Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh, so you are a scientist now? :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agreed, surely it is definitely now time to end the Plan B measures, not that I would have expected them to have actually done much anyway, especially masks which don't work very much (if we were all wearing N95 masks it would probably be a bit different), are divisive because some people are clearly attached to wearing them now, cause issues with communication, mental health and anxiety, and aren't used properly by a lot of people anyway. Working from home was the only useful measure, and even that has limited use (and was guidance anyway) because not all jobs can be done from home and some people prefer to be around others in a workplace even if it can be done from home. Talking to your colleagues online isn't the same either.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What’s the point? There will only be exemptions for the rich, and whatever countries we are seeking trade deals with. Then the opportunity to enter via indirect fights.

Politicians don’t get to declare viruses endemic for their own ends. The characteristics of a virus make it endemic, and the ability to collapse a healthcare system isn’t generally regarded as one of them.

---------- Post added at 17:25 ---------- Previous post was at 17:22 ----------

Neither do the Government get to declare the end of WFH. It now suits many businesses and their employees and generates savings. Plus the obvious benefit of reducing the chances of simultaneous numbers of staff being sick at the same time or isolating due to an outbreak. With vaccines unable to prevent outbreaks of this variant, never mind the inevitability of the next one, it’s here to stay regardless of what the politicians say.

Masks are only divisive because right wing politicians decided to make them so.

---------- Post added at 17:27 ---------- Previous post was at 17:25 ----------

It’s a social science. And the only thing this, and the US, Government are following with the latest iterations of their rules.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

It doesn't need politicians to suggest that though does it? And it should remain suggested if at all possible for non-covid reasons too - reducing emissions from travelling, crowding on PT etc.



Companies don't need the government to dictate or to tell them that. It's common sense that if someone goes into the workplace with a virus other members of staff in the workplace will probably catch it. And if they are working from home the chances of them coming into contact with others with the virus will be diminished. It doesn't even need to be covid, you see previously how you can get outbreaks of colds, flu, norovirus, anything else in a closed environment where a lot of people are sat close together all day.



But they should still consider some sort of hybrid working with not everyone in the office all the time, and respect the wishes of employees who would still prefer to work from home (provided doing so didn't impact on their performance) who may have other requirements, dependents with CEV, or may simply just feel safer.



And because they don't work yet some people think forcing everyone to wear one is the right answer.


OK, so yes some face covering (preferably a surgical grade one) may help stop spread on public transport and in healthcare settings and this should be strongly suggested, but people wearing a bit of cloth in a shop for 2 minutes, which they pulled up off their chin?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=1345

Re: Coronavirus
 

Seatbelts don’t work if you don’t wear them properly, and don’t prevent death in a car accident, yet they’re a fraction of as politically divisive.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There was WFH before COVID. I’ve worked from home, at least a few days a week, for 16 years.

Certainly ( some) companies will have noticed healthy cash flows with reduced utility costs and almost nil travel and expenses costs. Employees however will have noticed increased utility costs, but reduced travel costs.

But some people also prefer and/or need to interact with others in an office environment

I think there will be an increase in WFH but not as large as some would expect, and it will be something like 3days in 2 days home etc.

I would also be amazed if there was ever another lockdown.

---------- Post added at 18:32 ---------- Previous post was at 18:28 ----------

I think you mean don’t prevent “all” deaths. I’m pretty sure a lot of deaths and serious injury has been prevented by wearing seatbelts.

But comparing the two is nonsensical.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There may well not be another lockdown - but that’s a massive leap from no restrictions whatsoever.

“Running hot” with the delta variant didn’t create a massive upturn in city centre economic activity (or immunity against omicron) and there’s no reason to expect a rush back to the office against a backdrop of a larger number of omicron cases.

I’m pretty sure transmission has been prevented from mask wearing, and consequent hospitalisations and deaths. The evidence clearly supports this regardless of what anti mask groups claim. It may not prevent “all” transmission - hence my entirely valid and appropriate comparison.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I imagine this type of thing must be happening in other parts of the world too...

Link

Re: Coronavirus
 

So if people were allowed to use a piece of sellotape or cotton in place of a the seatbelt which was fitted into the car, that wouldn't stop you being flung around like a crash dummy. So that's the equivalent with people using cloth or paper masks as opposed to the medical ones which do work much more effectively.


The whole seatbelts rabbit hole is fundamentally flawed anyway.


It should be nigh on obvious to anyone, and you can watch a video to show this quite easily, how a seatbelt in a car prevents you from being thrown around as much in the event of an impact (though in itself isn't always sufficient to prevent death or serious injury). It doesn't take much more digging to see that in an actual example of this, the one person in the crash which killed Diana who survived was wearing a seat belt and the others who didn't died.



The link there is obvious, can be seen, and can be justified categorically.


The link with masks is less obvious, less universally agreed on, less proven to make a difference. In the early days of the pandemic we had both the CMO and two of his then deputies all saying that wearing cloth face masks did little. This point hasn't really changed over time, indeed the only benefit is a possible reduction in transmission exiting from people who should be at home anyway. If you don't have covid, then wearing a mask does nothing for you, it does nothing for anyone else, it is just a visual sign we're in a pandemic and that you are complying with whatever the state tells you to do. If they said we needed to stand on the doorstep at 6pm and clap the health service every day then people would no doubt do it without questioning, which is very Orwellian.


If anyone really thinks the gaps in a cloth face mask are enough to stop a virus getting through it, they need to think about how big these are, even multiple layers, which stand a greater chance, don't always stop it getting through. If they did. then how come all this covid transmission is happening when everyone has had to wear masks in shops and PT since the end of November and in any enclosed public space since the middle of December, which is one month ago. If it worked, the transmission would be cut to within households within a matter of days, as households, pubs, restaurants etc is really the only indoor spaces you don't need to wear a mask in, unless you're exempt, which is a minority of people. Better masks would probably help more, but even then, you're still hitting tennis balls at scaffolding and expecting them to bounce back...

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s what happens when you allow non-expert input into an expert subject matter.

Again you’re doing the extremely common anti-mask trait of setting the bar at 100% effective.

I fail to see how you come to the conclusion that the only transmission would be within households if pubs and restaurants were venues people could freely mix with other households (and nightclubs) for extended periods without masks. And of course schools. It’s simply not credible to claim this was achievable at all under that scenario let alone “in a matter of days”.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So where is it transmitting then? Given that it's an airborne virus which dissipates easily in outdoor settings and less so in indoor ones, and other non-airborne methods of transmission are now thought to be minor...


Consider where you would usually go indoors.
Pubs/restaurants - No mask wearing at all, but then you can't wear a mask if you're eating or drinking, so as this dominates one's time in the venue, wearing it going in and out is unlikely to offer any more protection than not wearing one (provided distance is kept) and in any case the virus is going to spread when people are sat or standing at the bar drinking etc.
Nightclubs - No mask wearing but under Plan B measures need either a vaccine passport or proof of a negative LFT to get in. Potentially spreading, given that being vaccinated doesn't mean you aren't going to spread the virus, but then, the people going here are unlikely to be at much risk anyway
Shops, Public transport, healthcare settings, museums, places of worship, cinemas, concert venues etc - Mask wearing is mandatory in these unless you are either exempt medically or performing a task which is mask exempt. Larger venues with over 500 people also need vax passes.

Workplaces not covered by the above - Most office based staff will be working from home under Plan B guidance, you would expect those who can't would probably be wearing a mask, but this is a matter for individual workplaces to settle
Schools - Mandatory for secondary school kids and staff to wear a mask in lessons, corridors, communal areas unless outside, doing a mask exempt activity (such as a music or PE lesson) or mask exempt. Primary age kids not mandatory
I really can't think of many areas where you would meet other people indoors (aside from mixing in private homes) where it's not covered by one of the above, or a mask mandate.


So it either isn't spreading in any of those environments, or it is and masks are nowhere near effective enough as they should be - the only other alternative is that it's spreading within households and mixing in private homes, which it won't be. So where is it? Last time they reported on this, it was mainly in schools, households, hospitals, institutions like prisons, and workplaces. If that's still the case why masks in shops?


Also, you're not quite getting the "within a few days" - probably you would need a week or two due to the incubation period of the virus, but, that hasn't really been the case either has it?


It needs to work or it needs to not be a measure. We're nearly two years into the pandemic and scatter gun approaches based on "oh well it probably reduces it by a little bit" don't really wash now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is little evidence [I've seen] that most masks make much (if any) difference.
Even real evidence is hard to come by, and generally refers to 'proper' masks (worn correctly).

The covid requirement has always been "a face covering" rather than a mask.
So visors have been ok to use (what real use are they ?) or scarfs, or any old bit of material.

If we were all going around with proper maks, it may have had small effect, the flimsy coverings most people have (if they even wear them properly) not so much.

Have Wales and Scotland had much lower infection levels than England in this last wave (or previous ones) with their stricter measures (inc masks) ?

It doesnt really seem so.