Coronavirus

[Eddie]

7 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

No - it's a general point about society as a whole right now.

Masks, anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers...it's everywhere

You only have to look at the politics of the countries which have excelled in keeping the pandemic in check - and compare that to the politics of the disaster-areas.

Then compare those politics to those posting in this thread.

Quod Erat bloody Demonstrandum.

 

[ketteringram]

4 hours ago, Paul71 said:

Im assuming they see Shops different because people are walking around shops and inevtibly social distancing becomes an issue. I havent been in a pub yet but they are supposed to be following strict guidelines from what i understand where you sit at your table and have a drink and so on, the idea isnt to wander about.

Of course what happens and whats supposed to happen are different things.

That's the opposite of what they used to say though. Walking past someone wasn't a risk at all. You had to be within two metres of them, AND for more than 15 minutes. So that's more likely in a pub setting as opposed to a shop.

I don't know why the obsession with shops. I'm at work for 12 hours a day, with dozens of other people. No masks, no social distance. After work , I could even go to a pub and sit together with a different load of people. That's apparently all ok. 

Go into a huge supermarket, at half six in the morning, and a mask is mandatory.

They either help or they don't. If they help, make them mandatory everywhere.

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, Chester40 said:

If it were so important why has the rate still been coming down. Its a purely political decision.

Let's go back to the beginning. The rate of infection was very high, with an ever increasing number of new cases per day. Then lockdown measures came in which saw those numbers steadily decrease. If we continued to do nothing, those numbers would also continue to decrease. However, for a variety of reasons, we couldn't live like that forever, so easing of restrictions were/are required, the sooner the better (pretty much). But, if you lift them too quickly, the numbers will increase resulting in another 'spike'. The lifting of restrictions also has to be slow enough to prevent a 'plateauing' of cases, as we obviously want the number of new infections to reach 0 at some point.

It's possible to lift some restrictions quicker by putting others in their place - allowing people to get closer to 'normal' life at the expense of putting on a mask for a very short period of time once a week is one of those.

 

 

Why introduce the mask rule on the 24th instead of today? Well that may be to allow people who don't currently have a mask to buy one. If it was introduced the next day, how would you go in to a shop to buy a mask, if you don't own a mask already?

[Eddie]

1 minute ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Let's go back to the beginning. The rate of infection was very high, with an ever increasing number of new cases per day. Then lockdown measures came in which saw those numbers steadily decrease. If we continued to do nothing, those numbers would also continue to decrease. However, for a variety of reasons, we couldn't live like that forever, so easing of restrictions were/are required, the sooner the better (pretty much). But, if you lift them too quickly, the numbers will increase resulting in another 'spike'. The lifting of restrictions also has to be slow enough to prevent a 'plateauing' of cases, as we obviously want the number of new infections to reach 0 at some point.

It's possible to lift some restrictions quicker by putting others in their place - allowing people to get closer to 'normal' life at the expense of putting on a mask for a very short period of time once a week is one of those.

 

 

Why introduce the mask rule on the 24th instead of today? Well that may be to allow people who don't currently have a mask to buy one. If it was introduced the next day, how would you go in to a shop to buy a mask, if you don't own a mask already?

A simple t-shirt tied around the face would suffice.

[Andicis]

I thought there was only really a risk inside if you're in close proximity to someone for quite a few minutes, or if you get it on your hands and touch your face? People will be able to go inside to gyms, and pubs, and stay for hours inside without a mask but if you want to pop in for 5 to get milk you need a mask? Our cases are falling like 10-20% each week anyway, I am confused by the timing of the decision.

[sage]

1 minute ago, Andicis said:

I thought there was only really a risk inside if you're in close proximity to someone for quite a few minutes, or if you get it on your hands and touch your face? People will be able to go inside to gyms, and pubs, and stay for hours inside without a mask but if you want to pop in for 5 to get milk you need a mask? Our cases are falling like 10-20% each week anyway, I am confused by the timing of the decision.

The R Rate has gone up to 1.1 in some areas. The easing of lockdown was always going to be a series of easings then measures to prevent a second wave. 

[Andicis]

2 minutes ago, sage said:

The R Rate has gone up to 1.1 in some areas. The easing of lockdown was always going to be a series of easings then measures to prevent a second wave. 

R Rate isn't hugely useful when you're dealing with low numbers of cases, though. 

[Eddie]

If you only read one article on masks and why the advice has changed over time, make sure it's this one...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-53394525

[Eddie]

4 minutes ago, sage said:

The R Rate has gone up to 1.1 in some areas. The easing of lockdown was always going to be a series of easings then measures to prevent a second wave. 

Hence the legislation with respect to localised lockdowns.

[Eddie]

9 minutes ago, Andicis said:

I thought there was only really a risk inside if you're in close proximity to someone for quite a few minutes, or if you get it on your hands and touch your face? People will be able to go inside to gyms, and pubs, and stay for hours inside without a mask but if you want to pop in for 5 to get milk you need a mask? Our cases are falling like 10-20% each week anyway, I am confused by the timing of the decision.

There is always SOME risk, but steps can be taken to minimise said risk.

[Mucker1884]

4 hours ago, Srg said:

Putting a face mask on now is like putting a condom on when she’s already been pregnant 3 months. 

So, an excellent idea then, albeit a little later than the ideal (but certainly not too late!).

Ok, this particular baby is already on the way, just as certain folk have already died of/with the virus.  But by using the protection from now on, it will hopefully help to avoid the same situation reoccurring in the future.

It's almost as if we are learning as we go along!  

[Andicis]

4 minutes ago, Eddie said:

There is always SOME risk, but steps can be taken to minimise said risk.

Agreed, it's all just very inconsistent to me and it seems what is ok what day changes the next quite regularly. 

[sage]

2 minutes ago, Andicis said:

R Rate isn't hugely useful when you're dealing with low numbers of cases, though. 

We need to get this to a bare minimum before we get to winter. I don't understand why people are unwilling to take measures to ensure this,

The timing is related to 3 things.

1. Increasing evidence of the effectiveness of masks.

2. Government confidence that masks can be supplied to  the public without harming the NHS.  

3. We have a posturing buffoon as PM. 

[Mucker1884]

3 hours ago, SchtivePesley said:

...What about me? I don't have an opinion, i don't think I'm "right" - I just use the critical thinking skills I was taught at school/college/university to read the views of multiple experts and decide which of the experts seems the most qualified and has the most compelling facts...

Same here!

 

 

 

 

...Well... apart from the university bit of course.

 

 

 

... and the bit about the college too, to be fair... unless day release at Wilmorton counts!

[sage]

In other news, Matt Hancock has announced the shutting of stable doors in 2 weeks time. 

[Andicis]

2 minutes ago, sage said:

3. We have a posturing buffoon as PM. 

I'm going with this one first.

After all, they did come out and say this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-52153145/coronavirus-we-do-not-recommend-face-masks-for-general-wearing

 

[Sith Happens]

It would appear that this thread is becoming a politics mark 2 thread yet again, I thought @David had asked for discussions not to be political?

 

 

[sage]

1 minute ago, Paul71 said:

It would appear that this thread is becoming a politics mark 2 thread yet again, I thought @David had asked for discussions not to be political?

 

 

I don't want to go down that route but some questions have political answers. I shall leave the thread. 

[Mucker1884]

3 hours ago, Eddie said:

I noticed yesterday that everyone working in Boots was wearing a mask, and nobody in Wilkos was.

Not sure of she's working, but is this the sort of thing you mean?

 

 

HEY!  Look away, old man!  Think of yer ticker!   

[Eddie]

6 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Agreed, it's all just very inconsistent to me and it seems what is ok what day changes the next quite regularly. 

Evolution is like that. Choices are made and some, with the benefit of hindsight, can be seen to be bad choices. The legacy of that poor choice from an evolutionary perspective is that branch of the tree eventually atrophies and dies out because the mutation was proved to be disadvantageous.

The evidence is pretty conclusive now with respect to the effectiveness of the combination of masks and social distancing (just look for the successful countries and compare their figures to the clusterfark countries) - , although it is not so straightforward trying to separate the two in order to derive their individual benefits.