July 19th

[redsturgeon]

I will be interested to see what the plans are for July 19th.

Will they be dropping the need for self isolation and test and trace?

The reason I ask is that in my city the number of places having shut down in the last few days is getting out of hand. These include nurseries, pubs, restaurants, coffee shops and hairdressers.

We can open up and reduce mitigations as much as we like but if the current test and trace regulations stay in force then we can look forward to lock down by default as cases rise.

John

[pje16]

I can see July 19 the day when most people think it's over
There many now who seem to think that double vaccine makes them bullet proof - fact - it does not
God help us if we have to rely on common sense, something that in a lot of folk is in short supply
Watch cases go up rapidly, the great news is that hospital cases are not rising to the same extent.

[zico]

I can see July 19 the day when most people think it's over
There many now who seem to think that double vaccine makes them bullet proof - fact - it does not
God help us if we have to rely on common sense, something that in a lot of folk is in short supply
Watch cases go up rapidly, the great news is that hospital cases are not rising to the same extent.

For me, July 19 is "loss of freedom" day. At the moment, I can go into lots of indoor environments and feel safe because virtually everyone is wearing masks. From Monday July 19, the chances of infection in (say) supermarkets will be a lot higher, firstly because most people won't wear masks (particularly the ones who are careless about Covid anyway) and with every passing week, the number of infections will be virtually doubling.

Jenrick today has said "the data looks very positive", but without saying why. He also says he won't wear a mask if there's a choice, missing (deliberately) the main point of mask-wearing is to protect other people, not yourself. In effect, he saying he will choose not to protect the health of other people by wearing a mask.

For the record, I don't like wearing masks - they can be hot, uncomfortable, they make my glasses steam up, and I'd much rather see the whole of people's faces. But they're much better than the alternative, which is that a dangerous disease infects a lot more people than it otherwise would. Seems to me that right-wing (mostly) commentators are affronted by the readiness of the UK public to support and adopt sensible infection control measures such as mask-wearing, and are trying desperately to wean us off the idea of caring about other people's safety.

[88V8]

....the main point of mask-wearing is to protect other people, not yourself.

This has never been widely understood. Lost cause, I'm afraid.

Outdoors I have never felt at risk. Indoors, I shall continue to prioritise good ventilation, and avoid places that don't have it.
Aircraft?... mmm, don't think so, unless I can open my window.

V8

[Mike4]

I will be interested to see what the plans are for July 19th.

Will they be dropping the need for self isolation and test and trace?

The reason I ask is that in my city the number of places having shut down in the last few days is getting out of hand. These include nurseries, pubs, restaurants, coffee shops and hairdressers.

We can open up and reduce mitigations as much as we like but if the current test and trace regulations stay in force then we can look forward to lock down by default as cases rise.

John

The impression I gained from the "Road Map Out of Lockdown" was that the last (irreversible) step out of lockdown was planned for June 19th when all restrictions were to be finally scrapped.

Now this has ben put back to July 19th they seem to be rowing back on that and telling us the things that will be lifted (e.g. mandatory masks inside become optional), so by implication the stuff they are not prattling on about in the media will be staying. Including test and trace.

[Julian]

I will be interested to see what the plans are for July 19th.

Will they be dropping the need for self isolation and test and trace?

The reason I ask is that in my city the number of places having shut down in the last few days is getting out of hand. These include nurseries, pubs, restaurants, coffee shops and hairdressers.

We can open up and reduce mitigations as much as we like but if the current test and trace regulations stay in force then we can look forward to lock down by default as cases rise.

John

Absolutely. You might have noticed that it’s one of my hobby horses at the moment with a few posts from me in various threads fretting about the effect this could have on whatever passes for normal life if cases continue to grow and self-quarantine procedures stay the same (and assuming a reasonable percentage of people continue to comply with said procedures).

The escape from this, if media rumours are to be believed, is a plan to exempt the fully vaccinated from self-isolation when contact traced, I think instead recommending daily testing for some number of days (lateral flow? PCR? No idea). I saw further media chatter the the government was a bit on the fence about this because some of the behavioural scientists on, or associated with, SAGE were saying that such a policy would create resentment amongst the not-yet-fully-vaccinated and lead to overall lower levels of compliance from those that would still be required to self-isolate. I hope that doesn’t sway things. Firstly, if I had to pick a weak point in the science advice from what I’ve read so far it would be the behavioural advice, in particular don’t lock down too early in 2020 because the public will only tolerate it for a limited period of time. Secondly, we do need a solution to this issue if we do unlock on the 19th and cases continue to rise or even stay at the current daily level so I really do hope that the behavioural scientists are wrong on this issue too.

- Julian

[Mike4]

Jenrick today has said "the data looks very positive", but without saying why. He also says he won't wear a mask if there's a choice, missing (deliberately) the main point of mask-wearing is to protect other people, not yourself. In effect, he saying he will choose not to protect the health of other people by wearing a mask.

He also said something I thought really odd and jarring, that if people don't 'enjoy' wearing a mask they shouldn't have to, or something along those lines.

Enjoy? Where does enjoyment come into pandemic handling? He does have the strangest view of the way the world is, odder even than Hancock's.

[zico]

Jenrick today has said "the data looks very positive", but without saying why. He also says he won't wear a mask if there's a choice, missing (deliberately) the main point of mask-wearing is to protect other people, not yourself. In effect, he saying he will choose not to protect the health of other people by wearing a mask.

He also said something I thought really odd and jarring, that if people don't 'enjoy' wearing a mask they shouldn't have to, or something along those lines.

Enjoy? Where does enjoyment come into pandemic handling? He does have the strangest view of the way the world is, odder even than Hancock's.

Exactly. I didn't "enjoy" getting my second vaccination from a heavy-handed nurse, as it felt like someone had thrown a dart at my arm! I didn't enjoy the soreness at night, and I didn't enjoy keeping my distance from friends, family and people in general, or avoiding flights around the world. Perhaps Jenricks also thinks that only people who should have to quarantine are those who enjoy quarantine.

[redsturgeon]

Jenrick today has said "the data looks very positive", but without saying why. He also says he won't wear a mask if there's a choice, missing (deliberately) the main point of mask-wearing is to protect other people, not yourself. In effect, he saying he will choose not to protect the health of other people by wearing a mask.

He also said something I thought really odd and jarring, that if people don't 'enjoy' wearing a mask they shouldn't have to, or something along those lines.

Enjoy? Where does enjoyment come into pandemic handling? He does have the strangest view of the way the world is, odder even than Hancock's.

Exactly. I didn't "enjoy" getting my second vaccination from a heavy-handed nurse, as it felt like someone had thrown a dart at my arm! I didn't enjoy the soreness at night, and I didn't enjoy keeping my distance from friends, family and people in general, or avoiding flights around the world. Perhaps Jenricks also thinks that only people who should have to quarantine are those who enjoy quarantine.

Is that same Jenrick (note the singular rather than plural spelling , one is enough) who broke lockdown to visit his parents 150 miles away?

John

[zico]

Is that same Jenrick (note the singular rather than plural spelling , one is enough) who broke lockdown to visit his parents 150 miles away?

John

Totally justifiable, he wasn't enjoying lockdown or not seeing his parents, and anyway, he was the only person who could possibly pick up their prescriptions for them, so they'd have got sick and died without his humanitarian mercy mission.

[onthemove]

I can see July 19 the day when most people think it's over
There many now who seem to think that double vaccine makes them bullet proof - fact - it does not
God help us if we have to rely on common sense, something that in a lot of folk is in short supply

Double vaccine shifts the covid risk to on a par with (or less risk than) other risks in life.

Common sense says that when you've had both jabs, it's quite reasonable and rational to go back to living life as (old) normal.

The old normal was never risk free - fact - you were never bullet proof before covid.

Covid isn't going to go away, and we're not going to test and trace, wear masks, social distance, and heaven knows what else for the rest of our lives.

Time to get on with living - covid or not, life is short, and time is ticking.

Lockdown didn't pause aging.

[UncleEbenezer]

....the main point of mask-wearing is to protect other people, not yourself.

This has never been widely understood. Lost cause, I'm afraid.
V8

Neither has it been demonstrated by any science.

Rather the reverse: the only genuine scientific study that has taken place (Denmark, spring of last year) demonstrated that masks do not protect (a result also in line with earlier studies on flu-like viruses). That's when the mask proponents shifted the goalposts to "protecting others" - a claim not backed nor denied by any evidence. Not only it pure speculation, we have TPTB declining to allow a scientific experiment that could provide evidence one way or t'other: they'd rather pay for PR consultancy on sending out a message.

Meanwhile my own speculation from last July - that compulsion (announced but not yet law at the time) would lead to a rise in infections - proved true, and indeed to a greater extent than I'd dared write!

[onthemove]

For me, July 19 is "loss of freedom" day. At the moment, I can go into lots of indoor environments and feel safe because virtually everyone is wearing masks. From Monday July 19, the chances of infection in (say) supermarkets will be a lot higher,...

We got the infection rate right down in spring last year without any mask wearing in supermarkets.

Mask wearing was only introduced in mid summer, and there was no step change in infection rates after vs before, yet mask wearing in the supermarkets round here went from barely 2% prior to the law change, to 98% after the law change.

I certainly didn't feel unsafe while doing my weekly supermarket shop without masks, and clearly nor did the other 98% not wearing masks before the law change.

The 2% who did feel concerned were, and still are, permitted to wear their own masks if they want.

There have always been some people with compromised immune systems for various reasons. We didn't lock down society for them before covid. And while I sympathise with them, there does need to be a balance, and sometimes, people who are at risk need to take some responsibility themselves.

I'm allergic to nuts, but I don't insist all foods sold must be nut free. It's my responsibility to avoid the situations where I could potentially consume nuts.

Similarly, but unfortunately, for people with compromised immune systems, they might, if they feel as such, need to take responsibility themselves and avoid supermarket shopping.

But sadly that is what it was like for them before covid - for them, a cold or flu could be equally as serious, but we cannot realistically start locking the majority of people down - 'self isolation' - for any cough or cold, to protect the minority with seriously compromised immune systems.

[stockton]

Rather the reverse: the only genuine scientific study that has taken place (Denmark, spring of last year) demonstrated that masks do not protect (a result also in line with earlier studies on flu-like viruses).

Given that this is simply untrue - there were a number of studies which indicated that masks provide limited protection - would you provide a link to the Danish study ?

[zico]

Mask wearing was only introduced in mid summer, and there was no step change in infection rates after vs before, yet mask wearing in the supermarkets round here went from barely 2% prior to the law change, to 98% after the law change.

It's also true to say that daily Covid deaths had started to reduce at the start of December, and after the mass vaccination campaign started on 8th December, the daily Covid deaths increased to well over a thousand a day.

But nobody would seriously suggest the vaccinations caused the increase in deaths. Correlation is not causation.

[XFool]

....the main point of mask-wearing is to protect other people, not yourself.

This has never been widely understood. Lost cause, I'm afraid.
V8

Neither has it been demonstrated by any science.

Rather the reverse: the only genuine scientific study that has taken place (Denmark, spring of last year) demonstrated that masks do not protect (a result also in line with earlier studies on flu-like viruses). That's when the mask proponents shifted the goalposts to "protecting others" - a claim not backed nor denied by any evidence. Not only it pure speculation, we have TPTB declining to allow a scientific experiment that could provide evidence one way or t'other: they'd rather pay for PR consultancy on sending out a message.

Please don't quote that "definitive evidence" (was it those words?) without accurately quoting it. I note right-wingers have had err... considerable difficulty doing that in all the usual places.

I know about this - I was on to it at the time, like a lurcher onto a rat. I even originally used Google Translate to translate the Norwegian press release accompanying the release of the academic study*. Pointing out that it specifically DID NOT 'prove' what your local tame right-wing science pundit claimed it definitively 'proved' in his 'scientific'(?) article in that well known scientific publication: The Spectator.

Do we have to nail THIS nonsense all over again?


* Specifically saying that it DID NOT demonstrate what you know who told his readers it did demonstrate.

[XFool]

...Looks like it was a Danish study. Could have sworn I translated from Norwegian.

I have just been using the local TLF Google Search. It DOES work with multiple words - deep joy!

[9873210]

The escape from this, if media rumours are to be believed, is a plan to exempt the fully vaccinated from self-isolation when contact traced, I think instead recommending daily testing for some number of days (lateral flow? PCR? No idea).

Daily test numbers are about a million. At some point you will run out of tests so you can't test instead of isolate. I suspect the capacity to trace will be overwhelmed at some lower level. In any case somewhere below 100,000 cases a day you reach a point where you either lock down or do nothing and let covid spread unconstrained.

Even if you could trace with 100,000 cases a day the exposed population will be so large there is little difference between "trace and isolate" and "lockdown".

[Lootman]

Aircraft?... mmm, don't think so, unless I can open my window.

If aircraft were as dangerous as you imply, then airline cabin crew would be dropping like flies. In fact the incidence of Covid amongst cabin crew is below average. I would attribute that to both the stringent testing and protective routines used by airlines for their staff, and the high efficiency of the air filters used on commercial aircraft.

[XFool]

Well, I will be using my "personal judgement" from 19th July.

It will of course largely be based on my appraisal of the government's track record in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.
(I still don't eat beef)