I'm amazed this has been overlooked on here...
that study seems to miss the point, it was known at the time masks didn't offer high levels of protection to the wearer and the idea was to stop the production of aerosols by the wearer.I think there’s going to be more revelations about burying research that showed mask wearing was also more about fear and control than actual protection
Masks make 'little to no difference' to Covid infections or deaths
The study, in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, found that wearing mask in the community 'probably makes little or difference' to whether you catch Covid or flu-like illnesses.www.dailymail.co.uk
Or helping people feel more safeI think there’s going to be more revelations about burying research that showed mask wearing was also more about fear and control than actual protection
Masks make 'little to no difference' to Covid infections or deaths
The study, in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, found that wearing mask in the community 'probably makes little or difference' to whether you catch Covid or flu-like illnesses.www.dailymail.co.uk
that study seems to miss the point, it was known at the time masks didn't offer high levels of protection to the wearer and the idea was to stop the production of aerosols by the wearer.
likely misreporting by the mail
but face coverings do reduce the amount of aerosols created by a personFiring anti aircraft weapons was known to be ineffective in the Blitz, we did it anyway to reassure people. As for masks, the surgical grade ones do work-the rest including snot stained bandanas not quite.
but face coverings do reduce the amount of aerosols created by a person
She is just vile.
Also:
Been saying this/or similar for a while Steve. We have a consulate in Calais, let’s use it. Have them apply in France, take their DNA, fingerprints etc, have their teeth checked to confirm their age etc. They’re in a safe country while they’re being processed. If they’re successful give them safe passage to the UK and instead of being put up in hotels costing the taxpayer a fortune they can start work on arrival filling some of these jobs that can’t get filled contributing to society rather than being a drain on it. If you’re processing them in France and then giving them safe passage across the channel supply and demand will dry up for the people smugglers and who knows the small boats might stop. And if they don’t you can legitimately state that the people arriving by them are illegal immigrants as there is a genuine safe route to the UK if you qualify.If they’re really going ahead with this (can’t see it being signed off by the Lords let alone the courts though), it needs to be done in conjunction with setting up offshore/external asylum processing centres, ideally near likely main claimant countries, to give opportunity to genuine asylum seekers. Also, and I appreciate this might not be well received but they’ve got to put a monthly or quarterly cap* both to give centres the chance to process claims and properly manage inflow as dumping people in hotels/centres for months on end is just wrong
*this can be tweaked depending on processing capacity and/or world events
If they’re really going ahead with this (can’t see it being signed off by the Lords let alone the courts though), it needs to be done in conjunction with setting up offshore/external asylum processing centres, ideally near likely main claimant countries, to give opportunity to genuine asylum seekers. Also, and I appreciate this might not be well received but they’ve got to put a monthly or quarterly cap* both to give centres the chance to process claims and properly manage inflow as dumping people in hotels/centres for months on end is just wrong
*this can be tweaked depending on processing capacity and/or world events
You can't put a cap on asylum seekers.If they’re really going ahead with this (can’t see it being signed off by the Lords let alone the courts though), it needs to be done in conjunction with setting up offshore/external asylum processing centres, ideally near likely main claimant countries, to give opportunity to genuine asylum seekers. Also, and I appreciate this might not be well received but they’ve got to put a monthly or quarterly cap* both to give centres the chance to process claims and properly manage inflow as dumping people in hotels/centres for months on end is just wrong
*this can be tweaked depending on processing capacity and/or world events
Bit surprising really. On the face of it at least, managing to come up with a deal that isn't a total shitshow puts him above the previous two incumbents in competence, so you'd think not being them would be enough for a bit of a shift, whether you give a shit about NI or not.
Id never want to turn away genuine asylum seekers, people who are escaping war or persecution, but there also needs to be some disincentives to put off non genuine asylum seekers. As soon as you set up centres elsewhere claimants will no doubt increase significantly. I agree that a straight cut off cap probably isn’t the right/most human way of dealing with the situation but maybe that could only be applied to certain countries/situationsYou can't put a cap on asylum seekers.
You either fund the capacity to discern who is and who isn't worthy of asylum (and, given the numbers, it really wouldn't be that much of our GDP as a %age), or you accept that you let a lot of random people in to the country because you don't want to spend the money.
What you can't do is stop people who need help, from seeking help.
It's our responsibility, and we should always thank God that we're not the ones who need to seek asylum.
Again, actually fund the system isntead of (deliberately?) running it down, and the problems lessen drastically. You don't actually need a cap. I'd also argue that even if you're not a genuine asylum seeker, there's little that will disincentivise you if you're happy to get on a rickity boat, cling to the wheels of a jet aircraft, or hole up in a refrigerated truck for hours on end.... and why do you want to cap people who are genuinely desperate - for they'll get caught up in it, whatever you do. We're a civilised country, lucky enough to be a free and liberal country (although current rhetoric and desired policy is a worryng lurch towards a totalitarian regime, of course!) and we need to appreciate that a little more, rather than wanting what others flee to avoid.Id never want to turn away genuine asylum seekers, people who are escaping war or persecution, but there also needs to be some disincentives to put off non genuine asylum seekers. As soon as you set up centres elsewhere claimants will no doubt increase significantly. I agree that a straight cut off cap probably isn’t the right/most human way of dealing with the situation but maybe that could only be applied to certain countries/situations
I don’t profess to know the answer but all I do know is the situation as it stands is far from humane, many genuine claimants being delayed in the system by people who aren’t and kept in pretty horrific conditions. Even once processed we haven’t got adequate housing to deal with it. It’s a mess
Again, actually fund the system isntead of (deliberately?) running it down, and the problems lessen drastically. You don't actually need a cap. I'd also argue that even if you're not a genuine asylum seeker, there's little that will disincentivise you if you're happy to get on a rickity boat, cling to the wheels of a jet aircraft, or hole up in a refrigerated truck for hours on end.... and why do you want to cap people who are genuinely desperate - for they'll get caught up in it, whatever you do. We're a civilised country, lucky enough to be a free and liberal country (although current rhetoric and desired policy is a worryng lurch towards a totalitarian regime, of course!) and we need to appreciate that a little more, rather than wanting what others flee to avoid.
I don't know what the current situation is, but a few years ago because of the lack of staff, if you failed your asylum claim you were given a slip, and told to report to a deportation centre in a fortnight. Can't imagine what happened to those people(!) so if there's a problem, look at that rather than the desperate people! That's your best way to disincentivise those who aren't genuine, make sure *they're* dealt with properly, rather than allowed to melt away into the underworld.
Just do it properly, treat people as people - don't start these ludicrous attempts to demonise desperate people, don't toughen the definition of what asylum is, that's nonsense.
And accept there will always be people less lucky than ourselves. We can't help everybody, but we can protect those who need it most - it's only humane to do so.
You're not helping everyone if you actually deal with asylum seekers properly, that's the point.and however much I would want to help everyone, I just don’t think it will be possible
Seems that the public is just sick and tired of the toriesBit surprising really. On the face of it at least, managing to come up with a deal that isn't a total shitshow puts him above the previous two incumbents in competence, so you'd think not being them would be enough for a bit of a shift, whether you give a shit about NI or not.
It's not meant to actually happen, it's performative politics from a dying governmentThe UN are also saying it’s a clear breach of the UN refugee convention that we’re signed up to.
Is it even a problem in the grand scheme of things?They do not want to fix this problem.
They need a bogeyman to position themselves against.
They're banking that fear alone wins elections so we've got another 18 months of this rubbish
No, it's but the tories want it to end in court so they can have one last try at the culture war vote. If they were serious about this they wouldn't release a bill before it has been checked for legalityIs it even a problem in the grand scheme of things?
Red meat for the gammons and Karen’s. Not sure how they think this is going to win them a GE election though. The only electorate interested in this kind of nonsense has the reform party and they aren’t exactly awash in the polls with the numbers needed by the Tories to turn the tide against Labour.It's not meant to actually happen, it's performative politics from a dying government
No, it's but the tories want it to end in court so they can have one last try at the culture war vote. If they were serious about this they wouldn't release a bill before it has been checked for legality
They have nothing left, 2019 robbed them of any real talent and anyone who could stop them and say "People care about being able to afford to eat, heat there houses and have enough left over to pay the leccy bills".Red meat for the gammons and Karen’s. Not sure how they think this is going to win them a GE election though. The only electorate interested in this kind of nonsense has the reform party and they aren’t exactly awash in the polls with the numbers needed by the Tories to turn the tide against Labour.
Sadly for them this is not going work while we are still in the ECHR and Sunak has just as part of his big "victory" at windsor made sure we can't leave the ECHR without collapsing the protocol and the GFA.They're absolutely gagging to blame the 'lefty lawyers' again
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?