Covid restrictions to end on 19th July

[big_rig]

https://twitter.com/bloodcancer_uk/status/1412093670820651011?s=21

This is the Blood Cancer UK post on Twitter today

Are people with blood cancer avoiding all pubs and restaurants then, if it is so dangerous to be around unmasked people? Honest question. Somehow I feel not.

 

[yorksrob]

Obviously nothing is without risk.

However, there is a sound reasoning behind the easing of restrictions in two weeks time, rather than later. It will be better to go ahead when the schools are on holiday, rather than when they're back and we're going into winter.

 

[Mat17]

I really hope mask wearing ends on public transport.

I've got my lighter ready for my ritual mask burning.

 

[notlob.divad]

This thread has become everything I expected it to become. The self proclaimed 'libertarians' who supposedly want everyone to have free choice in how they protect themselves, to wear a mask or not, now doing everything they can to undermine that free choice by trying to claim people's reasoning for doing so is invalid. That they must be vaccine deniers, that we must know the persons intimiate medical details so the group can judge whether their reasoning for wanting to wear a mask are legitimate, etc etc.

If they truely were the liberals they claimed to be, they would not care what people choose to do. It would be a truely free choice without peer pressure, resentment or duress. My biggets concern as I posted above, is that whilst on this forum the debate is with words and is usually civilised amongst civilised people. However once it is taken to the streets after the 19th July, people with a similar mindset but led civility, will turn similar thoughts into aggressive actions not simply words types on a keyboard.

I await with eager anticipation the "covid recovery group"s inevitable campaign to make all mask wearing illegal, to see the self professed anti-authoritarians truely stand up for their supposed liberal values of free choice and freedom of expression.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2021 ==

Meanwhile - on the subject of blunt instruments...

Policing Bill: MPs vote for ‘draconian’ protest laws despite mounting opposition​

MPs vote for ‘draconian’ protest laws despite mounting opposition

Bid to remove protest powers from bill voted down

www.independent.co.uk

View attachment 99297

Yes, this is truely scary. - Off topic I know, but if you want a real look at Authoritarianism this is where it starts.

 

[NSEFAN]

This thread has become everything I expected it to become. The self proclaimed 'libertarians' who supposedly want everyone to have free choice in how they protect themselves, to wear a mask or not, now doing everything they can to undermine that free choice by trying to claim people's reasoning for doing so is invalid. That they must be vaccine deniers, that we must know the persons intimiate medical details so the group can judge whether their reasoning for wanting to wear a mask are legitimate, etc etc.

If they truely were the liberals they claimed to be, they would not care what people choose to do. It would be a truely free choice without peer pressure, resentment or duress. My biggets concern as I posted above, is that whilst on this forum the debate is with words and is usually civilised amongst civilised people. However once it is taken to the streets after the 19th July, people with a similar mindset but led civility, will turn similar thoughts into aggressive actions not simply words types on a keyboard.

That's not the impression I got. Some posters are fed up with being required to wear facemasks. When another poster states that they would prefer to see mask requirements continue for XYZ medical reason, this is then objected to and inherently ends up in a discussion about the details of the medical conditions. This is quite relevant to the discussion, as facemask mandates are all about protecting those with underlying medical conditions, I.e. people who are more at risk of covid. To understand why someone would wish others to be required to be masked up, its fair to ask about the conditions which make them desire this. Nobody is under any obligation to bring up what health conditions they may or may not have, or answer any questions put to them.

Arguably the 'libertarian' approach is that which seems to be taken by the government, 'You don't have to wear a face mask, but you can continue to do so if you wish'. I'm sure many on this board are quite satisfied with that.

 

[bengley]

Indeed, I am perfectly happy for people to continue wearing masks if they wish to.

What I don't like is the moral high ground which people will inevitably take because they are 'wearing it to protect others'.

 

[Ianno87]

What I don't like is the moral high ground which people will inevitably take because they are 'wearing it to protect others'.

But that is the reason.

You can't say you respect somebody's choice, but then dislike the reason for it.... That isn't respectful.

 

[yorkie]

This thread has become everything I expected it to become. The self proclaimed 'libertarians' who supposedly want everyone to have free choice in how they protect themselves, to wear a mask or not, now doing everything they can to undermine that free choice by trying to claim people's reasoning for doing so is invalid.

If you wish to disagree with anything we've said, feel free to do so.

What in particular do you disagree with exactly?

That they must be vaccine deniers,

The views from those who seek to continue restrictions expressing doubts regarding vaccine effectiveness are there for all to see.

I will continue to challenge these views.

that we must know the persons intimiate medical details

No such demand was made; I refer you to posts above.

so the group can judge whether their reasoning for wanting to wear a mask are legitimate, etc etc.

This is not what was said at all; I refer you to the posts above.

Those who seek to mandate others wear ineffective masks can choose to wear effective masks, if they wish to protect themselves.

Did you read the BBC article I linked to, relating to the research comparing FFP3 masks with standard masks?

It's not, as you falsely claim, a question of us denying others the right to choose. Quite the opposite; we are not the ones seeking to mandate

If they truely were the liberals they claimed to be, they would not care what people choose to do.

That is central to my argument, so why are you didageeing with me?

You clearly have not read this thread properly.

It would be a truely free choice without peer pressure, resentment or duress.

Exactly; that masks will no longer be mandated is a positive thing, and yet done people are deeply unhappy at people no longer being mandated to wear them.

My biggets concern as I posted above, is that whilst on this forum the debate is with words and is usually civilised amongst civilised people. However once it is taken to the streets after the 19th July, people with a similar mindset but led civility, will turn similar thoughts into aggressive actions not simply words types on a keyboard.

The only aggression I have seen in this area is from those who seek to demand others wear masks, not the other way round

I await with eager anticipation the "covid recovery group"s inevitable campaign to make all mask wearing illegal, to see the self professed anti-authoritarians truely stand up for their supposed liberal values of free choice and freedom of expression.

Until then, this us a theoretical, strawman argument.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2021 ==


Yes, this is truely scary. - Off topic I know, but if you want a real look at Authoritarianism this is where it starts.

That's a whole new topic, for a different thread!

Back on topic, this is decent article, especially by BBC standards:

Why it's time to think differently about Covid

The virus is not the deadly threat it was, but the plan to lift all restrictions is not without risk.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Covid will never go away," says Prof Paul Hunter, from the University of East Anglia. "It's inevitable that we're going to catch it repeatedly for the rest of our lives, whether we have had the vaccine or not

 

[NSEFAN]

But that is the reason.

You can't say you respect somebody's choice, but then dislike the reason for it.... That isn't respectful.

Surely you can? Respecting someone's right to make a choice doesn't mean liking it or thinking it's being done for a good reason.

 

[Ianno87]

Surely you can? Respecting someone's right to make a choice doesn't mean liking it or thinking it's being done for a good reason.

No, you can't claim to be "happy" with what somebody is doing when you then immediately object to the reason for it.

 

[bengley]

But that is the reason.

You can't say you respect somebody's choice, but then dislike the reason for it.... That isn't respectful.

Firstly it's their perception that they are protecting others.

Secondly, I don't want other people to protect me, other than to simply cover their nose and mouth when they sneeze and cough, as has always been common courtesy.

 

[yorksrob]

This thread has become everything I expected it to become. The self proclaimed 'libertarians' who supposedly want everyone to have free choice in how they protect themselves, to wear a mask or not, now doing everything they can to undermine that free choice by trying to claim people's reasoning for doing so is invalid. That they must be vaccine deniers, that we must know the persons intimiate medical details so the group can judge whether their reasoning for wanting to wear a mask are legitimate, etc etc.

If they truely were the liberals they claimed to be, they would not care what people choose to do. It would be a truely free choice without peer pressure, resentment or duress. My biggets concern as I posted above, is that whilst on this forum the debate is with words and is usually civilised amongst civilised people. However once it is taken to the streets after the 19th July, people with a similar mindset but led civility, will turn similar thoughts into aggressive actions not simply words types on a keyboard.

I await with eager anticipation the "covid recovery group"s inevitable campaign to make all mask wearing illegal, to see the self professed anti-authoritarians truely stand up for their supposed liberal values of free choice and freedom of expression.

At the moment I've not seen any proposal to make mask wearing illegal, so I can't comment on it.

The terms of the national debate are whether mask wearing should be compulsory or not. I would prefer it not. If someone chooses to wear a facemask, I don't have an issue with it. The problem is the extrapolation that because someone else feels uneasy about people not wearing face coverings, we should all be made to wear them.

Incidentally I've been listening to Johnathan Ashworth on Radio 4 this morning. As always, it's the lack of an endgame that I find unconvincing. When things such as mask wearing are mentioned in the same breath as mitigations for other viruses which are indefinate (mainly vaccination programmes as we don't really alter our lives on a permanent basis to mitigate against other viruses that I can think of, except perhaps contraception during sexual intercourse - but even that's mainly a matter of individual choice) I can't help but think that the compulsory mask wearing might also become permanent.

 

[Ianno87]

Secondly, I don't want other people to protect me, other than to simply cover their nose and mouth when they sneeze and cough, as has always been common courtesy.

So you do want people to cover their faces to protect you....? Make your mind up.

 

[yorkie]

But that is the reason.

You can't say you respect somebody's choice, but then dislike the reason for it.... That isn't respectful.

Do you disagree with the outcome of the study comparing standard ineffective masks with FFP3 masks which are actually designed to protect from viruses?

 

[DelayRepay]

What I don't like is the moral high ground which people will inevitably take because they are 'wearing it to protect others'.

But that is the reason.

You can't say you respect somebody's choice, but then dislike the reason for it.... That isn't respectful.

I remember last year, before masks became mandatory, some people decided to wear them anyway. I had no problem with that. On a couple of occasions I wore a mask myself.

What I did not like was the stream of Facebook posts and even people wearing t-shirts saying 'Your mask protects me, my mask protects you'. I hope we do not see a return to such things, mostly because it won't be true. Nobody's mask is protecting me now, my vaccine is protecting me. My vaccine is also protecting those around me but I don't feel the need to have a t-shirt made saying this!

NB: I would be much more inclined to wear a mask if there was proper, verified scientific evidence that doing so would have a material benefit for either myself or other people. But the truth is that, even though we've been wearing the things for a year, any evidence is flimsy at best.

 

[yorkie]

So you do want people to cover their faces to protect you....? Make your mind up.

It looks to me like you want faces covered at all times while the other member does not take that view.

I really don't understand what your argument is.

NB: I would be much more inclined to wear a mask if there was proper, verified scientific evidence that doing so would have a material benefit for either myself or other people. But the truth is that, even though we've been wearing the things for a year, any evidence is flimsy at best.

There is; the mask in question is an FFP3, which protects the wearer to the extent it makes no difference what others wear.

 

[Ianno87]

Do you disagree with the outcome of the study comparing standard ineffective masks with FFP3 masks which are actually designed to protect from viruses?

In which case, yes they are protecting others as they claim. Glad we're in agreement.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2021 ==

It looks to me like you want faces covered at all times while the other member does not take that view.

I really don't understand what your argument is.

See response above.

 

[bengley]

So you do want people to cover their faces to protect you....? Make your mind up.

Common courtesy. Have you heard of it? It's like holding a door open for someone just behind you. It's all a part of being a generally nice and upstanding member of society...

 

[yorkie]

In which case, yes they are protecting others as they claim. Glad we're in agreement.

So you aren't seeking to mandate masks? Great!

 

[CaptainHaddock]

No, you can't claim to be "happy" with what somebody is doing when you then immediately object to the reason for it.

Supposing I said to you "I like to smear myself with marmite to protect myself from being attacked by elephants"?

You would, I assume, respect my choice to smear myself with marmite whilst at the same time find my reason for doing so ridiculous!

 

[Ianno87]

So you aren't seeking to mandate masks? Great!

You are the one mandating the type of mask to wear, not me. Very authoritarian.

I'm just saying that if people do choose to wear that type of mask, then they will indeed be protecting others, as per "the science"


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2021 ==

Supposing I said to you "I like to smear myself with marmite to protect myself from being attacked by elephants"?

You would, I assume, respect my choice to smear myself with marmite whilst at the same time find my reason for doing so ridiculous!

Ah, Mr Straw Man. How I've missed you

 

[yorksrob]

So you do want people to cover their faces to protect you....? Make your mind up.

Sneezing into a tissue is very different from breathing through a cloth for a four hour train journey.

 

[Ianno87]

Common courtesy. Have you heard of it? It's like holding a door open for someone just behind you. It's all a part of being a generally nice and upstanding member of society...

Such as by wearing a face mask around those who are still nervous....? That's courteous

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2021 ==

Sneezing into a tissue is very different from breathing through a cloth for a four hour train journey.

Regularly change the cloth, as you would a tissue.

 

[yorkie]

You are the one mandating the type of mask to wear, not me. Very authoritarian.

I'm not mandating anything!

People can choose to wear an effective mask, an ineffective mask, or no mask at all.

I'm just saying that if people do choose to wear that type of mask, then they will indeed be protecting others, as per "the science"

There is very little evidence of that; if people want to be protected to a high level by masks, they have the option of wearing an FFP3 mask.

As the article states, these are actually designed to filter out virus particles, unlike flimsy standard masks.

My argument is that masks should not be mandated and people should have the choice. You say we are in agreement?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2021 ==

Ah, Mr Straw Man. How I've missed you

That looks like an analogy to me.

But back to the point: do you agree with me that people should be able to choose to wear effective or ineffective mask or indeed no mask, and that this shouldn't be mandated?

 

[Ianno87]

My argument is that masks should not be mandated and people should have the choice. You say we are in agreement?

Yes, I said as much further upthread, repeatedly. I can see myself (for example) choosing not to wear a mask when sat on an empty/quiet train.

But with choice does (in my opinion) come with some level of judgement and responsibility of some level of face mask wearing, in situations where it would be appropriate.

 

[bengley]

Such as by wearing a face mask around those who are still nervous....? That's courteous

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2021 ==



Regularly change the cloth, as you would a tissue.

It's not common courtesy.

It has never been normal to wear a face covering in public. Nobody should be expected to do something which is both abnormal and not legally required to appease someone who is nervous. The nervous party can simply help themselves by wearing the previously discussed P3 mask.

 

[notlob.divad]

I don't have an issue with it.

You might not, but there are plenty of people who will have an issue with people who continue to wear them.

Contrary to what many people on here think, I am quite looking forward to the day I no longer legally have to wear a mask, where it is free choice for me to do so. I suspect that day will be a little longer where I live than there in England. However I will be quite keen to keep hold of it, and am highly likely to wear it for most of my planned trip to England in the Autumn. I am fully vaccinated have no serious underlying health conditions and many on here would say no reason to wear it. But I will, because I don't see it as an inconvenience or an afront to my dignity. The pandemic has opened my eyes to a much wider array of particulate inhalation that we are subjected to on a daily basis. From the clouds of smog that rapidly dissapated from our urban environments during the first traffic free lockdown, to the poor level of filter of the re-circulation of air in modern air conditioning units. I have always been a person who values the fresh air of the mountains and forests, but a variety of things that have come to light during the pandemic have made me realise just how much damage modern urban living can do to the human body.

 

[yorkie]

Yes, I said as much further upthread, repeatedly. I can see myself (for example). Choosing not to wear a mask on an empty/quiet train.

If we are in agreement, I'm puzzled by why you appear to be continuing to argue.

But with choice does (in my opinion) come with some level of judgement and responsibility of some level of face mask wearing, in situations where it would be appropriate.

But we have agreed this is up to each individual to decide.

As each individual has the choice described above, there really isn't any need for anyone to fuss over what others are deciding. People gave the ability to protect themselves if they think that they need the additional protection of a mask (for example if they are immunocompromised or not fully vaccinated or whatever other reason they have, however valid).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2021 ==

It's not common courtesy.

It has never been normal to wear a face covering in public. Nobody should be expected to do something which is both abnormal and not legally required to appease someone who is nervous. The nervous party can simply help themselves by wearing the previously discussed P3 mask.

Exactly.

Contrary to what many people on here think, I am quite looking forward to the day I no longer legally have to wear a mask, where it is free choice for me to do so. I suspect that day will be a little longer where I live than there in England. However I will be quite keen to keep hold of it, and am highly likely to wear it for most of my planned trip to England in the Autumn. I am fully vaccinated have no serious underlying health conditions and many on here would say no reason to wear it. But I will, because I don't see it as an inconvenience or an afront to my dignity. The pandemic has opened my eyes to a much wider array of particulate inhalation that we are subjected to on a daily basis. From the clouds of smog that rapidly dissapated from our urban environments during the first traffic free lockdown, to the poor level of filter of the re-circulation of air in modern air conditioning units. I have always been a person who values the fresh air of the mountains and forests, but a variety of things that have come to light during the pandemic have made me realise just how much damage modern urban living can do to the human body.

That's fine; you continue wearing a mask if you want to.

I'm glad we seem to be in agreement that doing so is a personal choice; no-one has no right to demand others do anything (the wearer can choose an effective mask or an ineffective mask or no mask).

 

[Ianno87]

It's not common courtesy.

It has never been normal to wear a face covering in public. Nobody should be expected to do something which is both abnormal and not legally required to appease someone who is nervous. The nervous party can simply help themselves by wearing the previously discussed P3 mask.

Arguably, it has (like it or not) become normal over the last 12 month. That's why claims of proclaiming the death of the face mask are, at this stage, premature.

I do, however, look forward to the day when they are no longer commonplace (just not yet).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2021 ==

If we are in agreement, I'm puzzled by why you appear to be continuing to argue.

Because (and I recognise this nuance may get lost) like alot of my posts in this thread, I'm not necessarily representing what I think or what my priorities are - I'm trying to articulate what the population in a general sense may think.

i.e. views that may be commonplace in society, but not necessarily fully represented on this forum, whether I agree with them or not.

 

[yorkie]

Arguably, it has (like it or not) become normal over the last 12 month. That's why claims of proclaiming the death of the face mask are, at this stage, premature.

I do, however, look forward to the day when they are no longer commonplace (just not yet).

That day is under two weeks away now

It can't come soon enough; the authoritarians aren't happy that they lost the battle, but their argument holds no water.