Good header - good reminder. I do find this polling surprising - I would not have guessed such strong support for restrictions but it has been remarkably consistent.
It's support for prioritising life over economic growth - nothing to do with "restrictions".
I want the current restrictions to be eased but I like the idea people value life more than economic prosperity because it changes or re-frames the national debate and priorities.
I agree. It's irrational that the public sign up to a sentiment like "one Covid death is one too many" but it's at the same time heartening. Who wants a public who can and do weigh up the value of a human life, objectively and dispassionately, and arrive at the correct answer of £27,000? - Not me.
It's not just a choice between deaths and money however. It's a choice between deaths, livelihoods, wellbeing, and human socialisation.
This is a false choice. Until we reach herd immunity (or at least sufficient protection to stop death rates exponentially accelerating), it's a choice between more deaths and a long period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization, and fewer deaths and the same period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization.
It's pretty clear the current generations would never have made it through the war.
We're at that point already thanks to vaccination.
I don't think we are there quite yet, but we will see what happens to death rates after the 19th.
How much difference would looser official restrictions make, given how widely they are being flouted now?
There seems a reasonable chance that those who want to protect themselves are doing so and everyone else is at the Arkell v Pressdram stage anyway.
Except they are not. If it is true that wearing masks protects other people, not the wearer, then people not wearing masks are putting others at risk, not themselves. What we need, or will need in any future lockdown, is far more clarity about what precautions are effective, and to ditch the theatre.
Well, we now have ample evidence that they do *not* protect the wearer in case of prolonged indoor contact. So they seem unlikely to be of significant use on say, public transport.
But they may still be of value in shops.
The only thing to say against it is I see no evidence of infection rates falling after they started to be widely used - that said, proving a negative is very hard work.
I am taking an FFP3 mask when I next go down to London to wear on the tube. They really do protect the wearer. Other places should be less risky.
Yes, but how many people are using those? If they had been standard and widely available throughout the pandemic things might be very different.
For myself, I’m keeping my cloth masks to wear when cycling in cold weather. The others - never again.
I have never even heard of a FFP3 mask! I suspect I’m not alone in that…
It’s what you’d wear if you work in a sawmill, or paint cars for a living. Not normally used medically, except when there’s a pandemic on!
In which case I probably have them in my shed (I use masks for woodwork - I just didn’t know they were called that!)
Looks like this. One step up from the more common N95. Nose piece and adjustable straps, for a tight fit.
The only time I wore an FFP3 mask was when I went for my first jab. The riskiest thing I'd done for a year.
AsI said yesterday. I've now switched from the N95 to a scarf.
The most ridiculous thing I had was when I went for my jab they asked me to take off my FFP3 mask for a paper one inside the venue....I (politely) told them to get stuffed.
Mr. Eagles, I'm old enough (ie more than six months) to remember when social media thought the idea the virus came from a Wuhan lab was fake news.
As an aside, I agree with you. With rare medical exceptions, I think everyone should have the vaccine (although not be compelled by law). But the idea social media 'fact-checking' carries any weight is a laughable notion.
The question in the poll is clearly a loaded one, and a false choice given that lower economic growth kills people. But I agree that the government probably won't pay a price for lockdowns, partly because the government went out of its way to terrify the public last year, but mostly because the costs have been hidden, partly by the Magic Money Tree, and partly because the lives lost indirectly are much more difficult to determine, and aren't splashed all over the papers every day, unlike the death tolls from the Chinese virus.
Good header - good reminder. I do find this polling surprising - I would not have guessed such strong support for restrictions but it has been remarkably consistent.
It's support for prioritising life over economic growth - nothing to do with "restrictions".
I want the current restrictions to be eased but I like the idea people value life more than economic prosperity because it changes or re-frames the national debate and priorities.
I agree. It's irrational that the public sign up to a sentiment like "one Covid death is one too many" but it's at the same time heartening. Who wants a public who can and do weigh up the value of a human life, objectively and dispassionately, and arrive at the correct answer of £27,000? - Not me.
It's not just a choice between deaths and money however. It's a choice between deaths, livelihoods, wellbeing, and human socialisation.
This is a false choice. Until we reach herd immunity (or at least sufficient protection to stop death rates exponentially accelerating), it's a choice between more deaths and a long period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization, and fewer deaths and the same period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization.
It's pretty clear the current generations would never have made it through the war.
We're at that point already thanks to vaccination.
I don't think we are there quite yet, but we will see what happens to death rates after the 19th.
How much difference would looser official restrictions make, given how widely they are being flouted now?
There seems a reasonable chance that those who want to protect themselves are doing so and everyone else is at the Arkell v Pressdram stage anyway.
Except they are not. If it is true that wearing masks protects other people, not the wearer, then people not wearing masks are putting others at risk, not themselves. What we need, or will need in any future lockdown, is far more clarity about what precautions are effective, and to ditch the theatre.
Well, we now have ample evidence that they do *not* protect the wearer in case of prolonged indoor contact. So they seem unlikely to be of significant use on say, public transport.
But they may still be of value in shops.
The only thing to say against it is I see no evidence of infection rates falling after they started to be widely used - that said, proving a negative is very hard work.
I am taking an FFP3 mask when I next go down to London to wear on the tube. They really do protect the wearer. Other places should be less risky.
Yes, but how many people are using those? If they had been standard and widely available throughout the pandemic things might be very different.
For myself, I’m keeping my cloth masks to wear when cycling in cold weather. The others - never again.
I absolutely loathe the bloody things and am very keen to get rid of them. I do hope the government comes up with a sensible, effective recycling scheme because these things are horrific landfill fodder.
More excitement in the Tour de Drugs.....certainly not a year where all the big names just ride within an inch of each other for stage after stage after stage, with the whole tour based just on one or two stages.
Can I go wildly o/t please. I’ve had two pm’s a couple of hours ago about Jeremy Clarkson’s views on Brexit. One accused me of saying he’d voted against, the other apologising for saying he had written something or other when he really had no idea about it.
AFAIK these are nothing to do with me so could the senders check their posts to make sure they send them to whoever they meant to.
Although the idea of apologising for posting something about which the poster knows nothing does seem a welcome development!
More excitement in the Tour de Drugs.....certainly not a year where all the big names just ride within an inch of each other for stage after stage after stage, with the whole tour based just on one or two stages.
With the money pumped into UK pharma in the last 18 months we should be dominating the tour for the next decade, shouldn't we?
Good header - good reminder. I do find this polling surprising - I would not have guessed such strong support for restrictions but it has been remarkably consistent.
It's support for prioritising life over economic growth - nothing to do with "restrictions".
I want the current restrictions to be eased but I like the idea people value life more than economic prosperity because it changes or re-frames the national debate and priorities.
I agree. It's irrational that the public sign up to a sentiment like "one Covid death is one too many" but it's at the same time heartening. Who wants a public who can and do weigh up the value of a human life, objectively and dispassionately, and arrive at the correct answer of £27,000? - Not me.
It's not just a choice between deaths and money however. It's a choice between deaths, livelihoods, wellbeing, and human socialisation.
This is a false choice. Until we reach herd immunity (or at least sufficient protection to stop death rates exponentially accelerating), it's a choice between more deaths and a long period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization, and fewer deaths and the same period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization.
It's pretty clear the current generations would never have made it through the war.
We're at that point already thanks to vaccination.
I don't think we are there quite yet, but we will see what happens to death rates after the 19th.
How much difference would looser official restrictions make, given how widely they are being flouted now?
There seems a reasonable chance that those who want to protect themselves are doing so and everyone else is at the Arkell v Pressdram stage anyway.
Except they are not. If it is true that wearing masks protects other people, not the wearer, then people not wearing masks are putting others at risk, not themselves. What we need, or will need in any future lockdown, is far more clarity about what precautions are effective, and to ditch the theatre.
Well, we now have ample evidence that they do *not* protect the wearer in case of prolonged indoor contact. So they seem unlikely to be of significant use on say, public transport.
But they may still be of value in shops.
The only thing to say against it is I see no evidence of infection rates falling after they started to be widely used - that said, proving a negative is very hard work.
I am taking an FFP3 mask when I next go down to London to wear on the tube. They really do protect the wearer. Other places should be less risky.
Yes, but how many people are using those? If they had been standard and widely available throughout the pandemic things might be very different.
For myself, I’m keeping my cloth masks to wear when cycling in cold weather. The others - never again.
I absolutely loathe the bloody things and am very keen to get rid of them. I do hope the government comes up with a sensible, effective recycling scheme because these things are horrific landfill fodder.
Cases up 67% week-on-week Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th) Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults 2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
Cases up 67% week-on-week Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th) Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults 2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
USA, UAE and Israel are all giving 12+ age groups the Pfizer vaccine. We should see plenty of real-world data, with sample size in the millions, in the next few weeks.
Cases up 67% week-on-week Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th) Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults 2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
Will that essentially mean that kids can't travel, or do any of the other things that may need vaccination?
Cases up 67% week-on-week Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th) Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults 2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
Interesting that deaths are falling, I hadn’t expected that.
I think you are probably right about vaccines for children. I suspect we won’t bother.
Well I was mostly right on the race from my comment yesterday in terms of Verstappen walking away whilst the Mercs tried to jump Norris, although I underestimated just how much speed Norris actually had over the race - VERY impressive.
Forget Horner, Perez is the one that made me laugh - spit blue feathers at Norris for that (fair) move and then pulled exactly the same trick himself on Leclerc (arguably even compounding it by actually making clear contact with the Ferrari), and then also dumping him off the circuit again at a different corner. Ironic.
Cases up 67% week-on-week Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th) Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults 2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
At the very least I expect them to start vaccinating 16-18.
But if they scrap isolation rules it’s less likely they will go below that for the moment.
Cases up 67% week-on-week Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th) Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults 2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
Interesting that deaths are falling, I hadn’t expected that.
I think you are probably right about vaccines for children. I suspect we won’t bother.
Lagging indicator.
But equally, hospitalisations have been rising for a while and the deaths still don’t seem to be rising. Which is very, very encouraging.
Cases up 67% week-on-week Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th) Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults 2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
Will that essentially mean that kids can't travel, or do any of the other things that may need vaccination?
Also the yr13 students (17yrolds) need to be vaccinated as they will become adults at university in the Autmun, with all the issues of covid in the halls of residence again!!
Cases up 67% week-on-week Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th) Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults 2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
Will that essentially mean that kids can't travel, or do any of the other things that may need vaccination?
Once we get past July 19th I suspect that this will only affect children (and possibly only children aged from 12 to 17) who are unable to visit certain countries that have insisted on vaccination, like Malta. And this should only be a temporary problem. Either such requirements will be dropped as the pandemic takes its course, or vaccines will eventually become available through routes other than the main NHS vaccination program. Thus, parents will simply be able to take their teenagers along to Boots for their Covid shots if they need to go anywhere that continues to impose awkward rules for entry.
Domestically, the lack of vaccination should pose no difficulties for children at all.
More excitement in the Tour de Drugs.....certainly not a year where all the big names just ride within an inch of each other for stage after stage after stage, with the whole tour based just on one or two stages.
With the money pumped into UK pharma in the last 18 months we should be dominating the tour for the next decade, shouldn't we?
Is there anywhere that has the details of (say) AZN's relationship with HMG?
AZN, despite being around 25% responsible for saving the world, seems not to have benefitted so much.
AZN regulatory announcements in the last year have been pretty opaque.
I'm little experience with US accounting, but it'd be interesting to compare with Pfizer. No doubt it's already been done.
Cases up 67% week-on-week Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th) Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults 2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but would it be safer for children to get immune to the virus by inadvertently catching it from other people rather than by vaccination?
Good header - good reminder. I do find this polling surprising - I would not have guessed such strong support for restrictions but it has been remarkably consistent.
It's support for prioritising life over economic growth - nothing to do with "restrictions".
I want the current restrictions to be eased but I like the idea people value life more than economic prosperity because it changes or re-frames the national debate and priorities.
I agree. It's irrational that the public sign up to a sentiment like "one Covid death is one too many" but it's at the same time heartening. Who wants a public who can and do weigh up the value of a human life, objectively and dispassionately, and arrive at the correct answer of £27,000? - Not me.
It's not just a choice between deaths and money however. It's a choice between deaths, livelihoods, wellbeing, and human socialisation.
This is a false choice. Until we reach herd immunity (or at least sufficient protection to stop death rates exponentially accelerating), it's a choice between more deaths and a long period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization, and fewer deaths and the same period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization.
It's pretty clear the current generations would never have made it through the war.
We're at that point already thanks to vaccination.
I don't think we are there quite yet, but we will see what happens to death rates after the 19th.
How much difference would looser official restrictions make, given how widely they are being flouted now?
There seems a reasonable chance that those who want to protect themselves are doing so and everyone else is at the Arkell v Pressdram stage anyway.
Except they are not. If it is true that wearing masks protects other people, not the wearer, then people not wearing masks are putting others at risk, not themselves. What we need, or will need in any future lockdown, is far more clarity about what precautions are effective, and to ditch the theatre.
Well, we now have ample evidence that they do *not* protect the wearer in case of prolonged indoor contact. So they seem unlikely to be of significant use on say, public transport.
But they may still be of value in shops.
The only thing to say against it is I see no evidence of infection rates falling after they started to be widely used - that said, proving a negative is very hard work.
I am taking an FFP3 mask when I next go down to London to wear on the tube. They really do protect the wearer. Other places should be less risky.
Yes, but how many people are using those? If they had been standard and widely available throughout the pandemic things might be very different.
For myself, I’m keeping my cloth masks to wear when cycling in cold weather. The others - never again.
I absolutely loathe the bloody things and am very keen to get rid of them. I do hope the government comes up with a sensible, effective recycling scheme because these things are horrific landfill fodder.
Cases up 67% week-on-week Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th) Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults 2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
Will that essentially mean that kids can't travel, or do any of the other things that may need vaccination?
Also the yr13 students (17yrolds) need to be vaccinated as they will become adults at university in the Autmun, with all the issues of covid in the halls of residence again!!
I'd imagine that people would be offered access to vaccination as they turn 18, although AFAIK how this is to be managed once the current campaign has ended isn't yet clear.
The amount of trouble Covid will cause on campuses is very much dependent on how the rules evolve. If the Government is genuinely no longer concerned about cases then the logical outcome of that is the abolition of self-isolation and mass testing regimes. In that scenario one would expect Covid to have a modest impact on attendance for the first few weeks (amongst the minority of students who experience symptomatic illness) and thereafter simply to disappear as a problem. We shall see what transpires.
More F1 stewards shenanigans. Sky reporting that a stack of drivers pulled into the stewards for now slowing under double waved yellows on the final lap after the Kimi / Vettel tangle.
Good header - good reminder. I do find this polling surprising - I would not have guessed such strong support for restrictions but it has been remarkably consistent.
It's support for prioritising life over economic growth - nothing to do with "restrictions".
I want the current restrictions to be eased but I like the idea people value life more than economic prosperity because it changes or re-frames the national debate and priorities.
I agree. It's irrational that the public sign up to a sentiment like "one Covid death is one too many" but it's at the same time heartening. Who wants a public who can and do weigh up the value of a human life, objectively and dispassionately, and arrive at the correct answer of £27,000? - Not me.
It's not just a choice between deaths and money however. It's a choice between deaths, livelihoods, wellbeing, and human socialisation.
This is a false choice. Until we reach herd immunity (or at least sufficient protection to stop death rates exponentially accelerating), it's a choice between more deaths and a long period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization, and fewer deaths and the same period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization.
It's pretty clear the current generations would never have made it through the war.
We're at that point already thanks to vaccination.
I don't think we are there quite yet, but we will see what happens to death rates after the 19th.
How much difference would looser official restrictions make, given how widely they are being flouted now?
There seems a reasonable chance that those who want to protect themselves are doing so and everyone else is at the Arkell v Pressdram stage anyway.
Except they are not. If it is true that wearing masks protects other people, not the wearer, then people not wearing masks are putting others at risk, not themselves. What we need, or will need in any future lockdown, is far more clarity about what precautions are effective, and to ditch the theatre.
Well, we now have ample evidence that they do *not* protect the wearer in case of prolonged indoor contact. So they seem unlikely to be of significant use on say, public transport.
But they may still be of value in shops.
The only thing to say against it is I see no evidence of infection rates falling after they started to be widely used - that said, proving a negative is very hard work.
I am taking an FFP3 mask when I next go down to London to wear on the tube. They really do protect the wearer. Other places should be less risky.
Yes, but how many people are using those? If they had been standard and widely available throughout the pandemic things might be very different.
For myself, I’m keeping my cloth masks to wear when cycling in cold weather. The others - never again.
I absolutely loathe the bloody things and am very keen to get rid of them. I do hope the government comes up with a sensible, effective recycling scheme because these things are horrific landfill fodder.
Bus stop outside my house. Gobshites are always throwing them on the floor as they get off. Bastards
One benefit of the end of mask mandates will be the end at least of this kind of litter dropped at random points all over the streets of every town and city in the country. One imagines that the people who will be determined to keep using after they're no longer enforced will have reusable cloth ones or more expensive filter masks that they're less likely to pull off and chuck over the shoulders on a whim.
Cases up 67% week-on-week Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th) Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults 2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but would it be safer for children to get immune to the virus by inadvertently catching it from other people rather than by vaccination?
The complications from side effects are far less common than the complications from covid, even in the young, unless something dramatically unexpected occurs as it rolls out (having been approved for kids already).
Cases up 67% week-on-week Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th) Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults 2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but would it be safer for children to get immune to the virus by inadvertently catching it from other people rather than by vaccination?
The complications from side effects are far less common than the complications from covid, even in the young, unless something dramatically unexpected occurs as it rolls out (having been approved for kids already).
Plus, the long term systemic issues that seem to occur even with asymptomatic covid are a "known unknown" risk for actual infection. All in all, it would seem to be better if we just vaccinated everyone.
Cases up 67% week-on-week Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th) Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults 2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but would it be safer for children to get immune to the virus by inadvertently catching it from other people rather than by vaccination?
I don't think it's a stupid question at all. It might very well turn out to be a good idea.
Basically, if there's any consistent evidence of serious rare side effects with the mRNA vaccines in the young, in the same way as there has been with AZ, then it's probable that vaccination will turn out not to be able to be recommended ethically for children.
Given that their risk of mortality from Covid, especially for otherwise healthy children, is as near to zero as makes no difference (the NHS England number for total hospital deaths in the under 20s stands at 42 for the whole pandemic,) if there is any evidence at all that vaccines pose even a minuscule risk of serious illness or death for children then this is liable to be greater than the risk posed by the disease.
Schools in England are “bleeding out” with thousands of teachers having to isolate under a bubble system that is harming the most vulnerable children, ministers have been warned.
I remember when the same people were all moaning that teaching kids was all far too risky and schools must be shut at all times....at the time, the government said it harms in particular vulnerable and poor kids.
The rules are set by the government but in any case, the summer holidays start in a week or two so it is hard to get that excited.
Remember the teacher unions and head teachers were at one point saying they would disobey the government, because opening schools all too risky. Now they are complaining its all too harmful to have kids isolate, for exactly the reason the government said they really didn't want to go around closing schools.
Because risk vectors change.
I was the one urging earlier and harder lockdowns in the autumn, because it was obvious without that we’d have a catastrophe. And we did.
But due to vaccines, that danger has been, if not eliminated, at least sufficiently diminished that we should be loosening restrictions. Especially given that the restrictions themselves are very onerous and one reason why schools were becoming totally unmanageable in the autumn. That hasn’t changed either, by the way.
When the facts change, sensible people change their minds.
But sadly there are no sensible people at the DfE.
No.
While you may be right, what we have is the unions criticising the government for political reasons and standing up for what they perceive to be the interests of their members.
Their arguments will change over time - and are frequently inconsistent - but those two principles are fixed.
More F1 stewards shenanigans. Sky reporting that a stack of drivers pulled into the stewards for now slowing under double waved yellows on the final lap after the Kimi / Vettel tangle.
Good header - good reminder. I do find this polling surprising - I would not have guessed such strong support for restrictions but it has been remarkably consistent.
It's support for prioritising life over economic growth - nothing to do with "restrictions".
I want the current restrictions to be eased but I like the idea people value life more than economic prosperity because it changes or re-frames the national debate and priorities.
I agree. It's irrational that the public sign up to a sentiment like "one Covid death is one too many" but it's at the same time heartening. Who wants a public who can and do weigh up the value of a human life, objectively and dispassionately, and arrive at the correct answer of £27,000? - Not me.
It's not just a choice between deaths and money however. It's a choice between deaths, livelihoods, wellbeing, and human socialisation.
Indeed. But to assess all those things against each other - which is in practice impossible but for the sake of argument - you need to express everything in a common currency. So £ (since we have no other).
A life worth £27k. Good health worth £13k. Sanity worth £16k. A social life worth £8k. Peace of mind worth £11k. Freedom of assembly £3k.
Etc.
Where would brexiters put sovereignty in that list and at what value?
Cases up 67% week-on-week Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th) Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults 2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
Will that essentially mean that kids can't travel, or do any of the other things that may need vaccination?
Once we get past July 19th I suspect that this will only affect children (and possibly only children aged from 12 to 17) who are unable to visit certain countries that have insisted on vaccination, like Malta. And this should only be a temporary problem.
I think that's optimistic. I think that many of the countries that are currently closed, the more cautious ones, will only open up to the vaccinated. And bureaucratic rules usually linger for years after their rationale has gone away. I agree that children will eventually be vaccinated in Boots though it may take a couple of years for that to be common.
Schools in England are “bleeding out” with thousands of teachers having to isolate under a bubble system that is harming the most vulnerable children, ministers have been warned.
I remember when the same people were all moaning that teaching kids was all far too risky and schools must be shut at all times....at the time, the government said it harms in particular vulnerable and poor kids.
The rules are set by the government but in any case, the summer holidays start in a week or two so it is hard to get that excited.
Remember the teacher unions and head teachers were at one point saying they would disobey the government, because opening schools all too risky. Now they are complaining its all too harmful to have kids isolate, for exactly the reason the government said they really didn't want to go around closing schools.
Because risk vectors change.
I was the one urging earlier and harder lockdowns in the autumn, because it was obvious without that we’d have a catastrophe. And we did.
But due to vaccines, that danger has been, if not eliminated, at least sufficiently diminished that we should be loosening restrictions. Especially given that the restrictions themselves are very onerous and one reason why schools were becoming totally unmanageable in the autumn. That hasn’t changed either, by the way.
When the facts change, sensible people change their minds.
But sadly there are no sensible people at the DfE.
No.
While you may be right, what we have is the unions criticising the government for political reasons and standing up for what they perceive to be the interests of their members.
Their arguments will change over time - and are frequently inconsistent - but those two principles are fixed.
Well, yes, possibly, but actually I do pay my union to stand up for my interests. Particularly given how many truly loathsome people out there, including some very powerful ones, are always out to be vile to teachers. That starts with the government, who are being criticised not for political reasons but because they are totally incompetent, dishonest and appear to be deliberately and actively damaging education to conceal their own failures.
However, leaving that aside there is nothing inconsistent about calling for lockdowns and wider isolations when that was the only way of stopping the spread of a lethal disease and calling for restrictions to be relaxed now it is no longer as lethal due to vaccines.
Cases up 67% week-on-week Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th) Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults 2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
Will that essentially mean that kids can't travel, or do any of the other things that may need vaccination?
Also the yr13 students (17yrolds) need to be vaccinated as they will become adults at university in the Autmun, with all the issues of covid in the halls of residence again!!
Grandson Two, who has just finished his "A Levels" and hopes to go to Manchester in September is making sure he's vaccinated.
Cases up 67% week-on-week Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th) Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults 2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but would it be safer for children to get immune to the virus by inadvertently catching it from other people rather than by vaccination?
The complications from side effects are far less common than the complications from covid, even in the young, unless something dramatically unexpected occurs as it rolls out (having been approved for kids already).
Agreed. All the kids who I know are keen to be vaccinated - the reports of the impact of long Covid are seen as pretty scary, quite apart from the upside of being able to pursue a more normal life after vaccination. The anxiety not to give them a vaccination just in case it might have a side-effect seems on present evidence not to be justified, though the countries that have gone ahead with vaccination of the young will soon provide plenty of evidence one way or the other. Without it, I think we'll be back to closing schools again by the winter.
Paradoxically, the people who are in favour of relaxing lockdown quickly often turn out to be the same people opposing vaccination for kids. The common thread is perhaps a certain "Oh, let's just get back to normal" instinct which doesn't really stand up to serious scrutiny.
More excitement in the Tour de Drugs.....certainly not a year where all the big names just ride within an inch of each other for stage after stage after stage, with the whole tour based just on one or two stages.
With the money pumped into UK pharma in the last 18 months we should be dominating the tour for the next decade, shouldn't we?
Is there anywhere that has the details of (say) AZN's relationship with HMG?
AZN, despite being around 25% responsible for saving the world, seems not to have benefitted so much.
AZN regulatory announcements in the last year have been pretty opaque.
I'm little experience with US accounting, but it'd be interesting to compare with Pfizer. No doubt it's already been done.
It's an error for us not to vaccinate 12 - 17, it's been deemed as safe by the MHRA already.
MHRA also passed all the vaccines as safe for use in all adults; the issues with rare side effects caused by AZ were only picked up later.
Of course, nobody in their right mind is arguing that the use of AZ should've been halted outright as a consequence, because the risk of the side effect was so tiny and the overall benefit of continuing to use it so huge. But a different calculus may apply with children.
I think the situation we now find ourselves in is that children are highly, highly unlikely to be made seriously ill by Covid - so there's no immediate imperative to lance them - and the Americans are doing a mass epidemiological experiment in child vaccination, which is likely to expose any rare side effects in the young.
Basically, there's little harm and potentially significant benefit in stalling in this case. If the vaccines are proven entirely harmless to children then there may be an argument for deploying them en masse; if they cause any problems at all then we are in the position, possibly, of saying that a small number of children should be made seriously unwell for the sake of breaking chains of transmission and protecting vulnerable adults, especially the vaccine refusers. That's very dodgy territory indeed.
Schools in England are “bleeding out” with thousands of teachers having to isolate under a bubble system that is harming the most vulnerable children, ministers have been warned.
I remember when the same people were all moaning that teaching kids was all far too risky and schools must be shut at all times....at the time, the government said it harms in particular vulnerable and poor kids.
The rules are set by the government but in any case, the summer holidays start in a week or two so it is hard to get that excited.
Remember the teacher unions and head teachers were at one point saying they would disobey the government, because opening schools all too risky. Now they are complaining its all too harmful to have kids isolate, for exactly the reason the government said they really didn't want to go around closing schools.
Because risk vectors change.
I was the one urging earlier and harder lockdowns in the autumn, because it was obvious without that we’d have a catastrophe. And we did.
But due to vaccines, that danger has been, if not eliminated, at least sufficiently diminished that we should be loosening restrictions. Especially given that the restrictions themselves are very onerous and one reason why schools were becoming totally unmanageable in the autumn. That hasn’t changed either, by the way.
When the facts change, sensible people change their minds.
But sadly there are no sensible people at the DfE.
No.
While you may be right, what we have is the unions criticising the government for political reasons and standing up for what they perceive to be the interests of their members.
Their arguments will change over time - and are frequently inconsistent - but those two principles are fixed.
Well, yes, possibly, but actually I do pay my union to stand up for my interests. Particularly given how many truly loathsome people out there, including some very powerful ones, are always out to be vile to teachers. That starts with the government, who are being criticised not for political reasons but because they are totally incompetent, dishonest and appear to be deliberately and actively damaging education to conceal their own failures.
However, leaving that aside there is nothing inconsistent about calling for lockdowns and wider isolations when that was the only way of stopping the spread of a lethal disease and calling for restrictions to be relaxed now it is no longer as lethal due to vaccines.
Why do you think such a stance is political?
Because Liar has declared Freedom Day and you idiot teachers, the idiot doctors and the idiot scientists keep throwing idiot things like facts and evidence in to try and stop Boris having his positive ratings boost.
Schools in England are “bleeding out” with thousands of teachers having to isolate under a bubble system that is harming the most vulnerable children, ministers have been warned.
I remember when the same people were all moaning that teaching kids was all far too risky and schools must be shut at all times....at the time, the government said it harms in particular vulnerable and poor kids.
The rules are set by the government but in any case, the summer holidays start in a week or two so it is hard to get that excited.
Remember the teacher unions and head teachers were at one point saying they would disobey the government, because opening schools all too risky. Now they are complaining its all too harmful to have kids isolate, for exactly the reason the government said they really didn't want to go around closing schools.
Because risk vectors change.
I was the one urging earlier and harder lockdowns in the autumn, because it was obvious without that we’d have a catastrophe. And we did.
But due to vaccines, that danger has been, if not eliminated, at least sufficiently diminished that we should be loosening restrictions. Especially given that the restrictions themselves are very onerous and one reason why schools were becoming totally unmanageable in the autumn. That hasn’t changed either, by the way.
When the facts change, sensible people change their minds.
But sadly there are no sensible people at the DfE.
No.
While you may be right, what we have is the unions criticising the government for political reasons and standing up for what they perceive to be the interests of their members.
Their arguments will change over time - and are frequently inconsistent - but those two principles are fixed.
Well, yes, possibly, but actually I do pay my union to stand up for my interests. Particularly given how many truly loathsome people out there, including some very powerful ones, are always out to be vile to teachers. That starts with the government, who are being criticised not for political reasons but because they are totally incompetent, dishonest and appear to be deliberately and actively damaging education to conceal their own failures.
However, leaving that aside there is nothing inconsistent about calling for lockdowns and wider isolations when that was the only way of stopping the spread of a lethal disease and calling for restrictions to be relaxed now it is no longer as lethal due to vaccines.
Why do you think such a stance is political?
To be clear I’m not criticising the unions for standing up for the perceived interests of their members - as you say that’s why you pay them.
I’m challenging your lazy assumption that the unions are always right and the government always wrong
Cases up 67% week-on-week Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th) Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults 2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but would it be safer for children to get immune to the virus by inadvertently catching it from other people rather than by vaccination?
The complications from side effects are far less common than the complications from covid, even in the young, unless something dramatically unexpected occurs as it rolls out (having been approved for kids already).
Agreed. All the kids who I know are keen to be vaccinated - the reports of the impact of long Covid are seen as pretty scary, quite apart from the upside of being able to pursue a more normal life after vaccination. The anxiety not to give them a vaccination just in case it might have a side-effect seems on present evidence not to be justified, though the countries that have gone ahead with vaccination of the young will soon provide plenty of evidence one way or the other. Without it, I think we'll be back to closing schools again by the winter.
Paradoxically, the people who are in favour of relaxing lockdown quickly often turn out to be the same people opposing vaccination for kids. The common thread is perhaps a certain "Oh, let's just get back to normal" instinct which doesn't really stand up to serious scrutiny.
Your argument has some merit, but so does mine. It's a finely balanced decision, this one, which is why we've had Adam Finn and some of the other interested scientists saying as much when interviewed. Although FWIW it would be interesting to know how much capacity we have in terms of the mRNA vaccines anyway, given that we're probably around 10-14 days away from finishing first doses for all adults willing to accept them, with a very large number of seconds still to go after that.
Earlier this afternoon had our weekly chat with in-laws in the North West. Reporting many friends testing positive, although no-one, thankfully, seriously ill. However Test and Trace are insisting that all contacts isolate for 10 days, which is causing problems, both social, and for the self-employed, economic.
It's an error for us not to vaccinate 12 - 17, it's been deemed as safe by the MHRA already.
MHRA also passed all the vaccines as safe for use in all adults; the issues with rare side effects caused by AZ were only picked up later.
Of course, nobody in their right mind is arguing that the use of AZ should've been halted outright as a consequence, because the risk of the side effect was so tiny and the overall benefit of continuing to use it so huge. But a different calculus may apply with children.
I think the situation we now find ourselves in is that children are highly, highly unlikely to be made seriously ill by Covid - so there's no immediate imperative to lance them - and the Americans are doing a mass epidemiological experiment in child vaccination, which is likely to expose any rare side effects in the young.
Basically, there's little harm and potentially significant benefit in stalling in this case. If the vaccines are proven entirely harmless to children then there may be an argument for deploying them en masse; if they cause any problems at all then we are in the position, possibly, of saying that a small number of children should be made seriously unwell for the sake of breaking chains of transmission and protecting vulnerable adults, especially the vaccine refusers. That's very dodgy territory indeed.
You ignore the known unknown of exactly how bad "long covid" will be for asymptomatic kids. The risks you are worrying about are ones for which there is no evidence just "what if"s. So the balance of evidence comes down on the "vaccinate" side, for me.
I'm not gainsaying your concerns - and everyone has a decision to make.
Cases up 67% week-on-week Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th) Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults 2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but would it be safer for children to get immune to the virus by inadvertently catching it from other people rather than by vaccination?
My youngest seems to take that view. He knows plenty at his school who've had Covid. None have been particularly poorly. The few youngsters who've been vaccinated he knows via the cricket club have all been much worse.
Earlier this afternoon had our weekly chat with in-laws in the North West. Reporting many friends testing positive, although no-one, thankfully, seriously ill. However Test and Trace are insisting that all contacts isolate for 10 days, which is causing problems, both social, and for the self-employed, economic.
Yes, my daughter was pinged this afternoon and told to self-isolate. She's a self-employed chef so will have absolutely no income for 10 days, and is likely to waste quite a bit of food already bought. It's really not clear whether she's eligible for any financial support from the government/council. Otherwise, dad will have to fork out as she's penniless; but many would struggle.
Earlier this afternoon had our weekly chat with in-laws in the North West. Reporting many friends testing positive, although no-one, thankfully, seriously ill. However Test and Trace are insisting that all contacts isolate for 10 days, which is causing problems, both social, and for the self-employed, economic.
I wonder what it will be like when there are a million cases a week.
Earlier this afternoon had our weekly chat with in-laws in the North West. Reporting many friends testing positive, although no-one, thankfully, seriously ill. However Test and Trace are insisting that all contacts isolate for 10 days, which is causing problems, both social, and for the self-employed, economic.
Which is why the mooted Government decision to exempt the double-jabbed from self-isolation makes sense, although frankly - given that the benefits of test and trace are likely to be very limited at this stage in the game, and concerns about discriminating against young people who haven't had the chance to get both doses - I'd be more inclined just to mothball the whole system.
Again, there has to be serious doubt as to what proportion of people are using either regular at-home testing or the contact tracing app properly in the first place; the primary purpose of test and trace now seems to be to keep large numbers of perfectly well schoolchildren at home.
Earlier this afternoon had our weekly chat with in-laws in the North West. Reporting many friends testing positive, although no-one, thankfully, seriously ill. However Test and Trace are insisting that all contacts isolate for 10 days, which is causing problems, both social, and for the self-employed, economic.
I wonder what it will be like when there are a million cases a week.
Not sure that can happen. Who will be the million among our population of vaccinated and recovered infections?
Earlier this afternoon had our weekly chat with in-laws in the North West. Reporting many friends testing positive, although no-one, thankfully, seriously ill. However Test and Trace are insisting that all contacts isolate for 10 days, which is causing problems, both social, and for the self-employed, economic.
Yes, my daughter was pinged this afternoon and told to self-isolate. She's a self-employed chef so will have absolutely no income for 10 days, and is likely to waste quite a bit of food already bought. It's really not clear whether she's eligible for any financial support from the government/council. Otherwise, dad will have to fork out as she's penniless; but many would struggle.
Self-employed plumber nephew was in the middle of a bathroom refit. So ..... smelly customer?
Good header - good reminder. I do find this polling surprising - I would not have guessed such strong support for restrictions but it has been remarkably consistent.
It's support for prioritising life over economic growth - nothing to do with "restrictions".
I want the current restrictions to be eased but I like the idea people value life more than economic prosperity because it changes or re-frames the national debate and priorities.
I agree. It's irrational that the public sign up to a sentiment like "one Covid death is one too many" but it's at the same time heartening. Who wants a public who can and do weigh up the value of a human life, objectively and dispassionately, and arrive at the correct answer of £27,000? - Not me.
It's not just a choice between deaths and money however. It's a choice between deaths, livelihoods, wellbeing, and human socialisation.
This is a false choice. Until we reach herd immunity (or at least sufficient protection to stop death rates exponentially accelerating), it's a choice between more deaths and a long period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization, and fewer deaths and the same period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization.
It's pretty clear the current generations would never have made it through the war.
We're at that point already thanks to vaccination.
I don't think we are there quite yet, but we will see what happens to death rates after the 19th.
How much difference would looser official restrictions make, given how widely they are being flouted now?
There seems a reasonable chance that those who want to protect themselves are doing so and everyone else is at the Arkell v Pressdram stage anyway.
Except they are not. If it is true that wearing masks protects other people, not the wearer, then people not wearing masks are putting others at risk, not themselves. What we need, or will need in any future lockdown, is far more clarity about what precautions are effective, and to ditch the theatre.
Well, we now have ample evidence that they do *not* protect the wearer in case of prolonged indoor contact. So they seem unlikely to be of significant use on say, public transport.
But they may still be of value in shops.
The only thing to say against it is I see no evidence of infection rates falling after they started to be widely used - that said, proving a negative is very hard work.
I am taking an FFP3 mask when I next go down to London to wear on the tube. They really do protect the wearer. Other places should be less risky.
Does this necessarily help in the long run, though? Consider: we've reached the point as a society where we consider the costs of restrictions to outweigh the benefits - and are perfectly willing to allow case rates to explode. Moreover, given the very high transmissibility of the virus, the effective herd immunity rate for vaccinations and infections may be somewhere close to 100%.
It's not as bad as that. There's a formula. At R=20 the herd immunity threshold is "only" 95%. R of course depends on behaviour - as will soon become obvious to those to whom it isn't already obvious - but I haven't heard of any bug that has an R as high as 20, whatever the behaviour (at least, assuming the behaviour is in the range of the socially normal). Don't panic. Both zerocovidianism and the idea that the vaccination rate needs to be up in the high 90s are overreactions.
For the record, for reasons I won't post here I think the government probably will advise the vaccination of children, and probably the 5-10s as well as the 11-17s, by or before the winter term in January-March 2022.
A neighbour of mine who is a doctor working in Pakistan is planning to rejoin his wife in the UK next week but because of restrictions he is having to come back via New York where anyone can pay $75 and get a Pfizer jab on the spot. He's had two Chinese jabs but they're not good enough to get you into Europe.
A neighbour of mine who is a doctor working in Pakistan is planning to rejoin his wife in the UK next week but because of restrictions he is having to come back via New York where anyone can pay $75 and get a Pfizer jab on the spot. He's had two Chinese jabs but they're not good enough to get you into Europe.
Is this capitalism at its finest?
Not really sure of your point? Chinese vaccines haven't been approved by European authorities for good reason, even the Chinese head bod said they didn't work very well. One in particular is a total duffer. And Pakistan is on the red list, again for good reason.
Cases up 67% week-on-week Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th) Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults 2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but would it be safer for children to get immune to the virus by inadvertently catching it from other people rather than by vaccination?
I don't think it's a stupid question at all. It might very well turn out to be a good idea.
Basically, if there's any consistent evidence of serious rare side effects with the mRNA vaccines in the young, in the same way as there has been with AZ, then it's probable that vaccination will turn out not to be able to be recommended ethically for children.
Given that their risk of mortality from Covid, especially for otherwise healthy children, is as near to zero as makes no difference (the NHS England number for total hospital deaths in the under 20s stands at 42 for the whole pandemic,) if there is any evidence at all that vaccines pose even a minuscule risk of serious illness or death for children then this is liable to be greater than the risk posed by the disease.
I would doubt it. The risk of myocarditis with pfizer vaccine is probably less than the same condition from the virus, for example.
A neighbour of mine who is a doctor working in Pakistan is planning to rejoin his wife in the UK next week but because of restrictions he is having to come back via New York where anyone can pay $75 and get a Pfizer jab on the spot. He's had two Chinese jabs but they're not good enough to get you into Europe.
Is this capitalism at its finest?
Younger Son, who does a lot of business in China found it 'advisable' to have a Chinese vaccination.
Hoping to get to Europe for business in the Autumn, but knows he'll have to have a Europeasn aviation before he does. Fortunately he's in Thailand where several options are available.
Earlier this afternoon had our weekly chat with in-laws in the North West. Reporting many friends testing positive, although no-one, thankfully, seriously ill. However Test and Trace are insisting that all contacts isolate for 10 days, which is causing problems, both social, and for the self-employed, economic.
I wonder what it will be like when there are a million cases a week.
It seems highly unlikely that things will get that bad. At the current rate of increase it would take the rest of the Summer for cases to reach a million per week; the school holidays are almost upon us, which should help hugely; and, most pertinently, the virus does not have access to an infinite population of unprotected individuals to keep infecting.
Anyhow, the problems with mass self-isolation only persist for so long as the rules do. If the rules are largely or wholly revoked then the problems disappear in proportion to the extent of easing.
Good header - good reminder. I do find this polling surprising - I would not have guessed such strong support for restrictions but it has been remarkably consistent.
It's support for prioritising life over economic growth - nothing to do with "restrictions".
I want the current restrictions to be eased but I like the idea people value life more than economic prosperity because it changes or re-frames the national debate and priorities.
I agree. It's irrational that the public sign up to a sentiment like "one Covid death is one too many" but it's at the same time heartening. Who wants a public who can and do weigh up the value of a human life, objectively and dispassionately, and arrive at the correct answer of £27,000? - Not me.
It's not just a choice between deaths and money however. It's a choice between deaths, livelihoods, wellbeing, and human socialisation.
This is a false choice. Until we reach herd immunity (or at least sufficient protection to stop death rates exponentially accelerating), it's a choice between more deaths and a long period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization, and fewer deaths and the same period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization.
It's pretty clear the current generations would never have made it through the war.
We're at that point already thanks to vaccination.
I don't think we are there quite yet, but we will see what happens to death rates after the 19th.
How much difference would looser official restrictions make, given how widely they are being flouted now?
There seems a reasonable chance that those who want to protect themselves are doing so and everyone else is at the Arkell v Pressdram stage anyway.
Except they are not. If it is true that wearing masks protects other people, not the wearer, then people not wearing masks are putting others at risk, not themselves. What we need, or will need in any future lockdown, is far more clarity about what precautions are effective, and to ditch the theatre.
Well, we now have ample evidence that they do *not* protect the wearer in case of prolonged indoor contact. So they seem unlikely to be of significant use on say, public transport.
But they may still be of value in shops.
The only thing to say against it is I see no evidence of infection rates falling after they started to be widely used - that said, proving a negative is very hard work.
I am taking an FFP3 mask when I next go down to London to wear on the tube. They really do protect the wearer. Other places should be less risky.
Does this necessarily help in the long run, though? Consider: we've reached the point as a society where we consider the costs of restrictions to outweigh the benefits - and are perfectly willing to allow case rates to explode. Moreover, given the very high transmissibility of the virus, the effective herd immunity rate for vaccinations and infections may be somewhere close to 100%.
It's not as bad as that. There's a formula. At R=20 the herd immunity threshold is "only" 95%. R of course depends on behaviour - as will soon become obvious to those to whom it isn't already obvious - but I haven't heard of any bug that has an R as high as 20, whatever the behaviour (at least, assuming the behaviour is in the range of the socially normal). Don't panic. Both zerocovidianism and the idea that the vaccination rate needs to be up in the high 90s are overreactions.
For the record, for reasons I won't post here I think the government probably will advise the vaccination of children, and probably the 5-10s as well as the 11-17s, by or before the winter term in January-March 2022.
Unfortunately, due to the Delta variant, the vaccines are no longer effective enough against infection to produce herd immunity. So I don't think there's any level of vaccination that will stop the spread. Fortunately, for people sensible enough to be vaccinated, catching the virus is now very unlikely to be more than an inconvenience.
That then leaves us with those unwilling to accept a vaccine that will protect them. Thankfully there are many fewer of these people here than elsewhere. Romania is selling its share of the EU vaccines to Ireland, because it can't find people willing to take them.
A neighbour of mine who is a doctor working in Pakistan is planning to rejoin his wife in the UK next week but because of restrictions he is having to come back via New York where anyone can pay $75 and get a Pfizer jab on the spot. He's had two Chinese jabs but they're not good enough to get you into Europe.
Is this capitalism at its finest?
Younger Son, who does a lot of business in China found it 'advisable' to have a Chinese vaccination.
Hoping to get to Europe for business in the Autumn, but knows he'll have to have a Europeasn aviation before he does. Fortunately he's in Thailand where several options are available.
A neighbour of mine who is a doctor working in Pakistan is planning to rejoin his wife in the UK next week but because of restrictions he is having to come back via New York where anyone can pay $75 and get a Pfizer jab on the spot. He's had two Chinese jabs but they're not good enough to get you into Europe.
Is this capitalism at its finest?
Not really sure of your point? Chinese vaccines haven't been approved by European authorities for good reason, even the Chinese head bod said they didn't work very well. One in particular is a total duffer. And Pakistan is on the red list, again for good reason.
My point was that if you have the dosh to get yourself to New York (and $150 for 2 jabs) the world's your oyster
Earlier this afternoon had our weekly chat with in-laws in the North West. Reporting many friends testing positive, although no-one, thankfully, seriously ill. However Test and Trace are insisting that all contacts isolate for 10 days, which is causing problems, both social, and for the self-employed, economic.
Yes, my daughter was pinged this afternoon and told to self-isolate. She's a self-employed chef so will have absolutely no income for 10 days, and is likely to waste quite a bit of food already bought. It's really not clear whether she's eligible for any financial support from the government/council. Otherwise, dad will have to fork out as she's penniless; but many would struggle.
If it's a "ping" from the NHS app, then my understanding is that Track and Trace have no way of knowing she's had it, and if she ignored it there would be no checking or comeback...
I think some of the public health bods are just going to have to accept that people are increasingly done with all this. You might get some folk to continue to wear masks and go get tested (and isolate when positive) when not feeling well, but wide scale compliance with anything else other than that is increasingly becoming untenable.
Schools in England are “bleeding out” with thousands of teachers having to isolate under a bubble system that is harming the most vulnerable children, ministers have been warned.
I remember when the same people were all moaning that teaching kids was all far too risky and schools must be shut at all times....at the time, the government said it harms in particular vulnerable and poor kids.
The rules are set by the government but in any case, the summer holidays start in a week or two so it is hard to get that excited.
Remember the teacher unions and head teachers were at one point saying they would disobey the government, because opening schools all too risky. Now they are complaining its all too harmful to have kids isolate, for exactly the reason the government said they really didn't want to go around closing schools.
Because risk vectors change.
I was the one urging earlier and harder lockdowns in the autumn, because it was obvious without that we’d have a catastrophe. And we did.
But due to vaccines, that danger has been, if not eliminated, at least sufficiently diminished that we should be loosening restrictions. Especially given that the restrictions themselves are very onerous and one reason why schools were becoming totally unmanageable in the autumn. That hasn’t changed either, by the way.
When the facts change, sensible people change their minds.
But sadly there are no sensible people at the DfE.
No.
While you may be right, what we have is the unions criticising the government for political reasons and standing up for what they perceive to be the interests of their members.
Their arguments will change over time - and are frequently inconsistent - but those two principles are fixed.
Well, yes, possibly, but actually I do pay my union to stand up for my interests. Particularly given how many truly loathsome people out there, including some very powerful ones, are always out to be vile to teachers. That starts with the government, who are being criticised not for political reasons but because they are totally incompetent, dishonest and appear to be deliberately and actively damaging education to conceal their own failures.
However, leaving that aside there is nothing inconsistent about calling for lockdowns and wider isolations when that was the only way of stopping the spread of a lethal disease and calling for restrictions to be relaxed now it is no longer as lethal due to vaccines.
Why do you think such a stance is political?
To be clear I’m not criticising the unions for standing up for the perceived interests of their members - as you say that’s why you pay them.
I’m challenging your lazy assumption that the unions are always right and the government always wrong
Well, on this they have been, mostly.
Not always. I’ve vehemently disagreed (for instance) with the Union stance on masks, which was plain bloody daft, but equally the way the government actually implemented it was literally illegal as well as cowardly (they forced schools to make them compulsory and police the exemptions while knowing full well that was unlawful under the Equalities Act and therefore wording their instructions in such a way that schools, not the DfE, would be legally liable).
A ‘lazy assumption’ is not such when it is a fact.
Or to put it another way, do you think the government have got everything to do with education right in this pandemic? Or anything about it right?
Unfortunately, much of that is also not because of the pandemic but because of longstanding problems stemming from misguided government policies. So there is no reason to think it will improve when the pandemic ends. Indeed, several things make me think it will get worse.
Schools in England are “bleeding out” with thousands of teachers having to isolate under a bubble system that is harming the most vulnerable children, ministers have been warned.
I remember when the same people were all moaning that teaching kids was all far too risky and schools must be shut at all times....at the time, the government said it harms in particular vulnerable and poor kids.
The rules are set by the government but in any case, the summer holidays start in a week or two so it is hard to get that excited.
Remember the teacher unions and head teachers were at one point saying they would disobey the government, because opening schools all too risky. Now they are complaining its all too harmful to have kids isolate, for exactly the reason the government said they really didn't want to go around closing schools.
Because risk vectors change.
I was the one urging earlier and harder lockdowns in the autumn, because it was obvious without that we’d have a catastrophe. And we did.
But due to vaccines, that danger has been, if not eliminated, at least sufficiently diminished that we should be loosening restrictions. Especially given that the restrictions themselves are very onerous and one reason why schools were becoming totally unmanageable in the autumn. That hasn’t changed either, by the way.
When the facts change, sensible people change their minds.
But sadly there are no sensible people at the DfE.
No.
While you may be right, what we have is the unions criticising the government for political reasons and standing up for what they perceive to be the interests of their members.
Their arguments will change over time - and are frequently inconsistent - but those two principles are fixed.
Well, yes, possibly, but actually I do pay my union to stand up for my interests. Particularly given how many truly loathsome people out there, including some very powerful ones, are always out to be vile to teachers. That starts with the government, who are being criticised not for political reasons but because they are totally incompetent, dishonest and appear to be deliberately and actively damaging education to conceal their own failures.
However, leaving that aside there is nothing inconsistent about calling for lockdowns and wider isolations when that was the only way of stopping the spread of a lethal disease and calling for restrictions to be relaxed now it is no longer as lethal due to vaccines.
Why do you think such a stance is political?
To be clear I’m not criticising the unions for standing up for the perceived interests of their members - as you say that’s why you pay them.
I’m challenging your lazy assumption that the unions are always right and the government always wrong
Well, on this they have been, mostly.
Not always. I’ve vehemently disagreed (for instance) with the Union stance on masks, which was plain bloody daft, but equally the way the government actually implemented it was literally illegal as well as cowardly (they forced schools to make them compulsory and police the exemptions while knowing full well that was unlawful under the Equalities Act and therefore wording their instructions in such a way that schools, not the DfE, would be legally liable).
A ‘lazy assumption’ is not such when it is a fact.
Or to put it another way, do you think the government have got everything to do with education right in this pandemic? Or anything about it right?
Unfortunately, much of that is also not because of the pandemic but because of longstanding problems stemming from misguided government policies. So there is no reason to think it will improve when the pandemic ends. Indeed, several things make me think it will get worse.
Re masks in schools, my colleague, dad to two teenage girls is adamant that they should be wearing them. I’ve suggested to him that not all teachers agree, but he is convinced. What is your experience of parental views, and indeed the kids?
I think some of the public health bods are just going to have to accept that people are increasingly done with all this. You might get some folk to continue to wear masks and go get tested (and isolate when positive) when not feeling well, but wide scale compliance with anything else other than that is increasingly becoming untenable.
Wholly understandable. Increasingly the vaccinated don't care if they've been exposed, and an awful lot of people can't afford to self-isolate (especially if it keeps happening to them repeatedly; one PBer recounted the tale the other evening of how their kids' friends had all started disabling the test and trace app on their phones because they kept getting pinged.)
Public opinion, or a very large fraction of it, has had enough of restrictions. One feels increasingly confident that nothing short of a wholesale catastrophe is going to bring back anything that gets repealed from now on.
Good header - good reminder. I do find this polling surprising - I would not have guessed such strong support for restrictions but it has been remarkably consistent.
It's support for prioritising life over economic growth - nothing to do with "restrictions".
I want the current restrictions to be eased but I like the idea people value life more than economic prosperity because it changes or re-frames the national debate and priorities.
I agree. It's irrational that the public sign up to a sentiment like "one Covid death is one too many" but it's at the same time heartening. Who wants a public who can and do weigh up the value of a human life, objectively and dispassionately, and arrive at the correct answer of £27,000? - Not me.
It's not just a choice between deaths and money however. It's a choice between deaths, livelihoods, wellbeing, and human socialisation.
This is a false choice. Until we reach herd immunity (or at least sufficient protection to stop death rates exponentially accelerating), it's a choice between more deaths and a long period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization, and fewer deaths and the same period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization.
It's pretty clear the current generations would never have made it through the war.
We're at that point already thanks to vaccination.
I don't think we are there quite yet, but we will see what happens to death rates after the 19th.
How much difference would looser official restrictions make, given how widely they are being flouted now?
There seems a reasonable chance that those who want to protect themselves are doing so and everyone else is at the Arkell v Pressdram stage anyway.
Except they are not. If it is true that wearing masks protects other people, not the wearer, then people not wearing masks are putting others at risk, not themselves. What we need, or will need in any future lockdown, is far more clarity about what precautions are effective, and to ditch the theatre.
Well, we now have ample evidence that they do *not* protect the wearer in case of prolonged indoor contact. So they seem unlikely to be of significant use on say, public transport.
But they may still be of value in shops.
The only thing to say against it is I see no evidence of infection rates falling after they started to be widely used - that said, proving a negative is very hard work.
I am taking an FFP3 mask when I next go down to London to wear on the tube. They really do protect the wearer. Other places should be less risky.
It'll be interesting to see how many people continue to wear masks on trains and tube trains after 19th July.
Good header - good reminder. I do find this polling surprising - I would not have guessed such strong support for restrictions but it has been remarkably consistent.
It's support for prioritising life over economic growth - nothing to do with "restrictions".
I want the current restrictions to be eased but I like the idea people value life more than economic prosperity because it changes or re-frames the national debate and priorities.
I agree. It's irrational that the public sign up to a sentiment like "one Covid death is one too many" but it's at the same time heartening. Who wants a public who can and do weigh up the value of a human life, objectively and dispassionately, and arrive at the correct answer of £27,000? - Not me.
It's not just a choice between deaths and money however. It's a choice between deaths, livelihoods, wellbeing, and human socialisation.
This is a false choice. Until we reach herd immunity (or at least sufficient protection to stop death rates exponentially accelerating), it's a choice between more deaths and a long period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization, and fewer deaths and the same period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization.
It's pretty clear the current generations would never have made it through the war.
We're at that point already thanks to vaccination.
I don't think we are there quite yet, but we will see what happens to death rates after the 19th.
How much difference would looser official restrictions make, given how widely they are being flouted now?
There seems a reasonable chance that those who want to protect themselves are doing so and everyone else is at the Arkell v Pressdram stage anyway.
Except they are not. If it is true that wearing masks protects other people, not the wearer, then people not wearing masks are putting others at risk, not themselves. What we need, or will need in any future lockdown, is far more clarity about what precautions are effective, and to ditch the theatre.
Well, we now have ample evidence that they do *not* protect the wearer in case of prolonged indoor contact. So they seem unlikely to be of significant use on say, public transport.
But they may still be of value in shops.
The only thing to say against it is I see no evidence of infection rates falling after they started to be widely used - that said, proving a negative is very hard work.
I am taking an FFP3 mask when I next go down to London to wear on the tube. They really do protect the wearer. Other places should be less risky.
It'll be interesting to see how many people continue to wear masks on trains and tube trains after 19th July.
I’m sure many will. What I think will be interesting will be whether shops ask customers to keep mask wearing, or if the government says it up to individuals but would prefer people to keep wearing them, but it won’t be illegal not too.
Good header - good reminder. I do find this polling surprising - I would not have guessed such strong support for restrictions but it has been remarkably consistent.
It's support for prioritising life over economic growth - nothing to do with "restrictions".
I want the current restrictions to be eased but I like the idea people value life more than economic prosperity because it changes or re-frames the national debate and priorities.
I agree. It's irrational that the public sign up to a sentiment like "one Covid death is one too many" but it's at the same time heartening. Who wants a public who can and do weigh up the value of a human life, objectively and dispassionately, and arrive at the correct answer of £27,000? - Not me.
It's not just a choice between deaths and money however. It's a choice between deaths, livelihoods, wellbeing, and human socialisation.
This is a false choice. Until we reach herd immunity (or at least sufficient protection to stop death rates exponentially accelerating), it's a choice between more deaths and a long period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization, and fewer deaths and the same period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization.
It's pretty clear the current generations would never have made it through the war.
We're at that point already thanks to vaccination.
I don't think we are there quite yet, but we will see what happens to death rates after the 19th.
How much difference would looser official restrictions make, given how widely they are being flouted now?
There seems a reasonable chance that those who want to protect themselves are doing so and everyone else is at the Arkell v Pressdram stage anyway.
Except they are not. If it is true that wearing masks protects other people, not the wearer, then people not wearing masks are putting others at risk, not themselves. What we need, or will need in any future lockdown, is far more clarity about what precautions are effective, and to ditch the theatre.
Well, we now have ample evidence that they do *not* protect the wearer in case of prolonged indoor contact. So they seem unlikely to be of significant use on say, public transport.
But they may still be of value in shops.
The only thing to say against it is I see no evidence of infection rates falling after they started to be widely used - that said, proving a negative is very hard work.
I am taking an FFP3 mask when I next go down to London to wear on the tube. They really do protect the wearer. Other places should be less risky.
It'll be interesting to see how many people continue to wear masks on trains and tube trains after 19th July.
At the various sporting events we are seeing nearly zero mask wearing. I don't think any thought that we would see a cultural shift to one similar to Asia where it is has long been polite to wear a mask when you don't feel very well (and also the bad air quality, something we are told is true of London these days) is going to be happening.
Even while masks have been mandatory, the vast majority walk right up to a shop with no mask, then just as they walk through the door, take it out, put it on, only to whip it off as soon as they cross the threshold of the exit.
Earlier this afternoon had our weekly chat with in-laws in the North West. Reporting many friends testing positive, although no-one, thankfully, seriously ill. However Test and Trace are insisting that all contacts isolate for 10 days, which is causing problems, both social, and for the self-employed, economic.
Here on Tyneside people seem to be dropping like flies. It's more of an inconvenience than anything though rather than serious illness.
Schools in England are “bleeding out” with thousands of teachers having to isolate under a bubble system that is harming the most vulnerable children, ministers have been warned.
I remember when the same people were all moaning that teaching kids was all far too risky and schools must be shut at all times....at the time, the government said it harms in particular vulnerable and poor kids.
The rules are set by the government but in any case, the summer holidays start in a week or two so it is hard to get that excited.
Remember the teacher unions and head teachers were at one point saying they would disobey the government, because opening schools all too risky. Now they are complaining its all too harmful to have kids isolate, for exactly the reason the government said they really didn't want to go around closing schools.
Because risk vectors change.
I was the one urging earlier and harder lockdowns in the autumn, because it was obvious without that we’d have a catastrophe. And we did.
But due to vaccines, that danger has been, if not eliminated, at least sufficiently diminished that we should be loosening restrictions. Especially given that the restrictions themselves are very onerous and one reason why schools were becoming totally unmanageable in the autumn. That hasn’t changed either, by the way.
When the facts change, sensible people change their minds.
But sadly there are no sensible people at the DfE.
No.
While you may be right, what we have is the unions criticising the government for political reasons and standing up for what they perceive to be the interests of their members.
Their arguments will change over time - and are frequently inconsistent - but those two principles are fixed.
Well, yes, possibly, but actually I do pay my union to stand up for my interests. Particularly given how many truly loathsome people out there, including some very powerful ones, are always out to be vile to teachers. That starts with the government, who are being criticised not for political reasons but because they are totally incompetent, dishonest and appear to be deliberately and actively damaging education to conceal their own failures.
However, leaving that aside there is nothing inconsistent about calling for lockdowns and wider isolations when that was the only way of stopping the spread of a lethal disease and calling for restrictions to be relaxed now it is no longer as lethal due to vaccines.
Why do you think such a stance is political?
To be clear I’m not criticising the unions for standing up for the perceived interests of their members - as you say that’s why you pay them.
I’m challenging your lazy assumption that the unions are always right and the government always wrong
The problem is, Mr Charles, is that the unions in this case represent professional people, who are experts in their field and know what they are doing.
On the other hand, the members of the government are a gang of ignorant amateurs who know nothing about education, except for their own personal experience forty years ago (usually in private schools). And Cummings and Gove managed to get rid of all the experienced top civil servants who might have explained things properly to their ministerial masers.
Sam's starting up the outrage bus, and leaving out the actual content. The "Anti-vax" claim for Oliver's presentation is untrue, as far as I can see.
It seems to have been found guilty for something Oliver did not say.
His argument was about there not being sufficient evidence to justify children being vaccinated relative to the minimal harm done to that age group by Covid. He explicitly supports eg Human Papilloma virus vaccine for teenagers (as an example).
Earlier this afternoon had our weekly chat with in-laws in the North West. Reporting many friends testing positive, although no-one, thankfully, seriously ill. However Test and Trace are insisting that all contacts isolate for 10 days, which is causing problems, both social, and for the self-employed, economic.
Here on Tyneside people seem to be dropping like flies. It's more of an inconvenience than anything though rather than serious illness.
The NE is somewhere where COVID never seems to really go away. Weren't you in effective lockdown for basically, well ever since it started?
Sam's starting up the outrage bus, and leaving out the actual content. The "Anti-vax" claim for Oliver's presentation is untrue, as far as I can see.
It seems to have been found guilty for something Oliver did not say.
His argument was about there not being sufficient evidence to justify children being vaccinated relative to the minimal harm done to that age group by Covid. He explicitly supports eg Human Papilloma virus vaccine for teenagers (as an example).
The public are still evenly split on meaning of knee taking..
'Taking the knee' is...
A political statement that goes beyond simply expressing opposition to racism: 40% An apolitical statement that simply expresses opposition to racism and nothing more: 39% Don't know: 21%
Earlier this afternoon had our weekly chat with in-laws in the North West. Reporting many friends testing positive, although no-one, thankfully, seriously ill. However Test and Trace are insisting that all contacts isolate for 10 days, which is causing problems, both social, and for the self-employed, economic.
Yes, my daughter was pinged this afternoon and told to self-isolate. She's a self-employed chef so will have absolutely no income for 10 days, and is likely to waste quite a bit of food already bought. It's really not clear whether she's eligible for any financial support from the government/council. Otherwise, dad will have to fork out as she's penniless; but many would struggle.
If it's a "ping" from the NHS app, then my understanding is that Track and Trace have no way of knowing she's had it, and if she ignored it there would be no checking or comeback...
Though she might feel the odd pang of conscience if all her friends or customers go down with the lurgy. Whether there are alternatives to 10 days' isolation that take account of covid tests or vaccination status is left as an exercise for the reader in the Department of Health.
Its unsurprisingly two people who moonlight on Independent SAGE.
I do wonder what the members of SAGE think of a few members deciding to then go and moonlight on another committee who usually take a very public view on opposing most of SAGE advice / government decisions based on their advice.
Good header - good reminder. I do find this polling surprising - I would not have guessed such strong support for restrictions but it has been remarkably consistent.
It's support for prioritising life over economic growth - nothing to do with "restrictions".
I want the current restrictions to be eased but I like the idea people value life more than economic prosperity because it changes or re-frames the national debate and priorities.
I agree. It's irrational that the public sign up to a sentiment like "one Covid death is one too many" but it's at the same time heartening. Who wants a public who can and do weigh up the value of a human life, objectively and dispassionately, and arrive at the correct answer of £27,000? - Not me.
It's not just a choice between deaths and money however. It's a choice between deaths, livelihoods, wellbeing, and human socialisation.
This is a false choice. Until we reach herd immunity (or at least sufficient protection to stop death rates exponentially accelerating), it's a choice between more deaths and a long period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization, and fewer deaths and the same period of harmed mental health, wellbeing and socialization.
It's pretty clear the current generations would never have made it through the war.
We're at that point already thanks to vaccination.
I don't think we are there quite yet, but we will see what happens to death rates after the 19th.
How much difference would looser official restrictions make, given how widely they are being flouted now?
There seems a reasonable chance that those who want to protect themselves are doing so and everyone else is at the Arkell v Pressdram stage anyway.
Except they are not. If it is true that wearing masks protects other people, not the wearer, then people not wearing masks are putting others at risk, not themselves. What we need, or will need in any future lockdown, is far more clarity about what precautions are effective, and to ditch the theatre.
Well, we now have ample evidence that they do *not* protect the wearer in case of prolonged indoor contact. So they seem unlikely to be of significant use on say, public transport.
But they may still be of value in shops.
The only thing to say against it is I see no evidence of infection rates falling after they started to be widely used - that said, proving a negative is very hard work.
I am taking an FFP3 mask when I next go down to London to wear on the tube. They really do protect the wearer. Other places should be less risky.
It'll be interesting to see how many people continue to wear masks on trains and tube trains after 19th July.
At the various sporting events we are seeing nearly zero mask wearing. I don't think any thought that we would see a cultural shift to one similar to Asia where it is has long been polite to wear a mask when you don't feel very well (and also the bad air quality, something we are told is true of London these days) is going to be happening.
Even while masks have been mandatory, the vast majority walk right up to a shop with no mask, then just as they walk through the door, take it out, put it on, only to whip it off as soon as they cross the threshold of the exit.
Maybe masks with frayed edges and big holes will become a fashion statement, like jeans?
Sam's starting up the outrage bus, and leaving out the actual content. The "Anti-vax" claim for Oliver's presentation is untrue, as far as I can see.
It seems to have been found guilty for something Oliver did not say.
His argument was about there not being sufficient evidence to justify children being vaccinated relative to the minimal harm done to that age group by Covid. He explicitly supports eg Human Papilloma virus vaccine for teenagers (as an example).
Sam's starting up the outrage bus, and leaving out the actual content. The "Anti-vax" claim for Oliver's presentation is untrue, as far as I can see.
It seems to have been found guilty for something Oliver did not say.
His argument was about there not being sufficient evidence to justify children being vaccinated relative to the minimal harm done to that age group by Covid. He explicitly supports eg Human Papilloma virus vaccine for teenagers (as an example).
The public are still evenly split on meaning of knee taking..
'Taking the knee' is...
A political statement that goes beyond simply expressing opposition to racism: 40% An apolitical statement that simply expresses opposition to racism and nothing more: 39% Don't know: 21%
If, as I suspect, it will carry over to next season, I will stay in the bar till it is done. I think there will be a lot of arguments in the stands about it and I just can’t be arsed. I don’t think it is a good idea to do it but it’s their choice.
Sam's starting up the outrage bus, and leaving out the actual content. The "Anti-vax" claim for Oliver's presentation is untrue, as far as I can see.
It seems to have been found guilty for something Oliver did not say.
His argument was about there not being sufficient evidence to justify children being vaccinated relative to the minimal harm done to that age group by Covid. He explicitly supports eg Human Papilloma virus vaccine for teenagers (as an example).
Isn't that exactly what the JCVI are saying too? That they're trying to evaluate that and there's not sufficient evidence to say yet.
This may be the problematic section. Some children do suffer severely?
"long term effects of the vaccines" - absolute horseshit from Dingwall. The long term effects of catching the virus with a naive immune system ARE a known issue. Pfizer isn't authorised for 11 and under so it can't be used but it's been deemed safe by the MHRA in 12+ - a body that focuses solely on medicine and frankly not the grandstanding we've seen from the Zero covidians and anti-teenage vaxxers of the JCVI. The only reason we wouldn't use supplies for teenagers is if it is more effacious with a limited supply to boost the over 50s - that reasoning shouldn't be hidden behind "safety" concerns which are bunk.
The public are still evenly split on meaning of knee taking..
'Taking the knee' is...
A political statement that goes beyond simply expressing opposition to racism: 40% An apolitical statement that simply expresses opposition to racism and nothing more: 39% Don't know: 21%
If, as I suspect, it will carry over to next season, I will stay in the bar till it is done. I think there will be a lot of arguments in the stands about it and I just can’t be arsed. I don’t think it is a good idea to do it but it’s their choice.
They do it for less than 10 seconds man. If you sneeze you'll miss it.
matically unexpected occurs as it rolls out (having been approved for kids already).
Agreed. All the kids who I know are keen to be vaccinated - the reports of the impact of long Covid are seen as pretty scary, quite apart from the upside of being able to pursue a more normal life after vaccination. The anxiety not to give them a vaccination just in case it might have a side-effect seems on present evidence not to be justified, though the countries that have gone ahead with vaccination of the young will soon provide plenty of evidence one way or the other. Without it, I think we'll be back to closing schools again by the winter.
Paradoxically, the people who are in favour of relaxing lockdown quickly often turn out to be the same people opposing vaccination for kids. The common thread is perhaps a certain "Oh, let's just get back to normal" instinct which doesn't really stand up to serious scrutiny.
Your argument has some merit, but so does mine. It's a finely balanced decision, this one, which is why we've had Adam Finn and some of the other interested scientists saying as much when interviewed. Although FWIW it would be interesting to know how much capacity we have in terms of the mRNA vaccines anyway, given that we're probably around 10-14 days away from finishing first doses for all adults willing to accept them, with a very large number of seconds still to go after that.
Yes, fair enough. With schools closing anyway shortly, it may make sense to make the final decision based on experience of child vaccination from other countries at the end of August, by which time the supply issue will be clearer too.
Its unsurprisingly two people who moonlight on Independent SAGE.
I do wonder what the members of SAGE think of a few members deciding to then go and moonlight on another committee who usually take a very public view on opposing most of SAGE advice / government decisions based on their advice.
We know exactly what ISAGE are all about - creating a public health centred, biosecurity state - because Michie has said she wants masks and social distancing to continue forever. They're extremists and only get as much oxygen as they do because (a) outlets like The Guardian latch on to anything which might be used as a stick to beat the Government and (b) the media as a whole likes to ramp up scare stories to generate clickbait. They tell us nothing useful.
Schools in England are “bleeding out” with thousands of teachers having to isolate under a bubble system that is harming the most vulnerable children, ministers have been warned.
I remember when the same people were all moaning that teaching kids was all far too risky and schools must be shut at all times....at the time, the government said it harms in particular vulnerable and poor kids.
The rules are set by the government but in any case, the summer holidays start in a week or two so it is hard to get that excited.
Remember the teacher unions and head teachers were at one point saying they would disobey the government, because opening schools all too risky. Now they are complaining its all too harmful to have kids isolate, for exactly the reason the government said they really didn't want to go around closing schools.
Because risk vectors change.
I was the one urging earlier and harder lockdowns in the autumn, because it was obvious without that we’d have a catastrophe. And we did.
But due to vaccines, that danger has been, if not eliminated, at least sufficiently diminished that we should be loosening restrictions. Especially given that the restrictions themselves are very onerous and one reason why schools were becoming totally unmanageable in the autumn. That hasn’t changed either, by the way.
When the facts change, sensible people change their minds.
But sadly there are no sensible people at the DfE.
No.
While you may be right, what we have is the unions criticising the government for political reasons and standing up for what they perceive to be the interests of their members.
Their arguments will change over time - and are frequently inconsistent - but those two principles are fixed.
Well, yes, possibly, but actually I do pay my union to stand up for my interests. Particularly given how many truly loathsome people out there, including some very powerful ones, are always out to be vile to teachers. That starts with the government, who are being criticised not for political reasons but because they are totally incompetent, dishonest and appear to be deliberately and actively damaging education to conceal their own failures.
However, leaving that aside there is nothing inconsistent about calling for lockdowns and wider isolations when that was the only way of stopping the spread of a lethal disease and calling for restrictions to be relaxed now it is no longer as lethal due to vaccines.
Why do you think such a stance is political?
To be clear I’m not criticising the unions for standing up for the perceived interests of their members - as you say that’s why you pay them.
I’m challenging your lazy assumption that the unions are always right and the government always wrong
Well, on this they have been, mostly.
Not always. I’ve vehemently disagreed (for instance) with the Union stance on masks, which was plain bloody daft, but equally the way the government actually implemented it was literally illegal as well as cowardly (they forced schools to make them compulsory and police the exemptions while knowing full well that was unlawful under the Equalities Act and therefore wording their instructions in such a way that schools, not the DfE, would be legally liable).
A ‘lazy assumption’ is not such when it is a fact.
Or to put it another way, do you think the government have got everything to do with education right in this pandemic? Or anything about it right?
Unfortunately, much of that is also not because of the pandemic but because of longstanding problems stemming from misguided government policies. So there is no reason to think it will improve when the pandemic ends. Indeed, several things make me think it will get worse.
Re masks in schools, my colleague, dad to two teenage girls is adamant that they should be wearing them. I’ve suggested to him that not all teachers agree, but he is convinced. What is your experience of parental views, and indeed the kids?
The only ones still wearing them are the persistent talkers, who are wearing them to cover their mouths only for reasons that are totally unrelated to public health.
95% of children tore theirs off the moment they were allowed to, and most of the rest followed within a few days. Because they hated them.
The public are still evenly split on meaning of knee taking..
'Taking the knee' is...
A political statement that goes beyond simply expressing opposition to racism: 40% An apolitical statement that simply expresses opposition to racism and nothing more: 39% Don't know: 21%
If, as I suspect, it will carry over to next season, I will stay in the bar till it is done. I think there will be a lot of arguments in the stands about it and I just can’t be arsed. I don’t think it is a good idea to do it but it’s their choice.
They do it for less than 10 seconds man. If you sneeze you'll miss it.
There will be bad blood in the ground about it and I doubt any sort of even slightly nuanced opinion will hold good. I truly expect fights in the ground over it and I don’t want to be banned for getting caught up in an argument I want none of.
And don’t mention sneezing. This year has been the worst for hay fever for me since I was a kid. Damn it.
Yes, in fairness they are still double the previous level, which most of us would call a pretty impressive surge, though they no longer seem candidates to overtake the CDU.
Asking people a juxtaposition of savings lives vs the economy is F-ING stupid.
It's a nonsense poll. Ask people to rank other issues including wellbeing, mental health, contact with family, personal income, jobs etc. etc. will produce a completely different set of results.
Earlier this afternoon had our weekly chat with in-laws in the North West. Reporting many friends testing positive, although no-one, thankfully, seriously ill. However Test and Trace are insisting that all contacts isolate for 10 days, which is causing problems, both social, and for the self-employed, economic.
Yes, my daughter was pinged this afternoon and told to self-isolate. She's a self-employed chef so will have absolutely no income for 10 days, and is likely to waste quite a bit of food already bought. It's really not clear whether she's eligible for any financial support from the government/council. Otherwise, dad will have to fork out as she's penniless; but many would struggle.
If it's a "ping" from the NHS app, then my understanding is that Track and Trace have no way of knowing she's had it, and if she ignored it there would be no checking or comeback...
Though she might feel the odd pang of conscience if all her friends or customers go down with the lurgy. Whether there are alternatives to 10 days' isolation that take account of covid tests or vaccination status is left as an exercise for the reader in the Department of Health.
If you look at the cumulative number of tests taken, as I did today: it is about 100 million, out of a country of 60 million.
So, each person has on average taken 1.4 tests. In reality though, my suspicion is that there is a small minority of people who regularly take tests due to their work or because it is otherwise in their interest to do so, a large group who have very occasionally taken a test, ie when they are ill; and a smaller but significant group who want nothing whatsoever to do with the testing regime for reasons of their own - but the problem of the inconvenience and hardship arising from self isolation is likely to be a significant factor.
Its unsurprisingly two people who moonlight on Independent SAGE.
I do wonder what the members of SAGE think of a few members deciding to then go and moonlight on another committee who usually take a very public view on opposing most of SAGE advice / government decisions based on their advice.
We know exactly what ISAGE are all about - creating a public health centred, biosecurity state - because Michie has said she wants masks and social distancing to continue forever. They're extremists and only get as much oxygen as they do because (a) outlets like The Guardian latch on to anything which might be used as a stick to beat the Government and (b) the media as a whole likes to ramp up scare stories to generate clickbait. They tell us nothing useful.
I notice there seems to have been what looks a co-ordinated switch by indie types to highlighting long covid this last few days. I guess the lack of hospitalisations with 20K case numbers meant they needed a new front?
Earlier this afternoon had our weekly chat with in-laws in the North West. Reporting many friends testing positive, although no-one, thankfully, seriously ill. However Test and Trace are insisting that all contacts isolate for 10 days, which is causing problems, both social, and for the self-employed, economic.
Yes, my daughter was pinged this afternoon and told to self-isolate. She's a self-employed chef so will have absolutely no income for 10 days, and is likely to waste quite a bit of food already bought. It's really not clear whether she's eligible for any financial support from the government/council. Otherwise, dad will have to fork out as she's penniless; but many would struggle.
If it's a "ping" from the NHS app, then my understanding is that Track and Trace have no way of knowing she's had it, and if she ignored it there would be no checking or comeback...
Though she might feel the odd pang of conscience if all her friends or customers go down with the lurgy. Whether there are alternatives to 10 days' isolation that take account of covid tests or vaccination status is left as an exercise for the reader in the Department of Health.
If you look at the cumulative number of tests taken, as I did today: it is about 100 million, out of a country of 60 million.
So, each person has on average taken 1.4 tests. In reality though, my suspicion is that there is a small minority of people who regularly take tests due to their work or because it is otherwise in their interest to do so, a large group who have very occasionally taken a test, ie when they are ill; and a smaller but significant group who want nothing whatsoever to do with the testing regime for reasons of their own - but the problem of the inconvenience and hardship arising from self isolation is likely to be a significant factor.
My mother and her friends, all in their 70s-80s, take them regularly and talk about it incessantly.
Its unsurprisingly two people who moonlight on Independent SAGE.
I do wonder what the members of SAGE think of a few members deciding to then go and moonlight on another committee who usually take a very public view on opposing most of SAGE advice / government decisions based on their advice.
We know exactly what ISAGE are all about - creating a public health centred, biosecurity state - because Michie has said she wants masks and social distancing to continue forever. They're extremists and only get as much oxygen as they do because (a) outlets like The Guardian latch on to anything which might be used as a stick to beat the Government and (b) the media as a whole likes to ramp up scare stories to generate clickbait. They tell us nothing useful.
The most worrying (but predictable) thing I have heard Michie openly say in interviews is that this pandemic requires us to radically reorganize the whole of society to protect us against such risks both now and the future. We all know from a committed life long communist what that means.
The RNLI are just doing their job. The migrants are going to keep coming until either a deportation agreement is arrived at with the French or the Government and Parliament devise means to forcibly deport and process them offshore in the manner of Australia.
The flow will continue, and probably keep increasing, unless or until the incentives to keep coming are removed.
Sam's starting up the outrage bus, and leaving out the actual content. The "Anti-vax" claim for Oliver's presentation is untrue, as far as I can see.
It seems to have been found guilty for something Oliver did not say.
His argument was about there not being sufficient evidence to justify children being vaccinated relative to the minimal harm done to that age group by Covid. He explicitly supports eg Human Papilloma virus vaccine for teenagers (as an example).
Its unsurprisingly two people who moonlight on Independent SAGE.
I do wonder what the members of SAGE think of a few members deciding to then go and moonlight on another committee who usually take a very public view on opposing most of SAGE advice / government decisions based on their advice.
We know exactly what ISAGE are all about - creating a public health centred, biosecurity state - because Michie has said she wants masks and social distancing to continue forever. They're extremists and only get as much oxygen as they do because (a) outlets like The Guardian latch on to anything which might be used as a stick to beat the Government and (b) the media as a whole likes to ramp up scare stories to generate clickbait. They tell us nothing useful.
I notice there seems to have been what looks a co-ordinated switch by indie types to highlighting long covid this last few days. I guess the lack of hospitalisations with 20K case numbers meant they needed a new front?
I wish I had saved that cartoon that had Boris in goal with scientists behind him moving the goalposts from side to side....its summed it up perfectly.
Sam's starting up the outrage bus, and leaving out the actual content. The "Anti-vax" claim for Oliver's presentation is untrue, as far as I can see.
It seems to have been found guilty for something Oliver did not say.
His argument was about there not being sufficient evidence to justify children being vaccinated relative to the minimal harm done to that age group by Covid. He explicitly supports eg Human Papilloma virus vaccine for teenagers (as an example).
Isn't that exactly what the JCVI are saying too? That they're trying to evaluate that and there's not sufficient evidence to say yet.
This may be the problematic section. Some children do suffer severely?
"long term effects of the vaccines" - absolute horseshit from Dingwall. The long term effects of catching the virus with a naive immune system ARE a known issue. Pfizer isn't authorised for 11 and under so it can't be used but it's been deemed safe by the MHRA in 12+ - a body that focuses solely on medicine and frankly not the grandstanding we've seen from the Zero covidians and anti-teenage vaxxers of the JCVI. The only reason we wouldn't use supplies for teenagers is if it is more effacious with a limited supply to boost the over 50s - that reasoning shouldn't be hidden behind "safety" concerns which are bunk.
Its unsurprisingly two people who moonlight on Independent SAGE.
I do wonder what the members of SAGE think of a few members deciding to then go and moonlight on another committee who usually take a very public view on opposing most of SAGE advice / government decisions based on their advice.
We know exactly what ISAGE are all about - creating a public health centred, biosecurity state - because Michie has said she wants masks and social distancing to continue forever. They're extremists and only get as much oxygen as they do because (a) outlets like The Guardian latch on to anything which might be used as a stick to beat the Government and (b) the media as a whole likes to ramp up scare stories to generate clickbait. They tell us nothing useful.
I notice there seems to have been what looks a co-ordinated switch by indie types to highlighting long covid this last few days. I guess the lack of hospitalisations with 20K case numbers meant they needed a new front?
Wholly predictable. Once the attempts to frighten people with visions of a wasteland of burning hospitals fail, there are plenty of fallback positions: Long Covid, hyping the risk to kids, the relationship between cases and variants. I don't think that they've started on the NHS Winter Crisis yet but that's doubtless coming as well.
Comments
As an aside, I agree with you. With rare medical exceptions, I think everyone should have the vaccine (although not be compelled by law). But the idea social media 'fact-checking' carries any weight is a laughable notion.
https://www.facebook.com/ElizabethJones4UKIPBrexit/photos/a.534977416679898/1739872432857051/?type=3
I’ve had two pm’s a couple of hours ago about Jeremy Clarkson’s views on Brexit. One accused me of saying he’d voted against, the other apologising for saying he had written something or other when he really had no idea about it.
AFAIK these are nothing to do with me so could the senders check their posts to make sure they send them to whoever they meant to.
Although the idea of apologising for posting something about which the poster knows nothing does seem a welcome development!
Cases up 67% week-on-week
Hospital patient count up 24% (caveat: last updated on the 29th)
Deaths down 2%
1st doses: 86.0% of adults
2nd doses: 63.8%
The rate of first doses shows real signs of slowing, though I still think there's a reasonable chance of hitting 90% on or before July 19th. At that juncture the first doses are effectively done as we hit a solid wall of refusers, unless JCVI surprises us and recommends that the Government starts jabbing secondary school kids.
My guess is that JCVI will recommend against vaccination of schoolchildren, on the grounds that the benefits to them personally are minuscule, and possibly also that the very tiny risk of receiving a vaccine is higher than that of natural infection to the very young, and that basically we might as well let Covid rip through the child population and be done with it. Although, as always, I stand to be corrected by events.
I think you are probably right about vaccines for children. I suspect we won’t bother.
Forget Horner, Perez is the one that made me laugh - spit blue feathers at Norris for that (fair) move and then pulled exactly the same trick himself on Leclerc (arguably even compounding it by actually making clear contact with the Ferrari), and then also dumping him off the circuit again at a different corner. Ironic.
But if they scrap isolation rules it’s less likely they will go below that for the moment.
But equally, hospitalisations have been rising for a while and the deaths still don’t seem to be rising. Which is very, very encouraging.
Domestically, the lack of vaccination should pose no difficulties for children at all.
AZN, despite being around 25% responsible for saving the world, seems not to have benefitted so much.
AZN regulatory announcements in the last year have been pretty opaque.
I'm little experience with US accounting, but it'd be interesting to compare with Pfizer. No doubt it's already been done.
Bastards
The amount of trouble Covid will cause on campuses is very much dependent on how the rules evolve. If the Government is genuinely no longer concerned about cases then the logical outcome of that is the abolition of self-isolation and mass testing regimes. In that scenario one would expect Covid to have a modest impact on attendance for the first few weeks (amongst the minority of students who experience symptomatic illness) and thereafter simply to disappear as a problem. We shall see what transpires.
Basically, if there's any consistent evidence of serious rare side effects with the mRNA vaccines in the young, in the same way as there has been with AZ, then it's probable that vaccination will turn out not to be able to be recommended ethically for children.
Given that their risk of mortality from Covid, especially for otherwise healthy children, is as near to zero as makes no difference (the NHS England number for total hospital deaths in the under 20s stands at 42 for the whole pandemic,) if there is any evidence at all that vaccines pose even a minuscule risk of serious illness or death for children then this is liable to be greater than the risk posed by the disease.
While you may be right, what we have is the unions criticising the government for political reasons and standing up for what they perceive to be the interests of their members.
Their arguments will change over time - and are frequently inconsistent - but those two principles are fixed.
They’re also investigating Kimi for causing a collision, and Russell for moving in the braking zone with Kimi a lap before.
https://www.fia.com/documents/season/season-2021-1108/championships/fia-formula-one-world-championship-14
However, leaving that aside there is nothing inconsistent about calling for lockdowns and wider isolations when that was the only way of stopping the spread of a lethal disease and calling for restrictions to be relaxed now it is no longer as lethal due to vaccines.
Why do you think such a stance is political?
Paradoxically, the people who are in favour of relaxing lockdown quickly often turn out to be the same people opposing vaccination for kids. The common thread is perhaps a certain "Oh, let's just get back to normal" instinct which doesn't really stand up to serious scrutiny.
Of course, nobody in their right mind is arguing that the use of AZ should've been halted outright as a consequence, because the risk of the side effect was so tiny and the overall benefit of continuing to use it so huge. But a different calculus may apply with children.
I think the situation we now find ourselves in is that children are highly, highly unlikely to be made seriously ill by Covid - so there's no immediate imperative to lance them - and the Americans are doing a mass epidemiological experiment in child vaccination, which is likely to expose any rare side effects in the young.
Basically, there's little harm and potentially significant benefit in stalling in this case. If the vaccines are proven entirely harmless to children then there may be an argument for deploying them en masse; if they cause any problems at all then we are in the position, possibly, of saying that a small number of children should be made seriously unwell for the sake of breaking chains of transmission and protecting vulnerable adults, especially the vaccine refusers. That's very dodgy territory indeed.
I’m challenging your lazy assumption that the unions are always right and the government always wrong
However Test and Trace are insisting that all contacts isolate for 10 days, which is causing problems, both social, and for the self-employed, economic.
I'm not gainsaying your concerns - and everyone has a decision to make.
Again, there has to be serious doubt as to what proportion of people are using either regular at-home testing or the contact tracing app properly in the first place; the primary purpose of test and trace now seems to be to keep large numbers of perfectly well schoolchildren at home.
For the record, for reasons I won't post here I think the government probably will advise the vaccination of children, and probably the 5-10s as well as the 11-17s, by or before the winter term in January-March 2022.
Is this capitalism at its finest?
Hoping to get to Europe for business in the Autumn, but knows he'll have to have a Europeasn aviation before he does.
Fortunately he's in Thailand where several options are available.
Anyhow, the problems with mass self-isolation only persist for so long as the rules do. If the rules are largely or wholly revoked then the problems disappear in proportion to the extent of easing.
That then leaves us with those unwilling to accept a vaccine that will protect them. Thankfully there are many fewer of these people here than elsewhere. Romania is selling its share of the EU vaccines to Ireland, because it can't find people willing to take them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57715950
I think some of the public health bods are just going to have to accept that people are increasingly done with all this. You might get some folk to continue to wear masks and go get tested (and isolate when positive) when not feeling well, but wide scale compliance with anything else other than that is increasingly becoming untenable.
Not always. I’ve vehemently disagreed (for instance) with the Union stance on masks, which was plain bloody daft, but equally the way the government actually implemented it was literally illegal as well as cowardly (they forced schools to make them compulsory and police the exemptions while knowing full well that was unlawful under the Equalities Act and therefore wording their instructions in such a way that schools, not the DfE, would be legally liable).
A ‘lazy assumption’ is not such when it is a fact.
Or to put it another way, do you think the government have got everything to do with education right in this pandemic? Or anything about it right?
Unfortunately, much of that is also not because of the pandemic but because of longstanding problems stemming from misguided government policies. So there is no reason to think it will improve when the pandemic ends. Indeed, several things make me think it will get worse.
Public opinion, or a very large fraction of it, has had enough of restrictions. One feels increasingly confident that nothing short of a wholesale catastrophe is going to bring back anything that gets repealed from now on.
Even while masks have been mandatory, the vast majority walk right up to a shop with no mask, then just as they walk through the door, take it out, put it on, only to whip it off as soon as they cross the threshold of the exit.
On the other hand, the members of the government are a gang of ignorant amateurs who know nothing about education, except for their own personal experience forty years ago (usually in private schools). And Cummings and Gove managed to get rid of all the experienced top civil servants who might have explained things properly to their ministerial masers.
It seems to have been found guilty for something Oliver did not say.
His argument was about there not being sufficient evidence to justify children being vaccinated relative to the minimal harm done to that age group by Covid. He explicitly supports eg Human Papilloma virus vaccine for teenagers (as an example).
The actual video is here:
https://twitter.com/TiceRichard/status/1411583108676194315
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
'Taking the knee' is...
A political statement that goes beyond simply expressing opposition to racism: 40%
An apolitical statement that simply expresses opposition to racism and nothing more: 39%
Don't know: 21%
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1411701628894318596?s=20
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/04/uk-scientists-caution-that-lifting-of-covid-rules-is-like-building-variant-factories
Its unsurprisingly two people who moonlight on Independent SAGE.
I do wonder what the members of SAGE think of a few members deciding to then go and moonlight on another committee who usually take a very public view on opposing most of SAGE advice / government decisions based on their advice.
This may be the problematic section. Some children do suffer severely?
It’s obviously not a slam dunk. What’s for sure is that the decision needs to be for the benefit of the children not adults.
Yes, fair enough. With schools closing anyway shortly, it may make sense to make the final decision based on experience of child vaccination from other countries at the end of August, by which time the supply issue will be clearer too.
95% of children tore theirs off the moment they were allowed to, and most of the rest followed within a few days. Because they hated them.
And don’t mention sneezing. This year has been the worst for hay fever for me since I was a kid. Damn it.
It's a nonsense poll. Ask people to rank other issues including wellbeing, mental health, contact with family, personal income, jobs etc. etc. will produce a completely different set of results.
Not a lot better than voodoo polling
So, each person has on average taken 1.4 tests. In reality though, my suspicion is that there is a small minority of people who regularly take tests due to their work or because it is otherwise in their interest to do so, a large group who have very occasionally taken a test, ie when they are ill; and a smaller but significant group who want nothing whatsoever to do with the testing regime for reasons of their own - but the problem of the inconvenience and hardship arising from self isolation is likely to be a significant factor.
And the government have her on a panel....
The flow will continue, and probably keep increasing, unless or until the incentives to keep coming are removed.
0 to 5 3098 0.77%
6 to 17 3031 0.76%
18 to 64 145759 36.35%
65 to 84 165240 41.21%
85+ 83816 20.90%