Covid restrictions to end on 19th July

[bramling]

Strange then that they were made mandatory by one of the more right wing governments we've had. Sounds like you've got a political axe to grind.

Not really, despite being a natural Conservative voter you will see from my posting history how much I dislike this present government, Boris Johnson in particular.

This doesn’t change the fact that some of the pro-mask sentiment is quite clearly politicised, in the same way as “herd immunity” became weaponised.

 

[ChrisC]

I know a few people who have ditched masks because of infections around their mouths, this is from people who change the mask regularly or wash it.

That’s interesting because these last few weeks, since I’ve gone back to days out using public transport, I’ve been getting very painful cold sore type spots on my lower lip. I had begun to wonder if it was connected to wearing a face mask for a few hours. I also wash my face masks regularly.

 

[yorkie]

As for masks, it’s quite clear they were originally envisaged as part of the bungled “back to work” drive seen at times last summer. That’s when the science magically changed.

Indeed, the timing was no coincidence.

Strange then that they were made mandatory by one of the more right wing governments we've had. Sounds like you've got a political axe to grind.

It's more of an authoritarian vs libertarian axis than left vs right (also left vs right can be seen in the context of financial policies, social policies and more; it's not as simplistic as people think).

The people yelling the loudest for mandatory masks tend to be hard left authoritarians, who are very unhappy that the Government is ending the mandate, that the Government didn't introduce it earlier, that it doesn't apply outdoors, that it doesn't mandate 3 layers, and that exemption certificates do not have to be produced. They're huffing and puffing and getting very angry on Twitter over this.

So don't be fooled; the hardliners who demand masks are not happy bunnies right now

 

[43066]

I asked you specifically for evidence that masks make any difference whatsoever. You replied with:

Sure. There is laboratory evidence that masks work. But it's darned difficult to devise the sort of gold standard test which sceptics such as yourself demand to prove it conclusively in real world conditions.

Well ok. But how does that square with you then saying:

It's certainly not laboratory evidence, nor did I or the article claim it to be. The article gives links to laboratory tests and also some real world examples, which it says are harder to come by, which has been my point all along.

So my point all along has been to ask why you think mandatory masks are in any way appropriate when (I believe it’s common ground) that there’s no proper evidence they really work whatsoever?!

 

[yorksrob]

Maybe its the washing powder ?

 

[quantinghome]

It's more of an authoritarian vs libertarian axis than left vs right (also left vs right can be seen in the context of financial policies, social policies and more; it's not as simplistic as people think).

You beat me to it - was just about to post something similar to clarify.

 

[DelayRepay]

Monday won't be a Bank Holiday, despite the various mutterings - you can't realistically suddenly declare a bank holiday at 10pm the night before.

You say that, but are you forgetting that this government has previously announced international travel restrictions using a Minister's Twitter account a few hours before the new rules took effect?

So do not rule anything out!

 

[initiation]

As long as the legal obligation to wear them is removed we will see usage drop rapidly. Far below how many say they will wear them in the surveys.

If mask usage in shops is not sub-50% by the Friday I will eat my metaphorical hat.

Loads preach people should wear one but when push comes to shove, they don't. You see in people from that Dr on Good Morning to the PM.

 

[quantinghome]

I asked you specifically for evidence that masks make any difference whatsoever. You replied with:



Well ok. But how does that square with you then saying:



So my point all along has been to ask why you think mandatory masks are in any way appropriate when (I believe it’s common ground) that there’s no proper evidence they really work whatsoever?!

Quoting responses out of context is tight!

 

[yorkie]

Quoting responses out of context is tight!

I don't see anything being quoted out of context here.

If people wish to see the full context, there is an icon which does this which depicts an arrow in a circle.

At the end of the day, you have the right to not answer the question. But I can see why, if you don't answer it, it looks like you are simply contradicting yourself (and yes that's with clicking on those icons to see the full context)

We would encourage only the relevant part of text to be quoted, not an entire post or quotes containing quotes; that's what that icon is for.

 

[Freightmaster]

Quoting responses out of context is tight!

And I suppose you are convinced that wearing masks is 'super easy; barely an inconvenience'?


(apologies to anyone who doesn't get the reference!)




MARK

 

[trebor79]

Did anyone hear Grant Shapps on Today suggesting TOCs might make masks a condition of carriage after 19th?
I really hope they don't go down this route. But if they did, what could they actually do if you refused? And presumably there would still be exemptions.

 

[Bikeman78]

As for masks, it’s quite clear they were originally envisaged as part of the bungled “back to work” drive seen at times last summer. That’s when the science magically changed. It was simply a way of getting people back on commuter trains, then of course once the cult following developed (centred around concepts like “respect” and “doing my bit” rather than any practical benefit) it spread to shops.

I remember that the main reason Drakeford came up with for masks in Wales was to fall in line with England and avoid confusion! They weren't required in shops in Wales until September, six months after this all started and long after most things had opened up again.

 

[NorthKent1989]

That’s interesting because these last few weeks, since I’ve gone back to days out using public transport, I’ve been getting very painful cold sore type spots on my lower lip. I had begun to wonder if it was connected to wearing a face mask for a few hours. I also wash my face masks regularly.

It’s a possibility, my friend had the same sort of cold sore spots.

If you can, lay off it for a few days unless you really have to wear them, I’m not sure of your situation though or whether you can get away with not wearing them.

People who support the mandating of face coverings tend to also support other restrictions, in my experience.

Masks were the door way to authoritarianism or “soft” authoritarianism, give way to one small thing and it becomes an avalanche and I knew mandatory masks would lead to what we have now.

I agree and I really hope you've got yours!

To be honest still debating it, I see their value like with all vaccines, i feel that the blackmailing will end soon, domestic Covid passes have died a death and I can’t see them resurfacing so maybe once this has calmed down, which it will I’m certain of that, I’ll most definitely reassess

Agreed in entirety. The first lockdown should have been billed as an emergency measure. Instead it became “business as usual”, and we’ve been playing catch-up ever since.

My personal view is Boris has twice allowed a “sweet spot” to materialise, where for certain elements of the population they were able to enjoy benefits from lockdown measures (ie more free leisure time), whilst being completely insulated from the costs.

We should have had a strict lockdown for a few weeks to buy time to get the mitigation measures in place, and then resume as close to normal life as possible subject to the mitigation.

What we’ve had has been a costly farce.

Cannot disagree with any of this, nobody denies lockdown 1 was needed, but subsequent restrictions have always been off the back of media pressure or Labour’s latest policy of saying “that’s great Boris, but we would have done this two weeks ago”

As for it being a costly mess, our future grandchildren will be paying for this mess, we’ve left ourselves in a worse position than we were in the 2008-2010 financial crisis, if anything the lockdowns of 2020-2021 basically finished off the job the last recession started, of course we won’t know the full effects until 2022/2023.

Last September they still had test and trace, face masks, social distancing, gatherings restricted to 30 with guidance it should be no more than six and nightclubs were closed. These measures were still quite significant.

Exactly, last September was also the era of the 10pm curfew, yet locktavists make out like society opened up back to 2019 levels instantly, that was July/August but even then it was still social distancing, eating outdoors in some restaurants, limits on how many people can be in a pub.

As for politics, Covid isn’t like Brexit in which that was a left-right debate (or at least the media drove it that way as the silenced the Leftist Brexit campaign), this is very much a Libertarian vs Authoritarian issue like @yorkie says.

You’re getting left wingers like Piers Corbyn on the same side as many right wingers, Labour itself a self professed left wing party has backed the Conservative right wingers to the hilt when it comes to mentally and financially harmful restrictions and showing very little opposition.

I would even go as far as to say this is more of a authoritarian left vs libertarian left position, this has divided the left in more ways than one.

 

[778]

Did anyone hear Grant Shapps on Today suggesting TOCs might make masks a condition of carriage after 19th?
I really hope they don't go down this route. But if they did, what could they actually do if you refused? And presumably there would still be exemptions.

If they did become a condition of carriage would it be open ended, or would it have an expiry date? Also do you think heritage railways will enforce masks after 19th July?

 

[Reliablebeam]

I'm trying not to be grumpy here but there are a number of articles that will affect our 'freedom' going forwards sealed behind the The Times paywall...... This is not good for democracy going forwards...

 

[duncanp]

I see the Daily Mail is running a story this morning saying that COVID passports WILL be required to get into the pub from the autumn.

But if you read the article is says that

A Downing Street source said: 'In autumn vaccine passports could become an important tool that will allow us to keep things open.'

This is no more than blatant blackmail to try and get those people who haven't yet had a first dose of the vaccine to get a jab.

Once enough people have been vaccinated, a COVID passport becomes pointless, and as they are available in PDF format, and PDF editors are widely available, it will be possible for people to forge the necessary documentation.

And I think that pubs and restaurants will ignore the rule, just like they seem to be far less interested now in whether you have completed the silly track & trace form or washed your hands. Even mask wearing in pubs is dropping, as staff realise trying to enforce it is like herding cats.

Covid passports 'WILL be compulsory in pubs, clubs and restaurants'

Experts hope the move will boost the stalling vaccination rates among young people and stave off another surge in cases.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Covid passports 'WILL be compulsory in pubs': Ministers 'plan to force bars, clubs and restaurants to demand proof of two jabs or negative test from autumn' to help tackle fourth wave of the virus

• The government hopes Covid passports will encourage vaccine-shy young people to get jabbed
• 
  
• By September, all adults over 18 should have been offered both vaccine doses, allowing for the passports
• 
  
• Patrons will need to show proof of either two vaccine doses or a recent negative test under the proposals

Britons will need Covid certificates to enter pubs, bars, restaurants and clubs under plans to stop a fourth wave of the virus in the autumn.

Experts hope the move will boost the stalling vaccination rates among young people and stave off another surge in cases.

The proposals would see entertainment venues in England demanding vaccination passports as proof of either two doses or a recent negative test.

The Government's certification review release earlier in the week said although the so-called vaccine passports would not be mandated now, it did not rule out the prospect if England faces 'a difficult situation in autumn or winter'.

It comes amid a reduction in the vaccine take-up, with first doses halving in two weeks as numbers drop below 100,000 a day for the first time since April.

The government had decided not to enforce Covid passports now because it would discriminate against younger people who have not been able to receive their second vaccination yet, The Times reported.

There are also fears it could damage the economy with people being turned away from the struggling hospitality industry.

But ministers believe that all over 18s will have been offered both doses by September and therefore vaccine passports can be enforced in venues where social distancing is not possible.

A Downing Street source said: 'In autumn vaccine passports could become an important tool that will allow us to keep things open.'

Another added: 'If we can show real benefits of getting vaccinated in terms of everyday life then it could be quite a useful tool.'

It is hoped it will spur the vaccine-shy young to get jabbed so they do not miss out on going to pubs and clubs.

So far, more than 95 per cent of over-50s have been vaccinated compared to 76 per cent of people aged 30-34, and the rate is plateauing.

Helen Stokes-Lampard, head of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, said that making double vaccinated people exempt from quarantine could also be a 'very helpful incentive'.

But she added that it was 'unhelpful and potentially dangerous' to consider July 19 as Freedom Day while cases are still rising.

She recommended continuing to wear masks once the government ends their mandated use.

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said he would still wear a mask when travelling 'where it is appropriate to do so'.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I see the Daily Mail is running a story this morning saying that COVID passports WILL be required to get into the pub from the autumn.

But if you read the article is says that

A Downing Street source said: 'In autumn vaccine passports could become an important tool that will allow us to keep things open.'

This is no more than blatant blackmail to try and get those people who haven't yet had a first dose of the vaccine to get a jab.

Once enough people have been vaccinated, a COVID passport becomes pointless, and as they are available in PDF format, and PDF editors are widely available, it will be possible for people to forge the necessary documentation.

And I think that pubs and restaurants will ignore the rule, just like they seem to be far less interested now in whether you have completed the silly track & trace form or washed your hands. Even mask wearing in pubs is dropping, as staff realise trying to enforce it is like herding cats.

Covid passports 'WILL be compulsory in pubs, clubs and restaurants'

Experts hope the move will boost the stalling vaccination rates among young people and stave off another surge in cases.

www.dailymail.co.uk

There’s a pattern with Covid passports for domestic uses, they always seem to crop up just when restrictions are to be lifted.

Each time it’s mentioned the pushback happens, domestic passports are completely irrational and actually does more to put people off the vaccine as they feel coerced.

Of course there are a few authoritarians who want to feel important that will want them but such measures breaks so many laws.

Even Israel, the country who first introduced such measures, have more or less dropped them because

A: It messed with the economy

B: Restaurant owners never checked

Anyone who advocates for a two tier society needs to really take a good, long, hard look at themselves

 

[island]

I'm trying not to be grumpy here but there are a number of articles that will affect our 'freedom' going forwards sealed behind the The Times paywall...... This is not good for democracy going forwards...

I am not sure that the need to pay a few quid for quality journalism can be considered “bad for democracy” or indeed how a news article can “affect our ‘freedom’”.

However I have a subscription to the Times allowing me to provide ”unlocked” links to articles so feel free to send me a conversation with the articles you are referring to and I will send back readable links. You may need to register for a free account to read them all, but you should not have to pay.

 

[Yew]

There is a lack of hard evidence, for obvious reasons - the ethics of undertaking a high quality randomised control trial of mask-wearing and non-mask wearing groups during a major pandemic.

Said ethics are significantly more palatable than enforcing something that most existing randomised control trials say has no effect, or perhaps even a negative effect.

 

[35B]

Cyclists have been wearing masks on the road for far longer thna covid has been a thing. The high propensity for wearing masks amongst the general public of late, may just mean that more masks (and a higher variety of masks) are available, thus more cyclist have taken up the practice.

It is likely to be as much about exhaust fumes as Covid. Certainly if I was riding daily in London or another urban area I would be wearing something across my face.
Consider, in such an urban enviroment
a) any potential head injury is under my control, if I am rolling a long at a relatively low speed I have 100% confidence in my bike handling ability on well surfaced cycle paths.
b) the biggest threat to me is careless and dangerous driving by the people authorised to use potentially lethal weapons as a means of transport. In this scenaro a helmet would provide protection to a very small portion of my total body. It would provide no protection to my body being crushed under the wheels of the vehicle, my spine being broken by the impact or numerous other potential causes of death or serious injury. What the helmet may do is mean I have to keep living with those dibilitating injuries caused by someone else.
c) the second biggest threat to my quality of life is breathing in the exhaust fumes of vehicles on my journey. It could leave me with long term health issues which I would have to continue living with for the rest of my life. Yet unlike the incidents a helmet could protect me from, I have no control over it, and zero escape from it. A mask in seems an incredibly sensible thing to wear in my opinion.

Add in covid and the high availability of masks, combined with a wider social acceptance of doing so and it becames an obvious step to take.

PS I used to wear a helmet every single time I rode a bicycle. I still have a helmet and wear it when ever I do serious riding, I have bought for and successfully encouraged my partner to wear one when we are out. But I have also come to the conclussion that when riding on my cities wide array of well maintained segregated cycle paths, to go to the beach or do the shopping, wearing the helmet is unessesary.

On this specific point, my wife walked away from being sent over the bonnet of a car because she was wearing a helmet. They’re valuable in all circumstances.

If you look into this rumour a little further, it appears that whilst the "table service only" rule will be scrapped in England, some locktivist local authorities will try to keep it going by imposing "table service only", plus social distancing and the rule of six, on the grounds of "safety".

It is the same as Sadiq Khant trying to keep mandatory face coverings on the London Underground when they are no longer mandatory on public transport elsewhere in England.

But I have also seen (in the Telegraph) that Boris Johnson is going to get rid of the rules that give local authorities the power to impose such pettry restrictions over and above what is required nationally.

So if local authority tin pot little Hitlers think that they can mandate table service only after July 19th, they have got another think coming.

And given the effect of table service only on the operation of pubs, I think that very few will retain it after July 19th if it becomes voluntary.

Local authorities can mandate it through imposing conditions on licenses, independently of government policy. Whether they should is a completely different question.

 

[Bikeman78]

I'm seeing a number of news items talking about masks still being required on public transport. The official position of the Rail Delivery Group is that it will be up to passengers but that could still change. Clearly every TOC will need the same policy or it will be a shambles. Personally I think that mandating masks on trains when neither masks nor distancing are required anywhere else will be a tough sell.

 

[nedchester]

I'm seeing a number of news items talking about masks still being required on public transport. The official position of the Rail Delivery Group is that it will be up to passengers but that could still change. Clearly every TOC will need the same policy or it will be a shambles. Personally I think that mandating masks on trains when neither masks nor distancing are required anywhere else will be a tough sell.

And who is going to enforce it? Not the police as they are there to uphold the law not policies.

And if they change the conditions of travel that's another can of worms because if there's a change I believe there has to be a consultation period?

 

[island]

I'm seeing a number of news items talking about masks still being required on public transport. The official position of the Rail Delivery Group is that it will be up to passengers but that could still change. Clearly every TOC will need the same policy or it will be a shambles. Personally I think that mandating masks on trains when neither masks nor distancing are required anywhere else will be a tough sell.

Grant Shapps was quoted on the TV news this morning saying that train companies will be free to make face coverings a condition of travel at “busy times”, whatever that’s meant to mean.

 

[Class 33]

On the live feeds of the Sky News and Telegraph websites, I notice a lot of things like "Warning NHS under 'unprecedented pressure'" and 'Dangerous' to return to life as normal on July 19, doctors warn"
. What utter utter nonsense! Currently there are only 2,731 people in hospital with Covid. At the peek back in January there were around 40,000. So this is over 90% lower than that! And it's not atall dangerous to return to normal life!!!

 

[westv]

Grant Shapps was quoted on the TV news this morning saying that train companies will be free to make face coverings a condition of travel at “busy times”, whatever that’s meant to mean.

I curious to know what happens if the conditions of travel change between buying a ticket and travelling.

 

[nedchester]

I curious to know what happens if the conditions of travel change between buying a ticket and travelling.

Another can of worms!

As I say when there's a change to conditions of travel there has to be a consultation period and the BTP aren't going to enforce.

 

[davews]

I wonder when Grant Shapps was last on a train or tube. Yesterday Jubilee line at one point half our carriage was unmasked. It will be impossible to police.

 

[Jamesrob637]

It's been interesting to see the support/advocacy for lockdown one but the disdain/hatred for subsequent lockdowns. I think even anti-locktivists supported lockdown one - maybe that's the reason why they became who they are. I fall in that category.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I wonder when Grant Shapps was last on a train or tube. Yesterday Jubilee line at one point half our carriage was unmasked. It will be impossible to police.

Grant Shapps was quoted on the TV news this morning saying that train companies will be free to make face coverings a condition of travel at “busy times”, whatever that’s meant to mean.

Like most of the current leadership of this country, he is sitting on the fence, trying desperately to avoid having an official position. Whichever way he goes, it will be criticised by those of a different view. So it is far better to duck the issue and force it into the hands of others - in this case the train operators.

Were he a person making policy based on evidence, he would have no difficulty in coming to a reasoned conclusion, putting that forward, and arguing it in the 'court of public opinion'.

I curious to know what happens if the conditions of travel change between buying a ticket and travelling.

Assuming Grant Shapps knows what he is talking about (ahem), your Conditions of Travel might be altered during your journey, never mind between buying a ticket and travelling.

'Busy times' is impossible to define. Does he mean peak hours (regardless of whether the train is busy or not) or does he mean busy trains (regardless of time of day). Or does he mean busy trains at busy times? What is busy - 75% capacity, 100% capacity, full and standing, 50% capacity but with people choosing to stand in vestibules, some carriages full (ie front of train approaching terminii) with rear of train empty? Perhaps he could make it a Condition of Travel to 'move down the train to take the seats available'.