Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
It is a shame that some on here are openly supporting a vile man instead of the police, just because of your dislike of masks.
In this country, there is no effective channel of complaint against the police, because the people who handle the process are ... the police themselves.
You do not mess with the police, especially if you are well known to them. That goes for most countries in the world.
Meanwhile, in East Asian countries, people are wearing masks (even in 30C+ summer weather) and the situation is well under control, while in UK you are arguing why masks are useless as the number of infections start to rocket. Utter disgrace!
I don’t think anyone is supporting one over the other. However a number of people have made the quite valid point that the situation was handled badly by the officer. Laying on a 5-minute floor show was hardly a professional way of handling the situation, and if either of them had Covid then the whole performance would have quite likely spread it all round the carriage.
If the person had committed an offence or was suspected of that then he should have been arrested, or left there until sufficient officers arrived that a professional arrest could have been carried out.
It’s already a little dubious that the story has changed from spitting to coughing. The latter isn’t a crime, even if he was being provocative.
Err, yes, that's rather the point. We made masks mandatory, and then the number of infections started to rocket. Hard to see therefore that they're doing a whole lot of good.
Just as in France, Spain, Ireland, various US states etc. where the number of infections reported have significantly increased since compulsory masks came in.
Contrast Sweden, who aren't doing masks, and they're doing a lot better.
(For what it is worth, personally I think the effect of masks - either way - is close to negligible in this case. Though the evidence, per the above, does appear to be beginning to point towards the 'harmful rather than helpful' - exactly as England's deputy CMO Jenny Harries has suggested a number of times, and the position of the WHO before they changed their mind for political reasons)
Err, yes, that's rather the point. We made masks mandatory, and then the number of infections started to rocket. Hard to see therefore that they're doing a whole lot of good.
Indeed, those papers suggesting a 40% drop in transmission dont seem to have held true, as we'd expect a solid step-change shortly after they were introduced.
Indeed, those papers suggesting a 40% drop in transmission dont seem to have held true, as we'd expect a solid step-change shortly after they were introduced.
Days are getting shorter, average temperatures are dropping, the weather has been more unsettled. The evidence in Scotland at the moment is the increases are mostly coming from indoor transmission in uncontrolled circumstances, eg multi generational households, extended family visiting at home, dinner parties, house parties etc where there are multiple households in a confined space with no social distancing / mitigation.
That would suggest that a combination of social distancing and other mitigations including face coverings are limiting transmission in public indoor locations.
Days are getting shorter, average temperatures are dropping, the weather has been more unsettled. The evidence in Scotland at the moment is the increases are mostly coming from indoor transmission in uncontrolled circumstances, eg multi generational households, extended family visiting at home, dinner parties, house parties etc where there are multiple households in a confined space with no social distancing / mitigation.
That would suggest that a combination of social distancing and other mitigations including face coverings are limiting transmission in public indoor locations.
...or it could suggest that the first set of circumstances you mention have always been the main methods of transmission, and public locations (with the exception of hospitals and care homes, for obvious reasons) have never been major risks.
Simple fact is that, even after all this time, it seems we don't really know.
Indeed, those papers suggesting a 40% drop in transmission dont seem to have held true, as we'd expect a solid step-change shortly after they were introduced.
Days are getting shorter, average temperatures are dropping, the weather has been more unsettled. The evidence in Scotland at the moment is the increases are mostly coming from indoor transmission in uncontrolled circumstances, eg multi generational households, extended family visiting at home, dinner parties, house parties etc where there are multiple households in a confined space with no social distancing / mitigation.
That would suggest that a combination of social distancing and other mitigations including face coverings are limiting transmission in public indoor locations.
It would also suggest that public indoor locations, where contact with others is mostly very brief and not really up close and personal, have never been places where significant numbers of people caught the disease.
Fair play to you for remaining objective enough to admit that, not always an easy thing to do when positions have become entrenched!
Sadly, whatever the evidence, I suspect we won’t see any changes in the government’s approach to masks because this would cause them to lose face (no pun intended).
Fair play to you for remaining objective enough to admit that, not always an easy thing to do when positions have become entrenched!
Sadly, whatever the evidence, I suspect we won’t see any changes in the government’s approach to masks because this would cause them to lose face (no pun intended).
I remain of the view that the government is now on a massive damage-limitation exercise. Whatever happens with Covid, we’re now in for a difficult time as we take the bill for the last 8 months. There’s already chatter about tax rises, and it’s clearly inevitable that a budget containing nasties is going to arrive before Christmas, the only unknown is to what extent.
Given how people were swayed by £10 off a meal, changes to the amount of tax paid could provoke a similar change in opinion. It doesn’t really suit the government for the line to be that this was an over-reaction or a panic based on dodgy Ferguson figures, or perhaps even worse for a view to develop that the lockdown was an emergency measure necessary after two months of dithering.
So, as you say, losing face doesn’t seem to be an option, especially as there’s a vocal group who seem to have latched on to masks, for what in some cases seems to be for nefarious reasons. Likewise there’s people who seem to relish the thought that we might be just a few short steps away from another full and harsh lockdown.
I don't think anyone is actually supporting him, rather the principle that people can have exceptions to wearing masks and as such should not be challenged by the Police. That it happened to someone with form is beside the point, if it happens to him you can be sure that other people will be treat in a similar manner. The government have made it clear about exceptions, and it is the responsibility of the Police to behave in a professional manner, including respecting that they cannot challenge someone who states they have an exception.
Perhaps more importantly, the bloke is prepared to stand up for himself. Now imagine a timid person being told to 'just wear one' by the police officer. Comply, tug forlock, oh yes sir, so extremely sorry sir, begging your pardon officer. Personally, I do not wish to live in a country where the police (even a small minority) just make up laws to suit their mood today.
I think the 'masks reducing transmission' debate is not the whole story. Figures are difficult to read anyway, as tests have gone up at the same time as masks have been utilised, so the increase in cases might just be down to that.
But at the same time, it should be considered that mask wearing doesn't necessarily stop transmission, but does reduce viral load. Therefore people still get infected, but with less virus, and the body can cope better with the infection, than if coverings were not mandated.
There is still a lot of research to go into this, but it is one theory.
So, as you say, losing face doesn’t seem to be an option, especially as there’s a vocal group who seem to have latched on to masks, for what in some cases seems to be for nefarious reasons. Likewise there’s people who seem to relish the thought that we might be just a few short steps away from another full and harsh lockdown.
Perhaps more importantly, the bloke is prepared to stand up for himself. Now imagine a timid person being told to 'just wear one' by the police officer. Comply, tug forlock, oh yes sir, so extremely sorry sir, begging your pardon officer. Personally, I do not wish to live in a country where the police (even a small minority) just make up laws to suit their mood today.
Oh yes what a lovely bloke he is. Why not invite him round for tea with your granny as he seems a nice chap.....just don't leave your car keys lying around.........
I think the 'masks reducing transmission' debate is not the whole story. Figures are difficult to read anyway, as tests have gone up at the same time as masks have been utilised, so the increase in cases might just be down to that.
But at the same time, it should be considered that mask wearing doesn't necessarily stop transmission, but does reduce viral load. Therefore people still get infected, but with less virus, and the body can cope better with the infection, than if coverings were not mandated.
There is still a lot of research to go into this, but it is one theory.
That does seem plausible. Indeed, if masks were to increase transmission* but reduce viral load, then that might make them something of a win-win (essentially causing many people to become infected and thus immune, but only mildly). That said, I'd want to see more research done into these areas.
*I wouldn't be surprised if they did - obviously they don't inherently increase transmission but as has been noted before, people don't always use them perfectly and often fiddle with them.
Oh yes what a lovely bloke he is. Why not invite him round for tea with your granny as he seems a nice chap.....just don't leave your car keys lying around.........
That does seem plausible. Indeed, if masks were to increase transmission* but reduce viral load, then that might make them something of a win-win (essentially causing many people to become infected and thus immune, but only mildly). That said, I'd want to see more research done into these areas.
*I wouldn't be surprised if they did - obviously they don't inherently increase transmission but as has been noted before, people don't always use them perfectly and often fiddle with them.
Yes, I've seen this theory elsewhere, and it is a possible reason for the cases increasing but the hospitalisations not. That's why I've not moved to being wholly anti-mask yet.
We don't know. You'd hope we would know things like this before we impose such measures on the general population - and we've had at least a century to find out since the Spanish flu had many of the same debates on mask-wearing - but we don't. How much of that is a case of 'don't ask the question if you might not like the answer' I'll leave up to the reader.
Dr John Lee may well equally be correct, as he's been a more sensible person than most throughout the last 6 months:
...the idea that masks stop the spread is not only totally unproven, but also facile. It is a failure of imagination. When a droplet hits a mask, it will dry out within seconds or, at most, minutes. If there is any substance to the droplet other than water, it will turn into a dust particle. Unless you superglue the mask to your face, there will be a constant rain of dust particles coming out from all directions around your mask as you breathe. They will be breathed in by others and the virus will do what it does.
The fact is that although we know a lot about viruses, we know very little about how they spread in public spaces and the population. There are many variables, and we don’t have a proper handle on them. But the people who are advising the government think they do. They believe their models are telling them the truth, but there is precious little evidence for that, and a lot of evidence that they are pretty rubbish.
Yes, I've seen this theory elsewhere, and it is a possible reason for the cases increasing but the hospitalisations not. That's why I've not moved to being wholly anti-mask yet.
I think the 'masks reducing transmission' debate is not the whole story. Figures are difficult to read anyway, as tests have gone up at the same time as masks have been utilised, so the increase in cases might just be down to that.
But at the same time, it should be considered that mask wearing doesn't necessarily stop transmission, but does reduce viral load. Therefore people still get infected, but with less virus, and the body can cope better with the infection, than if coverings were not mandated.
There is still a lot of research to go into this, but it is one theory.
The question is not whether it stops transmission (let's say reduces, as I don't think even the most pro-mask zealots claim it stops completely), it is:
a) whether it reduces it enough to prevent onward transmission
b) in what situations/circumstances does it do so
c) given the recent stories about the inaccuracies of the testing currently being done and the implication that there are a huge number of false positives, specifically among asymptomatic results, does it actually make a discernable difference
It's very hard to disagree with a - maybe, b - we don't know, and c - probably not (I'm sure I've seen a report, possibly from Norway iirc, that it would take 200,000 people to mask up for a week to result in the reduction of one transmission). You need to be able to make the case that these are proportionate measures in comparison to the reported negative health issues for the wearer.
I think the 'masks reducing transmission' debate is not the whole story. Figures are difficult to read anyway, as tests have gone up at the same time as masks have been utilised, so the increase in cases might just be down to that.
But at the same time, it should be considered that mask wearing doesn't necessarily stop transmission, but does reduce viral load. Therefore people still get infected, but with less virus, and the body can cope better with the infection, than if coverings were not mandated.
There is still a lot of research to go into this, but it is one theory.
I'm not sure about that, viruses are self replicating and so they don't need huge loads to potentially have an effect on people. I don't think there is a covid-lite that explains reduced amounts of hospitalisation whilst actual numbers increase. Its far more likely that the virus is simply moving through a healthier sub-set of the population, aided by ever improving treatments for the symptoms.
As for the effectiveness of masks, whilst increased testing will lift more cases, we have repeatedly been told that they are there to stop the spread. But with so many of the population obeying the mandate in so many countries, yet cases still rise, you do have to call into question whether they are more political than scientific.
The question is not whether it stops transmission (let's say reduces, as I don't think even the most pro-mask zealots claim it stops completely), it is:
a) whether it reduces it enough to prevent onward transmission
b) in what situations/circumstances does it do so
c) given the recent stories about the inaccuracies of the testing currently being done and the implication that there are a huge number of false positives, specifically among asymptomatic results, does it actually make a discernable difference
It's very hard to disagree with a - maybe, b - we don't know, and c - probably not (I'm sure I've seen a report, possibly from Norway iirc, that it would take 200,000 people to mask up for a week to result in the reduction of one transmission). You need to be able to make the case that these are proportionate measures in comparison to the reported negative health issues for the wearer.
I think the answer to a above is looking more and more like a firm “no”, given that masks have apparently had no discernible impact on infection rates since being introduced. That trend appears to have been replicated across many other countries which have mandated their use even more strictly than we have.
I think the answer to a above is looking more and more like a firm “no”, given that masks have apparently had no discernible impact on infection rates since being introduced. That trend appears to have been replicated across many other countries which have mandated their use even more strictly than we have.
Note the silence from the pro-mask lot on Twitter/in the news about say, Madrid where thousands of cases a day are being reported and they have had probably the strictest mask rules on the planet since the end of July. For a bunch of people who spurn evidenced based medicine (e.g the WHO saying there is zero evidence to support making everybody wear masks) in favour of observational they are certainly turning a blind eye to this observation.
This guff about viral load is just the goalposts moving on masks as well, I feel. Not everything in life needs to be perfectly evidenced but if there isn't any, at all by now..
I'm not sure about that, viruses are self replicating and so they don't need huge loads to potentially have an effect on people. I don't think there is a covid-lite that explains reduced amounts of hospitalisation whilst actual numbers increase. Its far more likely that the virus is simply moving through a healthier sub-set of the population, aided by ever improving treatments for the symptoms.
As for the effectiveness of masks, whilst increased testing will lift more cases, we have repeatedly been told that they are there to stop the spread. But with so many of the population obeying the mandate in so many countries, yet cases still rise, you do have to call into question whether they are more political than scientific.
Yes they do replicate, but if there is a small initial load of infection, then the body's defences will be mobilised for it when it does replicate. If it receives a huge dose of virus in one go, then it is overwhelmed.
As I said, papers should come out on this in due course as more research is done.
Certainly mask wearing is a visible solution for governments to take, an easy one to show they are doing something to appease the population. One of the earliest universal mask adopters was Czechia, and they had their outbreak under control well before most other European countries. So I'm inclined to think they do work to an extent, and the current rise in cases since mask mandation is due to improved/targeted testing over a dramatic actual % case increases in population.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Note the silence from the pro-mask lot on Twitter/in the news about say, Madrid where thousands of cases a day are being reported and they have had probably the strictest mask rules on the planet since the end of July. For a bunch of people who spurn evidenced based medicine (e.g the WHO saying there is zero evidence to support making everybody wear masks) in favour of observational they are certainly turning a blind eye to this observation.
This guff about viral load is just the goalposts moving on masks as well, I feel. Not everything in life needs to be perfectly evidenced but if there isn't any, at all by now..
Madrid is a bit more complex. For a start, Madrid empties in the summer traditionally (it is a very hot place), with the locals going to cool off at the coastal areas for the extended holiday season. So there's probably been a big influx of COVID from areas other than Madrid.
Also their response is regionalised, and the local government had an abysmal contact tracing record over the summer - so if testing has been ramped up, then it's not a surprises cases have come out.
And don't forget, Madrid actually had far less cases than expected during the inital outbreak, despite the urban population. So quite simply maybe it stands out now as it is 'catching up' with the rest of Spain as people in Madrid had not been exposed to the virus as much yet, so it is showing up more.
There are so many variables flying around that is why it is difficult to quantify the effects of masks either way.
Certainly mask wearing is a visible solution for governments to take, an easy one to show they are doing something to appease the population. One of the earliest universal mask adopters was Czechia, and they had their outbreak under control well before most other European countries. So I'm inclined to think they do work to an extent, and the current rise in cases since mask mandation is due to improved/targeted testing over a dramatic actual % case increases in population.
And look where they are now - cases rising greatly now. Perhaps those countries praised for swift action will live to regret it, just delaying the inevitable. Seems whether masks work or not the only real solution is let the virus run its course whilst protecting the vulnerable?
And look where they are now - cases rising greatly now. Perhaps those countries praised for swift action will live to regret it, just delaying the inevitable. Seems whether masks work or not the only real solution is let the virus run its course whilst protecting the vulnerable?
Well indeed that is a possibility. But that goes beyond the debate about masks, but about lockdown strategies in general. If Sweden still has low figures in a couple of months then we really need to consider that most of the West has got it wrong.
Yes they do replicate, but if there is a small initial load of infection, then the body's defences will be mobilised for it when it does replicate. If it receives a huge dose of virus in one go, then it is overwhelmed.
As I said, papers should come out on this in due course as more research is done.
Certainly mask wearing is a visible solution for governments to take, an easy one to show they are doing something to appease the population. One of the earliest universal mask adopters was Czechia, and they had their outbreak under control well before most other European countries. So I'm inclined to think they do work to an extent, and the current rise in cases since mask mandation is due to improved/targeted testing over a dramatic actual % case increases in population.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
As did a lot of other countries, and they have not had similar results. In fact Czechia could just be in the same position as New Zealand, with very low transmission early on but by far from out of the woods.
I'm in favour of masks. I'm not in favour of the Police misusing their authority, whether they happen to like the person they are arresting or not. They must, absolutely must, be 100% on the law, and in this case if you state you have an exemption that is it as there is no process to confirm one. If that means they can't get someone who needs getting, that's "collateral damage". Better false negatives than false positives.
The regulations governing mask wearing do not prohibit asking questions of someone claiming an exemption; they state that those not wearing masks should not routinely be asked why they aren't wearing a mask. The police have discretion on this matter; based on what is reported, I give the benefit of the doubt to the police over those claiming the police were in the wrong.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
