Selfish people on bus

[70smusic]

I don’t own a car and today needed to take the bus for an essential journey. I was really shocked to see that of the 8 or so people on the bus, 5 weren’t wearing masks properly. 3 people had them covering the mouth only with their noses exposed, 1 person pulled theirs down to chat on the phone and another had theirs around their neck. I’m assuming all these people are able to wear masks and weren’t exempt as they did have them on - they just weren’t wearing them properly.

I just don’t understand what goes through these people’s minds - do they not care about putting others at risk? It just seems so selfish and ignorant. I got off the bus feeling really panicky that they could have put me (and therefore my family) at risk. I’m not worried about myself but do worry about giving the virus to others (including my DC). I despair

@Lostinacloud

**The experts predict there will be other variants which could cause further lockdowns but if masks and public social distancing remain in place for the next year or so we will be in a better place to reduce the impact.

Fuck me people still believe this!!

“Just 3 weeks to flatten the curve”
“Locking down only to prevent the overwhelming of the NHS”
“Schools still closed to save lives”
“Masks are useless....until some months later when all of a sudden they “save lives”
“Lockdowns need to be applied according to region and will be tiered”
“It’s ok, Christmas will be normal....until some days later and “just this Christmas not seeing your nearest and dearest to save lives”
“Schools can open as they don’t contribute to spread.....until one day later and schools are closed”
“Just this last lockdown due to a variant that has been around since at least September 2020 but cases only rising significantly during the winter flu season (surprise)”
“Masks for school children just this side of Easter” (but we won’t actually remove that mandate officially)
“No masks outside, oh except if you’re walking around in a pub garden”
“Book your summer holidays all lockdown restrictions end on 21st June....until some weeks later....variants blah blah - slow vaccination progress overseas blah blah - rising cases in Europe blah blah”

And the latest - 3rd wave this Autumn headlines.

Don’t you get it? The promised end never comes, we are all just slowly convinced that there is just one more step before the end can come and on it continues.

Yes this coronavirus is endemic, yes we will have to live with it hence the advice of 'hands, space and face'. We're in a better situation than we were a year ago. But it's tricky virus because it mutates so vaccines will need tweaking and more restrictions are likely at some point. It's not great but it's alot better than having an airborne SARS or MERS virus.

@Lostinacloud

"3 weeks to flatten the curve" was never actually said, along with the conspiracy theorists and the covid deniers, you have changed what was actually said in Boris's speech in March 2020

What was actually said was "We will look again in three weeks, and relax them if the evidence shows we are able to."

Which is exactly what happened, the evidence showed we were not able to relax the restrictions.

One slightly misquoted part of the first carrot that was dangled at the start does not negate the fact that endless carrots have been dangled and targets met and yet still here we are and people still believe that the latest and newest target will be the last.

people still believe that the latest and newest target will be the last

I believe we’re on the right track out of this and have been through the worst.

I’m happy to come back to this thread in six/twelve months time and discuss what went right/wrong.

not the bloody Hart Group again - are they the new barrington declaration?

GBD are herd immunity, HG are more along the covid denial route.

@Lostinacloud

One slightly misquoted part of the first carrot that was dangled at the start does not negate the fact that endless carrots have been dangled and targets met and yet still here we are and people still believe that the latest and newest target will be the last.

Boris has dangled plenty of carrots and done some spectacular u-turns Certain sections of the media haven't done us too many favours either. SAGE (the CMO) has generally been straight forward; their predictions about a 2nd wave and having to live with this/what it will mean have been accurate.

It's frightening what people choose to believe. Flat earthers.

I will continue to wear a mask for as long as recommended. Some, not all people don't realise you can become vulnerable or develop a serious health condition any age, any time. If I am helping to protect someone else then Im happy to do so. People will decide for themselves. I hasten to add although Im not classed as vulnerable or shielding, I have more than one health issue inc asthma, I used to be fit with no health worries. I don't find wearing a mask difficult and don't really understand why other people do. Perhaps, masks will be discarded fully, if the vaccination rate is sucessful. I prefer to wait until then.

@Cornettoninja

Problem is *@psychomath* (and I’ve noticed this pre-covid) on the internet people attribute views and attitudes to people off their own back without any basis a lot of the time. So basically if they come across a post that’s saying something they don’t like or disagree with suddenly that poster is categorised in their head as someone who must believe x, y and z because these are also things they disagree with which gets the other posters back up because out of nowhere they’re suddenly being accused of things that have no basis. It’s a really hostile and divisive phenomenon and evident on all sides.

“And I'd bet my fucking house if I owned one that all the people who were doing the above are going to be the same ones wailing the loudest at how no-one seems to care about other people anymore, and why can't we all be more considerate?”

This is a prime example. What are you actually basing that assumption on? (This is where you tell me you keep a spreadsheet )

I’m not perfect and have absolutely fallen into that trap myself, but I try, and continue to try, and take each conversation on its own merits because realistically I don’t actually know that I’m aiming my frustration at the right person when actually I have no clue and it’s just as likely the thing I disagree with is the only thing I would disagree with in reality.

@Cornettoninja I understand what you're saying and that's why I said it's not ok that people are attacking random posters like the OP, who presumably wasn't one of the people saying any of that stuff and just happens to share one particular view of theirs (and not even an especially controversial one at that). But I find it disingenuous when people act surprised that others are being aggressive towards anyone who expresses moralistic views on covid measures, when they've spent the best part of a year getting kicked while they're down by similarly moralistic posters for all to see. Ignoring all the reasons why people have become tribal and angry and blaming it on an inherently bullying nature won't help with the divisiveness either.

I don't know if I conveyed this well, but I wasn't meaning to suggest that the posters complaining about inconsiderateness were all people who'd been doing the kicking, only that the people who'd been doing the kicking were also likely to complain now about people being inconsiderate. I'm basing that assumption on my opinion that the handful of posters who do fall into that category seem to enjoy judging people, rarely accept that they might be in any way at fault and apparently lack the ability to see anything from other people's perspectives. But I admit I made that judgement hastily and in a bad temper, so if it turns out to be wrong you're welcome to my non-existent house

Whatever you think of alternative science groups like GBD and HART, aren’t you at least slightly intrigued by the complete failure for any other scientific points of view to be listened to or considered? Every single alternative opinion is immediately slandered and called out as a bunch of lunatics or just outright censored if it doesn’t follow the national/global narrative - a bit like this board on Mumsnet

Thing is m8, some people are wrong. I mean hashtag bekind and all that but if you're talking shit you're talking shit.

@psychomath and that was probably my closest brush with home ownership - it was exhilarating!

@Lostinacloud but people are reading it and discussing it but still think it’s tripe. At what point do you accept that the other side just doesn’t agree with you. Sometimes people just don’t agree no matter how convinced you personally are.

@Gothichouse40

I don't find wearing a mask difficult and don't really understand why other people do

Even those who are exempt?

The fact is that a range of measures is still needed in order to address risk. It isn't as simplistic as "if the vulnerable have been vaccinated why can't we go back to normal straightaway".
And masks are a requirement still mandatory unless exempt while gradual relaxation is implemented while data is monitored.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-40ac92b1-1750-4e86-9936-2cda6b0acb3f

Well I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.

@Lostinacloud

If everyone in the respected science community disagrees with these alternative "thinkers" then that alone says a lot. How many of those promoting other views have books, health supplements, patreon accounts, fake airlines all asking for money....

Are the 6000 scientists and medical professionals who signed the Great Barrington Declaration all wrong and “fringe scientists?”

(the Great Barrington Declaration was a statement that called into question the use of lockdowns for controlling the pandemic)

And if they are all quacks then it begs the question, why are so many quacks allowed to hold positions in science academia and the medical field?

In another thread the Hart group was criticised for not having an epidemiologist as a member, or graduates from prestigious universities. Well the Great Barrington declaration was signed by Dr Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist at Oxford University.

Is that good enough, or is she a quack too?

You can keep insisting that all the real scientists agree and any scientists who don’t agree are quacks, but even the most cursory google search shows otherwise.

@Lostinacloud

Well I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.

If you mean me I accept that people are going to have different views on here. As long as they don't ridicule or attack my views that's fine.

@Terracotta9 the subject of the GBD seems to have gone very quiet and I as far as I know rebuttals were never answered (including Chris Witty’s well publicised view on it specifically).

Tbh I don’t really (personally I mean) use someone’s professional status as my only measure of their ability to judge a situation. If we didn’t question these things Andrew Wakefield would still be spouting his bullshit. I know plenty of people in well respected positions that believe in their own ego above all else, qualification and experience doesn’t make someone immune to being wrong. I look for balance and people who can adequately address all arguments put to them. I also believe (particularly scientifically) that the majority conclusion is the right one.

Terracotta, I posted this on another thread on the same topic. Here's a long list of scientists who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and don't believe in evolution. Are they all wrong and "fringe scientists"?

The answer is obviously 'Yes'. The existence of a list of scientists is not a good argument in favour of a position.

answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/modern/

@Cornettoninja

I think it’s understandable that the GBD went quiet because it was about not relying on lockdowns until a vaccine became available, but by November it was clear we would have several vaccines being rolled out shortly.

I agree that relying on professional status doesn’t guarantee someone is right or even worthy of listening to. But this was a direct criticism made of the Hart group in another thread- the members aren’t from good enough universities, and there aren’t any epidemiologists on board, but here is at least one scientist who fits that criteria, but let me guess, that’s not going to be good enough either.

I really wonder what counts as a proper scientist or not in this debate. Frankly, I feel that if you drill down, the answer is probably something along the lines of “a proper scientist is a scientist who agrees with the other proper scientists”, which is recursive nonsense, of course.

Btw, cornettoninja, I’ve enjoyed reading your comments on this board, it’s clear you’re someone who can see both sides of any issue, and I feels that is a rare trait.

@noblegiraffe

Are you really comparing the claim that the world is 6000 years old with the claim that perhaps continual lockdowns aren’t the right response given all the harms.

One is a simple statement which is easily proven wrong.

The other refers to a big complex problem with many moving parts and stakeholders

These are not remotely the same.

No, Terracotta, I'm disputing your claim that because there is a list of scientists who have signed up to a particular position, that automatically makes it worthy of consideration.

So you saying "And if they are all quacks then it begs the question, why are so many quacks allowed to hold positions in science academia and the medical field?" means that I can ask exactly the same question to you about the scientists who believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Check out the list, some of them hold pretty impressive qualifications too.

It's just not a good argument.

It’s not a good comparison though

One is a simple statement which is easily proven wrong

The other is big and complex issue, where there is no real “right” and “wrong”, just harms vs benefits, which will change depending on the stakeholders in question

It makes no sense to pretend that these things are even remotely similar

One is a simple statement which is easily proven wrong

Oh you have no idea. Creation scientists campaigning to get creationism taught in schools for years have used an awful lot of very familiar-sounding tactics. Same for climate change denial.

But my point stands. Claiming that a bunch of scientists supporting your position can't all be quacks just isn't true. Otherwise you'd have to apply that argument to the creation scientists too. Just because you like one position and don't like the other doesn't make it a better argument for your position.