@Philip_Thompson currently a crime that causes "an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim, even if unintended" leads to a higher sentence.
Are you really suggesting a mitigating factor might be "the crime has not lead to an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim"?
Also currently a crime that is committed as part of a gang leads to a higher sentence. Are you really suggesting a "mitigating factor" might be "the crime was not committed as part of a gang"?
It's crazy.
No I am suggesting that all such crimes could have had an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim and be treated seriously as a result. Someone who commits GBH against one person that fortunately through no intent of the attacker just happened to not result in a serious physical psychological effect on the victim shouldn't be released sooner just because unintentionally it didn't result in as much harm so they go and do it again.
Furthermore I don't view a solo attacker as mitigation. If there's a gang all members of the gang should be fully prosecuted, but if its one shit on his own so should he by himself.
Crime in a gang definitely needs to be an aggravating factor. Multiple people involved in an assault has a far higher chance of death or serious injury resulting than a single person.
As monarchs go, my own personal favorite has always been King Zog I (and only).
Good choice! I have a soft spot for Eystein the Fart, King of Norway
Poor bastard, to have that epithet to be remembered by. Worse than Charles the Fat.
Wiki tells me there was a Tsar of Bulgaria nicknamed 'the Cabbage', but that's just weird, not insulting.
Could it be, that Eytein was a truly epic flatulator, even by Viking standards? That being acclaimed by his fellow berserkers as "the Fart" was NOT an insult, but rather a mark of distinction?
A true man of the people - full of the thunder of Thor!
Whatever the law says, as soon as grandparents, aunts etc are vaccinated, they're going to be back hugging their relatives.
Utter madness. Ministers need to listen to Tory backbenchers on this. Return to something akin to normal after the vast majority of vulnerable are vaccinated. Normal once every adult has had a jab.
Some of the lines in that article are brilliant.
"It has repercussions for the scale of any reopening. Restaurants, pubs and offices will all need to be Covid-secure."
Great, I thought we did that months ago. Job done.
"A government source said "the more restrictions we have in place like social distancing rules the more we can do in terms of easing"
@Philip_Thompson currently a crime that causes "an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim, even if unintended" leads to a higher sentence. [a i]
Are you really suggesting a mitigating factor might be "the crime has not lead to an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim"? [a ii]
Also currently a crime that is committed as part of a gang leads to a higher sentence. [b i] Are you really suggesting a "mitigating factor" might be "the crime was not committed as part of a gang"? [b ii]
It's crazy.
Your examples [ai/aii] & [bi/bii] are actually logically equivalent though
I know they are. But it just makes the "box ticking exercise" more of a mockery.
If you don't include them, people are going to be unhappy that John and Clive, members of the Skull Beater gang who inflicted GBH on Ron, a member of the Blood Skins gang, "only" got the same sentence as Timmy who punched his friend Bob, accidentally causing GBH.
And before you know it you have aggravating factors again after some populist gets elected to clamp down on Gang violence.
It occurs to me that the relationship between the EU and the UK is, now, uniquely poisonous in the free world. Why? Because the EU is not neutral or uninterested, vis a vis the UK, it actively wants us to FAIL and SUFFER, so as to discourage any other country from quitting the EU
This is why the EU has reacted with such weird, neurotic insecurity to its relatively poor vaccine performance: because it also says Maybe the Project isn't so great after all. They can't have anyone thinking that, fuck Ireland, draw a border, stop UK vaccine imports, let's make it harder for them
This is also why the EU is being SO obstructive on everything, I can well believe the Tories have made ample mistakes, but it is obvious the EU is being deliberately arsey, wherever and whenever it can. They want Brexit Britain to be a disaster, because they are so insecure over in Brussels.
This presents quite an ongoing problem for the UK. No other democratic entity actively wants the failure of another, as far as I know, especially two such close and important neighbours as the UK and the EU
What can we do? Either we grovel and hope they grow up, or we become as hostile in return - or worse. Try and undermine them. Or we unite with America and invade them.
I think the UK is already pretty hostile to the EU. Ultimately a carefully calibrated level of crap is the solution, or at least the probable eventual outcome on my baseline expectation. But it could take years to settle. Disaster isn't in the EU's interest.
But we're not hostile in the same way. Sure some loonies want the EU to meltdown, but most Brits want to live and let live, trade freely, travel happily, they don't want Europeans to get poorer or suffer political crises or whatever
Yet that is, I believe, the attitude now of many senior EU officials and politicians towards the UK. For the sake of The Project, the UK must fail, and if that means Britons suffering, tough shit
Fuck 'em, then
Question is- does the EU actively want to put boulders in the way because we're the UK and we've left? Or is it that they have no intention of lifting a finger to help us?
The first would be bad, and an act of aggression, but the second would be "You wanted to be treated as a separate entity? Welcome to Big School." Not nice, but inevitable. Realpolitik isn't nice.
Basically, anyone who thought that "old boy dining rights" were a thing was a naive fool. And we should note that hardly anyone in Europe is either arguing for kinder treatment of the UK, or to follow our example.
I think they are asking more from the UK than other countries. May they still believe we need them (they are wrong), may be there are some who think they can punish us (they are wrong).
It shows a lack of maturity on their side that they are not looking fit a win-win. But we can wait. And in 5 years it will be different
With one exception, I don't think the EU is asking more from the UK than other countries. The UK/EU TCA is broadly similar to Canada/EU CETA but goes a bit beyond. TCA is fully Zero Tariffs and Quotas, while CETA still has both. CETA was the most comprehensive FTA struck by the EU before TCA and is a lot more ambitious than other countries' FTAs.
The one area where the EU is asking for more from the UK is in the Northern Ireland Protocol. It is not a wonderful thing, but it is there to try to deal with a real problem. It is not a case of the EU playing games. They would undoubtedly wish not to have that problem too.
Yes the EU needs the new arrangement to be worse for the UK than the one before, but that comes out simply by the EU treating the UK as a third country. Speaking as someone who knew this was going to happen before the referendum if it went Leave and that German car manufacturers etc were never going to materialise, I don't particularly blame the EU. I do somewhat blame Brexiteers for misleading the public but that's all gone now.
Point is WE need to grow up and deal with the situation we put ourselves into.
They are asking for dynamic alignment for equivalence in the City
AFAIK the EU doesn't have financial services equivalence decisions for Canada. In fact I think it revoked a previous one, presumably because Canada no longer met the dynamically changing rules.
Has to be said, their recent hysterical behaviour over inter alia vaccines strongly suggests the first.
No, the vaccines response was because they knew they had screwed up in a matter of the highest importance.
And, although we'll never know, I would not be shocked if there was a gap between what salesmen told the EU Commission and the contractual reality. Not a lie, of course, but incomplete truths, and enough for the EU to be justified in their pissed-offness.
(Simplest explanation of the events is that the EU simply didn't anticipate the details of the Hancock Contact, so didn't ask the right question. And AZ understandably didn't tell.)
Anyone in business knows that that is an all too common occurrence: salesperson sells vision to executive, the contract is reviewed by legal and assumes it matches what was discussed, later much unhappiness that contract and conversation are in no way aligned.
Although in this case I think it was probably more that the EU Commission was naive about the difficulties of ramping up production so fast. I bet Kate Bingham was a hell of a lot more realistic about the risk of delays, since she had good experience of other companies bringing new pharma products on stream. And, to be fair, UvdL has pretty much admitted this, once she'd stopped throwing her toys out of the pram in our direction.
I agree.
The UK's performance - and good sense - in encouraging, supporting and subsidising domestic production via long-term well priced contracts was exemplary. And it severely embarrassed the Commission, who responded very poorly.
What should now happen is that those responsible at the Commission (including the boss herself) are replaced. It was a monumental failure and those involved should pay with their jobs.
This would (hopefully) also allow a resetting of relationship.
Poor Canada, they're in a much worse place in all of this than the EU. Various errors compounded by revenge-motivated export blocking by the Chinese, insofar as I understand it.
And the other places named downstory are Singapore and New Zealand.
Frankly, it's a shameful story with something for everyone.
Trudeau and Jacinda being beloved of a certain type of person in the uk
Justin Trudeau is the Wokiest of the Woke.
I honestly don't know how I'd cope if I had to endure in Canada under his regime of chronically embarrassing behaviour, and self-aggrandizing bullshit, laced with tremendous hypocrisy and entitlement.
I might find self-immolation more pleasant.
This isn't going to improve your view one bit, but I know someone who was at school with him. Never mind 'woke' or anything else, he reckoned the overwhelming impression he gave was simply of being a bit dim.
I do have an inherent problem with the idea a motivation, or even a perceived motivation, could transform an event's seriousness so dramatically, but equally struggle with the idea it is always entirely irrelevant. So being in a typical hedging my bets position, I simply incline to be wary of efforts to strengthen or impose additional such rules, without entirely being willing to dismiss the concept out of hand.
Whatever the law says, as soon as grandparents, aunts etc are vaccinated, they're going to be back hugging their relatives.
Utter madness. Ministers need to listen to Tory backbenchers on this. Return to something akin to normal after the vast majority of vulnerable are vaccinated. Normal once every adult has had a jab.
They can just fuck off. People need to live. To kiss, to hug, to make love, to be alive, to be human, even if - maybe- it kills us. I take a risky long drive to see my mother, I walk the haunted streets of London to see my kids
STAY APART FOREVER?
Just do one. Enough now. Let us decide how much risk we will endure
@Philip_Thompson currently a crime that causes "an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim, even if unintended" leads to a higher sentence. [a i]
Are you really suggesting a mitigating factor might be "the crime has not lead to an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim"? [a ii]
Also currently a crime that is committed as part of a gang leads to a higher sentence. [b i] Are you really suggesting a "mitigating factor" might be "the crime was not committed as part of a gang"? [b ii]
It's crazy.
Your examples [ai/aii] & [bi/bii] are actually logically equivalent though
I know they are. But it just makes the "box ticking exercise" more of a mockery.
If you don't include them, people are going to be unhappy that John and Clive, members of the Skull Beater gang who inflicted GBH on Ron, a member of the Blood Skins gang, "only" got the same sentence as Timmy who punched his friend Bob, accidentally causing GBH.
And before you know it you have aggravating factors again after some populist gets elected to clamp down on Gang violence.
I've said we shouldn't have justice by populism and shouldn't pander to the Daily Mail.
I do have an inherent problem with the idea a motivation, or even a perceived motivation, could transform an event's seriousness so dramatically, but equally struggle with the idea it is always entirely irrelevant. So being in a typical hedging my bets position, I simply incline to be wary of efforts to strengthen or impose additional such rules, without entirely being willing to dismiss the concept out of hand.
If someone decides to randomly kill someone for no reason at all, it somehow feels less serious than if they were doing it for personal gain or revenge, but the law ought to ignore that feeling IMO.
@Philip_Thompson currently a crime that causes "an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim, even if unintended" leads to a higher sentence. [a i]
Are you really suggesting a mitigating factor might be "the crime has not lead to an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim"? [a ii]
Also currently a crime that is committed as part of a gang leads to a higher sentence. [b i] Are you really suggesting a "mitigating factor" might be "the crime was not committed as part of a gang"? [b ii]
It's crazy.
Your examples [ai/aii] & [bi/bii] are actually logically equivalent though
I know they are. But it just makes the "box ticking exercise" more of a mockery.
If you don't include them, people are going to be unhappy that John and Clive, members of the Skull Beater gang who inflicted GBH on Ron, a member of the Blood Skins gang, "only" got the same sentence as Timmy who punched his friend Bob, accidentally causing GBH.
And before you know it you have aggravating factors again after some populist gets elected to clamp down on Gang violence.
I've said we shouldn't have justice by populism and shouldn't pander to the Daily Mail.
Are you saying we should pander to them?
I'm saying it's inevitable because like it or not society does view some instances of the same crime as more serious than others.
@Philip_Thompson currently a crime that causes "an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim, even if unintended" leads to a higher sentence. [a i]
Are you really suggesting a mitigating factor might be "the crime has not lead to an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim"? [a ii]
Also currently a crime that is committed as part of a gang leads to a higher sentence. [b i] Are you really suggesting a "mitigating factor" might be "the crime was not committed as part of a gang"? [b ii]
It's crazy.
Your examples [ai/aii] & [bi/bii] are actually logically equivalent though
I know they are. But it just makes the "box ticking exercise" more of a mockery.
If you don't include them, people are going to be unhappy that John and Clive, members of the Skull Beater gang who inflicted GBH on Ron, a member of the Blood Skins gang, "only" got the same sentence as Timmy who punched his friend Bob, accidentally causing GBH.
And before you know it you have aggravating factors again after some populist gets elected to clamp down on Gang violence.
I've said we shouldn't have justice by populism and shouldn't pander to the Daily Mail.
Are you saying we should pander to them?
I'm saying it's inevitable because like it or not society does view some instances of the same crime as more serious than others.
Well I don't like it.
Beating up a nurse and beating up a shop assistant are just as serious.
@Philip_Thompson currently a crime that causes "an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim, even if unintended" leads to a higher sentence. [a i]
Are you really suggesting a mitigating factor might be "the crime has not lead to an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim"? [a ii]
Also currently a crime that is committed as part of a gang leads to a higher sentence. [b i] Are you really suggesting a "mitigating factor" might be "the crime was not committed as part of a gang"? [b ii]
It's crazy.
Your examples [ai/aii] & [bi/bii] are actually logically equivalent though
I know they are. But it just makes the "box ticking exercise" more of a mockery.
If you don't include them, people are going to be unhappy that John and Clive, members of the Skull Beater gang who inflicted GBH on Ron, a member of the Blood Skins gang, "only" got the same sentence as Timmy who punched his friend Bob, accidentally causing GBH.
And before you know it you have aggravating factors again after some populist gets elected to clamp down on Gang violence.
I've said we shouldn't have justice by populism and shouldn't pander to the Daily Mail.
Are you saying we should pander to them?
I'm saying it's inevitable because like it or not society does view some instances of the same crime as more serious than others.
You could get around this by creating new criminal offences, such as a specific offence of "GBH as part of a gang" but the effect is the same with more complexity.
Whatever the law says, as soon as grandparents, aunts etc are vaccinated, they're going to be back hugging their relatives.
Utter madness. Ministers need to listen to Tory backbenchers on this. Return to something akin to normal after the vast majority of vulnerable are vaccinated. Normal once every adult has had a jab.
Some of the lines in that article are brilliant.
"It has repercussions for the scale of any reopening. Restaurants, pubs and offices will all need to be Covid-secure."
Great, I thought we did that months ago. Job done.
"A government source said "the more restrictions we have in place like social distancing rules the more we can do in terms of easing"
As monarchs go, my own personal favorite has always been King Zog I (and only).
Good choice! I have a soft spot for Eystein the Fart, King of Norway
Poor bastard, to have that epithet to be remembered by. Worse than Charles the Fat.
Wiki tells me there was a Tsar of Bulgaria nicknamed 'the Cabbage', but that's just weird, not insulting.
Could it be, that Eytein was a truly epic flatulator, even by Viking standards? That being acclaimed by his fellow berserkers as "the Fart" was NOT an insult, but rather a mark of distinction?
A true man of the people - full of the thunder of Thor!
Followed by Halfdan the Mild, apparently. One can only read that as being rather disappointed in his failure to follow the full, er, impact of his father.
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
I think the government know it full well.
They're planning to finish vaccinating the vulnerable by end of April, which would probably bet when cases would be in the low hundreds per day too. The vaccination would kick in by mid-May given it takes a fortnight to take effect.
No way lockdown will be lifted mid May. Not going to happen. Already 8 March has been said for schools and other things will follow before mid May.
I'm enjoying this hate crime discussion. Not something I'd thought about really. Civilised, learned and thoughtful on both sides.
I take the view if someone commits GBH on me because
1) To steal my mobile
or
2) They hate Pakis
It's going to hurt me the same either way.
The difference is that 2), in addition to hurting you, conveys a threat to everyone else of the same origin, just as Kristallnacht was much more threatening than a gang of people randomly smashing the same number of windows. So I think that hate crime should be an aggravating factor.
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
@Philip_Thompson currently a crime that causes "an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim, even if unintended" leads to a higher sentence. [a i]
Are you really suggesting a mitigating factor might be "the crime has not lead to an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim"? [a ii]
Also currently a crime that is committed as part of a gang leads to a higher sentence. [b i] Are you really suggesting a "mitigating factor" might be "the crime was not committed as part of a gang"? [b ii]
It's crazy.
Your examples [ai/aii] & [bi/bii] are actually logically equivalent though
I know they are. But it just makes the "box ticking exercise" more of a mockery.
If you don't include them, people are going to be unhappy that John and Clive, members of the Skull Beater gang who inflicted GBH on Ron, a member of the Blood Skins gang, "only" got the same sentence as Timmy who punched his friend Bob, accidentally causing GBH.
And before you know it you have aggravating factors again after some populist gets elected to clamp down on Gang violence.
I've said we shouldn't have justice by populism and shouldn't pander to the Daily Mail.
Are you saying we should pander to them?
I'm saying it's inevitable because like it or not society does view some instances of the same crime as more serious than others.
You could get around this by creating new criminal offences, such as a specific offence of "GBH as part of a gang" but the effect is the same with more complexity.
Here in WA State, a bill has been filed in the state House of Representatives, to make assaulting an election worker a (specific) crime; this is direct result of threats made by rabid Trumpskyites against the state election director and local election workers.
Cops warned such dangerous liaisons in public were not permitted during lockdown and reminded randy couples about social distancing.
Ok, this just raises further questions.
So it would have been ok if not for lockdown?
If couples are living together, surely social distancing does not factor into your plans for alfresco fornication?
Why on earth were the police even out and about randomly to be able to catch them at it?
As someone who lives alone, and endures a relatively high libido - and it is a bit of a curse - the current regulations say basically NO SEX - unless you can bubble with your partner. But what if you are already bubbling with your child? You are allowed one bubble. Or you are bubbling with your mum, brother, dad, cousin, best friend, whatever. What if you have just found a partner but they are bubbling with their kid, mum, sister, whatever?
The fact is humans like and need sex. They seek out lovers. It's a human right and a human need. Like the need for water or food.
It is fair enough to ask the people to go without sex/love for a few weeks. But up to two years? Get the fuck out.
Also, think of the women aged say, 33/34, who were just about to venture on motherhood, and want to find a partner quick. The state is saying, wait until you are 36/37 (when it is much harder to conceive, for a woman, so you may end up childless). These are huge asks by any government, indeed unparallelled.
We are stepping into an awful dystopia, just because most politicians are middle aged with no dicks and big houses and don't understand.
I'm enjoying this hate crime discussion. Not something I'd thought about really. Civilised, learned and thoughtful on both sides.
I take the view if someone commits GBH on me because
1) To steal my mobile
or
2) They hate Pakis
It's going to hurt me the same either way.
The difference is that 2), in addition to hurting you, conveys a threat to everyone else of the same origin, just as Kristallnacht was much more threatening than a gang of people randomly smashing the same number of windows. So I think that hate crime should be an aggravating factor.
But that's the same with all except for crimes of passion etc isn't it?
1) Conveys a threat to others too.
Someone who is willing to just randomly for no reason attack someone, like my attacker, surely they convey a threat to others too?
@Philip_Thompson currently a crime that causes "an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim, even if unintended" leads to a higher sentence. [a i]
Are you really suggesting a mitigating factor might be "the crime has not lead to an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim"? [a ii]
Also currently a crime that is committed as part of a gang leads to a higher sentence. [b i] Are you really suggesting a "mitigating factor" might be "the crime was not committed as part of a gang"? [b ii]
It's crazy.
Your examples [ai/aii] & [bi/bii] are actually logically equivalent though
I know they are. But it just makes the "box ticking exercise" more of a mockery.
If you don't include them, people are going to be unhappy that John and Clive, members of the Skull Beater gang who inflicted GBH on Ron, a member of the Blood Skins gang, "only" got the same sentence as Timmy who punched his friend Bob, accidentally causing GBH.
And before you know it you have aggravating factors again after some populist gets elected to clamp down on Gang violence.
I've said we shouldn't have justice by populism and shouldn't pander to the Daily Mail.
Are you saying we should pander to them?
I'm saying it's inevitable because like it or not society does view some instances of the same crime as more serious than others.
Well I don't like it.
Beating up a nurse and beating up a shop assistant are just as serious.
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
Good thing we've got 17m Moderna and 60m Novavax doses available starting in April. Those give a very good degree of protection from the SA variant without needing updates, we could conceivably ask everyone who has had two AZ doses to come in for a Novavax booster in July after a very short safety test.
These people are hugely overthinking this and unfortunately there does seem to be an element within the civil service that doesn't want to give up this power they now have over people's lives. It's up to politicians to stamp on it and say enough is enough. No more lockdown, no more distancing, we have vaccines.
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
Good thing we've got 17m Moderna and 60m Novavax doses available starting in April. Those give a very good degree of protection from the SA variant without needing updates, we could conceivably ask everyone who has had two AZ doses to come in for a Novavax booster in July after a very short safety test.
These people are hugely overthinking this a d unfortunately there does seem to be an element within the civil service that doesn't want to give up this power they now have over people's lives. It's up to politicians to stamp on it a d say enough is enough. No more lockdown, no more distancing, we have vaccines.
I agree.
I want lockdowns to be considered a laughable overreaction. Otherwise the blob will start talking up their prospect in a bad flu year.
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
Good thing we've got 17m Moderna and 60m Novavax doses available starting in April. Those give a very good degree of protection from the SA variant without needing updates, we could conceivably ask everyone who has had two AZ doses to come in for a Novavax booster in July after a very short safety test.
These people are hugely overthinking this a d unfortunately there does seem to be an element within the civil service that doesn't want to give up this power they now have over people's lives. It's up to politicians to stamp on it a d say enough is enough. No more lockdown, no more distancing, we have vaccines.
It's not so much giving up that power, I think the government and behavioural scientists realise this is the last lockdown, so they have to get it right.
Currant Bun say over 65 to be invited for jabbing from Monday.
Do you mean, starting to invite people from the over 65 category individually? If so, this is already underway in some parts of the country.
Or do you mean, inviting any over 65s who haven’t been contacted to go to the website and book an appointment? This is normally done when most of the cohort have been vaccinated, and if so, suggests that this group have been mostly done much quicker than expected.
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
Good thing we've got 17m Moderna and 60m Novavax doses available starting in April. Those give a very good degree of protection from the SA variant without needing updates, we could conceivably ask everyone who has had two AZ doses to come in for a Novavax booster in July after a very short safety test.
These people are hugely overthinking this a d unfortunately there does seem to be an element within the civil service that doesn't want to give up this power they now have over people's lives. It's up to politicians to stamp on it a d say enough is enough. No more lockdown, no more distancing, we have vaccines.
It's not so much giving up that power, I think the government and behavioural scientists realise this is the last lockdown, so they have to get it right.
I suspect lots of fretters will be cautious for a few months longer. But that is no reason to ruin life/the economy for the rest of us.
@Philip_Thompson currently a crime that causes "an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim, even if unintended" leads to a higher sentence. [a i]
Are you really suggesting a mitigating factor might be "the crime has not lead to an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim"? [a ii]
Also currently a crime that is committed as part of a gang leads to a higher sentence. [b i] Are you really suggesting a "mitigating factor" might be "the crime was not committed as part of a gang"? [b ii]
It's crazy.
Your examples [ai/aii] & [bi/bii] are actually logically equivalent though
I know they are. But it just makes the "box ticking exercise" more of a mockery.
If you don't include them, people are going to be unhappy that John and Clive, members of the Skull Beater gang who inflicted GBH on Ron, a member of the Blood Skins gang, "only" got the same sentence as Timmy who punched his friend Bob, accidentally causing GBH.
And before you know it you have aggravating factors again after some populist gets elected to clamp down on Gang violence.
I've said we shouldn't have justice by populism and shouldn't pander to the Daily Mail.
Are you saying we should pander to them?
I'm saying it's inevitable because like it or not society does view some instances of the same crime as more serious than others.
You could get around this by creating new criminal offences, such as a specific offence of "GBH as part of a gang" but the effect is the same with more complexity.
Here in WA State, a bill has been filed in the state House of Representatives, to make assaulting an election worker a (specific) crime; this is direct result of threats made by rabid Trumpskyites against the state election director and local election workers.
To be fair the advantage of codifying a new offence, for example "GBH motivated by racism" or whatever, is that it expressly puts the evidential burden on the prosecution to prove to the jury (or magistrates) beyond doubt that the crime was racially motivated.
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
By the time AZ have updated their vaccine and are mass producing it we'll be talking at the very least about the next major scary variant but one.
If you can't open up in the summer months when can you? Keeping restrictions till autumn means actually spring 2022 in practice.
Whatever the law says, as soon as grandparents, aunts etc are vaccinated, they're going to be back hugging their relatives.
Utter madness. Ministers need to listen to Tory backbenchers on this. Return to something akin to normal after the vast majority of vulnerable are vaccinated. Normal once every adult has had a jab.
Broadly I thinhk there are 4 groups:
1 - Hug now, sod the law (5%) 2 - As soon as it's legal, resume normal life (5%) 3 - As soon as it's legal, see close relatives and particularly dear friends (60%) 4 - Minimise contact for 12 months, even if legal (30%)
Groups 1 and 2 will have increasingly ostentatious parties while groups 3 and 4 eye them dubiously. 2-3 is obviously a question of degree, though - I should think most people will start with 3 and edge into 2 if cases remain low, likewise 4->3. I'll be a 4 edging towards 3 myself.
I'll put "the British Royal Family can only dream of being like the Dutch" next to Alan Partridge saying Wings are only the band the Beatles could have been.
Yeah, well, I prefer the Dutch monarchy AND I prefer Wings. Pineapple on pizza is cool too. De gustibus...
@Philip_Thompson currently a crime that causes "an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim, even if unintended" leads to a higher sentence. [a i]
Are you really suggesting a mitigating factor might be "the crime has not lead to an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim"? [a ii]
Also currently a crime that is committed as part of a gang leads to a higher sentence. [b i] Are you really suggesting a "mitigating factor" might be "the crime was not committed as part of a gang"? [b ii]
It's crazy.
Your examples [ai/aii] & [bi/bii] are actually logically equivalent though
I know they are. But it just makes the "box ticking exercise" more of a mockery.
If you don't include them, people are going to be unhappy that John and Clive, members of the Skull Beater gang who inflicted GBH on Ron, a member of the Blood Skins gang, "only" got the same sentence as Timmy who punched his friend Bob, accidentally causing GBH.
And before you know it you have aggravating factors again after some populist gets elected to clamp down on Gang violence.
I've said we shouldn't have justice by populism and shouldn't pander to the Daily Mail.
Are you saying we should pander to them?
I'm saying it's inevitable because like it or not society does view some instances of the same crime as more serious than others.
Well I don't like it.
Beating up a nurse and beating up a shop assistant are just as serious.
About twenty years ago, did some work for candidate in VERY contested primary for county council. His opponent was a state legislator, so we combed his legislative voting record. And discovered, among other things, that he was the ONLY member of the legislator to vote AGAINST a bill making assault of a nurse a crime.
A fact that our side publicized, there being few actual issues where the two candidates differed.
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
Good thing we've got 17m Moderna and 60m Novavax doses available starting in April. Those give a very good degree of protection from the SA variant without needing updates, we could conceivably ask everyone who has had two AZ doses to come in for a Novavax booster in July after a very short safety test.
These people are hugely overthinking this a d unfortunately there does seem to be an element within the civil service that doesn't want to give up this power they now have over people's lives. It's up to politicians to stamp on it a d say enough is enough. No more lockdown, no more distancing, we have vaccines.
It's not so much giving up that power, I think the government and behavioural scientists realise this is the last lockdown, so they have to get it right.
It can't last until the autumn though. The idea is ridiculous. In two weeks cases will have fallen to the low thousands per day and deaths will be tens per day. There's simply no way the people will stand for lockdown based on the theoretical threat of a variant for which we have got vaccines coming in the very near future anyway. The pressure to fully unlock the economy a month from now when all over 60s will have reached partial or full immunity and cases will be less than a thousand per day is going to immense.
I said it a few days ago, the party will act and get rid of Boris if that's the only way to get rid of Hancock and rule by SAGE. He knows that too.
Reading this thread, Gallowgate seems astonished that anyone might disagree with his opinion on the subject we've been talking about. I find that interesting.
I'll put "the British Royal Family can only dream of being like the Dutch" next to Alan Partridge saying Wings are only the band the Beatles could have been.
Yeah, well, I prefer the Dutch monarchy AND I prefer Wings. Pineapple on pizza is cool too. De gustibus...
Would have thought the Danish monarchy would get your vote?
Fair enough I see your point on this and agree. I suppose my main problem is the current system where a 'hate crime' is defined by the victim, the police or even a bystander with no apparent reference to reality. Thus (to use a rather less emotive example than murder) if I get into a fight with someone in a bar and punch them because they were groping my wife, I run the risk of being charged with a hate crime if they are non white rather than simple assault if they were white.
I think the use of the 'hate crime' supplement should be reserved for cases where colour, religion, sexuality etc are clearly the cause of the attack rather than just the happenstance of the victim. Under those circumstances I have no problem at all with a more severe sentence.
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
Good thing we've got 17m Moderna and 60m Novavax doses available starting in April. Those give a very good degree of protection from the SA variant without needing updates, we could conceivably ask everyone who has had two AZ doses to come in for a Novavax booster in July after a very short safety test.
These people are hugely overthinking this a d unfortunately there does seem to be an element within the civil service that doesn't want to give up this power they now have over people's lives. It's up to politicians to stamp on it a d say enough is enough. No more lockdown, no more distancing, we have vaccines.
It's not so much giving up that power, I think the government and behavioural scientists realise this is the last lockdown, so they have to get it right.
I am, literally, giving it a year. Lockdown started in late March 2020. If it is still in place by late March 2021, and beyond, I shall just ignore it.
The last year has been no life. It has been anti-life. I have aged 5 years just staying at home eating sourdough and not seeing friends. The economy has collapsed. Everything is shit.
Enough, enough, enough. I would - genuinely - rather die on a ventilator than endure any more of this. I will take the risk. I shall be reasonably careful, but I WILL have a social life and a sexual life, because the alternative is a living tomb. A non existence in a pointless limbo.
If the Covid is going to kill us, so be it. Let us sing and dance and kiss, beforehand.
I'll put "the British Royal Family can only dream of being like the Dutch" next to Alan Partridge saying Wings are only the band the Beatles could have been.
Yeah, well, I prefer the Dutch monarchy AND I prefer Wings. Pineapple on pizza is cool too. De gustibus...
Would have thought the Danish monarchy would get your vote?
Reading this thread, Gallowgate seems astonished that anyone might disagree with his opinion on the subject we've been talking about. I find that interesting.
I don't think that's true. I've acknowledged multiple times that I understand @Philip_Thompson 's viewpoint but questioned whether the consequences would be worth it.
@Philip_Thompson currently a crime that causes "an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim, even if unintended" leads to a higher sentence. [a i]
Are you really suggesting a mitigating factor might be "the crime has not lead to an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim"? [a ii]
Also currently a crime that is committed as part of a gang leads to a higher sentence. [b i] Are you really suggesting a "mitigating factor" might be "the crime was not committed as part of a gang"? [b ii]
It's crazy.
Your examples [ai/aii] & [bi/bii] are actually logically equivalent though
I know they are. But it just makes the "box ticking exercise" more of a mockery.
If you don't include them, people are going to be unhappy that John and Clive, members of the Skull Beater gang who inflicted GBH on Ron, a member of the Blood Skins gang, "only" got the same sentence as Timmy who punched his friend Bob, accidentally causing GBH.
And before you know it you have aggravating factors again after some populist gets elected to clamp down on Gang violence.
I've said we shouldn't have justice by populism and shouldn't pander to the Daily Mail.
Are you saying we should pander to them?
I'm saying it's inevitable because like it or not society does view some instances of the same crime as more serious than others.
Well I don't like it.
Beating up a nurse and beating up a shop assistant are just as serious.
About twenty years ago, did some work for candidate in VERY contested primary for county council. His opponent was a state legislator, so we combed his legislative voting record. And discovered, among other things, that he was the ONLY member of the legislator to vote AGAINST a bill making assault of a nurse a crime.
A fact that our side publicized, there being few actual issues where the two candidates differed.
Our guy ended up winning - by a handful of votes.
As Sir Humphrey might say: It takes a brave politician to stand up to this sort of populism.
People face this from the wrong perspective. They say that beating up a nurse is bad, so it should be serious. They say that beating up a black person is bad, so it should be serious. But you need to always think through the inverse.
Is beating up a shop assistant, or a homeless person, or anyone else "better"?
Has to be said, their recent hysterical behaviour over inter alia vaccines strongly suggests the first.
No, the vaccines response was because they knew they had screwed up in a matter of the highest importance.
And, although we'll never know, I would not be shocked if there was a gap between what salesmen told the EU Commission and the contractual reality. Not a lie, of course, but incomplete truths, and enough for the EU to be justified in their pissed-offness.
(Simplest explanation of the events is that the EU simply didn't anticipate the details of the Hancock Contact, so didn't ask the right question. And AZ understandably didn't tell.)
Anyone in business knows that that is an all too common occurrence: salesperson sells vision to executive, the contract is reviewed by legal and assumes it matches what was discussed, later much unhappiness that contract and conversation are in no way aligned.
Although in this case I think it was probably more that the EU Commission was naive about the difficulties of ramping up production so fast. I bet Kate Bingham was a hell of a lot more realistic about the risk of delays, since she had good experience of other companies bringing new pharma products on stream. And, to be fair, UvdL has pretty much admitted this, once she'd stopped throwing her toys out of the pram in our direction.
I agree.
The UK's performance - and good sense - in encouraging, supporting and subsidising domestic production via long-term well priced contracts was exemplary. And it severely embarrassed the Commission, who responded very poorly.
What should now happen is that those responsible at the Commission (including the boss herself) are replaced. It was a monumental failure and those involved should pay with their jobs.
This would (hopefully) also allow a resetting of relationship.
Poor Canada, they're in a much worse place in all of this than the EU. Various errors compounded by revenge-motivated export blocking by the Chinese, insofar as I understand it.
And the other places named downstory are Singapore and New Zealand.
Frankly, it's a shameful story with something for everyone.
Trudeau and Jacinda being beloved of a certain type of person in the uk
Justin Trudeau is the Wokiest of the Woke.
I honestly don't know how I'd cope if I had to endure in Canada under his regime of chronically embarrassing behaviour, and self-aggrandizing bullshit, laced with tremendous hypocrisy and entitlement.
I might find self-immolation more pleasant.
This isn't going to improve your view one bit, but I know someone who was at school with him. Never mind 'woke' or anything else, he reckoned the overwhelming impression he gave was simply of being a bit dim.
He legalised weed though, so he is the greatest person who ever lived (in my drug addled mind)
Whatever the law says, as soon as grandparents, aunts etc are vaccinated, they're going to be back hugging their relatives.
Utter madness. Ministers need to listen to Tory backbenchers on this. Return to something akin to normal after the vast majority of vulnerable are vaccinated. Normal once every adult has had a jab.
Broadly I thinhk there are 4 groups:
1 - Hug now, sod the law (5%) 2 - As soon as it's legal, resume normal life (5%) 3 - As soon as it's legal, see close relatives and particularly dear friends (60%) 4 - Minimise contact for 12 months, even if legal (30%)
Groups 1 and 2 will have increasingly ostentatious parties while groups 3 and 4 eye them dubiously. 2-3 is obviously a question of degree, though - I should think most people will start with 3 and edge into 2 if cases remain low, likewise 4->3. I'll be a 4 edging towards 3 myself.
Blimey? Really. I'd say its
1 - Hug now, sod the law (15%) 2 - As soon as I've had the vaccine (first jab), get back to normal (15%) 3 - As soon as I've had the vaccine and its had time to kick in, get back to normal (45%) 4 - Wait for the civil service to stop poking its nose into my life and then get back to normal (13%) 5 - Be a bit more cautious than that, but get back to Christmas and family bashes (10%) 6 - Hang out in the covid isolated jungle like a marooned Japanese soldier for another year until I really believe the war is over (2%)
However, 5 and 6 are vastly overrepresented on here.
I hate the way budgeting is talked about in this country. Everything is a 'raid' or 'stealth' tax, we're always so bloody unreasonable.
There will be arguments about the right time to raise taxes to not stifle recovery, arguments I am ill equipped to follow, understand or contribute in, but if ever there might be a time that a Chancellor could undertake some major changes which would be slightly less unpopular than usual, it would surely be now given the urgency.
But I fear the natural tendency to approve of rises, in theory, only to always have a problem with any ones with a major positive impact on finances, will see squeezes in limited areas to try to avoid pissing off the papers and normal outrage triggers.
Whatever the law says, as soon as grandparents, aunts etc are vaccinated, they're going to be back hugging their relatives.
Utter madness. Ministers need to listen to Tory backbenchers on this. Return to something akin to normal after the vast majority of vulnerable are vaccinated. Normal once every adult has had a jab.
Some of the lines in that article are brilliant.
"It has repercussions for the scale of any reopening. Restaurants, pubs and offices will all need to be Covid-secure."
Great, I thought we did that months ago. Job done.
"A government source said "the more restrictions we have in place like social distancing rules the more we can do in terms of easing"
What doublethink horseshit is that?
Utterly bonkers isn't it.
It is.
Rather like saying, “as long as you agree to stay two metres apart, limit numbers to six people including your own household, and wear masks, you can have parties again”.
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
By the time AZ have updated their vaccine and are mass producing it we'll be talking at the very least about the next major scary variant but one.
If you can't open up in the summer months when can you? Keeping restrictions till autumn means actually spring 2022 in practice.
Yes, it's the attitude that leads to neverending lockdown for fear of the next mutation. The aim has to be to turn COVID into a flu like virus that can be dealt with by vaccinating the at risk population in September every year. It can't turn into forever lockdown and forever social distancing, that will lead to actual rioting.
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
Good thing we've got 17m Moderna and 60m Novavax doses available starting in April. Those give a very good degree of protection from the SA variant without needing updates, we could conceivably ask everyone who has had two AZ doses to come in for a Novavax booster in July after a very short safety test.
These people are hugely overthinking this a d unfortunately there does seem to be an element within the civil service that doesn't want to give up this power they now have over people's lives. It's up to politicians to stamp on it a d say enough is enough. No more lockdown, no more distancing, we have vaccines.
It's not so much giving up that power, I think the government and behavioural scientists realise this is the last lockdown, so they have to get it right.
It can't last until the autumn though. The idea is ridiculous. In two weeks cases will have fallen to the low thousands per day and deaths will be tens per day. There's simply no way the people will stand for lockdown based on the theoretical threat of a variant for which we have got vaccines coming in the very near future anyway. The pressure to fully unlock the economy a month from now when all over 60s will have reached partial or full immunity and cases will be less than a thousand per day is going to immense.
I said it a few days ago, the party will act and get rid of Boris if that's the only way to get rid of Hancock and rule by SAGE. He knows that too.
Absolutely. There is literally ONE threat to BJ remaining PM.
The backbenchers.
So they will be listened to.
If Hancock becomes a political martyr on Mt Lockdown, so much the better given he's a future leadership threat to Boris....
Again, more unsurprising developments. Hopefully the four nations will end up as close together as possible, but England is almost bound to finish behind because of vaccine hesitancy.
I hate the way budgeting is talked about in this country. Everything is a 'raid' or 'stealth' tax, we're always so bloody unreasonable.
There will be arguments about the right time to raise taxes to not stifle recovery, arguments I am ill equipped to follow, understand or contribute in, but if ever there might be a time that a Chancellor could undertake some major changes which would be slightly less unpopular than usual, it would surely be now given the urgency.
But I fear the natural tendency to approve of rises, in theory, only to always have a problem with any ones with a major positive impact on finances, will see squeezes in limited areas to try to avoid pissing off the papers and normal outrage triggers.
If he wanted to be really radical, he could combine NI and IC....that would allow for a lot more room for pitching pennies here and there, especially from the better off.
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
By the time AZ have updated their vaccine and are mass producing it we'll be talking at the very least about the next major scary variant but one.
If you can't open up in the summer months when can you? Keeping restrictions till autumn means actually spring 2022 in practice.
Yes, it's the attitude that leads to neverending lockdown for fear of the next mutation. The aim has to be to turn COVID into a flu like virus that can be dealt with by vaccinating the at risk population in September every year. It can't turn into forever lockdown and forever social distancing, that will lead to actual rioting.
We should have annual flu-like vaccines for everyone not just the at risk - and we should start offering the flu vaccine to everyone too. We've shown we can manufacture vaccines at scale so just bloody do it.
Whatever the law says, as soon as grandparents, aunts etc are vaccinated, they're going to be back hugging their relatives.
Utter madness. Ministers need to listen to Tory backbenchers on this. Return to something akin to normal after the vast majority of vulnerable are vaccinated. Normal once every adult has had a jab.
Broadly I thinhk there are 4 groups:
1 - Hug now, sod the law (5%) 2 - As soon as it's legal, resume normal life (5%) 3 - As soon as it's legal, see close relatives and particularly dear friends (60%) 4 - Minimise contact for 12 months, even if legal (30%)
Groups 1 and 2 will have increasingly ostentatious parties while groups 3 and 4 eye them dubiously. 2-3 is obviously a question of degree, though - I should think most people will start with 3 and edge into 2 if cases remain low, likewise 4->3. I'll be a 4 edging towards 3 myself.
I think you are way off with your numbers. Group 2 is much larger than you think.
Whatever the law says, as soon as grandparents, aunts etc are vaccinated, they're going to be back hugging their relatives.
Utter madness. Ministers need to listen to Tory backbenchers on this. Return to something akin to normal after the vast majority of vulnerable are vaccinated. Normal once every adult has had a jab.
Broadly I thinhk there are 4 groups:
1 - Hug now, sod the law (5%) 2 - As soon as it's legal, resume normal life (5%) 3 - As soon as it's legal, see close relatives and particularly dear friends (60%) 4 - Minimise contact for 12 months, even if legal (30%)
Groups 1 and 2 will have increasingly ostentatious parties while groups 3 and 4 eye them dubiously. 2-3 is obviously a question of degree, though - I should think most people will start with 3 and edge into 2 if cases remain low, likewise 4->3. I'll be a 4 edging towards 3 myself.
I think you are way off with your numbers. Group 2 is much larger than you think.
Whatever the law says, as soon as grandparents, aunts etc are vaccinated, they're going to be back hugging their relatives.
Utter madness. Ministers need to listen to Tory backbenchers on this. Return to something akin to normal after the vast majority of vulnerable are vaccinated. Normal once every adult has had a jab.
Broadly I thinhk there are 4 groups:
1 - Hug now, sod the law (5%) 2 - As soon as it's legal, resume normal life (5%) 3 - As soon as it's legal, see close relatives and particularly dear friends (60%) 4 - Minimise contact for 12 months, even if legal (30%)
Groups 1 and 2 will have increasingly ostentatious parties while groups 3 and 4 eye them dubiously. 2-3 is obviously a question of degree, though - I should think most people will start with 3 and edge into 2 if cases remain low, likewise 4->3. I'll be a 4 edging towards 3 myself.
Blimey? Really. I'd say its
1 - Hug now, sod the law (15%) 2 - As soon as I've had the vaccine (first jab), get back to normal (15%) 3 - As soon as I've had the vaccine and its had time to kick in, get back to normal (45%) 4 - Wait for the civil service to stop poking its nose into my life and then get back to normal (13%) 5 - Be a bit more cautious than that, but get back to Christmas and family bashes (10%) 6 - Hang out in the covid isolated jungle like a marooned Japanese soldier for another year until I really believe the war is over (2%)
However, 5 and 6 are vastly overrepresented on here.
Yes, you're right and NPXMP is wrong.
But he has never had sex and plays board games for fun as an adult. So he is as representative of PB, as he is unrepresentative of the UK in toto.
Most Brits are not awkward, asexual, autistic geeks; most on PB are, especially the Scot Nats.
I hate the way budgeting is talked about in this country. Everything is a 'raid' or 'stealth' tax, we're always so bloody unreasonable.
There will be arguments about the right time to raise taxes to not stifle recovery, arguments I am ill equipped to follow, understand or contribute in, but if ever there might be a time that a Chancellor could undertake some major changes which would be slightly less unpopular than usual, it would surely be now given the urgency.
But I fear the natural tendency to approve of rises, in theory, only to always have a problem with any ones with a major positive impact on finances, will see squeezes in limited areas to try to avoid pissing off the papers and normal outrage triggers.
I think Rishi will go for 'easy' revenue raising measures like this one for 2021/2022 whilst also extending furlough/support into the summer, and giving HMT more time to consider more substantive measures such as restrictions on pension tax relief which will be politically more difficult, for 2022/2023+.
Also watch for possible Corp tax increases, also alignment of CGT with IT, possibly both from 2022/2023 but announced on 3 March.
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
I think you mean Kent Covid. Kent isn't in London.
Whatever the law says, as soon as grandparents, aunts etc are vaccinated, they're going to be back hugging their relatives.
Utter madness. Ministers need to listen to Tory backbenchers on this. Return to something akin to normal after the vast majority of vulnerable are vaccinated. Normal once every adult has had a jab.
Some of the lines in that article are brilliant.
"It has repercussions for the scale of any reopening. Restaurants, pubs and offices will all need to be Covid-secure."
Great, I thought we did that months ago. Job done.
"A government source said "the more restrictions we have in place like social distancing rules the more we can do in terms of easing"
What doublethink horseshit is that?
Utterly bonkers isn't it.
It is.
Rather like saying, “as long as you agree to stay two metres apart, limit numbers to six people including your own household, and wear masks, you can have parties again”.
If I was allowed to have six people round to my house for a sesh I would be absolutely over the moon.
I'm enjoying this hate crime discussion. Not something I'd thought about really. Civilised, learned and thoughtful on both sides.
I take the view if someone commits GBH on me because
1) To steal my mobile
or
2) They hate Pakis
It's going to hurt me the same either way.
The difference is that 2), in addition to hurting you, conveys a threat to everyone else of the same origin, just as Kristallnacht was much more threatening than a gang of people randomly smashing the same number of windows. So I think that hate crime should be an aggravating factor.
But that's the same with all except for crimes of passion etc isn't it?
1) Conveys a threat to others too.
Someone who is willing to just randomly for no reason attack someone, like my attacker, surely they convey a threat to others too?
It's much more diffuse, in my opinion. The horrifying attack on you that you describe - for which every sympathy obviously - doesn't feel specific enough to have made me afraid to go into a pub, unlike something like Kristallnacht targeting a particular group. I suppose I'm arguing that causing fear in the wider population should be an aggravating factor.
Also, a great many crimes of violence are personal, I imagine, not only crimes of passion - a grudge, a frustration, a feud. If I read that two drug dealers have had a fight over turf, I'm vaguely sorry to hear it on grounds of social order, but it doesn't make me feel threatened, and I think should get a somewhat lesser sentence than someone who randomly attacks strangers.
Has to be said, their recent hysterical behaviour over inter alia vaccines strongly suggests the first.
No, the vaccines response was because they knew they had screwed up in a matter of the highest importance.
And, although we'll never know, I would not be shocked if there was a gap between what salesmen told the EU Commission and the contractual reality. Not a lie, of course, but incomplete truths, and enough for the EU to be justified in their pissed-offness.
(Simplest explanation of the events is that the EU simply didn't anticipate the details of the Hancock Contact, so didn't ask the right question. And AZ understandably didn't tell.)
Anyone in business knows that that is an all too common occurrence: salesperson sells vision to executive, the contract is reviewed by legal and assumes it matches what was discussed, later much unhappiness that contract and conversation are in no way aligned.
Although in this case I think it was probably more that the EU Commission was naive about the difficulties of ramping up production so fast. I bet Kate Bingham was a hell of a lot more realistic about the risk of delays, since she had good experience of other companies bringing new pharma products on stream. And, to be fair, UvdL has pretty much admitted this, once she'd stopped throwing her toys out of the pram in our direction.
I agree.
The UK's performance - and good sense - in encouraging, supporting and subsidising domestic production via long-term well priced contracts was exemplary. And it severely embarrassed the Commission, who responded very poorly.
What should now happen is that those responsible at the Commission (including the boss herself) are replaced. It was a monumental failure and those involved should pay with their jobs.
This would (hopefully) also allow a resetting of relationship.
Poor Canada, they're in a much worse place in all of this than the EU. Various errors compounded by revenge-motivated export blocking by the Chinese, insofar as I understand it.
And the other places named downstory are Singapore and New Zealand.
Frankly, it's a shameful story with something for everyone.
Trudeau and Jacinda being beloved of a certain type of person in the uk
Justin Trudeau is the Wokiest of the Woke.
I honestly don't know how I'd cope if I had to endure in Canada under his regime of chronically embarrassing behaviour, and self-aggrandizing bullshit, laced with tremendous hypocrisy and entitlement.
I might find self-immolation more pleasant.
This isn't going to improve your view one bit, but I know someone who was at school with him. Never mind 'woke' or anything else, he reckoned the overwhelming impression he gave was simply of being a bit dim.
He legalised weed though, so he is the greatest person who ever lived (in my drug addled mind)
Maybe he wasn't really dim, just a bit spaced out.
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
By the time AZ have updated their vaccine and are mass producing it we'll be talking at the very least about the next major scary variant but one.
If you can't open up in the summer months when can you? Keeping restrictions till autumn means actually spring 2022 in practice.
Yes, it's the attitude that leads to neverending lockdown for fear of the next mutation. The aim has to be to turn COVID into a flu like virus that can be dealt with by vaccinating the at risk population in September every year. It can't turn into forever lockdown and forever social distancing, that will lead to actual rioting.
We should have annual flu-like vaccines for everyone not just the at risk - and we should start offering the flu vaccine to everyone too. We've shown we can manufacture vaccines at scale so just bloody do it.
If everyone is vaccinated it will reduce spread.
Should we? Maybe for carers and NHS staff and oldies.
I've had Flu, it isn't pleasant. But I've had it once in 34 years. I don't intend to either a) permit lockdowns or b) suggest the entire population should have a jab to avoid something that isn't statistically likely to impact them massively.
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
By the time AZ have updated their vaccine and are mass producing it we'll be talking at the very least about the next major scary variant but one.
If you can't open up in the summer months when can you? Keeping restrictions till autumn means actually spring 2022 in practice.
Yes, it's the attitude that leads to neverending lockdown for fear of the next mutation. The aim has to be to turn COVID into a flu like virus that can be dealt with by vaccinating the at risk population in September every year. It can't turn into forever lockdown and forever social distancing, that will lead to actual rioting.
We should have annual flu-like vaccines for everyone not just the at risk - and we should start offering the flu vaccine to everyone too. We've shown we can manufacture vaccines at scale so just bloody do it.
If everyone is vaccinated it will reduce spread.
Which is also fine, but I suspect the young will have a decent level of lasting t-cell immunity from the current vaccines that will make COVID a 2-3 day illness. It may not be necessary but people should be able to have it if they want for sure. My company offers all employees a flu jab every year, I'm sure when it available privately they will offer the COVID one as well.
Whatever the law says, as soon as grandparents, aunts etc are vaccinated, they're going to be back hugging their relatives.
Utter madness. Ministers need to listen to Tory backbenchers on this. Return to something akin to normal after the vast majority of vulnerable are vaccinated. Normal once every adult has had a jab.
Broadly I thinhk there are 4 groups:
1 - Hug now, sod the law (5%) 2 - As soon as it's legal, resume normal life (5%) 3 - As soon as it's legal, see close relatives and particularly dear friends (60%) 4 - Minimise contact for 12 months, even if legal (30%)
Groups 1 and 2 will have increasingly ostentatious parties while groups 3 and 4 eye them dubiously. 2-3 is obviously a question of degree, though - I should think most people will start with 3 and edge into 2 if cases remain low, likewise 4->3. I'll be a 4 edging towards 3 myself.
I think you are way off with your numbers. Group 2 is much larger than you think.
Define normal life.
The first lockdown began the week before my daughter's sixth birthday, we didn't book her a birthday party last year as it was clear it wasn't a good idea already. We had planned a smaller family gathering but that was obviously cancelled due to lockdown.
I expect lockdown lifting to be underway before her seventh birthday but we're not even considering throwing her a party this year. For me a "return to normal" is when we start doing everything we would have done without a second thought. Every other weekend normally I swear we were taking my daughter to someone's birthday party - but the last one we went to was probably around this time last year.
Even if lockdown is lifted I doubt many big kids birthday parties inviting all their classmates and all their parents are going to be happening this side of the summer holidays at the very earliest.
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
By the time AZ have updated their vaccine and are mass producing it we'll be talking at the very least about the next major scary variant but one.
If you can't open up in the summer months when can you? Keeping restrictions till autumn means actually spring 2022 in practice.
Yes, it's the attitude that leads to neverending lockdown for fear of the next mutation. The aim has to be to turn COVID into a flu like virus that can be dealt with by vaccinating the at risk population in September every year. It can't turn into forever lockdown and forever social distancing, that will lead to actual rioting.
We should have annual flu-like vaccines for everyone not just the at risk - and we should start offering the flu vaccine to everyone too. We've shown we can manufacture vaccines at scale so just bloody do it.
If everyone is vaccinated it will reduce spread.
Yes, I'm hoping that this is the end state. Once we've got a large vaccine development and manufacturing capability up and running in the country, it goes without saying that it should be used for something other than Covid. Flu is an obvious example, and blanket vaccination can be used as a quick and easy way of shutting up the more nutty scientists who are otherwise going to try to convince the Government to force us all into masks every bloody Winter forevermore.
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
By the time AZ have updated their vaccine and are mass producing it we'll be talking at the very least about the next major scary variant but one.
If you can't open up in the summer months when can you? Keeping restrictions till autumn means actually spring 2022 in practice.
Yes, it's the attitude that leads to neverending lockdown for fear of the next mutation. The aim has to be to turn COVID into a flu like virus that can be dealt with by vaccinating the at risk population in September every year. It can't turn into forever lockdown and forever social distancing, that will lead to actual rioting.
We should have annual flu-like vaccines for everyone not just the at risk - and we should start offering the flu vaccine to everyone too. We've shown we can manufacture vaccines at scale so just bloody do it.
If everyone is vaccinated it will reduce spread.
Should we? Maybe for carers and NHS staff and oldies.
I've had Flu, it isn't pleasant. But I've had it once in 34 years. I don't intend to either a) permit lockdowns or b) suggest the entire population should have a jab to avoid something that isn't statistically likely to impact them massively.
@Philip_Thompson currently a crime that causes "an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim, even if unintended" leads to a higher sentence. [a i]
Are you really suggesting a mitigating factor might be "the crime has not lead to an especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim"? [a ii]
Also currently a crime that is committed as part of a gang leads to a higher sentence. [b i] Are you really suggesting a "mitigating factor" might be "the crime was not committed as part of a gang"? [b ii]
It's crazy.
Your examples [ai/aii] & [bi/bii] are actually logically equivalent though
I know they are. But it just makes the "box ticking exercise" more of a mockery.
If you don't include them, people are going to be unhappy that John and Clive, members of the Skull Beater gang who inflicted GBH on Ron, a member of the Blood Skins gang, "only" got the same sentence as Timmy who punched his friend Bob, accidentally causing GBH.
And before you know it you have aggravating factors again after some populist gets elected to clamp down on Gang violence.
I've said we shouldn't have justice by populism and shouldn't pander to the Daily Mail.
Are you saying we should pander to them?
I'm saying it's inevitable because like it or not society does view some instances of the same crime as more serious than others.
You could get around this by creating new criminal offences, such as a specific offence of "GBH as part of a gang" but the effect is the same with more complexity.
Here in WA State, a bill has been filed in the state House of Representatives, to make assaulting an election worker a (specific) crime; this is direct result of threats made by rabid Trumpskyites against the state election director and local election workers.
To be fair the advantage of codifying a new offence, for example "GBH motivated by racism" or whatever, is that it expressly puts the evidential burden on the prosecution to prove to the jury (or magistrates) beyond doubt that the crime was racially motivated.
Well one of my concerns certainly, I am not arguing that the victim shouldn't be listened too, I am against the fact the prosecution can you racially motivated in the sentencing hearing purely because the victim said so. If the police find solid evidence for it yes by all means use it but not otherwise.
It doesn't answer my other concern though which is that crimes that are equivalent in terms of circumstance be judged more serious because race/gender/etc.
If an unprovoked attack by someone on someone else gets sentenced more severely because of some characteristic of the victim then that is not right. I am certainly not arguing that gbh in a bar fight is the same as a completely unprovoked attack....merely that similar circumstances should mean similar sentences
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
Good thing we've got 17m Moderna and 60m Novavax doses available starting in April. Those give a very good degree of protection from the SA variant without needing updates, we could conceivably ask everyone who has had two AZ doses to come in for a Novavax booster in July after a very short safety test.
These people are hugely overthinking this a d unfortunately there does seem to be an element within the civil service that doesn't want to give up this power they now have over people's lives. It's up to politicians to stamp on it a d say enough is enough. No more lockdown, no more distancing, we have vaccines.
It's not so much giving up that power, I think the government and behavioural scientists realise this is the last lockdown, so they have to get it right.
I am, literally, giving it a year. Lockdown started in late March 2020. If it is still in place by late March 2021, and beyond, I shall just ignore it.
The last year has been no life. It has been anti-life. I have aged 5 years just staying at home eating sourdough and not seeing friends. The economy has collapsed. Everything is shit.
Enough, enough, enough. I would - genuinely - rather die on a ventilator than endure any more of this. I will take the risk. I shall be reasonably careful, but I WILL have a social life and a sexual life, because the alternative is a living tomb. A non existence in a pointless limbo.
If the Covid is going to kill us, so be it. Let us sing and dance and kiss, beforehand.
Looks like I picked the wrong day to give up wanking....
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
By the time AZ have updated their vaccine and are mass producing it we'll be talking at the very least about the next major scary variant but one.
If you can't open up in the summer months when can you? Keeping restrictions till autumn means actually spring 2022 in practice.
Yes, it's the attitude that leads to neverending lockdown for fear of the next mutation. The aim has to be to turn COVID into a flu like virus that can be dealt with by vaccinating the at risk population in September every year. It can't turn into forever lockdown and forever social distancing, that will lead to actual rioting.
We should have annual flu-like vaccines for everyone not just the at risk - and we should start offering the flu vaccine to everyone too. We've shown we can manufacture vaccines at scale so just bloody do it.
If everyone is vaccinated it will reduce spread.
Should we? Maybe for carers and NHS staff and oldies.
I've had Flu, it isn't pleasant. But I've had it once in 34 years. I don't intend to either a) permit lockdowns or b) suggest the entire population should have a jab to avoid something that isn't statistically likely to impact them massively.
Make optional for under 50s.
Indeed. Would be interesting to see how many would take it up.
I'd say about 5% of my mates - atm its about 1%; the corporate lawyers!
I am set in for 2021 to be much similar to 2020, most likely with no foreign holidays.
I have already written off the prospect of going to things like gigs.
Did you go to gigs before Covid?
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Cases are currently in the tens of thousands per day not the low hundreds per day and only a fraction of the vulnerable are vaccinated.
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
I agree.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
The thing that is the issue for the government, the South African variant (or something worse) taking hold in the UK before AZ have updated their vaccine.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
By the time AZ have updated their vaccine and are mass producing it we'll be talking at the very least about the next major scary variant but one.
If you can't open up in the summer months when can you? Keeping restrictions till autumn means actually spring 2022 in practice.
Yes, it's the attitude that leads to neverending lockdown for fear of the next mutation. The aim has to be to turn COVID into a flu like virus that can be dealt with by vaccinating the at risk population in September every year. It can't turn into forever lockdown and forever social distancing, that will lead to actual rioting.
We should have annual flu-like vaccines for everyone not just the at risk - and we should start offering the flu vaccine to everyone too. We've shown we can manufacture vaccines at scale so just bloody do it.
If everyone is vaccinated it will reduce spread.
Should we? Maybe for carers and NHS staff and oldies.
I've had Flu, it isn't pleasant. But I've had it once in 34 years. I don't intend to either a) permit lockdowns or b) suggest the entire population should have a jab to avoid something that isn't statistically likely to impact them massively.
Make optional for under 50s.
Optional for everyone surely?
Just because we offer the vaccine to everyone doesn't make it compulsory for anyone.
Whatever the law says, as soon as grandparents, aunts etc are vaccinated, they're going to be back hugging their relatives.
Utter madness. Ministers need to listen to Tory backbenchers on this. Return to something akin to normal after the vast majority of vulnerable are vaccinated. Normal once every adult has had a jab.
Broadly I thinhk there are 4 groups:
1 - Hug now, sod the law (5%) 2 - As soon as it's legal, resume normal life (5%) 3 - As soon as it's legal, see close relatives and particularly dear friends (60%) 4 - Minimise contact for 12 months, even if legal (30%)
Groups 1 and 2 will have increasingly ostentatious parties while groups 3 and 4 eye them dubiously. 2-3 is obviously a question of degree, though - I should think most people will start with 3 and edge into 2 if cases remain low, likewise 4->3. I'll be a 4 edging towards 3 myself.
Blimey? Really. I'd say its
1 - Hug now, sod the law (15%) 2 - As soon as I've had the vaccine (first jab), get back to normal (15%) 3 - As soon as I've had the vaccine and its had time to kick in, get back to normal (45%) 4 - Wait for the civil service to stop poking its nose into my life and then get back to normal (13%) 5 - Be a bit more cautious than that, but get back to Christmas and family bashes (10%) 6 - Hang out in the covid isolated jungle like a marooned Japanese soldier for another year until I really believe the war is over (2%)
However, 5 and 6 are vastly overrepresented on here.
Yes, you're right and NPXMP is wrong.
But he has never had sex and plays board games for fun as an adult. So he is as representative of PB, as he is unrepresentative of the UK in toto.
Most Brits are not awkward, asexual, autistic geeks; most on PB are, especially the Scot Nats.
Whatever the law says, as soon as grandparents, aunts etc are vaccinated, they're going to be back hugging their relatives.
Utter madness. Ministers need to listen to Tory backbenchers on this. Return to something akin to normal after the vast majority of vulnerable are vaccinated. Normal once every adult has had a jab.
Broadly I thinhk there are 4 groups:
1 - Hug now, sod the law (5%) 2 - As soon as it's legal, resume normal life (5%) 3 - As soon as it's legal, see close relatives and particularly dear friends (60%) 4 - Minimise contact for 12 months, even if legal (30%)
Groups 1 and 2 will have increasingly ostentatious parties while groups 3 and 4 eye them dubiously. 2-3 is obviously a question of degree, though - I should think most people will start with 3 and edge into 2 if cases remain low, likewise 4->3. I'll be a 4 edging towards 3 myself.
Blimey? Really. I'd say its
1 - Hug now, sod the law (15%) 2 - As soon as I've had the vaccine (first jab), get back to normal (15%) 3 - As soon as I've had the vaccine and its had time to kick in, get back to normal (45%) 4 - Wait for the civil service to stop poking its nose into my life and then get back to normal (13%) 5 - Be a bit more cautious than that, but get back to Christmas and family bashes (10%) 6 - Hang out in the covid isolated jungle like a marooned Japanese soldier for another year until I really believe the war is over (2%)
However, 5 and 6 are vastly overrepresented on here.
Yes, you're right and NPXMP is wrong.
But he has never had sex and plays board games for fun as an adult. So he is as representative of PB, as he is unrepresentative of the UK in toto.
Most Brits are not awkward, asexual, autistic geeks; most on PB are, especially the Scot Nats.
That may be true but it still hurts...
Well I play board games for fun as an adult as do many pb'ers
Whatever the law says, as soon as grandparents, aunts etc are vaccinated, they're going to be back hugging their relatives.
Utter madness. Ministers need to listen to Tory backbenchers on this. Return to something akin to normal after the vast majority of vulnerable are vaccinated. Normal once every adult has had a jab.
Broadly I thinhk there are 4 groups:
1 - Hug now, sod the law (5%) 2 - As soon as it's legal, resume normal life (5%) 3 - As soon as it's legal, see close relatives and particularly dear friends (60%) 4 - Minimise contact for 12 months, even if legal (30%)
Groups 1 and 2 will have increasingly ostentatious parties while groups 3 and 4 eye them dubiously. 2-3 is obviously a question of degree, though - I should think most people will start with 3 and edge into 2 if cases remain low, likewise 4->3. I'll be a 4 edging towards 3 myself.
I think you are way off with your numbers. Group 2 is much larger than you think.
Define normal life.
The first lockdown began the week before my daughter's sixth birthday, we didn't book her a birthday party last year as it was clear it wasn't a good idea already. We had planned a smaller family gathering but that was obviously cancelled due to lockdown.
I expect lockdown lifting to be underway before her seventh birthday but we're not even considering throwing her a party this year. For me a "return to normal" is when we start doing everything we would have done without a second thought. Every other weekend normally I swear we were taking my daughter to someone's birthday party - but the last one we went to was probably around this time last year.
Even if lockdown is lifted I doubt many big kids birthday parties inviting all their classmates and all their parents are going to be happening this side of the summer holidays at the very earliest.
Imagine if your child was 14. 17, 19. or 21? Not 6?
Would you be advising them, or telling them, to just accept almost 2 years of nothing?
At 6 or 7 it is not especially noticeable - tho really not great, either, these are vital years of socialisation. For a child in mid-late teens or 20 you will just get told to F off. And these kids have a point. Who would stay home from 16-18? What kind of freak would emerge from that isolation?
Whatever the law says, as soon as grandparents, aunts etc are vaccinated, they're going to be back hugging their relatives.
Utter madness. Ministers need to listen to Tory backbenchers on this. Return to something akin to normal after the vast majority of vulnerable are vaccinated. Normal once every adult has had a jab.
Some of the lines in that article are brilliant.
"It has repercussions for the scale of any reopening. Restaurants, pubs and offices will all need to be Covid-secure."
Great, I thought we did that months ago. Job done.
"A government source said "the more restrictions we have in place like social distancing rules the more we can do in terms of easing"
What doublethink horseshit is that?
Utterly bonkers isn't it.
It is.
Rather like saying, “as long as you agree to stay two metres apart, limit numbers to six people including your own household, and wear masks, you can have parties again”.
Comments
https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1359997040764325888
A true man of the people - full of the thunder of Thor!
The idea this continues when all the vulnerable are vaccinated, and when cases are in the low hundreds per day is ridiculous.
The suppression of the virus was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.
"It has repercussions for the scale of any reopening. Restaurants, pubs and offices will all need to be Covid-secure."
Great, I thought we did that months ago. Job done.
"A government source said "the more restrictions we have in place like social distancing rules the more we can do in terms of easing"
What doublethink horseshit is that?
If you don't include them, people are going to be unhappy that John and Clive, members of the Skull Beater gang who inflicted GBH on Ron, a member of the Blood Skins gang, "only" got the same sentence as Timmy who punched his friend Bob, accidentally causing GBH.
And before you know it you have aggravating factors again after some populist gets elected to clamp down on Gang violence.
STAY APART FOREVER?
Just do one. Enough now. Let us decide how much risk we will endure
Are you saying we should pander to them?
They were 2 women.
Ok, this just raises further questions.
So it would have been ok if not for lockdown?
If couples are living together, surely social distancing does not factor into your plans for alfresco fornication?
Why on earth were the police even out and about randomly to be able to catch them at it?
No way this will continue when cases are in the low hundreds per day and all vulnerable are vaccinated.
But it looks like someone needs to tell the govt this...
Beating up a nurse and beating up a shop assistant are just as serious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4FTgWdU9sk
They're planning to finish vaccinating the vulnerable by end of April, which would probably bet when cases would be in the low hundreds per day too. The vaccination would kick in by mid-May given it takes a fortnight to take effect.
No way lockdown will be lifted mid May. Not going to happen. Already 8 March has been said for schools and other things will follow before mid May.
Just look how quickly and easily Cockney Covid spread.
The fact is humans like and need sex. They seek out lovers. It's a human right and a human need. Like the need for water or food.
It is fair enough to ask the people to go without sex/love for a few weeks. But up to two years? Get the fuck out.
Also, think of the women aged say, 33/34, who were just about to venture on motherhood, and want to find a partner quick. The state is saying, wait until you are 36/37 (when it is much harder to conceive, for a woman, so you may end up childless). These are huge asks by any government, indeed unparallelled.
We are stepping into an awful dystopia, just because most politicians are middle aged with no dicks and big houses and don't understand.
1) Conveys a threat to others too.
Someone who is willing to just randomly for no reason attack someone, like my attacker, surely they convey a threat to others too?
These people are hugely overthinking this and unfortunately there does seem to be an element within the civil service that doesn't want to give up this power they now have over people's lives. It's up to politicians to stamp on it and say enough is enough. No more lockdown, no more distancing, we have vaccines.
I want lockdowns to be considered a laughable overreaction. Otherwise the blob will start talking up their prospect in a bad flu year.
Which would alleviate @Pagan2 's concerns.
If you can't open up in the summer months when can you? Keeping restrictions till autumn means actually spring 2022 in practice.
1 - Hug now, sod the law (5%)
2 - As soon as it's legal, resume normal life (5%)
3 - As soon as it's legal, see close relatives and particularly dear friends (60%)
4 - Minimise contact for 12 months, even if legal (30%)
Groups 1 and 2 will have increasingly ostentatious parties while groups 3 and 4 eye them dubiously. 2-3 is obviously a question of degree, though - I should think most people will start with 3 and edge into 2 if cases remain low, likewise 4->3. I'll be a 4 edging towards 3 myself.
Fiscal drag of this, and IHT for boomers, will rake in a fortune without pissing of the Tory base or breaking manifesto pledges.
Its 500% more likely than the bonkers mooted about CT rises, or CGT hikes, or Council Tax reform.
And it will pass largely unnoticed.
A fact that our side publicized, there being few actual issues where the two candidates differed.
Our guy ended up winning - by a handful of votes.
I said it a few days ago, the party will act and get rid of Boris if that's the only way to get rid of Hancock and rule by SAGE. He knows that too.
The last year has been no life. It has been anti-life. I have aged 5 years just staying at home eating sourdough and not seeing friends. The economy has collapsed. Everything is shit.
Enough, enough, enough. I would - genuinely - rather die on a ventilator than endure any more of this. I will take the risk. I shall be reasonably careful, but I WILL have a social life and a sexual life, because the alternative is a living tomb. A non existence in a pointless limbo.
If the Covid is going to kill us, so be it. Let us sing and dance and kiss, beforehand.
People face this from the wrong perspective. They say that beating up a nurse is bad, so it should be serious. They say that beating up a black person is bad, so it should be serious. But you need to always think through the inverse.
Is beating up a shop assistant, or a homeless person, or anyone else "better"?
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1360005801444802564?s=20
1 - Hug now, sod the law (15%)
2 - As soon as I've had the vaccine (first jab), get back to normal (15%)
3 - As soon as I've had the vaccine and its had time to kick in, get back to normal (45%)
4 - Wait for the civil service to stop poking its nose into my life and then get back to normal (13%)
5 - Be a bit more cautious than that, but get back to Christmas and family bashes (10%)
6 - Hang out in the covid isolated jungle like a marooned Japanese soldier for another year until I really believe the war is over (2%)
However, 5 and 6 are vastly overrepresented on here.
There will be arguments about the right time to raise taxes to not stifle recovery, arguments I am ill equipped to follow, understand or contribute in, but if ever there might be a time that a Chancellor could undertake some major changes which would be slightly less unpopular than usual, it would surely be now given the urgency.
But I fear the natural tendency to approve of rises, in theory, only to always have a problem with any ones with a major positive impact on finances, will see squeezes in limited areas to try to avoid pissing off the papers and normal outrage triggers.
Rather like saying, “as long as you agree to stay two metres apart, limit numbers to six people including your own household, and wear masks, you can have parties again”.
The backbenchers.
So they will be listened to.
If Hancock becomes a political martyr on Mt Lockdown, so much the better given he's a future leadership threat to Boris....
If everyone is vaccinated it will reduce spread.
But he has never had sex and plays board games for fun as an adult. So he is as representative of PB, as he is unrepresentative of the UK in toto.
Most Brits are not awkward, asexual, autistic geeks; most on PB are, especially the Scot Nats.
Also watch for possible Corp tax increases, also alignment of CGT with IT, possibly both from 2022/2023 but announced on 3 March.
HTH
Also, a great many crimes of violence are personal, I imagine, not only crimes of passion - a grudge, a frustration, a feud. If I read that two drug dealers have had a fight over turf, I'm vaguely sorry to hear it on grounds of social order, but it doesn't make me feel threatened, and I think should get a somewhat lesser sentence than someone who randomly attacks strangers.
I've had Flu, it isn't pleasant. But I've had it once in 34 years. I don't intend to either a) permit lockdowns or b) suggest the entire population should have a jab to avoid something that isn't statistically likely to impact them massively.
The first lockdown began the week before my daughter's sixth birthday, we didn't book her a birthday party last year as it was clear it wasn't a good idea already. We had planned a smaller family gathering but that was obviously cancelled due to lockdown.
I expect lockdown lifting to be underway before her seventh birthday but we're not even considering throwing her a party this year. For me a "return to normal" is when we start doing everything we would have done without a second thought. Every other weekend normally I swear we were taking my daughter to someone's birthday party - but the last one we went to was probably around this time last year.
Even if lockdown is lifted I doubt many big kids birthday parties inviting all their classmates and all their parents are going to be happening this side of the summer holidays at the very earliest.
It doesn't answer my other concern though which is that crimes that are equivalent in terms of circumstance be judged more serious because race/gender/etc.
If an unprovoked attack by someone on someone else gets sentenced more severely because of some characteristic of the victim then that is not right. I am certainly not arguing that gbh in a bar fight is the same as a completely unprovoked attack....merely that similar circumstances should mean similar sentences
I'd say about 5% of my mates - atm its about 1%; the corporate lawyers!
Just because we offer the vaccine to everyone doesn't make it compulsory for anyone.
Would you be advising them, or telling them, to just accept almost 2 years of nothing?
At 6 or 7 it is not especially noticeable - tho really not great, either, these are vital years of socialisation. For a child in mid-late teens or 20 you will just get told to F off. And these kids have a point. Who would stay home from 16-18? What kind of freak would emerge from that isolation?