Masks. A short thread. In June last year my GP advised me that wearing a mask even for a short space of time would be harmful for me on two fronts. One - I have painful rosacea on my face. It’s a horrible condition and it’s lifelong. I can at times look scary!
More from Health
🚨Important changes to lockdown/self-isolation regulations from 5pm
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers and Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
£800 'house party' FPN & police can now access track & trace data
https://t.co/k9XCpVsXhC
“Large gathering offence”
As trailed by Home Secretary last week there is now a fixed penalty notice of £800 (or £400 if you pay within 14 days) for participating in an gathering of over 15 people in a private residence
Fixed Penalty Notices double for each subsequent “large gathering offence” up to £6,400
Compare:
- Ordinary fixed penalty notice is £200 or £100 if paid in 14 days
- Holding or being involved in the holding of a gathering of over 30 people is £10,000
Second big change:
Since September has been a legal requirement to sell-isolate if you test positive/notified by Track & Trace of exposure to someone else who tested positive
Police can now be given access to NHS Track & Trace data if for the purpose of enforcement/prosecution
This will make it easier for police to enforce people breaking self-isolation rules. Currently there has been practically no enforcement.
Data says only a small proportion of people meant to be self-isolating are fully doing so.
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers and Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
£800 'house party' FPN & police can now access track & trace data
https://t.co/k9XCpVsXhC
“Large gathering offence”
As trailed by Home Secretary last week there is now a fixed penalty notice of £800 (or £400 if you pay within 14 days) for participating in an gathering of over 15 people in a private residence
Fixed Penalty Notices double for each subsequent “large gathering offence” up to £6,400
Compare:
- Ordinary fixed penalty notice is £200 or £100 if paid in 14 days
- Holding or being involved in the holding of a gathering of over 30 people is £10,000
Second big change:
Since September has been a legal requirement to sell-isolate if you test positive/notified by Track & Trace of exposure to someone else who tested positive
Police can now be given access to NHS Track & Trace data if for the purpose of enforcement/prosecution
This will make it easier for police to enforce people breaking self-isolation rules. Currently there has been practically no enforcement.
Data says only a small proportion of people meant to be self-isolating are fully doing so.
Very important that obvious failures with Track and Trace and self-isolation (study late last year said 18% of people complying https://t.co/dhJUZ7Pm0l) are not painted as an enforcement issue. Plainly not. Would just pass buck to police who have almost no capacity to enforce https://t.co/Eb4Kl5Ze0E
— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) January 25, 2021
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
