Emergency legislation - information and commentary

[unident]

Elysium said:

I am quite happy with much of the guidance. For example, I think it is entirely appropriate to ask symptomatic people to self isolate, I support the way that we have encouraged people to work from home, I wash my hands carefully, I have bought a thermometer to check my temperature and pulse oximeter to check my blood oxygen levels in the event I become ill. I accept the need to restrict large gatherings and to limit unnecessary travel.

I don't know why you have decided to claim otherwise, but you are quite obviously incorrect.

I am sure the Taliban thought they were doing the right thing. We could have a lengthy philosphical debate about the differences between science and religion and from where I am sitting the desire to find a scientific basis for mask wearing is more about belief than evidence.

Edited by Elysium on Friday 10th July 13:44

You don’t accept the need to restrict travel at all, you are quite vocal in your disagreement of that. You do not accept the need to restrict large gatherings / enforce working form home as you are vehemently opposed to any form of lockdown as evidenced many times on here with your posts on the matter

The stuff you’ve bought just goes to show that you don’t really understand anything medical at all, but believe by having this stuff you are protecting yourself.

Give it a rest with the Taliban, the current government (as much as I dislike them) are not some fundamentalist quasi-religious group enforcing the will of God onto their subjects.

[Graveworm]

gareth_r said:

unident said:

... What next? Objecting to the enforced use of helmets on motorbikes? ...

The helmet law is not "next". It was "first".
It was the first law in our history that protected individuals from their own actions

.
Until 1961 it was illegal to commit suicide - and by extension to attempt to commit suicide. All incarnations of the mental health act have allowed action to protect people from harming themselves. The rationale behind wearing masks is primarily to protect others from the wearer.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 10th July 14:15

[unident]

Elysium said:

Most of the studies I have seen on mask use acknowledge that they might provide a small benefit, if they are made out of the right stuff and used correctly.

From a narrow public health focus, you could conclude that they should be mandated, because in a pandemic small, but consistent gains can add up.

What these studies do not do is consider the downsides. What about people who cannot wear masks for health reasons, what about deaf people who rely on lip reading, what about those who suffer from anxiety, what are the potential impacts on social discourse and the functioning of our society? These are all legitimate questions which should be weighed in the balance against the benefits.

I think there is plenty of evidence to support the recommendation that people should wear face coverings. However, that evidence is nowhere near compelling enough to justify Scotlands decision to make it law.

Whilst it is a recommendation, I will exercise my freedom to ignore it. When it becomes law, I will reluctantly comply in a way that causes me least inconvenience.

At the moment, our country is still sufficiently free to allow me to make that choice.

All of the above is your opinion, not fact or evidence. Finding individuals who may not be able to comply with a new law does not invalidate that law. There will be issues with every single law that this country has and examples of instances where it would be unjust, but that doesn’t mean all laws are flawed. Your approach would have us believe that.

In any event there are exclusions in most of the law around masks for people who would suffer unnecessarily and exempting them from it, but you’re ignoring that as it doesn’t fit with your narrative. As with all measures taken if compliance is around 80% then it can have a very positive impact.

This country is free. Your implication of lack of freedoms just adds to the large pile of conspiracy theorist drivel that you post.

[Elysium]

unident said:

Elysium said:

I am quite happy with much of the guidance. For example, I think it is entirely appropriate to ask symptomatic people to self isolate, I support the way that we have encouraged people to work from home, I wash my hands carefully, I have bought a thermometer to check my temperature and pulse oximeter to check my blood oxygen levels in the event I become ill. I accept the need to restrict large gatherings and to limit unnecessary travel.

I don't know why you have decided to claim otherwise, but you are quite obviously incorrect.

I am sure the Taliban thought they were doing the right thing. We could have a lengthy philosphical debate about the differences between science and religion and from where I am sitting the desire to find a scientific basis for mask wearing is more about belief than evidence.

You don’t accept the need to restrict travel at all, you are quite vocal in your disagreement of that. You do not accept the need to restrict large gatherings / enforce working form home as you are vehemently opposed to any form of lockdown as evidenced many times on here with your posts on the matter

The stuff you’ve bought just goes to show that you don’t really understand anything medical at all, but believe by having this stuff you are protecting yourself.

Give it a rest with the Taliban, the current government (as much as I dislike them) are not some fundamentalist quasi-religious group enforcing the will of God onto their subjects.

You are now trying to argue that you have a better understanding of my beliefs than I do myself. That is obviously ridiculous.

1. I have never said that I am opposed to guidance that asks people to work from home and limit non essential travel.
2. I have never said that I am opposed to guidance that restricts mass gatherings.

The Gov guidance specifically says that an elevated temperature of 37.8 deg C is a potential virus symptom, so I have bought a thermometer to help me comply.

One of the most significant dangers from COVID is silent hypoxia, where patients can develop dangerously low blood oxygen levels, without significant symptoms. Because of this it is very sensible to keep a pulse oximeter at home to check on people who are self isolating as this could provide an early sign that they might require hospital treatment.

And sorry, I am not going to 'give it a rest' in terms of the parallel I drew with the Taliban. If you have no valid counter argument then you do not need to reply.

[Elysium]

unident said:

Elysium said:

Most of the studies I have seen on mask use acknowledge that they might provide a small benefit, if they are made out of the right stuff and used correctly.

From a narrow public health focus, you could conclude that they should be mandated, because in a pandemic small, but consistent gains can add up.

What these studies do not do is consider the downsides. What about people who cannot wear masks for health reasons, what about deaf people who rely on lip reading, what about those who suffer from anxiety, what are the potential impacts on social discourse and the functioning of our society? These are all legitimate questions which should be weighed in the balance against the benefits.

I think there is plenty of evidence to support the recommendation that people should wear face coverings. However, that evidence is nowhere near compelling enough to justify Scotlands decision to make it law.

Whilst it is a recommendation, I will exercise my freedom to ignore it. When it becomes law, I will reluctantly comply in a way that causes me least inconvenience.

At the moment, our country is still sufficiently free to allow me to make that choice.

All of the above is your opinion, not fact or evidence. Finding individuals who may not be able to comply with a new law does not invalidate that law. There will be issues with every single law that this country has and examples of instances where it would be unjust, but that doesn’t mean all laws are flawed. Your approach would have us believe that.

In any event there are exclusions in most of the law around masks for people who would suffer unnecessarily and exempting them from it, but you’re ignoring that as it doesn’t fit with your narrative. As with all measures taken if compliance is around 80% then it can have a very positive impact.

This country is free. Your implication of lack of freedoms just adds to the large pile of conspiracy theorist drivel that you post.

I didn't claim to present any fact or evidence. However, I think you will struggle to find any scientific or medical study which substantially disagrees with my summary of the situation.

I realise that it is possible to exempt certain groups from legislation on masks, but that in itself creates difficulties around discrimination. We are already seeing multiple examples of people using public transport who are exempt from wearing face coverings, but are being harrased or criticised by fellow travellors and over zealous officials.

I never though I would see the day when I would be accused of being a conspiracy theorist because I had misgivings about the possibility of legislation requiring people to cover their faces in public spaces. Did you hold extremist views like that before this crisis?

[unident]

Elysium said:

You are now trying to argue that you have a better understanding of my beliefs than I do myself. That is obviously ridiculous.

1. I have never said that I am opposed to guidance that asks people to work from home and limit non essential travel.
2. I have never said that I am opposed to guidance that restricts mass gatherings.

The Gov guidance specifically says that an elevated temperature of 37.8 deg C is a potential virus symptom, so I have bought a thermometer to help me comply.

One of the most significant dangers from COVID is silent hypoxia, where patients can develop dangerously low blood oxygen levels, without significant symptoms. Because of this it is very sensible to keep a pulse oximeter at home to check on people who are self isolating as this could provide an early sign that they might require hospital treatment.

And sorry, I am not going to 'give it a rest' in terms of the parallel I drew with the Taliban. If you have no valid counter argument then you do not need to reply.

You have branded every action taken by the government as authoritarian. You have disagreed with them every step of the way. You have apparently discussed this with your MP, as you’re so unhappy about it all.

Your approach to the health aspect is bizarre. Instead of co soldering that you can get a test delivered and collected from your door at zero cost which will give a definitive answer you are instead going to rely on your own approach of measuring one symptom to decide whether you have it or not. You’re then going to measure your oxygen levels if you have. Why not go the whole high and have a ventilator delivered?Most people would take a test, of positive follow the guidelines and if necessary call an ambulance if things worsen. You’re not a doctor, you’re not a solicitor, please don’t act as if you are both by trying to explain things to me.

The Taliban is farcical. I’ve explained why several time, but here’s another attempt. Our government is not comprised of a bunch of fundamentalist religious headcases. The punishment for non-compliance is not death. They don’t subjugate our population. They don’t treat women as objects. Enough?

[unident]

Elysium said:

I didn't claim to present any fact or evidence. However, I think you will struggle to find any scientific or medical study which substantially disagrees with my summary of the situation.

I realise that it is possible to exempt certain groups from legislation on masks, but that in itself creates difficulties around discrimination. We are already seeing multiple examples of people using public transport who are exempt from wearing face coverings, but are being harrased or criticised by fellow travellors and over zealous officials.

I never though I would see the day when I would be accused of being a conspiracy theorist because I had misgivings about the possibility of legislation requiring people to cover their faces in public spaces. Did you hold extremist views like that before this crisis?

Your posts are littered with “studies this....” “studies that......” yet you don’t link to them. Occasionally, you post something up from a lone voice or two, but refuse to accept the 10,000s of voices from other experts that all agree with the opposite of your opinions.

Discrimination, what a load of bks. I haven’t seen any reports of these “multiple examples” being harassed / criticised by travellers / officials. Happy to read about them though when you send them to me. I’m sure you won’t have any problem finding 10 individual and separate reports of this to start with.

My views aren’t extremist, my views are pragmatic and show that in the middle of an unprecedented pandemic in modern times, that we will have to change some of the things that we do. It shouldn’t be beyond you to see that. You don’t have misgivings, you simply disagree and post as if you’re an expert in medicine, law and the democratic make up of the country.

I’m expecting you to go into meltdown soon, as the PM has said that we may need to wear masks in public in England too and it is under review.

[Elysium]

unident said:

Elysium said:

You are now trying to argue that you have a better understanding of my beliefs than I do myself. That is obviously ridiculous.

1. I have never said that I am opposed to guidance that asks people to work from home and limit non essential travel.
2. I have never said that I am opposed to guidance that restricts mass gatherings.

The Gov guidance specifically says that an elevated temperature of 37.8 deg C is a potential virus symptom, so I have bought a thermometer to help me comply.

One of the most significant dangers from COVID is silent hypoxia, where patients can develop dangerously low blood oxygen levels, without significant symptoms. Because of this it is very sensible to keep a pulse oximeter at home to check on people who are self isolating as this could provide an early sign that they might require hospital treatment.

And sorry, I am not going to 'give it a rest' in terms of the parallel I drew with the Taliban. If you have no valid counter argument then you do not need to reply.

You have branded every action taken by the government as authoritarian. You have disagreed with them every step of the way. You have apparently discussed this with your MP, as you’re so unhappy about it all.

Your statement is a lie. You know this because I have already corrected you more than once. You are not debating, you are shouting into the void with no interest in anything other than your own opinion.

unident said:

Your approach to the health aspect is bizarre. Instead of co soldering that you can get a test delivered and collected from your door at zero cost which will give a definitive answer you are instead going to rely on your own approach of measuring one symptom to decide whether you have it or not. You’re then going to measure your oxygen levels if you have. Why not go the whole high and have a ventilator delivered?Most people would take a test, of positive follow the guidelines and if necessary call an ambulance if things worsen. You’re not a doctor, you’re not a solicitor, please don’t act as if you are both by trying to explain things to me.

This is idiotic.

Why on earth would you assume that a thermometer is a replacement for a test? The issue with silent hypoxia is that you can't tell when things worsen until it is too late.

unident said:

The Taliban is farcical. I’ve explained why several time, but here’s another attempt. Our government is not comprised of a bunch of fundamentalist religious headcases. The punishment for non-compliance is not death. They don’t subjugate our population. They don’t treat women as objects. Enough?

Not really, because that is completely unrelated to the point I made. What I argued, very clearly, was that the majority of society considered mandatory face coverings to be an act of oppression just a few years ago. The beliefs that drove the Taliban to enforce this are no less robust than the beliefs that are causing this Govt to consider it.

[unident]

It’s just ridiculous trying to engage with you. You refuse to engage on points that I make.

Let’s see what happens next and what basis you decide to disagree with it.

[Elysium]

unident said:

Elysium said:

I didn't claim to present any fact or evidence. However, I think you will struggle to find any scientific or medical study which substantially disagrees with my summary of the situation.

I realise that it is possible to exempt certain groups from legislation on masks, but that in itself creates difficulties around discrimination. We are already seeing multiple examples of people using public transport who are exempt from wearing face coverings, but are being harrased or criticised by fellow travellors and over zealous officials.

I never though I would see the day when I would be accused of being a conspiracy theorist because I had misgivings about the possibility of legislation requiring people to cover their faces in public spaces. Did you hold extremist views like that before this crisis?

Your posts are littered with “studies this....” “studies that......” yet you don’t link to them. Occasionally, you post something up from a lone voice or two, but refuse to accept the 10,000s of voices from other experts that all agree with the opposite of your opinions.

Another lie. In fact several lies in one short sentence

unident said:

Discrimination, what a load of bks. I haven’t seen any reports of these “multiple examples” being harassed / criticised by travellers / officials. Happy to read about them though when you send them to me. I’m sure you won’t have any problem finding 10 individual and separate reports of this to start with.

Why should I bother to do this when you have no interest in rational debate?

unident said:

My views aren’t extremist, my views are pragmatic and show that in the middle of an unprecedented pandemic in modern times, that we will have to change some of the things that we do. It shouldn’t be beyond you to see that.

You are an extremist. You categorised concern about mandatory mask wearing as 'conspiracy theory'. I find it staggering that anyone could be so lacking in awareness. I have not at any stage suggested that we should not change some of the things we do.

unident said:

You don’t have misgivings, you simply disagree and post as if you’re an expert in medicine, law and the democratic make up of the country.

Your belief that you can know someone elses mind better than they do themselves suggests some sort of cognitive disorder. It is one of the most ridiculous lines of argument I have ever seen.

unident said:

I’m expecting you to go into meltdown soon, as the PM has said that we may need to wear masks in public in England too and it is under review.

I know it is under review. That is why I posted about it in the first place.

[Elysium]

unident said:

It’s just ridiculous trying to engage with you. You refuse to engage on points that I make.

Let’s see what happens next and what basis you decide to disagree with it.

I have spent a considerable amount of time addressing the points you have made. But you have decided to ignore what I have written and instead invent your own entirely imaginary version of my position so you can disagree with it.

I have no idea why anyone would do that, but people are surprising sometimes.

[mawallace]

and here comes the UK!!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53365062

No 10 considering mandatory face masks in shops in England

[markyb_lcy]

Elysium said:

unident said:

It’s just ridiculous trying to engage with you. You refuse to engage on points that I make.

Let’s see what happens next and what basis you decide to disagree with it.

I have spent a considerable amount of time addressing the points you have made. But you have decided to ignore what I have written and instead invent your own entirely imaginary version of my position so you can disagree with it.

I have no idea why anyone would do that, but people are surprising sometimes.

Unident has a habit of doing that. This isn’t the first time they’ve been called out on it.

It’s getting tiring tbh. I suggest we just ignore them.

[unident]

markyb_lcy said:

Unident has a habit of doing that. This isn’t the first time they’ve been called out on it.

It’s getting tiring tbh. I suggest we just ignore them.

It’s best that you do. If enough of you gather in a corner, probably about 5 of you by the looks of things and all agree with each other then it will definitely be true.

[Elysium]

markyb_lcy said:

Elysium said:

unident said:

It’s just ridiculous trying to engage with you. You refuse to engage on points that I make.

Let’s see what happens next and what basis you decide to disagree with it.

I have spent a considerable amount of time addressing the points you have made. But you have decided to ignore what I have written and instead invent your own entirely imaginary version of my position so you can disagree with it.

I have no idea why anyone would do that, but people are surprising sometimes.

Unident has a habit of doing that. This isn’t the first time they’ve been called out on it.

It’s getting tiring tbh. I suggest we just ignore them.

I have reached that conclusion.

[Desiderata]

mawallace said:

and here comes the UK!!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53365062

No 10 considering mandatory face masks in shops in England

Oh well, there goes my plan of popping over the border to Carlisle for my shopping.

[Elysium]

mawallace said:

and here comes the UK!!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53365062

No 10 considering mandatory face masks in shops in England

I love the fact that there is a guy behind the PM wearing a face mask around his chin

[NikBartlett]

mawallace said:

and here comes the UK!!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53365062

No 10 considering mandatory face masks in shops in England

The high street is already in a perilous financial state so introducing anything that could potentially result a net reduction in people visiting shops is a very risky strategy.

[markyb_lcy]

NikBartlett said:

mawallace said:

and here comes the UK!!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53365062

No 10 considering mandatory face masks in shops in England

The high street is already in a perilous financial state so introducing anything that could potentially result a net reduction in people visiting shops is a very risky strategy.

If they were going to do this, they should have done it a couple of months (in the case of supermarkets) / weeks ago and been looking at relaxing it round about now.

Frankly I think it's only being suggested and considered because Scotland have done it and Boris doesn't want it to be a stick the SNP beat him with.

I won't be wearing a mask in shops. If that means I won't be visiting shops then fine. I'll only participate in TheGreatEconomicRecovery on my own terms.

[Brave Fart]

The notion that our government might mandate a compulsory form of clothing in order to buy food is staggering.
Not least because it wasn't deemed necessary until now, despite infection levels being much higher than they now are.
And despite the fact that you don't need to wear a covering in a pub (assuming legislation follows the Scottish rules).
At a moment when we have 1 in 3900 or something infected.
It's fking crazy, this government is fking crazy, and I despair at the fools that people like me elected in good faith.