Hi
I wrote to my MP, slightly amending the KBF template to include that I had told local shops that I would not be using them if they enforced mask wearing. Have just got this reply - it has a lot of words in it:) Am wondering whether she read her job description!
'Dear
Thank you for taking the time to write to xxxx MP with regard to the Government’s decision to mandate the wearing of face coverings in certain situations, and to raise your more general concern over government powers.
xxx has read your email with interest and has asked me to respond to you on her behalf.
With regard to Government powers – xxx would not support any government that unilaterally handed itself powers and is clear that any response to a global pandemic, particularly one involving a novel virus to which there is no known vaccine and no known treatment demanded that action be taken. Parliament retains its rights of scrutiny through its elected representatives, the House of Lords and the activities of a range of powerful committees. The decisions taken by the Government have each been considered and expert advice taken throughout – which xxx believes is precisely as it should. xxx makes her voice heard on behalf of all of her constituents both in Parliament and via the other channels she has available to her and will continue to do so.
With regard to the mandatory wearing of face coverings – xxx is clear that there is a need to balance the competing demands of protecting civil liberties and controlling the spread of the virus whilst enabling the restoration of economic and social life. xx’s colleagues in Government have made a judgement that the best way to balance these things is to enable people to go out and about, and to see and socialise with friends and family, but to require that, if they choose to do so, they take additional measures to restrict the spread of this virus by wearing face coverings in limited situations.
The science in this area has evolved during the outbreak, and the body of scientific evidence that has now built up shows that the risk of transmission is made lower by wearing a face covering.
The UK’s Royal Society, for example, recently reviewed all the evidence and came to the conclusion that face coverings are effective for protecting the wearer of the face covering as well as those around them, though note the covering needs to be of a certain standard.
Significantly, recently the World Health Organisation changed their advice, (WHO), by saying that whilst the virus is primarily spread through contact and respiratory droplets, under some circumstance airborne transmission might occur, the WHO go on to advise the use of fabric masks, (face coverings), to reduce the spread of infection.
This increasing evidence, but also the new evidence that sales and retail staff were being more severely affected by the virus than the general population, supported the decision that from 24 July it became mandatory to wear a face covering when visiting a shop or supermarket. Previously this requirement was advisory. There are of course some exceptions, for example the rules do not apply to children under 11.
The full guidance on the wearing of face coverings can be found here.
There will be a wide spread public health communications campaign within which it will be made clear that social distancing, good hygiene and isolating when infected or having symptoms, also remain important mitigating actions.
Your point that this decision will reduce the number of people going out is not a view that is shared by those advising the Government. Perhaps more importantly people need to go shopping and for those who are most at risk it is quite right that steps are taken to protect them, and also to reassure them that they can be safe when they go out.
xxx recognises that this decision is not one you welcome, but she is confident that there is now enough evidence to suggest that the wearing of face coverings in certain situations will help stop those with the virus from giving it to others, and for that reason she supports this decision. The Government has noted that it will keep all guidelines under constant review to ensure that any restrictions in place are worthwhile measures – where that is shown not to be the case the measure will be considered and potentially changed.
Thank you again for raising these important matters with xxx, with regard to face coverings, she will stay abreast of the latest evidence so that she can raise local concerns with her colleagues as appropriate.
I hope you remain safe and well at this very difficult time.
With kind regards'
No joy there then. Just a regurgitating of the official absurdities.
MPs won't do their own research into anything it seems. They don't serve us or what little conscience they may have left, they only serve their masters.
Career politician. Should be ashamed of herself in my view, but would put money on her not being. Worth taking her to task?
Hi Hollbsma. HELL YES, take her to task. It makes me mad reading such bull - my MP is trying to fob me off in the same way and I will not let him. Forgive me but it's fired me up to write some suggested replies. A good tactic is to repeat each paragraph and pull it apart. They hate that. So here's my suggestions - you might well have other points to add or change bits. Sorry it's a bit long:
With regard to the mandatory wearing of face coverings – xxx is clear that there is a need to balance the competing demands of protecting civil liberties and controlling the spread of the virus whilst enabling the restoration of economic and social life. xx’s colleagues in Government have made a judgement that the best way to balance these things is to enable people to go out and about, and to see and socialise with friends and family, but to require that, if they choose to do so, they take additional measures to restrict the spread of this virus by wearing face coverings in limited situations.
I understand. Could you please inform me of specific scientific evidence on which xxx and her colleagues in Government made the judgement that face coverings ‘in limited situations’ are effective as an additional measure in restricting the spread of the virus. I have fully researched this matter and can find no quality evidence that supports this.
The science in this area has evolved during the outbreak, and the body of scientific evidence that has now built up shows that the risk of transmission is made lower by wearing a face covering.
As you are aware, up until July 24th, face coverings were not mandatory – indeed the previous advice from Matt Hancock and the Government’s scientific advisors was that coverings do not affect restriction of the spread of the virus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XkOIesmFXg
The Government informed us they were ‘following the science’ regarding this. Could you specify the ‘body of scientific evidence' which evolved during the outbreak to support this change in the guidelines.
The UK’s Royal Society, for example, recently reviewed all the evidence and came to the conclusion that face coverings are effective for protecting the wearer of the face covering as well as those around them, though note the covering needs to be of a certain standard.
I have consulted the UK Royal Society’s Delve review of the evidence you refer to:
https://rs-delve.github.io/addenda/2020/07/07/masks-update.html
I invite you to consult this paper and apply the principles of ‘Levels of Evidence’ (eg Packett et al) which dictates the quality of research in order to ascertain whether the findings are ‘gold standard’, strong or weak recommendations or merely opinion.
Having consulted the findings, it clear this study is not quality research and falls far short of the ‘gold standards’ required for strong recommendations.
The research is based on observation and modelling studies, which are considered inferior to Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) or the systematic review of RCTs. I include excerpts from the paper to support this:
Evidence continues to accrue that masks, including cloth masks, prevent onward transmission of infection. This is based on observational and modeling data in humans, on the effectiveness of masks in intercepting droplets and aerosols and on controlled studies of experimental animals. Evidence is also accumulating that masks may additionally protect the wearer.
There are no human controlled trials on the efficacy of universal mask use in stemming SARS-CoV2 transmission. It is inherently problematic to conduct such a trial on a practice that all must adhere to for it to be efficacious. Nevertheless, the cumulative multifaceted evidence on mask efficacy provides strong support for their use. Several accepted medical and public health practices to reduce the transmission of other infections are based on similar types of evidence and not on the results of randomized clinical trials.
I refer you to references commenting on the validity of Observational and Modelling studies:
Observational Studies – worthwhile or worthless?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6302806/
Reporting guidelines for modelling studies
https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-12-168
I further refer you to Level 1 research, which finds masks and respirators do not prevent the transmission of viruses and asks serious questions regarding the negative effects:
https://www.sott.net/article/434796-The-Science-is-Conclusive-Masks-and-Respirators-do-NOT-Prevent-Transmission-of-Viruses?fbclid=IwAR06QiUKhsOAlfzQZJ6ZxUgXXEAV7rDrKOvYL3SQW8qFAp_yDuBPpzCF7Ao
Clearly an evaluation of the evidence is important. If any face covering is ineffective, then there is no point in wearing it. You rightly point out any face covering needs to be of a certain standard to be effective.
Could you advise me why the Government is basing important decisions on poor research and ignoring quality research? Alternatively, can you point me to any quality research which finds face coverings are effective.
Significantly, recently the World Health Organisation changed their advice, (WHO), by saying that whilst the virus is primarily spread through contact and respiratory droplets, under some circumstance airborne transmission might occur, the WHO go on to advise the use of fabric masks, (face coverings), to reduce the spread of infection.
I think you will find the WHO changed its advice for political rather than scientific reasons. I would be grateful if you could refer me to the specific scientific research on which the WHO based its advice and inform me where it is published.
This increasing evidence, but also the new evidence that sales and retail staff were being more severely affected by the virus than the general population, supported the decision that from 24 July it became mandatory to wear a face covering when visiting a shop or supermarket. Previously this requirement was advisory. There are of course some exceptions, for example the rules do not apply to children under 11.
The full guidance on the wearing of face coverings can be found here.
Thank you for the link regarding full guidance on the wearing of face coverings. Again I would respectfully request you specify the ‘increasing evidence’ you refer to in the above paragraph.
There will be a wide spread public health communications campaign within which it will be made clear that social distancing, good hygiene and isolating when infected or having symptoms, also remain important mitigating actions.
Thank you, I look forward to hearing about it. Can you confirm that all advice regarding ‘mitigating actions’ will be fully backed up by scientific research. I would ask that the Government actually publish and make known the findings on which all advice is based.
Your point that this decision will reduce the number of people going out is not a view that is shared by those advising the Government. Perhaps more importantly people need to go shopping and for those who are most at risk it is quite right that steps are taken to protect them, and also to reassure them that they can be safe when they go out.
Of course, people need to go shopping and the vulnerable need to be protected. However, I and many others in your Constituency are not reassured by the contradictory and confusing advice given by the Government. Furthermore, if you speak to your Constituents you will find that many people do not want to go out because they are scared and face coverings are making it worse.
xxx recognises that this decision is not one you welcome, but she is confident that there is now enough evidence to suggest that the wearing of face coverings in certain situations will help stop those with the virus from giving it to others, and for that reason she supports this decision. The Government has noted that it will keep all guidelines under constant review to ensure that any restrictions in place are worthwhile measures – where that is shown not to be the case the measure will be considered and potentially changed.
It is not about whether I welcome the decision or not – it is purely about the evidence the decision is based on – and indeed whether, as you say, the mandatory measures are ‘worthwhile’. I would respectfully ask you once again to advise me of the specific scientific evidence xxx refers to. It is not enough to point me to one poor quality study, I and my family, friends and neighbours in your Constituency would like to know exactly why we are being required to wear face coverings.
I look forward to hearing from you with the information I have asked for etc etc
@LivvyB Thanks for drafting this. Will get back onto her. Completely agree we should keep on at the bu**ers, just have only so much energy to go round so very much appreciate your input!
Insidious that they are getting away with pretending there is not a preventative/cure when the evidence of hydroxychloroquine (ideally + azithromycin + zinc) is overwhelming. There has been a coordinated campaign to discredit HCQ, despite its widespread use for 65 years, originally as anti-malarial now also as lupus & rheumatoid arthritis treatment.
Warroom Pandemic Episode 293:
https://pandemic.warroom.org/2020/07/22/ep-293-pandemic-hydroxy-moxie-w-dr-risch-dr-oskoui-dr-vliet-and-ira-stoll/
Dr H. Risch: Yale Professor of Chronic Disease & Epidemiology, School of Health: quote 'Early outpatient treatment of sympotamatic, high risk patients should be ramped up immediately', he concludes HCQ, ideally with Azithromycin & Zinc is safe and effective, reiterating 66% risk hazard reduction from early treatment.
Dr Ramine Oskoui: CEO Foxhall Cardiology: HCQ effectiveness and safety in early treatment fully demonstrated, delayed treatment shows mixed /ineffective due to progress of damage done. Deaths much lower in countries where HCQ was used early (eg. Turkey, India, Malaysia, South Korea) compared to where it is banned as in UK, see graph below, from C19study.com which provides daily updates from HCQ studies.
Dr Elizabeth Vliet: Specialist in Preventative Medicine, Witholding of HCQ treatments: 'Unconscionable what is being done to American public', political prohibition of prescribing by doctors has never happened before. Slams Fauci/CDC /politicians for contributing to people dying unnecessarily by preventing HCQ early use.
https://c19study.com : provides daily updates on HCQ studies: the graph is compelling (I can't get it to paste in here, sorry)
Comprehensive analysis of HCQ effectiveness & political & scientific manipulation to prevent its adoption:
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/the-hydroxychloroquine-scandal
Recent developments include:
1. New International Journal of Infectious Disease peer-reviewed Henry Ford Study recently confirmed the effectiveness of HCQ treatment of cov19, 'Hydroxychloroquine provided a 66% hazard ratio reduction, and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin 71% compared to neither treatment':
2. Switzerland returned to using HCQ after suspending use in response to the media campaign against it. The graph clearly show the fatality increase after its withdrawal and the reduction in fatality after they returned to using it: ' Media Should Do a Mea Culpa as French Analysis Offers a Stunning Observation About Hydroxychloroquine Use' https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2020/07/15/media-should-do-a-mea-culpa-as-french-analysis-offers-a-stunning-observation-about-hydroxychloroquine-use-n643181
Thank you ZJ, info and references much appreciated😀
"The science in this area has evolved." My arse it has! She may as well have said "we changed the science to fit our agenda." I have always, always been dissatisfied with responses from my MP. The last one I wrote to was about HS2 and of course I was just brushed off. I might try with this and see what he says.
Thanks Rosie!. Must admit I thought much the same so your comment made me smile!
OFF-MESSAGE:
Deputy Chief Medical Officer says Masks can increase risk of viral contamination, reported in the Independent & Daily Mail: I saw it here:
https://principia-scientific.com/deputy-chief-medical-officer-for-england-masks-not-a-good-idea/
they aren't using then in Sweden nor are the dutcb
I've just read that reply and it is most telling.
Now we know who the enemy is.
It seems all MPs, all Councils (note I didn't say councillors) and probably the Police and Armed Forces.
It seems there has been a coup d'etat by a certain group without one shot being fired. The rest of the letter was just drivel. A 'novel virus' - yes, one that doesn't exist and is 'supported by the science'. It really tells you who will be hanging from the lamp-posts when the time comes. If they think that the excuse at their trial will be.......'well the scientific advisors told us so', they will be in for a shock. They have murdered old people, they have caused the suicides of many young people and they have destroyed people's lives, relationships, their means of employment and homes. Do not forget that. Hold on to that image. What worries me most in all this....... the vast majority of them knew EXACTLY what they were doing and CONTINUE to do. I had to laugh at the bit about 'shop workers have been adversely affected by this'.......not the ones I've asked. It makes Tony Blair's '45 minutes to Armageddon speech' a prophecy by comparison.
This is going to get nasty......and very ugly, quicker than people think.
Heres what Im playing with according to setting my law as a woman:
notice i: a woman; going by the name of jane doe; say i write this notice to you: a man; going by the name of matt hancock; and acting as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, UK; i, state that you did send me correspondence dated 22 June 2020; i, state that you, did place my name on the Shielded Patient List; i, state today (aug 9th 2020) that i, do not consent to having my name on said List; i, state all herein to be true and will verify at open court; i, require that you, remove my name from the Shielded Patient List; i, further require that you, send no more documentation to my address; or authorise calls/texts to my phone; or authorise or advise trespass on my property by any man or woman, acting as an Agent for the State, with regard to CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19); i, ask is it your intent to do wrong to i, by way of trespass; i, ask that you, by way of remedy, acknowledge this notice; and that you, acknowledge you, did take the action of removing my name from the Shielded Patients List; and that you, acknowledge you, or any Agents for the State acting on your behalf, desist from trespassing on my property in any way, including disturbing my peace, with regard to CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19); i, state that if you, provide remedy, by way of the acknowledgements stated, within 21 days of this notice, remedy will be given. signed by i: jane doe
(i'm still working on it)
Just to go back to the lack of intelligent responses from our so-called MPs - and yes, I also wrote to my local councillor - no response there either! Is there any way that MPs salaries can be stopped? They are not doing the job they were voted in to do and they appear to have broken their oath of allegence to the Queen - treason? There must be a way that they call feel the hurt that everyone else has been forced to endure. Anybody know the legal route to take? I feel sure we could get a class action going on this basis. We have been sold down the river and are now living in a dictatorial police state! How did we ever get to this - our democracy has gone - can we get it back?
my keyboard is going haywire - I meant to say "there must be a way that they can all feel the hurt" etc.
Hi
Am just putting together a reply to MP's response & need some help regarding this section.... is what I'm saying about Statutory Instruments correct? and is the example any good given the timing of it at end July when the MPs had all gone on their hols? The first bit is the MP reply wording & the bold is my suggested response:
From MP ‘The decisions taken by the Government have each been considered and expert advice taken throughout – which xxx believes is precisely as it should. xxx makes her voice heard on behalf of all of her constituents both in Parliament and via the other channels she has available to her and will continue to do so.’
My response 'I understand that Statutory Instruments (which I specifically referred to in my letter) are delegated legislation and can therefore be introduced with minimal parliamentary input. In these instances MPs have no opportunity to make their voices heard on behalf of their constituents because there is no facility to amend the contents. However, I am interested in learning how this works in practice. Therefore, using this as an example https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/822/made?fbclid=IwAR05jDHCcCj6QwEq4aucqvirM-m65OVv2-YVmsCE241LnHBz8VwfiQzd9zg please provide details of the expert advice taken and the input from MPs.'
Comments, corrections etc gratefully received.
Ta
Hi Hollbsma. I think your reply to the first bit is good and you've asked a pertinent question. I like it. I've just looked at the cruddy Royal Society research and will amend my original post above to include a critique of it. I did it quite quickly so if there are any mistakes or things that don't make sense - let me know.
Well done for persevering with this. I think it is very important to ask difficult questions.
I was not able to amend the previous post. Here's the amended response:
With regard to the mandatory wearing of face coverings – xxx is clear that there is a need to balance the competing demands of protecting civil liberties and controlling the spread of the virus whilst enabling the restoration of economic and social life. xx’s colleagues in Government have made a judgement that the best way to balance these things is to enable people to go out and about, and to see and socialise with friends and family, but to require that, if they choose to do so, they take additional measures to restrict the spread of this virus by wearing face coverings in limited situations.
I understand. Could you please inform me of specific quality scientific evidence on which xxx and her colleagues in Government made the judgement that face coverings ‘in limited situations’ are effective as an additional measure in restricting the spread of the virus. I have fully researched this matter and can find no quality evidence that supports this.
The science in this area has evolved during the outbreak, and the body of scientific evidence that has now built up shows that the risk of transmission is made lower by wearing a face covering.
As you are aware, up until July 24th, face coverings were not mandatory – indeed the previous advice from Matt Hancock and the Government’s scientific advisors was that coverings do not affect restriction of the spread of the virus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XkOIesmFXg
The Government informed us they were ‘following the science’ regarding this. Could you specify the ‘body of scientific evidence' which evolved during the outbreak to support this change in the guidelines.
The UK’s Royal Society, for example, recently reviewed all the evidence and came to the conclusion that face coverings are effective for protecting the wearer of the face covering as well as those around them, though note the covering needs to be of a certain standard.
I have consulted the UK Royal Society’s Delve review of the evidence:
https://rs-delve.github.io/addenda/2020/07/07/masks-update.html
I invite you to consult this paper and apply the principles of ‘Levels of Evidence’ (eg Sackett et al) which dictates the quality of research in order to ascertain whether the findings are ‘gold standard’, strong or weak recommendations or merely opinion.
Having consulted the findings, it clear this study is not quality research and falls far short of the ‘gold standards’ required for strong recommendations.
The research is based on observation and modelling studies, which are considered inferior to Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) or the systematic review of RCTs. I include excerpts from the paper admitting this:
"Evidence continues to accrue that masks, including cloth masks, prevent onward transmission of infection. This is based on observational and modeling data in humans, on the effectiveness of masks in intercepting droplets and aerosols and on controlled studies of experimental animals. Evidence is also accumulating that masks may additionally protect the wearer.
It is inherently problematic to conduct such a trial on a practice that all must adhere to for it to be efficacious. Nevertheless, the cumulative multifaceted evidence on mask efficacy provides strong support for their use. Several accepted medical and public health practices to reduce the transmission of other infections are based on similar types of evidence and not on the results of randomized clinical trials."
I refer you to references commenting on the validity of Observational and Modelling studies:
Observational Studies – worthwhile or worthless?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6302806/
Reporting guidelines for modelling studies
https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-12-168
I further refer you to Level 1 research, which finds masks and respirators do not prevent the transmission of viruses and asks serious questions regarding the negative effects:
https://www.sott.net/article/434796-The-Science-is-Conclusive-Masks-and-Respirators-do-NOT-Prevent-Transmission-of-Viruses?fbclid=IwAR06QiUKhsOAlfzQZJ6ZxUgXXEAV7rDrKOvYL3SQW8qFAp_yDuBPpzCF7Ao
Clearly an evaluation of the evidence is important. If any face covering is ineffective, then there is no point in wearing it. You rightly point out any face covering needs to be of a certain standard to be effective.
Could you advise me why the Government is basing important decisions on poor research and ignoring quality research? Alternatively, can you point me to any quality research which finds face coverings are effective.
Significantly, recently the World Health Organisation changed their advice, (WHO), by saying that whilst the virus is primarily spread through contact and respiratory droplets, under some circumstance airborne transmission might occur, the WHO go on to advise the use of fabric masks, (face coverings), to reduce the spread of infection.
I think you will find the WHO changed its advice for political rather than scientific reasons. I would be grateful if you could refer me to the specific scientific research on which the WHO based its advice and inform me where it is published.
This increasing evidence, but also the new evidence that sales and retail staff were being more severely affected by the virus than the general population, supported the decision that from 24 July it became mandatory to wear a face covering when visiting a shop or supermarket. Previously this requirement was advisory. There are of course some exceptions, for example the rules do not apply to children under 11.
The full guidance on the wearing of face coverings can be found here.
Thank you for the link regarding full guidance on the wearing of face coverings. Again I would respectfully request you specify the ‘increasing evidence’ you refer to in the above paragraph.
There will be a wide spread public health communications campaign within which it will be made clear that social distancing, good hygiene and isolating when infected or having symptoms, also remain important mitigating actions.
Thank you, I look forward to hearing about it. Can you confirm that all advice regarding ‘mitigating actions’ will be fully backed up by quality scientific research. I would ask that the Government actually publish and make known the findings on which all advice is based.
Your point that this decision will reduce the number of people going out is not a view that is shared by those advising the Government. Perhaps more importantly people need to go shopping and for those who are most at risk it is quite right that steps are taken to protect them, and also to reassure them that they can be safe when they go out.
Of course, people need to go shopping and the vulnerable need to be protected. However, I and many others in your Constituency are not reassured by the contradictory and confusing advice given by the Government. Furthermore, if you speak to your Constituents you will find that many people do not want to go out because they are scared and face coverings are making it worse.
xxx recognises that this decision is not one you welcome, but she is confident that there is now enough evidence to suggest that the wearing of face coverings in certain situations will help stop those with the virus from giving it to others, and for that reason she supports this decision. The Government has noted that it will keep all guidelines under constant review to ensure that any restrictions in place are worthwhile measures – where that is shown not to be the case the measure will be considered and potentially changed.
It is not about whether I welcome the decision or not – it is purely about the evidence the decision is based on – and indeed whether, as you say, the mandatory measures are ‘worthwhile’. I would respectfully ask you once again to advise me of the specific scientific evidence xxx refers to. It is not enough to point me to one poor quality study, I and my family, friends and neighbours in your Constituency would like to know exactly why we are being required to wear face coverings.
I look forward to hearing from you with the information I have asked for etc etc
@LivvyB
Thank you for this. What's the Packett et al reference please? Duckduck go'd it and couldn't find anything. If you've time, obviously. You're making a lot of effort with this & much appreciated.