Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 4)

[markyb_lcy]

Tuna said:

markyb_lcy said:

Right now, the levels of infection out and about (because let's have it right, anyone with symptoms should and most likely will be at home) are tiny.

Just picking up on this as it's factually incorrect as I understand it.

This is specifically why the WHO have only relatively recently (June?) changed their guidelines on mask wearing in public. The significant change is that they believe that far more people are asymptomatic than previously believed. That means that people are spreading the disease without knowing it and are not "more likely to be at home".

Don't worry Stewie, I'm not defending Boris, just pointing something out that might be important.

Do you have a link to their evidence / report?

[Tuna]

I'm drowning in sanctimony. Not sure a mask will help at this point.

[chrispmartha]

So reading some of the comments on here a right wing conservative government implements wearing face masks yet its a leftists marxist plot facilitated by the media?

[Tuna]

markyb_lcy said:

Do you have a link to their evidence / report?

From the BBC Website (which is constantly changing it's news reports - very frustrating)

BBC said:

The World Health Organization says masks and homemade cloth face coverings should be worn in public where social distancing is not possible to reduce the spread of coronavirus droplets.

It changed its advice last month, having previously argued there was not enough scientific evidence to say that healthy people should use them.

And a quick Google shows up the WHO website: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-cor...

[dai1983]

mx5nut said:

But where does it stop? One day they're asking us to wear a mask and then they'll be....

Nobody seems to be able to complete this sentence. But they're sure that Boris Johnson is now part of some leftist marxist globalist plot to... make them wear masks for unknown reasons.

Sharia law and burkinis for everyone

[markyb_lcy]

Tuna said:

markyb_lcy said:

Do you have a link to their evidence / report?

From the BBC Website (which is constantly changing it's news reports - very frustrating)

BBC said:

The World Health Organization says masks and homemade cloth face coverings should be worn in public where social distancing is not possible to reduce the spread of coronavirus droplets.

It changed its advice last month, having previously argued there was not enough scientific evidence to say that healthy people should use them.

And a quick Google shows up the WHO website: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-cor...

Yea, so as I suspected ... the change is stance by WHO is not backed up by a change in evidence.

We must understand that WHO are essentially a diplomatic organisation and their advice is likely to be in line with the govts they are working with. That's not me having a go about WHO as such, but one must understand their place.

Regarding non-surgical face coverings, we keep being told "all the evidence is moving in the direction of" and suchlike, however no evidence is actually held up.

Even my friend this morning on a whatsapp group, when I asked the groups thoughts and feelings on the mandating of masks said "I am sure there is evidence that supports...."

[IforB]

Tuna said:

I'm drowning in sanctimony. Not sure a mask will help at this point.

I can lend you the snorkel I use when the Boris fanboi-ism gets too deep if that would help?

[Tuna]

For anyone wanting to keep track of the changes in Government policy for mask wearing, here's a handy breakdown:

• March, official line we were told was that “the science” said masks don’t work, numerous newspaper articles explained that they were counter-productive and gave a false sense of security
• 3 April, Medical Officer Jonathan Van-Tam at the Downing Street lectern said: “There is no evidence that general wearing of the face masks by the public who are well affects the spread of the disease.”
• 23 April, Health Committee Chairman Jeremy Hunt admitted protecting NHS supplies might be the reason for the hesitancy
• 11 May, Government guidance changed to advise the public to wear face coverings in enclosed public spaces
• 15 June, the use of face coverings became mandatory on public transport in England
• 12 July, Michael Gove tells Marr masks should not be mandatory
• 13July, Robert Buckland says mask-wearing “isn’t just an act of courtesy… consumer confidence”
• 14 July, today Hancock will tell Commons that masks will be mandatory in shops with enforcement by the police
• 24 July, masks mandatory in shops

Note that the change here is making them mandatory, rather than the advice to wear them which was roughly in line with changes in WHO guidance. Are we to assume that uptake has not been sufficient? Too many libertarians??

[Tuna]

markyb_lcy said:

Yea, so as I suspected ... the change is stance by WHO is not backed up by a change in evidence.

Seriously? Have you read the notes in their guidance document? They run to a few pages of scientific literature references.

The change in evidence is the specific observation that asymptomatic patients are more common than first believed. Initial guidance was based on the belief that the majority of people who were infected showed symptoms (remember the lists?).

Edited to add - sometimes I really think people here will argue just because they think someone is on the "other team".

[markyb_lcy]

Tuna said:

For anyone wanting to keep track of the changes in Government policy for mask wearing, here's a handy breakdown:

• March, official line we were told was that “the science” said masks don’t work, numerous newspaper articles explained that they were counter-productive and gave a false sense of security
• 3 April, Medical Officer Jonathan Van-Tam at the Downing Street lectern said: “There is no evidence that general wearing of the face masks by the public who are well affects the spread of the disease.”
• 23 April, Health Committee Chairman Jeremy Hunt admitted protecting NHS supplies might be the reason for the hesitancy
• 11 May, Government guidance changed to advise the public to wear face coverings in enclosed public spaces
• 15 June, the use of face coverings became mandatory on public transport in England
• 12 July, Michael Gove tells Marr masks should not be mandatory
• 13July, Robert Buckland says mask-wearing “isn’t just an act of courtesy… consumer confidence”
• 14 July, today Hancock will tell Commons that masks will be mandatory in shops with enforcement by the police
• 24 July, masks mandatory in shops

Note that the change here is making them mandatory, rather than the advice to wear them which was roughly in line with changes in WHO guidance. Are we to assume that uptake has not been sufficient? Too many libertarians??

Or too many realists that understand probability of infection and are able to weigh that up against a quite personally intrusive measure?

In the first few weeks of this crisis there was tons of people walking around Lewisham and Bromley wearing them, at a time when they were not mandatory and apparently when there was no evidence of their effectiveness.

I would say these people had it right (wearing them when the levels of infection were high / unknown and deciding not to wear them when infection levels are knowingly low).

Thanks for that timeline summary btw.

[Tuna]

IforB said:

I can lend you the snorkel I use when the Boris fanboi-ism gets too deep if that would help?

I'm struggling to see the fanbois for Stovey, Heli, Piha, mx5nut, markyb, you and bitstewie talking amongst yourselves.

[markyb_lcy]

Tuna said:

markyb_lcy said:

Yea, so as I suspected ... the change is stance by WHO is not backed up by a change in evidence.

Seriously? Have you read the notes in their guidance document? They run to a few pages of scientific literature references.

The change in evidence is the specific observation that asymptomatic patients are more common than first believed. Initial guidance was based on the belief that the majority of people who were infected showed symptoms (remember the lists?).

Edited to add - sometimes I really think people here will argue just because they think someone is on the "other team".

Your link was a dead link btw but removing the trailing dot does reveal what you intended.

I'm not arguing because of which team you're on (despite you being at pains to tell us over and over you're not on a team ). I'm arguing because I feel the introduction of mandatory masks at this point in the epidemic is disproportionate.

[Unknown_User]

Tuna said:

For anyone wanting to keep track of the changes in Government policy for mask wearing, here's a handy breakdown:

• March, official line we were told was that “the science” said masks don’t work, numerous newspaper articles explained that they were counter-productive and gave a false sense of security
• 3 April, Medical Officer Jonathan Van-Tam at the Downing Street lectern said: “There is no evidence that general wearing of the face masks by the public who are well affects the spread of the disease.”
• 23 April, Health Committee Chairman Jeremy Hunt admitted protecting NHS supplies might be the reason for the hesitancy
• 11 May, Government guidance changed to advise the public to wear face coverings in enclosed public spaces
• 15 June, the use of face coverings became mandatory on public transport in England
• 12 July, Michael Gove tells Marr masks should not be mandatory
• 13July, Robert Buckland says mask-wearing “isn’t just an act of courtesy… consumer confidence”
• 14 July, today Hancock will tell Commons that masks will be mandatory in shops with enforcement by the police
• 24 July, masks mandatory in shops

Note that the change here is making them mandatory, rather than the advice to wear them which was roughly in line with changes in WHO guidance. Are we to assume that uptake has not been sufficient? Too many libertarians??

I believe you have omitted the discussion that revolved around wearing a mask prevents a person from touching their face, thus limiting the spread of the virus.

From 15th March - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-51879695/coronavi...

[Red 4]

So, these "masks" then. Can I still stick an old tea towel or a pair of old undies around my face and be legal ?

How about going full retard and sporting a proper "Invisible Man" look ?
At the start of all this I saw a bloke in Tesco with a fully bandaged up head (I kid you not) and I quite liked the look. It shows a level of commitment that I have not seen since.

Will any old rag do ? Or will shop staff judge my mask and throw me out on my ear ?

[mx5nut]

bhstewie said:

It is one of the rather strange ironies of this.

Brave Boris who fought for our freedom from the tyranny of our elite EU overlords has now decided he's actually a secret communist and he wants to steal our personal freedoms one by one and the place to start is with face masks.

You literally couldn't make it up (but they have)

It's odd. They've gone from "Boris will always do what's right for this country, no matter what it takes" to "Oh, Boris? He'll just do whatever sounds popular online" almost overnight.

[Tuna]

markyb_lcy said:

Your link was a dead link btw but removing the trailing dot does reveal what you intended.

I'm not arguing because of which team you're on (despite you being at pains to tell us over and over you're not on a team ).

A number of posters on here go to great lengths to tell me what I believe - forgive me for not actually agreeing with them.

markyb_lcy said:

I'm arguing because I feel the introduction of mandatory masks at this point in the epidemic is disproportionate.

I'm not sure. There's a danger people start thinking that with the return to 'more normal' life, we've "beaten" covid, and stop all measures. The reality is that the disease is now spread through the general population and will continue to cause outbreaks until (or unless) we find a vaccine. Some studies are suggesting that immunity is not very long lived, so we could expect another bad "flu season" this coming winter.

Given the above - if we don't actually manage to change people's behaviour (some level of ongoing social distancing / hygiene awareness / mask wearing ) we could well see a second spike.

Having chastised the government for not doing enough to prevent deaths, it comes as a surprise to me to see people now objecting to attempts to prevent death. Covid hasn't gone away in the slightest.

[Tuna]

Unknown_User said:

I believe you have omitted the discussion that revolved around wearing a mask prevents a person from touching their face, thus limiting the spread of the virus.

From 15th March - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-51879695/coronavi...

I didn't think that reached the stage of public policy though? Write your own timeline if you want.

[markyb_lcy]

Tuna said:

markyb_lcy said:

Your link was a dead link btw but removing the trailing dot does reveal what you intended.

I'm not arguing because of which team you're on (despite you being at pains to tell us over and over you're not on a team ).

A number of posters on here go to great lengths to tell me what I believe - forgive me for not actually agreeing with them.

markyb_lcy said:

I'm arguing because I feel the introduction of mandatory masks at this point in the epidemic is disproportionate.

I'm not sure. There's a danger people start thinking that with the return to 'more normal' life, we've "beaten" covid, and stop all measures. The reality is that the disease is now spread through the general population and will continue to cause outbreaks until (or unless) we find a vaccine. Some studies are suggesting that immunity is not very long lived, so we could expect another bad "flu season" this coming winter.

Given the above - if we don't actually manage to change people's behaviour (some level of ongoing social distancing / hygiene awareness / mask wearing ) we could well see a second spike.

Having chastised the government for not doing enough to prevent deaths, it comes as a surprise to me to see people now objecting to attempts to prevent death. Covid hasn't gone away in the slightest.

Fair enough. I'm not convinced a significant 2nd spike will come, though I concede there will be localised outbreaks.

With regard to the bit I've bolded, I hope you're not including me in that; although I've attempted to batter the govt on many a point, I've not once said they could/should have prevented more deaths, though I have said and do feel they could and should have done more to prevent deaths specifically in care homes.

[Slagathore]

Tuna said:

IforB said:

I can lend you the snorkel I use when the Boris fanboi-ism gets too deep if that would help?

I'm struggling to see the fanbois for Stovey, Heli, Piha, mx5nut, markyb, you and bitstewie talking amongst yourselves.

Pages 194-197 was pretty much them circle-jerking and taking comments by other people in the other threads, who rarely post in this thread, and using that to make their argument. Strange, but not unsurprising given who was involved.

[jakesmith]

Helicopter123 said:

jakesmith said:

Were there sufficient masks available in March / April / May for the entire population to buy them and go about their business wearing them?
I seem to remember a shortage, which was also Boris' fault at the time what with him heading up NHS, retail and wholesale procurement, as well as manufacture, forecasting, supply chain etc.
Maybe I imagined it.

The shortage was in medical grade face masks, not the one's being recommended for use today.

As someone who did a lot of DIY during the lockdown to pass the time, it was almost impossible to buy UK stock of any type of mask or respirator, including dust masks from DIY stores.

It seems yet again you are so comfortable making statements that easily identify you as a habitual liar who makes things up as you go along in an desperate attempt to annoy people on the internet.
It must be such a wretched existence for you.