Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The battle against COVID could go on for years – politicalbetting.com

2456

Comments

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927

    Good morning all. Def.colder this morning.
    Winter draws on. Or something like that!.
    However managed to get out and about again for an hour yesterday. No-one wearing masks; it would appear that the only places doing so locally are the pharmacy and the surgery.

    Good morning. Cold yes but an awesome full moon here.
    Lovely walking weather in Stockholm
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719

    felix said:

    felix said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.

    I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.

    Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal
    responsibility.
    Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
    Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
    From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.

    The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.

    I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
    LOL. No. We are nowhere near back to normal. Not by a long f***ing shot.

    100+ people are dying from/with Covid each day. Thousands are being infected. Hospitals are under pressure, and existing patients are facing far longer waits than usual.
    And who says that isn't normal? "The new normal"?

    The reason people are facing longer waits is because things were postponed and distancing was implemented etc reducing capacity. Time to end all that nonsense.
    Yeah. 100+ avoidable deaths a day perfectly fine as long as you are fine.

    I'm not in favour of increased restrictions at the moment. I can easily see that they may be needed in a month or two, though, and I see talk like yours above as being rather cavalier.
    I think some reality is needed about who is dying. We had reports yesterday that the majority are elderly with at least 5 (five) other health conditions.
    Yep.

    However:
    1) 'The majority'. Many are not.
    2) Many of these people are living fulfilling lives, enjoying themselves. Their families enjoy their times with them. The idea they are somehow all 'ready' for death is far from correct. They do not need to die.

    The one person I know who has died of Covid was in his eighties. He had a couple of underlying issues, but they were managed and he was very active with friends and family. He was out and about every day, driving to various clubs and events. The people dying are not all in care homes.

    And we will all (hopefully) be old one day.
    Imagine a world where COVID had been about as harmful to the unvaccinated population as it is vs vaccinated population. We wouldn't be having this conversation. You wouldn't know what had killed your friend.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,566

    Taz said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.

    I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.

    Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal
    responsibility.
    Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
    Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
    From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.

    The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.

    I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
    It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
    Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
    People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.

    What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.

    Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
    How crassly moronic.

    "Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."

    Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
    But surely there has to be a balance. People die in traffic accidents, or of smoking related conditions or drinking related conditions or of any other number of preventable conditions. We do not ban those activities. We certainly mitigate but not to the degree being proposed by some with COVID. We simply cannot keep locking down or applying large scale restrictions. The vaccines have to be the route out of this. This is not about Philips freedom it is about a fully functioning society and we need a fully functioning economy to pay for this.
    Of course there has to be a balance.

    I am not in favour of a return to harder restrictions at the moment. It seems a fine-edged thing, though, and the last 18 months have shown us that if you're not careful, when restrictions are required, they're required suddenly.

    Hopefully enough kids are getting Covid that we'll be at herd immunity soon, and then figures will plummet. However, herd immunity's been called out many times before during this crisis, and we're not there yet. This s***** little B****er of a virus is a survivor, and may yet surprise us. Again.

    And that's where PT is being complacent. He is unwilling to see people do even the smallest measures to protect themselves and others, because for some reason it is offensive to him. He callously disregards unnecessary deaths - possibly because it's not his own death. His argument could be used if we have 100 extra deaths a day, or a thousand. Or ten thousand.
    The question you have to ask JJ is how does it get any better than this? If you are double - or triple jabbed - then you are never going to be safer than you are now. Are you proposing that the restrictions, mild as they may seem to you, should become a permanent way of life in Britain? Are we going to see the threat of lockdowns every single winter because the NHS is so unfit for purpose even before Covid?

    Basically this is the new normal everyone was talking about. It is possible there is some miracle cure around the corner but to be honest I think we already have that as effectively as we are ever going to get it. So if you think PT is being unreasonable in his rather forthright comments then you have to say what you are proposing as the permanent alternatives.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,554

    If wearing masks is so important to Labour MPs then why were none of them wearing them at the Labour Party Conference in a packed, un-socially distanced conference hall?

    Maybe they're more worried about catching the Tory variant? That's why so many of them won't kiss a Tory, you never know where they've been.
    Its a fair point, but I also do think that the government could lead a bit more here. If my students are expected to wear masks in lectures, then I think in the house ministers and members could do so too. Remove them to talk.

    But that would require a bit of leadership...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280

    tlg86 said:

    MattW said:

    Borrowing (PSNB ex) in September 2021 was £21.8 billion, down around a quarter from last year. Financial year-to-September borrowing was £108.1 billion, now £43.4 billion below OBR’s March forecast profile.

    https://twitter.com/Fraser_ONS_PSF/status/1451065880268443651?s=20

    Just reported on Today programme.

    BBC reported the second highest figure, not how much it is down.
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/dzls/pusf

    I see that August has been revised down by around £4bn.
    £43.4bn down fiscal year to date from March is absolutely remarkable.

    The ONS were miles out. As many of us said they would be at the time.

    And yet still all we hear from the Treasury is talk of tax rises. The Chancellor should take that £43.4 bn and cancel the NI hike.
    No, he needs to pocket this and hope there is more to come but he can perhaps take his foot off the brake somewhat because the glidepath back to some sort of fiscal normality does not need to be as steep or as bumpy as once feared.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,013
    BREAKING NEWS


  • Truth Social is an anagram of Cult Has Riot
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,243
    If you halve the number of unvaccinated adults that will make massively more difference than any quibbling over masks or other pettifogging rules.

    Let's focus on what is important.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,554

    If you halve the number of unvaccinated adults that will make massively more difference than any quibbling over masks or other pettifogging rules.

    Let's focus on what is important.

    Or have them gain immunity via recovery from illness.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,549

    If wearing masks is so important to Labour MPs then why were none of them wearing them at the Labour Party Conference in a packed, un-socially distanced conference hall?

    Obviously a stunt yesterday.

    Do they think there were no cameras at the Lab. Conference
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,435
    Scrupulously balanced article on this in the Neue Zuercher Zeitung, trying to make sense of the different rates in different countries. some familiar points, some new (to me anyway):

    * Britain does have one of the fastest growth rate in Europe
    * Masks don't seem to be the main issue, since it's also true in Scotland, where masks are more common (but see below)
    * Declining efficacy of the early vaccinations is a major issue, with AZ especially weakening after 5-6 months
    * Because the NHS has far fewer beds per 1000 population than other major countries, we are more vulnerable to being overwhelmed by hospitalisation
    * Britain is almost unique in allowing mass events, restaurants, night clubs and public transport in close contact without masks. Lots of people are pursuing normal life.
    * While this makes Britain the freest country in Europe in terms of few restrictions (they quote Frost claiming that), it is also a major driving factor
    * Because of the sense that the pandemic is larger over, limited willingness to take the booster has added to administrative problems in getting it out

    The point about limited beds in particular is new to me, and of course it makes the squeeze on all other conditions being treated more explicable.

    https://www.nzz.ch/international/grossbritannien-steigende-fallzahlen-wegen-fruehen-impfprogramms-ld.1651009?ga=1&kid=nl165_2021-10-20&mktcid=nled&mktcval=165_2021--10-21
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280
    tlg86 said:

    MattW said:

    Borrowing (PSNB ex) in September 2021 was £21.8 billion, down around a quarter from last year. Financial year-to-September borrowing was £108.1 billion, now £43.4 billion below OBR’s March forecast profile.

    https://twitter.com/Fraser_ONS_PSF/status/1451065880268443651?s=20

    Just reported on Today programme.

    BBC reported the second highest figure, not how much it is down.
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/dzls/pusf

    I see that August has been revised down by around £4bn.
    That is some bloody sofa they have in Number 11. I am lucky to find a few out of date coins down mine.
  • Both sides need to stop the petty point-scoring. It is a recognised issue for the Tories that their lack of mask-wearing clashes with the newly reinstated "wear a mask" guidance. Javid accepted that yesterday, so whataboutery doesn't remove from the government the burden of mixed messaging.

    Labour need to say "we followed the guidance, in hindsight that was wrong". Done. Move on. Not an issue for the LibDems as our conference was virtual...

    So lets set aside the finger pointing and recognise that it is a Good Thing that we are finally planning to attack the problem.
  • Re the 'remoaners' discussion last night..

    @Mike_Fabricant
    Replying to
    @TomGribbin6
    Not heard of ‘Remongers’ before. I like it!
    https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1446220328355704837

    I really hope he's pronouncing "monger" to rhyme with sponger.
  • Good morning

    The media are on the warpath this morning interviewing everyone they can find who condemns HMG for not commencing plan B from the BMA to iSage and this reminds me so much of the media's behaviour over the fuel shortages

    It is almost as if they were not at the press conference yesterday, and that they have blanked the charts presented there from their minds as they simply did not justify this hysteria from them

    I would be the first to demand more action if those charts indicated it was necessary but ultimately the unvaccinated are the most at risk and short of compulsory vaccinations I am afraid we have to accept that many of this cohort will get covid and some, maybe many, will pass away but that is not a justifiable reason to curtail the daily lives of the rest of us

    I would just say that both my wife and I are clinically vulnerable to covid and notwithstanding that by tomorrow we will both have received our boosters we have for a long time taken personal responsibility and do not expose ourselves to unnecessary risk
  • DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    MattW said:

    Borrowing (PSNB ex) in September 2021 was £21.8 billion, down around a quarter from last year. Financial year-to-September borrowing was £108.1 billion, now £43.4 billion below OBR’s March forecast profile.

    https://twitter.com/Fraser_ONS_PSF/status/1451065880268443651?s=20

    Just reported on Today programme.

    BBC reported the second highest figure, not how much it is down.
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/dzls/pusf

    I see that August has been revised down by around £4bn.
    That is some bloody sofa they have in Number 11. I am lucky to find a few out of date coins down mine.
    I refurbished a former bank - removed the tellers counter, the security screens, cupboards, drawers the lot. Found a grand total of £2.13 in discarded money :(
  • @twlldun
    ·
    3m
    Alright, but I’m not going to be the one dusting for prints

    UberFacts
    @UberFacts
    · 16h
    Your anus is just as unique as your fingerprints

    https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/1451096826950692868
  • Good morning

    The media are on the warpath this morning interviewing everyone they can find who condemns HMG for not commencing plan B from the BMA to iSage and this reminds me so much of the media's behaviour over the fuel shortages

    It is almost as if they were not at the press conference yesterday, and that they have blanked the charts presented there from their minds as they simply did not justify this hysteria from them

    I would be the first to demand more action if those charts indicated it was necessary but ultimately the unvaccinated are the most at risk and short of compulsory vaccinations I am afraid we have to accept that many of this cohort will get covid and some, maybe many, will pass away but that is not a justifiable reason to curtail the daily lives of the rest of us

    I would just say that both my wife and I are clinically vulnerable to covid and notwithstanding that by tomorrow we will both have received our boosters we have for a long time taken personal responsibility and do not expose ourselves to unnecessary risk

    We don't need to "curtail daily lives". Wear a mask in crowded spaces. Social distancing. Sanitise. Keep the pubs and cinemas open, but ask people to Think.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,859

    Good morning

    The media are on the warpath this morning interviewing everyone they can find who condemns HMG for not commencing plan B from the BMA to iSage and this reminds me so much of the media's behaviour over the fuel shortages

    It is almost as if they were not at the press conference yesterday, and that they have blanked the charts presented there from their minds as they simply did not justify this hysteria from them

    I would be the first to demand more action if those charts indicated it was necessary but ultimately the unvaccinated are the most at risk and short of compulsory vaccinations I am afraid we have to accept that many of this cohort will get covid and some, maybe many, will pass away but that is not a justifiable reason to curtail the daily lives of the rest of us

    I would just say that both my wife and I are clinically vulnerable to covid and notwithstanding that by tomorrow we will both have received our boosters we have for a long time taken personal responsibility and do not expose ourselves to unnecessary risk

    We don't need to "curtail daily lives". Wear a mask in crowded spaces. Social distancing. Sanitise. Keep the pubs and cinemas open, but ask people to Think.
    Social distancing.

    Keep the pubs and cinemas open.

    You're a moron.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,243
    edited October 21

    If you halve the number of unvaccinated adults that will make massively more difference than any quibbling over masks or other pettifogging rules.

    Let's focus on what is important.

    Or have them gain immunity via recovery from illness.
    That will reach a similar endpoint, but via a higher level of demand on the NHS, blocking the treatment of other conditions.

    We need to be explicit that there's no way we can use masks and social isolation to prevent unvaccinated people from catching the virus. Talking incessantly about masks and other restrictions creates the impression that it is an alternative to vaccination.

    It's not. Get vaccinated so Covid doesn't send you to hospital.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,566

    @twlldun
    ·
    3m
    Alright, but I’m not going to be the one dusting for prints


    UberFacts
    @UberFacts
    · 16h
    Your anus is just as unique as your fingerprints

    https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/1451096826950692868
    Your elbow on the other hand... :)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.

    I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.

    Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal
    responsibility.
    Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
    Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
    From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.

    The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.

    I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
    It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
    Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
    People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.

    What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.

    Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
    How crassly moronic.

    "Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."

    Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
    It's not moronic, it's about priorities.

    Post vaccines? As many as it takes.
    There we have it: as many deaths as it takes, just so you can have your 'freedom'.

    I'm all right, Jack...
    Not just so that I can have my freedom. So that everyone can have their freedom.

    67 million people actually making the most of living their lives post-vaccines is infinitely better than 0.0002% of that number dying per day from or with (or post) Covid.

    Let me flip the question around, if being post-vaccines isn't enough for you to drop all these "precautions" then what will be? When will be?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,979

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.

    I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.

    Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal
    responsibility.
    Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
    Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
    From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.

    The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.

    I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
    It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
    Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
    People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.

    What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.

    Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
    How crassly moronic.

    "Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."

    Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
    I think that question is a bit unfair, a touch of emotional shaming going on, but will give my answer as its an anonymous forum. I probably wouldn't share this view in public but think if there were an extra five thousand a week dying we should have more legal restrictions. At an extra two thousand a week no legal restrictions. So somewhere between those numbers for me.

    How about you?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,739

    If wearing masks is so important to Labour MPs then why were none of them wearing them at the Labour Party Conference in a packed, un-socially distanced conference hall?

    Maybe they're more worried about catching the Tory variant? That's why so many of them won't kiss a Tory, you never know where they've been.
    Or maybe they are just hypocrites but we should not rule out the likelihood that enhanced ventilation rendered masks unnecessary at conference, especially if vaccination and/or negative tests were a condition of entry. It would be surprising if similar restrictions were placed on MPs. That said, surely ventilation systems could be fixed to pump fresh air into the Commons chamber.
  • MaxPB said:

    Good morning

    The media are on the warpath this morning interviewing everyone they can find who condemns HMG for not commencing plan B from the BMA to iSage and this reminds me so much of the media's behaviour over the fuel shortages

    It is almost as if they were not at the press conference yesterday, and that they have blanked the charts presented there from their minds as they simply did not justify this hysteria from them

    I would be the first to demand more action if those charts indicated it was necessary but ultimately the unvaccinated are the most at risk and short of compulsory vaccinations I am afraid we have to accept that many of this cohort will get covid and some, maybe many, will pass away but that is not a justifiable reason to curtail the daily lives of the rest of us

    I would just say that both my wife and I are clinically vulnerable to covid and notwithstanding that by tomorrow we will both have received our boosters we have for a long time taken personal responsibility and do not expose ourselves to unnecessary risk

    We don't need to "curtail daily lives". Wear a mask in crowded spaces. Social distancing. Sanitise. Keep the pubs and cinemas open, but ask people to Think.
    Social distancing.

    Keep the pubs and cinemas open.

    You're a moron.
    Bollocks. There will be some environments where social distancing isn't possible. But when it is we should practice it. Every avoided possible transmission point is worthwhile. We can't get all but we can get some. Some is better than none.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,991
    If anybody who didn't see it is interested, the slides from last night's press conference are here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/slides-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conference-20-october-2021

    The slides illustrate why the government, unlike most PBers, is getting rather anxious.

    Slide 6 is interesting. It shows without a doubt that vaccines are highly effective - brilliant, even. But it also shows without a doubt that being double-vaxxed does not guarantee that you won't be hospitalised by Covid, regardless of age. That's why Javid was careful to say that the link between infection and hospitalisation/death was weakened, not broken.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,739
    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    MattW said:

    Borrowing (PSNB ex) in September 2021 was £21.8 billion, down around a quarter from last year. Financial year-to-September borrowing was £108.1 billion, now £43.4 billion below OBR’s March forecast profile.

    https://twitter.com/Fraser_ONS_PSF/status/1451065880268443651?s=20

    Just reported on Today programme.

    BBC reported the second highest figure, not how much it is down.
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/dzls/pusf

    I see that August has been revised down by around £4bn.
    That is some bloody sofa they have in Number 11. I am lucky to find a few out of date coins down mine.
    Always the way. Even the 1976 IMF loan turned out to be unnecessary once the revised figures were in (and iirc was never drawn).
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,979

    If wearing masks is so important to Labour MPs then why were none of them wearing them at the Labour Party Conference in a packed, un-socially distanced conference hall?

    Maybe they're more worried about catching the Tory variant? That's why so many of them won't kiss a Tory, you never know where they've been.
    Or maybe they are just hypocrites but we should not rule out the likelihood that enhanced ventilation rendered masks unnecessary at conference, especially if vaccination and/or negative tests were a condition of entry. It would be surprising if similar restrictions were placed on MPs. That said, surely ventilation systems could be fixed to pump fresh air into the Commons chamber.
    It would immediately be replaced by a load of hot air.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,991
    edited October 21

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.

    I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.

    Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal
    responsibility.
    Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
    Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
    From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.

    The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.

    I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
    It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
    Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
    People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.

    What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.

    Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
    How crassly moronic.

    "Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."

    Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
    I think that question is a bit unfair, a touch of emotional shaming going on, but will give my answer as its an anonymous forum. I probably wouldn't share this view in public but think if there were an extra five thousand a week dying we should have more legal restrictions. At an extra two thousand a week no legal restrictions. So somewhere between those numbers for me.

    How about you?
    Do you think you might feel differently if one of the extra two thousand a week was a close friend or relative of yours?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,733
    malcolmg said:

    Only 25% of the value of a car will need to be created in the UK and/or NZ to qualify for tariff-free trade. (Usually ~55%.) Pretty much guarantees UK-produced cars will qualify.

    https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/status/1451075432154025985?s=20

    Wow , I am sure we sell lots of cars to New Zealand, here come those sunny uplands.
    A contra deal? Unicorn steak for New Zealand lamb?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    edited October 21

    @twlldun
    ·
    3m
    Alright, but I’m not going to be the one dusting for prints


    UberFacts
    @UberFacts
    · 16h
    Your anus is just as unique as your fingerprints

    https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/1451096826950692868
    https://youtu.be/1xmAC9Qu908?t=25
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,859

    MaxPB said:

    Good morning

    The media are on the warpath this morning interviewing everyone they can find who condemns HMG for not commencing plan B from the BMA to iSage and this reminds me so much of the media's behaviour over the fuel shortages

    It is almost as if they were not at the press conference yesterday, and that they have blanked the charts presented there from their minds as they simply did not justify this hysteria from them

    I would be the first to demand more action if those charts indicated it was necessary but ultimately the unvaccinated are the most at risk and short of compulsory vaccinations I am afraid we have to accept that many of this cohort will get covid and some, maybe many, will pass away but that is not a justifiable reason to curtail the daily lives of the rest of us

    I would just say that both my wife and I are clinically vulnerable to covid and notwithstanding that by tomorrow we will both have received our boosters we have for a long time taken personal responsibility and do not expose ourselves to unnecessary risk

    We don't need to "curtail daily lives". Wear a mask in crowded spaces. Social distancing. Sanitise. Keep the pubs and cinemas open, but ask people to Think.
    Social distancing.

    Keep the pubs and cinemas open.

    You're a moron.
    Bollocks. There will be some environments where social distancing isn't possible. But when it is we should practice it. Every avoided possible transmission point is worthwhile. We can't get all but we can get some. Some is better than none.
    The whole point of social distancing is to reduce capacity at indoor socialising venues. If we aren't going to do that then we're not social distancing. 2m distancing reduces capacity by 60%, 1m distancing by 30%. Most places are unprofitable in both scenarios hence the mega government subsidies to keep the lights on.

    You're just repeating soundbites because they make you feel superior and virtuous. Social distancing is a crippling economic and social device that has destroyed the economy for a year and a half. Bringing it back is a terrible idea.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,194
    edited October 21
    Politically, the following is interesting

    image

    The 10-14 group is where a lot of cases are happening. When they started vax'ing the the kids (16-17) the 15-19 group rapidly moved to join the behaviour of the other, vaccinated groups.

    So there is a potential, in the near future, of a very substantial fall in cases.

    This won't have much immediate effect on hospitalisations and deaths because of the age cohort - the question, to my mind, is whether the high infection rate in the 10-14 group is "finding" the unprotected/vulnerable in the older age groups.

    image

    When the 16-17 group hit 50%+, cases in the 15-19 group merged (rapidly) into the pattern for the other vaccinated groups.
  • If anybody who didn't see it is interested, the slides from last night's press conference are here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/slides-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conference-20-october-2021

    The slides illustrate why the government, unlike most PBers, is getting rather anxious.

    Slide 6 is interesting. It shows without a doubt that vaccines are highly effective - brilliant, even. But it also shows without a doubt that being double-vaxxed does not guarantee that you won't be hospitalised by Covid, regardless of age. That's why Javid was careful to say that the link between infection and hospitalisation/death was weakened, not broken.

    And the greater the amount of time that passes between your 2nd jab and now, the less effective the vaccine is. Too many people have decided - having been told so - that double-jabbed makes them invulnerable. Having to now reverse that and reimpose restrictions like masks or even stop and think is going to be so hard.

    Even booster jabs is not a message that people are getting. "I'm already vaccinated why do I need it?" We need the same frantic effort to booster the elderly and vulnerable groups and quickly, and it just isn't happening.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719

    If anybody who didn't see it is interested, the slides from last night's press conference are here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/slides-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conference-20-october-2021

    The slides illustrate why the government, unlike most PBers, is getting rather anxious.

    Slide 6 is interesting. It shows without a doubt that vaccines are highly effective - brilliant, even. But it also shows without a doubt that being double-vaxxed does not guarantee that you won't be hospitalised by Covid, regardless of age. That's why Javid was careful to say that the link between infection and hospitalisation/death was weakened, not broken.

    Dare I say that the vaccines aren't quite as good as we've been led to believe?

    I have heard it asked "if we need boosters, doesn't that suggest the vaccines aren't any good?"

    My view is that the vaccines had one shot at this and I'm of the view that getting as many people infected now is better than waiting for Christmas - there's no stopping it this year - and having an explosion of cases in January.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,979

    Scrupulously balanced article on this in the Neue Zuercher Zeitung, trying to make sense of the different rates in different countries. some familiar points, some new (to me anyway):

    * Britain does have one of the fastest growth rate in Europe
    * Masks don't seem to be the main issue, since it's also true in Scotland, where masks are more common (but see below)
    * Declining efficacy of the early vaccinations is a major issue, with AZ especially weakening after 5-6 months
    * Because the NHS has far fewer beds per 1000 population than other major countries, we are more vulnerable to being overwhelmed by hospitalisation
    * Britain is almost unique in allowing mass events, restaurants, night clubs and public transport in close contact without masks. Lots of people are pursuing normal life.
    * While this makes Britain the freest country in Europe in terms of few restrictions (they quote Frost claiming that), it is also a major driving factor
    * Because of the sense that the pandemic is larger over, limited willingness to take the booster has added to administrative problems in getting it out

    The point about limited beds in particular is new to me, and of course it makes the squeeze on all other conditions being treated more explicable.

    https://www.nzz.ch/international/grossbritannien-steigende-fallzahlen-wegen-fruehen-impfprogramms-ld.1651009?ga=1&kid=nl165_2021-10-20&mktcid=nled&mktcval=165_2021--10-21

    Some huge international discrepancies on hospital bed numbers:

    https://fullfact.org/health/do-we-have-fewer-hospital-beds-most-europe/
  • @twlldun
    ·
    3m
    Alright, but I’m not going to be the one dusting for prints


    UberFacts
    @UberFacts
    · 16h
    Your anus is just as unique as your fingerprints

    https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/1451096826950692868
    https://youtu.be/1xmAC9Qu908?t=25
    I hope she didn't finger Prince!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,629
    Farooq said:

    "We can't stop all roads deaths, so let's do away with seat belts and all drive at 140mph"
    "Don't you think we should at least slow down outside schools?"
    "MARXIST!"

    Sajid: "My ambulance is about to crash, but I'm not going to apply Plan B for "brakes"!"
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,210

    Taz said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.

    I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.

    Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal
    responsibility.
    Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
    Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
    From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.

    The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.

    I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
    It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
    Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
    People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.

    What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.

    Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
    How crassly moronic.

    "Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."

    Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
    But surely there has to be a balance. People die in traffic accidents, or of smoking related conditions or drinking related conditions or of any other number of preventable conditions. We do not ban those activities. We certainly mitigate but not to the degree being proposed by some with COVID. We simply cannot keep locking down or applying large scale restrictions. The vaccines have to be the route out of this. This is not about Philips freedom it is about a fully functioning society and we need a fully functioning economy to pay for this.
    Of course there has to be a balance.

    I am not in favour of a return to harder restrictions at the moment. It seems a fine-edged thing, though, and the last 18 months have shown us that if you're not careful, when restrictions are required, they're required suddenly.

    Hopefully enough kids are getting Covid that we'll be at herd immunity soon, and then figures will plummet. However, herd immunity's been called out many times before during this crisis, and we're not there yet. This s***** little B****er of a virus is a survivor, and may yet surprise us. Again.

    And that's where PT is being complacent. He is unwilling to see people do even the smallest measures to protect themselves and others, because for some reason it is offensive to him. He callously disregards unnecessary deaths - possibly because it's not his own death. His argument could be used if we have 100 extra deaths a day, or a thousand. Or ten thousand.
    The question you have to ask JJ is how does it get any better than this? If you are double - or triple jabbed - then you are never going to be safer than you are now. Are you proposing that the restrictions, mild as they may seem to you, should become a permanent way of life in Britain? Are we going to see the threat of lockdowns every single winter because the NHS is so unfit for purpose even before Covid?

    Basically this is the new normal everyone was talking about. It is possible there is some miracle cure around the corner but to be honest I think we already have that as effectively as we are ever going to get it. So if you think PT is being unreasonable in his rather forthright comments then you have to say what you are proposing as the permanent alternatives.
    How does it get any better than this? We don't know for sure. Improved Gen 2 vaccines, natural evolution leading to a weakening of the virus; herd immunity; better therapeutics. Perhaps all of the above; perhaps none. What we need is time. If they don't appear, reevaluate. But we're still in the early days.

    One thing we do know: it could get a heck of a lot worse than this.

    We've twice dithered about putting on restrictions (IMO understandably in March 20; less so in December), leading to us having to go for very heavy restrictions where smaller interventions earlier might have helped. We might be at that stage now.

    My parents are still alive, as are my in-laws. Fortunately, all four are very active (my parents have had their boosters in the last week - yay!). If at all possible, I'd like my son to have another few years with them. If that means having to wear masks and sitting in a ventilated room: fair enough.

    PT's comments are wrong-headed and nasty.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,645
    Reminder again for those reaching for the smelling salts at suggestions 100 deaths a day might not be a reason to restrict things that;

    a) Yes, we really do have c. 1500 deaths a day in total on average; and
    b) COVID is going endemic, not disappearing. 35k deaths a year is quite possibly not a terrible estimate of where we'll end up as the long term run rate, so the aforementioned people are going to need to calm down, or be honest about wanting permanent restrictions. Personally I'd rather not blight 99% of people's lives out of excessive fear of a 1% reduction in life expectancy.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,979
    edited October 21

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.

    I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.

    Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal
    responsibility.
    Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
    Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
    From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.

    The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.

    I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
    It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
    Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
    People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.

    What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.

    Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
    How crassly moronic.

    "Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."

    Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
    I think that question is a bit unfair, a touch of emotional shaming going on, but will give my answer as its an anonymous forum. I probably wouldn't share this view in public but think if there were an extra five thousand a week dying we should have more legal restrictions. At an extra two thousand a week no legal restrictions. So somewhere between those numbers for me.

    How about you?
    Do you think you might feel differently if one of the extra two thousand was a close friend or relative of yours?
    I am sure part of me would. But I would not recommend setting policies mostly on the strong emotions felt by people grieving. Rationality has to be dominant imo.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,447

    Re the 'remoaners' discussion last night..

    @Mike_Fabricant
    Replying to
    @TomGribbin6
    Not heard of ‘Remongers’ before. I like it!
    https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1446220328355704837

    I really hope he's pronouncing "monger" to rhyme with sponger.

    I thought @NickPalmer 's idea of Revoker for those who want to reverse the decision a good idea as it is clear without being insulting.

    I note @Leon thinks it is ok to use Remoaner because that is his definition of a Remainer who wants to reverse the decision. Someone needs to let him know that he isn't the one who compiles the Oxford English Dictionary (well at he has never said he does, who knows) and therefore it is not up to him to provide the definition. As far as most people are concerned someone who uses the term Remoaner is a sneering leaver. A pleasant leaver uses the term Remainer and adds the additional description if referring to Remainer who hasn't accepted the result.

    I give/gave the following examples as to how using such a word colours the impression of the reader negatively by considering how the following sentences start:

    The Nasty party has ...
    The LieDums have ...
    Remoaners have ...

    Whereas the following doesn't imply anything to the reader at this point:

    The Tories have...
    The Lib Dems have ...
    Remainers have ...
    Remainers who wish to rejoin have ...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    edited October 21

    @twlldun
    ·
    3m
    Alright, but I’m not going to be the one dusting for prints


    UberFacts
    @UberFacts
    · 16h
    Your anus is just as unique as your fingerprints

    https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/1451096826950692868
    https://youtu.be/1xmAC9Qu908?t=25
    I hope she didn't finger Prince!
    Its remarkable that joke got through uncensored. I believe they put that joke in expecting to be told to cut it, but Fox missed it and it got through. 😂

    Prince's smile when he says it makes it even creepier and funnier as an adult. 😂
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,447

    @twlldun
    ·
    3m
    Alright, but I’m not going to be the one dusting for prints


    UberFacts
    @UberFacts
    · 16h
    Your anus is just as unique as your fingerprints

    https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/1451096826950692868
    You do wonder how he knows this and then I stop wondering because the thoughts are too unpleasant.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Good morning

    The media are on the warpath this morning interviewing everyone they can find who condemns HMG for not commencing plan B from the BMA to iSage and this reminds me so much of the media's behaviour over the fuel shortages

    It is almost as if they were not at the press conference yesterday, and that they have blanked the charts presented there from their minds as they simply did not justify this hysteria from them

    I would be the first to demand more action if those charts indicated it was necessary but ultimately the unvaccinated are the most at risk and short of compulsory vaccinations I am afraid we have to accept that many of this cohort will get covid and some, maybe many, will pass away but that is not a justifiable reason to curtail the daily lives of the rest of us

    I would just say that both my wife and I are clinically vulnerable to covid and notwithstanding that by tomorrow we will both have received our boosters we have for a long time taken personal responsibility and do not expose ourselves to unnecessary risk

    We don't need to "curtail daily lives". Wear a mask in crowded spaces. Social distancing. Sanitise. Keep the pubs and cinemas open, but ask people to Think.
    Social distancing.

    Keep the pubs and cinemas open.

    You're a moron.
    Bollocks. There will be some environments where social distancing isn't possible. But when it is we should practice it. Every avoided possible transmission point is worthwhile. We can't get all but we can get some. Some is better than none.
    The whole point of social distancing is to reduce capacity at indoor socialising venues. If we aren't going to do that then we're not social distancing. 2m distancing reduces capacity by 60%, 1m distancing by 30%. Most places are unprofitable in both scenarios hence the mega government subsidies to keep the lights on.

    You're just repeating soundbites because they make you feel superior and virtuous. Social distancing is a crippling economic and social device that has destroyed the economy for a year and a half. Bringing it back is a terrible idea.
    Again, bollocks.

    That enough of a "superior and virtuous" soundbite for you?

    You know what cripples and destroys the economy? A pandemic. Not the responses to tackle and shorten the pandemic.

    We really need to drop this "you're a moron" shit. I'm trying. Why don't you do the same?
  • Farooq said:

    "We can't stop all roads deaths, so let's do away with seat belts and all drive at 140mph"
    "Don't you think we should at least slow down outside schools?"
    "MARXIST!"

    Sajid: "My ambulance is about to crash, but I'm not going to apply Plan B for "brakes"!"
    Did we get to the bottom of what "Plan C" might be...?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,945
    edited October 21

    BREAKING NEWS


    Where's the twist? On first reading it doesn't look like fantastic news for the UK or Johnson's government.

    Has someone hacked Carlotta's username?

    Just looked at the date. All is clear now. Carlotta hasn't lost her place as PB's Joe Goebells
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406

    malcolmg said:

    Only 25% of the value of a car will need to be created in the UK and/or NZ to qualify for tariff-free trade. (Usually ~55%.) Pretty much guarantees UK-produced cars will qualify.

    https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/status/1451075432154025985?s=20

    Wow , I am sure we sell lots of cars to New Zealand, here come those sunny uplands.
    A contra deal? Unicorn steak for New Zealand lamb?
    The UK got its 100th Unicorn earlier this year: https://technation.io/news/the-uk-hits-milestone-of-100-uk-tech-companies-valued-at-1bn-or-more/
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,194
    tlg86 said:

    If anybody who didn't see it is interested, the slides from last night's press conference are here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/slides-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conference-20-october-2021

    The slides illustrate why the government, unlike most PBers, is getting rather anxious.

    Slide 6 is interesting. It shows without a doubt that vaccines are highly effective - brilliant, even. But it also shows without a doubt that being double-vaxxed does not guarantee that you won't be hospitalised by Covid, regardless of age. That's why Javid was careful to say that the link between infection and hospitalisation/death was weakened, not broken.

    Dare I say that the vaccines aren't quite as good as we've been led to believe?

    I have heard it asked "if we need boosters, doesn't that suggest the vaccines aren't any good?"

    My view is that the vaccines had one shot at this and I'm of the view that getting as many people infected now is better than waiting for Christmas - there's no stopping it this year - and having an explosion of cases in January.
    You are aware that other vaccines have er... booster shots?

    image

    is pretty stark, and shows the effect on cases.

    CFR for older groups has collapsed due to the vaccine. Before the vaccines, COVID was killing old people who caught it at rates of 30%+
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    Roger said:



    BREAKING NEWS


    Where's the twist? On first reading it doesn't look like fantastic news for the UK or Johnson's government.

    Has someone hacked Carlotta's username?
    LOL.

    😂😂😂😂

    🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,477
    The only way we're going to reach a lowish level of endemic steady state is through as much vaccination and infection as possible.
    Whilst Covid is "globally hot" the best strategy would probably be to jab everyone over the age of 12 for the next few years every 6 months, and no restrictions. Get the broad spectrum immunity from previous infection, and the sky high nAbs from boosters working in tandem.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,264
    maaarsh said:

    Reminder again for those reaching for the smelling salts at suggestions 100 deaths a day might not be a reason to restrict things that;

    a) Yes, we really do have c. 1500 deaths a day in total on average; and
    b) COVID is going endemic, not disappearing. 35k deaths a year is quite possibly not a terrible estimate of where we'll end up as the long term run rate, so the aforementioned people are going to need to calm down, or be honest about wanting permanent restrictions. Personally I'd rather not blight 99% of people's lives out of excessive fear of a 1% reduction in life expectancy.

    Wearing a mask to the supermarket doesn't blight my life, and it might save someone else's.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,435



    Not just so that I can have my freedom. So that everyone can have their freedom.

    67 million people actually making the most of living their lives post-vaccines is infinitely better than 0.0002% of that number dying per day from or with (or post) Covid.

    Let me flip the question around, if being post-vaccines isn't enough for you to drop all these "precautions" then what will be? When will be?

    In principle, I think we might agree that everyone taking a minor precaution (say washing their hands once more per day) forever would be worth doing if it saved a single life, and that most people living sealed in their houses under siege forever wasn't worth it even if it saved a lot of lives. The difficulty is in deciding what's a trivial measure and what's an unacceptable intrusion.

    I think that Rochdale is right that taking measures that are only mildly inconvenient while being compatible with normal activities is the right balance. We can discuss what those are - for me, it would mean avoiding crowds or masking when you can't avoid them, working from home where this can be done without major difficulty, things like that. Taking a hardline approach and ruling out even those measures risks a really hard lockdown in mid-winter to avoid hospitals becoming unable to take even critically ill cancer patients, and none of us want that, surely?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,480
    The battle against Covid may well go on forever. We just need to ensure as many as possible get double vaccinated and boosters every 6 months. That may also require vaccination passports, especially for large events as is the case in many western countries and is already the case for foreign travel.

    Beyond that mask wearing is less impactful than vaccination but should be encouraged in crowded areas if cases are rising significnatly.
  • kjh said:

    Re the 'remoaners' discussion last night..

    @Mike_Fabricant
    Replying to
    @TomGribbin6
    Not heard of ‘Remongers’ before. I like it!
    https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1446220328355704837

    I really hope he's pronouncing "monger" to rhyme with sponger.

    I thought @NickPalmer 's idea of Revoker for those who want to reverse the decision a good idea as it is clear without being insulting.

    I note @Leon thinks it is ok to use Remoaner because that is his definition of a Remainer who wants to reverse the decision. Someone needs to let him know that he isn't the one who compiles the Oxford English Dictionary (well at he has never said he does, who knows) and therefore it is not up to him to provide the definition. As far as most people are concerned someone who uses the term Remoaner is a sneering leaver. A pleasant leaver uses the term Remainer and adds the additional description if referring to Remainer who hasn't accepted the result.

    I give/gave the following examples as to how using such a word colours the impression of the reader negatively by considering how the following sentences start:

    The Nasty party has ...
    The LieDums have ...
    Remoaners have ...

    Whereas the following doesn't imply anything to the reader at this point:

    The Tories have...
    The Lib Dems have ...
    Remainers have ...
    Remainers who wish to rejoin have ...
    Totally get your point. I've used remoaner and remainiac in the past (not sure if on here..) both as a sort of banter and as a lazy shorthand.

    I try to use neither now, nor even 'remainer' as I've tired of reading "there's no such thing any more" posts in reply. Instead I'm making the tiny amount more effort required to be both politer and more precise.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719

    tlg86 said:

    If anybody who didn't see it is interested, the slides from last night's press conference are here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/slides-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conference-20-october-2021

    The slides illustrate why the government, unlike most PBers, is getting rather anxious.

    Slide 6 is interesting. It shows without a doubt that vaccines are highly effective - brilliant, even. But it also shows without a doubt that being double-vaxxed does not guarantee that you won't be hospitalised by Covid, regardless of age. That's why Javid was careful to say that the link between infection and hospitalisation/death was weakened, not broken.

    Dare I say that the vaccines aren't quite as good as we've been led to believe?

    I have heard it asked "if we need boosters, doesn't that suggest the vaccines aren't any good?"

    My view is that the vaccines had one shot at this and I'm of the view that getting as many people infected now is better than waiting for Christmas - there's no stopping it this year - and having an explosion of cases in January.
    You are aware that other vaccines have er... booster shots?

    image

    is pretty stark, and shows the effect on cases.

    CFR for older groups has collapsed due to the vaccine. Before the vaccines, COVID was killing old people who caught it at rates of 30%+
    I don't disagree with you. But those arguing for restrictions to be imposed are kind of arguing against the efficacy of the vaccines. The point I'm making is that it aligns them with the anti-vaxxers.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,460
    kjh said:

    Re the 'remoaners' discussion last night..

    @Mike_Fabricant
    Replying to
    @TomGribbin6
    Not heard of ‘Remongers’ before. I like it!
    https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1446220328355704837

    I really hope he's pronouncing "monger" to rhyme with sponger.

    I thought @NickPalmer 's idea of Revoker for those who want to reverse the decision a good idea as it is clear without being insulting.

    I note @Leon thinks it is ok to use Remoaner because that is his definition of a Remainer who wants to reverse the decision. Someone needs to let him know that he isn't the one who compiles the Oxford English Dictionary (well at he has never said he does, who knows) and therefore it is not up to him to provide the definition. As far as most people are concerned someone who uses the term Remoaner is a sneering leaver. A pleasant leaver uses the term Remainer and adds the additional description if referring to Remainer who hasn't accepted the result.

    I give/gave the following examples as to how using such a word colours the impression of the reader negatively by considering how the following sentences start:

    The Nasty party has ...
    The LieDums have ...
    Remoaners have ...

    Whereas the following doesn't imply anything to the reader at this point:

    The Tories have...
    The Lib Dems have ...
    Remainers have ...
    Remainers who wish to rejoin have ...
    As a Remoaner, I have embraced the term. I quite like it, it's a useful reminder that Leavers do have a sense of humour after all. Similarly Liberal Metropolitan Elite (I mean, if that's an insult then I'll take it). It's all water off a duck's back to be honest. Sticks and stones and all that.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    edited October 21

    If anybody who didn't see it is interested, the slides from last night's press conference are here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/slides-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conference-20-october-2021

    The slides illustrate why the government, unlike most PBers, is getting rather anxious.

    Slide 6 is interesting. It shows without a doubt that vaccines are highly effective - brilliant, even. But it also shows without a doubt that being double-vaxxed does not guarantee that you won't be hospitalised by Covid, regardless of age. That's why Javid was careful to say that the link between infection and hospitalisation/death was weakened, not broken.

    So for most of us the vaccines reduce the chance of hospitalisation by about five times; for the very elderly, about half.

    This will be a mix of "less likely to catch it" and "less likely to be seriously ill if you have it", and it would be interesting to see what they know about the balance between these two factors.

    Plus, I suppose, there are probably both demographic and lifestyle differences between the two groups.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,740
    Sandpit said:

    felix said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.

    I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.

    Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal
    responsibility.
    Agreed with all except the ID cards. Brits absolutely don’t want a DNI (Spanish ID card system), where everyone is on a big database and you can be asked for it all the time in normal life. The NHS database is bad enough.

    Yes, those of us who have lived abroad have seen a variety of systems, but the distinctly British lack of being a number on a database is always appealing.
    Yes I have found it strange having to give my passport number when buying a train ticket or a ticket for an attraction, I had to show my passport on a couple of occasions and sometimes they scan that, not the QR code on the ticket. The Spanish state seems to know where everyone is.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,133

    If anybody who didn't see it is interested, the slides from last night's press conference are here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/slides-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conference-20-october-2021

    The slides illustrate why the government, unlike most PBers, is getting rather anxious.

    Slide 6 is interesting. It shows without a doubt that vaccines are highly effective - brilliant, even. But it also shows without a doubt that being double-vaxxed does not guarantee that you won't be hospitalised by Covid, regardless of age. That's why Javid was careful to say that the link between infection and hospitalisation/death was weakened, not broken.

    Thanks for sharing.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,210

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.

    I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.

    Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal
    responsibility.
    Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
    Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
    From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.

    The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.

    I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
    It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
    Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
    People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.

    What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.

    Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
    How crassly moronic.

    "Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."

    Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
    It's not moronic, it's about priorities.

    Post vaccines? As many as it takes.
    There we have it: as many deaths as it takes, just so you can have your 'freedom'.

    I'm all right, Jack...
    Not just so that I can have my freedom. So that everyone can have their freedom.

    67 million people actually making the most of living their lives post-vaccines is infinitely better than 0.0002% of that number dying per day from or with (or post) Covid.

    Let me flip the question around, if being post-vaccines isn't enough for you to drop all these "precautions" then what will be? When will be?
    You mean: everyone can have their freedom as long as they've not died from the disease.

    Again, I'm not calling for lockdowns at the moment. But I can see that they might well be needed, and people taking a little more care out of consideration for others might be a good idea.

    To answer your question. I think a good answer is: "a stable situation". One where figures are stable, or fairly seasonally predictable, as per the flu. We're not there atm. In fact we're nowhere near. Hopefully we'll see a herd immunity effect and the numbers will crash. But they could trend upwards as well. We've got no idea of how this virus will evolve, or how well the vaccines will work in the medium- or long-term. If we get ourselves into a flu-like situation, that's probably okay.

    But we've no idea about that atm. We have to be prepared to wear masks, and suffer more lockdowns (which I agree are awful) if needs be. IMO we're not there yet, but it's squeaky-bum time.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,979





    Not just so that I can have my freedom. So that everyone can have their freedom.

    67 million people actually making the most of living their lives post-vaccines is infinitely better than 0.0002% of that number dying per day from or with (or post) Covid.

    Let me flip the question around, if being post-vaccines isn't enough for you to drop all these "precautions" then what will be? When will be?

    In principle, I think we might agree that everyone taking a minor precaution (say washing their hands once more per day) forever would be worth doing if it saved a single life, and that most people living sealed in their houses under siege forever wasn't worth it even if it saved a lot of lives. The difficulty is in deciding what's a trivial measure and what's an unacceptable intrusion.

    I think that Rochdale is right that taking measures that are only mildly inconvenient while being compatible with normal activities is the right balance. We can discuss what those are - for me, it would mean avoiding crowds or masking when you can't avoid them, working from home where this can be done without major difficulty, things like that. Taking a hardline approach and ruling out even those measures risks a really hard lockdown in mid-winter to avoid hospitals becoming unable to take even critically ill cancer patients, and none of us want that, surely?
    On cancer patients, the more restrictions we have, the more we talk about covid, the fewer people who will be willing to go for cancer screening, and more will miss their window where treatment works. It is certainly not all one way.

    From the excess death stats it seems a lot more excess deaths are from non covid than covid at the moment. It would be helpful to understand what those deaths are (Foxy suggested too early to tell, but from age profile didnt think it was mostly unscreened or untreated cancer).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,194
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    If anybody who didn't see it is interested, the slides from last night's press conference are here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/slides-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conference-20-october-2021

    The slides illustrate why the government, unlike most PBers, is getting rather anxious.

    Slide 6 is interesting. It shows without a doubt that vaccines are highly effective - brilliant, even. But it also shows without a doubt that being double-vaxxed does not guarantee that you won't be hospitalised by Covid, regardless of age. That's why Javid was careful to say that the link between infection and hospitalisation/death was weakened, not broken.

    Dare I say that the vaccines aren't quite as good as we've been led to believe?

    I have heard it asked "if we need boosters, doesn't that suggest the vaccines aren't any good?"

    My view is that the vaccines had one shot at this and I'm of the view that getting as many people infected now is better than waiting for Christmas - there's no stopping it this year - and having an explosion of cases in January.
    You are aware that other vaccines have er... booster shots?

    image

    is pretty stark, and shows the effect on cases.

    CFR for older groups has collapsed due to the vaccine. Before the vaccines, COVID was killing old people who caught it at rates of 30%+
    I don't disagree with you. But those arguing for restrictions to be imposed are kind of arguing against the efficacy of the vaccines. The point I'm making is that it aligns them with the anti-vaxxers.
    Nothing is 100% effective. The flu jab saving 10ks of lives per year - and it less than 50% effective, IIRC.

    Most problems in the real world are fixed by a number of different measures, which combine to create fix with a high degree of confidence.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873
    Replace 'cases' with 'acquire immunity' in those headlines and see how the narrative changes.

    What vaccines allow is for that immunity to be acquired with much less pain.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    edited October 21

    Taz said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.

    I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.

    Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal
    responsibility.
    Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
    Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
    From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.

    The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.

    I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
    It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
    Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
    People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.

    What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.

    Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
    How crassly moronic.

    "Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."

    Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
    But surely there has to be a balance. People die in traffic accidents, or of smoking related conditions or drinking related conditions or of any other number of preventable conditions. We do not ban those activities. We certainly mitigate but not to the degree being proposed by some with COVID. We simply cannot keep locking down or applying large scale restrictions. The vaccines have to be the route out of this. This is not about Philips freedom it is about a fully functioning society and we need a fully functioning economy to pay for this.
    Of course there has to be a balance.

    I am not in favour of a return to harder restrictions at the moment. It seems a fine-edged thing, though, and the last 18 months have shown us that if you're not careful, when restrictions are required, they're required suddenly.

    Hopefully enough kids are getting Covid that we'll be at herd immunity soon, and then figures will plummet. However, herd immunity's been called out many times before during this crisis, and we're not there yet. This s***** little B****er of a virus is a survivor, and may yet surprise us. Again.

    And that's where PT is being complacent. He is unwilling to see people do even the smallest measures to protect themselves and others, because for some reason it is offensive to him. He callously disregards unnecessary deaths - possibly because it's not his own death. His argument could be used if we have 100 extra deaths a day, or a thousand. Or ten thousand.
    The question you have to ask JJ is how does it get any better than this? If you are double - or triple jabbed - then you are never going to be safer than you are now. Are you proposing that the restrictions, mild as they may seem to you, should become a permanent way of life in Britain? Are we going to see the threat of lockdowns every single winter because the NHS is so unfit for purpose even before Covid?

    Basically this is the new normal everyone was talking about. It is possible there is some miracle cure around the corner but to be honest I think we already have that as effectively as we are ever going to get it. So if you think PT is being unreasonable in his rather forthright comments then you have to say what you are proposing as the permanent alternatives.
    How does it get any better than this? We don't know for sure. Improved Gen 2 vaccines, natural evolution leading to a weakening of the virus; herd immunity; better therapeutics. Perhaps all of the above; perhaps none. What we need is time. If they don't appear, reevaluate. But we're still in the early days.

    One thing we do know: it could get a heck of a lot worse than this.

    We've twice dithered about putting on restrictions (IMO understandably in March 20; less so in December), leading to us having to go for very heavy restrictions where smaller interventions earlier might have helped. We might be at that stage now.

    My parents are still alive, as are my in-laws. Fortunately, all four are very active (my parents have had their boosters in the last week - yay!). If at all possible, I'd like my son to have another few years with them. If that means having to wear masks and sitting in a ventilated room: fair enough.

    PT's comments are wrong-headed and nasty.
    Its not wrong-headed and nasty, its just realistic and different priorities than you.

    The vaccines have made Covid for the vaccinated like a bad cold. Post-vaccinations the people who are dying are those who are extremely vulnerable who could die from a generic cold anyway - or the unvaccinated. There's no realistic chance of Gen 2 vaccines being considerably better than what we have now, nor having them any time soon and they certainly won't help the unvaccinated.

    Masks do bugger all to affect numbers as even when required they're not worn when they matter most which is why there's no meaningful difference between England, Scotland and Wales. If you're going to be so high and mighty then are you sitting with a mask on when you see your parents? If you're not then is that "wrong-headed and nasty"? Otherwise perhaps don't cast stones at others?

    The difference in the numbers is meaningful restrictions like shutting down mass gatherings and post-vaccinations that is not a minor or trivial restriction nor is it something that is worth having. 67 million people being able to go to mass gatherings, or live their lives, or hug or kiss their loved ones without a mask is worth more than whatever piddly difference to Covid figures you would make.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    If anybody who didn't see it is interested, the slides from last night's press conference are here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/slides-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conference-20-october-2021

    The slides illustrate why the government, unlike most PBers, is getting rather anxious.

    Slide 6 is interesting. It shows without a doubt that vaccines are highly effective - brilliant, even. But it also shows without a doubt that being double-vaxxed does not guarantee that you won't be hospitalised by Covid, regardless of age. That's why Javid was careful to say that the link between infection and hospitalisation/death was weakened, not broken.

    Dare I say that the vaccines aren't quite as good as we've been led to believe?

    I have heard it asked "if we need boosters, doesn't that suggest the vaccines aren't any good?"

    My view is that the vaccines had one shot at this and I'm of the view that getting as many people infected now is better than waiting for Christmas - there's no stopping it this year - and having an explosion of cases in January.
    You are aware that other vaccines have er... booster shots?

    image

    is pretty stark, and shows the effect on cases.

    CFR for older groups has collapsed due to the vaccine. Before the vaccines, COVID was killing old people who caught it at rates of 30%+
    I don't disagree with you. But those arguing for restrictions to be imposed are kind of arguing against the efficacy of the vaccines. The point I'm making is that it aligns them with the anti-vaxxers.
    Nothing is 100% effective. The flu jab saving 10ks of lives per year - and it less than 50% effective, IIRC.

    Most problems in the real world are fixed by a number of different measures, which combine to create fix with a high degree of confidence.
    What I'm getting at is that I think we should be very careful about what we say and do. We want people to get vaccinated and get the boosters. Talking about lockdown might make people think "what's the point?" That might be illogical, but it's how people think in situations like this.
  • Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Reminder again for those reaching for the smelling salts at suggestions 100 deaths a day might not be a reason to restrict things that;

    a) Yes, we really do have c. 1500 deaths a day in total on average; and
    b) COVID is going endemic, not disappearing. 35k deaths a year is quite possibly not a terrible estimate of where we'll end up as the long term run rate, so the aforementioned people are going to need to calm down, or be honest about wanting permanent restrictions. Personally I'd rather not blight 99% of people's lives out of excessive fear of a 1% reduction in life expectancy.

    Wearing a mask to the supermarket doesn't blight my life, and it might save someone else's.
    But what about your FREEDOM?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,013

    If anybody who didn't see it is interested, the slides from last night's press conference are here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/slides-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conference-20-october-2021

    The slides illustrate why the government, unlike most PBers, is getting rather anxious.

    Slide 6 is interesting. It shows without a doubt that vaccines are highly effective - brilliant, even. But it also shows without a doubt that being double-vaxxed does not guarantee that you won't be hospitalised by Covid, regardless of age. That's why Javid was careful to say that the link between infection and hospitalisation/death was weakened, not broken.

    Too many people have decided - having been told so - that double-jabbed makes them invulnerable.
    Citation required.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Mr. Richard, aye, my mother's self-isolation ends today. And now she's got better protection than three jabs (though she still plans to have the booster).
  • kjh said:

    Re the 'remoaners' discussion last night..

    @Mike_Fabricant
    Replying to
    @TomGribbin6
    Not heard of ‘Remongers’ before. I like it!
    https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1446220328355704837

    I really hope he's pronouncing "monger" to rhyme with sponger.

    I thought @NickPalmer 's idea of Revoker for those who want to reverse the decision a good idea as it is clear without being insulting.

    I note @Leon thinks it is ok to use Remoaner because that is his definition of a Remainer who wants to reverse the decision. Someone needs to let him know that he isn't the one who compiles the Oxford English Dictionary (well at he has never said he does, who knows) and therefore it is not up to him to provide the definition. As far as most people are concerned someone who uses the term Remoaner is a sneering leaver. A pleasant leaver uses the term Remainer and adds the additional description if referring to Remainer who hasn't accepted the result.

    I give/gave the following examples as to how using such a word colours the impression of the reader negatively by considering how the following sentences start:

    The Nasty party has ...
    The LieDums have ...
    Remoaners have ...

    Whereas the following doesn't imply anything to the reader at this point:

    The Tories have...
    The Lib Dems have ...
    Remainers have ...
    Remainers who wish to rejoin have ...
    As a Remoaner, I have embraced the term. I quite like it, it's a useful reminder that Leavers do have a sense of humour after all. Similarly Liberal Metropolitan Elite (I mean, if that's an insult then I'll take it). It's all water off a duck's back to be honest. Sticks and stones and all that.
    I think many Tories have long enjoyed being baby-eaters.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526

    kjh said:

    Re the 'remoaners' discussion last night..

    @Mike_Fabricant
    Replying to
    @TomGribbin6
    Not heard of ‘Remongers’ before. I like it!
    https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1446220328355704837

    I really hope he's pronouncing "monger" to rhyme with sponger.

    I thought @NickPalmer 's idea of Revoker for those who want to reverse the decision a good idea as it is clear without being insulting.

    I note @Leon thinks it is ok to use Remoaner because that is his definition of a Remainer who wants to reverse the decision. Someone needs to let him know that he isn't the one who compiles the Oxford English Dictionary (well at he has never said he does, who knows) and therefore it is not up to him to provide the definition. As far as most people are concerned someone who uses the term Remoaner is a sneering leaver. A pleasant leaver uses the term Remainer and adds the additional description if referring to Remainer who hasn't accepted the result.

    I give/gave the following examples as to how using such a word colours the impression of the reader negatively by considering how the following sentences start:

    The Nasty party has ...
    The LieDums have ...
    Remoaners have ...

    Whereas the following doesn't imply anything to the reader at this point:

    The Tories have...
    The Lib Dems have ...
    Remainers have ...
    Remainers who wish to rejoin have ...
    As a Remoaner, I have embraced the term. I quite like it, it's a useful reminder that Leavers do have a sense of humour after all. Similarly Liberal Metropolitan Elite (I mean, if that's an insult then I'll take it). It's all water off a duck's back to be honest. Sticks and stones and all that.
    What's wrong with Remainians?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406

    kjh said:

    Re the 'remoaners' discussion last night..

    @Mike_Fabricant
    Replying to
    @TomGribbin6
    Not heard of ‘Remongers’ before. I like it!
    https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1446220328355704837

    I really hope he's pronouncing "monger" to rhyme with sponger.

    I thought @NickPalmer 's idea of Revoker for those who want to reverse the decision a good idea as it is clear without being insulting.

    I note @Leon thinks it is ok to use Remoaner because that is his definition of a Remainer who wants to reverse the decision. Someone needs to let him know that he isn't the one who compiles the Oxford English Dictionary (well at he has never said he does, who knows) and therefore it is not up to him to provide the definition. As far as most people are concerned someone who uses the term Remoaner is a sneering leaver. A pleasant leaver uses the term Remainer and adds the additional description if referring to Remainer who hasn't accepted the result.

    I give/gave the following examples as to how using such a word colours the impression of the reader negatively by considering how the following sentences start:

    The Nasty party has ...
    The LieDums have ...
    Remoaners have ...

    Whereas the following doesn't imply anything to the reader at this point:

    The Tories have...
    The Lib Dems have ...
    Remainers have ...
    Remainers who wish to rejoin have ...
    As a Remoaner, I have embraced the term. I quite like it, it's a useful reminder that Leavers do have a sense of humour after all. Similarly Liberal Metropolitan Elite (I mean, if that's an insult then I'll take it). It's all water off a duck's back to be honest. Sticks and stones and all that.
    I'm the same. People on your side of the Brexit divide kept using the term "Libertarian Pirate Island" as an insult on this site a few years ago, so I embraced the term and chose Jack Sparrow as my avatar - which I changed when Depp lost his court case but kept the pirate motif.

    If you embrace an insult, people stop using it.

    Or from one of my wife's favourite movies:
    AUBREY: You call yourself Fat Amy?
    FAT AMY: Yeah, so twig bitches like you don’t do it behind my back.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,460

    kjh said:

    Re the 'remoaners' discussion last night..

    @Mike_Fabricant
    Replying to
    @TomGribbin6
    Not heard of ‘Remongers’ before. I like it!
    https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1446220328355704837

    I really hope he's pronouncing "monger" to rhyme with sponger.

    I thought @NickPalmer 's idea of Revoker for those who want to reverse the decision a good idea as it is clear without being insulting.

    I note @Leon thinks it is ok to use Remoaner because that is his definition of a Remainer who wants to reverse the decision. Someone needs to let him know that he isn't the one who compiles the Oxford English Dictionary (well at he has never said he does, who knows) and therefore it is not up to him to provide the definition. As far as most people are concerned someone who uses the term Remoaner is a sneering leaver. A pleasant leaver uses the term Remainer and adds the additional description if referring to Remainer who hasn't accepted the result.

    I give/gave the following examples as to how using such a word colours the impression of the reader negatively by considering how the following sentences start:

    The Nasty party has ...
    The LieDums have ...
    Remoaners have ...

    Whereas the following doesn't imply anything to the reader at this point:

    The Tories have...
    The Lib Dems have ...
    Remainers have ...
    Remainers who wish to rejoin have ...
    As a Remoaner, I have embraced the term. I quite like it, it's a useful reminder that Leavers do have a sense of humour after all. Similarly Liberal Metropolitan Elite (I mean, if that's an insult then I'll take it). It's all water off a duck's back to be honest. Sticks and stones and all that.
    I think many Tories have long enjoyed being baby-eaters.
    Who wouldn't? They're delicious!
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,460

    kjh said:

    Re the 'remoaners' discussion last night..

    @Mike_Fabricant
    Replying to
    @TomGribbin6
    Not heard of ‘Remongers’ before. I like it!
    https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1446220328355704837

    I really hope he's pronouncing "monger" to rhyme with sponger.

    I thought @NickPalmer 's idea of Revoker for those who want to reverse the decision a good idea as it is clear without being insulting.

    I note @Leon thinks it is ok to use Remoaner because that is his definition of a Remainer who wants to reverse the decision. Someone needs to let him know that he isn't the one who compiles the Oxford English Dictionary (well at he has never said he does, who knows) and therefore it is not up to him to provide the definition. As far as most people are concerned someone who uses the term Remoaner is a sneering leaver. A pleasant leaver uses the term Remainer and adds the additional description if referring to Remainer who hasn't accepted the result.

    I give/gave the following examples as to how using such a word colours the impression of the reader negatively by considering how the following sentences start:

    The Nasty party has ...
    The LieDums have ...
    Remoaners have ...

    Whereas the following doesn't imply anything to the reader at this point:

    The Tories have...
    The Lib Dems have ...
    Remainers have ...
    Remainers who wish to rejoin have ...
    As a Remoaner, I have embraced the term. I quite like it, it's a useful reminder that Leavers do have a sense of humour after all. Similarly Liberal Metropolitan Elite (I mean, if that's an insult then I'll take it). It's all water off a duck's back to be honest. Sticks and stones and all that.
    What's wrong with Remainians?
    Too neutral. I want to luxuriate in your disdain.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 2,782
    It's clear the government tactic is to ride out until at least after half term and hope that lower rates in children and then lower onwards transmission from children to adults turns the tide.

    As I've said numerous times, I'd be more cautious than that and adopt elements of plan B (which is by no means a lockdown), just to ensure COVID is going through the population at a rate that doesn't undermine the startings of NHS recovery to an unacceptable degree, which it is verging on now. We need vaccinated people to get COVID, which is the most comprehensive booster available for someone with good vaccine antibodies, but we need to control it.

    That said, it is not a forlorn or unreasonable hope that the double bonus of half term and ongoing booster and secondary vaccinations does change the direction.of this wave.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,210

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.

    I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.

    Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal
    responsibility.
    Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
    Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
    From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.

    The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.

    I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
    It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
    Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
    People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.

    What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.

    Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
    How crassly moronic.

    "Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."

    Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
    I think that question is a bit unfair, a touch of emotional shaming going on, but will give my answer as its an anonymous forum. I probably wouldn't share this view in public but think if there were an extra five thousand a week dying we should have more legal restrictions. At an extra two thousand a week no legal restrictions. So somewhere between those numbers for me.

    How about you?
    Certainly not 'as many as it takes', which PT said.

    The problem with deaths is that it is a lagging factor. Before vaccines, cases went up, then hospitalisations, and then deaths. Now that the link between cases and hospitalisations has been weakened, the first sign we have of trouble is rising hospitalisations.

    And I'll therefore swerve your question by saying it's the wrong one, if we're talking about restrictions. The first sign we'll get of big problems is from hospitalisations, and that's what we'd need to react to. So perhaps the 1,200-1,500 daily admissions that we had back in early November would be when we'd have to slam the handbrake on - particularly if they are increasing rapidly.
  • If anybody who didn't see it is interested, the slides from last night's press conference are here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/slides-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conference-20-october-2021

    The slides illustrate why the government, unlike most PBers, is getting rather anxious.

    Slide 6 is interesting. It shows without a doubt that vaccines are highly effective - brilliant, even. But it also shows without a doubt that being double-vaxxed does not guarantee that you won't be hospitalised by Covid, regardless of age. That's why Javid was careful to say that the link between infection and hospitalisation/death was weakened, not broken.

    Too many people have decided - having been told so - that double-jabbed makes them invulnerable.
    Citation required.
    Give over. Go read social media. The clear inference from the media, the government and from everyone from cinemas to airlines is that double-jabbed means that for you the plague is over. You don't need a minister to say "the jab makes you invulnerable" for that to be the clear inference.

    My trip to Yerp was interesting last week. Double-vaxxedd meant being able to bypass most of the entry restrictions but not the doing normal life restrictions. Double-vaxxed meant I am a low enough risk to be allowed in but I'm still a risk and at risk so wear a mask, sanitise and social distance when you can.

    When you come back into England its the opposite. No need for any restrictions or precautions of any description. Mask wearing becomes a fetish activity even in places where they are supposed to be required like on the tube.

    Humans are pack animals. We follow the norm, and at least in England (and as Big_G reports increasingly in his parts of Wales) the normal precautions that everywhere else is doing have all been discarded. Reinstating them, because that "you're safe now" mindset is no longer valid, is going to be hard.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,210

    Good morning all. I reiterate earlier comments regarding the chilly start and the beauty of the moon just before it set.

    I'm on my way to London for the first time since March last year. I had to double back to the house to pick up a face covering to wear on the Tube - soft southerners and their nanny-state Covid rules...

    I am firmly in the camp that it is the vaccine that protects us now. If anyone wants to wear an FFP3 to add a layer of protection to themselves then fair enough, but I don't see a need for that, nor to avoid the train or the pub or the shops. I do see a need to avoid the office most days, but that is for other reasons! I am operating back in life as normal mode. If I catch a virus and end up in bed for a few days it won't be the first time. If I get more ill than that, I'll be bloody unlucky. I'll also be bloody unlucky if the train I'm on crashes. We have to live with a tolerable level of risk. Pre-vaccine, the risk was too much for me, now it isn't.

    " If I catch a virus and end up in bed for a few days it won't be the first time. If I get more ill than that, I'll be bloody unlucky."

    I hope you don't get ill. But you still infect whilst ill, especially if you are asymptomatic and do not realise you are ill. That's as good a reason as any to wear a mask in certain circumstances.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.

    I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.

    Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal
    responsibility.
    Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
    Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
    From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.

    The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.

    I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
    It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
    Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
    People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.

    What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.

    Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
    How crassly moronic.

    "Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."

    Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
    I think that question is a bit unfair, a touch of emotional shaming going on, but will give my answer as its an anonymous forum. I probably wouldn't share this view in public but think if there were an extra five thousand a week dying we should have more legal restrictions. At an extra two thousand a week no legal restrictions. So somewhere between those numbers for me.

    How about you?
    Certainly not 'as many as it takes', which PT said.

    The problem with deaths is that it is a lagging factor. Before vaccines, cases went up, then hospitalisations, and then deaths. Now that the link between cases and hospitalisations has been weakened, the first sign we have of trouble is rising hospitalisations.

    And I'll therefore swerve your question by saying it's the wrong one, if we're talking about restrictions. The first sign we'll get of big problems is from hospitalisations, and that's what we'd need to react to. So perhaps the 1,200-1,500 daily admissions that we had back in early November would be when we'd have to slam the handbrake on - particularly if they are increasing rapidly.
    I said as many as it takes post-vaccines. There is a great deal of hypocrisy and misguided attempts at emotional shaming going on.

    Do you demand that an 89 year old great grandparent wears an FFP3 mask while hugging their children, grandchildren or great grandchildren? Or while in the same room for hours at a time?

    If not, then cut the bullshit about masks in shops.

    That's like driving seventy miles per hour next to a school without a seat belt then castigating other drivers for not wearing sunglasses.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460
    edited October 21
    Pulpstar said:

    The only way we're going to reach a lowish level of endemic steady state is through as much vaccination and infection as possible.
    Whilst Covid is "globally hot" the best strategy would probably be to jab everyone over the age of 12 for the next few years every 6 months, and no restrictions. Get the broad spectrum immunity from previous infection, and the sky high nAbs from boosters working in tandem.

    I agree - if you're talking globally. But we don't want individual western countries vaccinating at that supercharged rate whilst much of the rest of the world is short on the basic 1st 2 shots. That would be wrong on every level.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    edited October 21
    Interesting survey reported in the Guardian, which might explain why Tory support is staying stubbornly at or around 40%

    "British leavers and remainers as polarised as ever, survey finds
    Nine out of 10 people would vote the same way again, but leavers feel better about UK politics since Brexit"

    It's one of Sir John Curtice's. Apparently if only the same people voted again, then the votes would be more or less the same, but if some of the DNV's turned out, then they'd mainly be Remainers (or, I suppose) Rejoiners.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,740
    IanB2 said:

    If anybody who didn't see it is interested, the slides from last night's press conference are here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/slides-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conference-20-october-2021

    The slides illustrate why the government, unlike most PBers, is getting rather anxious.

    Slide 6 is interesting. It shows without a doubt that vaccines are highly effective - brilliant, even. But it also shows without a doubt that being double-vaxxed does not guarantee that you won't be hospitalised by Covid, regardless of age. That's why Javid was careful to say that the link between infection and hospitalisation/death was weakened, not broken.

    So for most of us the vaccines reduce the chance of hospitalisation by about five times; for the very elderly, about half.

    This will be a mix of "less likely to catch it" and "less likely to be seriously ill if you have it", and it would be interesting to see what they know about the balance between these two factors.

    Plus, I suppose, there are probably both demographic and lifestyle differences between the two groups.
    Yes there are - one of my older friends was complaining about the apparent growing tendency of pubs to close early in the week and at lunchtime. My "elderly" friends can be out enjoying themselves 7 days a week, I have to restrict it to evenings and weekends.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,243
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    If anybody who didn't see it is interested, the slides from last night's press conference are here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/slides-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conference-20-october-2021

    The slides illustrate why the government, unlike most PBers, is getting rather anxious.

    Slide 6 is interesting. It shows without a doubt that vaccines are highly effective - brilliant, even. But it also shows without a doubt that being double-vaxxed does not guarantee that you won't be hospitalised by Covid, regardless of age. That's why Javid was careful to say that the link between infection and hospitalisation/death was weakened, not broken.

    Dare I say that the vaccines aren't quite as good as we've been led to believe?

    I have heard it asked "if we need boosters, doesn't that suggest the vaccines aren't any good?"

    My view is that the vaccines had one shot at this and I'm of the view that getting as many people infected now is better than waiting for Christmas - there's no stopping it this year - and having an explosion of cases in January.
    You are aware that other vaccines have er... booster shots?

    image

    is pretty stark, and shows the effect on cases.

    CFR for older groups has collapsed due to the vaccine. Before the vaccines, COVID was killing old people who caught it at rates of 30%+
    I don't disagree with you. But those arguing for restrictions to be imposed are kind of arguing against the efficacy of the vaccines. The point I'm making is that it aligns them with the anti-vaxxers.
    I think that's right. I can forgive people for wondering what the point of vaccines are if they still need to wear masks, etc. It complicates the messaging and minimises the effectiveness of vaccines while exaggerating the effectiveness of masks and other interventions.

    Masks were disappointingly ineffective last autumn, even before Alpha took over. The attention they're receiving in debates about what we should do is wholly disproportionate to any benefit they might have. How many thousand extra vaccinations would have the same benefit? Not many would be my guess.
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,475

    If anybody who didn't see it is interested, the slides from last night's press conference are here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/slides-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conference-20-october-2021

    The slides illustrate why the government, unlike most PBers, is getting rather anxious.

    Slide 6 is interesting. It shows without a doubt that vaccines are highly effective - brilliant, even. But it also shows without a doubt that being double-vaxxed does not guarantee that you won't be hospitalised by Covid, regardless of age. That's why Javid was careful to say that the link between infection and hospitalisation/death was weakened, not broken.

    Too many people have decided - having been told so - that double-jabbed makes them invulnerable.
    Citation required.
    Give over. Go read social media. The clear inference from the media, the government and from everyone from cinemas to airlines is that double-jabbed means that for you the plague is over. You don't need a minister to say "the jab makes you invulnerable" for that to be the clear inference.

    My trip to Yerp was interesting last week. Double-vaxxedd meant being able to bypass most of the entry restrictions but not the doing normal life restrictions. Double-vaxxed meant I am a low enough risk to be allowed in but I'm still a risk and at risk so wear a mask, sanitise and social distance when you can.

    When you come back into England its the opposite. No need for any restrictions or precautions of any description. Mask wearing becomes a fetish activity even in places where they are supposed to be required like on the tube.

    Humans are pack animals. We follow the norm, and at least in England (and as Big_G reports increasingly in his parts of Wales) the normal precautions that everywhere else is doing have all been discarded. Reinstating them, because that "you're safe now" mindset is no longer valid, is going to be hard.
    So you have moved from "having been told " to it being a "clear inference".

    I disagree. I do not think that is a clear inference. I think the govt messaging is not good but they are clear it is not over and you still need to take precautions
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406

    If anybody who didn't see it is interested, the slides from last night's press conference are here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/slides-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conference-20-october-2021

    The slides illustrate why the government, unlike most PBers, is getting rather anxious.

    Slide 6 is interesting. It shows without a doubt that vaccines are highly effective - brilliant, even. But it also shows without a doubt that being double-vaxxed does not guarantee that you won't be hospitalised by Covid, regardless of age. That's why Javid was careful to say that the link between infection and hospitalisation/death was weakened, not broken.

    Too many people have decided - having been told so - that double-jabbed makes them invulnerable.
    Citation required.
    Give over. Go read social media. The clear inference from the media, the government and from everyone from cinemas to airlines is that double-jabbed means that for you the plague is over. You don't need a minister to say "the jab makes you invulnerable" for that to be the clear inference.

    My trip to Yerp was interesting last week. Double-vaxxedd meant being able to bypass most of the entry restrictions but not the doing normal life restrictions. Double-vaxxed meant I am a low enough risk to be allowed in but I'm still a risk and at risk so wear a mask, sanitise and social distance when you can.

    When you come back into England its the opposite. No need for any restrictions or precautions of any description. Mask wearing becomes a fetish activity even in places where they are supposed to be required like on the tube.

    Humans are pack animals. We follow the norm, and at least in England (and as Big_G reports increasingly in his parts of Wales) the normal precautions that everywhere else is doing have all been discarded. Reinstating them, because that "you're safe now" mindset is no longer valid, is going to be hard.
    Give over, there's no such thing as invulnerable. Everybody dies.

    The jab gives you as good as a chance as you can realistically have.

    Thank goodness we don't have the social distancing bullshit you had to endure in Europe. Good riddance to that rubbish.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,447

    kjh said:

    Re the 'remoaners' discussion last night..

    @Mike_Fabricant
    Replying to
    @TomGribbin6
    Not heard of ‘Remongers’ before. I like it!
    https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1446220328355704837

    I really hope he's pronouncing "monger" to rhyme with sponger.

    I thought @NickPalmer 's idea of Revoker for those who want to reverse the decision a good idea as it is clear without being insulting.

    I note @Leon thinks it is ok to use Remoaner because that is his definition of a Remainer who wants to reverse the decision. Someone needs to let him know that he isn't the one who compiles the Oxford English Dictionary (well at he has never said he does, who knows) and therefore it is not up to him to provide the definition. As far as most people are concerned someone who uses the term Remoaner is a sneering leaver. A pleasant leaver uses the term Remainer and adds the additional description if referring to Remainer who hasn't accepted the result.

    I give/gave the following examples as to how using such a word colours the impression of the reader negatively by considering how the following sentences start:

    The Nasty party has ...
    The LieDums have ...
    Remoaners have ...

    Whereas the following doesn't imply anything to the reader at this point:

    The Tories have...
    The Lib Dems have ...
    Remainers have ...
    Remainers who wish to rejoin have ...
    Totally get your point. I've used remoaner and remainiac in the past (not sure if on here..) both as a sort of banter and as a lazy shorthand.

    I try to use neither now, nor even 'remainer' as I've tired of reading "there's no such thing any more" posts in reply. Instead I'm making the tiny amount more effort required to be both politer and more precise.
    For some reason I quite like Remainiac. For some reason it doesn't sound insulting to me, but I don't know why.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,979

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.

    I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.

    Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal
    responsibility.
    Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
    Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
    From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.

    The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.

    I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
    It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
    Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
    People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.

    What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.

    Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
    How crassly moronic.

    "Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."

    Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
    I think that question is a bit unfair, a touch of emotional shaming going on, but will give my answer as its an anonymous forum. I probably wouldn't share this view in public but think if there were an extra five thousand a week dying we should have more legal restrictions. At an extra two thousand a week no legal restrictions. So somewhere between those numbers for me.

    How about you?
    Certainly not 'as many as it takes', which PT said.

    The problem with deaths is that it is a lagging factor. Before vaccines, cases went up, then hospitalisations, and then deaths. Now that the link between cases and hospitalisations has been weakened, the first sign we have of trouble is rising hospitalisations.

    And I'll therefore swerve your question by saying it's the wrong one, if we're talking about restrictions. The first sign we'll get of big problems is from hospitalisations, and that's what we'd need to react to. So perhaps the 1,200-1,500 daily admissions that we had back in early November would be when we'd have to slam the handbrake on - particularly if they are increasing rapidly.
    You asked the question of someone else so a bit of a cop out to now say it is the wrong question. I don't think using wrong questions for emotional shaming will help us get to the right answer.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280
    Charles said:

    The BBC covers a multi-billion euro tax fraud.

    The so-called "cum-ex" affair involved US pension funds, German banks, London-based investment bankers, international lawyers and many others.

    It focused on huge share trades which were carried out with the sole purpose of generating multiple refunds of a tax that had only been paid once.

    ...

    "Germany was obviously a key target. But the mind and the driving force was clearly in London. It was a London-orchestrated fraud, managed by US funds."
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58984814

    All Gordon Brown's fault, I'll be bound.

    I’ve only read the article you linked to but it looks like a fairly straightforward case of tax fraud. Shoehorning “London” into it as “orchestrating” is a bit of a stretch - as alleged these were corrupt employees of German banks
    Not sure about that. These frauds (lets not beat about the bush here) involved very high volumes of trades and loans (for the cum-cum scam) which are highly likely to have been facilitated in London given its position as the premier trading platform for shares in Europe.

    We were apparently not a direct victim because we don't have a withholding tax but we have been an indirect victim in 2 ways.
    Firstly, the claiming of a German tax liability was used to offset the liability to UK tax reducing the tax paid in the UK. The UK changed its rules to stop this in 2016 but it is not clear if this has succeeded.
    Secondly, and probably even more seriously, shares in foreign companies would be "lent" by UK institutions to German residents so that they could claim the tax relief and then returned thereafter. It is not entirely clear that this practice is illegal although to me claiming reliefs on shares which you don't actually own reeks of fraud and facilitating such fraudulent claims amounts to concert on the part of the UK institutions who presumably didn't do this for the good of their health.

    What this more generally suggests to me is that regulators and tax authorities operating within a single market were simply not coordinated enough to prevent weaknesses in their systems being exploited in this way. The ECB has simply not been up to the task either.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,566

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Good morning

    The media are on the warpath this morning interviewing everyone they can find who condemns HMG for not commencing plan B from the BMA to iSage and this reminds me so much of the media's behaviour over the fuel shortages

    It is almost as if they were not at the press conference yesterday, and that they have blanked the charts presented there from their minds as they simply did not justify this hysteria from them

    I would be the first to demand more action if those charts indicated it was necessary but ultimately the unvaccinated are the most at risk and short of compulsory vaccinations I am afraid we have to accept that many of this cohort will get covid and some, maybe many, will pass away but that is not a justifiable reason to curtail the daily lives of the rest of us

    I would just say that both my wife and I are clinically vulnerable to covid and notwithstanding that by tomorrow we will both have received our boosters we have for a long time taken personal responsibility and do not expose ourselves to unnecessary risk

    We don't need to "curtail daily lives". Wear a mask in crowded spaces. Social distancing. Sanitise. Keep the pubs and cinemas open, but ask people to Think.
    Social distancing.

    Keep the pubs and cinemas open.

    You're a moron.
    Bollocks. There will be some environments where social distancing isn't possible. But when it is we should practice it. Every avoided possible transmission point is worthwhile. We can't get all but we can get some. Some is better than none.
    The whole point of social distancing is to reduce capacity at indoor socialising venues. If we aren't going to do that then we're not social distancing. 2m distancing reduces capacity by 60%, 1m distancing by 30%. Most places are unprofitable in both scenarios hence the mega government subsidies to keep the lights on.

    You're just repeating soundbites because they make you feel superior and virtuous. Social distancing is a crippling economic and social device that has destroyed the economy for a year and a half. Bringing it back is a terrible idea.
    Again, bollocks.

    That enough of a "superior and virtuous" soundbite for you?

    You know what cripples and destroys the economy? A pandemic. Not the responses to tackle and shorten the pandemic.

    We really need to drop this "you're a moron" shit. I'm trying. Why don't you do the same?
    The trouble is that, putting it in rather more reasonable terms than Max, he is right that social distancing in many situations - including pubs, nightclubs and other entertainment venues - simply isn't viable in the long term. Nor is mask wearing. All you will be doing is killing those events and venues a little more slowly than if you had shut them completely.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,447

    kjh said:

    Re the 'remoaners' discussion last night..

    @Mike_Fabricant
    Replying to
    @TomGribbin6
    Not heard of ‘Remongers’ before. I like it!
    https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1446220328355704837

    I really hope he's pronouncing "monger" to rhyme with sponger.

    I thought @NickPalmer 's idea of Revoker for those who want to reverse the decision a good idea as it is clear without being insulting.

    I note @Leon thinks it is ok to use Remoaner because that is his definition of a Remainer who wants to reverse the decision. Someone needs to let him know that he isn't the one who compiles the Oxford English Dictionary (well at he has never said he does, who knows) and therefore it is not up to him to provide the definition. As far as most people are concerned someone who uses the term Remoaner is a sneering leaver. A pleasant leaver uses the term Remainer and adds the additional description if referring to Remainer who hasn't accepted the result.

    I give/gave the following examples as to how using such a word colours the impression of the reader negatively by considering how the following sentences start:

    The Nasty party has ...
    The LieDums have ...
    Remoaners have ...

    Whereas the following doesn't imply anything to the reader at this point:

    The Tories have...
    The Lib Dems have ...
    Remainers have ...
    Remainers who wish to rejoin have ...
    As a Remoaner, I have embraced the term. I quite like it, it's a useful reminder that Leavers do have a sense of humour after all. Similarly Liberal Metropolitan Elite (I mean, if that's an insult then I'll take it). It's all water off a duck's back to be honest. Sticks and stones and all that.
    What's wrong with Remainians?
    Not that I want the job of deciding what is insulting or not, but that sounds absolutely fine to me.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Re the 'remoaners' discussion last night..

    @Mike_Fabricant
    Replying to
    @TomGribbin6
    Not heard of ‘Remongers’ before. I like it!
    https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1446220328355704837

    I really hope he's pronouncing "monger" to rhyme with sponger.

    I thought @NickPalmer 's idea of Revoker for those who want to reverse the decision a good idea as it is clear without being insulting.

    I note @Leon thinks it is ok to use Remoaner because that is his definition of a Remainer who wants to reverse the decision. Someone needs to let him know that he isn't the one who compiles the Oxford English Dictionary (well at he has never said he does, who knows) and therefore it is not up to him to provide the definition. As far as most people are concerned someone who uses the term Remoaner is a sneering leaver. A pleasant leaver uses the term Remainer and adds the additional description if referring to Remainer who hasn't accepted the result.

    I give/gave the following examples as to how using such a word colours the impression of the reader negatively by considering how the following sentences start:

    The Nasty party has ...
    The LieDums have ...
    Remoaners have ...

    Whereas the following doesn't imply anything to the reader at this point:

    The Tories have...
    The Lib Dems have ...
    Remainers have ...
    Remainers who wish to rejoin have ...
    Totally get your point. I've used remoaner and remainiac in the past (not sure if on here..) both as a sort of banter and as a lazy shorthand.

    I try to use neither now, nor even 'remainer' as I've tired of reading "there's no such thing any more" posts in reply. Instead I'm making the tiny amount more effort required to be both politer and more precise.
    For some reason I quite like Remainiac. For some reason it doesn't sound insulting to me, but I don't know why.
    Same here. Remainiac always makes me think of Animaniacs, and that's just fun not insulting!

    I have you down as being about the same age? Sorry if I'm wrong.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,264
    "I'm comfortable with a permanent 10% rise in death rates so I don't have to wear a mask for 40 minutes in the shop, but I am uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,477
    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The only way we're going to reach a lowish level of endemic steady state is through as much vaccination and infection as possible.
    Whilst Covid is "globally hot" the best strategy would probably be to jab everyone over the age of 12 for the next few years every 6 months, and no restrictions. Get the broad spectrum immunity from previous infection, and the sky high nAbs from boosters working in tandem.

    I agree - if you're talking globally. But we don't want individual western countries vaccinating at that supercharged rate whilst much of the rest of the world is short on the basic 1st 2 shots. That would be wrong on every level.
    It's not potential supply that's stopping much of Africa being vaccinated.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    Farooq said:

    "I'm comfortable with a permanent 10% rise in death rates so I don't have to wear a mask for 40 minutes in the shop, but I am uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"

    If you think that wearing masks in shops would have any meaningful impact in death rates, let alone a 10% reduction in them, then you're even thicker than I thought you were. They haven't in any of the nations they've been trialled and failed in.

    The thing that works isn't cloth masks, its social distancing. Its banning large gatherings. And that shuts down real life and destroys businesses.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,460

    Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Reminder again for those reaching for the smelling salts at suggestions 100 deaths a day might not be a reason to restrict things that;

    a) Yes, we really do have c. 1500 deaths a day in total on average; and
    b) COVID is going endemic, not disappearing. 35k deaths a year is quite possibly not a terrible estimate of where we'll end up as the long term run rate, so the aforementioned people are going to need to calm down, or be honest about wanting permanent restrictions. Personally I'd rather not blight 99% of people's lives out of excessive fear of a 1% reduction in life expectancy.

    Wearing a mask to the supermarket doesn't blight my life, and it might save someone else's.
    But what about your FREEDOM?
    I do worry that we are moving in the direction of fetishising small and unimportant freedoms at the expense of the big picture. I hope we don't end up like the US - land of the free, where people argue about their right to carry a machine gun in a school playground while millions languish in a for profit prison system and you can be arrested for crossing the road without a walk signal.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719
    Farooq said:

    "I'm comfortable with a permanent 10% rise in death rates so I don't have to wear a mask for 40 minutes in the shop, but I am uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"

    Alternatively, wearing a mask in a shop or on a train/bus is utterly pointless when you don't wear a mask when you go to see your parents/in-laws for Sunday lunch.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,210

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The "sheer scale of the latest numbers" is down almost entirely to the mixed messaging, heel dragging and completely shit schools/kids rollout.

    I don't agree - I think the public must bear some personal responsibility here as well - the rapid abandonment of masks for example, really predated any government actions. The reluctance to tolerate any restrictions on personal freedoms, frequently shown on here, to me seems childish at times. In Spain, where I live masks, for example, remain pretty universal indoors and I sense the attitude of mind is that this is a small sacrifice for staying a little safer. Rather like the attitude to ID cards and Covid certificates - 'not ideal but the benefits outweigh the risks'. The UK attitude seems quite different and that is fair enough, but it is not consequence free.

    Just blaming the government/authority all the time just come across as an abdication of personal
    responsibility.
    Because relative to vaccines cloth masks are absolute garbage. Scotland's kept them and what kind of material difference has it made other than making the country a more miserable place than England?
    Plenty of people wear masks that are effective. Try comparing Spain & the UK current data. Besides it's not just about mask wearing, it's about attitude. From outside things in the UK are looking quite grim now - a view confirmed by many UK contacts.
    From inside thing in the UK are pretty great right now. We've dropped the masks and all the other gibberish and are getting back to normal.

    The attitude should be that Covid is an issue for the past. Vaccines saw to that. Get your jab, if required get a booster, and live your life normally.

    I have no interest in any precautions other than vaccines. Washing your hands etc is just basic decency and not especially Covid related.
    It’s not past Philip, it’s very much still here. We need to flatten the curve in the least intrusive and economically damaging way. That may involve the more widespread use of masks again and more encouragement to WFH. We need tools we can draw on which don’t bring everything to a halt.
    Yes , tell that to the families of the 1000 a week that are dying, what an absolute bampot he is.
    People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end. Upto ten thousand a week die on average anyway.

    What matters isn't that death comes to us all eventually, but what we do with our lives. Ceasing to live our lives because of a paralysing fear of death isn't healthy and is a great waste of life.

    Incarcerating people in their homes so they don't see any loved ones and wither away and die of natural causes isn't "better".
    How crassly moronic.

    "Up to ten thousand a week die on average anyway."

    Well, that's fine then. How many extra people are you willing to die just so you can feel the fresh air on your bumfluff-ridden face? Why not twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? All for your 'freedom' ...
    I think that question is a bit unfair, a touch of emotional shaming going on, but will give my answer as its an anonymous forum. I probably wouldn't share this view in public but think if there were an extra five thousand a week dying we should have more legal restrictions. At an extra two thousand a week no legal restrictions. So somewhere between those numbers for me.

    How about you?
    Certainly not 'as many as it takes', which PT said.

    The problem with deaths is that it is a lagging factor. Before vaccines, cases went up, then hospitalisations, and then deaths. Now that the link between cases and hospitalisations has been weakened, the first sign we have of trouble is rising hospitalisations.

    And I'll therefore swerve your question by saying it's the wrong one, if we're talking about restrictions. The first sign we'll get of big problems is from hospitalisations, and that's what we'd need to react to. So perhaps the 1,200-1,500 daily admissions that we had back in early November would be when we'd have to slam the handbrake on - particularly if they are increasing rapidly.
    You asked the question of someone else so a bit of a cop out to now say it is the wrong question. I don't think using wrong questions for emotional shaming will help us get to the right answer.
    I'm not 'emotional shaming'. PT's view is that, now we have vaccines, any number of people ("as many as it takes") should die in order to protect his freedom. He said: "People die, its the natural order of things. Life comes to an end."

    Which whilst true, could be used to excuse anything causing a life to end. Which is why I asked how many is acceptable. He gave his answer.
This discussion has been closed.