I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
Agreed. Its why Nicola is wrong again today, not cautious, not smart. The risks are low and personal choice can make them significantly lower. The hospitals are not under pressure from Covid. They are under pressure from the backlog but a lot of regulations which impair their efficiency is not helping with that.
Its time that the economy was completely opened up again and things returned to something like normal. If we don't do that the billions that we have invested in early vaccination will have been wasted.
I'd also suggest that all those who criticized the English Tiers system as 'too complicated' take a look at the levels in Scotland. Even Level 0 has restrictions, and they are all over the place.
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
Hidden away in a Sky report is exactly the detail that should be top of every bulletin
Actual numbers and not percentages.
'There are some very promising signs in the latest data from Public Health England.
Firstly, two doses of the vaccine are really effective.
Analysis of 5,600 cases of the Indian variant shows 60% were unvaccinated.
Just 3% of them were fully vaccinated.
Up to 75% of new COVID cases are Indian variant
Of the 43 people who needed hospital admission, 67% were unvaccinated, just 2% had received both doses.
And finally, eight of the 12 people who died were unvaccinated.
All the more reason to get the jab.'
And still missing from that, how long after vaccinated were the single dose cases? Less than 3 weeks, its basically not vaccinated and if they have had AZN, it still another number of weeks building protection.
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).
So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.
Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.
Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
Brexit was the final defeat of the Wets.
How? Besides Europe, which in 1979/80 when Thatcher used the term was not a wet versus dry issue.
Economically I'd prefer a drier Government. Take away Brexit and economically this is quite a wet government.
Many who self identified as wets had tied themselves to the European mast, so yes they were defeated. Heseltine etc. But worth remembering in 1980 just how pro Europe Thatcher was too.
Looking at the Treasury right now I'm struggling to see much that is dry.
Thatcher was never as pro Europe as people think she was. Never.
Just read the Dominic Sandbrook histories of the time, or Charles Moore's biographies of her. She was in favour purely as a market economics tool and was deeply suspicious of political integration throughout.
So many sources.
Of course. But the point is surely that wet versus dry was never a pro-Europe or anti-Europe issue, though latterly many "wets" wrapped themselves in the European flag which confused matters.
Set aside the European issue and look what the government is doing economically: high spending, planning to "invest" more, raising corporation taxes, looking to make it easier to hand out state aid . . . how is that anything other than a wet government?
Its my biggest problem with Boris. I like some of what he does, but he's far too wet for my tastes. I'd much prefer a drier economy than what we have coming forwards.
Ragen, talked a good talk on freedom and free markets, in a way that sounded like he believed it, but when you look at actions, so much extra spending, and increasing the war on drudge, but very little actual liberalisation under his watch. Carter, on the other had achally did a lot of liberalisation, Airlines, trucking and Beer, being three examples, but gets little prase for it.
Boris is more like Ragen, talks good or at lest OK, but less keen on what he does. Sadly we have not had a Carter,
The top income tax rate under Carter was 70%, he was no fiscal liberal, even if he was no socialist either.
Carter was also socially quite conservative, he was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of evangelical votes for instance, which he managed to do in 1976 when he beat President Ford
The top rate of real taxation is even higher than 70% in the UK today. 👎
The top rate of real taxation was nearly 90% in the 1970s
And the top rate of real taxation was that in the 2000s too.
Thanks to Universal Credit its lower than that now but not much lower.
The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE
Note the Zero COVID obsessives (Deepti Gurdasani and Pagel) on the attack in the replies because it doesn't fit with their panic laden doom mongering.
Indeed Gurdasani post a picture of % that is b.1.617.2, and not how many cases. I am sure it is widespread, but it is not taking off in most places.
Yes that is a misleading chart there. If deaths are the most important number, followed by hospitalisation, illness, then cases, the last thing we ought to care about is which strain is the most common. We are not trying to eliminate a particular strain, we are trying to limit the harm.
One start way of looking at this is to look at the ranking site wouldmeater:
Not the only or even the best tracking site, I know but its able to rank nations so im using it for this.
If you listed the nations by deaths per million averaged over the last week, how many places are doing worse than the UK?
119
Yes 119 nations are doing worse than the UK, and many of the better are really small places like the Vatican on 0. or places where the numbers may not be reliable.
I'm slightly wary of worldometers (not least because it's owned by the Chinese). But it does source its data. It doesn't appear, yet, to have included the update to the Peru data which elevates them to the top of the mortality rate table.
I did not relies it was owned by the Chinese, I might start to quote it less often now,
who owns 'OurWouldInDate'? or are there other places I should look at?
I didn't know that either. Learn something every day.
My interest in Worldometer was first piqued by the way it appeared solely designed to sell me dodgy-looking Chinese branded clothes. It doesn't look professional, in the way OWID does. A bit of Wikipedia searching identified a Chinese owner. Though on rechecking this, this story emerges: https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2020/05/world/worldometer-coronavirus-mystery/ which suggests that that isn't true, and that the company which owns it is different to a Chinese company with the same name. The site above says that the problem with Worldometer is that it is the Wikipedia of data - easily uploadable, easily misleading. Ironically, my labelling it as Chinese was driven by exactly the same sort of error - excessive trust in Wikipedia.
I don't think Worldometer is actually dodgy - just not necessarily 100% reliable, and a little devoid of context.
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
To be fair to you, because there is far too much patronising on this blog these days, that is at least a thought through starting position, something a scientific mind, dealing logically in facts would come up with.
If someone is posting here they are afraid of third wave COVID and there needs to be a lockdown, the subtlety lost on them their own life or that of loved ones could be under threat from the increased deaths as result of lockdowns, how time ticks whilst serious illness remains undetected.
Is the lesson from history though, very mixed picture when politics climbs into bed with science? Does politics breath in a subtle atmosphere? Isn’t the very etymology of politics to spin and suppress truth to serve idea’s?
The fact that we're at only 43 hospitalisations after at least 5300 delta variant cases shows how successful the vaccine programme is. That's a hospitalisation rate of under 1% vs around 4% for symptomatic COVID and a maximum current CFR of 0.2% vs 1%. When you take into account cumulative risk reduction it looks like vaccine efficacy against delta COVID is well into the 90s for hospitalisation and death.
I called it months ago there would be this focus on stories of vaccinated people still getting sick, not taking into account weeks sincr vaccination and the fact no vaccine is 100%.
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
Well said.
The only distinction I'd make is that I think it is fair enough to continue with "work from home" advice/support for those who haven't had their vaccine yet.
Let people choose though. If they choose to go back to clubs and pubs cheek to jowl despite being unvaccinated then so be it, that's their choice. If they choose to work from home and avoid hospitality for another couple of month until they've had both jabs that's their choice too.
But it should be about freedom of choice now. Not others making choices on other people's behalf.
So if I test positive for Covid, and have symptoms, should I be free to do whatever I want, go clubbing etc.?
The problem (one of many) with a contagious disease like Covid is that exercising freedom of choice impinges upon others' well-being.
New terms of use for eBay have come into effect which mean the online auction house will now pay sellers directly rather than through PayPal.
Weird decision.
I must admit, I sell occasionally and eBay has easily the worst UI of any website I regularly frequently.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a major competitor in the next few years.
Ebay seems to be doing a AOL, living of fumes, making money without investing or expanding,
The younger people I know seem to use facebook marketplace, and there are plenty of others,
The site I don't understand, Wish....why would anybody ever buy anything off that site? Basically every listing is either a knock off or a scam.
Also, I wonder what percentage of listings on ebay these days are actually an auction. Seems increasingly it is rammdd full of professional sellers and they don't mess about with that uncertainty.
Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).
So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.
Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.
Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
Brexit was the final defeat of the Wets.
How? Besides Europe, which in 1979/80 when Thatcher used the term was not a wet versus dry issue.
Economically I'd prefer a drier Government. Take away Brexit and economically this is quite a wet government.
Many who self identified as wets had tied themselves to the European mast, so yes they were defeated. Heseltine etc. But worth remembering in 1980 just how pro Europe Thatcher was too.
Looking at the Treasury right now I'm struggling to see much that is dry.
Thatcher was never as pro Europe as people think she was. Never.
Just read the Dominic Sandbrook histories of the time, or Charles Moore's biographies of her. She was in favour purely as a market economics tool and was deeply suspicious of political integration throughout.
So many sources.
Of course. But the point is surely that wet versus dry was never a pro-Europe or anti-Europe issue, though latterly many "wets" wrapped themselves in the European flag which confused matters.
Set aside the European issue and look what the government is doing economically: high spending, planning to "invest" more, raising corporation taxes, looking to make it easier to hand out state aid . . . how is that anything other than a wet government?
Its my biggest problem with Boris. I like some of what he does, but he's far too wet for my tastes. I'd much prefer a drier economy than what we have coming forwards.
Ragen, talked a good talk on freedom and free markets, in a way that sounded like he believed it, but when you look at actions, so much extra spending, and increasing the war on drudge, but very little actual liberalisation under his watch. Carter, on the other had achally did a lot of liberalisation, Airlines, trucking and Beer, being three examples, but gets little prase for it.
Boris is more like Ragen, talks good or at lest OK, but less keen on what he does. Sadly we have not had a Carter,
The top income tax rate under Carter was 70%, he was no fiscal liberal, even if he was no socialist either.
Carter was also socially quite conservative, he was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of evangelical votes for instance, which he managed to do in 1976 when he beat President Ford
The top rate of real taxation is even higher than 70% in the UK today. 👎
That's a separate issue (and technically it's not all tax because a lot of it is tampering of benefits).
And in Britain at the time the highest rate wasn't 70% but 83%.
For the individual being discouraged from work or being motivated to evade taxes there's no difference between a real rate of tax caused by income tax, or a real rate of tax caused by national insurance, or a real rate of tax caused by tapering of benefits.
It's all a rose by any other name. The only thing that matters to the individual is what their real rate of tax is, not what you call it as it is generated.
On topic, I still think, on balance, Trump won't run in 2024 but I am less confident than before. One, because of the possible charges which he may try to drag out with the hope he becomes President and then is immune for 4 years. Two, because I suspect he is looking at Biden and Harris, and thinking he can take both on and win - the former because his physical and mental state looks increasingly frail and the latter because she is a poor candidate but, being Black and female, she will get a free run at the nomination if Biden steps down. Three, because especially if the Chinese lab theory is proven to be true, Trump will be able to say "I told you so" and use it to discredit the Media and the Tech giants who pushed back against the theory, and then use that to claim that the Media / Tech was lying about all their other claims. And, fourth, because the Democrats' own behaviour on the cultural / social / economic fronts is more radical than many Republican-turned-Democrat voters would have thought, which may lead to gains.
As the poll I posted earlier showed Trump could beat Harris, in my view Biden was the only candidate who could beat Trump in 2020 and the Democrats may need Biden to run again in 2024 to prevent Trump returning to the White House
I can't see Biden lasting the term. He is not doing many public appearances now and I can only imagine his state will get worse so it is hard to imagine what he will look like in 3 years time.
On topic, I still think, on balance, Trump won't run in 2024 but I am less confident than before. One, because of the possible charges which he may try to drag out with the hope he becomes President and then is immune for 4 years. Two, because I suspect he is looking at Biden and Harris, and thinking he can take both on and win - the former because his physical and mental state looks increasingly frail and the latter because she is a poor candidate but, being Black and female, she will get a free run at the nomination if Biden steps down. Three, because especially if the Chinese lab theory is proven to be true, Trump will be able to say "I told you so" and use it to discredit the Media and the Tech giants who pushed back against the theory, and then use that to claim that the Media / Tech was lying about all their other claims. And, fourth, because the Democrats' own behaviour on the cultural / social / economic fronts is more radical than many Republican-turned-Democrat voters would have thought, which may lead to gains.
As the poll I posted earlier showed Trump could beat Harris, in my view Biden was the only candidate who could beat Trump in 2020 and the Democrats may need Biden to run again in 2024 to prevent Trump returning to the White House
I can't see Biden lasting the term. He is not doing many public appearances now and I can only imagine his state will get worse so it is hard to imagine what he will look like in 3 years time.
It was truly ridiculous for the USA to let such an old man stand for President, there is no way he will last for another 3 1/2 years.
If there is credible evidence this came from the lab, he is right, there is going to be a political earthquake and Trump is suddenly going to look a lot less foolish.
On topic, I still think, on balance, Trump won't run in 2024 but I am less confident than before. One, because of the possible charges which he may try to drag out with the hope he becomes President and then is immune for 4 years. Two, because I suspect he is looking at Biden and Harris, and thinking he can take both on and win - the former because his physical and mental state looks increasingly frail and the latter because she is a poor candidate but, being Black and female, she will get a free run at the nomination if Biden steps down. Three, because especially if the Chinese lab theory is proven to be true, Trump will be able to say "I told you so" and use it to discredit the Media and the Tech giants who pushed back against the theory, and then use that to claim that the Media / Tech was lying about all their other claims. And, fourth, because the Democrats' own behaviour on the cultural / social / economic fronts is more radical than many Republican-turned-Democrat voters would have thought, which may lead to gains.
As the poll I posted earlier showed Trump could beat Harris, in my view Biden was the only candidate who could beat Trump in 2020 and the Democrats may need Biden to run again in 2024 to prevent Trump returning to the White House
I can't see Biden lasting the term. He is not doing many public appearances now and I can only imagine his state will get worse so it is hard to imagine what he will look like in 3 years time.
On topic, I still think, on balance, Trump won't run in 2024 but I am less confident than before. One, because of the possible charges which he may try to drag out with the hope he becomes President and then is immune for 4 years. Two, because I suspect he is looking at Biden and Harris, and thinking he can take both on and win - the former because his physical and mental state looks increasingly frail and the latter because she is a poor candidate but, being Black and female, she will get a free run at the nomination if Biden steps down. Three, because especially if the Chinese lab theory is proven to be true, Trump will be able to say "I told you so" and use it to discredit the Media and the Tech giants who pushed back against the theory, and then use that to claim that the Media / Tech was lying about all their other claims. And, fourth, because the Democrats' own behaviour on the cultural / social / economic fronts is more radical than many Republican-turned-Democrat voters would have thought, which may lead to gains.
As the poll I posted earlier showed Trump could beat Harris, in my view Biden was the only candidate who could beat Trump in 2020 and the Democrats may need Biden to run again in 2024 to prevent Trump returning to the White House
I can't see Biden lasting the term. He is not doing many public appearances now and I can only imagine his state will get worse so it is hard to imagine what he will look like in 3 years time.
In the future, i am sure we will get the truth...but for now the establishment are willing to protect the situation, as no more Trump always minutes from starting WWIII.
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
Well said.
The only distinction I'd make is that I think it is fair enough to continue with "work from home" advice/support for those who haven't had their vaccine yet.
Let people choose though. If they choose to go back to clubs and pubs cheek to jowl despite being unvaccinated then so be it, that's their choice. If they choose to work from home and avoid hospitality for another couple of month until they've had both jabs that's their choice too.
But it should be about freedom of choice now. Not others making choices on other people's behalf.
So if I test positive for Covid, and have symptoms, should I be free to do whatever I want, go clubbing etc.?
The problem (one of many) with a contagious disease like Covid is that exercising freedom of choice impinges upon others' well-being.
I would say yes, you should be free to do whatever you want.
The reason being that your likelihood of coming into contact with someone unvaccinated should be small; and, being vaccinated, your likelihood of passing it on should be small.
If the vaccines work as well as it looks like they might, it should be just as controversial as going clubbing with a cold.
This is highly dependent on vaccines proving as effective as we'd like though!
If there is credible evidence this came from the lab, he is right, there is going to be a political earthquake and Trump is suddenly going to look a lot less foolish.
All the big talk, but i suspect there won't....we were told there would be over China's dishonesty to start with and a temor more than an earthquake, with the likes of the US and UK planning a few key industries to move away from over dependence on China, but overall, we are all still going nuts for goods from China.
What politician is going to run on we are going to make everything much more expensive?
New terms of use for eBay have come into effect which mean the online auction house will now pay sellers directly rather than through PayPal.
Weird decision.
It's been like that for over a month, though as far as I'm aware Paypal is still the conduit. I assumed at the time, maybe wrongly, that they wanted to get out of Paypal holding large amounts of customers' money.
On topic, I still think, on balance, Trump won't run in 2024 but I am less confident than before. One, because of the possible charges which he may try to drag out with the hope he becomes President and then is immune for 4 years. Two, because I suspect he is looking at Biden and Harris, and thinking he can take both on and win - the former because his physical and mental state looks increasingly frail and the latter because she is a poor candidate but, being Black and female, she will get a free run at the nomination if Biden steps down. Three, because especially if the Chinese lab theory is proven to be true, Trump will be able to say "I told you so" and use it to discredit the Media and the Tech giants who pushed back against the theory, and then use that to claim that the Media / Tech was lying about all their other claims. And, fourth, because the Democrats' own behaviour on the cultural / social / economic fronts is more radical than many Republican-turned-Democrat voters would have thought, which may lead to gains.
As the poll I posted earlier showed Trump could beat Harris, in my view Biden was the only candidate who could beat Trump in 2020 and the Democrats may need Biden to run again in 2024 to prevent Trump returning to the White House
I can't see Biden lasting the term. He is not doing many public appearances now and I can only imagine his state will get worse so it is hard to imagine what he will look like in 3 years time.
It was truly ridiculous for the USA to let such an old man stand for President, there is no way he will last for another 3 1/2 years.
You'll be opposed to Trump standing then? He'll be older in 2024 than Biden was in 2020. Apart from that, yes. They are both too old imho.
If there is credible evidence this came from the lab, he is right, there is going to be a political earthquake and Trump is suddenly going to look a lot less foolish.
All the big talk, but i suspect there won't....we were told there would be over China's dishonesty to start with and a temor more than an earthquake, with the likes of the US and UK planning a few key industries to move away from over dependence on China, but overall, we are all still going nuts for goods from China.
What politician is going to run on we are going to make everything much more expensive?
We are already at the point where imports from China are rapidly increasing in price - the time when companies start searching for another manufacturing location isn't that far away.
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
There needs to be a cut off date for furlough and WFH advice that aligns with the end of the vaccine programme. That date is going to arrive much sooner than most people realise, by the end of this month every single adult will have been offered their first dose and we're about 50-60 days away from offering everyone both doses without taking into account the acceleration of the second dose programme available after the first dose programme is completed, it could be as little as 40-45 days for every person to get offered both doses.
If there is credible evidence this came from the lab, he is right, there is going to be a political earthquake and Trump is suddenly going to look a lot less foolish.
All the big talk, but i suspect there won't....we were told there would be over China's dishonesty to start with and a temor more than an earthquake, with the likes of the US and UK planning a few key industries to move away from over dependence on China, but overall, we are all still going nuts for goods from China.
What politician is going to run on we are going to make everything much more expensive?
We are already at the point where imports from China are rapidly increasing in price - the time when companies start searching for another manufacturing location isn't that far away.
But China now dominant many markets or own the brands. When Trump banged on about banning them from tech, it became apparent really quickly it was basically impossible, without huge disruption.
Also if China starts to get too expensive, they can just pull the currency manipulation trick again.
The only way you can stand up to them is to go all protectionist, which doesn't work well with a capitalist economy.
If there is credible evidence this came from the lab, he is right, there is going to be a political earthquake and Trump is suddenly going to look a lot less foolish.
I don't think there will ever be 'definitive proof' China will never admit it, a slowly growing pile of circumstantial evidence, maybe.
If there is credible evidence this came from the lab, he is right, there is going to be a political earthquake and Trump is suddenly going to look a lot less foolish.
All the big talk, but i suspect there won't....we were told there would be over China's dishonesty to start with and a temor more than an earthquake, with the likes of the US and UK planning a few key industries to move away from over dependence on China, but overall, we are all still going nuts for goods from China.
What politician is going to run on we are going to make everything much more expensive?
We are already at the point where imports from China are rapidly increasing in price - the time when companies start searching for another manufacturing location isn't that far away.
Its already happening, to a significate degree, Time to invest in Vietnam IMO, Africa could be rapidly expand its manufacturing this decade.
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
There needs to be a cut off date for furlough and WFH advice that aligns with the end of the vaccine programme. That date is going to arrive much sooner than most people realise, by the end of this month every single adult will have been offered their first dose and we're about 50-60 days away from offering everyone both doses without taking into account the acceleration of the second dose programme available after the first dose programme is completed, it could be as little as 40-45 days for every person to get offered both doses.
I heard someone on 5 live say that the furlough scheme was fantastic and that they easily made up the 20% by working in a part time job. They seemed to think this was going to continue and become the norm
Furlough needs to end in September if not before to be honest, though thousands are in for a shock as reality kicks in
If there is credible evidence this came from the lab, he is right, there is going to be a political earthquake and Trump is suddenly going to look a lot less foolish.
All the big talk, but i suspect there won't....we were told there would be over China's dishonesty to start with and a temor more than an earthquake, with the likes of the US and UK planning a few key industries to move away from over dependence on China, but overall, we are all still going nuts for goods from China.
What politician is going to run on we are going to make everything much more expensive?
We are already at the point where imports from China are rapidly increasing in price - the time when companies start searching for another manufacturing location isn't that far away.
Its already happening, to a significate degree, Time to invest in Vietnam IMO, Africa could be rapidly expand its manufacturing this decade.
Guess which prominent far Eastern country has bought up most of Africa over the last 20 years?
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
There needs to be a cut off date for furlough and WFH advice that aligns with the end of the vaccine programme. That date is going to arrive much sooner than most people realise, by the end of this month every single adult will have been offered their first dose and we're about 50-60 days away from offering everyone both doses without taking into account the acceleration of the second dose programme available after the first dose programme is completed, it could be as little as 40-45 days for every person to get offered both doses.
Yes, this is close, but I do hope that they start Jabbing 16 and 17 Year olds as soon as they have finished giving first doses to all adults, not least because that will give them time to have there second Jab, before returning to collage or university in September.
Wait until China win the AI war....then we are all in massive trouble.
And again the west is behind the 8 ball, because of our liberal democracies mean companies can't just capture all the data every created to train their systems. And of course a lot of west captured data is sent to China for "labelling", where I am sure none of it gets transferred onto the Chinese state.
We have to hope that supervised / semi-supervised learning is a total dead end.
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
There needs to be a cut off date for furlough and WFH advice that aligns with the end of the vaccine programme. That date is going to arrive much sooner than most people realise, by the end of this month every single adult will have been offered their first dose and we're about 50-60 days away from offering everyone both doses without taking into account the acceleration of the second dose programme available after the first dose programme is completed, it could be as little as 40-45 days for every person to get offered both doses.
Agreed. We're not talking about prolonged periods any more. We're doing 4 million doses a week. Assuming we're going to switch to more a fifty/fifty split of first and second doses (because we're at the point where 1st doses slowed down a lot; we're going to get to within 7-8 weeks behind, which is not ideal for AZ), we should be at 47 million (90% of adults) in 4 weeks. If we get lucky enough to get 95% of adults, that's 5 weeks from now.
Given that it's Pfizer/Moderna, a 3-4 week second dose strategy can be followed, and 4 million second doses a week from there gives us double-dose coverage of 95% of adults in 8 weeks from now. By late July, there can be zero need for furlough any more, as every worker should have been offered two doses.
“Why aren’t the mainstream media covering this protest?!?!”
It’s a refrain one sees fairly often from people perplexed that their favourite cause hasn’t attracted the attention it deserved.
This weekend’s splendidly vague anti-lockdown marches in central London were no exception. Twitter hummed with anti-lockdown ‘Smiley’ types complaining that there wasn’t more news coverage of the thousands of people marching through central London to resist…well, we’re not quite sure what....
The daftness reached its apogee when a crowd decided to occupy the Westfield shopping centre in Shepherds Bush, which was already open, forcing it to close – all in the name of not locking things down. That group succeeded, in the narrow sense that their antics did get some news coverage, though it’s hard to see any other real achievement other than annoying a bunch of shoppers getting on with their very much not locked down lives. It all felt very much like a group of people with very little to say for themselves, demanding attention for its own sake.
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
There needs to be a cut off date for furlough and WFH advice that aligns with the end of the vaccine programme. That date is going to arrive much sooner than most people realise, by the end of this month every single adult will have been offered their first dose and we're about 50-60 days away from offering everyone both doses without taking into account the acceleration of the second dose programme available after the first dose programme is completed, it could be as little as 40-45 days for every person to get offered both doses.
is there such thing as WFH advice anymore?
When it reaches the “cut off date” as you call it, and next to nothing changes, it’s because the WFH policy is now little different than WFH for COVID - this change led by the Civil Service, who no longer want office attendance anywhere near the scale of pre pandemic?
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
There needs to be a cut off date for furlough and WFH advice that aligns with the end of the vaccine programme. That date is going to arrive much sooner than most people realise, by the end of this month every single adult will have been offered their first dose and we're about 50-60 days away from offering everyone both doses without taking into account the acceleration of the second dose programme available after the first dose programme is completed, it could be as little as 40-45 days for every person to get offered both doses.
I heard someone on 5 live say that the furlough scheme was fantastic and that they easily made up the 20% by working in a part time job. They seemed to think this was going to continue and become the norm
Furlough needs to end in September if not before to be honest, though thousands are in for a shock as reality kicks in
If all restrictions are lifted on June 21, what is the justification for any furlough? Which sectors will be needing it? Foreign travel I can just about see. Any others?
New terms of use for eBay have come into effect which mean the online auction house will now pay sellers directly rather than through PayPal.
Weird decision.
Why? think of the profit paypal makes and the fact that ebay may want that profit for themselves.
My annoyance is the fact that with paypal I used to get paid immediately and now I have to wait 48 hours before the money hits my account.
They own paypal, and it is only for sending payment to seller. Buyers can still use PayPal.
Ebay sold Paypal years back - the agreement imlemented at the time that ebay would use paypal as it's default option expired today.
That makes sense now,
It may be that Ebay is going to them and says, lower your fees for us and we will use you again,
They’d have a brass neck in that case (which they do) since their own fees have shot up since I started using eBay. They’ve also cut back on their £1 final fee offers which was a good way of maximising returns for relatively high value items. I suspect they’re in lemon squeezing mode.
If there is credible evidence this came from the lab, he is right, there is going to be a political earthquake and Trump is suddenly going to look a lot less foolish.
That's a really good article. Particularly on the arrogance of those who knew best.
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
There needs to be a cut off date for furlough and WFH advice that aligns with the end of the vaccine programme. That date is going to arrive much sooner than most people realise, by the end of this month every single adult will have been offered their first dose and we're about 50-60 days away from offering everyone both doses without taking into account the acceleration of the second dose programme available after the first dose programme is completed, it could be as little as 40-45 days for every person to get offered both doses.
I heard someone on 5 live say that the furlough scheme was fantastic and that they easily made up the 20% by working in a part time job. They seemed to think this was going to continue and become the norm
Furlough needs to end in September if not before to be honest, though thousands are in for a shock as reality kicks in
If all restrictions are lifted on June 21, what is the justification for any furlough? Which sectors will be needing it? Foreign travel I can just about see. Any others?
What's the justification for the government's emergency powers either?
But we're still stuck with them for another three months.
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
There needs to be a cut off date for furlough and WFH advice that aligns with the end of the vaccine programme. That date is going to arrive much sooner than most people realise, by the end of this month every single adult will have been offered their first dose and we're about 50-60 days away from offering everyone both doses without taking into account the acceleration of the second dose programme available after the first dose programme is completed, it could be as little as 40-45 days for every person to get offered both doses.
I heard someone on 5 live say that the furlough scheme was fantastic and that they easily made up the 20% by working in a part time job. They seemed to think this was going to continue and become the norm
Furlough needs to end in September if not before to be honest, though thousands are in for a shock as reality kicks in
If all restrictions are lifted on June 21, what is the justification for any furlough? Which sectors will be needing it? Foreign travel I can just about see. Any others?
The government really need to be making it clear to people this....otherwise there are going to be a lot of very upset people when it disappears, or the government will have to run it for a ridiculous amount of extra time just to ensure they are seen to be fair.
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
There needs to be a cut off date for furlough and WFH advice that aligns with the end of the vaccine programme. That date is going to arrive much sooner than most people realise, by the end of this month every single adult will have been offered their first dose and we're about 50-60 days away from offering everyone both doses without taking into account the acceleration of the second dose programme available after the first dose programme is completed, it could be as little as 40-45 days for every person to get offered both doses.
I heard someone on 5 live say that the furlough scheme was fantastic and that they easily made up the 20% by working in a part time job. They seemed to think this was going to continue and become the norm
Furlough needs to end in September if not before to be honest, though thousands are in for a shock as reality kicks in
If all restrictions are lifted on June 21, what is the justification for any furlough? Which sectors will be needing it? Foreign travel I can just about see. Any others?
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
“I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID”
Let’s start by writing the very first line of the message for the publicity drive around this policy.
“I have to level with you, under my governments new strategic approach to tackling the pandemic, more of your loved ones are going to die from COVID than if we battle it with lockdowns.”
There are two ways of reacting to that line.
Yep. That’s the message, though deftly going on to place this fact into the bigger picture of deaths, how lockdowns kill, to justify new approach.
Or
That’s easy for you to say, but you don’t have to face the commons, media and country with this “being honest with people”.
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
There needs to be a cut off date for furlough and WFH advice that aligns with the end of the vaccine programme. That date is going to arrive much sooner than most people realise, by the end of this month every single adult will have been offered their first dose and we're about 50-60 days away from offering everyone both doses without taking into account the acceleration of the second dose programme available after the first dose programme is completed, it could be as little as 40-45 days for every person to get offered both doses.
I heard someone on 5 live say that the furlough scheme was fantastic and that they easily made up the 20% by working in a part time job. They seemed to think this was going to continue and become the norm
Furlough needs to end in September if not before to be honest, though thousands are in for a shock as reality kicks in
Yeah the furlough scheme has had its day in the sun. Time to get people back into work and ending social distancing and all of the other restrictions is a key factor.
When you wonder why PHE couldn't do more than 10k tests day...and sit there sticking things into Excel spreadsheets.
"Tomorrow we're hosting a virtual event to launch our report with @sheffielduni and @UKAntiSlavery on refining a public health approach to modern slavery."
We need a health body that does data, data, data, data, modelling, forecasting, planning...and then you can have one that does whatever "public health approach to modern slavery" is.
If there is credible evidence this came from the lab, he is right, there is going to be a political earthquake and Trump is suddenly going to look a lot less foolish.
All the big talk, but i suspect there won't....we were told there would be over China's dishonesty to start with and a temor more than an earthquake, with the likes of the US and UK planning a few key industries to move away from over dependence on China, but overall, we are all still going nuts for goods from China.
What politician is going to run on we are going to make everything much more expensive?
We are already at the point where imports from China are rapidly increasing in price - the time when companies start searching for another manufacturing location isn't that far away.
Its already happening, to a significate degree, Time to invest in Vietnam IMO, Africa could be rapidly expand its manufacturing this decade.
Happening very strongly internally too. Companies moving from the wealthy coasts inland, in search of cheap labour. PRC levelling up.
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
There needs to be a cut off date for furlough and WFH advice that aligns with the end of the vaccine programme. That date is going to arrive much sooner than most people realise, by the end of this month every single adult will have been offered their first dose and we're about 50-60 days away from offering everyone both doses without taking into account the acceleration of the second dose programme available after the first dose programme is completed, it could be as little as 40-45 days for every person to get offered both doses.
I heard someone on 5 live say that the furlough scheme was fantastic and that they easily made up the 20% by working in a part time job. They seemed to think this was going to continue and become the norm
Furlough needs to end in September if not before to be honest, though thousands are in for a shock as reality kicks in
Do we know how may people are still being paid by the Furlough Scheme?
I would have thought outside a few industry's Nightclubs, airlines, theatres, most jobs have restated.
There will be some, maybe a lot, whose job really has despaired and the furlough scheme is really just a delay before they become unemployed,
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
What the presentation lacks is context.
Week ending 14th May E&W Total deaths: 10,164 COVID deaths: 151
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
Even that - while certainly on the button - is a bit of an exaggeration
It is not true that ‘every death is a tragedy’
An old lady of 88 dying of covid in a hospital with plenty of morphine to see her off is a sad thing, but it is part of the cycle of life. Not a ‘tragedy’. And there are many many worse ways to go, if she otherwise has her marbles. A few days of fever and croak
I’d take that over years of dementia or cancer or lots of other nasty stuff
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
“I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID”
Let’s start by writing the very first line of the message for the publicity drive around this policy.
“I have to level with you, under my governments new strategic approach to tackling the pandemic, more of your loved ones are going to die from COVID than if we battle it with lockdowns.”
There are two ways of reacting to that line.
Yep. That’s the message, though deftly going on to place this fact into the bigger picture of deaths, how lockdowns kill, to justify new approach.
Or
That’s easy for you to say, but you don’t have to face the commons, media and country with this “being honest with people”.
Both reactions can’t be correct can they?
I wouldn't be saying "there's an acceptable level of deaths from covid."
It is that the damage caused by restrictions (and we all agree that restrictions cause damage, which is why we don't apply them in normal times) now outweighs the damage done by covid.
Every government has to balance damage from its choices - otherwise it's not really a choice at all. And now we're at the point where the utility of restrictions is reducing steadily.
Which is exactly what we wanted to happen. And it's happening.
If there’s 1 death tomorrow, the media will be “100% increase in Covid deaths”
Infinite surely?
I was of course making a joke at the innumerate media's expense combined with their habit of swinging from we are all going to die to why can't I go on holiday tomorrow?
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
There needs to be a cut off date for furlough and WFH advice that aligns with the end of the vaccine programme. That date is going to arrive much sooner than most people realise, by the end of this month every single adult will have been offered their first dose and we're about 50-60 days away from offering everyone both doses without taking into account the acceleration of the second dose programme available after the first dose programme is completed, it could be as little as 40-45 days for every person to get offered both doses.
I heard someone on 5 live say that the furlough scheme was fantastic and that they easily made up the 20% by working in a part time job. They seemed to think this was going to continue and become the norm
Furlough needs to end in September if not before to be honest, though thousands are in for a shock as reality kicks in
Do we know how may people are still being paid by the Furlough Scheme?
I would have thought outside a few industry's Nightclubs, airlines, theatres, most jobs have restated.
There will be some, maybe a lot, whose job really has despaired and the furlough scheme is really just a delay before they become unemployed,
There were 1.27 Million people on Furlough at the end of Feb, according to this:
Everton manager Carlo Ancelotti's mooted move to Real Madrid is a done deal, according to sources.
The Athletic has been told by sources close to the board at Everton that a move is close. Everton have arranged a meeting of their board at 3pm on Tuesday to discuss the developing situation.
Ancelotti, under contract for a further three years, is currently negotiating the terms of his exit.
Everton are now thought to be drawing up a shortlist of possible replacements although no contact has been made. A shock name in the frame is Rangers manager Steven Gerrard, although the former Liverpool captain is not the only candidate.
Others include Rafa Benitez, David Moyes — who would be considered unlikely at this stage — Paulo Fonseca, Erik ten Hag and Roberto Martinez.
Everton manager Carlo Ancelotti's mooted move to Real Madrid is a done deal, according to sources.
The Athletic has been told by sources close to the board at Everton that a move is close. Everton have arranged a meeting of their board at 3pm on Tuesday to discuss the developing situation.
Ancelotti, under contract for a further three years, is currently negotiating the terms of his exit.
Everton are now thought to be drawing up a shortlist of possible replacements although no contact has been made. A shock name in the frame is Rangers manager Steven Gerrard, although the former Liverpool captain is not the only candidate.
Others include Rafa Benitez, David Moyes — who would be considered unlikely at this stage — Paulo Fonseca, Erik ten Hag and Roberto Martinez.
The LOLZ are going to be epic if they appoint Rafa or Steven Gerrard.
Bye bye the likes of James Rodríguez as well I guess....as they only signed to play for Carlo, not because of some long held ambition to join the mighty Toffees.
On topic, I still think, on balance, Trump won't run in 2024 but I am less confident than before. One, because of the possible charges which he may try to drag out with the hope he becomes President and then is immune for 4 years. Two, because I suspect he is looking at Biden and Harris, and thinking he can take both on and win - the former because his physical and mental state looks increasingly frail and the latter because she is a poor candidate but, being Black and female, she will get a free run at the nomination if Biden steps down. Three, because especially if the Chinese lab theory is proven to be true, Trump will be able to say "I told you so" and use it to discredit the Media and the Tech giants who pushed back against the theory, and then use that to claim that the Media / Tech was lying about all their other claims. And, fourth, because the Democrats' own behaviour on the cultural / social / economic fronts is more radical than many Republican-turned-Democrat voters would have thought, which may lead to gains.
Personally, I think Harris is the presumptive favourite to be the nominee next time around because - despite being a terrible candidate - she's the Vice President, and has to be a better than 50% chance of being the actual President come the time that the Dems are choosing their nominee for 2024. And that would be true whether she was black, white or indigo.
Harris might be a terrible candidate, but she might be a very lucky one. Because the one Republican she can beat, is Donald Trump.
While 60% of Trump voters support (in the broadest sense) the actions of the Jan 6 rioters, another 30% were horrified. Trump owns 60% of the Republican Party, but he only rented the other 40%, and I don't think there's any evidence the rest have come to love in him in the six months since the election.
If Trump is the nominee (and I suspect it is probably his for the taking). And if Trump is embroiled in scandal and lawsuits, and is a weakened and older nominee, then I can't see anything other than a landslide for Harris.
Another question on the subject of the US Republican nomination: the best Republican Trumpian candidates are young: DeSantis is just 42, Josh Hawley is 41, Tom Cotton is 44 and Nikki Haley is 49. They can all wait if Trump decides to run in 2024. Indeed, the temptation for them is to be first to endorse Trump for 2024 so as to improve their chance of getting his nod in 2028.
And if Trump starts getting nomination for 2024, it's hard to see him deciding not to run.
Everton manager Carlo Ancelotti's mooted move to Real Madrid is a done deal, according to sources.
The Athletic has been told by sources close to the board at Everton that a move is close. Everton have arranged a meeting of their board at 3pm on Tuesday to discuss the developing situation.
Ancelotti, under contract for a further three years, is currently negotiating the terms of his exit.
Everton are now thought to be drawing up a shortlist of possible replacements although no contact has been made. A shock name in the frame is Rangers manager Steven Gerrard, although the former Liverpool captain is not the only candidate.
Others include Rafa Benitez, David Moyes — who would be considered unlikely at this stage — Paulo Fonseca, Erik ten Hag and Roberto Martinez.
Having a look at the England specimen date case data and the PCR only data it doesn't seem as though we're seeing some kind of huge exponential growth. There are obviously some cases that will be added tomorrow and Thursday due to the bank holiday but the change per day graph is telling a completely different story to the current media narrative that the scientists have been pushing. Last time you could clearly see each day get bigger and bigger, even on weekends and even through bank holidays. This time it's trending level, especially when limiting it to PCR positives rather than grabbing all of the lateral flow positives which is mostly asymptomatic.
The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE
Note the Zero COVID obsessives (Deepti Gurdasani and Pagel) on the attack in the replies because it doesn't fit with their panic laden doom mongering.
Indeed Gurdasani post a picture of % that is b.1.617.2, and not how many cases. I am sure it is widespread, but it is not taking off in most places.
Yes that is a misleading chart there. If deaths are the most important number, followed by hospitalisation, illness, then cases, the last thing we ought to care about is which strain is the most common. We are not trying to eliminate a particular strain, we are trying to limit the harm.
One start way of looking at this is to look at the ranking site wouldmeater:
Not the only or even the best tracking site, I know but its able to rank nations so im using it for this.
If you listed the nations by deaths per million averaged over the last week, how many places are doing worse than the UK?
119
Yes 119 nations are doing worse than the UK, and many of the better are really small places like the Vatican on 0. or places where the numbers may not be reliable.
The UK probably has almost the lowest ratio of deaths to population in the world. Australia and New Zealand are probably the only countries below us with reliable data.
I know I mentioned this earlier but Vallance, Whitty, and JVT have been silent while all these zero covid fanatics have been given full exposure by a fawning media.
I expect on the 14th June they will stand alongside Boris endorsing 21st June with possibly one or two minor adjustments
It would be 'popcorn' time to hear the 'zero covider's, all trying to rapidly reverse ferret their positions
Having a look at the England specimen date case data and the PCR only data it doesn't seem as though we're seeing some kind of huge exponential growth. There are obviously some cases that will be added tomorrow and Thursday due to the bank holiday but the change per day graph is telling a completely different story to the current media narrative that the scientists have been pushing. Last time you could clearly see each day get bigger and bigger, even on weekends and even through bank holidays. This time it's trending level, especially when limiting it to PCR positives rather than grabbing all of the lateral flow positives which is mostly asymptomatic.
Repost from earlier...
The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE
You are right to be fearful Mike. Does not look good for US democracy. Too many citizens don't want to live in one any more. They would rather live in an autocracy, preferable one run by the Trump family.
I can see some states leaving the union to be honest.
I know I mentioned this earlier but Vallance, Whitty, and JVT have been silent while all these zero covid fanatics have been given full exposure by a fawning media.
I expect on the 14th June they will stand alongside Boris endorsing 21st June with possibly one or two minor adjustments
It would be 'popcorn' time to hear the 'zero covider's, all trying to rapidly reverse ferret their positions
To be fair, I think they may be on holiday, is why we aren't hearing much from them.
Back in 1989 when the editor was orbiting the M25 helping to organise acid house raves, on occasions in the week afterwards he would find himself in the courts in relation to causing a public nuisance, various noise related civil offences, and suchlike. On one occasion a young barrister from the National Council for Civil Liberties argued, on our behalf, that Thames Valley Police had acted unlawfully by setting up roadblocks and confiscating sound equipment to prevent a Sunrise rave from taking place. It was “an incredible abuse of police powers”, he argued. We lost that case…
Whilst the rave organisers were waiting outside the court, the suited, and frankly square, young barrister chit-chatted with his sartorially psychedelic clients. Making small talk to pass the time, he told them (perhaps in an effort to boost his street credibility) that when he was younger he had taken LSD. That self-confessed acid tripper was Keir Starmer…
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
There needs to be a cut off date for furlough and WFH advice that aligns with the end of the vaccine programme. That date is going to arrive much sooner than most people realise, by the end of this month every single adult will have been offered their first dose and we're about 50-60 days away from offering everyone both doses without taking into account the acceleration of the second dose programme available after the first dose programme is completed, it could be as little as 40-45 days for every person to get offered both doses.
I heard someone on 5 live say that the furlough scheme was fantastic and that they easily made up the 20% by working in a part time job. They seemed to think this was going to continue and become the norm
Furlough needs to end in September if not before to be honest, though thousands are in for a shock as reality kicks in
Do we know how may people are still being paid by the Furlough Scheme?
I would have thought outside a few industry's Nightclubs, airlines, theatres, most jobs have restated.
There will be some, maybe a lot, whose job really has despaired and the furlough scheme is really just a delay before they become unemployed,
There were 1.27 Million people on Furlough at the end of Feb, according to this:
Don't know if anybody has seem more up to date numbers?
Just tried, but failed. They do say next report due May 6. But no evidence could I find. Wonder how many will actually return? Quite a few may have something better lined up.
On topic, I still think, on balance, Trump won't run in 2024 but I am less confident than before. One, because of the possible charges which he may try to drag out with the hope he becomes President and then is immune for 4 years. Two, because I suspect he is looking at Biden and Harris, and thinking he can take both on and win - the former because his physical and mental state looks increasingly frail and the latter because she is a poor candidate but, being Black and female, she will get a free run at the nomination if Biden steps down. Three, because especially if the Chinese lab theory is proven to be true, Trump will be able to say "I told you so" and use it to discredit the Media and the Tech giants who pushed back against the theory, and then use that to claim that the Media / Tech was lying about all their other claims. And, fourth, because the Democrats' own behaviour on the cultural / social / economic fronts is more radical than many Republican-turned-Democrat voters would have thought, which may lead to gains.
Personally, I think Harris is the presumptive favourite to be the nominee next time around because - despite being a terrible candidate - she's the Vice President, and has to be a better than 50% chance of being the actual President come the time that the Dems are choosing their nominee for 2024. And that would be true whether she was black, white or indigo.
Harris might be a terrible candidate, but she might be a very lucky one. Because the one Republican she can beat, is Donald Trump.
While 60% of Trump voters support (in the broadest sense) the actions of the Jan 6 rioters, another 30% were horrified. Trump owns 60% of the Republican Party, but he only rented the other 40%, and I don't think there's any evidence the rest have come to love in him in the six months since the election.
If Trump is the nominee (and I suspect it is probably his for the taking). And if Trump is embroiled in scandal and lawsuits, and is a weakened and older nominee, then I can't see anything other than a landslide for Harris.
Another question on the subject of the US Republican nomination: the best Republican Trumpian candidates are young: DeSantis is just 42, Josh Hawley is 41, Tom Cotton is 44 and Nikki Haley is 49. They can all wait if Trump decides to run in 2024. Indeed, the temptation for them is to be first to endorse Trump for 2024 so as to improve their chance of getting his nod in 2028.
And if Trump starts getting nomination for 2024, it's hard to see him deciding not to run.
Really hope you are right about Harris thrashing Trump. But I fear that is not what will happen.
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
This is spot on.
The crazy bit, though, is that pretty much every other country seems to have worked this out, except the UK.
I'm going to cast a nasturtium here: Boris should be getting out and trumpeting our success and talking up leaving lockdown. There is a lack of leadership at the top. And the fundamental problem is that he's scared that we might go into lockdown again, and therefore he doesn't want to tie himself to the mast of "we're opening up in just three weeks time".
Boris: it's time to be a leader. Come out and say that restrictions end next month.
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
Even that - while certainly on the button - is a bit of an exaggeration
It is not true that ‘every death is a tragedy’
An old lady of 88 dying of covid in a hospital with plenty of morphine to see her off is a sad thing, but it is part of the cycle of life. Not a ‘tragedy’. And there are many many worse ways to go, if she otherwise has her marbles. A few days of fever and croak
I’d take that over years of dementia or cancer or lots of other nasty stuff
Yes, life years lost is the metric to look at (as NICE do).
Over the whole of the pandemic, there have been about 130,000 UK deaths. How many years life lost? My understanding is that the average age of covid deaths is about 82, and that the average number of years of life lost is 10. This seems on the high side to me - there will be an awful lot of people in the 'would have died this year anyway' category - but I don't have the evidence to contradict it. So let's assume 10. So the total number of life years lost in the UK is 1.3m. As against which, all 66 million of us have essentially lost a year of our lives. Time when we could have been living we've instead spent social distancing, washing our hands, working from home and all that tedious bollocks. Total number of life years lost from lockdown = 66 million.
Now, clearly, I'm engaging in a little bit of hyperbole here. I've had days I've enjoyed in the past year. Walks up hills with the family and so forth. But really not very many. We have been judging success by the wrong metrics. There is so much more to life than not dying.
On topic, I still think, on balance, Trump won't run in 2024 but I am less confident than before. One, because of the possible charges which he may try to drag out with the hope he becomes President and then is immune for 4 years. Two, because I suspect he is looking at Biden and Harris, and thinking he can take both on and win - the former because his physical and mental state looks increasingly frail and the latter because she is a poor candidate but, being Black and female, she will get a free run at the nomination if Biden steps down. Three, because especially if the Chinese lab theory is proven to be true, Trump will be able to say "I told you so" and use it to discredit the Media and the Tech giants who pushed back against the theory, and then use that to claim that the Media / Tech was lying about all their other claims. And, fourth, because the Democrats' own behaviour on the cultural / social / economic fronts is more radical than many Republican-turned-Democrat voters would have thought, which may lead to gains.
Personally, I think Harris is the presumptive favourite to be the nominee next time around because - despite being a terrible candidate - she's the Vice President, and has to be a better than 50% chance of being the actual President come the time that the Dems are choosing their nominee for 2024. And that would be true whether she was black, white or indigo.
Harris might be a terrible candidate, but she might be a very lucky one. Because the one Republican she can beat, is Donald Trump.
While 60% of Trump voters support (in the broadest sense) the actions of the Jan 6 rioters, another 30% were horrified. Trump owns 60% of the Republican Party, but he only rented the other 40%, and I don't think there's any evidence the rest have come to love in him in the six months since the election.
If Trump is the nominee (and I suspect it is probably his for the taking). And if Trump is embroiled in scandal and lawsuits, and is a weakened and older nominee, then I can't see anything other than a landslide for Harris.
Another question on the subject of the US Republican nomination: the best Republican Trumpian candidates are young: DeSantis is just 42, Josh Hawley is 41, Tom Cotton is 44 and Nikki Haley is 49. They can all wait if Trump decides to run in 2024. Indeed, the temptation for them is to be first to endorse Trump for 2024 so as to improve their chance of getting his nod in 2028.
And if Trump starts getting nomination for 2024, it's hard to see him deciding not to run.
Really hope you are right about Harris thrashing Trump. But I fear that is not what will happen.
The question is will none-Trump Republicans turn out and vote for Trump - it's the complete unknown but they seem less likely to.
Everton manager Carlo Ancelotti's mooted move to Real Madrid is a done deal, according to sources.
The Athletic has been told by sources close to the board at Everton that a move is close. Everton have arranged a meeting of their board at 3pm on Tuesday to discuss the developing situation.
Ancelotti, under contract for a further three years, is currently negotiating the terms of his exit.
Everton are now thought to be drawing up a shortlist of possible replacements although no contact has been made. A shock name in the frame is Rangers manager Steven Gerrard, although the former Liverpool captain is not the only candidate.
Others include Rafa Benitez, David Moyes — who would be considered unlikely at this stage — Paulo Fonseca, Erik ten Hag and Roberto Martinez.
I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.
It's not even about deaths any more. The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower. Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died). Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now. As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus). And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
There needs to be a cut off date for furlough and WFH advice that aligns with the end of the vaccine programme. That date is going to arrive much sooner than most people realise, by the end of this month every single adult will have been offered their first dose and we're about 50-60 days away from offering everyone both doses without taking into account the acceleration of the second dose programme available after the first dose programme is completed, it could be as little as 40-45 days for every person to get offered both doses.
I heard someone on 5 live say that the furlough scheme was fantastic and that they easily made up the 20% by working in a part time job. They seemed to think this was going to continue and become the norm
Furlough needs to end in September if not before to be honest, though thousands are in for a shock as reality kicks in
If all restrictions are lifted on June 21, what is the justification for any furlough? Which sectors will be needing it? Foreign travel I can just about see. Any others?
The government really need to be making it clear to people this....otherwise there are going to be a lot of very upset people when it disappears, or the government will have to run it for a ridiculous amount of extra time just to ensure they are seen to be fair.
Clearly the right thing to move on from furlough, but its withdrawal could well be the first event to seriously and permanently take a bite out of that enormous government polling lead.
The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE
Note the Zero COVID obsessives (Deepti Gurdasani and Pagel) on the attack in the replies because it doesn't fit with their panic laden doom mongering.
Indeed Gurdasani post a picture of % that is b.1.617.2, and not how many cases. I am sure it is widespread, but it is not taking off in most places.
Yes that is a misleading chart there. If deaths are the most important number, followed by hospitalisation, illness, then cases, the last thing we ought to care about is which strain is the most common. We are not trying to eliminate a particular strain, we are trying to limit the harm.
One start way of looking at this is to look at the ranking site wouldmeater:
Not the only or even the best tracking site, I know but its able to rank nations so im using it for this.
If you listed the nations by deaths per million averaged over the last week, how many places are doing worse than the UK?
119
Yes 119 nations are doing worse than the UK, and many of the better are really small places like the Vatican on 0. or places where the numbers may not be reliable.
I'm slightly wary of worldometers (not least because it's owned by the Chinese). But it does source its data. It doesn't appear, yet, to have included the update to the Peru data which elevates them to the top of the mortality rate table.
I did not relies it was owned by the Chinese, I might start to quote it less often now,
who owns 'OurWouldInDate'? or are there other places I should look at?
The problem is that their data is not particularly user friendly. I think that they try to do too much. The Worldometer presentation is much better in that regard.
But neither site is particularly accurate. Every time I've double checked something from either site it has been way wrong. Admittedly, I only checked things that I found "surprising" so maybe most of it is OK, but you just can't trust the data on either site.
Everton manager Carlo Ancelotti's mooted move to Real Madrid is a done deal, according to sources.
The Athletic has been told by sources close to the board at Everton that a move is close. Everton have arranged a meeting of their board at 3pm on Tuesday to discuss the developing situation.
Ancelotti, under contract for a further three years, is currently negotiating the terms of his exit.
Everton are now thought to be drawing up a shortlist of possible replacements although no contact has been made. A shock name in the frame is Rangers manager Steven Gerrard, although the former Liverpool captain is not the only candidate.
Others include Rafa Benitez, David Moyes — who would be considered unlikely at this stage — Paulo Fonseca, Erik ten Hag and Roberto Martinez.
Everton manager Carlo Ancelotti's mooted move to Real Madrid is a done deal, according to sources.
The Athletic has been told by sources close to the board at Everton that a move is close. Everton have arranged a meeting of their board at 3pm on Tuesday to discuss the developing situation.
Ancelotti, under contract for a further three years, is currently negotiating the terms of his exit.
Everton are now thought to be drawing up a shortlist of possible replacements although no contact has been made. A shock name in the frame is Rangers manager Steven Gerrard, although the former Liverpool captain is not the only candidate.
Others include Rafa Benitez, David Moyes — who would be considered unlikely at this stage — Paulo Fonseca, Erik ten Hag and Roberto Martinez.
The LOLZ are going to be epic if they appoint Rafa or Steven Gerrard.
Not if they do any good! Not sure they'll be too upset to lose Ancelotti.
The Everton fans I know are gutted.
I think if it is Benitez or Gerrard it'll be like George Graham managing Spurs, the fans will never take to them and if they go through a rut of say two defeats the fans will boo like there's no tomorrow.
Comments
Actual numbers and not percentages.
'There are some very promising signs in the latest data from Public Health England.
Firstly, two doses of the vaccine are really effective.
Analysis of 5,600 cases of the Indian variant shows 60% were unvaccinated.
Just 3% of them were fully vaccinated.
Up to 75% of new COVID cases are Indian variant
Of the 43 people who needed hospital admission, 67% were unvaccinated, just 2% had received both doses.
And finally, eight of the 12 people who died were unvaccinated.
All the more reason to get the jab.'
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a major competitor in the next few years.
Incidentally do we know where the other 4 deaths, people who had had one Jab, or two?
My annoyance is the fact that with paypal I used to get paid immediately and now I have to wait 48 hours before the money hits my account.
The CFR is now down to 0.3%. That's literally at the level the covid denialists pretended it was at all along; vaccines have made it come true. It implies the IFR is significantly lower.
Every death is a tragedy, of course. But we cannot abolish death. The greater the restrictions, the more damage we store up that will cause future (or even current) harm.
The balance was hugely in favour of restrictions when an average of 1.5% of cases died and 10% of cases were hospitalised (and 20-30% of hospitalised cases died).
Now, 0.3% of cases die, and 5% are hospitalised (and 7% of hospitalised cases die).
And vaccines will keep pushing those numbers down and down and down.
It's all about hospital occupancy and possible Long Covid now.
As I understand it, there's every reason to expect that Long Covid incidence will be drastically reduced by even a single vaccination (as the immune system is no longer naive to the novel virus).
And hospital occupancy remains very low and flatlining, even with cases increasing from four weeks ago and hospital admissions increasing from two weeks ago.
It may seem heartless to those who do become seriously ill (and the young can become seriously ill, as shown by the fact that admissions have increased from younger demographics) - but they are less likely to become seriously ill, far more likely to survive, and likely to be ill for shorter periods of time.
I agree that the unvaccinated should be given every genuine option to work from home (which is a challenge for those in the hospitality industry; furlough has to remain available for them) and to be able to remain socially distanced until they have had at least one dose (plus two weeks).
And we should continue vaccinating as quickly as possible (and certainly roll out down to age 12 and above as soon as we safely can).
Apart from that, though, the case for restrictions reduces incrementally jab by jab.
(As for antivaxxers? Up to them. Everyone is almost certain to see the virus sooner or later, especially as restrictions reduce. If they want to encounter it with a naive immune system, that's their call. Most will be lucky; some will be less lucky, but the first freedom is the freedom to take the consequences)
Thanks to Universal Credit its lower than that now but not much lower.
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2020/05/world/worldometer-coronavirus-mystery/
which suggests that that isn't true, and that the company which owns it is different to a Chinese company with the same name.
The site above says that the problem with Worldometer is that it is the Wikipedia of data - easily uploadable, easily misleading. Ironically, my labelling it as Chinese was driven by exactly the same sort of error - excessive trust in Wikipedia.
I don't think Worldometer is actually dodgy - just not necessarily 100% reliable, and a little devoid of context.
If someone is posting here they are afraid of third wave COVID and there needs to be a lockdown, the subtlety lost on them their own life or that of loved ones could be under threat from the increased deaths as result of lockdowns, how time ticks whilst serious illness remains undetected.
Is the lesson from history though, very mixed picture when politics climbs into bed with science? Does politics breath in a subtle atmosphere? Isn’t the very etymology of politics to spin and suppress truth to serve idea’s?
The younger people I know seem to use facebook marketplace, and there are plenty of others,
The problem (one of many) with a contagious disease like Covid is that exercising freedom of choice impinges upon others' well-being.
Also, I wonder what percentage of listings on ebay these days are actually an auction. Seems increasingly it is rammdd full of professional sellers and they don't mess about with that uncertainty.
It's all a rose by any other name. The only thing that matters to the individual is what their real rate of tax is, not what you call it as it is generated.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/01/wuhan-coronavirus-lab-leak-covid-virus-origins-china
If there is credible evidence this came from the lab, he is right, there is going to be a political earthquake and Trump is suddenly going to look a lot less foolish.
https://mclaughlinonline.com/pols/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/National-Monthly-Omnibus-MAY-Release-1.pdf
The reason being that your likelihood of coming into contact with someone unvaccinated should be small; and, being vaccinated, your likelihood of passing it on should be small.
If the vaccines work as well as it looks like they might, it should be just as controversial as going clubbing with a cold.
This is highly dependent on vaccines proving as effective as we'd like though!
What politician is going to run on we are going to make everything much more expensive?
I assumed at the time, maybe wrongly, that they wanted to get out of Paypal holding large amounts of customers' money.
Apart from that, yes. They are both too old imho.
It may be that Ebay is going to them and says, lower your fees for us and we will use you again,
Also if China starts to get too expensive, they can just pull the currency manipulation trick again.
The only way you can stand up to them is to go all protectionist, which doesn't work well with a capitalist economy.
Furlough needs to end in September if not before to be honest, though thousands are in for a shock as reality kicks in
And again the west is behind the 8 ball, because of our liberal democracies mean companies can't just capture all the data every created to train their systems. And of course a lot of west captured data is sent to China for "labelling", where I am sure none of it gets transferred onto the Chinese state.
We have to hope that supervised / semi-supervised learning is a total dead end.
We're doing 4 million doses a week. Assuming we're going to switch to more a fifty/fifty split of first and second doses (because we're at the point where 1st doses slowed down a lot; we're going to get to within 7-8 weeks behind, which is not ideal for AZ), we should be at 47 million (90% of adults) in 4 weeks. If we get lucky enough to get 95% of adults, that's 5 weeks from now.
Given that it's Pfizer/Moderna, a 3-4 week second dose strategy can be followed, and 4 million second doses a week from there gives us double-dose coverage of 95% of adults in 8 weeks from now.
By late July, there can be zero need for furlough any more, as every worker should have been offered two doses.
It’s a refrain one sees fairly often from people perplexed that their favourite cause hasn’t attracted the attention it deserved.
This weekend’s splendidly vague anti-lockdown marches in central London were no exception. Twitter hummed with anti-lockdown ‘Smiley’ types complaining that there wasn’t more news coverage of the thousands of people marching through central London to resist…well, we’re not quite sure what....
The daftness reached its apogee when a crowd decided to occupy the Westfield shopping centre in Shepherds Bush, which was already open, forcing it to close – all in the name of not locking things down. That group succeeded, in the narrow sense that their antics did get some news coverage, though it’s hard to see any other real achievement other than annoying a bunch of shoppers getting on with their very much not locked down lives. It all felt very much like a group of people with very little to say for themselves, demanding attention for its own sake.
https://capx.co/the-real-reason-the-mainstream-media-isnt-covering-your-protest/
When it reaches the “cut off date” as you call it, and next to nothing changes, it’s because the WFH policy is now little different than WFH for COVID - this change led by the Civil Service, who no longer want office attendance anywhere near the scale of pre pandemic?
Which sectors will be needing it? Foreign travel I can just about see.
Any others?
This article is slightly less profound, but is very good on the detail of the economic impact should lab leak be proven correct.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/05/31/wuhan-lab-leak-may-biggest-economic-shock-decades/
Basically, it would be very very bad news for China, and very bad news for everyone else.
But we're still stuck with them for another three months.
Let’s start by writing the very first line of the message for the publicity drive around this policy.
“I have to level with you, under my governments new strategic approach to tackling the pandemic, more of your loved ones are going to die from COVID than if we battle it with lockdowns.”
There are two ways of reacting to that line.
Yep. That’s the message, though deftly going on to place this fact into the bigger picture of deaths, how lockdowns kill, to justify new approach.
Or
That’s easy for you to say, but you don’t have to face the commons, media and country with this “being honest with people”.
Both reactions can’t be correct can they?
"Tomorrow we're hosting a virtual event to launch our report with @sheffielduni and @UKAntiSlavery on refining a public health approach to modern slavery."
We need a health body that does data, data, data, data, modelling, forecasting, planning...and then you can have one that does whatever "public health approach to modern slavery" is.
Companies moving from the wealthy coasts inland, in search of cheap labour.
PRC levelling up.
I would have thought outside a few industry's Nightclubs, airlines, theatres, most jobs have restated.
There will be some, maybe a lot, whose job really has despaired and the furlough scheme is really just a delay before they become unemployed,
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
Week ending 14th May E&W
Total deaths: 10,164
COVID deaths: 151
Less than 1.5% of the total....
It is not true that ‘every death is a tragedy’
An old lady of 88 dying of covid in a hospital with plenty of morphine to see her off is a sad thing, but it is part of the cycle of life. Not a ‘tragedy’. And there are many many worse ways to go, if she otherwise has her marbles. A few days of fever and croak
I’d take that over years of dementia or cancer or lots of other nasty stuff
https://twitter.com/PHE_uk/status/1399744049020612608?s=20
It is that the damage caused by restrictions (and we all agree that restrictions cause damage, which is why we don't apply them in normal times) now outweighs the damage done by covid.
Every government has to balance damage from its choices - otherwise it's not really a choice at all. And now we're at the point where the utility of restrictions is reducing steadily.
Which is exactly what we wanted to happen. And it's happening.
The media and zero Covid mobs are going to lose their pooh tomorrow if we have murder Wednesday.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/coronavirus-job-retention-scheme-statistics-march-2021/coronavirus-job-retention-scheme-statistics-march-2021
Don't know if anybody has seem more up to date numbers?
Everton manager Carlo Ancelotti's mooted move to Real Madrid is a done deal, according to sources.
The Athletic has been told by sources close to the board at Everton that a move is close. Everton have arranged a meeting of their board at 3pm on Tuesday to discuss the developing situation.
Ancelotti, under contract for a further three years, is currently negotiating the terms of his exit.
Everton are now thought to be drawing up a shortlist of possible replacements although no contact has been made. A shock name in the frame is Rangers manager Steven Gerrard, although the former Liverpool captain is not the only candidate.
Others include Rafa Benitez, David Moyes — who would be considered unlikely at this stage — Paulo Fonseca, Erik ten Hag and Roberto Martinez.
https://theathletic.com/news/carlo-ancelotti-real-madrid-next-manager-everton/CB69EnpalM5F
The LOLZ are going to be epic if they appoint Rafa or Steven Gerrard.
I am raising my glass to that news. Zero deaths. Wonderful. Purely symbolic. But still wonderful
Harris might be a terrible candidate, but she might be a very lucky one. Because the one Republican she can beat, is Donald Trump.
While 60% of Trump voters support (in the broadest sense) the actions of the Jan 6 rioters, another 30% were horrified. Trump owns 60% of the Republican Party, but he only rented the other 40%, and I don't think there's any evidence the rest have come to love in him in the six months since the election.
If Trump is the nominee (and I suspect it is probably his for the taking). And if Trump is embroiled in scandal and lawsuits, and is a weakened and older nominee, then I can't see anything other than a landslide for Harris.
Another question on the subject of the US Republican nomination: the best Republican Trumpian candidates are young: DeSantis is just 42, Josh Hawley is 41, Tom Cotton is 44 and Nikki Haley is 49. They can all wait if Trump decides to run in 2024. Indeed, the temptation for them is to be first to endorse Trump for 2024 so as to improve their chance of getting his nod in 2028.
And if Trump starts getting nomination for 2024, it's hard to see him deciding not to run.
I expect on the 14th June they will stand alongside Boris endorsing 21st June with possibly one or two minor adjustments
It would be 'popcorn' time to hear the 'zero covider's, all trying to rapidly reverse ferret their positions
The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE
https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1399696845274746882?s=20
I can see some states leaving the union to be honest.
Whilst the rave organisers were waiting outside the court, the suited, and frankly square, young barrister chit-chatted with his sartorially psychedelic clients. Making small talk to pass the time, he told them (perhaps in an effort to boost his street credibility) that when he was younger he had taken LSD. That self-confessed acid tripper was Keir Starmer…
https://order-order.com/2021/06/01/exclusive-keir-starmer-boasted-of-taking-lsd/
Wonder how many will actually return? Quite a few may have something better lined up.
The crazy bit, though, is that pretty much every other country seems to have worked this out, except the UK.
I'm going to cast a nasturtium here: Boris should be getting out and trumpeting our success and talking up leaving lockdown. There is a lack of leadership at the top. And the fundamental problem is that he's scared that we might go into lockdown again, and therefore he doesn't want to tie himself to the mast of "we're opening up in just three weeks time".
Boris: it's time to be a leader. Come out and say that restrictions end next month.
Over the whole of the pandemic, there have been about 130,000 UK deaths. How many years life lost? My understanding is that the average age of covid deaths is about 82, and that the average number of years of life lost is 10. This seems on the high side to me - there will be an awful lot of people in the 'would have died this year anyway' category - but I don't have the evidence to contradict it. So let's assume 10.
So the total number of life years lost in the UK is 1.3m.
As against which, all 66 million of us have essentially lost a year of our lives. Time when we could have been living we've instead spent social distancing, washing our hands, working from home and all that tedious bollocks. Total number of life years lost from lockdown = 66 million.
Now, clearly, I'm engaging in a little bit of hyperbole here. I've had days I've enjoyed in the past year. Walks up hills with the family and so forth. But really not very many.
We have been judging success by the wrong metrics. There is so much more to life than not dying.
I think if it is Benitez or Gerrard it'll be like George Graham managing Spurs, the fans will never take to them and if they go through a rut of say two defeats the fans will boo like there's no tomorrow.
Plus comments like this will come back.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rafa-benitez-explains-everton-small-17391785