The UK response to Covid-19 [MOD WARNING 1ST POST]

lainey_d_123

Bagels4me wrote: »

Why isn't it mandatory everywhere then?

I think you'll find it is mandatory in most other European countries, where they actually give a f**k about their citizens.

robinph

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I think you'll find it is mandatory in most other European countries, where they actually give a f**k about their citizens.

Just from the first link to come back on a search for France and masks it would seem fairly similar to the UK as a whole.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thelocal.fr/20200624/what-are-the-rules-on-wearing-a-mask-in-france/amp

Mandatory on public transport, and after that depends on areas you are in and what you are doing as to if they are required, in common use or even suggested.

Edit:
Belgium - rules changed as of today
https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/belgium-all-news/120896/new-compulsory-face-mask-rules-where-and-when/

Spain - variable depending on the region
https://www.google.com/amp/s/english.elpais.com/society/2020-07-09/spains-balearic-islands-to-make-face-masks-mandatory-in-all-public-spaces-except-the-beach.html?outputType=amp

Not quite as universal as it made out to be and the UK is not as much of an outlier.

bob mcbob

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I think you'll find it is mandatory in most other European countries, where they actually give a f**k about their citizens.

It is mandatory indoors in Scotland now. Just back from the supermarket and there was a sign at the entrance which said it was compulsory to wear a mask inside. Every single person had a mask ready and put it on before entering.

lainey_d_123

robinph wrote: »

Just from the first link to come back on a search for France and masks it would seem fairly similar to the UK as a whole.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thelocal.fr/20200624/what-are-the-rules-on-wearing-a-mask-in-france/amp

Mandatory on public transport, and after that depends on areas you are in and what you are doing as to if they are required, in common use or even suggested.

Edit:
Belgium - rules changed as of today
https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/belgium-all-news/120896/new-compulsory-face-mask-rules-where-and-when/

Spain - variable depending on the region
https://www.google.com/amp/s/english.elpais.com/society/2020-07-09/spains-balearic-islands-to-make-face-masks-mandatory-in-all-public-spaces-except-the-beach.html%3foutputType=amp

Not quite as universal as it made out to be and the UK is not as much of an outlier.

It is required in quite a few countries, I believe Czech Republic and others. Either way, the use of them is far more widespread in those places than here, so maybe not the same necessity to make it law. All my Spanish friends have reported they are worn pretty much everywhere there, even outside.

I think it needs to be mandatory here because people have shown they simply will not wear them by choice. It IS mandatory on public transport and there are still loads of people just not complying. It's selfish and it's holding us all back. I would love to go and see my sister on the other side of London, but I just don't trust people to comply with the rules. I'd feel safe enough to go if everyone was in masks, but they're not. It's just prolonging things and making it all so much worse.

robinph

Watching the world walk by my office window on a High Street for the last forever, it has noticeably picked up the ratio of mask wearers walking down the street (when they don't really need to as the street isn't that busy). Not sure what prompted it to pick up as the new cases locally is still counted on the fingers of one hand.

A Dub in Glasgo

Seems quite high figures today

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

In this sense, you're essentially repeating Patrick Valence's assertion (back in March) that social events weren't particularly risky. Yes, there's a spectrum of risk, and if you're face-to-face with someone who's coughing out virus-laden spit, then your risk of infection certainly going to be higher than someone sunbathing in Hyde Park.

But Patrick Valence was shown to be disastrously wrong in his opinion (and advice) and you're making the amateur scientist's mistake of looking for evidence to back up your already-formed opinion. Three case studies don't prove your point: rather, they demonstrate the opposite - i.e. that indirect infection is not only possible but likely, if the "right" conditions come together.

And this is the greatest weakness in your mé féiner approach: when you go into the supermarket, what you think about the virus, it's transmission and its infectiousness is irrelevant. You have no control over the ventilation in the shop and you have no idea which customers are infectious or to what degree. You have no possible way of knowing whether the conditions described in that office are inadvertently replicated in the dairy aisle or whether a super-spreader parent was bellowing at their children an hour ago, creating an infectious aerosol around checkout number 7.

I don't know why you are so desperate to argue against the fact that the time that you are exposed to someone who has coronavirus is a key factor as to whether or not you too will catch it.

I also don't know why you think I have a "me feiner" approach when I was answering a legitimate question about why I feel safe going to the supermarket. I also mentioned explicitly that I wear a face covering in the supermarket. So I also don't get this "me feiner" comment. I'm not really interested in your superiority complex. I was asked by the poster as to how much I am going out and about. You can see this here. Supermarkets were mentioned in the first paragraph.

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Can't see what stops them withdrawing it when no longer needed, but it is definitely a good idea. I would feel so, so much more comfortable in supermarkets, on public transport, etc. if mask use was mandatory and actually enforced. The benefits are becoming very clear now.


Has anyone been out and about much? I still haven't. It just doesn't feel safe and people are not complying with mask use, even on public transport. I went to take the tube the other day to go to an appointment, saw over half the people on the platform had already taken their masks off or were wearing them under their chin, and turned around and went home to get my bike.

Also, the sources of the El Pais article are listed. Patrick Vallance has nothing to do with it. If he argued the same point, he is right however. Time exposure is a critical factor in determining how likely you are to catch the virus. You can see the list underneath:

Sources: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Guangzhou and Hangzhou, The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the Spanish National Research Council’s Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Studies (IDAEA-CSIC), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, International Laboratory for Air Quality & Health (WHO, Queensland), and the government of South Korea.

Enzokk

Another day and another dodgy contract.

Just how does public money end up in the pockets of Cummings' friends?

Legal action has been brought to find out why this contract was awarded to this company. They seemed to have concluded a verbal agreement without tender on the 3rd March 2020 and then the written contract was awarded to the company on the 5th June only. By this time the company provided the following services and was paid for,

According to ‘transparency data’ published on the Government website, the Cabinet Office paid Public First:

on 18 March 2020, £58,000 in respect of “GOV COMMS EU EXIT PROG”;
on 20 March 2020, £75,000 in respect of “INSIGHT AND EVALUATION”;
on 2 April 2020, £42,000 in respect of “EU EXIT COMMS”; and
on 27 May 2020, £78,187.07 in respect of “COVID-19”.

So it seems like the Cabinet Office (responsibility of Gove) awarded this contract using the pandemic as an excuse for this company to provide services during the pandemic. This was done without tender or competing bids. The people in charge of the company, married couple, both have history with both Gove and Cummings as well. They seem to have started working together in 2004 and as recently as last year when Ms Wolf helped co-write the Conservative manifesto for the election.

Also, their offices operate out of No.11 Tufton Street.

devnull

Gove just been on Sky News and when asked about the discrepancy with testing figures said he did not hear or understand the question that was being asked because of a high level of background noise.

The last few weeks I've seen Gove several times ask to repeat a difficult question because of background noise and it always seems to be on difficult questions and happens more to him than anyone else.

Ridge then repeated the question about it and then he said he wasn't aware of the story, which is laughable and another attempt at evasion of actually answering the question.

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1282232591979098113

Shelga

Gove is surely one of the most vile and repugnant politicians in living memory.

Jizique

Shelga wrote: »

Gove is surely one of the most vile and repugnant politicians in living memory.

Yes; and he is basically in charge

A Dub in Glasgo

https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1282693746904174592

Louche Lad

Face coverings required by law in English shops from 24 July. Fines up to £100 for failure to comply.

robinph

Louche Lad wrote: »

Face coverings required by law in English shops from 24 July. Fines up to £100 for failure to comply.

Seems like an excessive lead in time to the new rule. They could make it from this Friday to give a small warning for people to sort something out and for shops to knock together some new warning signs, but it's not like anyone can really claim they didn't know this was coming and see about sorting a mask of some description out several months ago.

CelticRambler

robinph wrote: »

Seems like an excessive lead in time to the new rule.

It's back to that old nonsense of "the right measures at the right time". If there's a good biological reason to make compulsory the wearing of a mask while you're shopping on the 24th July, what reason explains why the virus won't infect you while you're shopping on the 14th?

There should be no lead time for this kind of measure - only a certain leniency in handing out fines or other punishment, if the non-compliant person (or business) has a very good explanation. In this case, I would expect everybody to have at least one mask/face-covering lying around somewhere that they could use tomorrow, especially if going shopping is that important to them.

S.M.B.

Gove was saying otherwise on Sunday morning which was very odd as it was very apparent this was coming since Friday.

Happy with the move. Hopefully more will start wearing masks before the 24th as opposed to trying to maximise their mask free shopping time between now and then.

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

It's back to that old nonsense of "the right measures at the right time". If there's a good biological reason to make compulsory the wearing of a mask while you're shopping on the 24th July, what reason explains why the virus won't infect you while you're shopping on the 14th?

There should be no lead time for this kind of measure - only a certain leniency in handing out fines or other punishment, if the non-compliant person (or business) has a very good explanation. In this case, I would expect everybody to have at least one mask/face-covering lying around somewhere that they could use tomorrow, especially if going shopping is that important to them.

I think having food to eat is important to most people don't you?

I don't particularly have a problem with lead time running up to a change in order to prepare the public. There are possibly still some without a face covering at this stage, this gives them time to get one while setting the impression that face coverings are important. It'll be interesting to see if compliance goes up in the next few days.

robinph

theological wrote: »

I don't particularly have a problem with lead time running up to a change in order to prepare the public.

We've had since the middle of March, or the beginning of February if you paid any attention to international news.

theological

robinph wrote: »

We've had since the middle of March, or the beginning of February if you paid any attention to international news.

Sure, but if people haven't been told that they are mandatory then some people may still need some time to get one. We have to engage with realities namely that many people probably don't have one rather than what we may think, and I suspect agree ought to be done ideally.

Enzokk

theological wrote: »

I think having food to eat is important to most people don't you?

I don't particularly have a problem with lead time running up to a change in order to prepare the public. There are possibly still some without a face covering at this stage, this gives them time to get one while setting the impression that face coverings are important. It'll be interesting to see if compliance goes up in the next few days.

In your rush to defend the decision you miss the point once again. If it is so essential to wear a mask that they are going to fine people who aren't, surely the policy should have been introduced so much earlier?

theological

Enzokk wrote: »

In your rush to defend the decision you miss the point once again. If it is so essential to wear a mask that they are going to fine people who aren't, surely the policy should have been introduced so much earlier?

The decision to wear masks is good, but it is too late.

I don't know why you are claiming that I don't think this.

I'm simply suggesting that if this is announced then allowing people to prepare is fair.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

The decision to wear masks is good, but it is too late.

I don't know why you are claiming that I don't think this.

I'm simply suggesting that if this is announced then allowing people to prepare is fair.

To be fair, it hardly takes 11 days for people to prepare to wear masks. It's not as though they need special training.

The limiting factor, I think, would be people's ability to obtain masks. If the supply of masks is so deficient that it will take 11 days to arrange the sourcing and distribution of enough masks to meet the likely demand, then it makes sense to defer the obligation to wear a mask for that long. But I seriously doubt that this is the case. (And, if it were to be the case, it would be a poor reflection on the UK's management/handling of the pandemic. It's not as though the need to issue masks to the population was unforseeable.)

Assuming that that's not the problem, the lead-in time does seem extraordinarily long - much longer than most other countries seem to have required - and I struggle to think of an explanation for it.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

I'm simply suggesting that if this is announced then allowing people to prepare is fair.

That makes no sense at all. Either there's a good reason for requiring masks to be worn, or there isn't. In the context of a viral respiratory disease, that reason has to do with the risk of infection. "Allowing people to prepare" doesn't change the risk of infection - unless it's to increase the risk of infection, by encouraging people to engage in irresponsible, disease-spreading behaviour prior to the date on which the measures come into force ... just like all those who fled to their country homes when they were given advance warning of lockdown.

And besides, at this stage in the pandemic, when the question of whether or not to wear masks has been discussed and debated for four months, we should not be pandering to people who are so removed from reality that they need ten days to figure out where to get a mask and how to wear it.

robinph

It was a much bigger deal to shut down schools with a weeks notice and had far more implications on people's lives but they managed to do that, eventually. Getting people to put a scarf around their faces when entering shops doesn't need more than a day's notice, and then on the second day enforcement.

bob mcbob

Looking at the worldometers 7 day average number of new cases in the UK, the number bottomed out at 542 on July 8th and since then has been rising day by day. Yesterday it was standing at 624.

This is too early for the opening of pubs on the 4th in England to be impacting the numbers.

bob mcbob

bob mcbob wrote: »

Looking at the worldometers 7 day average number of new cases in the UK, the number bottomed out at 542 on July 8th and since then has been rising day by day. Yesterday it was standing at 624.

This is too early for the opening of pubs on the 4th in England to be impacting the numbers.

I agree. I think that the reopening has actually been managed reasonably well, but for the life of me I can’t understand why pub doors have been thrown open in the way they have. The balance of economic activity v infection risk is way off balance IMO with respect to pubs IMO. And there is no wellbeing angle given that it’s the summer and everyone can drink outside perfectly adequately

serfboard

Deleted User wrote: »

I can’t understand why pub doors have been thrown open in the way they have.

Because one of the richest pub owners in Britain, a man who gave £50,000 to the Tories, and £200,000 to the Vote Leave campaign, wants it that way?

A Dub in Glasgo

https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1283071543292108801

Water John

Some libertarian Tory supporters and members getting excited at the notion of having to wear masks.

ancapailldorcha

Water John wrote: »

Some libertarian Tory supporters and members getting excited at the notion of having to wear masks.

It's just the same predictable hypocritical selfishness from conservatives. They'll rant on and on about how lazy the next generation are, their ostensible fecklessness and how they should do national service but they won't wear a f*cking mask during an actual pandemic.