"Covid rising in England" - let's stop the fear mongering

[43301]

Look at it from a logical perspective; if someone is infected and is talking with someone else in the same room and they are wearing some kind of loose face covering then some of the viral particles from the infected person will escape from behind the mask and potentially infect the other person, but some particles will also land on the inside of the face covering and not transfer to the other person. If the infected person is not wearing any face covering then the particles that would have landed on the back of the mask would instead be airborne and potentially go to the other person, hence the other person would potentially receive a bigger viral load in the 'no mask' scenario.

Now look at what actually happens with those particles. Without a mask, larger droplets would mostly just fall to the ground. With one, they hit the inside of the mask and spread out, then get atomised into aerosols by the wearer's breathing - meaning that instead of being part of a larger droplet falling to the ground, they are now floating around in the air for somebody to breathe in...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2022 ==

I'm not convinced that any of the rules and restrictions made any difference.

There have been so many restrictions around the world now, over several years, that if any of the measures worked there would be a clear correlation between them and reduced infection rates. The fact that there is no such correlation is pretty conclusive proof that they don't work.

 

[Dent]

I don't need evidence.

If you wish to participate in a discussion then of course you need to be able to substantiate what you claim. Baseless pronouncements have no place in an intelligent, rational discussion.

 

[Philip]

If you wish to participate in a discussion then of course you need to be able to substantiate what you claim. Baseless pronouncements have no place in an intelligent, rational discussion.

These are all opinions at the end of the day, if you're talking about evidence then I have neither seen any evidence presented which proves that loose-fitting masks were completely ineffective at the time.

 

[duncanp]

I've just tested positive for COVID, for the second time.

It just feels like a mild cold for me, and if I hadn't been going to visit my mother in the nursing home I wouldn't have tested myslef and found out.

I am sure I will be over it in a few days, so I hope this provides some reassurance that the current "wave" of cases is nothing to worry about for the vast majority of people.

 

[43301]

These are all opinions at the end of the day, if you're talking about evidence then I have neither seen any evidence presented which proves that loose-fitting masks were completely ineffective at the time.

That's not how it evidence works! Someone proposing that something is effective needs to demonstrate that, not the other way round. Anyone can claim anything, but in the absence of evidence they will rightly normally be ignored.

Despite the difficulty of proving a negative, it is pretty much possible to do so with masks as the many mask mandates around the world are not associated with reduced infection rates or death rates. Perhaps you could explain how an intervention can be said to be possibly effective when, despite it being imposed on vast numbers of people, there is no measureable benefit at all?

 

[DustyBin]

Nonetheless some of the particles of the aerosol will still land on the mask. I don't need evidence, it's just common sense.

You really do if you’re going to make these kind of assertions, and no it isn’t.

I also believe the fact that their use was so widespread strengthens the case that they at least had some effect; the world isn't full of virtue-signaling, paranoid or medically misinformed people.

They were mandated and people (largely) complied as that’s what people do. It doesn’t strengthen the case for the efficacy of face coverings in any way shape or form.

 

[Dent]

if you're talking about evidence then I have neither seen any evidence presented which proves that loose-fitting masks were completely ineffective at the time.

Once again, the onus is on those making the claim to prove their claim, not for anyone to look for evidence against an unsubstantiated claim. Please see https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof.

 

[MikeWM]

Nonetheless some of the particles of the aerosol will still land on the mask. I don't need evidence, it's just common sense.

The problem here is that you're not thinking through what happens *next*, and youi need to think that through with common sense too.

I actually agree that a clean, new mask will have some effect for the first minute or two you are wearing it. Yes, even a cloth mask you made from an old T-shirt! But what happens then?

The first problem is nebulisation, as @43301 mentions. If that happens, it turns droplets that don't get far, and can usually be dealt with by the protective membranes in the nose of anyone breathing one in, into aerosols, which go further, hang around for longer, and can go straight into the lungs of anyone that encounters it. And one thing we can all agree on with Covid is that you don't want it in the lungs.

But even if we assume nebulisation doesn't happen or doesn't happen much, what happens to the virus that gets caught in the mask? Any droplets will evaporate against the warm skin of the face. The virus particles left behind will then:

- shoot out as aerosols with subsequent breaths/sneezes/coughs, again a worse problem than the initial droplets.
- or be re-breathed in by you - so what was a fairly harmless virus in your nose now gets deep into your lungs, which again is worse for you. There is actually a name for this - the Foegen effect.
- and any virus *still* caught on the mask surface that didn't go either way will be distributed who-knows-where because 99% of people don't practice proper mask hygiene and are continually touching the mask, putting it up/down. stuffing it in their pocket, twirling it around on their wrist.

I also believe the fact that their use was so widespread strengthens the case that they at least had some effect; the world isn't full of virtue-signaling, paranoid or medically misinformed people.

I think the last two years have shown that if the media, government and science establishment all get behind a story, and generate sufficient fear to go with it, most of the people will fall in line, however nonsensical that story is. It makes some of the worst things that have happened in history a lot more understandable. Very sad but it seems to be the case.

 

[DustyBin]

Once again, the onus is on those making the claim to prove their claim, not for anyone to look for evidence against an unsubstantiated claim. Please see https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof.

There are also of course the graphs from numerous countries around the world which clearly show that mask mandates had no discernible effect on infection rates. They’re probably the most compelling “real world” evidence there is.

 

[Enthusiast]

I don't need evidence, it's just common sense. I also believe the fact that their use was so widespread strengthens the case that they at least had some effect; the world isn't full of virtue-signaling, paranoid or medically misinformed people.

Why didn't you say "Don't baffle me with facts!!

The global population had never previously considered the use of widespread face coverings (especially inappropriate loose fitting ones) to counter an airborne virus. The notion that Covid was "new" is perfectly true but equally perfectly meaningless. All viruses are new when they first appear and SARS-Cov-2 was no different. What was different is that the population of many countries (including the UK) now expects their government to protect them from everything. Instead of informing the population that they could not be so protected and if they were concerned they would have to take their own precautions, the government embarked on a series of measures - most of them involving serious curtailments on civil liberties, the likes of which this country has never seen - aimed at fooling the population that they could. Wearing inappropriate, loose fitting face coverings was one of them. Because there was no evidence to show that the measure really worked, they relied upon enough of the population believing this was "common sense". And they have succeeded, as you have demonstrated. Whether the WHO changed its guidance under pressure is unclear, but their earlier guidance - that face coverings in community settings were not beneficial - was perfectly clear. I wasn't aware of any in-depth studies being published that may have caused their change of heart. So what did?


What troubles me most is that despite there being no credible evidence that "amateur" face coverings have any significant affect on the spread of airborne viruses, and there being quite a bit to support that they don't, we still have medical establishments mandating their use by people when on their premises. The people running these places should know better. It is not difficult to discover the ineffectiveness of loose fitting face coverings. The reason they don't bother is that face coverings are a placebo. They are said to "make people feel safe" whilst not actually actually doing so. It is completely irresponsible to mislead people in this way. What's needed is accurate and reliable information so that individuals can make their own decisions about what protective measures - if an - they should take. Misleading them in this way does not help them in that task one bit.

 

[MikeWM]

The global population had never previously considered the use of widespread face coverings (especially inappropriate loose fitting ones) to counter an airborne virus.

...

Misleading them in this way does not help them in that task one bit.

An excellent post I agree with every word of that.

 

[kristiang85]

I always like referring to articles from 2003, such as this one, in the face of SARS (the precursor to COVID-19):

Farce mask: it's safe for only 20 minutes

www.smh.com.au

Farce mask: it's safe for only 20 minutes
Retailers who cash in on community fears about SARS by exaggerating the health benefits of surgical masks could face fines of up to $110,000.
NSW Fair Trading Minister Reba Meagher yesterday warned that distributors and traders could be prosecuted if it was suggested the masks offered unrealistic levels of protection from the disease.
"I'm sure everyone would agree that it is un-Australian to profiteer from people's fears and anxieties," Ms Meagher said.
"There appears to be some debate about whether surgical masks are able to minimise the effects of SARS."
Ms Meagher said her department would investigate any complaints about false mask claims which concerned the public.
"Penalties can range from fines of up to $22,000 for an individual or $110,000 for a corporation," she said.
Health authorities have warned that surgical masks may not be an effective protection against the virus.
"Those masks are only effective so long as they are dry," said Professor Yvonne Cossart of the Department of Infectious Diseases at the University of Sydney.
"As soon as they become saturated with the moisture in your breath they stop doing their job and pass on the droplets."
Professor Cossart said that could take as little as 15 or 20 minutes, after which the mask would need to be changed. But those warnings haven't stopped people snapping up the masks, with retailers reporting they are having trouble keeping up with demand.
John Bell from the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, who owns a pharmacy in Woollahra, Sydney, said mask supplies were running low.
"At the moment we don't have any because we haven't been able to get any in the last few days," MrBell said. "In the early stages it was unbelievable; we'd get people coming in all the time."
Mr Bell agreed with Professor Cossart's assessment regarding the effectiveness of the masks.
"I think they're of marginal benefit," he said. "In a way they give some comfort to people who think they're doing as much as they can do to prevent the infection."
That seems to be the mentality of travellers to Asian destinations, who are buying and wearing the masks while overseas.
Rosemary Taylor, of Kirribilli, arrived in Sydney from Shanghai last week after a two-week holiday in China. Ms Taylor and travelling companion Joan Switzer had worn the masks during the trip home, even though they had been warned they were of little value.
"We were told you need 16 layers on your mask for it to offer 95per cent protection," Ms Taylor said.

Nothing in the science about basic protection from viruses has changed since then. But, in the world of social media and 24hr news, "doing something" is the authorities' main priority, no matter if its valid or not.

 

[GC class B1]

An excellent post I agree with every word of that.

I agree completely. This is a well thought out analysis by someone who clearly understands the situation and has presented the facts clearly. There are many occasions where so called common sense is entirely wrong and the mask situation is clearly one example. I can understand why someone would think masks are effective as they are used when working in dusty environments and without understanding the size of virus particles and the effect of trapping droplets it is reasonable to expect mask to reduce transmission of viruses. What I can’t understand is how some people expect masks to work when they are not covering their nose and mouth and some even seem to think they will be effective when worn under their chin.

 

[Eyersey468]

I'm not convinced that any of the rules and restrictions made any difference. I know people that were super cautious and others that threw caution to the wind. In both camps, some caught Covid, some did not. Some were quite ill for a while but none of them died. It's inevitable that we will all be exposed to it. I accepted that even before the first lockdown, shrugged my shoulders and got on with life.

Neither am I, I am more and more convinced it was all about being seen to do something regardless of how effective the action was.

 

[bramling]

The problem here is that you're not thinking through what happens *next*, and youi need to think that through with common sense too.

I actually agree that a clean, new mask will have some effect for the first minute or two you are wearing it. Yes, even a cloth mask you made from an old T-shirt! But what happens then?

The first problem is nebulisation, as @43301 mentions. If that happens, it turns droplets that don't get far, and can usually be dealt with by the protective membranes in the nose of anyone breathing one in, into aerosols, which go further, hang around for longer, and can go straight into the lungs of anyone that encounters it. And one thing we can all agree on with Covid is that you don't want it in the lungs.

But even if we assume nebulisation doesn't happen or doesn't happen much, what happens to the virus that gets caught in the mask? Any droplets will evaporate against the warm skin of the face. The virus particles left behind will then:

- shoot out as aerosols with subsequent breaths/sneezes/coughs, again a worse problem than the initial droplets.
- or be re-breathed in by you - so what was a fairly harmless virus in your nose now gets deep into your lungs, which again is worse for you. There is actually a name for this - the Foegen effect.
- and any virus *still* caught on the mask surface that didn't go either way will be distributed who-knows-where because 99% of people don't practice proper mask hygiene and are continually touching the mask, putting it up/down. stuffing it in their pocket, twirling it around on their wrist.



I think the last two years have shown that if the media, government and science establishment all get behind a story, and generate sufficient fear to go with it, most of the people will fall in line, however nonsensical that story is. It makes some of the worst things that have happened in history a lot more understandable. Very sad but it seems to be the case.

I continue to think your last point is a very important lesson to take away from all this, firstly just how easy it was to suspend our normal way of life, secondly how remarkably easy it was for this to transition to “business as usual”, and thirdly how readily people fell into line with this, or in some cases embraced it.

Despite having a strong desire to get back to full normal, I still have a nagging feeling that we’re not quite there yet. There continues to be an undercurrent there which suggests we could see a creep back of restrictions. Indeed we seem to have come very close to that last December.

 

[43301]

Despite having a strong desire to get back to full normal, I still have a nagging feeling that we’re not quite there yet. There continues to be an undercurrent there which suggests we could see a creep back of restrictions. Indeed we seem to have come very close to that last December.

Particularly if we end up with a Covidian as Prime Minister.

 

[MikeWM]

Particularly if we end up with a Covidian as Prime Minister.

And yet those questions (lockdowns, masks, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, etc.) doesn't seem to be being asked of any of the candidates, despite being one of the most important things - possibly the most important - to know their views about.

(Yes, I saw Jeremy Hunt was asked about lockdowns, he had an answer that didn't reassure in the slightest, and fortunately he's out now anyway).

 

[DustyBin]

Why didn't you say "Don't baffle me with facts!!

The global population had never previously considered the use of widespread face coverings (especially inappropriate loose fitting ones) to counter an airborne virus. The notion that Covid was "new" is perfectly true but equally perfectly meaningless. All viruses are new when they first appear and SARS-Cov-2 was no different. What was different is that the population of many countries (including the UK) now expects their government to protect them from everything. Instead of informing the population that they could not be so protected and if they were concerned they would have to take their own precautions, the government embarked on a series of measures - most of them involving serious curtailments on civil liberties, the likes of which this country has never seen - aimed at fooling the population that they could. Wearing inappropriate, loose fitting face coverings was one of them. Because there was no evidence to show that the measure really worked, they relied upon enough of the population believing this was "common sense". And they have succeeded, as you have demonstrated. Whether the WHO changed its guidance under pressure is unclear, but their earlier guidance - that face coverings in community settings were not beneficial - was perfectly clear. I wasn't aware of any in-depth studies being published that may have caused their change of heart. So what did?


What troubles me most is that despite there being no credible evidence that "amateur" face coverings have any significant affect on the spread of airborne viruses, and there being quite a bit to support that they don't, we still have medical establishments mandating their use by people when on their premises. The people running these places should know better. It is not difficult to discover the ineffectiveness of loose fitting face coverings. The reason they don't bother is that face coverings are a placebo. They are said to "make people feel safe" whilst not actually actually doing so. It is completely irresponsible to mislead people in this way. What's needed is accurate and reliable information so that individuals can make their own decisions about what protective measures - if an - they should take. Misleading them in this way does not help them in that task one bit.

Just to add to the previous comments, this is an excellent post.

 

[Bikeman78]

Why didn't you say "Don't baffle me with facts!!

The global population had never previously considered the use of widespread face coverings (especially inappropriate loose fitting ones) to counter an airborne virus. The notion that Covid was "new" is perfectly true but equally perfectly meaningless. All viruses are new when they first appear and SARS-Cov-2 was no different. What was different is that the population of many countries (including the UK) now expects their government to protect them from everything. Instead of informing the population that they could not be so protected and if they were concerned they would have to take their own precautions, the government embarked on a series of measures - most of them involving serious curtailments on civil liberties, the likes of which this country has never seen - aimed at fooling the population that they could. Wearing inappropriate, loose fitting face coverings was one of them. Because there was no evidence to show that the measure really worked, they relied upon enough of the population believing this was "common sense". And they have succeeded, as you have demonstrated. Whether the WHO changed its guidance under pressure is unclear, but their earlier guidance - that face coverings in community settings were not beneficial - was perfectly clear. I wasn't aware of any in-depth studies being published that may have caused their change of heart. So what did?


What troubles me most is that despite there being no credible evidence that "amateur" face coverings have any significant affect on the spread of airborne viruses, and there being quite a bit to support that they don't, we still have medical establishments mandating their use by people when on their premises. The people running these places should know better. It is not difficult to discover the ineffectiveness of loose fitting face coverings. The reason they don't bother is that face coverings are a placebo. They are said to "make people feel safe" whilst not actually actually doing so. It is completely irresponsible to mislead people in this way. What's needed is accurate and reliable information so that individuals can make their own decisions about what protective measures - if an - they should take. Misleading them in this way does not help them in that task one bit.

I think it's worth remembering the first three months. Lots of people went out to work and almost everyone had to go shopping for food and other essentials, yet there was barely a mask in sight until they were mandated mid June.

 

[brad465]

Why didn't you say "Don't baffle me with facts!!

The global population had never previously considered the use of widespread face coverings (especially inappropriate loose fitting ones) to counter an airborne virus. The notion that Covid was "new" is perfectly true but equally perfectly meaningless. All viruses are new when they first appear and SARS-Cov-2 was no different. What was different is that the population of many countries (including the UK) now expects their government to protect them from everything. Instead of informing the population that they could not be so protected and if they were concerned they would have to take their own precautions, the government embarked on a series of measures - most of them involving serious curtailments on civil liberties, the likes of which this country has never seen - aimed at fooling the population that they could. Wearing inappropriate, loose fitting face coverings was one of them. Because there was no evidence to show that the measure really worked, they relied upon enough of the population believing this was "common sense". And they have succeeded, as you have demonstrated. Whether the WHO changed its guidance under pressure is unclear, but their earlier guidance - that face coverings in community settings were not beneficial - was perfectly clear. I wasn't aware of any in-depth studies being published that may have caused their change of heart. So what did?


What troubles me most is that despite there being no credible evidence that "amateur" face coverings have any significant affect on the spread of airborne viruses, and there being quite a bit to support that they don't, we still have medical establishments mandating their use by people when on their premises. The people running these places should know better. It is not difficult to discover the ineffectiveness of loose fitting face coverings. The reason they don't bother is that face coverings are a placebo. They are said to "make people feel safe" whilst not actually actually doing so. It is completely irresponsible to mislead people in this way. What's needed is accurate and reliable information so that individuals can make their own decisions about what protective measures - if an - they should take. Misleading them in this way does not help them in that task one bit.

The lack of critical thinking education goes a long way towards this I think. I think this is in part because we have an economy so reliant on consumerism, that a population well educated in this way would resist consumerism so much that this economic model would collapse. There are also certain Governments who wouldn't be elected in a population with critical thinking, so they don't go to the effort of installing education of it more widespread than it is.

Particularly if we end up with a Covidian as Prime Minister.

I doubt that a new PM would be allowed by the rest of the party to implement any covid restrictions, and certainly won't be allowed to go any further than last winter's level of restrictions. Partly because the population as a whole has moved on, but most of the Governing party won't allow it; we saw notable rebellions last winter, I can only see those having increased since then in the event of further restrictions being considered.

Meanwhile another increase in active cases according to the ONS. Still not up to the level of the previous peak in the spring, and I wouldn't be surprised if we start to see this peak soon arrive too:

One in 18 has Covid in the UK

UK infections up nearly 30% week-on-week, latest figures show.

www.bbc.co.uk

Covid infections have continued to climb across the UK, latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show.
Nearly 3.5 million people, or one in 20, has the virus - that's up from 2.7m, or one in 25, the week before.
The rise is being driven by fast-spreading sub-variants of Omicron, called BA.4 and BA.5.
People are still able to catch the infection even if they have had Covid before.

The data is collated by testing thousands of people from UK households - whether they have symptoms or not - to estimate how much virus is around.

In the latest report the ONS estimates Covid rates were:

• One in 19 in England - up from one in 25 the week before
• One in 17 in Wales - up from one in 20
• One in 17 in Northern Ireland - up from one in 19
• One in 16 in Scotland - up from one in 17

Sarah Crofts, Head of Analytical Outputs for the Covid-19 Infection Survey, said: "Infections are showing no signs of decreasing, with rates approaching levels last seen in March this year at the peak of the Omicron BA.2 wave.
"Rates have continued to increase across the UK and among all age groups. We will continue to closely monitor the data."
Hospital admissions of people in England with Covid are also rising, but that increase is showing signs of slowing down.
The rate of admissions stood at 17.9 per 100,000 people in the week ending July 10, according to the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).
This is up from 15.7 per 100,000 the week before, but is the smallest rise for several weeks.
Vaccines are still doing a good job of helping protect people from getting very sick with the virus.
Dr Mary Ramsay, UKHSA director of clinical programmes, said: "We urge all those who are eligible for the spring booster to take up the offer as soon as possible.
"Anyone who has not yet had their first or second dose should also get up-to-date with their jabs to give themselves the best possible protection."

 

[greyman42]

Flu isn't a new virus whereas at the time this virus was new and the immunity within the population was still low hence the need for more precaution.

Even then it had a survivability rate of over 99.9% so there was nothing to get unduly worried about.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2022 ==

Particularly if we end up with a Covidian as Prime Minister.

We won't unless Labour get into power and it seems to me that some people are willing to vote for them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2022 ==

I continue to think your last point is a very important lesson to take away from all this, firstly just how easy it was to suspend our normal way of life, secondly how remarkably easy it was for this to transition to “business as usual”, and thirdly how readily people fell into line with this, or in some cases embraced it.

Some people were bribed, and took the bribe, with the promise of "working" from home.

 

[nw1]

Particularly if we end up with a Covidian as Prime Minister.

... who will want to win the next election.

Remember we have a general election in 2024; whoever wins this Tory leadership contest will not want to bring back harsh restrictions, I suspect, because the general feeling of the public seems to be against them now.

Certainly things like lockdowns, travel restrictions, PLFs and the like will go down like a lead balloon, I suspect.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2022 ==

We won't unless Labour get into power and it seems to me that some people are willing to vote for them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2022 ==

Again, same as with the Tories, Labour want to get into power, and must know now, in 2022, that a harsh restrictionist line will not win them votes.

A sensible politician will focus on the cost of living crisis, rather than Covid.

 

[Cdd89]

Certainly things like lockdowns, travel restrictions, PLFs and the like will go down like a lead balloon, I suspect.

International travel restrictions are the ones I worry about. We had those as recently as January this year.

While news of new vaccines tailored for Omicron are generally positive news (we can protect the vulnerable to a greater degree), I absolutely dread a repeat of “we must protect the vaccine program from dangerous new variants”.

 

[nw1]

Millions of people were manipulated and in some cases terrorised by behavioural scientists, and even now don’t realise it.

So if people at low risk were manipulated into being unduly afraid of Covid, and had mental health problems as a result, will SAGE accept responsibility?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2022 ==

International travel restrictions are the ones I worry about. We had those as recently as January this year.

True, certainly PLFs and mandatory tests.

Travel restrictions are of course irrational, authoritarian nonsense, because the current Omicron variant, whatever it is at the time, will either be everywhere or will get everywhere soon - unless you completely 100% block all travel between countries. On continental landmasses, this will be impossible unless countries start building Trumpesque walls.

Personally, with an international cost of living crisis, and a fragile economy, I believe that any politician who wishes to implement harsh restrictions is playing with fire. People will be spending less money anyway; adding Covid restrictions to the mix could make things pretty desperate for many businesses.

 

[greyman42]

Again, same as with the Tories, Labour want to get into power, and must know now, in 2022, that a harsh restrictionist line will not win them votes.

A sensible politician will focus on the cost of living crisis, rather than Covid.

I agree but Starmer was very pro-restriction, even when we had the vaccines.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2022 ==

International travel restrictions are the ones I worry about. We had those as recently as January this year.

If other countries introduce them there is nothing we can do about it.

 

[nw1]

I agree but Starmer was very pro-restriction, even when we had the vaccines.

I agree that he was, but will he be now? The tide of public opinion has turned, I think, and pro-restriction views are now I suspect in the minority.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2022 ==

If other countries introduce them there is nothing we can do about it.

One would hope that such other countries might value their economies. I would guess that the more pro-restriction countries will be those with healthier economies, who will feel that they can take the hit and not suffer too badly. Indeed in recent months there does seem to have been some correlation between a country's wealth and its level of restrictions.

 

[Andy Pacer]

I've just tested positive for COVID, for the second time.

It just feels like a mild cold for me, and if I hadn't been going to visit my mother in the nursing home I wouldn't have tested myslef and found out.

I am sure I will be over it in a few days, so I hope this provides some reassurance that the current "wave" of cases is nothing to worry about for the vast majority of people.

Similar to my recent situation. Only tested by chance. Symptoms can best have been described as a light cold for 4 or 5 days.
I guess rates will increase when people don't test, and even if positive aren't obliged to isolate.

 

[greyman42]

I agree that he was, but will he be now? The tide of public opinion has turned, I think, and pro-restriction views are now I suspect in the minority.

I think pro-restriction views have always been in the minority but it did not stop him preaching his authoritarian views.
If he has changed his views he needs to explain why. So far he has not indicated that he has.

 

[Dent]

If other countries introduce them there is nothing we can do about it.

Obviously the government can't do anything about outbound restrictions as these depend on the destination, but inbound travel restrictions would affect anyone returning from travel, and anyone depending on international visitors (such as the hospitality industry).

 

[43301]

Starmer was very pro-restriction

Quite. I've often voted for Labour in the past, but no way I could do so if he remains the leader at the next election. He backed every restriction imposed by the government and was regularly demanding more restrictions, tougher restrictions, longer restrictions. The problem is that there are no openly anti-Covidians in the Labour party. Not that there were huge numbers in the Tories either, but there were a few and they were quite vocal when they had the opportunity.