Johnson has made this checkable claim: hospitalisations in SA have doubled in one week. Is this true?
Yes.
But allegedly they are mostly people admitted who happen to have covid, rather than people admitted because of covid. So it reflects high rates of infection in the general population, rather than anything else.
Telling people they can walk in for a jab at some vaccine centres is going to lead to every vaccine centre overwhelmed with walk ins.
I think getting people to queue makes sense, it increases capacity utilisation quite substantially and it also creates an environment of scarcity of a popular product which encourages people to queue up for fear of missing out.
I think a fair number of people caught it while queuing last winter.
Clearly SAGE have told him Omicron isnt much milder, or not sufficiently milder to not overwhelm the NHS.
We are back to flatten the curve.
Indeed.
I am afraid it is quite ridiculous not to extend restrictions into the hospitality industry and large gatherings. Masks should be compulsory throughout at the moment.
We don’t need to trouble Sherlock Holmes to work out why he couldn’t do that.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I haven't called for anyone to die.
But do you have any evidence that mask mandates prevent deaths over the course of the pandemic, post-vaccines?
Give over. Your attitude consistently is "people die, so what?" You assume *others* will die.
Why do you assume he assumes that? Unless he has wholly irrational delusions of preferential immunity, he must be saying: these are risks we should all, including me and mine, be living with.
Because nobody goes out saying "let people die of Covid so I can do what I like in liberty" assuming it will be they and their own doing the dying.
What makes you say that? It's just wrong. I support the motorway speed limit being 70 vs 20 despite the additional risk of fatal crashes, on a convenience vs risk basis, in the knowledge that the enhanced risk applies to me every bit as much as it applies to everyone else. Presumably, so do you.
Perhaps if the Government hadn't installed complacency and been utterly useless yet again over the summer we wouldn't be in this mess
Your partisanship is showing.
You call it partisanship, I call it the truth.
I have warned about this for months. Complacency setting in again.
No politician would over rule the JVCI, not Boris, not Starmer.
Starmer is irrelevant in this case. I am saying what I warned about
You would overule the JCVI on vaccines, it like telling the public to take horse dewormer....no responsible politician would do it.
And I posted loads in the summer saying they should be vaccinating kids etc. But i live in the real world, where we have institutions which you can't over rule for the long term belief and stability of the system.
PM announces in England -big expansion of booster programme to do all over 18s before end of the year -'tidal wave' of cases coming - some other NHS appointments to be delayed, given state of waiting lists of already that's significant - https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1470126077649502214
After watching Strictly - beautiful people in great shape wearing gorgeous costumes and fake tan - going straight to this fat pasty faced bastard, a bloke who can't even use a hairbrush and looks like he's slept a fortnight in his clothes, is pretty jarring. Just go, man.
You feel beautiful people in great shape wearing gorgeous costumes and fake tan are inherently suited to government?
Couldn't he for once have found a suit that fits him and been a bit more professional? This is honestly pathetic
It shouldn’t matter but it does. It’s a national embarrassment how slovenly and scruffy he looks.
The hair doesn’t make sense as he won’t be doing it himself, but image experts. Tbf there’s not much you can do with a few long clumps hanging from a decaying cheese. The front and right was actually okay, had he messed the left himself after it was done, he is a bit nervous fidgeter with his hands.
We awaited the verdict from PB’s resident styling expert.
Perhaps if the Government hadn't installed complacency and been utterly useless yet again over the summer we wouldn't be in this mess
Your partisanship is showing.
You call it partisanship, I call it the truth.
I have warned about this for months. Complacency setting in again.
No politician would over rule the JVCI, not Boris, not Starmer.
Starmer is irrelevant in this case. I am saying what I warned about
You would overule the JCVI on vaccines, it like telling the public to take horse dewormer....no responsible politician would do it.
This is the problem with having advisers that make the decisions. The MHRA ruled it safe for kids and said boosters are necessary for all adults yet the government handed the responsibility to another body that dithered and delayed for political reasons.
JCVI need a solid arse kicking for their possing around with child doses and boosters.
Yes, at the time I said I thought it was the wrong call but it was a marginal decision. Hindsight is proving it was both wrong and anything but marginal unfortunately.
It was only marginal when JCVI used a 5% total infection rate (IIRC) for children. Yes, they seriously were trying to say that 5% of children would get COVID over the total course of the epidemic....
Well, their information was nonsensical then as it was 4.2% in one week this time last year.
But it was marginal in terms of donating vaccines needed elsewhere against the risk of spreading the virus among a population that was otherwise protected.
I still would have done it, but not for these reasons - simply because it was buggering up the education of so many isolating children.
Clearly SAGE have told him Omicron isnt much milder, or not sufficiently milder to not overwhelm the NHS.
We are back to flatten the curve.
Indeed.
I am afraid it is quite ridiculous not to extend restrictions into the hospitality industry and large gatherings. Masks should be compulsory throughout at the moment.
No, I think the advice is probably that Omicron is milder, but the infection rate means it could still put a substantial number of people into hospital as it will burn through the population rather quickly. So getting everybody boosted quickly should do the job.
I make it 23 million triple vaccinated, 23 and a half million double vaccinated, four and a half million single vaccinated and an unknown number (x) not vaccinated at all.
Getting the 23,500,000 (roughly) triple vaccinated will be a challenge even at a million per day. The question is of that number, how many had their second vaccinations more than four months ago?
What of the four and a half million who have had just one vaccination - will there be a push to double vaccinate those people?
What about x? As we have no real idea how many that represents, we need to prepare for some of these to be coming to hospital if they have so far avoided Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon etc.
After watching Strictly - beautiful people in great shape wearing gorgeous costumes and fake tan - going straight to this fat pasty faced bastard, a bloke who can't even use a hairbrush and looks like he's slept a fortnight in his clothes, is pretty jarring. Just go, man.
You feel beautiful people in great shape wearing gorgeous costumes and fake tan are inherently suited to government?
There’s always Ed Balls….
Do you think he knows where the origin of the modern archetype of the "beautiful people in great shape wearing gorgeous costumes and fake tan" thing is? Hint - it was a revival of an ancient Greek thing for a certain chap who like his parades.
Everyone over 18 who is eligible to be offered a booster jab by the end of December
I’m up for it 🧪
Just thinking of the logistics with Christmas plans. How does it work with people travelling around for holidays. And enjoying holidays. Surely the promise clashes with most difficult time to have arms presented.
Downing Street believes ITV may have many hours’ more footage of Allegra Stratton’s floundering practice sessions for televised press conferences @Telegraph understands
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I haven't called for anyone to die.
But do you have any evidence that mask mandates prevent deaths over the course of the pandemic, post-vaccines?
Give over. Your attitude consistently is "people die, so what?" You assume *others* will die.
Why do you assume he assumes that? Unless he has wholly irrational delusions of preferential immunity, he must be saying: these are risks we should all, including me and mine, be living with.
Because nobody goes out saying "let people die of Covid so I can do what I like in liberty" assuming it will be they and their own doing the dying.
What makes you say that? It's just wrong. I support the motorway speed limit being 70 vs 20 despite the additional risk of fatal crashes, on a convenience vs risk basis, in the knowledge that the enhanced risk applies to me every bit as much as it applies to everyone else. Presumably, so do you.
Fatal motorway crashes aren't contagious.
An almost unbelievably stupid point. So fking what? The argument is about tolerating risk in exchange for liberty. As with contagious diseases, so with speed limits: being liberal about it increases the risk both of doing harm, and of having harm done to you. What point are you actually trying to make?
Perhaps if the Government hadn't installed complacency and been utterly useless yet again over the summer we wouldn't be in this mess
Your partisanship is showing.
You call it partisanship, I call it the truth.
I have warned about this for months. Complacency setting in again.
No politician would over rule the JVCI, not Boris, not Starmer.
Starmer is irrelevant in this case. I am saying what I warned about
You would overule the JCVI on vaccines, it like telling the public to take horse dewormer....no responsible politician would do it.
This is the problem with having advisers that make the decisions. The MHRA ruled it safe for kids and said boosters are necessary for all adults yet the government handed the responsibility to another body that dithered and delayed for political reasons.
My criticism of the government would be since JCVI actually made a decision, they have been too slow. zahwai replacement is a mrs invisible and i highly doubt she have much ump to get shit done.
Tonight's statement by Boris has been endorsed by Starmer and Drakeford and the test of any redemption for him will be the success or otherwise of the boosters
The media will play a substantial role in this, and if the army become very visible and daily booster stats rise to the targets then maybe he will receive some credit
Perhaps if the Government hadn't installed complacency and been utterly useless yet again over the summer we wouldn't be in this mess
Your partisanship is showing.
You call it partisanship, I call it the truth.
I have warned about this for months. Complacency setting in again.
No politician would over rule the JVCI, not Boris, not Starmer.
Starmer is irrelevant in this case. I am saying what I warned about
You would overule the JCVI on vaccines, it like telling the public to take horse dewormer.
Saying complacency had settled in and the vaccine rollout/boosters has been poor in terms of advertisement is not the JCVI's fault
Boosters and vaccines for kids is absolutely at the door of the JCVI and Hancock for not lighting a fire under them in the summer when it became obvious that 2 dose immunity wanted sufficiently to require a third dose. Until late August they wanted booster for groups 1-4 only until The Saj told them to think again and they expanded to groups 1-9. Again they had to be cajoled by The Saj to expand to all 18+ and second doses for kids.
Staff believe it is likely that ITV journalists have many hours more footage of Ms Stratton’s floundering dry runs as Boris Johnson’s press secretary, recorded in late 2020.
It is thought the footage could contain more embarrassing disclosures about the heart of Mr Johnson’s administration, after a leaked clip last week confirmed for the first time that a “Christmas party” had taken place on December 18 last year while London was in partial lockdown.
Junior No10 staff are said to be suffering from mental health crises over the looming threat of more leaks that implicate officials.
Ms Stratton is understood to have taken part in several sessions to prepare her for “White House-style” televised briefings, with Government special advisers posing as journalists.
The plan for on-screen press conferences was eventually abandoned, after Mr Johnson was advised that she had not performed well in the practice sessions.
Perhaps if the Government hadn't installed complacency and been utterly useless yet again over the summer we wouldn't be in this mess
Your partisanship is showing.
You call it partisanship, I call it the truth.
I have warned about this for months. Complacency setting in again.
No politician would over rule the JVCI, not Boris, not Starmer.
Starmer is irrelevant in this case. I am saying what I warned about
You would overule the JCVI on vaccines, it like telling the public to take horse dewormer....no responsible politician would do it.
This is the problem with having advisers that make the decisions. The MHRA ruled it safe for kids and said boosters are necessary for all adults yet the government handed the responsibility to another body that dithered and delayed for political reasons.
I could not understand their assumption regarding the proportion of each age cohort that would actually contract the virus in their vaccine side effect calculations.
The simplest and most accurate assumption for who was going to get it was not 1%, 5% or 20%, it was just 100%. Everyone.
Why nobody challenged their nonsense at the time I have no idea. If I'd been given a 'question from the public' it would have been the first one I asked.
Perhaps if the Government hadn't installed complacency and been utterly useless yet again over the summer we wouldn't be in this mess
The JCVI are entirely responsible for the delay in recommending the vaccination of children, nobody else
No, the government should have not allowed them to prevaricate. Noticeable that when Javid became Health Secretary they made some decisions pretty quickly.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I haven't called for anyone to die.
But do you have any evidence that mask mandates prevent deaths over the course of the pandemic, post-vaccines?
Give over. Your attitude consistently is "people die, so what?" You assume *others* will die.
Why do you assume he assumes that? Unless he has wholly irrational delusions of preferential immunity, he must be saying: these are risks we should all, including me and mine, be living with.
Because nobody goes out saying "let people die of Covid so I can do what I like in liberty" assuming it will be they and their own doing the dying.
What makes you say that? It's just wrong. I support the motorway speed limit being 70 vs 20 despite the additional risk of fatal crashes, on a convenience vs risk basis, in the knowledge that the enhanced risk applies to me every bit as much as it applies to everyone else. Presumably, so do you.
Fatal motorway crashes aren't contagious.
An almost unbelievably stupid point. So fking what? The argument is about tolerating risk in exchange for liberty. As with contagious diseases, so with speed limits: being liberal about it increases the risk both of doing harm, and of having harm done to you. What point are you actually trying to make?
Oh, the humanity, Govt. forcing you to wear a seatbelt whenever you drive!
Wondering if my guests will turn up for a business Christmas party this week? I’m thinking odds against, although there’s nothing actually preventing it so far. Still, I’m now doubting that it will happen, which will be a shame.
Clearly SAGE have told him Omicron isnt much milder, or not sufficiently milder to not overwhelm the NHS.
We are back to flatten the curve.
That's what my friend/source flagged up the other day.
The NHS collapsing will put the Tories out for decades.
Another lockdown will put the Tories out for years.
So Boris took the best course, mass rollout of boosters including the army to save the NHS. However not a single word about a future lockdown or even further vaxports being on the cards either
Why was he not wearing a wedding ring? Has Carrie dumped him already?
I don't wear mine. Never got on with having it on my finger.
I used to wear it and then started playing with it during the workday, then it fell on the floor and I couldn't find it for hours. After that I leave it at home in the drawer and only wear it to weddings and on our anniversary. I honestly think it would be a week in the spare bedroom if I lost it.
JCVI need a solid arse kicking for their possing around with child doses and boosters.
Yes, at the time I said I thought it was the wrong call but it was a marginal decision. Hindsight is proving it was both wrong and anything but marginal unfortunately.
It was only marginal when JCVI used a 5% total infection rate (IIRC) for children. Yes, they seriously were trying to say that 5% of children would get COVID over the total course of the epidemic....
Well, their information was nonsensical then as it was 4.2% in one week this time last year.
But it was marginal in terms of donating vaccines needed elsewhere against the risk of spreading the virus among a population that was otherwise protected.
I still would have done it, but not for these reasons - simply because it was buggering up the education of so many isolating children.
The donation of vaccines abroad was outside the remit of JCVI - which is why an element on the committee held up a decision as their way of trying to control what was happening.
Given that the main vaccine producers are producing by the billion, 40 million or whatever is a fart in thunderstorm.
The speech doesn't sound particularly plausible in the light of the numbers - bloke on BBC1 saying it's a million a day to get it done by 31st Dec. That isn't going to happen. And in the light of the fact that UK closes down for virtually all purposes from about 23rd December to 3rd January (4th Jan this year as New Years's day is a Saturday). Will this year be much different?
The devil is in the detail of the promise: which is to 'offer' to 'every eligible adult' by 31 Dec. That, I suspect, will be fulfilled by having a website available for all adults to have go at cracking its mysteries by 31 Dec, not by personal contact or by actually getting it done.
Staff believe it is likely that ITV journalists have many hours more footage of Ms Stratton’s floundering dry runs as Boris Johnson’s press secretary, recorded in late 2020.
It is thought the footage could contain more embarrassing disclosures about the heart of Mr Johnson’s administration, after a leaked clip last week confirmed for the first time that a “Christmas party” had taken place on December 18 last year while London was in partial lockdown.
Junior No10 staff are said to be suffering from mental health crises over the looming threat of more leaks that implicate officials.
Ms Stratton is understood to have taken part in several sessions to prepare her for “White House-style” televised briefings, with Government special advisers posing as journalists.
The plan for on-screen press conferences was eventually abandoned, after Mr Johnson was advised that she had not performed well in the practice sessions.
So why did she get to resign last week? FFS, you pay someone £120K and they're not up to snuff, you hang them out to dry.
Wondering if my guests will turn up for a business Christmas party this week? I’m thinking odds against, although there’s nothing actually preventing it so far. Still, I’m now doubting that it will happen, which will be a shame.
Last year if you wanted to have a party you had to pretend it was a business meeting.
This year if you want to have a business meeting you have to pretend it is a party.
Downing Street believes ITV may have many hours’ more footage of Allegra Stratton’s floundering practice sessions for televised press conferences @Telegraph understands
Staff believe it is likely that ITV journalists have many hours more footage of Ms Stratton’s floundering dry runs as Boris Johnson’s press secretary, recorded in late 2020.
It is thought the footage could contain more embarrassing disclosures about the heart of Mr Johnson’s administration, after a leaked clip last week confirmed for the first time that a “Christmas party” had taken place on December 18 last year while London was in partial lockdown.
Junior No10 staff are said to be suffering from mental health crises over the looming threat of more leaks that implicate officials.
Ms Stratton is understood to have taken part in several sessions to prepare her for “White House-style” televised briefings, with Government special advisers posing as journalists.
The plan for on-screen press conferences was eventually abandoned, after Mr Johnson was advised that she had not performed well in the practice sessions.
Well that much is obvious. Few could repeat Johnsons lies and keep a straight face.
Clearly SAGE have told him Omicron isnt much milder, or not sufficiently milder to not overwhelm the NHS.
We are back to flatten the curve.
That's what my friend/source flagged up the other day.
The NHS collapsing will put the Tories out for decades.
Another lockdown will put the Tories out for years.
So Boris took the best course, mass rollout of boosters including the army to save the NHS. However not a single word about a future lockdown or even further vaxports being on the cards either
Yes, sigh of relief from me - I wasn't sure what he was going to say. He's such a loose cannon.
Perhaps if the Government hadn't installed complacency and been utterly useless yet again over the summer we wouldn't be in this mess
The JCVI are entirely responsible for the delay in recommending the vaccination of children, nobody else
No, the government should have not allowed them to prevaricate. Noticeable that when Javid became Health Secretary they made some decisions pretty quickly.
They kept stalling by claiming they were waiting on a new academic study that hadn't been published yet.
One thing that the government didn't push hard on, SAGE didn't meet at all in August and I believe only once in September. It was only October when they started to work on a winter plan.
The government should have been giving them a proper kicking to do some work.
Tonight's statement by Boris has been endorsed by Starmer and Drakeford and the test of any redemption for him will be the success or otherwise of the boosters
The media will play a substantial role in this, and if the army become very visible and daily booster stats rise to the targets then maybe he will receive some credit
But there are a lot of 'ifs' in all of this
As I said above its a ballsy strategy. All I can see are downsides though - walk-in centres swamped, running out of doses, people fighting - and we're approaching Christmas. Not a prayer they achieve the "we must do this" target. Blame for not getting there will be put on us as he locks us down again.
Also, he said "Tidal Wave". Sturgeon a "Tsunami". Both based on actual scientists crunching actual data with the actual facts. Or, we can ignore all of them and listen to the PB brains trust who have been reading stuff on Google.
Is that feasible? Everyone over 18 offered a booster by December 31st?
Not offered. Actually injected...
Mine's due on January 4th. I have no plans before then. Should I rebook?
Yes. My wife did this week and got it done the following afternoon. You can check for appointments before cancelling the one you have got so there is no risk. Check different postcodes.
Staff believe it is likely that ITV journalists have many hours more footage of Ms Stratton’s floundering dry runs as Boris Johnson’s press secretary, recorded in late 2020.
It is thought the footage could contain more embarrassing disclosures about the heart of Mr Johnson’s administration, after a leaked clip last week confirmed for the first time that a “Christmas party” had taken place on December 18 last year while London was in partial lockdown.
Junior No10 staff are said to be suffering from mental health crises over the looming threat of more leaks that implicate officials.
Ms Stratton is understood to have taken part in several sessions to prepare her for “White House-style” televised briefings, with Government special advisers posing as journalists.
The plan for on-screen press conferences was eventually abandoned, after Mr Johnson was advised that she had not performed well in the practice sessions.
Well that much is obvious. Few could repeat Johnsons lies and keep a straight face.
I reckon Peter Cook could have done it.
Can you imagine what he and Christopher Booker would have written about Johnson for The Secret Policeman’s Ball?
So what we all said was an utterly wankerish non sport, turns out to be an utterly wankerish non sport. Perhaps you should have listened to us? All the excitement of My tyres passed the MOT but the front left is nearly down to minimum tread, and Should I fill up here or try to hang on till Tesco but run the risk of the orange light coming on? Now with added litigation, I can't wait for the bit where they serve Lists of Documents, and the highlights of the Further and Better Particulars.
Everyone over 18 who is eligible to be offered a booster jab by the end of December
I’m up for it 🧪
Just thinking of the logistics with Christmas plans. How does it work with people travelling around for holidays. And enjoying holidays. Surely the promise clashes with most difficult time to have arms presented.
I notice we're not talking about Taiwan or New Zealand's approaches, how strange
Actually a lot of us have said how atrocious we find Saint Jacinda's approach is repeatedly.
Jacinda has done a lot better than Boris, this is indisputable.
It is very disputable.
If everyone can be boosted by the end of the year that would be incredible.
Please explain how Boris has done better than Jacinda. I will wait
Higher vaccination rates, sooner.
Lockdown restrictions lifted, sooner.
Much better. Not a long wait for you.
How many people have died in NZ compared to the UK.
The vaccination programme seems to have been pretty ineffective all told, we're about to go back into more restrictions and possibly another lockdown.
I would bet money that NZ will be back to normal ultimately before us.
The vaccination programme has saved tens - maybe hundred - of thousands of lives in the UK, and allows us to live with minimal restrictions. Do I wish there were no restrictions at all? Sure. Is the government probably being overcautious with Omicron? Yep.
But, has the vaccination programme been a failure?
Nope. People who are unvaccinated are at least ten times more likely to end up hospitalized from Covid or to die of it.
If uptake of boosters among those eligible hits 90%, the NHS will need to administer an average of nearly 1m jabs a day - far outstripping all previous records.
Clearly SAGE have told him Omicron isnt much milder, or not sufficiently milder to not overwhelm the NHS.
We are back to flatten the curve.
That's what my friend/source flagged up the other day.
The NHS collapsing will put the Tories out for decades.
Another lockdown will put the Tories out for years.
So Boris took the best course, mass rollout of boosters including the army to save the NHS. However not a single word about a future lockdown or even further vaxports being on the cards either
Yes I think you are right. My guess is we are probably in the clear for lockdown until after the holiday. 4 Jan onwards is a different matter but quite frankly I think you are possibly right here too and lockdown is too destructive for the government now. You could close the pubs and people will simply have house parties: nobody will observe in-home restrictions ever again after PartyGate.
I can’t even laugh at this. The Prime Minister’s reckless disregard for his own rules, and shameless lying about it, is destroying public confidence in anything he says at a time of national health crisis when we most need to believe our leaders. It will cost many lives. https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1470126977512267782/photo/1
I notice we're not talking about Taiwan or New Zealand's approaches, how strange
Actually a lot of us have said how atrocious we find Saint Jacinda's approach is repeatedly.
Jacinda has done a lot better than Boris, this is indisputable.
It is very disputable.
If everyone can be boosted by the end of the year that would be incredible.
Please explain how Boris has done better than Jacinda. I will wait
Higher vaccination rates, sooner.
Lockdown restrictions lifted, sooner.
Much better. Not a long wait for you.
How many people have died in NZ compared to the UK.
The vaccination programme seems to have been pretty ineffective all told, we're about to go back into more restrictions and possibly another lockdown.
I would bet money that NZ will be back to normal ultimately before us.
I have been to New Zealand several times and it is not only 3 hours flying time from anywhere, but consists of two islands with lots of space and nothing like the population density of the UK
The two countries are not compatible for comparison purposes
Clearly SAGE have told him Omicron isnt much milder, or not sufficiently milder to not overwhelm the NHS.
We are back to flatten the curve.
That's what my friend/source flagged up the other day.
The NHS collapsing will put the Tories out for decades.
Another lockdown will put the Tories out for years.
So Boris took the best course, mass rollout of boosters including the army to save the NHS. However not a single word about a future lockdown or even further vaxports being on the cards either
Yes I think you are right. My guess is we are probably in the clear for lockdown until after the holiday. 4 Jan onwards is a different matter but quite frankly I think you are possibly right here too and lockdown is too destructive for the government now. You could close the pubs and people will simply have house parties: nobody will observe in-home restrictions ever again after PartyGate.
I think they would... but don't expect them to vote Tory at the next GE.
Why was he not wearing a wedding ring? Has Carrie dumped him already?
I don't wear mine. Never got on with having it on my finger.
I used to wear it and then started playing with it during the workday, then it fell on the floor and I couldn't find it for hours. After that I leave it at home in the drawer and only wear it to weddings and on our anniversary. I honestly think it would be a week in the spare bedroom if I lost it.
I managed to lose my original wedding ring at a friend's wedding. I was rather drunk...
I now wear my Great-grandfathers and never take it off.
If uptake of boosters among those eligible hits 90%, the NHS will need to administer an average of nearly 1m jabs a day - far outstripping all previous records.
If the NHS drop everything I can't see why it isn't possible. We did do 600 or 700k in the first rollout, and 500k yesterday.
As long as they can get people to the door, I think it will happen.
Whether it will be a massive super-spreader event is another question. It might make sense to drop the 15 minute wait, or at least have it in the car park.
Wondering if my guests will turn up for a business Christmas party this week? I’m thinking odds against, although there’s nothing actually preventing it so far. Still, I’m now doubting that it will happen, which will be a shame.
Last year if you wanted to have a party you had to pretend it was a business meeting.
This year if you want to have a business meeting you have to pretend it is a party.
New @IpsosMORI Political Monitor coming in tomorrow's Evening Standard. Voting intention, updated leader satisfaction ratings, deep dive on leader attributes trends plus who would make the most capable PM....plenty to get our teeth into. One NOT to be missed! https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1470131240384831490
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I haven't called for anyone to die.
But do you have any evidence that mask mandates prevent deaths over the course of the pandemic, post-vaccines?
Give over. Your attitude consistently is "people die, so what?" You assume *others* will die.
Why do you assume he assumes that? Unless he has wholly irrational delusions of preferential immunity, he must be saying: these are risks we should all, including me and mine, be living with.
Because nobody goes out saying "let people die of Covid so I can do what I like in liberty" assuming it will be they and their own doing the dying.
What makes you say that? It's just wrong. I support the motorway speed limit being 70 vs 20 despite the additional risk of fatal crashes, on a convenience vs risk basis, in the knowledge that the enhanced risk applies to me every bit as much as it applies to everyone else. Presumably, so do you.
Fatal motorway crashes aren't contagious.
An almost unbelievably stupid point. So fking what? The argument is about tolerating risk in exchange for liberty. As with contagious diseases, so with speed limits: being liberal about it increases the risk both of doing harm, and of having harm done to you. What point are you actually trying to make?
Oh, the humanity, Govt. forcing you to wear a seatbelt whenever you drive!
Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?
I know you are a train person, but the law on seatbelts does not vary with the speed limit. Trust me on this.
I notice we're not talking about Taiwan or New Zealand's approaches, how strange
Actually a lot of us have said how atrocious we find Saint Jacinda's approach is repeatedly.
Jacinda has done a lot better than Boris, this is indisputable.
It is very disputable.
If everyone can be boosted by the end of the year that would be incredible.
Please explain how Boris has done better than Jacinda. I will wait
Higher vaccination rates, sooner.
Lockdown restrictions lifted, sooner.
Much better. Not a long wait for you.
How many people have died in NZ compared to the UK.
The vaccination programme seems to have been pretty ineffective all told, we're about to go back into more restrictions and possibly another lockdown.
I would bet money that NZ will be back to normal ultimately before us.
How much restrictions have there been in NZ?
"Deaths" are not the only thing that matter, especially when you can't live your life due to restrictions.
Apart from foreign travel, fewer and shorter than here. I don't think that we could have copied their success because of geography, but they have certainly done well.
I notice we're not talking about Taiwan or New Zealand's approaches, how strange
Actually a lot of us have said how atrocious we find Saint Jacinda's approach is repeatedly.
Jacinda has done a lot better than Boris, this is indisputable.
It is very disputable.
If everyone can be boosted by the end of the year that would be incredible.
Please explain how Boris has done better than Jacinda. I will wait
Higher vaccination rates, sooner.
Lockdown restrictions lifted, sooner.
Much better. Not a long wait for you.
How many people have died in NZ compared to the UK.
The vaccination programme seems to have been pretty ineffective all told, we're about to go back into more restrictions and possibly another lockdown.
I would bet money that NZ will be back to normal ultimately before us.
How much restrictions have there been in NZ?
"Deaths" are not the only thing that matter, especially when you can't live your life due to restrictions.
Apart from foreign travel, fewer and shorter than here. I don't think that we could have copied their success because of geography, but they have certainly done well.
It's because she's left wing. If it was a Tory Government they'd be singing their praises
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I haven't called for anyone to die.
But do you have any evidence that mask mandates prevent deaths over the course of the pandemic, post-vaccines?
Give over. Your attitude consistently is "people die, so what?" You assume *others* will die.
Why do you assume he assumes that? Unless he has wholly irrational delusions of preferential immunity, he must be saying: these are risks we should all, including me and mine, be living with.
Because nobody goes out saying "let people die of Covid so I can do what I like in liberty" assuming it will be they and their own doing the dying.
What makes you say that? It's just wrong. I support the motorway speed limit being 70 vs 20 despite the additional risk of fatal crashes, on a convenience vs risk basis, in the knowledge that the enhanced risk applies to me every bit as much as it applies to everyone else. Presumably, so do you.
Does anyone remember "back to normal by the summer" and "two jabs to freedom". I do
We were, Horse. Until this happened, which was always a possibility.
That was not what the big brains trust was saying at the time and you know it, friend
Well, it’s what I heard them saying. Depending on who you meant by ‘the big brains trust.’
And we have effectively operated without restrictions in England at least since June.
There was always a chance of another variant - the hope was if it did occur it would be milder. This one is milder but not it appears by as much as is needed.
So - more jabbing and we should be OK again. The issue is reaching those who weren’t jabbed properly first time.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
As you are calling for the wives and daughters of others to die to preserve the "liberty" of yourself and your own wife and daughter, I will take your perspectives on virtue under advisement.
I haven't called for anyone to die.
But do you have any evidence that mask mandates prevent deaths over the course of the pandemic, post-vaccines?
Give over. Your attitude consistently is "people die, so what?" You assume *others* will die.
Why do you assume he assumes that? Unless he has wholly irrational delusions of preferential immunity, he must be saying: these are risks we should all, including me and mine, be living with.
Because nobody goes out saying "let people die of Covid so I can do what I like in liberty" assuming it will be they and their own doing the dying.
What makes you say that? It's just wrong. I support the motorway speed limit being 70 vs 20 despite the additional risk of fatal crashes, on a convenience vs risk basis, in the knowledge that the enhanced risk applies to me every bit as much as it applies to everyone else. Presumably, so do you.
Fatal motorway crashes aren't contagious.
An almost unbelievably stupid point. So fking what? The argument is about tolerating risk in exchange for liberty. As with contagious diseases, so with speed limits: being liberal about it increases the risk both of doing harm, and of having harm done to you. What point are you actually trying to make?
Oh, the humanity, Govt. forcing you to wear a seatbelt whenever you drive!
Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?
I know you are a train person, but the law on seatbelts does not vary with the speed limit. Trust me on this.
If masks are so oppressive, you should also boycott seatbelts, surely?
Comments
Wont happen.
Will Johnson be re-born once again? One to watch
Surely Rishi is doing to have to do something though. This is going to kill many businesses.
The local pub has a 'for sale' notice out today.
And I posted loads in the summer saying they should be vaccinating kids etc. But i live in the real world, where we have institutions which you can't over rule for the long term belief and stability of the system.
-big expansion of booster programme to do all over 18s before end of the year
-'tidal wave' of cases coming
- some other NHS appointments to be delayed, given state of waiting lists of already that's significant
- https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1470126077649502214
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1470126019306823685?s=20
And the Mirror has photos of Boris
And the verdict is not a good one for PM Johnson.
But it was marginal in terms of donating vaccines needed elsewhere against the risk of spreading the virus among a population that was otherwise protected.
I still would have done it, but not for these reasons - simply because it was buggering up the education of so many isolating children.
Getting the 23,500,000 (roughly) triple vaccinated will be a challenge even at a million per day. The question is of that number, how many had their second vaccinations more than four months ago?
What of the four and a half million who have had just one vaccination - will there be a push to double vaccinate those people?
What about x? As we have no real idea how many that represents, we need to prepare for some of these to be coming to hospital if they have so far avoided Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon etc.
Bob Cratchet: Would it be ok, sir, if you were so pleased to allow me to work at home this xmas.
Scrooge: Humbug. I want everyone in the office so I can see them working. Do they work from home at the Work House?
3rd dose as at today = 23.1m
2nd dose as at 30 Sept = 44.9m
So max boosters which could be done between now and end of Dec if everyone comes forward = 21.8m
I thought people on here were following the numbers closely - why am I the first to post the actual numbers some 20 minutes after Boris announcement?
This morning the Conservative Party is talking of removing him as Prime Minister.
Tonight he plays his strongest available card.
Time will tell if its enough
Just thinking of the logistics with Christmas plans. How does it work with people travelling around for holidays. And enjoying holidays. Surely the promise clashes with most difficult time to have arms presented.
Downing Street believes ITV may have many hours’ more footage of Allegra Stratton’s floundering practice sessions for televised press conferences @Telegraph understands
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/12/12/pm-accused-culture-disregard-covid-rules-quiz-photo-emerges/
Stop being so woke, stiff upper lip etc, that's what they tell us
The media will play a substantial role in this, and if the army become very visible and daily booster stats rise to the targets then maybe he will receive some credit
But there are a lot of 'ifs' in all of this
It is thought the footage could contain more embarrassing disclosures about the heart of Mr Johnson’s administration, after a leaked clip last week confirmed for the first time that a “Christmas party” had taken place on December 18 last year while London was in partial lockdown.
Junior No10 staff are said to be suffering from mental health crises over the looming threat of more leaks that implicate officials.
Ms Stratton is understood to have taken part in several sessions to prepare her for “White House-style” televised briefings, with Government special advisers posing as journalists.
The plan for on-screen press conferences was eventually abandoned, after Mr Johnson was advised that she had not performed well in the practice sessions.
The simplest and most accurate assumption for who was going to get it was not 1%, 5% or 20%, it was just 100%. Everyone.
Why nobody challenged their nonsense at the time I have no idea. If I'd been given a 'question from the public' it would have been the first one I asked.
So Boris took the best course, mass rollout of boosters including the army to save the NHS. However not a single word about a future lockdown or even further vaxports being on the cards either
Given that the main vaccine producers are producing by the billion, 40 million or whatever is a fart in thunderstorm.
The devil is in the detail of the promise: which is to 'offer' to 'every eligible adult' by 31 Dec. That, I suspect, will be fulfilled by having a website available for all adults to have go at cracking its mysteries by 31 Dec, not by personal contact or by actually getting it done.
This year if you want to have a business meeting you have to pretend it is a party.
Its all about boosters now.
It smacks of desperation.
Did have another party last night?
Lockdown restrictions lifted, sooner.
Much better. Not a long wait for you.
One thing that the government didn't push hard on, SAGE didn't meet at all in August and I believe only once in September. It was only October when they started to work on a winter plan.
The government should have been giving them a proper kicking to do some work.
The vaccination programme seems to have been pretty ineffective all told, we're about to go back into more restrictions and possibly another lockdown.
I would bet money that NZ will be back to normal ultimately before us.
Also, he said "Tidal Wave". Sturgeon a "Tsunami". Both based on actual scientists crunching actual data with the actual facts. Or, we can ignore all of them and listen to the PB brains trust who have been reading stuff on Google.
Can you imagine what he and Christopher Booker would have written about Johnson for The Secret Policeman’s Ball?
That is why Jacinda was rewarded with a landslide.
But, has the vaccination programme been a failure?
Nope. People who are unvaccinated are at least ten times more likely to end up hospitalized from Covid or to die of it.
"World beating" it is clearly not, I notice Tories have stopped calling it that, why?
The Prime Minister’s reckless disregard for his own rules, and shameless lying about it, is destroying public confidence in anything he says at a time of national health crisis when we most need to believe our leaders.
It will cost many lives. https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1470126977512267782/photo/1
The two countries are not compatible for comparison purposes
"Deaths" are not the only thing that matter, especially when you can't live your life due to restrictions.
I now wear my Great-grandfathers and never take it off.
https://twitter.com/labourlewis/status/1469651368352927749?s=19
As long as they can get people to the door, I think it will happen.
Whether it will be a massive super-spreader event is another question. It might make sense to drop the 15 minute wait, or at least have it in the car park.
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1470131240384831490
Unfortunately in agreement with those mocking F1 - hard to bother watching in future with the way the last month has gone.
I know you are a train person, but the law on seatbelts does not vary with the speed limit. Trust me on this.
And we have effectively operated without restrictions in England at least since June.
There was always a chance of another variant - the hope was if it did occur it would be milder. This one is milder but not it appears by as much as is needed.
So - more jabbing and we should be OK again. The issue is reaching those who weren’t jabbed properly first time.