Another poor judgement by Boris (continued).

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Offwidth 07 Jul 2021

As the old thread has hit posting limits with some open questions.

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/another_poor_judgement_by_boris...

In reply to TomD89

How long I think mask restrictions should have stayed is a fair question. The scientific answer is at the earliest (after if) there is a sign case growth is clearly slowing near a peak and we still have hospital capacity.  Personally I'd say wait for a strong decline (why risk infecting people when  things will be a lot less serious soon). At current growth rates we will be at all time record levels on daily cases by July 19th. In my optimistic phase a few weeks back I expected the ONS data on 80%+ of the adult population showing covid antibodies to have started strongly slowing growth already, but that hasn't happened. We may see signs of significant slowing next week in which case the government decision may have been just about OK but by pure luck. To go ahead with no signs of slowing next week and 150,000 cases a day possible by July 26th is back in the doing national harm decisions that Boris made last September and December, albeit with less lethal consequences. It seems near impossible to me with the current information, at these growth rates, that cases won't peak by early august. I think poor messaging has speeded up the exit peak but there is only a limited number of people it's possible to infect, so it will stop soonish.

As an aside I do think bad actors claiming scientists don''t want restrictions to ever end are gaining traction. The accusation is plain bullshit as once hospitalisation rates are so high that hospitals can no longer cope, extra restrictions are inevitable. Scientists want mask restrictions to remain precisely to maximise chances of enabling an exit without new extra restrictions.

Post edited at 14:23
4
 MG 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> As an aside I do think bad actors claiming scientists don''t want restrictions to ever end are gaining traction. 

This is true.  However, there is also a very, very cautious element in some scientists' messages (e.g. Indy Sage) which gives these claims resonance.  The justification for restrictions has changed from protecting the NHS to a host of other reasons (long covid, or vulnerable groups or until second vaccines offered to all etc.). There are arguments for all these but they are a lot weaker than the NHS one. As some scientists move the goalposts to make them, and move into policy/politics (undermining the actual science) it helps the chaos merchants.

Post edited at 14:28
2
 aksys 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

In case people missed it this video clearly explains the government’s latest position.

youtube.com/watch?v=cycboyofJFU&

Post edited at 14:36
OP Offwidth 07 Jul 2021
In reply to MG:

That's your political opinion, which you are entitled to. Yet, from an academic position you should know better and give examples of where what they say is noticably cautious compared to the mainstream science. Indie SAGE contains many SAGE members. They are so hated by the covid deniers and their pals in parts of the mainstream press that any mistakes would be very public. The precautionary principle is a wise position in the uncertainty of pandemic situations and Indie SAGE present accurately and make assumptions clear. They say what could happen without change.

In contrast we have needlessly lost tens of thousands of lives and had hundreds of thousands of unnecessary long covid cases since last September because Boris ignored the science. The government lead scientists knew this but it's their job to defend the government decision. We clearly can't trust them to say when the scientific advice to government was ignored for political reasons.

15
 wintertree 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> As an aside I do think bad actors claiming scientists don''t want restrictions to ever end are gaining traction

Well it is getting harder to claim scientists “want to save a life at any cost” with their consensus seeming to agree on now (with disagreement over now +/- 4 weeks or so) being the time to allow rapid growth in cases.

Not that the “at any cost” claims from bad actors ever had any credibility against what was actually being said, but they certainly swayed plenty of people.

I don’t think the perhaps bad actor in the last thread really got my point, it’s not an objection to dropping all restrictions per se, but to doing it all at once when cases are high and doubling times are low, as this risks locking in healthcare overload.  I’d much rather see restrictions dropped in smaller chunks every two weeks - starting earlier then July 19th even - so that there’s always time to keep reevaluating and much less chance of a sudden shock to rate constants.  Letting the doubling time drop consistently below 7 days seems both utterly reckless and not necessary in terms of a summer exit wave.  Unless you base your view on a highly selective reading of an out of date model prefaced with warnings about high uncertainty.

4
OP Offwidth 07 Jul 2021
In reply to aksys:

Allways a valid alternative approach to these matters.

 MG 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> That's your political opinion, which you are entitled to.

It's an observation.

> Yet, from an academic position you should know better and give examples of where what they say is noticably cautious compared to the mainstream science.

You seem confused about science vs policy.  I gave three examples of where they are being cautious.  They are all policy decisions.  To take one: long covid.  There is decision to be made over whether limiting people getting long covid is outweighed by allowing people to go to pubs (say).  They are firmly on one side of the argument, which is fine, but being on that side of it is putting a lot on weight to preventing illness over curtailing people's freedom.  This is very different to limiting covid to ensure a functioning health service, and a new justification for continuing restrictions which wasn't why they were introduced.  Given this, libertarians etc aren't being entirely unreasonable in wondering under what circumstance these scientists would be happy with no restrictions.

Post edited at 15:26
2
 wintertree 07 Jul 2021
In reply to MG:

I agree re: why restrictions were brought in, long covid and the libertarian perspective.  The insane growth rates in various university MSOAs (quadrupling in a week near me) make it clear many young people are voting with their feet - or their lungs I should say.  They’ve already decided we’ll before June 21st. For those who are young and concerned/cautious, I’d like to see continue control measures on public transport and some workplaces until they’re second dosed - it’s hard to see how control measures don’t fall under H&S law separate to covid law given that it’s still a notifiable disease and many people who want vaccination aren’t fully vaccinated yet.  I’d also like a statement from government that confirms the low uptake rate in the young is down to limited demand and not supply problems - if it’s supply problems that changes my view quiet a bit.  We’re all in this together, or we should be.

I do however think it’s a sideshow from the need to keep a cautious approach to the exit wave driven by ITU occupancy, and so IMO the need to keep the growth in cases bounded below the level where there would be insufficient time to address impending healthcare overload.

Its not a forgone conclusion that we can manage an exit wave with this variant and unrestricted growth.  I very much look forwards to the updated models being published to give some insight in to this, but the data IMO supports keeping doubling times longer than a week right now.  I don’t actually object to dropping more restrictions but I do think it should be done progressively rather than all in one, much as earlier releases were.  

The argument is entirely academic it seems given the government announcements and briefings.

2
OP Offwidth 07 Jul 2021
In reply to MG:

It's only an observation if it matches what they say and the context in which they say it. What you said was a political opinion (which doesn't match the facts).

You said they moved the goalposts but covid and better information on covid did that. It's a scientist's job to shift emphasis as relative risks shift (and not to stick to a position to improve it's rhetorical political benefits).

On Long Covid show me where Indie SAGE say they want restrictions just for that. What they do want is better recognition and support for it and for it to be part of the risk calculation. You need to explain you position better on the other two areas as I need to see where your concerns lie with what you say they say (and if they even said it).

It's you that's muddling science and policy, as they are inseperable in scientific situations. Politicians make the decisions on scientific information and other information but that should never contradict overwhelming scientific evidence as it did in September and December 2019, and does on masks right now (there is no economic benefit for stopping mask use indoors and a very strong scientific benefit for maintaining it).

Post edited at 15:44
6
 MG 07 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Yes.  With the very limited information and certainty, I am somewhere in the middle.  I can't see why masks and a few other restrictions until say the vaccination programme is complete are a problem.  But equally, to be blunt, some people are inherently vulnerable to covid (and other diseases) or may have effects that linger.  That is tough, there is a limit to what can be done to protect them long term - semi-permanent restrictions aren't justified.

1
 MG 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> It's you that's muddling science and policy, as they are inseperable in scientific situations. 

I don't know what you mean by a "scientific situation".  However, weighing health, liberty, economy, culture against each other, which is what is happening,  certainly isn't one.  It's politics.  

OP Offwidth 07 Jul 2021
In reply to MG:

No one is asking for semi-permanent restrictions, that's a strawman. However If we get vaccine escape with a variant at anything like the characteristics of current variants new restrictions will be certain. You cant bluff a virus that left unrestricted will cause a pandemic that overwhelms the NHS.

10
OP Offwidth 07 Jul 2021
In reply to MG:

We were dealing with situations where science said if you don''t act hospitals will be overwhelmed and so that takes precedence. The irony in this government approach of delaying the inevitable is they used it damage health way more than neccesary, to literally steal some liberty as a political side-bonus, and damage the economy  and culture way more than neccesary.

Post edited at 15:57
6
 wintertree 07 Jul 2021
In reply to MG:

> That is tough, there is a limit to what can be done to protect them long term - semi-permanent restrictions aren't justified.

No argument on that, we can hopefully soon get to the point where covid joins a list of other comparable hazards for some people and we shouldn’t restrict everyone else because of covid any more or less than for any other disease.  Hopefully.

However, not all control measures are in the form of restrictions.  There are developments motivated by covid that can be carried forwards and improve the overall health of the nation, and protect the more vulnerable people in the process, for example:

  • Improved attitudes towards, and WFH support for avoiding the workplace when clearly infectious (for some roles.)
  • A new diagnostic capability to give better support surveillance of respiratory disease trends 
  • Lots of data to inform better understanding of seasonality in respiratory illness
  • Ventilation and air handling.  

I also don’t think I’ve seen any push for semi permanent restrictions, just varying degrees of caution being urged and perhaps over interpreted.  

It will be interesting if the epidemiologists determine that ventilation, masks and better self isolation are enough to suppress the flu season as this then opens up a political choice over what 10,000 lives a year a worth.  There are angles where the outcome of all this could lead to either changing personal attitudes or state policy in favour of annual mild restrictions for the greater good.  I’d be surprised if it gets traction here, but it might re enforce more civic minded approaches already common in parts of Asia.

4
 Wicamoi 07 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Relevant to the general conversation - has anyone been watching the Scottish case data? Growth has clearly slowed over the last two weeks – doubling time to be measured in weeks rather than days. It’s not even impossible that cases have started to fall. After a steep rise in the last week of the school term the change to near plateau pretty much coincides with the closing of schools for the summer here (June 25th). The case rates per 100k vary widely across council regions, but this pattern of steep growth and plateau is pretty consistent across council areas. Case positivity rates show a similar pattern, and squinting at hospitalisations and imagining the lag, you could convince yourself they also fit the story. https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker/ 

Looking forward to wintertree’s next update already.

Anyway, it looks like something has happened. Schools closing? Adults taking holidays? Weather (two warm weeks the first dry, the second showery)? Behaviour moderation at high case rates (almost double the January peak here)?

Maybe it's just a calm before the storm, but whatever it is I begin to feel the knot of fear loosen a little.

 MG 07 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> I also don’t think I’ve seen any push for semi permanent restrictions, just varying degrees of caution being urged and perhaps over interpreted.  

I don't think anyone says they want it but we have had restrictions for 18 months and with some suggestions they would clearly continue for another 9 months minimum. In total I think that is semi-permanent in result. 

I understand the libertarian (and just liberal) push back against this.  If we justify them on a long-covid/vulnerable/until all vaccinated basis, rather than on an avoiding-NHS-collapse basis,  at exactly what point will they be lifted?  Or will there be further mission creep?

2
 Neil Williams 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> As an aside I do think bad actors claiming scientists don''t want restrictions to ever end are gaining traction. The accusation is plain bullshit as once hospitalisation rates are so high that hospitals can no longer cope, extra restrictions are inevitable. Scientists want mask restrictions to remain precisely to maximise chances of enabling an exit without new extra restrictions.

Mostly the scientists are just saying "for now" which seems reasonable.  Personally I'd actually go for slightly stricter restrictions than now (as cases are already rising) until we have offered 100% of adults two jabs, and I guess that'd mean masks too even though I'm no fan of actually wearing one and so tend to just avoid the required settings.

There is a considerable body of "yes, forever" on social media, though.  Some of these are understandable (e.g. immunosuppressed people who don't know about FFP2/3 masks), some others are just plain germophobes and see permanent masking as a way of avoiding colds*, which it would be, but in my view that's too much.  You also see this line as "to protect our children from long COVID" - yes, but there are other post-viral syndromes too (I developed asthma as an adult in exactly that way) and we don't mask up for those.

And yes, no doubt there are the right-wing (Russian?  Chinese?) bad actors too.]

* I do actually like the idea of putting on a mask if you *actually have* a symptomatic cold as the Chinese etc do and have for years, but not on a precautionary basis.

Post edited at 16:59
1
 wintertree 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Wicamoi:

Every drop in growth rates looks like hope, so again I’m hopeful here!  On the pessimistic side, the uneven distribution of immunity perhaps means the “outbreak” nature has persisted well above the case rates where in the past it’s merged into a more continuous rise.  Perhaps this is a masking effect of the “football” outbreak spike subsiding.

Only the future knows.  That and the next ONS antibody survey, which must be due out soon…. 

1
OP Offwidth 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Wicamoi:

One of the Scottish advisors was saying on the BBC earlier this week they were ahead of England on the growth curve and by implication they would be looking at peaking sooner. It's very good news if true, for all of us. The Guardian change map looks better for Scotland than the other nations.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/28/covid-uk-coronavirus-cases-de...

I'm more puzzled about what went wrong with my main reason for more optimism a few weeks back: why ONS data on very high prevalence of covid antibodies hasn't blunted this consistent rapid growth earlier.

Post edited at 17:09
OP Offwidth 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

I'd agree with all that (if the * comment applied indoors only). There are even a few scientists holding a more cautious view than the mainstream position. I just don't know of any scientist calling for semi-permanent restrictions. Sadly on the other hand I've know of too many calling for non scientific based actions on reduced restrictions (Barrington etc).

Post edited at 17:06
1
 Greenbanks 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

Stop calling him B***s. He's Johnson.

OP Offwidth 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Greenbanks:

Sorry, it's something I will always retain in his case. Reserved for those politicians who are really exceptional in their ability (on the bad side in his case). Boris really is special but only a few moderate conservatives are worked up about it as yet.

https://boris-johnson-lies.com/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/boris-johnson-prime-m...

1
 Jenny C 07 Jul 2021
In reply to MG:

> .....  I can't see why masks and a few other restrictions until say the vaccination programme is complete are a problem.  ,....

Totally agree, let's at least give the youngsters a change to protect themselves through double  vaccination before we remove all restrictions. Although personally I'd happily see masks retained on public transport and in shops through till the end of the winter flu season, they are a small inconvenience for most (and legal exceptions for those with real issues) even if the benefits are small.

Also crucially we keep getting told that masks primarily protect others, so those with anxiety issues can avoid unmasked pubs and theatres, but shops and public transport are essential services and should be kept as safe spaces for all.

2
 George Ormerod 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Greenbanks:

He can be Boris as long as the Delta variant is the Boris variant. 

 wintertree 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Wicamoi:

> Relevant to the general conversation - has anyone been watching the Scottish case data?

I rolled the magic 8-ball and it said "Weather?"

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/friday_night_covid_plotting_33-...

OP Offwidth 07 Jul 2021
In reply to George Ormerod:

That point on PMQ's did seem to genuinely annoy him.

 George Ormerod 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

Also there’s no certainty that vaccination is a magic bullet. Countries with high vaccination rates are having additional waves due to variants; it looks likely Israel will reimpose some measures. 

It’s politically brave of the government just to appease its back benchers. Polling shows the public would prefer some measures to remain in place, so if things go tits up it will be squarely their fault. 

OP Offwidth 07 Jul 2021
In reply to George Ormerod:

I'd hope it could work that way but when Boris's dithering in the face of clear evidence led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths from September and again in December last year the mud didn't really stick. 

Any variant vaccine escape now would be a nightmare scenario and running this hot with a partially vaccinated population is too high a risk for a home grown candidate. We are due to hit all time record case levels by the 19th.

I also don't understand the politics of Germany relaxing restrictions as they have when we are at near record case levels. Immigration factors wouldn't normally be so focused on the excellent UK vaccine effort reducing the correlation of cases with hospitalisations and deaths. 

1
 George Ormerod 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

I hope they’re wrong, but some scientists point out that a rampant wave in a partially vaccinated population is a way to risk a vaccine resistant variant. That would really be the Boris variant. 

1
 Misha 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

As I’ve said on the plotting thread, the ship has sailed already and the 19th will only add fuel to the fire. The poor judgement call was to go ahead with 17 May while Delta was kicking off - I did say at the time that the sensible thing to do was to delay and reassess (although certain relaxations such as at campsites would have been fine anyway). Still, ‘freedom day’ and the recent messaging are irresponsible and borderline insane.

I get the theory (it is only a modelling theory) that it’s better to have a big wave now than in December but (1) might we have a big wave in winter anyway and (2) if we had kept restrictions and it looked like there would be a big exit wave in winter we could have continued with the restrictions until next spring. I don’t mean perpetual restrictions but long enough for the vaccination drive to complete here and in most other countries which we have a lot of interaction.

Certain restrictions may well be fine to relax, others less so. For example the restrictions on funeral numbers are particularly painful and probably have limited impact (on the other hand restrictions on weddings are sensible given the singing and dancing). However a Big Bang, especially in the face of cases already high and rising, is just crazy in my view. 

As for people complaining about face masks - tough. Suck it up, snowflakes! Unless you have significant breathing difficulties or some kind of extreme claustrophobia, there really is no reason not to wear them. “I don’t like it” is not a good reason and could be  applied to a lot of things in life which we have to do.

5
In reply to George Ormerod:

> so if things go tits up it will be squarely their fault.

Nope. That's what the 'personal responsibility' shtick is about; Johnson will claim it is our fault for being irresponsible.

 George Ormerod 07 Jul 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

Good point. Given the UK government has killed tens of thousands of people unnecessarily due to gross negligence, a few thousand more and hundreds of thousands of cases of long COVID would be easy to brush off. 

1
In reply to Dave B:

Project Fear 2. Javid assures us all relaxing the restrictions will allow us to reduce the treatment backlog...

 wintertree 07 Jul 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Project Fear 2. Javid assures us all relaxing the restrictions will allow us to reduce the treatment backlog...

Have you figured out how that works yet?  Enquiring minds want to know.

 Misha 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Dave B:

Wonder if there will need to be an embarrassing reversal in a few weeks. Probably not but it’s a possibility. 100k infections a day is potentially 1,000 admissions a day and even with people being discharged quicker due to being less sick in this wave, that’s still going to rack up pretty quickly. 

 Jon Stewart 07 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> Have you figured out how that works yet?  Enquiring minds want to know.

Javid needs to be pressed hard on this. 

Trouble is, like with Johnson today at PMQs, there's no system in place to get an answer, the political system has broken down. We no longer live in a serious country, we're a joke.

2
 Misha 07 Jul 2021
In reply to MG:

Long Covid is a potentially issue though. I guess we’ll find out in the coming years. It seems to affect younger people more. So potentially hundreds of thousands or more people of productive age being out of work etc. That’s going to be disruptive to the economy and unlike lockdown the government won’t be there to fund furlough for these people. I’d like to see more discussion and numbers to understand the potential impact better.

In reply to wintertree:

> Have you figured out how that works yet?

Isn't it obvious? Masks were the only thing stopping people from attending hospital clinics. So if we no longer have to wear a mask, we can all got along for our delayed clinical appointments, and get treated immediately. All those doctors will be 'match fit' after spending the last nine months working every hour god sends in ICU, and they'll be even more motivated after their 1% pay rise and one millionth part of a George Cross Medal.

1
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> there's no system in place to get an answer, the political system has broken down.

I saw Javid make that statement in Parliament, in response to a question from the Shadow Health Minister. There seemed to be no means for the questioner to then say 'bollocks'; they just moved on to another questioner (I think Hunt). If that's what passes for debate in the House, no wonder we're in the shit. I have better arguments in the pub. Or I did, 16 months ago...

 Jon Stewart 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Misha:

> Long Covid is a potentially issue though.

Potentially, but I'm unconvinced it's an issue worth worrying about policy-wise though. Intuitively, I reckon that the long covid effect is going to be negligible compared to, say, the brexit effect.

Policy needs to keep the NHS working - the rest will just have to come out in the wash.

 wintertree 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Misha:

> Wonder if there will need to be an embarrassing reversal in a few weeks. Probably not but it’s a possibility. 100k infections a day is potentially 1,000 admissions a day and even with people being discharged quicker due to being less sick in this wave, that’s still going to rack up pretty quickly. 

If the exponential rate for cases doesn’t let up, I reckon it’s another 30 to 40 days before ITU occupancy becomes critical.  That could happen sooner depending on how bad the impact of medical staff isolation from contract tracing gets.  There’s perhaps 2 million cases ahead of us in a fixed exponential rate scenario between now and then, so perhaps 4-5 million infections.

The latest ONS antibody survey shows about 5 million adults in the UK without antibodies.  Most - not all - of this is in young adults.  The data is 3 weeks out of date, so antibody levels are higher now.

This feels right down to the wire.  

But, also to consider is that we might soon be moving from the exponential-like rise to the linear then the tapering off parts of the logistic function as we approach high antibody levels.  So, the process could become more drawn out, lowering ITU occupancy as admissions:discharges shifts in favour of discharges.  If re-infection with delta prevents attaining the taper off, at least the re infected have antibodies to moderate their healtcare consequences, but it’s back to the drawing board.  Hopefully unlikely to be a big effect.

If the next round of unlocking raises the exponential rate significantly, ITU admission get faster but discharges don’t, so ITU occupancy will double faster and it looks much more like either a U-turn or severe healthcare overload lies ahead.

I’m hopeful that the next round of unlocking won’t affect the exponential rate much.  If it does…

1
In reply to Misha:

> Wonder if there will need to be an embarrassing reversal in a few weeks.

This lady's not for turning.

Fight them on the beaches. Actually, I'm surprised de Piffle hasn't made some gag about beaches and waves...

 elsewhere 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> I also don't understand the politics of Germany relaxing restrictions as they have when we are at near record case levels.

Germany has 7 new cases daily per million and falling.

UK has 330 new cases daily per million and rising.

It's not really politics. It's data. I think they move in/out different levels of restrictions in different areas according to trigger points published in advance.

Edit - if you mean entry restrictions into Germany from UK rather than internal German restrictions then you have a point

Post edited at 23:32
In reply to Misha:

> Wonder if there will need to be an embarrassing reversal in a few weeks.

That's another thing in the 'debate' (or lack thereof) that has been conspicuous by its absence; the criteria for reversing the unlock, if things don't 'go to plan' (whatever the 'plan' is). I guess if you are dogmatically going to go for the 'no reversals, even if the fire-breathing dragons appear', you don't need any such criteria.

But we're sticking to the 'data not dates' line still, aren't we?

In the meantime, my MSOA is still only 46.3/26.2% 1st dose/2nd dose vaccinated. LSOA cases have risen 60% in the last week.

Post edited at 23:29
 Misha 07 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

I tend to agree that the unlock may have relatively limited impact. The big one is office workers and associated commuting but that might moderate itself as people will shy away if there’s significant infection / self isolation and a lot of places aren’t planning to open up fully till September anyway. Also anecdotally a lot of younger people have already ‘unlocked’ in their social life, visiting friends indoors and so on.

The infection potential is significant as you say - not forgetting those who can get infected and hospitalised even after two jabs. School holidays are a saving grace but it might just mean another splurge in September.

What I’m genuinely puzzled by is not dropping self isolation till mid August. If the policy is to let it rip, it makes no sense to try to slow it down by retaining self isolation. It will also screw customer facing businesses. Does the government actually have a coherent strategy now? Either let it rip fully or slam the brakes on. They’ve gone for some kind of weird middle ground. Lots of people won’t self isolate, which is a behavioural issue as once you break the rules you’re more likely to do so again - and restrictions may we’ll need to be brought in over the winter. Words cannot describe…

2
In reply to Misha:

> Does the government actually have a coherent strategy now?

Now...?

I'm sure the rest of the world is looking on eagerly at how our 'experiment/gamble' plays out.

Or not...

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/new-zealand-will-not-just-learn-to-l...

 Jon Stewart 07 Jul 2021
In reply to Misha:

> What I’m genuinely puzzled by is not dropping self isolation till mid August. If the policy is to let it rip, it makes no sense to try to slow it down by retaining self isolation. It will also screw customer facing businesses. Does the government actually have a coherent strategy now?

I agree, it makes no sense. With T&T going ping-a-ping-ping-ping-ping for a month, this is going to screw the NHS and business. My best guess is that Javid decided "unlock on the 19th" before he'd read any briefing papers, then it was pointed out how many cases there's going to be, so he then realised that he couldn't keep T&T going. He probably went for the earliest date he could switch of T&T such that it could be presented as some sort of "balanced" gradual plan. If he'd said "oh, I've just thought of a new bit for the 19th, let's f^ck T&T off too, while cases are rising exponentially" then even Tory voters might have thought that was a bit fishy.

If the pinging is going to be a big issue, then this should have been thought through and the policy of going for testing rather than isolating should have been announced along with the unlocking. And of course the economically harmless measure that could have helped (masks) should have been used as the "look, we are trying to slow it down a bit, don't go mental, lads" token policy element.

What an absolute shambles.

1
 Misha 08 Jul 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

Yeah I don’t like being a global guinea pig...

1
 Misha 08 Jul 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Quite possibly. The other aspect here is the tracing side of the system will quickly get overwhelmed anyway. Hence I don’t believe millions will be asked to self isolate - there will be no capacity to phone round them all.

1
RentonCooke 08 Jul 2021
In reply to Misha:

> As for people complaining about face masks - tough. Suck it up, snowflakes! Unless you have significant breathing difficulties or some kind of extreme claustrophobia, there really is no reason not to wear them. “I don’t like it” is not a good reason and could be  applied to a lot of things in life which we have to do.

Sounds like an argument for burkhas and veils too.  Likewise, it's equally an argument that all people should wear masks every winter - lots die from flu you know and plenty end up with post-viral syndromes of varying severity.

There are good reasons to question this and certainly good reasons to question anyone who appears blind to the libertarian argument. 

21
 Dave B 08 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> If the exponential rate for cases doesn’t let up, I reckon it’s another 30 to 40 days before ITU occupancy becomes critical.  

https://www.nhsemployers.org/articles/suggested-start-and-changeover-dates-...

Perfect timing for FY1s. That'll learn 'em.   

 girlymonkey 08 Jul 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

> In the meantime, my MSOA is still only 46.3/26.2% 1st dose/2nd dose vaccinated. LSOA cases have risen 60% in the last week.

Where are you? That's only just over half the national rates!

1
OP Offwidth 08 Jul 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

It's hard to judge that as national rates and MSOA rates use different population data denominators. The former rates are generally overestimated and the latter underestimated because of that. More or Less looked at this a few weeks back.

2
OP Offwidth 08 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

There has always been a public health message to stay home if can if you have flu. Mask use is routine in parts of east asia when flu is around and it would help here in crowded indoor areas like rush hour public transport in winter.

Keep coming up with the burkha analogies for masks though, it reminds everyone never to take you seriously. Fortunately most people ignore libertarian arguments in pandemics as a lot more people would have suffered and died if we followed some of the dangerous rhetorical twaddle presented from that direction in the last year and a half. 

6
In reply to MG:

> Given this, libertarians etc aren't being entirely unreasonable in wondering under what circumstance these scientists would be happy with no restrictions.

You stop having black out rules when there are no more air raids.  Same with Covid restrictions, and if you aren't sure you ca canny.

What is the problem with wearing a mask in public transport, shops and other places where you are in proximity to strangers.  Costs next to nothing.  They should have a mask rule in schools too and they should go the same way as other countries and make it more effective masks.

What's the problem with people who can work from home working from home.  It is *better* than the alternative even in the absence of Covid.

We should be sitting on an infection rate lower than Germany with our level of vaccination.  Instead it is 5x and they are going to let it get massively worse.  The reason we are not is 100% down to the Tories.

I hope the Scottish Government ban travel from England starting July 19.  You guys can run your experiment all on your own.  If it works we can copy you in a few months.   

12
 wintertree 08 Jul 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> You guys can run your experiment all on your own.  If it works we can copy you in a few months

Luckily for those of us south of the border, Scotland seems to be running the same experiment and they look to be at least a week ahead.  This suggests to me that either (a) your government have the same plan and are a bit more reckless than us or (b) don’t share the plan but have been incompetent / ineffective at stopping it.

1
 Å ljiva 08 Jul 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> Edit - if you mean entry restrictions into Germany from UK rather than internal German restrictions then you have a point

We were a variant of concern area, now that variant is dominant, or close to being dominant in Germany so we’re downgraded to a high-incidence area. Double vaccine or quаrantine. They also took India etc off the list.  Looks like their case numbers are just starting to turn again… 

 MG 08 Jul 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> You stop having black out rules when there are no more air raids.  Same with Covid restrictions, and if you aren't sure you ca canny.

You think that. Others don't. I'm somewhere in the middle. It's called politics  How sure? For how long? Balanced against what? Are all reasonable questions.

>   You guys can run your experiment all on your own.  If it works we can copy you in a few months.   

I live in Scotland.

1
 wintertree 08 Jul 2021
In reply to Misha:

> What I’m genuinely puzzled by is not dropping self isolation till mid August. If the policy is to let it rip, it makes no sense to try to slow it down by retaining self isolation.

It makes little sense to me either.  As the realities start to bite I think the pushback is going to rise to a crescendo well before mid-August.  Operationally speaking, it's an absolute nightmare - and one that exists for no clear reason or benefit.

Perhaps...  If the intent is to keep R>1 but not to allow it to grow too large, then perhaps there's a trade-off between dropping the final restrictions or dropping self isolation rules for double vaccinated.  One of these options bring chaos and unpredictability to the personal lives, children/parents and employees of a sizeable number of people, and the other bring mild restrictions to everyone in a more ordered and predictable way.

> School holidays are a saving grace but it might just mean another splurge in September.

Having this happen with schools closed certainly heads of a confrontation with teachers unions.   It also reduces the impact on parents/carers (and their employers) caused by isolation orders on children, with many parents planning their work holidays and working patterns and childcare plans around the children's summer holidays.

Rumour has it the amount of disruption from isolation orders from schools is getting daft this week.

Post edited at 08:45
OP Offwidth 08 Jul 2021
In reply to MG:

People believe in mask compulsion right now because of the science. Those who don't either don't understand the science or have a political agenda to put their beliefs ahead of the science. That's a pretty dodgy middle ground you are sitting on there. There is no benefit trade off for the extra risks of making mask use a personal choice at current case levels. With other restrictions there are usually clear immediate economic benefits of removal (albeit maybe leading to greater risks later on).

So yes, in the case of masks, it's politics, but those of a failing government.

5
 Richard Horn 08 Jul 2021
In reply to Misha:

> As for people complaining about face masks - tough. Suck it up, snowflakes! 

This (and countless other similar comments) misses the point, for me at least. Its not about the hassle or vanity of wearing a mask myself thats the issue, its going to public places and being surrounded by an anonymised wall of canvas that I dont like. So much is conveyed in peoples facial expressions - emotion, happiness, visual cues etc, I just find it totally depressing being around people with their faces covered up.

As an example, our son started a new school last Sept after we just moved house. Masks are required at pick up / drop off - 10 months later we still hardly know any other parents, whereas normally you would smile and say hello and get to know people, everyone just stands in stoney silence behind their piece of cloth (maybe not the people who know each other already, but thats exactly the point). 

I also understand the concerns of the vulnerable though, that some places are shared and that not everyone holds my viewpoint, so as we "ramp" out of this situation I can see a balance is required. 

7
OP Offwidth 08 Jul 2021
In reply to Richard Horn:

Some very good points but the time to drop compulsion is not when we are heading to record case levels. From a personal level I've had more conversations with strangers, masked, than I do normally outside the pandemic, as I end up in queues at times and people seem to want to want to talk more. I've also had more conversations with strangers than normal  unmasked, when out walking.

Post edited at 09:21
4
OP Offwidth 08 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

You need an extension for #33.

Lots of things are happening quickly now. International expert critisism of the government's approach. Ministers hinting at tweaking the covid ap as too many are getting pinged. More hospitals reported as facing severe capacity problems. Admissions now doubling every 11 days

https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1412800198510878730?s=20

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/07/global-experts-urge-boris-joh...

Post edited at 09:33
2
 MG 08 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> People believe in mask compulsion right now because of the science. Those who don't either don't understand the science or have a political agenda to put their beliefs ahead of the science.

You still dont get the difference between science and policy.  Science makes predictions. Politics decides preferred outcomes.  Science says mask use reduces infection.  One policy this to use that to enforce mask use and reduce infections (your preference), another uses this to push abandoning masks in the UK (probably one V Putin's preference).  Both are "following the science".

> That's a pretty dodgy middle ground you are sitting on there.

How is thinking continued mask use and some other restrictions for a while longer is  beneficial dodgy?

Post edited at 09:53
OP Offwidth 08 Jul 2021
In reply to MG:

You're clearly intransigent on this issue so there is no point in going any further with you. There are some other benefits of not wearing masks away from economics but the trade offs involved really apply to more normal times; they don't apply when case levels are moving towards being as high or higher than they ever have been. You are putting your politics above clear scientific necessity in any middle ground, just like the swivel eyed loons. If you think mask compulsion is needed you are only pretending to be in a middle ground.

Post edited at 09:58
10
 Alkis 08 Jul 2021
In reply to MG & Offwidth:

As an external observer, you two appear to have gone off on the wrong foot, you don't actually appear to be disagreeing as such.

 MG 08 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

 If you think my view of what should happen is that of a "swivel eyed loon", you either aren't  reading what I am writing or are yourself taking a very extreme position. 

OP Offwidth 08 Jul 2021
In reply to Alkis:

It's not personal and I think it's important. I believe we are where we are because the UK establishment didn't properly call out or better still stop Boris and often did so siting on some mythical middle ground, or protocol, or whatever, when facing clear scientific predicted disasters. He is an ongoing lethal political car crash with the dead and the damage still piling up. These bad things only happen because enough good people fail to speak up. Our state is failing in front of our eyes when mad leadership decisions are made contradicting clear science.

3
OP Offwidth 08 Jul 2021
In reply to MG:

That's my view on masks if you think compulsion is bad in any major respect right now. There is no meaningful middle ground where the science is so clear and there is no economic benefit trade off. Pretending there is middle ground on really dumb scientific decisions is part of why this shit show of a government get away with as much as they do. The extremism demonstrated on this subject is where politics trump an obvious rational position based on clear science.

The Putin point is a strawman and it's you that doesn't understand the relevant political decision process. We are supposed to live in a liberal democracy with checks and balances and it should be near impossible to make mad decisions in the face of clear and imperative science. Putin runs a failed state. In any properly functioning democracy the mask decision would be based on the clear science with the political process being more about practicality and edge consequences.

Post edited at 10:32
3
 MG 08 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> That's my view on masks if you think compulsion is bad in any major respect right now.

As I thought, you aren't actually  reading what I am saying. Several times I have said keeping some restrictions is correct. 

 GEd_83 08 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

"Rumour has it the amount of disruption from isolation orders from schools is getting daft this week".

I can confirm, certainly in my area at least, that it's been daft for the past 5-6 weeks or so now. My son's whole year (year 7) had to all self-isolate due to one positive test result last month. He was back in for 2 days, then another 10 days of self-isolation due to another positive. I'm surprised he's not self-isolating again, as years 9 and 10 in his school both had to go into self-isolation again at the start of this week. As of today, 5 out of the 7 high schools in the area have all of their year 7-9 year groups out of school self-isolating. It's gotten to the point now where I know a few people who are subsequently getting their child tested, and if negative, are refusing to lock their children away for another 10 days.

Loads of outdoor kid's activities and sports, which are very low risk anyway, are being cancelled too as a result. It just seems like children have been forgotten about a bit at the moment as the rest of society gets closer to some kind of normality. At the start of the pandemic there was an attitude that the absolutely last things to close should be schools, whereas now it seems like the opposite, where most of society is getting close to normal, all apart from schools, Hospitality prioritised over our children's health and futures, all for a disease which in general doesn't really affect them.

One thing I don't understand, is why don't they allow kids (if there is a positive test in the year group or school) to get tested, and come back into school if they're negative (even if that means daily, or every other day testing)? Another thing I don't understand, is that the parents and siblings of self-isolating children don't have to self-isolate? This makes no sense to me and many others, but what do I know?

 MG 08 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> The Putin point is a strawman and it's you. ..[]

And on this it is now clear you are wilfully avoiding the point.  Putin was an example to highlight the point as a extreme case.   Contrary to what you are saying, any functioning democracy, almost by definition, will have different views on correct policy, except in the most extreme circumstances.  We were perhaps in such circumstances in April last year and possibly December but we certainly aren't now.  Covid remains a dominate driver for policy but it is by no means obvious that only one course is correct and all others "mad", and it certainly isn't the case that only science should drive policy.

OP Offwidth 08 Jul 2021
In reply to MG:

I'm saying we are there right now on masks. The different government political views on policy in this case have indeed led to a different decision, one that has contradicted clear science and will have serious public health consequences and no significant benefits. The checks and balances in a functioning democracy should mean that could not have happened. We have a multilayered democratic system, a civil service and legal protections in place to help stop governments making any mad decisions they may be considering. The consequences of this latest government mistake may be much less than in September or December 2019 but it's still mad and the political decision making process should have been based on the very clear science with no meaningful middle ground. The people who are willfully ignoring things are those who don't see how serious this repeat behaviour is to our democracy, our health, and our wealth.

Post edited at 11:03
4
Removed User 08 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

I don't think the mask science is 'so clear' is it? I know you have quoted engineering type studies were droplet transmission is (obviously) shown to reduce. But how that translates to any specific R rate reduction is multi-faceted and somewhat harder determine. Note I am not saying that masks have no impact in R rate, but the uncertainty on any estimation is huge.

I'll where a mask in a shop, but I've given up bothering on school pick ups where everyone is stood socially distanced in a playground outside picking up all their kids who have been mixing throughly all day anyway! I brings to mind the hygiene fascism mentioned on another thread around needlessly sanitising hands

Post edited at 11:03
OP Offwidth 08 Jul 2021
In reply to Removed User:

The science of indoor mask benefit is very clear if you look. What is less clear is population effects of policy (eg people who won't wear masks where they need to but for no good medical reason or wear them so badly they don't function as well as they could). It's also clear that the decision the government made will significantly reduce mask use indoors and behavioural scientists say this will be worse in deprived areas where they are most needed.

Schools making people wear masks outdoors when social distancing is of almost no scientific benefit in infection control terms but maybe some benefit in being seen to be cautious or if people are not social distancing.

I currently feel like the public news situation is also in full emperor has no cloths denial on this mask decision as they were in the early days of climate change debate. Not only have our democractic checks and balances failed so has the 4th estate in pointing this out loudly and clearly. Welcome to the new populist UK.

Post edited at 11:18
4
 Richard Horn 08 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> I currently feel like the public news situation is also in full emperor has no cloths denial on this mask decision as they were in the early days of climate change debate. 

One thing that makes me particularly want to scream when reading anything about masks and people thinking others should do better is the complete disparity with the arguments or prevalence of discussion about climate change. People think they are being a good citizen because they put their mask on ... as they get out of their diesel burning SUV at the supermarket. One of these things is a much bigger problem than the other.

2
OP Offwidth 08 Jul 2021
In reply to Richard Horn:

I think it's usually pointless and often unhelpful blaming ordinary people, but important people in the establishment deserve to be held to a higher standard. It's vital to question government policy and messaging, the press, and bodies like NHS. In the west we do lead a varying degree of carbon profligate lives, that adds damage to the climate, but again governments the press etc have a much greater responsibility. There is some good news that attitudes do seem to be changing and very good news in renewable generation prices dropping below those of oil and gas.

I'm human and do struggle to avoid being annoyed by things like chelsea tractors ferrying middle class kids walking distances to school to work on climate change posters that day.

Post edited at 12:03
1
 Toerag 08 Jul 2021
In reply to GEd_83:

>  Another thing I don't understand, is that the parents and siblings of self-isolating children don't have to self-isolate? This makes no sense to me and many others, but what do I know?

It's because they're a 'contact of a contact' and theoretically less likely to get infected due to incubation times, vaccination status and suchlike.  If there was an elimination strategy then yes, you'd want them to SI, but there isn't, there's a 'let it rip' strategy.

OP Offwidth 08 Jul 2021
In reply to Toerag:

Gazed83 is right to raise the issue though. If you let cases head towards record levels in a planned removal of restrictions, but maintaining isolation as cases peak, this moves beyond incredibly disruptive to almost unworkable for many schools and businesses. That is massive social and economic damage, yet we get to not wear masks which is a proven public health benefit with no such damage.

 wintertree 08 Jul 2021

In reply to 

 VSisjustascramble: (from previous thread [1])

> But if when the models are released they show that healthcare won’t be overwhelmed (which clearly they will) will you admit I’m right.

A couple of days later, on the BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57761409 1

  • Health boards should consider cancelling non-urgent procedures to reduce pressure on hospitals, a senior public health official has said.
  • NHS Lanarkshire said it had considered scaling back procedures due to staff absences and rising Covid admissions.
  • And NHS Highland cancelled all non-urgent elective surgery and most outpatient activity at Inverness' Raigmore Hospital amid growing pressure. 

Your faith in the modelling is bizarrely incompatible with the real world.  So, safe to say there is zero chance of me coming back to admit you were right with your misrepresentation of past models and your faith in what future models might say in spite of the data.

I'm curious, was this argument your own or did Party HQ give you a helping hand?

[1] https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/another_poor_judgement_by_boris... 

Post edited at 13:23
2
In reply to wintertree:

I’m not sure you’re trying to say?

You seem to be asserting that we should be seeking to avoid an exit wave that puts any pressure on non-Covid healthcare. Is this even possible? 

We could run as cold (with more restrictions) as possible and then we get into the winter and have a dual impact of Covid and other respiratory illnesses, which is the point I’m making. This seems to me to be the worse possible scenario.

To clarify some of your other points:

- I’m not working for a foreign government (I’ve definitely missed the cheques in the post if I am)

- I’m not a Tory party staffer (again, missing the cheques in the post)

Let me put this another way. All over 40s who want to a vaccine have now been double jabbed (or will be imminently) and most adults under 40 have had a single jab.

If the UK was only made up of under 40s, would we have locked down last year? Answer: of course not.

You have to accept that people have different opinions to you. 

8
OP Offwidth 08 Jul 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

We really don't have to accept counter-factual opinions as having validity. The case level will at least double and quite a few hospitals are already having to shut down non urgent work.

We were always going to have to run a bit hot in the exit wave but not around record level hot. It was perfectly possible to exit this summer but our government are busy messing it up, due to: inaction or slow action in obvious areas that would have helped, terrible messaging, some mad decisions that contradict the science, and being hypocrites defending ministerial and spad rule breaches.

2
 wintertree 08 Jul 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> I’m not sure you’re trying to say?

1. I am saying that your insistence healthcare overload was impossible because of 

  • Out of date modelling with heavy caveats that you neglected to mention
  • Your belief that the government would only drop more controls if unpublished modelling said it would all be fine - indeed your belief that is was required to achieve an exit wave, apparently connected to a basic but important misunderstanding of the exponential mechanic

Was flat out wrong as is becoming clear from today's news reports and the data.  You were demanding I admit to being wrong based on future hypothetical modelling, yet the emerging data and news shows that already it is you who were wrong.  I doubt you'll be admitting it, despite asking me if I would.

2. I am saying that IMO we must keep exponential growth rates low enough - as a function of developing case numbers - to leave sufficient slack in the process to avert healthcare overload if it becomes a significant threat.  I am further staying that there is no scientific justification for your repeated point that we must drop all remaining restrictions in order to achieve the exit wave, rather the opposite that some caution remains highly prudent.

> To clarify some of your other points:

I guess I'm just naturally suspicious when someone with all the hallmarks of a formerly banned poster pops up with a new account and follows an argument so bizarre it defies the science, and is based around a belief in what the government must be doing despite the evidence of the last year.

> You have to accept that people have different opinions to you. 

I accept that with no problems, and I accept that a minority of those different opinions are based on either severe misunderstandings or misrepresentations.

You may note that almost everything on the plotting threads seems to be in disagreement with each other, and yet I have no suspicions about any of their motivations.

It's funny how all the posters advocating for more caution have stuck with their identities and accounts, and many of those advocating for less keep cropping up with new ones.  It's very one sided.  If it's not down to any organising forces it's a real mystery to me what's going on...

I have zero problems explaining why I think a different opinion does not hold up to the science.  I can watch the dislikes accumulate for what is perceived as my arrogance.  I'd far rather that then let someone confidently tell some others what they want to hear when I just don't think the science or data stacks up in favour of what they believe will happen.   

> Let me put this another way. All over 40s who want to a vaccine have now been double jabbed (or will be imminently) and most adults under 40 have had a single jab.

Any yet we're still seeing big red warning lights go over both hospital cancellations and the data over healthcare overload.  So, I'm not sure what you're actually implying.  Rather than spell out your view, you're moving to subtle misrepresentations.  Why do I say misrepresentation?  Because healthcare is not just about Covid victims, and those over 40 who have chosen not to be vaccination, those who are unable to be, and those for whom it is not effective still need healthcare, and in sufficient numbers that the spectre of healthcare overload cannot safety be retired just yet.

> If the UK was only made up of under 40s, would we have locked down last year? Answer: of course not.

If only vaccination was 100% effective your argument wouldn't be disingenuous.  It might still be wrong however as with a population under 40, hospital capacity would be much lower (due to lower demand, assuming you just Soylent Green people on their 40th) and enough people under 40 would have required hospitalisation to break the remaining healthcare if we didn't control the rate.  

> You seem to be asserting that we should be seeking to avoid an exit wave that puts any pressure on non-Covid healthcare. Is this even possible? 

I have not asserted that.

I think we should manage the exit wave so that we do not take healthcare beyond red lines.  The pressure on non-Covid healthcare is one of the warning signs that we are approaching the red lines.  These signs should be very familiar after the last year.  Given that all measures are increasing, and we're passing warning signs, the red lines approach and I absolutely think we should manage an exit wave without redlining healthcare, preferably by a progressive relaxation of restrictions giving time to evaluate and change course.

> I’m not working for a foreign government (I’ve definitely missed the cheques in the post if I am)

I'm sorry, I missed the bit where I claimed the account you're posting under was working for a foreign government.  

Post edited at 14:10
2
 Kalna_kaza 08 Jul 2021
In reply to Misha:

I have heard of many people uninstalling the track and trace app in favour of just giving their details at bars, cafes etc.

A few of the reasons given was repeated "pings" followed by negative tests, companies no longer paying if you have to self isolate, general apathy now that most have had at least one jab. 

I have followed the rules throughout the pandemic but confess my enthusiasm to play my part has dropped a lot in the last month or so. Without going into details I've missed three major personal events due to covid restrictions, all of which have taken it's toll on my mental health. The Matt Hancock affair was the last straw as it happened in the same week as missing a funeral.

It's horrible to say it but I'm not convinced I would be willing to extend my compliance any further. Face masks, yes, being told to isolate following visiting family abroad etc, probably not. 

 bruxist 08 Jul 2021
In reply to Removed User:

> I don't think the mask science is 'so clear' is it? I know you have quoted engineering type studies were droplet transmission is (obviously) shown to reduce. But how that translates to any specific R rate reduction is multi-faceted and somewhat harder determine. Note I am not saying that masks have no impact in R rate, but the uncertainty on any estimation is huge.

This really isn't the case anymore. I keep seeing the idea mooted that the evidence is 'flimsy' or uncertain, as it was a year ago, but it isn't now, and it's very unlikely that we'll reach a much higher level of confidence in mask efficacy even with greater study.

In the UK, the evidence Gov is provided with has moved well past droplet-transmission lab-based studies. It's no longer based solely on theoretical modelling, but on analysis of real-world data in the UK gathered during the pandemic by PHE as well as data gathered by the ECDC in Europe.

Some of the questions that the public are still confused about in the UK, like 'Do masks work?' and 'Is the virus airborne?' haven't been in doubt for a long time if you follow SAGE docs. It seems to me as though general public knowledge about transmission mitigation is stuck at some point in early 2020, whereas the evidence provided to Gov in 2021 is and has been unambiguously and strongly in favour of even the weakest types of masks as source control; unambiguous about the urgency of improved ventilation; and very strongly in favour of tight-weave multi-layer masks, showing an effect upon R rate comparable to vaccination.

There's more to it than that, obviously - a lot more! and I think most of the public would be very surprised to discover what current SAGE advice on measures like physical distancing, screens, visors, etc. is - but Offwidth is correct in saying that UK scientific advice on masks is clear.

2
In reply to bruxist:

> I think most of the public would be very surprised to discover what current SAGE advice on measures like physical distancing, screens, visors, etc. is

Yet another triumph of government communications...

 wintertree 08 Jul 2021
In reply to bruxist:

> It seems to me as though general public knowledge about transmission mitigation is stuck at some point in early 2020, whereas the evidence provided to Gov in 2021 is and has been unambiguously and strongly in favour of even the weakest types of masks as source control; 

We were the unfortunate recipients of an isolation order from school this week.  It has some helpful bullet point advice on how to minimise potential spread in the house from the recipients of the order.  From the list, you’d think covid was entirely spread by surface contamination.

The answer is literally blowing in the wind.  Or HVAC.  Or HEPA units.  Or UV air sterilisers.  Bleed down viral load in indoor air.  Yet, “hands, face, space” persisted for so long.

In reply to wintertree:

> From the list, you’d think covid was entirely spread by surface contamination.

I'm pretty sure I had figured it should have been 'space, face, hands' by about April last year.

Once again, I'll have to put it down to non-availability of masks early in the pandemic, so they stressed something we could do, and played down what we couldn't do. But they didn't change the message...

 wintertree 08 Jul 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Once again, I'll have to put it down to non-availability of masks early in the pandemic, so they stressed something we could do, and played down what we couldn't do. But they didn't change the message...

I get the need to avoid causing a panic buy of masks given the shambolic PPE supply; and I recall news stories of criminals thieving mask supplies.  

But….  And this is the kind of big butt Sir Mixalot rapped about…

But ventilation is almost as powerful as masks given the required exposure levels, especially of early variants.  “Ventilate, space, face”.  

It’s a damned mystery to me how ventilation hasn’t been the priority since day zero.  It’s what I was pushing in Feb 2020 when we were expected to spend an hour at a time in unventilated rooms, with between one and several dozen people aged 18-21 , who were already identified as potential asymptomatic sources, and when poor ventilation had already been identified as a risk factor in early studies abroad.

The probable correlation with short term trends in the weather now just rams the ventilation / air aspect home.

HEPA units aren’t expensive, they’re old tech and simple.  

 CurlyStevo 08 Jul 2021
In reply to Removed User:

I don't get why everyone talks about masks as if they are all the same thing. I see people with a snood over their mouth, single layer cotten, multilayer ones, fake ffp2 from china and actual ffp2 and ffp3 masks. There is a world of difference. I (re) use ffp3 masks with no valves. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57636360 .

Post edited at 22:42
In reply to wintertree:

> I get the need to avoid causing a panic buy of masks given the shambolic PPE supply

I wasn't meaning to be as apologetic as that; more cynicism about the fact that they used bullshit spin to cover up the fact that their incompetence meant we didn't have adequate PPE...

OP Offwidth 09 Jul 2021
In reply to CurlyStevo:

Yet again..... that BBC link is about masks to protect individual health-workers from infection.

Public mask policy is about individuals wearing masks in a public space to protect others from the wearer's potential infection. The evidence is even a single layer has a clear benefit indoors (especially in poorly ventilated areas) but cheap multilayer masks are a good bit better.

It's really weird how after all these months intelligent people are still muddling the two distinct situations and failing to recognise the clear science that says mask use indoors makes a big difference to cutting infection risk, probably second only to vaccination (and not matching it probably as not everyone is using masks as advised). The government don't help (and probably don't want to as they seem to despise being forced to put mask use as policy, and are proposing dropping compulsion, despite clear ongoing benefit for virtually no cost). It's nuts. The lack of focus on good ventilation is part of the same nuts policy.

Post edited at 13:16
1
 CurlyStevo 09 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

There is little evidence that cotton masks prevent you from catching covid 19 ( as it will get on the outside of the mask anyway) and limited evidence they prevent you spreading it substantially without social distancing (if you have it then give it). But then again hand washing was always going to only have a limited effect against a respiratory virus too (current estimates < 5 percent of transmission).

Wearing an effective ffp3 mask would be best, but atleast ffp2, with no valve, not only protects others more, but your self much more greatly.

Ofc if you catch it you can pretty easily pass it on to all the other cotton mask believers.

The gaps in cotton can't stop aerosolized spread, I'm surprised you cant see that. If you are socially distancing the bigger droplets mostly won't get to you anyway unmasked. Its why we don't need masks outside as the aerosolized virus is generally so dispersed our immune systems can take care of it.

If cotton masks are so effective, maybe everyone in hospitals should default to that? Think about it!

Post edited at 18:01
7
OP Offwidth 09 Jul 2021
In reply to CurlyStevo:

Read the various reports linked above and on the previous thread. Scientists have measured benefit for any face covering. For a standard cheap multi-layer face mask worn properly the R number benefit is the same as vaccination. It's bad enough you dug the hole, no need to dig more.

As a health worker around covid patients you want a near 100% safe mask for you.

2
 neilh 09 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

Well having had at least 2 HSE inspections on Covid protection measures I would suggest that the UK Gov via HSE is taking ventilation and mask wearing in the work place seriously.

I have never known the HSE taken such a proactive stance in the industrial workplace.

Questions on ventilation measures etc are clearly a standard.

Clearly not every workplace will be checked, but it has been a real eyeopener for me.

And the most recent one was only a couple of weeks ago.

Post edited at 18:48
 CurlyStevo 09 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth

So you already mention multilayer mask, I say you prove my point masks are different. I never said masks provide no difference just there is a distinct variation.

Please post your scientific studies that show how effective single layer cotton masks are, or perhaps a  bandanna.

Post edited at 19:01
3
 CurlyStevo 09 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

I don't care about 'any' face coving just ones that are significantly effective and how effective they are.

Post edited at 19:13
 Jenny C 09 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/590836?fbclid=IwAR0e2EnNClwGjv4by3...

Petition requesting that the government reconsiders and changes the rules to maintain mask wearing in supermarkets and on public transport beyond the 19th July.

Post edited at 20:52
 CurlyStevo 09 Jul 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

So I linked a news report to a study that finds ffp3 masks can provide up to 100% protection, what do you have for single layer cotton, or similar layer graduations of improvement (which would only prove my point). If hand washing is probably <5% what's your estimate of single layer cotton masks?

Post edited at 21:20
5
In reply to CurlyStevo:

There are innumerable studies about this (simply do a Google). A recent one from University of Edinburgh shows that the number of droplets transmitted was more than 1,000 times lower when wearing even a single layer cotton mask than no mask. 

https://www.ukri.org/our-work/tackling-the-impact-of-covid-19/understanding...

1
Removed User 09 Jul 2021
In reply to bruxist:

Can someone post some actual links/references. I would genuinely like to get up to speed. I've browsed through the Sage links but I can only find an analysis from April 2020 suggesting face covering have little effect. I've limited time, but know my way around a scientific paper ta.

Post edited at 21:57
 CurlyStevo 09 Jul 2021
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Its airborne so with social distancing that study is greatly reduced. Also that study is not linked to actual transmission. As I keep pointing out all face masks are not equal. Its mostly an airborne virus not just big droplets. 

I've read less than 5% of people catch covid from droplets landing on a surface, which is the opening gambit of the article. Indeed Tim Spectre advised there is little point in wiping down shopping for a similar reason. You have to weigh that up with delta being twice as transmissible etc.

Australia have cases of delta transmission linked to passing on the street in 10-15 secs outdoors btw

Post edited at 22:16
5
In reply to CurlyStevo:

Everyone knows that 'not all face masks are equal'. Anything but. Also: the vast majority of people I know/in the town where I live are not wearing single layer masks, but at least double. 

1
In reply to CurlyStevo:

> As I keep pointing out all face masks are not equal. Its mostly an airborne virus not just big droplets. 

That's not a good excuse to stop the requirement to wear masks of any sort. There's plenty of evidence that wearing half-decent surgical masks (not FFP3) is beneficial. If anything, it's an argument to require people to wear half-decent masks, rather than a simple buff or cotton mask.

1
 Yanis Nayu 09 Jul 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

What are the predictions for hospital cases based on 100,000 cases a day and current vaccination rates? Anyone know?

 CurlyStevo 09 Jul 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

Well I sort of agree but we don't have stats. Ofc the world went crazy on hand sensitization despite  less that 5% of cases being acquired that way. Is less that 5% reduction worth while? Yes i guess so. But why were we focused so hard on it? Maybe because it was achievable? Same with Cotton masks? 

Are they as effective as surgical masks, unlikely! Also we know from my link surgical masks aren't as effective as ffp3. I mean its not rocket science really, pretty obvious stuff from the basic facts of virus and mask particle size etc

Post edited at 22:33
 CurlyStevo 09 Jul 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

I never said " to stop the requirement to wear masks of any sort." I do think there are lot more effective ways of reducing transmission than washing hands, washing down shopping or wearing a cotton mask (ie reusing a set of ffp3 masks with no valve), but I don't have actual stats to prove it. Other than reading than <5% of cases are transmitted by fomites and other articles that suggest ffp3 masks are much more effective than surgical masks. But its not rocket science look at the particle size and how the virus is mostly transmit!

Post edited at 22:41
 CurlyStevo 09 Jul 2021
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Everyone knows that 'not all face masks are equal'. Anything but. Also: the vast majority of people I know/in the town where I live are not wearing single layer masks, but at least double. 

Not really the point I made reread my original post

4
In reply to CurlyStevo:

> Ofc the world went crazy on hand sensitization despite  less that 5% of cases being acquired that way. 

I've addressed that upthread. I've always considered airborne particulates to be the most significant transmission mechanism. The hand washing was always political spin to cover up the fact we didn't have enough face masks, even for first line carers.

 RobAJones 09 Jul 2021
In reply to CurlyStevo:

> Not really the point I made reread my original post

Can you give me a time/date? My memory might be faulty but I thought it was precisely your point, but I don't really want to scroll through the whole thread again

1
 Misha 09 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Right, so we can have another wave in September once kids go back to school and bubbles are scrapped...

 Misha 09 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

> Sounds like an argument for burkhas and veils too. 

What are you on about?

Likewise, it's equally an argument that all people should wear masks every winter

Not a bad idea on public transport etc if there’s a flu epidemic going on. Will be interesting to see if it sticks to some extent. COVID is not just a little flu unfortunately...

OP Offwidth 09 Jul 2021
In reply to neilh:

Good to hear Neil. I wasn't aware of that and have pals in environmental health jobs.

2
 Misha 09 Jul 2021
In reply to Kalna_kaza:

I think the funeral rules were unnecessarily strict. It is also difficult for people with family abroad. I ended a cross border relationship in December because it was no longer sustainable with Covid but that was ok. If people have parents or children abroad that’s obviously much harder.

 mik82 09 Jul 2021
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

>What are the predictions for hospital cases based on 100,000 cases a day and current vaccination rates? Anyone know?

Last wave there was a seven day lag between cases and admissions roughly. Looking at latest admissions data of about 500 on the 5/7 when cases were about 23k a day a week prior - 2.2% of cases admitted. So 2200 admissions per day at current vaccination rate -higher than before lockdown 2 and similar to start of lockdown 3 in England- but obviously that'll change as more vaccines are administered. 

Post edited at 23:44
 CurlyStevo 10 Jul 2021
In reply to RobAJones:

nope, my my point was masks work differently depending on the mask, read the posts. If you cant be arsed to read why reply?

Post edited at 01:19
2
 CurlyStevo 10 Jul 2021
In reply to RobAJones:

Also have you got any actual evidence cotton masks work also how much? Just not really seen any evidence on actual transmission. I personally want them to do something for my mental well being, but if its on the same order as hand washing we may as well be pishing in to the wind! The choices the government make and when greatly outweigh hand sanitization IMO.

Post edited at 01:18
 CurlyStevo 10 Jul 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

"I've addressed that upthread. I've always considered airborne particulates to be the most significant transmission mechanism. The hand washing was always political spin to cover up the fact we didn't have enough face masks, even for first line carers."

Sure but that actually doesn't address your post

"That's not a good excuse to stop the requirement to wear masks of any sort. "

Which I never claimed! Try to make a consistent point or posting is worthless. I do think wearing more effective masks would be a good idea (or just none at all if thats consensus). IIRC some places in the EU mandate around FFP2 / FFP3 masks indoors publicly.

Post edited at 01:35
 Maggot 10 Jul 2021
In reply to CurlyStevo:

I'm totally lost here on the mask front,but one thing I know with 100% certainty, Is that we picked our daughter up from near Dundee about a month ago and her R number must be hitting double figures easy.

 Jenny C 10 Jul 2021
In reply to Misha:

> Right, so we can have another wave in September once kids go back to school and bubbles are scrapped...

But we can blame it on the students if it's in September.

 RobAJones 10 Jul 2021
In reply to CurlyStevo:

> nope, my my point was masks work differently depending on the mask

If that's the case I agree. Mrs J has made nearly 5000 face covering, we did a bit of research before deciding on the design (2 layer cotton with a pocket for a vacuum/paper filter). There seemed a to a few studies about at the time, I accepted they are pretty limited in relation to covid spread.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083 

>read the posts. If you cant be arsed to read why reply?

I have read them and admitted I was confused, my request was for you to give me some idea where yours started so I could focus on those.

 Yanis Nayu 10 Jul 2021
In reply to mik82:

Thanks 👍

 RobAJones 10 Jul 2021
In reply to CurlyStevo:

> Also have you got any actual evidence cotton masks work also how much? Just not really seen any evidence on actual transmission. 

I'm not sure there is any really high quality studies. How to you design a randomised controlled trial and study the results sensibly? I remember reading an attempt from health workers i SE Asia very early on I the pandemic. It was used as a reason for our delay in the use of cotton masks as it seemed to find that they offered little or no protection to the wearers. On investigation it was pointed out that amongst the control group some didn't wear masks, some homemade and some surgical. Perhaps the finds should have been that mandating the use of cotton masks was as effective as leaving people to choose their own? Also this only focused on people catching  the virus not spreading it.   


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...