Has 'freedom day' been put back two weeks? My news sources are still describing it as in the balance. Have I missed something?
The government are definitely preparing the ground for some kind of delay. I expect it will be a week or two weeks. Essentially 10 days after the end of the programme for groups 1-9 which will be finished in 4-8 days depending on your definition (actually groups 1-9 or 32m people double jabbed). My worry is that the same people banging the delay drum will move the goalposts again when we approach the date and it will be getting all 18+ single jabbed which won't happen until mid July. Then it's complete the programme which will take another 3-4 weeks at least. Then there'll be an interminable argument about vaccines for kids and we'll wait for that, then schools are opening so we have to wait and see whether it's safe to remove the final measures. Then it's October and we need to complete the booster programme for over 50s. Then it's the "24 hours to save the NHS" rubbish we get every year.
There's always going to be a reason to delay. We need to pull the plaster off and deal with the consequences. Would it be better if everyone was double jabbed? Of course. Is our current national vaccine profile going to lead to the NHS being overwhelmed? No. Then it's time to get on with it and call an end to COVID.
Which is why I would go for a partial release - the WFH guidance is the key one
Yes, that would be a compromise most people could handle. Can you have a chat to your mates in the echelons of power?
I really wonder how much the decision to exclude the use of AZN among the younger population is hurting us. We could be mass vaccinating the yuff with our 3-4 million a week supply of AZN, rather than being limited by our supply of Pfizer / Moderna.
No, the higher neutralising efficacy and potentially quicker time to 2nd dose (I know you're a bit unlucky personally with moderna) mean we're better off with mRNA for u-40s.
Moderna people are the luckiest, we'll have all of them delivered by the middle of July so second doses will commence for them very soon. My wife has got her second dose date just 7 week's after her first dose.
Some how the earliest I can get mine is mid July and the choice is one local-ish centre (about 30 mins away), or 2hr drive to other centres. I rebooked last night and managed to bring it forward 3 days, but still the same general lack of availability, no matter what postcode I put in....I am perfectly happy to drive 2-3hrs if I could get my jab sooner.
Here's an idea. Why doesn't the government remove legal restrictions on 21 June but replace it with strong guidance for zero- and single-jabbers?
What is wrong with that approach? Why does everything have to be a law?
(The WFH guidance isn't a law, and has worked well).
Exactly. Remove all the laws, advise that people who have had just a single dose or none are at some level of individual risk, recommend continued mask wearing and outdoor based socialising for them until they've had both doses. Put up a vaccine passport barrier at the border so only fully vaccinated people can enter the country.
As people get their first and second doses that guidance just becomes irrelevant.
LONDON — EU officials and diplomats are discussing an emergency plan to solve the impasse over the Brexit settlement in Northern Ireland by restricting Ireland’s access to the bloc’s single market for goods.
The idea, which is causing extreme anxiety in Dublin where officials see it as unfair punishment for its neighbor’s decision to Brexit, is meant as a backup plan to solve the conundrum of where to carry out vital checks on goods. These are designed to protect EU countries from food and plant diseases.
That issue was meant to have been solved by the Northern Ireland protocol, a key part of the Brexit deal, but London is resisting implementing this part of the agreement which it claims is unworkable.
Why would a border between Ireland and the EU be any more “workable” than the border in the Irish Sea?
Or is the theory that having two borders (one EU/Ireland, one in the Irish Sea) makes it easier to justify not enforcing serious controls for either?
Either are workable it’s just the UK understands the sensitivity better than the EU (ex RoI) so is unwilling to inflame tensions in NI
Lol. You’ve started on the crackpipe early, Charles.
Err…
I believe the RoI and the UK have a better understanding of the situation in NI than the European Commission
I believe that a sea border between the UK and NI is workable in theory but at the cost of inflaming tensions in NI
I believe that a sea border between the RoI and the rest of the EU is workable in theory but would be very unpopular in RoI (although that’s just an assumption as I haven’t seen polling data)
You can disagree with any of those contentions but none of them are intrinsically daft (“started on the crackpipe early”)
Current British policy *is* to inflame tensions which it then aims to instrumentalise for leverage in the negotiations.
The UK’s vaccination programme has broken the link between infections, hospital admissions and deaths, and hospitals were reporting fewer and younger patients, according to a senior boss in the NHS.
To me, that's absolutely categoric evidence for opening on 21 June. Hopson has been among the most conservative figures in this pandemic. He is at the frontline. And he thinks it's all over.
Yup, the people asking for extensions are just institutionalised by lockdown. They fear the freedom and change that comes with it. They're so used to this awful new normal that the can't see why the old way was better and are scared of that unknown quantity. I have no issue with that, those people are free to stay home and wear masks all the time. They shouldn't impose that on the rest of us who are happy to take that risk of going out and being free. Freedom necessarily has personal risks. The collective risk from COVID has been eliminated by vaccination.
I have long admired your certainty about various topical issues, but you may want to reconsider or at least caveat the final sentence.
Again, please tell me exactly which group of people will overwhelm the NHS? It's not going to be groups 1-9 they're all fully vaccinated by Friday. It's it going to be partially vaccinated 40+ as they have got a 60% reduction in risk from first doses and they don't exactly end up on hospital in the first place. It's not going to be under 40s, we're all being vaccinated with Moderna and Pfizer which is fast acting and has a 70% reduction in hospitalisations and even without that the risk of hospitalisation is tiny.
The collective risk has always been young people getting it and passing it on to their parents and grandparents. Well Nana and grandad are double jabbed, mum and dad are double jabbed. Who exactly are young people going to pass it onto?
You'd be right if the vaccine was 100% effective, but it isn't, is it? My understanding is that a very small proportion of the double-jabbed can still get infected. Logically, the higher the proportion of (young) people infected, the more risk there is to the small minority who are double jabbed but for whom the vaccine is still not effective. I'm not sure your absolute certainty on these matters is justified, but I may have missed something.
Nothing in life is 100% effective but it doesn't matter, its good enough.
The thing is that when there was no vaccine, or rollout hadn't been done to the vulnerable yet, then you could say a temporary lockdown until we have a vaccine rolled out made sense.
If what you're saying is that its not 100% effective, then what is a lockdown for anymore? Its not to get a 100% vaccine developed, that's not on the agenda. So what's the next step?
If there's nothing, we've reached the end of the road, time to lift lockdown and get this over with.
The UK’s vaccination programme has broken the link between infections, hospital admissions and deaths, and hospitals were reporting fewer and younger patients, according to a senior boss in the NHS.
To me, that's absolutely categoric evidence for opening on 21 June. Hopson has been among the most conservative figures in this pandemic. He is at the frontline. And he thinks it's all over.
Yup, the people asking for extensions are just institutionalised by lockdown. They fear the freedom and change that comes with it. They're so used to this awful new normal that the can't see why the old way was better and are scared of that unknown quantity. I have no issue with that, those people are free to stay home and wear masks all the time. They shouldn't impose that on the rest of us who are happy to take that risk of going out and being free. Freedom necessarily has personal risks. The collective risk from COVID has been eliminated by vaccination.
I have long admired your certainty about various topical issues, but you may want to reconsider or at least caveat the final sentence.
Its already caveated by the word collective.
There's a risk to some individuals that they might individually get sick, but there's no collective risk like there was in January or March 2020.
I am not an expert on Covid-19, but I think we are some way from being able to say that the collective risk has been eliminated. I think we can say that the vaccines seem to work but there are still a lot of unknowns.
"we are some way from being able to say that the collective risk has been eliminated"
is your problem here.
As long as thinking is like that we're never getting out.
But the issue here is that no one is willing to answer the question of what the continuing collective risk actually is, they say it exists but provide nothing on what they are.
Absolutely. The elephant is that the vaccine has broken the link between cases and serious illness/hospitalisations.
But everyone wants "just a few more weeks" before they dare say it. But they are always likely to want that. If anyone thinks that by end-July there won't be some "just in case" they are deluded.
But it has. And if it hasn't, then it matters not we are going to have to manage a larger number of deaths from Covid than hitherto. Balance it out with those who no longer die of smoking or by flying through the windscreen sans seatbelt.
Either we break out now or we're stuck for the foreseeable future or until we have PM Baker.
To be fair by end July everyone will have been vaccinated, which isn't the case today. So that is something that would change between now and then.
Not a reason to delay, I'm 100% against delays, but if there were a delay announced to finish the vaccine rollout then that's not the same thing as delaying indefinitely.
That is true. And by "everyone" I assume you mean all adults. But again see how easy it would then be to say all 11-18yr olds must be vaxxed before....
@ydoethur I think @Dura_Ace is a misanthrope who loves animals but hates people.
I like some people (Greta, Bielsa, AOC, Mrs DA, that XF Motorsports guy on YouTube) I just hate tories, cultural conservatives and rich people with shit cars.
That is an admirable list of targets for your opprobrium. I do worry that I could edge into your final category, though, depending on where you set the bar.
Ditto. I definitely qualify under the shit car category without doubt. I suspect I fail the rich category, but it is all relative.
Oops - quick follow up. I said I'd come to why I thought delaying Freedom Day might be the right decision for the wrong reason. While I implied what I thought the right reason was, I forgot to mention the wrong one.
I'm far from convinced that Delta is that much more transmissable. it's notable that Bedford's vaccination rates are some way below the national average. We have to question whether the greater transmission of Delta is because of the virus or because of the people who have it. Are they acting differently from other parts of the country, or from those who don't? Are they following rules and guidance to the same extent - and so on? Are their vaccination rates the same, or higher, or lower, than the areas and groups not suffering outbreaks?
The question underlying all this is why, when Delta is also found in other countries, has its outbreak in the UK grown far faster than elsewhere?
Now, there are tricky issues surrounding the asking of these questions, which is why they probably won't be asked and are even less likely to be answered honestly and openly. All the same, I can't help but think that the governments assumptions about transmission are not looking at the whole picture and, hence, flawed.
Still, as it turns out, it might be for the best.
My guess/worry is that the UK seeded a large outbreak because we have lots of flights coming from India.
So basically... other countries are going to get the same/larger surge in cases, just a bit later because they don't have as much travel from India, so it will take longer for the virus to become dominant for them.
And those other countries are going to be hit very hard, because their vaccination rates are lower, and this variant seems to lead to more hospitalization.
But that's not happening. I can well see your explanation being right as to why the UK had so many more Delta cases *to begin with* but it doesn't explain why Delta cases have grown so quickly here but not at anything like the same rate in other countries. As you say, given their lower vaccination rates, they should really have grown even faster if the higher R rate is as claimed.
I think it is rising very fast in other countries, just from a much lower base, so it will take longer to show up in headline figures which are still dominated by other variants.
In the US it is 6% of all cases -> but that will rise very quickly -> then it will become noticeable in the headline case numbers.
Also its possibly not comparing like-for-like. The UK has a test positivity rate of 0.6%, the USA one of 2.6% - many states are really not prioritising testing anymore like is happening here, so its quite possible the delta variant is on the rise there but just not even being detected due to an absence of testing.
Especially if its spreading amongst people who get it relatively asymptomatically.
It’s spreading in Canada
‘AHS has confirmed the Delta variant has spread inside Calgary’s Foothills Medical Centre. 16 patients on two units have been infected with B.1.617.2 #COVID19AB
Here's an idea. Why doesn't the government remove legal restrictions on 21 June but replace it with strong guidance for zero- and single-jabbers?
What is wrong with that approach? Why does everything have to be a law?
(The WFH guidance isn't a law, and has worked well).
Common sense.....toooooo confusing......what about if I...insert ridiculous edge case scenario.
Kay Burley back just in time to come up with 25 of these.
Again, the WFH guidance worked –– as guidance. AFAIK very few people consider it confusing. "Work from home if you can".
"Socialise outdoors as much as possible".
What's confusing about that?
I don't disagree, but that will be the media reaction. I do also have a counterfactual....don't travel unless you really have to, and even then only for business....3 weeks later....SO UNFAIR, I AM STUCK IN BRAZIL, I CAME OVER TO VISIT A FRIEND AND THEY HAVE TOLD ME MY FLIGHT HAS BEEN CANCELLED.
Remember the Indian variant has been imported by loads of people visiting India for non-essential reasons, and even when that route was reduced, they just went via Turkey.
People rather pick and choose the guidance they are willing to follow. WFH, well that beats commuting into the office, especially during the summer. What no foreign summer holidays, screw that I'm off, I'll claim its business innit.
Mr. kamski, was there a suggestion HM didn't like the baby's name? I thought the disagreement was whether or not Harry had consulted her.
On-topic: I hope we can unlock far more on schedule. The current situation exceeds the best case scenario when the 21 June date was named as decision day. It's more than odd to say "things far exceed our expectations, which is why we're postponing unlocking".
I do think public consent for the lockdown measures will start eroding significantly if that's the situation.
If the queen likes the name then what on earth is the bleeding problem? I didn't consult my parents about my child's name - never occurred to anyone that that was bad manners.
It’s not that they’ve named the child after the Queen - they’ve expropriated part of her identity. And lied about it.
If they had named her “Elizabeth” and let it be known they would call her Lili that would have been lovely
But they didn’t. They chose a very rare (unique?) pet name, Lilibet, that the Duke of Edinburgh used for the Queen. That’s a microaggression.
And then they said they’d discussed it with the Queen. Which they hadn’t. Effectively trying to bounce the Palace.
A LAW student who was investigated by a Scottish university for saying women have vaginas and are not as strong as men has been cleared of any wrongdoing.
Lisa Keogh, 29, was investigated by Abertay University after classmates complained she had made “offensive” and “discriminatory” remarks at a lecture.
Our universities have a real problem with independent thought.
We (and I do mean we, as we all have a responsibility in this) have created the most sensitive generation ever. Pathetic.
Jon Haidts book and Greg Lukianoffs book 'the coddling of the American mind' looked at this issue in 2018, before the woke stuff really took off. It is well worth reading, if nothing else for the accounts of events like the Evergreen university strike in 2016. Their thesis was that the obsession with microagressions etc was setting up a generation for failure, as the 'real world' would intervene as soon as they left college. It was clear at the time to me that they were probably wrong - the success of these ideas and the inability of universities to defeat them would mean that they would simply transport them in to the 'real world' and transform it, as they actually went on to do in 2020.
It is not a happy ending for the woke though, because the parasite is effectively destroying the host. A society lost in this kind of introspection and sensitivity cannot defend itself from external existential threats: russia, china, aliens etc.
Absolutely. God forbid if we had to face another Hitler. The woke (who are increasingly in charge) would say it is Britain's fault!
Bloody hell - have I missed a general election? The last time I looked, the anti-woke Tories were 'in charge' with a majority of over 80.
A useful article which might help sift @Leon 's occasional nuggets from his copious dross, if you're interested.
Thanks for this.
Just one general issue re journals. One of the slight issues is that an increasing part of their revenues and, more importantly, contribution to their growth rates come from China and the Government is very happy to block or punish publications seen as critical. I wouldn't automatically assume scientific journals as being 100% neutral and driven entirely by the science
I'd say they are at least 1000% more neutral and driven by the science than other commenters. Thing about science is that if a scientist starts spouting bullshit, plenty of their fellow scientists are more than happy to point it out. They don't have the same kind of omertà that (arguably) exists in parts of the medical profession.
I'm not a Boomer but I must say I'm increasing concerned by the use of Boomer as a derogatory term for those over 65 years old.
As other forms of prejudice recede this one seems to be increasingly acceptable; it's not one I'm comfortable with.
You had better first direct your ire at the the United States Census Bureau that uses the term, making it the quasi-official name for that cohort (at least in the States).
I still find it weird to see the contrasting perceptions of many European countries and America that the pandemic is largely over, whilst the U.K. has got a real problem - and reconcling that with stats on hospitalisations and deaths where the U.K. is clearly running at an order of 5-10 times lower than many other countries.
Remember that deaths, especially, are a lagging indicator- they reflect the situation about a month ago.
Also remember that direction not travel matters- high and falling is in some ways better than low and rising.
Not really that lagging. It's about 4-7 days for a symptomatic case to show up in the stats, another 5-8 days for that to develop into s hospitalisation and a further 8-20 days for that person to die or be discharged. On average, for older people, the average length of infection from detection to death was about 20 days and for younger people about 30 days.
We're well past the stage where we'd be seeing that early case growth from Bolton spill over into hospitalisation and death rates, especially in older adults. It hasn't.
The vaccines are doing their job and the alarmists and doom mongers are shifting the goal posts from needing lockdown measures to prevent an NHS catastrophe to eliminating COVID. The latter is simply not realistic but the former has already been achieved. There are just not enough unvaccinated over 50s to clog up hospitals now and those who haven't taken the vaccine chose not to. We can't make decisions based on vaccine refusers, they've made their decision and must live with the consequences.
The vast majority of virologists are pretty sure that this coronavirus won't be eliminated - and will eventually add to the list of 'common cold' coronaviruses.
As an aside, it does give you an idea of what happened to the indigenous Americans when they encountered a dozen or so novel to them (and their immune systems) viruses from the Old World... All at once.
novel That's the key word here. Why it is such a danger pre vax and so not post vax.
That's the point. What were likely fairly harmless common cold bugs to Europeans probably killed large numbers of indigenous Americans post Columbus.
One thing I've never understood is that this is extremely commonly reported, that Europeans introduced viruses to the native Americans post Columbus. But how come its not commonly reported that the same happened in reverse?
Shouldn't the native Americans have had all their own coronaviruses etc that were novel to the settlers and traders, who would have carried them back to the old world and let to outbreaks in the old world?
Unless I've missed it, I can't think of major European pandemics from meeting the native Americans that match in scale those reported for the native Americans from meeting Europeans.
Although if they were serious viruses presumably they killed Europeans in the colonies (and there was high mortality) or on the ship back
The Gov't gives huge space to antivaxxers if it delays June 21st. The "what was the point of vaccination" memes get legs.
I dont think it will matter if its a short delay. By around 3 weeks or so.
I could cope with up to 3 weeks. You can have a life now. But I have a group holiday with friends in Northumberland from 12 July and it would be a real pain if we still have to book pubs in advance etc
You don't have to book pubs in advance because of Covid. This is a complete and utter myth. Sure, some pubs ask you to book in advance but there's nothing in the rules about it.
Indeed, I found the exact opposite when I visited the South Coast over Whit.
All the pubs had banned booking completely – because they feared no shows. The all had a no-book policy and you just had to queue for a table.
Players’ Tribune do have some really good writers.
The fans are still going to boo the players kneeling before the matches.
Southgate’s piece sounds like a David Cameron leadership pitch, ie empty ‘modernising’ dross.
I don’t think I’ll be booing at the matches as I’m too polite for that but you can tell from the supporters club forum he isn’t winning too many over. Ultimately though he’ll be judged by results on the pitch and I’m not overly optimistic England are in a good place on the eve of the tournament.
My best guess is that England will scrape second place in the group and then go down to a pathetic defeat in the first knockout game. Defeat to Poland in a penalty shootout or something like that.
No, we're winning. Name on the trophy. Remember how the 'dentist's chair' fired up the team in 96 and led to a thrilling run which ended only with a terribly unlucky semi final defeat to Germany? Ok, so same here with 'taking the knee'. This is uniting the players and the manager. It's bringing them together and creating a powerful "us against the gammons" vibe which, given we are better now than 96, should take us all the way. Available at 7 on Betfair. That's value if you share my analysis. Otherwise it looks far too short.
Oops - quick follow up. I said I'd come to why I thought delaying Freedom Day might be the right decision for the wrong reason. While I implied what I thought the right reason was, I forgot to mention the wrong one.
I'm far from convinced that Delta is that much more transmissable. it's notable that Bedford's vaccination rates are some way below the national average. We have to question whether the greater transmission of Delta is because of the virus or because of the people who have it. Are they acting differently from other parts of the country, or from those who don't? Are they following rules and guidance to the same extent - and so on? Are their vaccination rates the same, or higher, or lower, than the areas and groups not suffering outbreaks?
The question underlying all this is why, when Delta is also found in other countries, has its outbreak in the UK grown far faster than elsewhere?
Now, there are tricky issues surrounding the asking of these questions, which is why they probably won't be asked and are even less likely to be answered honestly and openly. All the same, I can't help but think that the governments assumptions about transmission are not looking at the whole picture and, hence, flawed.
Still, as it turns out, it might be for the best.
My guess/worry is that the UK seeded a large outbreak because we have lots of flights coming from India.
So basically... other countries are going to get the same/larger surge in cases, just a bit later because they don't have as much travel from India, so it will take longer for the virus to become dominant for them.
And those other countries are going to be hit very hard, because their vaccination rates are lower, and this variant seems to lead to more hospitalization.
But that's not happening. I can well see your explanation being right as to why the UK had so many more Delta cases *to begin with* but it doesn't explain why Delta cases have grown so quickly here but not at anything like the same rate in other countries. As you say, given their lower vaccination rates, they should really have grown even faster if the higher R rate is as claimed.
I think it is rising very fast in other countries, just from a much lower base, so it will take longer to show up in headline figures which are still dominated by other variants.
In the US it is 6% of all cases -> but that will rise very quickly -> then it will become noticeable in the headline case numbers.
Also its possibly not comparing like-for-like. The UK has a test positivity rate of 0.6%, the USA one of 2.6% - many states are really not prioritising testing anymore like is happening here, so its quite possible the delta variant is on the rise there but just not even being detected due to an absence of testing.
Especially if its spreading amongst people who get it relatively asymptomatically.
It’s spreading in Canada
‘AHS has confirmed the Delta variant has spread inside Calgary’s Foothills Medical Centre. 16 patients on two units have been infected with B.1.617.2 #COVID19AB
But I thought it only spread in countries where the Prime Minister delayed quarantining Indians to get a trade deal? Surely you're not saying it was inevitable that it would spread everywhere that admitted any foreigners at all?
Players’ Tribune do have some really good writers.
The fans are still going to boo the players kneeling before the matches.
Southgate’s piece sounds like a David Cameron leadership pitch, ie empty ‘modernising’ dross.
I don’t think I’ll be booing at the matches as I’m too polite for that but you can tell from the supporters club forum he isn’t winning too many over. Ultimately though he’ll be judged by results on the pitch and I’m not overly optimistic England are in a good place on the eve of the tournament.
My best guess is that England will scrape second place in the group and then go down to a pathetic defeat in the first knockout game. Defeat to Poland in a penalty shootout or something like that.
No, we're winning. Name on the trophy. Remember how the 'dentist's chair' fired up the team in 96 and led to a thrilling run which ended only with a terribly unlucky semi final defeat to Germany? Ok, so same here with 'taking the knee'. This is uniting the players and the manager. It's bringing them together and creating a powerful "us against the gammons" vibe which, given we are better now than 96, should take us all the way. Available at 7 on Betfair. That's value if you share my analysis. Otherwise it looks far too short.
Imagine the photo opportunities for Johnson on the back of a Euros win.
And I have confidence that Rob Page can do it for him!
Oh god, yes. Johnson joining the ticker tape parade. Claiming an assist for the winning goal.
The UK’s vaccination programme has broken the link between infections, hospital admissions and deaths, and hospitals were reporting fewer and younger patients, according to a senior boss in the NHS.
To me, that's absolutely categoric evidence for opening on 21 June. Hopson has been among the most conservative figures in this pandemic. He is at the frontline. And he thinks it's all over.
Yup, the people asking for extensions are just institutionalised by lockdown. They fear the freedom and change that comes with it. They're so used to this awful new normal that the can't see why the old way was better and are scared of that unknown quantity. I have no issue with that, those people are free to stay home and wear masks all the time. They shouldn't impose that on the rest of us who are happy to take that risk of going out and being free. Freedom necessarily has personal risks. The collective risk from COVID has been eliminated by vaccination.
I have long admired your certainty about various topical issues, but you may want to reconsider or at least caveat the final sentence.
Again, please tell me exactly which group of people will overwhelm the NHS? It's not going to be groups 1-9 they're all fully vaccinated by Friday. It's it going to be partially vaccinated 40+ as they have got a 60% reduction in risk from first doses and they don't exactly end up on hospital in the first place. It's not going to be under 40s, we're all being vaccinated with Moderna and Pfizer which is fast acting and has a 70% reduction in hospitalisations and even without that the risk of hospitalisation is tiny.
The collective risk has always been young people getting it and passing it on to their parents and grandparents. Well Nana and grandad are double jabbed, mum and dad are double jabbed. Who exactly are young people going to pass it onto?
You'd be right if the vaccine was 100% effective, but it isn't, is it? My understanding is that a very small proportion of the double-jabbed can still get infected. Logically, the higher the proportion of (young) people infected, the more risk there is to the small minority who are double jabbed but for whom the vaccine is still not effective. I'm not sure your absolute certainty on these matters is justified, but I may have missed something.
If exposed, for the double jabbed, there's a low risk of infection. There's a very low risk of hospitalisation or worse.
There's also the question of exposure. The double jabbed, meeting with other double jabbed are unlikely to even be exposed (as the double jabbed they meet are unlikely to be infected). Let's take 80% protection from infection agains Delta for double jab (PHE estimate or even a bit lower). Now lets put 10 double jabbed people in a room and spray the virus around. 2 might get infected. The chance of another double jabbed person encountering one of these (assume randomness) in any one interaction is 2/10. But the double jabbed person has a 2/10 chance of infection if exposed, so suddenly you're at 4% risk of infection from an interaction with one of 10 people who have been deliberately exposed (in this scenario). It might be lower, because even the infected person is likely less infectious and/or infectious for a shorter amount of time. And all that is for infection. The small number of double jabbed unlucky enough to get infected will still have good protection from needing hospitalisation.
It might be sensible, particularly if cases go up greatly, for the double jabbed to still exercise caution in exposure to the unjabbed or even single jabbed. But it looks hard for the originally most vulnerable (now double jabbed) to get hospitalised in sufficient numbers to cause problems for the NHS.
The question about unlocking, such as it is, is surely about those single jabbed or unjabbed, who could well get infected during a third wave, if a third wave was to take off. But few of those (due to the jab targetting and protection conferred by even a single jab against severe disease) should need to go to hospital. David Herdson's point abot nightclubs as giant petry dishes is a good one. It's possible that there could be a big rise in infections among the young. The question is whether the number needing hospital before vaccination protects that group too is high enough to cause a problem. There will of course be personal risk, but personal risk is personal choice - don't go to the nightclub until jabbed, to reduce your risk (less choice for staff of course - I'd be happy to see them prioritised for vaccination).
TLDR: There will still be personal risk, even (although small) for the double jabbed. But collective risk (collapsing the NHS) which is why we embarked on lockdowns in the first place is quite hard to see at present.
The UK’s vaccination programme has broken the link between infections, hospital admissions and deaths, and hospitals were reporting fewer and younger patients, according to a senior boss in the NHS.
To me, that's absolutely categoric evidence for opening on 21 June. Hopson has been among the most conservative figures in this pandemic. He is at the frontline. And he thinks it's all over.
Yup, the people asking for extensions are just institutionalised by lockdown. They fear the freedom and change that comes with it. They're so used to this awful new normal that the can't see why the old way was better and are scared of that unknown quantity. I have no issue with that, those people are free to stay home and wear masks all the time. They shouldn't impose that on the rest of us who are happy to take that risk of going out and being free. Freedom necessarily has personal risks. The collective risk from COVID has been eliminated by vaccination.
I have long admired your certainty about various topical issues, but you may want to reconsider or at least caveat the final sentence.
Its already caveated by the word collective.
There's a risk to some individuals that they might individually get sick, but there's no collective risk like there was in January or March 2020.
I am not an expert on Covid-19, but I think we are some way from being able to say that the collective risk has been eliminated. I think we can say that the vaccines seem to work but there are still a lot of unknowns.
No we are not any way from it. We are there.
The vaccine rollout is complete in Groups 1 to 9, double-jabbed. There's nothing more to be done there. Yes there may be some antivaxxers but we could wait weeks, months or years they still won't be vaccinated if they're refusing it and don't change their minds.
So if you think that we are collectively at risk then you need to please answer two questions:
Firstly: Who are we collectively at risk from? Which JCVI groups for instance? Secondly: When will we cease to be at risk from them?
If you can't answer those questions, the collective risk is gone as best as it can ever be.
About 15-20% of ICU admissions were Phase 2 under the JCVI groups The majority were Groups 5-9. Assume they're downshifted by 60% (most in this group still need a short time before getting the plus-two-weeks protection), and Groups 1-4 are effectively nil.
That would mean that any given infection level would give one third to one half of ICU admissions as before, with the skew being heavily younger.
Hopefully these would progress through faster (albeit some with permanent health issues on discharge).
That's where the risk comes from. The risk diminishes with every jab and with every day after second jab, which is where time does come into the equation. We don't know how great the risk will be, and can hope that Delta has already left it too late to race us to a serious issue, but it's not yet certain and that's where it can come from.
Nicely described.
The delta variant is estimated to be 2.6x more likely to lead to hospitalization -> that's another factor to consider. When you add in the increased transmissability -> that's how SAGE got to higher levels of hospital admissions I guess.
The UK’s vaccination programme has broken the link between infections, hospital admissions and deaths, and hospitals were reporting fewer and younger patients, according to a senior boss in the NHS.
To me, that's absolutely categoric evidence for opening on 21 June. Hopson has been among the most conservative figures in this pandemic. He is at the frontline. And he thinks it's all over.
Yup, the people asking for extensions are just institutionalised by lockdown. They fear the freedom and change that comes with it. They're so used to this awful new normal that the can't see why the old way was better and are scared of that unknown quantity. I have no issue with that, those people are free to stay home and wear masks all the time. They shouldn't impose that on the rest of us who are happy to take that risk of going out and being free. Freedom necessarily has personal risks. The collective risk from COVID has been eliminated by vaccination.
I have long admired your certainty about various topical issues, but you may want to reconsider or at least caveat the final sentence.
Again, please tell me exactly which group of people will overwhelm the NHS? It's not going to be groups 1-9 they're all fully vaccinated by Friday. It's it going to be partially vaccinated 40+ as they have got a 60% reduction in risk from first doses and they don't exactly end up on hospital in the first place. It's not going to be under 40s, we're all being vaccinated with Moderna and Pfizer which is fast acting and has a 70% reduction in hospitalisations and even without that the risk of hospitalisation is tiny.
The collective risk has always been young people getting it and passing it on to their parents and grandparents. Well Nana and grandad are double jabbed, mum and dad are double jabbed. Who exactly are young people going to pass it onto?
You'd be right if the vaccine was 100% effective, but it isn't, is it? My understanding is that a very small proportion of the double-jabbed can still get infected. Logically, the higher the proportion of (young) people infected, the more risk there is to the small minority who are double jabbed but for whom the vaccine is still not effective. I'm not sure your absolute certainty on these matters is justified, but I may have missed something.
But the point is that the collective risk has been eliminated. The collective risk in this country is that the NHS will be overwhelmed and unable to provide healthcare. The vaccine is highly effective at keeping people out of hospitals. Once we have all the numbers I would be shocked if it wasn't above 99% efficacy against severe disease. There will always be individual cases, we know that but that's ultimately what the NHS is there to sweep up. We're never going to be in a place where absolutely no one is hospitalised by COVID and no one dies of it. As a nation we need to learn to live with it just as we have learned to live with the flu killing 5-10k people per year.
Here's an idea. Why doesn't the government remove legal restrictions on 21 June but replace it with strong guidance for zero- and single-jabbers?
What is wrong with that approach? Why does everything have to be a law?
(The WFH guidance isn't a law, and has worked well).
Exactly. Remove all the laws, advise that people who have had just a single dose or none are at some level of individual risk, recommend continued mask wearing and outdoor based socialising for them until they've had both doses. Put up a vaccine passport barrier at the border so only fully vaccinated people can enter the country.
As people get their first and second doses that guidance just becomes irrelevant.
That, and put a massive PA and 20 beer vans in Hyde Park, with a different band playing every day all summer.
Big screens everywhere with the football and Olympics too.
Here's an idea. Why doesn't the government remove legal restrictions on 21 June but replace it with strong guidance for zero- and single-jabbers?
What is wrong with that approach? Why does everything have to be a law?
(The WFH guidance isn't a law, and has worked well).
The Telegraph were complaining last night that that might be what happens.
Interesting. Cheers. Do you have a link?
Pretty much throughout this pandemic I have bemoaned the fact that it is all law. The govt doesn't trust us to act rationally, even as people, such as @rcs1000 reply to what they think are anti-lockdown rants by saying "people would lockdown voluntarily".
It seems we can't be trusted. There, that's it. And the whole fucking nation and far too many on PB, for such a repository of critical thinkers, just sit there and applaud.
The UK’s vaccination programme has broken the link between infections, hospital admissions and deaths, and hospitals were reporting fewer and younger patients, according to a senior boss in the NHS.
To me, that's absolutely categoric evidence for opening on 21 June. Hopson has been among the most conservative figures in this pandemic. He is at the frontline. And he thinks it's all over.
Yup, the people asking for extensions are just institutionalised by lockdown. They fear the freedom and change that comes with it. They're so used to this awful new normal that the can't see why the old way was better and are scared of that unknown quantity. I have no issue with that, those people are free to stay home and wear masks all the time. They shouldn't impose that on the rest of us who are happy to take that risk of going out and being free. Freedom necessarily has personal risks. The collective risk from COVID has been eliminated by vaccination.
I have long admired your certainty about various topical issues, but you may want to reconsider or at least caveat the final sentence.
Its already caveated by the word collective.
There's a risk to some individuals that they might individually get sick, but there's no collective risk like there was in January or March 2020.
I am not an expert on Covid-19, but I think we are some way from being able to say that the collective risk has been eliminated. I think we can say that the vaccines seem to work but there are still a lot of unknowns.
No we are not any way from it. We are there.
The vaccine rollout is complete in Groups 1 to 9, double-jabbed. There's nothing more to be done there. Yes there may be some antivaxxers but we could wait weeks, months or years they still won't be vaccinated if they're refusing it and don't change their minds.
So if you think that we are collectively at risk then you need to please answer two questions:
Firstly: Who are we collectively at risk from? Which JCVI groups for instance? Secondly: When will we cease to be at risk from them?
If you can't answer those questions, the collective risk is gone as best as it can ever be.
About 15-20% of ICU admissions were Phase 2 under the JCVI groups The majority were Groups 5-9. Assume they're downshifted by 60% (most in this group still need a short time before getting the plus-two-weeks protection), and Groups 1-4 are effectively nil.
That would mean that any given infection level would give one third to one half of ICU admissions as before, with the skew being heavily younger.
Hopefully these would progress through faster (albeit some with permanent health issues on discharge).
That's where the risk comes from. The risk diminishes with every jab and with every day after second jab, which is where time does come into the equation. We don't know how great the risk will be, and can hope that Delta has already left it too late to race us to a serious issue, but it's not yet certain and that's where it can come from.
Nicely described.
The delta variant is estimated to be 2.6x more likely to lead to hospitalization -> that's another factor to consider. When you add in the increased transmissability -> that's how SAGE got to higher levels of hospital admissions I guess.
A useful article which might help sift @Leon 's occasional nuggets from his copious dross, if you're interested.
Thanks for this.
Just one general issue re journals. One of the slight issues is that an increasing part of their revenues and, more importantly, contribution to their growth rates come from China and the Government is very happy to block or punish publications seen as critical. I wouldn't automatically assume scientific journals as being 100% neutral and driven entirely by the science
I'd say they are at least 1000% more neutral and driven by the science than other commenters. Thing about science is that if a scientist starts spouting bullshit, plenty of their fellow scientists are more than happy to point it out. They don't have the same kind of omertà that (arguably) exists in parts of the medical profession.
Exactly, that's why they never tried to circle the wagons on the lab leak theory, no siree.
The UK’s vaccination programme has broken the link between infections, hospital admissions and deaths, and hospitals were reporting fewer and younger patients, according to a senior boss in the NHS.
To me, that's absolutely categoric evidence for opening on 21 June. Hopson has been among the most conservative figures in this pandemic. He is at the frontline. And he thinks it's all over.
Yup, the people asking for extensions are just institutionalised by lockdown. They fear the freedom and change that comes with it. They're so used to this awful new normal that the can't see why the old way was better and are scared of that unknown quantity. I have no issue with that, those people are free to stay home and wear masks all the time. They shouldn't impose that on the rest of us who are happy to take that risk of going out and being free. Freedom necessarily has personal risks. The collective risk from COVID has been eliminated by vaccination.
I have long admired your certainty about various topical issues, but you may want to reconsider or at least caveat the final sentence.
Again, please tell me exactly which group of people will overwhelm the NHS? It's not going to be groups 1-9 they're all fully vaccinated by Friday. It's it going to be partially vaccinated 40+ as they have got a 60% reduction in risk from first doses and they don't exactly end up on hospital in the first place. It's not going to be under 40s, we're all being vaccinated with Moderna and Pfizer which is fast acting and has a 70% reduction in hospitalisations and even without that the risk of hospitalisation is tiny.
The collective risk has always been young people getting it and passing it on to their parents and grandparents. Well Nana and grandad are double jabbed, mum and dad are double jabbed. Who exactly are young people going to pass it onto?
You'd be right if the vaccine was 100% effective, but it isn't, is it? My understanding is that a very small proportion of the double-jabbed can still get infected. Logically, the higher the proportion of (young) people infected, the more risk there is to the small minority who are double jabbed but for whom the vaccine is still not effective. I'm not sure your absolute certainty on these matters is justified, but I may have missed something.
A very small proportion of three-day event riders and jump jockeys are killed or need hospitalisation. And, counting some of them as my friends, in the national scheme of things and wrt the NHS...so what?
You are falling into the trap of not wanting anyone to get or be ill from Covid.
Take a step back. Is the NHS in danger? Not now. Will it be if a "very small proportion" (admittedly of a very large number) is hospitalised? Maybe. But not sufficient to keep society in chains.
Yes, I take your point. But to extend the analogy, if millions of people suddenly took up three-day eventing and became jump jockeys, many more would be killed or hospitalised, wouldn't they?
So the drums are definitely beating out the message that ‘Boris’ is going to bottle it, or in more PC language, that Freedom Day will be pushed back. What to make of this? Does it contradict my view that Johnson is playing with the narrative in order to maximize his joy & relief dividend?
Not really, it supports it. Remember the final days of the Brexit talks. Remember how Johnson got every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the never happening No Deal outcome was close to inevitable. Ok. So now he has every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the same about a delay to the end of legal Covid restrictions. Mission accomplished.
But there could be another explanation. He sees political benefit in a delay. Caution polls very well in the Red Wall. Not as well as slashing foreign aid, obvs, but still very well. If the delay is short and messaged in an empathetic way, Johnson will be able to have his cake and eat it. A still impactful and only slightly delayed Freedom Day plus score some prudence points – which he needs to counteract his previous mistakes in the opposite direction.
“We’re nearly there, my people, we just need to take this extra time to make absolutely sure it’s safe, because that’s the sort of caring and circumspect government we are.”
It’s one of these 2 possibilities. He’s playing with the narrative and will surprise and delight with no delay. Or he’s throwing in a short delay to look caring and cautious.
I’m sticking to the first – no delay – but I’ve convinced myself of the second as I typed it out, so I’ll be pleasantly amazed if I’m right.
Here's an idea. Why doesn't the government remove legal restrictions on 21 June but replace it with strong guidance for zero- and single-jabbers?
What is wrong with that approach? Why does everything have to be a law?
(The WFH guidance isn't a law, and has worked well).
Yep - and encouraging continued WFH (if there are concerns) seems sensible. One of the main summer vectors of infection among the not-fully-vaccinated, surely - one person could infect most of the unjabbed in an office. Household meetups are smaller and bigger ones are likely to be outside this time of year.
The other obvious vector is school classrooms (depending on how transmissible in that population) but that's a problem that solves itself in the next few weeks anyway.
So the drums are definitely beating out the message that ‘Boris’ is going to bottle it, or in more PC language, that Freedom Day will be pushed back. What to make of this? Does it contradict my view that Johnson is playing with the narrative in order to maximize his joy & relief dividend?
Not really, it supports it. Remember the final days of the Brexit talks. Remember how Johnson got every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the never happening No Deal outcome was close to inevitable. Ok. So now he has every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the same about a delay to the end of legal Covid restrictions. Mission accomplished.
But there could be another explanation. He sees political benefit in a delay. Caution polls very well in the Red Wall. Not as well as slashing foreign aid, obvs, but still very well. If the delay is short and messaged in an empathetic way, Johnson will be able to have his cake and eat it. A still impactful and only slightly delayed Freedom Day plus score some prudence points – which he needs to counteract his previous mistakes in the opposite direction.
“We’re nearly there, my people, we just need to take this extra time to make absolutely sure it’s safe, because that’s the sort of caring and circumspect government we are.”
It’s one of these 2 possibilities. He’s playing with the narrative and will surprise and delight with no delay. Or he’s throwing in a short delay to look caring and cautious.
I’m sticking to the first – no delay – but I’ve convinced myself of the second as I typed it out, so I’ll be pleasantly amazed if I’m right.
I think a time limited delay taking us to near the school holidays would be prudent and not unpopular.
We've reached the why do Jocks hate the English stage of an international tournament. Thankfully this time the violent end of England fandom is too busy hating on their own team to issue fatwas on anyone being less than enthusiastic about 'ar boys'.
"oversite"
Could be doing it deliberately to discredit Scottish education? Or Occam's razor says just stoopid.
Never mind all that. What about the complete absence of road markings? Is this a Scottish masterplan to make road-users look where they are going, or did the council just run out of money?
GCC are doing a lot of road resurfacing at the moment, not before time. Presumably the road markings are on their way.
A LAW student who was investigated by a Scottish university for saying women have vaginas and are not as strong as men has been cleared of any wrongdoing.
Lisa Keogh, 29, was investigated by Abertay University after classmates complained she had made “offensive” and “discriminatory” remarks at a lecture.
Our universities have a real problem with independent thought.
We (and I do mean we, as we all have a responsibility in this) have created the most sensitive generation ever. Pathetic.
Jon Haidts book and Greg Lukianoffs book 'the coddling of the American mind' looked at this issue in 2018, before the woke stuff really took off. It is well worth reading, if nothing else for the accounts of events like the Evergreen university strike in 2016. Their thesis was that the obsession with microagressions etc was setting up a generation for failure, as the 'real world' would intervene as soon as they left college. It was clear at the time to me that they were probably wrong - the success of these ideas and the inability of universities to defeat them would mean that they would simply transport them in to the 'real world' and transform it, as they actually went on to do in 2020.
It is not a happy ending for the woke though, because the parasite is effectively destroying the host. A society lost in this kind of introspection and sensitivity cannot defend itself from external existential threats: russia, china, aliens etc.
People like you have been saying this for decades, if not centuries.
If you were around in America the 1960s you would have said the same thing about the "woke" of the day: the anti-Vietnam War protestors, the "counterculture" or hippy protestors, the civil rights marches and so on and so forth. 1960s you would have been against all of that subversive peace and protest loving crap as you would have seen it then.
America is a free society so it has introspection. That's not a weakness its a strength. America ended the decade associated with Vietnam protests etc with both Woodstock and Apollo 11 moon landing - both within a month of each other.
The USSR suppressed any protests and counterculture at that time, unlike the USA.
Decades later the US won the Cold War and the USSR collapsed in failure.
Introspection and counterculture makes us stronger, not weaker.
There is an argument that the woke are the reinvention of western civilisation. The longievity of the west is based on this type of continuous adaptation and renewal because there is an open society, unlike others which are closed. The latter societies eventually fail, because they cannot adapt or reinvent themselves.
However, having thought about this for the last few years I personally don't think what is going on now with the woke falls within this category. Principally it is because the underlying thinking behind it is incompatible with maintaining the liberal values of openness that have made the west so successful. The woke seem determined to have the last word on things like justice and equality and strive to regulate speech, which is more compatible with totalitarian regimes than the hippies of the 1960s or earlier countercultures. Woke ideology simply does not promote free enquiry or honest introspection about a range of issues. They seem unable to acknowledge the massive contradictions that underpin much of their thinking, ie their obsession with historical instances of slavery in the west with their lack of interest in actual slavery that goes on now in other parts of the world. The list goes on and on and on, but cannot be addressed or debated due to rhetorical tricks that they play to close down debate, which just gets really tiring and annoying.
There is another point, which is that I doubt whether the woke can still be regarded as a countercultural movement; to me it seems like they have already become the status quo, which is something that the hippies never achieved in 1968. A point that could no doubt be debated further.
So my own conclusion is that the woke are not a moment of civilisational reinvention, by they are actually a threat to civilisation, in pretty much the same way as communism was. I am not trying to force my views on people, it is just what I think. As I've said before we will have to see who is right.
So the drums are definitely beating out the message that ‘Boris’ is going to bottle it, or in more PC language, that Freedom Day will be pushed back. What to make of this? Does it contradict my view that Johnson is playing with the narrative in order to maximize his joy & relief dividend?
Not really, it supports it. Remember the final days of the Brexit talks. Remember how Johnson got every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the never happening No Deal outcome was close to inevitable. Ok. So now he has every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the same about a delay to the end of legal Covid restrictions. Mission accomplished.
But there could be another explanation. He sees political benefit in a delay. Caution polls very well in the Red Wall. Not as well as slashing foreign aid, obvs, but still very well. If the delay is short and messaged in an empathetic way, Johnson will be able to have his cake and eat it. A still impactful and only slightly delayed Freedom Day plus score some prudence points – which he needs to counteract his previous mistakes in the opposite direction.
“We’re nearly there, my people, we just need to take this extra time to make absolutely sure it’s safe, because that’s the sort of caring and circumspect government we are.”
It’s one of these 2 possibilities. He’s playing with the narrative and will surprise and delight with no delay. Or he’s throwing in a short delay to look caring and cautious.
I’m sticking to the first – no delay – but I’ve convinced myself of the second as I typed it out, so I’ll be pleasantly amazed if I’m right.
But Frosty's current protestations confirm such a tactic is great on the day, but not so much. as it unravels. June the 21st (whichever way it goes) could prove similar.
Perhaps if the main consideration were, what is best for the nation's health and wealth, rather than Johnson's popularity with RedWall voters, the right decision might be taken.
So the drums are definitely beating out the message that ‘Boris’ is going to bottle it, or in more PC language, that Freedom Day will be pushed back. What to make of this? Does it contradict my view that Johnson is playing with the narrative in order to maximize his joy & relief dividend?
Not really, it supports it. Remember the final days of the Brexit talks. Remember how Johnson got every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the never happening No Deal outcome was close to inevitable. Ok. So now he has every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the same about a delay to the end of legal Covid restrictions. Mission accomplished.
But there could be another explanation. He sees political benefit in a delay. Caution polls very well in the Red Wall. Not as well as slashing foreign aid, obvs, but still very well. If the delay is short and messaged in an empathetic way, Johnson will be able to have his cake and eat it. A still impactful and only slightly delayed Freedom Day plus score some prudence points – which he needs to counteract his previous mistakes in the opposite direction.
“We’re nearly there, my people, we just need to take this extra time to make absolutely sure it’s safe, because that’s the sort of caring and circumspect government we are.”
It’s one of these 2 possibilities. He’s playing with the narrative and will surprise and delight with no delay. Or he’s throwing in a short delay to look caring and cautious.
I’m sticking to the first – no delay – but I’ve convinced myself of the second as I typed it out, so I’ll be pleasantly amazed if I’m right.
I think a time limited delay taking us to near the school holidays would be prudent and not unpopular.
I don't agree with it but I agree that it wouldn't be too unpopular. Though it would be unpopular with me.
I completely agree with you the school holidays date will be massive for many people. If this is over by the time the school holidays occur then most people won't care about a few weeks here or there, but if it drags on into the school holidays then expect hell to pay.
Here's an idea. Why doesn't the government remove legal restrictions on 21 June but replace it with strong guidance for zero- and single-jabbers?
What is wrong with that approach? Why does everything have to be a law?
(The WFH guidance isn't a law, and has worked well).
The Telegraph were complaining last night that that might be what happens.
Interesting. Cheers. Do you have a link?
Pretty much throughout this pandemic I have bemoaned the fact that it is all law. The govt doesn't trust us to act rationally, even as people, such as @rcs1000 reply to what they think are anti-lockdown rants by saying "people would lockdown voluntarily".
It seems we can't be trusted. There, that's it. And the whole fucking nation and far too many on PB, for such a repository of critical thinkers, just sit there and applaud.
I can be trusted, it's just the plebs that need to be locked down
So the drums are definitely beating out the message that ‘Boris’ is going to bottle it, or in more PC language, that Freedom Day will be pushed back. What to make of this? Does it contradict my view that Johnson is playing with the narrative in order to maximize his joy & relief dividend?
Not really, it supports it. Remember the final days of the Brexit talks. Remember how Johnson got every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the never happening No Deal outcome was close to inevitable. Ok. So now he has every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the same about a delay to the end of legal Covid restrictions. Mission accomplished.
But there could be another explanation. He sees political benefit in a delay. Caution polls very well in the Red Wall. Not as well as slashing foreign aid, obvs, but still very well. If the delay is short and messaged in an empathetic way, Johnson will be able to have his cake and eat it. A still impactful and only slightly delayed Freedom Day plus score some prudence points – which he needs to counteract his previous mistakes in the opposite direction.
“We’re nearly there, my people, we just need to take this extra time to make absolutely sure it’s safe, because that’s the sort of caring and circumspect government we are.”
It’s one of these 2 possibilities. He’s playing with the narrative and will surprise and delight with no delay. Or he’s throwing in a short delay to look caring and cautious.
I’m sticking to the first – no delay – but I’ve convinced myself of the second as I typed it out, so I’ll be pleasantly amazed if I’m right.
I think a time limited delay taking us to near the school holidays would be prudent and not unpopular.
I don't agree with it but I agree that it wouldn't be too unpopular. Though it would be unpopular with me.
I completely agree with you the school holidays date will be massive for many people. If this is over by the time the school holidays occur then most people won't care about a few weeks here or there, but if it drags on into the school holidays then expect hell to pay.
Also it takes schools transmission out of the picture for six weeks.
The UK’s vaccination programme has broken the link between infections, hospital admissions and deaths, and hospitals were reporting fewer and younger patients, according to a senior boss in the NHS.
To me, that's absolutely categoric evidence for opening on 21 June. Hopson has been among the most conservative figures in this pandemic. He is at the frontline. And he thinks it's all over.
Yup, the people asking for extensions are just institutionalised by lockdown. They fear the freedom and change that comes with it. They're so used to this awful new normal that the can't see why the old way was better and are scared of that unknown quantity. I have no issue with that, those people are free to stay home and wear masks all the time. They shouldn't impose that on the rest of us who are happy to take that risk of going out and being free. Freedom necessarily has personal risks. The collective risk from COVID has been eliminated by vaccination.
I have long admired your certainty about various topical issues, but you may want to reconsider or at least caveat the final sentence.
Its already caveated by the word collective.
There's a risk to some individuals that they might individually get sick, but there's no collective risk like there was in January or March 2020.
I am not an expert on Covid-19, but I think we are some way from being able to say that the collective risk has been eliminated. I think we can say that the vaccines seem to work but there are still a lot of unknowns.
No we are not any way from it. We are there.
The vaccine rollout is complete in Groups 1 to 9, double-jabbed. There's nothing more to be done there. Yes there may be some antivaxxers but we could wait weeks, months or years they still won't be vaccinated if they're refusing it and don't change their minds.
So if you think that we are collectively at risk then you need to please answer two questions:
Firstly: Who are we collectively at risk from? Which JCVI groups for instance? Secondly: When will we cease to be at risk from them?
If you can't answer those questions, the collective risk is gone as best as it can ever be.
About 15-20% of ICU admissions were Phase 2 under the JCVI groups The majority were Groups 5-9. Assume they're downshifted by 60% (most in this group still need a short time before getting the plus-two-weeks protection), and Groups 1-4 are effectively nil.
That would mean that any given infection level would give one third to one half of ICU admissions as before, with the skew being heavily younger.
Hopefully these would progress through faster (albeit some with permanent health issues on discharge).
That's where the risk comes from. The risk diminishes with every jab and with every day after second jab, which is where time does come into the equation. We don't know how great the risk will be, and can hope that Delta has already left it too late to race us to a serious issue, but it's not yet certain and that's where it can come from.
Nicely described.
The delta variant is estimated to be 2.6x more likely to lead to hospitalization -> that's another factor to consider. When you add in the increased transmissability -> that's how SAGE got to higher levels of hospital admissions I guess.
Estimated by whom?
If this variant is so much worse, then why isn't it causing serious problems in Europe? Surely we'd be seeing reports of trouble by now, given it must be there (whether they are testing for it or not) and their vaccination levels are still lower.
I'm inclined to believe it is where it has been seeded in the UK that is the problem and not entirely the nature of the variant itself.
If ever there was a time to go full Swedish (you can do what you like but we advise some caution), then it is now.
So the drums are definitely beating out the message that ‘Boris’ is going to bottle it, or in more PC language, that Freedom Day will be pushed back. What to make of this? Does it contradict my view that Johnson is playing with the narrative in order to maximize his joy & relief dividend?
Not really, it supports it. Remember the final days of the Brexit talks. Remember how Johnson got every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the never happening No Deal outcome was close to inevitable. Ok. So now he has every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the same about a delay to the end of legal Covid restrictions. Mission accomplished.
But there could be another explanation. He sees political benefit in a delay. Caution polls very well in the Red Wall. Not as well as slashing foreign aid, obvs, but still very well. If the delay is short and messaged in an empathetic way, Johnson will be able to have his cake and eat it. A still impactful and only slightly delayed Freedom Day plus score some prudence points – which he needs to counteract his previous mistakes in the opposite direction.
“We’re nearly there, my people, we just need to take this extra time to make absolutely sure it’s safe, because that’s the sort of caring and circumspect government we are.”
It’s one of these 2 possibilities. He’s playing with the narrative and will surprise and delight with no delay. Or he’s throwing in a short delay to look caring and cautious.
I’m sticking to the first – no delay – but I’ve convinced myself of the second as I typed it out, so I’ll be pleasantly amazed if I’m right.
I think a time limited delay taking us to near the school holidays would be prudent and not unpopular.
I think it is a good news story that he is saving up in order to cover over a bad news story that is heading towards him down the track.
So the drums are definitely beating out the message that ‘Boris’ is going to bottle it, or in more PC language, that Freedom Day will be pushed back. What to make of this? Does it contradict my view that Johnson is playing with the narrative in order to maximize his joy & relief dividend?
Not really, it supports it. Remember the final days of the Brexit talks. Remember how Johnson got every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the never happening No Deal outcome was close to inevitable. Ok. So now he has every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the same about a delay to the end of legal Covid restrictions. Mission accomplished.
But there could be another explanation. He sees political benefit in a delay. Caution polls very well in the Red Wall. Not as well as slashing foreign aid, obvs, but still very well. If the delay is short and messaged in an empathetic way, Johnson will be able to have his cake and eat it. A still impactful and only slightly delayed Freedom Day plus score some prudence points – which he needs to counteract his previous mistakes in the opposite direction.
“We’re nearly there, my people, we just need to take this extra time to make absolutely sure it’s safe, because that’s the sort of caring and circumspect government we are.”
It’s one of these 2 possibilities. He’s playing with the narrative and will surprise and delight with no delay. Or he’s throwing in a short delay to look caring and cautious.
I’m sticking to the first – no delay – but I’ve convinced myself of the second as I typed it out, so I’ll be pleasantly amazed if I’m right.
I think a time limited delay taking us to near the school holidays would be prudent and not unpopular.
I think it is a good news story that he is saving up in order to cover over a bad news story that is heading towards him down the track.
The UK’s vaccination programme has broken the link between infections, hospital admissions and deaths, and hospitals were reporting fewer and younger patients, according to a senior boss in the NHS.
To me, that's absolutely categoric evidence for opening on 21 June. Hopson has been among the most conservative figures in this pandemic. He is at the frontline. And he thinks it's all over.
Yup, the people asking for extensions are just institutionalised by lockdown. They fear the freedom and change that comes with it. They're so used to this awful new normal that the can't see why the old way was better and are scared of that unknown quantity. I have no issue with that, those people are free to stay home and wear masks all the time. They shouldn't impose that on the rest of us who are happy to take that risk of going out and being free. Freedom necessarily has personal risks. The collective risk from COVID has been eliminated by vaccination.
I have long admired your certainty about various topical issues, but you may want to reconsider or at least caveat the final sentence.
Again, please tell me exactly which group of people will overwhelm the NHS? It's not going to be groups 1-9 they're all fully vaccinated by Friday. It's it going to be partially vaccinated 40+ as they have got a 60% reduction in risk from first doses and they don't exactly end up on hospital in the first place. It's not going to be under 40s, we're all being vaccinated with Moderna and Pfizer which is fast acting and has a 70% reduction in hospitalisations and even without that the risk of hospitalisation is tiny.
The collective risk has always been young people getting it and passing it on to their parents and grandparents. Well Nana and grandad are double jabbed, mum and dad are double jabbed. Who exactly are young people going to pass it onto?
You'd be right if the vaccine was 100% effective, but it isn't, is it? My understanding is that a very small proportion of the double-jabbed can still get infected. Logically, the higher the proportion of (young) people infected, the more risk there is to the small minority who are double jabbed but for whom the vaccine is still not effective. I'm not sure your absolute certainty on these matters is justified, but I may have missed something.
A very small proportion of three-day event riders and jump jockeys are killed or need hospitalisation. And, counting some of them as my friends, in the national scheme of things and wrt the NHS...so what?
You are falling into the trap of not wanting anyone to get or be ill from Covid.
Take a step back. Is the NHS in danger? Not now. Will it be if a "very small proportion" (admittedly of a very large number) is hospitalised? Maybe. But not sufficient to keep society in chains.
Yes, I take your point. But to extend the analogy, if millions of people suddenly took up three-day eventing and became jump jockeys, many more would be killed or hospitalised, wouldn't they?
Absolutely. Risks must be evaluated on the basis of cold hard calculations. And the key is how close would that take us to a danger of the NHS being overwhelmed. Given the seriousness of disease of those vaccinated and the reduction in transmission which seems to have been observed, this is not an immediate or even perhaps mid-term danger.
Here's an idea. Why doesn't the government remove legal restrictions on 21 June but replace it with strong guidance for zero- and single-jabbers?
What is wrong with that approach? Why does everything have to be a law?
(The WFH guidance isn't a law, and has worked well).
The Telegraph were complaining last night that that might be what happens.
Interesting. Cheers. Do you have a link?
Pretty much throughout this pandemic I have bemoaned the fact that it is all law. The govt doesn't trust us to act rationally, even as people, such as @rcs1000 reply to what they think are anti-lockdown rants by saying "people would lockdown voluntarily".
It seems we can't be trusted. There, that's it. And the whole fucking nation and far too many on PB, for such a repository of critical thinkers, just sit there and applaud.
I can be trusted, it's just the plebs that need to be locked down
Here's an idea. Why doesn't the government remove legal restrictions on 21 June but replace it with strong guidance for zero- and single-jabbers?
What is wrong with that approach? Why does everything have to be a law?
(The WFH guidance isn't a law, and has worked well).
The Telegraph were complaining last night that that might be what happens.
Interesting. Cheers. Do you have a link?
Pretty much throughout this pandemic I have bemoaned the fact that it is all law. The govt doesn't trust us to act rationally, even as people, such as @rcs1000 reply to what they think are anti-lockdown rants by saying "people would lockdown voluntarily".
It seems we can't be trusted. There, that's it. And the whole fucking nation and far too many on PB, for such a repository of critical thinkers, just sit there and applaud.
I can be trusted, it's just the plebs that need to be locked down
The Plebians can generally be trusted - as long as they listen to their betters, and vote as we tell them. The Head Count, though....
So the drums are definitely beating out the message that ‘Boris’ is going to bottle it, or in more PC language, that Freedom Day will be pushed back. What to make of this? Does it contradict my view that Johnson is playing with the narrative in order to maximize his joy & relief dividend?
Not really, it supports it. Remember the final days of the Brexit talks. Remember how Johnson got every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the never happening No Deal outcome was close to inevitable. Ok. So now he has every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the same about a delay to the end of legal Covid restrictions. Mission accomplished.
But there could be another explanation. He sees political benefit in a delay. Caution polls very well in the Red Wall. Not as well as slashing foreign aid, obvs, but still very well. If the delay is short and messaged in an empathetic way, Johnson will be able to have his cake and eat it. A still impactful and only slightly delayed Freedom Day plus score some prudence points – which he needs to counteract his previous mistakes in the opposite direction.
“We’re nearly there, my people, we just need to take this extra time to make absolutely sure it’s safe, because that’s the sort of caring and circumspect government we are.”
It’s one of these 2 possibilities. He’s playing with the narrative and will surprise and delight with no delay. Or he’s throwing in a short delay to look caring and cautious.
I’m sticking to the first – no delay – but I’ve convinced myself of the second as I typed it out, so I’ll be pleasantly amazed if I’m right.
I think a time limited delay taking us to near the school holidays would be prudent and not unpopular.
You keep saying this.
And I keep reminding you of weddings – you are talking thousands of brides' plans ruined up and down the nation.
Remember that they were promised a decision on 24 May and the government temporised. Now many have had to pay their deposits and face cancelling with just a few days' notice.
So the drums are definitely beating out the message that ‘Boris’ is going to bottle it, or in more PC language, that Freedom Day will be pushed back. What to make of this? Does it contradict my view that Johnson is playing with the narrative in order to maximize his joy & relief dividend?
Not really, it supports it. Remember the final days of the Brexit talks. Remember how Johnson got every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the never happening No Deal outcome was close to inevitable. Ok. So now he has every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the same about a delay to the end of legal Covid restrictions. Mission accomplished.
But there could be another explanation. He sees political benefit in a delay. Caution polls very well in the Red Wall. Not as well as slashing foreign aid, obvs, but still very well. If the delay is short and messaged in an empathetic way, Johnson will be able to have his cake and eat it. A still impactful and only slightly delayed Freedom Day plus score some prudence points – which he needs to counteract his previous mistakes in the opposite direction.
“We’re nearly there, my people, we just need to take this extra time to make absolutely sure it’s safe, because that’s the sort of caring and circumspect government we are.”
It’s one of these 2 possibilities. He’s playing with the narrative and will surprise and delight with no delay. Or he’s throwing in a short delay to look caring and cautious.
I’m sticking to the first – no delay – but I’ve convinced myself of the second as I typed it out, so I’ll be pleasantly amazed if I’m right.
But Frosty's current protestations confirm such a tactic is great on the day, but not so much. as it unravels. June the 21st (whichever way it goes) could prove similar.
Perhaps if the main consideration were, what is best for the nation's health and wealth, rather than Johnson's popularity with RedWall voters, the right decision might be taken.
Frosty's current protestations show that such a tactic worked extremely well and hasn't unravelled.
What has unravelled is the EU's pretence that they could foist all the issues of Ireland back onto the UK. First via the wicked backstop and May's abysmal negotiations leading to that - and then via the Protocol.
The Protocol unravelling is not a failure by Frost and Boris, its a failure by Barnier. Frost and Boris have won - they "paid the price" of the Protocol instead of the backstop but unlike Barnier they understood Northern Ireland and knew the Protocol would be unworkable. Now its not on Britain to solve the mess, as it was for the past four years since May conceded that point, now its on the UK and the EU together to do so and Britain can just freely do as it pleases with the Protocol in the meantime because we're toying with them.
The UK’s vaccination programme has broken the link between infections, hospital admissions and deaths, and hospitals were reporting fewer and younger patients, according to a senior boss in the NHS.
To me, that's absolutely categoric evidence for opening on 21 June. Hopson has been among the most conservative figures in this pandemic. He is at the frontline. And he thinks it's all over.
Yup, the people asking for extensions are just institutionalised by lockdown. They fear the freedom and change that comes with it. They're so used to this awful new normal that the can't see why the old way was better and are scared of that unknown quantity. I have no issue with that, those people are free to stay home and wear masks all the time. They shouldn't impose that on the rest of us who are happy to take that risk of going out and being free. Freedom necessarily has personal risks. The collective risk from COVID has been eliminated by vaccination.
I have long admired your certainty about various topical issues, but you may want to reconsider or at least caveat the final sentence.
Again, please tell me exactly which group of people will overwhelm the NHS? It's not going to be groups 1-9 they're all fully vaccinated by Friday. It's it going to be partially vaccinated 40+ as they have got a 60% reduction in risk from first doses and they don't exactly end up on hospital in the first place. It's not going to be under 40s, we're all being vaccinated with Moderna and Pfizer which is fast acting and has a 70% reduction in hospitalisations and even without that the risk of hospitalisation is tiny.
The collective risk has always been young people getting it and passing it on to their parents and grandparents. Well Nana and grandad are double jabbed, mum and dad are double jabbed. Who exactly are young people going to pass it onto?
You'd be right if the vaccine was 100% effective, but it isn't, is it? My understanding is that a very small proportion of the double-jabbed can still get infected. Logically, the higher the proportion of (young) people infected, the more risk there is to the small minority who are double jabbed but for whom the vaccine is still not effective. I'm not sure your absolute certainty on these matters is justified, but I may have missed something.
A very small proportion of three-day event riders and jump jockeys are killed or need hospitalisation. And, counting some of them as my friends, in the national scheme of things and wrt the NHS...so what?
You are falling into the trap of not wanting anyone to get or be ill from Covid.
Take a step back. Is the NHS in danger? Not now. Will it be if a "very small proportion" (admittedly of a very large number) is hospitalised? Maybe. But not sufficient to keep society in chains.
Yes, I take your point. But to extend the analogy, if millions of people suddenly took up three-day eventing and became jump jockeys, many more would be killed or hospitalised, wouldn't they?
They would, particularly being new to those sports and not being equipped to control the horse. But that number could be minimised by proper training in horse control before being let loose. There would still be more deaths and injuries from that cause than if people hadn't taken up the sports, but a much lower number than there could have been.
(training -> vaccination and horse -> Covid, obviously)
So the drums are definitely beating out the message that ‘Boris’ is going to bottle it, or in more PC language, that Freedom Day will be pushed back. What to make of this? Does it contradict my view that Johnson is playing with the narrative in order to maximize his joy & relief dividend?
Not really, it supports it. Remember the final days of the Brexit talks. Remember how Johnson got every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the never happening No Deal outcome was close to inevitable. Ok. So now he has every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the same about a delay to the end of legal Covid restrictions. Mission accomplished.
But there could be another explanation. He sees political benefit in a delay. Caution polls very well in the Red Wall. Not as well as slashing foreign aid, obvs, but still very well. If the delay is short and messaged in an empathetic way, Johnson will be able to have his cake and eat it. A still impactful and only slightly delayed Freedom Day plus score some prudence points – which he needs to counteract his previous mistakes in the opposite direction.
“We’re nearly there, my people, we just need to take this extra time to make absolutely sure it’s safe, because that’s the sort of caring and circumspect government we are.”
It’s one of these 2 possibilities. He’s playing with the narrative and will surprise and delight with no delay. Or he’s throwing in a short delay to look caring and cautious.
I’m sticking to the first – no delay – but I’ve convinced myself of the second as I typed it out, so I’ll be pleasantly amazed if I’m right.
Good analysis. Just one thing.
"Caution polls very well in the Red Wall. Not as well as slashing foreign aid, obvs, but still very well."
It's going to be a long hard slog winning the Red Wall back when Lab types display such open disdain for them.
The UK’s vaccination programme has broken the link between infections, hospital admissions and deaths, and hospitals were reporting fewer and younger patients, according to a senior boss in the NHS.
To me, that's absolutely categoric evidence for opening on 21 June. Hopson has been among the most conservative figures in this pandemic. He is at the frontline. And he thinks it's all over.
Yup, the people asking for extensions are just institutionalised by lockdown. They fear the freedom and change that comes with it. They're so used to this awful new normal that the can't see why the old way was better and are scared of that unknown quantity. I have no issue with that, those people are free to stay home and wear masks all the time. They shouldn't impose that on the rest of us who are happy to take that risk of going out and being free. Freedom necessarily has personal risks. The collective risk from COVID has been eliminated by vaccination.
I have long admired your certainty about various topical issues, but you may want to reconsider or at least caveat the final sentence.
Its already caveated by the word collective.
There's a risk to some individuals that they might individually get sick, but there's no collective risk like there was in January or March 2020.
I am not an expert on Covid-19, but I think we are some way from being able to say that the collective risk has been eliminated. I think we can say that the vaccines seem to work but there are still a lot of unknowns.
No we are not any way from it. We are there.
The vaccine rollout is complete in Groups 1 to 9, double-jabbed. There's nothing more to be done there. Yes there may be some antivaxxers but we could wait weeks, months or years they still won't be vaccinated if they're refusing it and don't change their minds.
So if you think that we are collectively at risk then you need to please answer two questions:
Firstly: Who are we collectively at risk from? Which JCVI groups for instance? Secondly: When will we cease to be at risk from them?
If you can't answer those questions, the collective risk is gone as best as it can ever be.
It seems to me that it is early to arrive at conclusions about the extent to which vaccination limits the risk of hospitalisation in the delta variant cases, which is of concern given the known increase in cases. Obviously there is also a collective risk from new variants, which we might not yet have identified or know about, and the existing vaccines may not be effective against, so there is an argument to keep testing, maintain social distancing, reduce transmission etc which may not be completely compatabile with completely lifting all restrictions.
This is not to say that I disagree with your position (that the restrictions should be removed) but I think there is still a degree of risk and political judgement needed in doing so.
Future and unknown variants is a ridiculous reason to keep any measures. If that's what you're basing it on then we'll literally never be out of this. There's always going to be some unknown variant in the future.
PHE have released a preliminary report on the delta variant already, a single dose of either vaccine reduces hospitalisations by 60% after three weeks and two doses reduces it by at least 95%, probably much higher once cumulative factors are taken into account. This is based in actual real world data too, not modelled from binding efficiency dilution.
The vaccines work, they do exactly what we need them to do - they stop people going to hospital to enough of a degree that the NHS won't be overwhelmed. Groups 1-9 are all going to be fully vaccinated by Friday and by the 26th of June all of them will have reached maximum efficacy, even the last few stragglers who get it on Thursday and Friday.
The political risk is vaccine refusing black and Asian people going to hospital after freedom day. Honestly, I don't give a fuck about anyone who has turned down the chance to be vaccinated. They've decided that the risk from vaccines are higher than the risk from COVID. That's their stupid decision and the nation can't wait for them to be cured of stupidity.
As I said I support lifting the restrictions. I'm just saying that there are risks and unknowns involved, so the position of the government is understandable.
The UK’s vaccination programme has broken the link between infections, hospital admissions and deaths, and hospitals were reporting fewer and younger patients, according to a senior boss in the NHS.
To me, that's absolutely categoric evidence for opening on 21 June. Hopson has been among the most conservative figures in this pandemic. He is at the frontline. And he thinks it's all over.
Yup, the people asking for extensions are just institutionalised by lockdown. They fear the freedom and change that comes with it. They're so used to this awful new normal that the can't see why the old way was better and are scared of that unknown quantity. I have no issue with that, those people are free to stay home and wear masks all the time. They shouldn't impose that on the rest of us who are happy to take that risk of going out and being free. Freedom necessarily has personal risks. The collective risk from COVID has been eliminated by vaccination.
I have long admired your certainty about various topical issues, but you may want to reconsider or at least caveat the final sentence.
Again, please tell me exactly which group of people will overwhelm the NHS? It's not going to be groups 1-9 they're all fully vaccinated by Friday. It's it going to be partially vaccinated 40+ as they have got a 60% reduction in risk from first doses and they don't exactly end up on hospital in the first place. It's not going to be under 40s, we're all being vaccinated with Moderna and Pfizer which is fast acting and has a 70% reduction in hospitalisations and even without that the risk of hospitalisation is tiny.
The collective risk has always been young people getting it and passing it on to their parents and grandparents. Well Nana and grandad are double jabbed, mum and dad are double jabbed. Who exactly are young people going to pass it onto?
You'd be right if the vaccine was 100% effective, but it isn't, is it? My understanding is that a very small proportion of the double-jabbed can still get infected. Logically, the higher the proportion of (young) people infected, the more risk there is to the small minority who are double jabbed but for whom the vaccine is still not effective. I'm not sure your absolute certainty on these matters is justified, but I may have missed something.
A very small proportion of three-day event riders and jump jockeys are killed or need hospitalisation. And, counting some of them as my friends, in the national scheme of things and wrt the NHS...so what?
You are falling into the trap of not wanting anyone to get or be ill from Covid.
Take a step back. Is the NHS in danger? Not now. Will it be if a "very small proportion" (admittedly of a very large number) is hospitalised? Maybe. But not sufficient to keep society in chains.
Yes, I take your point. But to extend the analogy, if millions of people suddenly took up three-day eventing and became jump jockeys, many more would be killed or hospitalised, wouldn't they?
They would, particularly being new to those sports and not being equipped to control the horse. But that number could be minimised by proper training in horse control before being let loose. There would still be more deaths and injuries from that cause than if people hadn't taken up the sports, but a much lower number than there could have been.
(training -> vaccination and horse -> Covid, obviously)
LOL where's @kle4 to vet (!) that analogy. He remains arbiter of PB analogies.
The UK’s vaccination programme has broken the link between infections, hospital admissions and deaths, and hospitals were reporting fewer and younger patients, according to a senior boss in the NHS.
To me, that's absolutely categoric evidence for opening on 21 June. Hopson has been among the most conservative figures in this pandemic. He is at the frontline. And he thinks it's all over.
Yup, the people asking for extensions are just institutionalised by lockdown. They fear the freedom and change that comes with it. They're so used to this awful new normal that the can't see why the old way was better and are scared of that unknown quantity. I have no issue with that, those people are free to stay home and wear masks all the time. They shouldn't impose that on the rest of us who are happy to take that risk of going out and being free. Freedom necessarily has personal risks. The collective risk from COVID has been eliminated by vaccination.
I have long admired your certainty about various topical issues, but you may want to reconsider or at least caveat the final sentence.
Again, please tell me exactly which group of people will overwhelm the NHS? It's not going to be groups 1-9 they're all fully vaccinated by Friday. It's it going to be partially vaccinated 40+ as they have got a 60% reduction in risk from first doses and they don't exactly end up on hospital in the first place. It's not going to be under 40s, we're all being vaccinated with Moderna and Pfizer which is fast acting and has a 70% reduction in hospitalisations and even without that the risk of hospitalisation is tiny.
The collective risk has always been young people getting it and passing it on to their parents and grandparents. Well Nana and grandad are double jabbed, mum and dad are double jabbed. Who exactly are young people going to pass it onto?
You'd be right if the vaccine was 100% effective, but it isn't, is it? My understanding is that a very small proportion of the double-jabbed can still get infected. Logically, the higher the proportion of (young) people infected, the more risk there is to the small minority who are double jabbed but for whom the vaccine is still not effective. I'm not sure your absolute certainty on these matters is justified, but I may have missed something.
A very small proportion of three-day event riders and jump jockeys are killed or need hospitalisation. And, counting some of them as my friends, in the national scheme of things and wrt the NHS...so what?
You are falling into the trap of not wanting anyone to get or be ill from Covid.
Take a step back. Is the NHS in danger? Not now. Will it be if a "very small proportion" (admittedly of a very large number) is hospitalised? Maybe. But not sufficient to keep society in chains.
Yes, I take your point. But to extend the analogy, if millions of people suddenly took up three-day eventing and became jump jockeys, many more would be killed or hospitalised, wouldn't they?
They would, particularly being new to those sports and not being equipped to control the horse. But that number could be minimised by proper training in horse control before being let loose. There would still be more deaths and injuries from that cause than if people hadn't taken up the sports, but a much lower number than there could have been.
(training -> vaccination and horse -> Covid, obviously)
And I think the point is that we're not going to stop vaccinating people after June 21st. People are acting as though we will and whoever has has two doses before that will be protected and whoever hasn't is at the mercy of COVID for the rest of their life. June 21st is a good date because it covers all of groups 1-9 with two doses reaching maximum efficacy just a few days after that. And, we're not going to stop vaccinating and double jabbing people. Every week millions more people are getting their first and second doses, demand in the 18-29 groups is absolutely huge, they want to be vaccinated.
A useful article which might help sift @Leon 's occasional nuggets from his copious dross, if you're interested.
Thanks for this.
Just one general issue re journals. One of the slight issues is that an increasing part of their revenues and, more importantly, contribution to their growth rates come from China and the Government is very happy to block or punish publications seen as critical. I wouldn't automatically assume scientific journals as being 100% neutral and driven entirely by the science
I'd say they are at least 1000% more neutral and driven by the science than other commenters. Thing about science is that if a scientist starts spouting bullshit, plenty of their fellow scientists are more than happy to point it out. They don't have the same kind of omertà that (arguably) exists in parts of the medical profession.
This is your usual gibberish, based on a doddery, outdated perception, and just shows you haven't read anything around the issue
I'm not a Boomer but I must say I'm increasing concerned by the use of Boomer as a derogatory term for those over 65 years old.
As other forms of prejudice recede this one seems to be increasingly acceptable; it's not one I'm comfortable with.
Okay Boomer. 65? My kids use it as a derogatory term for anyone over 30.
Yes, it's an acceptable prejudice. These change over time. Race is top of the taboo list, but age is absolutely acceptable.
"Political correctness" is going with the rules of the time, rather than against them. To have been pro-Jew in 1930s Germany would have been very politically incorrect, for example.
The UK’s vaccination programme has broken the link between infections, hospital admissions and deaths, and hospitals were reporting fewer and younger patients, according to a senior boss in the NHS.
To me, that's absolutely categoric evidence for opening on 21 June. Hopson has been among the most conservative figures in this pandemic. He is at the frontline. And he thinks it's all over.
Yup, the people asking for extensions are just institutionalised by lockdown. They fear the freedom and change that comes with it. They're so used to this awful new normal that the can't see why the old way was better and are scared of that unknown quantity. I have no issue with that, those people are free to stay home and wear masks all the time. They shouldn't impose that on the rest of us who are happy to take that risk of going out and being free. Freedom necessarily has personal risks. The collective risk from COVID has been eliminated by vaccination.
I have long admired your certainty about various topical issues, but you may want to reconsider or at least caveat the final sentence.
Again, please tell me exactly which group of people will overwhelm the NHS? It's not going to be groups 1-9 they're all fully vaccinated by Friday. It's it going to be partially vaccinated 40+ as they have got a 60% reduction in risk from first doses and they don't exactly end up on hospital in the first place. It's not going to be under 40s, we're all being vaccinated with Moderna and Pfizer which is fast acting and has a 70% reduction in hospitalisations and even without that the risk of hospitalisation is tiny.
The collective risk has always been young people getting it and passing it on to their parents and grandparents. Well Nana and grandad are double jabbed, mum and dad are double jabbed. Who exactly are young people going to pass it onto?
You'd be right if the vaccine was 100% effective, but it isn't, is it? My understanding is that a very small proportion of the double-jabbed can still get infected. Logically, the higher the proportion of (young) people infected, the more risk there is to the small minority who are double jabbed but for whom the vaccine is still not effective. I'm not sure your absolute certainty on these matters is justified, but I may have missed something.
A very small proportion of three-day event riders and jump jockeys are killed or need hospitalisation. And, counting some of them as my friends, in the national scheme of things and wrt the NHS...so what?
You are falling into the trap of not wanting anyone to get or be ill from Covid.
Take a step back. Is the NHS in danger? Not now. Will it be if a "very small proportion" (admittedly of a very large number) is hospitalised? Maybe. But not sufficient to keep society in chains.
Yes, I take your point. But to extend the analogy, if millions of people suddenly took up three-day eventing and became jump jockeys, many more would be killed or hospitalised, wouldn't they?
They would, particularly being new to those sports and not being equipped to control the horse. But that number could be minimised by proper training in horse control before being let loose. There would still be more deaths and injuries from that cause than if people hadn't taken up the sports, but a much lower number than there could have been.
(training -> vaccination and horse -> Covid, obviously)
And I think the point is that we're not going to stop vaccinating people after June 21st. People are acting as though we will and whoever has has two doses before that will be protected and whoever hasn't is at the mercy of COVID for the rest of their life. June 21st is a good date because it covers all of groups 1-9 with two doses reaching maximum efficacy just a few days after that. And, we're not going to stop vaccinating and double jabbing people. Every week millions more people are getting their first and second doses, demand in the 18-29 groups is absolutely huge, they want to be vaccinated.
Despite growth of the Indian variant, the wave of newly protected people is still outpacing it.
Oops - quick follow up. I said I'd come to why I thought delaying Freedom Day might be the right decision for the wrong reason. While I implied what I thought the right reason was, I forgot to mention the wrong one.
I'm far from convinced that Delta is that much more transmissable. it's notable that Bedford's vaccination rates are some way below the national average. We have to question whether the greater transmission of Delta is because of the virus or because of the people who have it. Are they acting differently from other parts of the country, or from those who don't? Are they following rules and guidance to the same extent - and so on? Are their vaccination rates the same, or higher, or lower, than the areas and groups not suffering outbreaks?
The question underlying all this is why, when Delta is also found in other countries, has its outbreak in the UK grown far faster than elsewhere?
Now, there are tricky issues surrounding the asking of these questions, which is why they probably won't be asked and are even less likely to be answered honestly and openly. All the same, I can't help but think that the governments assumptions about transmission are not looking at the whole picture and, hence, flawed.
Still, as it turns out, it might be for the best.
My guess/worry is that the UK seeded a large outbreak because we have lots of flights coming from India.
So basically... other countries are going to get the same/larger surge in cases, just a bit later because they don't have as much travel from India, so it will take longer for the virus to become dominant for them.
And those other countries are going to be hit very hard, because their vaccination rates are lower, and this variant seems to lead to more hospitalization.
But that's not happening. I can well see your explanation being right as to why the UK had so many more Delta cases *to begin with* but it doesn't explain why Delta cases have grown so quickly here but not at anything like the same rate in other countries. As you say, given their lower vaccination rates, they should really have grown even faster if the higher R rate is as claimed.
I think it is rising very fast in other countries, just from a much lower base, so it will take longer to show up in headline figures which are still dominated by other variants.
In the US it is 6% of all cases -> but that will rise very quickly -> then it will become noticeable in the headline case numbers.
Also its possibly not comparing like-for-like. The UK has a test positivity rate of 0.6%, the USA one of 2.6% - many states are really not prioritising testing anymore like is happening here, so its quite possible the delta variant is on the rise there but just not even being detected due to an absence of testing.
Especially if its spreading amongst people who get it relatively asymptomatically.
It’s spreading in Canada
‘AHS has confirmed the Delta variant has spread inside Calgary’s Foothills Medical Centre. 16 patients on two units have been infected with B.1.617.2 #COVID19AB
But I thought it only spread in countries where the Prime Minister delayed quarantining Indians to get a trade deal? Surely you're not saying it was inevitable that it would spread everywhere that admitted any foreigners at all?
It looks like Indians are dodging the Canadian travel ban
"Indian Passengers and Students Paying $4,000 for a One-Way Ticket To Land in Canada via Doha and Addis Ababa #Passengers #COVID19Pandemic #Canada #Doha #AddisAbaba #CoronaVirusPandemic"
Here's an idea. Why doesn't the government remove legal restrictions on 21 June but replace it with strong guidance for zero- and single-jabbers?
What is wrong with that approach? Why does everything have to be a law?
(The WFH guidance isn't a law, and has worked well).
The Telegraph were complaining last night that that might be what happens.
Interesting. Cheers. Do you have a link?
Pretty much throughout this pandemic I have bemoaned the fact that it is all law. The govt doesn't trust us to act rationally, even as people, such as @rcs1000 reply to what they think are anti-lockdown rants by saying "people would lockdown voluntarily".
It seems we can't be trusted. There, that's it. And the whole fucking nation and far too many on PB, for such a repository of critical thinkers, just sit there and applaud.
I can be trusted, it's just the plebs that need to be locked down
Well indeed.
It is (for science, future pandemics, simple curiousity - but possibly not for the country involved) a shame that no comparable country tried the (mostly) guidance only approach. You can imagine Germany pulling it off (although it still might not translate across to us feckless Brits). Sweden looks dire when compared to Scandinavian peers, but not that bad overall and its health service survived, but a sample of 1 is not that informative, particularly with the highly skewed population density but low density overall.
It really might be a better way, but I don't think we'll ever know. Of course, 'better' depends on personal values, but for me the judgement would depend on how bad things were under that alternative scenario. If those who needed treatment were still able to get treatment, I could be convinced - and on that basis I don't think Sweden got it 'wrong', for them. They just made a choice about what was important.
The UK’s vaccination programme has broken the link between infections, hospital admissions and deaths, and hospitals were reporting fewer and younger patients, according to a senior boss in the NHS.
To me, that's absolutely categoric evidence for opening on 21 June. Hopson has been among the most conservative figures in this pandemic. He is at the frontline. And he thinks it's all over.
Yup, the people asking for extensions are just institutionalised by lockdown. They fear the freedom and change that comes with it. They're so used to this awful new normal that the can't see why the old way was better and are scared of that unknown quantity. I have no issue with that, those people are free to stay home and wear masks all the time. They shouldn't impose that on the rest of us who are happy to take that risk of going out and being free. Freedom necessarily has personal risks. The collective risk from COVID has been eliminated by vaccination.
I have long admired your certainty about various topical issues, but you may want to reconsider or at least caveat the final sentence.
Again, please tell me exactly which group of people will overwhelm the NHS? It's not going to be groups 1-9 they're all fully vaccinated by Friday. It's it going to be partially vaccinated 40+ as they have got a 60% reduction in risk from first doses and they don't exactly end up on hospital in the first place. It's not going to be under 40s, we're all being vaccinated with Moderna and Pfizer which is fast acting and has a 70% reduction in hospitalisations and even without that the risk of hospitalisation is tiny.
The collective risk has always been young people getting it and passing it on to their parents and grandparents. Well Nana and grandad are double jabbed, mum and dad are double jabbed. Who exactly are young people going to pass it onto?
You'd be right if the vaccine was 100% effective, but it isn't, is it? My understanding is that a very small proportion of the double-jabbed can still get infected. Logically, the higher the proportion of (young) people infected, the more risk there is to the small minority who are double jabbed but for whom the vaccine is still not effective. I'm not sure your absolute certainty on these matters is justified, but I may have missed something.
If exposed, for the double jabbed, there's a low risk of infection. There's a very low risk of hospitalisation or worse.
There's also the question of exposure. The double jabbed, meeting with other double jabbed are unlikely to even be exposed (as the double jabbed they meet are unlikely to be infected). Let's take 80% protection from infection agains Delta for double jab (PHE estimate or even a bit lower). Now lets put 10 double jabbed people in a room and spray the virus around. 2 might get infected. The chance of another double jabbed person encountering one of these (assume randomness) in any one interaction is 2/10. But the double jabbed person has a 2/10 chance of infection if exposed, so suddenly you're at 4% risk of infection from an interaction with one of 10 people who have been deliberately exposed (in this scenario). It might be lower, because even the infected person is likely less infectious and/or infectious for a shorter amount of time. And all that is for infection. The small number of double jabbed unlucky enough to get infected will still have good protection from needing hospitalisation.
It might be sensible, particularly if cases go up greatly, for the double jabbed to still exercise caution in exposure to the unjabbed or even single jabbed. But it looks hard for the originally most vulnerable (now double jabbed) to get hospitalised in sufficient numbers to cause problems for the NHS.
The question about unlocking, such as it is, is surely about those single jabbed or unjabbed, who could well get infected during a third wave, if a third wave was to take off. But few of those (due to the jab targetting and protection conferred by even a single jab against severe disease) should need to go to hospital. David Herdson's point abot nightclubs as giant petry dishes is a good one. It's possible that there could be a big rise in infections among the young. The question is whether the number needing hospital before vaccination protects that group too is high enough to cause a problem. There will of course be personal risk, but personal risk is personal choice - don't go to the nightclub until jabbed, to reduce your risk (less choice for staff of course - I'd be happy to see them prioritised for vaccination).
TLDR: There will still be personal risk, even (although small) for the double jabbed. But collective risk (collapsing the NHS) which is why we embarked on lockdowns in the first place is quite hard to see at present.
I share your overall view but to dispute one part of it - just because the reason for lockdown was to stop the NHS collapsing it doesn't follow that all restrictions should end as soon as we know the NHS will not collapse. Lockdown is to a large extent over already. All we're talking about is the speed and timing of the final steps. As I posted earlier, I think it's neither data nor dates but politics driving a short delay (if that's confirmed), and I disagree with it, but I don't think the argument that every single legal restriction should go because we know the NHS won't fall over - ie the 'moving the goalposts' complaint - is a particularly strong one. If a delay headed off serious but non collapsing pressure on the NHS, which would have significantly compromised its efforts to get cracking on its backlog, then that, for me, would be a good reason for it. But, as I say, I think it's more about the politics.
I'm not a Boomer but I must say I'm increasing concerned by the use of Boomer as a derogatory term for those over 65 years old.
As other forms of prejudice recede this one seems to be increasingly acceptable; it's not one I'm comfortable with.
Okay Boomer. 65? My kids use it as a derogatory term for anyone over 30.
Yes, it's an acceptable prejudice. These change over time. Race is top of the taboo list, but age is absolutely acceptable.
"Political correctness" is going with the rules of the time, rather than against them. To have been pro-Jew in 1930s Germany would have been very politically incorrect, for example.
I don't know any generation that has weaponised their voting power to promote their own interests at the expense of others quite as ruthlessly and effectively as the boomers. I reckon if the worst that the young do to them is use Boomer as an insult they've got off lightly.
Whether lifting them on June 21st or waiting a few more weeks, just to be safe, the main point is that by extending them, I believe the govt will be doing significant damage to the mental health of millions of people. I suppose they can't or won't price that up but it is the case.
People feel powerless, at the mercy of what they perceive to be the whim of those in government. They might say it's fine and they approve but it is chip, chipping away at their psychological wellbeing. Perhaps that is what the govt is happy to do.
If people really feel ignored, we would then be not a million miles away from much of the motivation for Brexit.
If people feel that their voices are not being heard they will look for a more dramatic amplifier.
A useful article which might help sift @Leon 's occasional nuggets from his copious dross, if you're interested.
Thanks for this.
Just one general issue re journals. One of the slight issues is that an increasing part of their revenues and, more importantly, contribution to their growth rates come from China and the Government is very happy to block or punish publications seen as critical. I wouldn't automatically assume scientific journals as being 100% neutral and driven entirely by the science
I'd say they are at least 1000% more neutral and driven by the science than other commenters. Thing about science is that if a scientist starts spouting bullshit, plenty of their fellow scientists are more than happy to point it out. They don't have the same kind of omertà that (arguably) exists in parts of the medical profession.
And the idea there is no omerta imposed on these scientists is *interesting*
"Trump's CDC director Robert Redfield says he got death threats for saying he thought COVID leaked from China lab"
"Vanity Fair: Government Bureaucrats Warned Other Bureaucrats to Not Look Into Covid's Origins, as It Would "Open a Can of Worms;" Scientists Issued Death Threats to Other Scientists http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=394119"
These students that are supposed so triggered by a picture of the Queen, they must have total meltdowns on a daily basis, whenever they get a letter or have to handle a bank note.....
Here's an idea. Why doesn't the government remove legal restrictions on 21 June but replace it with strong guidance for zero- and single-jabbers?
What is wrong with that approach? Why does everything have to be a law?
(The WFH guidance isn't a law, and has worked well).
The Telegraph were complaining last night that that might be what happens.
Interesting. Cheers. Do you have a link?
Pretty much throughout this pandemic I have bemoaned the fact that it is all law. The govt doesn't trust us to act rationally, even as people, such as @rcs1000 reply to what they think are anti-lockdown rants by saying "people would lockdown voluntarily".
It seems we can't be trusted. There, that's it. And the whole fucking nation and far too many on PB, for such a repository of critical thinkers, just sit there and applaud.
I can be trusted, it's just the plebs that need to be locked down
Well indeed.
It is (for science, future pandemics, simple curiousity - but possibly not for the country involved) a shame that no comparable country tried the (mostly) guidance only approach. You can imagine Germany pulling it off (although it still might not translate across to us feckless Brits). Sweden looks dire when compared to Scandinavian peers, but not that bad overall and its health service survived, but a sample of 1 is not that informative, particularly with the highly skewed population density but low density overall.
It really might be a better way, but I don't think we'll ever know. Of course, 'better' depends on personal values, but for me the judgement would depend on how bad things were under that alternative scenario. If those who needed treatment were still able to get treatment, I could be convinced - and on that basis I don't think Sweden got it 'wrong', for them. They just made a choice about what was important.
I think one argument has been without legal force then the pub could open but no one would go, hence they would have gone out of business without support. So the govt would have had to pay firms and individuals with no legal backing to say they couldn't work/open/etc. That might have been problematic but not insurmountable.
Oops - quick follow up. I said I'd come to why I thought delaying Freedom Day might be the right decision for the wrong reason. While I implied what I thought the right reason was, I forgot to mention the wrong one.
I'm far from convinced that Delta is that much more transmissable. it's notable that Bedford's vaccination rates are some way below the national average. We have to question whether the greater transmission of Delta is because of the virus or because of the people who have it. Are they acting differently from other parts of the country, or from those who don't? Are they following rules and guidance to the same extent - and so on? Are their vaccination rates the same, or higher, or lower, than the areas and groups not suffering outbreaks?
The question underlying all this is why, when Delta is also found in other countries, has its outbreak in the UK grown far faster than elsewhere?
Now, there are tricky issues surrounding the asking of these questions, which is why they probably won't be asked and are even less likely to be answered honestly and openly. All the same, I can't help but think that the governments assumptions about transmission are not looking at the whole picture and, hence, flawed.
Still, as it turns out, it might be for the best.
My guess/worry is that the UK seeded a large outbreak because we have lots of flights coming from India.
So basically... other countries are going to get the same/larger surge in cases, just a bit later because they don't have as much travel from India, so it will take longer for the virus to become dominant for them.
And those other countries are going to be hit very hard, because their vaccination rates are lower, and this variant seems to lead to more hospitalization.
But that's not happening. I can well see your explanation being right as to why the UK had so many more Delta cases *to begin with* but it doesn't explain why Delta cases have grown so quickly here but not at anything like the same rate in other countries. As you say, given their lower vaccination rates, they should really have grown even faster if the higher R rate is as claimed.
I think it is rising very fast in other countries, just from a much lower base, so it will take longer to show up in headline figures which are still dominated by other variants.
In the US it is 6% of all cases -> but that will rise very quickly -> then it will become noticeable in the headline case numbers.
Also its possibly not comparing like-for-like. The UK has a test positivity rate of 0.6%, the USA one of 2.6% - many states are really not prioritising testing anymore like is happening here, so its quite possible the delta variant is on the rise there but just not even being detected due to an absence of testing.
Especially if its spreading amongst people who get it relatively asymptomatically.
It’s spreading in Canada
‘AHS has confirmed the Delta variant has spread inside Calgary’s Foothills Medical Centre. 16 patients on two units have been infected with B.1.617.2 #COVID19AB
But I thought it only spread in countries where the Prime Minister delayed quarantining Indians to get a trade deal? Surely you're not saying it was inevitable that it would spread everywhere that admitted any foreigners at all?
It looks like Indians are dodging the Canadian travel ban
"Indian Passengers and Students Paying $4,000 for a One-Way Ticket To Land in Canada via Doha and Addis Ababa #Passengers #COVID19Pandemic #Canada #Doha #AddisAbaba #CoronaVirusPandemic"
Which, TBF, is exactly what people coming back from India would have done if the country had been red listed here earlier. In the early days of the pandemic Italy stopped direct flights from China so passengers just went there via connecting flights. The system doesn't work. You need something sadly harsher but based on metrics like "we'll open the borders when we have 80% fully vaccinated" or something. My wife is considering visiting her mother in the US via a flight through Iceland. How do you stop that?
LONDON — EU officials and diplomats are discussing an emergency plan to solve the impasse over the Brexit settlement in Northern Ireland by restricting Ireland’s access to the bloc’s single market for goods.
The idea, which is causing extreme anxiety in Dublin where officials see it as unfair punishment for its neighbor’s decision to Brexit, is meant as a backup plan to solve the conundrum of where to carry out vital checks on goods. These are designed to protect EU countries from food and plant diseases.
That issue was meant to have been solved by the Northern Ireland protocol, a key part of the Brexit deal, but London is resisting implementing this part of the agreement which it claims is unworkable.
Why would a border between Ireland and the EU be any more “workable” than the border in the Irish Sea?
Or is the theory that having two borders (one EU/Ireland, one in the Irish Sea) makes it easier to justify not enforcing serious controls for either?
Either are workable it’s just the UK understands the sensitivity better than the EU (ex RoI) so is unwilling to inflame tensions in NI
The truly remarkable thing is that the Johnson government chooses to split its own country in preference to accepting any alignment with EU regs. Ireland and the EU are also uncompromising, but nothing as radical as that.
It was intended to be temporary but the EU seems to have no interest Tino of a collaborative approach. In any event it can only be done with ongoing consent
Oops - quick follow up. I said I'd come to why I thought delaying Freedom Day might be the right decision for the wrong reason. While I implied what I thought the right reason was, I forgot to mention the wrong one.
I'm far from convinced that Delta is that much more transmissable. it's notable that Bedford's vaccination rates are some way below the national average. We have to question whether the greater transmission of Delta is because of the virus or because of the people who have it. Are they acting differently from other parts of the country, or from those who don't? Are they following rules and guidance to the same extent - and so on? Are their vaccination rates the same, or higher, or lower, than the areas and groups not suffering outbreaks?
The question underlying all this is why, when Delta is also found in other countries, has its outbreak in the UK grown far faster than elsewhere?
Now, there are tricky issues surrounding the asking of these questions, which is why they probably won't be asked and are even less likely to be answered honestly and openly. All the same, I can't help but think that the governments assumptions about transmission are not looking at the whole picture and, hence, flawed.
Still, as it turns out, it might be for the best.
My guess/worry is that the UK seeded a large outbreak because we have lots of flights coming from India.
So basically... other countries are going to get the same/larger surge in cases, just a bit later because they don't have as much travel from India, so it will take longer for the virus to become dominant for them.
And those other countries are going to be hit very hard, because their vaccination rates are lower, and this variant seems to lead to more hospitalization.
But that's not happening. I can well see your explanation being right as to why the UK had so many more Delta cases *to begin with* but it doesn't explain why Delta cases have grown so quickly here but not at anything like the same rate in other countries. As you say, given their lower vaccination rates, they should really have grown even faster if the higher R rate is as claimed.
I think it is rising very fast in other countries, just from a much lower base, so it will take longer to show up in headline figures which are still dominated by other variants.
In the US it is 6% of all cases -> but that will rise very quickly -> then it will become noticeable in the headline case numbers.
Also its possibly not comparing like-for-like. The UK has a test positivity rate of 0.6%, the USA one of 2.6% - many states are really not prioritising testing anymore like is happening here, so its quite possible the delta variant is on the rise there but just not even being detected due to an absence of testing.
Especially if its spreading amongst people who get it relatively asymptomatically.
It’s spreading in Canada
‘AHS has confirmed the Delta variant has spread inside Calgary’s Foothills Medical Centre. 16 patients on two units have been infected with B.1.617.2 #COVID19AB
But I thought it only spread in countries where the Prime Minister delayed quarantining Indians to get a trade deal? Surely you're not saying it was inevitable that it would spread everywhere that admitted any foreigners at all?
It looks like Indians are dodging the Canadian travel ban
"Indian Passengers and Students Paying $4,000 for a One-Way Ticket To Land in Canada via Doha and Addis Ababa #Passengers #COVID19Pandemic #Canada #Doha #AddisAbaba #CoronaVirusPandemic"
As is always the way. That is why airbridge ideas are stupid, and that's before you get onto the fact you don't know you have a problem, until you have a problem. You either close your borders properly or you don't.
So the drums are definitely beating out the message that ‘Boris’ is going to bottle it, or in more PC language, that Freedom Day will be pushed back. What to make of this? Does it contradict my view that Johnson is playing with the narrative in order to maximize his joy & relief dividend?
Not really, it supports it. Remember the final days of the Brexit talks. Remember how Johnson got every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the never happening No Deal outcome was close to inevitable. Ok. So now he has every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the same about a delay to the end of legal Covid restrictions. Mission accomplished.
But there could be another explanation. He sees political benefit in a delay. Caution polls very well in the Red Wall. Not as well as slashing foreign aid, obvs, but still very well. If the delay is short and messaged in an empathetic way, Johnson will be able to have his cake and eat it. A still impactful and only slightly delayed Freedom Day plus score some prudence points – which he needs to counteract his previous mistakes in the opposite direction.
“We’re nearly there, my people, we just need to take this extra time to make absolutely sure it’s safe, because that’s the sort of caring and circumspect government we are.”
It’s one of these 2 possibilities. He’s playing with the narrative and will surprise and delight with no delay. Or he’s throwing in a short delay to look caring and cautious.
I’m sticking to the first – no delay – but I’ve convinced myself of the second as I typed it out, so I’ll be pleasantly amazed if I’m right.
Our alignment on how this should be analysed continues to be eerie, but I'm now leaning towards your Option 2. The data is still good enough that we could have a pleasant surprise and open up on the 21st, but then the inevitable rise in casualties, even if completely manageable, could and would be be painted by the gutter media as 'let-the-bodies-pile-high' callousness. A brief delay still allows for a Grand Reopening in July, and rebuts the coming bodies-piled-high-pile-on. That seems to be where the numbers and the politics are converging. Of course, I'm no superforecaster, but I'd give it 30% June / 70% July as of today.
Oops - quick follow up. I said I'd come to why I thought delaying Freedom Day might be the right decision for the wrong reason. While I implied what I thought the right reason was, I forgot to mention the wrong one.
I'm far from convinced that Delta is that much more transmissable. it's notable that Bedford's vaccination rates are some way below the national average. We have to question whether the greater transmission of Delta is because of the virus or because of the people who have it. Are they acting differently from other parts of the country, or from those who don't? Are they following rules and guidance to the same extent - and so on? Are their vaccination rates the same, or higher, or lower, than the areas and groups not suffering outbreaks?
The question underlying all this is why, when Delta is also found in other countries, has its outbreak in the UK grown far faster than elsewhere?
Now, there are tricky issues surrounding the asking of these questions, which is why they probably won't be asked and are even less likely to be answered honestly and openly. All the same, I can't help but think that the governments assumptions about transmission are not looking at the whole picture and, hence, flawed.
Still, as it turns out, it might be for the best.
My guess/worry is that the UK seeded a large outbreak because we have lots of flights coming from India.
So basically... other countries are going to get the same/larger surge in cases, just a bit later because they don't have as much travel from India, so it will take longer for the virus to become dominant for them.
And those other countries are going to be hit very hard, because their vaccination rates are lower, and this variant seems to lead to more hospitalization.
But that's not happening. I can well see your explanation being right as to why the UK had so many more Delta cases *to begin with* but it doesn't explain why Delta cases have grown so quickly here but not at anything like the same rate in other countries. As you say, given their lower vaccination rates, they should really have grown even faster if the higher R rate is as claimed.
I think it is rising very fast in other countries, just from a much lower base, so it will take longer to show up in headline figures which are still dominated by other variants.
In the US it is 6% of all cases -> but that will rise very quickly -> then it will become noticeable in the headline case numbers.
Also its possibly not comparing like-for-like. The UK has a test positivity rate of 0.6%, the USA one of 2.6% - many states are really not prioritising testing anymore like is happening here, so its quite possible the delta variant is on the rise there but just not even being detected due to an absence of testing.
Especially if its spreading amongst people who get it relatively asymptomatically.
It’s spreading in Canada
‘AHS has confirmed the Delta variant has spread inside Calgary’s Foothills Medical Centre. 16 patients on two units have been infected with B.1.617.2 #COVID19AB
But I thought it only spread in countries where the Prime Minister delayed quarantining Indians to get a trade deal? Surely you're not saying it was inevitable that it would spread everywhere that admitted any foreigners at all?
It looks like Indians are dodging the Canadian travel ban
"Indian Passengers and Students Paying $4,000 for a One-Way Ticket To Land in Canada via Doha and Addis Ababa #Passengers #COVID19Pandemic #Canada #Doha #AddisAbaba #CoronaVirusPandemic"
Which, TBF, is exactly what people coming back from India would have done if the country had been red listed here earlier. In the early days of the pandemic Italy stopped direct flights from China so passengers just went there via connecting flights. The system doesn't work. You need something sadly harsher but based on metrics like "we'll open the borders when we have 80% fully vaccinated" or something. My wife is considering visiting her mother in the US via a flight through Iceland. How do you stop that?
Yes, that's true. I guess you have to impose near-blanket bans, for them to work.
Or discriminate by nationality? But that's grim, and is it even legal?
These students that are supposed so triggered by a picture of the Queen, they must have total meltdowns on a daily basis, whenever they get a letter or have to handle a bank note.....
I doubt they use paper money or receive letters with stamps on them, TBH. Certainly not daily. Only Boomers use cash.
I'm not a Boomer but I must say I'm increasing concerned by the use of Boomer as a derogatory term for those over 65 years old.
As other forms of prejudice recede this one seems to be increasingly acceptable; it's not one I'm comfortable with.
Okay Boomer. 65? My kids use it as a derogatory term for anyone over 30.
Yes, it's an acceptable prejudice. These change over time. Race is top of the taboo list, but age is absolutely acceptable.
"Political correctness" is going with the rules of the time, rather than against them. To have been pro-Jew in 1930s Germany would have been very politically incorrect, for example.
I don't know any generation that has weaponised their voting power to promote their own interests at the expense of others quite as ruthlessly and effectively as the boomers. I reckon if the worst that the young do to them is use Boomer as an insult they've got off lightly.
You exhibit quite unpleasant prejudices yourself on here, wrapped up in a cloak of self-righteousness.
I wonder if calls are recorded or there's always someone else listening in. I've had experiences with my own mother (younger than the Queen) forgetting things that we've discussed, not knowing things I have told her, particularly by phone - partly hearing troubles and she pretends to hear and can be quite convincing, but also memory, a bit. It's plausible that recollections may genuinely differ.
I also do wonder why the palace was apparently so explicit on this. It's a question that could easily be dodged and - unless some staff member wants to stick it to Harry - it was clearly only going to manufacture a row.
Also, can the BBC, if faithfully reporting a source be done for libel? Would it not be the original source that would be in trouble. Or were they sloppy, presenting it as fact rather than quoting?
If I was a betting man I'd say that this is all to get Tory MPs to accept ongoing guidance as a compromise measure. I don't think any kind of delay makes it through the party unscathed, the compromise will be similar to what has been mentioned on here IMO - guidance for unvaccinated and single jabbed people to socialise mostly outdoors, continue wearing masks indoors, WFH wherever possible and in general to avoid crowded places but no legal requirements. June 21st goes ahead and since 2.5m people per week are getting their second dose so the guidance becomes irrelevant within 8 weeks anyway without any delays for businesses and the wider economy.
So the drums are definitely beating out the message that ‘Boris’ is going to bottle it, or in more PC language, that Freedom Day will be pushed back. What to make of this? Does it contradict my view that Johnson is playing with the narrative in order to maximize his joy & relief dividend?
Not really, it supports it. Remember the final days of the Brexit talks. Remember how Johnson got every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the never happening No Deal outcome was close to inevitable. Ok. So now he has every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the same about a delay to the end of legal Covid restrictions. Mission accomplished.
But there could be another explanation. He sees political benefit in a delay. Caution polls very well in the Red Wall. Not as well as slashing foreign aid, obvs, but still very well. If the delay is short and messaged in an empathetic way, Johnson will be able to have his cake and eat it. A still impactful and only slightly delayed Freedom Day plus score some prudence points – which he needs to counteract his previous mistakes in the opposite direction.
“We’re nearly there, my people, we just need to take this extra time to make absolutely sure it’s safe, because that’s the sort of caring and circumspect government we are.”
It’s one of these 2 possibilities. He’s playing with the narrative and will surprise and delight with no delay. Or he’s throwing in a short delay to look caring and cautious.
I’m sticking to the first – no delay – but I’ve convinced myself of the second as I typed it out, so I’ll be pleasantly amazed if I’m right.
Good analysis. Just one thing.
"Caution polls very well in the Red Wall. Not as well as slashing foreign aid, obvs, but still very well."
It's going to be a long hard slog winning the Red Wall back when Lab types display such open disdain for them.
I hide it on the campaign trail.
Did you check out the Jones article I linked? I like him on Red Wall. Doesn't succumb to defeatism or the dominant tory story narrative about it.
Comments
As other forms of prejudice recede this one seems to be increasingly acceptable; it's not one I'm comfortable with.
As people get their first and second doses that guidance just becomes irrelevant.
"Socialise outdoors as much as possible".
What's confusing about that?
It’s realpolitik, and not v pretty.
The thing is that when there was no vaccine, or rollout hadn't been done to the vulnerable yet, then you could say a temporary lockdown until we have a vaccine rolled out made sense.
If what you're saying is that its not 100% effective, then what is a lockdown for anymore? Its not to get a 100% vaccine developed, that's not on the agenda. So what's the next step?
If there's nothing, we've reached the end of the road, time to lift lockdown and get this over with.
‘AHS has confirmed the Delta variant has spread inside Calgary’s Foothills Medical Centre. 16 patients on two units have been infected with B.1.617.2
#COVID19AB
My full story:’
https://twitter.com/lauren_global/status/1402130536273891328?s=21
Remember the Indian variant has been imported by loads of people visiting India for non-essential reasons, and even when that route was reduced, they just went via Turkey.
People rather pick and choose the guidance they are willing to follow. WFH, well that beats commuting into the office, especially during the summer. What no foreign summer holidays, screw that I'm off, I'll claim its business innit.
Lilibet is the next Blue Ivy Carter.
Thing about science is that if a scientist starts spouting bullshit, plenty of their fellow scientists are more than happy to point it out. They don't have the same kind of omertà that (arguably) exists in parts of the medical profession.
Indeed, I found the exact opposite when I visited the South Coast over Whit.
All the pubs had banned booking completely – because they feared no shows. The all had a no-book policy and you just had to queue for a table.
I was surprised. It worked really well.
Interesting. Cheers. Do you have a link?
Every silver lining ...
There's also the question of exposure. The double jabbed, meeting with other double jabbed are unlikely to even be exposed (as the double jabbed they meet are unlikely to be infected). Let's take 80% protection from infection agains Delta for double jab (PHE estimate or even a bit lower). Now lets put 10 double jabbed people in a room and spray the virus around. 2 might get infected. The chance of another double jabbed person encountering one of these (assume randomness) in any one interaction is 2/10. But the double jabbed person has a 2/10 chance of infection if exposed, so suddenly you're at 4% risk of infection from an interaction with one of 10 people who have been deliberately exposed (in this scenario). It might be lower, because even the infected person is likely less infectious and/or infectious for a shorter amount of time. And all that is for infection. The small number of double jabbed unlucky enough to get infected will still have good protection from needing hospitalisation.
It might be sensible, particularly if cases go up greatly, for the double jabbed to still exercise caution in exposure to the unjabbed or even single jabbed. But it looks hard for the originally most vulnerable (now double jabbed) to get hospitalised in sufficient numbers to cause problems for the NHS.
The question about unlocking, such as it is, is surely about those single jabbed or unjabbed, who could well get infected during a third wave, if a third wave was to take off. But few of those (due to the jab targetting and protection conferred by even a single jab against severe disease) should need to go to hospital. David Herdson's point abot nightclubs as giant petry dishes is a good one. It's possible that there could be a big rise in infections among the young. The question is whether the number needing hospital before vaccination protects that group too is high enough to cause a problem. There will of course be personal risk, but personal risk is personal choice - don't go to the nightclub until jabbed, to reduce your risk (less choice for staff of course - I'd be happy to see them prioritised for vaccination).
TLDR: There will still be personal risk, even (although small) for the double jabbed. But collective risk (collapsing the NHS) which is why we embarked on lockdowns in the first place is quite hard to see at present.
The delta variant is estimated to be 2.6x more likely to lead to hospitalization -> that's another factor to consider. When you add in the increased transmissability -> that's how SAGE got to higher levels of hospital admissions I guess.
Big screens everywhere with the football and Olympics too.
It seems we can't be trusted. There, that's it. And the whole fucking nation and far too many on PB, for such a repository of critical thinkers, just sit there and applaud.
So the drums are definitely beating out the message that ‘Boris’ is going to bottle it, or in more PC language, that Freedom Day will be pushed back. What to make of this? Does it contradict my view that Johnson is playing with the narrative in order to maximize his joy & relief dividend?
Not really, it supports it. Remember the final days of the Brexit talks. Remember how Johnson got every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the never happening No Deal outcome was close to inevitable. Ok. So now he has every man and his dog (and Robert Peston) thinking the same about a delay to the end of legal Covid restrictions. Mission accomplished.
But there could be another explanation. He sees political benefit in a delay. Caution polls very well in the Red Wall. Not as well as slashing foreign aid, obvs, but still very well. If the delay is short and messaged in an empathetic way, Johnson will be able to have his cake and eat it. A still impactful and only slightly delayed Freedom Day plus score some prudence points – which he needs to counteract his previous mistakes in the opposite direction.
“We’re nearly there, my people, we just need to take this extra time to make absolutely sure it’s safe, because that’s the sort of caring and circumspect government we are.”
It’s one of these 2 possibilities. He’s playing with the narrative and will surprise and delight with no delay. Or he’s throwing in a short delay to look caring and cautious.
I’m sticking to the first – no delay – but I’ve convinced myself of the second as I typed it out, so I’ll be pleasantly amazed if I’m right.
The other obvious vector is school classrooms (depending on how transmissible in that population) but that's a problem that solves itself in the next few weeks anyway.
However, having thought about this for the last few years I personally don't think what is going on now with the woke falls within this category. Principally it is because the underlying thinking behind it is incompatible with maintaining the liberal values of openness that have made the west so successful. The woke seem determined to have the last word on things like justice and equality and strive to regulate speech, which is more compatible with totalitarian regimes than the hippies of the 1960s or earlier countercultures. Woke ideology simply does not promote free enquiry or honest introspection about a range of issues. They seem unable to acknowledge the massive contradictions that underpin much of their thinking, ie their obsession with historical instances of slavery in the west with their lack of interest in actual slavery that goes on now in other parts of the world. The list goes on and on and on, but cannot be addressed or debated due to rhetorical tricks that they play to close down debate, which just gets really tiring and annoying.
There is another point, which is that I doubt whether the woke can still be regarded as a countercultural movement; to me it seems like they have already become the status quo, which is something that the hippies never achieved in 1968. A point that could no doubt be debated further.
So my own conclusion is that the woke are not a moment of civilisational reinvention, by they are actually a threat to civilisation, in pretty much the same way as communism was. I am not trying to force my views on people, it is just what I think. As I've said before we will have to see who is right.
Perhaps if the main consideration were, what is best for the nation's health and wealth, rather than Johnson's popularity with RedWall voters, the right decision might be taken.
I completely agree with you the school holidays date will be massive for many people. If this is over by the time the school holidays occur then most people won't care about a few weeks here or there, but if it drags on into the school holidays then expect hell to pay.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/08/labour-older-white-voters-conservatives
I'm inclined to believe it is where it has been seeded in the UK that is the problem and not entirely the nature of the variant itself.
If ever there was a time to go full Swedish (you can do what you like but we advise some caution), then it is now.
65? My kids use it as a derogatory term for anyone over 30.
A statement issued on behalf of the Sussexes said that the duke had called the Queen ahead of the birth https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/harry-and-meghan-accuse-bbc-of-libel-over-report-about-naming-their-daughter-lilibet-xqblbxx7t?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1623236493
And I keep reminding you of weddings – you are talking thousands of brides' plans ruined up and down the nation.
Remember that they were promised a decision on 24 May and the government temporised. Now many have had to pay their deposits and face cancelling with just a few days' notice.
What has unravelled is the EU's pretence that they could foist all the issues of Ireland back onto the UK. First via the wicked backstop and May's abysmal negotiations leading to that - and then via the Protocol.
The Protocol unravelling is not a failure by Frost and Boris, its a failure by Barnier. Frost and Boris have won - they "paid the price" of the Protocol instead of the backstop but unlike Barnier they understood Northern Ireland and knew the Protocol would be unworkable. Now its not on Britain to solve the mess, as it was for the past four years since May conceded that point, now its on the UK and the EU together to do so and Britain can just freely do as it pleases with the Protocol in the meantime because we're toying with them.
The tables have turned. That's not a failure.
(training -> vaccination and horse -> Covid, obviously)
I honestly do not know
"Caution polls very well in the Red Wall. Not as well as slashing foreign aid, obvs, but still very well."
It's going to be a long hard slog winning the Red Wall back when Lab types display such open disdain for them.
Start here:
https://unherd.com/2021/06/beijings-useful-idiots/
"Political correctness" is going with the rules of the time, rather than against them. To have been pro-Jew in 1930s Germany would have been very politically incorrect, for example.
"Indian Passengers and Students Paying $4,000 for a One-Way Ticket To Land in Canada via Doha and Addis Ababa
#Passengers #COVID19Pandemic #Canada #Doha #AddisAbaba #CoronaVirusPandemic"
https://twitter.com/latestly/status/1401944852518948864?s=20
It really might be a better way, but I don't think we'll ever know. Of course, 'better' depends on personal values, but for me the judgement would depend on how bad things were under that alternative scenario. If those who needed treatment were still able to get treatment, I could be convinced - and on that basis I don't think Sweden got it 'wrong', for them. They just made a choice about what was important.
People feel powerless, at the mercy of what they perceive to be the whim of those in government. They might say it's fine and they approve but it is chip, chipping away at their psychological wellbeing. Perhaps that is what the govt is happy to do.
If people really feel ignored, we would then be not a million miles away from much of the motivation for Brexit.
If people feel that their voices are not being heard they will look for a more dramatic amplifier.
"Trump's CDC director Robert Redfield says he got death threats for saying he thought COVID leaked from China lab"
"Vanity Fair: Government Bureaucrats Warned Other Bureaucrats to Not Look Into Covid's Origins, as It Would "Open a Can of Worms;" Scientists Issued Death Threats to Other Scientists http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=394119"
https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/1400552989077684228?s=20
DEATH THREATS
lol
Or discriminate by nationality? But that's grim, and is it even legal?
Fastly, the cloud-computing company responsible for the issues, said the bug had been triggered when one of its customers had changed their settings.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57413224
Some ponytailed mole is in trouble.
You are no better than anyone else.
I also do wonder why the palace was apparently so explicit on this. It's a question that could easily be dodged and - unless some staff member wants to stick it to Harry - it was clearly only going to manufacture a row.
Also, can the BBC, if faithfully reporting a source be done for libel? Would it not be the original source that would be in trouble. Or were they sloppy, presenting it as fact rather than quoting?
https://focustaiwan.tw/society/202106090014
Did you check out the Jones article I linked? I like him on Red Wall. Doesn't succumb to defeatism or the dominant tory story narrative about it.
Cases (Sample Date):
1 = June 2
5 = June 3
24 = June 4
57 = June 5
59 = June 6
77 = June 7
Total: 223
https://twitter.com/UKCovid19Stats/status/1402586353674641408?s=20