Covid restrictions to end on 19th July

[initiation]

So 200 people in an online poll of 1025 want a curfew. Just 200 people. Well if that is the basis for a curfew then god help the human race. Is everyone devoid of critical thinking? Does this manipulation of statistics actual fool people?

To be fair, voting polls are frequently done with a similar number of people. Yes OK they may be a few % out (which can be amplified in a FPTP system) but they do still get it about right.
The polling companies don't just take the first 1000 people on their list; there is sampling/profiling of different groups to form a vaguely representative sample of the population.

So I don't think just the number of people answering in this case is a reason to rubbish the result.
However certainly what can significantly affect the result significantly more is the way the poll question is answered (see the Yes Minister clip for an example!).
There will also have always been a subset of people who want nightclubs closed or a curfew imposed - probably the question has just never been asked before.

 

[bramling]

Yes my observation is (in London at least) that non mask wearers are not being shouted or "tut tutted" at like they were a few months back

It isn’t just London either. It was (surprisingly) not much different in mid Wales last month, and we’re currently in Newcastle, where I’d say masks are if anything down to below 50%.

 

[Bertie the bus]

The mood already seems to be turning against masks. Notwithstanding the high-profile bleating from certain quarters, reality is an increasing number of people aren’t wearing them, and increasingly fewer people seem to care. London in particular.

Your reality is very different to mine. On a jaunt on Merseyrail yesterday I was surprised at the very high level of mask wearing and even those who weren't wearing one acted in a reasonable and considerate manner, e.g. not looking for a seat and standing by the door away from others.

 

[43066]

It isn’t just London either. It was (surprisingly) not much different in mid Wales last month, and we’re currently in Newcastle, where I’d say masks are if anything down to below 50%.

In my observation, since the media furore about “freedom day” actually happening started, London has become considerably busier and mask use (while still high) has dropped noticeably.

I’ll eat my hat if 70%+ of people are still masking up come 20th July. We’re probably below 70% compliance already.

 

[bramling]

In my observation, since the media furore about “freedom day” actually happening started, London has become considerably busier and mask use (while still high) has dropped noticeably.

I’ll eat my hat if 70%+ of people are still masking up come 20th July. We’re probably below 70% compliance already.

We spent the morning in a visitor attraction in the Tyne & Wear area (not going to post details for obvious reasons). According to the pre-reading, masks supposed to be worn around the entire site. In practice I’d say by midday fewer than 10% wearing masks, clearly some had worn them to begin with then decided not to bother as the morning progressed. I’d say this is quite telling.

We did have one woman going round holding her nose every time she passed someone though. There’s always one! Apart from that, no one seems to give a toss, the atmosphere is quite normal.

 

[43066]

We did have one woman going round holding her nose every time she passed someone though. There’s always one! Apart from that, no one seems to give a toss, the atmosphere is quite normal.

Indeed and it’s often rather more than one, worryingly. The current state of affairs has certainly emboldened authoritarian cranks, hypochondriacs and health obsessives who, given half a chance, would have us living like this forever.

I completely agree with @HSTEd ‘s comment earlier: it’s absolutely vital restrictions are removed ASAP as we will likely be lumbered with any which remain for the long term. Boris has many faults, but kudos to him doubling down on the need to unlock and bring an end to this irrational madness (said while keeping fingers crossed for no U-turns!).

 

[quantinghome]

With seat belts there are decades of research that pretty much unambiguously shows they save lives. There is a huge upside and extremely little downside to seat belts.

They were highly controversial at the time. The evidence was very much disputed, and vigorous campaigns were set up to fight what many considered to be an erosion of liberty.

When Americans Went to War Against Seat Belts (businessinsider.com)

With Covid measures, the evidence that they save lives is not as strong and the costs of such measures are obvious, for example the financial cost of the furlough scheme. Face masks for example have an uncertain benefit, it seems that they do reduce transmission, however estimates of how much vary considerably and they have obvious downsides such as the cost of the masks, increased waste and hindering tackling crime.

I think the difference is that with seat belts there's a much more obvious, direct link between the action and the effect. By contrast masks are one of many measures designed to reduce general transmission of a virus. A particular instance of virus transmission that could have been prevented by mask wearing may not have any significant consequences on the people involved, but the chain of transmission could mean fatal consequences weeks later for someone else.

There is a lack of hard evidence, for obvious reasons - the ethics of undertaking a high quality randomised control trial of mask-wearing and non-mask wearing groups during a major pandemic.

 

[43066]

There is a lack of hard evidence, for obvious reasons - the ethics of undertaking a high quality randomised control trial of mask-wearing and non-mask wearing groups during a major pandemic.

So what is your view of the ethics of making masks mandatory when, as you yourself concede, there is a lack of hard evidence as to whether they have any benefit at all?

They are a measure which has caused a great deal of stress and anxiety to many people, including many from extremely vulnerable groups. Frankly I think those in the government who were in favour of mandating them (blatantly for political purposes, as a placebo) should hang their heads in shame.

 

[MikeWM]

They were highly controversial at the time. The evidence was very much disputed, and vigorous campaigns were set up to fight what many considered to be an erosion of liberty.

One suspects part of the reason - at the back of the minds of those opposing, even if not always at the front of their mind - is the 'slippery slope' argument.

How many times have we heard over the past year that making people wear masks is just like making people wear seatbelts?

And in a few years time, how many arguments will we hear that '<even more restrictive and problematic measure> is justified, it's just like making people wear masks'?

The only way to avoid such matters is never to go down that road in the first place.

 

[duncanp]

So 200 people in an online poll of 1025 want a curfew. Just 200 people. Well if that is the basis for a curfew then god help the human race. Is everyone devoid of critical thinking? Does this manipulation of statistics actual fool people?

When I did statistics at university, I learnt that the larger the sample size, the more accurate the results are. A sample size of 1,025 is in no way large enough to use the results to draw conclusions about the whole of society thinks.

And you also have to make sure that, regardless of the sample size, it is representative of the population as a whole, otherwise the results can be misleading. This is precisely what an on line survey cannot do, as you cannot control who is filling it in.

Properly run surveys, whether it is done by someone standing in the street with a clipboard, or by post/online, will target the people who they want to question.

 

[yorkie]

.... As far as previously exposed virus goes I hope my immune system retains some memory of them ...

You must have been exposed to Coronaviruses and Rhinoviruses on many occasions, so either your adaptive immune system is able to remember them, or you have a good innate immune system.

Either way, humans have to live with such viruses otherwise we cannot survive. There is no other option!

See also: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...l-and-deployment.211585/page-110#post-5214017

... I don't think I need to get into a detailed description of herd immunity ....

As you won't define what you are talking about, that makes any discussion difficult.

The endgame is clearly to reach the point of seasonal endemic equilibrium, whatever you want to call it, and whether or not you agree with it

... if hospital admissions go high again I suspect that's something the NHS call ill afford....

That's a good reason to release restrictions now, and not in the winter.

 

[yorksrob]

They were highly controversial at the time. The evidence was very much disputed, and vigorous campaigns were set up to fight what many considered to be an erosion of liberty.

When Americans Went to War Against Seat Belts (businessinsider.com)


I think the difference is that with seat belts there's a much more obvious, direct link between the action and the effect. By contrast masks are one of many measures designed to reduce general transmission of a virus. A particular instance of virus transmission that could have been prevented by mask wearing may not have any significant consequences on the people involved, but the chain of transmission could mean fatal consequences weeks later for someone else.

There is a lack of hard evidence, for obvious reasons - the ethics of undertaking a high quality randomised control trial of mask-wearing and non-mask wearing groups during a major pandemic.

One suspects part of the reason - at the back of the minds of those opposing, even if not always at the front of their mind - is the 'slippery slope' argument.

How many times have we heard over the past year that making people wear masks is just like making people wear seatbelts?

And in a few years time, how many arguments will we hear that '<even more restrictive and problematic measure> is justified, it's just like making people wear masks'?

The only way to avoid such matters is never to go down that road in the first place.

This is ample reason why compulsory mask wearing needs to be nipped in the bud now, lest it creeps into permanence.

 

[duncanp]

That's a good reason to release restrictions now, and not in the winter.

This is why I think the changes will go ahead on July 19th as announced.

The government are on record as saying that there is no risk free time to release restrictions, but that the summer is the least risky time.

 

[quantinghome]

One suspects part of the reason - at the back of the minds of those opposing, even if not always at the front of their mind - is the 'slippery slope' argument.

The only way to avoid such matters is never to go down that road in the first place.

What road? Unless you think the government should never pass any legislation to promote public safety, we're always going to go down that road, and there will always be debate about how far the law should go.

So what is your view of the ethics of making masks mandatory when, as you yourself concede, there is a lack of hard evidence as to whether they have any benefit at all?

They are a measure which has caused a great deal of stress and anxiety to many people, including many from extremely vulnerable groups. Frankly I think those in the government who were in favour of mandating them (blatantly for political purposes, as a placebo) should hang their heads in shame.

Because despite the lack of conclusive evidence in a real world setting (for obvious reasons as I said above), it's a fairly obvious measure to use in the current circumstances of and the vast majority of people don't find it particularly controversial or problematic.

There is a minority who feel, like you, that mandating masks has caused all sorts of problems, emphasising the effect on certain vulnerable groups.

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.

 

[Jonny]

So what is your view of the ethics of making masks mandatory when, as you yourself concede, there is a lack of hard evidence as to whether they have any benefit at all?

They are a measure which has caused a great deal of stress and anxiety to many people, including many from extremely vulnerable groups. Frankly I think those in the government who were in favour of mandating them (blatantly for political purposes, as a placebo) should hang their heads in shame.

I think at least one of the mask-mandate advocates is now out of the cabinet (Matt Hancock).

Also, after a short transition period, perhaps operator-imposed requirements to wear a mask should be made illegal (but you can if you want to).

Mostly, it is now the hard-left unions going on about its members, who are not at that much risk even should they catch it.

 

[yorkie]

Because despite the lack of conclusive evidence in a real world setting (for obvious reasons as I said above), it's a fairly obvious measure to use in the current circumstances of and the vast majority of people don't find it particularly controversial or problematic.

There is a minority who feel, like you, that mandating masks has caused all sorts of problems, emphasising the effect on certain vulnerable groups.

It clearly has caused all sorts of problems and I hope the majority are aware of that. If people are not aware, they really ought to have a read of this:

Latest News - Kester Disability Rights

Kester Disability Rights

disabilityrights.org.uk

We have been overwhelmed with face coverings cases because so few organisations are tackling this issue, and because it is such a big one....

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.

Their arguments aren't really valid though; if they've been vaccinated the chances of them becoming seriously ill is negligible. If they are vulnerable enough to need additional protection, FFP3 masks provide that.

The idea that a vaccinated person, or a person who has chosen not to be vaccinated, should be able to mandate what others wear is absurd.

I'm rapidly losing patience with the authoritarians; I've done my research and I'm quite prepared to have the full argument (not the 5 minute argument )


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

Also, after a short transition period, perhaps operator-imposed requirements to wear a mask should be made illegal (but you can if you want to).

Agreed, it should.

Mostly, it is now the hard-left unions going on about its members, who are not at that much risk even should they catch it.

I've left my union. I have no time for them and their hard-left policies (and I say this as someone who is left leaning!)

 

[quantinghome]

I'm rapidly losing patience with the authoritarians; I've done my research and I'm quite prepared to have the full argument (not the 5 minute argument )

I'm sure you have done your research. But this is an area of some controversy and there will doubtless be people on the other side of the argument who have done theirs as well.

For what it's worth I'm erring-on-the-side-of-caution-but-with-one-foot-on-the-fence.

I've left my union. I have no time for them and their hard-left policies (and I say this as someone who is left leaning!)

Have you considered joining a more moderate one instead?

 

[43066]

Because despite the lack of conclusive evidence in a real world setting (for obvious reasons as I said above), it's a fairly obvious measure to use in the current circumstances of and the vast majority of people don't find it particularly controversial or problematic.

On the contrary it’s obvious to me why face coverings (certainly as worn by the general public,
in non clinical settings) don’t make a jot of difference. That’s also borne out by the science.

Don’t you see the inherent contradiction in what you’ve said above? If there’s no evidence masks work, why on Earth is requiring them an “obvious” measure to take? Shouldn’t the threshold for measures being mandated at least be some solid evidence they they make a difference? A la seatbelts etc.

Some people might think wearing crucifixs helps them ward of the virus. There’s no hard evidence that works either, should we all be legally required to do it? Based on your approach above, if not, why not?

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!

 

[MikeWM]

What road? Unless you think the government should never pass any legislation to promote public safety, we're always going to go down that road, and there will always be debate about how far the law should go.

I don't think the government should ever pass legislation, with the backing teeth of the law, fines, police officers and/or prison, to protect me from myself. I'm quite capable of doing that myself; I don't need threats from the government to operare in my own best interest.

Obviously it isn't so clear-cut when my actions have the potential to have a siginifcant impact on others, and of course then we have to decide where to put the bar where my freedom is less important than my responsibilities to others. I'd hope that most pople would agree however that the bar needs to be higher than 'well, it might have some small effect, in some limited circumstances, if everyone is doing it properly, though we know most people won't' (which is pretty much the *best case scenario* for masks).

So for example, in my world there would be no law requiring adults to wear seatbelts. But on balance, I probably would require people to make sure that any child for whom they had responsibility was wearing a seatbelt, because they are not able to make their own risk assessment, and on the whole wearing a seatbelt does have a fairly strong positive effect on safety.

 

[J-2739]

This is probably a dumb question, but if the coming Monday was made a Bank Holiday, will decision making on easing restrictions on the 19th be postponed to a later date?

 

[quantinghome]

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!

We're talking about masks, yes?

 

[MikeWM]

This is probably a dumb question, but if the coming Monday was made a Bank Holiday, will decision making on easing restrictions on the 19th be postponed to a later date?

Monday won't be a Bank Holiday, despite the various mutterings - you can't realistically suddenly declare a bank holiday at 10pm the night before.

Though they quite possibly will decide on having an extra Bank Holiday at some other point in the next week or two if England win on Sunday. (Maybe the 19th?

 

[quantinghome]

So for example, in my world there would be no law requiring adults to wear seatbelts. But on balance, I probably would require people to make sure that any child for whom they had responsibility was wearing a seatbelt, because they are not able to make their own risk assessment, and on the whole wearing a seatbelt does have a fairly strong positive effect on safety.

OK, so how would H&S at work legislation operate in this world? Employers would still be obliged to provide a safety system of work, but the individual would have a right to refuse to comply with, say, wearing PPE?

 

[43066]

We're talking about masks, yes?

If you read it again, the first part of my post was addressing masks specifically. The second part was talking about restrictions more generally.

Feel free to reply to both.

 

[VauxhallandI]

We're talking about masks, yes?

How many times do we have to go over the you're alright with it but others aren't? Its getting tedious; if you don't have the capacity to understand this then the conversation is pointless

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

OK, so how would H&S at work legislation operate in this world? Employers would still be obliged to provide a safety system of work, but the individual would have a right to refuse to comply with, say, wearing PPE?

Well then they chose a different profession

 

[MikeWM]

OK, so how would H&S at work legislation operate in this world? Employers would still be obliged to provide a safety system of work, but the individual would have a right to refuse to comply with, say, wearing PPE?

I'm not sure why not, after all the whole point of PPE is to protect *yourself*. If I choose not to do so, that's me being silly. 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.

Back to the seatbelt thing for a moment - I should probably add that I would personally always wear a (proper) seatbelt in a car, whether it was legally required or not, because it makes good sense to do so. But I do believe that should be my choice to make. For example, I may believe that lap-only belts are sufficiently dangerous that I would prefer not to wear one of those if it were the only choice available.

 

[quantinghome]

Don’t you see the inherent contradiction in what you’ve said above? If there’s no evidence masks work, why on Earth is requiring them an “obvious” measure to take? Shouldn’t the threshold for measures being mandated at least be some solid evidence they they make a difference? A la seatbelts etc.

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. 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.

 

[yorkie]

Standard flimsy ineffective masks are not "PPE".

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. 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.

It was widely accepted that mandating masks was not effective until suddenly the opinion seemed to suddenly change, without evidence.

Now those studies that claim mask mandates are effective are generally based on regurgitating theoretical studies and these studies tend to cite each other in a false attempt to claim to be authoritative.

Comparing data of countries or states with and without mask mandates has shown that mask mandates are unlikely to make much, if any, difference.

 

[westv]

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. 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.

No evidence either way? I expect there's been a cover up!

 

[quantinghome]

We're talking about masks, yes?

How many times do we have to go over the you're alright with it but others aren't? Its getting tedious; if you don't have the capacity to understand this then the conversation is pointless

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.