Not Free
Best wishes to you all.
Welcome back AveIt!
I will be writing to my MP the minute that is announced.
But do you have any evidence that mask mandates prevent deaths over the course of the pandemic, post-vaccines?
If its not many tests then positivity rate can end up high.
Mail
£10 is the xmas bonus you get on some benefits. So this is a v good idea.
@Charles is the only muppet still defending BoJo, he knows who his paymaster is
Eswatini COVID update: Cases surge in South Africa's neighbor, nearly all tests positive
- New cases: 1,002
- Average: 687 (+114)
- Positivity rate: 97.3% (+46.3)
- In hospital: 54
- New deaths: 0
- Average: 0 (-)
Not being asked about why he dragged his feet on authorising boosters in the summer. 🙄
There were still lapped cars between Sainz and Verstappen.
The stewards in their appeal ruling have basically said it’s within the race director’s power to selectively apply the rules, in a way contrary to the procedure mandated by the regulations.
Irrespective of today’s outcome, that’s a terrible precedent to set.
Everyone dies eventually. That includes me and my loves ones too.
Nobody is immortal.
You try to out virtue signal the Covid Research Group (or whatever the hell they are called now- I don't care). Are you actually Steve Baker?
Prof. Christina Pagel
@chrischirp
·
42m
Guess we know that those delayed reported cases were quite substantial... But hopefully then this high number also represents a lot of backlog ...?
https://twitter.com/lbc/status/1470063256563851270?s=21
It shouldn't need saying, but sadly it does so divorced from reality some people have become.
Didn't I do well!
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
2h
If we boostered at 0.5m/day, that'd be 40 days. Omicron could well be over before then. And the booster will need at least *some* time to work. Basically, boosters by Christmas have a decent chance of mattering for omicron. Anything after that might not.
Oddly, Taiwan has wide use of masks and has done since the beginning but what would they know?
We are doomed.
Desperate performance.
Who thought this was a good idea?
The UK should have closed its borders months ago, I called for this over and over and I was shouted down.
We are an island.
Everyone over 18 who is eligible to be offered a booster jab by the end of December