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…
Looks nice but surprised not to see the yellow safety panel on the front of the train. I do love that route, spent my whole life going up and down it.
The yellow front is no longer required if the vehicle has sufficiently powerful front lights, which most modern stock has.
Thanks. This is why I love PB.
Of course if you fly to EDI you miss the fantastic part (actually it's all fantastic) through Berwick on the train. Makes the whole thing worthwhile.
I have often done both and you do save around an hour or more by flying but the train is so much more civilised.
I do prefer the train. There's less messing about, and the view of Durham Cathedral on the ECML is quite something.
However, the consequences of delays have been rather different. Was severely delayed by snow on one flight to Edinburgh and got to sit in the pilot's chair in the cockpit while we waited for the runway to be cleared.
Was severely delayed on the train north on the hottest day of 2019, and we were given 250ml bottles of water to save us from dehydration, as we were packed in like so many forlorn cattle on their way to slaughter.
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?
Nuance really does quake in its boots when it sees you coming, Philip. This is wild & crazy talk. How does implementing some measures (way short of Lockdown) to head off the worst health outcomes as we navigate towards a long-term sustainable 'live with it' situation on Covid equate to 'life not worth living' or 'country existing to serve the NHS'?
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'd say there's not a snowball's chance in hell of the NHS introducing a 2 tier Covid service, vaccinated vs not.
Compulsory vaccination would be fairer. Especially as it applies to all.
I do like Max's idea of £250 for everyone who has been vaxxed for Xmas. Easy one for Labour to call for, as wont impact their future manifesto budget plans at all.
I quite like the idea of a bribe too.
Even more, I've enjoyed Max and Philip transitioning from "let the unvaxxed die, serves them right", to "let's pay them not to die" in a short space of time.
For the record, I'm still in the don't let the unvaccinated in to hospital' and also don't spend £17 Billion bribing people with there own money, even if I'm the last one standing?
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.
Well if you're calling that right "Plan B" would be useless. So what's your theory on why they'd do it?
That's the point I and others have been making all day. It is useless so it shouldn't be done.
Which raises a better question as to why have an absolutely useless Plan B. And the only reason I can think of is a box ticking exercise so you can tell people you have one, even though you don't.
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.
Well if you're calling that right "Plan B" would be useless. So what's your theory on why they'd do it?
Why does this government do useless things? The easy answer is of course because they are useless, but the slightly better quick answer is to manage the press and media. Something must be done, and seen to be done even if it makes no difference or indeed makes things worse. The PM also seems to have a "thing" with vaccine passports so shoving them into Plan B was perhaps a concession to him from the rest of the cabinet who did not like them.
The government does useless things because it is motivated by what focus groups and polls show rather than what is scientifically and logically sound. They are following a line which exposes them to the least mass criticism as possible. Populism in practice: rule by the ignorant.
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?
Nuance really does quake in its boots when it sees you coming, Philip. This is wild & crazy talk. How does implementing some measures (way short of Lockdown) to head off the worst health outcomes as we navigate towards a long-term sustainable 'live with it' situation on Covid equate to 'life not worth living' or 'country existing to serve the NHS'?
It is a balance. Some people, why even some people on here, would tell you how they are affected by the measures you (rich, retired, comfortable, secure, live by a great little out of the way pub) so airily dismiss.
You are absolutely allowed to have a view on it all but you are not allowed to opine on other peoples' behalf what is important or not. And as for heading off the worst health outcomes. What are these? Flu? Vaxxed Covid? Overdue cancer treatments?
Can you see the danger of using administrative measures even such "trivial" ones as mask wearing, to try to help with our Health Service. Because once you are in the habit of using administrative measures to do that, then you never have to spend an extra pound on improving that Health Service, nor do you have to think about some of its structural failings.
Edit: sorry to be personal about this but it reeks of the let them eat cake I'm fine what's so wrong with lockdown can't everyone just go for a walk around their paddocks line.
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.
Ok. So your fear is that the only thing to stop the NHS collapsing this winter is the return of Full Lockdown. I don't share that fear but even if I did I'd at least want to try some milder measures first. In fact I'd think it was imperative to try some milder measures first, given the horrors of Full Lockdown. I can't see the logic in wanting these milder measures ruled out.
Its the thin end of the wedge. Give an inch and they'll take a mile.
If you introduce mask mandates they won't do anything to change the course of the pandemic (because they don't) and having accepted the need for "more action" the calls for even more restrictions would become deafening.
Who is "they"? The medico/scientist/torygovernment complex?
Mr. rkrkrk, some in government have rather backward ideas that working from home is inherently bad and inferior.
It doesn't work for every type of business or individual, but the blanket condemnation is idiotic, as is the "well, maybe they'll skive" line. Here's a clue: if you set work and the work gets done, the person was working.
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?
Nuance really does quake in its boots when it sees you coming, Philip. This is wild & crazy talk. How does implementing some measures (way short of Lockdown) to head off the worst health outcomes as we navigate towards a long-term sustainable 'live with it' situation on Covid equate to 'life not worth living' or 'country existing to serve the NHS'?
Unless the measures you implement have a meaningful impact on the number of cases, then they would just be for the sake of appearing to do something. (And if they do work, they may even be counterproductive if they prolong the exit wave into the worst part of the flu season.)
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'd say there's not a snowball's chance in hell of the NHS introducing a 2 tier Covid service, vaccinated vs not.
Compulsory vaccination would be fairer. Especially as it applies to all.
I do like Max's idea of £250 for everyone who has been vaxxed for Xmas. Easy one for Labour to call for, as wont impact their future manifesto budget plans at all.
I quite like the idea of a bribe too.
Even more, I've enjoyed Max and Philip transitioning from "let the unvaxxed die, serves them right", to "let's pay them not to die" in a short space of time.
so do you backdate the £250 for those who got their jab when they were asked without needing a bribe? bit of a slap in the face for them if you don't.
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.
Ok. So your fear is that the only thing to stop the NHS collapsing this winter is the return of Full Lockdown. I don't share that fear but even if I did I'd at least want to try some milder measures first. In fact I'd think it was imperative to try some milder measures first, given the horrors of Full Lockdown. I can't see the logic in wanting these milder measures ruled out.
I don’t think the NHS will collapse. FWIW my mum is getting seen to by the NHS and it seems business as normal.
What I’m saying is, if you say the pressure on the NHS is unacceptable, you’re obliged to do whatever it takes. As you say, full lockdown is horrific. We need our politicians (all sides) to agree just how far we should go to protect the NHS.
Good to hear that about your mum but there are problems building. Everyone agrees on this, I think. And your last sentence - that IS what they are doing. They are saying no measures needed now but let's see how it goes. This notion that the NHS whistles and the government comes running, keen to lock up the nation, is a total nonsense. After the 1st wave was (belatedly) dealt with all serious measures were dropped. After the 2nd was (belatedly) dealt with all serious measures were dropped. Why on earth people think that this time we'll see the measures retained ad infinitum just cos "they" luv it, I cannot fathom. It's paranoia as far as I'm concerned. Sorry, but I can't read it any other way. It's a departure from evidence and reason.
It is important to untangle two things, I think. Do masks help? Probably. Is there evidence that the policies of Wales and Scotland on masks are very effective in the current situation? Not really.
It would be very hard to enforce, but there's an argument that mandating high efficacy masks for the unvaccinated in public/at work etc could be quite effective (to protect the most vulnerable and most likely to be spreading infection - the unvaccinated in both cases). Might also drive vaccination take-up.
Exactly. Even if masks in theory help, mask mandates don't because they simply don't work with how people actually behave.
Any conversations about mask wearing, as opposed to getting the unvaccinated vaccinated, is a pure waste of time.
Who are these "people" to whom you refer? When masks were strongly pushed by government, they were almost universal in shops and public transport (in my experience in different parts of the south). Now the government has fallen largely silent, it's dropped to about half or less. Of course a mandate or a strong recommendation makes a difference. If you feel it shouldn't, that's a different 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.
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.
Ah well our disagreement is nicely simple and specific then. I think there's a great chance that by Feb 22 we'll have enough immunity (by V and by I) for this disease to be long term manageable. So it's about getting there without something too horrid for words happening in our health care system.
How?
What draconian steps are you prepared to take by mandate of law to get us there?
Vaccines plus infection does it in quite short order, imo. And if not, yep, we have to just live with it.
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'd say there's not a snowball's chance in hell of the NHS introducing a 2 tier Covid service, vaccinated vs not.
Compulsory vaccination would be fairer. Especially as it applies to all.
I do like Max's idea of £250 for everyone who has been vaxxed for Xmas. Easy one for Labour to call for, as wont impact their future manifesto budget plans at all.
I quite like the idea of a bribe too.
Even more, I've enjoyed Max and Philip transitioning from "let the unvaxxed die, serves them right", to "let's pay them not to die" in a short space of time.
so do you backdate the £250 for those who got their jab when they were asked without needing a bribe? bit of a slap in the face for them if you don't.
Fake news. It may be worth looking at Dom's second tweet on that feed:
Ps. No Jess Phillips is NOT the answer.
I did.
ETA, and the second Dom tweet wasn't there when I posted the first one. But I did post it as soon as it came up.
All fine. Now we just have to hunt down the Midlands woman who Dom has in mind (if she exists, which I rather doubt).
I wonder how many are paying to get on to Dom's blog and find out if he does have anyone specific in mind.. I'm a little surprised that he's put it behind a paywall.
Just seen someone post that he mentions Nandy.
He says he's from Durham so the Midlands is a bit bigger!
Dom probably doesn't know the North (other than Barnard Castle, of course). So he's probably got Wigan mixed up with West Bromwich or something. But if he's saying Nandy, I agree with him (next Leader).
He's from the north. He didn't just go to Barnard Castle for a day trip.
My favourite story of southerners not knowing the north is a that of a friend of mine, who lives in Liverpool and went to Durham University. A couple of years after leaving university, she and her friends held a reunion, in Durham. One friend, from London, insisted on, rather than getting the train to Durham, getting the train to Liverpool to be picked up by my friend, as she lived in the north so would be close by. She was then incredulous that it took a further three hours driving to get to Durham. This was someone who had spent three years at university in Durham. She just assumed everywhere in the north was close to everywhere else.
Of course, if we had southern-style transport infrastructure up here then everywhere in the north would be close to everywhere else
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.
Well if you're calling that right "Plan B" would be useless. So what's your theory on why they'd do it?
Why does this government do useless things? The easy answer is of course because they are useless, but the slightly better quick answer is to manage the press and media. Something must be done, and seen to be done even if it makes no difference or indeed makes things worse. The PM also seems to have a "thing" with vaccine passports so shoving them into Plan B was perhaps a concession to him from the rest of the cabinet who did not like them.
No argument there! But anyway, I'm not the man to argue the merits of this or that individual measure, my intention was really just to pushback against all the "no, screw the NHS, sick of hearing about the fucking NHS, there must be NO more restrictions! we're vaxxed ffs" sentiment.
And I think I've done that.
Log off, you frantic hard left social democrat, log off.
Comments
However, the consequences of delays have been rather different. Was severely delayed by snow on one flight to Edinburgh and got to sit in the pilot's chair in the cockpit while we waited for the runway to be cleared.
Was severely delayed on the train north on the hottest day of 2019, and we were given 250ml bottles of water to save us from dehydration, as we were packed in like so many forlorn cattle on their way to slaughter.
Which raises a better question as to why have an absolutely useless Plan B. And the only reason I can think of is a box ticking exercise so you can tell people you have one, even though you don't.
I'd care less if my PS4 hadn't gone wonky.
You are absolutely allowed to have a view on it all but you are not allowed to opine on other peoples' behalf what is important or not. And as for heading off the worst health outcomes. What are these? Flu? Vaxxed Covid? Overdue cancer treatments?
Can you see the danger of using administrative measures even such "trivial" ones as mask wearing, to try to help with our Health Service. Because once you are in the habit of using administrative measures to do that, then you never have to spend an extra pound on improving that Health Service, nor do you have to think about some of its structural failings.
Edit: sorry to be personal about this but it reeks of the let them eat cake I'm fine what's so wrong with lockdown can't everyone just go for a walk around their paddocks line.
It doesn't work for every type of business or individual, but the blanket condemnation is idiotic, as is the "well, maybe they'll skive" line. Here's a clue: if you set work and the work gets done, the person was working.
*sighs*
And I think I've done that.
Log off, you frantic hard left social democrat, log off.