not a sensible use, i am saying to the government, review that, in light of what i go on to say. just to finish off this point, if we could briefly look at the end of this letter, on the next page, the paragraph starting, i recognise, you are there explicitly recognising that there is an issue about preserving specialist equipment for those in the nhs and other services who need it, you are expressly not talking about competing with them for these face coverings. spot on. exactly. back to the first page, most of this letter is taken up with you referring to other countries where the practice is different, countries where, in one way or another, face coverings among the general population might have been encouraged in some different settings than others. that is right. our own research had shown, others may macro from cities we were speaking to, they were using face coverings, if you have got the virus and are asymptomatic it prevents the drop it spreading to someone who may c
asking of him, you will take a different course? what were you proposing they are exactly? in crisis it is important there is one message being given to citizens, otherwise that can lead to confusion. my frustration at the lack of clarity from the government s messaging, don t use public transport, but go to work, and so forth, was leading to confusion. the point i was trying to get across was, if it was the case, i knew this from a conversation i had had on thursday, if it is the case you yourself for a variety of reasons don t want to have a stricter message, i will say to londoners, you know, do certain things to save your lives. as we have explored, it would not have been open to you to order a mandatory lockdown itself. what you are describing is, departing from the government s messaging, you would be seeing something different to the governments, you would be encouraging londoners to do more by way of staying at home and so on, than the national gamut was telling them.