Will people go back to normal after a vaccine?

[trebor79]

But if the vulnerable are vaccinated I won't pose a risk to them surely?

Quite a lot of vulnerable people can't be vaccinated, or will get no or very limited protective effect from a vaccine.
My mum, for example who has had stem cell therapy. She's been told there's no reason she can't have the covid vaccine (there are some she absolutely must not have), but that it will very likely be ineffective for her.

 

[Bantamzen]

Sure - but as I said I'm not getting into that discussion.
I was simply stating that the whole basis for most mass vaccination programs is that the majority of people have the jab so that the minority who can't have it are fine.
The whole principal - which is nothing new - kind of flies in the face of your "individual choice" argument doesn't it?

Why not? Once that vaccination box is opened, where does it end, and more important who pays for all the extra strain on health services. Administering multiple vaccinations to 65-70 million every year, maybe more is going to be a big, long term and very expensive undertaking. Its not as if the NHS hasn't got other problems to deal with is it?

Why not exactly?
We already do mitigate for them in some respects in terms of childhood vaccinations and in terms of providing healthcare for them (in some cases some pretty specialised and expensive healthcare). Why is mandating adults have a certain vaccination any different?

And in terms of vaccinations specifically:
We basically mandate that most children should have some specific vaccinations.
And getting certain jabs for travel to other countries is nothing new either.
You seem to be suggesting that this idea of mandating the majority of people get a vaccine is somehow new. It really isn't. The only real thing that is new is we are talking about it being for adults instead of children.

Most of what we ask parents to allow given to their kids are one-off jabs. The problem magnifies exponentially when you apply that to vaccines that might need annual or even more regular doses to be effective. And then what would be the effect on out immune systems with all manner of vaccines being applied along with our regular exposure to everything that is out there?

Like I said previously we have to mitigate for the worst, and deal with the rest.

Ok so cost is one reason. Although I'd counter that by looking at how much time (and thus money) is lost by businesses every single winter due to staff being off sick, and how much money is spent by the NHS treating people who get ill with the flu. I don't have the numbers - but I'd be willing to bet it isn't as one sided as you seem to think it is. Hell it is exactly why a lot of companies do offer the flu jab to staff for free - because the cost of the jab is nothing compared to the cost of multiple members of staff being off ill with flu in the winter.

A much simpler mitigation would be to legislate to allow workers to take time off work when genuinely ill with respiratory viruses (subject to GP confirmation or NHS testing of course), and ensure they don't lose out financially.

 

[notlob.divad]

The opportunity for global elimination is quite clearly long gone at this point, quite why people persist with the idea that it's still possible I don't know.

Short term it is. Long term.. it is always possible. We have illiminated other virus born diseases in the past the past through comprehensive vaccination programs. Multiple companies are deep into the development and initial trials of universal influenza vaccines, that could (if the will is there) open the door to potentially elimination of endemic influenza.

 

[Dent]

We have illiminated other virus born diseases in the past the past through comprehensive vaccination programs.

Which diseases were these?

 

[Bantamzen]

Short term it is. Long term.. it is always possible. We have illiminated other virus born diseases in the past the past through comprehensive vaccination programs. Multiple companies are deep into the development and initial trials of universal influenza vaccines, that could (if the will is there) open the door to potentially elimination of endemic influenza.

Which diseases were these?

You can count them on one hand:

• Smallpox.
• Rinderpest

And these took a long time to kill off, and one is rumoured still to exist in controlled environments, so actually it could be just one...

 

[DB]

Which diseases were these?

Smallpox - it took nearly 200 years...

That is literally the only formerly widespread human one which has been eliminated by human intervention.

 

[notlob.divad]

That depends entirely on your risk profile...

But that is dealt with by the risk targetted roleout. If it is your turn to have the jab, at the point where it is are being offered to you, you are deemed to be amongst the highest risk at that moment. Thus the statement I made is entirely true.

 

[Bantamzen]

Smallpox - it took nearly 200 years...

That is literally the only formerly widespread human one which has been eliminated by human intervention.

Yup. We've got a great track record of viral elimination we have....

 

[DB]

And in terms of vaccinations specifically:
We basically mandate that most children should have some specific vaccinations.
And getting certain jabs for travel to other countries is nothing new either.
You seem to be suggesting that this idea of mandating the majority of people get a vaccine is somehow new. It really isn't. The only real thing that is new is we are talking about it being for adults instead of children.

Parents can refuse those. In general, that's not a good idea as these are well-proven vaccines against diseases which pose a particular risk to children - they are not comparable to a seasonal respiratory infection.

I am not aware of any precedent of trying to persuade everyone to accept a vaccine in order to to protect a very small number of people who are both at particular risk from the disease vaccinated against, and cannot have the vaccine themselves.

 

[notlob.divad]

Which diseases were these?

You can count them on one hand:

• Smallpox.
• Rinderpest

And these took a long time to kill off, and one is rumoured still to exist in controlled environments, so actually it could be just one...

Africa has now been declared free of wild polio virus, leaving only Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are in touching distance of another worldwide eradication.

We were on the verge of eradicating Measles from Europe and America, until stupid narcasistic anti-vaxxers put progress back decades. This is actually the major stumbling block on the path to worldwide eradication because until we get it irradicated amongst the people most likely to travel we cannot get ontop of it in other parts of the world.

The is a very high chance that malaria could be eradicated from the world in the next 20 years, it already has been from many continents.

Yes in each case they take a long time and a huge amount of effort to irradicate, but that is often down to socio-political reasons rather than the scientific. For example the reason erradication of Polio is still being sort, is due to the difficulties in reaching those in conflict areas. Whilst similar issues around political borders in Africa is impacting the fight against malaria.

 

[MikeWM]

Africa has now been declared free of wild polio virus, leaving only Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are in touching distance of another worldwide eradication.

As you say, *wild* polio virus. Unfortunately there are now outbreaks that have been caused by mutations from the vaccine itself.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-...tries-caused-by-mutation-of-strain-in-vaccine

New cases of polio linked to the oral vaccine have been reported in four African countries and more children are now being paralysed by vaccine-derived viruses than those infected by viruses in the wild, according to global health numbers.

 

[Cdd89]

I’ve spent quite a bit of time talking to a family member and doctor who has been heavily involved in the trials.

Have any studies shown that the current crop of vaccines have any effect on transmission?

Regarding whether it is sterilising (ie stops people from passing it on), that comes down to the trial end points. The Pfizer trial involved sitting and waiting for enough people to say they felt sick and therefore get a test. We aren’t able to say whether this is sterilising because we don’t know what happened with the asymptomatics, if any. The Oxford/AZ trial on the other hand involved testing twice a week. So while the worse case efficacy bound is lower than Pfizer’s, that’s based on more stringent criteria. Those who never shedded detectable Covid from their nose or throat swabs are almost certain to have been protected from passing it on.

It was speculated that Pfizer’s may be similarly protective, but we don’t know.

As for the premise responded to on this point - that not taking it is anti-social - once the over 50s are vaccinated the deaths will be so low (a small percentage of a small percentage) that any difference will be marginal. I think the argument can be made and more people being vaccinated will indeed save lives since no vaccine is 100% effective, but if you’re going to censure others for not taking it you’d better not be taking any other unnecessary risks yourself (flu vaccine, speeding, etc).

I’ll have it - I’m not “frightened” of getting ill with Covid but equally I’d like to avoid it if possible; and I’ll likely need to travel to places that require it, such as places that haven’t yet managed to vaccinate their own vulnerable. But my own self-interest dictates that I would like it to be done in risk order (for those who want to take it) because stopping the current death levels is the far more pressing goal for returning us to normal.

Yes of course I'll have it. I don't get this anti-vaxxer movement at all. The stuff about having chips injected is patently absurd nonsense on so many levels. As for safety, it's been through the proper trial and test protocols. That's good enough for me.
People say "oh but it usually takes year, so corners must have been cut". And that just isn't the case. It may have taken from years if starting from scratch, but some companies had work that they'd done for SARS-COV-1 to pick up (including in one case a vaccine that had completed phase 3 trials but was dropped because there was no need for it as the disease just sort of petered out).
Also with COVID, governments have placed pre-orders for hundreds of million of doses. I don't think that's ever happened before and it's a huge incentive to pharmaceutical companies to invest huge resources on their COVID vaccine effort, perhaps pausing other work that has a less certain payday.
Phase 3 trials have been able to be completed fairly quickly precisely because there is an epidemic. You give one cohort a placebo, and one the vaccine. Then you wait until a certain number of people in the trial get an infection. Then you "unblind" and see how many of the vaccinated people got infected vs how many who received the placebo, and you compare the severity of any infections too. That allows you to work out the efficacy of the vaccine candidate. With vaccine for other diseases (which might be much more deadly but far less prevalant), it can indeed take years to accumulate that statistical evidence. Phase 1 and 2 are mostly about safety, phase 3 is mostly about efficacy.

So I don't believe any "corners have been cut" in terms of the research, safet and trialling. Where corners have been cut will be in greenlighting development work, allocating resources in terms of researchers, capital, equipment, facilities, statisticians, commissioning trials, proceeding through the project pipeline etc. Companies have done this precisely because they have a guaranteed market for a successful vaccine.
Similarly with the liability waivers some governments have granted and conspiracy theorists are using to "prove" it's not safe, - that's not about rushing out an unsafe vaccine, that's about removing commercial risk for pharmaceutical companies so that they don't waste month or years prevaricating whilst their investment boards examine the risk profile, mitigations etc etc. It doesn't increase the risk that any individual will be one of the very unlucky people that has some kind of severe adverse reaction, it just means that the government rather than the company will pick up the cost of compensation etc that may result. Arguably, that's a better prospect anyway.

This post matches - almost word for word - what I have heard elsewhere. What has been more intentionally suppressed is quite how nasty the vaccine is to take, with the Oxford one being the nastiest. (In terms of side effects).

The risk from 'long covid' appears negligible, in fact it may simply be post-viral fatigue.

I’ve been told with confidence that it’s a “crock of .......” and a “middle-class illness” from people who have some unidentifiable ailment and want to blame it on Covid. It was compared to IBS in terms of being an illness with no externally visible properties. It shouldn’t be confused with taking a long time to recover which is different and is not unique to - or of greater incidence in - Covid in any way.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Why not? Once that vaccination box is opened, where does it end, and more important who pays for all the extra strain on health services. Administering multiple vaccinations to 65-70 million every year, maybe more is going to be a big, long term and very expensive undertaking. Its not as if the NHS hasn't got other problems to deal with is it?

But the point I am trying to make is that box as you call it is already opened.
We already do pretty much mandate certain people (usually children's) get certain vaccinations. That ship has already sailed.

In terms of cost - I have already mentioned in a previous post that whilst I do not have the numbers - I suspect the current costs to businesses of staff being off ill and to the NHS of having to treat people who are ill due to things like the flu are already to the point where that money would be better spent preventing the illness in the first place.

Most of what we ask parents to allow given to their kids are one-off jabs. The problem magnifies exponentially when you apply that to vaccines that might need annual or even more regular doses to be effective. And then what would be the effect on out immune systems with all manner of vaccines being applied along with our regular exposure to everything that is out there?

Not sure the scaling up to annual vaccines matters - as I said the cost of that could well be paid for by the savings made!
As for effect on our immune systems - it is a good question and I am sure it is something that would be investigated properly before any mass vaccination program of multiple vaccines etc.

A much simpler mitigation would be to legislate to allow workers to take time off work when genuinely ill with respiratory viruses (subject to GP confirmation or NHS testing of course), and ensure they don't lose out financially.

I'm not going to disagree that what you suggest should be done.
And I am really hoping that this year does start to change employers minds when it comes to staff needing to be off work with genuinely ill with contagious illnesses.
But I also think prevention, if possible, is a better solution! And the fact that many employers offer their staff the flu vaccine for free suggests that they agree with me.

Parents can refuse those. In general, that's not a good idea as these are well-proven vaccines against diseases which pose a particular risk to children - they are not comparable to a seasonal respiratory infection.

I am not aware of any precedent of trying to persuade everyone to accept a vaccine in order to to protect a very small number of people who are both at particular risk from the disease vaccinated against, and cannot have the vaccine themselves.

Again my point was more around the general concept of mandating / heavily pushing a vaccine.
We do that with children, and yes parents can refuse but it is pretty frowned upon!
So why is it a problem as soon as we are talking about adults?
If it is because of the difference in illnesses, then that is fine. But the people I am mainly having an issue with are those who are just complain about "personal choice" with no other context.

I’ve been told with confidence that it’s a “crock of .......” and a “middle-class illness” from people who have some unidentifiable ailment and want to blame it on Covid.

As DustyBin said - it is more likely Post-viral fatigue (https://www.nbt.nhs.uk/our-services...service/post-viral-fatigue-a-guide-management) than "a crock of ....". So not COVID specific - but COVID is a major virus that has infected a lot of people in this country - so it stands to reason that any longer term impact a serious virus may have one some people, we see after COVID.

Based on the people I know who have reported it, it is certainly not a middle class illness.

 

[DB]

Again my point was more around the general concept of mandating / heavily pushing a vaccine.
We do that with children, and yes parents can refuse but it is pretty frowned upon!
So why is it a problem as soon as we are talking about adults?
If it is because of the difference in illnesses, then that is fine. But the people I am mainly having an issue with are those who are just complain about "personal choice" with no other context.

You have avoided the main point - that this vaccine is not that important to most people as the risk from the disease is low, and the main reason for trying to push it is this nebulous concept of protecting others. This is entirely new and has never been used as a justification before.

 

[Crossover]

This post matches - almost word for word - what I have heard elsewhere. What has been more intentionally suppressed is quite how nasty the vaccine is to take, with the Oxford one being the nastiest. (In terms of side effects).

What sorts of side effects are there from the vaccines?

 

[Yew]

Indeed the whole point of traditional mass vaccination programs in that regard is to provide that herd immunity

I don't think it is in the case of any respiratory virus, we don't have mass vaccination of all demographics for flu, as an example.

 

[Domh245]

What sorts of side effects are there from the vaccines?

For the pfizer/bioNtech (slides 23/4) vaccine at least: Fever, Fatigue, Headache, Chills, Diarrhea, Muscle and Joint pain. Noting that these are pooled blinded data so not necessarily all patients reporting these effects actually received the vaccine. Also of note is the description: "a Mostly Mild to Moderate Tolerability Profile is Observed" - as these do generally seem to be the usual vaccine side effects, the Oxford vaccine's phase 1 trials showed similar side effects

 

[Class 33]

Even with today's excellent news that the vaccine has started to be rolled out, Patrick Vallance now saying face masks may be needed for another year yet!!!

COVID-19 vaccine: Chief scientific adviser urges public to stick to social distancing rules during vaccine rollout

Sir Patrick Vallance says masks could still be needed for some time because it is unclear if the vaccine prevents transmission.

news.sky.com

COVID-19 vaccine: Chief scientific adviser urges public to stick to social distancing rules during vaccine rollout​

Sir Patrick Vallance says masks could still be needed for some time because it is unclear if the vaccine prevents transmission.

The government's chief scientific adviser has urged Britons to continue to adhere to social distancing guidance - as it remains unclear whether Pfizer's vaccine stops transmission of coronavirus.

Sir Patrick Vallance also hailed the beginning of the vaccine rollout as a "tremendous day", but added things will not start returning to normal in the UK until spring next year.


Live COVID updates as UK rolls out Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine

He added face masks could still be needed late into 2021.

Sir Patrick told Sky News it takes time for the "immune system to kick in" after the vaccine, and said it can take a month or longer before a person has full immunity.

He continued: "It is important that we all stick to the rules... the rules are what's keeping the virus down now, we need to keep the virus down while we allow the vaccine programme to roll out.

"It may be that next winter, even with vaccination, we need measures like masks in place - we don't know yet how good all the vaccines are going to be at preventing the transmission of the virus."

Sir Patrick continued: "It's going to take quite a long time to make sure everybody in the at-risk groups and all of the groups that are difficult to reach get vaccinated as appropriate."

When asked about when life might return to how it was before the pandemic, Sir Patrick said: "It's very important that we understand this is the start of something. It's going to take quite a long time to get the vaccines out very widely.

"I would anticipate that if the vaccines arrive, and if the AstraZeneca vaccine gets approved, that you start to see enough people having been vaccinated in spring some time to start thing 'yes this is returning towards normal'.

"But when it becomes completely normal, and completely normal across the whole world is going to take longer."

He added: "So I would expect sort of springtime, April, something like that, you start to see more return towards normality, and thereafter its going to take a while before we're back to full normality."

The Pfizer vaccine is being rolled out while the Oxford/AstraZeneca being produced in the UK is yet to have had approval.

Sir Patrick has said scientists are looking at whether it will be possible to combine different COVID-19 vaccines to boost the results.

He continued: "It's a pretty standard way of boosting the immune system, so-called heterologous prime-boost.

"What it means is that you give one vaccine to get the immune system triggered up and another one to then boost it further with a different vaccine - that's an established way of getting the immune system geed up."

Sir Patrick also said he hopes vaccines which are easier to store and distribute than the Pfizer vaccine will become available soon.

The vaccine has to be stored at between -70C and -80C and can only be transported at elevated temperatures a limited number of times.

Sir Patrick said: "We do need to make sure, going forward, there are vaccines that are easier to distribute and deploy."

Sir Patrick added it was important to recognise this morning's rollout was not about "vaccine nationalism", despite the UK becoming the first country to use the Pfizer vaccine outside of trials this morning.

He continued: "It's a really tremendous day... (but) it's important to recognise that the vaccine effort has been a global one - there are countries and scientists everywhere trying to make vaccines and it looks like lots are going to be successful, which is the really good news about this."

Sir Patrick said the UK's vaccine taskforce has been vital in ensuring that the country is able to monitor and get access to vaccines being developed all over the world, as well as supporting home-grown efforts.

He continued: "This isn't about vaccine nationalism. The UK has done well to get itself set up and access vaccines and it is brilliant we are in a position to vaccinate someone today."

Another year or more into next Winter of having to wear face masks??!! You must be absolutely joking!!!! Now that this vaccine is being rolled out and by March/April the situation should be much much better than it is now, we then need to start getting back to normal pretty fast. Wearing horrible face masks in shops, in cinemas/theatres, museums, etc and on public transport is far from normal!! By April there will be simply no need for face masks! Though people who want to continue wearing them could do so if they wish. The vast majority of us want to stop having to wear these things as soon as possible. If face mask wearing requirements is still dragging on past the end of March, it will be absolutely ridiculous.

It's debatable whether these things actually stop the virus anyway. Because the requirements to wear them on public transport and in shops etc were brought in at a time when at that point the first wave of the virus was in decline anyway. And then once the second wave started in September, face mask wearing didn't stop infections from surging! So what evidence is there that these things actually prevent spread of the virus?

Vallance may well say we still have to wear face masks for another year or more yet, but Johnson doesn't have to do what Vallance says! Hopefully he will see sense and scrap face mask requirements by April.

 

[notlob.divad]

I don't think it is in the case of any respiratory virus, we don't have mass vaccination of all demographics for flu, as an example.

The reason for that is because it is ineffective. The influenza strains in circulation change every year, and as such the vaccine changes each year. We couldn't feasibly produce and vaccinate everyone against all strains of influenza within one season, and we don't currently have a universal influenza vaccination ready for roll out, that we could deploy across multiple flu seasons, although as I said above several are in development.

Maybe Covid-19 will become like this, constantly mutating with new vaccines needed. Maybe it will not mutate as frequently giving us a better chance to stay ahead.

However back with the influenza vaccine, within the NHS there is a certain expectation that all staff members will get it irrespective of any risk profile, to provide a herd immunity within the workforce, and that includes backroom administration staff not just frontline doctors and nurses.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Even with today's excellent news that the vaccine has started to be rolled out, Patrick Vallance now saying face masks may be needed for another year yet!!!

COVID-19 vaccine: Chief scientific adviser urges public to stick to social distancing rules during vaccine rollout

Sir Patrick Vallance says masks could still be needed for some time because it is unclear if the vaccine prevents transmission.

news.sky.com

Lets remember it was him that said the evidence regarding face coverings is "quite variable, quite weak"...

 

[DB]

Lets remember it was him that said the evidence regarding face coverings is "quite variable, quite weak"...

And neither he nor anyone else has since produced any evidence to counteract that! We are all just expected to accept it now as a matter of "fact" that masks are effective.

 

[HSTEd]

It's fairly clear that masks are for forever now.

They will never get rid of them - if they achieve anything it will be to prolong the lives of Tory voters that are needed at the next election.

By then an entire generation will have been indoctrinated to worship them.

 

[brad465]

It's fairly clear that masks are for forever now.

They will never get rid of them - if they achieve anything it will be to prolong the lives of Tory voters that are needed at the next election.

By then an entire generation will have been indoctrinated to worship them.

I don't see how they would prolong the lives of Tory voters if the evidence for their effectiveness is still questionable. Also worth remembering the libertarian bunch in the Tory party won't want masks to stick around, certainly not as a legal requirement, with Sir Desmond Swayne for example describing them in Parliament as a "monstrous imposition", when debating their requirement in shops.

 

[DB]

I don't see how they would prolong the lives of Tory voters if the evidence for their effectiveness is still questionable. Also worth remembering the libertarian bunch in the Tory party won't want masks to stick around, certainly not as a legal requirement, with Sir Desmond Swayne for example describing them in Parliament as a "monstrous imposition", when debating their requirement in shops.

I'm not sure either that there is any correlation between the typical Tory-voting demographic and maskivism - the most convinced maskivists mostly seem to be younger.

 

[MikeWM]

Even with today's excellent news that the vaccine has started to be rolled out, Patrick Vallance now saying face masks may be needed for another year yet!!!

This is the sort of thing I was talking about above when I quoted

It's not enough to hope that governments declare an end to all this and lift the restrictions. We are going to have make everyone understand just how wrong it has been.

If we don't show these things to be *wrong*, *ineffective* and/or *immoral*, we'll be subject to the same things over and over again in the years to come. I can name at least 6 virus scares in the last 20 years off the top of my head - SARS, MERS, swine flu, bird flu, Zika, ebola. Add in bad flu years ('we must protect the NHS') and there's no reason not to believe we'll be locked down and masked and socially distancing on and off repeatedly for decades to come.

We can't just breathe a sigh of relief when the current issue is over - if it is ever over - if the prevailing wisdom is that we should have locked down earlier or harder and worn masks earlier or more. Because then we'll be doing it all over again, sooner than you think.

 

[trebor79]

I don't see how they would prolong the lives of Tory voters if the evidence for their effectiveness is still questionable. Also worth remembering the libertarian bunch in the Tory party won't want masks to stick around, certainly not as a legal requirement, with Sir Desmond Swayne for example describing them in Parliament as a "monstrous imposition", when debating their requirement in shops.

It's not whether they are *actually* of any use, it's the *perception* of whether they are useful which is what matters, politcally speaking.

Personally, I can't wait until the day we are rid of the stupid things. When that might be, I wouldn't like to guess. I guess it could be March 2022 when the endabling act expires (unless parliament votes to extend it), but it might be sooner. Perhaps the repeal of all these restrictions and impositions will be the reverse of their introduction. So we might see Michael Gove on TV saying "Oh no, I don't think the mask mandate will be repealed any time soon, only for Boris to do just that the very next day".
Who knows with this lot "in charge", pandering to focus group polling?

 

[HSTEd]

I don't see how they would prolong the lives of Tory voters if the evidence for their effectiveness is still questionable.

Well if they do do anything, it etends the lives of the Tory voters

Also worth remembering the libertarian bunch in the Tory party won't want masks to stick around, certainly not as a legal requirement, with Sir Desmond Swayne for example describing them in Parliament as a "monstrous imposition", when debating their requirement in shops.

What Tory voters want is irrelevant.
All that matters is enough be alive at the next election to vote, they will dutifully turn out to issue the party another "stonking maj".

At the end of the day, those voters can easily be bought with another bung - but they can't be bought if they are dead.

 

[LOL The Irony]

It's fairly clear that masks are for forever now.

They will never get rid of them - if they achieve anything it will be to prolong the lives of Tory voters that are needed at the next election.

By then an entire generation will have been indoctrinated to worship them.

The only benefit to them is that they mess with facial recognition software.

 

[Class 33]

It's not whether they are *actually* of any use, it's the *perception* of whether they are useful which is what matters, politcally speaking.

Personally, I can't wait until the day we are rid of the stupid things. When that might be, I wouldn't like to guess. I guess it could be March 2022 when the endabling act expires (unless parliament votes to extend it), but it might be sooner. Perhaps the repeal of all these restrictions and impositions will be the reverse of their introduction. So we might see Michael Gove on TV saying "Oh no, I don't think the mask mandate will be repealed any time soon, only for Boris to do just that the very next day".
Who knows with this lot "in charge", pandering to focus group polling?

Me too. I will be very happy when the day comes when we are rid of the stupid things! And am hoping that will be middle of next year at the very very latest. But am prepared for it to be until 31st March 2021 at the very earliest.

It's bad enough having to wear these darn things in a supermarket for 10 minutes or however long. But it's another thing when you have to wear them for a very extended amount of time such as in a cinema for 2 and a half hours or so, in a museum for 3 to 4 hours or so, or on a long train journey for as long as 4 to 5 hours or so. I like many people like doing all those such pursuits WITHOUT having to wear face masks, and have been unable to do so since June/July when these silly face mask laws were brought in. We hope to be able to do so again sometime next year, when life really ought to be back to normal by then.

There was an elderly man of 98 years old on BBC Points West tonight, who was the first person in Bristol to be vaccinated today. He said he hopes by the middle of next year that life is back to normal again. I hope he gets to see his wish come true....

 

[HSTEd]

The only benefit to them is that they mess with facial recognition software.

I'm sure the government can deal with that by requiring people to wear a distinctive Aztec code pattern on the mask.