Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

It's possible to think that both:

a) it's unreasonable and unnecessary to wear a mask when going for a walk 5 minutes from your house; and also

b) it's true, based on scientific evidence, that compulsory mask wearing outdoors makes compliance with mask wearing indoors higher, which in turn will have a small impact on spread.

These are not mutually exclusive positions. I agree with both. There are some benefits to be had from having rules about wearing masks outdoors but equally I don't think they're worth the downsides.

I actually think that's the sensible and correct position but apparently it's not allowed and you have to either believe there is zero benefit to wearing masks outdoors, or believe that there's zero downsides to mask wearing.

Your house is a covid resisting force field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks all for the replies on the pub thing. I think it's clear that demand is fairly low - given that only places with outdoor areas can open, and at a very low capacity, certainly there seem to be far fewer people going out that would do in normal times.

The question is if this is COVID-based hesitancy, or just a "can't be arsed with all the hoops and will wait until they're open indoors in a few weeks" hesitancy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

It's possible to think that both:

a) it's unreasonable and unnecessary to wear a mask when going for a walk 5 minutes from your house; and also

b) it's true, based on scientific evidence, that compulsory mask wearing outdoors makes compliance with mask wearing indoors higher, which in turn will have a small impact on spread.

These are not mutually exclusive positions. I agree with both. There are some benefits to be had from having rules about wearing masks outdoors but equally I don't think they're worth the downsides.

I actually think that's the sensible and correct position but apparently it's not allowed and you have to either believe there is zero benefit to wearing masks outdoors, or believe that there's zero downsides to mask wearing.

centrist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, steviewevie said:

have to see what comes out of the court case...and if AZ were making best reasonable efforts...whatever the hell that means..

Best reasonable efforts is an idea recognised in law.for a court to decide on the EU will have to demonstrate it didn't make it's best efforts.or AZ will have to show that the EU undermined its efforts.for a case which is about the EU wanting to save face it looks a risky bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, dpdp said:

I'm 43 and the booking system has just let me in.  My friend who's 42 has also managed to book.

Worth trying now if you 40+.

I am 43 will be 44 on the 12th of July and it's told me I'm not eligible to book yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

I am 43 will be 44 on the 12th of July and it's told me I'm not eligible to book yet. 

I guess it must only be for certain areas then.  I tried this morning and was unable to book, tried again later and it was open.  I'm booked in for my first jab in the morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dpdp said:

I guess it must only be for certain areas then.  I tried this morning and was unable to book, tried again later and it was open.  I'm booked in for my first jab in the morning.

Yes should hopefully only be a matter of days but a bit frustrating as most of my friends are older than me. My husband is 45 and this is the first time they have decided to start doing it year by year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's only taken them three months to follow thru on that threat it's almost like they knew they didn't have a good case.

I presume they were waiting until they'd sorted out the big deal with pfizer, so they can now burn their bridges with AZ, likely they're just using it to pressure them and will drop it before it goes anywhere - the ethics and optics of suing a cost price manufacture who will likely be the main western supplier to lower income countries, just to deflect blame from their own mess ups, are horrific. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

It's possible to think that both:

a) it's unreasonable and unnecessary to wear a mask when going for a walk 5 minutes from your house; and also

b) it's true, based on scientific evidence, that compulsory mask wearing outdoors makes compliance with mask wearing indoors higher, which in turn will have a small impact on spread.

These are not mutually exclusive positions. I agree with both. There are some benefits to be had from having rules about wearing masks outdoors but equally I don't think they're worth the downsides.

I actually think that's the sensible and correct position but apparently it's not allowed and you have to either believe there is zero benefit to wearing masks outdoors, or believe that there's zero downsides to mask wearing.

Is that reasoned and analysis and nuance I see on this? Not just summarising everything to oversimplistic black vs white?

Going to have to have a lie down down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Thanks all for the replies on the pub thing. I think it's clear that demand is fairly low - given that only places with outdoor areas can open, and at a very low capacity, certainly there seem to be far fewer people going out that would do in normal times.

The question is if this is COVID-based hesitancy, or just a "can't be arsed with all the hoops and will wait until they're open indoors in a few weeks" hesitancy. 

Weather perhaps also - we've had a few hot days but also some "ok"/borderline cold ones - I wouldn't bother personally on a day when it's borderline cold, it's just not as enjoyable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Best reasonable efforts is an idea recognised in law.for a court to decide on the EU will have to demonstrate it didn't make it's best efforts.or AZ will have to show that the EU undermined its efforts.for a case which is about the EU wanting to save face it looks a risky bet.

surely commission must think they have a pretty good case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

Very unusual for the BBC website to run with the accusation rather than the tories rebuttal of it (bet they end up changing it in an hour or so).

I noticed the last few years if it was anything vs labour they'd run with the accusation as the headline quickly, but when it was the tories they'd often wait a while until the tories had refuted it, and would run with that denial as the headline - they're s*** scared of them! 

Peston also saying 2 sources said he did say it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

have to see what comes out of the court case...and if AZ were making best reasonable efforts...whatever the hell that means..

I think at the end courts will earn most, its simply about money. Best reasonable effort seems to be rather vague but it will be saving faces for both sides. Not for health of people, it won`t bring died people back anymore. 
As also stated it will not have any effect on the delivery problems which will be prolonged in the future (first quarter AZ delivering 30 instead of 180 Mio doses, second 70 instead of 180 Mio doses).  
But when you compare it to the AZ restrictions - how this has been a big topic in media here, this one is relative small news.

Big news is the new green vaccination passport which will work in 3 steps and fully be available in summer. Von der Leyen has already invited US tourists to EU countries as she wants that the US should adapt the passport - thing of winning some ground again.
The reason for breaking with AZ is also simple - the EU has changed its strategy and vaccination is based fully on Biotech/Pfizer which delivers much more than expected.

The contract was extended and the AZ contract expired. So the EU now has a much better position as they are not so dependent on the AZ anymore like they had been weeks ago.

Yeah, a money and reputation thing, but I fear that it wont help to make the situation clearer or better. But yeah, at least the vaccination campaign shows positive effects here now and we already have overtaken Germany with their hard Lockdown with our rather strange strategy having barely any Lockdown at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hannibal Schmitt said:

I think at the end courts will earn most, its simply about money. Best reasonable effort seems to be rather vague but it will be saving faces for both sides. Not for health of people, it won`t bring died people back anymore. 
As also stated it will not have any effect on the delivery problems which will be prolonged in the future (first quarter AZ delivering 30 instead of 180 Mio doses, second 70 instead of 180 Mio doses).  
But when you compare it to the AZ restrictions - how this has been a big topic in media here, this one is relative small news.

Big news is the new green vaccination passport which will work in 3 steps and fully be available in summer. Von der Leyen has already invited US tourists to EU countries as she wants that the US should adapt the passport - thing of winning some ground again.
The reason for breaking with AZ is also simple - the EU has changed its strategy and vaccination is based fully on Biotech/Pfizer which delivers much more than expected.

The contract was extended and the AZ contract expired. So the EU now has a much better position as they are not so dependent on the AZ anymore like they had been weeks ago.

Yeah, a money and reputation thing, but I fear that it wont help to make the situation clearer or better. But yeah, at least the vaccination campaign shows positive effects here now and we already have overtaken Germany with their hard Lockdown with our rather strange strategy having barely any Lockdown at all. 

so just taking AZ to court to shift the blame to them in the public's eyes? If so, they need to win!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...