The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.
I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.
Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal responsibility.
Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.
The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.
I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.
What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.
Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
How crassly moronic.
"Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."
Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
I think that question is a bit unfair, a touch of emotional shaming going on, but will give my answer as its an anonymous forum. I probably wouldn't share this view in public but think if there were an extra five thousand a week dying we should have more legal restrictions. At an extra two thousand a week no legal restrictions. So somewhere between those numbers for me.
How about you?
Certainly not 'as many as it takes', which PT said.
The problem with deaths is that it is a lagging factor. Before vaccines, cases went up, then hospitalisations, and then deaths. Now that the link between cases and hospitalisations has been weakened, the first sign we have of trouble is rising hospitalisations.
And I'll therefore swerve your question by saying it's the wrong one, if we're talking about restrictions. The first sign we'll get of big problems is from hospitalisations, and that's what we'd need to react to. So perhaps the 1,200-1,500 daily admissions that we had back in early November would be when we'd have to slam the handbrake on - particularly if they are increasing rapidly.
You asked the question of someone else so a bit of a cop out to now say it is the wrong question. I don't think using wrong questions for emotional shaming will help us get to the right answer.
I'm not 'emotional shaming'. PT's view is that, now we have vaccines, any number of people ("as many as it takes") should die in order to protect his freedom. He said: "People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end."
Which whilst true, could be used to excuse anything causing a life to end. Which is why I asked how many is acceptable. He gave his answer.
Why do you keep saying my freedom? I believe everyone should have freedom!
Do you want it to be illegal for a grandparent to hug their grandchild without both grandparent and grandchild wearing a mask when it happens? Do you want it to be illegal to sit in the same room as your parents without you and your parents wearing a mask?
People get sick and die, its sad but its true. Restrictions got us to the point of us having vaccines and rolling them out. Post-vaccines, what's the endgame if not now?
Your view is that everyone should have freedom.
Yes, except for the tens or hundreds of thousands who will die. Unless you call death the ultimate freedom?
You could make the same argument every winter re flu. Yet no-one does.
But this winter isn't 'normal crisis winter' for the NHS, it's (potentially) 'crisis crisis winter'. Reason being instead of flu we have flu + covid + backlog.
More excess deaths from non covid rather than covid at the moment. No one on either "side" of the debate seems very interested in those at the moment. Who are they? Perhaps tightening restrictions might be worse for those rather than better?
But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.
I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.
Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?
Yes and in my case for quite sometime
However, do not hesitate to go back to your dentist.
I hesitated and was told I should have contacted her earlier which would have saved me a lot of pain
I hate to say it Cyclefree but apparently a week to two weeks can be normal for a wisdom tooth.
Coincidentally I had one of mine removed last week and its been agony for most of a week. My face swelled up so much on that side of my mouth that my jaw locked and I've taken the past week off work because it was painful to even talk. Feeling a lot better today though, hopefully you feel better soon.
Ibuprofen and parcetamol alternated every 2 hours upto the permitted limit is what I was advised and have been taking. I didn't realise you could take both to their allowed maximum, I always thought it was either/or. Irritating that the shops do a cap of only 2 of either of them as if you're taking both then 1 box of each doesn't go very far.
The dentist will prescribe sufficient paracetamol and ibuprofen in these cases and I had a very similar experience
Possibly in Wales where prescriptions are free but not in England.
I would expect the dentist to prescribe the medication though it would be upto the patient to pay if that was required
But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.
I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.
Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?
Yes and in my case for quite sometime
However, do not hesitate to go back to your dentist.
I hesitated and was told I should have contacted her earlier which would have saved me a lot of pain
I hate to say it Cyclefree but apparently a week to two weeks can be normal for a wisdom tooth.
Coincidentally I had one of mine removed last week and its been agony for most of a week. My face swelled up so much on that side of my mouth that my jaw locked and I've taken the past week off work because it was painful to even talk. Feeling a lot better today though, hopefully you feel better soon.
Ibuprofen and parcetamol alternated every 2 hours upto the permitted limit is what I was advised and have been taking. I didn't realise you could take both to their allowed maximum, I always thought it was either/or. Irritating that the shops do a cap of only 2 of either of them as if you're taking both then 1 box of each doesn't go very far.
It's many years (perhaps obviously) since I had wisdom teeth removed (in hospital), but when I did the site of one swelled up very badly. I went back to my dentist who took one look, had a quick prod and left the room. I heard the sound of a phone call, a quick explanation of who he was, and who I was, and then 'you'll see this man this afternoon." An obvious expostulation and then. "No, I'm telling you. You'll see him this afternoon!". He came back into the room asked if In felt OK driving and told me to go to the dental department at the hospital NOW. When I got there a rather embarrassed junior dental officer removed several fragments of tooth which had been left in situ! And had, of course provoked an infection.
Thanks goodness for antibiotics.
It is quite shocking how many people died from tooth abscesses in medieval times. Ask any archaeologist...
The media are on the warpath this morning interviewing everyone they can find who condemns HMG for not commencing plan B from the BMA to iSage and this reminds me so much of the media's behaviour over the fuel shortages
It is almost as if they were not at the press conference yesterday, and that they have blanked the charts presented there from their minds as they simply did not justify this hysteria from them
I would be the first to demand more action if those charts indicated it was necessary but ultimately the unvaccinated are the most at risk and short of compulsory vaccinations I am afraid we have to accept that many of this cohort will get covid and some, maybe many, will pass away but that is not a justifiable reason to curtail the daily lives of the rest of us
I would just say that both my wife and I are clinically vulnerable to covid and notwithstanding that by tomorrow we will both have received our boosters we have for a long time taken personal responsibility and do not expose ourselves to unnecessary risk
We don't need to "curtail daily lives". Wear a mask in crowded spaces. Social distancing. Sanitise. Keep the pubs and cinemas open, but ask people to Think.
Social distancing.
Keep the pubs and cinemas open.
You're a moron.
Bollocks. There will be some environments where social distancing isn't possible. But when it is we should practice it. Every avoided possible transmission point is worthwhile. We can't get all but we can get some. Some is better than none.
The whole point of social distancing is to reduce capacity at indoor socialising venues. If we aren't going to do that then we're not social distancing. 2m distancing reduces capacity by 60%, 1m distancing by 30%. Most places are unprofitable in both scenarios hence the mega government subsidies to keep the lights on.
You're just repeating soundbites because they make you feel superior and virtuous. Social distancing is a crippling economic and social device that has destroyed the economy for a year and a half. Bringing it back is a terrible idea.
Again, bollocks.
That enough of a "superior and virtuous" soundbite for you?
You know what cripples and destroys the economy? A pandemic. Not the responses to tackle and shorten the pandemic.
We really need to drop this "you're a moron" shit. I'm trying. Why don't you do the same?
You accuse others of not thinking yet propose completely stupid ideas like social distancing without thinking through the consequences. It is nothing more than showing us how virtuous you are and the love of being able to accuse others of not being virtuous. The consequences of social distancing are dire for businesses. You say that the pandemic is bad for business but the reality is that it's people like you who want to keep hold of the NPIs that are bad for business. Creating uncertainty where we don't need to. The vast, vast majority of people dying of this are the very old or vaccine refusers, the Italian study from yesterday made it very clear that we are now already at the endemic stage of this process.
Putting social distancing in place because fools refused to get vaccinated is punishing businesses for other people's idiotic decisions. I think maybe we should just get on with life and let nature take its course with those who refuse to be vaccinated. If that means 30-40k people dying per year that wouldn't otherwise have done so then that's the way it will have to be. They made their choice.
I have no interest in being "virtuous" however you define it (sounds a bit like being called "woke").
This one is brutally simple. The NHS is still on its knees after Covid, and its senior managers can see the tsunami coming in. So we either start acting now or we face the consequences of a health system unable to cope through the winter.
Perhaps these NHS managers are also being "virtuous". I hope they are - someone has to give a fuck.
Ultimately the NHS will be faced with a choice of trying and failing to treat everyone or deciding that the unvaccinated by choice made a poor life choice and will have to live with that. Yesterday's press conference has already laid the groundwork for the decision to come that will deprioritise treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients.
That's the tough decision that needs to be made, and I admit that it's a very tough decision to make. You seem to think that reintroduction of social distancing is a cost and consequence free move. It isn't. It will destroy thousands of businesses, put millions out of work again and cost the taxpayer tens of billions in subsidies once more.
The answer is vaccination, the government has delivered vaccinations and now it's up to those people who refused to get them to live with the consequences of that poor choice. The rest of society can't pay the price. You want to shift the burden of their stupid decision onto the rest of us, why not have them live and die by their own life choices?
Interesting how the Pfizer advantage over AZ declines sharply so by 150 days after 2nd dose they're pretty similar, also children, by a wide margin more likely to test positive. In addition, people who can't "wfh" in manufacturing and education also more likely:
The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.
I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.
Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal responsibility.
Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.
The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.
I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.
What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.
Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
How crassly moronic.
"Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."
Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
I think that question is a bit unfair, a touch of emotional shaming going on, but will give my answer as its an anonymous forum. I probably wouldn't share this view in public but think if there were an extra five thousand a week dying we should have more legal restrictions. At an extra two thousand a week no legal restrictions. So somewhere between those numbers for me.
How about you?
Certainly not 'as many as it takes', which PT said.
The problem with deaths is that it is a lagging factor. Before vaccines, cases went up, then hospitalisations, and then deaths. Now that the link between cases and hospitalisations has been weakened, the first sign we have of trouble is rising hospitalisations.
And I'll therefore swerve your question by saying it's the wrong one, if we're talking about restrictions. The first sign we'll get of big problems is from hospitalisations, and that's what we'd need to react to. So perhaps the 1,200-1,500 daily admissions that we had back in early November would be when we'd have to slam the handbrake on - particularly if they are increasing rapidly.
You asked the question of someone else so a bit of a cop out to now say it is the wrong question. I don't think using wrong questions for emotional shaming will help us get to the right answer.
I'm not 'emotional shaming'. PT's view is that, now we have vaccines, any number of people ("as many as it takes") should die in order to protect his freedom. He said: "People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end."
Which whilst true, could be used to excuse anything causing a life to end. Which is why I asked how many is acceptable. He gave his answer.
Why do you keep saying my freedom? I believe everyone should have freedom!
Do you want it to be illegal for a grandparent to hug their grandchild without both grandparent and grandchild wearing a mask when it happens? Do you want it to be illegal to sit in the same room as your parents without you and your parents wearing a mask?
People get sick and die, its sad but its true. Restrictions got us to the point of us having vaccines and rolling them out. Post-vaccines, what's the endgame if not now?
Your view is that everyone should have freedom.
Yes, except for the tens or hundreds of thousands who will die. Unless you call death the ultimate freedom?
No death should be the end of a life well lived.
It isn't death that is important, its how you live your life that matters.
I note you're pointedly ignoring the question as to whether you should wear a mask while in the same room as your parents. Hypocrite.
Isn't part of a life well lived playing your small part in helping the community fight Covid-19?
What you seem to be saying is, "Ok, had the jab, and that's it. I'm done. It's outrageous to ask me to do anything else. Regardless of the situation in the NHS, no restrictions are acceptable to me."
This is a tad unreasonable imo.
Why is it unreasonable?
The way we can do our part in helping the community "fight Covid-19" and cancer and diabetes and heart disease and strokes and everything else is by going out and living our lives in full, supporting businesses, creating jobs, aiding the community and generating the taxes that pay for the NHS.
Sure, but that fine sentiment doesn't map to "zero covid restrictions even if the NHS collapses because of covid".
But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.
I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.
Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?
Yes and in my case for quite sometime
However, do not hesitate to go back to your dentist.
I hesitated and was told I should have contacted her earlier which would have saved me a lot of pain
I hate to say it Cyclefree but apparently a week to two weeks can be normal for a wisdom tooth.
Coincidentally I had one of mine removed last week and its been agony for most of a week. My face swelled up so much on that side of my mouth that my jaw locked and I've taken the past week off work because it was painful to even talk. Feeling a lot better today though, hopefully you feel better soon.
Ibuprofen and parcetamol alternated every 2 hours upto the permitted limit is what I was advised and have been taking. I didn't realise you could take both to their allowed maximum, I always thought it was either/or. Irritating that the shops do a cap of only 2 of either of them as if you're taking both then 1 box of each doesn't go very far.
The dentist will prescribe sufficient paracetamol and ibuprofen in these cases and I had a very similar experience
I wasn't offered a prescription, I've just been going to Tesco's every other day to pick up another box of each. That's probably far cheaper than paying for a prescription fee anyway.
Sometimes I've picked up 2 boxes of each and have split my shopping into 2 paying both times separately. The computer then doesn't pick up on the fact that I've bought four boxes and the cashier just doesn't pay attention generally if the computer doesn't say no.
Neither was I but the dentist can prescribe but I accept the point it is cheaper to buy on demand in England
The media are on the warpath this morning interviewing everyone they can find who condemns HMG for not commencing plan B from the BMA to iSage and this reminds me so much of the media's behaviour over the fuel shortages
It is almost as if they were not at the press conference yesterday, and that they have blanked the charts presented there from their minds as they simply did not justify this hysteria from them
I would be the first to demand more action if those charts indicated it was necessary but ultimately the unvaccinated are the most at risk and short of compulsory vaccinations I am afraid we have to accept that many of this cohort will get covid and some, maybe many, will pass away but that is not a justifiable reason to curtail the daily lives of the rest of us
I would just say that both my wife and I are clinically vulnerable to covid and notwithstanding that by tomorrow we will both have received our boosters we have for a long time taken personal responsibility and do not expose ourselves to unnecessary risk
We don't need to "curtail daily lives". Wear a mask in crowded spaces. Social distancing. Sanitise. Keep the pubs and cinemas open, but ask people to Think.
Social distancing.
Keep the pubs and cinemas open.
You're a moron.
Bollocks. There will be some environments where social distancing isn't possible. But when it is we should practice it. Every avoided possible transmission point is worthwhile. We can't get all but we can get some. Some is better than none.
The whole point of social distancing is to reduce capacity at indoor socialising venues. If we aren't going to do that then we're not social distancing. 2m distancing reduces capacity by 60%, 1m distancing by 30%. Most places are unprofitable in both scenarios hence the mega government subsidies to keep the lights on.
You're just repeating soundbites because they make you feel superior and virtuous. Social distancing is a crippling economic and social device that has destroyed the economy for a year and a half. Bringing it back is a terrible idea.
Again, bollocks.
That enough of a "superior and virtuous" soundbite for you?
You know what cripples and destroys the economy? A pandemic. Not the responses to tackle and shorten the pandemic.
We really need to drop this "you're a moron" shit. I'm trying. Why don't you do the same?
You accuse others of not thinking yet propose completely stupid ideas like social distancing without thinking through the consequences. It is nothing more than showing us how virtuous you are and the love of being able to accuse others of not being virtuous. The consequences of social distancing are dire for businesses. You say that the pandemic is bad for business but the reality is that it's people like you who want to keep hold of the NPIs that are bad for business. Creating uncertainty where we don't need to. The vast, vast majority of people dying of this are the very old or vaccine refusers, the Italian study from yesterday made it very clear that we are now already at the endemic stage of this process.
Putting social distancing in place because fools refused to get vaccinated is punishing businesses for other people's idiotic decisions. I think maybe we should just get on with life and let nature take its course with those who refuse to be vaccinated. If that means 30-40k people dying per year that wouldn't otherwise have done so then that's the way it will have to be. They made their choice.
I have no interest in being "virtuous" however you define it (sounds a bit like being called "woke").
This one is brutally simple. The NHS is still on its knees after Covid, and its senior managers can see the tsunami coming in. So we either start acting now or we face the consequences of a health system unable to cope through the winter.
Perhaps these NHS managers are also being "virtuous". I hope they are - someone has to give a fuck.
Ultimately the NHS will be faced with a choice of trying and failing to treat everyone or deciding that the unvaccinated by choice made a poor life choice and will have to live with that. Yesterday's press conference has already laid the groundwork for the decision to come that will deprioritise treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients.
That's the tough decision that needs to be made, and I admit that it's a very tough decision to make. You seem to think that reintroduction of social distancing is a cost and consequence free move. It isn't. It will destroy thousands of businesses, put millions out of work again and cost the taxpayer tens of billions in subsidies once more.
The answer is vaccination, the government has delivered vaccinations and now it's up to those people who refused to get them to live with the consequences of that poor choice. The rest of society can't pay the price. You want to shift the burden of their stupid decision onto the rest of us, why not have them live and die by their own life choices?
Interesting interpretation. But could another interpretation be that it was, rather, be groundwork for a decision to make vaccination compulsory? (I didn't follow the presser so can'tjudge.)
The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.
I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.
Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal responsibility.
Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.
The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.
I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.
What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.
Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
How crassly moronic.
"Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."
Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
I think that question is a bit unfair, a touch of emotional shaming going on, but will give my answer as its an anonymous forum. I probably wouldn't share this view in public but think if there were an extra five thousand a week dying we should have more legal restrictions. At an extra two thousand a week no legal restrictions. So somewhere between those numbers for me.
How about you?
Certainly not 'as many as it takes', which PT said.
The problem with deaths is that it is a lagging factor. Before vaccines, cases went up, then hospitalisations, and then deaths. Now that the link between cases and hospitalisations has been weakened, the first sign we have of trouble is rising hospitalisations.
And I'll therefore swerve your question by saying it's the wrong one, if we're talking about restrictions. The first sign we'll get of big problems is from hospitalisations, and that's what we'd need to react to. So perhaps the 1,200-1,500 daily admissions that we had back in early November would be when we'd have to slam the handbrake on - particularly if they are increasing rapidly.
You asked the question of someone else so a bit of a cop out to now say it is the wrong question. I don't think using wrong questions for emotional shaming will help us get to the right answer.
I'm not 'emotional shaming'. PT's view is that, now we have vaccines, any number of people ("as many as it takes") should die in order to protect his freedom. He said: "People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end."
Which whilst true, could be used to excuse anything causing a life to end. Which is why I asked how many is acceptable. He gave his answer.
Why do you keep saying my freedom? I believe everyone should have freedom!
Do you want it to be illegal for a grandparent to hug their grandchild without both grandparent and grandchild wearing a mask when it happens? Do you want it to be illegal to sit in the same room as your parents without you and your parents wearing a mask?
People get sick and die, its sad but its true. Restrictions got us to the point of us having vaccines and rolling them out. Post-vaccines, what's the endgame if not now?
Your view is that everyone should have freedom.
Yes, except for the tens or hundreds of thousands who will die. Unless you call death the ultimate freedom?
You could make the same argument every winter re flu. Yet no-one does.
But this winter isn't 'normal crisis winter' for the NHS, it's (potentially) 'crisis crisis winter'. Reason being instead of flu we have flu + covid + backlog.
"This time its different" said every time ever. 😕
The NHS just needs to do its best. If we need to deprioritise treatment for the unvaccinated, then that should come before restrictions for anyone else.
There was an Irish TD on RTÉ radio this morning bemoaning the vilification of those who refuse the vaccine.
It strikes me that we have here a whole thread dominated by an argument from those who would vilify those who don't want to wear masks, when masks will make much less difference than more vaccinations.
If you're going to vilify anyone choose the vaccine refuseniks. Moaning about masks is displacement activity.
The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.
I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.
Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal responsibility.
Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.
The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.
I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.
What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.
Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
How crassly moronic.
"Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."
Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
But surely there has to be a balance. People die in traffic accidents, or of smoking related conditions or drinking related conditions or of any other number of preventable conditions. We do not ban those activities. We certainly mitigate but not to the degree being proposed by some with COVID. We simply cannot keep locking down or applying large scale restrictions. The vaccines have to be the route out of this. This is not about Philips freedom it is about a fully functioning society and we need a fully functioning economy to pay for this.
Of course there has to be a balance.
I am not in favour of a return to harder restrictions at the moment. It seems a fine-edged thing, though, and the last 18 months have shown us that if you're not careful, when restrictions are required, they're required suddenly.
Hopefully enough kids are getting Covid that we'll be at herd immunity soon, and then figures will plummet. However, herd immunity's been called out many times before during this crisis, and we're not there yet. This s***** little B****er of a virus is a survivor, and may yet surprise us. Again.
And that's where PT is being complacent. He is unwilling to see people do even the smallest measures to protect themselves and others, because for some reason it is offensive to him. He callously disregards unnecessary deaths - possibly because it's not his own death. His argument could be used if we have 100 extra deaths a day, or a thousand. Or ten thousand.
The question you have to ask JJ is how does it get any better than this? If you are double - or triple jabbed - then you are never going to be safer than you are now. Are you proposing that the restrictions, mild as they may seem to you, should become a permanent way of life in Britain? Are we going to see the threat of lockdowns every single winter because the NHS is so unfit for purpose even before Covid?
Basically this is the new normal everyone was talking about. It is possible there is some miracle cure around the corner but to be honest I think we already have that as effectively as we are ever going to get it. So if you think PT is being unreasonable in his rather forthright comments then you have to say what you are proposing as the permanent alternatives.
How does it get any better than this? We don't know for sure. Improved Gen 2 vaccines, natural evolution leading to a weakening of the virus; herd immunity; better therapeutics. Perhaps all of the above; perhaps none. What we need is time. If they don't appear, reevaluate. But we're still in the early days.
One thing we do know: it could get a heck of a lot worse than this.
We've twice dithered about putting on restrictions (IMO understandably in March 20; less so in December), leading to us having to go for very heavy restrictions where smaller interventions earlier might have helped. We might be at that stage now.
My parents are still alive, as are my in-laws. Fortunately, all four are very active (my parents have had their boosters in the last week - yay!). If at all possible, I'd like my son to have another few years with them. If that means having to wear masks and sitting in a ventilated room: fair enough.
PT's comments are wrong-headed and nasty.
So your answer is to keep restrictions in the hope that at some point in the future we might, possibly,. develop something more effective against the virus and in the meantime you are willing to blight the lives of millions of people and destroy tens of thousands of businesses.
Will you do the same for the next bout of winter flu? That might only kill ten or twenty thousand. Is that enough to bring in more restrictions again?
I agreed entirely with the restrictions when we were waiting for vaccine. But we have that now. And I repeat; This is as good as it gets. Logically whatever restrictions you impose at the moment are what you should impose for ever more with all the concomitant consequences.
We're just talking about "plan B" for a while, aren't we? I don't have a strong opinion either way but this would hardly "blight the lives of millions of people and destroy tens of thousands of businesses".
Social distancing and restrictions in entertainment venues would certainly drive many to the wall. They are already on their knees after the previous rounds of lockdowns and restrictions and many of those who just managed to survive will not be able to cope with yet another round. In 2020 almost 10,000 licenced premises shut down permanently in the UK due to the restrictions. Many more only just survived. So yes I think my claim stands up well.
Ok. But I don't think that's on the table. The measures being (or rather atm not being) considered are more WFH, more masks, vaxports. That's my understanding of plan B. And one of those - vaxports - is a not happening event for this country so it's just WFH and masks. I'm not getting all the angst about it. All sounds like hyperventilating to me.
WFH is decided by businesses. Many are doing so, others are not. It has never been mandated during the pandemic, are we going to start now?
Masks, many wear them, others do not. That is true where it is mandated, such as TFL, or supermarkets, where it is voluntary.
The government is not going to make a huge difference on either wfh or masks.
The media are on the warpath this morning interviewing everyone they can find who condemns HMG for not commencing plan B from the BMA to iSage and this reminds me so much of the media's behaviour over the fuel shortages
It is almost as if they were not at the press conference yesterday, and that they have blanked the charts presented there from their minds as they simply did not justify this hysteria from them
I would be the first to demand more action if those charts indicated it was necessary but ultimately the unvaccinated are the most at risk and short of compulsory vaccinations I am afraid we have to accept that many of this cohort will get covid and some, maybe many, will pass away but that is not a justifiable reason to curtail the daily lives of the rest of us
I would just say that both my wife and I are clinically vulnerable to covid and notwithstanding that by tomorrow we will both have received our boosters we have for a long time taken personal responsibility and do not expose ourselves to unnecessary risk
We don't need to "curtail daily lives". Wear a mask in crowded spaces. Social distancing. Sanitise. Keep the pubs and cinemas open, but ask people to Think.
Social distancing.
Keep the pubs and cinemas open.
You're a moron.
Bollocks. There will be some environments where social distancing isn't possible. But when it is we should practice it. Every avoided possible transmission point is worthwhile. We can't get all but we can get some. Some is better than none.
The whole point of social distancing is to reduce capacity at indoor socialising venues. If we aren't going to do that then we're not social distancing. 2m distancing reduces capacity by 60%, 1m distancing by 30%. Most places are unprofitable in both scenarios hence the mega government subsidies to keep the lights on.
You're just repeating soundbites because they make you feel superior and virtuous. Social distancing is a crippling economic and social device that has destroyed the economy for a year and a half. Bringing it back is a terrible idea.
Again, bollocks.
That enough of a "superior and virtuous" soundbite for you?
You know what cripples and destroys the economy? A pandemic. Not the responses to tackle and shorten the pandemic.
We really need to drop this "you're a moron" shit. I'm trying. Why don't you do the same?
You accuse others of not thinking yet propose completely stupid ideas like social distancing without thinking through the consequences. It is nothing more than showing us how virtuous you are and the love of being able to accuse others of not being virtuous. The consequences of social distancing are dire for businesses. You say that the pandemic is bad for business but the reality is that it's people like you who want to keep hold of the NPIs that are bad for business. Creating uncertainty where we don't need to. The vast, vast majority of people dying of this are the very old or vaccine refusers, the Italian study from yesterday made it very clear that we are now already at the endemic stage of this process.
Putting social distancing in place because fools refused to get vaccinated is punishing businesses for other people's idiotic decisions. I think maybe we should just get on with life and let nature take its course with those who refuse to be vaccinated. If that means 30-40k people dying per year that wouldn't otherwise have done so then that's the way it will have to be. They made their choice.
I have no interest in being "virtuous" however you define it (sounds a bit like being called "woke").
This one is brutally simple. The NHS is still on its knees after Covid, and its senior managers can see the tsunami coming in. So we either start acting now or we face the consequences of a health system unable to cope through the winter.
Perhaps these NHS managers are also being "virtuous". I hope they are - someone has to give a fuck.
Ultimately the NHS will be faced with a choice of trying and failing to treat everyone or deciding that the unvaccinated by choice made a poor life choice and will have to live with that. Yesterday's press conference has already laid the groundwork for the decision to come that will deprioritise treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients.
That's the tough decision that needs to be made, and I admit that it's a very tough decision to make. You seem to think that reintroduction of social distancing is a cost and consequence free move. It isn't. It will destroy thousands of businesses, put millions out of work again and cost the taxpayer tens of billions in subsidies once more.
The answer is vaccination, the government has delivered vaccinations and now it's up to those people who refused to get them to live with the consequences of that poor choice. The rest of society can't pay the price. You want to shift the burden of their stupid decision onto the rest of us, why not have them live and die by their own life choices?
1. As I have said repeatedly that I am not advocating mandatory social distancing why are you foaming on about destroying businesses? Try reading what is written. 2. It is not the unvaccinated I am worrying about. Its everyone with every medical need that isn't Covid being unable to access critical care when they need it. Its (as an example) my daughter getting run over, the ambulance coming late and the hospital being swamped. Ordinarily she would live, with an NHS collapsed by Covid through inaction she would die. This is what health professionals are crapping themselves about, not your moral judgement on the unvaxxed. 3. See point 2. The rest of society will pay a price if the NHS collapses. And the senior managers have a very real fear that this could happen unless we act.
Do you write Daily Express editorials for a living? Its like talking to a wall.
The media are on the warpath this morning interviewing everyone they can find who condemns HMG for not commencing plan B from the BMA to iSage and this reminds me so much of the media's behaviour over the fuel shortages
It is almost as if they were not at the press conference yesterday, and that they have blanked the charts presented there from their minds as they simply did not justify this hysteria from them
I would be the first to demand more action if those charts indicated it was necessary but ultimately the unvaccinated are the most at risk and short of compulsory vaccinations I am afraid we have to accept that many of this cohort will get covid and some, maybe many, will pass away but that is not a justifiable reason to curtail the daily lives of the rest of us
I would just say that both my wife and I are clinically vulnerable to covid and notwithstanding that by tomorrow we will both have received our boosters we have for a long time taken personal responsibility and do not expose ourselves to unnecessary risk
We don't need to "curtail daily lives". Wear a mask in crowded spaces. Social distancing. Sanitise. Keep the pubs and cinemas open, but ask people to Think.
Social distancing.
Keep the pubs and cinemas open.
You're a moron.
Bollocks. There will be some environments where social distancing isn't possible. But when it is we should practice it. Every avoided possible transmission point is worthwhile. We can't get all but we can get some. Some is better than none.
The whole point of social distancing is to reduce capacity at indoor socialising venues. If we aren't going to do that then we're not social distancing. 2m distancing reduces capacity by 60%, 1m distancing by 30%. Most places are unprofitable in both scenarios hence the mega government subsidies to keep the lights on.
You're just repeating soundbites because they make you feel superior and virtuous. Social distancing is a crippling economic and social device that has destroyed the economy for a year and a half. Bringing it back is a terrible idea.
Again, bollocks.
That enough of a "superior and virtuous" soundbite for you?
You know what cripples and destroys the economy? A pandemic. Not the responses to tackle and shorten the pandemic.
We really need to drop this "you're a moron" shit. I'm trying. Why don't you do the same?
You accuse others of not thinking yet propose completely stupid ideas like social distancing without thinking through the consequences. It is nothing more than showing us how virtuous you are and the love of being able to accuse others of not being virtuous. The consequences of social distancing are dire for businesses. You say that the pandemic is bad for business but the reality is that it's people like you who want to keep hold of the NPIs that are bad for business. Creating uncertainty where we don't need to. The vast, vast majority of people dying of this are the very old or vaccine refusers, the Italian study from yesterday made it very clear that we are now already at the endemic stage of this process.
Putting social distancing in place because fools refused to get vaccinated is punishing businesses for other people's idiotic decisions. I think maybe we should just get on with life and let nature take its course with those who refuse to be vaccinated. If that means 30-40k people dying per year that wouldn't otherwise have done so then that's the way it will have to be. They made their choice.
I have no interest in being "virtuous" however you define it (sounds a bit like being called "woke").
This one is brutally simple. The NHS is still on its knees after Covid, and its senior managers can see the tsunami coming in. So we either start acting now or we face the consequences of a health system unable to cope through the winter.
Perhaps these NHS managers are also being "virtuous". I hope they are - someone has to give a fuck.
Ultimately the NHS will be faced with a choice of trying and failing to treat everyone or deciding that the unvaccinated by choice made a poor life choice and will have to live with that. Yesterday's press conference has already laid the groundwork for the decision to come that will deprioritise treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients.
That's the tough decision that needs to be made, and I admit that it's a very tough decision to make. You seem to think that reintroduction of social distancing is a cost and consequence free move. It isn't. It will destroy thousands of businesses, put millions out of work again and cost the taxpayer tens of billions in subsidies once more.
The answer is vaccination, the government has delivered vaccinations and now it's up to those people who refused to get them to live with the consequences of that poor choice. The rest of society can't pay the price. You want to shift the burden of their stupid decision onto the rest of us, why not have them live and die by their own life choices?
I agree with virtually everything you say there, except I don't think its a hard chose to stop treating people who are unvaccinated by chose, I think that's a very easy and sensible thing to do, the government should say now, that from the end of November anybody who is unvaccinated by chose, is not welcome in any NHS vacillate, hospital or GP surgery for anything. (I say end of November so that they have a chance to get vaccinated).
But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.
I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.
Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?
I recall going round Audley End, near Saffron Walden, some years ago and being told that in Victorian times the gardeners would build South facing walls out of (relatively) heat-retaining bricks and plant such trees up against them, while shielding them from North and East winds. As a result they were able to supply the 'squires' table with, IIRC, lemons and sometimes oranges. They were also able to keep some fruits on the table 10 months of the year.
Romans had a warmer climate, though. Vineyards in Yorkshire etc
The climate wasn't warmer in Roman times. It was that the difficulties in transport meant that lower quality locally produced wine could be economic.
Where's the twist? On first reading it doesn't look like fantastic news for the UK or Johnson's government.
Has someone hacked Carlotta's username?
Just looked at the date. All is clear now. Carlotta hasn't lost her place as PB's Joe Goebells
What a disgusting think to say
You really are unique. If you didn't exist someone would have to invent you!
You think it is OK to compare a poster to Joe Goebell
It is just nasty and wrong
These are your words
'Just looked at the date. All is clear now. Carlotta hasn't lost her place as PB's Joe Goebell'
I could have said 'PB's Dominic Cummings' who was also a highly regarded political propagandist but in the light of recent events that might have been confusing.
The media are on the warpath this morning interviewing everyone they can find who condemns HMG for not commencing plan B from the BMA to iSage and this reminds me so much of the media's behaviour over the fuel shortages
It is almost as if they were not at the press conference yesterday, and that they have blanked the charts presented there from their minds as they simply did not justify this hysteria from them
I would be the first to demand more action if those charts indicated it was necessary but ultimately the unvaccinated are the most at risk and short of compulsory vaccinations I am afraid we have to accept that many of this cohort will get covid and some, maybe many, will pass away but that is not a justifiable reason to curtail the daily lives of the rest of us
I would just say that both my wife and I are clinically vulnerable to covid and notwithstanding that by tomorrow we will both have received our boosters we have for a long time taken personal responsibility and do not expose ourselves to unnecessary risk
We don't need to "curtail daily lives". Wear a mask in crowded spaces. Social distancing. Sanitise. Keep the pubs and cinemas open, but ask people to Think.
Social distancing.
Keep the pubs and cinemas open.
You're a moron.
Bollocks. There will be some environments where social distancing isn't possible. But when it is we should practice it. Every avoided possible transmission point is worthwhile. We can't get all but we can get some. Some is better than none.
The whole point of social distancing is to reduce capacity at indoor socialising venues. If we aren't going to do that then we're not social distancing. 2m distancing reduces capacity by 60%, 1m distancing by 30%. Most places are unprofitable in both scenarios hence the mega government subsidies to keep the lights on.
You're just repeating soundbites because they make you feel superior and virtuous. Social distancing is a crippling economic and social device that has destroyed the economy for a year and a half. Bringing it back is a terrible idea.
Again, bollocks.
That enough of a "superior and virtuous" soundbite for you?
You know what cripples and destroys the economy? A pandemic. Not the responses to tackle and shorten the pandemic.
We really need to drop this "you're a moron" shit. I'm trying. Why don't you do the same?
You accuse others of not thinking yet propose completely stupid ideas like social distancing without thinking through the consequences. It is nothing more than showing us how virtuous you are and the love of being able to accuse others of not being virtuous. The consequences of social distancing are dire for businesses. You say that the pandemic is bad for business but the reality is that it's people like you who want to keep hold of the NPIs that are bad for business. Creating uncertainty where we don't need to. The vast, vast majority of people dying of this are the very old or vaccine refusers, the Italian study from yesterday made it very clear that we are now already at the endemic stage of this process.
Putting social distancing in place because fools refused to get vaccinated is punishing businesses for other people's idiotic decisions. I think maybe we should just get on with life and let nature take its course with those who refuse to be vaccinated. If that means 30-40k people dying per year that wouldn't otherwise have done so then that's the way it will have to be. They made their choice.
I have no interest in being "virtuous" however you define it (sounds a bit like being called "woke").
This one is brutally simple. The NHS is still on its knees after Covid, and its senior managers can see the tsunami coming in. So we either start acting now or we face the consequences of a health system unable to cope through the winter.
Perhaps these NHS managers are also being "virtuous". I hope they are - someone has to give a fuck.
Ultimately the NHS will be faced with a choice of trying and failing to treat everyone or deciding that the unvaccinated by choice made a poor life choice and will have to live with that. Yesterday's press conference has already laid the groundwork for the decision to come that will deprioritise treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients.
That's the tough decision that needs to be made, and I admit that it's a very tough decision to make. You seem to think that reintroduction of social distancing is a cost and consequence free move. It isn't. It will destroy thousands of businesses, put millions out of work again and cost the taxpayer tens of billions in subsidies once more.
The answer is vaccination, the government has delivered vaccinations and now it's up to those people who refused to get them to live with the consequences of that poor choice. The rest of society can't pay the price. You want to shift the burden of their stupid decision onto the rest of us, why not have them live and die by their own life choices?
I agree with virtually everything you say there, except I don't think its a hard chose to stop treating people who are unvaccinated by chose, I think that's a very easy and sensible thing to do, the government should say now, that from the end of November anybody who is unvaccinated by chose, is not welcome in any NHS vacillate, hospital or GP surgery for anything. (I say end of November so that they have a chance to get vaccinated).
There is no way the government will ever say that. Setting aside the morality, there would be legal challenges.
The media are on the warpath this morning interviewing everyone they can find who condemns HMG for not commencing plan B from the BMA to iSage and this reminds me so much of the media's behaviour over the fuel shortages
It is almost as if they were not at the press conference yesterday, and that they have blanked the charts presented there from their minds as they simply did not justify this hysteria from them
I would be the first to demand more action if those charts indicated it was necessary but ultimately the unvaccinated are the most at risk and short of compulsory vaccinations I am afraid we have to accept that many of this cohort will get covid and some, maybe many, will pass away but that is not a justifiable reason to curtail the daily lives of the rest of us
I would just say that both my wife and I are clinically vulnerable to covid and notwithstanding that by tomorrow we will both have received our boosters we have for a long time taken personal responsibility and do not expose ourselves to unnecessary risk
We don't need to "curtail daily lives". Wear a mask in crowded spaces. Social distancing. Sanitise. Keep the pubs and cinemas open, but ask people to Think.
Social distancing.
Keep the pubs and cinemas open.
You're a moron.
Bollocks. There will be some environments where social distancing isn't possible. But when it is we should practice it. Every avoided possible transmission point is worthwhile. We can't get all but we can get some. Some is better than none.
The whole point of social distancing is to reduce capacity at indoor socialising venues. If we aren't going to do that then we're not social distancing. 2m distancing reduces capacity by 60%, 1m distancing by 30%. Most places are unprofitable in both scenarios hence the mega government subsidies to keep the lights on.
You're just repeating soundbites because they make you feel superior and virtuous. Social distancing is a crippling economic and social device that has destroyed the economy for a year and a half. Bringing it back is a terrible idea.
Again, bollocks.
That enough of a "superior and virtuous" soundbite for you?
You know what cripples and destroys the economy? A pandemic. Not the responses to tackle and shorten the pandemic.
We really need to drop this "you're a moron" shit. I'm trying. Why don't you do the same?
You accuse others of not thinking yet propose completely stupid ideas like social distancing without thinking through the consequences. It is nothing more than showing us how virtuous you are and the love of being able to accuse others of not being virtuous. The consequences of social distancing are dire for businesses. You say that the pandemic is bad for business but the reality is that it's people like you who want to keep hold of the NPIs that are bad for business. Creating uncertainty where we don't need to. The vast, vast majority of people dying of this are the very old or vaccine refusers, the Italian study from yesterday made it very clear that we are now already at the endemic stage of this process.
Putting social distancing in place because fools refused to get vaccinated is punishing businesses for other people's idiotic decisions. I think maybe we should just get on with life and let nature take its course with those who refuse to be vaccinated. If that means 30-40k people dying per year that wouldn't otherwise have done so then that's the way it will have to be. They made their choice.
I have no interest in being "virtuous" however you define it (sounds a bit like being called "woke").
This one is brutally simple. The NHS is still on its knees after Covid, and its senior managers can see the tsunami coming in. So we either start acting now or we face the consequences of a health system unable to cope through the winter.
Perhaps these NHS managers are also being "virtuous". I hope they are - someone has to give a fuck.
Ultimately the NHS will be faced with a choice of trying and failing to treat everyone or deciding that the unvaccinated by choice made a poor life choice and will have to live with that. Yesterday's press conference has already laid the groundwork for the decision to come that will deprioritise treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients.
That's the tough decision that needs to be made, and I admit that it's a very tough decision to make. You seem to think that reintroduction of social distancing is a cost and consequence free move. It isn't. It will destroy thousands of businesses, put millions out of work again and cost the taxpayer tens of billions in subsidies once more.
The answer is vaccination, the government has delivered vaccinations and now it's up to those people who refused to get them to live with the consequences of that poor choice. The rest of society can't pay the price. You want to shift the burden of their stupid decision onto the rest of us, why not have them live and die by their own life choices?
1. As I have said repeatedly that I am not advocating mandatory social distancing why are you foaming on about destroying businesses? Try reading what is written. 2. It is not the unvaccinated I am worrying about. Its everyone with every medical need that isn't Covid being unable to access critical care when they need it. Its (as an example) my daughter getting run over, the ambulance coming late and the hospital being swamped. Ordinarily she would live, with an NHS collapsed by Covid through inaction she would die. This is what health professionals are crapping themselves about, not your moral judgement on the unvaxxed. 3. See point 2. The rest of society will pay a price if the NHS collapses.
Do you write Daily Express editorials for a living? Its like talking to a wall.
What are you advocating if not mandatory social distancing?
Mandatory social distancing is the only thing that makes a difference. Vaccines work and have been rolled out. Masks have been trialled and failed, WFH is already largely happening as much as it can. So if you're claiming that the NHS is going to "collapse" then you must be thinking of serious and draconian restrictions to prevent that collapse?
A little bit of pissing about with mask orders or WFH will not make the slightest bit of difference to an "NHS collapse".
But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.
I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.
Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?
I recall going round Audley End, near Saffron Walden, some years ago and being told that in Victorian times the gardeners would build South facing walls out of (relatively) heat-retaining bricks and plant such trees up against them, while shielding them from North and East winds. As a result they were able to supply the 'squires' table with, IIRC, lemons and sometimes oranges. They were also able to keep some fruits on the table 10 months of the year.
Romans had a warmer climate, though. Vineyards in Yorkshire etc
The climate wasn't warmer in Roman times. It was that the difficulties in transport meant that lower quality locally produced wine could be economic.
LOL. Well that is an 'interesting' claim.
And yes the climate was warmer. That is no commentary on modern climate debates, just a basic fact.
I’m on @LumoTravel’s inaugural train today - and I’ll be racing @SimonCalder from London to Edinburgh. A 4.5 hour train ride versus a 1 hour flight? Simon is confident. But I don’t think it’ll be the walkover those numbers suggest…
But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.
I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.
Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?
Yes and in my case for quite sometime
However, do not hesitate to go back to your dentist.
I hesitated and was told I should have contacted her earlier which would have saved me a lot of pain
I hate to say it Cyclefree but apparently a week to two weeks can be normal for a wisdom tooth.
Coincidentally I had one of mine removed last week and its been agony for most of a week. My face swelled up so much on that side of my mouth that my jaw locked and I've taken the past week off work because it was painful to even talk. Feeling a lot better today though, hopefully you feel better soon.
Ibuprofen and parcetamol alternated every 2 hours upto the permitted limit is what I was advised and have been taking. I didn't realise you could take both to their allowed maximum, I always thought it was either/or. Irritating that the shops do a cap of only 2 of either of them as if you're taking both then 1 box of each doesn't go very far.
The dentist will prescribe sufficient paracetamol and ibuprofen in these cases and I had a very similar experience
I wasn't offered a prescription, I've just been going to Tesco's every other day to pick up another box of each. That's probably far cheaper than paying for a prescription fee anyway.
Sometimes I've picked up 2 boxes of each and have split my shopping into 2 paying both times separately. The computer then doesn't pick up on the fact that I've bought four boxes and the cashier just doesn't pay attention generally if the computer doesn't say no.
Neither was I but the dentist can prescribe but I accept the point it is cheaper to buy on demand in England
My limited experience is that a pharmacist will sell you as much as you need once you explain that your doctor or dentist recommended it.
But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.
I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.
Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?
I recall going round Audley End, near Saffron Walden, some years ago and being told that in Victorian times the gardeners would build South facing walls out of (relatively) heat-retaining bricks and plant such trees up against them, while shielding them from North and East winds. As a result they were able to supply the 'squires' table with, IIRC, lemons and sometimes oranges. They were also able to keep some fruits on the table 10 months of the year.
Romans had a warmer climate, though. Vineyards in Yorkshire etc
The climate wasn't warmer in Roman times. It was that the difficulties in transport meant that lower quality locally produced wine could be economic.
The media are on the warpath this morning interviewing everyone they can find who condemns HMG for not commencing plan B from the BMA to iSage and this reminds me so much of the media's behaviour over the fuel shortages
It is almost as if they were not at the press conference yesterday, and that they have blanked the charts presented there from their minds as they simply did not justify this hysteria from them
I would be the first to demand more action if those charts indicated it was necessary but ultimately the unvaccinated are the most at risk and short of compulsory vaccinations I am afraid we have to accept that many of this cohort will get covid and some, maybe many, will pass away but that is not a justifiable reason to curtail the daily lives of the rest of us
I would just say that both my wife and I are clinically vulnerable to covid and notwithstanding that by tomorrow we will both have received our boosters we have for a long time taken personal responsibility and do not expose ourselves to unnecessary risk
We don't need to "curtail daily lives". Wear a mask in crowded spaces. Social distancing. Sanitise. Keep the pubs and cinemas open, but ask people to Think.
Social distancing.
Keep the pubs and cinemas open.
You're a moron.
Bollocks. There will be some environments where social distancing isn't possible. But when it is we should practice it. Every avoided possible transmission point is worthwhile. We can't get all but we can get some. Some is better than none.
The whole point of social distancing is to reduce capacity at indoor socialising venues. If we aren't going to do that then we're not social distancing. 2m distancing reduces capacity by 60%, 1m distancing by 30%. Most places are unprofitable in both scenarios hence the mega government subsidies to keep the lights on.
You're just repeating soundbites because they make you feel superior and virtuous. Social distancing is a crippling economic and social device that has destroyed the economy for a year and a half. Bringing it back is a terrible idea.
Again, bollocks.
That enough of a "superior and virtuous" soundbite for you?
You know what cripples and destroys the economy? A pandemic. Not the responses to tackle and shorten the pandemic.
We really need to drop this "you're a moron" shit. I'm trying. Why don't you do the same?
You accuse others of not thinking yet propose completely stupid ideas like social distancing without thinking through the consequences. It is nothing more than showing us how virtuous you are and the love of being able to accuse others of not being virtuous. The consequences of social distancing are dire for businesses. You say that the pandemic is bad for business but the reality is that it's people like you who want to keep hold of the NPIs that are bad for business. Creating uncertainty where we don't need to. The vast, vast majority of people dying of this are the very old or vaccine refusers, the Italian study from yesterday made it very clear that we are now already at the endemic stage of this process.
Putting social distancing in place because fools refused to get vaccinated is punishing businesses for other people's idiotic decisions. I think maybe we should just get on with life and let nature take its course with those who refuse to be vaccinated. If that means 30-40k people dying per year that wouldn't otherwise have done so then that's the way it will have to be. They made their choice.
I have no interest in being "virtuous" however you define it (sounds a bit like being called "woke").
This one is brutally simple. The NHS is still on its knees after Covid, and its senior managers can see the tsunami coming in. So we either start acting now or we face the consequences of a health system unable to cope through the winter.
Perhaps these NHS managers are also being "virtuous". I hope they are - someone has to give a fuck.
Ultimately the NHS will be faced with a choice of trying and failing to treat everyone or deciding that the unvaccinated by choice made a poor life choice and will have to live with that. Yesterday's press conference has already laid the groundwork for the decision to come that will deprioritise treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients.
That's the tough decision that needs to be made, and I admit that it's a very tough decision to make. You seem to think that reintroduction of social distancing is a cost and consequence free move. It isn't. It will destroy thousands of businesses, put millions out of work again and cost the taxpayer tens of billions in subsidies once more.
The answer is vaccination, the government has delivered vaccinations and now it's up to those people who refused to get them to live with the consequences of that poor choice. The rest of society can't pay the price. You want to shift the burden of their stupid decision onto the rest of us, why not have them live and die by their own life choices?
1. As I have said repeatedly that I am not advocating mandatory social distancing why are you foaming on about destroying businesses? Try reading what is written. 2. It is not the unvaccinated I am worrying about. Its everyone with every medical need that isn't Covid being unable to access critical care when they need it. Its (as an example) my daughter getting run over, the ambulance coming late and the hospital being swamped. Ordinarily she would live, with an NHS collapsed by Covid through inaction she would die. This is what health professionals are crapping themselves about, not your moral judgement on the unvaxxed. 3. See point 2. The rest of society will pay a price if the NHS collapses. And the senior managers have a very real fear that this could happen unless we act.
Do you write Daily Express editorials for a living? Its like talking to a wall.
So if social distancing isn't mandatory what's the point of it? Why suggest that people do it other than to virtue signal?
Your original point was suggesting mask wearing and social distancing be brought back. I'm not going to argue the first one, I'm still unsure over masks, I still wear one if the trains are busy but don't elsewhere, I also have a KN95 one too so I know it makes a difference for me. My issue is with your second point, social distancing is an extremely high cost NPI, both economically and socially and there's no such thing as voluntary social distancing. The whole point of it is to reduce the capacity of indoor spaces, if you're not using it to do that then there's really no point in doing it.
You have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that voluntary social distancing is pointless. It is little more than virtue signalling so unless you are suggesting that the state reintroduce 2m distancing you should probably have a rethink about what is possible.
As for the impending doom of the NHS, tbh, maybe it needs that shake up. The NHS does too much, maybe it needs to learn to do less and one of the things it could stop doing is treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients, send them to the private sector.
The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.
I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.
Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal responsibility.
Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.
The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.
I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.
What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.
Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
How crassly moronic.
"Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."
Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
I think that question is a bit unfair, a touch of emotional shaming going on, but will give my answer as its an anonymous forum. I probably wouldn't share this view in public but think if there were an extra five thousand a week dying we should have more legal restrictions. At an extra two thousand a week no legal restrictions. So somewhere between those numbers for me.
How about you?
Certainly not 'as many as it takes', which PT said.
The problem with deaths is that it is a lagging factor. Before vaccines, cases went up, then hospitalisations, and then deaths. Now that the link between cases and hospitalisations has been weakened, the first sign we have of trouble is rising hospitalisations.
And I'll therefore swerve your question by saying it's the wrong one, if we're talking about restrictions. The first sign we'll get of big problems is from hospitalisations, and that's what we'd need to react to. So perhaps the 1,200-1,500 daily admissions that we had back in early November would be when we'd have to slam the handbrake on - particularly if they are increasing rapidly.
You asked the question of someone else so a bit of a cop out to now say it is the wrong question. I don't think using wrong questions for emotional shaming will help us get to the right answer.
I'm not 'emotional shaming'. PT's view is that, now we have vaccines, any number of people ("as many as it takes") should die in order to protect his freedom. He said: "People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end."
Which whilst true, could be used to excuse anything causing a life to end. Which is why I asked how many is acceptable. He gave his answer.
What is the alternative?
I believe I gave my view below. We're currently at a manageable, if tragic, level of deaths and hospitalisations. If hospitalisations go up to a certain level - perhaps 1,200 to 1,500 a day, then we need to seriously consider more restrictions.
I'm not saying we need them at the moment. But my view is that we need to be open to the need for more restrictions, and not just callously let any number of people die (and, incidentally, cause the hospital system to fail, potentially affecting all of us).
Until we are in a more stable situation, we've got to be prepared to react.
Again and do what? Whose businesses are you prepared to destroy and lives ruin pursuing an impossible goal?
What's the impossible goal? All we're talking about is managing an epidemic within NHS capacity.
Do you think the government should do whatever it takes to protect the NHS from having a difficult winter? If necessary, should we shut schools? Should we (try to) cancel Christmas?
Everyone keeps postulating these hypothetical (!) extremes.
This isn't a vanilla 'difficult winter' for the NHS - it's a rather special one since they have the usual (flu) PLUS 3rd wave covid PLUS a big pandemic backlog.
And the question is, should plan B (more masks + more wfh) be actioned in order to stop it falling over?
That's a No right now - ok - but why on earth should we rule it out?
The media are on the warpath this morning interviewing everyone they can find who condemns HMG for not commencing plan B from the BMA to iSage and this reminds me so much of the media's behaviour over the fuel shortages
It is almost as if they were not at the press conference yesterday, and that they have blanked the charts presented there from their minds as they simply did not justify this hysteria from them
I would be the first to demand more action if those charts indicated it was necessary but ultimately the unvaccinated are the most at risk and short of compulsory vaccinations I am afraid we have to accept that many of this cohort will get covid and some, maybe many, will pass away but that is not a justifiable reason to curtail the daily lives of the rest of us
I would just say that both my wife and I are clinically vulnerable to covid and notwithstanding that by tomorrow we will both have received our boosters we have for a long time taken personal responsibility and do not expose ourselves to unnecessary risk
We don't need to "curtail daily lives". Wear a mask in crowded spaces. Social distancing. Sanitise. Keep the pubs and cinemas open, but ask people to Think.
Social distancing.
Keep the pubs and cinemas open.
You're a moron.
Bollocks. There will be some environments where social distancing isn't possible. But when it is we should practice it. Every avoided possible transmission point is worthwhile. We can't get all but we can get some. Some is better than none.
The whole point of social distancing is to reduce capacity at indoor socialising venues. If we aren't going to do that then we're not social distancing. 2m distancing reduces capacity by 60%, 1m distancing by 30%. Most places are unprofitable in both scenarios hence the mega government subsidies to keep the lights on.
You're just repeating soundbites because they make you feel superior and virtuous. Social distancing is a crippling economic and social device that has destroyed the economy for a year and a half. Bringing it back is a terrible idea.
Again, bollocks.
That enough of a "superior and virtuous" soundbite for you?
You know what cripples and destroys the economy? A pandemic. Not the responses to tackle and shorten the pandemic.
We really need to drop this "you're a moron" shit. I'm trying. Why don't you do the same?
You accuse others of not thinking yet propose completely stupid ideas like social distancing without thinking through the consequences. It is nothing more than showing us how virtuous you are and the love of being able to accuse others of not being virtuous. The consequences of social distancing are dire for businesses. You say that the pandemic is bad for business but the reality is that it's people like you who want to keep hold of the NPIs that are bad for business. Creating uncertainty where we don't need to. The vast, vast majority of people dying of this are the very old or vaccine refusers, the Italian study from yesterday made it very clear that we are now already at the endemic stage of this process.
Putting social distancing in place because fools refused to get vaccinated is punishing businesses for other people's idiotic decisions. I think maybe we should just get on with life and let nature take its course with those who refuse to be vaccinated. If that means 30-40k people dying per year that wouldn't otherwise have done so then that's the way it will have to be. They made their choice.
I have no interest in being "virtuous" however you define it (sounds a bit like being called "woke").
This one is brutally simple. The NHS is still on its knees after Covid, and its senior managers can see the tsunami coming in. So we either start acting now or we face the consequences of a health system unable to cope through the winter.
Perhaps these NHS managers are also being "virtuous". I hope they are - someone has to give a fuck.
Ultimately the NHS will be faced with a choice of trying and failing to treat everyone or deciding that the unvaccinated by choice made a poor life choice and will have to live with that. Yesterday's press conference has already laid the groundwork for the decision to come that will deprioritise treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients.
That's the tough decision that needs to be made, and I admit that it's a very tough decision to make. You seem to think that reintroduction of social distancing is a cost and consequence free move. It isn't. It will destroy thousands of businesses, put millions out of work again and cost the taxpayer tens of billions in subsidies once more.
The answer is vaccination, the government has delivered vaccinations and now it's up to those people who refused to get them to live with the consequences of that poor choice. The rest of society can't pay the price. You want to shift the burden of their stupid decision onto the rest of us, why not have them live and die by their own life choices?
Nah. It's not laying the groundwork for any such thing. Otherwise why not rock climbers, jump jockeys, and scaffolders.
At some point the penny must drop that pre-, during- and post-Covid the NHS is not fit for purpose and must be reorganised. If this is that moment, hurrah. If not, then further restrictions await.
But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.
I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.
Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?
I recall going round Audley End, near Saffron Walden, some years ago and being told that in Victorian times the gardeners would build South facing walls out of (relatively) heat-retaining bricks and plant such trees up against them, while shielding them from North and East winds. As a result they were able to supply the 'squires' table with, IIRC, lemons and sometimes oranges. They were also able to keep some fruits on the table 10 months of the year.
Romans had a warmer climate, though. Vineyards in Yorkshire etc
Depends what wine you are trying to make - many varieties of vine are actually rather hardy.
No the Roman's really did have a substantially warmer climate. You can see it in data as diverse as tree rings, Oxygen isotope ratios and varve deposits. The wine one might be somewhat misleading for the reason you give but that doesn't change the basic premise.
Talking about another time when climate was warmer (mediaeval vineyards in south Scotland etc) there is a nice news piece in the Graun today
But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.
I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.
Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?
I recall going round Audley End, near Saffron Walden, some years ago and being told that in Victorian times the gardeners would build South facing walls out of (relatively) heat-retaining bricks and plant such trees up against them, while shielding them from North and East winds. As a result they were able to supply the 'squires' table with, IIRC, lemons and sometimes oranges. They were also able to keep some fruits on the table 10 months of the year.
Romans had a warmer climate, though. Vineyards in Yorkshire etc
The climate wasn't warmer in Roman times. It was that the difficulties in transport meant that lower quality locally produced wine could be economic.
LOL. Well that is an 'interesting' claim.
And yes the climate was warmer. That is no commentary on modern climate debates, just a basic fact.
On a related note, I heard on the radio 4 news yesterday that scientists have established that woolly mammoths were not driven to extinction by humans hunting them, but by Climate Change.
GLOBAL WARMING killed the woolly mammoth. CLIMATE CHANGE WILL CAUSE EXTINCTION
They quietly added at the end of the report that this happened 4,000 years ago.
The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.
I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.
Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal responsibility.
Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.
The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.
I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.
What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.
Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
How crassly moronic.
"Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."
Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
I think that question is a bit unfair, a touch of emotional shaming going on, but will give my answer as its an anonymous forum. I probably wouldn't share this view in public but think if there were an extra five thousand a week dying we should have more legal restrictions. At an extra two thousand a week no legal restrictions. So somewhere between those numbers for me.
How about you?
Certainly not 'as many as it takes', which PT said.
The problem with deaths is that it is a lagging factor. Before vaccines, cases went up, then hospitalisations, and then deaths. Now that the link between cases and hospitalisations has been weakened, the first sign we have of trouble is rising hospitalisations.
And I'll therefore swerve your question by saying it's the wrong one, if we're talking about restrictions. The first sign we'll get of big problems is from hospitalisations, and that's what we'd need to react to. So perhaps the 1,200-1,500 daily admissions that we had back in early November would be when we'd have to slam the handbrake on - particularly if they are increasing rapidly.
You asked the question of someone else so a bit of a cop out to now say it is the wrong question. I don't think using wrong questions for emotional shaming will help us get to the right answer.
I'm not 'emotional shaming'. PT's view is that, now we have vaccines, any number of people ("as many as it takes") should die in order to protect his freedom. He said: "People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end."
Which whilst true, could be used to excuse anything causing a life to end. Which is why I asked how many is acceptable. He gave his answer.
What is the alternative?
I believe I gave my view below. We're currently at a manageable, if tragic, level of deaths and hospitalisations. If hospitalisations go up to a certain level - perhaps 1,200 to 1,500 a day, then we need to seriously consider more restrictions.
I'm not saying we need them at the moment. But my view is that we need to be open to the need for more restrictions, and not just callously let any number of people die (and, incidentally, cause the hospital system to fail, potentially affecting all of us).
Until we are in a more stable situation, we've got to be prepared to react.
Again and do what? Whose businesses are you prepared to destroy and lives ruin pursuing an impossible goal?
What's the impossible goal? All we're talking about is managing an epidemic within NHS capacity.
Do you think the government should do whatever it takes to protect the NHS from having a difficult winter? If necessary, should we shut schools? Should we (try to) cancel Christmas?
Everyone keeps postulating these hypothetical (!) extremes.
This isn't a vanilla 'difficult winter' for the NHS - it's a rather special one since they have the usual (flu) PLUS 3rd wave covid PLUS a big pandemic backlog.
And the question is, should plan B (more masks + more wfh) be actioned in order to stop it falling over?
That's a No right now - ok - but why on earth should we rule it out?
Because life is for living and the NHS exists to serve the country not the other way around.
What's the alternative? Covid is going to be a part of our lives forever now so should we put our lives on hold until flu no longer exists, or until there's no backlog?
The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.
I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.
Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal responsibility.
Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.
The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.
I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.
What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.
Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
How crassly moronic.
"Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."
Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
I think that question is a bit unfair, a touch of emotional shaming going on, but will give my answer as its an anonymous forum. I probably wouldn't share this view in public but think if there were an extra five thousand a week dying we should have more legal restrictions. At an extra two thousand a week no legal restrictions. So somewhere between those numbers for me.
How about you?
Certainly not 'as many as it takes', which PT said.
The problem with deaths is that it is a lagging factor. Before vaccines, cases went up, then hospitalisations, and then deaths. Now that the link between cases and hospitalisations has been weakened, the first sign we have of trouble is rising hospitalisations.
And I'll therefore swerve your question by saying it's the wrong one, if we're talking about restrictions. The first sign we'll get of big problems is from hospitalisations, and that's what we'd need to react to. So perhaps the 1,200-1,500 daily admissions that we had back in early November would be when we'd have to slam the handbrake on - particularly if they are increasing rapidly.
You asked the question of someone else so a bit of a cop out to now say it is the wrong question. I don't think using wrong questions for emotional shaming will help us get to the right answer.
I'm not 'emotional shaming'. PT's view is that, now we have vaccines, any number of people ("as many as it takes") should die in order to protect his freedom. He said: "People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end."
Which whilst true, could be used to excuse anything causing a life to end. Which is why I asked how many is acceptable. He gave his answer.
What is the alternative?
I believe I gave my view below. We're currently at a manageable, if tragic, level of deaths and hospitalisations. If hospitalisations go up to a certain level - perhaps 1,200 to 1,500 a day, then we need to seriously consider more restrictions.
I'm not saying we need them at the moment. But my view is that we need to be open to the need for more restrictions, and not just callously let any number of people die (and, incidentally, cause the hospital system to fail, potentially affecting all of us).
Until we are in a more stable situation, we've got to be prepared to react.
Again and do what? Whose businesses are you prepared to destroy and lives ruin pursuing an impossible goal?
What's the impossible goal? All we're talking about is managing an epidemic within NHS capacity.
Do you think the government should do whatever it takes to protect the NHS from having a difficult winter? If necessary, should we shut schools? Should we (try to) cancel Christmas?
Everyone keeps postulating these hypothetical (!) extremes.
This isn't a vanilla 'difficult winter' for the NHS - it's a rather special one since they have the usual (flu) PLUS 3rd wave covid PLUS a big pandemic backlog.
And the question is, should plan B (more masks + more wfh) be actioned in order to stop it falling over?
That's a No right now - ok - but why on earth should we rule it out?
What I'm saying is, I don't think masks and WFH will make much difference. And if the government says, we need to do X to help get on top of hospitalisations, what happens if X doesn't work? Does the government say, "ah well, we can't do any more?" I don't think so and certainly the opposition wouldn't accept that as being the right and pragmatic conclusion to come to.
The media are on the warpath this morning interviewing everyone they can find who condemns HMG for not commencing plan B from the BMA to iSage and this reminds me so much of the media's behaviour over the fuel shortages
It is almost as if they were not at the press conference yesterday, and that they have blanked the charts presented there from their minds as they simply did not justify this hysteria from them
I would be the first to demand more action if those charts indicated it was necessary but ultimately the unvaccinated are the most at risk and short of compulsory vaccinations I am afraid we have to accept that many of this cohort will get covid and some, maybe many, will pass away but that is not a justifiable reason to curtail the daily lives of the rest of us
I would just say that both my wife and I are clinically vulnerable to covid and notwithstanding that by tomorrow we will both have received our boosters we have for a long time taken personal responsibility and do not expose ourselves to unnecessary risk
We don't need to "curtail daily lives". Wear a mask in crowded spaces. Social distancing. Sanitise. Keep the pubs and cinemas open, but ask people to Think.
Social distancing.
Keep the pubs and cinemas open.
You're a moron.
Bollocks. There will be some environments where social distancing isn't possible. But when it is we should practice it. Every avoided possible transmission point is worthwhile. We can't get all but we can get some. Some is better than none.
The whole point of social distancing is to reduce capacity at indoor socialising venues. If we aren't going to do that then we're not social distancing. 2m distancing reduces capacity by 60%, 1m distancing by 30%. Most places are unprofitable in both scenarios hence the mega government subsidies to keep the lights on.
You're just repeating soundbites because they make you feel superior and virtuous. Social distancing is a crippling economic and social device that has destroyed the economy for a year and a half. Bringing it back is a terrible idea.
Again, bollocks.
That enough of a "superior and virtuous" soundbite for you?
You know what cripples and destroys the economy? A pandemic. Not the responses to tackle and shorten the pandemic.
We really need to drop this "you're a moron" shit. I'm trying. Why don't you do the same?
You accuse others of not thinking yet propose completely stupid ideas like social distancing without thinking through the consequences. It is nothing more than showing us how virtuous you are and the love of being able to accuse others of not being virtuous. The consequences of social distancing are dire for businesses. You say that the pandemic is bad for business but the reality is that it's people like you who want to keep hold of the NPIs that are bad for business. Creating uncertainty where we don't need to. The vast, vast majority of people dying of this are the very old or vaccine refusers, the Italian study from yesterday made it very clear that we are now already at the endemic stage of this process.
Putting social distancing in place because fools refused to get vaccinated is punishing businesses for other people's idiotic decisions. I think maybe we should just get on with life and let nature take its course with those who refuse to be vaccinated. If that means 30-40k people dying per year that wouldn't otherwise have done so then that's the way it will have to be. They made their choice.
I have no interest in being "virtuous" however you define it (sounds a bit like being called "woke").
This one is brutally simple. The NHS is still on its knees after Covid, and its senior managers can see the tsunami coming in. So we either start acting now or we face the consequences of a health system unable to cope through the winter.
Perhaps these NHS managers are also being "virtuous". I hope they are - someone has to give a fuck.
Ultimately the NHS will be faced with a choice of trying and failing to treat everyone or deciding that the unvaccinated by choice made a poor life choice and will have to live with that. Yesterday's press conference has already laid the groundwork for the decision to come that will deprioritise treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients.
That's the tough decision that needs to be made, and I admit that it's a very tough decision to make. You seem to think that reintroduction of social distancing is a cost and consequence free move. It isn't. It will destroy thousands of businesses, put millions out of work again and cost the taxpayer tens of billions in subsidies once more.
The answer is vaccination, the government has delivered vaccinations and now it's up to those people who refused to get them to live with the consequences of that poor choice. The rest of society can't pay the price. You want to shift the burden of their stupid decision onto the rest of us, why not have them live and die by their own life choices?
I agree with virtually everything you say there, except I don't think its a hard chose to stop treating people who are unvaccinated by chose, I think that's a very easy and sensible thing to do, the government should say now, that from the end of November anybody who is unvaccinated by chose, is not welcome in any NHS vacillate, hospital or GP surgery for anything. (I say end of November so that they have a chance to get vaccinated).
There is no way the government will ever say that. Setting aside the morality, there would be legal challenges.
You may be right about the legal challenge, but its still the right thing to do.
The media are on the warpath this morning interviewing everyone they can find who condemns HMG for not commencing plan B from the BMA to iSage and this reminds me so much of the media's behaviour over the fuel shortages
It is almost as if they were not at the press conference yesterday, and that they have blanked the charts presented there from their minds as they simply did not justify this hysteria from them
I would be the first to demand more action if those charts indicated it was necessary but ultimately the unvaccinated are the most at risk and short of compulsory vaccinations I am afraid we have to accept that many of this cohort will get covid and some, maybe many, will pass away but that is not a justifiable reason to curtail the daily lives of the rest of us
I would just say that both my wife and I are clinically vulnerable to covid and notwithstanding that by tomorrow we will both have received our boosters we have for a long time taken personal responsibility and do not expose ourselves to unnecessary risk
We don't need to "curtail daily lives". Wear a mask in crowded spaces. Social distancing. Sanitise. Keep the pubs and cinemas open, but ask people to Think.
Social distancing.
Keep the pubs and cinemas open.
You're a moron.
Bollocks. There will be some environments where social distancing isn't possible. But when it is we should practice it. Every avoided possible transmission point is worthwhile. We can't get all but we can get some. Some is better than none.
The whole point of social distancing is to reduce capacity at indoor socialising venues. If we aren't going to do that then we're not social distancing. 2m distancing reduces capacity by 60%, 1m distancing by 30%. Most places are unprofitable in both scenarios hence the mega government subsidies to keep the lights on.
You're just repeating soundbites because they make you feel superior and virtuous. Social distancing is a crippling economic and social device that has destroyed the economy for a year and a half. Bringing it back is a terrible idea.
Again, bollocks.
That enough of a "superior and virtuous" soundbite for you?
You know what cripples and destroys the economy? A pandemic. Not the responses to tackle and shorten the pandemic.
We really need to drop this "you're a moron" shit. I'm trying. Why don't you do the same?
You accuse others of not thinking yet propose completely stupid ideas like social distancing without thinking through the consequences. It is nothing more than showing us how virtuous you are and the love of being able to accuse others of not being virtuous. The consequences of social distancing are dire for businesses. You say that the pandemic is bad for business but the reality is that it's people like you who want to keep hold of the NPIs that are bad for business. Creating uncertainty where we don't need to. The vast, vast majority of people dying of this are the very old or vaccine refusers, the Italian study from yesterday made it very clear that we are now already at the endemic stage of this process.
Putting social distancing in place because fools refused to get vaccinated is punishing businesses for other people's idiotic decisions. I think maybe we should just get on with life and let nature take its course with those who refuse to be vaccinated. If that means 30-40k people dying per year that wouldn't otherwise have done so then that's the way it will have to be. They made their choice.
I have no interest in being "virtuous" however you define it (sounds a bit like being called "woke").
This one is brutally simple. The NHS is still on its knees after Covid, and its senior managers can see the tsunami coming in. So we either start acting now or we face the consequences of a health system unable to cope through the winter.
Perhaps these NHS managers are also being "virtuous". I hope they are - someone has to give a fuck.
Ultimately the NHS will be faced with a choice of trying and failing to treat everyone or deciding that the unvaccinated by choice made a poor life choice and will have to live with that. Yesterday's press conference has already laid the groundwork for the decision to come that will deprioritise treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients.
That's the tough decision that needs to be made, and I admit that it's a very tough decision to make. You seem to think that reintroduction of social distancing is a cost and consequence free move. It isn't. It will destroy thousands of businesses, put millions out of work again and cost the taxpayer tens of billions in subsidies once more.
The answer is vaccination, the government has delivered vaccinations and now it's up to those people who refused to get them to live with the consequences of that poor choice. The rest of society can't pay the price. You want to shift the burden of their stupid decision onto the rest of us, why not have them live and die by their own life choices?
1. As I have said repeatedly that I am not advocating mandatory social distancing why are you foaming on about destroying businesses? Try reading what is written. 2. It is not the unvaccinated I am worrying about. Its everyone with every medical need that isn't Covid being unable to access critical care when they need it. Its (as an example) my daughter getting run over, the ambulance coming late and the hospital being swamped. Ordinarily she would live, with an NHS collapsed by Covid through inaction she would die. This is what health professionals are crapping themselves about, not your moral judgement on the unvaxxed. 3. See point 2. The rest of society will pay a price if the NHS collapses.
Do you write Daily Express editorials for a living? Its like talking to a wall.
What are you advocating if not mandatory social distancing?
Mandatory social distancing is the only thing that makes a difference. Vaccines work and have been rolled out. Masks have been trialled and failed, WFH is already largely happening as much as it can. So if you're claiming that the NHS is going to "collapse" then you must be thinking of serious and draconian restrictions to prevent that collapse?
A little bit of pissing about with mask orders or WFH will not make the slightest bit of difference to an "NHS collapse".
Every single transmission we avoid makes a difference.
The media are on the warpath this morning interviewing everyone they can find who condemns HMG for not commencing plan B from the BMA to iSage and this reminds me so much of the media's behaviour over the fuel shortages
It is almost as if they were not at the press conference yesterday, and that they have blanked the charts presented there from their minds as they simply did not justify this hysteria from them
I would be the first to demand more action if those charts indicated it was necessary but ultimately the unvaccinated are the most at risk and short of compulsory vaccinations I am afraid we have to accept that many of this cohort will get covid and some, maybe many, will pass away but that is not a justifiable reason to curtail the daily lives of the rest of us
I would just say that both my wife and I are clinically vulnerable to covid and notwithstanding that by tomorrow we will both have received our boosters we have for a long time taken personal responsibility and do not expose ourselves to unnecessary risk
We don't need to "curtail daily lives". Wear a mask in crowded spaces. Social distancing. Sanitise. Keep the pubs and cinemas open, but ask people to Think.
Social distancing.
Keep the pubs and cinemas open.
You're a moron.
Bollocks. There will be some environments where social distancing isn't possible. But when it is we should practice it. Every avoided possible transmission point is worthwhile. We can't get all but we can get some. Some is better than none.
The whole point of social distancing is to reduce capacity at indoor socialising venues. If we aren't going to do that then we're not social distancing. 2m distancing reduces capacity by 60%, 1m distancing by 30%. Most places are unprofitable in both scenarios hence the mega government subsidies to keep the lights on.
You're just repeating soundbites because they make you feel superior and virtuous. Social distancing is a crippling economic and social device that has destroyed the economy for a year and a half. Bringing it back is a terrible idea.
Again, bollocks.
That enough of a "superior and virtuous" soundbite for you?
You know what cripples and destroys the economy? A pandemic. Not the responses to tackle and shorten the pandemic.
We really need to drop this "you're a moron" shit. I'm trying. Why don't you do the same?
You accuse others of not thinking yet propose completely stupid ideas like social distancing without thinking through the consequences. It is nothing more than showing us how virtuous you are and the love of being able to accuse others of not being virtuous. The consequences of social distancing are dire for businesses. You say that the pandemic is bad for business but the reality is that it's people like you who want to keep hold of the NPIs that are bad for business. Creating uncertainty where we don't need to. The vast, vast majority of people dying of this are the very old or vaccine refusers, the Italian study from yesterday made it very clear that we are now already at the endemic stage of this process.
Putting social distancing in place because fools refused to get vaccinated is punishing businesses for other people's idiotic decisions. I think maybe we should just get on with life and let nature take its course with those who refuse to be vaccinated. If that means 30-40k people dying per year that wouldn't otherwise have done so then that's the way it will have to be. They made their choice.
I have no interest in being "virtuous" however you define it (sounds a bit like being called "woke").
This one is brutally simple. The NHS is still on its knees after Covid, and its senior managers can see the tsunami coming in. So we either start acting now or we face the consequences of a health system unable to cope through the winter.
Perhaps these NHS managers are also being "virtuous". I hope they are - someone has to give a fuck.
Ultimately the NHS will be faced with a choice of trying and failing to treat everyone or deciding that the unvaccinated by choice made a poor life choice and will have to live with that. Yesterday's press conference has already laid the groundwork for the decision to come that will deprioritise treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients.
That's the tough decision that needs to be made, and I admit that it's a very tough decision to make. You seem to think that reintroduction of social distancing is a cost and consequence free move. It isn't. It will destroy thousands of businesses, put millions out of work again and cost the taxpayer tens of billions in subsidies once more.
The answer is vaccination, the government has delivered vaccinations and now it's up to those people who refused to get them to live with the consequences of that poor choice. The rest of society can't pay the price. You want to shift the burden of their stupid decision onto the rest of us, why not have them live and die by their own life choices?
1. As I have said repeatedly that I am not advocating mandatory social distancing why are you foaming on about destroying businesses? Try reading what is written. 2. It is not the unvaccinated I am worrying about. Its everyone with every medical need that isn't Covid being unable to access critical care when they need it. Its (as an example) my daughter getting run over, the ambulance coming late and the hospital being swamped. Ordinarily she would live, with an NHS collapsed by Covid through inaction she would die. This is what health professionals are crapping themselves about, not your moral judgement on the unvaxxed. 3. See point 2. The rest of society will pay a price if the NHS collapses.
Do you write Daily Express editorials for a living? Its like talking to a wall.
What are you advocating if not mandatory social distancing?
Mandatory social distancing is the only thing that makes a difference. Vaccines work and have been rolled out. Masks have been trialled and failed, WFH is already largely happening as much as it can. So if you're claiming that the NHS is going to "collapse" then you must be thinking of serious and draconian restrictions to prevent that collapse?
A little bit of pissing about with mask orders or WFH will not make the slightest bit of difference to an "NHS collapse".
Every single transmission we avoid makes a difference.
The media are on the warpath this morning interviewing everyone they can find who condemns HMG for not commencing plan B from the BMA to iSage and this reminds me so much of the media's behaviour over the fuel shortages
It is almost as if they were not at the press conference yesterday, and that they have blanked the charts presented there from their minds as they simply did not justify this hysteria from them
I would be the first to demand more action if those charts indicated it was necessary but ultimately the unvaccinated are the most at risk and short of compulsory vaccinations I am afraid we have to accept that many of this cohort will get covid and some, maybe many, will pass away but that is not a justifiable reason to curtail the daily lives of the rest of us
I would just say that both my wife and I are clinically vulnerable to covid and notwithstanding that by tomorrow we will both have received our boosters we have for a long time taken personal responsibility and do not expose ourselves to unnecessary risk
We don't need to "curtail daily lives". Wear a mask in crowded spaces. Social distancing. Sanitise. Keep the pubs and cinemas open, but ask people to Think.
Social distancing.
Keep the pubs and cinemas open.
You're a moron.
Bollocks. There will be some environments where social distancing isn't possible. But when it is we should practice it. Every avoided possible transmission point is worthwhile. We can't get all but we can get some. Some is better than none.
The whole point of social distancing is to reduce capacity at indoor socialising venues. If we aren't going to do that then we're not social distancing. 2m distancing reduces capacity by 60%, 1m distancing by 30%. Most places are unprofitable in both scenarios hence the mega government subsidies to keep the lights on.
You're just repeating soundbites because they make you feel superior and virtuous. Social distancing is a crippling economic and social device that has destroyed the economy for a year and a half. Bringing it back is a terrible idea.
Again, bollocks.
That enough of a "superior and virtuous" soundbite for you?
You know what cripples and destroys the economy? A pandemic. Not the responses to tackle and shorten the pandemic.
We really need to drop this "you're a moron" shit. I'm trying. Why don't you do the same?
You accuse others of not thinking yet propose completely stupid ideas like social distancing without thinking through the consequences. It is nothing more than showing us how virtuous you are and the love of being able to accuse others of not being virtuous. The consequences of social distancing are dire for businesses. You say that the pandemic is bad for business but the reality is that it's people like you who want to keep hold of the NPIs that are bad for business. Creating uncertainty where we don't need to. The vast, vast majority of people dying of this are the very old or vaccine refusers, the Italian study from yesterday made it very clear that we are now already at the endemic stage of this process.
Putting social distancing in place because fools refused to get vaccinated is punishing businesses for other people's idiotic decisions. I think maybe we should just get on with life and let nature take its course with those who refuse to be vaccinated. If that means 30-40k people dying per year that wouldn't otherwise have done so then that's the way it will have to be. They made their choice.
I have no interest in being "virtuous" however you define it (sounds a bit like being called "woke").
This one is brutally simple. The NHS is still on its knees after Covid, and its senior managers can see the tsunami coming in. So we either start acting now or we face the consequences of a health system unable to cope through the winter.
Perhaps these NHS managers are also being "virtuous". I hope they are - someone has to give a fuck.
Ultimately the NHS will be faced with a choice of trying and failing to treat everyone or deciding that the unvaccinated by choice made a poor life choice and will have to live with that. Yesterday's press conference has already laid the groundwork for the decision to come that will deprioritise treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients.
That's the tough decision that needs to be made, and I admit that it's a very tough decision to make. You seem to think that reintroduction of social distancing is a cost and consequence free move. It isn't. It will destroy thousands of businesses, put millions out of work again and cost the taxpayer tens of billions in subsidies once more.
The answer is vaccination, the government has delivered vaccinations and now it's up to those people who refused to get them to live with the consequences of that poor choice. The rest of society can't pay the price. You want to shift the burden of their stupid decision onto the rest of us, why not have them live and die by their own life choices?
1. As I have said repeatedly that I am not advocating mandatory social distancing why are you foaming on about destroying businesses? Try reading what is written. 2. It is not the unvaccinated I am worrying about. Its everyone with every medical need that isn't Covid being unable to access critical care when they need it. Its (as an example) my daughter getting run over, the ambulance coming late and the hospital being swamped. Ordinarily she would live, with an NHS collapsed by Covid through inaction she would die. This is what health professionals are crapping themselves about, not your moral judgement on the unvaxxed. 3. See point 2. The rest of society will pay a price if the NHS collapses.
Do you write Daily Express editorials for a living? Its like talking to a wall.
What are you advocating if not mandatory social distancing?
Mandatory social distancing is the only thing that makes a difference. Vaccines work and have been rolled out. Masks have been trialled and failed, WFH is already largely happening as much as it can. So if you're claiming that the NHS is going to "collapse" then you must be thinking of serious and draconian restrictions to prevent that collapse?
A little bit of pissing about with mask orders or WFH will not make the slightest bit of difference to an "NHS collapse".
Every single transmission we avoid makes a difference.
Every single car journey not made makes a difference.
I’m on @LumoTravel’s inaugural train today - and I’ll be racing @SimonCalder from London to Edinburgh. A 4.5 hour train ride versus a 1 hour flight? Simon is confident. But I don’t think it’ll be the walkover those numbers suggest…
But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.
I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.
Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?
I recall going round Audley End, near Saffron Walden, some years ago and being told that in Victorian times the gardeners would build South facing walls out of (relatively) heat-retaining bricks and plant such trees up against them, while shielding them from North and East winds. As a result they were able to supply the 'squires' table with, IIRC, lemons and sometimes oranges. They were also able to keep some fruits on the table 10 months of the year.
Romans had a warmer climate, though. Vineyards in Yorkshire etc
The climate wasn't warmer in Roman times. It was that the difficulties in transport meant that lower quality locally produced wine could be economic.
We have several vineyards in Yorkshire now...
I visited one a few years ago on a planning committee visit. They were using root stock from Russia and China.
The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.
I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.
Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal responsibility.
Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.
The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.
I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.
What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.
Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
How crassly moronic.
"Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."
Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
I think that question is a bit unfair, a touch of emotional shaming going on, but will give my answer as its an anonymous forum. I probably wouldn't share this view in public but think if there were an extra five thousand a week dying we should have more legal restrictions. At an extra two thousand a week no legal restrictions. So somewhere between those numbers for me.
How about you?
Certainly not 'as many as it takes', which PT said.
The problem with deaths is that it is a lagging factor. Before vaccines, cases went up, then hospitalisations, and then deaths. Now that the link between cases and hospitalisations has been weakened, the first sign we have of trouble is rising hospitalisations.
And I'll therefore swerve your question by saying it's the wrong one, if we're talking about restrictions. The first sign we'll get of big problems is from hospitalisations, and that's what we'd need to react to. So perhaps the 1,200-1,500 daily admissions that we had back in early November would be when we'd have to slam the handbrake on - particularly if they are increasing rapidly.
You asked the question of someone else so a bit of a cop out to now say it is the wrong question. I don't think using wrong questions for emotional shaming will help us get to the right answer.
I'm not 'emotional shaming'. PT's view is that, now we have vaccines, any number of people ("as many as it takes") should die in order to protect his freedom. He said: "People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end."
Which whilst true, could be used to excuse anything causing a life to end. Which is why I asked how many is acceptable. He gave his answer.
What is the alternative?
I believe I gave my view below. We're currently at a manageable, if tragic, level of deaths and hospitalisations. If hospitalisations go up to a certain level - perhaps 1,200 to 1,500 a day, then we need to seriously consider more restrictions.
I'm not saying we need them at the moment. But my view is that we need to be open to the need for more restrictions, and not just callously let any number of people die (and, incidentally, cause the hospital system to fail, potentially affecting all of us).
Until we are in a more stable situation, we've got to be prepared to react.
Again and do what? Whose businesses are you prepared to destroy and lives ruin pursuing an impossible goal?
What's the impossible goal? All we're talking about is managing an epidemic within NHS capacity.
Do you think the government should do whatever it takes to protect the NHS from having a difficult winter? If necessary, should we shut schools? Should we (try to) cancel Christmas?
Everyone keeps postulating these hypothetical (!) extremes.
This isn't a vanilla 'difficult winter' for the NHS - it's a rather special one since they have the usual (flu) PLUS 3rd wave covid PLUS a big pandemic backlog.
And the question is, should plan B (more masks + more wfh) be actioned in order to stop it falling over?
That's a No right now - ok - but why on earth should we rule it out?
I dont think more masks or more wfh is a no for most of us against legal restrictions (masks in particular will be for some). What I am unsure on is what the "Plan B" changes legally? Mandatory masks with actual consistent and widespread enforcement has not been tried yet as many people are exempt (and we dont have the police numbers or court time to cope if we are honest about it).
So if it is just making it mandatory but without enforcement, which is already the case on TFL, I don't understand why that really helps? It will be similar to the tube which is similar to supermarkets which are voluntary.
Personally, I am more likely to wear a mask as cases go up, and think millions will think likewise, so it will happen naturally. I don't need the government to make a law about it that it has no intention of enforcing.
I’m on @LumoTravel’s inaugural train today - and I’ll be racing @SimonCalder from London to Edinburgh. A 4.5 hour train ride versus a 1 hour flight? Simon is confident. But I don’t think it’ll be the walkover those numbers suggest…
The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.
I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.
Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal responsibility.
Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.
The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.
I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.
What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.
Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
How crassly moronic.
"Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."
Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
I think that question is a bit unfair, a touch of emotional shaming going on, but will give my answer as its an anonymous forum. I probably wouldn't share this view in public but think if there were an extra five thousand a week dying we should have more legal restrictions. At an extra two thousand a week no legal restrictions. So somewhere between those numbers for me.
How about you?
Certainly not 'as many as it takes', which PT said.
The problem with deaths is that it is a lagging factor. Before vaccines, cases went up, then hospitalisations, and then deaths. Now that the link between cases and hospitalisations has been weakened, the first sign we have of trouble is rising hospitalisations.
And I'll therefore swerve your question by saying it's the wrong one, if we're talking about restrictions. The first sign we'll get of big problems is from hospitalisations, and that's what we'd need to react to. So perhaps the 1,200-1,500 daily admissions that we had back in early November would be when we'd have to slam the handbrake on - particularly if they are increasing rapidly.
You asked the question of someone else so a bit of a cop out to now say it is the wrong question. I don't think using wrong questions for emotional shaming will help us get to the right answer.
I'm not 'emotional shaming'. PT's view is that, now we have vaccines, any number of people ("as many as it takes") should die in order to protect his freedom. He said: "People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end."
Which whilst true, could be used to excuse anything causing a life to end. Which is why I asked how many is acceptable. He gave his answer.
What is the alternative?
I believe I gave my view below. We're currently at a manageable, if tragic, level of deaths and hospitalisations. If hospitalisations go up to a certain level - perhaps 1,200 to 1,500 a day, then we need to seriously consider more restrictions.
I'm not saying we need them at the moment. But my view is that we need to be open to the need for more restrictions, and not just callously let any number of people die (and, incidentally, cause the hospital system to fail, potentially affecting all of us).
Until we are in a more stable situation, we've got to be prepared to react.
Again and do what? Whose businesses are you prepared to destroy and lives ruin pursuing an impossible goal?
What's the impossible goal? All we're talking about is managing an epidemic within NHS capacity.
That implies we can keep it at a level low enough to make a difference. We can't. Not without compulsory vaccination. And maybe not even then.
Trouble is this is a great get out for the Government. The NHS is unfit for purpose (keeping people alive) but they can blame its failings on covid.
NHS reform + funding is an important area, I agree. I'm not an "envy of the world" person. But we won't have that sorted by Christmas. To me, this is simply about bringing some limited measures in to get through this winter without something grisly happening. If necessary. Maybe it won't be. But it's crazy imo to just rule it out on some sort of libertarian point of principle.
So if social distancing isn't mandatory what's the point of it? Why suggest that people do it other than to virtue signal?
Your original point was suggesting mask wearing and social distancing be brought back. I'm not going to argue the first one, I'm still unsure over masks, I still wear one if the trains are busy but don't elsewhere, I also have a KN95 one too so I know it makes a difference for me. My issue is with your second point, social distancing is an extremely high cost NPI, both economically and socially and there's no such thing as voluntary social distancing. The whole point of it is to reduce the capacity of indoor spaces, if you're not using it to do that then there's really no point in doing it.
You have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that voluntary social distancing is pointless. It is little more than virtue signalling so unless you are suggesting that the state reintroduce 2m distancing you should probably have a rethink about what is possible.
As for the impending doom of the NHS, tbh, maybe it needs that shake up. The NHS does too much, maybe it needs to learn to do less and one of the things it could stop doing is treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients, send them to the private sector.
Good - we're having a debate rather than you just calling me a moron for disagreeing with you. Progress.
Voluntary social distancing is not pointless. Nor is voluntary WFH or voluntary wash your fucking hands. Every single transmission we block helps keep case numbers down and with it the impact onto health services.
You keep going on about virtue signalling - I have no interest in that. It isn't me saying these things its the people running the NHS. And yesterday the Health Secretary joined it. Several of you have said "its the NHS's fault" and that may well be true. The time to be making sweeping "reforms" (which lets be honest from your perspective means cuts) is not now. We need to get through the winter first.
I’m on @LumoTravel’s inaugural train today - and I’ll be racing @SimonCalder from London to Edinburgh. A 4.5 hour train ride versus a 1 hour flight? Simon is confident. But I don’t think it’ll be the walkover those numbers suggest…
A little commented upon fact that Javid said yesterday was that over a third of the cases being detected at the moment are entirely asymptomatic and being detected because of a routine use of lateral flow tests.
Avoiding the transmission of an asymptomatic case means nothing and if we weren't testing and weren't discovering those asymptomatic "cases" like most other nations we'd be none the wiser.
In order to have a meaningful impact on the NHS then one avoided case isn't enough, you need to be avoiding hundreds of thousands of cases. And masks and WFH won't do that, social distancing will but its not a price worth paying.
If the Government mandated masks it wouldn't make any meaningful difference whatsoever and everyone demanding masks would go on to demand social distancing and lockdowns and other stuff that will actually have an impact. If you believe that an "NHS collapse" means we need another lockdown then argue for that, but otherwise all this about masks is just displacement activity.
So if social distancing isn't mandatory what's the point of it? Why suggest that people do it other than to virtue signal?
Your original point was suggesting mask wearing and social distancing be brought back. I'm not going to argue the first one, I'm still unsure over masks, I still wear one if the trains are busy but don't elsewhere, I also have a KN95 one too so I know it makes a difference for me. My issue is with your second point, social distancing is an extremely high cost NPI, both economically and socially and there's no such thing as voluntary social distancing. The whole point of it is to reduce the capacity of indoor spaces, if you're not using it to do that then there's really no point in doing it.
You have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that voluntary social distancing is pointless. It is little more than virtue signalling so unless you are suggesting that the state reintroduce 2m distancing you should probably have a rethink about what is possible.
As for the impending doom of the NHS, tbh, maybe it needs that shake up. The NHS does too much, maybe it needs to learn to do less and one of the things it could stop doing is treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients, send them to the private sector.
Good - we're having a debate rather than you just calling me a moron for disagreeing with you. Progress.
Voluntary social distancing is not pointless. Nor is voluntary WFH or voluntary wash your fucking hands. Every single transmission we block helps keep case numbers down and with it the impact onto health services.
You keep going on about virtue signalling - I have no interest in that. It isn't me saying these things its the people running the NHS. And yesterday the Health Secretary joined it. Several of you have said "its the NHS's fault" and that may well be true. The time to be making sweeping "reforms" (which lets be honest from your perspective means cuts) is not now. We need to get through the winter first.
The NHS has been crocked for years. Of course "the NHS" is going to say lock everyone up or do anything to protect itself. And sadly no Health Secretary can either a) ignore it because it's bollocks and we get a Graun-described "NHS in Crisis" every Christmas; or b) stick more money into the NHS as we the voters aren't having any of it.
A little commented upon fact that Javid said yesterday was that over a third of the cases being detected at the moment are entirely asymptomatic and being detected because of a routine use of lateral flow tests.
Avoiding the transmission of an asymptomatic case means nothing and if we weren't testing and weren't discovering those asymptomatic "cases" like most other nations we'd be none the wiser.
In order to have a meaningful impact on the NHS then one avoided case isn't enough, you need to be avoiding hundreds of thousands of cases. And masks and WFH won't do that, social distancing will but its not a price worth paying.
If the Government mandated masks it wouldn't make any meaningful difference whatsoever and everyone demanding masks would go on to demand social distancing and lockdowns and other stuff that will actually have an impact. If you believe that an "NHS collapse" means we need another lockdown then argue for that, but otherwise all this about masks is just displacement activity.
"just displacement activity" until my or your child is unfortunate enough to have an unexpected medical emergency over the winter at the point where NHS just isn't in fit state to provide emergency care quickly enough.
That is the horror that people are facing. Should you be unlucky and it be you and not them in that position (and again I sincerely hope not) I wonder if you will be so dismissive.
A little commented upon fact that Javid said yesterday was that over a third of the cases being detected at the moment are entirely asymptomatic and being detected because of a routine use of lateral flow tests.
Avoiding the transmission of an asymptomatic case means nothing and if we weren't testing and weren't discovering those asymptomatic "cases" like most other nations we'd be none the wiser.
In order to have a meaningful impact on the NHS then one avoided case isn't enough, you need to be avoiding hundreds of thousands of cases. And masks and WFH won't do that, social distancing will but its not a price worth paying.
If the Government mandated masks it wouldn't make any meaningful difference whatsoever and everyone demanding masks would go on to demand social distancing and lockdowns and other stuff that will actually have an impact. If you believe that an "NHS collapse" means we need another lockdown then argue for that, but otherwise all this about masks is just displacement activity.
To be honest, my view at the moment is the NHS has crossed over a tipping point that was coming for years thanks to all sorts of failures by politicians and management and also voters (who constantly want Scandi social systems for low taxes). The plague and the lockdowns tipped it over.
Even if covid stopped tomorrow this winter would still be a nightmare of ambulances waiting tens of hours in car parks, insane waiting lists and so on.
Restrictions are on their way is my view this morning.
Sorry to not be chirpier even though sun is shining.
A little commented upon fact that Javid said yesterday was that over a third of the cases being detected at the moment are entirely asymptomatic and being detected because of a routine use of lateral flow tests.
Avoiding the transmission of an asymptomatic case means nothing and if we weren't testing and weren't discovering those asymptomatic "cases" like most other nations we'd be none the wiser.
In order to have a meaningful impact on the NHS then one avoided case isn't enough, you need to be avoiding hundreds of thousands of cases. And masks and WFH won't do that, social distancing will but its not a price worth paying.
If the Government mandated masks it wouldn't make any meaningful difference whatsoever and everyone demanding masks would go on to demand social distancing and lockdowns and other stuff that will actually have an impact. If you believe that an "NHS collapse" means we need another lockdown then argue for that, but otherwise all this about masks is just displacement activity.
Hmm, if masks are mandated then they (so to speak) cover unknown asymptomatic cases too - not perfectly but enough to make a difference. At present there is no control at all over them, unless they are caught by testing.
But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.
I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.
Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?
I recall going round Audley End, near Saffron Walden, some years ago and being told that in Victorian times the gardeners would build South facing walls out of (relatively) heat-retaining bricks and plant such trees up against them, while shielding them from North and East winds. As a result they were able to supply the 'squires' table with, IIRC, lemons and sometimes oranges. They were also able to keep some fruits on the table 10 months of the year.
Romans had a warmer climate, though. Vineyards in Yorkshire etc
The climate wasn't warmer in Roman times. It was that the difficulties in transport meant that lower quality locally produced wine could be economic.
We have several vineyards in Yorkshire now...
I visited one a few years ago on a planning committee visit. They were using root stock from Russia and China.
Careful, and perhaps ambitious, husbandry is making 'native' grape wines available in such places as India and Thailand. Not sure how far N they go in S.America or Southern Africa.
The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.
I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.
Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal responsibility.
Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.
The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.
I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.
What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.
Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
How crassly moronic.
"Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."
Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
But surely there has to be a balance. People die in traffic accidents, or of smoking related conditions or drinking related conditions or of any other number of preventable conditions. We do not ban those activities. We certainly mitigate but not to the degree being proposed by some with COVID. We simply cannot keep locking down or applying large scale restrictions. The vaccines have to be the route out of this. This is not about Philips freedom it is about a fully functioning society and we need a fully functioning economy to pay for this.
Of course there has to be a balance.
I am not in favour of a return to harder restrictions at the moment. It seems a fine-edged thing, though, and the last 18 months have shown us that if you're not careful, when restrictions are required, they're required suddenly.
Hopefully enough kids are getting Covid that we'll be at herd immunity soon, and then figures will plummet. However, herd immunity's been called out many times before during this crisis, and we're not there yet. This s***** little B****er of a virus is a survivor, and may yet surprise us. Again.
And that's where PT is being complacent. He is unwilling to see people do even the smallest measures to protect themselves and others, because for some reason it is offensive to him. He callously disregards unnecessary deaths - possibly because it's not his own death. His argument could be used if we have 100 extra deaths a day, or a thousand. Or ten thousand.
The question you have to ask JJ is how does it get any better than this? If you are double - or triple jabbed - then you are never going to be safer than you are now. Are you proposing that the restrictions, mild as they may seem to you, should become a permanent way of life in Britain? Are we going to see the threat of lockdowns every single winter because the NHS is so unfit for purpose even before Covid?
Basically this is the new normal everyone was talking about. It is possible there is some miracle cure around the corner but to be honest I think we already have that as effectively as we are ever going to get it. So if you think PT is being unreasonable in his rather forthright comments then you have to say what you are proposing as the permanent alternatives.
I think this is the key question that I have asked myself and ask others when this debate arises. I always arrive at the same answer: the only rational position is that we have maximum protection, so we have to live our lives. As you say, a miracle cure might at some point be found, but we cannot wait for it.
A little commented upon fact that Javid said yesterday was that over a third of the cases being detected at the moment are entirely asymptomatic and being detected because of a routine use of lateral flow tests.
Avoiding the transmission of an asymptomatic case means nothing and if we weren't testing and weren't discovering those asymptomatic "cases" like most other nations we'd be none the wiser.
In order to have a meaningful impact on the NHS then one avoided case isn't enough, you need to be avoiding hundreds of thousands of cases. And masks and WFH won't do that, social distancing will but its not a price worth paying.
If the Government mandated masks it wouldn't make any meaningful difference whatsoever and everyone demanding masks would go on to demand social distancing and lockdowns and other stuff that will actually have an impact. If you believe that an "NHS collapse" means we need another lockdown then argue for that, but otherwise all this about masks is just displacement activity.
Hmm, if masks are mandated then they (so to speak) cover unknown asymptomatic cases too - not perfectly but enough to make a difference. At present there is no control at all over them, unless they are caught by testing.
Asymptomatic spread in a largely vaccinated population is probably a net positive. It builds natural immunity completely cost free. Preventing it may not be the best use of resources.
I've been thinking about lots of man- words today. Not words related to man (from Proto-German mann and Sanskrit manu - not etymologically related at all to 'human', which comes from Latin homo) - so no mansplaining here! (interested to see mansplain doesn't get underlined as misspelt by my computer..)
One of my favourite man- words, due to its peculiar spelling, is manoeuvre (which my computer does underline!). I'd always guessed that the -oeu- was somehow related to a French egg, but it appears not. The word came to English from the same word, with the same meaning, in Middle French. This was derived from an Old French word manovre, meaning 'hand-work' or 'manual labour'. And this was derived from Latin manus meaning hand, and operari meaning to work.
Interestingly, we also have another word derived from the same root. manovre from Middle French crossed the Channel to Middle English as maynouren, which had the same meaning of manual labour, especially on the soil. From this we got the word 'manure'
I now use the phrase "going on manoeuvres" to mean a longer visit to the lavatory.
Good morning all. I reiterate earlier comments regarding the chilly start and the beauty of the moon just before it set.
I'm on my way to London for the first time since March last year. I had to double back to the house to pick up a face covering to wear on the Tube - soft southerners and their nanny-state Covid rules...
I am firmly in the camp that it is the vaccine that protects us now. If anyone wants to wear an FFP3 to add a layer of protection to themselves then fair enough, but I don't see a need for that, nor to avoid the train or the pub or the shops. I do see a need to avoid the office most days, but that is for other reasons! I am operating back in life as normal mode. If I catch a virus and end up in bed for a few days it won't be the first time. If I get more ill than that, I'll be bloody unlucky. I'll also be bloody unlucky if the train I'm on crashes. We have to live with a tolerable level of risk. Pre-vaccine, the risk was too much for me, now it isn't.
Interesting post, Sandy. I remember your being very cautious pre-vaccine. It's a rational position that you expose there.
A little commented upon fact that Javid said yesterday was that over a third of the cases being detected at the moment are entirely asymptomatic and being detected because of a routine use of lateral flow tests.
Avoiding the transmission of an asymptomatic case means nothing and if we weren't testing and weren't discovering those asymptomatic "cases" like most other nations we'd be none the wiser.
In order to have a meaningful impact on the NHS then one avoided case isn't enough, you need to be avoiding hundreds of thousands of cases. And masks and WFH won't do that, social distancing will but its not a price worth paying.
If the Government mandated masks it wouldn't make any meaningful difference whatsoever and everyone demanding masks would go on to demand social distancing and lockdowns and other stuff that will actually have an impact. If you believe that an "NHS collapse" means we need another lockdown then argue for that, but otherwise all this about masks is just displacement activity.
Hmm, if masks are mandated then they (so to speak) cover unknown asymptomatic cases too - not perfectly but enough to make a difference. At present there is no control at all over them, unless they are caught by testing.
Asymptomatic spread in a largely vaccinated population is probably a net positive. It builds natural immunity completely cost free. Preventing it may not be the best use of resources.
Though a proportion of the resulting infections are not asymptomatic, and a proportion of those lead to hospitalizations and to long covid, and some deaths.
I'm not aware that asymptomatic spread is by a different virus (or strain, rather) from the one which causes debility and death (not being sarcastic at all: simply noting that issue).
The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.
I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.
Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal responsibility.
Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.
The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.
I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.
What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.
Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
How crassly moronic.
"Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."
Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
I think that question is a bit unfair, a touch of emotional shaming going on, but will give my answer as its an anonymous forum. I probably wouldn't share this view in public but think if there were an extra five thousand a week dying we should have more legal restrictions. At an extra two thousand a week no legal restrictions. So somewhere between those numbers for me.
How about you?
Certainly not 'as many as it takes', which PT said.
The problem with deaths is that it is a lagging factor. Before vaccines, cases went up, then hospitalisations, and then deaths. Now that the link between cases and hospitalisations has been weakened, the first sign we have of trouble is rising hospitalisations.
And I'll therefore swerve your question by saying it's the wrong one, if we're talking about restrictions. The first sign we'll get of big problems is from hospitalisations, and that's what we'd need to react to. So perhaps the 1,200-1,500 daily admissions that we had back in early November would be when we'd have to slam the handbrake on - particularly if they are increasing rapidly.
You asked the question of someone else so a bit of a cop out to now say it is the wrong question. I don't think using wrong questions for emotional shaming will help us get to the right answer.
I'm not 'emotional shaming'. PT's view is that, now we have vaccines, any number of people ("as many as it takes") should die in order to protect his freedom. He said: "People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end."
Which whilst true, could be used to excuse anything causing a life to end. Which is why I asked how many is acceptable. He gave his answer.
Why do you keep saying my freedom? I believe everyone should have freedom!
Do you want it to be illegal for a grandparent to hug their grandchild without both grandparent and grandchild wearing a mask when it happens? Do you want it to be illegal to sit in the same room as your parents without you and your parents wearing a mask?
People get sick and die, its sad but its true. Restrictions got us to the point of us having vaccines and rolling them out. Post-vaccines, what's the endgame if not now?
Your view is that everyone should have freedom.
Yes, except for the tens or hundreds of thousands who will die. Unless you call death the ultimate freedom?
You could make the same argument every winter re flu. Yet no-one does.
But this winter isn't 'normal crisis winter' for the NHS, it's (potentially) 'crisis crisis winter'. Reason being instead of flu we have flu + covid + backlog.
More excess deaths from non covid rather than covid at the moment. No one on either "side" of the debate seems very interested in those at the moment. Who are they? Perhaps tightening restrictions might be worse for those rather than better?
But isn't this a big part of it? Covid absorbs NHS resource and thus creates problems in other areas. Therefore less Covid = a better outcome for non Covid too. That seems logical to me.
So if social distancing isn't mandatory what's the point of it? Why suggest that people do it other than to virtue signal?
Your original point was suggesting mask wearing and social distancing be brought back. I'm not going to argue the first one, I'm still unsure over masks, I still wear one if the trains are busy but don't elsewhere, I also have a KN95 one too so I know it makes a difference for me. My issue is with your second point, social distancing is an extremely high cost NPI, both economically and socially and there's no such thing as voluntary social distancing. The whole point of it is to reduce the capacity of indoor spaces, if you're not using it to do that then there's really no point in doing it.
You have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that voluntary social distancing is pointless. It is little more than virtue signalling so unless you are suggesting that the state reintroduce 2m distancing you should probably have a rethink about what is possible.
As for the impending doom of the NHS, tbh, maybe it needs that shake up. The NHS does too much, maybe it needs to learn to do less and one of the things it could stop doing is treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients, send them to the private sector.
Good - we're having a debate rather than you just calling me a moron for disagreeing with you. Progress.
Voluntary social distancing is not pointless. Nor is voluntary WFH or voluntary wash your fucking hands. Every single transmission we block helps keep case numbers down and with it the impact onto health services.
You keep going on about virtue signalling - I have no interest in that. It isn't me saying these things its the people running the NHS. And yesterday the Health Secretary joined it. Several of you have said "its the NHS's fault" and that may well be true. The time to be making sweeping "reforms" (which lets be honest from your perspective means cuts) is not now. We need to get through the winter first.
No, keeping unvaccinated by choice people out of hospitals helps the NHS. There are a few ways to achieve it, make vaccination mandatory, push those patients into the private sector, put up a £5k per week NHS charge for COVID treatment for unvaccinated people, refuse to treat them if there's non-COVID patients who need care.
Your solutions don't target the actual problem which is unvaccinated people getting sick and needing treatment. Transmission of COVID within a fully vaccinated population would not cause an NHS crisis. No one would care about it just as we don't really care about the flu.
You're letting those idiots who have refused the vaccine off the hook and imposing a cost on those of us who were responsible and got vaccinated ASAP. I don't understand why you want to protect these fools from the consequences of their stupid choices.
A little commented upon fact that Javid said yesterday was that over a third of the cases being detected at the moment are entirely asymptomatic and being detected because of a routine use of lateral flow tests.
Avoiding the transmission of an asymptomatic case means nothing and if we weren't testing and weren't discovering those asymptomatic "cases" like most other nations we'd be none the wiser.
In order to have a meaningful impact on the NHS then one avoided case isn't enough, you need to be avoiding hundreds of thousands of cases. And masks and WFH won't do that, social distancing will but its not a price worth paying.
If the Government mandated masks it wouldn't make any meaningful difference whatsoever and everyone demanding masks would go on to demand social distancing and lockdowns and other stuff that will actually have an impact. If you believe that an "NHS collapse" means we need another lockdown then argue for that, but otherwise all this about masks is just displacement activity.
"just displacement activity" until my or your child is unfortunate enough to have an unexpected medical emergency over the winter at the point where NHS just isn't in fit state to provide emergency care quickly enough.
That is the horror that people are facing. Should you be unlucky and it be you and not them in that position (and again I sincerely hope not) I wonder if you will be so dismissive.
A single case avoided will make absolutely no difference whatsoever to the NHS's ability to provide emergency care quickly enough. One single case avoided would be a drop in the ocean.
In order for there to be any meaningful change in the NHS's ability to provide emergency care there would need to be a meaningful change in cases. Hundreds of thousands of cases avoided might do.
If that's the situation we're facing then you need to be arguing for credible measures to avoid hundreds of thousands of cases. Otherwise yes it is displacement activity and there will be no difference whatsoever to the emergency care given to a child.
The key question is what are we trying to achieve? A safe NHS? Fewer deaths? Surely one of those two.
If it is the former then it's a bit of caveat emptor. A nasty bout of the flu for the vast majority of the double-jabbed. But will those unjabbed be in a position via illness to overwhelm or at least crowd out the NHS.
This latter is the more critical of the questions. But - so far - we live in a free country and the NHS exists to accommodate and help our needs not the other way round. If we are now in a society whereby 5m people don't want to get jabbed, that is entirely their prerogative. So the next question is: who pays? Well it is tempting to say all taxpayers, just like several societal groups are over-represented users of the NHS we all lump in and pay.
If our society is now one that contains a significant number of the unjabbed and that means more hospitalisations, then we as a society should pay for it.
Good morning all. I reiterate earlier comments regarding the chilly start and the beauty of the moon just before it set.
I'm on my way to London for the first time since March last year. I had to double back to the house to pick up a face covering to wear on the Tube - soft southerners and their nanny-state Covid rules...
I am firmly in the camp that it is the vaccine that protects us now. If anyone wants to wear an FFP3 to add a layer of protection to themselves then fair enough, but I don't see a need for that, nor to avoid the train or the pub or the shops. I do see a need to avoid the office most days, but that is for other reasons! I am operating back in life as normal mode. If I catch a virus and end up in bed for a few days it won't be the first time. If I get more ill than that, I'll be bloody unlucky. I'll also be bloody unlucky if the train I'm on crashes. We have to live with a tolerable level of risk. Pre-vaccine, the risk was too much for me, now it isn't.
Interesting post, Sandy. I remember your being very cautious pre-vaccine. It's a rational position that you expose there.
Yes, I had to double-check that this was Sandy! I agree entirely. Also agree about the beauty of the moon this morning.
The key question is what are we trying to achieve? A safe NHS? Fewer deaths? Surely one of those two.
If it is the former then it's a bit of caveat emptor. A nasty bout of the flu for the vast majority of the double-jabbed. But will those unjabbed be in a position via illness to overwhelm or at least crowd out the NHS.
This latter is the more critical of the questions. But - so far - we live in a free country and the NHS exists to accommodate and help our needs not the other way round. If we are now in a society whereby 5m people don't want to get jabbed, that is entirely their prerogative. So the next question is: who pays? Well it is tempting to say all taxpayers, just like several societal groups are over-represented users of the NHS we all lump in and pay.
If our society is now one that contains a significant number of the unjabbed and that means more hospitalisations, then we as a society should pay for it.
I have liked this post as I think I agree. But the questions you are asking are so complex that I haven't really formed a clear view on it as yet. The danger of course is that so many people will go with knee jerk reactions about making selfish anti-vaxxers pay or enforced vaccination without considering the full implications of that both good and bad.
in Denmarl we have no restrictions now and even masks on flights inside the nordic region are gone - I don't think we'll be reintroducing formal measures but there are still requests to keep some distance which on my train are impossible to comply with but in the supermarket are mostly kept to.
This is an endemic disease which currently kills about 2-3 people in Denmark a day (20-30 UK equivalent) and I think for most people here that is just what life is like now - nobody questions anyone wearing a mask but they are not, and never have been, popular here.
A little commented upon fact that Javid said yesterday was that over a third of the cases being detected at the moment are entirely asymptomatic and being detected because of a routine use of lateral flow tests.
Avoiding the transmission of an asymptomatic case means nothing and if we weren't testing and weren't discovering those asymptomatic "cases" like most other nations we'd be none the wiser.
In order to have a meaningful impact on the NHS then one avoided case isn't enough, you need to be avoiding hundreds of thousands of cases. And masks and WFH won't do that, social distancing will but its not a price worth paying.
If the Government mandated masks it wouldn't make any meaningful difference whatsoever and everyone demanding masks would go on to demand social distancing and lockdowns and other stuff that will actually have an impact. If you believe that an "NHS collapse" means we need another lockdown then argue for that, but otherwise all this about masks is just displacement activity.
"just displacement activity" until my or your child is unfortunate enough to have an unexpected medical emergency over the winter at the point where NHS just isn't in fit state to provide emergency care quickly enough.
That is the horror that people are facing. Should you be unlucky and it be you and not them in that position (and again I sincerely hope not) I wonder if you will be so dismissive.
A single case avoided will make absolutely no difference whatsoever to the NHS's ability to provide emergency care quickly enough. One single case avoided would be a drop in the ocean.
In order for there to be any meaningful change in the NHS's ability to provide emergency care there would need to be a meaningful change in cases. Hundreds of thousands of cases avoided might do.
If that's the situation we're facing then you need to be arguing for credible measures to avoid hundreds of thousands of cases. Otherwise yes it is displacement activity and there will be no difference whatsoever to the emergency care given to a child.
As we have all noted over the summer "cases" is not the relevant figure any more. Its "hospitalisations". We absolutely can make a difference to those. And one single case avoided just might be that critical care bed that you need.
I know your political perspectives on this. I disagree but I know they are rational and considered. Can you accept the reverse that the people making the decisions have to consider the lives of those people who aren't you?
Its like any management decision. Easy to criticise from below when you don;'t have both all of the data or the burden of responsibility on your shoulders.
The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.
I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.
Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal responsibility.
Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.
The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.
I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.
What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.
Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
How crassly moronic.
"Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."
Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
But surely there has to be a balance. People die in traffic accidents, or of smoking related conditions or drinking related conditions or of any other number of preventable conditions. We do not ban those activities. We certainly mitigate but not to the degree being proposed by some with COVID. We simply cannot keep locking down or applying large scale restrictions. The vaccines have to be the route out of this. This is not about Philips freedom it is about a fully functioning society and we need a fully functioning economy to pay for this.
Of course there has to be a balance.
I am not in favour of a return to harder restrictions at the moment. It seems a fine-edged thing, though, and the last 18 months have shown us that if you're not careful, when restrictions are required, they're required suddenly.
Hopefully enough kids are getting Covid that we'll be at herd immunity soon, and then figures will plummet. However, herd immunity's been called out many times before during this crisis, and we're not there yet. This s***** little B****er of a virus is a survivor, and may yet surprise us. Again.
And that's where PT is being complacent. He is unwilling to see people do even the smallest measures to protect themselves and others, because for some reason it is offensive to him. He callously disregards unnecessary deaths - possibly because it's not his own death. His argument could be used if we have 100 extra deaths a day, or a thousand. Or ten thousand.
The question you have to ask JJ is how does it get any better than this? If you are double - or triple jabbed - then you are never going to be safer than you are now. Are you proposing that the restrictions, mild as they may seem to you, should become a permanent way of life in Britain? Are we going to see the threat of lockdowns every single winter because the NHS is so unfit for purpose even before Covid?
Basically this is the new normal everyone was talking about. It is possible there is some miracle cure around the corner but to be honest I think we already have that as effectively as we are ever going to get it. So if you think PT is being unreasonable in his rather forthright comments then you have to say what you are proposing as the permanent alternatives.
I think this is the key question that I have asked myself and ask others when this debate arises. I always arrive at the same answer: the only rational position is that we have maximum protection, so we have to live our lives. As you say, a miracle cure might at some point be found, but we cannot wait for it.
It's not really about a miracle cure. Soon we'll have the boosters done, and kids done, and our level of immunity (from vax + infection) will be maxed out and in all probabaility sufficient to have the disease down at background levels. Very much there but manageable. This is then clear 'live with it' territory - both because we can and (your point) because we have to. That's not far away.
But in the meantime, with winter and with the coexistence along with Covid of flu and the pandemic backlog, should we (i) be prepared to bring in some restrictions to prevent the NHS collapsing, or (ii) should we rule this out on a libertarian point of principle? This is how I'd frame the discussion and while not being a hawk on the matter I'd come down squarely for (i).
The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.
I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.
Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal responsibility.
Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.
The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.
I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.
What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.
Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
How crassly moronic.
"Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."
Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
I think that question is a bit unfair, a touch of emotional shaming going on, but will give my answer as its an anonymous forum. I probably wouldn't share this view in public but think if there were an extra five thousand a week dying we should have more legal restrictions. At an extra two thousand a week no legal restrictions. So somewhere between those numbers for me.
How about you?
Certainly not 'as many as it takes', which PT said.
The problem with deaths is that it is a lagging factor. Before vaccines, cases went up, then hospitalisations, and then deaths. Now that the link between cases and hospitalisations has been weakened, the first sign we have of trouble is rising hospitalisations.
And I'll therefore swerve your question by saying it's the wrong one, if we're talking about restrictions. The first sign we'll get of big problems is from hospitalisations, and that's what we'd need to react to. So perhaps the 1,200-1,500 daily admissions that we had back in early November would be when we'd have to slam the handbrake on - particularly if they are increasing rapidly.
You asked the question of someone else so a bit of a cop out to now say it is the wrong question. I don't think using wrong questions for emotional shaming will help us get to the right answer.
I'm not 'emotional shaming'. PT's view is that, now we have vaccines, any number of people ("as many as it takes") should die in order to protect his freedom. He said: "People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end."
Which whilst true, could be used to excuse anything causing a life to end. Which is why I asked how many is acceptable. He gave his answer.
Why do you keep saying my freedom? I believe everyone should have freedom!
Do you want it to be illegal for a grandparent to hug their grandchild without both grandparent and grandchild wearing a mask when it happens? Do you want it to be illegal to sit in the same room as your parents without you and your parents wearing a mask?
People get sick and die, its sad but its true. Restrictions got us to the point of us having vaccines and rolling them out. Post-vaccines, what's the endgame if not now?
Your view is that everyone should have freedom.
Yes, except for the tens or hundreds of thousands who will die. Unless you call death the ultimate freedom?
You could make the same argument every winter re flu. Yet no-one does.
But this winter isn't 'normal crisis winter' for the NHS, it's (potentially) 'crisis crisis winter'. Reason being instead of flu we have flu + covid + backlog.
More excess deaths from non covid rather than covid at the moment. No one on either "side" of the debate seems very interested in those at the moment. Who are they? Perhaps tightening restrictions might be worse for those rather than better?
But isn't this a big part of it? Covid absorbs NHS resource and thus creates problems in other areas. Therefore less Covid = a better outcome for non Covid too. That seems logical to me.
Talking about and focusing on covid reduces peoples willingness to seek out other health services.
Yes, there is a point at which too little focus on covid could be costly. But there is also a danger of too much focus on covid creating and prolonging ongoing health issues that also lead to many excess deaths as well.
Anyway next week the media, and pb, will have relegated covid from top of the attention charts and be talking about the environment and Cop26. No bad thing in my opinion, looking forward to that one.
The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.
I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.
Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal responsibility.
Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.
The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.
I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.
What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.
Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
How crassly moronic.
"Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."
Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
I think that question is a bit unfair, a touch of emotional shaming going on, but will give my answer as its an anonymous forum. I probably wouldn't share this view in public but think if there were an extra five thousand a week dying we should have more legal restrictions. At an extra two thousand a week no legal restrictions. So somewhere between those numbers for me.
How about you?
Certainly not 'as many as it takes', which PT said.
The problem with deaths is that it is a lagging factor. Before vaccines, cases went up, then hospitalisations, and then deaths. Now that the link between cases and hospitalisations has been weakened, the first sign we have of trouble is rising hospitalisations.
And I'll therefore swerve your question by saying it's the wrong one, if we're talking about restrictions. The first sign we'll get of big problems is from hospitalisations, and that's what we'd need to react to. So perhaps the 1,200-1,500 daily admissions that we had back in early November would be when we'd have to slam the handbrake on - particularly if they are increasing rapidly.
You asked the question of someone else so a bit of a cop out to now say it is the wrong question. I don't think using wrong questions for emotional shaming will help us get to the right answer.
I'm not 'emotional shaming'. PT's view is that, now we have vaccines, any number of people ("as many as it takes") should die in order to protect his freedom. He said: "People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end."
Which whilst true, could be used to excuse anything causing a life to end. Which is why I asked how many is acceptable. He gave his answer.
What is the alternative?
I believe I gave my view below. We're currently at a manageable, if tragic, level of deaths and hospitalisations. If hospitalisations go up to a certain level - perhaps 1,200 to 1,500 a day, then we need to seriously consider more restrictions.
I'm not saying we need them at the moment. But my view is that we need to be open to the need for more restrictions, and not just callously let any number of people die (and, incidentally, cause the hospital system to fail, potentially affecting all of us).
Until we are in a more stable situation, we've got to be prepared to react.
Again and do what? Whose businesses are you prepared to destroy and lives ruin pursuing an impossible goal?
What's the impossible goal? All we're talking about is managing an epidemic within NHS capacity.
That implies we can keep it at a level low enough to make a difference. We can't. Not without compulsory vaccination. And maybe not even then.
Trouble is this is a great get out for the Government. The NHS is unfit for purpose (keeping people alive) but they can blame its failings on covid.
NHS reform + funding is an important area, I agree. I'm not an "envy of the world" person. But we won't have that sorted by Christmas. To me, this is simply about bringing some limited measures in to get through this winter without something grisly happening. If necessary. Maybe it won't be. But it's crazy imo to just rule it out on some sort of libertarian point of principle.
For once I am not arguing this from a libertarian point of view but purely from one of practicality and (I hope) logic. Putting in place any form of restriction which impacts businesses - particularly the entertainment and hospitality industry - is unsustainable and illogical unless you are saying things are going to get any better than this in the long term. I don't see how they do and the logical conclusion of putting any restrictions in place this winter is that they will have to be reintroduced every winter in the future. That is unsustainable.
A little commented upon fact that Javid said yesterday was that over a third of the cases being detected at the moment are entirely asymptomatic and being detected because of a routine use of lateral flow tests.
Avoiding the transmission of an asymptomatic case means nothing and if we weren't testing and weren't discovering those asymptomatic "cases" like most other nations we'd be none the wiser.
In order to have a meaningful impact on the NHS then one avoided case isn't enough, you need to be avoiding hundreds of thousands of cases. And masks and WFH won't do that, social distancing will but its not a price worth paying.
If the Government mandated masks it wouldn't make any meaningful difference whatsoever and everyone demanding masks would go on to demand social distancing and lockdowns and other stuff that will actually have an impact. If you believe that an "NHS collapse" means we need another lockdown then argue for that, but otherwise all this about masks is just displacement activity.
"just displacement activity" until my or your child is unfortunate enough to have an unexpected medical emergency over the winter at the point where NHS just isn't in fit state to provide emergency care quickly enough.
That is the horror that people are facing. Should you be unlucky and it be you and not them in that position (and again I sincerely hope not) I wonder if you will be so dismissive.
A single case avoided will make absolutely no difference whatsoever to the NHS's ability to provide emergency care quickly enough. One single case avoided would be a drop in the ocean.
In order for there to be any meaningful change in the NHS's ability to provide emergency care there would need to be a meaningful change in cases. Hundreds of thousands of cases avoided might do.
If that's the situation we're facing then you need to be arguing for credible measures to avoid hundreds of thousands of cases. Otherwise yes it is displacement activity and there will be no difference whatsoever to the emergency care given to a child.
As we have all noted over the summer "cases" is not the relevant figure any more. Its "hospitalisations". We absolutely can make a difference to those. And one single case avoided just might be that critical care bed that you need.
I know your political perspectives on this. I disagree but I know they are rational and considered. Can you accept the reverse that the people making the decisions have to consider the lives of those people who aren't you?
Its like any management decision. Easy to criticise from below when you don;'t have both all of the data or the burden of responsibility on your shoulders.
As others have said the link between hospitalisation and cases has been weakened but not eliminated. So how do you propose, practically, to make a significant difference to hospitalisation numbers?
One irony of course with the weaker relationship between cases and hospitalisations is that in order to meaningfully adjust hospitalisation numbers you need to prevent an order of magnitude more cases than you did in the past.
So yes consider the lives of people. But if you want to make a meaningful difference to those lives, you need to make meaningful changes. Tinkering at the edges isn't a meaningful change.
"I'm comfortable with a permanent 10% rise in death rates so I don't have to wear a mask for 40 minutes in the shop, but I am uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"
"I'm comfortable damaging the education of kids to keep a few sick oldies alive for a few hours more, but I'm uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"
"I'm comfortable destroying jobs and damaging people's mental health to delay but not stop anti-vaxxers being infected, but I'm uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"
Wearing a mask on the bus is destroying your mental health? I'm very sorry to hear that.
Some people might not feel comfortable getting on a bus if there is a mask mandate, because it suggests that it isn't safe. They may therefore become somewhat trapped, which isn't good for anyone.
The reality is that - as we were told at the very beginning - masks might work if used properly, but they very rarely are. The effect is marginal at best.
I went to a meeting recently at which people were wearing masks. Fine. I put one on out of politeness. Then I found that half the people present took them off to speak so that they could be heard. Doh! What was the point of that?
Because if one person in that room was sick, and was wearing a mask, the chances of anyone else in that room becoming sick were reduced. Even more so if they weren't speaking, but even if they only wore the mask for part of the time.
We all really need to get past the false dichotomy, namely that if you can't completely avoid risk, it's pointless trying to even reduce it.
The more masks are used, the lower the rate and severity of transmission. Fact. If a speaker takes a mask off for the duration of their speech, that adds to the risk, but it doesn't go from 0% before to 100% afterwards. Don't be trapped into thinking that "imperfect" is the same as "worthless".
Just because you say "Fact." does not make it a fact.
Scotland and Wales have kept mask mandates. So has TFL. They haven't made a damned bit of difference. So not a fact.
What makes a difference is meaningful restrictions. Vaccines, social distancing, lockdowns etc - and apart from vaccines those are devastating. Masks only partially worn, only part of the time, is just irrelevant gesturism.
The key question is what are we trying to achieve? A safe NHS? Fewer deaths? Surely one of those two.
If it is the former then it's a bit of caveat emptor. A nasty bout of the flu for the vast majority of the double-jabbed. But will those unjabbed be in a position via illness to overwhelm or at least crowd out the NHS.
This latter is the more critical of the questions. But - so far - we live in a free country and the NHS exists to accommodate and help our needs not the other way round. If we are now in a society whereby 5m people don't want to get jabbed, that is entirely their prerogative. So the next question is: who pays? Well it is tempting to say all taxpayers, just like several societal groups are over-represented users of the NHS we all lump in and pay.
If our society is now one that contains a significant number of the unjabbed and that means more hospitalisations, then we as a society should pay for it.
I have liked this post as I think I agree. But the questions you are asking are so complex that I haven't really formed a clear view on it as yet. The danger of course is that so many people will go with knee jerk reactions about making selfish anti-vaxxers pay or enforced vaccination without considering the full implications of that both good and bad.
Thank you Richard - I almost deleted it three times for just that reason when I was writing it!
And yes, it has to be carefully thought through (not something I think the government is minded to do). But my point was the one that several of us are making this morning - we can't have a tail wagging dog situation with the NHS. That said, we all saw the trolleys in Italy at the beginning of the pandemic and no govt, and few citizens, could tolerate that.
Doing the math, it is of course the case that the fewer Covid cases the freer the hospitals to treat "normal" flu to say nothing of the backlog. But I worry that that leads us to restrictions that will be permanent in their regular enforcement.
It is absurd to say withhold treatment on account of a decision not to have oneself jabbed because that is a slippery slope. Smokers and scaffolders next in line.
So that leaves us reframing society to accommodate a non-trivial proportion of those who will likely take up NHS resource. But of course they are not an homogenous body, but individuals who have made individual decisions. And hence, while I still have a lot more thinking to do on it, like all of us, I seem to be heading towards accommodation via taxes so the NHS can cope.
I would also like to see a complete overhaul of the UK's health system, obvs.
HoC - as I predicted yesterday. Javid was quite embarrassed when asked at the press conference why, if the guidance was to wear masks in enclosed or crowded spaces, that didn't apply to Tories in the HoC.
The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.
I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.
Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal responsibility.
Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.
The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.
I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.
What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.
Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
How crassly moronic.
"Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."
Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
But surely there has to be a balance. People die in traffic accidents, or of smoking related conditions or drinking related conditions or of any other number of preventable conditions. We do not ban those activities. We certainly mitigate but not to the degree being proposed by some with COVID. We simply cannot keep locking down or applying large scale restrictions. The vaccines have to be the route out of this. This is not about Philips freedom it is about a fully functioning society and we need a fully functioning economy to pay for this.
Of course there has to be a balance.
I am not in favour of a return to harder restrictions at the moment. It seems a fine-edged thing, though, and the last 18 months have shown us that if you're not careful, when restrictions are required, they're required suddenly.
Hopefully enough kids are getting Covid that we'll be at herd immunity soon, and then figures will plummet. However, herd immunity's been called out many times before during this crisis, and we're not there yet. This s***** little B****er of a virus is a survivor, and may yet surprise us. Again.
And that's where PT is being complacent. He is unwilling to see people do even the smallest measures to protect themselves and others, because for some reason it is offensive to him. He callously disregards unnecessary deaths - possibly because it's not his own death. His argument could be used if we have 100 extra deaths a day, or a thousand. Or ten thousand.
The question you have to ask JJ is how does it get any better than this? If you are double - or triple jabbed - then you are never going to be safer than you are now. Are you proposing that the restrictions, mild as they may seem to you, should become a permanent way of life in Britain? Are we going to see the threat of lockdowns every single winter because the NHS is so unfit for purpose even before Covid?
Basically this is the new normal everyone was talking about. It is possible there is some miracle cure around the corner but to be honest I think we already have that as effectively as we are ever going to get it. So if you think PT is being unreasonable in his rather forthright comments then you have to say what you are proposing as the permanent alternatives.
I think this is the key question that I have asked myself and ask others when this debate arises. I always arrive at the same answer: the only rational position is that we have maximum protection, so we have to live our lives. As you say, a miracle cure might at some point be found, but we cannot wait for it.
It's not really about a miracle cure. Soon we'll have the boosters done, and kids done, and our level of immunity (from vax + infection) will be maxed out and in all probabaility sufficient to have the disease down at background levels. Very much there but manageable. This is then clear 'live with it' territory - both because we can and (your point) because we have to. That's not far away.
But in the meantime, with winter and with the coexistence along with Covid of flu and the pandemic backlog, should we (i) be prepared to bring in some restrictions to prevent the NHS collapsing, or (ii) should we rule this out on a libertarian point of principle? This is how I'd frame the discussion and while not being a hawk on the matter I'd come down squarely for (i).
You still havent answered what restrictions, apart from saying masks and wfh.
Wfh has never been legally enforced, how would you do this? If a business say it is essential to come into the office should they be closed down?
Masks, to the untrained eye usage is similar in mandated settings like TFL and voluntary ones like supermarkets.
So if all you are saying is you would like government to encourage masks and wfh, fine. If not what would you change legally and what impact do you think it would have?
I've been thinking about lots of man- words today. Not words related to man (from Proto-German mann and Sanskrit manu - not etymologically related at all to 'human', which comes from Latin homo) - so no mansplaining here! (interested to see mansplain doesn't get underlined as misspelt by my computer..)
One of my favourite man- words, due to its peculiar spelling, is manoeuvre (which my computer does underline!). I'd always guessed that the -oeu- was somehow related to a French egg, but it appears not. The word came to English from the same word, with the same meaning, in Middle French. This was derived from an Old French word manovre, meaning 'hand-work' or 'manual labour'. And this was derived from Latin manus meaning hand, and operari meaning to work.
Interestingly, we also have another word derived from the same root. manovre from Middle French crossed the Channel to Middle English as maynouren, which had the same meaning of manual labour, especially on the soil. From this we got the word 'manure'
I now use the phrase "going on manoeuvres" to mean a longer visit to the lavatory.
In further man-hand words, we have mandate (from Latin mandare from manus and dare, to put, so literally "to put in one's hands") and from the same root we get command, demand and remand.
With this man hand meaning, I always find myself annoyed by (usually angry male American) characters in movies and on tv using "mano a mano" to mean "man to man", when it obviously means "hand to hand". As if the Spanish for man would be mano.. I'm waiting to hear a woman use "womano a womano" in the same way.
To finish in a typically smutty place, I was pleased to see that "masturbate" could be considered among these man- words. It's not certain, but has long been suggested that it's a compound of manus and turbare which means to unsettle, and from which we get the word turbulence. I think "hand turbulence" is a wonderfully euphemistic way to describe the practice!
I'm also amused to see that a 19C slang synonym was "boxing the Jesuit"
Miss Livermore, worth noting, on a related(ish) note that gladiator means mean of the sword. But it was also (gladius) slang for penis. Which also fits, because Roman noblewomen used gladiators as male prostitutes.
in Denmarl we have no restrictions now and even masks on flights inside the nordic region are gone - I don't think we'll be reintroducing formal measures but there are still requests to keep some distance which on my train are impossible to comply with but in the supermarket are mostly kept to.
This is an endemic disease which currently kills about 2-3 people in Denmark a day (20-30 UK equivalent) and I think for most people here that is just what life is like now - nobody questions anyone wearing a mask but they are not, and never have been, popular here.
That's fair enough, but I think most of us would be a bit more relaxed if we lived in Denmark. Your death rate is 463 per million; the UK's is 2,034 per million. Regardless of explanations for this, clearly Denmark hasn't suffered anywhere near as badly as the UK.
So if social distancing isn't mandatory what's the point of it? Why suggest that people do it other than to virtue signal?
Your original point was suggesting mask wearing and social distancing be brought back. I'm not going to argue the first one, I'm still unsure over masks, I still wear one if the trains are busy but don't elsewhere, I also have a KN95 one too so I know it makes a difference for me. My issue is with your second point, social distancing is an extremely high cost NPI, both economically and socially and there's no such thing as voluntary social distancing. The whole point of it is to reduce the capacity of indoor spaces, if you're not using it to do that then there's really no point in doing it.
You have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that voluntary social distancing is pointless. It is little more than virtue signalling so unless you are suggesting that the state reintroduce 2m distancing you should probably have a rethink about what is possible.
As for the impending doom of the NHS, tbh, maybe it needs that shake up. The NHS does too much, maybe it needs to learn to do less and one of the things it could stop doing is treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients, send them to the private sector.
Good - we're having a debate rather than you just calling me a moron for disagreeing with you. Progress.
Voluntary social distancing is not pointless. Nor is voluntary WFH or voluntary wash your fucking hands. Every single transmission we block helps keep case numbers down and with it the impact onto health services.
You keep going on about virtue signalling - I have no interest in that. It isn't me saying these things its the people running the NHS. And yesterday the Health Secretary joined it. Several of you have said "its the NHS's fault" and that may well be true. The time to be making sweeping "reforms" (which lets be honest from your perspective means cuts) is not now. We need to get through the winter first.
The NHS has been crocked for years. Of course "the NHS" is going to say lock everyone up or do anything to protect itself. And sadly no Health Secretary can either a) ignore it because it's bollocks and we get a Graun-described "NHS in Crisis" every Christmas; or b) stick more money into the NHS as we the voters aren't having any of it.
So here we are.
Covid plus Flu plus Backlog isn't a normal NHS 'winter crisis'. It's potentially on a different scale. And I haven't seen them demanding everyone be locked up. Plan B is hardly that.
"I'm comfortable with a permanent 10% rise in death rates so I don't have to wear a mask for 40 minutes in the shop, but I am uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"
"I'm comfortable damaging the education of kids to keep a few sick oldies alive for a few hours more, but I'm uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"
"I'm comfortable destroying jobs and damaging people's mental health to delay but not stop anti-vaxxers being infected, but I'm uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"
Wearing a mask on the bus is destroying your mental health? I'm very sorry to hear that.
Some people might not feel comfortable getting on a bus if there is a mask mandate, because it suggests that it isn't safe. They may therefore become somewhat trapped, which isn't good for anyone.
The reality is that - as we were told at the very beginning - masks might work if used properly, but they very rarely are. The effect is marginal at best.
I went to a meeting recently at which people were wearing masks. Fine. I put one on out of politeness. Then I found that half the people present took them off to speak so that they could be heard. Doh! What was the point of that?
Because if one person in that room was sick, and was wearing a mask, the chances of anyone else in that room becoming sick were reduced. Even more so if they weren't speaking, but even if they only wore the mask for part of the time.
We all really need to get past the false dichotomy, namely that if you can't completely avoid risk, it's pointless trying to even reduce it.
The more masks are used, the lower the rate and severity of transmission. Fact. If a speaker takes a mask off for the duration of their speech, that adds to the risk, but it doesn't go from 0% before to 100% afterwards. Don't be trapped into thinking that "imperfect" is the same as "worthless".
Just because you say "Fact." does not make it a fact.
Scotland and Wales have kept mask mandates. So has TFL. They haven't made a damned bit of difference. So not a fact.
What makes a difference is meaningful restrictions. Vaccines, social distancing, lockdowns etc - and apart from vaccines those are devastating. Masks only partially worn, only part of the time, is just irrelevant gesturism.
As I keep saying here in North Wales mask wearing is much reduced and there is no enforcement
They are used on transport as far as I can see and in medical establishments but elsewhere it is the exception to the rule
Expecting a cloth mask worn in the shops to defeat Covid without any social distancing is like expecting a 5 minute walk after dinner to avoid obesity when dinner was a Double Big Mac meal, with a Large Coke, followed by a grab bag of Doritos and a king sized Mars Bar.
If you want meaningful changes, you need to make meaningful changes. A cloth mask is not one of them.
I also think there's other ways of getting people into the vaccine funnel and getting those 4m single jabbed people to get their second doses.
My idea would be a one off £250 for every single fully vaccinated person who has had all of their eligible doses by December 20th with the money paid on December 21st.
The Christmas vaccine dividend. It would probably cost about £16-18bn but compared to the alternatives that's actually a pretty small cost. Give it to kids too if they've had their dose(s).
Even if we get just 3m of those single jabbed into double jabbed and get 2m unvaccinated into fully vaccinated it pushes us towards herd immunity. We need 54m people fully vaccinated to get there, a policy like this would get us most of the way. Add in prior infections and we'd be at the threshold.
What's happening at the moment is our exit wave is filling in the vaccine gaps, that's basically kids and unvaccinated people. The last time I checked it would be 400k hospitalisations overall. Our aim should be policies to either not have them at all (the NHS refusing to treat them) or bring that number down by 80% with vaccines.
We need to, once again, recognise the issue before we start to impose restrictions on people who have done the right thing and got vaccinated.
I'm currently on a clinical trial testing a vaccine against Respiratory Syncytial Virus. In the UK, it accounts for approximately 450,000 GP appointments, 29,000 hospitalisations and 83 deaths per year in children and adolescents, the majority in infants.
It also has a major impact on elderly adults; 175,000 GP appointments, 14,000 hospitalisations and 8,000 deaths per year in the UK.
Not familiar? Too busy worrying about Covid? It would be nice if the newspapers could get things in perspective.
Sky now leading with the BMA accusing HMG of wilful negligence over plan B
This is becoming ridiculous
You can disagree with government action but wilfully negligent is hyperbole
And you could not make if up, their reporter from a school is wearing a mask - below his nose !!!!!
Tory critics of Labour - They haven't opposed the government, it is terrible, we need strong opposition Labour - We oppose the government for once Tory critics of Labour - No not like that!! Quieten down
HoC - as I predicted yesterday. Javid was quite embarrassed when asked at the press conference why, if the guidance was to wear masks in enclosed or crowded spaces, that didn't apply to Tories in the HoC.
Seems it did not apply at the labour party conference and as has just been evidenced on Sky news, their reporter was wearing a mask - below his nose !!!!!!
So if social distancing isn't mandatory what's the point of it? Why suggest that people do it other than to virtue signal?
Your original point was suggesting mask wearing and social distancing be brought back. I'm not going to argue the first one, I'm still unsure over masks, I still wear one if the trains are busy but don't elsewhere, I also have a KN95 one too so I know it makes a difference for me. My issue is with your second point, social distancing is an extremely high cost NPI, both economically and socially and there's no such thing as voluntary social distancing. The whole point of it is to reduce the capacity of indoor spaces, if you're not using it to do that then there's really no point in doing it.
You have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that voluntary social distancing is pointless. It is little more than virtue signalling so unless you are suggesting that the state reintroduce 2m distancing you should probably have a rethink about what is possible.
As for the impending doom of the NHS, tbh, maybe it needs that shake up. The NHS does too much, maybe it needs to learn to do less and one of the things it could stop doing is treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients, send them to the private sector.
Good - we're having a debate rather than you just calling me a moron for disagreeing with you. Progress.
Voluntary social distancing is not pointless. Nor is voluntary WFH or voluntary wash your fucking hands. Every single transmission we block helps keep case numbers down and with it the impact onto health services.
You keep going on about virtue signalling - I have no interest in that. It isn't me saying these things its the people running the NHS. And yesterday the Health Secretary joined it. Several of you have said "its the NHS's fault" and that may well be true. The time to be making sweeping "reforms" (which lets be honest from your perspective means cuts) is not now. We need to get through the winter first.
The NHS has been crocked for years. Of course "the NHS" is going to say lock everyone up or do anything to protect itself. And sadly no Health Secretary can either a) ignore it because it's bollocks and we get a Graun-described "NHS in Crisis" every Christmas; or b) stick more money into the NHS as we the voters aren't having any of it.
So here we are.
Covid plus Flu plus Backlog isn't a normal NHS 'winter crisis'. It's potentially on a different scale. And I haven't seen them demanding everyone be locked up. Plan B is hardly that.
No you're right and I think part of the banner headlines are designed so that if and when masks and wfh do come in everyone will say "is that it?"
But Covid plus Flu plus Backlog needs to be accommodated. Why does the NHS or the government or the taxpayers think that it can or should operate as usual in the time of a pandemic?
I'm currently on a clinical trial testing a vaccine against Respiratory Syncytial Virus. In the UK, it accounts for approximately 450,000 GP appointments, 29,000 hospitalisations and 83 deaths per year in children and adolescents, the majority in infants.
It also has a major impact on elderly adults; 175,000 GP appointments, 14,000 hospitalisations and 8,000 deaths per year in the UK.
Not familiar? Too busy worrying about Covid? It would be nice if the newspapers could get things in perspective.
An excellent thing to be doing (you, but also the newspapers too). I have a friend in clinical trials (not that kind) and have been very impressed by the importance of really good clinical trials.
So if social distancing isn't mandatory what's the point of it? Why suggest that people do it other than to virtue signal?
Your original point was suggesting mask wearing and social distancing be brought back. I'm not going to argue the first one, I'm still unsure over masks, I still wear one if the trains are busy but don't elsewhere, I also have a KN95 one too so I know it makes a difference for me. My issue is with your second point, social distancing is an extremely high cost NPI, both economically and socially and there's no such thing as voluntary social distancing. The whole point of it is to reduce the capacity of indoor spaces, if you're not using it to do that then there's really no point in doing it.
You have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that voluntary social distancing is pointless. It is little more than virtue signalling so unless you are suggesting that the state reintroduce 2m distancing you should probably have a rethink about what is possible.
As for the impending doom of the NHS, tbh, maybe it needs that shake up. The NHS does too much, maybe it needs to learn to do less and one of the things it could stop doing is treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients, send them to the private sector.
Good - we're having a debate rather than you just calling me a moron for disagreeing with you. Progress.
Voluntary social distancing is not pointless. Nor is voluntary WFH or voluntary wash your fucking hands. Every single transmission we block helps keep case numbers down and with it the impact onto health services.
You keep going on about virtue signalling - I have no interest in that. It isn't me saying these things its the people running the NHS. And yesterday the Health Secretary joined it. Several of you have said "its the NHS's fault" and that may well be true. The time to be making sweeping "reforms" (which lets be honest from your perspective means cuts) is not now. We need to get through the winter first.
The NHS has been crocked for years. Of course "the NHS" is going to say lock everyone up or do anything to protect itself. And sadly no Health Secretary can either a) ignore it because it's bollocks and we get a Graun-described "NHS in Crisis" every Christmas; or b) stick more money into the NHS as we the voters aren't having any of it.
So here we are.
Covid plus Flu plus Backlog isn't a normal NHS 'winter crisis'. It's potentially on a different scale. And I haven't seen them demanding everyone be locked up. Plan B is hardly that.
As we had a vaccines minister, we should have an NHS Operational Recovery Minister, specifically looking at the day to day for Zawahi, and their first job should be to determine what the NHS, with all the backlogs to be recovered, will bear over the next couple of winters whilst getting the things back to whatever this government deems 'normal'.
One might say there are other areas of public policy that might hear this approach but, doubting there will be a Brexit Operational Recovery Minister any time soon, I'll stick that thought to one side.
"I'm comfortable with a permanent 10% rise in death rates so I don't have to wear a mask for 40 minutes in the shop, but I am uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"
"I'm comfortable damaging the education of kids to keep a few sick oldies alive for a few hours more, but I'm uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"
"I'm comfortable destroying jobs and damaging people's mental health to delay but not stop anti-vaxxers being infected, but I'm uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"
Wearing a mask on the bus is destroying your mental health? I'm very sorry to hear that.
Some people might not feel comfortable getting on a bus if there is a mask mandate, because it suggests that it isn't safe. They may therefore become somewhat trapped, which isn't good for anyone.
The reality is that - as we were told at the very beginning - masks might work if used properly, but they very rarely are. The effect is marginal at best.
I went to a meeting recently at which people were wearing masks. Fine. I put one on out of politeness. Then I found that half the people present took them off to speak so that they could be heard. Doh! What was the point of that?
Because if one person in that room was sick, and was wearing a mask, the chances of anyone else in that room becoming sick were reduced. Even more so if they weren't speaking, but even if they only wore the mask for part of the time.
We all really need to get past the false dichotomy, namely that if you can't completely avoid risk, it's pointless trying to even reduce it.
The more masks are used, the lower the rate and severity of transmission. Fact. If a speaker takes a mask off for the duration of their speech, that adds to the risk, but it doesn't go from 0% before to 100% afterwards. Don't be trapped into thinking that "imperfect" is the same as "worthless".
Just because you say "Fact." does not make it a fact.
Scotland and Wales have kept mask mandates. So has TFL. They haven't made a damned bit of difference. So not a fact.
What makes a difference is meaningful restrictions. Vaccines, social distancing, lockdowns etc - and apart from vaccines those are devastating. Masks only partially worn, only part of the time, is just irrelevant gesturism.
That logic doesn't follow. There are obviously very large differences between Scotland and England (etc.) for reasons which remain unclear: the timing is sufficient demonstration of that. You can't say that masks didn't reduce the detriment in Scotland.
Europe are going to get declining effectiveness of vaccines as they head more properly into the winter. Everyone needs to trust the vaccines though and get jabbed/boosted.
HoC - as I predicted yesterday. Javid was quite embarrassed when asked at the press conference why, if the guidance was to wear masks in enclosed or crowded spaces, that didn't apply to Tories in the HoC.
Seems it did not apply at the labour party conference and as has just been evidenced on Sky news, their reporter was wearing a mask - below his nose !!!!!!
So does this whataboutery negate what the BMA are warning about? Because once we've stopped pointing fingers we still need to actually do something.
The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.
I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.
Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal responsibility.
Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.
The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.
I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.
What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.
Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
How crassly moronic.
"Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."
Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
I think that question is a bit unfair, a touch of emotional shaming going on, but will give my answer as its an anonymous forum. I probably wouldn't share this view in public but think if there were an extra five thousand a week dying we should have more legal restrictions. At an extra two thousand a week no legal restrictions. So somewhere between those numbers for me.
How about you?
Certainly not 'as many as it takes', which PT said.
The problem with deaths is that it is a lagging factor. Before vaccines, cases went up, then hospitalisations, and then deaths. Now that the link between cases and hospitalisations has been weakened, the first sign we have of trouble is rising hospitalisations.
And I'll therefore swerve your question by saying it's the wrong one, if we're talking about restrictions. The first sign we'll get of big problems is from hospitalisations, and that's what we'd need to react to. So perhaps the 1,200-1,500 daily admissions that we had back in early November would be when we'd have to slam the handbrake on - particularly if they are increasing rapidly.
You asked the question of someone else so a bit of a cop out to now say it is the wrong question. I don't think using wrong questions for emotional shaming will help us get to the right answer.
I'm not 'emotional shaming'. PT's view is that, now we have vaccines, any number of people ("as many as it takes") should die in order to protect his freedom. He said: "People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end."
Which whilst true, could be used to excuse anything causing a life to end. Which is why I asked how many is acceptable. He gave his answer.
What is the alternative?
I believe I gave my view below. We're currently at a manageable, if tragic, level of deaths and hospitalisations. If hospitalisations go up to a certain level - perhaps 1,200 to 1,500 a day, then we need to seriously consider more restrictions.
I'm not saying we need them at the moment. But my view is that we need to be open to the need for more restrictions, and not just callously let any number of people die (and, incidentally, cause the hospital system to fail, potentially affecting all of us).
Until we are in a more stable situation, we've got to be prepared to react.
Again and do what? Whose businesses are you prepared to destroy and lives ruin pursuing an impossible goal?
What's the impossible goal? All we're talking about is managing an epidemic within NHS capacity.
Do you think the government should do whatever it takes to protect the NHS from having a difficult winter? If necessary, should we shut schools? Should we (try to) cancel Christmas?
Everyone keeps postulating these hypothetical (!) extremes.
This isn't a vanilla 'difficult winter' for the NHS - it's a rather special one since they have the usual (flu) PLUS 3rd wave covid PLUS a big pandemic backlog.
And the question is, should plan B (more masks + more wfh) be actioned in order to stop it falling over?
That's a No right now - ok - but why on earth should we rule it out?
I dont think more masks or more wfh is a no for most of us against legal restrictions (masks in particular will be for some). What I am unsure on is what the "Plan B" changes legally? Mandatory masks with actual consistent and widespread enforcement has not been tried yet as many people are exempt (and we dont have the police numbers or court time to cope if we are honest about it).
So if it is just making it mandatory but without enforcement, which is already the case on TFL, I don't understand why that really helps? It will be similar to the tube which is similar to supermarkets which are voluntary.
Personally, I am more likely to wear a mask as cases go up, and think millions will think likewise, so it will happen naturally. I don't need the government to make a law about it that it has no intention of enforcing.
The old 'law v guidance' point. I think guidance is generally better. If the messaging is done properly it works quite well, as we've seen before during this pandemic. But I don't consider that a law not actively policed is necessarily useless or inherently a bad thing. Sometimes you need the legal backing to achieve enough of the desired behaviour. I don't know how this "Plan B" would be framed.
"I'm comfortable with a permanent 10% rise in death rates so I don't have to wear a mask for 40 minutes in the shop, but I am uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"
"I'm comfortable damaging the education of kids to keep a few sick oldies alive for a few hours more, but I'm uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"
"I'm comfortable destroying jobs and damaging people's mental health to delay but not stop anti-vaxxers being infected, but I'm uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"
Wearing a mask on the bus is destroying your mental health? I'm very sorry to hear that.
Some people might not feel comfortable getting on a bus if there is a mask mandate, because it suggests that it isn't safe. They may therefore become somewhat trapped, which isn't good for anyone.
The reality is that - as we were told at the very beginning - masks might work if used properly, but they very rarely are. The effect is marginal at best.
I went to a meeting recently at which people were wearing masks. Fine. I put one on out of politeness. Then I found that half the people present took them off to speak so that they could be heard. Doh! What was the point of that?
Because if one person in that room was sick, and was wearing a mask, the chances of anyone else in that room becoming sick were reduced. Even more so if they weren't speaking, but even if they only wore the mask for part of the time.
We all really need to get past the false dichotomy, namely that if you can't completely avoid risk, it's pointless trying to even reduce it.
The more masks are used, the lower the rate and severity of transmission. Fact. If a speaker takes a mask off for the duration of their speech, that adds to the risk, but it doesn't go from 0% before to 100% afterwards. Don't be trapped into thinking that "imperfect" is the same as "worthless".
Just because you say "Fact." does not make it a fact.
Scotland and Wales have kept mask mandates. So has TFL. They haven't made a damned bit of difference. So not a fact.
What makes a difference is meaningful restrictions. Vaccines, social distancing, lockdowns etc - and apart from vaccines those are devastating. Masks only partially worn, only part of the time, is just irrelevant gesturism.
PT, you are a tunnel-vision psycho with an allergy to nuance. I can't talk to you about this, or anything, so please fuck off.
For the benefit of everyone else, looking at bulk numbers and single policy decisions proves nothing: simply put, a policy might be making a positive (or negative) impact but other social, policy, demographic, or geographical differences might make it hard to see just by looking at Malmsbury's graphs or similar. Don't be tempted by the siren-song of absolutists who will tell you that something is either brilliant or useless. If you have any doubts at all, ask yourself whether whoever is speaking is likely to be driven mostly by their political ideology. In the case of the Adam Smith Ayatollah, the answer is sadly "yes, always".
Translation: Looking at evidence proves nothing. Simply put I (Farooq) have no evidence for my claims, making it hard to see. So please ignore the evidence and just accept my word as "Fact."
What about your political ideology? Are you immune from that affecting your views? If you have some evidence that mask mandates actually work, real-life evidence not wishful thinking, then please present it. Because we've had a large scale real life trial and the data is not promising.
Meanwhile in NZ there is panic over 102 cases in a day. The first time they have ever had that many and there is currently no sign of the increase in cases slowing.
Their adjustment away from zero Covid will be a difficult one for them as they don't have the levels of acquired immunity through infection that we have. One thing also for them to watch out for is that in 6 months time as they head into their winter, vaccine effectiveness will be declining.
I also think there's other ways of getting people into the vaccine funnel and getting those 4m single jabbed people to get their second doses.
My idea would be a one off £250 for every single fully vaccinated person who has had all of their eligible doses by December 20th with the money paid on December 21st.
The Christmas vaccine dividend. It would probably cost about £16-18bn but compared to the alternatives that's actually a pretty small cost. Give it to kids too if they've had their dose(s).
Even if we get just 3m of those single jabbed into double jabbed and get 2m unvaccinated into fully vaccinated it pushes us towards herd immunity. We need 54m people fully vaccinated to get there, a policy like this would get us most of the way. Add in prior infections and we'd be at the threshold.
What's happening at the moment is our exit wave is filling in the vaccine gaps, that's basically kids and unvaccinated people. The last time I checked it would be 400k hospitalisations overall. Our aim should be policies to either not have them at all (the NHS refusing to treat them) or bring that number down by 80% with vaccines.
We need to, once again, recognise the issue before we start to impose restrictions on people who have done the right thing and got vaccinated.
Agree completely that if we focus on the core issue, which is vaccination, then we can find ways to make further progress.
HoC - as I predicted yesterday. Javid was quite embarrassed when asked at the press conference why, if the guidance was to wear masks in enclosed or crowded spaces, that didn't apply to Tories in the HoC.
Seems it did not apply at the labour party conference and as has just been evidenced on Sky news, their reporter was wearing a mask - below his nose !!!!!!
So does this whataboutery negate what the BMA are warning about? Because once we've stopped pointing fingers we still need to actually do something.
Wilful negligence is unnecessary hyperbole and mask wearing to be effective needs to be worn properly
Europe are going to get declining effectiveness of vaccines as they head more properly into the winter. Everyone needs to trust the vaccines though and get jabbed/boosted.
I am not aware of this but is Europe providing boosters and if not they are facing a very serious problem
I’m on @LumoTravel’s inaugural train today - and I’ll be racing @SimonCalder from London to Edinburgh. A 4.5 hour train ride versus a 1 hour flight? Simon is confident. But I don’t think it’ll be the walkover those numbers suggest…
Sky now leading with the BMA accusing HMG of wilful negligence over plan B
This is becoming ridiculous
You can disagree with government action but wilfully negligent is hyperbole
And you could not make if up, their reporter from a school is wearing a mask - below his nose !!!!!
Tory critics of Labour - They haven't opposed the government, it is terrible, we need strong opposition Labour - We oppose the government for once Tory critics of Labour - No not like that!! Quieten down
The quote refers to is from the BMA, no mention of the Labour party at all, Unless you are saying that the BMA is in effect the same as the labour party?
"I'm comfortable with a permanent 10% rise in death rates so I don't have to wear a mask for 40 minutes in the shop, but I am uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"
"I'm comfortable damaging the education of kids to keep a few sick oldies alive for a few hours more, but I'm uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"
"I'm comfortable destroying jobs and damaging people's mental health to delay but not stop anti-vaxxers being infected, but I'm uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"
Wearing a mask on the bus is destroying your mental health? I'm very sorry to hear that.
Some people might not feel comfortable getting on a bus if there is a mask mandate, because it suggests that it isn't safe. They may therefore become somewhat trapped, which isn't good for anyone.
The reality is that - as we were told at the very beginning - masks might work if used properly, but they very rarely are. The effect is marginal at best.
I went to a meeting recently at which people were wearing masks. Fine. I put one on out of politeness. Then I found that half the people present took them off to speak so that they could be heard. Doh! What was the point of that?
Because if one person in that room was sick, and was wearing a mask, the chances of anyone else in that room becoming sick were reduced. Even more so if they weren't speaking, but even if they only wore the mask for part of the time.
We all really need to get past the false dichotomy, namely that if you can't completely avoid risk, it's pointless trying to even reduce it.
The more masks are used, the lower the rate and severity of transmission. Fact. If a speaker takes a mask off for the duration of their speech, that adds to the risk, but it doesn't go from 0% before to 100% afterwards. Don't be trapped into thinking that "imperfect" is the same as "worthless".
Just because you say "Fact." does not make it a fact.
Scotland and Wales have kept mask mandates. So has TFL. They haven't made a damned bit of difference. So not a fact.
What makes a difference is meaningful restrictions. Vaccines, social distancing, lockdowns etc - and apart from vaccines those are devastating. Masks only partially worn, only part of the time, is just irrelevant gesturism.
PT, you are a tunnel-vision psycho with an allergy to nuance. I can't talk to you about this, or anything, so please fuck off.
For the benefit of everyone else, looking at bulk numbers and single policy decisions proves nothing: simply put, a policy might be making a positive (or negative) impact but other social, policy, demographic, or geographical differences might make it hard to see just by looking at Malmsbury's graphs or similar. Don't be tempted by the siren-song of absolutists who will tell you that something is either brilliant or useless. If you have any doubts at all, ask yourself whether whoever is speaking is likely to be driven mostly by their political ideology. In the case of the Adam Smith Ayatollah, the answer is sadly "yes, always".
Translation: Looking at evidence proves nothing. Simply put I (Farooq) have no evidence for my claims, making it hard to see. So please ignore the evidence and just accept my word as "Fact."
What about your political ideology? Are you immune from that affecting your views? If you have some evidence that mask mandates actually work, real-life evidence not wishful thinking, then please present it. Because we've had a large scale real life trial and the data is not promising.
Can I respectively suggest that the evidence of observation is not really scientific if you don't take into account all the variables. I will wear a mask in shops because I believe that any virus I "may" have would be held back in my mask (partially or fully), rather than emitted into the atmosphere of a shop. I obviuosly don't wear a mask if I am outside and nowhere near any strangers. The figures published include the effect of non-mask usage on public transport, mixing together of children in homes and schools with no masks, boogeying in discotheques with no masks, shouting at each other etc. To say that mask wearing doesn't work just look at the numbers is not the whole story.
Europe are going to get declining effectiveness of vaccines as they head more properly into the winter. Everyone needs to trust the vaccines though and get jabbed/boosted.
I am not aware of this but is Europe providing boosters and if not they are facing a very serious problem
Varies by country but yes there is plenty of boostering going on - a number of countries are well ahead of the UK on this.
Comments
"I do like Los Angeles. All the hysteria up the walls."
Truer than she knew...
And when the sun is over the yardarm* I've found ginalgesic quite effective for wisdom tooth extraction pain.
* Usually around 11am - which may be a bit early...
It is quite shocking how many people died from tooth abscesses in medieval times. Ask any archaeologist...
That's the tough decision that needs to be made, and I admit that it's a very tough decision to make. You seem to think that reintroduction of social distancing is a cost and consequence free move. It isn't. It will destroy thousands of businesses, put millions out of work again and cost the taxpayer tens of billions in subsidies once more.
The answer is vaccination, the government has delivered vaccinations and now it's up to those people who refused to get them to live with the consequences of that poor choice. The rest of society can't pay the price. You want to shift the burden of their stupid decision onto the rest of us, why not have them live and die by their own life choices?
The NHS just needs to do its best. If we need to deprioritise treatment for the unvaccinated, then that should come before restrictions for anyone else.
It strikes me that we have here a whole thread dominated by an argument from those who would vilify those who don't want to wear masks, when masks will make much less difference than more vaccinations.
If you're going to vilify anyone choose the vaccine refuseniks. Moaning about masks is displacement activity.
Masks, many wear them, others do not. That is true where it is mandated, such as TFL, or supermarkets, where it is voluntary.
The government is not going to make a huge difference on either wfh or masks.
Approve 43.8%
Disapprove 50.5%
https://fivethirtyeight.com
2. It is not the unvaccinated I am worrying about. Its everyone with every medical need that isn't Covid being unable to access critical care when they need it. Its (as an example) my daughter getting run over, the ambulance coming late and the hospital being swamped. Ordinarily she would live, with an NHS collapsed by Covid through inaction she would die. This is what health professionals are crapping themselves about, not your moral judgement on the unvaxxed.
3. See point 2. The rest of society will pay a price if the NHS collapses. And the senior managers have a very real fear that this could happen unless we act.
Do you write Daily Express editorials for a living? Its like talking to a wall.
Mandatory social distancing is the only thing that makes a difference. Vaccines work and have been rolled out. Masks have been trialled and failed, WFH is already largely happening as much as it can. So if you're claiming that the NHS is going to "collapse" then you must be thinking of serious and draconian restrictions to prevent that collapse?
A little bit of pissing about with mask orders or WFH will not make the slightest bit of difference to an "NHS collapse".
And yes the climate was warmer. That is no commentary on modern climate debates, just a basic fact.
I’m on @LumoTravel’s inaugural train today - and I’ll be racing @SimonCalder from London to Edinburgh. A 4.5 hour train ride versus a 1 hour flight? Simon is confident. But I don’t think it’ll be the walkover those numbers suggest…
https://twitter.com/seatsixtyone/status/1451085835751858178?s=20
Looks smart inside:
https://twitter.com/seatsixtyone/status/1451111132689747969?s=20
Your original point was suggesting mask wearing and social distancing be brought back. I'm not going to argue the first one, I'm still unsure over masks, I still wear one if the trains are busy but don't elsewhere, I also have a KN95 one too so I know it makes a difference for me. My issue is with your second point, social distancing is an extremely high cost NPI, both economically and socially and there's no such thing as voluntary social distancing. The whole point of it is to reduce the capacity of indoor spaces, if you're not using it to do that then there's really no point in doing it.
You have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that voluntary social distancing is pointless. It is little more than virtue signalling so unless you are suggesting that the state reintroduce 2m distancing you should probably have a rethink about what is possible.
As for the impending doom of the NHS, tbh, maybe it needs that shake up. The NHS does too much, maybe it needs to learn to do less and one of the things it could stop doing is treatment for unvaccinated by choice COVID patients, send them to the private sector.
This isn't a vanilla 'difficult winter' for the NHS - it's a rather special one since they have the usual (flu) PLUS 3rd wave covid PLUS a big pandemic backlog.
And the question is, should plan B (more masks + more wfh) be actioned in order to stop it falling over?
That's a No right now - ok - but why on earth should we rule it out?
At some point the penny must drop that pre-, during- and post-Covid the NHS is not fit for purpose and must be reorganised. If this is that moment, hurrah. If not, then further restrictions await.
GLOBAL WARMING killed the woolly mammoth. CLIMATE CHANGE WILL CAUSE EXTINCTION
They quietly added at the end of the report that this happened 4,000 years ago.
What's the alternative? Covid is going to be a part of our lives forever now so should we put our lives on hold until flu no longer exists, or until there's no backlog?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/21/british-leavers-and-remainers-as-polarised-as-ever-survey-finds
So if it is just making it mandatory but without enforcement, which is already the case on TFL, I don't understand why that really helps? It will be similar to the tube which is similar to supermarkets which are voluntary.
Personally, I am more likely to wear a mask as cases go up, and think millions will think likewise, so it will happen naturally. I don't need the government to make a law about it that it has no intention of enforcing.
Voluntary social distancing is not pointless. Nor is voluntary WFH or voluntary wash your fucking hands. Every single transmission we block helps keep case numbers down and with it the impact onto health services.
You keep going on about virtue signalling - I have no interest in that. It isn't me saying these things its the people running the NHS. And yesterday the Health Secretary joined it. Several of you have said "its the NHS's fault" and that may well be true. The time to be making sweeping "reforms" (which lets be honest from your perspective means cuts) is not now. We need to get through the winter first.
Avoiding the transmission of an asymptomatic case means nothing and if we weren't testing and weren't discovering those asymptomatic "cases" like most other nations we'd be none the wiser.
In order to have a meaningful impact on the NHS then one avoided case isn't enough, you need to be avoiding hundreds of thousands of cases. And masks and WFH won't do that, social distancing will but its not a price worth paying.
If the Government mandated masks it wouldn't make any meaningful difference whatsoever and everyone demanding masks would go on to demand social distancing and lockdowns and other stuff that will actually have an impact. If you believe that an "NHS collapse" means we need another lockdown then argue for that, but otherwise all this about masks is just displacement activity.
So here we are.
That is the horror that people are facing. Should you be unlucky and it be you and not them in that position (and again I sincerely hope not) I wonder if you will be so dismissive.
Even if covid stopped tomorrow this winter would still be a nightmare of ambulances waiting tens of hours in car parks, insane waiting lists and so on.
Restrictions are on their way is my view this morning.
Sorry to not be chirpier even though sun is shining.
He bumps elbows with the clergy outside.
On Tuesday he told business leaders that because of the vaccine they could all meet and shake hands.
Meanwhile in the Commons, Tory MPs who weren’t wearing masks at PMQs yesterday have them on today.
https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1451126524829175816?s=20
One of my favourite man- words, due to its peculiar spelling, is manoeuvre (which my computer does underline!). I'd always guessed that the -oeu- was somehow related to a French egg, but it appears not. The word came to English from the same word, with the same meaning, in Middle French. This was derived from an Old French word manovre, meaning 'hand-work' or 'manual labour'. And this was derived from Latin manus meaning hand, and operari meaning to work.
Interestingly, we also have another word derived from the same root. manovre from Middle French crossed the Channel to Middle English as maynouren, which had the same meaning of manual labour, especially on the soil. From this we got the word 'manure'
I now use the phrase "going on manoeuvres" to mean a longer visit to the lavatory.
I'm not aware that asymptomatic spread is by a different virus (or strain, rather) from the one which causes debility and death (not being sarcastic at all: simply noting that issue).
Your solutions don't target the actual problem which is unvaccinated people getting sick and needing treatment. Transmission of COVID within a fully vaccinated population would not cause an NHS crisis. No one would care about it just as we don't really care about the flu.
You're letting those idiots who have refused the vaccine off the hook and imposing a cost on those of us who were responsible and got vaccinated ASAP. I don't understand why you want to protect these fools from the consequences of their stupid choices.
In order for there to be any meaningful change in the NHS's ability to provide emergency care there would need to be a meaningful change in cases. Hundreds of thousands of cases avoided might do.
If that's the situation we're facing then you need to be arguing for credible measures to avoid hundreds of thousands of cases. Otherwise yes it is displacement activity and there will be no difference whatsoever to the emergency care given to a child.
If it is the former then it's a bit of caveat emptor. A nasty bout of the flu for the vast majority of the double-jabbed. But will those unjabbed be in a position via illness to overwhelm or at least crowd out the NHS.
This latter is the more critical of the questions. But - so far - we live in a free country and the NHS exists to accommodate and help our needs not the other way round. If we are now in a society whereby 5m people don't want to get jabbed, that is entirely their prerogative. So the next question is: who pays? Well it is tempting to say all taxpayers, just like several societal groups are over-represented users of the NHS we all lump in and pay.
If our society is now one that contains a significant number of the unjabbed and that means more hospitalisations, then we as a society should pay for it.
This is an endemic disease which currently kills about 2-3 people in Denmark a day (20-30 UK equivalent) and I think for most people here that is just what life is like now - nobody questions anyone wearing a mask but they are not, and never have been, popular here.
I know your political perspectives on this. I disagree but I know they are rational and considered. Can you accept the reverse that the people making the decisions have to consider the lives of those people who aren't you?
Its like any management decision. Easy to criticise from below when you don;'t have both all of the data or the burden of responsibility on your shoulders.
But in the meantime, with winter and with the coexistence along with Covid of flu and the pandemic backlog, should we (i) be prepared to bring in some restrictions to prevent the NHS collapsing, or (ii) should we rule this out on a libertarian point of principle? This is how I'd frame the discussion and while not being a hawk on the matter I'd come down squarely for (i).
Yes, there is a point at which too little focus on covid could be costly. But there is also a danger of too much focus on covid creating and prolonging ongoing health issues that also lead to many excess deaths as well.
Anyway next week the media, and pb, will have relegated covid from top of the attention charts and be talking about the environment and Cop26. No bad thing in my opinion, looking forward to that one.
One irony of course with the weaker relationship between cases and hospitalisations is that in order to meaningfully adjust hospitalisation numbers you need to prevent an order of magnitude more cases than you did in the past.
So yes consider the lives of people. But if you want to make a meaningful difference to those lives, you need to make meaningful changes. Tinkering at the edges isn't a meaningful change.
Scotland and Wales have kept mask mandates. So has TFL. They haven't made a damned bit of difference. So not a fact.
What makes a difference is meaningful restrictions. Vaccines, social distancing, lockdowns etc - and apart from vaccines those are devastating. Masks only partially worn, only part of the time, is just irrelevant gesturism.
And yes, it has to be carefully thought through (not something I think the government is minded to do). But my point was the one that several of us are making this morning - we can't have a tail wagging dog situation with the NHS. That said, we all saw the trolleys in Italy at the beginning of the pandemic and no govt, and few citizens, could tolerate that.
Doing the math, it is of course the case that the fewer Covid cases the freer the hospitals to treat "normal" flu to say nothing of the backlog. But I worry that that leads us to restrictions that will be permanent in their regular enforcement.
It is absurd to say withhold treatment on account of a decision not to have oneself jabbed because that is a slippery slope. Smokers and scaffolders next in line.
So that leaves us reframing society to accommodate a non-trivial proportion of those who will likely take up NHS resource. But of course they are not an homogenous body, but individuals who have made individual decisions. And hence, while I still have a lot more thinking to do on it, like all of us, I seem to be heading towards accommodation via taxes so the NHS can cope.
I would also like to see a complete overhaul of the UK's health system, obvs.
This is becoming ridiculous
You can disagree with government action but wilfully negligent is hyperbole
And you could not make if up, their reporter from a school is wearing a mask - below his nose !!!!!
Wfh has never been legally enforced, how would you do this? If a business say it is essential to come into the office should they be closed down?
Masks, to the untrained eye usage is similar in mandated settings like TFL and voluntary ones like supermarkets.
So if all you are saying is you would like government to encourage masks and wfh, fine. If not what would you change legally and what impact do you think it would have?
With this man hand meaning, I always find myself annoyed by (usually angry male American) characters in movies and on tv using "mano a mano" to mean "man to man", when it obviously means "hand to hand". As if the Spanish for man would be mano.. I'm waiting to hear a woman use "womano a womano" in the same way.
To finish in a typically smutty place, I was pleased to see that "masturbate" could be considered among these man- words. It's not certain, but has long been suggested that it's a compound of manus and turbare which means to unsettle, and from which we get the word turbulence. I think "hand turbulence" is a wonderfully euphemistic way to describe the practice!
I'm also amused to see that a 19C slang synonym was "boxing the Jesuit"
They are used on transport as far as I can see and in medical establishments but elsewhere it is the exception to the rule
If you want meaningful changes, you need to make meaningful changes. A cloth mask is not one of them.
My idea would be a one off £250 for every single fully vaccinated person who has had all of their eligible doses by December 20th with the money paid on December 21st.
The Christmas vaccine dividend. It would probably cost about £16-18bn but compared to the alternatives that's actually a pretty small cost. Give it to kids too if they've had their dose(s).
Even if we get just 3m of those single jabbed into double jabbed and get 2m unvaccinated into fully vaccinated it pushes us towards herd immunity. We need 54m people fully vaccinated to get there, a policy like this would get us most of the way. Add in prior infections and we'd be at the threshold.
What's happening at the moment is our exit wave is filling in the vaccine gaps, that's basically kids and unvaccinated people. The last time I checked it would be 400k hospitalisations overall. Our aim should be policies to either not have them at all (the NHS refusing to treat them) or bring that number down by 80% with vaccines.
We need to, once again, recognise the issue before we start to impose restrictions on people who have done the right thing and got vaccinated.
It also has a major impact on elderly adults; 175,000 GP appointments, 14,000 hospitalisations and 8,000 deaths per year in the UK.
Not familiar? Too busy worrying about Covid? It would be nice if the newspapers could get things in perspective.
Labour - We oppose the government for once
Tory critics of Labour - No not like that!! Quieten down
But Covid plus Flu plus Backlog needs to be accommodated. Why does the NHS or the government or the taxpayers think that it can or should operate as usual in the time of a pandemic?
One might say there are other areas of public policy that might hear this approach but, doubting there will be a Brexit Operational Recovery Minister any time soon, I'll stick that thought to one side.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?time=2021-09-08..latest&facet=none&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=ITA~CAN~DEU~GBR~FRA~BEL~NLD~ESP~AUS
Europe are going to get declining effectiveness of vaccines as they head more properly into the winter. Everyone needs to trust the vaccines though and get jabbed/boosted.
What about your political ideology? Are you immune from that affecting your views? If you have some evidence that mask mandates actually work, real-life evidence not wishful thinking, then please present it. Because we've had a large scale real life trial and the data is not promising.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/covid-19-delta-outbreak-102-cases-a-new-daily-record-hospital-numbers-hit-high/Q254SSOU75HSQZVWPL45SVZJEI/
Their adjustment away from zero Covid will be a difficult one for them as they don't have the levels of acquired immunity through infection that we have. One thing also for them to watch out for is that in 6 months time as they head into their winter, vaccine effectiveness will be declining.
@Dominic2306
How could Labour win? Replace dud 'dead player' Starmer with Midlands woman who can build a team & focus on target voters in marginal seats - disconnect Tories from power by focus on violent crime & small business ecosystem, marginalise trans nutjobs et al
https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/how-could-labour-win-swap-dud-dead
https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1451147084237787143