If he wants to close schools for the longer term realistically he has to make the call by Wednesday.
If he makes it later than that he’s facing actual riots, which might defeat the object.
He really isn’t. Teachers aren’t going to riot.
I was thinking parents would riot if they were forced to find childcare and sort out remote learning at less than 72 hours notice.
You’re a parent and you’ve made your - understandable - position on school closures very clear. How would you feel if he turned round and suddenly said that it was happening despite all his previous denials with immediate effect?
Exactly the way I feel now as my boy’s school was closed weeks ago with zero notice. The entire thing is utterly shambolic. However, I feel schools must try to stay open at least for deprived children, who are likely to receive zero tuition at home.
When I consider lockdown decisions, I try to think not of myself as an antiquarian bookseller with a garden, by the sea, in lovely Dorset, but as a young, employed-on-minimum-wage single parent on the 13th floor of a tower block in Coventry. It must be simply hellish for some, and I have huge sympathy for anyone having to make that decision, let alone facing the consequences.
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
Yes, I think this is not properly understood yet. Too many people seem to be saying "when I've had my vaccine I can go out with friends / on holiday / to a rave". Someone is going to have to break it to the public that vaccination does not mean that the restrictions do not apply. Legally, or morally. Not until vaccination is much more widespread.
--AS
Once the 15 million vulnerable people have been vaccinated, lockdowns must end. That’s why the government needs to ramp up deployment. Utterly trivial nonsense stories like ‘2,000 people have a party in France’ or ‘Tyson Fury on holiday in Florida’ need to play second fiddle to stories like: ‘WTF has the government only got 500 Oxon vaccines ready to go?’
I don't think the arithmetic quite works for 15 million vaccinated being enough to end lockdown altogether. Otherwise hospitals will still be overrun, by under 65s. My estimate is 20-25 million, but I'm not sure about this: a lot depends on how vaccination slows spread. What I'm hoping is that, by the time they have 15 million done, they are going at such a pace that the next 10 million doesn't take too long.
Regarding supply, I do think the press should be telling the story of why it's been slow, but I don't think the government can really be blamed for it. Clearly there have been manufacturing problems. I don't think it's an easy problem to solve.
--AS
Disagree on both points.
1. How will hospitals still be overrun when non-vulnerable groups (under 60, no underlying health conditions) are unlikely to be hospitalised by the virus?
2. It’s the government’s job to overcome any production problems. They ordered 100m in September. They have a paltry 500k ready. Absolutely pathetic.
1. From what I've seen, the chances of hospitalization amongst under 60s is not that small. I don't have the data to hand but the median age of those in intensive care is only about 60, maybe 62ish. The "underlying health conditions" clause is a distraction because such a large proportion of people, even under 60, have such a condition.
2. I think the government have a role as facilitators but what do you want them to do if they make an order and don't receive it because of production problems?
--AS
It certainly is not a distraction, indeed it is the main determinant of risk from Covid. I don’t have the figures to hand but tens of millions of UK people have no underlying health conditions. It’s not some sort of niche cohort.
I'm afraid this is wishful thinking. I recall that you were against lockdowns in the first place, so I'm not massively surprised that you want them lifted early. We'll have to agree to disagree on the arithmetic of when enough people have been vaccinated to lift the pressure on hospitalization and ICU capacity.
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
Yes, I think this is not properly understood yet. Too many people seem to be saying "when I've had my vaccine I can go out with friends / on holiday / to a rave". Someone is going to have to break it to the public that vaccination does not mean that the restrictions do not apply. Legally, or morally. Not until vaccination is much more widespread.
--AS
Once the 15 million vulnerable people have been vaccinated, lockdowns must end. That’s why the government needs to ramp up deployment. Utterly trivial nonsense stories like ‘2,000 people have a party in France’ or ‘Tyson Fury on holiday in Florida’ need to play second fiddle to stories like: ‘WTF has the government only got 500 Oxon vaccines ready to go?’
I don't think the arithmetic quite works for 15 million vaccinated being enough to end lockdown altogether. Otherwise hospitals will still be overrun, by under 65s. My estimate is 20-25 million, but I'm not sure about this: a lot depends on how vaccination slows spread. What I'm hoping is that, by the time they have 15 million done, they are going at such a pace that the next 10 million doesn't take too long.
Regarding supply, I do think the press should be telling the story of why it's been slow, but I don't think the government can really be blamed for it. Clearly there have been manufacturing problems. I don't think it's an easy problem to solve.
--AS
A handy set of figures is this -
| Age | Deaths | Hospitalisations | Percent of Population | Number in population | | 85 years and over | 41.75% | 23.20% | 2.47% | 1,647,271 | | 75 to 84 years | 32.82% | 25.75% | 6.05% | 4,040,624 | | 65 to 74 years | 15.14% | 17.91% | 10.01% | 6,687,066 | | 45 to 64 years | 9.24% | 21.74% | 25.79% | 17,224,230 | | 15 to 44 years | 1.03% | 9.84% | 37.78% | 25,236,635 | | 1 to 14 years | 0.01% | 1.50% | 16.82% | 11,238,100 | | Under 1 year | 0.00% | 0.05% | 1.08% | 722,881 |
Are those figures based on first wave data? The reason I ask is that there is evidence that mortality has dropped particularly in the older age groups. See this German study from September:
On topic, there are 4 nations in the UK following somewhat different strategies.
I think Boris/Rishi would be in serious trouble if England suffered demonstrably worse in the pandemic than Scotland, or Wales or N. Ireland.
It is not obvious to me at the moment that such is the case.
All 4 countries seem to have performed much the same (within margin of error). And all 4 seem to be pretty typical of performance generally in Western Europe.
I think that's right.
I think if you look at performance by country (in W Europe, excluding Sweden), then number of infections and deaths are highly correlated with two factors:
1) Number of single person households - those with many, like Norway or Denmark, have done best and 2) Number of intergenerational households - those with many, like Italy and Spain, have done worst
Would be interesting to see that data on a local level as well. I suspect it might explain in part and if the regional and ethnic patterns in the U.K. too
In fairness he's right both historically and in the modern sense.
In 1707 they just bolted on the Scots MPs to the pre-existing Westminster Pmt.
Your second sentence completely invalidates the first sentence. Bolting on Scots MPs as you put it means it is no longer an English Parliament by definition, so how can those completely contradictory sentences make sense?
If you want to say it might as well be the English Parliament that'd be one thing.
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
Yes, I think this is not properly understood yet. Too many people seem to be saying "when I've had my vaccine I can go out with friends / on holiday / to a rave". Someone is going to have to break it to the public that vaccination does not mean that the restrictions do not apply. Legally, or morally. Not until vaccination is much more widespread.
--AS
Once the 15 million vulnerable people have been vaccinated, lockdowns must end. That’s why the government needs to ramp up deployment. Utterly trivial nonsense stories like ‘2,000 people have a party in France’ or ‘Tyson Fury on holiday in Florida’ need to play second fiddle to stories like: ‘WTF has the government only got 500 Oxon vaccines ready to go?’
I don't think the arithmetic quite works for 15 million vaccinated being enough to end lockdown altogether. Otherwise hospitals will still be overrun, by under 65s. My estimate is 20-25 million, but I'm not sure about this: a lot depends on how vaccination slows spread. What I'm hoping is that, by the time they have 15 million done, they are going at such a pace that the next 10 million doesn't take too long.
Regarding supply, I do think the press should be telling the story of why it's been slow, but I don't think the government can really be blamed for it. Clearly there have been manufacturing problems. I don't think it's an easy problem to solve.
--AS
I think it's a mistake to think of this as a binary choice between lockdown and freedom. The reality is that some restrictions - even with widespread vaccine roll-outs - will likely be in place by the end of the year. Conversely, it likely quite a lot of restrictions will be removed relatively quickly.
In practice this is bound to be right. That's how things work. That said, I see much to recommend something sharp and delineated. An intense and prolonged national effort (tough restrictions) until "it's safe" - a condition I think it is possible to define in advance - and then FREEDOM DAY. This would provide a rousing and positive, genuinely communal end to a harrowing communal experience. It would be the start of the AC calendar.
The government has to tell us how many (annual) Covid deaths are acceptable. And I am not sure that number is non-zero.
Most people I know are staggered when they hear how many people die each day in the UK.
Most of them thought it was low 100s.
2-3000 ish?
(Working on 80 years is 30k ish days, and there’s 60m ish of us)
Serious question: will anyone other than those who hate Boris already give a shit about what Cummings has to say about him? I know I don't give a shit about Cummings, period.
If it is seen that Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak are responsible for X thousands of avoidable deaths then the voters will make it a major issue.
It's unlikely to be proven.
We do actually have a test case of implementing a two-week firebreak, in Wales. It achieved the square root of nothing.
But if Boris Johnson's former top aide says that to a select committee then it'll be proven in the eyes of plenty of voters.
But, will they be voters who are not already hostile?
Readily believing the word of someone who you refused to believe at all when you wanted them hung, drawn and quartered, as evidence to topple someone else you dislike? Not for me, Clive.
All true, but I don't think you can have a serious investigation into e.g., the care home policy in England, without looking at the policy in Wales and Scotland, where it seems very similar mistakes were made.
Just to take Wales (because I know it best), I am sure Welsh Labour/LibDems will not relish a detailed investigation into their care home policy.
Or, as regards international airports, I'd be very surprised if the Welsh Gov't did not have the power to shut down Cardiff Airport or insist on quarantining of arrivals .... because they actually own the damn thing, they own Cardiff Airport. Why did they not shut it?
I'm perfectly happy to see the scope of any enquiry (or is it inquiry - if only we had someone from Wales who was a teacher on this site) extended to all the relevant devolved Governments and to encompass advice given to and decisions taken by relevant local authorities whether Counties, Districts, Boroughs or Unitaries.
The important things to learn quickly, are what were good decisions with hindsight, and what were bad decisions with hindsight. We need to feed these back into the response plan for the next time we get hit.
The enquiry needs to be like a transport accident enquiry, primarily focussed on causes and outcomes, rather than trying to place blame on individuals. No-one should need to come with a lawyer, and no-one should face prosecution for anything said at the enquiry.
In hindsight, listening to anything Toby Young said was a mistake.
Hindsight?
Toby Young is an infallible contra indicator though - whatever he thinks on whatever topic, if you take the opposite view you will be right.
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
Yes, I think this is not properly understood yet. Too many people seem to be saying "when I've had my vaccine I can go out with friends / on holiday / to a rave". Someone is going to have to break it to the public that vaccination does not mean that the restrictions do not apply. Legally, or morally. Not until vaccination is much more widespread.
--AS
Once the 15 million vulnerable people have been vaccinated, lockdowns must end. That’s why the government needs to ramp up deployment. Utterly trivial nonsense stories like ‘2,000 people have a party in France’ or ‘Tyson Fury on holiday in Florida’ need to play second fiddle to stories like: ‘WTF has the government only got 500 Oxon vaccines ready to go?’
I don't think the arithmetic quite works for 15 million vaccinated being enough to end lockdown altogether. Otherwise hospitals will still be overrun, by under 65s. My estimate is 20-25 million, but I'm not sure about this: a lot depends on how vaccination slows spread. What I'm hoping is that, by the time they have 15 million done, they are going at such a pace that the next 10 million doesn't take too long.
Regarding supply, I do think the press should be telling the story of why it's been slow, but I don't think the government can really be blamed for it. Clearly there have been manufacturing problems. I don't think it's an easy problem to solve.
--AS
I think it's a mistake to think of this as a binary choice between lockdown and freedom. The reality is that some restrictions - even with widespread vaccine roll-outs - will likely be in place by the end of the year. Conversely, it likely quite a lot of restrictions will be removed relatively quickly.
In practice this is bound to be right. That's how things work. That said, I see much to recommend something sharp and delineated. An intense and prolonged national effort (tough restrictions) until "it's safe" - a condition I think it is possible to define in advance - and then FREEDOM DAY. This would provide a rousing and positive, genuinely communal end to a harrowing communal experience. It would be the start of the AC calendar.
The government has to tell us how many (annual) Covid deaths are acceptable. And I am not sure that number is non-zero.
It most certainly IS non-zero. But if it were me I wouldn't frame it like that, for obvious reasons, I would go with an amalgam of 3 things, (i) number and who vaccinated, (ii) current cases, (iii) current R number. Meld this into one weighted index (between 0 and 100) and define "safe", triggering FREEDOM DAY, as being below 5. I would also publish the result and the workings each day. This would allow the more numerate to work out your "difficult to say" number but give me, the PM, the distance from it I need.
In fairness he's right both historically and in the modern sense.
In 1707 they just bolted on the Scots MPs to the pre-existing Westminster Pmt.
Your second sentence completely invalidates the first sentence. Bolting on Scots MPs as you put it means it is no longer an English Parliament by definition, so how can those completely contradictory sentences make sense?
That's the Blairite + Cameronite combined devolution settlement for you.
In fairness he's right both historically and in the modern sense.
In 1707 they just bolted on the Scots MPs to the pre-existing Westminster Pmt.
Your second sentence completely invalidates the first sentence. Bolting on Scots MPs as you put it means it is no longer an English Parliament by definition, so how can those completely contradictory sentences make sense?
That's the Blairite + Cameronite combined devolution settlement for you.
Serious question: will anyone other than those who hate Boris already give a shit about what Cummings has to say about him? I know I don't give a shit about Cummings, period.
I will. IF this story is true, then I would agree, there are serious questions for Sunak and the PM to answer. Blaming the advisers for poor decisions is standard fare. Since Cummings left, the PR has improved. However, the decision making hasn't. On/off Christmas and schools for two.
In their defence (I know, I know) they have been scrambling re: the new variant. Christmas was an acceptable risk with the original coronavirus, but the calculation changed with nv. Similarly the data on school transmission is patchy.
I think they have been willing to take risks because their hearts are opposed to the government shutting normal life down, but when the data is overwhelming they act belatedly. I think that is better than a government whose instinct is to restrict liberty
Agree. As Boris said today (CANNOT BELIEVE I'M SAYING THIS) there were many experts who advised complete lockdown from March to date.
Plenty on here also.
The permanent lockdown brigade tend to have secure incomes - whether pensions, or public sector funded.
Everyone else I know understands that it is a really, really difficult balance between BAU health, liberty, the economy and public health.
Failure to lockdown in March would have hurt the economy more imo and the failure to institute a 2nd lockdown in September is going to have very serious adverse economic consequences.
The point is that you end up locking down a week or two later, because the number of infections grows until it crosses whatever threshold you set yourself.
By which time you have increased the number of sick and dead people and you have to stay in restrictions for longer to get things back under control, so you don't even save the economy or MH.
The debate about what to do now is just the March 2020 debate for slow learners.
Serious question: will anyone other than those who hate Boris already give a shit about what Cummings has to say about him? I know I don't give a shit about Cummings, period.
I will. IF this story is true, then I would agree, there are serious questions for Sunak and the PM to answer. Blaming the advisers for poor decisions is standard fare. Since Cummings left, the PR has improved. However, the decision making hasn't. On/off Christmas and schools for two.
In their defence (I know, I know) they have been scrambling re: the new variant. Christmas was an acceptable risk with the original coronavirus, but the calculation changed with nv. Similarly the data on school transmission is patchy.
I think they have been willing to take risks because their hearts are opposed to the government shutting normal life down, but when the data is overwhelming they act belatedly. I think that is better than a government whose instinct is to restrict liberty
Agree. As Boris said today (CANNOT BELIEVE I'M SAYING THIS) there were many experts who advised complete lockdown from March to date.
Plenty on here also.
The permanent lockdown brigade tend to have secure incomes - whether pensions, or public sector funded.
Everyone else I know understands that it is a really, really difficult balance between BAU health, liberty, the economy and public health.
I don't know anyone who advocates permanent lockdown. If you lockdown for long enough to remove the virus from circulation, and keep it out with quarantine and travel restrictions, you can open up completely.
Haven't we seen that as soon as you open up there is a resurgence?
No idea if you are a member of said brigade but would you have opened up society over the summer?
In the late spring, when the numbers were coming down rapidly, and the evidence had accumulated that the risk factor was aerosol generation indoors, I was an advocate of opening up outdoor activity as much as possible - I felt we had to make the most of the weather while we could.
So I thought the criticism of people enjoying the good weather at the beaches was ridiculous for example. I would probably have kept indoor venues closed longer, but opened up outdoor spaces earlier.
I resisted the second lockdown as long as possible - arguing that the focus should have been on improving test, trace and isolate than micromanaging restrictions. The prospect of using stop-start lockdown fills me with dread. One proper lockdown to get rid of it entirely is okay, but wasting your lockdown by ending it early (if test, trace & isolate doesn't work) seems like the worst possible option. Which is the one we've chosen.
I can't believe that we've only just started testing cross-border lorry drivers (and then only so the French will let them in - not helping to keep the virus out at all).
We've done absolutely zero to take advantage of the natural advantage provided by being an island.
Serious question: will anyone other than those who hate Boris already give a shit about what Cummings has to say about him? I know I don't give a shit about Cummings, period.
I will. IF this story is true, then I would agree, there are serious questions for Sunak and the PM to answer. Blaming the advisers for poor decisions is standard fare. Since Cummings left, the PR has improved. However, the decision making hasn't. On/off Christmas and schools for two.
In their defence (I know, I know) they have been scrambling re: the new variant. Christmas was an acceptable risk with the original coronavirus, but the calculation changed with nv. Similarly the data on school transmission is patchy.
I think they have been willing to take risks because their hearts are opposed to the government shutting normal life down, but when the data is overwhelming they act belatedly. I think that is better than a government whose instinct is to restrict liberty
Does it have to be one or the other?
Is it too much to expect a government in this situation simply to be led by the science and not by its instincts?
Serious question: will anyone other than those who hate Boris already give a shit about what Cummings has to say about him? I know I don't give a shit about Cummings, period.
I will. IF this story is true, then I would agree, there are serious questions for Sunak and the PM to answer. Blaming the advisers for poor decisions is standard fare. Since Cummings left, the PR has improved. However, the decision making hasn't. On/off Christmas and schools for two.
In their defence (I know, I know) they have been scrambling re: the new variant. Christmas was an acceptable risk with the original coronavirus, but the calculation changed with nv. Similarly the data on school transmission is patchy.
I think they have been willing to take risks because their hearts are opposed to the government shutting normal life down, but when the data is overwhelming they act belatedly. I think that is better than a government whose instinct is to restrict liberty
Agree. As Boris said today (CANNOT BELIEVE I'M SAYING THIS) there were many experts who advised complete lockdown from March to date.
Plenty on here also.
The permanent lockdown brigade tend to have secure incomes - whether pensions, or public sector funded.
Everyone else I know understands that it is a really, really difficult balance between BAU health, liberty, the economy and public health.
No-one wants unnecessary lockdown. However not once in this pandemic, to my knowledge, has the problem been people locking down too early. Again and again people have locked down too late, causing unnecessary death and damage.
This was Marr's gotcha question this morning to Boris.
There is no easy answer as yes not locking down causes death but tragic as each of these is, this has to be seen within the calculus of running society.
Yes but the cost of letting the epidemic go out of control should be part of the calculus. You get the extra death AND the extra damage, which can be avoided by intervening early. That's the mistake people are repeatedly making.
I accept there is a theoretical possibility of intervening too early and too hard. It hasn't happened yet while people continue to intervene too late and too ineffectually.
Do you foresee a natural bouncing back for Labour, if only due to SNP fatigue (and not counting on black swans like independence followed by SNP fragmentation or suchlike)?
In periods of cold calculation, I try to see a path back for SLab but it's hard. All the stuff that's blighted them for years is still there and in spades: lack of talent, inconsistency, enthusiastic collaboration with the Tories in 2014, broken promises.
One small bellwether is the ex MP for my constituency 2017-19, Paul Sweeney. He's standing as a list candidate for Glasgow in the May election (not sure how high on that list he is for SLab, that will have some bearing) . Obviously personal rep has a lot less meaning in list elections but if he's elected it might be a sign of tiny shoots of recovery for SLab. Personally I find him a self-publicising, ambitious wee snot, but he's not stupid and these characteristics often seem to work for aspiring pols of all parties.
He was involved in the stushie about the SCon MP Ross Thomson being accused of assault which now appears to be without foundation; that may depress any tactical voting by Cons if they're paying attention.
By “involved in” do you mean “made highly emotive allegations about a political opponent shortly before an election despite there being a remarkable lack of evidence?”
Behaviour like that should debar anyone from public life
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
Yes, I think this is not properly understood yet. Too many people seem to be saying "when I've had my vaccine I can go out with friends / on holiday / to a rave". Someone is going to have to break it to the public that vaccination does not mean that the restrictions do not apply. Legally, or morally. Not until vaccination is much more widespread.
--AS
Once the 15 million vulnerable people have been vaccinated, lockdowns must end. That’s why the government needs to ramp up deployment. Utterly trivial nonsense stories like ‘2,000 people have a party in France’ or ‘Tyson Fury on holiday in Florida’ need to play second fiddle to stories like: ‘WTF has the government only got 500 Oxon vaccines ready to go?’
I don't think the arithmetic quite works for 15 million vaccinated being enough to end lockdown altogether. Otherwise hospitals will still be overrun, by under 65s. My estimate is 20-25 million, but I'm not sure about this: a lot depends on how vaccination slows spread. What I'm hoping is that, by the time they have 15 million done, they are going at such a pace that the next 10 million doesn't take too long.
Regarding supply, I do think the press should be telling the story of why it's been slow, but I don't think the government can really be blamed for it. Clearly there have been manufacturing problems. I don't think it's an easy problem to solve.
--AS
I think it's a mistake to think of this as a binary choice between lockdown and freedom. The reality is that some restrictions - even with widespread vaccine roll-outs - will likely be in place by the end of the year. Conversely, it likely quite a lot of restrictions will be removed relatively quickly.
In practice this is bound to be right. That's how things work. That said, I see much to recommend something sharp and delineated. An intense and prolonged national effort (tough restrictions) until "it's safe" - a condition I think it is possible to define in advance - and then FREEDOM DAY. This would provide a rousing and positive, genuinely communal end to a harrowing communal experience. It would be the start of the AC calendar.
The government has to tell us how many (annual) Covid deaths are acceptable. And I am not sure that number is non-zero.
Most people I know are staggered when they hear how many people die each day in the UK.
Most of them thought it was low 100s.
2-3000 ish?
(Working on 80 years is 30k ish days, and there’s 60m ish of us)
40,000 a day according to The Cult. But not sure of the geographic coverage.
In fairness he's right both historically and in the modern sense.
In 1707 they just bolted on the Scots MPs to the pre-existing Westminster Pmt.
Your second sentence completely invalidates the first sentence. Bolting on Scots MPs as you put it means it is no longer an English Parliament by definition, so how can those completely contradictory sentences make sense?
That's the Blairite + Cameronite combined devolution settlement for you.
So he's not right historically then?
He was right historically in the sense that they simply added a few MPs from Scotland to the Engliosh Pmt whgich otherwise carried on as before (for instance, making no attempt to allow for any representation of the C of S in the HoL for instance).
Of course things evolved in between times, and the current situation is, erm, anomalous.
Serious question: will anyone other than those who hate Boris already give a shit about what Cummings has to say about him? I know I don't give a shit about Cummings, period.
I will. IF this story is true, then I would agree, there are serious questions for Sunak and the PM to answer. Blaming the advisers for poor decisions is standard fare. Since Cummings left, the PR has improved. However, the decision making hasn't. On/off Christmas and schools for two.
In their defence (I know, I know) they have been scrambling re: the new variant. Christmas was an acceptable risk with the original coronavirus, but the calculation changed with nv. Similarly the data on school transmission is patchy.
I think they have been willing to take risks because their hearts are opposed to the government shutting normal life down, but when the data is overwhelming they act belatedly. I think that is better than a government whose instinct is to restrict liberty
Agree. As Boris said today (CANNOT BELIEVE I'M SAYING THIS) there were many experts who advised complete lockdown from March to date.
Plenty on here also.
The permanent lockdown brigade tend to have secure incomes - whether pensions, or public sector funded.
Everyone else I know understands that it is a really, really difficult balance between BAU health, liberty, the economy and public health.
No-one wants unnecessary lockdown. However not once in this pandemic, to my knowledge, has the problem been people locking down too early. Again and again people have locked down too late, causing unnecessary death and damage.
This was Marr's gotcha question this morning to Boris.
There is no easy answer as yes not locking down causes death but tragic as each of these is, this has to be seen within the calculus of running society.
Still that false dilemma. If the health service is fucked, the economy is fucked. All that the lockdown delays have ever done is slightly delay the economic damage while making both the health and economic damage worse.
@MaxPB - I have had the same conversion to the single shot policy as you. Begrudgingly, I have to admit that Blair seems to have called this right.
Why don't you bugger off and join the Labour party?
Agreeing with Tony Blair today, tomorrow you'll be singing the Red Flag.
I hope this isn't enough to get me kicked out of the party.
I have actually sung the red flag before!
We were invited to the Labour Party conference in 2003 as local Dorset A level politics students. It really is a rousing tune.
I can't criticise, I mean, don't tell anyone else, but the most stirring national anthem out there?
La Marseillaise.
The Polish national anthem is very stirring. But when you come to the words it includes following the example of Napoleon Buonaparte, using the sabre, and kicking out the Swedes.
@MaxPB - I have had the same conversion to the single shot policy as you. Begrudgingly, I have to admit that Blair seems to have called this right.
Let's be honest, Blair would have made a vastly better job of leading the country through this pnademic than Johnson has.
(As would Thatcher, Major, Brown, May, Cameron,... and just about every PM I can think of.)
Brown? Errr. Darling maybe. But not Brown.
Brown was an ordinary PM but he's a colossus compared to the disingenuous fat fornicator!
People don't like to hear it round here, but Brown is genuinely admired internationally for his work coordinating the G20 response to the financial crisis.
Do you foresee a natural bouncing back for Labour, if only due to SNP fatigue (and not counting on black swans like independence followed by SNP fragmentation or suchlike)?
In periods of cold calculation, I try to see a path back for SLab but it's hard. All the stuff that's blighted them for years is still there and in spades: lack of talent, inconsistency, enthusiastic collaboration with the Tories in 2014, broken promises.
One small bellwether is the ex MP for my constituency 2017-19, Paul Sweeney. He's standing as a list candidate for Glasgow in the May election (not sure how high on that list he is for SLab, that will have some bearing) . Obviously personal rep has a lot less meaning in list elections but if he's elected it might be a sign of tiny shoots of recovery for SLab. Personally I find him a self-publicising, ambitious wee snot, but he's not stupid and these characteristics often seem to work for aspiring pols of all parties.
He was involved in the stushie about the SCon MP Ross Thomson being accused of assault which now appears to be without foundation; that may depress any tactical voting by Cons if they're paying attention.
By “involved in” do you mean “made highly emotive allegations about a political opponent shortly before an election despite there being a remarkable lack of evidence?”
Behaviour like that should debar anyone from public life
Serious question: will anyone other than those who hate Boris already give a shit about what Cummings has to say about him? I know I don't give a shit about Cummings, period.
I will. IF this story is true, then I would agree, there are serious questions for Sunak and the PM to answer. Blaming the advisers for poor decisions is standard fare. Since Cummings left, the PR has improved. However, the decision making hasn't. On/off Christmas and schools for two.
In their defence (I know, I know) they have been scrambling re: the new variant. Christmas was an acceptable risk with the original coronavirus, but the calculation changed with nv. Similarly the data on school transmission is patchy.
I think they have been willing to take risks because their hearts are opposed to the government shutting normal life down, but when the data is overwhelming they act belatedly. I think that is better than a government whose instinct is to restrict liberty
Does it have to be one or the other?
Is it too much to expect a government in this situation simply to be led by the science and not by its instincts?
The politicians also have to balance the effects on the economy of restricting activities. The scientists, given free reign, would not have opened up anything since last March.
If he wants to close schools for the longer term realistically he has to make the call by Wednesday.
If he makes it later than that he’s facing actual riots, which might defeat the object.
He really isn’t. Teachers aren’t going to riot.
I was thinking parents would riot if they were forced to find childcare and sort out remote learning at less than 72 hours notice.
You’re a parent and you’ve made your - understandable - position on school closures very clear. How would you feel if he turned round and suddenly said that it was happening despite all his previous denials with immediate effect?
Exactly the way I feel now as my boy’s school was closed weeks ago with zero notice. The entire thing is utterly shambolic. However, I feel schools must try to stay open at least for deprived children, who are likely to receive zero tuition at home.
When I consider lockdown decisions, I try to think not of myself as an antiquarian bookseller with a garden, by the sea, in lovely Dorset, but as a young, employed-on-minimum-wage single parent on the 13th floor of a tower block in Coventry. It must be simply hellish for some, and I have huge sympathy for anyone having to make that decision, let alone facing the consequences.
Pity you don't do that when you vote in general elections.
If he wants to close schools for the longer term realistically he has to make the call by Wednesday.
If he makes it later than that he’s facing actual riots, which might defeat the object.
He really isn’t. Teachers aren’t going to riot.
I was thinking parents would riot if they were forced to find childcare and sort out remote learning at less than 72 hours notice.
You’re a parent and you’ve made your - understandable - position on school closures very clear. How would you feel if he turned round and suddenly said that it was happening despite all his previous denials with immediate effect?
Exactly the way I feel now as my boy’s school was closed weeks ago with zero notice. The entire thing is utterly shambolic. However, I feel schools must try to stay open at least for deprived children, who are likely to receive zero tuition at home.
I entirely agree. But unless we want complete chaos followed by a complete closure we can’t keep them open for everyone. We should be limiting attendance to increase distance. Better four weeks on and two off than eight on and eight off.
This is what the government should have done from September (all four of them) and have signally failed to do.
The term manchild has been used a lot over the years, but being completely honest here, I have never thought to more appropriate as a completely literal description as with Donald Trump. His attention span, his believing the last thing he saw, the selfishness, the narcissism, the tantrums, it really is the behaviour of a particularly naughty and shitty toddler. Except they have good moments.
In fairness he's right both historically and in the modern sense.
In 1707 they just bolted on the Scots MPs to the pre-existing Westminster Pmt.
Your second sentence completely invalidates the first sentence. Bolting on Scots MPs as you put it means it is no longer an English Parliament by definition, so how can those completely contradictory sentences make sense?
That's the Blairite + Cameronite combined devolution settlement for you.
So he's not right historically then?
He was right historically in the sense that they simply added a few MPs from Scotland to the Engliosh Pmt whgich otherwise carried on as before (for instance, making no attempt to allow for any representation of the C of S in the HoL for instance).
Of course things evolved in between times, and the current situation is, erm, anomalous.
At this point it is semantics. Legally, the last English parliament sat in 1707.
It looks like a fair few councils are noting the government position but advising schools to make their own decisions, promising the backing of the council if they decide not to open.
It's going to be chaos tomorrow given the near impossibility of successful communication at such short notice.
Serious question: will anyone other than those who hate Boris already give a shit about what Cummings has to say about him? I know I don't give a shit about Cummings, period.
I will. IF this story is true, then I would agree, there are serious questions for Sunak and the PM to answer. Blaming the advisers for poor decisions is standard fare. Since Cummings left, the PR has improved. However, the decision making hasn't. On/off Christmas and schools for two.
In their defence (I know, I know) they have been scrambling re: the new variant. Christmas was an acceptable risk with the original coronavirus, but the calculation changed with nv. Similarly the data on school transmission is patchy.
I think they have been willing to take risks because their hearts are opposed to the government shutting normal life down, but when the data is overwhelming they act belatedly. I think that is better than a government whose instinct is to restrict liberty
Agree. As Boris said today (CANNOT BELIEVE I'M SAYING THIS) there were many experts who advised complete lockdown from March to date.
Plenty on here also.
The permanent lockdown brigade tend to have secure incomes - whether pensions, or public sector funded.
Everyone else I know understands that it is a really, really difficult balance between BAU health, liberty, the economy and public health.
No-one wants unnecessary lockdown. However not once in this pandemic, to my knowledge, has the problem been people locking down too early. Again and again people have locked down too late, causing unnecessary death and damage.
This was Marr's gotcha question this morning to Boris.
There is no easy answer as yes not locking down causes death but tragic as each of these is, this has to be seen within the calculus of running society.
Still that false dilemma. If the health service is fucked, the economy is fucked. All that the lockdown delays have ever done is slightly delay the economic damage while making both the health and economic damage worse.
Yes, the first part of what you say is true. The balance the Govt have sought to strike throughout seems to be ensuring neither happens. The right path IMO.
@MaxPB - I have had the same conversion to the single shot policy as you. Begrudgingly, I have to admit that Blair seems to have called this right.
Why don't you bugger off and join the Labour party?
Agreeing with Tony Blair today, tomorrow you'll be singing the Red Flag.
I hope this isn't enough to get me kicked out of the party.
I have actually sung the red flag before!
We were invited to the Labour Party conference in 2003 as local Dorset A level politics students. It really is a rousing tune.
I can't criticise, I mean, don't tell anyone else, but the most stirring national anthem out there?
La Marseillaise.
The Polish national anthem is very stirring. But when you come to the words it includes following the example of Napoleon Buonaparte, using the sabre, and kicking out the Swedes.
Still solid lessons for today.
The Swedes have done far too good a job at making people forget their escapades in Europe from time to time, they are building to something again.
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
Yes, I think this is not properly understood yet. Too many people seem to be saying "when I've had my vaccine I can go out with friends / on holiday / to a rave". Someone is going to have to break it to the public that vaccination does not mean that the restrictions do not apply. Legally, or morally. Not until vaccination is much more widespread.
--AS
Once the 15 million vulnerable people have been vaccinated, lockdowns must end. That’s why the government needs to ramp up deployment. Utterly trivial nonsense stories like ‘2,000 people have a party in France’ or ‘Tyson Fury on holiday in Florida’ need to play second fiddle to stories like: ‘WTF has the government only got 500 Oxon vaccines ready to go?’
I don't think the arithmetic quite works for 15 million vaccinated being enough to end lockdown altogether. Otherwise hospitals will still be overrun, by under 65s. My estimate is 20-25 million, but I'm not sure about this: a lot depends on how vaccination slows spread. What I'm hoping is that, by the time they have 15 million done, they are going at such a pace that the next 10 million doesn't take too long.
Regarding supply, I do think the press should be telling the story of why it's been slow, but I don't think the government can really be blamed for it. Clearly there have been manufacturing problems. I don't think it's an easy problem to solve.
--AS
I think it's a mistake to think of this as a binary choice between lockdown and freedom. The reality is that some restrictions - even with widespread vaccine roll-outs - will likely be in place by the end of the year. Conversely, it likely quite a lot of restrictions will be removed relatively quickly.
In practice this is bound to be right. That's how things work. That said, I see much to recommend something sharp and delineated. An intense and prolonged national effort (tough restrictions) until "it's safe" - a condition I think it is possible to define in advance - and then FREEDOM DAY. This would provide a rousing and positive, genuinely communal end to a harrowing communal experience. It would be the start of the AC calendar.
The government has to tell us how many (annual) Covid deaths are acceptable. And I am not sure that number is non-zero.
Most people I know are staggered when they hear how many people die each day in the UK.
Most of them thought it was low 100s.
2-3000 ish?
(Working on 80 years is 30k ish days, and there’s 60m ish of us)
Depends on the month, but weekly deaths are (typically) 10000 to 15000.
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
Yes, I think this is not properly understood yet. Too many people seem to be saying "when I've had my vaccine I can go out with friends / on holiday / to a rave". Someone is going to have to break it to the public that vaccination does not mean that the restrictions do not apply. Legally, or morally. Not until vaccination is much more widespread.
--AS
Once the 15 million vulnerable people have been vaccinated, lockdowns must end. That’s why the government needs to ramp up deployment. Utterly trivial nonsense stories like ‘2,000 people have a party in France’ or ‘Tyson Fury on holiday in Florida’ need to play second fiddle to stories like: ‘WTF has the government only got 500 Oxon vaccines ready to go?’
I don't think the arithmetic quite works for 15 million vaccinated being enough to end lockdown altogether. Otherwise hospitals will still be overrun, by under 65s. My estimate is 20-25 million, but I'm not sure about this: a lot depends on how vaccination slows spread. What I'm hoping is that, by the time they have 15 million done, they are going at such a pace that the next 10 million doesn't take too long.
Regarding supply, I do think the press should be telling the story of why it's been slow, but I don't think the government can really be blamed for it. Clearly there have been manufacturing problems. I don't think it's an easy problem to solve.
--AS
I think it's a mistake to think of this as a binary choice between lockdown and freedom. The reality is that some restrictions - even with widespread vaccine roll-outs - will likely be in place by the end of the year. Conversely, it likely quite a lot of restrictions will be removed relatively quickly.
In practice this is bound to be right. That's how things work. That said, I see much to recommend something sharp and delineated. An intense and prolonged national effort (tough restrictions) until "it's safe" - a condition I think it is possible to define in advance - and then FREEDOM DAY. This would provide a rousing and positive, genuinely communal end to a harrowing communal experience. It would be the start of the AC calendar.
The government has to tell us how many (annual) Covid deaths are acceptable. And I am not sure that number is non-zero.
Most people I know are staggered when they hear how many people die each day in the UK.
Most of them thought it was low 100s.
2-3000 ish?
(Working on 80 years is 30k ish days, and there’s 60m ish of us)
40,000 a day according to The Cult. But not sure of the geographic coverage.
Almost 15 million a year? Cannot possibly be right!
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
Yes, I think this is not properly understood yet. Too many people seem to be saying "when I've had my vaccine I can go out with friends / on holiday / to a rave". Someone is going to have to break it to the public that vaccination does not mean that the restrictions do not apply. Legally, or morally. Not until vaccination is much more widespread.
--AS
Once the 15 million vulnerable people have been vaccinated, lockdowns must end. That’s why the government needs to ramp up deployment. Utterly trivial nonsense stories like ‘2,000 people have a party in France’ or ‘Tyson Fury on holiday in Florida’ need to play second fiddle to stories like: ‘WTF has the government only got 500 Oxon vaccines ready to go?’
I don't think the arithmetic quite works for 15 million vaccinated being enough to end lockdown altogether. Otherwise hospitals will still be overrun, by under 65s. My estimate is 20-25 million, but I'm not sure about this: a lot depends on how vaccination slows spread. What I'm hoping is that, by the time they have 15 million done, they are going at such a pace that the next 10 million doesn't take too long.
Regarding supply, I do think the press should be telling the story of why it's been slow, but I don't think the government can really be blamed for it. Clearly there have been manufacturing problems. I don't think it's an easy problem to solve.
--AS
I think it's a mistake to think of this as a binary choice between lockdown and freedom. The reality is that some restrictions - even with widespread vaccine roll-outs - will likely be in place by the end of the year. Conversely, it likely quite a lot of restrictions will be removed relatively quickly.
In practice this is bound to be right. That's how things work. That said, I see much to recommend something sharp and delineated. An intense and prolonged national effort (tough restrictions) until "it's safe" - a condition I think it is possible to define in advance - and then FREEDOM DAY. This would provide a rousing and positive, genuinely communal end to a harrowing communal experience. It would be the start of the AC calendar.
The government has to tell us how many (annual) Covid deaths are acceptable. And I am not sure that number is non-zero.
Most people I know are staggered when they hear how many people die each day in the UK.
Most of them thought it was low 100s.
2-3000 ish?
(Working on 80 years is 30k ish days, and there’s 60m ish of us)
40,000 a day according to The Cult. But not sure of the geographic coverage.
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
Yes, I think this is not properly understood yet. Too many people seem to be saying "when I've had my vaccine I can go out with friends / on holiday / to a rave". Someone is going to have to break it to the public that vaccination does not mean that the restrictions do not apply. Legally, or morally. Not until vaccination is much more widespread.
--AS
Once the 15 million vulnerable people have been vaccinated, lockdowns must end. That’s why the government needs to ramp up deployment. Utterly trivial nonsense stories like ‘2,000 people have a party in France’ or ‘Tyson Fury on holiday in Florida’ need to play second fiddle to stories like: ‘WTF has the government only got 500 Oxon vaccines ready to go?’
I don't think the arithmetic quite works for 15 million vaccinated being enough to end lockdown altogether. Otherwise hospitals will still be overrun, by under 65s. My estimate is 20-25 million, but I'm not sure about this: a lot depends on how vaccination slows spread. What I'm hoping is that, by the time they have 15 million done, they are going at such a pace that the next 10 million doesn't take too long.
Regarding supply, I do think the press should be telling the story of why it's been slow, but I don't think the government can really be blamed for it. Clearly there have been manufacturing problems. I don't think it's an easy problem to solve.
--AS
A handy set of figures is this -
| Age | Deaths | Hospitalisations | Percent of Population | Number in population | | 85 years and over | 41.75% | 23.20% | 2.47% | 1,647,271 | | 75 to 84 years | 32.82% | 25.75% | 6.05% | 4,040,624 | | 65 to 74 years | 15.14% | 17.91% | 10.01% | 6,687,066 | | 45 to 64 years | 9.24% | 21.74% | 25.79% | 17,224,230 | | 15 to 44 years | 1.03% | 9.84% | 37.78% | 25,236,635 | | 1 to 14 years | 0.01% | 1.50% | 16.82% | 11,238,100 | | Under 1 year | 0.00% | 0.05% | 1.08% | 722,881 |
Are those figures based on first wave data? The reason I ask is that there is evidence that mortality has dropped particularly in the older age groups. See this German study from September:
Would a falling case fatality rate not lead to more pressure on beds, as people who recover need a bed for longer than th one who succumb?
Serious question: will anyone other than those who hate Boris already give a shit about what Cummings has to say about him? I know I don't give a shit about Cummings, period.
If it is seen that Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak are responsible for X thousands of avoidable deaths then the voters will make it a major issue.
It's unlikely to be proven.
We do actually have a test case of implementing a two-week firebreak, in Wales. It achieved the square root of nothing.
But if Boris Johnson's former top aide says that to a select committee then it'll be proven in the eyes of plenty of voters.
But, will they be voters who are not already hostile?
Readily believing the word of someone who you refused to believe at all when you wanted them hung, drawn and quartered, as evidence to topple someone else you dislike? Not for me, Clive.
All true, but I don't think you can have a serious investigation into e.g., the care home policy in England, without looking at the policy in Wales and Scotland, where it seems very similar mistakes were made.
Just to take Wales (because I know it best), I am sure Welsh Labour/LibDems will not relish a detailed investigation into their care home policy.
Or, as regards international airports, I'd be very surprised if the Welsh Gov't did not have the power to shut down Cardiff Airport or insist on quarantining of arrivals .... because they actually own the damn thing, they own Cardiff Airport. Why did they not shut it?
I'm perfectly happy to see the scope of any enquiry (or is it inquiry - if only we had someone from Wales who was a teacher on this site) extended to all the relevant devolved Governments and to encompass advice given to and decisions taken by relevant local authorities whether Counties, Districts, Boroughs or Unitaries.
The important things to learn quickly, are what were good decisions with hindsight, and what were bad decisions with hindsight. We need to feed these back into the response plan for the next time we get hit.
The enquiry needs to be like a transport accident enquiry, primarily focussed on causes and outcomes, rather than trying to place blame on individuals. No-one should need to come with a lawyer, and no-one should face prosecution for anything said at the enquiry.
In hindsight, listening to anything Toby Young said was a mistake.
Hindsight?
Toby Young is an infallible contra indicator though - whatever he thinks on whatever topic, if you take the opposite view you will be right.
This is very very close to being right. As close as makes no difference.
I think he did once say he liked the Clash. That's pretty much it.
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
Yes, I think this is not properly understood yet. Too many people seem to be saying "when I've had my vaccine I can go out with friends / on holiday / to a rave". Someone is going to have to break it to the public that vaccination does not mean that the restrictions do not apply. Legally, or morally. Not until vaccination is much more widespread.
--AS
Once the 15 million vulnerable people have been vaccinated, lockdowns must end. That’s why the government needs to ramp up deployment. Utterly trivial nonsense stories like ‘2,000 people have a party in France’ or ‘Tyson Fury on holiday in Florida’ need to play second fiddle to stories like: ‘WTF has the government only got 500 Oxon vaccines ready to go?’
I don't think the arithmetic quite works for 15 million vaccinated being enough to end lockdown altogether. Otherwise hospitals will still be overrun, by under 65s. My estimate is 20-25 million, but I'm not sure about this: a lot depends on how vaccination slows spread. What I'm hoping is that, by the time they have 15 million done, they are going at such a pace that the next 10 million doesn't take too long.
Regarding supply, I do think the press should be telling the story of why it's been slow, but I don't think the government can really be blamed for it. Clearly there have been manufacturing problems. I don't think it's an easy problem to solve.
--AS
Disagree on both points.
1. How will hospitals still be overrun when non-vulnerable groups (under 60, no underlying health conditions) are unlikely to be hospitalised by the virus?
2. It’s the government’s job to overcome any production problems. They ordered 100m in September. They have a paltry 500k ready. Absolutely pathetic.
1. From what I've seen, the chances of hospitalization amongst under 60s is not that small. I don't have the data to hand but the median age of those in intensive care is only about 60, maybe 62ish. The "underlying health conditions" clause is a distraction because such a large proportion of people, even under 60, have such a condition.
2. I think the government have a role as facilitators but what do you want them to do if they make an order and don't receive it because of production problems?
--AS
It certainly is not a distraction, indeed it is the main determinant of risk from Covid. I don’t have the figures to hand but tens of millions of UK people have no underlying health conditions. It’s not some sort of niche cohort.
I'm afraid this is wishful thinking. I recall that you were against lockdowns in the first place, so I'm not massively surprised that you want them lifted early. We'll have to agree to disagree on the arithmetic of when enough people have been vaccinated to lift the pressure on hospitalization and ICU capacity.
--AS
It certainly is not wishful thinking but scientific fact: around 15 million people in England have a preexisting condition, 40 million are without such conditions. Of course most - but not all - with such conditions are in the older age groups.
If I had subnormal Guardian-readers marching up and down outside my house because they'd read in a comic that I was in favour of sacrificing the elderly to "herd immunity," I'd risk a £60 fine - less than the fine for smoking weed - to go hide out near Durham if I got sick too.
If he wants to close schools for the longer term realistically he has to make the call by Wednesday.
If he makes it later than that he’s facing actual riots, which might defeat the object.
He really isn’t. Teachers aren’t going to riot.
I was thinking parents would riot if they were forced to find childcare and sort out remote learning at less than 72 hours notice.
You’re a parent and you’ve made your - understandable - position on school closures very clear. How would you feel if he turned round and suddenly said that it was happening despite all his previous denials with immediate effect?
Exactly the way I feel now as my boy’s school was closed weeks ago with zero notice. The entire thing is utterly shambolic. However, I feel schools must try to stay open at least for deprived children, who are likely to receive zero tuition at home.
When I consider lockdown decisions, I try to think not of myself as an antiquarian bookseller with a garden, by the sea, in lovely Dorset, but as a young, employed-on-minimum-wage single parent on the 13th floor of a tower block in Coventry. It must be simply hellish for some, and I have huge sympathy for anyone having to make that decision, let alone facing the consequences.
Pity you don't do that when you vote in general elections.
Should I be surprised that a Labour booster posts a snide comment?
I firmly believe that a market economy helps everyone more. And that a Labour government hinders that benefit, for all.
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
Yes, I think this is not properly understood yet. Too many people seem to be saying "when I've had my vaccine I can go out with friends / on holiday / to a rave". Someone is going to have to break it to the public that vaccination does not mean that the restrictions do not apply. Legally, or morally. Not until vaccination is much more widespread.
--AS
Once the 15 million vulnerable people have been vaccinated, lockdowns must end. That’s why the government needs to ramp up deployment. Utterly trivial nonsense stories like ‘2,000 people have a party in France’ or ‘Tyson Fury on holiday in Florida’ need to play second fiddle to stories like: ‘WTF has the government only got 500 Oxon vaccines ready to go?’
I don't think the arithmetic quite works for 15 million vaccinated being enough to end lockdown altogether. Otherwise hospitals will still be overrun, by under 65s. My estimate is 20-25 million, but I'm not sure about this: a lot depends on how vaccination slows spread. What I'm hoping is that, by the time they have 15 million done, they are going at such a pace that the next 10 million doesn't take too long.
Regarding supply, I do think the press should be telling the story of why it's been slow, but I don't think the government can really be blamed for it. Clearly there have been manufacturing problems. I don't think it's an easy problem to solve.
--AS
A handy set of figures is this -
| Age | Deaths | Hospitalisations | Percent of Population | Number in population | | 85 years and over | 41.75% | 23.20% | 2.47% | 1,647,271 | | 75 to 84 years | 32.82% | 25.75% | 6.05% | 4,040,624 | | 65 to 74 years | 15.14% | 17.91% | 10.01% | 6,687,066 | | 45 to 64 years | 9.24% | 21.74% | 25.79% | 17,224,230 | | 15 to 44 years | 1.03% | 9.84% | 37.78% | 25,236,635 | | 1 to 14 years | 0.01% | 1.50% | 16.82% | 11,238,100 | | Under 1 year | 0.00% | 0.05% | 1.08% | 722,881 |
Are those figures based on first wave data? The reason I ask is that there is evidence that mortality has dropped particularly in the older age groups. See this German study from September:
It's based on the data to date.
Presumably based on positive tests, which is a huge underestimate of the number of infections.
In fairness he's right both historically and in the modern sense.
In 1707 they just bolted on the Scots MPs to the pre-existing Westminster Pmt.
Your second sentence completely invalidates the first sentence. Bolting on Scots MPs as you put it means it is no longer an English Parliament by definition, so how can those completely contradictory sentences make sense?
That's the Blairite + Cameronite combined devolution settlement for you.
So he's not right historically then?
He was right historically in the sense that they simply added a few MPs from Scotland to the Engliosh Pmt whgich otherwise carried on as before (for instance, making no attempt to allow for any representation of the C of S in the HoL for instance).
Of course things evolved in between times, and the current situation is, erm, anomalous.
At this point it is semantics. Legally, the last English parliament sat in 1707.
I don't even understand the point here. It was right because it was English then they added non English MPs, which doesn't matter? However it operated it was no longer a Parliament just for England. The criticism of how it operated and who was included in it is entirely separate to it not being true it was merely an English Parliament, and is not undermined by that.
If he wants to close schools for the longer term realistically he has to make the call by Wednesday.
If he makes it later than that he’s facing actual riots, which might defeat the object.
He really isn’t. Teachers aren’t going to riot.
I was thinking parents would riot if they were forced to find childcare and sort out remote learning at less than 72 hours notice.
You’re a parent and you’ve made your - understandable - position on school closures very clear. How would you feel if he turned round and suddenly said that it was happening despite all his previous denials with immediate effect?
Exactly the way I feel now as my boy’s school was closed weeks ago with zero notice. The entire thing is utterly shambolic. However, I feel schools must try to stay open at least for deprived children, who are likely to receive zero tuition at home.
When I consider lockdown decisions, I try to think not of myself as an antiquarian bookseller with a garden, by the sea, in lovely Dorset, but as a young, employed-on-minimum-wage single parent on the 13th floor of a tower block in Coventry. It must be simply hellish for some, and I have huge sympathy for anyone having to make that decision, let alone facing the consequences.
Pity you don't do that when you vote in general elections.
Should I be surprised that a Labour booster posts a snide comment?
I firmly believe that a market economy helps everyone more. And that a Labour government hinders that benefit, for all.
@MaxPB - I have had the same conversion to the single shot policy as you. Begrudgingly, I have to admit that Blair seems to have called this right.
Again it's a super tricky one but the psychological damage to oldies who have agreed to two jabs should not be underestimated. Although of the oldies I know who have had one jab, none has received an amending text from NHS to say the second one is cancelled.
And thinking about it I have to believe that such an administrative act as to know who has had what must be beyond the NHS.
National interest outweighs individual interest at this time. Inter arma enim silent leges.
Yes absolutely but you are slightly throwing many of those 1m oldies under a bus and undermining confidence in your government.
There is reason to believe that a single Pfizer dose provides some protection, but not really evidence of how quickly any immunity wears off without that second dose. It may give immunity for some months, or it may not.
If we were to recall the people who had the first dose, and find out how many had tested positive from day 8 to 21, we would have a vast data set in the relevant age group to draw some conclusions from. That reason alone would seem enough for honouring the second dose appointments.
I think that the Pfizer vaccine should be used as 2 doses, 3 weeks apart as licenced. It is more reasonable to wait 12 weeks for the AZN vaccine, as that protocol was part of the Cov002 arm of the trial so there is some evidence of efficacy. My concern with the AZN vaccine is the limited evidence of effectiveness in the older age group, and that is the group that we are mostly going to be using it on.
It is possible that the single dose regime will prove effective, but it is a shot in the dark. If it turns out to be a mistake, then the consequences are pretty catastrophic, for individuals, for government and for the credibility of the vaccine programme.
Serious question: will anyone other than those who hate Boris already give a shit about what Cummings has to say about him? I know I don't give a shit about Cummings, period.
I will. IF this story is true, then I would agree, there are serious questions for Sunak and the PM to answer. Blaming the advisers for poor decisions is standard fare. Since Cummings left, the PR has improved. However, the decision making hasn't. On/off Christmas and schools for two.
In their defence (I know, I know) they have been scrambling re: the new variant. Christmas was an acceptable risk with the original coronavirus, but the calculation changed with nv. Similarly the data on school transmission is patchy.
I think they have been willing to take risks because their hearts are opposed to the government shutting normal life down, but when the data is overwhelming they act belatedly. I think that is better than a government whose instinct is to restrict liberty
Agree. As Boris said today (CANNOT BELIEVE I'M SAYING THIS) there were many experts who advised complete lockdown from March to date.
Plenty on here also.
The permanent lockdown brigade tend to have secure incomes - whether pensions, or public sector funded.
Everyone else I know understands that it is a really, really difficult balance between BAU health, liberty, the economy and public health.
I don't know anyone who advocates permanent lockdown. If you lockdown for long enough to remove the virus from circulation, and keep it out with quarantine and travel restrictions, you can open up completely.
Haven't we seen that as soon as you open up there is a resurgence?
No idea if you are a member of said brigade but would you have opened up society over the summer?
In the late spring, when the numbers were coming down rapidly, and the evidence had accumulated that the risk factor was aerosol generation indoors, I was an advocate of opening up outdoor activity as much as possible - I felt we had to make the most of the weather while we could.
So I thought the criticism of people enjoying the good weather at the beaches was ridiculous for example. I would probably have kept indoor venues closed longer, but opened up outdoor spaces earlier.
I resisted the second lockdown as long as possible - arguing that the focus should have been on improving test, trace and isolate than micromanaging restrictions. The prospect of using stop-start lockdown fills me with dread. One proper lockdown to get rid of it entirely is okay, but wasting your lockdown by ending it early (if test, trace & isolate doesn't work) seems like the worst possible option. Which is the one we've chosen.
I can't believe that we've only just started testing cross-border lorry drivers (and then only so the French will let them in - not helping to keep the virus out at all).
We've done absolutely zero to take advantage of the natural advantage provided by being an island.
Interesting what is the current state in NZ? Are they letting people in and out?
@MaxPB - I have had the same conversion to the single shot policy as you. Begrudgingly, I have to admit that Blair seems to have called this right.
Let's be honest, Blair would have made a vastly better job of leading the country through this pnademic than Johnson has.
(As would Thatcher, Major, Brown, May, Cameron,... and just about every PM I can think of.)
Brown? Errr. Darling maybe. But not Brown.
Brown was an ordinary PM but he's a colossus compared to the disingenuous fat fornicator!
People don't like to hear it round here, but Brown is genuinely admired internationally for his work coordinating the G20 response to the financial crisis.
I think prime ministers can be defined by the calls they make on critical issues. Brown, an otherwise mediocre prime minister, made the right call on the GFC; likewise Wilson on keeping the UK out of Vietnam. Meanwhile, Blair, one of the otherwise better prime ministers, made the wrong call on Iraq; Cameron likewise on Brexit.
In fairness he's right both historically and in the modern sense.
In 1707 they just bolted on the Scots MPs to the pre-existing Westminster Pmt.
Your second sentence completely invalidates the first sentence. Bolting on Scots MPs as you put it means it is no longer an English Parliament by definition, so how can those completely contradictory sentences make sense?
That's the Blairite + Cameronite combined devolution settlement for you.
So he's not right historically then?
He was right historically in the sense that they simply added a few MPs from Scotland to the Engliosh Pmt whgich otherwise carried on as before (for instance, making no attempt to allow for any representation of the C of S in the HoL for instance).
Of course things evolved in between times, and the current situation is, erm, anomalous.
At this point it is semantics. Legally, the last English parliament sat in 1707.
I don't even understand the point here. It was right because it was English then they added non English MPs, which doesn't matter? However it operated it was no longer a Parliament just for England. The criticism of how it operated and who was included in it is entirely separate to it not being true it was merely an English Parliament, and is not undermined by that.
It's just a way to deligitimise the UK parliament, saying it's not a real parliament of the UK. Rather that it's a parliament of England that is subjugating Scotland.
In fairness he's right both historically and in the modern sense.
In 1707 they just bolted on the Scots MPs to the pre-existing Westminster Pmt.
Your second sentence completely invalidates the first sentence. Bolting on Scots MPs as you put it means it is no longer an English Parliament by definition, so how can those completely contradictory sentences make sense?
That's the Blairite + Cameronite combined devolution settlement for you.
In fairness he's right both historically and in the modern sense.
In 1707 they just bolted on the Scots MPs to the pre-existing Westminster Pmt.
Your second sentence completely invalidates the first sentence. Bolting on Scots MPs as you put it means it is no longer an English Parliament by definition, so how can those completely contradictory sentences make sense?
That's the Blairite + Cameronite combined devolution settlement for you.
So he's not right historically then?
Always a cult member on hand to spout crap.
Would it hurt for you to be a bit more civil to your fellow commenters here? I don't think I've ever been rude to you.
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
Yes, I think this is not properly understood yet. Too many people seem to be saying "when I've had my vaccine I can go out with friends / on holiday / to a rave". Someone is going to have to break it to the public that vaccination does not mean that the restrictions do not apply. Legally, or morally. Not until vaccination is much more widespread.
--AS
Once the 15 million vulnerable people have been vaccinated, lockdowns must end. That’s why the government needs to ramp up deployment. Utterly trivial nonsense stories like ‘2,000 people have a party in France’ or ‘Tyson Fury on holiday in Florida’ need to play second fiddle to stories like: ‘WTF has the government only got 500 Oxon vaccines ready to go?’
I don't think the arithmetic quite works for 15 million vaccinated being enough to end lockdown altogether. Otherwise hospitals will still be overrun, by under 65s. My estimate is 20-25 million, but I'm not sure about this: a lot depends on how vaccination slows spread. What I'm hoping is that, by the time they have 15 million done, they are going at such a pace that the next 10 million doesn't take too long.
Regarding supply, I do think the press should be telling the story of why it's been slow, but I don't think the government can really be blamed for it. Clearly there have been manufacturing problems. I don't think it's an easy problem to solve.
--AS
Disagree on both points.
1. How will hospitals still be overrun when non-vulnerable groups (under 60, no underlying health conditions) are unlikely to be hospitalised by the virus?
2. It’s the government’s job to overcome any production problems. They ordered 100m in September. They have a paltry 500k ready. Absolutely pathetic.
1. From what I've seen, the chances of hospitalization amongst under 60s is not that small. I don't have the data to hand but the median age of those in intensive care is only about 60, maybe 62ish. The "underlying health conditions" clause is a distraction because such a large proportion of people, even under 60, have such a condition.
2. I think the government have a role as facilitators but what do you want them to do if they make an order and don't receive it because of production problems?
--AS
It certainly is not a distraction, indeed it is the main determinant of risk from Covid. I don’t have the figures to hand but tens of millions of UK people have no underlying health conditions. It’s not some sort of niche cohort.
I'm afraid this is wishful thinking. I recall that you were against lockdowns in the first place, so I'm not massively surprised that you want them lifted early. We'll have to agree to disagree on the arithmetic of when enough people have been vaccinated to lift the pressure on hospitalization and ICU capacity.
--AS
It certainly is not wishful thinking but scientific fact: around 15 million people in England have a preexisting condition, 40 million are without such conditions. Of course most - but not all - with such conditions are in the older age groups.
Serious question: will anyone other than those who hate Boris already give a shit about what Cummings has to say about him? I know I don't give a shit about Cummings, period.
I will. IF this story is true, then I would agree, there are serious questions for Sunak and the PM to answer. Blaming the advisers for poor decisions is standard fare. Since Cummings left, the PR has improved. However, the decision making hasn't. On/off Christmas and schools for two.
In their defence (I know, I know) they have been scrambling re: the new variant. Christmas was an acceptable risk with the original coronavirus, but the calculation changed with nv. Similarly the data on school transmission is patchy.
I think they have been willing to take risks because their hearts are opposed to the government shutting normal life down, but when the data is overwhelming they act belatedly. I think that is better than a government whose instinct is to restrict liberty
Agree. As Boris said today (CANNOT BELIEVE I'M SAYING THIS) there were many experts who advised complete lockdown from March to date.
Plenty on here also.
The permanent lockdown brigade tend to have secure incomes - whether pensions, or public sector funded.
Everyone else I know understands that it is a really, really difficult balance between BAU health, liberty, the economy and public health.
No-one wants unnecessary lockdown. However not once in this pandemic, to my knowledge, has the problem been people locking down too early. Again and again people have locked down too late, causing unnecessary death and damage.
This was Marr's gotcha question this morning to Boris.
There is no easy answer as yes not locking down causes death but tragic as each of these is, this has to be seen within the calculus of running society.
Yes but the cost of letting the epidemic go out of control should be part of the calculus. You get the extra death AND the extra damage, which can be avoided by intervening early. That's the mistake people are repeatedly making.
I accept there is a theoretical possibility of intervening too early and too hard. It hasn't happened yet while people continue to intervene too late and too ineffectually.
I think it's one of practicality. Once you are locked down and you have, say, eradication as your aim, you can't really un lock down until the virus is eradicated.
If he wants to close schools for the longer term realistically he has to make the call by Wednesday.
If he makes it later than that he’s facing actual riots, which might defeat the object.
He really isn’t. Teachers aren’t going to riot.
I was thinking parents would riot if they were forced to find childcare and sort out remote learning at less than 72 hours notice.
You’re a parent and you’ve made your - understandable - position on school closures very clear. How would you feel if he turned round and suddenly said that it was happening despite all his previous denials with immediate effect?
Exactly the way I feel now as my boy’s school was closed weeks ago with zero notice. The entire thing is utterly shambolic. However, I feel schools must try to stay open at least for deprived children, who are likely to receive zero tuition at home.
When I consider lockdown decisions, I try to think not of myself as an antiquarian bookseller with a garden, by the sea, in lovely Dorset, but as a young, employed-on-minimum-wage single parent on the 13th floor of a tower block in Coventry. It must be simply hellish for some, and I have huge sympathy for anyone having to make that decision, let alone facing the consequences.
Pity you don't do that when you vote in general elections.
Should I be surprised that a Labour booster posts a snide comment about free enterprise?
I firmly believe that a market economy helps everyone more. And that a Labour government hinders that benefit, for all.
It's not snide. It's a calm and considered calling out of utter "pass the sick bucket" virtue signalling.
There is no way - no way on god's green earth - that when you vote Tory in a general election you think "not of myself as an antiquarian bookseller with a garden, by the sea, in lovely Dorset, but a young, employed-on-minimum-wage single parent on the 13th floor of a tower block in Coventry."
It looks like a fair few councils are noting the government position but advising schools to make their own decisions, promising the backing of the council if they decide not to open.
It's going to be chaos tomorrow given the near impossibility of successful communication at such short notice.
On the bright side, I can imagine a lot of parents taking matters into their own hands tomorrow, and schools not being able to chase non-attendance even if they want to. Which they won't, really.
In the week before the March lockdown, attendance in one of mine's class went from 90% to 50%.
In fairness he's right both historically and in the modern sense.
In 1707 they just bolted on the Scots MPs to the pre-existing Westminster Pmt.
Your second sentence completely invalidates the first sentence. Bolting on Scots MPs as you put it means it is no longer an English Parliament by definition, so how can those completely contradictory sentences make sense?
That's the Blairite + Cameronite combined devolution settlement for you.
So he's not right historically then?
He was right historically in the sense that they simply added a few MPs from Scotland to the Engliosh Pmt whgich otherwise carried on as before (for instance, making no attempt to allow for any representation of the C of S in the HoL for instance).
Of course things evolved in between times, and the current situation is, erm, anomalous.
At this point it is semantics. Legally, the last English parliament sat in 1707.
It never stopped and the arses quickly ratted on all the promises and used the rigged numbers to renage on all the promises in the treaty.
Serious question: will anyone other than those who hate Boris already give a shit about what Cummings has to say about him? I know I don't give a shit about Cummings, period.
I will. IF this story is true, then I would agree, there are serious questions for Sunak and the PM to answer. Blaming the advisers for poor decisions is standard fare. Since Cummings left, the PR has improved. However, the decision making hasn't. On/off Christmas and schools for two.
In their defence (I know, I know) they have been scrambling re: the new variant. Christmas was an acceptable risk with the original coronavirus, but the calculation changed with nv. Similarly the data on school transmission is patchy.
I think they have been willing to take risks because their hearts are opposed to the government shutting normal life down, but when the data is overwhelming they act belatedly. I think that is better than a government whose instinct is to restrict liberty
Agree. As Boris said today (CANNOT BELIEVE I'M SAYING THIS) there were many experts who advised complete lockdown from March to date.
Plenty on here also.
The permanent lockdown brigade tend to have secure incomes - whether pensions, or public sector funded.
Everyone else I know understands that it is a really, really difficult balance between BAU health, liberty, the economy and public health.
I don't know anyone who advocates permanent lockdown. If you lockdown for long enough to remove the virus from circulation, and keep it out with quarantine and travel restrictions, you can open up completely.
Haven't we seen that as soon as you open up there is a resurgence?
No idea if you are a member of said brigade but would you have opened up society over the summer?
In the late spring, when the numbers were coming down rapidly, and the evidence had accumulated that the risk factor was aerosol generation indoors, I was an advocate of opening up outdoor activity as much as possible - I felt we had to make the most of the weather while we could.
So I thought the criticism of people enjoying the good weather at the beaches was ridiculous for example. I would probably have kept indoor venues closed longer, but opened up outdoor spaces earlier.
I resisted the second lockdown as long as possible - arguing that the focus should have been on improving test, trace and isolate than micromanaging restrictions. The prospect of using stop-start lockdown fills me with dread. One proper lockdown to get rid of it entirely is okay, but wasting your lockdown by ending it early (if test, trace & isolate doesn't work) seems like the worst possible option. Which is the one we've chosen.
I can't believe that we've only just started testing cross-border lorry drivers (and then only so the French will let them in - not helping to keep the virus out at all).
We've done absolutely zero to take advantage of the natural advantage provided by being an island.
Yes, broadly agree with this.
I'd actually go further and (NV possibly permitting) have kept outdoors activities allowed to some extent. Group exercise, for a start.
The same will apply on the other side - by March/clocks changing, the weather should be finer alongside everything else.
@MaxPB - I have had the same conversion to the single shot policy as you. Begrudgingly, I have to admit that Blair seems to have called this right.
Let's be honest, Blair would have made a vastly better job of leading the country through this pnademic than Johnson has.
(As would Thatcher, Major, Brown, May, Cameron,... and just about every PM I can think of.)
Brown? Errr. Darling maybe. But not Brown.
Brown was an ordinary PM but he's a colossus compared to the disingenuous fat fornicator!
People don't like to hear it round here, but Brown is genuinely admired internationally for his work coordinating the G20 response to the financial crisis.
It's true: only the other day I was cycling along the beach, and I was flagged down by a young American couple.
"Are you British?" they asked. "Why, yes I am," I replied "Can we just say how grateful we are to your fellow Brit, Gordon Brown, for saving the world from the Global Financial Crisis," they said "Errr sure." "Just one question: why doesn't Gordon Brown get more credit in the UK for his prompt and decisive action?"
@MaxPB - I have had the same conversion to the single shot policy as you. Begrudgingly, I have to admit that Blair seems to have called this right.
Let's be honest, Blair would have made a vastly better job of leading the country through this pnademic than Johnson has.
(As would Thatcher, Major, Brown, May, Cameron,... and just about every PM I can think of.)
Brown? Errr. Darling maybe. But not Brown.
Brown was an ordinary PM but he's a colossus compared to the disingenuous fat fornicator!
People don't like to hear it round here, but Brown is genuinely admired internationally for his work coordinating the G20 response to the financial crisis.
I think prime ministers can be defined by the calls they make on critical issues. Brown, an otherwise mediocre prime minister, made the right call on the GFC; likewise Wilson on keeping the UK out of Vietnam. Meanwhile, Blair, one of the otherwise better prime ministers, made the wrong call on Iraq; Cameron likewise on Brexit.
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
Yes, I think this is not properly understood yet. Too many people seem to be saying "when I've had my vaccine I can go out with friends / on holiday / to a rave". Someone is going to have to break it to the public that vaccination does not mean that the restrictions do not apply. Legally, or morally. Not until vaccination is much more widespread.
--AS
Once the 15 million vulnerable people have been vaccinated, lockdowns must end. That’s why the government needs to ramp up deployment. Utterly trivial nonsense stories like ‘2,000 people have a party in France’ or ‘Tyson Fury on holiday in Florida’ need to play second fiddle to stories like: ‘WTF has the government only got 500 Oxon vaccines ready to go?’
I don't think the arithmetic quite works for 15 million vaccinated being enough to end lockdown altogether. Otherwise hospitals will still be overrun, by under 65s. My estimate is 20-25 million, but I'm not sure about this: a lot depends on how vaccination slows spread. What I'm hoping is that, by the time they have 15 million done, they are going at such a pace that the next 10 million doesn't take too long.
Regarding supply, I do think the press should be telling the story of why it's been slow, but I don't think the government can really be blamed for it. Clearly there have been manufacturing problems. I don't think it's an easy problem to solve.
--AS
I think it's a mistake to think of this as a binary choice between lockdown and freedom. The reality is that some restrictions - even with widespread vaccine roll-outs - will likely be in place by the end of the year. Conversely, it likely quite a lot of restrictions will be removed relatively quickly.
In practice this is bound to be right. That's how things work. That said, I see much to recommend something sharp and delineated. An intense and prolonged national effort (tough restrictions) until "it's safe" - a condition I think it is possible to define in advance - and then FREEDOM DAY. This would provide a rousing and positive, genuinely communal end to a harrowing communal experience. It would be the start of the AC calendar.
The government has to tell us how many (annual) Covid deaths are acceptable. And I am not sure that number is non-zero.
Most people I know are staggered when they hear how many people die each day in the UK.
Most of them thought it was low 100s.
2-3000 ish?
(Working on 80 years is 30k ish days, and there’s 60m ish of us)
40,000 a day according to The Cult. But not sure of the geographic coverage.
Almost 15 million a year? Cannot possibly be right!
Worldwide. Badly wrong, 150,000 a day is about right.
If he wants to close schools for the longer term realistically he has to make the call by Wednesday.
If he makes it later than that he’s facing actual riots, which might defeat the object.
He really isn’t. Teachers aren’t going to riot.
I was thinking parents would riot if they were forced to find childcare and sort out remote learning at less than 72 hours notice.
You’re a parent and you’ve made your - understandable - position on school closures very clear. How would you feel if he turned round and suddenly said that it was happening despite all his previous denials with immediate effect?
Exactly the way I feel now as my boy’s school was closed weeks ago with zero notice. The entire thing is utterly shambolic. However, I feel schools must try to stay open at least for deprived children, who are likely to receive zero tuition at home.
When I consider lockdown decisions, I try to think not of myself as an antiquarian bookseller with a garden, by the sea, in lovely Dorset, but as a young, employed-on-minimum-wage single parent on the 13th floor of a tower block in Coventry. It must be simply hellish for some, and I have huge sympathy for anyone having to make that decision, let alone facing the consequences.
Pity you don't do that when you vote in general elections.
Should I be surprised that a Labour booster posts a snide comment about free enterprise?
I firmly believe that a market economy helps everyone more. And that a Labour government hinders that benefit, for all.
It's not snide. It's a calm and considered calling out of utter "pass the sick bucket" virtue signalling.
There is no way - no way on god's green earth - that when you vote Tory in a general election you think "not of myself as an antiquarian bookseller with a garden, by the sea, in lovely Dorset, but a young, employed-on-minimum-wage single parent on the 13th floor of a tower block in Coventry."
C'mon. Please.
1) I have just as much say as the mythical Coventry single parent in a general election, as should be the case. 2) Given WC voters are more inclined to vote Tory atm, you might want to recalibrate your anachronistic Marxist analysis of British society.
Do you foresee a natural bouncing back for Labour, if only due to SNP fatigue (and not counting on black swans like independence followed by SNP fragmentation or suchlike)?
In periods of cold calculation, I try to see a path back for SLab but it's hard. All the stuff that's blighted them for years is still there and in spades: lack of talent, inconsistency, enthusiastic collaboration with the Tories in 2014, broken promises.
One small bellwether is the ex MP for my constituency 2017-19, Paul Sweeney. He's standing as a list candidate for Glasgow in the May election (not sure how high on that list he is for SLab, that will have some bearing) . Obviously personal rep has a lot less meaning in list elections but if he's elected it might be a sign of tiny shoots of recovery for SLab. Personally I find him a self-publicising, ambitious wee snot, but he's not stupid and these characteristics often seem to work for aspiring pols of all parties.
He was involved in the stushie about the SCon MP Ross Thomson being accused of assault which now appears to be without foundation; that may depress any tactical voting by Cons if they're paying attention.
By “involved in” do you mean “made highly emotive allegations about a political opponent shortly before an election despite there being a remarkable lack of evidence?”
Behaviour like that should debar anyone from public life
Good old Toffs they always stick up for their wrong un's
Jesus f*cking Christ. I hate Trump so much because he makes me break one of my cardinal rules, which is to regard people I disagree with politically as being worthy of nothing but contempt for their views and morals, which affects how objectively I can judge things. Some of those quotes, if accurate, despite everything in the last 4 years, remain gobsmacking.
A very telling aspect of the mindset is this bit:
In a statement, Mitchell[Trump Lawyer] said that Raffensperger’s office “has made many statements over the past two months that are simply not correct and everyone involved with the efforts on behalf of the President’s election challenge has said the same thing: show us your records on which you rely to make these statements that our numbers are wrong".
There's been any amount of public information, and checks and rechecks, but it is never enough.
Another example of how giving people information doesn't change anything if their mind is closed. They just demand information proving what they want, and if it does not exist it is claimed it is being hidden.
@MaxPB - I have had the same conversion to the single shot policy as you. Begrudgingly, I have to admit that Blair seems to have called this right.
Let's be honest, Blair would have made a vastly better job of leading the country through this pnademic than Johnson has.
(As would Thatcher, Major, Brown, May, Cameron,... and just about every PM I can think of.)
Brown? Errr. Darling maybe. But not Brown.
Brown was an ordinary PM but he's a colossus compared to the disingenuous fat fornicator!
People don't like to hear it round here, but Brown is genuinely admired internationally for his work coordinating the G20 response to the financial crisis.
It's true: only the other day I was cycling along the beach, and I was flagged down by a young American couple.
"Are you British?" they asked. "Why, yes I am," I replied "Can we just say how grateful we are to your fellow Brit, Gordon Brown, for saving the world from the Global Financial Crisis," they said "Errr sure." "Just one question: why doesn't Gordon Brown get more credit in the UK for his prompt and decisive action?"
Gordon McDoom was truly an under-appreciated British superhero:
@MaxPB - I have had the same conversion to the single shot policy as you. Begrudgingly, I have to admit that Blair seems to have called this right.
Let's be honest, Blair would have made a vastly better job of leading the country through this pnademic than Johnson has.
(As would Thatcher, Major, Brown, May, Cameron,... and just about every PM I can think of.)
Brown? Errr. Darling maybe. But not Brown.
Brown was an ordinary PM but he's a colossus compared to the disingenuous fat fornicator!
People don't like to hear it round here, but Brown is genuinely admired internationally for his work coordinating the G20 response to the financial crisis.
It's true: only the other day I was cycling along the beach, and I was flagged down by a young American couple.
"Are you British?" they asked. "Why, yes I am," I replied "Can we just say how grateful we are to your fellow Brit, Gordon Brown, for saving the world from the Global Financial Crisis," they said "Errr sure." "Just one question: why doesn't Gordon Brown get more credit in the UK for his prompt and decisive action?"
I don't believe you. For starters, where was the Albanian taxi driver?
If he wants to close schools for the longer term realistically he has to make the call by Wednesday.
If he makes it later than that he’s facing actual riots, which might defeat the object.
He really isn’t. Teachers aren’t going to riot.
I was thinking parents would riot if they were forced to find childcare and sort out remote learning at less than 72 hours notice.
You’re a parent and you’ve made your - understandable - position on school closures very clear. How would you feel if he turned round and suddenly said that it was happening despite all his previous denials with immediate effect?
Exactly the way I feel now as my boy’s school was closed weeks ago with zero notice. The entire thing is utterly shambolic. However, I feel schools must try to stay open at least for deprived children, who are likely to receive zero tuition at home.
When I consider lockdown decisions, I try to think not of myself as an antiquarian bookseller with a garden, by the sea, in lovely Dorset, but as a young, employed-on-minimum-wage single parent on the 13th floor of a tower block in Coventry. It must be simply hellish for some, and I have huge sympathy for anyone having to make that decision, let alone facing the consequences.
Pity you don't do that when you vote in general elections.
Should I be surprised that a Labour booster posts a snide comment about free enterprise?
I firmly believe that a market economy helps everyone more. And that a Labour government hinders that benefit, for all.
It's not snide. It's a calm and considered calling out of utter "pass the sick bucket" virtue signalling.
There is no way - no way on god's green earth - that when you vote Tory in a general election you think "not of myself as an antiquarian bookseller with a garden, by the sea, in lovely Dorset, but a young, employed-on-minimum-wage single parent on the 13th floor of a tower block in Coventry."
C'mon. Please.
Next he will be telling us he gives his leftovers to the poor.
@MaxPB - I have had the same conversion to the single shot policy as you. Begrudgingly, I have to admit that Blair seems to have called this right.
Let's be honest, Blair would have made a vastly better job of leading the country through this pnademic than Johnson has.
(As would Thatcher, Major, Brown, May, Cameron,... and just about every PM I can think of.)
Brown? Errr. Darling maybe. But not Brown.
Brown was an ordinary PM but he's a colossus compared to the disingenuous fat fornicator!
People don't like to hear it round here, but Brown is genuinely admired internationally for his work coordinating the G20 response to the financial crisis.
It's true: only the other day I was cycling along the beach, and I was flagged down by a young American couple.
"Are you British?" they asked. "Why, yes I am," I replied "Can we just say how grateful we are to your fellow Brit, Gordon Brown, for saving the world from the Global Financial Crisis," they said "Errr sure." "Just one question: why doesn't Gordon Brown get more credit in the UK for his prompt and decisive action?"
Serious question: will anyone other than those who hate Boris already give a shit about what Cummings has to say about him? I know I don't give a shit about Cummings, period.
I will. IF this story is true, then I would agree, there are serious questions for Sunak and the PM to answer. Blaming the advisers for poor decisions is standard fare. Since Cummings left, the PR has improved. However, the decision making hasn't. On/off Christmas and schools for two.
In their defence (I know, I know) they have been scrambling re: the new variant. Christmas was an acceptable risk with the original coronavirus, but the calculation changed with nv. Similarly the data on school transmission is patchy.
I think they have been willing to take risks because their hearts are opposed to the government shutting normal life down, but when the data is overwhelming they act belatedly. I think that is better than a government whose instinct is to restrict liberty
Agree. As Boris said today (CANNOT BELIEVE I'M SAYING THIS) there were many experts who advised complete lockdown from March to date.
Plenty on here also.
The permanent lockdown brigade tend to have secure incomes - whether pensions, or public sector funded.
Everyone else I know understands that it is a really, really difficult balance between BAU health, liberty, the economy and public health.
I don't know anyone who advocates permanent lockdown. If you lockdown for long enough to remove the virus from circulation, and keep it out with quarantine and travel restrictions, you can open up completely.
Haven't we seen that as soon as you open up there is a resurgence?
No idea if you are a member of said brigade but would you have opened up society over the summer?
In the late spring, when the numbers were coming down rapidly, and the evidence had accumulated that the risk factor was aerosol generation indoors, I was an advocate of opening up outdoor activity as much as possible - I felt we had to make the most of the weather while we could.
So I thought the criticism of people enjoying the good weather at the beaches was ridiculous for example. I would probably have kept indoor venues closed longer, but opened up outdoor spaces earlier.
I resisted the second lockdown as long as possible - arguing that the focus should have been on improving test, trace and isolate than micromanaging restrictions. The prospect of using stop-start lockdown fills me with dread. One proper lockdown to get rid of it entirely is okay, but wasting your lockdown by ending it early (if test, trace & isolate doesn't work) seems like the worst possible option. Which is the one we've chosen.
I can't believe that we've only just started testing cross-border lorry drivers (and then only so the French will let them in - not helping to keep the virus out at all).
We've done absolutely zero to take advantage of the natural advantage provided by being an island.
That is certainly true. We should have banded together with the Republic and enforced two week quarantines on those coming from abroad, in hotels, with regular testing. Now, it wouldn't have completely eliminated the second wave (as we didn't completely eliminate the virus in the first place), but it would have avoided us seeding the country with thousands of cases from Spain.
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
Yes, I think this is not properly understood yet. Too many people seem to be saying "when I've had my vaccine I can go out with friends / on holiday / to a rave". Someone is going to have to break it to the public that vaccination does not mean that the restrictions do not apply. Legally, or morally. Not until vaccination is much more widespread.
--AS
Once the 15 million vulnerable people have been vaccinated, lockdowns must end. That’s why the government needs to ramp up deployment. Utterly trivial nonsense stories like ‘2,000 people have a party in France’ or ‘Tyson Fury on holiday in Florida’ need to play second fiddle to stories like: ‘WTF has the government only got 500 Oxon vaccines ready to go?’
I don't think the arithmetic quite works for 15 million vaccinated being enough to end lockdown altogether. Otherwise hospitals will still be overrun, by under 65s. My estimate is 20-25 million, but I'm not sure about this: a lot depends on how vaccination slows spread. What I'm hoping is that, by the time they have 15 million done, they are going at such a pace that the next 10 million doesn't take too long.
Regarding supply, I do think the press should be telling the story of why it's been slow, but I don't think the government can really be blamed for it. Clearly there have been manufacturing problems. I don't think it's an easy problem to solve.
--AS
I think it's a mistake to think of this as a binary choice between lockdown and freedom. The reality is that some restrictions - even with widespread vaccine roll-outs - will likely be in place by the end of the year. Conversely, it likely quite a lot of restrictions will be removed relatively quickly.
In practice this is bound to be right. That's how things work. That said, I see much to recommend something sharp and delineated. An intense and prolonged national effort (tough restrictions) until "it's safe" - a condition I think it is possible to define in advance - and then FREEDOM DAY. This would provide a rousing and positive, genuinely communal end to a harrowing communal experience. It would be the start of the AC calendar.
The government has to tell us how many (annual) Covid deaths are acceptable. And I am not sure that number is non-zero.
Most people I know are staggered when they hear how many people die each day in the UK.
Most of them thought it was low 100s.
2-3000 ish?
(Working on 80 years is 30k ish days, and there’s 60m ish of us)
40,000 a day according to The Cult. But not sure of the geographic coverage.
40,000 a day is a little under 15 million per year. If that’s a quote for the UK, it’s a touch implausible. It would imply 22% of the population dying in any given year, and an average life expectancy of 2 years and 3 months.
In fairness he's right both historically and in the modern sense.
In 1707 they just bolted on the Scots MPs to the pre-existing Westminster Pmt.
Your second sentence completely invalidates the first sentence. Bolting on Scots MPs as you put it means it is no longer an English Parliament by definition, so how can those completely contradictory sentences make sense?
That's the Blairite + Cameronite combined devolution settlement for you.
So he's not right historically then?
He was right historically in the sense that they simply added a few MPs from Scotland to the Engliosh Pmt whgich otherwise carried on as before (for instance, making no attempt to allow for any representation of the C of S in the HoL for instance).
Of course things evolved in between times, and the current situation is, erm, anomalous.
At this point it is semantics. Legally, the last English parliament sat in 1707.
I don't even understand the point here. It was right because it was English then they added non English MPs, which doesn't matter? However it operated it was no longer a Parliament just for England. The criticism of how it operated and who was included in it is entirely separate to it not being true it was merely an English Parliament, and is not undermined by that.
It's just a way to deligitimise the UK parliament, saying it's not a real parliament of the UK. Rather that it's a parliament of England that is subjugating Scotland.
If he wants to close schools for the longer term realistically he has to make the call by Wednesday.
If he makes it later than that he’s facing actual riots, which might defeat the object.
He really isn’t. Teachers aren’t going to riot.
I was thinking parents would riot if they were forced to find childcare and sort out remote learning at less than 72 hours notice.
You’re a parent and you’ve made your - understandable - position on school closures very clear. How would you feel if he turned round and suddenly said that it was happening despite all his previous denials with immediate effect?
Exactly the way I feel now as my boy’s school was closed weeks ago with zero notice. The entire thing is utterly shambolic. However, I feel schools must try to stay open at least for deprived children, who are likely to receive zero tuition at home.
When I consider lockdown decisions, I try to think not of myself as an antiquarian bookseller with a garden, by the sea, in lovely Dorset, but as a young, employed-on-minimum-wage single parent on the 13th floor of a tower block in Coventry. It must be simply hellish for some, and I have huge sympathy for anyone having to make that decision, let alone facing the consequences.
Pity you don't do that when you vote in general elections.
Should I be surprised that a Labour booster posts a snide comment?
I firmly believe that a market economy helps everyone more. And that a Labour government hinders that benefit, for all.
You deserve nothing more, Tory scum.
So single mothers on minimum wage in Coventry tower blocks drive your Tory vote too, Rob, do they? But look, seriously, there was no inference of wild and unpleasant "Tory Scum" abuse there from me. I simply sniff some falsity, that's all. Virtue signalling is not exclusive to the Left, you know. And neither is it a hanging offence.
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
Yes, I think this is not properly understood yet. Too many people seem to be saying "when I've had my vaccine I can go out with friends / on holiday / to a rave". Someone is going to have to break it to the public that vaccination does not mean that the restrictions do not apply. Legally, or morally. Not until vaccination is much more widespread.
--AS
Once the 15 million vulnerable people have been vaccinated, lockdowns must end. That’s why the government needs to ramp up deployment. Utterly trivial nonsense stories like ‘2,000 people have a party in France’ or ‘Tyson Fury on holiday in Florida’ need to play second fiddle to stories like: ‘WTF has the government only got 500 Oxon vaccines ready to go?’
I don't think the arithmetic quite works for 15 million vaccinated being enough to end lockdown altogether. Otherwise hospitals will still be overrun, by under 65s. My estimate is 20-25 million, but I'm not sure about this: a lot depends on how vaccination slows spread. What I'm hoping is that, by the time they have 15 million done, they are going at such a pace that the next 10 million doesn't take too long.
Regarding supply, I do think the press should be telling the story of why it's been slow, but I don't think the government can really be blamed for it. Clearly there have been manufacturing problems. I don't think it's an easy problem to solve.
--AS
I think it's a mistake to think of this as a binary choice between lockdown and freedom. The reality is that some restrictions - even with widespread vaccine roll-outs - will likely be in place by the end of the year. Conversely, it likely quite a lot of restrictions will be removed relatively quickly.
Indeed. My mental rule of thumb is:
15 million done - end of Tier 4 and above; schools go back; all locations down one Tier. 25 million done - end of Tier 3 and above; invention of “Tier 0” with lesser restrictions but some remaining; everyone down one more Tier (so Tier 4 today are now Tier 2; Tier 3 are Tier 1; some are even Tier 0) 35 million done - end of Tier 2 and above, everyone either Tier 1 or Tier 0. 45 million done - end of restrictions.
Could be, yes. I think it depends more on hospital capacity (and specifically ICU capacity) than number jabbed. If either the lockdowns (if they ever actually become lockdowns) or the vaccinations release pressure on hospitals, unlocking a step becomes safer. Mind you, riding the wave of hospitals nearly-but-not-quite overwhelmed sounds pretty awful for the hospital staff.
--AS
I am, to be fair, running on the assumption that vaccination significantly decreases (at least) transmission, and thus the level of restrictions against any given required decrease in R will be changing.
@MaxPB - I have had the same conversion to the single shot policy as you. Begrudgingly, I have to admit that Blair seems to have called this right.
Let's be honest, Blair would have made a vastly better job of leading the country through this pnademic than Johnson has.
(As would Thatcher, Major, Brown, May, Cameron,... and just about every PM I can think of.)
Brown? Errr. Darling maybe. But not Brown.
We'll never know of course.
Johnson still has the chance to redeem himself if the vaccine roll-out is run well (or rather be redeemed because it is mainly down to the public servants involved rather than Johnson).
If he wants to close schools for the longer term realistically he has to make the call by Wednesday.
If he makes it later than that he’s facing actual riots, which might defeat the object.
He really isn’t. Teachers aren’t going to riot.
I was thinking parents would riot if they were forced to find childcare and sort out remote learning at less than 72 hours notice.
You’re a parent and you’ve made your - understandable - position on school closures very clear. How would you feel if he turned round and suddenly said that it was happening despite all his previous denials with immediate effect?
Exactly the way I feel now as my boy’s school was closed weeks ago with zero notice. The entire thing is utterly shambolic. However, I feel schools must try to stay open at least for deprived children, who are likely to receive zero tuition at home.
When I consider lockdown decisions, I try to think not of myself as an antiquarian bookseller with a garden, by the sea, in lovely Dorset, but as a young, employed-on-minimum-wage single parent on the 13th floor of a tower block in Coventry. It must be simply hellish for some, and I have huge sympathy for anyone having to make that decision, let alone facing the consequences.
Pity you don't do that when you vote in general elections.
Should I be surprised that a Labour booster posts a snide comment?
I firmly believe that a market economy helps everyone more. And that a Labour government hinders that benefit, for all.
You deserve nothing more, Tory scum.
So single mothers on minimum wage in Coventry tower blocks drive your Tory vote too, Rob, do they? Well well. You live and learn.
But look, seriously, there was absolutely no inference of that wild and unpleasant "Tory Scum" abuse there from me. I simply sniff some falsity, that's all. Virtue signalling is not exclusive to the Left, you know. And neither is it a hanging offence.
So it's not legitimate to think how the various restrictions would impact others in society, and I should only think about how things affect me personally?
In fairness he's right both historically and in the modern sense.
In 1707 they just bolted on the Scots MPs to the pre-existing Westminster Pmt.
Your second sentence completely invalidates the first sentence. Bolting on Scots MPs as you put it means it is no longer an English Parliament by definition, so how can those completely contradictory sentences make sense?
That's the Blairite + Cameronite combined devolution settlement for you.
So he's not right historically then?
He was right historically in the sense that they simply added a few MPs from Scotland to the Engliosh Pmt whgich otherwise carried on as before (for instance, making no attempt to allow for any representation of the C of S in the HoL for instance).
Of course things evolved in between times, and the current situation is, erm, anomalous.
At this point it is semantics. Legally, the last English parliament sat in 1707.
On a point of order, the last English Parliament was summoned in 1529.
When it was summoned again in 1536, two other countries sent representatives.
Eh, it's on a dramatic issue, but many a Conservative run council will not shy away from criticising or going against a Conservative government when they can. They still want to be able to rail against Whitehall and Westminster even when it is their party in national power.
And local MPs often spend time slagging off their local council even if in the same party, since it is the easiest way to deal with the public who complain to them about issues which are for councils to deal with, not them.
Just confirmed that my sons school goes back tomorrow (he is IT director) and my grandchildren's primary on Wednesday and this under Labour Wales when Starmer is calling for lockdown
@MaxPB - I have had the same conversion to the single shot policy as you. Begrudgingly, I have to admit that Blair seems to have called this right.
Let's be honest, Blair would have made a vastly better job of leading the country through this pnademic than Johnson has.
(As would Thatcher, Major, Brown, May, Cameron,... and just about every PM I can think of.)
Brown? Errr. Darling maybe. But not Brown.
Brown was an ordinary PM but he's a colossus compared to the disingenuous fat fornicator!
People don't like to hear it round here, but Brown is genuinely admired internationally for his work coordinating the G20 response to the financial crisis.
It's true: only the other day I was cycling along the beach, and I was flagged down by a young American couple.
"Are you British?" they asked. "Why, yes I am," I replied "Can we just say how grateful we are to your fellow Brit, Gordon Brown, for saving the world from the Global Financial Crisis," they said "Errr sure." "Just one question: why doesn't Gordon Brown get more credit in the UK for his prompt and decisive action?"
I don't believe you. For starters, where was the Albanian taxi driver?
Ferrying me to my destination of course. He cannot get everywhere.
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
Yes, I think this is not properly understood yet. Too many people seem to be saying "when I've had my vaccine I can go out with friends / on holiday / to a rave". Someone is going to have to break it to the public that vaccination does not mean that the restrictions do not apply. Legally, or morally. Not until vaccination is much more widespread.
--AS
Once the 15 million vulnerable people have been vaccinated, lockdowns must end. That’s why the government needs to ramp up deployment. Utterly trivial nonsense stories like ‘2,000 people have a party in France’ or ‘Tyson Fury on holiday in Florida’ need to play second fiddle to stories like: ‘WTF has the government only got 500 Oxon vaccines ready to go?’
I don't think the arithmetic quite works for 15 million vaccinated being enough to end lockdown altogether. Otherwise hospitals will still be overrun, by under 65s. My estimate is 20-25 million, but I'm not sure about this: a lot depends on how vaccination slows spread. What I'm hoping is that, by the time they have 15 million done, they are going at such a pace that the next 10 million doesn't take too long.
Regarding supply, I do think the press should be telling the story of why it's been slow, but I don't think the government can really be blamed for it. Clearly there have been manufacturing problems. I don't think it's an easy problem to solve.
--AS
I think it's a mistake to think of this as a binary choice between lockdown and freedom. The reality is that some restrictions - even with widespread vaccine roll-outs - will likely be in place by the end of the year. Conversely, it likely quite a lot of restrictions will be removed relatively quickly.
In practice this is bound to be right. That's how things work. That said, I see much to recommend something sharp and delineated. An intense and prolonged national effort (tough restrictions) until "it's safe" - a condition I think it is possible to define in advance - and then FREEDOM DAY. This would provide a rousing and positive, genuinely communal end to a harrowing communal experience. It would be the start of the AC calendar.
The government has to tell us how many (annual) Covid deaths are acceptable. And I am not sure that number is non-zero.
Most people I know are staggered when they hear how many people die each day in the UK.
Most of them thought it was low 100s.
2-3000 ish?
(Working on 80 years is 30k ish days, and there’s 60m ish of us)
40,000 a day according to The Cult. But not sure of the geographic coverage.
40,000 a day is a little under 15 million per year. If that’s a quote for the UK, it’s a touch implausible. It would imply 22% of the population dying in any given year, and an average life expectancy of 2 years and 3 months.
"Dharma says the song is about eternal love, rather than suicide.[6] He used Romeo and Juliet to describe a couple who wanted to be together in the afterlife.[7] He guessed that "40,000 men and women" died each day, and the figure was used several times in the lyrics; this rate was 100,000 off the mark.[8]"
It's an American song and a stab at a worldwide stat.
Genuine question - why can't we use some of the unused spaces that lockdown has produced. For example, we have a large banqueting hall just down the road from me - enough room for at least 2 spaced classes, one at each end of the hall. On a smaller note, the pub over the road has a function room that can take ca. 20 people spaced out - enough for a 6th form class - and already has the AV in place.
If he wants to close schools for the longer term realistically he has to make the call by Wednesday.
If he makes it later than that he’s facing actual riots, which might defeat the object.
He really isn’t. Teachers aren’t going to riot.
I was thinking parents would riot if they were forced to find childcare and sort out remote learning at less than 72 hours notice.
You’re a parent and you’ve made your - understandable - position on school closures very clear. How would you feel if he turned round and suddenly said that it was happening despite all his previous denials with immediate effect?
Exactly the way I feel now as my boy’s school was closed weeks ago with zero notice. The entire thing is utterly shambolic. However, I feel schools must try to stay open at least for deprived children, who are likely to receive zero tuition at home.
When I consider lockdown decisions, I try to think not of myself as an antiquarian bookseller with a garden, by the sea, in lovely Dorset, but as a young, employed-on-minimum-wage single parent on the 13th floor of a tower block in Coventry. It must be simply hellish for some, and I have huge sympathy for anyone having to make that decision, let alone facing the consequences.
Pity you don't do that when you vote in general elections.
Should I be surprised that a Labour booster posts a snide comment?
I firmly believe that a market economy helps everyone more. And that a Labour government hinders that benefit, for all.
You deserve nothing more, Tory scum.
So single mothers on minimum wage in Coventry tower blocks drive your Tory vote too, Rob, do they? Well well. You live and learn.
But look, seriously, there was absolutely no inference of that wild and unpleasant "Tory Scum" abuse there from me. I simply sniff some falsity, that's all. Virtue signalling is not exclusive to the Left, you know. And neither is it a hanging offence.
So it's not legitimate to think how the various restrictions would impact others in society, and I should only think about how things affect me personally?
Give kinabalu a break - he's trying to quit smoking and it's making him cranky
@MaxPB - I have had the same conversion to the single shot policy as you. Begrudgingly, I have to admit that Blair seems to have called this right.
Let's be honest, Blair would have made a vastly better job of leading the country through this pnademic than Johnson has.
(As would Thatcher, Major, Brown, May, Cameron,... and just about every PM I can think of.)
Brown? Errr. Darling maybe. But not Brown.
Brown was an ordinary PM but he's a colossus compared to the disingenuous fat fornicator!
People don't like to hear it round here, but Brown is genuinely admired internationally for his work coordinating the G20 response to the financial crisis.
I think prime ministers can be defined by the calls they make on critical issues. Brown, an otherwise mediocre prime minister, made the right call on the GFC; likewise Wilson on keeping the UK out of Vietnam. Meanwhile, Blair, one of the otherwise better prime ministers, made the wrong call on Iraq; Cameron likewise on Brexit.
Insightful comment.
Indeed, and I get fed up with being one of the few here to give Brown his due on the GFC. Dammit, it's not as if I liked the man, or thought he was a good PM. He wasn't. But on the real big call of his period in office he got it right, and what's more he led the G20 (including a newly elected Barack Obama) in the right direction. He really ought to get some credit for that.
Conversely I've always maintained that Blair was generally a very capable PM, who made a disastrous error on Iraq.
Cameron I liked, but his record doesn't really stack up.
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
Yes, I think this is not properly understood yet. Too many people seem to be saying "when I've had my vaccine I can go out with friends / on holiday / to a rave". Someone is going to have to break it to the public that vaccination does not mean that the restrictions do not apply. Legally, or morally. Not until vaccination is much more widespread.
--AS
Once the 15 million vulnerable people have been vaccinated, lockdowns must end. That’s why the government needs to ramp up deployment. Utterly trivial nonsense stories like ‘2,000 people have a party in France’ or ‘Tyson Fury on holiday in Florida’ need to play second fiddle to stories like: ‘WTF has the government only got 500 Oxon vaccines ready to go?’
I don't think the arithmetic quite works for 15 million vaccinated being enough to end lockdown altogether. Otherwise hospitals will still be overrun, by under 65s. My estimate is 20-25 million, but I'm not sure about this: a lot depends on how vaccination slows spread. What I'm hoping is that, by the time they have 15 million done, they are going at such a pace that the next 10 million doesn't take too long.
Regarding supply, I do think the press should be telling the story of why it's been slow, but I don't think the government can really be blamed for it. Clearly there have been manufacturing problems. I don't think it's an easy problem to solve.
--AS
Disagree on both points.
1. How will hospitals still be overrun when non-vulnerable groups (under 60, no underlying health conditions) are unlikely to be hospitalised by the virus?
2. It’s the government’s job to overcome any production problems. They ordered 100m in September. They have a paltry 500k ready. Absolutely pathetic.
1. From what I've seen, the chances of hospitalization amongst under 60s is not that small. I don't have the data to hand but the median age of those in intensive care is only about 60, maybe 62ish. The "underlying health conditions" clause is a distraction because such a large proportion of people, even under 60, have such a condition.
2. I think the government have a role as facilitators but what do you want them to do if they make an order and don't receive it because of production problems?
--AS
It certainly is not a distraction, indeed it is the main determinant of risk from Covid. I don’t have the figures to hand but tens of millions of UK people have no underlying health conditions. It’s not some sort of niche cohort.
I'm afraid this is wishful thinking. I recall that you were against lockdowns in the first place, so I'm not massively surprised that you want them lifted early. We'll have to agree to disagree on the arithmetic of when enough people have been vaccinated to lift the pressure on hospitalization and ICU capacity.
--AS
It certainly is not wishful thinking but scientific fact: around 15 million people in England have a preexisting condition, 40 million are without such conditions. Of course most - but not all - with such conditions are in the older age groups.
Most people don’t live alone. If more than one in three have such a condition, then it’s overwhelmingly likely that the majority of households will have at least one person with such a condition.
In fairness he's right both historically and in the modern sense.
In 1707 they just bolted on the Scots MPs to the pre-existing Westminster Pmt.
Your second sentence completely invalidates the first sentence. Bolting on Scots MPs as you put it means it is no longer an English Parliament by definition, so how can those completely contradictory sentences make sense?
That's the Blairite + Cameronite combined devolution settlement for you.
So he's not right historically then?
He was right historically in the sense that they simply added a few MPs from Scotland to the Engliosh Pmt whgich otherwise carried on as before (for instance, making no attempt to allow for any representation of the C of S in the HoL for instance).
Of course things evolved in between times, and the current situation is, erm, anomalous.
At this point it is semantics. Legally, the last English parliament sat in 1707.
On a point of order, the last English Parliament was summoned in 1529.
When it was summoned again in 1536, two other countries sent representatives.
@MaxPB - I have had the same conversion to the single shot policy as you. Begrudgingly, I have to admit that Blair seems to have called this right.
Let's be honest, Blair would have made a vastly better job of leading the country through this pnademic than Johnson has.
(As would Thatcher, Major, Brown, May, Cameron,... and just about every PM I can think of.)
Brown? Errr. Darling maybe. But not Brown.
Brown was an ordinary PM but he's a colossus compared to the disingenuous fat fornicator!
People don't like to hear it round here, but Brown is genuinely admired internationally for his work coordinating the G20 response to the financial crisis.
It's true: only the other day I was cycling along the beach, and I was flagged down by a young American couple.
"Are you British?" they asked. "Why, yes I am," I replied "Can we just say how grateful we are to your fellow Brit, Gordon Brown, for saving the world from the Global Financial Crisis," they said "Errr sure." "Just one question: why doesn't Gordon Brown get more credit in the UK for his prompt and decisive action?"
Well don't leave us in suspense, how did you respond?
Comments
--AS
If you want to say it might as well be the English Parliament that'd be one thing.
(Working on 80 years is 30k ish days, and there’s 60m ish of us)
By which time you have increased the number of sick and dead people and you have to stay in restrictions for longer to get things back under control, so you don't even save the economy or MH.
The debate about what to do now is just the March 2020 debate for slow learners.
So I thought the criticism of people enjoying the good weather at the beaches was ridiculous for example. I would probably have kept indoor venues closed longer, but opened up outdoor spaces earlier.
I resisted the second lockdown as long as possible - arguing that the focus should have been on improving test, trace and isolate than micromanaging restrictions. The prospect of using stop-start lockdown fills me with dread. One proper lockdown to get rid of it entirely is okay, but wasting your lockdown by ending it early (if test, trace & isolate doesn't work) seems like the worst possible option. Which is the one we've chosen.
I can't believe that we've only just started testing cross-border lorry drivers (and then only so the French will let them in - not helping to keep the virus out at all).
We've done absolutely zero to take advantage of the natural advantage provided by being an island.
Is it too much to expect a government in this situation simply to be led by the science and not by its instincts?
The real Kazakh national anthem isn’t bad either.
I accept there is a theoretical possibility of intervening too early and too hard. It hasn't happened yet while people continue to intervene too late and too ineffectually.
Behaviour like that should debar anyone from public life
https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1345446482250498049
Of course things evolved in between times, and the current situation is, erm, anomalous.
This is what the government should have done from September (all four of them) and have signally failed to do.
It's going to be chaos tomorrow given the near impossibility of successful communication at such short notice.
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1345752275168485380?s=19
The Swedes have done far too good a job at making people forget their escapades in Europe from time to time, they are building to something again.
Just over half a million a year.
Deaths in week 51, in England and Wales, were 13,011.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths
I think he did once say he liked the Clash. That's pretty much it.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/time-think-differently/trends-disease-and-disability-long-term-conditions-multi-morbidity
I firmly believe that a market economy helps everyone more. And that a Labour government hinders that benefit, for all.
If we were to recall the people who had the first dose, and find out how many had tested positive from day 8 to 21, we would have a vast data set in the relevant age group to draw some conclusions from. That reason alone would seem enough for honouring the second dose appointments.
I think that the Pfizer vaccine should be used as 2 doses, 3 weeks apart as licenced. It is more reasonable to wait 12 weeks for the AZN vaccine, as that protocol was part of the Cov002 arm of the trial so there is some evidence of efficacy. My concern with the AZN vaccine is the limited evidence of effectiveness in the older age group, and that is the group that we are mostly going to be using it on.
It is possible that the single dose regime will prove effective, but it is a shot in the dark. If it turns out to be a mistake, then the consequences are pretty catastrophic, for individuals, for government and for the credibility of the vaccine programme.
It would be a courageous decision, minister.
And it is scary how many people have gotten sucked into Trump land, and have been willing to support his insanities.
One parent of a school age child has a pre existing condition. Who gets locked away? It has to be the whole family.
There is no way - no way on god's green earth - that when you vote Tory in a general election you think "not of myself as an antiquarian bookseller with a garden, by the sea, in lovely Dorset, but a young, employed-on-minimum-wage single parent on the 13th floor of a tower block in Coventry."
C'mon. Please.
In the week before the March lockdown, attendance in one of mine's class went from 90% to 50%.
I'd actually go further and (NV possibly permitting) have kept outdoors activities allowed to some extent. Group exercise, for a start.
The same will apply on the other side - by March/clocks changing, the weather should be finer alongside everything else.
"Are you British?" they asked.
"Why, yes I am," I replied
"Can we just say how grateful we are to your fellow Brit, Gordon Brown, for saving the world from the Global Financial Crisis," they said
"Errr sure."
"Just one question: why doesn't Gordon Brown get more credit in the UK for his prompt and decisive action?"
2) Given WC voters are more inclined to vote Tory atm, you might want to recalibrate your anachronistic Marxist analysis of British society.
A very telling aspect of the mindset is this bit:
In a statement, Mitchell[Trump Lawyer] said that Raffensperger’s office “has made many statements over the past two months that are simply not correct and everyone involved with the efforts on behalf of the President’s election challenge has said the same thing: show us your records on which you rely to make these statements that our numbers are wrong".
There's been any amount of public information, and checks and rechecks, but it is never enough.
Another example of how giving people information doesn't change anything if their mind is closed. They just demand information proving what they want, and if it does not exist it is claimed it is being hidden.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5stftd5qv3M
If that’s a quote for the UK, it’s a touch implausible. It would imply 22% of the population dying in any given year, and an average life expectancy of 2 years and 3 months.
Essex is a majority Conservative council.
Central authority is collapsing.
Johnson still has the chance to redeem himself if the vaccine roll-out is run well (or rather be redeemed because it is mainly down to the public servants involved rather than Johnson).
When it was summoned again in 1536, two other countries sent representatives.
Wales was one.
Does anyone know what the other country was?
And local MPs often spend time slagging off their local council even if in the same party, since it is the easiest way to deal with the public who complain to them about issues which are for councils to deal with, not them.
"Dharma says the song is about eternal love, rather than suicide.[6] He used Romeo and Juliet to describe a couple who wanted to be together in the afterlife.[7] He guessed that "40,000 men and women" died each day, and the figure was used several times in the lyrics; this rate was 100,000 off the mark.[8]"
It's an American song and a stab at a worldwide stat.
But like I say, his fraud couldn’t save the orange haired fucker.
Dammit, it's not as if I liked the man, or thought he was a good PM. He wasn't. But on the real big call of his period in office he got it right, and what's more he led the G20 (including a newly elected Barack Obama) in the right direction. He really ought to get some credit for that.
Conversely I've always maintained that Blair was generally a very capable PM, who made a disastrous error on Iraq.
Cameron I liked, but his record doesn't really stack up.
If more than one in three have such a condition, then it’s overwhelmingly likely that the majority of households will have at least one person with such a condition.