Monday 13th July 2020

Post by **refitman** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 6:38 am

Morning all.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 7:16 am

Good morning

I would like to respond that rather offensive post about me last night, which I think sums up the problems we have

There seems to be almost an accepted truth to everything that any attempt to nuance or bring another view on is not accepted. In this some people who like to see themselves as progressive and liberal are almost as closed-minded as those they are happy to criticise.

We saw this with Brexit where the FBPE crowd refused to listen to any argument and we needed up with two extreme camps and no-one in the middle. These cases are not the 'if you want to know if it is raining the easiest thing is to go out and check' kind as there is no agreed 'truth'.

Take Covid-19. As cJA quite rightly pointed out yesterday there is no fixed view as scientists are learning all the time. Also, this covers a lot of strands of scientific thought and there is no one person who knows everything. Data is being gathered more and more now and our understanding improves but many of our assumptions were based on the early stages of the epidemic where the data was poor.

On facemasks I found my position attacked with a nice ad hominem or two thrown in. If the person involved had read my points properly rather than having a drunken, incoherent rant then perhaps it would have been easier? I have no issues wearing facemasks - 'common sense' would say they help but that is not always a good indicator. Until last year the WHO were unconvinced about their efficacy and even early on in the pandemic their advice was not to wear them.

Evidence is mounting that they have some benefit and for that reason I am happy to wear them but to pretend that it is conclusive is mistaken and there are conflicting data mainly around how this virus is really transmitted. Lockdowns have been released in a number of countries and evidence that making mask wearing compulsory has been clearly seen to help is sparse but I can understand why they did it.

My issue is that I do not want to see facemask wearing become 'normal' for the reasons I stated. If we take Switzerland. Facemask wearing was made compulsory 2 months after lockdown released. In last 2 months we have had <20 deaths and low hospitalisations. Facemasks only worn by 10-20% people. Since then we have seen a small uptick in cases (mainly based on nightclubs) but this coincided with increased testing as the tests became more easily available. My question is that if we made them compulsory when all the indicators were very low then at what point would the decision be made to make them non-compulsory? They cannot get any lower....

I am also a bit bemused that we have compulsory facemasks here to potentially save lives but they were never proposed by Governments during winter flu seasons where I assume that they would have also had significant effects and probably saved 100000s (perhaps millions) of lives over the last 50 years or so. Perhaps I am wrong and we should all wear facemasks all the time in order to prevent all airborne infections. If saving lives and protecting the vulnerable is what we want then I assume that there is support for compulsory facemask wearing from now on?

I have opinions on this epidemic that go against some of the accepted norms - I have spent a lot of time looking at the data and how different countries have fared. The simplistic explanations don't seem to hold but the one thing that does stand out is the abject failure of Governments in protecting the vulnerable in care homes and hospitals.

I am reluctant to post anymore setting out my views on forums now as this has become so political - it is not about science and data really now, and it opens you up to the abuse I received last night

The modelling for epidemics (SEIR model) is very much accepted such as the modelling for climate science is. The difference with the latter is that the assumptions etc within that complex model have substantial backing from the experts in the area. Quantification is always difficult but there is no real argument that the assumption are correct.

The same is not for the SEIR model for this pandemic though and there are huge arguments about the S particularly. This is where the immunology comes in and is critical to understanding how the epidemic manifests itself. Also, we have only limited understanding of how many have been exposed, infected and recovered due to this vast range of symptomatic responses. The fact that these base assumptions are not agreed on makes it very difficult to predict. There is also the possibility of seasonality coming into play and what that may mean - the Swedish numbers where there was no lockdown show a similar pattern to other countries and could be indicative of seasonality

This disease is complicated, odd and unknown so we should be very cautious with it. It does not mean though that we have to take every worst-case situation and assume that is the reality. There is room for nuance and debate but I don't think it is possible in our current word where you have to be either in the Trump/Johnson team or the Sturgeon/Ardern team. I am in neither because I think it is much too complex for that but there you go

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 8:28 am

A pretty good summary of where science is at the moment - this one being an argument about masks and their efficacy.....!

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspec ... nce-during" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As mask are a relatively easy intervention and are not problematic at all for short to medium term use I support them being mandatory in certain situations. Whether they are actually effective vs distancing and other NPI is another matter

Other NPI are more problematic (lockdown for example) and should not be used without some evidence they work above other measures

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 9:06 am

I don't think I'd find a sincere apology after a drunken rant to be offensive, but there you go !

This is interesting, and begs more questions on the detail ?

A “Covid party” is a gathering held by somebody diagnosed with coronavirus to see if the virus is real and to see if anyone gets infected, she explained.

I guess the host (in more ways than one ...) must be asymptomatic, for a start ! https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... arty-texas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/j ... 9-recovery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Should the LP be more forthright on the Wealth Tax ?????

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 9:09 am

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Andrea Leadsom - It was made very clear, in 2016, that people would lose their jobs in the event of a no-deal.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 9:33 am

frog222 wrote:I don't think I'd find a sincere apology after a drunken rant to be offensive, but there you go !

This is interesting, and begs more questions on the detail ?
A “Covid party” is a gathering held by somebody diagnosed with coronavirus to see if the virus is real and to see if anyone gets infected, she explained.
I guess the host (in more ways than one ...) must be asymptomatic, for a start ! https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... arty-texas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/j ... 9-recovery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Should the LP be more forthright on the Wealth Tax ?????

sincere? really?

I don't need you to tell me how to react to an ad hominem thanks.

It was symptomatic of the point I was making - someone makes a point that the science is a bit messy and not fixed but is happy to go along as it isn't too onerous and also seems to make sense but that there is a caution too and then gets told the arguments are 'lame' and you are 'too dumb' to understand.

The linked paper above is less sure than you are on this but I suppose those quoted in there are 'too dumb' to understand too

This is about facemasks which to me are not that problematic - but the same approach is often used elsewhere too.

And to the politics - I am on the left and I prefer the Republicans but the most disturbing act in the whole US story thus far was Cuomo (a Democrat) sending infected people into vulnerable care home environments that probably led to thousands of deaths.

I am happy to stay open-minded, to see how things develop and use the data to help inform my position. This too often descends into party politicking

I am not a libertarian by any means (as was suggested I may be last night) but there is a big space between libertarian and authoritarian

Edited to add: Willow mad a good point yesterday about masks and the behavioural aspects. The 'common sense' approach would say even if they were not that effective then they do no harm. However, one of the consequences is often seen that people no longer social distance wearing masks and this is where the concern often lies. In the end you may not be comparing wearing a mask with not wearing one but rather wearing a mask with social distancing. I have no idea where the risk balance lies so will try to do both (will all mask wearers though?) but perhaps it is 'lame and dumb' to point this out?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 10:21 am

@howsillyofme

An interesting thing about this pandemic has been the sheep tendency. In terms of forcing Johnson off his ass and do something in response to the coronavirus, it's literally been lifesaving in my opinion, but there's no discernment in it. The pressure from the public to do what everyone else has been doing has been extremely powerful, but somewhat arbitrary. We are thus somewhat dependent on everyone else having some idea of what they're doing. It's just a shame this pressure is so easily manipulated and I fear that's what's been happening with masks. Some of the countries that have been least economically impacted have invested hugely in effective track and trace - and masks. Germany has invested in exemplary primary care with people testing positive being carefully monitored in their homes - and masks. Those are two off the top of my head and I hope you get my point. I agree with you because although mask wearing could be helpful on top of other things, I'd rather be talking about the other things and pressuring the government on those. The government's choice to sew confusion, aided by the media, over whether or not they will become compulsory feels a deliberate misdirection preventing us questioning their record on far more important areas. The most important of which, imo, is ensuring people have the financial means and support from employers to stay home when sick. If there is one permanent measure to come out of this, for me it should be that.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 10:30 am

Great post Willow - can't disagree with any of it!

We over here are similar to Germany and to be honest wearing masks here is not causing too many issues (although it only applies to two Cantons for shops so we have a big experiment going on!).

The Government here is seen as performing pretty well - some disquiet about some of the reopening recently and the speed but they could go back on a few of the measure without too many problems (nightclubs and 1000 people events spring to mind)

The UK Government has been a shambles - mixed messages, no clear strategy, confusion, lack of trust etc.....and decisions they make are poorly timed and badly explained. The PPE and care homes situation is a scandal that should have consequences. Look at the mask announcement (or not) this last week. No clarity and no sense. Sturgeon, although I do not agree with some of what she is doing, is much clearer and she has the air of competence which is so important.

The Government is to blame for the climate of fear going around!

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 10:34 am

Morning all.

No doubt Mr Gove will tell everyone about all the countries in the world that we can now trade with now that we've extracted ourselves from the tentacles of the EU.

I used to have the wonderful job at year end of downloading sold-to country stats and then placing them in the right continent for the geographical split of turnover...it got a bit tedious when there was something over 190 countries to allocate...including Ships Stores - where the hell do you put those?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 10:48 am

I always like reading howsilly's contributions here even if I do not always agree.

That's all

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 10:51 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I always like reading howsilly's contributions here even if I do not always agree.

That's all

likewise...and I don't always agree with myself....so much conflicting info!

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 12:15 pm

So I just got back from shopping, where everyone was still obediently obeying social distancing rules (I know this isn't the case everywhere in the UK) but I only saw two people wearing a mask.

I turn on the news and the presenter is saying that Boris Johnson has said people "should" be wearing masks in shops and they're looking at "tools of enforcement".

They haven't even asked people to wear masks in shops yet or endorsed it as something important to do, yet suddenly it's "should" as if we've been told this, but we haven't. They said we must socially distance. If the advice has changed, why can't they just change the frigging advice, instead of this whole will they/won't they bollocks.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 12:23 pm

Well the "advice" was different yesterday, and will probably be different again tomorrow.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 12:25 pm

I suspect they don't want to tell people that they must wear masks for fear of upsetting the libertarians who throw their toys out of the pram at the first sign of "You must do this."

See that tweet I posted up from Q.Letts the other day when he proclaimed that he would stay indoors if that happened - whereupon most people said "Great. Bring it on..."

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 12:57 pm

I will feel less comfortable going out if they get rid of the two metre rule, personally. Whether people wear masks or not. If masks are in addition to distancing, then fine, but if wearing masks mean people feel free to no longer distance, I'll be staying home more. There are no minimum standards for masks, we know very little about what protection different types might confer. And they fog up my glasses, so I certainly won't be tempted into any optional additional consumer spending "for fun" if we have to wear them!

I notice in Wales, when they are bringing in compulsory face masks for public transport, to align with England, they're stating "three layer" face masks, rather than England's vague "face covering", which is interesting. I do think its very important on public transport where people are in close quarters in a closed environment for a sustained period of time.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 1:06 pm

I think the 2 metre rule has already been "informally" relaxed though.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 2:02 pm

I posted this one yesterday but let's have it again, as it was so succinct.

Anand Menon
@anandMenon1
So the Government clearly want us to wear masks, but clearly don’t want to be seen to be telling us to wear masks. So that’s all very clear.

GetYou · Post by **GetYou** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 2:08 pm

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 2:23 pm

The government recommends that you keep two metres away from people as a precaution or one metre when you can mitigate the risk by taking other precautions in this list.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -your-home" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's taken me 5 mins to even find that on the website, how many are going to take the trouble to do that, let alone read it all.

edit - and it's all about as clear as the bit I've quoted, if you do read it

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 2:30 pm

For instance, it refers to 'other precautions on this list' one of which is face coverings.

If you can, you should also wear a face covering in other enclosed public spaces where social distancing isn’t possible and where you will come into contact with people you do not normally meet.

but

Face coverings do not replace social distancing.

Even by this govt's standards, it's bollocks.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 2:33 pm

And yes, I heard him say this the other day. I wonder what the "knowledge-rich curriculum" people think about it?

mary beard
@wmarybeard
Have I just heard right? Did Gavin Williamson say THE PURPOSE of education was to get a job? Now I dont think any of us in higher ed aim to turn out cohorts of the unemployable.. but THE PURPOSE???
1:11 PM · Jul 12, 2020·Twitter Web App

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 2:33 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I always like reading howsilly's contributions here even if I do not always agree.

That's all

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 2:34 pm

Good afternoon, everyone.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 2:44 pm

The sheer brass neck of it. I'm not in the least bit surprised though.

Why Britain must ditch the Brexit deal

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-uk- ... ment-deal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is therefore a major scandal that the Remain establishment and the U.K. parliament did everything possible to undermine the will of the people and to make leaving as painful as could be. The Remainers will always be shamed for shackling the country to a poison pill: the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement. Alongside the declaration on a future relationship, the Withdrawal Agreement remains to contaminate our opportunities and our relations with the EU for decades to come — our future as a nation.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 2:51 pm

gilsey wrote:
The government recommends that you keep two metres away from people as a precaution or one metre when you can mitigate the risk by taking other precautions in this list.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -your-home" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's taken me 5 mins to even find that on the website, how many are going to take the trouble to do that, let alone read it all.

edit - and it's all about as clear as the bit I've quoted, if you do read it

I've noticed that too, guidance questing on the government website. Information isn't on the website page it's supposed to be on given the webpages' titles. I've had to work my way through links to find what I'm looking for. It's often not all on the same webpage though it could be. This isn't new. Government webpages have been a struggle for years. I suppose it's so government can say the information is available while keeping as many people as possible from actually finding it. Government don't like most people. I can't think of any other reason for their hiding information.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 5:05 pm

The UK government is to build “10 to 12” new Brexit border customs and controls sites across the country as it unveils the biggest shake-up to trading with the EU for 50 years.
---
They will handle up to 400m customs declarations a year, insiders said on Monday, with HM Revenue & Customs writing to 12,000 businesses trading with the EU – who up to now have not had to fill in customs declarations – warning them of the changes ahead.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... g-shake-up" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Border Operating Model
A guide to how the border with the European Union will work after the transition period.
Published 13 July 2020
From: Cabinet Office
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ting-model" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 6:28 pm

'Project Fear' becomes fact.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 6:56 pm

10 July
UK has opted out of advance purchase of coronavirus vaccine candidates with the EU
The UK government has decided not to join the European Union’s coronavirus vaccine scheme.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... n-england/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

UK has opted out of EU coronavirus vaccine programme, sources say
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... ources-say" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GetYou · Post by **GetYou** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 8:08 pm

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 8:09 pm

gilsey wrote:'Project Fear' becomes fact.

But the people who came up with that phrase also believe in "good facts" as opposed to "real facts", so.......

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 8:15 pm

Finally arrived then?

Labour confirms it has received draft of landmark EHRC report into antisemitism

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/labour-co ... m-1.501567" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Labour Party has confirmed it has received a draft of the landmark Equalities and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) report into its handling of antisemitism.

In a statement on Monday party officials confirmed they had received the long-awaited report from the equalities watchdog.

New General Secretary David Evans has also warned party of the consequences should anyone attempt to leak any of the report ahead of its publication.

Under the Equality Act 2010, the subject of an investigation by the commission must be given at least 28 days in order to make representations of its findings before the final report is released.

Let's get on with it. Accept the findings. Change the way the party handles complaints. And move on.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 13 Jul, 2020 10:37 pm

Face coverings (or is it masks?) to become mandatory in England in shops from July 24th.

Monday 13th July 2020

Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020

Re: Monday 13th July 2020