Re: Coronavirus
 

Rubbish.

I’ll stick to jonbxx and others insights on this subject as opposed to your Covid denialism.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Singapore moving to tighten restrictions due to a spike in cases/release pressure on healthcare

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-p...ns-2021-09-24/

Re: Coronavirus
 

I have never denied Covid exists, and I think it is now clear to most people with their eyes open that immunisation by infection is the only way we are going to rid ourselves of this disease.

Fortunately, we now have vaccines, which enable most of us to acquire the infection without major ill effects. Infection provides a so much better immune response than vaccination alone, and it lasts longer.

Ultimately, there is a prospect that this virus will die naturally as long as we don’t actually stop the virus from infecting people. That is why further lockdowns would do more harm than good.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Anything to add on the substantive point OB or is it Friday night and you are just bored? Was I being pedantic or offering reasonable comment?

Re: Coronavirus
 

According to the British Society for Immunology, that statement is not true.

https://www.immunology.org/coronavir...ection-vaccine https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1632516536

Also…

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/co...us-vaccination

Re: Coronavirus
 

so good you need multiple doses.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What website is that?

This is an alternative view. This is not just any website. It’s a BBC website. So it must be true.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58270098

Re: Coronavirus
 

You are asking what website is that? - do you mean the one I posted a link to in the post, and named as "the British Society for Immunology"?

There is nothing in your linked article that supports your proposition - the parts that mention immunity state

So you have had to have had a serious bout of COVID to have "better" immunity (which is what the "immune response" section on the image in my post said) - only two problems with that; 1) if you have a serious bout of COVID, you’ve probably been hospitalised (with the concomitant risk of death), and 2), as you have frequently stated, most people who catch it only have a mild case. As the article states You can’t have it both ways - if people have had a mild case, they won’t have "better" immunity.

btw, this is a recent tweet from Professor Finn (one of the Profs mentioned in the BBC article).

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you are an expert immunologist could you please put your hand up.Otherwise please stop confusing the hell out of me.:spin::spin::spin:

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's easy Maggy, apparently what makes you ill makes you stronger . . . depending how ill you get. Although getting really really ill will finish you off :shocked:

. . or as one famous actor is misquoted as saying . . "do you feel lucky punk?" :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Quote:
Adam Finn
@adamhfinn

Masterful explanation of the uncertainties ahead. But one thing’s for sure, the more people get vaccinated the better things will be. The decision is not hard given what we know - it’s a:“the boat is sinking, shall I put on this life jacket?” type decision

I would not question this desirability of getting vaccinated. My point is that once you have had the vaccination and it has taken effect, being exposed to the virus is not something to be discouraged.

However, it is worth pointing out that even the scientists are disagreeing about how to deal with this virus, and so quoting a particular scientist or a particular medical body doesn’t actually prove anything.

Even the World Health Organisation doesn’t come out of this looking pretty.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-b1913173.html

Schools have been back 2 weeks now, no major increase in cases. Which btw is a pretty irrelevant metric as you can catch COVID regardless of vaccination status.

The two metrics that are important are Deaths, which have remained pretty steady for the past 3-4 weeks and hospitalisation which has been going down steadily for the past 3 weeks.

Vaccines work, people catch COVID but brush it off as nothing more than a usual cough/cold, as I have done recently.

Looking forward to a normal Christmas and 2022 ……rest of my life.

Feel sorry for Australians though, they truly are living under the jackboot of government oppression.

Golf booked for Tenerife in a fortnight……..get in.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Right on, mate.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Haha, yes. As you consistently demonstrate in this thread. Including this very post!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Your point being…?

Re: Coronavirus
 

His point being that he expected (and got) a reply :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think his point is that he is always right, and everyone else is always wrong.

At least thats usually what his point is. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

My point, agreeing with OB, is you’ll find scientists who can say anything depending on who is funding them.

Comedy Carl Heneghan, that Gupta woman and others pushing the Great Barrington Declaration are scientists. Who is funding them to spread misinformation? Who knows. But OB’s general point about scientists was correct. They shouldn’t be held up as oracles or in absolute terms as correct without understanding their motives first. Same for anyone on Government payroll - many are engaging in PR, not science.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Probably your best post, ever :Yes: :tu:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Law of averages mate, after posting thousands of bad ones he had to finally get a good un, how long will we have to wait for the next one:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Infinite monkey theorem. :D

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Re: Coronavirus
 

"Not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five total pages largely consisting of the letter "S",[12] the lead male began striking the keyboard with a stone, and other monkeys followed by soiling it"


happens on the forum on a regular basis :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is looking promising. :)
https://www.statnews.com/2021/10/01/...for-treatment/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Developed originally as an antiviral against flu, apparently, but still very new and was in late stage trials only a year ago.

The biomedical science innovations brought about by this pandemic could turn out to be quite profound.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Deaths plateaued for over a month and falling , hospitalisations dramatically falling for weeks . kids back at school for weeks, football back for months.

Listen closely…….can you hear Neil Ferguson?

No, neither can I

Re: Coronavirus
 

Deaths rising in Scotland. A glance into the future where schools started earlier.

Re: Coronavirus
 

covid mismanagement by the lunatic in charge

Re: Coronavirus
 

If lunatics in charge are part of the problem then England won’t do better.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think the lunatics are the problem . . those listening to them are ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

In England it's thieving liars that are the problem.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Was on the tube yesterday, it's gone from the majority wearing masks to me being the only one of seven wearing one, makes me fear the worst tbh

Re: Coronavirus
 

Same in the supermarkets, maybe 10-20% still wearing masks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I wouldn’t worry about it, despite Nicola’s best effort to prove how much more sensitive and caring she is than Boris, keeping mask wearing in law in Scotland is having very little impact on the habits of the population - in many places there’s 50% observance or less. Despite this, and despite our schools going back 2-3 weeks earlier than England, we’re not in the middle of a new wave.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unless you were unvaccinated and in an “at risk” group, why would you wear a mask?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Because you could be carrying it, be asymptomatic and be around those who are either unvaccinated or in an at risk group ?

You know, basic consideration for fellow people?

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s going to be the case for the rest of time. It has long been the case with other respiratory illnesses that make vulnerable people seriously ill. We have never previously considered it basic consideration to wear masks in case we give someone a nasty cold or flu.

Unless you’re proposing a major, permanent cultural shift so we become a people who routinely wear face masks in public, you must have a time in mind when you will acknowledge the time of mask wearing is past. When, for you, is that likely to be?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Remind me, which other respiratory illnesses in our lifetime have caused the levels of severe illness & death that covid has ?

When covid becomes endemic and correct me if I’m wrong but the last I knew we were still in a pandemic & when we have cases in the hundreds a day rather than 30,000 a day and when deaths are at the same level as winter flu then I’ll probably stop wearing a mask.

I’d suggest you’re going to be wearing them in certain situations for a while yet, flights etc.

Wearing a mask to protect others isn’t a hardship really is it

Re: Coronavirus
 

hmmm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Don’t be daft. You are only supposed to be considerate of other people where failure to do so might expose government failure. Only buy the fuel you need, we have adequate food. Otherwise it’s every man for themselves.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’re not comparing apples with apples, as I think you know.

We’re not discussing mask-wearing during the novel infection for which there was no natural immunity and no vaccine. We’re discussing mask-wearing in the present context, in which the link between infection and serious illness has demonstrably been broken.

The heightened level of hospitalisation compared to winter flu is overwhelmingly being driven by younger people who thought they knew better and didn’t bother getting jabbed when invited to do so. That will change. We know the vaccines work.

And actually, wearing a mask is a hardship for a great many people. I’m dealing with it week in, week out at church, with a lot of people who have been isolated for a long time, who are craving social contact and who are finding it very difficult to reconnect from behind a mask. Sunday morning worship is also extremely meaningful for them and it’s being hindered by the fact that everyone in Scotland is still meant to be wearing a mask in church even while singing (no masks required on the sweaty dance floor up the road on a Saturday night though). We’re thankful that the masks can at least come off for a few minutes afterwards over tea and biscuits.

There are other things than covid that are injurious to human health. The pandemic has exacted a serious cost in terms of mental well-being and the worst thing we can do now is exacerbate that problem with unnecessary restrictions on daily life.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sorry, you’re the one who brought cold & flu into this in the first place.

Whilst the vaccines work you’re missing a key point, protection degrades over time. Have a look at the latest figures coming out of Israel over five times the cases in those double jabbed vs those with a third booster jab (the majority still being unvaccinated of course)

To those that having difficulties reconnecting from behind a mask, I’d suggest they would have greater difficulties reconnecting whilst either on a ventilator or, worse, dead.

Wearing a mask is about as difficult as wearing a seatbelt, or a crash helmet.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It patently isn’t. A seatbelt restricts social contact in a car no more than being in the car does. A crash helmet is worn in situations where no social contact is occurring at all. A mask over half the face and muffling conversation in situations where such things are important is obviously very different.

Your point about ventilators and death is precisely the hysteria we need to be avoiding. Yes, protection wanes, as it does for all vaccines against these sorts of infections. There is a role in this for booster vaccination but also for repeated natural exposure to the virus in the wild. In the meantime, the fear of something awful happening carries a bigger health risk for some than the thing itself.

I fear that as a nation we are losing our sense of proportion and our ability to assess risk.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A role for repeated natural exposure? It’s a been a long crash to Earth for our world beating vaccination programme,

Re: Coronavirus
 

You are aware that this is how the human immune system actually works, yes?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m not aware of it being a stated objective in among all the wartime rhetoric of the early months of the year.

I’m unaware of how “repeated natural exposure” is even likely for the vast, vast majority of the population once the herd immunity threshold is reached as small outbreaks fizzle out before large numbers are infected.

Essentially the Government (and you) are disingenuously selling the Great Barrington Declaration to top up the vaccination campaign. Which as I say, is quite a crash to Earth.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s that herd immunity principle, jfman.:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

It patently is, just you don’t see the circumstances to match, I’ve done thousands of miles riding across both the U.K. and europe on the bike in convoy two abreast, plenty of times at speeds where I could of had a conversation with the rider next to me. But I wear a lid, why? Because if I come off or someone hits me it significantly reduces my chances of severe injury or death.

My point about ventilators/deaths isn’t hysteria it’s fact. there are still too many people who are falling seriously ill and dying from this disease.

Now, I can appreciate and agree that lockdowns and a lot of other restrictions are damaging both to the individual and to the country as a whole but at the time were necessary. Hopefully they won’t be again.

Wearing a mask really isn’t. However, it’s the individuals choice. All I did was as answer the question posed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Either it can’t spread, in which case we have no problem, or else it can, and we use the evolving science to determine whether it’s better to use booster jabs or natural reinfection (or a combination) to keep it at bay. Studies continue, and you might find it more profitable to read some of them than to rehearse pompous quasi-political attack lines in your bathroom mirror.

Follow the science, I’m sure someone on this thread used to say.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58270098

Re: Coronavirus
 

The Vaccines work. If you’re vaccinated it is extremely, very extremely, unlikely you will die.

No more likely than dying from any other respiratory disease, or any other illness that affects the human race.

It is not March 2020.

There is no need to wear a mask. Unless you’re unvaccinated and in an “at risk” group or just paranoid and affected by 20 months of media and governmental social engineering.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don’t see the issue - if someone wishes to wear a mask (because they believe they could be reducing a risk to others), what’s the problem?

They’re not making you wear one…

Re: Coronavirus
 

As before they do, but the protection offered decreases over time.

As per your second comment could you provide some supporting evidence ?

Again, it’s not necessarily about protecting yourself, but others around you. Who, may or may not be either unable to have the vaccine or are in at at risk group.

Good luck with getting on a plane if you’re not prepared to wear a mask.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Aside from the fact that it’s still law in Scotland in a wide variety of contexts, and is therefore a live debate (Nicola *is* making me wear one), I think it’s necessary to respond to comments that appear to be crafted to try to create social pressure in favour of mask wearing.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If I’m following science in the English language it almost certainly won’t be the political party broadcasts from the BBC.

I don’t see how it’s a “political attack line” to point out the massive shift in rhetoric from yourself and others around the role and purpose of vaccines (and now mass infection!).

Re: Coronavirus
 

As in the social pressure when those who were are against leaving the EU are told just to accept it ? That social pressure ?

Whilst masks remain a legal requirement, perhaps you should just get on with it and accept it?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why would social pressure in favour of mask wearing be a bad thing?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think perhaps I’ll step away from discussing this with you until you feel able to further the discussion in some way. You’re obviously very cross about something.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not cross at all. The point i believe is salient.

The stance you’re taking appears somewhat hypocritical

Re: Coronavirus
 

Social pressure in favour of anything whose downsides may outweigh their benefits is a bad thing. I’d have thought that obvious.

Doing something just because Something Must Be Done is not a good reason. Virtue signalling is not a good reason.

Even Nicola has accepted the reality that normal life trumps masks in cafes, nightclubs, crusty separatist marches and music festivals (where people are jammed together like sardines even if they are outdoors). All of those contexts encourage close social contact with strangers over prolonged periods - to a far greater extent than those places where you do still have to wear them, like shopping centres and, in my case, for the hour or so we’re together in a large, high-ceilinged building on Sunday morning.

And yet Scotland’s infection rate is plummeting and the death rate is as low now as it was at the end of last winter’s lockdown, in March. So yes, social pressure in favour of masks is a bad thing, because all it’s likely to achieve is to engender a culture of fear and suspicion. It clearly isn’t driving down infections because masks aren’t mandated in so many places where risk is highest (and because, as you may have observed yourself, the mandate is being routinely ignored in many places anyway).

---------- Post added at 21:37 ---------- Previous post was at 21:34 ----------

Fine, I’ll bite …

I’m curious where you think I’m being hypocritical. I’ve stated I believe continued mask mandates risk more harm than good. I’ve stated we still wear masks in Sunday worship because that’s the law. I see no conflict in those two positions. There’s nothing hypocritical about observing the law whilst arguing that law is counterproductive.

Re: Coronavirus
 

May outweigh their benefits? Scientific evidence on mask wearing is clear.

Anti-maskers are equally applying “social pressure”.

I assume the Orange Walks equally went ahead broadly maskless.

Most of the scenarios you describe are where masks are being balanced against economic outcomes.

My observations are that in places like supermarkets and on trains many people are still wearing them.

Wearing masks doesn’t have to be binary. Nobody wears a mask entertaining guests at home. Or in the pub while drinking. That doesn’t mean there’s no value in masks in other settings - like on busy trains or in supermarkets. Or that social pressure might be more effective at promoting that than a law that is essentially opt-in.

Another step down the Great Barrington rabbit hole. I’ll have to say I’m quite surprised by it.

The anecdotal evidence of these mental health impacts are spurious at best.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What exactly do you fear ?

Its been largely maskless for 2.5 months, and the world didnt end.

If people want to wear one, fine, go for it, as long as they stop being preachy a-holes trying to tell everyone else they 'need' to.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Exactly. It is what is known as freedom of choice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m getting on one on Tuesday, to go to Tenerife and there is no requirement to wear a mask.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You do know it's a condition of carriage to wear one on the underground don't you? Just don't want you to look a fool calling someone a preachy a hole on the tube because they tell you to wear a mask if you ever come down this way.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's the maskless who tend to be self righteous.
Anyone choosing to wear a mask isn't harming anyone, on the contrary, they are protecting you.

As for what to fear:-
BBC News - Portsmouth girl, 15, dies of Covid on day she was due jab
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-58772671
Even the young with no pre existing conditions can succumb to it. Another 121 deaths reported today, in any other year that would have been a major disaster. We still need to take this seriously.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You know I dont live anywhere near London, right ?
I avoid it like the plague (which covid isnt, btw, despite how many treat it).


---------- Post added at 23:45 ---------- Previous post was at 23:44 ----------

Nope (as with most of your drivel).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not flying Jet2, easyJet, RyanAir, BA, or TUI, then?

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/new...itish-21511456

And you’ll need a mask for Tenerife Airport…

Re: Coronavirus
 

I know comprehension isnt your strong point, but Im pretty sure even you should be able to understand "If people want to wear one, fine, go for it"

..and you're back to fantasy land.
In your rose tinted, land of unicorns, everyone might be like that.
Here in the real world, people wear them becasue they think it will protect them, not me.

Still, if thats your reason for doing it, feel free to stop, I dont need your 'protection'.

---------- Post added at 00:06 ---------- Previous post was at 00:02 ----------

TUI seem to contradict themselves ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Doesn't that give more weight to vaccinating 11-16 yr olds which everyone appaered to be against?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So nothing to fear then, just more fear mongering.

You do of course have solid evidence that she died because she wasnt wearing a mask ?

People die from (many different) viruses all the time, unfortunate, but true.

Do you fear all of them ?

Have you been wearing one for the last 20+ years, esp in the winter months, and of course, through all the flu epidemics ?

I can guess the answer.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes I was aware you're not local, hence I said "if you ever come down this way", still sounds like you won't be visiting anytime soon anyway, why would you, bet London has nothing to offer compared to Nottingham

Re: Coronavirus
 

No.

This age group should be vaccinated, but based on population-level data, not individual stories, no matter how tragic they are. The girl here died of myocarditis, which is the same potential complication you get from giving people in this age group the vaccine. If you allow yourself to set policy based on how stories like these affect you emotionally you risk doing more harm than good.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you are relying on a now withdrawn report on myocarditis and the vaccine.

Israel seems to show otherwise.


Link

Re: Coronavirus
 

Presumably they were perfectly healthy children before their government got jab happy

Re: Coronavirus
 

:rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Or even better, cherry pick data to make decisions based on vaccine supply and not public health at all, while working with active spreaders of disinformation (UsForThem for example) to muddy the waters.

And get Nick Triggle at the BBC to put out PR on your behalf.

The evidence on vaccination for teenagers is clear with millions of doses administered worldwide. What we don’t have is enough vaccines for that and the booster programme until supplies improve.

Which is why JCVI delayed making a decision despite MHRA describing the vaccine as safe and effective months ago. However none of that suits the narrative that you must now cling to as Government has no choice but to decide mass infection of children is good.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This page seems clear…

https://www.tuifly.be/en/flightinfo-corona-measures I think the newspaper’s summary had misinterpreted their info.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Enjoy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Happy holidays!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, when you consider the type of masks the public buy in great numbers, and you consider the materials used and the importance of having a well-fitting mask if it's to do much good, I think we are fooling ourselves if we really believe that this is an effective means of preventing infection.

In the height of the mask-wearing phase when it was a requirement to wear masks in public places, we'd see people wearing these standard masks that were clearly not tight on the face, and a countless number of people with the mask under the nose. No-one ever seemed to challenge anyone about this.

I still believe that the change of government advice in favour of mask-wearing was simply PR, designed to get people who had been scared to death by the medical rhetoric out of their homes.

It is untrue to say no-one is making us wear them. In too many situations, it is still a requirement (GP surgeries, hospitals, chemists, aeroplanes, etc.).

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0245688

Re: Coronavirus
 

I most definitely do not think it is too many

Re: Coronavirus
 

I was referring to the person wearing the mask - sorry if that wasn’t clear.

Some people seem to have objections to others wearing masks.

It’s interesting that you don’t think people should wear masks to GP surgeries& hospitals, where it’s likely that the people there would be vulnerable - can I ask why you think that?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

My point is that the masks that most people wear, and the way they wear them, makes them largely ineffective.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's handy for getting your grub into your mouth.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Cheap/home made masks actually work surprisingly well. Basically anything in front of your mouth & nose will catch droplets.

"cloth and surgical masks were not significantly different"

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance...iab797/6370149

Re: Coronavirus
 

You are putting your own interpretation onto the findings - nothing in that research stated that masks were ineffective, largely or otherwise; it states they could be "less effective" if not fitted properly.

Two different things.

The study showed that surgical & fabric masks kept between 65-80% of particles outside the mask - that is not "largely ineffective".

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...3&d=1633289074

Anyway, instead of a study that involved 7 people, how about one that involved 350,000 people?

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-ne...-covid-19.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

The point a lot of them probably miss is that in most places it is now simply a recommendation to do it if it's crowded.


Although I still think it's a legal requirement on TfL services, and in hospitals and medical practices (which makes sense as there are sick people there) in most places you're neither legally compelled to nor is it enforceable, though I suppose a place could in principle refuse entry to someone who isn't if they want to make it a condition of entry.


In any case, even when it was backed up with a legal instrument, there were still exemptions, and there was no requirement to have your exemption officially certified by a doctor, literally you could not wear one, and they weren't really supposed to challenge someone who wasn't, this was actually explicitly against the law, some form of disability discrimination as well to bar people because they weren't, there are plenty of examples where people have unlawfully challenged someone for not wearing a face covering because they are exempt. And not all disabilities are visible, for example, it can be if it causes you distress, which could be if you were assaulted and someone grabbed you over the face to stop you crying out for help...


I do think some of it was a visual cue or even a confidence booster, we did get rid of covid in March-July 2020 to levels much lower than now, and get most of the economy open albeit with social distancing in pubs etc, before it was mandatory to wear masks basically in indoor areas. Whilst some of it makes sense, for example if you're close to a lot of people for a long time period, in something like a supermarket where you're not in close contact with anyone for any sustained period, it doesn't. And the way they ended up in pubs where you had table service anyway, had to wear one going in and out and when going into the toilet, but not when you were sat at your table (and presumably in a toilet, though no-one's going to bang down the door and check you're wearing one there) is a bit silly because the virus is still out there, they may as well not bother and say you don't need to for the amount of time you're wearing one.


Plus a lot of people forget they don't really protect the wearer but others, which presumably only applies if you have covid (or anything else like a cold) and don't realise it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well I havent been to hospital recently (or on an aeroplane ;)) but for the record, in the last 2/3 weeks Ive been to the chemist/pharmacy at least twice, the doctors, and the dentist, and not been forced to wear one in any of them. I dont actually have one any more, I binned all the ones I had.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Masks are still very needed when flying. Is flew on holiday a couple of weeks back with Tui and it was mask on at Gatwick and it stayed on apart from when eating or drinking until we landed and out of the airport. 12 hours in total. No big deal to be honest, the biggest thing is to dress light so you don't overheat.

There were people on the plane who had medical exemptions. And so did their spouses. And so did their kids. One of those poor families went ballistic when harmless insecticide was sprayed through the plane on landing. The Chief Purser tried to defuse the situation but in the end lost a bit of patience saying that they should have worn a mask then and if they refused to let the crew set off the insecticide, then the plane couldn't let passengers off and they would need to take it up with the other 230 passengers!

Just checked as I am flying with work in a couple of weeks and BA are still mandating masks - https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb...lcome-on-board

Re: Coronavirus
 

As are Jet2, RyanAir, easyJet, TUI, KLM, Aer Lingus, & Virgin Atlantic.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No masks on pierr's flight though, that's a bonus.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Must be a private jet. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Probably not virtue signalling airways ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

As much as I would like to take private Jet, I will in all all honesty say I posted my statement without viewing the policy statement of said airline and Hugh was right to catch me.

The statement though is ambiguous.

They state masks must be worn in all the airports they operate from. But the airport (East Mids) do not state that, masks are optional within the airport.

So, I’ll wait to see what the policy is on the plane and I’ll report back the reality of the situation.

But if previous experience prevails, you may have to wear a mask until you sit down and order a drink, then you can remove your mask, which makes the whole thing pointless anyway.

I’ll let you know!

I suspect cabin crew will ask nothing of nobody or if they do in their garb not enforce anything, but I will advise.

In any event 5 days away and 4 golf courses, I don’t really give a give a shit.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And now I’m here, I can report that no masks were required in the airport. I did wear a mask to board the plane which I put on at the steps of the aircraft. I sat down and took it off after take off and was not asked to put it on by any cabin crew.

I then put it back on to alight the plane.

So, policy yes, enforced?………. Not really, which just highlighted the pointlessness of it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well let’s be honest they’re asking for people to act in good faith. Which some people will and others won’t, citing anti-mask conspiracies or faking disabilities. It’s ultimately not worth the hassle for how low paid most airport staff and cabin crew are to listen to someone shout on about their rights and freedoms.