• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Heading into autumn - what next?

Status
Not open for further replies.

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,036
Presenting the latest bogus YouGov poll on support for various covid measures, including 81% support for masks on transport and 76% support in shops:


I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't see anywhere near those levels of mask wearing right now, so really cannot see how this was conjured up. On the plus side at least some measures are now being logged with less than 50% support, including full lockdown.
They're probably all still indoors, feverishly filling out YouGov panel surveys. In terms of public transport they are likely to be the type that used a bus once, in 1976, and didn't much like it
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,672
Location
Redcar
Presenting the latest bogus YouGov poll on support for various covid measures, including 81% support for masks on transport and 76% support in shops.

More loaded questions designed to show public support for imposing restrictions that will severely harm retail and hospitality. Then when these businesses close there are companies hoovering up the related premises at rock bottom prices. It just so happens that one of these companies actively involved in this are a major shareholder of YouGov. It stinks.
 

kez19

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2020
Messages
2,038
Location
Dundee
Presenting the latest bogus YouGov poll on support for various covid measures, including 81% support for masks on transport and 76% support in shops:




I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't see anywhere near those levels of mask wearing right now, so really cannot see how this was conjured up. On the plus side at least some measures are now being logged with less than 50% support, including full lockdown.

Yet I believe the survey was of 1703?

Unrelated but a bit ironic with the number?? ... (this is just got humour purposes).. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1703_in_England
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
Presenting the latest bogus YouGov poll on support for various covid measures, including 81% support for masks on transport and 76% support in shops:




I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't see anywhere near those levels of mask wearing right now, so really cannot see how this was conjured up. On the plus side at least some measures are now being logged with less than 50% support, including full lockdown.
The levels of masking are pretty much the reverse of the poll!

My opinion on YouGov polls and the sort of people who generally do them remains unchanged!
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
The levels of masking are pretty much the reverse of the poll!

My opinion on YouGov polls and the sort of people who generally do them remains unchanged!

It does still seem to vary though. We were on one LU train today where the mask use was around 20% if that, yet another one where it was getting on for 90%.

I really am starting to reach the point where seeing masked faces annoys me now. Until recently I’ve taken the “not bothered by what others choose to do” line. But with this now being dragged on for what are now plainly nefarious reasons, every masked face does now shout destructive to me. A couple of recent news reports where someone has been interviewed and come out with “cases are rising and it makes me really angry seeing idiots not wearing masks” may have contributed to this hardening of my views.

As an aside, I don’t think I’ve seen a single person wearing an FFP3 mask.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
It does still seem to vary though. We were on one LU train today where the mask use was around 20% if that, yet another one where it was getting on for 90%.

I really am starting to reach the point where seeing masked faces annoys me now. Until recently I’ve taken the “not bothered by what others choose to do” line. But with this now being dragged on for what are now plainly nefarious reasons, every masked face does now shout destructive to me. A couple of recent news reports where someone has been interviewed and come out with “cases are rising and it makes me really angry seeing idiots not wearing masks” may have contributed to this hardening of my views.

As an aside, I don’t think I’ve seen a single person wearing an FFP3 mask.
I can give you worse, in Heathrow T5 Baggage reclaim on Monday evening, two guys both removed their masks while in a long wait for luggage (there were official luggage delays), and a woman walked over to them complaining about it and saying she had an underlying condition (she said the specific one but couldn't comprehend it personally), the two guys both said they were fully vaccinated and maybe some other stuff, and the woman walked off in a grump without them ever putting masks back on, nor did I see any official come over and tell them off.

The first thing that struck me here was if she was genuinely worried about catching covid from two unmasked individuals, why did she go over to them directly and not stay well away in the first place? I'm also not surprised they removed them, travelling by plane these days gives a very long period of time in environments (i.e. airports and aircraft) where masks are required non-stop.

We've still got some way to go it seems in shaking off the attitude, something that may require infections to drop off substantially while not having widespread mask mandates (which maybe starting and is predicted in recent modelling) and/or a reduction in testing.
 

Cdd89

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
1,451
Unfortunately masks appear to be culturally embedded in England in a significant percentage of the population. I have been in the Netherlands where mask regulations are actually slightly stricter than England (they’re required on public transport); but I have found it preferable to England because in the areas where they’re not required — which is almost everywhere — nearly 0% wear them. If you don’t get on a train/tram/bus you won’t see one.

I think the opposition parties giving up on masks would help a lot, but sadly I don’t see that happening; it’s a useful point of political differentiation with COVID where there isn’t much difference between the parties and approaches otherwise. No U.K. party is knowingly advocating restrictions with economic consequences and nor are they likely to, and masks are (wrongly) believed not to have any; along with remote working.
 

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,323
Location
Stirlingshire
Unfortunately masks appear to be culturally embedded in England in a significant percentage of the population. I have been in the Netherlands where mask regulations are actually slightly stricter than England (they’re required on public transport); but I have found it preferable to England because in the areas where they’re not required — which is almost everywhere — nearly 0% wear them. If you don’t get on a train/tram/bus you won’t see one.

I think the opposition parties giving up on masks would help a lot, but sadly I don’t see that happening; it’s a useful point of political differentiation with COVID where there isn’t much difference between the parties and approaches otherwise. No U.K. party is knowingly advocating restrictions with economic consequences and nor are they likely to, and masks are (wrongly) believed not to have any; along with remote working.

You don't have to go to The Netherlands - Jersey is much the same as you describe.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
Unfortunately masks appear to be culturally embedded in England in a significant percentage of the population. I have been in the Netherlands where mask regulations are actually slightly stricter than England (they’re required on public transport); but I have found it preferable to England because in the areas where they’re not required — which is almost everywhere — nearly 0% wear them. If you don’t get on a train/tram/bus you won’t see one.

I think the opposition parties giving up on masks would help a lot, but sadly I don’t see that happening; it’s a useful point of political differentiation with COVID where there isn’t much difference between the parties and approaches otherwise. No U.K. party is knowingly advocating restrictions with economic consequences and nor are they likely to, and masks are (wrongly) believed not to have any; along with remote working.

Correct and this is exactly what many of us feared when the mandate was introduced originally. Masks are here to stay and will remain a point of conflict as well as an unhelpful visual reminder of the culture war in which we find ourselves. It was so predictable. People are definitely also wearing them for non-covid related medical reasons (e.g. because there’s a nasty cold in circulation). This will almost certainly cause a long term issue with “immunity debt” (I think that’s the correct term?) and ironically it’s probably masks and other NPIs that have led to the common cold becoming so virulent in the first place. Some people have completely lost their minds, I can’t think of a more eloquent way to put it!
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
Correct and this is exactly what many of us feared when the mandate was introduced originally. Masks are here to stay and will remain a point of conflict as well as an unhelpful visual reminder of the culture war in which we find ourselves. It was so predictable. People are definitely also wearing them for non-covid related medical reasons (e.g. because there’s a nasty cold in circulation). This will almost certainly cause a long term issue with “immunity debt” (I think that’s the correct term?) and ironically it’s probably masks and other NPIs that have led to the common cold becoming so virulent in the first place. Some people have completely lost their minds, I can’t think of a more eloquent way to put it!
It will only be a small minority.

Yes it's a minority who see mask wearing as a show of 'solidarity' and membership of the cult, and yes they do look down on the majority as being inferior, but this minority is maybe 10% of the population at most.

As long as it is a small minority, that's fine by me.

When I see them criticising the majority, I'm more than happy to argue with them.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
I don't know what Kier Starmer is doing with his life, but he's tested positive for covid and is self-isolating again for the 1000th time it feels like (this might be the first time he's isolating for a positive test though rather than close contact).
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,493
The first thing that struck me here was if she was genuinely worried about catching covid from two unmasked individuals, why did she go over to them directly and not stay well away in the first place? I'm also not surprised they removed them, travelling by plane these days gives a very long period of time in environments (i.e. airports and aircraft) where masks are required non-stop.

We've still got some way to go it seems in shaking off the attitude, something that may require infections to drop off substantially while not having widespread mask mandates (which maybe starting and is predicted in recent modelling) and/or a reduction in testing.
Definitely one of the most bizarre aspects of the whole situation. If you believe that masks work and someone without one poses a serious threat, WTF would you march up to them and start picking a fight? Just keep out of the way. As you say, stop testing people without any symptoms and the problem largely goes away.
 

Envy123

Member
Joined
9 Apr 2015
Messages
626
Location
Peterborough
People are definitely also wearing them for non-covid related medical reasons (e.g. because there’s a nasty cold in circulation).
Face masks are very useful for me in allergy season, even with the usual medicine. Less pollen goes into my nose and I feel much better.

I don't like wearing them outside of that.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
I see the government's chief locktivist scientific adviser is still banging the drum about "go hard and go early" in respect of implementing Plan B.

Despite the fact that the figures are actually falling at the moment, Sir Patrick Vallance says that we should be prepared for Plan B

Naturally Sir Patrick appeared on the BBC to carry on with his fearmongering express his concerns.

The only person who needs to "go early" is Sir Patrick Vallance.


Absolutely be prepared for Plan B’ Vallance issues warning as Covid threat 'uncertain'​

CHIEF Scientific Advisor Sir Patrick Vallance warned the UK Government should be "prepared" to introduce Plan B and will need to "move fast" if data suggests a surge in cases, adding there was "considerable uncertainty" over what direction the pandemic now goes.​


Sir Patrick Vallance appeared on BBC Radio 4 where he discussed the current state of the pandemic as the country goes into the winter months. John Edmunds, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, believes the Government may not need to introduce additional curbs to limit coronavirus cases as immunity is naturally growing among schoolchildren who are the main spreaders and carriers of the virus. Sir Patrick was asked for his assessment but gave a bleak answer, revealing the UK was in an "uncertain phase" and that the Government should prepare for the winter Plan B option and "move fast" if the data suggests a surge

Speaking on Radio 4, presenter Martha Kearney spoke to Sir Patrick about his climate change work but quickly asked several questions about the pandemic

John Edmunds, who sits on SAGE, says modelling suggests because of immunity naturally growing among younger children the Government may not need to introduce restrictions to tackle Covid.

Ms Kearney asked if the pandemic was going in the right direction but Sir Patrick was more pessimistic and cautious about Covid cases.

He explained: “Well, I think we're in a very uncertain phase and if you read the minutes of SAGE that were published last week, there is considerable uncertainty to which direction this goes.

“It does indeed depend on the degree of immunity and the amount that's protected by vaccines and that's why the booster shots are so important.

“And it depends on overall behavioural change and what John is saying is that amongst the children, there is a degree of immunity building up which will, of course, limit the spread of the virus.

“So it's wrong to think of it this buildup of immunity as an all or nothing.

“It's a sort of protective barrier that will reduce the spread of the virus and so we need to monitor this carefully over the next few weeks.”

Ms Kearney then noted Sir Patrick’s wish for the Government to be prepared for Plan B and to introduce it as quickly as possible if needed.

She asked if the Government needed to be prepared, with the government advisor replying: “Absolutely be prepared, and you need to go as soon as you start thinking, am I am I not going to do this?

“[That] is the time that you need to sort of push beyond your natural reluctance to do it and push to do it.

“And that's obviously something government will need to consider carefully but then we need to be ready at that moment to move fast if that occurs.”
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,036
I see the government's chief locktivist scientific adviser is still banging the drum about "go hard and go early" in respect of implementing Plan B.

Despite the fact that the figures are actually falling at the moment, Sir Patrick Vallance says that we should be prepared for Plan B

Naturally Sir Patrick appeared on the BBC to carry on with his fearmongering express his concerns.

The only person who needs to "go early" is Sir Patrick Vallance.

Sounds like they just need to restrict radio interviews to people who are a bit more effectively media trained. All he's really saying is that the government need to have the proper plans in place, because if England do decide to trigger them they won't have 2 months available to scramble about making a dog's breakfast of the implementation like a certain northern neighbour.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,214
Location
London
It seems that at least one member of SAGE believes that Covid rules aren’t really restrictions at all. An absolutely breathtaking example of doublethink:


Covid measures give us choice. They are not restrictions on British life​

 

Class 33

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2009
Messages
2,362
I see the government's chief locktivist scientific adviser is still banging the drum about "go hard and go early" in respect of implementing Plan B.

Despite the fact that the figures are actually falling at the moment, Sir Patrick Vallance says that we should be prepared for Plan B

Naturally Sir Patrick appeared on the BBC to carry on with his fearmongering express his concerns.

The only person who needs to "go early" is Sir Patrick Vallance.


He's a bloody nuisance. I can not stand him!

We do NOT need to "go hard and early" right now atall. As you say the figures are falling at the moment, so absolutely no need for this. We don't need any of these Covid restrictions nonsense brought back all over again and the PROBLEMS it would cause again. People like him just don't care about the impacts these restrictions have had on thousands of businesses and millions of people's mental health.

As you say, he needs to go early himself.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
He's a bloody nuisance. I can not stand him!

We do NOT need to "go hard and early" right now atall. As you say the figures are falling at the moment, so absolutely no need for this. We don't need any of these Covid restrictions nonsense brought back all over again and the PROBLEMS it would cause again. People like him just don't care about the impacts these restrictions have had on thousands of businesses and millions of people's mental health.

As you say, he needs to go early himself.

They know full well that we’re past the peak and they’re desperate to impose restrictions now to show the gullible public how effective they are when infections (continue to) fall. It’s absolutely critical they don’t get their way or we’ll be stuck in this cycle indefinitely. On the other hand, by carrying on as we are we can demonstrate that remaining calm and doing nothing is all that is required. Or in other words, we learn to live with the virus as we’ve heard again and again.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
Sounds like they just need to restrict radio interviews to people who are a bit more effectively media trained. All he's really saying is that the government need to have the proper plans in place, because if England do decide to trigger them they won't have 2 months available to scramble about making a dog's breakfast of the implementation like a certain northern neighbour.

Indeed if you look at the first bit where he's asked about it the quoted article says:

the UK was in an "uncertain phase" and that the Government should prepare for the winter Plan B option and "move fast" if the data suggests a surge

My reading of that is, we should have a plan ready, as although the evidence doesn't currently support Plan B the government would need to move fast IF there is a surge in cases.

Change the setting, if you were going for a walk would you pack a coat?

Obviously it depends.

Let's be a bit more specific, the weather forecast is still saying that it shouldn't rain on Saturday 6th November, the day we're going hill walking. The risk is that walk is at the end of a week away. Do we take our coat away on holiday with us or not?

The answer from that article is pack the coat (have a Plan B), even though we may not need it and the data is still saying that we shouldn't need it.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
I don't know what Kier Starmer is doing with his life, but he's tested positive for covid and is self-isolating again for the 1000th time it feels like (this might be the first time he's isolating for a positive test though rather than close contact).
Are you suggesting that someone testing positive for covid SHOULDN'T self-isolate?
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,898
Are you suggesting that someone testing positive for covid SHOULDN'T self-isolate?

Why would they need to self isolate at this point? We’re living with Covid now, no need for this irrational behaviour to continue any longer now that people have been jabbed up
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
Why would they need to self isolate at this point? We’re living with Covid now, no need for this irrational behaviour to continue any longer now that people have been jabbed up
If he had/has symptoms, he should be isolating to recover like one would expect with most illnesses, but if all he has is a positive test and no symptoms to go with it, then yes self-isolating is silly.

I do think that had this belief surrounding asymptomatic infection not been cooked up to the extent it has, almost all the restrictions we've seen would never have happened. There are plenty of illnesses which a proportion of infections are asymptomatic, including flu, but we never really thought about this until covid came along.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
My reading of that is, we should have a plan ready, as although the evidence doesn't currently support Plan B the government would need to move fast IF there is a surge in cases.

I can't shake the feeling this is somewhat of a ploy to mandate 'vaccine passports' without a Parliamentary vote first. (Unfortunately I suspect they would win a parliamentary vote anyway, because of the size of the SNP block, but they may prefer to avoid finding out for as long as possible nevertheless). We know how many measures have been pushed through already under the 'too urgent' procedure, even though in most cases that was a downright lie.

In any event, the current 'plan B' is a rather poor plan for dealing with the spread of a respiratory virus anyway (assuming that's even something you want to try to do at this point). Of the three measures proposed, only 'work from home if you can' is likely to make the slightest difference to transmission.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,672
Location
Redcar
If the whole situation has done anything over the past 18 months it's made people very cynical, me included. How convenient that in a week where Labour are calling for an immediate implementation of Plan B measures and an argument about masks in Parliament that their leader would be forced to miss one of the most important sessions of the whole year because he has Covid. Couldn't be a plot just to try and reinforce their thinking about how dangerous the whole situation still is, could it?
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,898
I can't shake the feeling this is somewhat of a ploy to mandate 'vaccine passports' without a Parliamentary vote first. (Unfortunately I suspect they would win a parliamentary vote anyway, because of the size of the SNP block, but they may prefer to avoid finding out for as long as possible nevertheless). We know how many measures have been pushed through already under the 'too urgent' procedure, even though in most cases that was a downright lie.

In any event, the current 'plan B' is a rather poor plan for dealing with the spread of a respiratory virus anyway (assuming that's even something you want to try to do at this point). Of the three measures proposed, only 'work from home if you can' is likely to make the slightest difference to transmission.

The SNP have no business voting on matters pertaining to England, they can stay north of the border, their voice should count for nothing down here.

Sadly though with Labour looking to support passports I think it would go through regardless, unless there is a sizeable Libertarian Tory and Corbynist Labour crowd voting against them alongside the Lib Dem’s, it would be a narrow win at best
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
Two of the three planks of 'plan B' are vaccine passports and masks. How are they doing in Lithuania, with *incredibly* strict vaccine passports for just about everything, and also masks?

1635429155373.png
(graph from @IanMSc on twitter. Shows cases in Lithuania increasing dramatically and vaccine passports and then masks having no apparent effect whatever).

I can't say I have a lot of confidence in 'Plan B' doing much in terms of controlling a virus. In terms of controlling *people* however, it will be quite effective.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,817
Location
Yorks
It seems that at least one member of SAGE believes that Covid rules aren’t really restrictions at all. An absolutely breathtaking example of doublethink:


The quotes about numbers of daily contacts is interesting.

Prior to the pandemic, average number of contacts per person per day was 11, which went down to 3, which is now about five. It's fascinating that he is arguing for a society with less social contact as though this is a beneficial thing. Is he asking for this to be a permanent change ? This is what the pro-restriction people never admit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top