UKH

Can't help feeling "Nero" is reborn.

We live on a small landmass. It will rip. New reistant- to -vaccine varients favour this because of the volume of virus circulating? Very likely.

So, Nero Johnson says, "Voluntarily wear masks and socially distance"? How can one do that when another walks right up to you, breathes in your own partially protective mask to get the butter off the shelf in the supermarket- my right to mask and distance , to protect myself and others, is made null and void.

Should we have to wear labels on our lapels " Respect my right to mask and please socially distance by 2 metres where  possible-Thanks!" ? Otherwise my "choice" is overridden and my sense of social responsibility....

Godwin's Law but a yellow star or pink triangle might make an appropriate label.

It has become abundantly clear that the most effective vaccine against the disease is cash. Maybe a face mask manufactured from a £20 note would help?

I sympathise - living with that level of anxiety about Covid, when presumably you’ve been double jabbed, must be a real struggle. 

Clearly the relaxation of restrictions is the right call, with the modelling suggesting that July is the sweet spot to release restrictions.

I don’t think anyone really wants restrictions to be in place until next summer which seems the alternative.

An exit wave seems inevitable. Based on the current hospitalisation to case rates it doesn’t look like the NHS will be overwhelmed before we get herd immunity.

Ending the governments ability to demand we wear face coverings and enforce how we interact with each other, in clear agreement with his scientific advisors, is comparable to Nero how exactly? This is needlessly overdramatic.

You are welcome to continue masking, you can even decide to wear a better mask than the generic flimsy cloth things we've all been using if you are concerned, or a face visor + mask and all the labels you feel you need to. Most of us are able to get on with basic manners and common sense when it comes to navigating around other humans. The "wearing a mask protects others more than yourself" trope was a strategy to maximise mask compliance, and it worked. Don't mistake that for "if everyone in the supermarket isn't wearing a mask I'm in serious mortal danger".

You seem to have a strange idea that it's your inalienable right to a 2 meter personal space perimeter around you at all times, this isn't true. 

Ever been in a supermarket?

Maybe not, but you don't have an inalienable right not to be told, in no uncertain terms, to back right off if you start leaning over me to take items off the shelf.

I didn't know that Johnson had such a passion for music personally 

You can now freely available to the public masks that protect the wearer (FFP3 or whatever its called), so if you are still untrusting of the vaccination effectiveness then you have the choice to protect yourself. 

The problem with face masks is that the evidence to bring them in was somewhat flimsy and has never really been proven to make any difference on the course of the pandemic on a large scale, so it will be rather hard to ever prove they are not required either... 

We have a situation now where peoples perception of risk (and the mitigations required) are at quite different levels, and that will take a bit of time to adjust. For now I imagine many shop owners will ask people to wear masks anyway, and whilst infection rates are still high I think thats a request people should accept even if deep down I think it will make diddly-squat difference, but it allows the more fearful members of society to relax a bit. Likewise there is very little chance anyone will socially distance or mask up in a nightclub - its just not realistic and I dont think anyone should be looking down on it given where we are with the vaccination programme.

So do I, but with none of the sarcasm that your comment seems to imply.

Yes mid July probably is the correct time for the next relaxation, but a total removal of restrictions feels very reckless especially as we have zero knowledge of if vaccination reduces the likelihood of developing Long Covid.

Yes resume office working and remove restrictions on meeting people. Maybe yes reopen nightclubs for those who feel comfortable in crowded places.

But if we remove social distancing please maintain mask wearing on public transport, in supermarkets and in other busy public places - specifically those offering essential services and able to stay open throughout previous lockdowns. Many people have developed social anxiety issues over the last year and will willingly self regulate their behaviour, but making essential services higher risk (perceived or actual) for them is not helpful.

With 30,000 cases/day and a 10-day doubling time there is absolutely no need to drop further restrictions for that to happen.

That is not the alternative. It might have been for the last unlock, but not for this one.

And right now we can respond to any changes in those rates before it’s too late.  That could change significantly with the next unlock - let’s hope it doesn’t.

The evidence for masks is certainly flimsy, particularly given the variety available.

However they do serve as an effective "knot in your hanky", a reminder to give space, respect boundaries, don't sing and shout in close proximity to others. This is the driving factor of their effectiveness. Lose masks, lose the reminders and respect, alienate the vulnerable. 

The phrase 'exit wave' suggest that once we are past the inevitable surge in cases which will arise in the coming months we will be clear of Covid. Given the possibilities of new variants and vaccine escape, this seems optimistic, at best. 

Yes

Well I've not been in any confrontations with members of the public or had a meltdown over people getting too close to me, so my approach to a simple task like picking items off a shelf must be working somewhat.

Face coverings block/disrupt droplet spread and aerosol distribution: it's barrier physics and about as clear cut as benefits get. That some epidemiologists didn't try to understand this and claimed what you just claimed early in the pandemic is shameful. Mask use indoors by someone with asymptomatic covid reduces risk to those around the mask wearer. The better the mask and fit the larger the risk reduction. Yes high spec masks can also protect the wearer but that's not why masks were recommended. The experts are still saying it's an important public health measure for poorly ventilated indoor space, irrespective of the latest government idiocy.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-failed-to-use-common-...

But this seems to contradict the imperial study about phase 4 unlocking (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/...).

I don’t actually disagree with you (I can’t see the flaw in your argument), but the modelling seems to contradict this.

The key quote being: 

“…delaying step 4 until 5 July or 26 July is predicted to delay and substantially reduce the magnitude of the third wave. Delaying step 4 until all adults have received two vaccine doses is projected to delay the third wave. In some of our modelled scenarios, this long delay paradoxically leads to more total deaths since the third wave would be pushed into the winter, when transmission may be higher because of seasonality and increased indoors interactions, and when an increased proportion of individuals may have lost protection from prior infection…

But I guess potentially if we delayed the unlocking by another month then the tail end of the wave might fall into October or November when other pressures on the NHS start to rise? 

A lot of this depends on whether the people currently being admitted to hospital are as ill as they were in the second wave (I suspect they aren’t) and presumably the government has lots of information on this. NHS overload looks extremely unlikely at this point and the government knows that another lockdown would be ruinous for them. I imagine that quite a big buffer has been built in.

I dont disagree with what you have said, but what has never been shown is whether or not its a dominant contributor to the overall picture - i.e. take masks away and overall infection rates go up 0.1% or 50%? 

You don't need that epidemiological proof, barrier physics proof is way better. A well fitted mask will reduce the distribution of infected material by a huge margin (recorded on film in slow motion experiments) and ditto the risk of infection from an asymptomatic wearer. Even a shitty flimsy face covering can be seen to disrupt droplet distribution. Any covering is better than no covering.

It has been shown nearly all Covid spread is indoors and risks are way higher with poor ventilation and where there is no mask use.

Well I guess we might find out in a month or so as Johnson (don't call him Boris, he's not your mate) is about to conduct a huge live experiment. But come on, its a mask - it's not really too much to ask.

I really don't get the uproar from the anti-lockdown/maskers brigade. From what I can see life is pretty much back to normal in the UK - so all those snowflakes roughing up Chris Whitty or BBC journalists because, their 'rights', seem to be doing OK in terms of being outside, gathering in groups etc.

I'm in France and the French are notorious for not doing what they're told but wearing masks in public spaces has been adopted largely without too much complaint (we've got our own nutters, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers too though) so this is a generalisation and largely taken from my own area.

Restrictions are pretty much completely lifted here but indoors is one where you're still expected to wear a mask. I've just come back from the post office and bakery and everyone seemed to be getting along fine with their daily life wearing a mask. The biggest issue for me is I was on my bike and was 1km down a steep hill from home before I'd realised I'd forgotten mine and had to pedal back up for it.

carry stink projectors for those occasions when people come too close

take a lesson from nature

The simple answer is the Imperial modelling must be wrong. Infection levels are so high right now with no sign of slowing that we will hit a peak soon irrespective of stage 4 release. Javid said as much today (his information has a range but they expect 50,000 cases by July 19th and a small increase after that). My guess is behaviour has changed due to mixed messaging, making the spread faster than we might want. In previous waves as the peak grew people got frightened and reduced risk. When Boris says unless we open fully now we risk a winter wave, the government scientific leadership around him know this is a lie. It is hard for them because if they can't support the PM they need to resign.

We already know on average those admitted are not as ill as pre vaccination. Problem is hospitals are not in a strong position right now and any biggish increase would cause major knock-on effects. Then we have long covid, extra uneccesary risks for workers etc.

Eat many beans and drink real ale.

I agree during a pandemic its not too much to ask, but unless we try and remove the measures, we effectively stay in a pandemic forever... Wearing a mask for the rest of my life would be too much to ask, and I disagree with trivialising it as a "cost-free" measure. 

The question I would ask is what criteria do you agree they can be got rid of for good? 

I think I'm as troubled by the ideology behind the relaxations as the relaxations themselves. There's a triumphalistic tone to the announcements and I can't help but feel it's driven by populism and that swivel-eyed libertarian element of Tory ideology rather than any notion of what's best for managing the pandemic long term.

Go back and watch the briefing, Whitty himself said he agreed that it's better to open up during summer than wait for winter to prevent increased NHS pressure in the harder winter months (and he totally rejected the idea of complete NHS overwhelm or locking down for spike in flu). So this isn't Boris lying and the poor scientists staying quiet, you are accusing Whitty of lying directly at this point.

That's a straight up straw man. No one is suggesting we wear them forever, just that now might not be the time to stop.

When cases aren't rising rapidly would be a good start.

I just really struggle with the phrase “know it’s a lie”.

The Imperial paper and Chris Whitty both agree that delaying reopening would potentially cause more issues (I.e. deaths) than it solves.

Unless you can produce some alternative modelling from a reputable source (not Indy-SAGE…) then I don’t see how you can dispute this.

Last week's' forecast for today said hot and sunny.

I've just been outside, I got cold and wet.

Is it raining today?

You're comparing the present actuals with the results of a model published a month ago and so build on data more than a month old.

That data is all from early on in the new variant's spread.  Here's my copy and paste from the report - my bold.  It's flagging up that the uncertainties in this modelling are great, and hi-lighting the need to delay the unlock previously due June 21st to get more data to better forwards model different scenarios for policy making.

In short, it's telling you quite clearly that this model is not safe to use to predict very far at all, and that the next round of models - due to be published soon - are required.

The government are publishing policy change ahead of the models.

Our results highlight that the uncertainties regarding the levels of transmissibility and immune escape of B.1.617.2 translate into large uncertainty on the possible future epidemic trajectory. If step 4 of the roadmap happens on 21st June 2021, a third wave of hospitalisations and deaths is predicted to happen, very likely as big as the second wave but potentially orders of magnitude larger. Delaying step 4 by a few weeks would reduce the size of the third wave, while simultaneously buying time to more accurately estimate the characteristics of B.1.617.2 and consider other control strategies (e.g. vaccination of <18 years old and distribution of booster doses) which could further help to mitigate a significant third wave.

I don’t disagree with you at all.

There’s that famous quote about all models being wrong, but that doesn’t mean they’re not useful (can’t remember the exact wording).

However the government isn’t going to be operating in a scientific vacuum, they’re going to be drip fed all the latest science/ modelling constantly.

If you were in their shoes would you make an announcement knowing that modelling out next week could contradict with what you’re saying? 

They will know what those papers/ models will say. Maybe not the final versions, but drafts would have been shared.

I think one of the issues is that it's getting increasingly hard to police mask-wearing, as many people just aren't wearing them.

Continuously, yep.  And you're quite right, it isn't 'cost free'.  Popping one on on the way in to the supermarket isn't that much of a hardship though is it really?  It's about as tough as not parking in a disabled space even if it is a bit busy and the only alternative is walking all the way across from the other side of the car park.

On the whole I think it would be quite good if we permanently adopted the habit, widespread across large parts of Asia for many years now, of wearing one in public places while we have the sniffles to contain the spread of colds & flu.  (And Covid, obviously, which isn't going away.)

Small correction: libertine, not libertarian. Lots of power for the government to do what it wants but no responsibility to help anybody else.

Yesterday, as they announced their intention to relax all restrictions on a very real ongoing public health crisis, they voted through the third reading of the policing bill and introduced legislation to compel voter ID to combat virtually non-existent voter fraud.

We live on a planet of ~8Bn connected people, most of us are going to get covid at some point in the near future and we're going to spawn countless variants.

Hopefully we've got to the point somewhere in the next few weeks with vaccination that that it won't matter, however uncomfortable it now feels. Do we really want to live in masks forever more while we wait for what, better vaccines, or an eradication which we lack the tools to achieve?

Yes the talk of personal responsibility is mostly bollocks pandering to conservative voters tired of restrictions but if we can live a life without (most) restrictions then at some point we're going to have to. Is now exactly the right moment? Maybe it's a little rushed. Will we succeed? Uncertain but without the experiment we won't know. The most irresponsible thing they're doing is painting themselves into a corner where a return to social restrictions, if and when it becomes necessary, is damaging to the government and will therefore be inevitably slow, incomplete and bungled. There's nothing wrong with doing the experiment per se.

I'm no fan of this excuse for a government and I think in general they couldn't have handled covid much worse but we are now approaching a point where we have to try to move on from the last 18 months and we stand a realistic chance. We might fail on this occasion but we will fail if we don't try.

jk

Thats a dickish and unkind thing to say to someone.

Javid was on the Today programme this morning suggesting cases could be up to 50k/day by the 19th and 100k/day over the summer. Extrapolating linearly just from yesterdays numbers, thats two doublings: roughly 8k people in hospital and 40 deaths per day. Yes thats not going to overwhelm the nhs, but its still ~280 deaths per week.

If they were willing to try to keep the disease prevalence lower then many fewer people will die, we wouldn't be running the increased risk of breeding new variants, and we won't be arriving at the autumn/winter with the disease having got itself a critical mass.

Yesterday's announcement was all politics: they're done with providing leadership on this and they want to move one while there's still some juice to be squeezed from the vaccine bounce. Johnson's argument that "if we don't remove restrictions now, when will we?" is no argument at all. He could equally have said the same thing in January, or in May last year. It would still have ignore the context of rising infections, then and now.

Their decisions yesterday are a disgraceful abdication of responsibility and people are going to die unnecessarily as a consequence.

Fine, you can assume that but do so and state that.  Saying "I suppose that models we haven't seen probably justify the decision the government is taking" is a lot more honest than disingenuously and selectively quoting from stale models whose authors pre-face with big warnings about the big uncertainties in them.

This is Boris 'I stand fully behind the health secretary who I'll be pretending I sacked next time I give an interview' Johnson.

If they have to eventually have to change tack he's just following the science, someone else can be unpopular and suffer the public's wrath.

They get drip fed opinion polls and lobbyist poison too, they don't receive their scientific advice in a vacuum and they don't have much track record of taking and explaining early hard choices.

jk

No I'm not. Whitty gave an alternative risk position (which I agree with). He didn't say from the current data retaining some restrictions on July 19th made this winter scenario likely; in fact he said when they look at things next week some restrictions may need to remain.

I'd add we know all the chief scientific employees stood there and said nothing in autumn 2019 and winter 2019 when the science clearly said increase restrictions fast but Boris said to wait and yet still told the public he was following the science. We even had a civilised debate on the subject of the moral dilemmas of their position focussing on Whitty, Valance where all involved (even those, like me, who think one of them probably should have resigned) had sympathy for them.

He has been known to "fiddle" on occasion.

Is that like the "descended from apes" trope, and the "germ theory of disease" trope?

What's your motivation for trying to undermine the well-established science of infection control during a pandemic? Or is it an accident, and you simply have no idea what you're talking about, just a genuine mistake?

So that thread's gained sentience, left the pub and converted itself in to a poster?

It's getting kind of weird around here, you know.

Well you can believe 3 things:

a) The government has seen the unpublished models, they support the July unlocking as the best way to minimise harm, and this is why the announcement was made.

b) The government hasn’t seen the models, has gone out on a limb and then will have to either change its tune or go against models that will be published.

c) The government has seen the models, they support delaying opening up and don’t care.

If I was a betting man I’d put money on A. There’s so much political hyperbole on here. People almost want b or c to be true.

I appreciate that there are unknowns at work here, but do you not think that the current evidence supports lifting of the final restrictions at the moment?

Yes.

Which is bad but would waiting longer actually prevent those deaths. Most of them will be people for whom the vacine hasn't worked or who will not get vaccinated. Their outcome wouldn't be any better if they got covid over winter. Maybe theraputics get better and some would survive a 2022 or 2023 wave but the cost of getting there with all the disruption the current rules still cause, thinking here more of sending whole classes home for a week when one kid gets covid than wearing a mask to shop, it's far from cost free.

Would they or would they just die slower? Is it people who want but haven't accessed vaccine dying, if so that's disgraceful, if not then we're really just delaying the inevitable less good than it used to be future to little benefit.

Going into autumn-winter with very high infection levels does look to me to be an issue we'll have to face with a return of social restrictions but we'll see.

The vast majority of adults weren't vaccinated back then. Are we getting relaxation a little ahead of the tail end of vaccination, maybe but we are in a different situation now to January.

I hate defending this government and I do think they're making mistakes still here but while this is almost certainly true, a few people probably will die who might not in different versions of the future it's no longer obvious that waiting longer will make much difference or indeed that we're not close to a moment where another year of restrictions to get past winter would do more harm than good. Our power over nature is limited.

What we should clearly acknowledge and brace for is that this can all change in an instant with one faulty replication, our recovery may be faltering.

jk

I said much the same on another thread yesterday - I find the messaging more troubling than the message. 

It's like Javid shares a copy writer with the people who've been pushing against control measures from the very beginning.  Can you believe it?

The utter disregard of caution and triumphalist ra ra ra nature of it all is at utter odds to a progressively cautious, data driven approach that puts principles of public health at the core of the recovery.   They're salting the earth behind them as we move forwards, making it as difficult as possible to re-enact restrictions should it once again become unnecessary. 

It's almost as if they're trying to disown themselves from the control measures they were forced in to by the real world, to pretend it was all a bad dream and that strong ideology can erase the memory, a kind of denial.

I see your point and Johnson himself is certainly a libertine but I think libertarian is the correct word for the ideology I was describing.

You can believe what you want, I literally couldn't care less.  

I do care that you were presenting old models as justifying your stance, and neglecting to mention the significant riders the authors of those models attached to them.  If you'd put your option A down, it would be more honest and I suspect some other readers would reach quite different conclusions. 

As I have said before -

• We have a high absolute number of cases, we have a short doubling time, it looks like things are going sufficiently fast with current restrictions.
• ITU occupancy looks like it's the first potential pinch point if things don't go according to the models
  • Right now there is time for the authorities to continuously analyse the data and spot trends indicating that we're going to hit healthcare limits, and change policy if needed to preserve good healthcare for all.
  • If we get much faster exponential growth, e.g. by dropping more restrictions, that time buffer to evaluate the data, change policy and avoid healthcare overload is gone.  We end up relying on luck, not judgement, to avoid ramming hospitals to the absolute limits again.  So far, relying on luck has worked 0/3 times.  If we keep leaning on luck as our situation improves, it will eventually work, but that's no way to do this.

Edit:  If we do lean on luck and it works, I've no doubt quite a few people will be heralding it as a great success, and belittling the scientists for being too cautious.  They'll be wrong, and the growing disconnect between science and cabinet will get even worse - that disconnect being a key part of how the pandemic has gone so badly for the first year in the UK.  I despair. 

Im struggling to get my head around this whole thing now.

Since last year myself and the vast majority have given up huge personal freedoms and taken big steps (wearing masks, having vaccinations) to protect the vulnerable and others.

We have done this based on advice from scientific advisors and the government. 

I didn't and would never of voted for the tories BUT ... what are we now expected to do. How much longer do you think that can continue like this before firstly the suicide rates jumped to an even higher rate then they already are or before the money completely dries up.

I do feel for the vulnerable hence why I have adhered to rules, worn a mask and had a vaccine that quite frankly I didn't even want. But its time to regain normality now.

And on a final note due to the pandemic thousands of people have not had the correct treatment and diagnosis for other illnesses which is barbaric.

I just think you're giving them too much credit in ascribing them an ideology. They reach for libertarian, liberal, authoritarian and nationalistic rhetoric whenever they think it suits them, but really it comes down to whatever they find easiest.

Relaxing restrictions won't improve that, if anything it will make it worse.

On the vaccine front - thank you for doing that, I know for some people it's really not what they want, and I am personally grateful to you.

One day hopefully you will be old and vulnerable to this virus, or a variant may come along sooner to which you are more vulnerable.  I hope that your choice to get vaccinated confers protection on you 

And the best way to do that is through cautious, progressive steps driven by the data.  Otherwise we risk returning to more lockdown-like conditions in order to preserve universal healthcare, and none of us want that.  I'd take a year of mask wearing over a week of lockdown.

Yes, a pandemic with the potential to kill half a million people in a few months is awful.

Letting that happen would have led to an order of magnitude more people not receiving the correct treatments and diagnoses for other illnesses.  Sacrificing half a million people and destroying healthcare for everyone who needs it beyond Covid would have been barbaric.

Hang in there and look after yourself.  Things are getting better.

No.

Any worried individual has the ability to wear PPE to protect themselves sufficiently without forcing anyone else to wear an unrated cloth masks. We all know they are only marginally effective at best and really people want them as a reminder to act cautiously rather than as a reliable control measure. An anxiety reducing safety blanket. This is not sufficient reason to legally mandate wearing something.

I can't justify demanding others wear masks around me if I have the concern. If I was stricken with fear about impacts from covid I'd be wearing an FFP3 mask, goggles, visor, gloves and staying away from people as much as possible, however I see next to no-one doing this. Instead they opt for wearing the least effective available masks and insisting everyone else does the same. If you've not gone to the nth degree to protect yourself before telling others what to do, then you have no legs to stand on. Early on it made sense with more uncertainty, danger, potential PPE shortages etc but not anymore.

Oh absolutely, they'll do whatever they need to do to stay in power and they're an entirely different beast from the Tories of even a few years ago. However, there is a strong libertarian element within the party, just look at all the backbenchers (and others) that have been calling for reduced restrictions on the grounds of personal freedom from very early on.

You've got a bit of a sampling error there, you're not seeing them because they're staying away from other people.  

Populist politicians need a focus group to marginalise.

It is no longer acceptable to marginalise on grounds of gender, race or sexuality.

Marginalising those with the strange accents who came in at our request to provide cheap, quality building work has been done to death over Brexit.

The remaining minority is the vulnerable, this is handy because it includes the baby boomers, where much groundwork towards vilification has already occurred.

Look out for "we did this for you, now give us your pension pots" and other delightful moves. 

Great, so removal of mandatory masking won't effect them regardless. They are either in hiding or PPE'd the gills.

And continue to watch as they cheerfully vote for measures designed to restrict the right to peaceful protest among any number of profoundly authoritarian measures in the coming months and years.  MonkeyPuzzle is right, they're not libertarians it just suits them to pretend to be libertarians on certain issues.

That's a good point, and I agree that it mostly invalidates that I said about his argument being equally valid in the past. But I still think "if not now then when" is a poor argument for the current circumstances where prevalence is increasing exponentially.

It might prevent some of them, and I don't see how it would result in more deaths.

But even if it only defers those deaths, those people would have still had the chance to live more of the only life they ever get. We already recognise that deferring the deaths of terminally ill people is usually* ethically right. How can knowingly bringing forward people's deaths be justified?

(* with manageable pain, quality of life, etc)

I gave up huge personal freedoms only for short periods in the lockdowns. Most of the time, I've been living my life normally. Are you in a region that's been under harsh restrictions for a lot of the time?

They sound like really small steps to me. I wear a mask all day at work - so what.

I completely agree that if we were under lockdown, that would be driving up all kinds of bad outcomes like suicides. Under the current level of restrictions, there are some people whose lives are shafted, particularly in the hospitality/arts sectors, and these activities need to be started up again as otherwise we'll lose them. And furlough needs to be wound up.

Yes, but normality means having a functioning NHS that can cope with all the demands placed on it, including recovering from the backlogs built up over the pandemic. The way to do that is to stop a rising caseload of covid patients going into hospital.

I'm quite optimistic (not because I really understand it, mind you) that the vaccines will ensure that the 3rd wave doesn't overwhelm the NHS (thereby killing a load more cancer etc. patients, not just covid patients, and ruining loads of people's lives because they can't get the healthcare they need). I really hope that we can successfully open up the remaining bits of society that are still restricted without damaging the NHS further.

Well, yes, but there was no better option, and filling the hospitals back up with covid patients because it's too much to ask to wear a mask will make that worse again.

I think there are good reasons to open up properly now, so long as we've got a reasonable level of confidence that the NHS won't go down the pan again. But making a song and dance about "personal responsibility" as the gvt has done is utter bullshit. If we need to wear masks indoors to slow the spread of the virus so the NHS can cope, then that's how it is. If it won't make any difference, let's not bother. It's a question for science. "Personal responsibility" has got nothing to do with it, because no one has sufficient knowledge to understand the consequences of their actions. And while the current level of restrictions are having a huge impact on a small % of the country who work in hospitality etc, for most of us, talking about "huge personal freedoms" and "suicides" is pretty ridiculous - we're not in lockdown. Wearing a mask on the bus or keeping your distance from others in public places is not a big ask.

That of course isn't the trade, but I would see it the other way round without a doubt.  It's deaths etc that would turn my view.  But I'd absolutely have one week at home (even unable to leave entirely) over a whole year of masking, particularly if it was strict masking i.e. at all times outside the home as some countries have done.  I'm not sure where the tipover would be, maybe past 2 weeks?  But of course it is not as simple as that.

It does seem some find masks much more uncomfortable and claustrophobic than others even if they see them as necessary (as I do).  I don't mind wearing one to pop into a shop briefly, but I won't be making any long public transport journeys until they have gone, I've switched to car.  And I am a very strong public transport advocate (and train geek), so that is clearly a very strong feeling.

Basically for me wearing one removes all enjoyment from the activity it is worn for.  As such I am just avoiding those activities, other than necessary ones like shopping where I have to tolerate it or not eat.

You're just wrong, you deliberately haven't understood the evidence on facemasks.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

The view of Neil Ferguson who no doubt has been involved in the modelling by ICL:

Prof Ferguson says opening up a 'slight gamble' and restrictions might have to return if cases rise too high

Prof Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College epidemiologist who leads one of the teams that produces modelling used by the government to inform Covid policy making, told the Today programme this morning that, although case numbers were set to increase substantially, hospitalisations and deaths were likely to be much lower than in the past. He explained:

This third wave is going to look very different from the second wave. In terms of cases per day, I think we will at least reach 50,000, I think [Boris Johnson] was saying in his statement what he was expecting to see in the next couple of weeks, it will likely go higher than that.

But what we do know is in the second wave there was a certain ratio between cases and hospitalisations and that ratio right now is being reduced by more than two-thirds. As we get more second doses into people it will go down even further.

Even more positively, the ratio which we saw in the past between case numbers and deaths has been reduced by more like eight to ten fold ...

At the peak of the second wave 50,000 cases would translate into something like 500 deaths, but that’s going to be much lower this time, more like 50 or so.

Ferguson said the government’s decision to lift most remaining restrictions for England from 19 July was justifiable. But it was still a “slight gamble”, he said. And he said it was possible that restrictions might be needed again. He told the programme:

The challenge is, there’s still the potential of getting very large numbers of cases and so if we get very high numbers of cases a day, 150,000 or 200,000 it could still cause some pressure to the health system.

This is a slight gamble, it’s a slight experiment at the moment, and I think it’s justifiable and I’m reasonable optimistic, but policy will have to remain flexible.

If we end up in something close to the worst-case scenario we and other groups are looking at, which I think is unlikely but can’t be ruled out, then yes there will need to be some course direction later.

Lockdown vs. opening up is a convenient narrative for this government. It obscures the fact that there are many public health strategies that could and should have been implemented. A working track and trace system, accompanied by financial support for isolation; subsidies for ventilating indoor spaces and properly applied border control measures were all needed. We were left with lockdown as a last resort because of the government’s failures here.
It’s still possible to do these things but the ineptness and the austerity dogma still prevail.  

I certainly agree with that.

The first obvious change I would make is that statutory sick pay should be at at least the furlough rate permanently.  We should not even normally be in a position where people can't afford to stay off work if ill.

I would be half tempted to do this via a compulsory employer paid sickness insurance scheme, so it doesn't disproportionately impact small businesses.

Although the current conditions clearly don't bother you there are others who are struggling hugely.

Guess your just lucky.

Thanks for your reply can you try and be a little more condescending next time. 

Can you name a country where Covid has arrived and been brought under control without any lock downs? 

Fine. But I have rather more sympathy for the NHS workers than with those who can't cope with wearing a mask and getting vaccinated.

Speaking as someone who was hugely mentally affected by the second lockdown, to the point where I would probably consider it to be the worst time of my life, what exactly about the /currently active/ restrictions is onerous at the individual level?

I can go to the pub, I can eat at a restaurant, I can have friends over, I can go climbing, I can go cycling, I can go into all the shops, I can go into the office, I can go to the cinema (if I fancied paying more than a tenner to watch a film...).

If you have a family, the "whole class off school if one person tests positive" bit is a problem that needs to be dealt with of course, and the arts will need a serious kick start to recover, but otherwise I fail to see how the current measures are particularly limiting at the individual level.

Wearing a mask to go to the shop is such a trivial thing it's not even worth discussing, the balaclava I wear when winter climbing is far more restrictive and I do heavy exercise with it on. 

There are alot more of the current conditions that people are struggling with regarding jobs and personal circumstances, but you choose to pick two points from my post to undermine me.

What a guy

I would not do physical exercise with a balaclava on.  I don't even like wearing a hat (or particularly a helmet, though I have spent out on a very lightweight one for climbing and cycling to minimise that - there is no mask equivalent as if it is too thin it is ineffective).

I recognise necessity of masks so put up with it for necessary tasks, but near completely avoid discretionary settings where they are required.  I think it doesn't help things at all when people make arguments like yours, as tolerability clearly varies between people.

Never had a problem with it when things get seriously cold, nor wearing a mask as PPE when doing dusty work.

Edit (as you added more): The problem I have is that people are making a huge deal out of it, and the misinformation flying around fed this nicely to the point where you get significant numbers of people actually thinking that wearing a mask makes you rebreathe your CO2 and damages your lungs. Two years ago, if someone went into hospital and was told to wear a surgical mask for a bit, they wouldn't have batted an eyelid. The reactions now vary from refusal to actually assaulting health care workers.

Without seeing his workings out I'm not sure if Javid got 1/30 but multiplying two fractions or just adding a 0 to the denominator 

It's not a case of picking on two of your points to undermine you, it's replying to two of the points you made. Feel free to respond in the same way yourself, that's how discussion works.

Just quoting some points in the article you linked:

"such studies do rely on assumptions that mask mandates are being enforced and that people are wearing them correctly. Furthermore, mask use often coincides with other changes, such as limits on gatherings. As restrictions lift, further observational studies might begin to separate the impact of masks from those of other interventions"

“I was reassured that a lot of the masks we use did work,” he says, referring to the performance of cloth and surgical masks. But thin polyester-and-spandex neck gaiters — stretchable scarves that can be pulled up over the mouth and nose — seemed to actually reduce the size of droplets being released. “That could be worse than wearing nothing at all,” Westman says.

“I don’t want someone who is infected in a crowded area being confident while wearing one of these cloth coverings,” says Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis."

"Perhaps fortunately, some evidence suggests that donning a face mask might drive the wearer and those around them to adhere better to other measures, such as social distancing. The masks remind them of shared responsibility, perhaps." 

Bit of a weird link to try and totally remove all question of the effectiveness of cloth masks, the whole article is pretty non-committal leaning to marginal positive effect with clear mention of using them as behaviour changing tools as much as an actual effective barriers to droplets. You won't convince me that government keeping masks legally mandated to alter my behaviour is a good thing, we just won't agree there. 

Clearly all that tripe is overblown and it is simply about comfort/claustrophobic feeling.  But I don't see why some people are quite so rude and dismissive about the simple view that it is highly uncomfortable to some people, and so those people, if reasonable, accept it in unavoidable settings but change what they do to avoid settings where it is needed for a considerable time (e.g. avoiding public transport in favour of walking, cycling and car as applicable).

I would hardly say anyone would think sticking a needle in their arm pleasant, but it is clearly necessary.

In many ways this is like Brexit - things are so polarised among most that both sides think the centrists are evil and they simply can't win with moderate views (i.e. in my case I hate wearing masks with a passion but they are a necessary evil at the moment, and I don't actually like the EU very much as an institution but staying in it was a better pragmatic choice than the s***show we ended up with).

Which is why surgeons wear them I suppose?

Maybe the restrictions just don’t bother those who ignore them when they want to as much as they’ve bothered those who do follow them even when we think they’re overzealous.

Jon Stewart - “I didn’t comply with the rules when I wanted to see my mates” https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/covid_-_your_response_to_anothe...

Not been to a supermarket since before the pandemic began, or been on public transport since. My childs nursery no longer requires us to face mask on collection/drop off (other childs primary school does still). For me the main change will mean not wearing a mask to walk the 8 yards from the entrance of a cafe/pub to where I sit down before taking it back off again. However rather than saying this is such little inconvenience to object to, I would say its a ridiculous rule to have to follow...

Like you say, the whole class being sent home thing is pretty crap right now.  My daughter in tears cause she’s missing school and can’t see her mates or even just go with me out for a walk, seeing no one else, is pretty bloody depressing.

Disagree on masks too.  Just because you’re not bothered by it doesn’t mean you can dismiss others’ concerns.

I think the article is the dictionary definition of the opposite of non-committal- from the first paragraph:

The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on. How much evidence is enough?

from the body of the article:
 

To be clear, the science supports using masks, with recent studies suggesting that they could save lives in different ways: research shows that they cut down the chances of both transmitting and catching the coronavirus, and some studies hint that masks might reduce the severity of infection if people do contract the disease.

And:

“If you look at any one paper — it’s not a slam dunk. But, taken all together, I’m convinced that they are working,” says Grabowski.

and:

The findings provide justification for the emerging consensus that mask use protects the wearer as well as other people. The work also points to another potentially game-changing idea: “Masking may not only protect you from infection but also from severe illness,” says Monica Gandhi, an infectious-disease physician at the University of California, San Francisco.
 

And:

Nevertheless, most scientists are confident that they can say something prescriptive about wearing masks. It’s not the only solution, says Gandhi, “but I think it is a profoundly important pillar of pandemic control”. As Digard puts it: “Masks work, but they are not infallible. And, therefore, keep your distance.”
 

I wonder why you didn’t quote these sections?

What on earth makes you think that I am trying to totally remove all question of the effectiveness of cloth masks? This is science, not the type of dogshit propoganda you're clearly more used to. The article is meant to take a critical look at the evidence and make a conclusion on balance. Right?

Let's take a quote that summarises the evidence on balance, shall we?

"To be clear, the science supports using masks, with recent studies suggesting that they could save lives in different ways: research shows that they cut down the chances of both transmitting and catching the coronavirus, and some studies hint that masks might reduce the severity of infection if people do contract the disease."

I'm completely ambivalent about how the use of masks is implemented. But treating it as a matter of principle "it's an infringement of my rights to make me wear a mask on the bus" is a load of shit, because the personal liberties we enjoy in this society don't extend to behaving in ways that endanger others. And going online and spouting scientifically illiterate crap about masks not working is, well, let's just say "unhelpful".

I didn't intend to suggest a tradeoff was so simple, more that my view is I'd take one over the other.  The "tipover" for me was the need to do work and home schooling simultaneously, and the clearly less than ideal experience of home schooling.

I think there's milage in looking at working patterns and disease control, not just around covid but flu as well.  The idea of an extended mid-winter shutdown fits in well with both that and the weak point in renewable energy as solar-electric keeps growing.  Reclaim the Christmas holidays.  

Sure. In practice, obeying the rules at all times is a personal choice. I don't have any regrets about any of the times I broke the rules.

All good for you when you’re arguing for keeping rules in place that you’ll ignore when it suits, shit for all of the rest of us that follow the rules.

Makes a mockery of your talk about personal responsibility too.  No one would enforce if I took my daughter out for a walk, I still don’t do it cause I’m following the rules.  That’s taking personal responsibility right there.

Ferguson also effectivly dismissed the idea of a 'sweet spot' for removing restrictions on July 19th. He said modelled benefits of the delay to July 19th were significant but benefits of further delays were much lower (ie they didn't go negative).

On Today on BBC sounds at about 7.15.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000xlt2

Really? What rules prevented that over the last few months? It's been obvious since last summer that any covid risks outdoors were low, exceedingly so if social distancing.  Covid rules were more based on behavioural science predictions of abuse of such freedoms (physical contact etc).

I'm not arguing for keeping any particular rules in place, I'm arguing for making policy decisions on the basis of a calculation of what the consequences will be. Not on stupid principles like "wearing a mask is an infringement of my liberty". If keeping a rule about masks in public indoor spaces would be helpful, I'd support it, if it would make no difference, I'd be against it.

I'm critical of the government for making policy according to stupid catchphrases that they think will win votes ("personal responsibility") instead of by considering consequences.

If your idea of taking personal responsibility is following all rules at all times, and that's important to you, then fine. What I want is the right policies in place to make society work as well as possible for all of us. I haven't got a point to make about personal responsibility except that it's not a useful concept in policy-making, it's a silly catchphrase that appeals to people of a certain political persuasion. 

School bubbles..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57638369.amp

Ah OK, so you're looking for applause for your heroic "personal responsibility" on the basis of following the rules when someone in your household has been exposed to covid. Wow, that's really something.

The rules are supposed to be followed, the idea is that doing so will help us all.  It’s not important to me it’s just doing my bit for society.  I’d much rather have just ignored them, I’ve never been worried for myself or my family.

Taking personal responsibility for our actions, following the rules whether we like them or not, is how this whole thing has worked, not by enforcement.  It’s not a silly catchphrase it’s practical reality.

Lol I’m not looking for applause at all!  The vast majority of us have done what I’ve done and am doing.  Having rules that make sense matters, if you’re going to follow them.

It's both but there is some logic behind it especially considering a realistic pub setting, people inevitably don't stay seated and will pause in passing to talk to other seated tables they know raining droplets on them and their drinks. That and clear rules, even daft seeming ones, are easier for hospitality staff to enforce knowing they'll be backed up by management, they don't deserve the conflict.

Anyway you'll probably be freed of that terrible burden with little consequence very soon. Whether, given where infections are now massed demographically and the vaccination status of the young, we should be re-opening nightclubs and vertical drinking barns at the same time... 

jk

I don't really know how brilliant compliance has been during different phases of the pandemic. Where there has been non-compliance, sometimes that could make a difference (say having a house party), sometimes it could carry no risk (say, someone who's had covid, and vaccinated, and tested meeting a friend outdoors).

The rules have got to take into account compliance.

It makes sense because they change behaviour. You can get all pissy and indignant, moralising at people who don't comply 100% if you like, but it doesn't make any difference to how the world works.

That does not carry no risk.  They might well have caught it again and be able to pass it on, even if it won’t harm them, and they might have it but not enough for a test to show (why my daughter has to isolate and testing doesn’t get her out of it).  Most of the people in hospital with it now are vaccinated.

Yes, unfortunately we need to factor in the selfish.

You were saying that the rules aren’t that bad, given that you’ve ignored them when it suits you are not in a good position to judge.  The rules have been and are onerous if you follow them.

I could of course follow your example and just not wear a mask, I can claim that I’m exempt (as many selfish people have/do).  I don’t, instead I avoid situations where I’d have to wear one.  That sucks.  Can’t wait until it’s over.

I'm not seeing anything about patients and visitors to healthcare facilities having to wear masks after the relaxation of rules.  I'm still working for the NHS vaccinating folk. Already had two blokes stride in without masks. Compliance is already slipping. When challenged both guys put masks on. 

It carries no risk that needs to be acted on. The point of the rules is/was to massively reduce the number of interactions where transmission was an appreciable possibility. 

That's right. The rules have to factor in what happens in the real world. Some of that will be high risk behaviour that will need enforcement, some will be medium, some low, etc. Enforcement as well as rule making needs to factor it all in, according to the resources available and benefits that can be achieved.

I'm saying that the current restrictions are bad for some people (e.g. in hospitality/arts sectors) but most people can go about their normal lives - it's nothing like lockdown, which is legitimately awful for just about everyone. The point you're attempting to make about compliance during lockdown isn't relevant. I could be wrong (given that I can't say I know exactly what they are), but I don't think I've broken any rules under the current regime. 

But I do wear a mask, all day at work, and everywhere else I'm required to.

Although a lot of the headlines are about a complete relaxation it's mainly to do with social distancing and public spaces, lots of measures are going to have to stay in place. There's bound to be a load of confusion around that.

I clearly didn't explain myself correctly.

The evidence for mask use as specified is flimsy. Buffs, hankies, underwear cheap paper, FFP3, N10, all regarded as masks.

Off width is correct about the physical containment being better than nothing.

The key benefit of mask wearing is behavioural, the knotted hanky. 

IMO it's not really about how much cases rise but about how much hospital occupancy rises.  The two are no longer as rigidly coupled as once they were, and the sporadic outbreak nature seems to be sticking with this wave to much higher mean case numbers than previous waves, which rather raises the stochastic stakes somewhat.

I haven't found any comment from Prof Neil Ferguson on ITU occupancy, which is where the pinch point looks to be shaping up.

It looks tight right now.  In theory, the demographic shift (coming to an end?) and continued roll out of second doses will see us through, but it looks tight.

At this point I'd really like to see the models being updated on a weekly or even daily basis with the relevant projections shared on a dashboard.  That feels proportional and prudent to the situation.

Pretty sure I recall reading Buffs are actually worse than nothing as they are so thin, you need at least 2 layers, ideally 3.

Buy an FFP3 mask, they are nearly 100% effective against Covid (unlike cloth ones which aren't very good)

Not true- did you read the Nature  article in Jon Stewart’s link?

I didn't say masks don't work, I said the generic cloth mask most people are wear has marginal benefit in the current situation when considered on balance with everything else, and that it's ill advised to rubbish personal freedoms for that marginal benefit (which you confirm isn't definitive anyway). I've been consistently against this diminishing of freedoms and personal choice since the beginning and every passing day there is less and less justification to keep these measures, yet some people can't seem to bear let them go despite being happy to disregard other restrictions when it suits them, no better than the government officials who told us how to act while doing the opposite themselves. Hypocrites.

How is it you are not endangering yourself by wearing sub-standard PPE when you have the freedom and ability to wear it? Why am I being forced to make up the difference for you and go against my own judgement? If FFP3 masks are near enough 100% effective, are you waiting for the government to send you one for free before you protect yourself? When finally is your health your problem at not mine/others?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57636360

I think that maybe making things worse idea was based on the theory it generated smaller droplets (I've never seen this theory proved). You point about layers is pertinent but a buff is easy to fold into two or three layers.

An early concern was about people constantly adjusting masks without hand sanitising first but luckily covid surface risks turned out to be much lower than expected.

This was all played out initially against a shortage of medical quality masks so I'm glad the government said face coverings should be used by the public as anything is clearly better than nothing.

The biggest covid risks of all are high viral dose of high viral load, eg someone symptomatic coughing in your face from a short distance when your mouth is open. It's the sort of thing that led to unexpected high death rates of young healthy doctors with no PPE in the Chinese first wave. If you think a buff doesn't block a cough or a sneeze at all you haven't felt the inside after a bad one ! I've not seen films for a buff but have seen films of various barriers from single cotton layers (significant effect) up to high spec well fitted masks (almost no visible escape).

I have had some comedy conversations with (it has to be said mainly older) people the last year who almost in the same breadth spit venom at the "selfish bastards" for rule breaking then going on to explain how their own minor transgressions are completely justifiable...

Yeah, absolutely no argument on the school stuff, this has to stop. 

On the mask front, I can't dismiss genuine concerns but I absolutely can dismiss concerns that are entirely unjustified. I can dismiss claims that they cause SpO2 to drop (they don't, try it with an oximeter), I can dismiss claims that they cause lung damage. If I am to believe the bullshit being peddled on social media, approximately half the population (obviously an exaggeration for effect) get panic attacks if there is anything near their faces and cannot breathe in anything that isn't a pure oxygen environment without any minute pressure drop between their noses and the surrounding atmosphere.

I am not saying that there aren't any people that may have anxiety issues that may be exacerbated by something like this, but the numbers were talking about are purely driven by Internet misinformation and, as much as I hate this word with a passion, snowflakery usually by the same people that accuse others of being snowflakes.

Hell, medical professional friends of mine have had issues of patients coming in and flatly refusing to put a mask on because "they won't be able to breathe", without any underlying issues that would make that the case.

Sure, wearing a mask isn't such a pleasant thing that anyone would chose to wear one just because they feel like it, but it has been blown out of proportion to the n^3.

Edit: Oximeter, dear iPhone, not odometer, for crying out loud! 😆

Public covid mask measures are to protect everyone else from the wearer. The BBC link you provided is about masks to protect health workers from many potentially or actually infected patients.

100% protection means no risk to the health worker to a single percentage point.

90% say, means risk on 10% of occasions compared to base risk which if I was a health worker and had 100% masks available I would be concerned.

0% would mean base risk levels from no mask use. This happened at times during PPE shortages.

Now reverse the situation to look at an asymptomatic mask wearer indoors in public (symptomatic people shouldn't be out of their house). 100% may be overkill. 90% is probably OK, but quite simply any percentage risk reduction at all is better than nothing. Exposure times and risk levels are lower in any case than in a hospital, even in normal places of work where no covid is expected. For occasional visits to the shops, very much lower.

Mask use indoors stops most potential infections saves some lives and has zero effect on the economy and people with genuine problems can get medical exemptions (and this is very rarely checked even if some lie).

The personal freedom being rubbished is the freedom not to wear a mask in public indoor spaces. My view is that this isn't a freedom worth protecting, if there's a benefit to be gained which could reduce impact on the NHS - it's inconsequential. Lots of people wear surgical masks from the chemist or multi-layered cloth masks, so the effectiveness of masks has to take all mask-wearing behaviour into account, not just the bits you cherry-pick to make a scientifically illiterate case against masks.

Who can't bear to let them go? If we'd followed the advice of the incomprehensibly thick people who thought we'd be better off keeping our "freedoms and personal choice" rather than controlling the virus with lockdowns, we'd have a society that looked more like Brazil; and if we'd been quicker to give up some freedoms for short periods, we'd have a society that looked more like New Zealand.

Which approach do you think has faired better, overall?

One approach that the gvt could have taken is getting enough FFP3 masks for everyone to wear them in public. This might have been a good policy option, if it was practical, but I suspect it wasn't. 

The best policy is one which is effective in reducing the bad outcomes of covid (NHS overload, deaths, economic harm, social impact of lockdowns, all told). If a policy isn't practical, is too onerous, won't be obeyed, then it's the wrong policy.

The evidence says that wearing masks in indoor public places is helpful and I don't think that my freedom not to wear one is a freedom worth protecting. A one-in-one-out policy at the supermarket that meant it took half a day to shop would be too stringent a policy, it would be unreasonable. Wearing a mask is reasonable.

This is the attitude I would expect from a child.

My health is one small element of an interdependent society. If my health goes down the pan from covid, then I can't work, my patients can't be seen, my company loses income, and I can pass the virus onto others who'll then impact society in a similar negative way. It's a knock-on effect that damages public health and the economy as it spreads through society. So making reasonable adjustments which come at very little cost to protect the health of others around you stands to benefit you indirectly as well as them. In your world of doing whatever you like and screw everyone else, you'll just end up living in shithole: nothing works properly unless people cooperate.

On the motorway, which like the supermarket, you have to share with others, do you think it's reasonable to adjust your behaviour to reduce the risk of danger to others? Do you think it's reasonable to have a speed limit and highway code, or is that an infringement of your personal freedom? In that context, is protecting your own safety while behaving however you choose the best way to act, or do you think it's necessary to put in place some policies that make the motorway a reasonably safe place to drive for everyone, while not going over the top and making everyone drive at 30mph? The balance is neither restricting people beyond what's reasonable, and what people are realistically going to comply with (more or less), nor is it a free-for-all. The best policies hit that sweet spot, they don't adhere to some nonsense principle of "freedom of the individual" and "personal responsibility" with no regard for the consequences of what then ensues when people do whatever they like and public services have to clear up all the mess.

Of course, the people who advocated for the free-for-all which caused all the mess will be the least keen on paying taxes to clear it up.

Who is going to do the fit test on the ffp3 mask you buy?

They are only effective if they fit you. It takes about 10 minutes per mask to be tested. I spent an exciting hour (read not very exciting) trying the different masks that were available, with an automatic testing machine *. I have 4 at work I can use. My wife has 1. Different shaped face. 

They cost about £5 and need to be replaced every few hours. Not exactly cost neutral for someone who is on lower income. 

For anyone interested, the 3M 9330+ seems to fit more people than other models, but it is by no means universal. 

* with a qualified fit tester

(edit : added *) 

The stuff about us taking personal responsibility is really just Johnson saying he doesn't want to take personal responsibility for continuing even minor restrictions, such as wearing masks on public transport.

Of course you right, but compared to a bunch of unknown cloth masks even a not fully fitted FFP3 is going to be better for that individual.

And your right about the cost, they aren't cheap. People tend to steralise and re-use them however.

Maybe the unions should demand workers be provided with FFP3 masks rather than demanding customers wear masks of unknown origin?

This:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/06/double-vaccinated-contacts-no...

is f***ing bonkers. With only 60% efficacy against infection (at best - ie Pfizer against current delta variant) and a predicted >100k infections per day.. it’s basically an instruction to infect as many people as you can! Horrified.

I object to the title of your post since it implicitly implies that Johnson uses judgement to come to decisions and I have not seen any evidence to support that.

60% effective in stopping infection but that is not the whole story, the same study showed it still 93% effective in stopping serious illness with the delta variant.

I think your miscalculing the maths.

If you have had the vaccine your 60% less likely than a non-vacinated person to catch the virus from someone who has it.

But that 60% less isn't going from 100% chance to 40% chance it's going from say a 10% chance to a 4% chance (for example)

And then your around 50% less likely to pass to on to someone else.

And if that someone else is vaccinated they are very unlikely to be seriously ill if they do catch it.

That ^^^

And it'll all be our fault when everything goes tits up.

Vile, hollow little man.

What boils my urine is the abrogation of responsibilty. *If* face masks are an effective control measure (and I can't see why they wouldn't be) then drop them last, they are the least onerous thing. This idea that it's up to the individual to decide if they put others in harms way is peak Tory. By the same thinking I should be allowed to choose to neck a bottle of whisky and see how fast I can drive past my local primary school at 3pm.

Yes, just make sure you're driving an SUV with all the latest safety features - as long as you take responsibility for your own safety you've done your bit.

F*ck everyone!

How do you know? There's a great visual going around which shows the effect of a sneeze, with and without a mask.

It's pretty logical that any sort of covering over the nose and mouth will restrict the wearer spreading the virus further in the event of a sneeze.

Even if you are right here, and I don't think you are, it's a small price to pay, while we're "testing" the effects of easing the other restrictions.

Yes, but I’m considering it from a population (ie public health/infection control) point of view, not a personal risk one. Self isolation is all about not spreading it to others. 40% of these people (who have covid) will be infectious and out and about..

Yes, but there are two mitigating factors here. Protection from the vaccine having not stopped a high enough viral load for someone to be considered as having COVID does not necessarily mean that the resulting viral load, and hence how much virus is being shed into the environment, is not reduced by the immune system. The second factor is that that 40% would then have to come into contact with someone else that is either not immunised or is in the 40% where protection is insufficient. It becomes more like a typical endemic disease situation, rather than an exponential growth pandemic.

I would imagine that the reason they are scrapping self-isolation is that it is the main driver behind businesses and individuals struggling and they are blatantly banking on the vaccines stopping hospitalisations and deaths. What is concerning to me is less the *concept* of that and more the messaging that no matter what happens they are not going to backtrack, which is insane. As in, if it all goes well, splendid, but if it turns out the bet fails and hospitalisations skyrocket, Javid's claims that this is the end of all restrictions no matter what are a recipe for disaster.

On the other hand, with the way the whole pandemic has been handled, it has now come to a point where I fail to see what the alternatives to opening up actually are. We have completely failed to keep the virus from becoming endemic, beyond putting trust in the vaccines what other strategies are left that do not just prolong the inevitable? This is not me being argumentative, by the way, I genuinely am open to suggestions, I just don't know.

It’s not too late to fix track and trace and make it financially easier for people to self-quarantine. And a long-term programme of improving ventilation in workplaces and schools would help too. 

How does that solve anything. It reduces transmission - it doesn’t make Covid go away.

But is this not just prolonging the inevitable? We cannot continue to do it indefinitely, what would the end-game be?

Interesting story local to me today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-57735232

Obviously there's a lot to it but a major component is the number of staff having to isolate due to rising cases. 

Improving ventilation would help mitigate against all airborne pathogens so we'd see fewer cases of colds and flu too. Surely that would be a good thing?

The lower transmission is, the less frequently individuals will cyclically catch Covid once it goes endemic.  Which, given how little we know about it's long term effects, and the number of warning flags it raises, seems like an obvious no-brainer.  

Also, with regard's Bob's comments, improved ventilation reduces viral load and so perhaps severity of illness. 

I think it's clearly worth trying to keep on top of this until we actually have evidence at our backs on longer term effects, and this unavoidably takes real time.  

I’m not sure I completely follow.

Are you advocating a delay so that we push for herd immunity via vaccination (which would likely involve vaccination of young children for who the risks may outweigh the benefits)?

Or are you advocating we don’t go for herd immunity and stick with the current restrictions (or stricter ones) for possibly many years until we have all the data we need to make a fully informed decision about whether we need to go for an elimination strategy or not?

There are a number of weapons in the anti-covid arsenal:

Vaccines, masks, distancing, ventilation, better therapeutics, etc.

Each one that is used reduces society's reliance on the others to get on top of Covid.

So it seems a bit stupid to pretty much abandon them all except for vaccines; it's putting all our eggs in one basket. Especially when some of our weapons do not restrict our personal liberties.

I am 70 years old with C.O.P.D. and so I am undeniably classed as vulnerable, although I don’t feel it. However I don’t feel that I should expect millions of children to miss out on education, university students to have one of life’s great experiences muted and company’s to go bust with the loss of jobs, to guarantee my social space. I will take responsibility for my own actions and social distancing and mask wearing should I desire. C.O.V.I.D. in now endemic and will continue to be so. It will not be eradicated and following the undeniable success of the vaccine roll out, bring on normality. Stop whinging and feeling threatened. Climbers used to be somewhat of an anarchistic sport and would never accept a diminution of personal freedoms. So wear a mask if you so desire along with social distancing, but don’t demand this of everybody.

The problem with mask wearing (which you don't appear to have appreciated) is that they're mostly pretty useless at protecting the mask wearer.

Their purpose is to reduce the chances of YOU infecting others if you have Covid but you're asymptomatic.

Which is why it shouldn't be a matter of personal choice, because too many people are saying (like you) "I'm alright, I'm prepared to take the risk".

Did I say that?  No, no I did not.

As I have said several times, the absolute daily numbers and doubling time appear to be plenty sufficient, and the models you used to suggest otherwise are out of date and heavily loaded with a rider about their uncertainty.

You appear to be fundamentally twisting what I write.  My post was with regards ventilation in a situation once Covid has become endemic so that we slow cyclical re-infection rates in an endemic Covid world.  Given how little evidence we have on long term effects and how close a somewhat endemic situation is, it seems prudent to take simple measures like ventilation seriously to run the endemic state as slow as possible without recoursing to the kind of restrictions that actually bother people.

You’d have to be a big ger fool than me to somehow twist that round into a claim in asking we wait for “years” to decide if we need an elimination strategy.  Bizarre.

Okay so I think I follow.

We both agree that the only way forward is herd immunity via a mix of vaccination induced immunity and natural immunity I think.

You want the dampen the current exponential growth rate by keeping restrictions in place, despite the risk that the exit wave might coincide with winter as you think this will give us more scope to respond to any adverse changes? And going forward you want to minimise reinfections?

That makes no sense.  

The current exponential growth rates exist in large part because of the current restrictions.   The weather modulates it a bit.

More restrictions, lower exponential rate

Less restrictions, higher exponential rate.

Our current exponential growth rate and absolute case number looks like plenty to me, and it remains within our ability to identify worrying trends in healthcare and act accordingly before disaster is locked in.

 

We need a traffic light system. Like those Uni parties.

Green - feel free to cough all over me because I’m immortal

Orange - I’m going to be responsible whatever that means, please wear a face mask near me  

Red - I should be at home self isolating

This is the point, it's what they want, to bitterly divide society on the issue. It's campaigning, not public health. Cnuts.

Jk

Why?

I struggle with your logic around this. We both accept that everyone has to acquire immunity either through vaccination or infection. Good start.

But why are current growth rates and cases acceptable, but higher growth rates and cases not?

Both scenarios ultimately lead to approximately the same number of overall infections and exactly the same number of infections in vulnerable groups. Why does the timing of this now matter?

You’re advocating caution without acknowledging what the downside of the caution is (potentially more deaths in the winter and ongoing social and economic restrictions).

Yeah. The gutless, cowardly, spineless lump of lard.

First, do you understand why what you said about dampening exponential growth rates and restrictions was flat out wrong?  If not, I’m not convinced you understand the mechanisms of the situation well enough to have a sensible discussion.

I for one have never said “everyone” and I’m not aware of any science which implies that.

Let me repeat myself for the 3rd or 4th time in the hopes that you read it for the first time.  If you don’t understand it, please tell me where and how you’re struggling rather than ignoring what I write and coming back with the same questions.  I most recently put it thus:

Our current exponential growth rate […] remains within our ability to identify worrying trends in healthcare and act accordingly before disaster is locked in.

We don’t need faster exponential growth to have an “exit wave” in the kind of timescales you want.  A faster exponential rate means that we wouldn’t have time to avert healthcare disaster if hospitalisation rates moved a bit the wrong way.

For the reasons I have set out repeatedly and you have ignored repeatedly.

I acknowledge they you’re basing your claims of potentially more deaths on outdated modelling that was heavily loaded with disclaimers about uncertainty.

Given your previous comment I don’t think you actually understand the mechanics at play here.

Engage with what I’ve written, repeatedly, and so convince me you’re acting in good faith.

My wording was clumsy. 

Enough people to reach herd immunity…

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.

What makes you sure of the first point. And why do you think they’ll get worse to the second point?

Yea they’re outdated, but still some of the best modelling we have. What better data do you have? What’s screaming caution to you that the rest of us aren’t aware of?

I have mixed feelings about a total relaxation of restrictions so soon.

However whenever I hear Johnson talking enthusiastically about something that's normally a good indicator of a bad idea.

No, you said keeping current restrictions would dampen current exponential rates.  That’s not clumsy, that’s flat out wrong.  

Obviously not, because models are predictions, not certainties.  

>> > We don’t need faster exponential growth to have an “exit wave” in the kind of timescales you want.  A faster exponential rate means that we wouldn’t have time to avert healthcare disaster if hospitalisation rates moved a bit the wrong way.

The data.

The more restrictions we drop, the shorter the doubling time on infections.  There are lags from infection to detection as a case, and from infection to hospitalisation, and from hospitalisations to occupancy figures.  Then there are reporting lags, then lags for the data to be analysed and presented to cabinet, then lags for cabinet to change policy, then lags for that to translate to changes in the doubling time and infections.

The actual data which is 6 weeks newer then the models.  I think you’ll find a lot of posters are very aware of the data.

I just don’t buy the needing time to react to the changes in data argument. You would never take away all restrictions unless every piece of current data screamed headroom in the healthcare system. 

Just to touch on that is it ICU capacity that you’re worried about. Not overall healthcare capacity? The current ICU admission criteria is the area that the layperson has the least insight into and that seems to creat the biggest pinch point at the moment.

In your mind is there any upside of relaxing restrictions?

Have you been paying any attention to this government's response to this pandemic...?

But they did save Christmas (and send primary kid into school at the start of January) !! 

I don’t buy that you’re seriously advocating policy based on 6 week old modelling from before the new variant was at all characterised.

> You would never take away all restrictions unless every piece of current data screamed headroom in the healthcare system. 

Given the absolute shit show healthcare staff have been out through repeatedly because of people with no understanding of the exponential mechanic, I think we owe them an attitude of responsibility and we owe non covid users of healthcare a system subject to no more catastrophic shocks.  There’s a lot more people to think of than just covid patients.

Advocating for anything less than data driven caution has slammed healthcare repeatedly and killed 130,000 people.  I have no problem with advocating for data driven caution.

From the data - and I know you’ve read the most recent thread as you’ve posted on it - demand on ICU capacity is less ameliorated than demand on overall capacity.  So I’m not worried about overall capacity because the pinch point created by ICU capacity would mandate changes before overall capacity could become an issue.

Yes, but given the high absolute level of cases, the short doubling time, the relatively poor improvement in ICU occupancy and the modelled optimum requirements for the exit wave, I have grave concerns that the net benefit of having no further restrictions could (not will) be reduced if we drop them too soon.  I favour - as always - a progressive relaxation so that the data can continue to inform and validate the release to make sure we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot.  Again.

A bit.

Some good bits, some bad bits.

However the repeated messaging about changes being irreversible, the patience of the populace wearing thin, and the reluctance of the double jabbed to comply with restrictions to me suggests this is the last roll of the governments dice. 

I.e. no going back after the 19th and that to me is a clear indicator that there’s headroom in the NHS under reasonable downside scenarios. I don’t think the government would survive another lockdown.

But but but, Javid was explaining today how relaxing restrictions will help ease the patient backlog.

Sadly, a professor of oncology said pretty much the same on BBC News yesterday morning... Cue much shouting abuse at the telly...

Faith is baffling. 

A return to rationing care in order to muddle past a policy disaster only looks like a good thing if you a) don't need ICU and b) want to make the case that the NHS needs rescue/reform/euphemism of choice. 

Huge. If it works.

Jk

SPI-M assessment of face covering effectiveness on transmission:

50-90% for smaller aerosols and greater for large droplets with 'good quality' face coverings (presumably FFP2/KN95/KF94).

6-15% range but potentially up to 45% for other less efficacious face coverings.

Even that lowball 6% for the least effective face covering is huge.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/...

No this is false, wear an proper protective mask and you can protect yourself without demanding anything from anyone.

The post you were replying to was in the context of 'face coverings', not PPE.

An FFP3 mask falls into both face covering and PPE categories, it's not exclusively one or the other. 

This "personal" responsibilility thing seems stupid with masks.  The consequence of giving personal choice over this is that many workers, some of whom cannot get any payment for not being at work, will be exposed to the risk of mandatory self isolation and loss of earnings, possibly closure of place of work etc because of this lack of responsibility.

Surely self isolation after case contact needs to cease to be mandatory at the same time as the wearing of masks otherwise badly behaved members of the public will be able to deprive workers of their income/work.

That's not true. A well fitted set of FFP3 masks is great for personal protection but very expensive and a hassle for what is needed to protect everyone else from the wearer, and as such is effectively impractical for public covid measures. I'm sure some put up with the impracticality (excessive worry and deep wallets) but the sheer cost would stop huge numbers.

Roy Lilley on Boris and Javid (he's an ex conservative government advisor).

"Why are we waiting...

_________________________

As secretary of states come, No19 might as well go. He's had a poor start. It’s pretty clear the department of health is now a branch-office of Ten Downing St. This is all getting very difficult. BoJo is working at an intersection of decisions. Professional advice from health professionals. Professional advice from Treasury professionals... and backbenchers, the professional assassins of the Tory Party, who see wearing a mask as one step away from living in Belarus.

We have little reliable predictive analysis to go on, either on the performance of the economy, the impact of borrowing and the risk of an interest rate hike, neither the progress of Covid, the assurance of vaccinations and the likelihood of an unmanageable virus-variant emerging.

Predictable, with absolute certainty, is the behaviour of stairy-eyed, right wing MPs. Who must be pleasured ‘in a safe and sustainable way’, as our-mate Dr Phil Hammond would say!

Dominic Cummings, in his latest email points out; [BoJo]…' cannot chair meetings to save his life. He has no idea how Whitehall works… no interest in it… wants to believe everyone loves him… [is] easily tricked and blocked… Carrie is a wildcard… she knows he has no plan for what to do… can’t make plans… knows he will get eaten alive… and the MPs around him don’t know what to do…'

Think what you like about Cummings, but if he's half right (and frankly, from where I sit, it could be more) it doesn’t bode-well for any of us, least of all, Number 19, who will be the fall guy if all this explodes in his face. However, No19 has a bit of luck going for him. The parliamentary summer recess is due to start on the 22nd July and not due back until 6th September. That means No19 has about 40 days to sort himself out. Thus far he's been the Downing St messenger-boy, delivering the news. That has to stop. He is experienced in government but having walked out on him once, has an uneasy relationship with BoJo. He has to find his feet and become his own man. He has forty-days to do four things.

1 He has to learn about the services he is responsible for and that cannot be done sitting behind a desk. Jeremy Hunt, when SoS, worked shifts in hosptials, turned up in GP surgeries and walked the talk. No19 has to do the same. Shifts in a care home and a domiciliary-care-company would be no bad thing. Plus a day or so in theatre, to see how easy it is for lists to be disrupted, when staff and beds are in short supply. And, a night shift with the ambulance service.

2 Understand he is dealing with the most qualified workforce in the country. Pretty well everyone working in health and care has a degree, plus a professional qualification. Many will have a lot more, plus a shed-load of experience. They know their stuff and he is only the latest in a long line of SoS's they've seen come and go. Fortunately, Number 19 has some more good luck; his god knew he would, one day, have this job and equipped him perfectly for it. His god gave him two ears and one mouth, to be used in that proportion. He has to shut up, listen and learn.

3 He has to ask himself a question. ‘If I am to be more than BoJo’s bag carrier, what do I bring to this job and how do I add value?’ If he can’t think of three things to bring to the party, he should be knocking at the door.

4 What kind of leader am I going to be? He is a poor public speaker and unconvincing on the telly. My advice would be for him to be the kind of leader who creates the time and space for good people to do great things. A step-up and step-back leader. That means getting the Health Bill though parliament to unravel Lansley’s lunacy and get the ball rolling on a solution for social care. Soon enough, winter will be compounding No19’s problems. He’ll have to deal with; the upshot of the pay-review body machinations, an upsurge in Covid deaths, a winter crisis, social-care meltdown, ambulance services grinding to a halt and a lot of back-benchers asking, on behalf of their constituents… why are we waiting.

No19 has 40 days (and nights), to figure out which way is up."

I dunt know of anyone sterilising ffp3 masks. In fact I don't know if anyone except health care workers using them. Are your sure you meant to say 'most'? 

I dont know if any evidence that ffp3 is automatically better than other masks if they don't seal. It does just draw  air Into your mouth from the edges. Do you have any references..

https://www.google.com/shopping/product/1?q=ffp3+mask&prds=epd:13675723...

£35 for a pack of 10 from a brief google search, £3.50 to protect yourself from a virus serious enough to demand everyone else wear face coverings around you is pricey? As I'm typing I can see my colleague has a similar FFP3 hanging off his cabinet door handle (only seen him bother wearing it once though).

Impractical as in you have to tighten a strap? Yes I can see that as a hard barrier to self-preservation.

It's quite easy to eliminate the need for others to protect you or from having protection forced upon you when you don't want it by getting this mask. It ends this argument.

The problem that has been demonstrated over the past year is that once Covid is running at high levels, it's absolutely impossible to prevent spread in UK hospitals with their ward based systems and shared/poor ventilation. The people in or attending hospital are more likely to be poor vaccine responders, and the Delta variant is twice as transmissable as the original one. It doesn't matter about how much "headroom" there is in terms of ward or ITU beds. As cases rise it will be very difficult to run routine NHS services yet again. Further lockdowns would be politically difficult, but so are waits of 2+ years for specialist referrals (already been quoted this for one specialty locally).

Does it cover the eyes? How about my food, does it cover my food if you are infected and sneeze in the general vicinity? How about my drink, does it cover my drink if you are walking around spitting words out?

No? Then it doesn't really end this argument, does it?

"Widespread application of face coverings as a source control is likely to have a small but significant
impact on population level transmission, through reducing the shedding of virus by people who
may be unknowingly infected and without symptoms. The benefit is difficult to quantify, but
estimates range from 7-45%. It is difficult in these studies to separate out the effect of face
coverings compared to other interventions used at the same time (medium confidence)"

Basically they don't know, nobody has measured them. It's clearly not 45% as when mask mandates were removed in the USA we didn't see any measurable change in R. It's quite possible it's down at the 7% range due to the quality and fitting of the masks we use.

The same people that weren't wearing masks when the mandates were active are the same people that aren't wearing masks since the mandates were removed. Ditto for people that were wearing masks. I'd be surprised if the removal of the mask mandates made much of a difference in the actual percentage of people wearing them.

How much headroom is there though? And what criteria? Nationally or locally?

A hospital in Inverness has just had to shut down all non essential services due to weight of demand. Here in the North West the ambulance service has been at REAP 4 (highest level of pressure) for weeks now, which means all clinically trained staff are being drafted off desk jobs and into the frontline and all training is cancelled (I’m now 8 months overdue for my mandatory 2 days annual training).

This level of pressure is virtually unheard of in the middle of Summer.

This government has survived an endless series of clusterf*cks, scandals and disasters. Can’t see how one more would make any difference.

I'm amazed this logistics side isn't getting more publicity. Arguably the biggest capacity block was always staff as new ICU beds can be installed medium term but you need the experienced staff to run them. During covid peaks staffing was run, by emergency necessity, at some dangerously low levels, facing much tragedy, leading to some fairly significant burn-out. Seperately the infection control required by a pandemic always seriously reduces capacity elsewhere on non covid services. 

On another point I don't think most people realise yet that we are likely to exceed past peak case record levels for the UK (so fear based behavioural effects that were very noticeable in previous waves will be much lower). Plus this huge peak is being planned to happen with few remaining controls. If I were vulnerable I'd be back to self isolation and hope herd immunity kicks in fast.

I see this as a structural top-end management problem. If the NHS could speak truth to power (Boris) in a properly functional way it wouldn't be possible, when so many parts of  the NHS system is under so much stress, to remove easy safety measures that don't impact the economy, like mask use indoors. What is happening is just plain nuts.

Covid cost to UK government - £372Bn (up to 31st March 2021).

7% or small improvements for the minimal cost of masks is very good value for money.

A small in reduction in lives and livelihoods lost is also very good value.

Living in Inverness I've been following this. The main issue seems to be the number of staff having to isolate and yet we're still hearing people talking about how relaxing restrictions will improve outcomes for those waiting for treatment.

I also made the mistake of looking at the comments on the BBC FB page about this story and it seems that Raigmore full because they're treating all the people suffering from vaccine reactions...

I'm with Chomsky on this, power already knows the truth they just don't act on it unless it threatens them.

Wear goggles if you are this seriously concerned about avoiding the virus. If you are out eating and drinking in public then you have no mask on and by your own logic posing a danger to others in that moment, spitting and spraying food and potential virus particles everywhere as you chew with your mouth wide open, slurping and spilling liquid death everywhere.

Or is this being dramatic?

It's why I said "mostly". I'm aware that masks which protect the wearer are available but the vast majority (99%?) of the population aren't wearing those.

As has been said before fitting these masks isn't trivial and if they don't fit they are worse than much cheaper masks. People on benefits will disagree with your cost arguments. Maybe you could help by setting up an equivalent to a foodbank for your mask idea? 

The bigger population problem is the large number of people who can't wait to get rid of their masks. People who will be infecting each other in public indoors,  increasing cases above where they would have been with masks and potentially pushing NHS strains to the point where restrictions need to be-introduced with all the horrible knock on effects to the economy and other health areas. Boris seems to think he can bluff the virus yet again despite the horrible consequences to our national health and wealth of his past idiocy.

Personally I think current restrictions should have stayed for at least another two weeks from July 19th as it would have applied a bit of brakeing to this worryingly fast growth and give us some wiggle room if things do turn out worse than we expect. The modelling shows no downside. Of course the economy needed extra help for a bit longer. Currently if things turn out bad we have no choice but harsher restrictions (probably very contentious local ones hitting deprived communities the hardest). My view has switched from optimism that the end game would work OK a month back to the neutral border as it really could go either way. This has happened because of terrible government messaging around freedom in the face of worrying data.

A confidence interval does not mean "they don't know". Quite the opposite.

The confidence interval stated comes from the many studies measuring effectiveness, listed here in sections 28-36: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/...

In the briefing paper I linked to, face coverings are identified as the single most effective transmission mitigation measure under current conditions, and by far the most effective measure under theoretically ideal conditions, based on the above-mentioned evidence which already takes into account issues such as quality and compliance.

Have you had an FFP3 mask fitted?

I have

it took a skilled nurse 20 mins and 3 different options before we got one that passed the test

Could a member of the public do that with ones they got off the internet? If they can’t, they are no better than the standard surgical ones. 

I am not that concerned at all, I am not wearing a mask to protect myself, if I were particularly concerned about myself I would have been wearing the FFP3s I use to do dusty work. I am just bewildered by the selfishness you are exhibiting here, basically what you are saying is that you don't give a flying bollock whether you spread the virus, if anyone else is worried about it they should not go out, because of the minor inconvenience to you. 

So we're happy to lose billions shutting down businesses for months at a time but can't shell out for masks that actually protect the user? Come on.

The claim that a slightly loose FFP3 rated mask offers less protection than a totally unrated and unsealed generic cloth mask is obvious nonsense on it's face. I won't even ask for proof for such a silly statement. Pop on a generic mask over the top of the FFP3 and by your non-logic the problem is solved.

I won't. Almost nobody likes wearing them and I don't think they've become a cultural norm as they are in east Asia. I reckon we'll see <50% still wearing them week one, holding up for a while as infection rates explode* then falling as we adjust to the new normal. In the end it'll be a handful of youngsters wearing them as fashion and a handful of people with ongoing concerns for their personal safety.

*how long this case rate explosion is accurately reported for is questionable, T&T may saturate or less likely the government may announce the pandemic over and turn off the flow of data, there's certainly some pressure for that from the usual backbench weapons.

jk

A better filter is pretty much by definition a more restrictive filter. A poorly fitting FFP3 mask results into *more* air going out the sides or coming in from the sides than a less restrictive mask. Have you used an FFP3? If I haven't trimmed my beard and put mine on I end up breathing in AND out entirely through the sides, which is obvious as it's a valved mask and the valves don't open.

So, yay, logic. Rethink it.

It is but you're giving us a wonderful insight.

jk

Note that I am referring to the issues of using the mask mandates in the States as an example of effectiveness or lack of. In the States, mask wearing is such a ridiculously partisan issue that you can practically tell which way someone voted based on whether they are wearing a mask or not.

That wasn’t the claim; it was that it was no better than a properly worn generic surgical mask. The FFP3 gives its protection by filtering all the inhaled air. If there’s no seal, then unfiltered air will enter, just like with a standard surgical mask. if it really did make little difference, then they wouldn’t have needed to send NHS staff for FFP3 mask fitting sessions, and I wouldn’t have to carry round a record of which mask I should wear. 
 

Just because it’s self evident to you doesn’t make it right 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

As ever you either are stupid or you're playing stupid to avoid the issue, I suspect the latter but nothing is ruled out.

A single FFP3 mask, well fitted, costs a non trivial amount, is non-trivial to use and it protects one person.

Basic cloth coverings widely worn are now basically free, we all have them, they're easy to use and they offer a non-trivial amount of protection to everyone for minimal inconvenience.

Of course as we can see from the polarised discussion here, this policy announcement isn't really about public health, it's the government playing an absolute blinder by making us wear our values like a badge, inviting conflict between us along much the same fault lines as brexit.

jk

If you haven't had a fit test it might not be protection to a level you think. That type fits very few people compared to the 1863+

You're certainly providing a classic example of inability to follow the important science with a cognitive bias about being correct based on a position of relative ignorance. It illustrates exactly why mask compulsion was needed. Thanks for the example as I cant change government idiocy and you seem not be following the evidence provided on the real issues and benefits of mask use. I'm not trying to insult you in this as we live in a post truth world where parts of ruling power rely on sewing misinformation. You only need to listen to tory backbenchers on masks on the Parliament channel in the last few days  to realise this. You're also in great company: SAGE, CDC and WHO got mask science wrong initially.

Cheap masks give real protective benefit to prevent the spread of indoor infection (read the paper bruxist linked). It's cheap, it doesn't impact the economy and it's plain dumb to remove compulsion right now, given the confusion out there on the hows and whys of the indoor benefits of mass mask use. Things will definitely be worse in infection terms because compulsion is removed.

All we can do now is hope (and the religious can pray) that this idiocy isn't the straw that breaks the ability to exit avoiding new tougher restrictions, with all the damage that will entail.

Can you say how long we should keep mask mandates, or exactly what criteria must be reached to allow lifting of mask mandates in your view? Who makes this decision? Your saying we can't trust any of the large institutions in a post truth world (agreed) but can't allow individual people to make their own independent decisions because they're idiots who can't be trusted. What choice does this leave us with? Listen to you because of course you must be right?

Could try listening to an epidemiologist?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/07/ditching-england-covi...

interested in your response to the false dichotomy and long COVID points.
 

So wait until everyone who is going to have the vaccine has had two, and vaccinate all the children, and then booster the elderly, then we're good? Or is this only until the next variant? Seems like the waning immunity argument can be recycled endlessly so...not hearing any answers really as to when this can stop.

The article specifically worries about long covid in the unvaccinated young, however they link to the ONS website which states

"Prevalence rates of self-reported long COVID were greatest in people aged 35 to 69 years, females, those living in the most deprived areas, those working in health or social care, and those with a pre-existing, activity-limiting health condition; however, it is not possible to say whether these patterns are because of differences in the risk of coronavirus infection or susceptibility to experiencing long COVID following infection." 

So actually most of the people likely to get long covid are already vaccinated, most double. 

Or perhaps take the steps outlined in the article- continue to vaccinate so we get closer to the 85% coverage (vaccinated + naturally acquired immunity) where transmission will no longer be able to propagate exponentially.

every week we get 1-2 million people into the ‘protected’ category, and the potential for overwhelming the NHS and leaving hundreds of thousands with life changing ongoing symptoms reduces. We know this already; it’s why we delayed the unlocking once. Another 4 weeks stacks the odds more in our favour.

And the false dichotomy is still there. It isn’t “keep everything as it is, forever” vs “remove all restrictions, right now”. We can take some steps eg open up indoor hospitality further, with vaccine passports; but still keep other things in place 

The Nature article above was clear the consensus is that masks are helpful in reducing transmission. You may take a different view, and we can weight those as we see fit. I think they should remain for indoor spaces until we see the effects of the dropping of other restrictions, though to the spring of next year if needed. And mandated by government, not the buck passed to business owners to impose restrictions on their customers unilaterally.

Masks do provide some protection, but for most they’re an emotional crutch that makes them feel safer/ less anxious.

No one here is proposing to stop nightclubs opening (as if 200 sweaty teenagers dancing close together and snogging each other won’t have a bigger impact on the R rate), but they’re fixated on masks.

Some people are just parroting back the doom-mongering from the Guardian. Others are genuinely anxious, something at an individual level makes no sense. 

OK great so delay until 4th August 2021, then shall we say March 20 2022 for masks to go as well. Definitely not going to pull any rabbits out of the hat at the last minute are you? We're not going to have another scare about variant omega, waning immunity, this vaccine is now only 58% effective in this circumstance etc?

Hard no on domestic vaccine passports from me, though to be clear you'd want this for large indoor gatherings in the hospitality areas that are still closed? Or are you trying to get this everywhere?

Ignore the science, again and again. If they also reduce anxiety as a side-effect great, but that's not the case for masks. They reduce transmission, and that's helpful.

Shutting businesses is a genuine harm. Wearing a mask is not. This is such a simple argument.

I’ll just check my crystal ball 

oh, hang on a minute, it doesn’t seem to be working 

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
 

The thing is the current plan is based upon models that were assuming 90%+ reduction in infection. Now the reality is that it's ~64% (Israel experience) that's going to make a noticeable difference to the rate of rise - a steepening of the curve and a higher, sharper peak. Ultimately about the same number of people will die or go to hospital (the reduction in efficacy against hospitalisation is only down from 94 to 90%) assuming healthcare isn't overrun, but a higher number of infected and sick people at once has the potential for serious disruption and maybe healthcare being overrun. The economy will be hammered by mass self-isolation - a 4 man team can function if it loses one member at a time to s-i, but not if it loses 2 or 3 at once. Healthcare can function if patients can be shipped from a busy area to a slack one, but not if everywhere is infected at once.