Covid restrictions to end on 19th July

[43066]

I didn't say there's no evidence. There's plenty of laboratory evidence that masks significantly reduce spread. The problem is the lack of real world trials. If there had been lots of gold standard trials and none of them showed masks worked, obviously you'd have a point.

So again you concede there’s no concrete evidence coverings work.

A SAGE member the other day tweeted about how the evidence in favour of masks is “weak and inconclusive” (quoted up thread). We were told the same by the deputy chief medical officer a few months back before masks were mandated. Indeed, that has been the established scientific opinion for decades.

But that's not the case - there are very few real world trials, so there's no conclusive evidence that masks are effective or ineffective. Hence the arguments.

You’ve got this the wrong way round. Why should measures be made mandatory when there is no conclusive evidence they work.

I’ll ask you again: why should I be required to wear a mask any more than I should be required to wear a crucifix/turban/pocket full of posies etc. when I’m next on the tube, when there’s no evidence any of these measures work…

 

[WelshBluebird]

If I get injured as a result, then clearly I was being really silly. I'm not sure why people shouldn't be free to be silly if they want, and I'm not sure it is any more the role of an employer than it is the role of government to try and protect people from themselves, once they've been given the information and options about the available safety measures.

1. Not everyone agrees on what is "silly" (or to call it what we mean - dangerous). Hence the need for a baseline level of safety expectations that apply to everyone, remembering that some people will have legitimate medical, mental or developmental conditions which mean they cannot judge as well as other people what is sensible or dangerous. Other people are just idiots, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be hurt or injured because of it.
2. Given we have the NHS, if someone injures themselves because they are being stupid (or again, doing something that is dangerous), the rest of us pick up the cost so it is in societies interest to try to reduce the number of these cases.
3. If you have a system where someone could opt out of wearing PPE or of H&S at work legislation, you would very quickly see employers trying to force staff to work in unsafe manners to save money. That absolutely is not a road we should be going down.
4. It is actually quite rare that someone's choice to do something dangerous doesn't put someone else in danger too. Even if you think you are just affected yourself - in relaity you likely affect everyone else around you - from new people at work who may be trying to understand what is expected of them, to the people who end up helping you when you do hurt yourself etc etc. It very rarely is limited to just you and you alone.

Anywho, that is probably a conversation for another thread as you touch on some really important parts of why H&S legislation is needed outside of COVID.
And even when talking about COVID I;d say all of that still applies. The first because its, the second because it is the NHS (and thus the rest of us) who bear the cost of treating people with COVID, the third because for employers packing people back together without taking any precautions at all is obviously cheaper and the fourth because people taking risks with a contagious virus obviously affects the whole of society too. Note that doesn't mean I don't think we need to keep covid restrictions, but this idea that governments have no business deciding what is safe or not is clearly and obviously rubbish.

So for example, in my world there would be no law requiring adults to wear seatbelts.

This is a perfect example. You are ignoring the fact that someone not wearing a seatbelt can cause injuries to other people in the car.
E.g. a passenger in the backseat of a car not wearing a seatbelt can be thrown forwards in a crash, hitting the seat in front with enough force to actually do harm to the person sitting in that front seat, even if that person in the front is wearing a seatbelt.
So you are willing to risk injury to another person because you want people to be allowed to ignore a safety measure. That starts to ring somewhat familiar and a bit more on topic to this thread than the rest of my post!

 

[yorksrob]

1. Not everyone agrees on what is "silly" (or to call it what we mean - dangerous). Hence the need for a baseline level of safety expectations that apply to everyone, remembering that some people will have legitimate medical, mental or developmental conditions which mean they cannot judge as well as other people what is sensible or not. Other people are just idiots, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be hurt or injured because of it.
2. Given we have the NHS, if someone injures themselves because they are being stupid (or again, doing something that is dangerous), the rest of us pick up the cost so it is in societies interest to try to reduce the number of these cases.
3. If you have a system where someone could opt out of wearing PPE or of H&S at work legislation, you would very quickly see employers trying to force staff to work in unsafe manners to save money. That absolutely is not a road we should be going down.
4. It is actually quite rare that someone's choice to do something dangerous doesn't put someone else in danger too. Even if you think you are just affected yourself - in relaity you likely affect everyone else around you - from new people at work who may be trying to understand what is expected of them, to the people who end up helping you when you do hurt yourself etc etc. It very rarely is limited to just you and you alone.

Anywho, that is probably a conversation for another thread as you touch on some really important parts of why H&S legislation is needed outside of COVID.
And even when talking about COVID I;d say all of that still applies. The first because its, the second because it is the NHS (and thus the rest of us) who bear the cost of treating people with COVID, the third because for employers packing people back together without taking any precautions at all is obviously cheaper and the fourth because people taking risks with a contagious virus obviously affects the whole of society too. Note that doesn't mean I don't think we need to keep covid restrictions, but this idea that governments have no business deciding what is safe or not is clearly and obviously rubbish.

And its all the more reason why we need to be vigilant against onerous restrictions such as mandatory mask wearing becoming normalised.

 

[big_rig]

Believe it or not I get that some people are not alright with masks.

It's the notion that 'let's keep wearing masks in limited situations for a few more weeks' = 'let's stay locked up in our houses in perpetuity' that I found absurd.

Oh yes, the ‘just a few more weeks’ defence, always follows the ‘well, it’s on you to prove the moon isn’t made of cheese’ line. Nothing new under the sun!

 

[yorkie]

Believe it or not I get that some people are not alright with masks.

It's the notion that 'let's keep wearing masks in limited situations for a few more weeks' = 'let's stay locked up in our houses in perpetuity' that I found absurd.

People who support the mandating of face coverings tend to also support other restrictions, in my experience.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Oh yes, the ‘just a few more weeks’ defence, always follows the ‘well, it’s on you to prove the moon isn’t made of cheese’ line. Nothing new under the sun!

The counter argument to that "defence" is to look at polls like the recent Ipsos Mori one on the subject of permanent restrictions. While the absolute figures may be out of step with reality, comparing figures is likely to be more reliable because any biases in the methodology or the sample will cancel out. Therefore, assuming no-one holds genuinely contradictory views (such as masks should no longer be mandated after 19 July but should be mandated permanently):

57% of those who support masks for "just a few more weeks" actually want support them being mandated forever. (40% divided by 70%)
~91% of those who support masks for just a few more weeks would support them until the virus is under control globally - which is likely to be many years in the future. (~64% divided by 70%)

So while some supporters of temporary restrictions do genuinely want them to end, the majority would want to see them become permanent.

 

[43066]

Not everyone agrees on what is "silly" (or to call it what we mean - dangerous). Hence the need for a baseline level of safety expectations that apply to everyone, remembering that some people will have legitimate medical, mental or developmental conditions which mean they cannot judge as well as other people what is sensible or not. Other people are just idiots, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be hurt or injured because of it.

Can you see how some people might come to the conclusion that Covid doesn’t pose a risk to them, even without suffering from medical, mental or developmental conditions?

Do you honestly believe Covid can be described as “dangerous”, to the vast majority of people who remain unvaccinated (who are overwhelmingly both youngish and healthyish).

Based on your previous postings,
you’re plenty bright enough to crunch the numbers, and will realise that for yourself, so why are you so concerned?

Genuinely curious.

 

[duncanp]

It's the notion that 'let's keep wearing masks in limited situations for a few more weeks' = 'let's stay locked up in our houses in perpetuity' that I found absurd.

The trouble is, what do you mean by "...a few more weeks...", and I suspect that this will mean different things to different people.

When stage 4 of the roadmap was originally postponed from 21st June, one of the reasons given was "..to enable more people to be vaccinated..."

Now that the decision regarding 19th July is imminent, we are seeing some people saying that we should postpone stage 4 again, so that "....more people can be vaccinated....".

Even if you wait until after all adults have had two doses of the vaccine (September) the same people with then say that "..we need to fully vaccinate all 12 - 18 year olds...", or "we need to wait until the vulnerable have had their booster jab..." or "...we can't unlock at the start of the winter flu season..."

As I said before, there will never be an ideal time to release all restrictions, and Zero COVID is an unachievable fantasy which only the delusional believe.

 

[greyman42]

It's the notion that 'let's keep wearing masks in limited situations for a few more weeks' = 'let's stay locked up in our houses in perpetuity' that I found absurd.

So how long is "a few more weeks"?

 

[yorkie]

You are ignoring the fact that someone not wearing a seatbelt can cause injuries to other people in the car.
E.g. a passenger in the backseat of a car not wearing a seatbelt can be thrown forwards in a crash, hitting the seat in front with enough force to actually do harm to the person sitting in that front seat, even if that person in the front is wearing a seatbelt.
So you are willing to risk injury to another person because you want people to be allowed to ignore a safety measure. That starts to ring somewhat familiar and a bit more on topic to this thread than the rest of my post!

The idea that seatbelts are in any way comparable to masks is absolutely preposterous.

 

[bramling]

Can you see how some people might come to the conclusion that Covid doesn’t pose a risk to them, even without suffering from medical, mental or developmental conditions?

Do you honestly believe Covid can be described as “dangerous”, to the vast majority of people who remain unvaccinated (who are overwhelmingly both youngish and healthyish).

Based on your previous postings,
you’re plenty bright enough to crunch the numbers, and will realise that for yourself, so why are you so concerned?

Genuinely curious.

It’s interesting how “long Covid” has suddenly entered the common vocabulary again, after not being heard much about over the last year or so.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Believe it or not I get that some people are not alright with masks.

It's the notion that 'let's keep wearing masks in limited situations for a few more weeks' = 'let's stay locked up in our houses in perpetuity' that I found absurd.

Its been a “few more weeks” since March 2020, that line no longer has any truth to it.

I know a few people who have ditched masks because of infections around their mouths, this is from people who change the mask regularly or wash it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2021 ==

1. Not everyone agrees on what is "silly" (or to call it what we mean - dangerous). Hence the need for a baseline level of safety expectations that apply to everyone, remembering that some people will have legitimate medical, mental or developmental conditions which mean they cannot judge as well as other people what is sensible or dangerous. Other people are just idiots, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be hurt or injured because of it.
2. Given we have the NHS, if someone injures themselves because they are being stupid (or again, doing something that is dangerous), the rest of us pick up the cost so it is in societies interest to try to reduce the number of these cases.
3. If you have a system where someone could opt out of wearing PPE or of H&S at work legislation, you would very quickly see employers trying to force staff to work in unsafe manners to save money. That absolutely is not a road we should be going down.
4. It is actually quite rare that someone's choice to do something dangerous doesn't put someone else in danger too. Even if you think you are just affected yourself - in relaity you likely affect everyone else around you - from new people at work who may be trying to understand what is expected of them, to the people who end up helping you when you do hurt yourself etc etc. It very rarely is limited to just you and you alone.

Anywho, that is probably a conversation for another thread as you touch on some really important parts of why H&S legislation is needed outside of COVID.
And even when talking about COVID I;d say all of that still applies. The first because its, the second because it is the NHS (and thus the rest of us) who bear the cost of treating people with COVID, the third because for employers packing people back together without taking any precautions at all is obviously cheaper and the fourth because people taking risks with a contagious virus obviously affects the whole of society too. Note that doesn't mean I don't think we need to keep covid restrictions, but this idea that governments have no business deciding what is safe or not is clearly and obviously rubbish.


This is a perfect example. You are ignoring the fact that someone not wearing a seatbelt can cause injuries to other people in the car.
E.g. a passenger in the backseat of a car not wearing a seatbelt can be thrown forwards in a crash, hitting the seat in front with enough force to actually do harm to the person sitting in that front seat, even if that person in the front is wearing a seatbelt.
So you are willing to risk injury to another person because you want people to be allowed to ignore a safety measure. That starts to ring somewhat familiar and a bit more on topic to this thread than the rest of my post!

Seatbelts and masks are two different things, one of which actually saves lives.

 

[quantinghome]

The counter argument to that "defence" is to look at polls like the recent Ipsos Mori one on the subject of permanent restrictions. While the absolute figures may be out of step with reality, comparing figures is likely to be more reliable because any biases in the methodology or the sample will cancel out. Therefore, assuming no-one holds genuinely contradictory views (such as masks should no longer be mandated after 19 July but should be mandated permanently):

57% of those who support masks for "just a few more weeks" actually want support them being mandated forever. (40% divided by 70%)
~91% of those who support masks for just a few more weeks would support them until the virus is under control globally - which is likely to be many years in the future. (~64% divided by 70%)

So while some supporters of temporary restrictions do genuinely want them to end, the majority would want to see them become permanent.

That wasn't the comparison though. Here's my original comment and the response:

Conversely there is also a minority who advocate in favour of continued (but not permanent) mask wearing, again emphasising vulnerable groups, namely those who are clinically vulnerable.

And naturally, each side dismisses the concerns of the other side as irrational, rather than taking the time to understand.

I speak for many people in this country when I say I’m looking forward to resuming normal life, in due course, just as we knew it in 2019.

That will include socialising as normal and (shock horror) not imposing a load of draconian, inhuman restrictions on society, and wrecking our economy, to appease a bunch of cranks, with a deeply distorted world view, who would like us all to stay locked up in our houses in perpetuity!

It's the absurd conflation of temporary mask wearing = locked up for ever which I was objecting to.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Apple it seems are disabilist because they refused access to a man with an exemption lanyard, this man was clearly getting anxious and embarrassed for something that was not his fault, but Apple are so scared of a 99% survival rate respiratory virus that they dehumanise disabled people or those with anxieties, it’s made me want to get an Android phone

 

[bramling]

Its been a “few more weeks” since March 2020, that line no longer has any truth to it.

I know a few people who have ditched masks because of infections around their mouths, this is from people who change the mask regularly or wash it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2021 ==



Seatbelts and masks are two different things, one of which actually saves lives.

Remember when the science fraternity were telling us how much of a bad idea masks are?

Like with the original strategy, this was then turned on its head.

To be fair, I don’t think the original herd immunity strategy on its own was sustainable, as clearly SARS-CoV-2 *does* pose a high risk to certain categories of people. That doesn’t translate into life being turned on its head forever more, especially now there’s vaccines gone round.

 

[MikeWM]

Not everyone agrees on what is "silly" (or to call it what we mean - dangerous). Hence the need for a baseline level of safety expectations that apply to everyone, remembering that some people will have legitimate medical, mental or developmental conditions which mean they cannot judge as well as other people what is sensible or dangerous. Other people are just idiots, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be hurt or injured because of it.

Or, in other words, I can't choose what I believe to be sensible or not, no matter how well-based in evidence, instead I have to yield to the tyranny of the experts and/or the tyranny of the majority. But 'its for my own good' so apparently that's a good thing.

Given we have the NHS, if someone injures themselves because they are being stupid (or again, doing something that is dangerous), the rest of us pick up the cost so it is in societies interest to try to reduce the number of these cases.

I see people going off for skiing holidays every year. Quite often when you next see them they're in a plaster cast. Should the state and/or their employer ban them from going skiing? The logic would appear to be the same.

If you have a system where someone could opt out of wearing PPE or of H&S at work legislation, you would very quickly see employers trying to force staff to work in unsafe manners to save money. That absolutely is not a road we should be going down.

I agree that this is a concern, and needs to be carefully managed.

It is actually quite rare that someone's choice to do something dangerous doesn't put someone else in danger too. Even if you think you are just affected yourself - in relaity you likely affect everyone else around you - from new people at work who may be trying to understand what is expected of them, to the people who end up helping you when you do hurt yourself etc etc. It very rarely is limited to just you and you alone.

But that applies to every single action every one of us does. Everything we do - or don't do - has some element of risk to ourselves and to others. The question is how great do these risks have to be to justify using the full power of the state to prevent us from taking such risks? I think the bar needs to be pretty high for that.

We have to find a balance between living a life that is full and enjoyable, while also not being recklessly irresponsible to the life and enjoyment of others. Simply saying that the state should prevent me from doing thing X because it may cause some possible random consequence for person Y, or person Z twenty years frm now, isn't good enough.

but this idea that governments have no business deciding what is safe or not is clearly and obviously rubbish.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the government has no role. I'm happy for them to issue well-founded advice. But here we're talking about the government putting all sorts of laws in place to *enforce* its advice, which is more problematic.

This is a perfect example. You are ignoring the fact that someone not wearing a seatbelt can cause injuries to other people in the car.
E.g. a passenger in the backseat of a car not wearing a seatbelt can be thrown forwards in a crash, hitting the seat in front with enough force to actually do harm to the person sitting in that front seat, even if that person in the front is wearing a seatbelt.
So you are willing to risk injury to another person because you want people to be allowed to ignore a safety measure. That starts to ring somewhat familiar and a bit more on topic to this thread than the rest of my post!

I haven't ignored it, but the risk to others is rather smaller than the risk to myself, so I didn't emphasise it either. In this case, yes, I do believe the risks to others are sufficiently small that mitigating it, or not, should be a matter for my conscience, not the state and the law. Nevertheless, as I stated above, I would wear a (two-strap) seatbelt in a car whether or not the law required it, because I think the data on it is clear that it is a good idea.

Some people appear to want to live in a society where the only actions that are permitted (by force of law, the police, fines and prison!) are those that are assessed and evaluated to be sufficiently 'safe' both for the individual and for the entire population by a group of politicans, scientists and/or media - whether that assessment is reasonable (eg. seatbelts) or nonsense (eg. masks).

Well, some of us very much don't want to live in that sort of society, and if that means taking small risks with my health and well-being, and accepting that there is some degree of risk from my actions to others - and that as long as I'm not being very reckless than that is acceptable, that to me is perfectly fine, and more than that, I'd say it is the only 'human' way to live.

 

[43066]

That wasn't the comparison though. Here's my original comment and the response:

It's the absurd conflation of temporary mask wearing = locked up for ever which I was objecting to.

PLEASE can you just answer the question I asked above, rather then continuing to obfuscate?

Here it is again (remembering you’ve conceded there’s no concrete evidence masks work):

I’ll ask you again: why should I be required to wear a mask any more than I should be required to wear a crucifix/turban/pocket full of posies etc. when I’m next on the tube, when there’s no evidence any of these measures work…

 

[quantinghome]

So how long is "a few more weeks"?

No idea. I'm not advocating for extended mandatory mask wearing. I'm not overly concerned about it coming to an end, although on balance I'd err on the side of caution.

It's the absurd conflation of temporary mask wearing = locked up for ever which I was objecting to.

Railforums is generally a place for calm, reasonable, discussion. I find the hyperbole on this topic to be rather odd.

 

[kez19]

So how long is "a few more weeks"?

how long is it to flatten a curve? (lol), been there done that wore a…mask

 

[island]

No idea. I'm not advocating for extended mandatory mask wearing. I'm not overly concerned about it coming to an end, although on balance I'd err on the side of caution.

It's the absurd conflation of temporary mask wearing = locked up for ever which I was objecting to.

At what date, or under what circumstances, do you believe mandatory face coverings should no longer be required by law to be worn in England?

 

[quantinghome]

PLEASE can you just answer the question I asked above, rather then continuing to obfuscate?

Here it is again (remembering you’ve conceded there’s no concrete evidence masks work):

Sure. There is laboratory evidence that masks work. But it's darned difficult to devise the sort of gold standard test which sceptics such as yourself demand to prove it conclusively in real world conditions.

Links in this article:
COVID-19: Do face masks work? Here is what scientific studies say | Science & Tech News | Sky News

 

[NorthKent1989]

No idea. I'm not advocating for extended mandatory mask wearing. I'm not overly concerned about it coming to an end, although on balance I'd err on the side of caution.

It's the absurd conflation of temporary mask wearing = locked up for ever which I was objecting to.

Railforums is generally a place for calm, reasonable, discussion. I find the hyperbole on this topic to be rather odd.

It’s not hyperbole, it’s frustration that every time we get close to regaining our inalienable rights to our freedoms and choices people always want “a few more weeks” for masks or what not.

How much more caution can we possibly err on?

Remember when the science fraternity were telling us how much of a bad idea masks are?

Like with the original strategy, this was then turned on its head.

To be fair, I don’t think the original herd immunity strategy on its own was sustainable, as clearly SARS-CoV-2 *does* pose a high risk to certain categories of people. That doesn’t translate into life being turned on its head forever more, especially now there’s vaccines gone round.

Yes I do remember, it was the first in many u-turns, and I hope July 19th will be the last.

Herd immunity was impossible last year, Lockdown 1 was needed, what I think should have been the best alternative was from Autumn there should have been restrictions and none of the silly nonsense of Tier systems, then when the vaccines started up we continue with restrictions but easing out of them gradually until June.

The vaccines have put us in a new place now, a place far away from March 2020.

 

[yorkie]

Remember when the science fraternity were telling us how much of a bad idea masks are?

Like with the original strategy, this was then turned on its head.

Indeed, and the same was said during the H1N1 pandemic (2009). Also masks became mandatory when society was opening up, in response to people claiming it was necessary to make people "feel safe".

.... herd immunity strategy ...

There can never be any such thing as a herd immunity 'strategy' as such; herd immunity is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

People are divided over what it means; it was generally used to refer to a sufficiently high level of sterilising immunity such that a virus could not spread. However that strict definition is clearly not applicable to coronaviruses, with which we reach a state of endemic equilibrium. People often use the term "herd immunity" now to mean endemic equilibrium, while others use the term to mean the original definition. Some people think it's a negative thing to reach.

Of course, we didn't know we would get a working vaccine back when the pandemic first hit us. Now we know the vaccines are highly effective against severe symptoms but do not prevent infections (though they do massively reduce them) and we also know that a combination of immunity through both vaccination and natural infection is even stronger, and that even immunocompromised people have good protection through vaccination, there is no valid excuse not to get back to normal this Summer.

No idea....

Exactly! And we say: Enough is enough!

It's the absurd conflation of temporary mask wearing = locked up for ever which I was objecting to.

There is a definite correlation between people who wish to mandate masks and people who wish to impose more restrictions on others.

Railforums is generally a place for calm, reasonable, discussion. I find the hyperbole on this topic to be rather odd.

You'll always get robust discussion when people feel passionately about something and disagree with others, especially when people have seen injustices occur, harms being done to people they know, and so on.

It's an emotive subject. I tend to only read selected posts, often if someone has alerted me to a particular post, or if I see there is a post by someone who I recall has different views to me and I want to challenge any statements I disagree with, so I may have missed the posts that are alleged to be hyperbolic.

 

[bramling]

It’s not hyperbole, it’s frustration that every time we get close to regaining our inalienable rights to our freedoms and choices people always want “a few more weeks” for masks or what not.

How much more caution can we possibly err on?



Yes I do remember, it was the first in many u-turns, and I hope July 19th will be the last.

Herd immunity was impossible last year, Lockdown 1 was needed, what I think should have been the best alternative was from Autumn there should have been restrictions and none of the silly nonsense of Tier systems, then when the vaccines started up we continue with restrictions but easing out of them gradually until June.

The vaccines have put us in a new place now, a place far away from March 2020.

Agreed in entirety. The first lockdown should have been billed as an emergency measure. Instead it became “business as usual”, and we’ve been playing catch-up ever since.

My personal view is Boris has twice allowed a “sweet spot” to materialise, where for certain elements of the population they were able to enjoy benefits from lockdown measures (ie more free leisure time), whilst being completely insulated from the costs.

We should have had a strict lockdown for a few weeks to buy time to get the mitigation measures in place, and then resume as close to normal life as possible subject to the mitigation.

What we’ve had has been a costly farce.

 

[43066]

Sure. There is laboratory evidence that masks work. But it's darned difficult to devise the sort of gold standard test which sceptics such as yourself demand to prove it conclusively in real world conditions.

Links in this article:
COVID-19: Do face masks work? Here is what scientific studies say | Science & Tech News | Sky News

Have you actually read what you’ve just quoted?

Not quite sure that’s laboratory evidence:

“The stylists and the clients all wore masks, and of the 67 clients who subsequently consented to an interview and were tested, not a single one had become infected.”

Herd immunity was impossible last year, Lockdown 1 was needed, what I think should have been the best alternative was from Autumn there should have been restrictions and none of the silly nonsense of Tier systems, then when the vaccines started up we continue with restrictions but easing out of them gradually until June.

The vaccines have put us in a new place now, a place far away from March 2020.

I hate to say it but I suspect you don’t understand what herd immunity actually means.

 

[quantinghome]

Agreed in entirety. The first lockdown should have been billed as an emergency measure. Instead it became “business as usual”, and we’ve been playing catch-up ever since.

That's re-writing history. Last September the government was all 'back to work' and 'learn to live with it'.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2021 ==

Not quite sure that’s laboratory evidence:

“The stylists and the clients all wore masks, and of the 67 clients who subsequently consented to an interview and were tested, not a single one had become infected.”

It's certainly not laboratory evidence, nor did I or the article claim it to be. The article gives links to laboratory tests and also some real world examples, which it says are harder to come by, which has been my point all along.

 

[yorkie]

The vaccines have put us in a new place now, a place far away from March 2020.

I agree and I really hope you've got yours!

I hate to say it but I suspect you don’t understand what herd immunity actually means.

Even experts cannot agree on what the term means! See the video I linked to in this post.

This is why I try to use the term "endemic equilibrium" which is where the experts who I listen to believe we are headed.

...We should have had a strict lockdown for a few weeks to buy time to get the mitigation measures in place, and then resume as close to normal life as possible subject to the mitigation...

There doesn't appear to be a correlation between the harshness of lockdown measures and death rates, so I am not sure on the first part. But I agree on the second part.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2021 ==

That's re-writing history. Last September the government was all 'back to work' and 'learn to live with it'.

I think the mistake was the Government not realising how much the virus would improve in fitness, and there being a period of empty hospitals in the summer followed by too many people being hospitalised in the winter season. Now there is a realisation that if the virus is going to spread, it's better to do so in the Summer, and also that due to the vaccine, very few people are going to become seriously ill with this virus.

Looking back now, the idea that this virus could be "defeated" or "eliminated" was preposterous, and I suspected as much from an early stage.

Edit: indeed I found these posts from April. We can't all be right all of the time, and I'll get some things wrong, but we can now safely say I was right on this:

...I'm puzzled by the claim it "might" come back... It's not going to go away, surely? I wish it was going to but I see no evidence that it's likely!

The virus isn't going to go away and we can't lockdown forever.....

 

[philosopher]

That's re-writing history. Last September the government was all 'back to work' and 'learn to live with it'.

Last September they still had test and trace, face masks, social distancing, gatherings restricted to 30 with guidance it should be no more than six and nightclubs were closed. These measures were still quite significant.

 

[bramling]

I agree and I really hope you've got yours!

Even experts cannot agree on what the term means! See the video I linked to in this post.

This is why I try to use the term "endemic equilibrium" which is where the experts who I listen to believe we are headed.

There doesn't appear to be a correlation between the harshness of lockdown measures and death rates, so I am not sure on the first part. But I agree on the second part.

I think time had to be bought, we couldn’t have a situation where a relatively unknown virus essentially running freely through the population. If that had happened then I suspect we’d have ended up with some pretty major issues with really critical services unable to function through lack of staff. We had a taste of what that might have looked like with the short period of bare supermarket shelves, but things could have got a lot worse on that score. We could have perhaps have avoided this had Boris got his finger out a bit sooner on mitigation measures, but that is with some dose of hindsight (I do think he was very lackadaisical in the mid-March period though).

As for masks, it’s quite clear they were originally envisaged as part of the bungled “back to work” drive seen at times last summer. That’s when the science magically changed. It was simply a way of getting people back on commuter trains, then of course once the cult following developed (centred around concepts like “respect” and “doing my bit” rather than any practical benefit) it spread to shops. That’s where we still are. Perhaps with masks having been politicised by elements of the destructive left, people like Sadiq Khan, and maybe the odd element of the transport unions.

 

[quantinghome]

Perhaps with masks having been politicised by elements of the destructive left, people like Sadiq Khan, and maybe the odd element of the transport unions.

Strange then that they were made mandatory by one of the more right wing governments we've had. Sounds like you've got a political axe to grind.