According to the various news sources people are confused and are therefore likely to break the latest round of ‘laws’. Well, isn’t that rich. Some people have been breaking the law for quite some time. If you shop in supermarkets, travel on buses or visit other kinds of establishments you will find a proportion of people maskless every day. You’re tempted to say – ‘Do you realise that you are breaking the law?’ But you don’t. You’re uneasy. The shop has allowed them in, the bus driver allowed them to board and the mask wearers are often the ones looking vaguely embarrassed. So what’s going on?
I want to compare today’s situation to the famous smoking ban of a few years ago.
The lead up to the smoking ban in pubs, hotels and general public places was dominated by a government-led information frenzy which made clear to smokers that their ‘number was up’. The general non-smoking public gave their wholehearted approval and many smokers agreed and acknowledged that the time had come to stop putting others at risk. Overnight it was accomplished. A smoker wouldn’t have dared to breach the law or, indeed, incur the wrath of the non-smoker by lighting up in a banned area.
Is second-hand smoke more lethal than Covid-19 ? Why are the maskless not being held accountable by bus drivers, shop owners or indeed by the mask wearing general public.
Back in the days of the smoking ban smokers were aware that they were on their own. The law, the law makers and the non-smoking masses were firmly against them. Smokers didn’t doubt that they risked arrest or admonishment if they even dared to break the new rules. All right was on the other side. Many smokers were unhappy but did get it. It was for the common good. And so they flocked to nominated smoking areas and maybe complained to each other but didn’t even discuss a protest demo.
So what about our maskless friends today? Do they feel that, perhaps, someone has given them permission to ignore the law and the safety of their fellow man? That’s the only conclusion one can arrive at. A senior politician rubbishing the smoking ban all those years ago may well have given rise to a stronger protest for some. Enforcement failure may have easily encouraged smokers to test the resolve of the authorities. Public anger would have been a big part of a smokers reluctance to break the law.
So, examine my theory and compare the difference in then and now. The conclusion is pretty clear – enforce the law and stop being so publicly complacent about law breakers then the latest ‘confusing regulations’ would have been unnecessary.
KIERAN McMULLAN
Randalstown, Co Antrim
We are not all in this together
The Department of Health is still refusing sight of the algorithm they use to generate the R number, or to disclose its source – ‘Algorithm which generates the R number a closely guarded secret’ (August 19).
So we are not all in this together. The DoH keeps us, the public, in ignorance of the facts. But maybe they are in privileged ignorance themselves.
So, how can blame be attached to others when those in authority refuse to engage with the public and show such contempt for Freedom of Information requests? The authorities create a diversion by blaming young people and elderly ladies having coffee mornings for charity instead of such ladies “eating out to help out”, or going to the pubs when they reopen.
This algorithm needs to be in the public domain to be subject to scrutiny by independent statisticians as to robustness and fitness for purpose, otherwise there can be no trust in the R number quoted for rate of transmission of the virus. Medical advisers and indeed many ‘hard’ scientific researchers generally have a very limited understanding of statistics as I can testify from a 30-year career in a university environment advising them. Statistics is not a major part of their training. We should be entitled to know what their qualifications are for quoting R numbers.
When we finally saw the so-called algorithm for controlling exam grades it turned out to be nothing more than a trivial formula which could have been devised by a school pupil, and had to be abandoned.
Maybe this is why the R number seems to have been quietly dumped recently. Is it either too trivial, or too difficult for the medical and scientific advisers to understand? But one would expect NISRA (yes that statistics agency) to be able to explain R. Instead they just seem to report numbers of infections.
BRIAN MacLOCHLAINN
Glenarm, Co Antrim
Silly to argue against public health advice
THE recent protest marches in Dublin by what Sinn Féin TD Matt Carthy described as ‘far-right agitators’ reminded me of Mussolini, who during his rise to power formed the fascist party, it was on the back of Italy being in a state of discontent. Stoking up a fear of socialism and with elements within the Church giving him their blessings, he became a dictator on the back of people’s misinformed fears, and ultimately went on to form an alliance with another dictator Adolf Hitler. The protests to my knowledge were a mixed bag of protagonists unaware of who they are aligning themselves with because they’re so intent on highlighting their own preferred subject whether it was for anti-mask reasons, pro-choice, far-right, anti-refugee, anti-government, or whatever you fancy. I think it’s plain silly to argue against public health advice that is only given for one reason, and that’s to protect people from catching this horrible virus. If you’re young healthy and fit, you may brush it off like just another bad cold, but if you do not fit into this bracket then you’re in danger and there are enough examples to prove it. It’s great to feel motivated enough to attend protests if they’re for the right reasons but pretending that Covid-19 is part of a global conspiracy is taking the biscuit. It’s better to be safe than sorry unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
JAMES WOODS
Gort an Choirce, Dún na nGall
‘Global Britain’ beginning to look a lot like old imperial Britain
Even if what the British government now accuses the EU of were true, its complaint would fail as it has not exhausted all of the remedies available to it under the Withdrawal Agreement. Any tribunal asked to rule on this matter would find against it on that basis. The British government is, of course, very well aware of this. It seeks therefore to remove that particular inconvenience by opting out of the jurisdiction of the ECJ. To no one’s surprise the new ‘global Britain’ which also intends to dispense with some elements of human rights law is beginning to look suspiciously like old imperial Britain, capable of making and breaking international treaties with no regard for the rights of others.
PAUL LAUGHLIN
Culmore, Derry
