Scrutable

I look forward to Gove removing UK speed limits and drink driving laws on the basis that "he trusts people's common sense"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53381000

I guess that the govt don't want to legislate because of the possible risks. It's not their fault if people act spontaneously and get hit by the downside.

ECDC wrote:There is a risk that improper removal of the face mask, handling of a contaminated face mask or an
increased tendency to touch the face while wearing a face mask by healthy persons might actually
increase the risk of transmission.

TimW wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:44 am

I guess that the govt don't want to legislate because of the possible risks. It's not their fault if people act spontaneously and get hit by the downside.

ECDC wrote:There is a risk that improper removal of the face mask, handling of a contaminated face mask or an
increased tendency to touch the face while wearing a face mask by healthy persons might actually
increase the risk of transmission.

The thing is that this isn't a big risk for shops and other places where you interact with the general public, as you tend not to touch the same things as other people that often (pin pads, maybe door handles), while you will definitely pass within sneeze and droplet range of others. PIN pads are at risk from sneezes and droplets anyway, as they are in front of you as your purchases are rung up, so that seems less of a difference anyway. Door handles should be being sanitized regularly, and hand sanitizer applied after using them. Individual goods on shelves are less likely to have been recently touched.

It's probably a different balance for workplaces and the like, though, but we have mask orders in place for using shared spaces at work.

The places in the US that are seeing the best control of CoVID-19 have mandatory mask orders in place.

TimW wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:44 am

I guess that the govt don't want to legislate because of the possible risks. It's not their fault if people act spontaneously and get hit by the downside.

ECDC wrote:There is a risk that improper removal of the face mask, handling of a contaminated face mask or an
increased tendency to touch the face while wearing a face mask by healthy persons might actually
increase the risk of transmission.

I expect it's because they are actually lazy cowards.

People who don't actually want to wear masks can often find but akshully reasons why they shouldn't (as if they aren't small corrections to the overall benefit of wearing them in almost all situations) just like seatbelts and airbags cause people to drive more dangerously and actually I drive better when I'm drunk.

Very much mirroring the start of lockdown, where people ended up telling the government what to do, i.e. lockdown sooner rather than later.

Trying to take the most favourable view, you could try and claim this is direct democracy in action. But then again, it shows how useless and witless the government is...

Only 3 months behind Massachusetts, NY, etc.

Only 4 months behind Portugal.

Used to be 1 month behind Italy, but they've really left UK in the dust now.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:17 pm

TimW wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:44 am

I guess that the govt don't want to legislate because of the possible risks. It's not their fault if people act spontaneously and get hit by the downside.

ECDC wrote:There is a risk that improper removal of the face mask, handling of a contaminated face mask or an
increased tendency to touch the face while wearing a face mask by healthy persons might actually
increase the risk of transmission.

I expect it's because they are actually lazy cowards.

People who don't actually want to wear masks can often find but akshully reasons why they shouldn't (as if they aren't small corrections to the overall benefit of wearing them in almost all situations) just like seatbelts and airbags cause people to drive more dangerously and actually I drive better when I'm drunk.

I was thinking similar thoughts - particularly of the motorcyclists 40 years ago who objected to wearing crash helmets.

JQH wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:19 am

shpalman wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:17 pm

TimW wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:44 am

I guess that the govt don't want to legislate because of the possible risks. It's not their fault if people act spontaneously and get hit by the downside.

I expect it's because they are actually lazy cowards.

People who don't actually want to wear masks can often find but akshully reasons why they shouldn't (as if they aren't small corrections to the overall benefit of wearing them in almost all situations) just like seatbelts and airbags cause people to drive more dangerously and actually I drive better when I'm drunk.

I was thinking similar thoughts - particularly of the motorcyclists 40 years ago who objected to wearing crash helmets.

But if you die of COVID on a ventilator I doubt you can be used for organ donations...

Don't worry there are lots of motorcyclists getting themselves killed on the roads around here in the traditional way.


More limitations in their mental capacity to simultaneously retain multiple pieces of information in working memory for rational decision making:
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/polit ... les/14/07/

I do wonder if the people who 'refuse to be told what to do' stop at red traffic lights....

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:03 pm

I look forward to Gove removing UK speed limits and drink driving laws on the basis that "he trusts people's common sense"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53381000

I've had enough of Matt Hancock bringing his ukelele to interviews

shpalman wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:39 am

I've had enough of Matt Hancock bringing his ukelele to interviews

He's a minister, so that's probably a statutory instrument.