In January I read about this nasty though trivial virus in Wuhan; mild symptoms for the vast majority but dangerous and possibly lethal for the elderly or diabetic.
I'm 75 and Type 2. I ordered a good tight fitting face mask with triple carbon filters online.
It took 6 weeks to arrive (from China!) but was excellent. I cleaned it every day; sprayed it with alcohol based spirit.
Before it arrived I'd got a nasty cold or minor dose of Flu - self isolated as usual; spent a couple of days in bed. Paracetamol; liquids; sleep. I worried it might be Covid19 but my breathing remained fine and I fully recovered in 4-5 days.
Then the Lockdown kicked in.
I've worn the face mask whenever I've gone out once a day shopping, for exercise or medicines.
But Government called masks "worse than useless".
Then why, I wondered, did doctors and nurses wear them in hospitals?
Government changed advice. Don't buy them because they were required for medical staff.
What? Risk death in order to assist the incompetent NHS? Made no sense, especially if they were worse than useless.
I continued to wear it (very expensive, well made, reusable, strong).
I don't want to catch it and don't want to risk passing it on if I do.
Makes sense to me.
Now Government tells me it's compulsory to wear one.
Governed by donkeys.

The Government went into lockdown late utilising a version of "the science" offered by a useful professor.

While known for his hysterical and inaccurate forecasting, the professor was just what they needed.

The forecasted numbers needed to be very high indeed so that success in protecting the people could then be claimed by a quick glance at the differential.

The politics of lockdown was set. The careers of our leaders now depended on lockdown being perceived as necessary and inevitable. Error could not be countenanced.

Initially, they were honest about masks: they made a negligible difference outside of a clinical setting.

But they didn't think far enough ahead, I'm afraid. Our performance was even worse than feared, and the politics of lockdown dragged on. Too long.

Now the long term economy really was at risk; not to mention the personal share values of Ministers and many people they cared about; such as relatives they stood to inherit from.

There was a real emergency now; not just a political one. There had to be rewind. Prepare the people to leave their homes. But many of them were too frightened now following rolling 24 hour media portraying the UK as a horror film.

So a major part of the rewind politics became: masks! Just the ticket. How to give the people confidence now they are traumatised? "Masks do work now". So much so, that as with the lockdown that also worked and was necessary, we will make you wear them.

The masses will start to leave home with them, and the narrative inconsistencies will be lost to most.

War is peace.

Prince Charles is of the opinion that we can 'reset' the economy and rebuild it to be eco friendly. This makes perfect sense to me and would create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the green economy. Right now the world needs to move away from its dependency on finite CO2 emitting fossil fuels, clean up the environment, and live in harmony more with nature. Conventional economic wisdom definitely needs a reset.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/03/...-says-prince-charles

But they are not even making us wear masks. I mean proper masks, that actually filter out the virus.
Instead we only have to wear pretend masks. Scarves, chopped up t-shirts and those tenpenny masks that do bugger all.


Prince Charles is very sweet trying to fix the environment, but I think most people couldn't give a stuff and just want their jobs and lives back. Quick.

Honey wrote:
Prince Charles is very sweet trying to fix the environment

Unfortunately this heir to the throne has - almost since he was three (when he attained such rare status) - has felt the need to make his thoughts known to the nation.

Charles seems to genuinely think that his views - on any subject whatsoever - are of interest to the people of the United Kingdom, and its government.

Why should they? He has achieved nothing - but inherited everything - wealth, status and a place in history. At least a dozen houses - and a net worth of a billion.


Perhaps - like his friend, the former King of Spain - he should abdicate in favour of his son, who appears to have more of an earthly and modern approach to life.

Camilla - who he has known for 50 years - has no desire to become Queen. But will do what's required, at this stage. However - more is needed...

JK2006 wrote:

But Government called masks "worse than useless".


When did 'The Government' ever actually say that? I recall a Government advisor, in an answer to a specific question, say they were okay for protecting others from you, but no help for protecting you from others. But where's the source for this?

Chas Smash wrote:
Prince Charles is of the opinion that we can 'reset' the economy and rebuild it to be eco friendly.

This coming from a bloke who got a Third from Cambridge ('massaged' by RAB Butler to a mighty 2:2), and who has since been assured how clever he is by grovelling idiots desperate for a gong. Thanks for the lecture, Chuck. Now shut up and remember what happened in 1649.

Why do people always vote for the main 3 parties. You need to look at the Libertarian Party UK manifesto.

Greg wrote:
Chas Smash wrote:
Prince Charles is of the opinion that we can 'reset' the economy and rebuild it to be eco friendly.

This coming from a bloke who got a Third from Cambridge ('massaged' by RAB Butler to a mighty 2:2), and who has since been assured how clever he is by grovelling idiots desperate for a gong. Thanks for the lecture, Chuck. Now shut up and remember what happened in 1649.

What did you get and from where Greg?

Just want to check so I can decide what weight to place on your proferred insights, character and suitability for execution or not?

JK2006 wrote:
In January I read about this nasty though trivial virus in Wuhan; mild symptoms for the vast majority but dangerous and possibly lethal for the elderly or diabetic.
I'm 75 and Type 2. I ordered a good tight fitting face mask with triple carbon filters online.
It took 6 weeks to arrive (from China!) but was excellent. I cleaned it every day; sprayed it with alcohol based spirit.
Before it arrived I'd got a nasty cold or minor dose of Flu - self isolated as usual; spent a couple of days in bed. Paracetamol; liquids; sleep. I worried it might be Covid19 but my breathing remained fine and I fully recovered in 4-5 days.
Then the Lockdown kicked in.
I've worn the face mask whenever I've gone out once a day shopping, for exercise or medicines.
But Government called masks "worse than useless".
Then why, I wondered, did doctors and nurses wear them in hospitals?
Government changed advice. Don't buy them because they were required for medical staff.
What? Risk death in order to assist the incompetent NHS? Made no sense, especially if they were worse than useless.
I continued to wear it (very expensive, well made, reusable, strong).
I don't want to catch it and don't want to risk passing it on if I do.
Makes sense to me.
Now Government tells me it's compulsory to wear one.
Governed by donkeys.

JK I agree it is amusing.

The information from "the experts" has been varied thus I think the government even if they have good researchers will find available information conflicting. Your argument about medical staff using masks is very valid. And Asian countries have been using masks for a long time and have not had any mass outbreak.

This particular virus definitely is a chance for much learning from. To me that is the key issue for WHO, scientists, government and if we are very lucky for the media to ask the right questions and appropriate challenges. One thought I have is "Critical mass" if an infected person and recipient close by are not wearing masks then the recipient will receive a full dose, huge quantiy of the virus (maybe critical mass level idea that tiggers a critical level infection) - if the person sneezes or coughs in close proximity. One or both persons wearing masks will reduce the quantity of the virus. Thus a small dose that may act more like a vaccine in that the recipient still gets infected but a little that produces the antibodies so next time the recipient is now immune.