Masks on planes requirement dropped by some UK airlines(cnn.com)
cnn.com
Masks on planes requirement dropped by some UK airlines
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/british-airways-virgin-atlantic-remove-face-masks-certain-flights/index.html
112 comments
Covid appears to be “done” in the UK. Not that the virus is gone, just that there now seems to be widespread acceptance of its health impact, and a strong desire to move on without any restrictions on normal life.
My theory is that there can be only one crisis at a time in this country. Brexit gave way to Covid, and for 18 months or so that was the only story in the news.
But now, there’s a frigging war going on in Europe, so Covid might as well not exist anymore.
But now, there’s a frigging war going on in Europe, so Covid might as well not exist anymore.
Before the war, multiple effective vaccines were invented and distributed, promising medications for those sick are distributing, and we have a better understanding of the types of events that cause mass infection (conferences of course!) and a realization that aviation was not the super spreader event that many other things were. We even have increasingly better pictures of vaccine cadence (which I hope just become annual soon!). Covid as a crisis needed to end, and Ukraine has served as an odd segue out of it.
Can be only one and must be at least one would seem to describe the news very well.
Add the US to the list of "only one crisis".
Perhaps media and politicians have decided they’ve gotten enough power and politics out of this crisis, and now it’s OK to move onto the next one.
Shame, I actually liked the idea of mandatory masks on public transportation. I always get sick on flights (pre-COVID; I haven't flown since COVID started) and it's really annoying to have a runny nose while on vacation. I'm sure I catch it in the airport or on the plane, because it always starts 1-2 after the flight.
Nice N95 masks are readily available now and more comfortable than they were before 2020. Even when the rule drops you are welcome to wear one. I always feel like I want to throw up while wearing a mask on a plane because it amplifies the thin dry air for me / feels constricting so I'm excited for the rule to be removed as I'd feel less sick on the plane.
Echoing a comment to the original OP, have you considered taking steps to improve your personal health instead of putting those around you at risk?
That’s the nice thing about N95 masks. If you don’t feel comfortable breathing the same air as those around you, you’re more than welcome to put one on. Seems like the onus is on the prospective mask wearer here, not every single air breather they may come in contact with.
Have you considered taking steps to possibly improve your own health instead of wishing that a government or corporation would require everyone around you to wear a face covering indefinitely for your own personal benefit?
What’s there to improve about one’s health? Cold viruses are very contagious and the majority of people don’t have good hygiene or consideration for others.
There’s so many people that don’t want to wear seatbelts, what hope is there for masks.
There’s so many people that don’t want to wear seatbelts, what hope is there for masks.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. In general I'm healthy. If you're implying I should wear a mask when flying, then the problem with that is that pre-COVID you would be seen as weird for going on a plane with a mask. I suspect it will go back to that status eventually if there are no rules forcing masks. Maybe that's the Nash equilibrium. An external rule can change the equilibrium to something that is better for everyone - including you.
If you are going to ask others to wear masks even if it is uncomfortable then why can't you put up with being seen as weird? Does how strangers judge you matter that much to you?
Wouldn't it be better to make it it the social norm to wear masks when you have an active respiratory illness - like it is in asia - or when you are at risk rather than forcing everyone to wear them?
Wouldn't it be better to make it it the social norm to wear masks when you have an active respiratory illness - like it is in asia - or when you are at risk rather than forcing everyone to wear them?
About 20% of passengers on a flight typically catch a cold (rhinovirus). I researched this issue several years ago because it was quite a problem for me. After I began following hygienic measures, I rarely caught a cold. I made a recent comment regarding this (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30539411).
I had a very expensive holiday mostly ruined because someone arrived at a 1 to 1 meeting with me the week before and announced 5 minutes in: "sorry - i've got a cold at the moment".
I now always phone ahead if I've got sniffles and ask permission. There should be better ettiquette around things like this.
I now always phone ahead if I've got sniffles and ask permission. There should be better ettiquette around things like this.
I'd rather see the ettiquette around coughing in public confined spaces. In some cultures it is frowned upon and happens very rarely.
In western culture it seems like the agreement is that coughs are completely uncontrollable and are acceptable anywhere.
Maybe those that can't control their coughs should wear masks but those healthy enough to suppress coughs do not have to.
In western culture it seems like the agreement is that coughs are completely uncontrollable and are acceptable anywhere.
Maybe those that can't control their coughs should wear masks but those healthy enough to suppress coughs do not have to.
Some people cough uncontrollably for chronic health reasons. Would those people just be persona non grata everywhere?
People that have constant diarrhea for example can't go in pools. Yet pools you can chlorinate to actually kill the bacteria.
You are much more likely to get sick from someone coughing in a small confined space with you vs. if someone has diarrhea in the water next to you.
An alien looking upon this world would probably think it strange and illogical that we are generally okay with the coughing scenario but not with the pool scenario.
You are much more likely to get sick from someone coughing in a small confined space with you vs. if someone has diarrhea in the water next to you.
An alien looking upon this world would probably think it strange and illogical that we are generally okay with the coughing scenario but not with the pool scenario.
If it's anything like my discovery with supermarkets, most of it might not be airborne. I started gelling my hands after using a trolley a few years back. Rarely if ever get sick now. I suspect people sneezing all over the handle and then me rubbing my face was why I was always sick.
Yeah, but SARS-CoV-2 is spread via aerosols, as are influenza viruses [1].
Not to say it's not a good idea to disinfect your shopping cart handle - and the downturn of the last years in non-covid infectious diseases as part of hygienic measures being made mandatory or at the very least somewhat followed proves that -, but it won't help much against covid.
[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC3372341/
Not to say it's not a good idea to disinfect your shopping cart handle - and the downturn of the last years in non-covid infectious diseases as part of hygienic measures being made mandatory or at the very least somewhat followed proves that -, but it won't help much against covid.
[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC3372341/
Nothing stopping you wearing one on your own :) could help reduce the probability of getting sick.
Just be aware that it might mean for you that you catch COVID and will be sick in your holiday.
I got COVID from one event 3 weeks ago and it threw my plans around.
It wasn't that big of an issue as I have a booster but I planed to visit a close friend who does cancer treatment and I was quite happy that he had no time for a short visit as I learned about my COVID invection two days later and I don't want to put him on unnecessary risk.
Let's see and hope covids route to endemic is getting easier and easier.
I got COVID from one event 3 weeks ago and it threw my plans around.
It wasn't that big of an issue as I have a booster but I planed to visit a close friend who does cancer treatment and I was quite happy that he had no time for a short visit as I learned about my COVID invection two days later and I don't want to put him on unnecessary risk.
Let's see and hope covids route to endemic is getting easier and easier.
In reality I all a bit of a theatre. If you believe in the mask effectiveness, you’ll get it when everyone takes their mask off at the same time to eat every time they hand off something. Almost no one wears an n95 for long flights and most people will wear the mask as poorly as they can anyway.
Edit: just to clarify, I don’t have anything against anyone who believes in the mask effectiveness and wants to wear it. But I don’t see the point of enforcing the half assed way things are being done.
Edit: just to clarify, I don’t have anything against anyone who believes in the mask effectiveness and wants to wear it. But I don’t see the point of enforcing the half assed way things are being done.
You don't have to eat during the flight, or you can delay eating to be out of phase. I've done that and so far it's been effective over a number of transatlantic flights.
> You don't have to eat during the flight
In theory you don't have to do anything mate. Just lie down in a coffin at home, shut the door and I bet you you won't catch COVID or any other mild respiratory illness. If to you the meaning of life is to get born, not catch COVID under any ridiculous circumstances and then die then this is a dead sure way of achieving your dreams!
I rather live life, take risks, feel my heart beat, go out and spend intimate time with other people, feel the thrill of being close to other human beings, feeling the joy of a person's touch, seeing their beautiful face when they laugh, share food and drinks without being paranoid and indulge myself in everything the world has to offer. Getting a mild cough or feeling a week a bit ill because of a flu every few years is a small price to pay for all the amazing memories I'll collect along the way.
In theory you don't have to do anything mate. Just lie down in a coffin at home, shut the door and I bet you you won't catch COVID or any other mild respiratory illness. If to you the meaning of life is to get born, not catch COVID under any ridiculous circumstances and then die then this is a dead sure way of achieving your dreams!
I rather live life, take risks, feel my heart beat, go out and spend intimate time with other people, feel the thrill of being close to other human beings, feeling the joy of a person's touch, seeing their beautiful face when they laugh, share food and drinks without being paranoid and indulge myself in everything the world has to offer. Getting a mild cough or feeling a week a bit ill because of a flu every few years is a small price to pay for all the amazing memories I'll collect along the way.
Well put.
The conservative (true sense of the word) position on this is so frustrating to communicate, because those who want to keep these sorts of policies and patterns are so often coming from people with a risk tolerance profile that I genuinely can’t understand or relate to.
The conservative (true sense of the word) position on this is so frustrating to communicate, because those who want to keep these sorts of policies and patterns are so often coming from people with a risk tolerance profile that I genuinely can’t understand or relate to.
COVID is still very very new.
There was and still are good reasons to be careful.
It would have been just stupid to get COVID out of yolo.
Now doctors have much more experience with it, vaccines exists.
There was and still are good reasons to be careful.
It would have been just stupid to get COVID out of yolo.
Now doctors have much more experience with it, vaccines exists.
Airline food is indeed living the life while feeling the thrill of being close to other human beans.
Order vegetarian or ither special option, get it usually first and probability of someone doing the same nearby is low, and then eat like you haven't eaten for days before and put mask on before anyone else takes it off - worked fine for me lol.
Also keep ventilation from above right on you at least a little...
Much more frightening were all the people in queues at the airports, bad ventilation, coming close, not wearing a mask at all.
Why so scared? Same reason, didn't want to get even a single day wasted for the first and quite costly vacation, glad it all worked out!
Also keep ventilation from above right on you at least a little...
Much more frightening were all the people in queues at the airports, bad ventilation, coming close, not wearing a mask at all.
Why so scared? Same reason, didn't want to get even a single day wasted for the first and quite costly vacation, glad it all worked out!
I was under the impression that masks don't protect you that much, they protect other people from you?
> I was under the impression that masks don't protect you that much, they protect other people from you?
That claim has been made but is questionable. The masks were designed to reduce exposure to the wearer, not so much from the wearer.
It's a matter of physics: When you inhale the suction generated automatically pulls the mask tighter on your face such that the air you breathe in essentially all has to pass through the mask but when you exhale, not so much.
In designing a mask there is a choice between a finer mesh or a looser one. If you pick a very loose mesh - say, cotton gauze - then air is easy to push through when you exhale but so are virus particles. On the other hand if you pick a very tight mesh - say, N95 or better - then air is much harder to push through but exhaling forces the mask slightly away from the face such that moist potentially virus-laden breath puffs out the sides and top. This is why your glasses fog up when wearing an N95 - moist air is escaping out the top of the mask completely unfiltered. (You can find youtube videos demonstrating this process with cigarette smoke). Double- or triple-masking doesn't help either - that makes it even harder for air to pass directly through the masks so even more air pushes out the side and top instead.
If your N95 is VERY well fitted and the strap VERY tight - tight enough to make your ears hurt - you'll get less escape, but wearing a mask that way is sufficiently uncomfortable that almost nobody does it.
In short, an N95 does plausibly filter nearly all the air you breathe IN, but if you want to filter the air you're breathing OUT, you really should be wearing a cleanroom suit.
That claim has been made but is questionable. The masks were designed to reduce exposure to the wearer, not so much from the wearer.
It's a matter of physics: When you inhale the suction generated automatically pulls the mask tighter on your face such that the air you breathe in essentially all has to pass through the mask but when you exhale, not so much.
In designing a mask there is a choice between a finer mesh or a looser one. If you pick a very loose mesh - say, cotton gauze - then air is easy to push through when you exhale but so are virus particles. On the other hand if you pick a very tight mesh - say, N95 or better - then air is much harder to push through but exhaling forces the mask slightly away from the face such that moist potentially virus-laden breath puffs out the sides and top. This is why your glasses fog up when wearing an N95 - moist air is escaping out the top of the mask completely unfiltered. (You can find youtube videos demonstrating this process with cigarette smoke). Double- or triple-masking doesn't help either - that makes it even harder for air to pass directly through the masks so even more air pushes out the side and top instead.
If your N95 is VERY well fitted and the strap VERY tight - tight enough to make your ears hurt - you'll get less escape, but wearing a mask that way is sufficiently uncomfortable that almost nobody does it.
In short, an N95 does plausibly filter nearly all the air you breathe IN, but if you want to filter the air you're breathing OUT, you really should be wearing a cleanroom suit.
True, tight FFP2/N95 help you also to some degree though. Its all probability and exposure amount and many more factors, not binary at all.
The devils's in detail. How much is "not that much"? I'll take all the cumulative small probability gains I can get. Cost vs benefit.
N95 masks do if fitted properly. You can buy one for ~£3, well worth it for a flight in my opinion.
Agreed, but I’ve taken several flights during covid all over the world and I see 1 n95 every 50 people at most. And it’s very likely that the person wearing it does not have covid anyway. The one that probably had covid is that guy with his nose out and the one snacking a little bit the whole flight to not have to wear it.
I'm not what there is to believe in mask effectiveness?
There are studies about it.
You don't get infected with COVID just because it's a mix of your own immune reaction, the amount of particles etc.
A mask is really easy to wear and reduces your risk.
I'm not advocating for mask mandates at this point or let's say I don't care about it but if you want to reduce the risk of having COVID while on holiday, I would suggest trying to wear a mask.
Independently of it, in Germany the hospitalization is currently high and plenty of personal is sick. I still don't want to be in a situation of having something really bad and having to be in a hospital right now.
There are studies about it.
You don't get infected with COVID just because it's a mix of your own immune reaction, the amount of particles etc.
A mask is really easy to wear and reduces your risk.
I'm not advocating for mask mandates at this point or let's say I don't care about it but if you want to reduce the risk of having COVID while on holiday, I would suggest trying to wear a mask.
Independently of it, in Germany the hospitalization is currently high and plenty of personal is sick. I still don't want to be in a situation of having something really bad and having to be in a hospital right now.
There are studies about it and from what I’ve seen the surgical mask does not show enough impact to say that it clearly helps. The tests of how much the material can filter are irrelevant if everyone is wearing with massive gaps around their faces that let the air go out unfiltered anyway.
Yeah I do ignore those.
They are nice to wear for this reason.
But when I'm wearing them I do have a proper mask.
They are nice to wear for this reason.
But when I'm wearing them I do have a proper mask.
hsshjshshs(4)
Absolute nonsense.
Are you not aware of the steep COVID invection s around the globe?
Germany is now at 150000-200000 daily new cases.
We have not had this before. This means that you chance to get it and perhaps you being sick for 1-3 weeks is much much higher than before.
It was just something I wanted to share so that you might plan ahead for this case or weir a mask to reduce the risk and have a great holiday.
And for the last few weeks way more people got COVID around myself than ever before.
This is also, next to intensive care capacity, a big risk if for example too many people from police, medical sector, fireman get sick in parallel.
Germany is now at 150000-200000 daily new cases.
We have not had this before. This means that you chance to get it and perhaps you being sick for 1-3 weeks is much much higher than before.
It was just something I wanted to share so that you might plan ahead for this case or weir a mask to reduce the risk and have a great holiday.
And for the last few weeks way more people got COVID around myself than ever before.
This is also, next to intensive care capacity, a big risk if for example too many people from police, medical sector, fireman get sick in parallel.
Non-substantive comments aren’t really welcome here. If you disagree with someone, explain why. HN respects a well worded argument.
I saw some research that suggested planes (and cinemas) don't transmit the virus as much as a bar or restaurant, say, because you aren't really aerosolising the virus in the same way (i.e. vigorous conversations). Apparently the worst places are things like choirs and church where everyone is spraying potential virus into the air...
Do we really have any definitive answers around masking effectiveness in different situations, there must have been some decent research by now?
Do we really have any definitive answers around masking effectiveness in different situations, there must have been some decent research by now?
I am neither a medical professional, nor a scientist, but I absolutely fail to see how wearing a mask on a three hour flight, sitting side by side, is going to protect anyone.
Please, is there real science to back up wearing a mask but still being 18 inches away from each other, for hours on end, or is this just the flight attendants union?
I beg your pardon, but I Really hate masks on planes and I think it’s total BS.
Please, is there real science to back up wearing a mask but still being 18 inches away from each other, for hours on end, or is this just the flight attendants union?
I beg your pardon, but I Really hate masks on planes and I think it’s total BS.
In a small unventilated closed room you'd be right - the aerosol from mask leakage would saturate the room and the masks would be useless. The kind of masks that most people wear are mainly useful for preventing direct droplet transmission when two people's faces are in close proximity - especially when there's talking involved.
However an airliner is extremely well ventilated - the entire cabin air is refreshed every 3 minutes, through a combination of HEPA filters and fresh outside air. In addition, the airflow in the cabin is vertical - new air is introduced at the top through the nozzles you're used to, and the intakes are by your feet. This means the risk from ambient aerosol transmission is much reduced and direct droplet infection becomes the primary risk vector. I would absolutely expect to see a reduction in transmission if everyone kept wearing masks.
However an airliner is extremely well ventilated - the entire cabin air is refreshed every 3 minutes, through a combination of HEPA filters and fresh outside air. In addition, the airflow in the cabin is vertical - new air is introduced at the top through the nozzles you're used to, and the intakes are by your feet. This means the risk from ambient aerosol transmission is much reduced and direct droplet infection becomes the primary risk vector. I would absolutely expect to see a reduction in transmission if everyone kept wearing masks.
That is very helpful, thank you. So it's airflow that is the advantage. I guess my next question, at what point, if ever, will it be ok to fly without masks?
I wonder what happens to all the conspiracy theorists who a couple of years ago said "this [the enforcement of mask wearing] is just the beginning", and that this is "exactly what Orwell predicted"?
Do they admit they were wrong? Or do they conveniently forget they ever said anything like that and move onto the next conspiracy (which currently is likely to resemble toeing the Kremlin line)?
Do they admit they were wrong? Or do they conveniently forget they ever said anything like that and move onto the next conspiracy (which currently is likely to resemble toeing the Kremlin line)?
This is entirely the wrong take. Its like saying everyone was panicking for no reason in the Cold War because Earth wasn't destroyed in nuclear hellfire.
Its feasible that vocal protests helped push back against further tyranny.
i dont want to go down the who was right and who was wrong rabbit hole of covid policies. just dont use hindsight to try and retroactively prove your point.
Its feasible that vocal protests helped push back against further tyranny.
i dont want to go down the who was right and who was wrong rabbit hole of covid policies. just dont use hindsight to try and retroactively prove your point.
Doesn't that mean you can warn of anything, and if it doesn't happen, you can say "See, it didn't happen because I yelled about it on the internet"?
> Doesn't that mean
No.
> "See, it didn't happen because I yelled about it on the internet"
this is a gross misrepresentation of the anticovid policy sentiment. it wasnt misanthropes on 4chan and twitter warriors with no skin in the game - there were, and still are, millions of people down through grass roots and local politics up to sitting major political party members.
the chess pieces we're playing with are very serious on both sides and the original comment i replied to - "i bet those conspiracy theorists feel stupid now" - is disingenious and a badly formed argument.
No.
> "See, it didn't happen because I yelled about it on the internet"
this is a gross misrepresentation of the anticovid policy sentiment. it wasnt misanthropes on 4chan and twitter warriors with no skin in the game - there were, and still are, millions of people down through grass roots and local politics up to sitting major political party members.
the chess pieces we're playing with are very serious on both sides and the original comment i replied to - "i bet those conspiracy theorists feel stupid now" - is disingenious and a badly formed argument.
If they managed to see one post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy then they've probably managed to see the corresponding one.
The conspiracy theorists always claimed that there is some kind of master plan to enslave the human race by the elite and that masks and whatnot are just the beginning.
How does a minority protest stop the evil masterplan? This makes no sense at all. Either there is a master plan and you have to have 90% of the people on the street opposing this, or there was no master plan from the get go.
The conspiracy theory crumbles under its own weight.
How does a minority protest stop the evil masterplan? This makes no sense at all. Either there is a master plan and you have to have 90% of the people on the street opposing this, or there was no master plan from the get go.
The conspiracy theory crumbles under its own weight.
> How does a minority protest stop the evil masterplan? This makes no sense at all. Either there is a master plan and you have to have 90% of the people on the street opposing this, or there was no master plan from the get go.
Why can there not be a master plan that is difficult to implement where there is resistance? Why can the plan not have several stages and levels of implementation? Why can it not be that at different levels of resistance the plan may have to be shelved completely, in part, or be paused to try again in future?
To reduce a plan to take over the world so reductively as to make it a dilemma can only be the product of black and white thinking. I know it's best to be sceptical of outrageous claims but I would assume that anyone who reads HN knows that a project with any level of complexity couldn't be characterised in such a way, let alone one to take over the world!
Why can there not be a master plan that is difficult to implement where there is resistance? Why can the plan not have several stages and levels of implementation? Why can it not be that at different levels of resistance the plan may have to be shelved completely, in part, or be paused to try again in future?
To reduce a plan to take over the world so reductively as to make it a dilemma can only be the product of black and white thinking. I know it's best to be sceptical of outrageous claims but I would assume that anyone who reads HN knows that a project with any level of complexity couldn't be characterised in such a way, let alone one to take over the world!
I find the idea that some elite group are out there to take over the world makes even less sense. For what end? The elite already rule the world with a compliant society, who are all working on their "wage-slavery", with their aspirations of buying that new handbag or sportscar or graphics card because they think bragging about it on social media will fulfill them... But noo, there must be an insidious plot to make us all unhappy North Korean-esque slaves that start with mask mandates and "forced" vaccinations, because that way the elite will... what? What will they gain?
Again, I agree that prima facie it's highly improbable (though not impossible, and certainly not if the claim is that powerful people are angling for more power).
However, my problem with the post above is the dismissal, it's incredibly reductive. I have issue lists longer than 2 items for programs that aren't comparable with the complexity involved in taking over the world, the idea that the grandest of all plans can be made black and white in a clearly absurd fashion is, well, absurd.
Or perhaps I should ask those making such out of hand dismissals to help me with bug fixes and architectural decisions, they're clearly masters who would probably be better employed hatching evil plans to take over the world but are at a loose enough end to spend time shooting them down.
However, my problem with the post above is the dismissal, it's incredibly reductive. I have issue lists longer than 2 items for programs that aren't comparable with the complexity involved in taking over the world, the idea that the grandest of all plans can be made black and white in a clearly absurd fashion is, well, absurd.
Or perhaps I should ask those making such out of hand dismissals to help me with bug fixes and architectural decisions, they're clearly masters who would probably be better employed hatching evil plans to take over the world but are at a loose enough end to spend time shooting them down.
Conspiracy theorists must either ignore the internal inconsistency or have a highly convoluted way of rationalizing it. Unfortunately I don't think it's possible to reason with many of these people.
I know one of those guys.
I don't even pretend to know exactly what thoughts are occurring in his head but form the outside he appears to hold several logically inconsistent ideas at the same time and is desperately trying to find a causal relationship between them.
As for forgetting, they never forget. More noise and ideas are added to the same pool of thought and consistency is never resolved. I suspect you either grow out of it in some way or go insane.
I don't even pretend to know exactly what thoughts are occurring in his head but form the outside he appears to hold several logically inconsistent ideas at the same time and is desperately trying to find a causal relationship between them.
As for forgetting, they never forget. More noise and ideas are added to the same pool of thought and consistency is never resolved. I suspect you either grow out of it in some way or go insane.
Where I live one is still required to present what amounts to an internal passport to do pretty much anything, despite not having any medical justification. Certainly some things have been normalised which never should have been normalised.
Don’t these kind of things happen whenever a war or pandemic happens? Showing your papers was important during WWI and WWII and I am aware of plenty of quarantines and mask mandates associated with previous cholera/TB/flu pandemics.
Sure, I agree it sets a dangerous precedent, but we have been setting those kind of precedents for like 150 years. In that time we’ve had totalitarian states and liberal democracies.
Sure, I agree it sets a dangerous precedent, but we have been setting those kind of precedents for like 150 years. In that time we’ve had totalitarian states and liberal democracies.
Yes, humanity has normalised many problematic things before. We've set many poor precedents. I don't disagree!
The issue here is that vaccine passports currently have no medical justification but are persisting purely as a punishment (I'd say incentive, but anyone here who hasn't yet been vaccinated will never be swayed by vaccine passports at this point). I of course do expect these to go even in my fairly strict jurisdiction, but now the precedent of punishing people in this way has been set. Was quarantine, mask mandates, vaccine mandates used to punish people in this way previously?
The issue here is that vaccine passports currently have no medical justification but are persisting purely as a punishment (I'd say incentive, but anyone here who hasn't yet been vaccinated will never be swayed by vaccine passports at this point). I of course do expect these to go even in my fairly strict jurisdiction, but now the precedent of punishing people in this way has been set. Was quarantine, mask mandates, vaccine mandates used to punish people in this way previously?
My close family circle is against the vaccine mandates now, as am I. Although we all supported them initially. So it is hard for me to gauge the general opinion on the mandates. I suspect support is waning fast with high vax rates and the reduced threat of COVID.
I don’t think mask mandates punish in the same way as a vaccine mandate. You can change your mind and wear a mask instantly. A vaccine takes time and has greater consequences. Mask wearing is also an altruistic act; you put yourself through mild discomfort mostly to benefit those around you. It’s polite because it makes others feel more comfortable. A vaccine, especially when it comes to Omicron, protects you without really effecting risk of infection. So it’s more of a personal choice. Except at the population level where collective vaccine uptake have helped protect hospitals.
I don’t think mask mandates punish in the same way as a vaccine mandate. You can change your mind and wear a mask instantly. A vaccine takes time and has greater consequences. Mask wearing is also an altruistic act; you put yourself through mild discomfort mostly to benefit those around you. It’s polite because it makes others feel more comfortable. A vaccine, especially when it comes to Omicron, protects you without really effecting risk of infection. So it’s more of a personal choice. Except at the population level where collective vaccine uptake have helped protect hospitals.
I think we're mostly in agreement. I mean, I did go and get vaccinated so the coercive measures did work on me, and I also wore a mask when I had to. But I really chafe at the notion that we haven't set a profound precedent in terms of governmental control over daily life, and a lot of people seem completely fine with all these mandates and vaccine passports. I find it kind of shocking, even though I'm pretty heavily pro-vaccine.
> Where I live one is still required to present what amounts to an internal passport to do pretty much anything, despite not having any medical justification.
Except the UK is an a joke in relation to vaccine passports.
The politicians spout "authoritarian" "libertarian" bullshit as an excuse for not using vaccine passports.
But then THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT is very happy indeed to introduce a requirement for people to produce ID when voting (Elections Bill). And yet somehow none of the same politicians make any mention of "authoritarian" or "libertarian" when it comes to mandating ID for voting.
Or indeed we are talking about THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT that is busy trying very hard indeed to introduce laws to limit protests (Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill).
And THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT that is trying very hard indeed to bring in laws (Nationality and Borders Bill) enabling them to remove British citizenship from someone even if it renders them stateless.
Its an absolute farce.
Except the UK is an a joke in relation to vaccine passports.
The politicians spout "authoritarian" "libertarian" bullshit as an excuse for not using vaccine passports.
But then THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT is very happy indeed to introduce a requirement for people to produce ID when voting (Elections Bill). And yet somehow none of the same politicians make any mention of "authoritarian" or "libertarian" when it comes to mandating ID for voting.
Or indeed we are talking about THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT that is busy trying very hard indeed to introduce laws to limit protests (Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill).
And THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT that is trying very hard indeed to bring in laws (Nationality and Borders Bill) enabling them to remove British citizenship from someone even if it renders them stateless.
Its an absolute farce.
There are situations when it is appropriate to confirm one's identity. Going to the supermarket isn't one, and comparing it to voting - or any of the other situations vaccine passports were to be required - is a nonsense.
I can agree with some of the other concerns you've listed, but if you're going to mix them in with reasonable actions by the government like protecting the integrity of elections, I wouldn't be surprised if those other concerns are undermined.
I can agree with some of the other concerns you've listed, but if you're going to mix them in with reasonable actions by the government like protecting the integrity of elections, I wouldn't be surprised if those other concerns are undermined.
Protecting the integrity of elections that have all been shown to have very little fraud? Mass fraud without IDs being something of a pipe dream. That doesn’t make much sense.
Aside from that being a different concern, even if we were to assume that is true, I don't see why it follows that election security shouldn't be improved.
Regardless, election fraud has happened many times in the UK, most often from the politicians[1][2][3] (the links would be endless, I'll stop at three), and the idea that the Electoral Commission is going to produce investigations of any worth is sheer fantasy given some of their previous missteps[4].
However, an audit[5] was undertaken by Democratic Audit, who are funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (both are non-partisan), and here is what they found:
> The emergence of evidence of electoral malpractice in English elections during the 2000s ranks among the most concerning emerging developments identified by this Audit. Evidence of malpractice began to mount from 2005 onwards, after an election court convened in Birmingham found five men guilty of large-scale electoral fraud, involving thousands of postal ballots, at local elections in June 2004. In his written judgement, the election commissioner, Richard Mawrey QC, referred to ‘evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic.’
> While the Birmingham case represented the most systematic proven case of attempted ballot rigging, there have been numerous other convictions for electoral fraud in the UK since 2000. Court cases relating to large-scale fraud in local elections in Slough in 2007 and Peterborough in 2004 resulted in six convictions each. Following a lengthy police investigation and two re-trials, five men were eventually convicted in September 2010 for electoral fraud offences in the Bradford West constituency during the 2005 general election (the first relating to fraud in a UK general election for almost one hundred years). In total, more than 100 people have been found guilty of electoral malpractice in the UK since 1994. The vast majority of convictions have involved postal or proxy ballots, often in conjunction with attempts to manipulate the electoral registers by registering bogus electors or adding electors to the register at empty properties.
> The emergence of electoral fraud as an issue in UK politics cannot be divorced, therefore, from changes in electoral law since the 1990s, which introduced provisions for proxy voting and the widespread availability of postal voting. In particular, the introduction of ‘postal voting on demand’ via the Representation of the People Act 2000 created obvious opportunities for malpractice, especially when combined with a ‘rather arcane’ system of electoral registration.
They go into more detail but I would suggest alleviating yourself of the notion that the current system isn't being tested by those looking for unfair advantage. If you read the Election Commission's views on these incidents you might come away thinking they were small things, yet it's also become easy to see they are not entirely fair nor are they fit for purpose.
Bring on the improvements.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39289195
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_(British_politic...
[3] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/rahman-gets-the-gang-bac...
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/19/pro-brexit-...
[5] https://www.democraticaudit.com/2013/11/26/what-is-the-exten...
Regardless, election fraud has happened many times in the UK, most often from the politicians[1][2][3] (the links would be endless, I'll stop at three), and the idea that the Electoral Commission is going to produce investigations of any worth is sheer fantasy given some of their previous missteps[4].
However, an audit[5] was undertaken by Democratic Audit, who are funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (both are non-partisan), and here is what they found:
> The emergence of evidence of electoral malpractice in English elections during the 2000s ranks among the most concerning emerging developments identified by this Audit. Evidence of malpractice began to mount from 2005 onwards, after an election court convened in Birmingham found five men guilty of large-scale electoral fraud, involving thousands of postal ballots, at local elections in June 2004. In his written judgement, the election commissioner, Richard Mawrey QC, referred to ‘evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic.’
> While the Birmingham case represented the most systematic proven case of attempted ballot rigging, there have been numerous other convictions for electoral fraud in the UK since 2000. Court cases relating to large-scale fraud in local elections in Slough in 2007 and Peterborough in 2004 resulted in six convictions each. Following a lengthy police investigation and two re-trials, five men were eventually convicted in September 2010 for electoral fraud offences in the Bradford West constituency during the 2005 general election (the first relating to fraud in a UK general election for almost one hundred years). In total, more than 100 people have been found guilty of electoral malpractice in the UK since 1994. The vast majority of convictions have involved postal or proxy ballots, often in conjunction with attempts to manipulate the electoral registers by registering bogus electors or adding electors to the register at empty properties.
> The emergence of electoral fraud as an issue in UK politics cannot be divorced, therefore, from changes in electoral law since the 1990s, which introduced provisions for proxy voting and the widespread availability of postal voting. In particular, the introduction of ‘postal voting on demand’ via the Representation of the People Act 2000 created obvious opportunities for malpractice, especially when combined with a ‘rather arcane’ system of electoral registration.
They go into more detail but I would suggest alleviating yourself of the notion that the current system isn't being tested by those looking for unfair advantage. If you read the Election Commission's views on these incidents you might come away thinking they were small things, yet it's also become easy to see they are not entirely fair nor are they fit for purpose.
Bring on the improvements.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39289195
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_(British_politic...
[3] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/rahman-gets-the-gang-bac...
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/19/pro-brexit-...
[5] https://www.democraticaudit.com/2013/11/26/what-is-the-exten...
This stuff. At least some of them is about proxy and postal voting. That has no relation to IDs.
The obvious reason to not “improve election security” is when that’s not the reason it’s being done. When it’s being done to attempt to suppress voter turn out.
If the end result of as many valid votes of willing voters as possible being counted while no one fraudulently gets votes.
I don’t see much difference between one candidate who loses a portion of the votes they would have gotten because of “election security” laws and provisions that were not done only to improve security.
I’ve personally not heard of people bringing up ID related voter security measures who didn’t have a partisan interest in making voting harder/lowering votes of whatever party they are against.
Is this different? Not specifically how you feel. I’m not questioning You. But the politicians who are pushing for this. Are they pushing for election integrity truly just for that reason? I skimmed a bit on the UK. It doesn’t appear as if the politicians are much different than most other places. But I didn’t read up a lot
The obvious reason to not “improve election security” is when that’s not the reason it’s being done. When it’s being done to attempt to suppress voter turn out.
If the end result of as many valid votes of willing voters as possible being counted while no one fraudulently gets votes.
I don’t see much difference between one candidate who loses a portion of the votes they would have gotten because of “election security” laws and provisions that were not done only to improve security.
I’ve personally not heard of people bringing up ID related voter security measures who didn’t have a partisan interest in making voting harder/lowering votes of whatever party they are against.
Is this different? Not specifically how you feel. I’m not questioning You. But the politicians who are pushing for this. Are they pushing for election integrity truly just for that reason? I skimmed a bit on the UK. It doesn’t appear as if the politicians are much different than most other places. But I didn’t read up a lot
> At least some of them is about proxy and postal voting. That has no relation to IDs.
Firstly, that’s not true. As quoted above:
> The vast majority of convictions have involved postal or proxy ballots, often in conjunction with attempts to manipulate the electoral registers by registering bogus electors or adding electors to the register at empty properties.
That requires processes that are slack about identity. The requirement to prove/provide identity at certain points in the process would render these problems moot. If you wish to focus solely on in-person voting then say so, but that’s not the same as there being no relationship.
Secondly, as with any conspiracy theory, you would have to:
- show me how you knew their intentions without recourse to mind reading
And with restpect to this particular case:
- show how needing ID would reduce (legitimate) votes cast (I hope it’s not something like this[1])
- explain why increased security is a bad thing (taking into account the ease and low cost of this solution)
It would be just as easy to claim that those who are against such measures wish to benefit from the fraud. That wouldn’t be possible without mind reading and I lack that ability. However, it does correlate, those against better election finance protections tend to benefit from them (Conservatives and Labour). Those against better proxy vote, postal vote and in-person voting fraud tend to benefit from it (Labour). In either case I don’t care, to improve the legitimacy of elections via simple measures like showing an ID are reasonable, cheap, and easy. What’s the downside?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk
Firstly, that’s not true. As quoted above:
> The vast majority of convictions have involved postal or proxy ballots, often in conjunction with attempts to manipulate the electoral registers by registering bogus electors or adding electors to the register at empty properties.
That requires processes that are slack about identity. The requirement to prove/provide identity at certain points in the process would render these problems moot. If you wish to focus solely on in-person voting then say so, but that’s not the same as there being no relationship.
Secondly, as with any conspiracy theory, you would have to:
- show me how you knew their intentions without recourse to mind reading
And with restpect to this particular case:
- show how needing ID would reduce (legitimate) votes cast (I hope it’s not something like this[1])
- explain why increased security is a bad thing (taking into account the ease and low cost of this solution)
It would be just as easy to claim that those who are against such measures wish to benefit from the fraud. That wouldn’t be possible without mind reading and I lack that ability. However, it does correlate, those against better election finance protections tend to benefit from them (Conservatives and Labour). Those against better proxy vote, postal vote and in-person voting fraud tend to benefit from it (Labour). In either case I don’t care, to improve the legitimacy of elections via simple measures like showing an ID are reasonable, cheap, and easy. What’s the downside?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk
Sending one of these viral meme right wing videos…Slanted, edited, partisan stuff isn’t any better than what an average liberal person is thinking.
I hope the next link isn’t to a right wing influencer “owning the libs” by debating college kids who don’t spend dozens and dozens of hours a month on the topic.
—-
A downside or more so against the “well why not” is time committed to this. There is limited time for things. In the US there was a viral video that showed things that actually occur at the state/provincial level. Where legislators vote for absentee legislators. Something like that should be handled first.
I know two people who didn’t have any form of [valid] ID for a year and multiple years, in each case. Recently. As adults. Forget going through research, studies, and such. Not letting either of them vote seems to be a downside to me. It took months of slowly prodding along to get each identification. Stuff that isn’t easy to do. Takes time. Obstacles that might be near impossible to do depending on your stage in life and if you have no one to help you.
> conspiracy theory
I don’t think being incredulous and doubting the words of major western political parties is a conspiracy theory.
Why are you for a conspiracy to withhold voting from people I know like above? /sarcasm
—
From a higher up comment: > the idea that the Electoral Commission is going to produce investigations of any worth is sheer fantasy given some of their previous missteps
[Completely] Doubting the electoral commission seems to fall in line with your viewing my take as a conspiracy theory.
I hope the next link isn’t to a right wing influencer “owning the libs” by debating college kids who don’t spend dozens and dozens of hours a month on the topic.
—-
A downside or more so against the “well why not” is time committed to this. There is limited time for things. In the US there was a viral video that showed things that actually occur at the state/provincial level. Where legislators vote for absentee legislators. Something like that should be handled first.
I know two people who didn’t have any form of [valid] ID for a year and multiple years, in each case. Recently. As adults. Forget going through research, studies, and such. Not letting either of them vote seems to be a downside to me. It took months of slowly prodding along to get each identification. Stuff that isn’t easy to do. Takes time. Obstacles that might be near impossible to do depending on your stage in life and if you have no one to help you.
> conspiracy theory
I don’t think being incredulous and doubting the words of major western political parties is a conspiracy theory.
Why are you for a conspiracy to withhold voting from people I know like above? /sarcasm
—
From a higher up comment: > the idea that the Electoral Commission is going to produce investigations of any worth is sheer fantasy given some of their previous missteps
[Completely] Doubting the electoral commission seems to fall in line with your viewing my take as a conspiracy theory.
> Sending one of these viral meme right wing videos…Slanted, edited, partisan stuff isn’t any better than what an average liberal person is thinking.
It's virality or not is irrelevant, and what slant is possible from the simple questions those people were asked? Maybe you could ask for a livestream instead of a video next time, to remove the edits… but why?
> I hope the next link isn’t to a right wing influencer “owning the libs” by debating college kids who don’t spend dozens and dozens of hours a month on the topic.
If it's relevant then perhaps.
> A downside or more so against the “well why not” is time committed to this. There is limited time for things.
People are so rushed that they don't have time to get ID? You said the "viral meme right wing video" "isn’t any better than what an average liberal person is thinking" and yet that sounds like the responses in the video.
> In the US there was a viral video
This is starting to smell of hypocrisy
> that showed things that actually occur at the state/provincial level. Where legislators vote for absentee legislators. Something like that should be handled first.
No, something like that:
a) can be handled simultaneously
b) isn't relevant to the point we're discussing
c) and I already pointed out that stuff like that should be handled.
> I know two people who didn’t have any form of [valid] ID for a year and multiple years, in each case. Recently. As adults.
And?
> Forget going through research, studies, and such.
So no viral meme right wing videos, and no research, studies, and such. Are we going to be left with only your protestations as valid evidence?
> Not letting either of them vote seems to be a downside to me.
They are allowed to vote, they simply need to provide ID.
> It took months of slowly prodding along to get each identification.
Security is often in opposition to laziness, yes. I do not fall down on the side of sloths though.
> Stuff that isn’t easy to do.
That is utterly false.
> Takes time. Obstacles that might be near impossible to do depending on your stage in life and if you have no one to help you.
We're back to the slanted and partisan video. Maybe it was an accurate portrayal of the views of a certain group of people?
> > conspiracy theory
> I don’t think being incredulous and doubting the words of major western political parties is a conspiracy theory.
You're not being sceptical, you're mind reading and asserting things to be true that can only be so if there is a conspiracy. Not all conspiracy theories are wrong, conspiracies happen, but the desire to paint your opponents as evil and divine their intentions while dismissing evidence contrary to your view and the use of self-defeating logic is a sign of the pejorative sort of conspiracy theory.
> Why are you for a conspiracy to withhold voting from people I know like above? /sarcasm
Did I mention something about painting opponents as bad people?
> From a higher up comment: > the idea that the Electoral Commission is going to produce investigations of any worth is sheer fantasy given some of their previous missteps
> [Completely] Doubting the electoral commission seems to fall in line with your viewing my take as a conspiracy theory.
The Electoral Commission has been showing in open court to be incompetent. Their plan wasn't a secret either. Do you know what a conspiracy is?
It's virality or not is irrelevant, and what slant is possible from the simple questions those people were asked? Maybe you could ask for a livestream instead of a video next time, to remove the edits… but why?
> I hope the next link isn’t to a right wing influencer “owning the libs” by debating college kids who don’t spend dozens and dozens of hours a month on the topic.
If it's relevant then perhaps.
> A downside or more so against the “well why not” is time committed to this. There is limited time for things.
People are so rushed that they don't have time to get ID? You said the "viral meme right wing video" "isn’t any better than what an average liberal person is thinking" and yet that sounds like the responses in the video.
> In the US there was a viral video
This is starting to smell of hypocrisy
> that showed things that actually occur at the state/provincial level. Where legislators vote for absentee legislators. Something like that should be handled first.
No, something like that:
a) can be handled simultaneously
b) isn't relevant to the point we're discussing
c) and I already pointed out that stuff like that should be handled.
> I know two people who didn’t have any form of [valid] ID for a year and multiple years, in each case. Recently. As adults.
And?
> Forget going through research, studies, and such.
So no viral meme right wing videos, and no research, studies, and such. Are we going to be left with only your protestations as valid evidence?
> Not letting either of them vote seems to be a downside to me.
They are allowed to vote, they simply need to provide ID.
> It took months of slowly prodding along to get each identification.
Security is often in opposition to laziness, yes. I do not fall down on the side of sloths though.
> Stuff that isn’t easy to do.
That is utterly false.
> Takes time. Obstacles that might be near impossible to do depending on your stage in life and if you have no one to help you.
We're back to the slanted and partisan video. Maybe it was an accurate portrayal of the views of a certain group of people?
> > conspiracy theory
> I don’t think being incredulous and doubting the words of major western political parties is a conspiracy theory.
You're not being sceptical, you're mind reading and asserting things to be true that can only be so if there is a conspiracy. Not all conspiracy theories are wrong, conspiracies happen, but the desire to paint your opponents as evil and divine their intentions while dismissing evidence contrary to your view and the use of self-defeating logic is a sign of the pejorative sort of conspiracy theory.
> Why are you for a conspiracy to withhold voting from people I know like above? /sarcasm
Did I mention something about painting opponents as bad people?
> From a higher up comment: > the idea that the Electoral Commission is going to produce investigations of any worth is sheer fantasy given some of their previous missteps
> [Completely] Doubting the electoral commission seems to fall in line with your viewing my take as a conspiracy theory.
The Electoral Commission has been showing in open court to be incompetent. Their plan wasn't a secret either. Do you know what a conspiracy is?
According to my coworker, US is now planning a false flag nuclear strike in Ukraine. I asked for a source and he linked some random youtuber who claimed this without any source except "common sense".
So I'm guessing option 2.
So I'm guessing option 2.
Speaking only for myself, the fear of creeping authoritarianism is not about some grand conspiracy by "the elites" but rather about our collective tolerance of such a "new normal." I just responded to another commenter here who was lamenting the fact that the mask mandates are not permanent. That person's vote counts just as much as mine. I don't think it's ever unreasonable to think that any policy that restricts one's freedom has the potential to either a) become permanent or b) lead to additional restrictions.
There were quite a few protests in the UK last year against the lockdowns, despite the fact there was no lockdown at the time or planned (nor did it happen) in the future. Quite a few cults seem to go past their doomsday date and simply choose another into the future. They just carry on as if the lack of the event never happened.
Those protests happened because new lockdowns were introduced in the EU at that time and the Labour party was calling for harsher restrictions again despite all evidence from South Africa suggesting that Omicron is nothing but a super mild cold and people already being double jabbed anyway. People were terrified of another lockdown and that is why they went protesting to offer a counter voice to opposition party MPs who tried to instil another wave of fear.
I never went to any protest, not just this but in general, but I was very pleased that there were huge protests in the UK and elsewhere at that time, because I had enough of restricting my own life for the sake of others.
I never went to any protest, not just this but in general, but I was very pleased that there were huge protests in the UK and elsewhere at that time, because I had enough of restricting my own life for the sake of others.
> all evidence from South Africa suggesting that Omicron is nothing but a super mild cold
I get your point. And the UK didn't lockdown. But this statement is a stretch.
I get your point. And the UK didn't lockdown. But this statement is a stretch.
As long as you realise just how selfish your last sentence is. Presumably you never expect anyone to even help you out at any cost to themselves, no matter how small?
I expect my family and friends to help me out. I don't expect the entire world around me to dance to my tune because of a fear I hold. When I was 10 years old nobody stopped smoking around me in indoor places, so now the same people who smoked all their life and ate themselves obese are afraid of my fresh super healthy fit breath? Sorry, not my problem and I honestly couldn't care less. On my list of priorities that is as far down as it could possibly be. And I don't think I'm selfish, I'm human. Everyone is selfish. It's selfish of those people to demand huge sacrifices on healthy young folks because of their own shortcomings. I'm happy to take a vaccines, which I did 3x against COVID, because it has no impact on my life, if anything it helps me, but I am not going to restrict my freedoms and lock myself at home, stop working, stop seeing family and friends and stop living life because of others.
Wow! We're talking about wearing a face mask for a short amount of time in very specific situations here, a tiny inconvenience which has proven benefits for a broad swathe of the population (not just the old). No one's asking you to lock yourself at home and not see friends and family. Wearing a mask on a plane is going to reduce the chances of those more stringent measures being put back on the table.
Also, not everyone is selfish, you're projecting the way you see the world onto other people.
Also, not everyone is selfish, you're projecting the way you see the world onto other people.
> proven benefits
Why did the DANMASK RCT fail so spectacularly?
> Also, not everyone is selfish, you're projecting the way you see the world onto other people.
Uncalled for. You might consider that to impose your views on others could easily be considered far more selfish than someone unwilling to participate in an activity, even one with such unimpeachable, proven benefits.
Why did the DANMASK RCT fail so spectacularly?
> Also, not everyone is selfish, you're projecting the way you see the world onto other people.
Uncalled for. You might consider that to impose your views on others could easily be considered far more selfish than someone unwilling to participate in an activity, even one with such unimpeachable, proven benefits.
> Why did the DANMASK RCT fail so spectacularly?
Because it had too few participants, or happened when the overall infection rate in society was too low. The number of infected in both groups were too small to conclude anything confidently.
If I remember correctly the group without masks were infected about 20% more than the group with masks, but since the absolute numbers were too low is could have been due to random chance.
Because it had too few participants, or happened when the overall infection rate in society was too low. The number of infected in both groups were too small to conclude anything confidently.
If I remember correctly the group without masks were infected about 20% more than the group with masks, but since the absolute numbers were too low is could have been due to random chance.
> Because it had too few participants
From the study[1]:
> A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study.
That's more than enough people.
> or happened when the overall infection rate in society was too low
The study was conducted in April and May of 2020, there were clearly enough infectious people in the population[2] to warrant the study showing some importance.
> The number of infected in both groups were too small to conclude anything confidently.
From the study:
> Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%)
> Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.
Don't you think it's strange that proven benefits are so hard to substantiate in a randomised controlled trial? These proven benefits can't be proven or shown to be beneficial across thousands of people, during a pandemic?
That's not going to fly with me, especially since every other RCT done on masks prior to the pandemic failed to show efficacy against influenza, even in clinical environments.
Maybe we could rerun the study now, while the highly infectious Omicron variant is running rampant, which apparently masks and vaccines are rubbish at preventing.
It's almost as if the proven benefits aren't proven and hence, not benefits.
Forgive the sarcasm but if people want to make bold claims then I suggest I may be able to poke holes in their case by mocking it, as I would with people knocking on my door claiming the apocalypse is nigh, or those telling me to change my behaviour because of whatever other pie in the sky belief they hold. When they come back with the RCT that shows the efficacy of masks - something, I might add, that should be possible in a pandemic - then there'll be something to discuss. Otherwise, the criticisms of the study, which weren't given before it was published I might add, are all quibbles.
[1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817]
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
From the study[1]:
> A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study.
That's more than enough people.
> or happened when the overall infection rate in society was too low
The study was conducted in April and May of 2020, there were clearly enough infectious people in the population[2] to warrant the study showing some importance.
> The number of infected in both groups were too small to conclude anything confidently.
From the study:
> Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%)
> Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.
Don't you think it's strange that proven benefits are so hard to substantiate in a randomised controlled trial? These proven benefits can't be proven or shown to be beneficial across thousands of people, during a pandemic?
That's not going to fly with me, especially since every other RCT done on masks prior to the pandemic failed to show efficacy against influenza, even in clinical environments.
Maybe we could rerun the study now, while the highly infectious Omicron variant is running rampant, which apparently masks and vaccines are rubbish at preventing.
It's almost as if the proven benefits aren't proven and hence, not benefits.
Forgive the sarcasm but if people want to make bold claims then I suggest I may be able to poke holes in their case by mocking it, as I would with people knocking on my door claiming the apocalypse is nigh, or those telling me to change my behaviour because of whatever other pie in the sky belief they hold. When they come back with the RCT that shows the efficacy of masks - something, I might add, that should be possible in a pandemic - then there'll be something to discuss. Otherwise, the criticisms of the study, which weren't given before it was published I might add, are all quibbles.
[1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817]
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you are arguing. Are you saying the result was statistically significant?
Statistical significance relies on more than just the number of participants, but if you want me to make my argument more simple for you, I can:
When making bold claims, the claimant should provide evidence for those claims. Supply me with the RCT that proves the benefit of wearing masks.
Do you have it?
When making bold claims, the claimant should provide evidence for those claims. Supply me with the RCT that proves the benefit of wearing masks.
Do you have it?
The absence of proven benefits is the issue. It is unscientific to mandate behaviour without proven benefit.
The issue for me, and I'm reading it in a lot of these comments is that there is no endgame. The times I've been asked "where is your mask?" I've never had an empirical answer to "when does it stop?"
The issue for me, and I'm reading it in a lot of these comments is that there is no endgame. The times I've been asked "where is your mask?" I've never had an empirical answer to "when does it stop?"
> despite the fact there was no lockdown at the time or planned (nor did it happen) in the future
Did you not consider the possibility that the government bowed to pressure, such as the protests, and didn't lockdown?
Did you not consider the possibility that the government bowed to pressure, such as the protests, and didn't lockdown?
My aunt is one of that lot. She basically lives a completely normal, boring and uninteresting life (lucky woman!). The old idiom "The devil finds work for idle hands" may apply.
Have people already forgotten how much pressure the government was under in December to lock us down again? SAGE were predicting 6000 deaths a day, as if their modelling hadn't already been discredited ten times over, and all the usual suspects in the media and the Labour Party were screaming for more restrictions. If it hadn't been for partygate, the backbench Tory rebellion, and massive public resistance in the form of protests and more, Boris would have caved to SAGE and we'd have had another two months of our lives stolen, another Christmas ruined, another term of school missed, another million livelihoods destroyed and another ten billion added to the public debt - and it would have all been completely unnecessary, because Omicron was a fat load of nothing and SAGE's modelling turned out to be wrong yet again. But people would have pointed to the low death rate and said "I told you lockdown was necessary! If we hadn't locked down we would be seeing 6000 deaths a day!"
Also, these protests werent just against lockdown. There were enormous protests against vaccine passports, and they were successful - the govt had vaxpasses ready to go in the summer and pushed them back repeatedly before cancelling them in the face of public pressure and tireless campaigning from civil liberties groups like Big Brother Watch. If it hadn't been for the protests then you wouldnt have been able to go to Sainsbury's in the last six months without scanning your QR code.
Finally, there were also protests against vaccine mandates, and in particular the vaccine mandate for NHS staff. Personally I found those protests silly - I would have thought that NHS workers of all people would understand the importance of getting vaccinated, but the facts are that the government initially announced that NHS workers would be fired if they didn't get the jab then walked this back when it became clear that enforcing this rule would mean firing tens of thousands of intransigent NHS staff and they couldn't afford the shortages. There was a gigantic protest in London in January against the NHS vax mandate (not that you'd have heard about it on the news) - a protest which unequivocally achieved its goal.
If you don't think people were protesting against anything real or that the protests didn't achieve anything then you haven't been paying attention.
Also, these protests werent just against lockdown. There were enormous protests against vaccine passports, and they were successful - the govt had vaxpasses ready to go in the summer and pushed them back repeatedly before cancelling them in the face of public pressure and tireless campaigning from civil liberties groups like Big Brother Watch. If it hadn't been for the protests then you wouldnt have been able to go to Sainsbury's in the last six months without scanning your QR code.
Finally, there were also protests against vaccine mandates, and in particular the vaccine mandate for NHS staff. Personally I found those protests silly - I would have thought that NHS workers of all people would understand the importance of getting vaccinated, but the facts are that the government initially announced that NHS workers would be fired if they didn't get the jab then walked this back when it became clear that enforcing this rule would mean firing tens of thousands of intransigent NHS staff and they couldn't afford the shortages. There was a gigantic protest in London in January against the NHS vax mandate (not that you'd have heard about it on the news) - a protest which unequivocally achieved its goal.
If you don't think people were protesting against anything real or that the protests didn't achieve anything then you haven't been paying attention.
About the NHS. I also thought that healthcare workers would most understand be behind vaccines. However an employment expert told me that healthcare workers are basically low paid workers, often from minority backgrounds, the exact same demographic that are vaccine hesitant. The vast majority of NHS staff are not doctors.
It was, therefore a class / social / demographic issue, but there is indeed crossover with the foreign healthcare worker but its on that class rather than where they come from.
I think (but I didnt discuss it with the expert) that the doctors themselves were on the whole opposed to compulsory mandates for ethical reasons. E.g. first do no harm extends to respecting a persons conscience.
It was, therefore a class / social / demographic issue, but there is indeed crossover with the foreign healthcare worker but its on that class rather than where they come from.
I think (but I didnt discuss it with the expert) that the doctors themselves were on the whole opposed to compulsory mandates for ethical reasons. E.g. first do no harm extends to respecting a persons conscience.
Yeah I've wondered the same thing. I don't have the statistics in front of me but I'm pretty sure that the unvaccinated are on average poorer, browner and more working class than the vaccinated. Which is to say that the same people who don't trust the jabs are generally the same people who have longstanding reasons to distrust a wider society that's weighted against them.
It's easy for me, as an affluent middle-class white guy, to say "shut up and do what you're told because the experts know best" - but on some level I really can't blame people from less advantaged demographics for being so distrustful of the "experts". After all, it's not like the governments and corporations pushing these vaccines have always worked in the working class's favour in the past.
To be clear, I believe that the vaccines are safe and effective and that everyone should get jabbed. But I can't help but feel like all this demonisation of the unvaccinated is driven at least partly by good old fashioned snobbery and class hatred. "How dare these lower class inferiors not do as we say? Why can't they be smart and sensible like us, the wealthy enlightened?"
It's easy for me, as an affluent middle-class white guy, to say "shut up and do what you're told because the experts know best" - but on some level I really can't blame people from less advantaged demographics for being so distrustful of the "experts". After all, it's not like the governments and corporations pushing these vaccines have always worked in the working class's favour in the past.
To be clear, I believe that the vaccines are safe and effective and that everyone should get jabbed. But I can't help but feel like all this demonisation of the unvaccinated is driven at least partly by good old fashioned snobbery and class hatred. "How dare these lower class inferiors not do as we say? Why can't they be smart and sensible like us, the wealthy enlightened?"
Another possibility is that healthcare workers see how the sausage is made and have less faith in medical advice in general than the average citizen does.
Well as a programmer I've seen how the sausage is made in the tech industry, and thus have less faith in the security and reliability of software than the average citizen does. So what you say could make sense.
That would ignore the many experts who were among them who also took issue. For example, NHS infectious diseases consultant, Simon Fox[1]:
> I can't support the mandating of vaccines in this scenario
He goes on:
> If you want to mandate people to have vaccines you have a moral duty to provide evidence that it's necessary, and now the evidence isn't just lacking that it's necessary, but the evidence that is now coming out is demonstrating that it doesn't help reduce transmission from healthcare workers.
Intensive care consultant Milena Chee[2]:
> What I’m against is the vaccination status to be tied to employment rights. I’m against the language of hatred, which is rampant. We are supposed to be such a tolerant society, but all of a sudden have become the complete opposite.
Professor of oncology at St George's and infectious diseases expert (notably, HIV, which has similarities to COVID-19), Angus Dalgleish:
> I think it is absolute madness to have a mandate for everyone to be vaccinated at this stage… The people who are not vaccinated have all given very good reasons.
> Just do an antibody and a T-cell test. If you did that in large numbers it would be cheaper than giving everybody a booster
He goes into more detail[3] which you may enjoy if you're interested in the immune system.
Dr Tony Hinton, retired consultant surgeon on the mandate[4]:
> It makes no logical or scientific sense whatsoever
> Many of the people I speak to have had their 2 jabs but do not want to take a booster.
From NHS100k's open letter to the government[5]:
> We as a collection of professionals pride ourselves on our ability to critically analyse fact based, evidence-based, and science-based information to apply in our practice.
> 1. Emerging scientific evidence that is contrary to the narrative of mandatory vaccinations:
> We point to the work of Dr. Gunter Kampf of the University of Greifswald published in The Lancet Regional Health Europe on 19 November 2021. In this published article Dr. Kampf pointed out: ‘It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission’.
> Weekly reports from the UK Health Security Agency3 consistently show that among adults, the number of cases of Covid 19 in vaccinated population greatly outnumbers that of the unvaccinated population since the rollout of the vaccine programme. We point to the work of Singanayagam et al published on 29 October 2021 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases which showed that people with breakthrough infections have the same viral load regardless of vaccination status. It further adds that regardless of vaccination status the rate of spread from an infected person is the same among household contacts.
> This is not an exhaustive list however we are highlighting these articles as examples to cast reasonable doubt on the assertions made by the Secretary of State, Sajid Javid. Mr Javid declared that our ‘Duty of Care’ towards our patients could only be discharged through the act of inoculating our bodies with a product, that there is now growing evidence of it being inadequate in preventing the transmission of this virus.
The letter is actually damning of the kind of narrative the mainstream media, along with the government, has fed the public. The letter to Chris Witty is similarly damning[6].
Lilith, a paramedic and founder of NHS100k[7]:
> What we're concerned about is the precedent it will set. If you can mandate these vaccines for the NHS, when will it start occurring to the public. When does our health become our choice or when does it become the government's choice? We're very much ralliers for the right to choose. It's such a core issue for healthcare professionals where we must respect patients' decisions
Mr Ahmad Malik, consultant orthopaedic surgeon[7]:
> On one hand we've got mandates and on the other hand we've got freedom, personal freedom, bodily autonomy, informed consent. If you think you can have both, you're gravely mistaken, because they're the exact opposite.
> [Consent] is the cornerstone of medical ethics. Having the ability to choose what's done to your body or what's not done to your body is something we've taken for granted for centuries.
> If we have this mandatary vaccination coming through, that's earthshattering, that demolishes that whole concept of personal bodily autonomy and we're opening a Pandora's box.
They underline your last paragraph, but I think your employment expert needs to familiarise himself with the actual people opposing this instead of making hasty generalisations that act as easy dismissals of a view that may by sincerely held by well educated people.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRApq2IRqn4
[2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/nhs-medics-p...
[3] https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1367946743636118
[4] https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=274024381492297
[5] https://nhs100k.com/Resources/Static/NHS100k%20CEO%20Letter....
[6] https://nhs100k.com/Resources/Static/Letter%20to%20Chris%20W...
[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XGY7s8avhw
> I can't support the mandating of vaccines in this scenario
He goes on:
> If you want to mandate people to have vaccines you have a moral duty to provide evidence that it's necessary, and now the evidence isn't just lacking that it's necessary, but the evidence that is now coming out is demonstrating that it doesn't help reduce transmission from healthcare workers.
Intensive care consultant Milena Chee[2]:
> What I’m against is the vaccination status to be tied to employment rights. I’m against the language of hatred, which is rampant. We are supposed to be such a tolerant society, but all of a sudden have become the complete opposite.
Professor of oncology at St George's and infectious diseases expert (notably, HIV, which has similarities to COVID-19), Angus Dalgleish:
> I think it is absolute madness to have a mandate for everyone to be vaccinated at this stage… The people who are not vaccinated have all given very good reasons.
> Just do an antibody and a T-cell test. If you did that in large numbers it would be cheaper than giving everybody a booster
He goes into more detail[3] which you may enjoy if you're interested in the immune system.
Dr Tony Hinton, retired consultant surgeon on the mandate[4]:
> It makes no logical or scientific sense whatsoever
> Many of the people I speak to have had their 2 jabs but do not want to take a booster.
From NHS100k's open letter to the government[5]:
> We as a collection of professionals pride ourselves on our ability to critically analyse fact based, evidence-based, and science-based information to apply in our practice.
> 1. Emerging scientific evidence that is contrary to the narrative of mandatory vaccinations:
> We point to the work of Dr. Gunter Kampf of the University of Greifswald published in The Lancet Regional Health Europe on 19 November 2021. In this published article Dr. Kampf pointed out: ‘It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission’.
> Weekly reports from the UK Health Security Agency3 consistently show that among adults, the number of cases of Covid 19 in vaccinated population greatly outnumbers that of the unvaccinated population since the rollout of the vaccine programme. We point to the work of Singanayagam et al published on 29 October 2021 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases which showed that people with breakthrough infections have the same viral load regardless of vaccination status. It further adds that regardless of vaccination status the rate of spread from an infected person is the same among household contacts.
> This is not an exhaustive list however we are highlighting these articles as examples to cast reasonable doubt on the assertions made by the Secretary of State, Sajid Javid. Mr Javid declared that our ‘Duty of Care’ towards our patients could only be discharged through the act of inoculating our bodies with a product, that there is now growing evidence of it being inadequate in preventing the transmission of this virus.
The letter is actually damning of the kind of narrative the mainstream media, along with the government, has fed the public. The letter to Chris Witty is similarly damning[6].
Lilith, a paramedic and founder of NHS100k[7]:
> What we're concerned about is the precedent it will set. If you can mandate these vaccines for the NHS, when will it start occurring to the public. When does our health become our choice or when does it become the government's choice? We're very much ralliers for the right to choose. It's such a core issue for healthcare professionals where we must respect patients' decisions
Mr Ahmad Malik, consultant orthopaedic surgeon[7]:
> On one hand we've got mandates and on the other hand we've got freedom, personal freedom, bodily autonomy, informed consent. If you think you can have both, you're gravely mistaken, because they're the exact opposite.
> [Consent] is the cornerstone of medical ethics. Having the ability to choose what's done to your body or what's not done to your body is something we've taken for granted for centuries.
> If we have this mandatary vaccination coming through, that's earthshattering, that demolishes that whole concept of personal bodily autonomy and we're opening a Pandora's box.
They underline your last paragraph, but I think your employment expert needs to familiarise himself with the actual people opposing this instead of making hasty generalisations that act as easy dismissals of a view that may by sincerely held by well educated people.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRApq2IRqn4
[2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/nhs-medics-p...
[3] https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1367946743636118
[4] https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=274024381492297
[5] https://nhs100k.com/Resources/Static/NHS100k%20CEO%20Letter....
[6] https://nhs100k.com/Resources/Static/Letter%20to%20Chris%20W...
[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XGY7s8avhw
Conspiracy? Their point is compliance. Do what you are told without questioning it, be it government policy or corporate wish. People did nothing after 2008, they did nothing after proof of government mass surveillance, and they choose not to care what software runs in their devices on a daily basis. 50 years ago no one would even consider installing a microphone in their houses, now those that refuse it are seen as the paranoid. Current generation will not even bat an eye if their cars required them to watch an ad before turning on.
I did question it, and I also remember when the police and government were trying to ban masks as they hindered surveillance. Seems like people seemed to forget that. It was a small inconvenience that probably helped things. Now it’s kind of irritating - currently on holiday in Lisboa and the obsessiveness is frustrating.
If you don't have a vaccine passport you need to go pay a private company for a test to ensure you don't have a virus the vaccine doesn't even prevent you from contracting. How is that not a dangerous and persistent normalisation of government overreach?
The ones that have consistently been proven right about government overreach?
How is this newsworthy? Aren't at least domestic flights mask-free in lots of countries for a long time now? I remember flying mask free both october last year, and a month ago. Unless the requirement was reinstated between october and now, that's a good 5 months at least.
Until people go on a summer holiday this season and fall ill. When people start dying they might ask themselves "why?" and realise that the virus is not actually gone. Just wishful thinking.
If not now, then when?
UK studies show IFR for COVID for those vaccinated/immunized is now lower than seasonal flu [1]. We never wore masks during the flu and I am not sure why anyone would advocate this continuing. Moreover if someone wants to wear a mask, nothing stops them from doing that, but don't force it on everyone ages 2 and up.
https://www.ft.com/content/e26c93a0-90e7-4dec-a796-3e25e94bc... [1]
UK studies show IFR for COVID for those vaccinated/immunized is now lower than seasonal flu [1]. We never wore masks during the flu and I am not sure why anyone would advocate this continuing. Moreover if someone wants to wear a mask, nothing stops them from doing that, but don't force it on everyone ages 2 and up.
https://www.ft.com/content/e26c93a0-90e7-4dec-a796-3e25e94bc... [1]
Key takeaway is "mask requirement dropped". Everyone should feel free to protect themselves. Just don't mandate that other people do things to protect you.
So roughly, everyone should wear bullet proof vests and gas masks, because it's unreasonable to mandate that people not shoot guns into the air or spray mace whenever they want.
We have mandates for how wiring and plumbing need to work in private homes, apartments, offices, etc to maintain safety. We have mandates for how fast cars can drive, which lanes they can use, how they need to signal turns to maintain safety. We have mandates for what chemicals farmers can spray on fields and what chemicals factories can dump into sewers.
The mask mandate is so utterly trivial compared to everything else in our lives. The airplane also makes you wear a seatbelt, is that a violation of your rights?
We have mandates for how wiring and plumbing need to work in private homes, apartments, offices, etc to maintain safety. We have mandates for how fast cars can drive, which lanes they can use, how they need to signal turns to maintain safety. We have mandates for what chemicals farmers can spray on fields and what chemicals factories can dump into sewers.
The mask mandate is so utterly trivial compared to everything else in our lives. The airplane also makes you wear a seatbelt, is that a violation of your rights?
If you can tell me under what exact conditions it ends, then we can have a discussion about it. Until then, and in absence of incontrovertible proof that it saves a single life, I'm out.
The virus will never be gone. It will continue to mutate in humans and animals and transfer between species.
At some point people learn how to get back to life. Others can shut themselves in their house and have everything delivered to quarantine box outside their door.
At some point people learn how to get back to life. Others can shut themselves in their house and have everything delivered to quarantine box outside their door.
> At some point people learn how to get back to life.
So.. What's wrong with living life in masks for the foreseeable future then? Is that not "life" to you? If not then you are seriously privileged and need to realise that.
So.. What's wrong with living life in masks for the foreseeable future then? Is that not "life" to you? If not then you are seriously privileged and need to realise that.
I think the timing is right for this. Or at least it is getting close to the right time. Case Fatality Rate in heavily vaxxed populations is getting below seasonal influenza so the burden on society just isn’t as high as it was. The threat model has completely changed.