Forum menu
Speaking to my sister back in Essex today.
Was surprised that masks are not mandatory in shops/supermarkets…!
except they are.
But since when?
My aunt works at the Post Office and said she's been asking people why they're not wearing a mask.
Listening to the radio the other day it sounded like Morrisons were only now beginning to enforce it.
At my local supermarket here in Munich they've had security on the door making sure everyone had a mask, counting people in and out, making people wait outside if the store had too many customers and another security making sure people kept their distance from one another at the tills.
But since when?
It's been law since July
Been the law in Scotland since October 16th, not sure about nationally.
I’ve not seen anyone in a shop for months without a face mask on.
That’s not often admittedly.
I do the weekly shopping and occasionally see someone without a mask but it's very rare.
I've seen a few without
Including a couple of pissed up blokes bragging about it, also had maintence contractors in work refuse to coz he doesn't want to breathe CO2
On the trains it's pretty good (I'm in 3-4 days a week) but you still get the off person refusing & causing a scene, which is impressive as there are so few people on them (I've also seen someone in full clean suit, mask & googled Tbf)
Have to wear a mask while running here in Spain. That’s a laugh.
@kimbers - was on a call earlier where it was mentioned that various ‘detritus’ from the virus was floating around for anytime up to 2-3 months (causing +ves). There’s a team in Italy looking into it. Didn’t catch the full details though. Can see if I can find out more.
Rich
In theory Rich that is much more likely to be showing up on PCR than flow test, but who knows!
It’s been law since July
Where?
Not trying to be a prick, but from what I've heard and what I'm reading on fb it certainly doesn't seem to be implemented across the board.
To offer an alternative rather than no longer scared could it be that they can no longer maintain such a high level of anxiety?
Possibly. There may be a certain fatigue with trying to be on constant high alert. A couple of colleagues who in my view massively overacted at the start are now behaving normally and I no longer know anyone who’s quarantining/disinfecting their shopping.
Yes. Most people want to do the right thing, but 'fear factor' or anxiety is also a useful motivator. For those people who have so-far avoided any close experience of covid this has a tendency to reduce over time... "risk normalisation".
Where?
Not trying to be a prick, but from what I’ve heard and what I’m reading on fb it certainly doesn’t seem to be implemented across the board.
https://www.bma.org.uk/news-and-opinion/government-makes-wearing-face-masks-mandatory
ElShalimo
Full MemberI do the weekly shopping and occasionally see someone without a mask but it’s very rare.
Same here and I do shopping for 4 elderly neighbours, so am in Aldi & Sainsburys in our town 4 to 5 times a week and its a real jolt to see someone without a mask!
I see far more people not doing it on the train, than in shops,
the trains arent as busy, but much poorer air circulation
Where?
Not trying to be a prick, but from what I’ve heard and what I’m reading on fb it certainly doesn’t seem to be implemented across the board.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/791/contents/made
Enforcement may be an issue but as someone who works in a shop i'm not telling someone looking for a fight that they have to leave. It's ussually only 1 or 2 a day though max
If it's been mandatory since July why are the supermarkets only implementing it now?
It hasn't been the responsibility of the shops to enforce the law. That may change though.
Because it's ultimately a police issue rather than one for minimum wage supermarket staff to attempt to enforce.
There's lots of things that are illegal to do in shops but its the job of the police to stop these things not staff members
#plagueisland
There are signs up on doors reminding people it is 'mandatory' and when my 16yo daughter does door duty at her supermarket she has to remind the odd person. But as with queue jumpers, some people just ignore the 16yo, she's not got the physical ability to enforce it, or as a 16yo the 'presence' to impose it but the big security guard behind the door has a better hit rate. But if he's off somewhere else then some people do just ignore her.
Technically the shop has the right to refuse admission, so while he can't do anything about someone not wearing a mask (as in fine or arrest them), they can refuse admission or eject someone for not wearing one. There are even some who wear a mask to get in and then take them off!
It's not because they don't know, or because they have exemptions, but because they are self-entitled pricks.
And from observation, usually more affluent looking, white, middle aged SEPs of both gender.
If it's you, just stop it.
I'm in a supermarket twice a week and very occasionally another shop. I've not seen any adult without a mask inside since we were told to wear them.
There was a bit of a discussion in the office yesterday and it would be good to hear STWs take on this.
So a few points that all generally agreed first
1) There are people dying
2) If there was a stricter lockdown less people are likely to die
3) The pensionable aged person is more likely to die and is less economically impacted so disproportionally benefits from lockdowns
4) Young people are less effected by the virus and are suffering the greatest economic impact and are therefore disproportionally negatively effected by lockdowns
5) The government has, to date, run up ££££ billions of debt to pay for supporting people through lockdowns
6) If stricter lockdowns are put in place (i.e. forcing more businesses to close meaning more people stay in the house) the government will have to increase national debt by £££££££ billions more to support individuals (furlough payments) and businesses (i.e. cancel business rates, cover business rents and utility costs, etc.) if we want anyone to make it through this
7) Taxes (predominantly income tax) are likely to rise to cover the costs of the lockdown measures.
So given the above was mostly agreed by all parties involved on to the question:
Given the pensionable aged person disproportionally benefits from lockdowns and the young are disproportionally negatively effected, to enable the economic recovery should those that benefit the most also have to shoulder the burden of servicing the debt through changing to a means tested access to age related state benefits (state pension, free bus passes, free TV licenses, heating allowances etc.)?
The views of those in the office involved in the discussion :
The older people - No way, we've paid in so we are entitled and deserve those benefits.
The young people - You lot benefit from this and we're getting shat on so why should we bear the entire economic cost
So, what do STW think?
Masks you say!?
I say mandatory boxing gloves for the coffin dodger cohort, so they find it hard to pick up every item in the bloody shop, examine it, and then put it back.
Including tinned food.
Special props to the old age prick in Tesco, Stafford who picked up every single baguette (about 15 of them), examined them, gave them a few squeezes and then put them back.
So, what do STW think?
Any of these "young" people have children? Why should "old" people fund these economic parasites* - they dont become net payers till, what, about 26 years old, if ever?
* I dont think they are parasites; merely used for polemic.
.govs covid testing plans could increase covid in schools.
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/12/covid-19-innova-testing-in-schools-dont-just-test-evaluate/
Given the pensionable aged person disproportionally benefits from lockdowns and the young are disproportionally negatively effected, to enable the economic recovery should those that benefit the most also have to shoulder the burden of servicing the debt through changing to a means tested access to age related state benefits (state pension, free bus passes, free TV licenses, heating allowances etc.)?
Those state related benefits are there to keep a significant number of the elderly out of poverty or to alleviate to some degree of already living in poverty. They also have limited options for doing anything to earn income. This is before you get onto the impacts of loneliness and isolation that inflicted significant suffering amongst the elderly even prior to a pandemic.
Im struggling to see the “benefits” of being in an age group far more likely to die than another.
Can you detail these benefits beyond trying not to let them get killed?
@jonm81 - there are a lot of assumptions in that long list. I'm guessing the office is mostly people under 40 given the comments
It's like most things, not as simple as people think it is.
5) The government has, to date, run up ££££ billions of debt to pay for supporting people through lockdowns
Ahh that old chestnut when normal people are worried about something that the goverment aren’t.
(They’ll rack up debt without a care in the world in normal times and use it as an excuse when they want to cut stuff.)
Think of it as an investment for the coming better times.
Bah I’m being positive on a thread 🙁
Work colleagues update
4th vaccine
9th +ve lat flow
9th +/- rt-pcr
10th -ve rt-pcr
11th +ve lat flow
11tg +ve rt-pcr
So I'm still isolating!
Those state related benefits are there to keep a significant number of the elderly out of poverty or to alleviate to some degree of already living in poverty.
Hence the means tested bit.
To be clear - I wasn't involved in the debate at work and just overheard it. I don't really have an opinion either way on this one. I was just interested in hearing what other opinions there might be.
Given I will have a good workplace pension (if I ever get to retire!) I would be perfectly happy to forgo state pension and the other state supplied benefits as I won't need them to support a good lifestyle. I would rather that money goes to those (either retired or working) that do need that additional support.
there are a lot of assumptions in that long list. I’m guessing the office is mostly people under 40 given the comments
No, it was about an even mix of 20-40s and 55-70. A few old agreed with the young and a few young agreed with the old but mostly both groups were polarised in their views
Im young, but have old people I care about.
I can't believe these people give so little of a s@@t about their relatives that they think this way.
ME ME ME ME ME ME ME.
Jonm problem with means testing is the process can cost more than the savings especially for smaller things like tv licenses. Best thing to do if you want to redistribute your unneeded wealth is to do it yourself.
You get to choose who benefits then and will get the positive feelings from having helped people directly rather than having to trust the government to do it.
The older people – No way, we’ve paid in so we are entitled and deserve those benefits.
The young people – You lot benefit from this and we’re getting shat on so why should we bear the entire economic cost
I mean the same could be said for brexit why let the old people vote on something that wont really impact their life. The main point of the issue is its (perhaps generally speaking) the old and vulnerable who are impacting services the most so make them safe and we can live a "normal" life again. As a fit, wfh 30odd im way down the list and not that aggy about it. Another way to look at it is by the the mass population get it any kinks will be ironed out. We all know what being an early adopter to tech is like... painful.
I can’t believe these people give so little of a s@@t about their relatives that they think this way.
That cuts both ways.
Those state related benefits are there to keep a significant number of the elderly out of poverty or to alleviate to some degree of already living in poverty. They also have limited options for doing anything to earn income. This is before you get onto the impacts of loneliness and isolation that inflicted significant suffering amongst the elderly even prior to a pandemic.
But what do you say to the people retiring in thirty years who will have all of the disadvantages but none of the advantages (ie decent pensions, value in property, not working until they're 70)?
Re the old - they still pay income tax in the same way as everyone else, based on income and other taxes e.g. council tax.
Most benefits are income tested so if you have a half decent pension or have your own house or flat, you'll be paying for your own social care (attendance allowance doesn't cover the sort of care you'll need in your home towards end of independent living).
If you need to move into a care home (which will be counted as social care) then you'll be paying a lot until you've exhausted your assets - my mum is paying £4500 per month out of her tax paid income and savings/house.
If we as a society decide not to treat the over 70s (or 80s or 90s) we'll need to have somewhere to put them to die - Nightingales? Most in the medical profession would consider that unethical.
Totally different if someone decides they don't want treatment - my mum doesn't want any aggressive treatment if she falls ill again and is quite happy to die.
I can’t believe these people give so little of a s@@t about their relatives that they think this way.
That'll be 40 years of neo-liberalism for you. We've been told by successive governments that it's all about the advancement of the individual and that society is less important. Now in the middle of the pandemic that's coming back to haunt us. People complain about the over-50s not adhering to the rules but there a lots of younger people who just don't give a *@#* as that's the society they've always lived in. It also fits in with the wider British approach of IDGAF anyway.
Changing that conditioned mindset is a huge challenge
Given the pensionable aged person disproportionally benefits from ...
...the NHS.
Keeping people alive and healthy, by what ever means, nearly always "benefits" the old more than the young.
No, it was about an even mix of 20-40s and 55-70.
those 55-70 are by definition from your story, are still in employment, and still attend a physical place of work.
they are taking the same physical risks as the 20-40s, but with a higher consequence helathwise.
any sort of tax on the old folk/pension haircut will still be around to negatively impact them when they retire; but they have received none of the benefits that the really vunerable (70+ or otherwise in poor health) have from nearly a year of global lockdown.
and remember on anything being taken away on a "means tested" method - if you need it to make a difference to the governments coffers, its going to have to be a scathing cut. Say the top 10% are too rich to be affected, the bottom 10% will still get it, but the 80% in the middle will have it taken away and suffer.
It isnt going to be a "tax the rich and the majority benefit" arrangement
The young people – You lot benefit from this and we’re getting shat on so why should we bear the entire economic cost
These young people are still in work, so in what particular way are they getting shat on?
These young people are still in work, so in what particular way are they getting shat on?
For arguments sake: the young (and disadvantaged) are probably doing all the shit underpaid jobs (that also expose them to COVID) that keep things running whilst office workers and managers are wfh or furloughed.
You could also argue that this will also have a negative impact on job mobility something that young people can normally take advantage.
These young people are still in work, so in what particular way are they getting shat on?
obviously young person needs a better definition to make real comments but I'll hazard a guess:
Despite being in work, they likely had a period of furlough, pay cut, future pay freeze, impending recession.
Probably everything in their life that is not working and sleeping is currently illegal, closed or just plain frowned upon.
I particularly feel for the currently-single-female-who-wants-kids-at-some-point who needs to meet a suitable long term partner and settle down within a fairly finite window of time, which has just been shortened by nearly a year.
We do what we have done (lockdowns/restrictions) for the good of society, not just ourselves. There will neccecarily be some "givers" and some "takers/benefitters" in that arrangement. I think the "givers" have a right to be sad about it while doing it.
The old have voted repeatedly and consistently to **** up the young over the last 5 years. If they had deliberately and vindictively set out to **** up the future as much as possible, they couldn't have done a better job.
**** off with your prejudiced generalisations.
That's not 100% true though is it.
This is a precise demolition of our government on Covid, a depressing but worthwhile read:
It's not true for 100% of voters, but it is 100% true that a large majority of them voted that way.
All the whining from businessmen who voted leave and are now finding out that *their* businesses are ****ed up makes me sick. They were happy to screw over everyone else without a care in the world. Pass me my tiny violin.
To bring this thread back to errr....covid....
Drove for a rapid test today through my employer....got told I couldn't have one as I've got symptoms (headache and fatigue)
So had to book an NHS one.....you can only book one if you have one of the three main symptoms....Loss of Smells, Continuous Cough or High Temperature....bit of a Catch 22 there for me! I decided that I'd got enough of a high temperature to book a test. Got one done within an hour of booking at a drive through centre. There were A LOT of positive tests at work over the weekend. Should find out in 48 hours
The old have voted repeatedly and consistently to **** up the young over the last 5 years.
As and "old" person I would like some clarification of what I have done to **** up the young. You know, so I can repent my sins.
Jesus Christ pick another ****ing thread to argue about the Tories and boomers....I'm not a huge fan of either, but manage to keep it off this thread. We've only just got rid of Steve's school rants!
Meanwhile, test your Covid restrictions knowledge with this little BBC test:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55639456
I got 5/7...I'm off to sit on the naughty step.
5/7 here as well.
The "results" page reminds me just how low the BBC have sunk. Their news website used to be the premier source of news the world over... it's now just tabloid click for likes junk.. I mean... look...
Your score: 5 / 7
Run of the treadmill
7 - Ahead by a social distance
4-6 - Run of the treadmill
0-3 - Covidiot
6/7. Got the Scottish one wrong because I have no intention of going there so dont care to look up their rules.
I'm still surprised how many people think that it is breaking the law to travel outside your local area to exercise. I suggest people read the actual legislation, it's nowhere near as difficult to read as you would think and lists things out very clearly.
If you insist on being helpful, then you could post the salient points on here
What does 'run of the treadmill' even mean?
Agree about the BBC site. When I worked there, we would only clickbait highly amusing stories about people turning up at A&E with stuff stuck up their arses.
If you insist on being helpful, then you could post the salient points on here
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020
You are here:
UK Statutory Instruments2020 No. 1374SCHEDULE3AExceptions: leaving home
2.—(1) These are the exceptions referred to in paragraph 1.Exception 1: leaving home necessary for certain purposes
(2) Exception 1 is that it is reasonably necessary for the person concerned (“P”) to leave or be outside the place where P is living (“P’s home”)—(a)to buy goods or obtain services from any business or service listed in [F3paragraph 17], for—
(i)P or for those in the same household,
(ii)vulnerable persons [F4or persons who have a disability], or
(iii)persons in the same household as a vulnerable person [F5or a person who has a disability];
(b)to obtain money from or deposit money with any business listed in paragraph 17(k) or (l) of this Schedule;
(c)to take exercise outside—
(i)alone,
(ii)with—
(aa)one or more members of their household, their linked household, or
(bb)where exercise is being taken as part of providing informal childcare for a child aged 13 or under, one or more members of their linked childcare household, or
(iii)in a public outdoor place, with one other person who is not a member of their household, their linked household or their linked childcare household
and sub-paragraph (3) applies in determining whether a person is complying with the limits in this sub-paragraph;
F6(d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F6(da). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(e)to attend a place of worship;
(f)to undertake any of the following activities in connection with the purchase, sale, letting or rental of a residential property—
(i)visiting estate or letting agents, developer sales offices or show homes;
(ii)viewing residential properties to look for a property to buy or to rent;
(iii)preparing a residential property to move in;
(iv)moving house;
(v)visiting a residential property to undertake any activities required for the rental or sale of that property;
(g)to visit a member of a household which is a linked household in relation to P’s household;
(h)to collect food, drink or other goods which have been ordered from a business, or to access goods or services which are provided in any way permitted by paragraph 12 or 13; or
(i)to visit a waste disposal or recycling centre.
(3) For the purposes of determining whether a person is complying with the limits in—(a)sub-paragraph (2)(c)(ii) F7... , no account is to be taken of any person who is present as a carer for a person with a disability who needs continuous care (a “carer”),
(b)sub-paragraph (2)(c)(iii) F8... , no account is to be taken of a carer or a child below the age of five,
provided that, in either case, there are no more than two people present in the capacity of carer.(4) A place is a public outdoor place for the purposes of this paragraph if it is a public outdoor place other than a fairground or funfair and—
(a)no payment is required by any member of the public to access that place, or
(b)the place falls within one of the following categories—
F9(i). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(ii)botanical gardens,
(iii)gardens or grounds of a castle, stately home, historic house or other heritage site.
Nothing in there says anything about local, or distance.
OMG, that BBC test, whilst potentially legally correct, as there's basicaly no legal precident, is really not going to encorage responsible behavior.
Sigh.
I'd go so far as to say it's increddibly irresponsible for them to put that up.
3/7. I was more prescriptive than the test questions!
And for some good news. Cases in London have turned over and admissions have stabilised. Patients are receiving longer treatment - hence occupancy is rising. Deaths will turnover in London in a week to ten days. Other regions will follow as the new strain meets Lockdown 2 effects.
Good news indeed @Tired thank you for some optimism: our Trust is expecting numbers to peak a week from today (I've no idea how they can be so precise with the prediction)
Well that is good news, really good news. I expect that in a month or so when it settles down properly in London, the country will be brought down a level in restrictions and the North will be left exposed again as it lags behind the timeline of the South.
@airvent I wish I could say that won't happen. I could say it, but I don't really believe it. Cases in the North have also turned over. Of course nine days after lockdown, with schools closed, I would have been worried if they had not. Transmission of the new strain appears controlled by current restrictions. Look for a halving time of two to three weeks as was noted for the first Lockdown. Longer than that (i.e., stable cases) would suggest greater transmission of the new strain and slightly less effective control. Maybe.
One overlooked benefit of lockdown- no visits from JW or Mormons!
Was reminded of this today when the local JWs sent out letters in lieu of doorstepping.
Send it back to their address in an envelope with no stamps - they then have to pay Royal Mail the outstanding postage plus charges
2/7 for me - really don't know much
One overlooked benefit of lockdown- no visits from JW or Mormons!
Was reminded of this today when the local JWs sent out letters in lieu of doorstepping.
I was thinking the same - I got a copy of the Watchtower sent to me at Christmas with a "card". Nice folk but not interested in what they have to say. I should just ask them to stop calling but I don't want to offend!
Your new goal in life as a Jehovah is to out-Jehovah the existing 20,000 inhabitants of Heaven. One in, one out. By the end of eternity it's the ultimate Jehovahey echo chamber.
At least the furry cuddly lions who don't eat people when they're dead will talk when you get there.
It's a lot like Narnia but fewer wardrobes.
FB-ATB
Full MemberOne overlooked benefit of lockdown- no visits from JW or Mormons!
JW made the mistake of waking Mrs jp during a much needed nap when the new born baby was asleep. She gave them both barrels and they have avoided our house for nearly fourteen years now 🙂
I got a copy of the Watchtower sent to me at Christmas with a “card”. Nice folk but not interested in what they have to say. I should just ask them to stop calling but I don’t want to offend!
Fun fact: Number of Covid dead should exceed maximum heaven capacity (according to JW) by spring.
Capacity has already been expanded from 40,000, apparently. God must've built an extension, or coverted it into an HMO.
7) Taxes (predominantly income tax) are likely to rise to cover the costs of the lockdown measures.
So given the above was mostly agreed by all parties involved on to the question:
Given the pensionable aged person disproportionally benefits from lockdowns and the young are disproportionally negatively effected, to enable the economic recovery should those that benefit the most also have to shoulder the burden of servicing the debt through changing to a means tested access to age related state benefits (state pension, free bus passes, free TV licenses, heating allowances etc.)?
This seems to be based around a "household budget" view of the economy. We won't get a bill like a credit card bill that needs to be paid off in a certain time. We've done austerity for no reason, thanks.
Fun fact: Number of Covid dead should exceed maximum heaven capacity (according to JW) by spring.
Capacity has already been expanded from 40,000, apparently. God must’ve built an extension, or coverted it into an HMO.
Nightingale Heaven - will there be angels enough to staff it ?
Apparently Hades sent a load up, but God created a hostile environment and they decided to head home.
When did it get to 40,000? It was 20,000 when they used to hassle the students offer to enlighten our poor lost young souls in the mid 90s.
Was reminded of this today when the local JWs sent out letters in lieu of doorstepping.
We got that last week - fair play to them, we've all had to adapt to these challenging times. And they probably coped with a minimalist Covid Christmas better than most, to be fair
Sinovac vaccines results out (leaked anyway) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-55642648 Reported 50.38% efficacy. Reverse engineering and typical sample size for trials says that this is 65 infections on vaccine vs. 131 on placebo (50.282%) or 66 and 133 (50.376%). Of course the trial could have double this number of events as well. Or treble. But I doubt it (note the 200 events is common to most trials) Either way this is not a great outcome for an old technology (inactivated virus). It's certainly pointing to just how good the mRNA technology is, but there is much detail still to come out from the trial.
Phase 1 data published in the Lancet showed up to 83% seroconversion, but neutralization is what matters. Before mRNA, we'd have taken this as a win.
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S1473-3099(20)30843-4/fulltext
"attempting to visit all 92 football league grounds in a road trip during lockdown"
"to attend certain public places within the district, to hunt Pokemon".