Jump to content

Recommended Posts

From Today (Monday 15th June) Face coverings are compulsory for people traveling on Public Transport.


However this does not seem to apply to Drivers.

I only saw 1 driver wearing a face covering today whilst out on Lordship Lane.


Why has it taken 12 weeks to bring in this Rule. ?? Utter nonsense...


DulwichFox

I've just got in from work having used both overground and Jubilee line at 9am this morning and back via the London bridge train at 8.45 ish this evening.

This 'Rule' is being ignored-on the station platform this morning about 50% of people weren't wearing masks.

On the Jubilee line about half the people in my carriage just dropped the masks to their necks therefore leaving their noses and moths uncovered.

Coming home this evening on the Jubilee line a guy sat opposite me and removed his mask-I told him to put it back on-his response "why?" I told him 40.000 people have died in this country thats why.. his response was to ignore me and sit with it hanging off one ear-At London bridge there were lots of staff in High viz stood by the barriers-They didn't stop anyone walking through to the platforms who wasn't wearing a mask-and trust me-there were several.

like lockdown the face covering rule will fall apart within weeks-in fact it seems to be being ignored already.

A 2nd wave is sure to come with peoples attitude being what it is towards this very serious invisible threat to life.

If nothing is being done to enforce these simple rules.

They are not simple rules there has been contradictory advice about wearing masks, there are many people feel there breathing is prohibited wearing one. I do not believe it will benefit anyone in the long run, in fact I think it wilhave an negitive impact on our immune system and will interfere with natural immunity. If someone was ill then maybe it can protect but how many people especially at this time would be travelling on public transport if they were ill. 40,000 people did not die because people weren

Masks are 80% effective in reducing the range of the germs you cough or sneeze out. It is no big deal to wear one and it serves as a constant reminder of the importance of doing what we all can to reduce the rate of infection. The problem is that people are wearing neoprene when they should be wearing surgical masks, which are lighter and easier to wear. But we have a government that does not know what it is doing and seems to think it can't get the supplies needed for the population. Given how cheap and easy those masks are to make, I am mystified at the lack of preparation.


As for immunity, we all develop that over a lifetime. It is not impeded by occasional use of a surgical mask. You don't see surgeons becoming immunocompromised as a result of the job they do.


Carry on like this, and we are heading for a serious second wave when seasonal flu hits, and we WILL be back in lockdown for the entire Winter as a result. That is why the scientific advisors, including those on the SAGE committee are no longer standing by government policy. We don't even know if those who recover from covid are immune, or for how long. It will take a good year to know that.

Blah blah. Carry on like this, where people are following rules where no questions are answered, then when they are, they contradict past decisions. Primarily surgeons wear masks to protect patients. Yes masks are worn in some workplaces to protect the wearer. The second wave is being woven like a threat which divides those who do not want to hear, give conversation or platform to the scientist who disagree with the narrative. An narrative that has not made sense from the start.

TE44, I don't think the prospect of a 2nd wave is being used as a threat by anyone.

It's simply a possible outcome of increased infections, which could be contributed to by people not wearing masks.

How anyone can think a barrier between one person and another (or two barriers, if they're both wearing masks) would not help prevent infections is beyond me.

I think people don't take it seriously due to self-entitlement and having not known first-hand someone who died.

What do the people who've contracted Covid19 say ?

I have no health problems, but after 2 minutes I can't breathe in those masks, wearing those masks for a long period of time will make more people sick as they are breathing in their own breathe.



if you have no health problems and you can't Breath in a mask will they still let you on a bus.

Kk I don't believe its about self entitlement nor is it as simple as saying people don't take it seriously. When people do not take the word of corrupt instirutes who do not have our best interest at heart. We do not have to follow rules which can be changed at the drop of a hat or sbould I say science expertise that refuse to have any conversation with other scientists/ doctors who do not agree with measures pit in place. And resign to the usual insults.

The ability of this country to contemplae it's own navel and ignore the rest of the world never fails to surprise me


Let's break it down


Are other countries dealing with this virus much better with far lower infection rates and fatalities? Yes


Are masks being used in these countries? Yes


Can people still breathe even when wearing these masks? Yes


Everything else is just waffle

snoopy17 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have no health problems, but after 2 minutes I

> can't breathe in those masks, wearing those masks

> for a long period of time will make more people

> sick as they are breathing in their own breathe.

>

>

> if you have no health problems and you can't

> Breath in a mask will they still let you on a bus.


This is typical of the general attitude in the population


"I know we need to wear face coverings but I'm a special case and beside I won't catch it or pass it on"


We don't seem to be very good at following the rules do we! Maybe because "the special cases" went out and spread the virus during the 10 weeks of lock down rather than following the advice of staying home then the numbers could have been lower over the whole period, based purely on if people stayed in then the virus couldn't be transmitted. Of course this is am idealistic view of things but based on comments about people not wanting to wear masks then it lends weight to the concept in my opinion.


Oh Snoopy, I'm not having a go at you, more the general attitude we as a nation seem to have to bring told what to do yet wanting to blame those that tell us when our failure to follow advice makes everything go wrong.

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blah blah. Carry on like this, where people are

> following rules where no questions are answered,

> then when they are, they contradict past

> decisions. Primarily surgeons wear masks to

> protect patients. Yes masks are worn in some

> workplaces to protect the wearer. The second wave

> is being woven like a threat which divides those

> who do not want to hear, give conversation or

> platform to the scientist who disagree with the

> narrative. An narrative that has not made sense

> from the start.


The concept of a virus that spreads easily, hospitalises a large percentage of people and kills, by the latest global stats, 9 per cent of confirmed cases, should be an easy enough concept to grasp, irregardless of government messaging.


The governments problem is that they have an economy to manage as well as the virus and they are struggling to find the best way forward.

snoopy17 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have no health problems, but after 2 minutes I

> can't breathe in those masks, wearing those masks

> for a long period of time will make more people

> sick as they are breathing in their own breathe.

>

>

> if you have no health problems and you can't

> Breath in a mask will they still let you on a bus.



This is rubbish of the kind being peddled by conspiracy theorists. Once you have an infection, you can not make yourself more infected by breathing back in the viral particles you shed. It is the antibodies you produce to fight the infection that decide how long you remain infected for and to what degree. The wearing of a mask makes no difference to that, but it will reduce the chance of you infecting others in proximity to you.

I'd say I had quite a different experience on the same lines to NewWave but different times. Was very quiet and 99% folk wearing a mask. One or two not. Occasionally people dropped their mask to have a bit of a breath (it was stuffy and warm) or a drink or whatever but most people seemed to be doing what they are meant to do.


Also giving out free masks at some stations plus police presence at a number of stations that I used.


It was also very quiet, even at rush hour in the afternoon.


Nothing will be perfect and not everyone will comply all of the time but good enough compliance should be good enough!

I have no problems in wearing a mask but as a person who lip reads as I have only partial hearing, it would be helpful if other mask wearers take in to consideration that I may ask them to repeat anything that is said to me. I have head the experience of people talking to me and I have asked them to repeat for them to get very aggressive .

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TE44 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Blah blah. Carry on like this, where people are

> > following rules where no questions are

> answered,

> > then when they are, they contradict past

> > decisions. Primarily surgeons wear masks to

> > protect patients. Yes masks are worn in some

> > workplaces to protect the wearer. The second

> wave

> > is being woven like a threat which divides

> those

> > who do not want to hear, give conversation or

> > platform to the scientist who disagree with the

> > narrative. An narrative that has not made sense

> > from the start.

>

> The concept of a virus that spreads easily,

> hospitalises a large percentage of people and

> kills, by the latest global stats, 9 per cent of

> confirmed cases, should be an easy enough concept

> to grasp, irregardless of government messaging.

>

> The governments problem is that they have an

> economy to manage as well as the virus and they

> are struggling to find the best way forward.



Blah blah, the governments problem is justifying thee deaths! Deprivation and all the other things we can look forward to that has come from there actions to deal with a pandemic that has not seen the people die that was expected. Niw the government may say that is because of there actions, so what has changed that saved the millions from dying that it would now call for face masks to be mandatory. The flu will be upon us soon, why not learn from there mistakes and actually care for the vulnerable. Its so much easier when we are pointing the finger at one another rather than asking why it is alright to take away our rights, lets hear a debate from doctors/ scientists who have different ideas and experiences around this virus. Or will they continue to vilify and encourage us to blame one another rather than look at what is going on.

That ignores in every sense the questions asked


The world in in a pandemic


And countries other than U.K. are handling it better with lower death rates and lower infections


And those countries are using face masks either widely or by law


And it is helping and not causing problems


So how come?

Is it helping and not causing problems? Time will tell. It may be the least of our worries regarding choices, who knows theres enough people willing to believe whatever picture! story or number given. After all its not like we can't trust our governments or people in power.can you imagine the conspiracy if you thought that.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...