Boris banging on about Christmas again. We are as far away from Xmas as we are from the end of June. We can't possibly know what will happen by then.
I think it is to soften up the public for cancelling Christmas.
Even in the most optimistic scenario I don't think we are going to see big family gatherings. Farmers who will already have started rearing turkeys must be very worried people.
You'd be surprised by just how many think they will have a proper family Christmas if they don't have any symptoms.
Who’s going to stop them? The police are not going to be raiding people’s homes on Christmas Day.
The Covid Marshals.
They’re mythical aren’t they? Like the Loch Ness monster. I’m only aware of one confirmed sighting in Epping, Essex.
Well Mr Smithson if you long to see your children and their families, the answer is simple. See them.
Non-compliance is the only way this ends.
I am amazed anyone would refuse to see a family member who wanted to see them because Boris told them they shouldn't
Except that Mr Smithson Jr (rcs1000) lives in the US. It's none of any of our business what his visa status is, but it's quite possible that with the US's current immigration restrictions it's such that OGH cannot visit his son in the US, and rcs can't visit his father in the UK and be able to return to his family and business in the US.
Well he does say children (plural).
Indeed. I have four grandchildren - two in the UK and two in LA. I've not seen the latter for for than 16 months. We were due to visit six months ago when all this stated.
Lovely sentiment and aesthetically impeccable, but surely everybody (on here, anyway) agrees that this disease is highly contagious and very, very dangerous to the over 70s? All this nuffink's gonna stop my mum and dad seeing their grandkids is equivalent to nuffink's gonna stop me getting dead drunk and taking my mum and dad for a fast drive with no seatbelts, is it? It's a shame that that is the case, but it is, as they say, what it is.
Allow "mum and dad" some agency. They may want to see their "grandkids". They may know the risks and still want to see them.
Some people even want to go out and jump big black hedges while horseback riding for no apparently sensible reason.
People can be like that, you know.
I quite agree (and in both those contexts I have no patience with the "putting an unfair strain on the NHS" nonsense). But the penalty for seeing the grandkids isn't being fined by Boris, it's dying horribly four weeks later and leaving others to feel that they may have finished you off by giving you the virus - not a comfortable thought even if they know that you voluntarily accepted the risk. Risk appetite will be lower than you think.
Maybe. But I think one should err on the side of trusting people.
If I was 80yrs old and had co-morbidities I would think twice about having my grandchildren over or if I did have them over, would ensure that there was social distancing.
The difficulty is that the rhetoric has been ramped up so much that many people think even obeying the health guidelines is reckless abandon. Either they are health guidelines, with all the caveats, or they are not.
Plenty of people on here are happy to ban foreign travel, ban Christmas, close pubs and clubs, and go back into full lockdown.
Of course the union set of such people, and sad old gits living on their own posting on PB I would say is quite high so they can "afford" to be ever more harsh in their desire to see the country grind to a halt around them.
Over the next few years/decades we might have a generation who is tarred as the ones who killed some of their parents/grandparents because they couldn't follow some slight rules.
That's going to have a major impact on the mental health of many.
The sort of people who do things like go on holiday and try to justify not quarantining, will also find ways to excuse away them passing on the plague to someone who subsequently dies.
Yup, today I cancelled my Cineworld unlimited card after 19 years of membership, as much as I want to go to the cinema, I'd rather not catch the plague and give it to my family.
So no cinema or foreign holidays for me until we have a viable vaccine.
I thought you lived with your parents and one of them already had during lockdown?
Boris banging on about Christmas again. We are as far away from Xmas as we are from the end of June. We can't possibly know what will happen by then.
I think it is to soften up the public for cancelling Christmas.
Even in the most optimistic scenario I don't think we are going to see big family gatherings. Farmers who will already have started rearing turkeys must be very worried people.
You'd be surprised by just how many think they will have a proper family Christmas if they don't have any symptoms.
Who’s going to stop them? The police are not going to be raiding people’s homes on Christmas Day.
The Covid Marshals.
They’re mythical aren’t they? Like the Loch Ness monster. I’m only aware of one confirmed sighting in Epping, Essex.
You mean @HYUFD in a high-viz vest directing traffic in Tesco's car park?
Over the next few years/decades we might have a generation who is tarred as the ones who killed some of their parents/grandparents because they couldn't follow some slight rules.
That's going to have a major impact on the mental health of many.
The sort of people who do things like go on holiday and try to justify not quarantining, will also find ways to excuse away them passing on the plague to someone who subsequently dies.
Yup, today I cancelled my Cineworld unlimited card after 19 years of membership, as much as I want to go to the cinema, I'd rather not catch the plague and give it to my family.
So no cinema or foreign holidays for me until we have a viable vaccine.
I thought you lived with your parents and one of them already had during lockdown?
I do, and my father has had confirmed via the antibody test, but my mother was on the original shielding list, so we're still cautious as she and I have not had it.
Would people regard Christmas under the 'rule of six' as 'cancelled christmas' ? It's a genuine question.
Depends on the size of your family, we're a family of five, so Christmas won't be cancelled for us, but if you're a larger family, say 2 grandparents, 2 parents who had four kids, and those four kids have eight kids between them, then I'd say Christmas is cancelled for them.
If it the Covid-19 numbers do not improve then get ready for more lockdowns and Christmas will be cancelled.
I think this and its implication is interesting in the psychology (and important because of that).
You are in a vulnerable household and have said that you aren't going to socialise (or at least not go to Cineworld - those that haven't closed for good) or on holiday until there is a vaccine.
Would I be right in saying that, if it were your choice, you would like to see harsher lockdown measures across the board and certainly Christmas and skiing in Verbier be damned?
On the whole compliance thing. I'd prefer the best, most humane rulesets and if that means somewhat lesser enforceability and relies on goodwill (not towards the government, but towards the battle against COVID), I'd rather that than an enforceable but difficult rule. To some extent though, that might be a false dichotomy, if a good and enforceable rule is available.
I mean, I've "used judgement" - the circular drive to stop my locked down young one bouncing of the walls and get her to sleep during lockdown frankly wasn't essential travel, the allowing of family members, who we'd met with outside and in public, to use our holiday home briefly for baby changing before going home was probably out with local lockdown. I can self-justify those without going all out mad and firing my kids out of a cannon at granny daily. It doesn't mean I'm not supportive of lockdown rules either.
OT - Its a pity that the great British bookie that is William Hills is to be taken over by a US firm. End of an era and likely to accelerate shop closures as well. If anyone wants a good read - William Hill - the man and the business by Graham Sharpe is a great delve into the rise of the bookmaking firm in the 20th and early 21st century
Would people regard Christmas under the 'rule of six' as 'cancelled christmas' ? It's a genuine question.
I think a lot of people would.
There will be a humongous number of "rebels" daring the govt to nick them for having Christmas Day with their immediate family
As plod mentioned to me the other night, confirming that there are more than six people (or whatever the regulations will be by that time) in any household would require a warrant as the police (as yet) don't have the right to enter private residences. I can see a lot of warrants not being requested on Dec 25th.
As an aside, the ones I spoke to (police) feel left high and dry by the regulations, both in content and the way they were introduced.
Interesting that rates of infection are not going up amongst children. It is young adults where it is changing still.
IN Scotland there has been an explosion in the 12-17 age group. Other children age groups are rising but it is secondary school pupils that are seeing a real surge.
If it the Covid-19 numbers do not improve then get ready for more lockdowns and Christmas will be cancelled.
I think this and its implication is interesting in the psychology (and important because of that).
You are in a vulnerable household and have said that you aren't going to socialise (or at least not go to Cineworld - those that haven't closed for good) or on holiday until there is a vaccine.
Would I be right in saying that, if it were your choice, you would like to see harsher lockdown measures across the board and certainly Christmas and skiing in Verbier be damned?
I'm flexible, I'd be ok for unlimited people at Christmas dinners provided they all had been in isolation for the preceding 14 days and were free of the symptoms.
I went to a wedding in Birmingham this weekend, I didn't go back to my house until I had a private test and had the results back.
I realise that's not an option for most people but I'm prepared to be flexible, what I do object is to is people who seem to go out of their way to infect others, yes I'm talking about people who go on holiday to Covid-19 hotspots then don't isolate for 14 days on their return.
Would people regard Christmas under the 'rule of six' as 'cancelled christmas' ? It's a genuine question.
I think a lot of people would.
There will be a humongous number of "rebels" daring the govt to nick them for having Christmas Day with their immediate family
I'm not so sure about that. The normal big family gatherings typically include at least some elderly and other high-risk family members. If as seems quite likely the TV news is full of stories of hospitalisations and deaths in the run-up to Xmas, I think a large number of people will choose to keep things low-key and not travel to spend Xmas with their relatives.
Obviously it all depends on how the numbers develop between now and mid-December, but I've long thought it likely that things are going to get worse again as we go into winter.
If it the Covid-19 numbers do not improve then get ready for more lockdowns and Christmas will be cancelled.
I think this and its implication is interesting in the psychology (and important because of that).
You are in a vulnerable household and have said that you aren't going to socialise (or at least not go to Cineworld - those that haven't closed for good) or on holiday until there is a vaccine.
Would I be right in saying that, if it were your choice, you would like to see harsher lockdown measures across the board and certainly Christmas and skiing in Verbier be damned?
I'm flexible, I'd be ok for unlimited people at Christmas dinners provided they all had been in isolation for the preceding 14 days and were free of the symptoms.
I went to a wedding in Birmingham this weekend, I didn't go back to my house until I had a private test and had the results back.
I realise that's not an option for most people but I'm prepared to be flexible, what I do object is to is people who seem to go out of their way to infect others, yes I'm talking about people who go on holiday to Covid-19 hotspots then don't isolate for 14 days on their return.
Surely it would be more important to isolate afterwards so as not to infect "the public"?
Plus who would know what is or isn't a Covid hotspot. Compared with what, Burnley?
Plus as mentioned earlier, haven't a large number (a majority?) of deaths been in care homes which have not allowed visitors?
Can yes but the positivity rate for young children is flat and low whereas the positivity rate for young adults is shooting up. That's from tests not symptoms.
Would people regard Christmas under the 'rule of six' as 'cancelled christmas' ? It's a genuine question.
I think a lot of people would.
There will be a humongous number of "rebels" daring the govt to nick them for having Christmas Day with their immediate family
As plod mentioned to me the other night, confirming that there are more than six people (or whatever the regulations will be by that time) in any household would require a warrant as the police (as yet) don't have the right to enter private residences. I can see a lot of warrants not being requested on Dec 25th.
As an aside, the ones I spoke to (police) feel left high and dry by the regulations, both in content and the way they were introduced.
Police will enforce 'blatant' breaches of the regulations, they're not going to bother with family gatherings at christmas.
Would people regard Christmas under the 'rule of six' as 'cancelled christmas' ? It's a genuine question.
Depends on the size of your family, we're a family of five, so Christmas won't be cancelled for us, but if you're a larger family, say 2 grandparents, 2 parents who had four kids, and those four kids have eight kids between them, then I'd say Christmas is cancelled for them.
Nobody will care how many people are in a household on Christmas and anyone who does attempt to grass needs to look at themselves
Interesting that rates of infection are not going up amongst children. It is young adults where it is changing still.
IN Scotland there has been an explosion in the 12-17 age group. Other children age groups are rising but it is secondary school pupils that are seeing a real surge.
Huge surprise.
IANAE - are there other viral infections which are age-specific?
Indeed, not even a pound. Is there a 'fifty pence' shop?
Pathetic, isn't it? And I voted for the guy. But it was him or Corbs at the time.
Interesting hypothetical is where we would be now if Corbyn was PM? Still in full lockdown, maybe.
Corbs would be blaming Big Pharma and the Israelis for Covid-19 and Corbs would have signed us up for the Russian vaccine and it would be mandatory for every Brit to have it.
At the restaurants they slather them in oil which makes them amazing. Off a supermarket shelf (all supermarket pizzas) they simply don't have that extra loveliness.
Indeed, not even a pound. Is there a 'fifty pence' shop?
Pathetic, isn't it? And I voted for the guy. But it was him or Corbs at the time.
Interesting hypothetical is where we would be now if Corbyn was PM? Still in full lockdown, maybe.
Corbs would be blaming Big Pharma and the Israelis for Covid-19 and Corbs would have signed us up for the Russian vaccine and it would be mandatory for every Brit to have it.
While his brother is outside Downing Street screaming it is all a hoax.
On Christmas, we're going to go over it by one. My parents, sister, brother in law, niece, myself and my wife. That's seven people under rules in England but whatever.
If it the Covid-19 numbers do not improve then get ready for more lockdowns and Christmas will be cancelled.
I think this and its implication is interesting in the psychology (and important because of that).
You are in a vulnerable household and have said that you aren't going to socialise (or at least not go to Cineworld - those that haven't closed for good) or on holiday until there is a vaccine.
Would I be right in saying that, if it were your choice, you would like to see harsher lockdown measures across the board and certainly Christmas and skiing in Verbier be damned?
I'm flexible, I'd be ok for unlimited people at Christmas dinners provided they all had been in isolation for the preceding 14 days and were free of the symptoms.
I went to a wedding in Birmingham this weekend, I didn't go back to my house until I had a private test and had the results back.
I realise that's not an option for most people but I'm prepared to be flexible, what I do object is to is people who seem to go out of their way to infect others, yes I'm talking about people who go on holiday to Covid-19 hotspots then don't isolate for 14 days on their return.
Surely it would be more important to isolate afterwards so as not to infect "the public"?
Plus who would know what is or isn't a Covid hotspot. Compared with what, Burnley?
Plus as mentioned earlier, haven't a large number (a majority?) of deaths been in care homes which have not allowed visitors?
I will stress once again, just because you don't die from Covid-19 doesn't mean it doesn't fuck up your life.
It might be the future, but this still seems strange
Online grocer Ocado has overtaken Tesco in terms of stock market value as investors continue to bet on the firm.
Ocado is now valued at £21.7bn, more than Tesco's £21.1bn, despite having only a fraction of the UK grocery market share.
According to analyst firm Kantar, Ocado has only 1.7% of the UK grocery market, compared with Tesco's 26.8% share - which far outstrips its nearest competitors, Sainsbury's and Asda
If it the Covid-19 numbers do not improve then get ready for more lockdowns and Christmas will be cancelled.
I think this and its implication is interesting in the psychology (and important because of that).
You are in a vulnerable household and have said that you aren't going to socialise (or at least not go to Cineworld - those that haven't closed for good) or on holiday until there is a vaccine.
Would I be right in saying that, if it were your choice, you would like to see harsher lockdown measures across the board and certainly Christmas and skiing in Verbier be damned?
I'm flexible, I'd be ok for unlimited people at Christmas dinners provided they all had been in isolation for the preceding 14 days and were free of the symptoms.
I went to a wedding in Birmingham this weekend, I didn't go back to my house until I had a private test and had the results back.
I realise that's not an option for most people but I'm prepared to be flexible, what I do object is to is people who seem to go out of their way to infect others, yes I'm talking about people who go on holiday to Covid-19 hotspots then don't isolate for 14 days on their return.
Surely it would be more important to isolate afterwards so as not to infect "the public"?
Plus who would know what is or isn't a Covid hotspot. Compared with what, Burnley?
Plus as mentioned earlier, haven't a large number (a majority?) of deaths been in care homes which have not allowed visitors?
I will stress once again, just because you don't die from Covid-19 doesn't mean it doesn't fuck up your life.
I don't disagree. My point was that a large proportion of cases and deaths and related effects occurred in places which forbade visitors.
If it the Covid-19 numbers do not improve then get ready for more lockdowns and Christmas will be cancelled.
I think this and its implication is interesting in the psychology (and important because of that).
You are in a vulnerable household and have said that you aren't going to socialise (or at least not go to Cineworld - those that haven't closed for good) or on holiday until there is a vaccine.
Would I be right in saying that, if it were your choice, you would like to see harsher lockdown measures across the board and certainly Christmas and skiing in Verbier be damned?
I'm flexible, I'd be ok for unlimited people at Christmas dinners provided they all had been in isolation for the preceding 14 days and were free of the symptoms.
I went to a wedding in Birmingham this weekend, I didn't go back to my house until I had a private test and had the results back.
I realise that's not an option for most people but I'm prepared to be flexible, what I do object is to is people who seem to go out of their way to infect others, yes I'm talking about people who go on holiday to Covid-19 hotspots then don't isolate for 14 days on their return.
Surely it would be more important to isolate afterwards so as not to infect "the public"?
Plus who would know what is or isn't a Covid hotspot. Compared with what, Burnley?
Plus as mentioned earlier, haven't a large number (a majority?) of deaths been in care homes which have not allowed visitors?
I will stress once again, just because you don't die from Covid-19 doesn't mean it doesn't fuck up your life.
It is fucking up the lives of people who don't know anyone who has even had it
At the restaurants they slather them in oil which makes them amazing. Off a supermarket shelf (all supermarket pizzas) they simply don't have that extra loveliness.
There's nothing amazing about a pizza express pizza. As a fellow Londoner I'm extremely disappointed in you at the moment.
Boris - "we beat this before" - yes, because you had a full lockdown.
Lockdowns have minimal effect. They may spread deaths over a longer period. Whether that is beneficial could depend on whether cases of respiratory illness threaten to exceed NHS capacity, or a few other factors.
However, there are simpler and more effective measures to control that, including some distancing, more handwashing and vitamin D tablets.
Exhibit A: Sweden. Minimal restrictions on civil liberties. Deaths per million 10% lower than UK and they seem to be almost over whereas the UK is allegedly having a 2nd. peak
Exhibit B: Japan. Almost no restrictions. Deaths per million 98% lower than UK.
If it the Covid-19 numbers do not improve then get ready for more lockdowns and Christmas will be cancelled.
I think this and its implication is interesting in the psychology (and important because of that).
You are in a vulnerable household and have said that you aren't going to socialise (or at least not go to Cineworld - those that haven't closed for good) or on holiday until there is a vaccine.
Would I be right in saying that, if it were your choice, you would like to see harsher lockdown measures across the board and certainly Christmas and skiing in Verbier be damned?
I'm flexible, I'd be ok for unlimited people at Christmas dinners provided they all had been in isolation for the preceding 14 days and were free of the symptoms.
I went to a wedding in Birmingham this weekend, I didn't go back to my house until I had a private test and had the results back.
I realise that's not an option for most people but I'm prepared to be flexible, what I do object is to is people who seem to go out of their way to infect others, yes I'm talking about people who go on holiday to Covid-19 hotspots then don't isolate for 14 days on their return.
Surely it would be more important to isolate afterwards so as not to infect "the public"?
Plus who would know what is or isn't a Covid hotspot. Compared with what, Burnley?
Plus as mentioned earlier, haven't a large number (a majority?) of deaths been in care homes which have not allowed visitors?
I will stress once again, just because you don't die from Covid-19 doesn't mean it doesn't fuck up your life.
I don't disagree. My point was that a large proportion of cases and deaths and related effects occurred in places which forbade visitors.
But that was more likely to positive patients being sent back to care homes to the infect the rest, the rest who were the most vulnerable to this disease.
If it the Covid-19 numbers do not improve then get ready for more lockdowns and Christmas will be cancelled.
I think this and its implication is interesting in the psychology (and important because of that).
You are in a vulnerable household and have said that you aren't going to socialise (or at least not go to Cineworld - those that haven't closed for good) or on holiday until there is a vaccine.
Would I be right in saying that, if it were your choice, you would like to see harsher lockdown measures across the board and certainly Christmas and skiing in Verbier be damned?
I'm flexible, I'd be ok for unlimited people at Christmas dinners provided they all had been in isolation for the preceding 14 days and were free of the symptoms.
I went to a wedding in Birmingham this weekend, I didn't go back to my house until I had a private test and had the results back.
I realise that's not an option for most people but I'm prepared to be flexible, what I do object is to is people who seem to go out of their way to infect others, yes I'm talking about people who go on holiday to Covid-19 hotspots then don't isolate for 14 days on their return.
Surely it would be more important to isolate afterwards so as not to infect "the public"?
Plus who would know what is or isn't a Covid hotspot. Compared with what, Burnley?
Plus as mentioned earlier, haven't a large number (a majority?) of deaths been in care homes which have not allowed visitors?
I will stress once again, just because you don't die from Covid-19 doesn't mean it doesn't fuck up your life.
It is fucking up the lives of people who don't know anyone who has even had it
I know, but as I've been saying since March, until we have a vaccine there's no good options, just bad ones.
At the restaurants they slather them in oil which makes them amazing. Off a supermarket shelf (all supermarket pizzas) they simply don't have that extra loveliness.
There's nothing amazing about a pizza express pizza. As a fellow Londoner I'm extremely disappointed in you at the moment.
It invented the American Hot ffs. Its legacy lives on in a thousand pizza restaurants everywhere.
I haven't been to one in years, that said. It's just the principle of the oil vs no oil thing that people miss.
It's La Delizia on Chelsea Manor Street for me every time.
At the restaurants they slather them in oil which makes them amazing. Off a supermarket shelf (all supermarket pizzas) they simply don't have that extra loveliness.
There's nothing amazing about a pizza express pizza. As a fellow Londoner I'm extremely disappointed in you at the moment.
At the restaurants they slather them in oil which makes them amazing. Off a supermarket shelf (all supermarket pizzas) they simply don't have that extra loveliness.
Also most people don't have proper pizza ovens at home. A home oven and a quality pizza oven are not the same thing.
At the restaurants they slather them in oil which makes them amazing. Off a supermarket shelf (all supermarket pizzas) they simply don't have that extra loveliness.
There's nothing amazing about a pizza express pizza. As a fellow Londoner I'm extremely disappointed in you at the moment.
Pizza Express are monsters, they have pizzas that have sultanas as a topping.
Is it any wonder they are in the shit financially?
I will stress once again, just because you don't die from Covid-19 doesn't mean it doesn't fuck up your life.
And that's the bit people are forgetting - I don't know anyone who has had Covid-19 who has fully recovered from it.
One of the healthiest people I know, regular runner and gym rat, had it back in April and now struggles to walk up the stairs due to a shortage of breaths.
If it the Covid-19 numbers do not improve then get ready for more lockdowns and Christmas will be cancelled.
I think this and its implication is interesting in the psychology (and important because of that).
You are in a vulnerable household and have said that you aren't going to socialise (or at least not go to Cineworld - those that haven't closed for good) or on holiday until there is a vaccine.
Would I be right in saying that, if it were your choice, you would like to see harsher lockdown measures across the board and certainly Christmas and skiing in Verbier be damned?
I'm flexible, I'd be ok for unlimited people at Christmas dinners provided they all had been in isolation for the preceding 14 days and were free of the symptoms.
I went to a wedding in Birmingham this weekend, I didn't go back to my house until I had a private test and had the results back.
I realise that's not an option for most people but I'm prepared to be flexible, what I do object is to is people who seem to go out of their way to infect others, yes I'm talking about people who go on holiday to Covid-19 hotspots then don't isolate for 14 days on their return.
Surely it would be more important to isolate afterwards so as not to infect "the public"?
Plus who would know what is or isn't a Covid hotspot. Compared with what, Burnley?
Plus as mentioned earlier, haven't a large number (a majority?) of deaths been in care homes which have not allowed visitors?
I will stress once again, just because you don't die from Covid-19 doesn't mean it doesn't fuck up your life.
It is fucking up the lives of people who don't know anyone who has even had it
I know, but as I've been saying since March, until we have a vaccine there's no good options, just bad ones.
A vaccine is not a good option either, given it will be unlicensed. The licensing procedure takes 6-10 years, the government want to get it out in 6 months,
Interesting that rates of infection are not going up amongst children. It is young adults where it is changing still.
IN Scotland there has been an explosion in the 12-17 age group. Other children age groups are rising but it is secondary school pupils that are seeing a real surge.
Huge surprise.
IANAE - are there other viral infections which are age-specific?
Shingles. Or chickenpox - same virus, different age.
Boris - "we beat this before" - yes, because you had a full lockdown.
Lockdowns have minimal effect. They may spread deaths over a longer period. Whether that is beneficial could depend on whether cases of respiratory illness threaten to exceed NHS capacity, or a few other factors.
However, there are simpler and more effective measures to control that, including some distancing, more handwashing and vitamin D tablets.
Exhibit A: Sweden. Minimal restrictions on civil liberties. Deaths per million 10% lower than UK and they seem to be almost over whereas the UK is allegedly having a 2nd. peak
Exhibit B: Japan. Almost no restrictions. Deaths per million 98% lower than UK.
You mean we spent 350bn pounds and destroyed countless livelihoods for nothing?
If it the Covid-19 numbers do not improve then get ready for more lockdowns and Christmas will be cancelled.
I think this and its implication is interesting in the psychology (and important because of that).
You are in a vulnerable household and have said that you aren't going to socialise (or at least not go to Cineworld - those that haven't closed for good) or on holiday until there is a vaccine.
Would I be right in saying that, if it were your choice, you would like to see harsher lockdown measures across the board and certainly Christmas and skiing in Verbier be damned?
I'm flexible, I'd be ok for unlimited people at Christmas dinners provided they all had been in isolation for the preceding 14 days and were free of the symptoms.
I went to a wedding in Birmingham this weekend, I didn't go back to my house until I had a private test and had the results back.
I realise that's not an option for most people but I'm prepared to be flexible, what I do object is to is people who seem to go out of their way to infect others, yes I'm talking about people who go on holiday to Covid-19 hotspots then don't isolate for 14 days on their return.
Surely it would be more important to isolate afterwards so as not to infect "the public"?
Plus who would know what is or isn't a Covid hotspot. Compared with what, Burnley?
Plus as mentioned earlier, haven't a large number (a majority?) of deaths been in care homes which have not allowed visitors?
I will stress once again, just because you don't die from Covid-19 doesn't mean it doesn't fuck up your life.
It is fucking up the lives of people who don't know anyone who has even had it
I know, but as I've been saying since March, until we have a vaccine there's no good options, just bad ones.
A vaccine is not a good option either, given it will be unlicensed. The licensing procedure takes 6-10 years, the government want to get it out in 6 months,
We have a flu vaccine and 40,000 people a year still pass away from flu, in a bad year, apparently.
Boris - "we beat this before" - yes, because you had a full lockdown.
Lockdowns have minimal effect. They may spread deaths over a longer period. Whether that is beneficial could depend on whether cases of respiratory illness threaten to exceed NHS capacity, or a few other factors.
However, there are simpler and more effective measures to control that, including some distancing, more handwashing and vitamin D tablets.
Exhibit A: Sweden. Minimal restrictions on civil liberties. Deaths per million 10% lower than UK and they seem to be almost over whereas the UK is allegedly having a 2nd. peak
Exhibit B: Japan. Almost no restrictions. Deaths per million 98% lower than UK.
To be clear, I don't want a second lockdown. But it's Boris who is saying it was "beaten" before, but only because the entire country ground to a halt, which he's not saying he would do here, so it's disingenuous of him.
However, I am afraid I do roll my eyes a bit at the notion that all we need is a bit more handwashing to stop this epidemic.
Boris - "we beat this before" - yes, because you had a full lockdown.
Lockdowns have minimal effect. They may spread deaths over a longer period. Whether that is beneficial could depend on whether cases of respiratory illness threaten to exceed NHS capacity, or a few other factors.
However, there are simpler and more effective measures to control that, including some distancing, more handwashing and vitamin D tablets.
Exhibit A: Sweden. Minimal restrictions on civil liberties. Deaths per million 10% lower than UK and they seem to be almost over whereas the UK is allegedly having a 2nd. peak
Exhibit B: Japan. Almost no restrictions. Deaths per million 98% lower than UK.
You mean we spent 350bn pounds and destroyed countless livelihoods for nothing?
Cripes.
"When future historians look back on 21st-century mortality statistics, they will struggle to find anything out of the ordinary in Britain in 2020. When they look at the economic data they could be forgiven for thinking we were hit by an asteroid."
Over the next few years/decades we might have a generation who is tarred as the ones who killed some of their parents/grandparents because they couldn't follow some slight rules.
That's going to have a major impact on the mental health of many.
Haven't a large number (a majority?) been infected and died in care homes? The same care homes where no visitors are allowed?
I believe it’s about 55% of UK deaths and typically nearer 45% in at least some other european countries
Boris - "we beat this before" - yes, because you had a full lockdown.
Lockdowns have minimal effect. They may spread deaths over a longer period. Whether that is beneficial could depend on whether cases of respiratory illness threaten to exceed NHS capacity, or a few other factors.
However, there are simpler and more effective measures to control that, including some distancing, more handwashing and vitamin D tablets.
Exhibit A: Sweden. Minimal restrictions on civil liberties. Deaths per million 10% lower than UK and they seem to be almost over whereas the UK is allegedly having a 2nd. peak
Exhibit B: Japan. Almost no restrictions. Deaths per million 98% lower than UK.
You mean we spent 350bn pounds and destroyed countless livelihoods for nothing?
Cripes.
"When future historians look back on 21st-century mortality statistics, they will struggle to find anything out of the ordinary in Britain in 2020. When they look at the economic data they could be forgiven for thinking we were hit by an asteroid."
I can highly recommend reading anything set in plague times right now, as it will make people feel a lot lot better about the difficulties we are under. I read A Plague on Both Your Houses last night for just that reason.
Interesting that rates of infection are not going up amongst children. It is young adults where it is changing still.
IN Scotland there has been an explosion in the 12-17 age group. Other children age groups are rising but it is secondary school pupils that are seeing a real surge.
Huge surprise.
IANAE - are there other viral infections which are age-specific?
Shingles. Or chickenpox - same virus, different age.
Boris - "we beat this before" - yes, because you had a full lockdown.
Lockdowns have minimal effect. They may spread deaths over a longer period. Whether that is beneficial could depend on whether cases of respiratory illness threaten to exceed NHS capacity, or a few other factors.
However, there are simpler and more effective measures to control that, including some distancing, more handwashing and vitamin D tablets.
Exhibit A: Sweden. Minimal restrictions on civil liberties. Deaths per million 10% lower than UK and they seem to be almost over whereas the UK is allegedly having a 2nd. peak
Exhibit B: Japan. Almost no restrictions. Deaths per million 98% lower than UK.
Great post. I got laughed at in April and May for saying I did not think lockdowns worked.
Getting back to the North/South Covid divide, it seems to be growing. Why would Dover be 2nd from bottom in the most Covid infections league table?
Off thread, I see Sporting Index have finally reopened their US Election markets. The ECVs for the principals are now:
Trump: 235/241 Biden 297/303
I still think Biden is a buy at that level because the downside risk is small. Pennsylvania is looking solid for him and there are no really big States in jeopardy. On the other hand, if he should flip Texas (unlikely but...) or Ohio (distinctly possible) the returns suddenly become handsome.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnXKVY-_i2c
It's a genuine question.
If I was 80yrs old and had co-morbidities I would think twice about having my grandchildren over or if I did have them over, would ensure that there was social distancing.
The difficulty is that the rhetoric has been ramped up so much that many people think even obeying the health guidelines is reckless abandon. Either they are health guidelines, with all the caveats, or they are not.
Plenty of people on here are happy to ban foreign travel, ban Christmas, close pubs and clubs, and go back into full lockdown.
Of course the union set of such people, and sad old gits living on their own posting on PB I would say is quite high so they can "afford" to be ever more harsh in their desire to see the country grind to a halt around them.
They seem the same to me and the rest of the country.
I mean Mackems and Geordies both have the 0191 area code which confirms my views.
And France only 3 million
You are in a vulnerable household and have said that you aren't going to socialise (or at least not go to Cineworld - those that haven't closed for good) or on holiday until there is a vaccine.
Would I be right in saying that, if it were your choice, you would like to see harsher lockdown measures across the board and certainly Christmas and skiing in Verbier be damned?
https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1311313968883929088
I mean, I've "used judgement" - the circular drive to stop my locked down young one bouncing of the walls and get her to sleep during lockdown frankly wasn't essential travel, the allowing of family members, who we'd met with outside and in public, to use our holiday home briefly for baby changing before going home was probably out with local lockdown. I can self-justify those without going all out mad and firing my kids out of a cannon at granny daily. It doesn't mean I'm not supportive of lockdown rules either.
Is she looking into her glass ball for inspiration, as it is desperately lacking
Indeed, not even a pound. Is there a 'fifty pence' shop?
As an aside, the ones I spoke to (police) feel left high and dry by the regulations, both in content and the way they were introduced.
I went to a wedding in Birmingham this weekend, I didn't go back to my house until I had a private test and had the results back.
I realise that's not an option for most people but I'm prepared to be flexible, what I do object is to is people who seem to go out of their way to infect others, yes I'm talking about people who go on holiday to Covid-19 hotspots then don't isolate for 14 days on their return.
Interesting hypothetical is where we would be now if Corbyn was PM? Still in full lockdown, maybe.
Obviously it all depends on how the numbers develop between now and mid-December, but I've long thought it likely that things are going to get worse again as we go into winter.
Plus who would know what is or isn't a Covid hotspot. Compared with what, Burnley?
Plus as mentioned earlier, haven't a large number (a majority?) of deaths been in care homes which have not allowed visitors?
https://twitter.com/mrdavidwhitley/status/1311342728463122432?s=20
IANAE - are there other viral infections which are age-specific?
At the restaurants they slather them in oil which makes them amazing. Off a supermarket shelf (all supermarket pizzas) they simply don't have that extra loveliness.
However, there are simpler and more effective measures to control that, including some distancing, more handwashing and vitamin D tablets.
Exhibit A: Sweden. Minimal restrictions on civil liberties. Deaths per million 10% lower than UK and they seem to be almost over whereas the UK is allegedly having a 2nd. peak
Exhibit B: Japan. Almost no restrictions. Deaths per million 98% lower than UK.
I haven't been to one in years, that said. It's just the principle of the oil vs no oil thing that people miss.
It's La Delizia on Chelsea Manor Street for me every time.
Plus I bloody love Dominoes delivered.
Or something
Is it any wonder they are in the shit financially?
And the flu of 1918-19.
Cripes.
And the other half a combined Yorks/NE.
Grrr.
However, I am afraid I do roll my eyes a bit at the notion that all we need is a bit more handwashing to stop this epidemic.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-true-cost-of-coronavirus-on-our-economy
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1311344869298917376?s=20
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1311338451015471105
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1311348093514919939?s=20
Getting back to the North/South Covid divide, it seems to be growing. Why would Dover be 2nd from bottom in the most Covid infections league table?
Trump: 235/241
Biden 297/303
I still think Biden is a buy at that level because the downside risk is small. Pennsylvania is looking solid for him and there are no really big States in jeopardy. On the other hand, if he should flip Texas (unlikely but...) or Ohio (distinctly possible) the returns suddenly become handsome.