Emergency legislation - information and commentary

[markyb_lcy]

Brave Fart said:

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.

I haven’t checked your numbers but if they’re sound then that really does put things into perspective, especially when you consider anyone with symptoms should/would be isolating and not out in public. If it’s 1 in 3900 that’s estimated infected, I wonder what the number is for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic. Must be close to 1 in 10k.

As you said.... fking crazy.

[Jasandjules]

I have seen masks for sale with zips so you can eat and drink.... Oh sure, that will work....... The madness continues whilst the stupid stand by and beg for fewer freedoms.

[Elysium]

markyb_lcy said:

Brave Fart said:

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.

I haven’t checked your numbers but if they’re sound then that really does put things into perspective, especially when you consider anyone with symptoms should/would be isolating and not out in public. If it’s 1 in 3900 that’s estimated infected, I wonder what the number is for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic. Must be close to 1 in 10k.

As you said.... fking crazy.

It’s from the ONS:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...

[RSTurboPaul]

Elysium said:

markyb_lcy said:

Brave Fart said:

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.

I haven’t checked your numbers but if they’re sound then that really does put things into perspective, especially when you consider anyone with symptoms should/would be isolating and not out in public. If it’s 1 in 3900 that’s estimated infected, I wonder what the number is for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic. Must be close to 1 in 10k.

As you said.... fking crazy.

It’s from the ONS:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...

And, of course, IIRC it is 2.6% chance of catching it if you spend 15 minutes within 1m of someone and 1.3% chance at 2m...

So, if my maths is correct(?), taking 2 seconds to walk at 1m spacing past someone breathing out in a supermarket represents, what...

(1/3900 people) * (0.026 risk * (2 seconds / (15 mins * 60 seconds))

=

(1/3900)*(0.026*(2/(15*60))

=

(0.00025641026) * (0.026*(2/(900))

=

(0.00026) * (0.026*0.00222)

=

(0.00026) * (0.00005772)

=

0.00000001501

or 1.5 in 100million chance of catching it from a random stranger??

(or is it 1.5 in 10million? Or 1 in 15m? Or 1 in 150m? My fractions/decimals are rusty...)

and that takes no account of non-infectious periods in an infected person, or the miniscule risk of dying for those under 70.


Either way, if that's all correct, the risk is effectively zero in day-to-day life and there is fk all reason for mandating masks apart from to appease Karen and the facebook morons.

Edited by RSTurboPaul on Saturday 11th July 00:31

[Elysium]

Except of course that everyone with symptoms is self isolating. So you would need to stumble across someone who is asymptomatic or presymptomatic.

I think you have massively overstated the risk. .

[Gribs]

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.

They appear to think that mandating masks will encourage those who currently feel unsafe to visit shops. I'd guess that some of us who feel it's unnecessary will still comply with the law rather than not shop in person at all so it could result in a net increase in shoppers.

Edited by Gribs on Saturday 11th July 00:37

[Gribs]

Elysium said:

Except of course that everyone with symptoms is self isolating. So you would need to stumble across someone who is asymptomatic or presymptomatic.

I think you have massively overstated the risk. .

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that the majority are asymptomatic. Whether they're actually contagious and pose any significant risk to others is debatable,

[RSTurboPaul]

Gribs said:

Elysium said:

Except of course that everyone with symptoms is self isolating. So you would need to stumble across someone who is asymptomatic or presymptomatic.

I think you have massively overstated the risk. .

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that the majority are asymptomatic. Whether they're actually contagious and pose any significant risk to others is debatable,

Whether they're contagious or not, the risk would appear to be effectively zero if the calculations above are correct.

What are the odds of winning the lottery? 1 in 14 million IIRC? Even assuming the highest calculated risk is correct, 1.5 in 10 million is makes-no-odds the same as winning the lottery.

In which case, the point of masks is, er, what?



I note the BBC were going on about a 'dangerous virus' and a 'high risk' of infection (or words to that effect) tonight, of course, therefore masks must be definitely be made compulsory...

[Jasandjules]

RSTurboPaul said:

I note the BBC were going on about a 'dangerous virus' and a 'high risk' of infection (or words to that effect) tonight, of course, therefore masks must be definitely be made compulsory...

Perhaps they did not read this:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infec...

[Brave Fart]

Gribs said:

They appear to think that mandating masks will encourage those who currently feel unsafe to visit shops. I'd guess that some of us who feel it's unnecessary will still comply with the law rather than not shop in person at all so it could result in a net increase in shoppers.

Edited by Gribs on Saturday 11th July 00:37

You could be right, it's hard to say for sure. However, the logic of imposing scary looking measures when you're trying to promote confidence is bizarre.
But then, the entire strategy is chaotic. "Schools are safe, so are pubs, and now gyms. No mask needed!" "Shops, however, sheesh they are downright dangerous, wear a mask or die!"
Not to mention when the virus was at its most active, no mention of face coverings. Now you have, at most, a 1 in 3900 chance of encountering an infected person, they may pass a law!

I can only conclude that the government is trying everything, logical or not (that's NOT then!) so that when the public enquiry points fingers, the government can say "actually, we tried that, did that, mandated that........."; it's ass covering of the highest order.

[NGee]

Gribs said:

They appear to think that mandating masks will encourage those who currently feel unsafe to visit shops. I'd guess that some of us who feel it's unnecessary will still comply with the law rather than not shop in person at all so it could result in a net increase in shoppers.

Or it could result in a net increase in internet shopping.

Personally, having survived the last six months without dying of the black death and without wearing a muzzle, I'm not going to start now.

[Jasandjules]

NGee said:

Personally, having survived the last six months without dying of the black death and without wearing a muzzle, I'm not going to start now.

Indeed I think most people would consider wearing a mask IF we had not been wandering about for the last few months without one when mortality rates were significantly greater.

[carinaman]

Brave Fart said:

I can only conclude that the government is trying everything, logical or not (that's NOT then!) so that when the public enquiry points fingers, the government can say "actually, we tried that, did that, mandated that........."; it's ass covering of the highest order.

So having indulged Boris with his Churchill and Austin Powers fantasies we've now got to let them play at being Dads Army?

[Chromegrill]

Gribs said:

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that the majority are asymptomatic. Whether they're actually contagious and pose any significant risk to others is debatable,

Exactly. Such as the Chinese lady who returned to China from the USA and immediately went into self isolation in her flat, using the lift to get to her floor where she stayed put.

A neighbour subsequently used the lift and caught COVID-19. Then another, And another. Eventually someone put two and two together and tested the lady and found she was asympomatic but tested positive for the coronavirus.

In total 71 people caught COVID-19 from that one lady using the lift on one occasion. Two ended up in hospital. And they all had the exact same strain that she had brought back from the USA.

Source: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/9/20-1798_art...

I think some people need to take COVID-19 just a little bit more seriously. It might not affect you with symptoms, but if might kill the person you unknowingly go on to infect if you don't take the necessary precautions.

[TVR1]

Jasandjules said:

NGee said:

Personally, having survived the last six months without dying of the black death and without wearing a muzzle, I'm not going to start now.

Indeed I think most people would consider wearing a mask IF we had not been wandering about for the last few months without one when mortality rates were significantly greater.

And here's the latest advice on a non publicly available Govmnt website regarding the use of facemasks when undertaking health and safety assessments for working in enclosed spaces (in this case motor vehicles)

I’ve quoted these bits in particular as the rest relates to PPE etc.


It was updated this week...


6.1 Face coverings
There are some circumstances when wearing a face covering may be marginally beneficial as a precautionary measure. The evidence suggests that wearing a face covering does not protect you, but it may protect others if you are infected but have not developed symptoms. However, workers and visitors who want to wear a face covering should be allowed to do so.

A face covering can be very simple and may be worn in enclosed spaces where social distancing isn’t possible. It just needs to cover your mouth and nose. It is not the same as a face mask, such as the surgical masks or respirators used by health and care workers.

It is important to know that the evidence of the benefit of using a face covering to protect others is weak and the effect is likely to be small, therefore face coverings are not a replacement for the other ways of managing risk......

[unident]

I don’t think anyone has ever said that they are a replacement for other measures. This is all about multiple measures all being applied and combined they are likely to have more of an effect than doing fewer, or none of them. Scientific evidence and medical opinion on all parts of the virus is evolving as they learn more about it. What may once have been a good option may now not be and vice versa.

[RSTurboPaul]

TVR1 said:

Jasandjules said:

NGee said:

Personally, having survived the last six months without dying of the black death and without wearing a muzzle, I'm not going to start now.

Indeed I think most people would consider wearing a mask IF we had not been wandering about for the last few months without one when mortality rates were significantly greater.

And here's the latest advice on a non publicly available Govmnt website regarding the use of facemasks when undertaking health and safety assessments for working in enclosed spaces (in this case motor vehicles)

I’ve quoted these bits in particular as the rest relates to PPE etc.


It was updated this week...


6.1 Face coverings
There are some circumstances when wearing a face covering may be marginally beneficial as a precautionary measure. The evidence suggests that wearing a face covering does not protect you, but it may protect others if you are infected but have not developed symptoms. However, workers and visitors who want to wear a face covering should be allowed to do so.

A face covering can be very simple and may be worn in enclosed spaces where social distancing isn’t possible. It just needs to cover your mouth and nose. It is not the same as a face mask, such as the surgical masks or respirators used by health and care workers.

It is important to know that the evidence of the benefit of using a face covering to protect others is weak and the effect is likely to be small, therefore face coverings are not a replacement for the other ways of managing risk......

That's worth a screenshot (with the link visibie)...

[unident]

RSTurboPaul said:

That's worth a screenshot (with the link visibie)...

It’s important that you continue to refuse to adapt your opinion on everything no matter what the science says.

It’s important that you find anything that backs up your position and rigidly stick to that, no matter how isolated that view may be. Any other view or change is to be ignored.

It’s important that you refuse to accept that we are still learning about a brand new virus and continue to apply rule 1 as above

[RSTurboPaul]

unident said:

RSTurboPaul said:

That's worth a screenshot (with the link visibie)...

It’s important that you continue to refuse to adapt your opinion on everything no matter what the science says.

It’s important that you find anything that backs up your position and rigidly stick to that, no matter how isolated that view may be. Any other view or change is to be ignored.

It’s important that you refuse to accept that we are still learning about a brand new virus and continue to apply rule 1 as above

You appear to be suggesting that 'evidence' (regardless of whether or not it supports your views) should not be captured in case of 'mysterious loss'?


Either way, I do like the way how one group of people is very certainly, definitely, 100% right and can tell a second group of people they are totally, utterly, unbelievably wrong, but the second group cannot return the favour, or if they do, they are subject to attempts to belittle them and their views.

Personally, I like to remain civil and open to reading everything that is posted in order to have a wide view, whether or not I agree with it, but contrarianism and an ad hominem approach seems to be favoured by others.

[markyb_lcy]

RSTurboPaul said:

unident said:

RSTurboPaul said:

That's worth a screenshot (with the link visibie)...

It’s important that you continue to refuse to adapt your opinion on everything no matter what the science says.

It’s important that you find anything that backs up your position and rigidly stick to that, no matter how isolated that view may be. Any other view or change is to be ignored.

It’s important that you refuse to accept that we are still learning about a brand new virus and continue to apply rule 1 as above

You appear to be suggesting that 'evidence' (regardless of whether or not it supports your views) should not be captured in case of 'mysterious loss'?


Either way, I do like the way how one group of people is very certainly, definitely, 100% right and can tell a second group of people they are totally, utterly, unbelievably wrong, but the second group cannot return the favour, or if they do, they are subject to attempts to belittle them and their views.

Personally, I like to remain civil and open to reading everything that is posted in order to have a wide view, whether or not I agree with it, but contrarianism and an ad hominem approach seems to be favoured by others.

The poster you’ve replied to is quite honestly best ignored.