Covid-19

[bfcmik]

Can anyone point me to any reliable scientific evidence that Covid transmission is likely in supermarkets and shops.

The issue is with the still air allowing droplets that may contain the virus to stay airborne for longer. In the open air the normal turbulence means droplets become grounded quickly.

[Mala591]

The issue is with the still air allowing droplets that may contain the virus to stay airborne for longer. In the open air the normal turbulence means droplets become grounded quickly.

Yes, but that's a theoretical problem. Supermarkets and essential shops have been open throughout the pandemic and 'when customers use a bit of common sense' the risk of transmission appears to be extremely low. So why are we tightening restrictions when the pandemic is under relative control?

[mkmel]

Philippines Number of cases 72,269 Fatalities: ..1,843........Population 68 million. Total tests:.. 1,216,733
UK Number of cases.........296,377 Fatalities: 45,501........Population 109 million. Total tests: 13,763,289

You got the populations the wrong way round

Here in the Philippines population 109 million
UK population 68 million

[FactualFrank]

COSTA HELL SOL Thousands of Brits on holiday in Spain face threat of quarantine on return – as country sees coronavirus cases TRIPLE https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12188250/ ... uarantine/

The problem here is of the very strong likelihood that Boris and co will act too late again and not learn from their mistakes.

[UnderSeige]

Yes, but that's a theoretical problem. Supermarkets and essential shops have been open throughout the pandemic and 'when customers use a bit of common sense' the risk of transmission appears to be extremely low. So why are we tightening restrictions when the pandemic is under relative control?

It's not a theoretical problem. There has been research into aerosols that can accumulate in poorly ventilated venues and be carried on air currents. The WHO and many governments are only just coming round to finding this out - even though it was blooming obvious to many governments in the Far East and people with 'common sense' from the start.

Mounting evidence suggests coronavirus is airborne — but health advice has not caught up
Governments are starting to change policies amid concerns that tiny droplets can carry SARS-CoV-2. Converging lines of evidence indicate that SARS-CoV-2 can pass from person to person in tiny droplets called aerosols that waft through the air and accumulate over time.

This week, Morawska and aerosol scientist Donald Milton at the University of Maryland supported by an international group of 237 other clinicians, infectious-disease physicians, epidemiologists, engineers and aerosol scientists, published a commentary in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases that urges the medical community and public-health authorities to acknowledge the potential for airborne transmission. They also call for preventive measures to reduce this type of risk.

Other researchers say that case studies of large-scale clusters have shown the importance of airborne transmission. The news media reported large numbers of people falling ill following indoor gatherings. The indoor spread suggested the virus was being transmitted in a different way from how health authorities had assumed. “For an atmospheric chemist, which I am, the only way you get there is you put it in the air and everybody breathes that air,” says Prather, who joined the commentary. “That is the smoking gun.”

In another case, researchers used a tracer gas to show that aerosols carried on currents from an air-conditioning unit in a restaurant in Guangzhou, China, were to blame for an outbreak affecting ten diners from three separate families. None of the staff or patrons seated near other air-conditioning units were infected.

Another study found that people infected with SARS-CoV-2 exhaled 1,000–100,000 copies per minute of viral RNA, a marker of the pathogen’s presence. Because the volunteers simply breathed out, the viral RNA was likely to be carried in aerosols rather than in the large droplets produced during coughing, sneezing or speaking.

Other laboratory studies suggest that aerosols of SARS-CoV-2 remain infectious for longer than do aerosols of some related respiratory viruses. When researchers created aerosols of the new coronavirus, they remained infectious for at least 16 hours, and had greater infectivity than aerosols of the coronaviruses SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, which cause severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome, respectively. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02058-1

Researchers reported earlier this year in The New England Journal of Medicine that SARS-CoV-2 can float in aerosol droplets—less than 5 microns across—for up to 3 hours, and remain infectious.

In their review, Fineberg and his NAS colleagues pointed to other studies, including a recent one by Joshua Santarpia and colleagues at the University of Nebraska Medical Center that found widespread evidence of viral RNA in isolation rooms of patients being treated for COVID-19. Viral RNA turned up on hard to reach surfaces, as well as in air samplers more than 2 meters from the patients. The presence of the RNA indicates virus can spread via aerosols, Santarpia and his colleagues concluded. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04 ... port-finds

"Why are we tightening restrictions when the pandemic is under relative control?"
Because enough research has been conducted to conclude that the virus spreads through the air. The WHO and governments have been assuming that the virus mainly spreads through surface contact.

"Supermarkets and essential shops have been open throughout the pandemic and 'when customers use a bit of common sense' the risk of transmission appears to be extremely low". Is that so? Do you have any links of research to prove this?

[UnderSeige]

You got the populations the wrong way round

Here in the Philippines population 109 million
UK population 68 million

Thanks for the correction.

[UnderSeige]

The problem here is of the very strong likelihood that Boris and co will act too late again and not learn from their mistakes.

It looks like they need to act immediately on this one by making Spain one of the countries requiring travellers to quarantine on return to the UK. The risk is that they will come back to the UK and go straight onto public transport. A day or two later they will be happily spreading the virus at work.

[FactualFrank]

It looks like they need to act immediately on this one by making Spain one of the countries requiring travellers to quarantine on return to the UK. The risk is that they will come back to the UK and go straight onto public transport. A day or two later they will be happily spreading the virus at work.

Exactly my point. This will happen for a week, AND THEN they'll think to do something about it.

[UnderSeige]

Exactly my point. This will happen for a week, AND THEN they'll think to do something about it.

The statement will go something like the following:

"Well yes err um arr. We're working hard on it. Err Follow the Science umm. Ah! From the 1st September all those returning from err Spain will be required to err quarantine umm".

[taio]

The statement will go something like the following:

"Well yes err um arr. We're working hard on it. Err Follow the Science umm. Ah! From the 1st September all those returning from err Spain will be required to err quarantine umm".

Personally don't believe in a broad brush or blanket fashion going forward. Feel it would best to have a tailored approach based on hot spots. For example if the Balerics and/or Canaries are well under control there should be no requirement to quarantine on return because of a spike on the mainland. And fairly soon hopefully rapid testing can play a part. Same applies to UK - responding to spikes on a geographic rather than national basis unless of course it's a second wave and country-wide problem.

[UnderSeige]

Is anyone else confused about the covid rules for DIY stores? I went to Screwfix today and was told by the man on the door that I wouldn't be able to make a purchase unless I ordered and paid online first. He said that they are awaiting further government release measures before you can buy in store.

However, I went to a local hardware shop and bought some things last week paying in cash. I have also heard that stores such as Wickes and B&Q are open as normal except for social distancing. I have also been to garden centres without any problem.

Anyway it was screwfix's loss and my gain. When I returned home I found that I was able to make the same purchase through one of the internet retailers at less than half price with free delivery. I know who I will be using in the future.

[TheFamilyCat]

It looks like they need to act immediately on this one by making Spain one of the countries requiring travellers to quarantine on return to the UK. The risk is that they will come back to the UK and go straight onto public transport. A day or two later they will be happily spreading the virus at work.

Let's be realistic here, "quarantine" will be "please stay at home".

[dsr]

It's not a theoretical problem.

...


"Why are we tightening restrictions when the pandemic is under relative control?"
Because enough research has been conducted to conclude that the virus spreads through the air. The WHO and governments have been assuming that the virus mainly spreads through surface contact.

"Supermarkets and essential shops have been open throughout the pandemic and 'when customers use a bit of common sense' the risk of transmission appears to be extremely low". Is that so? Do you have any links of research to prove this?

That doesn't answer the question. the question was about whether anyone has proved that there is a significant risk of infection in a supermarket. Your evidence is that an air conditioning device can transmit the disease over a very small area and that a roomful of people infected with coronavirus can all infect each other.

Bearing in mind latest estimates that 1 in 4,000 people is infected with coronavirus, have you specific evidence that entering a supermarket is any more dangerous than crossing the road to get there?

They surely have evidence by now, via all the contact tracing around the world, of where people are catching this. So what are the numbers? where are they catching it?

[UnderSeige]

Personally don't believe in a broad brush or blanket fashion going forward. Feel it would best to have a tailored approach based on hot spots. For example if the Balerics and/or Canaries are well under control there should be no requirement to quarantine on return because of a spike on the mainland. And fairly soon hopefully rapid testing can play a part. Same applies to UK - responding to spikes on a geographic rather than national basis unless of course it's a second wave and country-wide problem.

Do we have the time and resources to sort out which regions of all the wolds countries are affected? The problem in Spain, as of this morning was that the North East of the country - Catalonia is having a second spike. Andalusia, in the South, is also seeing growing numbers of cases as well as Lanzarote. Yesterday it was just Catalonia in the news.

The Balearic Islands had a minor scare a couple of weeks ago. https://www.majorcadailybulletin.com/ne ... ands.html
Goodness knows what the situation will be tomorrow. False alarm hopefully.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12189381/ ... lanzarote/

[taio]

Do we have the time and resources to sort out which regions of all the wolds countries are affected? The problem in Spain, as of this morning was that the North East of the country - Catalonia is having a second spike. Andalusia, in the South, is also seeing growing numbers of cases as well as Lanzarote. Yesterday it was just Catalonia in the news.

The Balearic Islands had a minor scare a couple of weeks ago. https://www.majorcadailybulletin.com/ne ... ands.html
Goodness knows what the situation will be tomorrow. False alarm hopefully.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12189381/ ... lanzarote/

I think it would be a proportionate and reasonable response in the case of some countries, especially Spain which I think is the UK's top holiday destination. Some of those links report very low numbers - we can't put life totally on hold until there are zero infections because we'll be waiting a hell of a long time. We have to continue to try to find the right balance which isn't easy.

[UnderSeige]

That doesn't answer the question. the question was about whether anyone has proved that there is a significant risk of infection in a supermarket. Your evidence is that an air conditioning device can transmit the disease over a very small area and that a roomful of people infected with coronavirus can all infect each other.

Bearing in mind latest estimates that 1 in 4,000 people is infected with coronavirus, have you specific evidence that entering a supermarket is any more dangerous than crossing the road to get there?

They surely have evidence by now, via all the contact tracing around the world, of where people are catching this. So what are the numbers? where are they catching it?

You can take it that research by hundreds of scientists investigating the airborne transmission of the virus indoors is inclusive of supermarkets and shops.

You need to fully read the links if you want to learn. There is loads of evidence about indoor transmission through the air and not just by 'air conditioning units'. Research by many different scientific groups and educational institutions that specialise in the transmission of viruses. A general principle is that the more enclosed an indoor location is the greater the possibility of virus spread.

I am not trying to argue that supermarkets are any more dangerous than other indoor locations. On the positive side they mostly have very high ceilings which should help - especially if they allow ventilation by keeping the main doors open. The staff are usually on the ball with regards to 'social distancing'. However, they are indoors and are kept fairly cool.

I am not aware of any specific research about supermarkets and shops. The examples I gave were of research by hundreds of scientists that has concluded that virus transmission through the air occurs indoors. Supermarkets and shops are mainly indoors.

I did read, two or three weeks back, that the recent Leicester spike was partly started in supermarkets. But this was not exclusive. There were multiple reasons for the spread. A sandwich factory and other plants were also sighted. I am not sure where the article is that I read but the two below should suffice
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news ... us-4267141
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... t-22264989

[UnderSeige]

I think it would be a proportionate and reasonable response in the case of some countries, especially Spain which I think is the UK's top holiday destination. Some of those links report very low numbers - we can't put life totally on hold until there are zero infections because we'll be waiting a hell of a long time. We have to continue to try to find the right balance which isn't easy.

Fast, smart and strong responses are required in a pandemic. Otherwise it's "case case cluster cluster boom!".

[taio]

Fast, smart and strong responses are required in a pandemic. Otherwise it's "case case cluster cluster boom!".

I agree and the responses need to take account of wider impacts such as economic and societal. Unfortunately these things often conflict. Very difficult.

[UnderSeige]

I agree and the responses need to take account of wider impacts such as economic and societal. Unfortunately these things often conflict. Very difficult.

Absolutely. We can't risk the economy just to avoid inconveniencing a number of returning holidaymakers. If the virus takes off again going into winter and the government is forced into lockdown the economy will be in tatters. It will be much worst than the first lockdown with less government help.

Food for thought: there is a big difference between 'attempting to save the economy (and health of the nation) by implementing nuisance measures and inconveniences that seemingly mitigate against economic activity' and trashing the economy by avoiding those measures and forcing the UK back into another stupid lockdown'.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Some more stats.

Deaths continue to go down. Triage requests at hospitals plateaued. Slight uptick in infections but hopefully this is down to more and more testing which is at highest point its been.

[UnderSeige]

Some more stats.

Deaths continue to go down. Triage requests at hospitals plateaued. Slight uptick in infections but hopefully this is down to more and more testing which is at highest point its been.

Possibly the reduction in fatalities is partly due to improvements in treatment and the introduction of new medicines to help fight the virus. Both fatalities and decreasing hospital numbers could be partly due to the viral load being lower in summer when people contract the virus (back to the Italian doctors).

[cricketfieldclarets]

Possibly the reduction in fatalities is partly due to improvements in treatment and the introduction of new medicines to help fight the virus. Both fatalities and decreasing hospital numbers could be partly due to the viral load being lower in summer when people contract the virus (back to the Italian doctors).

Yes did think that about treatment and viral load.

Could also be that its weakened.

Could be that more asymptomatic people are being tested. Even with symptoms in March and April you couldnt get tested!

[Zlatan]

The statement will go something like the following:

"Well yes err um arr. We're working hard on it. Err Follow the Science umm. Ah! From the 1st September all those returning from err Spain will be required to err quarantine umm".

Who else read that with BoJo’s voice in their head...? Surprisingly accurate...

[UnderSeige]

Spain had another bad day of daily new cases. 2,615 today.

The moving seven day average now stands at 1,615. That is 709 higher than last Thursday and 1,165 higher than two weeks ago.

Spain holidays warning: Britons risk having to quarantine on return as COVID cases spike
SPAIN holidays have once again been possible over the last few weeks to the excitement of numerous British holidaymakers. However, a surge in coronavirus cases could result in tourists being forced to quarantine on their return to the UK, authorities have warned
https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articl ... ews-latest

[UnderSeige]

Let's be realistic here, "quarantine" will be "please stay at home".

It will deter people from going if they need to get back to work immediately after the holiday.

It's difficult to tell whether it's the UK holiday makers bringing the virus back or the UK holiday makers taking it out to Spain. The Spanish authorities have started to impose measures on entry to Spain.

The current Foreign Office advice for Spain is as follows: “Travel is subject to entry restrictions

“On arrival, travellers entering Spain from the UK will not be required to self-isolate.

“However, they will be subject to the following three requirements:

- Provide the Spanish Ministry of Health with mandatory contact information and any history of exposure to COVID-19 48 hours prior to travel

- Temperature check

- Undergo a visual health assessment.”
https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articl ... ews-latest

[taio]

It will deter people from going if they need to get back to work immediately after the holiday.

It's difficult to tell whether it's the UK holiday makers bringing the virus back or the UK holiday makers taking it out to Spain. The Spanish authorities have started to impose measures on entry to Spain.

Those measures have been in place for weeks.

[UnderSeige]

Those measures have been in place for weeks.

Good on them for at least doing something.

[cricketfieldclarets]

A visual health assessment?

Just the job...

[Volvoclaret]

Is it just me that can't understand why people want to spend time on a metal box breathing in everyone's recycled breath, just to have a few days in Costa Del Chav that has a high infection rate? Is this part of the natural selection process?
It probably is just grumpy old me who for health reasons has been in semi lockdown for months who just wants to get back to normal but depairs of the selfish morons inhabiting this sceptered isles.
Apologies for the rant, stuck indoors all day again and dreading winter

[tiger76]

Coronavirus: St Mirren on lockdown amid positive tests https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53521306

[dsr]

You can take it that research by hundreds of scientists investigating the airborne transmission of the virus indoors is inclusive of supermarkets and shops.

You need to fully read the links if you want to learn. There is loads of evidence about indoor transmission through the air and not just by 'air conditioning units'. Research by many different scientific groups and educational institutions that specialise in the transmission of viruses. A general principle is that the more enclosed an indoor location is the greater the possibility of virus spread.

I am not trying to argue that supermarkets are any more dangerous than other indoor locations. On the positive side they mostly have very high ceilings which should help - especially if they allow ventilation by keeping the main doors open. The staff are usually on the ball with regards to 'social distancing'. However, they are indoors and are kept fairly cool.

I am not aware of any specific research about supermarkets and shops. The examples I gave were of research by hundreds of scientists that has concluded that virus transmission through the air occurs indoors. Supermarkets and shops are mainly indoors.

I did read, two or three weeks back, that the recent Leicester spike was partly started in supermarkets. But this was not exclusive. There were multiple reasons for the spread. A sandwich factory and other plants were also sighted. I am not sure where the article is that I read but the two below should suffice
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news ... us-4267141
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... t-22264989

All the Leicester one proves is that if one member of staff at a supermarket gets coronavirus, all the other people who spend days on end in close proximity to him or her are at risk. It doesn't prove that someone popping in for ten minutes is at risk. No mention of any customers being infected, or of any customers spreading it.

I don't know exactly how many people visit the average supermarket per day, but for Morrison's it's about 24,000 per week or 3,500 per day. This means that each day, if we presume that the large majority of coronavirus sufferers have no symptoms and are going about their normal business, about 1 person with coronavirus enters that store per day. What are the chances that that person infects anyone else?

Put another way, if everyone wears masks every time they enter a building and entering buildings is more or less forbidden except for necessities, how many lives will be saved? a dozen a year? Tens of thousands? Research needed.

To insist on masks simply because science has proved that large numbers of people rammed together in a stuffy room will pass it on - that's sloppy. That's the same sort of fuzzy logic that stops cricket clubs having 500 people scattered round the boundary because 70,000 people in a football stadium tend to infect each other.

There is no evidence, not that you or I know about anyway, that shows that wearing a mask in a shop saves lives.

[HunterST_BFC]

The policy has been this.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=48730&p=1329711#p1329711

[Zlatan]

Put another way, if everyone wears masks every time they enter a building and entering buildings is more or less forbidden except for necessities, how many lives will be saved? a dozen a year? Tens of thousands? Research needed.

Put another way, it’s a very small inconvenience (if at all) that will save lives. No research needed to find out how many lives, saving ONE life is reason enough

[UnderSeige]

All the Leicester one proves is that if one member of staff at a supermarket gets coronavirus, all the other people who spend days on end in close proximity to him or her are at risk. It doesn't prove that someone popping in for ten minutes is at risk. No mention of any customers being infected, or of any customers spreading it.

I don't know exactly how many people visit the average supermarket per day, but for Morrison's it's about 24,000 per week or 3,500 per day. This means that each day, if we presume that the large majority of coronavirus sufferers have no symptoms and are going about their normal business, about 1 person with coronavirus enters that store per day. What are the chances that that person infects anyone else?

Put another way, if everyone wears masks every time they enter a building and entering buildings is more or less forbidden except for necessities, how many lives will be saved? a dozen a year? Tens of thousands? Research needed.

To insist on masks simply because science has proved that large numbers of people rammed together in a stuffy room will pass it on - that's sloppy. That's the same sort of fuzzy logic that stops cricket clubs having 500 people scattered round the boundary because 70,000 people in a football stadium tend to infect each other.

There is no evidence, not that you or I know about anyway, that shows that wearing a mask in a shop saves lives.

Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, common sense etc.

[dsr]

Put another way, it’s a very small inconvenience (if at all) that will save lives. No research needed to find out how many lives, saving ONE life is reason enough

A million or so people who use lip reading will become unable to communicate. A very small inconvenience, if at all?

This policy may save one life from coronavirus. But what if it costs two lives through depression, loneliness, or simply giving up hope?

[dsr]

Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, common sense etc.

Fuzzy logic again. Wearing masks at the start of the outbreak saved lives in Korea etc. Does wearing masks when the outbreak is fizzling out (which, at least temporarily, it is) have the same effect?

You have to be careful about drawing conclusions from a different set of circumstances. A few years back, doctors discovered that poorly babies recovered better if they were put to sleep lying on their front. So the wisdom and common sense of ages was discarded and mothers were recommended to put healthy babies to sleep lying on their front.

Evidence that something would have been a good idea four months ago is not proof that it's a good idea now.

[Billy Balfour]

Is it just me that can't understand why people want to spend time on a metal box breathing in everyone's recycled breath, just to have a few days in Costa Del Chav that has a high infection rate? Is this part of the natural selection process?

I'd go along with that if they didn't come back and infect the rest of us.

[UnderSeige]

Fuzzy logic again. Wearing masks at the start of the outbreak saved lives in Korea etc. Does wearing masks when the outbreak is fizzling out (which, at least temporarily, it is) have the same effect?

You have to be careful about drawing conclusions from a different set of circumstances. A few years back, doctors discovered that poorly babies recovered better if they were put to sleep lying on their front. So the wisdom and common sense of ages was discarded and mothers were recommended to put healthy babies to sleep lying on their front.

Evidence that something would have been a good idea four months ago is not proof that it's a good idea now.

USA, Brazil

Happy mask day dsr

[UnderSeige]

Fuzzy logic again. Wearing masks at the start of the outbreak saved lives in Korea etc. Does wearing masks when the outbreak is fizzling out (which, at least temporarily, it is) have the same effect?

You have to be careful about drawing conclusions from a different set of circumstances. A few years back, doctors discovered that poorly babies recovered better if they were put to sleep lying on their front. So the wisdom and common sense of ages was discarded and mothers were recommended to put healthy babies to sleep lying on their front.

Evidence that something would have been a good idea four months ago is not proof that it's a good idea now.

The Ambulance Down in the Valley Joseph Malins (1895)

‘Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,
Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant;
But over its terrible edge there had slipped
A duke and full many a peasant.
So the people said something would have to be done,
But their projects did not at all tally;
Some said, "Put a fence ’round the edge of the cliff,"
Some, "An ambulance down in the valley."

But the cry for the ambulance carried the day,
For it spread through the neighboring city;
A fence may be useful or not, it is true,
But each heart became full of pity
For those who slipped over the dangerous cliff;
And the dwellers in highway and alley
Gave pounds and gave pence, not to put up a fence,
But an ambulance down in the valley.

"For the cliff is all right, if you’re careful," they said,
"And, if folks even slip and are dropping,
It isn’t the slipping that hurts them so much
As the shock down below when they’re stopping."
So day after day, as these mishaps occurred,
Quick forth would those rescuers sally
To pick up the victims who fell off the cliff,
With their ambulance down in the valley.

Then an old sage remarked: "It’s a marvel to me
That people give far more attention
To repairing results than to stopping the cause,
When they’d much better aim at prevention.
Let us stop at its source all this mischief," cried he,
"Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally;
If the cliff we will fence, we might almost dispense
With the ambulance down in the valley."

"Oh he’s a fanatic," the others rejoined,
"Dispense with the ambulance? Never!
He’d dispense with all charities, too, if he could;
No! No! We’ll support them forever.
Aren’t we picking up folks just as fast as they fall?
And shall this man dictate to us? Shall he?
Why should people of sense stop to put up a fence,
While the ambulance works in the valley?"

But the sensible few, who are practical too,
Will not bear with such nonsense much longer;
They believe that prevention is better than cure,
And their party will soon be the stronger.
Encourage them then, with your purse, voice, and pen,
And while other philanthropists dally,
They will scorn all pretense, and put up a stout fence
On the cliff that hangs over the valley.

Better guide well the young than reclaim them when old,
For the voice of true wisdom is calling.
"To rescue the fallen is good, but ’tis best
To prevent other people from falling."
Better close up the source of temptation and crime
Than deliver from dungeon or galley;
Better put a strong fence ’round the top of the cliff
Than an ambulance down in the valley.

[dsr]

The Ambulance Down in the Valley Joseph Malins (1895)

But the sensible few, who are practical too,
Will not bear with such nonsense much longer;
They believe that prevention is better than cure,
And their party will soon be the stronger.

Would there ever come a time when it is safe to enter a shop without a face covering, or is this for ever? Would you ever allow a football crowd to meet again?

[Mala591]

A minor reduction in Covid transmission vs the life and death of town centres.

Which would you choose?

[cricketfieldclarets]

A minor reduction in Covid transmission vs the life and death of town centres.

Which would you choose?

Masks can avoid both surely?

Dont understand why everyone is so bothered about wearing a mask for a short, limited period in limited settings. Its not forever.

[FactualFrank]

Dont understand why everyone is so bothered about wearing a mask for a short, limited period in limited settings. Its not forever.

I think it depends on who you ask. I know someone and his wife, who think it's another way of the government telling us what we can and can't do.

Personally, even if it helps just 1%, then I don't see what the problem is.

[Zlatan]

A million or so people who use lip reading will become unable to communicate. A very small inconvenience, if at all?

This policy may save one life from coronavirus. But what if it costs two lives through depression, loneliness, or simply giving up hope?

you really are dense, I'll give you that

[cricketfieldclarets]

I think it depends on who you ask. I know someone and his wife, who think it's another way of the government telling us what we can and can't do.

Personally, even if it helps just 1%, then I don't see what the problem is.

I dont understand all these conspiracy theorists.

All against the system. But all benefit far more from the system than vice versa.

[FactualFrank]

I dont understand all these conspiracy theorists.

When their Facebook posts appear on my timeline I just shake my head.

[dsr]

you really are dense, I'll give you that

Quite apart from the board ethics of quoting someone just because you want to dish out personal abuse - against the rules - why not say what, if anything, you disagree with?

[Mala591]

Town centres need to show much more imagination to attract more 'customers' and survive. Free car parking (same as supermarkets), free face masks, late night shopping once or twice a week, free entertainment, an art gallery, a museum, canal-side pubs etc etc

[Zlatan]

Quite apart from the board ethics of quoting someone just because you want to dish out personal abuse - against the rules - why not say what, if anything, you disagree with?

You appear to be a Facebook "Karen" who finds a conspiracy in everything anyone posts or a theoretical argument to raise hypothetical concerns about issues - if my comment offended you it was meant to.

I dont need to provide a scientific study to quantify the benefits of wearing a mask, I know from common sense and plenty of actual scientific evidence that wearing a mask will limit the spread of air based droplets of virus. Because I cannot put a value on how many people will be saved you state that wearing a mask is pointless.

Lip reading - there are alternative options using tech, its not a big problem.

mental health - agreed its an issue, but being lockdown for longer than necessary will affect MH more than wearing a mask. In fact wearing a mask will greatly improve MH because people will be able to get out more.

Anyone objecting to wearing a mask is pond life IMO.

[Zlatan]

Would there ever come a time when it is safe to enter a shop without a face covering, or is this for ever? Would you ever allow a football crowd to meet again?

yes