onewheeldave

8 hours ago, butlers said:

Sunday papers

 

Emergency departments are already being “overwhelmed”, according to the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM). NHS performance figures published last week showed that nearly 1.4 million patients had attended A&Es in England during May – the second highest figure recorded since the 1980s, according to Dr Adrian Boyle, vice-president of the RCEM.

Attended for what? covid? or is it non-covid ailments that they've not been getting treatment for due to the previous lockdowns?

22 minutes ago, makapaka said:

You come across as terrified.

Bizarre. Top comes across to me as one of the few people on this thread who aren't scared of the virus. He/she seems to have a good understanding of the fact that the virus is no real threat to anyone who doesn't have the risk factors that make them prone to bad outcomes if infected.

17 hours ago, sibon said:

I’ve bought tickets for a variety of things in November and December. I can’t see restrictions still being needed then.

 

If we get 90-95% of people vaccinated then infection rates will be low enough and hospitalisations will be rare enough for us to be normal again.

 

In any case, I don’t see the public putting up with restrictions for much longer. 
 

It would be easier and quicker if the anti vaxxers just buggered off though. They are the ones that might yet stymie us.

What are  'the public' going to do?  Prior to covid I considered the public to be overly gullible to, and, overly compliant to authority. Boy, did I underestimate the extent of it!!!

I've watched the public not only comply willingly with and follow increasingly bizarre demands and limitations to their personal liberty, but then go on to demand ever more extreme rules, and, cry out for extensive punishments for anyone who declines to comply, or even expresses a concern that some of the rules may cause more harm than good.

It looks to me that the public will continue to do whatever they are told to do by the authorites, however extreme or long term that turns out to be.

17 hours ago, Thirsty Relic said:

 

 

 

And, as  The_DADDY says, "there's money to be made" in continuing with restrictions.

Yes, there is. 

17 hours ago, sibon said:

There’s no money to be made by continuing restrictions.

 

There are no ID cards. No vaccine passports. The pubs and restaurants are open. You can travel if you want to.

 

 

We've got several industries now, based on administrating lockdowns. Vaccine passports in various forms are highly likely, as are ID cards. Pubs/restauraunts are open provided you're willing to book on an app and then be prepared to jump through the various multiple hoops in place once you arrive, as for travel- be prepared to abandon your holiday half way through if your destinations risk level is altered while you are there. 

On 27/05/2021 at 18:59, Annie Bynnol said:

 

I am no expert but we have had instructions not to download  PDF and other files at home on our work laptops as they may contain viruses and or malware.

I have had to destroy my 2013 iMac as it cannot download and automatically update the approved and required anti virus/malware. 

 

So it's all about risk. 

Real or imagined. 

Anyone worried about a pdf being 'infected' can scan it with their anti-virus software.

4 hours ago, Baron99 said:

Well so much for 8 years of Obama then? 

 

I remember when Obama was running for the first time & the BBC did a report from a district of some US city that was predominantly black.  It was run down; suffered from high unemployment; educational attainment was low; drugs were rife; health was poor.  The BBC reporter interviewed a large group & asked them what a potential black President could do for their area?  What could Obama do to change their lives?  Well the best they could come up with was, "He could build us a basketball court." 

 

Talk about a lack of ambition?

The National Basketball Association in 2020 was composed of 74.2 percent black players, all there through actual merit and ability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_NBA

 A basketball court not only provides a very useful community resource and encourages young people to engage in healthy fitness activity, it can also in some cases lead to a lucrative career as a high level basketball athlete in one of the few industries where blacks are proportionatly represented.

1 hour ago, Pyrotequila said:

The title of that article makes my brain hurt...how is that NOT racist?
If it were flipped around and she refused interviews to anyone not white, there would be screaming protests at the racism.

 

She may want to highlight inequality, but damn...

I'd say that for your point to be valid, you'd need to flip around the rest of the relevant factors as well i.e. if newsrooms there maintained an environment that only comprised 17% of white staff, and 13% of white leadership in a city where more than half of the city identifies as white, then you could make a case that she is being racist.

13 hours ago, apelike said:

OK, so what exactly would you like to change? given that the majority of people are happy with the way it is.

Very similar to what was said to that minority who opposed slavery in the US back in the past.

---------------------------

Concerning the argument that neoliberalism is ill-defined or hard to define or that there is disagreement about exactly what it is- the exact same kind be said of pretty much any political or economic system.

22 hours ago, Arnold_Lane said:

You think you look too scary for anyone to tangle with you?

 

 

 

Interesting that you assume the only way for someone to stand up for themselves is by looking physically scary.

5 hours ago, Baron99 said:

There's so many exemptions for not wearing a face covering in this country that I think we could all fit into one of the categories if we insisted. 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own#exemptions

From the link-

[people who are exempt]

children under the age of 11 

people who cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering because of a physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability

where putting on, wearing or removing a face covering will cause you severe distress

if you are speaking to or providing assistance to someone who relies on lip reading, clear sound or facial expressions to communicate

to avoid harm or injury, or the risk of harm or injury, to yourself or others ‒ including if it would negatively impact on your ability to exercise or participate in a strenuous activity
police officers and other emergency workers, given that this may interfere with their ability to serve the public

Clearly, most people do fit fit into any of the above categories. 

10 minutes ago, butlers said:

Yes but it's the transmission to others in a public area that's the issue in hand.

 

Transmission isn't the main  problem- colds and many other minor viruses are transmitted. With covid it's the harm it does when received- and it is very relevant that the health of the average adult in the UK/US is abysmal, with lifestyle diseases like type 2 diabetes, obesity, heart disease etc being rampant, and people with those conditions being especially susceptible to harsh effects from covid.  

Arguably, the best defence a nation can have against covid, is a fit, healthy population, with very low rates of lifestyle diseases like type 2 diabetes, obesity, heart disease- something to think about and prioritise if we genuinely want to tackle future epidemics rather than 'manage' them with economy destroying lockdowns.

Incidently, despite all the focus on the number of deaths being attributed to covid- they are minute in comparision to the toll from  lifestyle diseases like type 2 diabetes, obesity, heart disease- a toll that has been around  for decades and looks to set to continue into future ones.

1 minute ago, hackey lad said:

Would it have made a difference ?

Yes

1 minute ago, butlers said:

As far as I know kidney disease is not transmissible.

 

But it does overload the NHS.

1 minute ago, hackey lad said:

I know the woman I spoke about and everyone in the pub knows her . She used asthma as an excuse .

But you didn't want to mention that in your initial post?

19 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

No Dave . The implication being that some people who are Not mask exempt do not wear masks , they are the selfish ones . . Last year in the pub girl not masked stood up , she was asked to wear mask , said she was exempt as she had asthma and then went outside for a cigarette .

Asthmatics can't smoke? Smoking is an addiction, by definition difficult to quit even if the victim realises they are damaging his/her health. The fact that she had a cigarette does not mean she didn't have asthma.

2 minutes ago, sibon said:

Courtesy. To help others. To clarify. 
 

There are many reasons for wearing a lanyard if you can’t wear a mask.

 

 

Scenario- shop assistant/manager 'excuse me sir/madam, have you got your mask'

reply- 'I am exempt'.

A corteous response. A very clear response. 

2 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Me and my good lady are both exempt from mask wearing but not being selfish , we always wear one .  

Presumably the implication being that mask exempt people not wearing a mask are being selfish??

1 minute ago, sibon said:

I’ll ask you again.

 

Why can’t they?

I'll tell you again- they can [wear a lanyard]- they choose not to. They have good reasons for their choice. They are not breaking any rules. Anyone pressuring them to wear identifying symbols is breaking rules.

1 hour ago, sibon said:

 

 

Are you ok with non exempt people pretending to be exempt?

Personally I've opposed compulsory masking from the start [for reasons given multiple times on this thread] so I can hardly object to that small number of non-mask exempt individuals who don't wear masks.  To the extent that masks do protect, the fact that the vast majority of the population have embraced masking, is sufficient IMO.

1 hour ago, sibon said:

Ok isn’t the word really. I’m accepting of it. And I’m happy to work round it. I’m not ok about it though, because it increases my risk of getting ill.

 

My suspicion is that many of the non mask wearers that I meet are not exempt. 

 

 

 

Your suspicion that some [you've no evidence that it is 'many'] non-mask wearers are not exempt is, of course, totally innaplicable in any specific case you will encounter of a non-mask wearer, as the nature of hidden disability generally precludes being able to judge whether the person is disabled by looking at them. There have been several posters on this thread who seem unable to grasp this, and, for whatever reason, they seem to have the same urge as you to insist that the disabled must wear an identifying symbol e.g.

On 23/04/2021 at 20:12, Kidorry said:

The three youngish men certainly looked fit enough to me, and if they are exempt should they be wearing some badge to say so?

Just now, sibon said:

 

 

As for me wearing a mask, that protects others. I’m only looking for others to return the courtesy to keep me safer. There is nothing wrong with that.

Are you ok with mask exempt people not wearing a mask?

2 minutes ago, sibon said:

 

 

In any case, anyone not wearing a mask in an enclosed space is likely to get grief from others. A lanyard would avoid that. The only rational conclusion is that those who won’t wear either a mask, or a lanyard are seeking confrontation. Just like those who make excuses for them.

This is nonsense

Anyone giving 'grief' to a disabled mask exempt person is a bully, pure and simple.

I personally have had zero 'grief' in enclosed spaces when not wearing a mask- I suspect that is because anyone attempting to give me grief would get plenty back, and it probably shows. In contrast, many other autistic people and disabled people, including some of my clients, have received 'grief', despite being mask exempt and wearing lanyards/badges. Again, this is compatible with the hypothesis that there are a lot of bullies, ignorant of the rules, who like to pick on vulnerable and disabled people.

1 hour ago, sibon said:

Which bit of wearing a lanyard are the rest unable to do?

So you're referring to those who ARE mask exempt who choose to not wear lanyards/badges identifying them as such.

The way you've phrased your question carries an implication that they are somehow unable to wear a lanyard, whereas, in many cases, it's a choice to not wear one.

It's important to understand that the govt regulations make it clear that there is no obligation for mask exempt people to wear lanyards; no doubt that is partly for historical reasons because forcing minority groups to wear symbols that identify them to the public as being in a particular minority group has led to things like scapegoating and genocide.

As to why individual mask exempt people choose to not wear such ID, I expect the reasons are many and varied- they could include the one mentioned above. Perhaps they don't want their hidden disability to be made public, possibly fearful of their prejudiced employers finding out and dismissing them?

The key point is that by not wearing a lanyard, they are doing nothing wrong.

This is in sharp contrast to any member of the public, or shop assistant, or security guard, who, being under the false impression that mask exempt people need to wear a lanyard, persist with more questions once the person has replied to the intial one with the answer 'I am mask exempt'- further questioning is against the rules and constitutes harrassment.

45 minutes ago, sibon said:

Which bit of wearing a lanyard are the rest unable to do?

Who do you mean by 'the rest'?

10 hours ago, sibon said:

 

 

Those that can’t wear a mask could help the rest of us by either wearing a lanyard that explains their issue to the rest of us, or by making extra efforts to social distance. In that way, people who are compliant in mask wearing, won’t feel intimidated.

 

Some do wear a lanyard- mainly in an effort to cut down the routine harrsssment they face from, as you put it 'the rest of us' judging them as not being sufficiently disabled to justify not wearing a mask.

I have several disabled clients who, despite possessing medical letters and mask exemption badges, refuse to use public transport due to the accusing glares and sometimes verbal violence they face from, as you put it, 'the rest of us'.

The govt have made it clear that a disabled person who is mask exempt is not required to wear a badge/lanyard identifying them as such, and that when asked by a shop assistant/security guard why theyu are not wearing a mask, all they need to say is 'I am exempt'- any further questions from  the assistant/security guard requesting proof are innapropriate.

If the assistant/security guard then says that the person 'needs to wear a lanyard....' that is also innapropriate and in breach of the govt guidelines.

10 hours ago, sibon said:

Whilst I’m sure that there are some people who cannot wear a mask for health reasons, I seriously doubt that there are many.

 

 

There are quite a lot actually.

11 minutes ago, butlers said:

Could it really be that to my observation  men are many many multiples in exempted classes than women.

Rationality suggests that can not be so.

 

If it is the case that there are more maskless males than females in shops, there are several rational explanations other than the one that seems to be being implied [that the males are 'pretending to be exempt'].

1 hour ago, Kidorry said:

The three youngish men certainly looked fit enough to me, and if they are exempt should they be wearing some badge to say so?

It's the nature of hidden disabilities that they are not necessarily going to be apparent to you, and, the fact that they look, as you put it 'fit enough' is totally irrelevant to their disabled status.

And no, people with hidden disabilites who are exempt are under no obligation to wear a badge. There are available things like sunflower badges and lanyards for those who wish to display them, but no mask exempt person is required to do so.