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.
I've been having this chat with friends and family. About 50% of them (I am one) describe this last year as "the worst of my life"
Perhaps I have been incredibly fortunate otherwise, indeed I have, nonetheless this year just gone was the worst. That is no small thing.
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.
Oddly I'd have concluded
'Boris: it's time to be a leader. Come out and say that restrictions will stay in place for x weeks.'
It's clearly a big decision, but its a decision that has to be made. We agree though that Boris needs to own this decision, and needs to be very clear about what it is, why it is, and what the factors are that might cause change (reversal in your case, relaxing in mine)
I don't know what I'd do in his position (as in I don't know what I'd choose for x weeks - I think perhaps 3, and I certainly have no idea what exit criteria I might choose). That's clearly me being crap rather than there being a sensible rationale for delay. Tied to this I'd expect some sort of promise about a growing supply of vaccine to the colonies (past or future )
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.
Whisper it, but Johnson isn't really a leader. He's a man who runs to the front of the crowd once it has assembled. He's unfit for the job.
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.
I've been having this chat with friends and family. About 50% of them (I am one) describe this last year as "the worst of my life"
Perhaps I have been incredibly fortunate otherwise, indeed I have, nonetheless this year just gone was the worst. That is no small thing.
Billions of people have endured the same
Yes, me too. And even though you were relaying the other day a story from when you were in prison - that must have been a pretty bad year - I believe you.
I don't think I'm alone in that my mood is much more associated with how the future looks than the present. And for a long time the future has just looked like nothing. A fog. An endless cold desert. A void.
My life now is actually little different from how it was last Autumn, but the future is looking much less bleak.
So not long now until Mr Waistcoast names the England squad for the Euros....
Which I presume will include a ridiculous number of holding midfielders...as it has already been revealed Lingard is not in. So at least Rice, Henderson, Philips and Ward Prowse...
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)
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.
Boris isn't a leader. If he was then he wouldn't duck the hard choices as he is now with unlockdown leading to the deaths of over 50s who rejected the vaccine. That's what this is about, no one wants to come out and say "we don't give fuck if you die" to people who rejected the vaccine.
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.
However, there was no option of "just continue as we were." As @rcs1000 has pointed out, even in states or countries where that was tried, the effects of restrictions were applied unofficially. Mobility cratered, people stayed at home, restaurants and pubs had footfall plunge (in states in the US where there was no lockdown, the level of decrease of footfall over the year 2020 was greater than it was in the UK!). One key difference has been furlough, which was justified because the Government were mandating closure. Otherwise it would have been business closures and jobs lost.
(And don't forget that the 1.3 million years left was with the measures to reduce it. Would have been dramatically higher without it. In addition, those bereaved have had a certain quality of life reduction. And those with Long Covid (especially those with demonstrated organ damage, which is a significant number) have also had a level of quality of life reduction, and this would also have been multiplied in such a counterfactual.
In essence, there were no good outcomes and no timelines where we didn't have a really really shit year. I think that's one thing the Toby Youngs and followers have been unable to internalise)
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
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:
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.
Saying “they will definitely end next month” is interpreted by the public as “they are ending now”. I’m completely cool with that obviously, I’d have ended all legal restrictions when Phase 1 of the vaccine programme was achieved. But it’s no doubt tricky to say that as PM when there’s a roomful of “experts” telling him he’s being cavalier.
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.
Well, we'll see (if Trump is the nominee), but my guess is that:
(a) Trump will be older, and mentally less sharp than in 2020 or 2016 (b) Trump will have endured some pretty miserable press, and it will be easy to paint his run as "Trump only wants to be President to avoid jail" (c) There will be a minority of Republicans for whom the Capitol riots were beyond the pale, and who will be disinclined to vote for him (d) Trump won't get the nomination unchallenged next time around - and it's entirely possible that the nomination process will be an extremely bruising one
Put those together, and the fact that the Biden administration (while not particularly competent) is going to be hard to paint as Marxist, and I think Trump will face an uphill struggle against Harris in 2024.
DeSantis or Hawley, on the other hand, would wipe the floor with her.
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.
Saying “they will definitely end next month” is interpreted by the public as “they are ending now”. I’m completely cool with that obviously, I’d have ended all legal restrictions when Phase 1 of the vaccine programme was achieved. But it’s no doubt tricky to say that as PM when there’s a roomful of “experts” telling him he’s being cavalier.
In California, restrictions end in about two weeks time. Everyone is continuing to wear masks in shops and on public transport. Restrictions on indoor dining capacity, etc., continue.
And everyone is looking forward to the complete removal of restrictions.
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.
However, there was no option of "just continue as we were." As @rcs1000 has pointed out, even in states or countries where that was tried, the effects of restrictions were applied unofficially. Mobility cratered, people stayed at home, restaurants and pubs had footfall plunge (in states in the US where there was no lockdown, the level of decrease of footfall over the year 2020 was greater than it was in the UK!). One key difference has been furlough, which was justified because the Government were mandating closure. Otherwise it would have been business closures and jobs lost.
(And don't forget that the 1.3 million years left was with the measures to reduce it. Would have been dramatically higher without it. In addition, those bereaved have had a certain quality of life reduction. And those with Long Covid (especially those with demonstrated organ damage, which is a significant number) have also had a level of quality of life reduction, and this would also have been multiplied in such a counterfactual.
In essence, there were no good outcomes and no timelines where we didn't have a really really shit year. I think that's one thing the Toby Youngs and followers have been unable to internalise)
Don’t know about you but in Feb 2020, I was expecting the next 12 months to be far worse from a personal and societal level than they have been. To be forewarned is to be prepared I suppose.
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.
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)
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.
However, there was no option of "just continue as we were." As @rcs1000 has pointed out, even in states or countries where that was tried, the effects of restrictions were applied unofficially. Mobility cratered, people stayed at home, restaurants and pubs had footfall plunge (in states in the US where there was no lockdown, the level of decrease of footfall over the year 2020 was greater than it was in the UK!). One key difference has been furlough, which was justified because the Government were mandating closure. Otherwise it would have been business closures and jobs lost.
(And don't forget that the 1.3 million years left was with the measures to reduce it. Would have been dramatically higher without it. In addition, those bereaved have had a certain quality of life reduction. And those with Long Covid (especially those with demonstrated organ damage, which is a significant number) have also had a level of quality of life reduction, and this would also have been multiplied in such a counterfactual.
In essence, there were no good outcomes and no timelines where we didn't have a really really shit year. I think that's one thing the Toby Youngs and followers have been unable to internalise)
Yes, all fair points. I'd say that the 1.3 million would have been 5 million if Neil Ferguson's models had been accurate. Which is a lot more but still may not be worth the 66 million people giving up a year of their lives. But as you say, it's not just about deaths.
My view is that some restrictions are worthwhile, but most bring such minor benefits in restricting the spread of the disease that they are not. My other view is that the people making the decisions have been human, fallible, and learning as they went along. To expect a perfect decision-making would be unrealistic. But frankly, I'm just some random bloke on the internet; my views have no consequences, they are partially informed, speculatively advanced, and no-one should get too upset about them.
And I will certainly agree with you about your last paragraph.
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.
Another shockingly poor day for vaccinations. We really need some days close to the million this week to catch up and keep 21st June on target.
The mega massive expansion that was claimed was coming from the middle of last month never really arrived. There has been a reasonable increase, but nowhere near what was being talked about.
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.
OK.
If you don't have official lockdowns, you still have lockdowns. They're just unofficial ones that happen when everyone is utterly terrified to go out.
You have a series of waves that come and go, as people get scared of the virus and stay home. So the choice is not between zero years locked down and 66 million, it's between "n" and 66 million.
Plus there's the fact that without restrctions, we would probably have had higher peaks, and we might have actually seem the health service overloaded, leading to situtations like happened in New York or Milan early last year (or Manaus). And when you have those kind of peaks, you're not killing off people with just 10 years to go, you are killing off those with 20 or 30 or 40.
If you want to see just how bad excess deaths can go, look at Ecuador: they have been running at deaths 3x the normal level. Three times. We've been at 20-30% above normal levels for the last year.
Without restrictions, we would still have lost decades of peoples' lives to lockdowns, and we would have had much higher death tolls.
Now, should we have opened up much quicker? Damn right we should. But the idea that "no restrictions" is milk and honey is for the birds.
Just so we’re all clear, the former President of the United States of America is now openly regurgitating conspiracy theories that he’ll be reinstated either through the overturning of a presidential election by political trickery or a full-blown violent coup. https://twitter.com/JYSexton/status/1399718740275732488/photo/1
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.
However, there was no option of "just continue as we were." As @rcs1000 has pointed out, even in states or countries where that was tried, the effects of restrictions were applied unofficially. Mobility cratered, people stayed at home, restaurants and pubs had footfall plunge (in states in the US where there was no lockdown, the level of decrease of footfall over the year 2020 was greater than it was in the UK!). One key difference has been furlough, which was justified because the Government were mandating closure. Otherwise it would have been business closures and jobs lost.
(And don't forget that the 1.3 million years left was with the measures to reduce it. Would have been dramatically higher without it. In addition, those bereaved have had a certain quality of life reduction. And those with Long Covid (especially those with demonstrated organ damage, which is a significant number) have also had a level of quality of life reduction, and this would also have been multiplied in such a counterfactual.
In essence, there were no good outcomes and no timelines where we didn't have a really really shit year. I think that's one thing the Toby Youngs and followers have been unable to internalise)
Don’t know about you but in Feb 2020, I was expecting the next 12 months to be far worse from a personal and societal level than they have been. To be forewarned is to be prepared I suppose.
Yes, I was expecting about 1m dead in the UK. I wasn't, however, expecting legal restrictions to go anywhere like as far as they did.
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.
However, there was no option of "just continue as we were." As @rcs1000 has pointed out, even in states or countries where that was tried, the effects of restrictions were applied unofficially. Mobility cratered, people stayed at home, restaurants and pubs had footfall plunge (in states in the US where there was no lockdown, the level of decrease of footfall over the year 2020 was greater than it was in the UK!). One key difference has been furlough, which was justified because the Government were mandating closure. Otherwise it would have been business closures and jobs lost.
(And don't forget that the 1.3 million years left was with the measures to reduce it. Would have been dramatically higher without it. In addition, those bereaved have had a certain quality of life reduction. And those with Long Covid (especially those with demonstrated organ damage, which is a significant number) have also had a level of quality of life reduction, and this would also have been multiplied in such a counterfactual.
In essence, there were no good outcomes and no timelines where we didn't have a really really shit year. I think that's one thing the Toby Youngs and followers have been unable to internalise)
Don’t know about you but in Feb 2020, I was expecting the next 12 months to be far worse from a personal and societal level than they have been. To be forewarned is to be prepared I suppose.
Just back from visiting sister-in-law and family in Las Vegas. S-i-l's husband is an emergency room doctor there. He told us that when the first surge in Italy was being reported with early suggestions of a CFR of around 4-5%, he and his colleagues assessed that if that really was the CFR, health services in the US would totally collapse. They seriously considered whether they should try to catch the virus themselves as quickly as possible so that if they did get seriously ill from it, they'd still be able to get treatment before the collapse occured.
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.
I've been having this chat with friends and family. About 50% of them (I am one) describe this last year as "the worst of my life"
Perhaps I have been incredibly fortunate otherwise, indeed I have, nonetheless this year just gone was the worst. That is no small thing.
Billions of people have endured the same
Yes, me too. And even though you were relaying the other day a story from when you were in prison - that must have been a pretty bad year - I believe you.
I don't think I'm alone in that my mood is much more associated with how the future looks than the present. And for a long time the future has just looked like nothing. A fog. An endless cold desert. A void.
My life now is actually little different from how it was last Autumn, but the future is looking much less bleak.
I'd forgotten the year I was in prison, and then on bail
That WAS grim. Personally
And yet this year still beats it for shittiness, easily, because this time it's not just me suffering, it's the whole bloody world, and I have friends and family whose mental health has seriously declined this year, plus lots of intense loneliness - everywhere - plus of course the horrible economic costs - jobs lost, businesses shuttered, on and on it goes
And I have not come close to death, in my family or social group - God knows what it is like for those that do
Another shockingly poor day for vaccinations. We really need some days close to the million this week to catch up and keep 21st June on target.
The mega massive expansion that was claimed was coming from the middle of last month never really arrived. There has been a reasonable increase, but nowhere near what was being talked about.
I think in part because of what happened in India (so no deliveries from there). There is also a capacity that can be made to work and it is doing so.
Just so we’re all clear, the former President of the United States of America is now openly regurgitating conspiracy theories that he’ll be reinstated either through the overturning of a presidential election by political trickery or a full-blown violent coup. https://twitter.com/JYSexton/status/1399718740275732488/photo/1
Let 'em try, then we can close down the entire Republican Party once and for all.
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.
I've been having this chat with friends and family. About 50% of them (I am one) describe this last year as "the worst of my life"
Perhaps I have been incredibly fortunate otherwise, indeed I have, nonetheless this year just gone was the worst. That is no small thing.
Billions of people have endured the same
Yes, me too. And even though you were relaying the other day a story from when you were in prison - that must have been a pretty bad year - I believe you.
I don't think I'm alone in that my mood is much more associated with how the future looks than the present. And for a long time the future has just looked like nothing. A fog. An endless cold desert. A void.
My life now is actually little different from how it was last Autumn, but the future is looking much less bleak.
I'd forgotten the year I was in prison, and then on bail
That WAS grim. Personally
And yet this year still beats it for shittiness, easily, because this time it's not just me suffering, it's the whole bloody world, and I have friends and family whose mental health has seriously declined this year, plus lots of intense loneliness - everywhere - plus of course the horrible economic costs - jobs lost, businesses shuttered, on and on it goes
And I have not come close to death, in my family or social group - God knows what it is like for those that do
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.
OK.
If you don't have official lockdowns, you still have lockdowns. They're just unofficial ones that happen when everyone is utterly terrified to go out.
You have a series of waves that come and go, as people get scared of the virus and stay home. So the choice is not between zero years locked down and 66 million, it's between "n" and 66 million.
Plus there's the fact that without restrctions, we would probably have had higher peaks, and we might have actually seem the health service overloaded, leading to situtations like happened in New York or Milan early last year (or Manaus). And when you have those kind of peaks, you're not killing off people with just 10 years to go, you are killing off those with 20 or 30 or 40.
If you want to see just how bad excess deaths can go, look at Ecuador: they have been running at deaths 3x the normal level. Three times. We've been at 20-30% above normal levels for the last year.
Without restrictions, we would still have lost decades of peoples' lives to lockdowns, and we would have had much higher death tolls.
Now, should we have opened up much quicker? Damn right we should. But the idea that "no restrictions" is milk and honey is for the birds.
Oh yes, I agree. As I said before, I was toying with hyperbole.
But I do think most of the legal restrictions we had were a) verging on indefensible in a nominally free society, and b) only very marginally effective.
But on the other hand, a) what do I know, and b) those making the decisions were learning as they went along too.
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.
I've been having this chat with friends and family. About 50% of them (I am one) describe this last year as "the worst of my life"
Perhaps I have been incredibly fortunate otherwise, indeed I have, nonetheless this year just gone was the worst. That is no small thing.
Billions of people have endured the same
Yes, me too. And even though you were relaying the other day a story from when you were in prison - that must have been a pretty bad year - I believe you.
I don't think I'm alone in that my mood is much more associated with how the future looks than the present. And for a long time the future has just looked like nothing. A fog. An endless cold desert. A void.
My life now is actually little different from how it was last Autumn, but the future is looking much less bleak.
I'd forgotten the year I was in prison, and then on bail
That WAS grim. Personally
And yet this year still beats it for shittiness, easily, because this time it's not just me suffering, it's the whole bloody world, and I have friends and family whose mental health has seriously declined this year, plus lots of intense loneliness - everywhere - plus of course the horrible economic costs - jobs lost, businesses shuttered, on and on it goes
And I have not come close to death, in my family or social group - God knows what it is like for those that do
The Worst Year. Yes
And, grim as it has been, it's going away and we have nearly all survived. If this is the worst year of nearly all our lives (and please, may it be so), that's a mark of how fortunate we continue to be.
A lot of is being made of this, but it won't really turn out to be truth. However, the positives are that deaths are now at a very low level.
There has to be one symbolic day when we hit zero
Today is a good day to be that day. The sun is high and hot. I am meeting an old friend in Queen Mary's Rose Garden to eat strawberries and drink fine Greek white wine. Tomorrow I'm going to the Chiltern hills to hike with my daughter. In a week or so I have my first assignment to knap flints out of town - first since last September, first real one since late 2019
It feels like it is over. ZERO DEATHS. Fuck, what an ordeal we have endured
Just so we’re all clear, the former President of the United States of America is now openly regurgitating conspiracy theories that he’ll be reinstated either through the overturning of a presidential election by political trickery or a full-blown violent coup. https://twitter.com/JYSexton/status/1399718740275732488/photo/1
Let 'em try, then we can close down the entire Republican Party once and for all.
Ironically, if they succeeded in winning by voter suppression then it really would be a stolen election. Civil disobedience, including illegal disruption, would then be an appropriate response, since the argument that people have the option to vote for change would no longer apply, precisely as we routinely say about autocracies like Belarus and Myanmar.
Normally between the entrenched rival parties there is a clear majority of people who believe that the right to allow democratic choice is more important than beating the other side. It's worrying that this segment of the electorate seems to be getting very small in the US - not least as trends in the US tend to pop up here 10 years later.
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.
However, there was no option of "just continue as we were." As @rcs1000 has pointed out, even in states or countries where that was tried, the effects of restrictions were applied unofficially. Mobility cratered, people stayed at home, restaurants and pubs had footfall plunge (in states in the US where there was no lockdown, the level of decrease of footfall over the year 2020 was greater than it was in the UK!). One key difference has been furlough, which was justified because the Government were mandating closure. Otherwise it would have been business closures and jobs lost.
(And don't forget that the 1.3 million years left was with the measures to reduce it. Would have been dramatically higher without it. In addition, those bereaved have had a certain quality of life reduction. And those with Long Covid (especially those with demonstrated organ damage, which is a significant number) have also had a level of quality of life reduction, and this would also have been multiplied in such a counterfactual.
In essence, there were no good outcomes and no timelines where we didn't have a really really shit year. I think that's one thing the Toby Youngs and followers have been unable to internalise)
Don’t know about you but in Feb 2020, I was expecting the next 12 months to be far worse from a personal and societal level than they have been. To be forewarned is to be prepared I suppose.
Yes, I was expecting about 1m dead in the UK. I wasn't, however, expecting legal restrictions to go anywhere like as far as they did.
I was expecting 250-500k dead in the UK. I was also expecting it to take members of my family, and it hasn't, so there's that
Like others, I had no idea lockdown would go on for 16 fucking months, nor that it would be so austere
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.
I'd agree with the line that the leading other Republican candidates can afford to wait - I think Haley would be a long shot given some of her statements before on Trump but definitely with the other three I can see them binding their time (the same also goes for Ted Cruz).
However, I just don't think Harris would beat Trump. She truly is a bizarre candidate and it is fair to say she had some, mmm, "help" on the way up in her California career which suggests she has managed to get as far as she has not on ability but on the willingness of people to do her favours. While that might be true of a fair few people, nothing she has done so far suggests she will dazzle people when she is the main act, and not in support. The Democrats are also likely to leak some of their suburban support if they continue being seen as strong supporters of the "woke": mentioned it a few weeks back but look at the results down in the Carroll School District in Texas - moderate suburban voters
Plus, I am not sure Trump will be such the demonising figure he is in 2024 as he is now, especially if a large percentage of the population comes round to the view CV came from a Chinese lab and / or other swing voters start to believe that some of the media reporting was over-biased. The Chinese lab story could be a particularly explosive affair.
He's picked four right backs in his squad and four centre backs, one of whom is Harry Maguire.
We're buggered if we have an issue at centre back during a match.
That sounds bizarre
My guess is he is going back 5, Walker in the centre with Maguire / Stones, and Alexander Arnold right wing back / midfielder, Chilwell on the left side.
Then Rice / Henderson holding. The front 3 of Kane, Rashford, Sterling (and rotating in / out the likes of Mount, Sancho and Foden).
Another shockingly poor day for vaccinations. We really need some days close to the million this week to catch up and keep 21st June on target.
It's almost like yesterday was some kind of public holiday.
Like that should bloody matter. Where is the urgency? Ministers talk about a race between the vaccine and the virus for the 21st. Presumably they think the tortoise wins every time, not just in Aesop.
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.
I've been having this chat with friends and family. About 50% of them (I am one) describe this last year as "the worst of my life"
Perhaps I have been incredibly fortunate otherwise, indeed I have, nonetheless this year just gone was the worst. That is no small thing.
Billions of people have endured the same
Yes, me too. And even though you were relaying the other day a story from when you were in prison - that must have been a pretty bad year - I believe you.
I don't think I'm alone in that my mood is much more associated with how the future looks than the present. And for a long time the future has just looked like nothing. A fog. An endless cold desert. A void.
My life now is actually little different from how it was last Autumn, but the future is looking much less bleak.
I'd forgotten the year I was in prison, and then on bail
That WAS grim. Personally
And yet this year still beats it for shittiness, easily, because this time it's not just me suffering, it's the whole bloody world, and I have friends and family whose mental health has seriously declined this year, plus lots of intense loneliness - everywhere - plus of course the horrible economic costs - jobs lost, businesses shuttered, on and on it goes
And I have not come close to death, in my family or social group - God knows what it is like for those that do
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.
However, there was no option of "just continue as we were." As @rcs1000 has pointed out, even in states or countries where that was tried, the effects of restrictions were applied unofficially. Mobility cratered, people stayed at home, restaurants and pubs had footfall plunge (in states in the US where there was no lockdown, the level of decrease of footfall over the year 2020 was greater than it was in the UK!). One key difference has been furlough, which was justified because the Government were mandating closure. Otherwise it would have been business closures and jobs lost.
(And don't forget that the 1.3 million years left was with the measures to reduce it. Would have been dramatically higher without it. In addition, those bereaved have had a certain quality of life reduction. And those with Long Covid (especially those with demonstrated organ damage, which is a significant number) have also had a level of quality of life reduction, and this would also have been multiplied in such a counterfactual.
In essence, there were no good outcomes and no timelines where we didn't have a really really shit year. I think that's one thing the Toby Youngs and followers have been unable to internalise)
Don’t know about you but in Feb 2020, I was expecting the next 12 months to be far worse from a personal and societal level than they have been. To be forewarned is to be prepared I suppose.
Just back from visiting sister-in-law and family in Las Vegas. S-i-l's husband is an emergency room doctor there. He told us that when the first surge in Italy was being reported with early suggestions of a CFR of around 4-5%, he and his colleagues assessed that if that really was the CFR, health services in the US would totally collapse. They seriously considered whether they should try to catch the virus themselves as quickly as possible so that if they did get seriously ill from it, they'd still be able to get treatment before the collapse occured.
I had exactly the same thought in Feb 2020. Is it the right strategy to catch it early whilst you can still get treated?
It didn't take long to decide that 6 months of living like a hermit was safer, as once enough people had caught it a lot more would be known about treatment and the big peak wouldn't last forever.
That turning people into hermits became government mandated strategy for the whole of the UK was the big surprise.
Not so easy as a doctor though...
Edit: There was also the thought that you could wander the world with impunity once you'd had it. Turned out that was definitely wrong...
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.
I've been having this chat with friends and family. About 50% of them (I am one) describe this last year as "the worst of my life"
Perhaps I have been incredibly fortunate otherwise, indeed I have, nonetheless this year just gone was the worst. That is no small thing.
Billions of people have endured the same
Yes, me too. And even though you were relaying the other day a story from when you were in prison - that must have been a pretty bad year - I believe you.
I don't think I'm alone in that my mood is much more associated with how the future looks than the present. And for a long time the future has just looked like nothing. A fog. An endless cold desert. A void.
My life now is actually little different from how it was last Autumn, but the future is looking much less bleak.
I'd forgotten the year I was in prison, and then on bail
That WAS grim. Personally
And yet this year still beats it for shittiness, easily, because this time it's not just me suffering, it's the whole bloody world, and I have friends and family whose mental health has seriously declined this year, plus lots of intense loneliness - everywhere - plus of course the horrible economic costs - jobs lost, businesses shuttered, on and on it goes
And I have not come close to death, in my family or social group - God knows what it is like for those that do
The Worst Year. Yes
What was prison actually like?
Grim, but better than a cold winter lockdown on your own. Seriously
He's picked four right backs in his squad and four centre backs, one of whom is Harry Maguire.
We're buggered if we have an issue at centre back during a match.
That sounds bizarre
My guess is he is going back 5, Walker in the centre with Maguire / Stones, and Alexander Arnold right wing back / midfielder, Chilwell on the left side.
Then Rice / Henderson holding. The front 3 of Kane, Rashford, Sterling (and rotating in / out the likes of Mount, Sancho and Foden).
He's picked four right backs in his squad and four centre backs, one of whom is Harry Maguire.
We're buggered if we have an issue at centre back during a match.
The ones he left out are the ones I would have left out. Would you have left either TAA or James out?
I was impressed by James in the CLF, Mount too.
I think we are getting another Golden Generation, except for centre backs and keepers. Greenwood will be a great 9 in future, and the midfield and wings are full of richness.
Just been for a quick scoot around the 'problem' authorities on the coronavirus website - Manchester, Preston, Oldham, Rossendale, Burnley, Chorley etc. Now absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and who knows whether tomorrow will see a surge of post-bank holiday data. But none of these authorities look to me like positives are still rising.
There's going to be a lot of light blue coming on to the map in the next couple of days. But my guess is very little dark blue and no more purple.
I wouldn't have picked Bukayo Saka. He is competing with Sancho, Foden, Grealish, Rashford, and Sterling for any game time and he isn't going (or rather shouldn't be) getting any infront of those players.
Should have picked another out and out striker in case old 'arry's ankle pack in.
If you don't have official lockdowns, you still have lockdowns. They're just unofficial ones that happen when everyone is utterly terrified to go out.
You have a series of waves that come and go, as people get scared of the virus and stay home. So the choice is not between zero years locked down and 66 million, it's between "n" and 66 million.
Plus there's the fact that without restrctions, we would probably have had higher peaks, and we might have actually seem the health service overloaded, leading to situtations like happened in New York or Milan early last year (or Manaus). And when you have those kind of peaks, you're not killing off people with just 10 years to go, you are killing off those with 20 or 30 or 40.
If you want to see just how bad excess deaths can go, look at Ecuador: they have been running at deaths 3x the normal level. Three times. We've been at 20-30% above normal levels for the last year.
Without restrictions, we would still have lost decades of peoples' lives to lockdowns, and we would have had much higher death tolls.
Now, should we have opened up much quicker? Damn right we should. But the idea that "no restrictions" is milk and honey is for the birds.
Yes to the illusion of lockdown free paradise. I'm also aware of rather a lot of people who have had quite a decent year, and some who quietly say they've really preferred it (mostly people who have seen far more of their young kids and much less commuting) but in view of the horrors that so many have experienced are shy of saying it.
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.
However, there was no option of "just continue as we were." As @rcs1000 has pointed out, even in states or countries where that was tried, the effects of restrictions were applied unofficially. Mobility cratered, people stayed at home, restaurants and pubs had footfall plunge (in states in the US where there was no lockdown, the level of decrease of footfall over the year 2020 was greater than it was in the UK!). One key difference has been furlough, which was justified because the Government were mandating closure. Otherwise it would have been business closures and jobs lost.
(And don't forget that the 1.3 million years left was with the measures to reduce it. Would have been dramatically higher without it. In addition, those bereaved have had a certain quality of life reduction. And those with Long Covid (especially those with demonstrated organ damage, which is a significant number) have also had a level of quality of life reduction, and this would also have been multiplied in such a counterfactual.
In essence, there were no good outcomes and no timelines where we didn't have a really really shit year. I think that's one thing the Toby Youngs and followers have been unable to internalise)
Don’t know about you but in Feb 2020, I was expecting the next 12 months to be far worse from a personal and societal level than they have been. To be forewarned is to be prepared I suppose.
Just back from visiting sister-in-law and family in Las Vegas. S-i-l's husband is an emergency room doctor there. He told us that when the first surge in Italy was being reported with early suggestions of a CFR of around 4-5%, he and his colleagues assessed that if that really was the CFR, health services in the US would totally collapse. They seriously considered whether they should try to catch the virus themselves as quickly as possible so that if they did get seriously ill from it, they'd still be able to get treatment before the collapse occured.
I had exactly the same thought in Feb 2020. Is it the right strategy to catch it early whilst you can still get treated?
It didn't take long to decide that 6 months of living like a hermit was safer, as once enough people had caught it a lot more would be known about treatment and the big peak wouldn't last forever.
That turning people into hermits became government mandated strategy for the whole of the UK was the big surprise.
Not so easy as a doctor though...
Indeed, especially as working in emergency medicine they were literally in the front line. He invested in serious PPE (positive air pressure the full works) as fast as he could. BTW, he said they're now seeing virtually no new Covid cases in the ER, and are back to the Vegas standards of drink- and drug- related injuries.
He's picked four right backs in his squad and four centre backs, one of whom is Harry Maguire.
We're buggered if we have an issue at centre back during a match.
That sounds bizarre
My guess is he is going back 5, Walker in the centre with Maguire / Stones, and Alexander Arnold right wing back / midfielder, Chilwell on the left side.
Then Rice / Henderson holding. The front 3 of Kane, Rashford, Sterling (and rotating in / out the likes of Mount, Sancho and Foden).
That team could be an embarrassment
And I do not think Rashford is fit enough
Southgate is very defensive minded and I don't think he knows how to integrate all the attacking flair England have. To be fair, I don't think anybody knows how to try and get Foden, Mount, Grealish in the same team.
So instead I think they will go for a repeat of the WC approach with Walker in the centre and play a game that hopes the front three can create some magic / Kane doesn't miss the one chance he gets.
Also Maguire is dead slow and Stone messes up at least once a game, so I presume the hope is the pace of Walker can dig them out of trouble. A season of Gomez being fit for Liverpool, it might well have been different thinking.
If you don't have official lockdowns, you still have lockdowns. They're just unofficial ones that happen when everyone is utterly terrified to go out.
You have a series of waves that come and go, as people get scared of the virus and stay home. So the choice is not between zero years locked down and 66 million, it's between "n" and 66 million.
Plus there's the fact that without restrctions, we would probably have had higher peaks, and we might have actually seem the health service overloaded, leading to situtations like happened in New York or Milan early last year (or Manaus). And when you have those kind of peaks, you're not killing off people with just 10 years to go, you are killing off those with 20 or 30 or 40.
If you want to see just how bad excess deaths can go, look at Ecuador: they have been running at deaths 3x the normal level. Three times. We've been at 20-30% above normal levels for the last year.
Without restrictions, we would still have lost decades of peoples' lives to lockdowns, and we would have had much higher death tolls.
Now, should we have opened up much quicker? Damn right we should. But the idea that "no restrictions" is milk and honey is for the birds.
Yes to the illusion of lockdown free paradise. I'm also aware of rather a lot of people who have had quite a decent year, and some who quietly say they've really preferred it (mostly people who have seen far more of their young kids and much less commuting) but in view of the horrors that so many have experienced are shy of saying it.
I doubt that is anybody under the age of 25 whose lives have been hugely affected with exam cancellations/missed school/ no social life /no university or college tuition (but still fees) and no career prospects
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.
Well, we'll see (if Trump is the nominee), but my guess is that:
(a) Trump will be older, and mentally less sharp than in 2020 or 2016 (b) Trump will have endured some pretty miserable press, and it will be easy to paint his run as "Trump only wants to be President to avoid jail" (c) There will be a minority of Republicans for whom the Capitol riots were beyond the pale, and who will be disinclined to vote for him (d) Trump won't get the nomination unchallenged next time around - and it's entirely possible that the nomination process will be an extremely bruising one
Put those together, and the fact that the Biden administration (while not particularly competent) is going to be hard to paint as Marxist, and I think Trump will face an uphill struggle against Harris in 2024.
DeSantis or Hawley, on the other hand, would wipe the floor with her.
I also take the opposite view on DeSantis and Hawley, support for Trumpism is not as strong without Trump leading it, much with Boris part of his support is a personal vote for him as a strong and charismatic leader even if somewhat chaotic.
DeSantis and Hawley would be weaker candidates than Trump
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.
Whisper it, but Johnson isn't really a leader. He's a man who runs to the front of the crowd once it has assembled. He's unfit for the job.
Boris Johnson has ordered swift progress on parliamentary approval of legislation allowing him to set the date of the next general election, increasing Labour fears that he could make a dash to the polls as early as 2023.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of the House of Commons, has told the prime minister he expects the legislation to “breeze through” parliament and to gain royal assent early next year.
Sir Keir Starmer, Labour leader, has put his party on standby for Johnson to “cut and run” and to hold an early election if the Conservatives maintain a strong lead in opinion polls.
Seems sensible for Tories to do that to me. Should consider 2022 too.
With a comfortable majority already little to gain and everything to lose, at least May had the excuse in 2017 she did not have much of a majority to start with
Boris Johnson has ordered swift progress on parliamentary approval of legislation allowing him to set the date of the next general election, increasing Labour fears that he could make a dash to the polls as early as 2023.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of the House of Commons, has told the prime minister he expects the legislation to “breeze through” parliament and to gain royal assent early next year.
Sir Keir Starmer, Labour leader, has put his party on standby for Johnson to “cut and run” and to hold an early election if the Conservatives maintain a strong lead in opinion polls.
I wouldn't have picked Bukayo Saka. He is competing with Sancho, Foden, Grealish, Rashford, and Sterling for any game time and he isn't going (or rather shouldn't be) getting any infront of those players.
Should have picked another out and out striker in case old 'arry's ankle pack in.
I wouldn't have picked Bukayo Saka. He is competing with Sancho, Foden, Grealish, Rashford, and Sterling for any game time and he isn't going (or rather shouldn't be) getting any infront of those players.
Should have picked another out and out striker in case old 'arry's ankle pack in.
He can play anywhere other than GK or CB though. Fantastic talent.
I can’t see why squads have to be so big. It’s what, 7 games max? 18 should do
I wouldn't have picked Bukayo Saka. He is competing with Sancho, Foden, Grealish, Rashford, and Sterling for any game time and he isn't going (or rather shouldn't be) getting any infront of those players.
Should have picked another out and out striker in case old 'arry's ankle pack in.
Isn’t he competing with Shaw for LWB?
Chilwell and Shaw are in. So its a third left wing back. Again he isn't getting in there either.
I wouldn't have picked Bukayo Saka. He is competing with Sancho, Foden, Grealish, Rashford, and Sterling for any game time and he isn't going (or rather shouldn't be) getting any infront of those players.
Should have picked another out and out striker in case old 'arry's ankle pack in.
Isn’t he competing with Shaw for LWB?
Chilwell and Shaw are in. So its a third left wing back.
The seven England players to miss out from the final 26-man squad are as follows:
Aaron Ramsdale Ben Godfrey Ben White Jesse Lingard James Ward-Prowse Mason Greenwood Ollie Watkins
Only 5 midfielders picked. And yet somehow I bet Mr Waistcoat will somehow still have a defensive sideways passing formation.
Godfrey? He's been our best player by a street. A CB who can do a job at FB too. That is a surprise.
Ben White should have been tried before this to see if he really is as good as the likes of Biesla think he is. He has been touted as a better version of Jon Stones.
Comments
Perhaps I have been incredibly fortunate otherwise, indeed I have, nonetheless this year just gone was the worst. That is no small thing.
Billions of people have endured the same
Note how the SNP always refer to it as "military support". They just can't seem to utter the word "British".
https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/1399627797119787011?s=20
'Boris: it's time to be a leader. Come out and say that restrictions will stay in place for x weeks.'
It's clearly a big decision, but its a decision that has to be made. We agree though that Boris needs to own this decision, and needs to be very clear about what it is, why it is, and what the factors are that might cause change (reversal in your case, relaxing in mine)
I don't know what I'd do in his position (as in I don't know what I'd choose for x weeks - I think perhaps 3, and I certainly have no idea what exit criteria I might choose). That's clearly me being crap rather than there being a sensible rationale for delay. Tied to this I'd expect some sort of promise about a growing supply of vaccine to the colonies (past or future
Johnson isn't really a leader.
He's a man who runs to the front of the crowd once it has assembled.
He's unfit for the job.
I don't think I'm alone in that my mood is much more associated with how the future looks than the present. And for a long time the future has just looked like nothing. A fog. An endless cold desert. A void.
My life now is actually little different from how it was last Autumn, but the future is looking much less bleak.
Which I presume will include a ridiculous number of holding midfielders...as it has already been revealed Lingard is not in. So at least Rice, Henderson, Philips and Ward Prowse...
As @rcs1000 has pointed out, even in states or countries where that was tried, the effects of restrictions were applied unofficially. Mobility cratered, people stayed at home, restaurants and pubs had footfall plunge (in states in the US where there was no lockdown, the level of decrease of footfall over the year 2020 was greater than it was in the UK!).
One key difference has been furlough, which was justified because the Government were mandating closure. Otherwise it would have been business closures and jobs lost.
(And don't forget that the 1.3 million years left was with the measures to reduce it. Would have been dramatically higher without it. In addition, those bereaved have had a certain quality of life reduction. And those with Long Covid (especially those with demonstrated organ damage, which is a significant number) have also had a level of quality of life reduction, and this would also have been multiplied in such a counterfactual.
In essence, there were no good outcomes and no timelines where we didn't have a really really shit year. I think that's one thing the Toby Youngs and followers have been unable to internalise)
The number on Furlough at end of Feb was 1.29 reducing to 1.22 at the end of March.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/coronavirus-job-retention-scheme-statistics-6-may-2021/coronavirus-job-retention-scheme-statistics-6-may-2021
O.K. There was only moderate reopening in March, but still that's a drop of only 70,000 in a month, seems quite small.
Next release so Thursday 3rd Jun. will be interesting,
(a) Trump will be older, and mentally less sharp than in 2020 or 2016
(b) Trump will have endured some pretty miserable press, and it will be easy to paint his run as "Trump only wants to be President to avoid jail"
(c) There will be a minority of Republicans for whom the Capitol riots were beyond the pale, and who will be disinclined to vote for him
(d) Trump won't get the nomination unchallenged next time around - and it's entirely possible that the nomination process will be an extremely bruising one
Put those together, and the fact that the Biden administration (while not particularly competent) is going to be hard to paint as Marxist, and I think Trump will face an uphill struggle against Harris in 2024.
DeSantis or Hawley, on the other hand, would wipe the floor with her.
And everyone is looking forward to the complete removal of restrictions.
He is not really all that good though, is he?
I'd say that the 1.3 million would have been 5 million if Neil Ferguson's models had been accurate. Which is a lot more but still may not be worth the 66 million people giving up a year of their lives. But as you say, it's not just about deaths.
My view is that some restrictions are worthwhile, but most bring such minor benefits in restricting the spread of the disease that they are not.
My other view is that the people making the decisions have been human, fallible, and learning as they went along. To expect a perfect decision-making would be unrealistic.
But frankly, I'm just some random bloke on the internet; my views have no consequences, they are partially informed, speculatively advanced, and no-one should get too upset about them.
And I will certainly agree with you about your last paragraph.
If you don't have official lockdowns, you still have lockdowns. They're just unofficial ones that happen when everyone is utterly terrified to go out.
You have a series of waves that come and go, as people get scared of the virus and stay home. So the choice is not between zero years locked down and 66 million, it's between "n" and 66 million.
Plus there's the fact that without restrctions, we would probably have had higher peaks, and we might have actually seem the health service overloaded, leading to situtations like happened in New York or Milan early last year (or Manaus). And when you have those kind of peaks, you're not killing off people with just 10 years to go, you are killing off those with 20 or 30 or 40.
If you want to see just how bad excess deaths can go, look at Ecuador: they have been running at deaths 3x the normal level. Three times. We've been at 20-30% above normal levels for the last year.
Without restrictions, we would still have lost decades of peoples' lives to lockdowns, and we would have had much higher death tolls.
Now, should we have opened up much quicker? Damn right we should. But the idea that "no restrictions" is milk and honey is for the birds.
Thanks @Philip_Thompson
I wasn't, however, expecting legal restrictions to go anywhere like as far as they did.
That WAS grim. Personally
And yet this year still beats it for shittiness, easily, because this time it's not just me suffering, it's the whole bloody world, and I have friends and family whose mental health has seriously declined this year, plus lots of intense loneliness - everywhere - plus of course the horrible economic costs - jobs lost, businesses shuttered, on and on it goes
And I have not come close to death, in my family or social group - God knows what it is like for those that do
The Worst Year. Yes
https://twitter.com/CityAM/status/1399757405961867271?s=20
What a long, strange, horrible trip it has been
Just in case we thought lockdown might end on June 21st.
But I do think most of the legal restrictions we had were a) verging on indefensible in a nominally free society, and b) only very marginally effective.
But on the other hand, a) what do I know, and b) those making the decisions were learning as they went along too.
(I was tempted to say full mark to your supplier for keeping you going)
Today is a good day to be that day. The sun is high and hot. I am meeting an old friend in Queen Mary's Rose Garden to eat strawberries and drink fine Greek white wine. Tomorrow I'm going to the Chiltern hills to hike with my daughter. In a week or so I have my first assignment to knap flints out of town - first since last September, first real one since late 2019
It feels like it is over. ZERO DEATHS. Fuck, what an ordeal we have endured
He's picked four right backs in his squad and four centre backs, one of whom is Harry Maguire.
We're buggered if we have an issue at centre back during a match.
Normally between the entrenched rival parties there is a clear majority of people who believe that the right to allow democratic choice is more important than beating the other side. It's worrying that this segment of the electorate seems to be getting very small in the US - not least as trends in the US tend to pop up here 10 years later.
Aaron Ramsdale
Ben Godfrey
Ben White
Jesse Lingard
James Ward-Prowse
Mason Greenwood
Ollie Watkins
Only 5 midfielders picked. And yet somehow I bet Mr Waistcoat will somehow still have a defensive sideways passing formation.
Like others, I had no idea lockdown would go on for 16 fucking months, nor that it would be so austere
However, I just don't think Harris would beat Trump. She truly is a bizarre candidate and it is fair to say she had some, mmm, "help" on the way up in her California career which suggests she has managed to get as far as she has not on ability but on the willingness of people to do her favours. While that might be true of a fair few people, nothing she has done so far suggests she will dazzle people when she is the main act, and not in support. The Democrats are also likely to leak some of their suburban support if they continue being seen as strong supporters of the "woke": mentioned it a few weeks back but look at the results down in the Carroll School District in Texas - moderate suburban voters
Plus, I am not sure Trump will be such the demonising figure he is in 2024 as he is now, especially if a large percentage of the population comes round to the view CV came from a Chinese lab and / or other swing voters start to believe that some of the media reporting was over-biased. The Chinese lab story could be a particularly explosive affair.
Then Rice / Henderson holding. The front 3 of Kane, Rashford, Sterling (and rotating in / out the likes of Mount, Sancho and Foden).
https://twitter.com/lookner/status/1399750354716270601
"The coronavirus has now claimed the lives of 32 lawmakers in the Democratic Republic of Congo — more than 5 percent of its Parliament"
It didn't take long to decide that 6 months of living like a hermit was safer, as once enough people had caught it a lot more would be known about treatment and the big peak wouldn't last forever.
That turning people into hermits became government mandated strategy for the whole of the UK was the big surprise.
Not so easy as a doctor though...
Edit: There was also the thought that you could wander the world with impunity once you'd had it. Turned out that was definitely wrong...
And I do not think Rashford is fit enough
I was impressed by James in the CLF, Mount too.
I think we are getting another Golden Generation, except for centre backs and keepers. Greenwood will be a great 9 in future, and the midfield and wings are full of richness.
Now absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and who knows whether tomorrow will see a surge of post-bank holiday data.
But none of these authorities look to me like positives are still rising.
There's going to be a lot of light blue coming on to the map in the next couple of days. But my guess is very little dark blue and no more purple.
Should have picked another out and out striker in case old 'arry's ankle pack in.
So instead I think they will go for a repeat of the WC approach with Walker in the centre and play a game that hopes the front three can create some magic / Kane doesn't miss the one chance he gets.
Also Maguire is dead slow and Stone messes up at least once a game, so I presume the hope is the pace of Walker can dig them out of trouble. A season of Gomez being fit for Liverpool, it might well have been different thinking.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths
Though it was non-zero for deaths by date of death.
https://mclaughlinonline.com/pols/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/National-Monthly-Omnibus-MAY-Release-1.pdf
I also take the opposite view on DeSantis and Hawley, support for Trumpism is not as strong without Trump leading it, much with Boris part of his support is a personal vote for him as a strong and charismatic leader even if somewhat chaotic.
DeSantis and Hawley would be weaker candidates than Trump
Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of the House of Commons, has told the prime minister he expects the legislation to “breeze through” parliament and to gain royal assent early next year.
Sir Keir Starmer, Labour leader, has put his party on standby for Johnson to “cut and run” and to hold an early election if the Conservatives maintain a strong lead in opinion polls.
https://www.ft.com/content/9daf5278-e8cc-48f3-b690-b250a3b99e3b
Not exactly a snap election.
As someone pointed out earlier, we are now a 1/3 of the way through the maximum length of this parliament.
I can’t see why squads have to be so big. It’s what, 7 games max? 18 should do