All Covid-19 measures are permanent, don't be a boiling frog!

Dr. Bre

Dr. Bre wrote: »

So the UK will never have music gigs on or pubs open again or no supporters in sports stadiums ?

At reduced capacity possibly. And everyone will have to wear masks. Or else people will have to be in bubbles during gigs. Luke O'Neill was in a bubble on Claire Byrne the other day. They said it could be the future of gigs.

And notice how they've been doubling down (literally) on masks in recent weeks with the talk of double and triple masking.

And this from Prof. Nachman Ash in Israel: "Asked if this year’s Passover holiday, set to start on March 28, will be celebrated without limitations (last year’s “Leil Haseder,” the ritual Passover Eve meal marked by most Israelis in large familial gatherings, was jokingly referred to by many as “Leil Haseger” — Lockdown Eve), Ash was somewhat reserved.

“Not without limitations,” he said. “Limitations will probably stay with us. But I very much hope we’ll be able to celebrate it with our families in a more free manner, certainly when compared to last year.”"

And Joe Biden has gone from "masks for 100 days" to "masks until at least 2022": “You know that wearing this mask through the next year here can save lives — a significant number of lives,”".

Expect more and more of that kind of talk in the coming weeks and months.

PintOfView

Deleted User wrote: »

At reduced capacity possibly. And everyone will have to wear masks. Or else people will have to be in bubbles during gigs. Luke O'Neill was in a bubble on Claire Byrne the other day. They said it could be the future of gigs.

And notice how they've been doubling down (literally) on masks in recent weeks with the talk of double and triple masking.

And this from Prof. Nachman Ash in Israel: "Asked if this year’s Passover holiday, set to start on March 28, will be celebrated without limitations (last year’s “Leil Haseder,” the ritual Passover Eve meal marked by most Israelis in large familial gatherings, was jokingly referred to by many as “Leil Haseger” — Lockdown Eve), Ash was somewhat reserved.

“Not without limitations,” he said. “Limitations will probably stay with us. But I very much hope we’ll be able to celebrate it with our families in a more free manner, certainly when compared to last year.”"

And Joe Biden has gone from "masks for 100 days" to "masks until at least 2022": “You know that wearing this mask through the next year here can save lives — a significant number of lives,”".

Expect more and more of that kind of talk in the coming weeks and months.

And do you think masks are a good idea at the moment, while the virus is circulating a lot?

And why would we keep wearing masks (in shops, etc) if the virus comes under control (through vaccinations, etc)?

PintOfView

PintOfView wrote: »

And do you think masks are a good idea at the moment, while the virus is circulating a lot?

And why would we keep wearing masks (in shops, etc) if the virus comes under control (through vaccinations, etc)?

I'm not saying we should. Professor Edmunds is. Professor Ash is saying that limitations are here to stay. Biden has gone from "masks for 100 days" to "masks until at least 2022". Fauci said the other day there was no guarantee that they'd be able to pull back on public health measures. And Priti Patel said back in May that social distancing was "here to stay".

And the CDC now want Americans to wear masks indoors and outdoors with people they don't live with. Dr. Vernon Coleman said a few months ago that masks at home were next.

PintOfView

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not saying we should. Professor Edmunds is. Professor Ash is saying that limitations are here to stay. Biden has gone from "masks for 100 days" to "masks until at least 2022". Fauci said the other day there was no guarantee that they'd be able to pull back on public health measures. And Priti Patel said back in May that social distancing was "here to stay".

And the CDC now want Americans to wear masks indoors and outdoors with people they don't live with. Dr. Vernon Coleman said a few months ago that masks at home were next.

So are you saying we shouldn't wear masks?

PintOfView

PintOfView wrote: »

So are you saying we shouldn't wear masks?

It doesn't really matter what I think. But what Professor Edmunds, Professor Ash, Priti Patel, Fauci, Biden, the CDC et al are saying matters. They're all either saying, or hinting, that masks, and social distancing in the case of Patel, are permanent.

PintOfView

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn't really matter what I think. But what Professor Edmunds, Professor Ash, Priti Patel, Fauci, Biden, the CDC et al are saying matters. They're all either saying, or hinting, that masks, and social distancing in the case of Patel, are permanent.

Why does it not matter what you think?
Surely we all need to think for ourselves?

Are you saying you have no opinion on whether mask wearing makes sense or not?

PintOfView

PintOfView wrote: »

Why does it not matter what you think?
Surely we all need to think for ourselves?

Are you saying you have no opinion on whether mask wearing makes sense or not?

I mean that my opinion doesn't carry any weight. But the statements and actions of the people and organisations I mentioned do carry weight.

PintOfView

Deleted User wrote: »

I mean that my opinion doesn't carry any weight. But the statements and actions of the people and organisations I mentioned do carry weight.

But of course your opinion carries weight, everyone's opinion carries weight.

The opinions of the people you mention also carries weight, perhaps more weight if they have particular expertise. However it is up to us to judge if it makes sense, and in a democracy if the majority conclude it doesn't make sense then we can do something about it.

So your opinion does matter, it is one of the small building blocks of the opinion of the whole community.

But of course it should be your opinion, based on the facts, not someone else's opinion that you repeat from somewhere else!

So I'd ask you again, do you personally see the sense of wearing masks in certain situations, while the virus is circulating in the community?

runawaybishop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not saying we should. Professor Edmunds is. Professor Ash is saying that limitations are here to stay. Biden has gone from "masks for 100 days" to "masks until at least 2022". Fauci said the other day there was no guarantee that they'd be able to pull back on public health measures. And Priti Patel said back in May that social distancing was "here to stay".

And the CDC now want Americans to wear masks indoors and outdoors with people they don't live with. Dr. Vernon Coleman said a few months ago that masks at home were next.

None of them are making definitive statements, only maybes and probablys based on the current situation
Except patel, but she's a complete wagon.

PintOfView

PintOfView wrote: »

But of course your opinion carries weight, everyone's opinion carries weight.

The opinions of the people you mention also carries weight, perhaps more weight if they have particular expertise. However it is up to us to judge if it makes sense, and in a democracy if the majority conclude it doesn't make sense then we can do something about it.

So your opinion does matter, it is one of the small building blocks of the opinion of the whole community.

But of course it should be your opinion, based on the facts, not someone else's opinion that you repeat from somewhere else!

So I'd ask you again, do you personally see the sense of wearing masks in certain situations, while the virus is circulating in the community?

What I mean is that what I think is irrelevant because I don't make the decisions. Bu the people I mentioned do. That's why their opinion, and what they say, matters. They're all either saying, in the case of Professor Edmunds, or hinting that mask-wearing will be permanent. And Priti Patel said as far back as May that social distancing would be permanent.

I suppose it makes sense, but I think voluntary works better than mandatory. That's my opinion.

runawaybishop

runawaybishop wrote: »

None of them are making definitive statements, only maybes and probablys based on the current situation
Except patel, but she's a complete wagon.

But the fact that they're doubling down on masks with double and triple mask wearing now being pushed, that Israel is almost fully vaccinated and Professor Ash is still talking about limitations sticking around, and that Professor Edmunds would even suggest that they could be permanent, suggests that they are supposed to be permanent and that those who were dismissed as conspiracy theorists were right all along, just as they were about health passports and permanent social distancing.

runawaybishop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But the fact that they're doubling down on masks with double and triple mask wearing now being pushed, that Israel is almost fully vaccinated and Professor Ash is still talking about limitations sticking around, and that Professor Edmunds would even suggest that they could be permanent, suggests that they are supposed to be permanent and that those who were dismissed as conspiracy theorists were right all along, just as they were about health passports and permanent social distancing.

Even superman would be proud of that leap.

Mask wearing may be permanent. See that statement, you are interpreting that as 'Mask wearing will be mandatory forever'. That's not what it says and it can be interpreted a few ways, one of which is 'even after covid is beaten some people may choose to wear a mask'.

Until we have a handle of the various variants and how effective the current vaccines are on them then no-one should be making definitive statements, and from what I see no one sensible is doing that.

There is also a world of difference between medical advice that isn't concerned with practical economics, and what approach a government will take.

runawaybishop

runawaybishop wrote: »

Even superman would be proud of that leap.

Mask wearing may be permanent. See that statement, you are interpreting that as 'Mask wearing will be mandatory forever'. That's not what it says and it can be interpreted a few ways, one of which is 'even after covid is beaten some people may choose to wear a mask'.

Until we have a handle of the various variants and how effective the current vaccines are on them then no-one should be making definitive statements, and from what I see no one sensible is doing that.

There is also a world of difference between medical advice that isn't concerned with practical economics, and what approach a government will take.

But he was careful to say "restrictive measures" would stay in place. Nothing about people choosing to wear them. The measures would remain.

In recent days plenty of people have come out with fairly definitive statements. Varadkar, for example, mentioned the possibility of this lasting for a decade. He said it in a roundabout way by saying that he was determined that this would be a lost few years and not a lost decade. Or, in other words, this could go on for a decade, but I'll try to make sure it doesn't. No guarantees, however. Professor Edmunds statement was fairly definitive. As was Professor Ash's. Why would limitations and restrictions still be needed post-vaccination in Israel?

Dr. Bre

New Zealand are covid free . Back to normal . Are they not in on the conspiracy?

Dr. Bre

Dr. Bre wrote: »

New Zealand are covid free . Back to normal . Are they not in on the conspiracy?

Not really back to normal. Masks are required on public transport in Auckland and on planes nationwide, they have QR code scanning everywhere, no tourism.

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not really back to normal. Masks are required on public transport in Auckland and on planes nationwide, they have QR code scanning everywhere, no tourism.

Are all the measures that NZ had at point during the last 12 months still in place today, or have things changed as the situation changed?

Not really permanent is it if the restrictions change over time as the risk changes.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

Are all the measures that NZ had at point during the last 12 months still in place today, or have things changed as the situation changed?

Not really permanent is it if the restrictions change over time as the risk changes.

I agree, but it's not completely normal there. That's what I mean. But life is definitely a lot more normal in Australia (apart from Victoria) and New Zealand than it is in Western Europe.

But masks and social distancing look set to be permanent, at least in certain countries, based on statements by several people I mentioned in other posts.

PhoneMain

Are people that self centred that they think this major event that is happening for the first time in history has never happened before?!! Pretty much most of the public health measures in place now were in place 100 years ago during the Spanish Flu 100 years ago which killed 50 million people (true, a lot of other factors to account for then!) but life returned to normal fairly quickly then.

The big difference now is that the information distribution network and social supports network is much stronger now, it was fairly hard to get information and social security to people in the hovels of London and Dublin and worldwide then. Believe me, when this pandemic starts to slow down, these measures will be relaxed reasonably quickly - even the public health doctors and our politicians want to get back to normal as soon as possible!! A lot of Govt politicians will lose their seats in the next election based off this pandemic, they dont want it to go on any longer than it needs to!!!

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I agree, but it's not completely normal there. That's what I mean. But life is definitely a lot more normal in Australia (apart from Victoria) and New Zealand than it is in Western Europe.

But masks and social distancing look set to be permanent, at least in certain countries, based on statements by several people I mentioned in other posts.

So what is it about the fact that in New Zealand restrictions are mostly lifted, and only brought back in as they detect individual cases locally, which makes you think that ALL restrictions are permanent?

If there are restrictions required in some places is that due to risks to the health of the population, or is it because of some conspiracy?

PhoneMain

PhoneMain wrote: »

Are people that self centred that they think this major event that is happening for the first time in history has never happened before?!! Pretty much most of the public health measures in place now were in place 100 years ago during the Spanish Flu 100 years ago which killed 50 million people (true, a lot of other factors to account for then!) but life returned to normal fairly quickly then.

The big difference now is that the information distribution network and social supports network is much stronger now, it was fairly hard to get information and social security to people in the hovels of London and Dublin and worldwide then. Believe me, when this pandemic starts to slow down, these measures will be relaxed reasonably quickly - even the public health doctors and our politicians want to get back to normal as soon as possible!! A lot of Govt politicians will lose their seats in the next election based off this pandemic, they dont want it to go on any longer than it needs to!!!

I hope you're right, but why is Professor John Edmunds saying masks and social distancing are permanent? Why did Priti Patel say back in May that social distancing was here to stay? Why did Professor Ash in Israel say the other day that limitations would stay with us? Why has Biden gone from "masks for 100 days" to "masks until at least 2022"? Why is the CDC saying Americans should wear masks at home with people they don't know? Why is the CDC doubling down on masks by recommending double masking? Not a single country in the world, apart from Russia where scientists are confident masks will be got rid of completely in August, has even hinted at masks being got rid of.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

So what is it about the fact that in New Zealand restrictions are mostly lifted, and only brought back in as they detect individual cases locally, which makes you think that ALL restrictions are permanent?

If there are restrictions required in some places is that due to risks to the health of the population, or is it because of some conspiracy?

That there will always be cases. Ergo measures will be constantly brought in for a while, got rid of, brought back in, got rid of, and so on and so forth. But maybe the approach will change with the vaccines. Western Australia had one case and the governor locked down the state. The more salient point is the precedent that has been set with lockdowns. Climate lockdowns have even been floated.

Are you confident that masks and social distancing will be completely abandoned in Ireland? I'm not.

Fighting Tao

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I agree, but it's not completely normal there. That's what I mean. But life is definitely a lot more normal in Australia (apart from Victoria) and New Zealand than it is in Western Europe.

But masks and social distancing look set to be permanent, at least in certain countries, based on statements by several people I mentioned in other posts.

Who is forcing you to stay 2m away from others at the moment? Are the gardaí following you around with a 2 meter stick?

Fighting Tao

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Who is forcing you to stay 2m away from others at the moment? Are the gardaí following you around with a 2 meter stick?

I meant more in terms of gigs, clubs, concerts etc. Permanent social distancing wouldn't really matter walking outside, but it'd mean no more concerts, clubbing etc. Unless we were to go down the bubble road that Claire Byrne and Luke O'Neill were talking about.

Fighting Tao

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I meant more in terms of gigs, clubs, concerts etc. Permanent social distancing wouldn't really matter walking outside, but it'd mean no more concerts, clubbing etc. Unless we were to go down the bubble road that Claire Byrne and Luke O'Neill were talking about.

I assume they were talking about the bubbles due to a concert being held in the US a week or so ago that the fans were in bubbles. They give an option for hosting events with people attending during a pandemic. Why would they be permanent when covid is not such a big risk?

Fighting Tao

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I assume they were talking about the bubbles due to a concert being held in the US a week or so ago that the fans were in bubbles. They give an option for hosting events with people attending during a pandemic. Why would they be permanent when covid is not such a big risk?

I would hope they wouldn't be permanent, but a lot of temporary measures have a habit of sticking around. That's the fear.

Fighting Tao

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would hope they wouldn't be permanent, but a lot of temporary measures have a habit of sticking around. That's the fear.

What temporary measures have stuck around?

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That there will always be cases. Ergo measures will be constantly brought in for a while, got rid of, brought back in, got rid of, and so on and so forth. But maybe the approach will change with the vaccines. Western Australia had one case and the governor locked down the state. The more salient point is the precedent that has been set with lockdowns. Climate lockdowns have even been floated.

Are you confident that masks and social distancing will be completely abandoned in Ireland? I'm not.

Is there a conspiracy around sun screen?

Seems that every six months or so it appears on supermarket shelves in huge numbers and people are forced to buy it and cover their skin in it if going to the beach. But then six months later, nothing. It disappears from the shelves. What's going on with that? Why won't anybody else see that it's all a conspiracy by Ambre Solare to control us?

PhoneMain

Deleted User wrote: »

I hope you're right, but why is Professor John Edmunds saying masks and social distancing are permanent? Why did Priti Patel say back in May that social distancing was here to stay? Why did Professor Ash in Israel say the other day that limitations would stay with us? Why has Biden gone from "masks for 100 days" to "masks until at least 2022"? Why is the CDC saying Americans should wear masks at home with people they don't know? Why is the CDC doubling down on masks by recommending double masking? Not a single country in the world, apart from Russia where scientists are confident masks will be got rid of completely in August, has even hinted at masks being got rid of.

I wouldnt listen to Priti Patel if she told me the sky was blue!

It's reasonable for Biden to say that, the pandemic wont end overnight unfortunately, especially if third world countries are F*cked over for vaccinations and left for years without them. Dont know anything about who the other 2 are but I guarantee that we will be back to normal in 2 to 3 years time. Its human nature.

tjhook

Hi, just stumbled across this thread. I don't think there's a grand plan or conspiracy. However, some of the measures taken have had positive effects outside of COVID suppression. I can foresee groups pushing for their reintroduction post-COVID, especially where the negative effect on individuals is seen as mere inconvenience (as opposed to economic). Whether they'll be enforced or not, I don't know.

A few examples:

Historically every Winter, the hospitals have been jammed because of the Winter Flu. But ordinary flu doesn't seem to have taken hold since COVID. I think we'll see pressure for mask wearing at Winter - either when the flu is particularly bad ("flatten the curve"), or maybe even as a preventative measure every Winter. People in places like Japan have been wearing masks for years. I think it's less likely the "2m rule" will be sought, as it impacts on commerce.

Work from Home. Already we see this being embraced by a number of organisations, including government and environmental groups. Although the environmental groups are also at pains to point out how little difference it made and how much more we have to do. But still, I think it will become far more accepted than it once was. I'll appreciate having the choice to do so anyway.

Temporary transport measures (decreasing space or cars, increasing for cycling/walking). There's not a hope in hell many of these will be rolled back. Whether that's a good or bad thing will depend on your own dogma. I'll say no more for fear of sparking a religious war.

The relatively generous PUP will be seen by some as setting the bar for other social welfare payments. There will be a push for this after COVID on the basis that "if we could afford it then, we can afford it now for the most vulnerable...". Likewise for the ban on evictions etc.

PintOfView

Deleted User wrote: »

What I mean is that what I think is irrelevant because I don't make the decisions. Bu the people I mentioned do. That's why their opinion, and what they say, matters. They're all either saying, in the case of Professor Edmunds, or hinting that mask-wearing will be permanent. And Priti Patel said as far back as May that social distancing would be permanent.

I suppose it makes sense, but I think voluntary works better than mandatory. That's my opinion.

Aren't you putting the cart before the horse a bit by obsessing about what Professor so and so and Priti Patel are saying, surely you first look to see if what they are saying makes sense?
If there was no virus then of course what they are suggesting would be ridiculous.

As there is a virus, and you admit mask wearing seems to make sense (presumably because you see it cuts down transmission) then what is so strange about what they are saying?

We already wear masks when in shops, etc. What's the issue? When it's no longer necessary people won't wear them.

It's a bit like seat belts. 50 years ago there was a big movement, particularly in the US, of people who thought that seat belts were an attack on their civil liberties. Those people didn't look at the reason for seat belts, or didn't believe the reasons, and thought there were other reasons, and that it was a conspiracy!!

That's why it's important to look at the reasons for mask wearing, and see for yourself if wearing one makes sense?
If you think it doesn't make sense say so, and then we can have a real discussion, and present evidence on either side.

As regards double masking! I hadn't heard of it but looking it up it seems that if you put a disposable mask under a cloth mask it significantly reduces emission of particles that can carry virus.

There are a number of reasons people might be suggesting double masking, like
a. they have shares in mask production companies, and will make loads of money
b. 'they' want 'us' to be inconvenienced all the time
c. or it could simply be that they believe that it will reduce transmission and help keep the virus at bay!!

Unless you have a reason to believe a or b, then c is the obvious answer, is it not?