Covid restrictions to end on 19th July

[Eyersey468]

We had confirmation today that National Express will not be mandating face coverings after the 19th.

 

[102 fan]

Tell that to my boss who cannot walk properly at the moment due to Covid related complications.

Another 'Covid is the only illness out there' statement. There are 14 million people in the UK with a walking disability.

Disability facts and figures | Disability charity Scope UK

Facts and figures about disability for journalists.

www.scope.org.uk

Should we only care about the ones that can't walk properly because of Covid?

 

[35B]

It's really a question of what measures are proportionate.

I do not wish to wear a mask and I will not wear one from next Monday. I have worn one until now because I am not excempt.

If I genuinely believed that wearing a mask would save someone else's life, I would wear one. I think that applies to most decent people, including a lot who would find wearing a mask difficult and would be entitled to claim exceptions.

So, for those who think masks are necessary, please show the scientific evidence that shows how effective they are. We talk a lot about the effectiveness of vaccines, so where is the equivalent data for masks?

Regarding the comparison to cars - we mandate seat belts because there is evidence that they provide significant risk mitigation, and are proportionate. We do not mandate a blanket 10mph speed limit because it would not be proportionate. In terms of Covid mitigation, we encourage vaccination because it's proven to mitigate risk. If we wish to encourage or even mandate mask wearing, there needs to be a similar level of proof. (I was slightly more sympathetic when masks were first introduced, but a year later there has been plenty of time to run research and collect evidence).

There's been lots said, for and against the value of masks - and threads closed following that discussion. The scientific consensus is that masks make a difference, but that this both relies on mass compliance and is not exhaustive. That consensus is largely based on observational research, and is contested; the debate has become highly partisan and in large part a proxy for other views around the severity of Covid. The post below is an example of this kind of dogmatic, head in sand approach:

What is the reason to keep them? We have vaccinated basically everybody who wants it now (we are barely increasing first doses by 1% a week) and nobody who is waiting for their second dose (myself included) is at any possible risk from covid at all. None. The roadmap has been staggered over a series of several months and already delayed on spurious grounds for a monthry restrictions for the rest of my life just because. There needs to be an infinitely better reason than ‘stark realities.’ The average age of death with covid is ~83 - it isn’t something to define all life on earth and should be forgotten about.

I was at a meeting last night, and spoke to two (70-something) friends there; both expressed themselves vigorously against relaxing the mask mandate, and were not in listening mode on the subject - any more than strong arguers on either side of that debate have been here. Those who believe me adamantly pro-mask and pro-restriction might be surprised to know that I was arguing that the relaxation is necessary, proportionate, and that masks aren't the be all and end all. That doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the probability of an exit wave of Covid cases, and that this poses a material risk to a significant number of people.

You might not see wearing a mask as a restriction, but other people most certainly do.

I can't imagine many people actually like wearing a mask.

It will be interesting to observe actual behaviour in areas where masks are no longer mandatory on public transport, as opposed to what people say they will do in dubious opinion polls.

That is, to be blunt, a false comparison. There are things I do that I would not freely choose to do if not required (paying for a ticket comes to mind), that I don't regard as a restriction; mask wearing is in that category.

 

[Dent]

The scientific consensus is that masks make a difference, but that this both relies on mass compliance and is not exhaustive.

There really isn't any such consensus.

 

[VauxhallandI]

There really isn't any such consensus.

Yep there is zero consensus; it really is fantasy land stuff.

 

[MikeWM]

They’ve gone after the care workers first, rather than NHS staff, because the government feel they can bully them into submission. Never a good way of doing anything.

All those bleating about ‘an extra layer of protection’ for care home residents would do well to remember who it was that worked throughout the pandemic, often with little protection, to do their best for Granny.

In addition, I can’t see this helping with recruitment for care home staff, with all the attendant dangers that under-staffing brings.

Quite so about the thin end of a wedge, particularly with the Covid passports

Indeed, I agree with all that entirely.

Of course the measure (the 'Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021' - the name of which is perhaps a perfect example of the phrase 'the banality of evil') passed 319-246. Division list here:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...D03FF4/NationalHealthService?outputType=Names

The only positives are that Labour actually opposed, as did 32 Tories - which hopefully will be enough to make them at least think twice before trying to widen out mandatory vacination to other groups of people.

 

[Failed Unit]

If Masks make a difference, why did we have a 2nd wave Or as others point out, why cant we tell the point they were mandated in the data?

 

[big_rig]

There's been lots said, for and against the value of masks - and threads closed following that discussion. The scientific consensus is that masks make a difference, but that this both relies on mass compliance and is not exhaustive. That consensus is largely based on observational research, and is contested; the debate has become highly partisan and in large part a proxy for other views around the severity of Covid. The post below is an example of this kind of dogmatic, head in sand approach:

I was at a meeting last night, and spoke to two (70-something) friends there; both expressed themselves vigorously against relaxing the mask mandate, and were not in listening mode on the subject - any more than strong arguers on either side of that debate have been here. Those who believe me adamantly pro-mask and pro-restriction might be surprised to know that I was arguing that the relaxation is necessary, proportionate, and that masks aren't the be all and end all. That doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the probability of an exit wave of Covid cases, and that this poses a material risk to a significant number of people.


That is, to be blunt, a false comparison. There are things I do that I would not freely choose to do if not required (paying for a ticket comes to mind), that I don't regard as a restriction; mask wearing is in that category.

Can you help us out by providing some figures to the handwaving contained in your post?

'Masks make a difference' - What precisely? It must be possible to put a figure on it?
'The scientific consensus' - Please cite
'Observational research' - What other elements of human behaviour are regulated by punishment based on observation research?
'The exit wave poses a material risk to a significant number of people.' - How many? What is the risk? What is significant in the context of a population of 68 or so million where every single person 18+ has had the opportunity to get a vaccine?

How long do you want masks to go on for? When would you want them re-introduced? The answer to this which you are afraid to say I feel is forever. Just be honest! Alternatively feel free not to quote me again

 

[notlob.divad]

Another 'Covid is the only illness out there' statement. There are 14 million people in the UK with a walking disability.

Should we only care about the ones that can't walk properly because of Covid?

How is it?

All I said was, it isn't for everybody just a bad cold or flu, which was the point being made. It does appear this entire forum has devolved into putting words into other people's mouths, casting others as must have the bi-polar opposite view from yourself, if they don't join in the forum consensus as policed.

For the record, my boss was also someone saying how it was just some people couldn't handle a cold. I feel incredibly sorry for him that he appears to be in quite a bit of pain every day without knowing when it will end.

 

[Darandio]

There's been lots said, for and against the value of masks - and threads closed following that discussion. The scientific consensus is that masks make a difference, but that this both relies on mass compliance and is not exhaustive. That consensus is largely based on observational research, and is contested; the debate has become highly partisan and in large part a proxy for other views around the severity of Covid.

Some scientists do indeed say they make a difference and there are studies out there that they use to try and back up these claims. But for the difference to be made everyone who can wear one needs to be wearing a suitable mask and they need to wear it correctly. This also needs to be backed up with how they are used both before and after, a scrumpled re-usable face covering being constantly refreshed out of a damp pocket is pointless. We can all see that this isn't the case on a daily basis, whether that be a large number of people having their nose uncovered or the mask around the chin, it's absolutely no different to entering the sarcophagus at Chernobyl with a hole in your suit. Then we have people with scarves or yellow/brown coloured disposable masks that have clearly been used for weeks on end, this makes such pro-mask studies effectivley useless. People say masks don't work and demand evidence they do. People post studies but they are useless because of the reasons above.

Any continuing mandates for masks are simply to be seen to be doing something to appease a portion of the population who claim they are scared to mix with those who aren't wearing them, not because they believe the things can actually work in a wider setting.

 

[87electric]

Those people who are scared of non mask wearers will still be very wary, and still scared, long after mask wearing disappears. They will have been damaged psychologically and will be difficult to shrug off.
My opinion. I don’t pretend to be an expert but I do know how fear works.

 

[DustyBin]

Some scientists do indeed say they make a difference and there are studies out there that they use to try and back up these claims. But for the difference to be made everyone who can wear one needs to be wearing a suitable mask and they need to wear it correctly. This also needs to be backed up with how they are used both before and after, a scrumpled re-usable face covering being constantly refreshed out of a damp pocket is pointless. We can all see that this isn't the case on a daily basis, whether that be a large number of people having their nose uncovered or the mask around the chin, it's absolutely no different to entering the sarcophagus at Chernobyl with a hole in your suit. Then we have people with scarves or yellow/brown coloured disposable masks that have clearly been used for weeks on end, this makes such pro-mask studies effectivley useless. People say masks don't work and demand evidence they do. People post studies but they are useless because of the reasons above.

Any continuing mandates for masks are simply to be seen to be doing something to appease a portion of the population who claim they are scared to mix with those who aren't wearing them, not because they believe the things can actually work in a wider setting.

Exactly. They started as a visual symbol, an omnipresent reminder of the "threat". There never has been and never will be any evidence that face coverings in a community setting are effective in preventing the spread of Covid 19. If there was any evidence we'd have seen and heard about it (repeatedly).

 

[initiation]

Those people who are scared of non mask wearers will still be very wary, and still scared, long after mask wearing disappears. They will have been damaged psychologically and will be difficult to shrug off.
My opinion. I don’t pretend to be an expert but I do know how fear works.

This is unfortunately very true. Particularly for children who have now spent a significant part of their lives being told that strangers carry a dangerous disease, you have to sanitise anything before touching it, and that hugging grandma could kill her.

There was a mother on my local facebook group a few weeks ago who said her daughter (early teens) had not been out other than to school (i.e shops) since last February. That sort of thing is going to have a long lasting impact.


Edit: the worst thing about the histeria around removing the mask law is that even if you follow the supposed consensus that they work, face coverings make only a small/marginal impact on transmission. If you support continued restrictions to supresss covid there are measures that might have a bigger impact. It is solely because it is the most visible measure that people are getting worked up about it.

 

[kristiang85]

Those people who are scared of non mask wearers will still be very wary, and still scared, long after mask wearing disappears. They will have been damaged psychologically and will be difficult to shrug off.
My opinion. I don’t pretend to be an expert but I do know how fear works.

Not to mention children of primary school age who have only seen masked people, and especially those with masktivist parents likely telling them to avoid anybody not wearing one. Habits and opinions formed at that age tend to stick with you for a very, very long time.

 

[brad465]

Exactly. They started as a visual symbol, an omnipresent reminder of the "threat". There never has been and never will be any evidence that face coverings in a community setting are effective in preventing the spread of Covid 19. If there was any evidence we'd have seen and heard about it (repeatedly).

We have heard evidence of masks like FFP2/3 masks making a difference, but yes basic cloth and disposable mask evidence seems lacking in the public eye (and when Prof Carl Heneghan publishes a study on their lack of effectiveness, social media takes it down on misinformation grounds).

 

[102 fan]

How is it?

All I said was, it isn't for everybody just a bad cold or flu, which was the point being made. It does appear this entire forum has devolved into putting words into other people's mouths, casting others as must have the bi-polar opposite view from yourself, if they don't join in the forum consensus as policed.

For the record, my boss was also someone saying how it was just some people couldn't handle a cold. I feel incredibly sorry for him that he appears to be in quite a bit of pain every day without knowing when it will end.

Well, you're the FM who brought it up. Perhaps you'll explain how Covid effected him?

 

[island]

Can you help us out by providing some figures to the handwaving contained in your post?

'Masks make a difference' - What precisely? It must be possible to put a figure on it?
'The scientific consensus' - Please cite
'Observational research' - What other elements of human behaviour are regulated by punishment based on observation research?
'The exit wave poses a material risk to a significant number of people.' - How many? What is the risk? What is significant in the context of a population of 68 or so million where every single person 18+ has had the opportunity to get a vaccine?

How long do you want masks to go on for? When would you want them re-introduced? The answer to this which you are afraid to say I feel is forever. Just be honest! Alternatively feel free not to quote me again

When doing so, I would also hope that those claiming the effectiveness of face coverings in the community cite something more than studies concerning the wearing of medical masks in controlled environments, as opposed to the real world where Big Steve from Sunderland’s been putting the same piece of chopped up t-shirt onto his face and in and out of his jeans pocket several times a day for a week.

 

[yorkie]

Well, you're the FM who brought it up. Perhaps you'll explain how Covid effected him?

I'd also point out that there will be almost no-one who hasn't had the chance to be vaccinated with at least one dose of the vaccine by the 19th of July; already over two thirds of adults have been fully vaccinated with two doses. The vaccines are highly effective at protecting against severe illness, as experienced by a minority of people, including the person referred to in the aforementioned post.

When doing so, I would also hope that those claiming the effectiveness of face coverings in the community cite something more than studies concerning the wearing of medical masks in controlled environments, as opposed to the real world where Big Steve from Sunderland’s been putting the same piece of chopped up t-shirt onto his face and in and out of his jeans pocket several times a day for a week.

They tend to link to theoretical studies, which in turn quote other theoretical studies or hospital based studies.

The hospital based study they don't want us to read is the one I've linked to a few times, where it was revealed that standard masks are flimsy, not designed to stop virus particles and are ineffective; in stark contrast to FFP3 (or equivalent) masks which were significantly more effective.

We have heard evidence of masks like FFP2/3 masks making a difference...

Pro-maskers are keen to divert attention away from those type of masks, because they know they cannot mandate them.

Also masks of that type actually protect the wearer; this destroys their argument that others must be dictated to in order to save themselves.

No wonder they don't want masks which are specifically designed to stop virus particles from being mentioned in any debate as it doesn't suit their narrative, which is all about control. They know that mandatory flimsy masks are a highly visible sign that they have control over us, and they do not want to give that up. They've lost the argument, but are not going to go down without making a huge scene.

 

[DustyBin]

Pro-maskers are keen to divert attention away from those type of masks, because they know they cannot mandate them.

Also masks of that type actually protect the wearer; this destroys their argument that others must be dictated to in order to save themselves.

No wonder they don't want masks which are specifically designed to stop virus particles from being mentioned in any debate as it doesn't suit their narrative, which is all about control. They know that mandatory flimsy masks are a highly visible sign that they have control over us, and they do not want to give that up. They've lost the argument, but are not going to go down without making a huge scene.

I agree, it's blindingly obvious. Their love of masks has nothing to do with preventing the spread of Covid-19 and everything to do with symbolism and control.

 

[bramling]

I'd also point out that there will be almost no-one who hasn't had the chance to be vaccinated with at least one dose of the vaccine by the 19th of July; already over two thirds of adults have been fully vaccinated with two doses. The vaccines are highly effective at protecting against severe illness, as experienced by a minority of people, including the person referred to in the aforementioned post.


They tend to link to theoretical studies, which in turn quote other theoretical studies or hospital based studies.

The hospital based study they don't want us to read is the one I've linked to a few times, where it was revealed that standard masks are flimsy, not designed to stop virus particles and are ineffective; in stark contrast to FFP3 (or equivalent) masks which were significantly more effective.


Pro-maskers are keen to divert attention away from those type of masks, because they know they cannot mandate them.

Also masks of that type actually protect the wearer; this destroys their argument that others must be dictated to in order to save themselves.

No wonder they don't want masks which are specifically designed to stop virus particles from being mentioned in any debate as it doesn't suit their narrative, which is all about control. They know that mandatory flimsy masks are a highly visible sign that they have control over us, and they do not want to give that up. They've lost the argument, but are not going to go down without making a huge scene.

I think the point about “proper” masks is well made. Indeed it’s quite “surprising” we don’t hear more about these, but as you say this actually solves a problem.

 

[big_rig]

I agree, it's blindingly obvious. Their love of masks has nothing to do with preventing the spread of Covid-19 and everything to do with symbolism and control.

I think the thought process is something along the lines of:

1) We are "in a pandemic";
2) We must "do something";
3) If that "something" is irritating that must mean it works and must continue, and the more people it irritates the more it must be done;
4) Go back to step one every few months, "we are still in a pandemic," no matter the progress on vaccines etc.

 

[westv]

So what exactly is going to be changing come 19/7? Every day seems to bring along another reversal one way or another.

 

[sjpowermac]

Indeed, I agree with all that entirely.

Of course the measure (the 'Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021' - the name of which is perhaps a perfect example of the phrase 'the banality of evil') passed 319-246. Division list here:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...D03FF4/NationalHealthService?outputType=Names

The only positives are that Labour actually opposed, as did 32 Tories - which hopefully will be enough to make them at least think twice before trying to widen out mandatory vacination to other groups of people.

Many thanks for the update, I did wonder how the vote had gone.

Let’s see how that all pans out in reality, especially in a sector with so many un-filled posts…

 

[Bigman]

So what exactly is going to be changing come 19/7? Every day seems to bring along another reversal one way or another.

Yes I am wondering too. So much to take in. I can understand wearing masks on the train, but what if you are stood out in the open on a platform, especially somewhere like Guiseley or East Garforth?

 

[island]

So what exactly is going to be changing come 19/7? Every day seems to bring along another reversal one way or another.

The laws requiring face coverings to be worn on public transport and in certain indoor spaces in England will cease to have effect. Government guidance will recommend that members of the public continue to wear them.

TfL and an assortment of private businesses have claimed they will continue to expect their customers to wear face coverings. Several TOCs and a different assortment of businesses have stated they will consider it a matter of personal choice.

 

[trebor79]

So what exactly is going to be changing come 19/7? Every day seems to bring along another reversal one way or another.

Yes I am wondering too. So much to take in. I can understand wearing masks on the train, but what if you are stood out in the open on a platform, especially somewhere like Guiseley or East Garforth?

There will be no legal requirement to wear masks anywhere. Individual companies and operators might ask you to wear one, but you are perfectly free to choose not to.
Even TfL are making masks a condition of carriage rather than a bylaw. So not legally enforceable. The BTP will not be getting involved, the worst that could happen is that a member of TfL staff could ask you to leave. But judging by how many of them don't themselves wear masks, I think that's unlikely to happen.

 

[greyman42]

Basically everywhere

What makes you think that?

 

[35B]

We have heard evidence of masks like FFP2/3 masks making a difference, but yes basic cloth and disposable mask evidence seems lacking in the public eye (and when Prof Carl Heneghan publishes a study on their lack of effectiveness, social media takes it down on misinformation grounds).

Because he misrepresented that study.

Can you help us out by providing some figures to the handwaving contained in your post?

'Masks make a difference' - What precisely? It must be possible to put a figure on it?
'The scientific consensus' - Please cite
'Observational research' - What other elements of human behaviour are regulated by punishment based on observation research?
'The exit wave poses a material risk to a significant number of people.' - How many? What is the risk? What is significant in the context of a population of 68 or so million where every single person 18+ has had the opportunity to get a vaccine?

How long do you want masks to go on for? When would you want them re-introduced? The answer to this which you are afraid to say I feel is forever. Just be honest! Alternatively feel free not to quote me again

Perhaps you need to read my post again, and what I said rather than what you want to allege I said. The quote below may be particularly relevant:

Those who believe me adamantly pro-mask and pro-restriction might be surprised to know that I was arguing that the relaxation is necessary, proportionate, and that masks aren't the be all and end all.

On your other points:

• A consensus does not mean universal agreement,
• Mask difference - I've seen various claims between 25% and 40%
• Observational research - research can take a number of formats, and decisions need to be taken on the basis of what's available.
• Significant risk/material number of people - I've seen a figure of 3.8m people who are vulnerable because they are immune compromised; material risk means that they are legitimately concerned about their exposure.

Public health decisions are about balancing various risks, and my view is that balance has shifted over the last month. But believing that the change is right doesn't mean that I believe that it's long overdue, or that it's risk free.

 

[Simon11]

Survey suggests 75% of Brits will wear masks after rules end​

Three-quarters of Britons are likely to continue wearing face coverings in shops and on public transport even when they are no longer compulsory, polling has found.
According to a survey by Ipsos Mori, 76% think it is likely that they will put a face covering on when going into shops after restrictions have been eased, while 74% said the same when it came to taking public transport.
A majority feel they are likely to wear them on planes (64%), in theatres and cinemas (60%), in their place of work (59%) and in pubs and restaurants (55%) even when no longer legally compelled to do so.
Those surveyed were less enthusiastic about wearing face masks in other settings after measures are lifted.
The prospect of attending outdoor sports and music events, like football matches and festivals, with a face mask on divided those polled, with 48% recording that they were likely to put one on. A third said they were likely to go without.
A quarter of interviewees thought they would wear masks inside the homes of friends and family once restrictions are abolished.

It doesn't help when the BBC reports that 75% of brits will wear marks on public transport and appears to be a mis-leading survey. Like most surveys, I expect the people who completed this survey are most likely people at home with plenty of time on their hands and 'not' busy out in the real world trying to earn a living.

I would bet that at the moment, only 75% of people are wearing masks even with our current restrictions in place now.....!

For me, I shall only put a mask on on the deep level tube lines, really busy areas and at places such as hospitals from next Monday.

 

[Mag_seven]

It doesn't help when the BBC reports that 75% of brits will wear marks on public transport and appears to be a mis-leading survey. Like most surveys, I expect the people who completed this survey are most likely people at home with plenty of time on their hands and 'not' busy out in the real world trying to earn a living.

I would bet that at the moment, only 75% of people are wearing masks even with our current restrictions in place now.....!

For me, I shall only put a mask on on the deep level tube lines, really busy areas and at places such as hospitals from next Monday.

I'm not interested in any polls tbh - I will observe what actually happens on Monday.