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

1356

Comments

  • 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"

    Do you want to have a go at answering JJs question? How many excess deaths per week before you would be happy with no legal restrictions?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    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 also have no problems with being called the names but I do think people who use cliches are intrinsically dull and the the more well worn the the duller they are. Words like 'Remoaner' and 'Bliar' are just embarrassing. 'Metropolitan Elite' and ' 'The Nasty Party' less so as they're at least descriptive.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,955

    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.
    OK, traitor..... 😉
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,456

    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.
    Well I agree with that, in particular 'Liberal Metropolitan Elite'. The issue is not me being offended. I couldn't care less, it is the loss of impact in the message the person is trying to give.

    If someone refers to 'Liberal Metropolitan Elite' they have already devalued the content of their message to the reader by introducing their bias rather than relying on the content of their argument.

    The prime loss is to the writer not the reader.

    Another example is someone referring to a newspaper as a 'rag'. Any following specific criticism is devalued by their obvious preconception.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited October 2021
    Not unexpectedly, the start of the COP26 backlash.

    Allister Heath: We need a referendum on Net Zero, to save Britain from the green blob.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/20/need-referendum-net-zero-save-britain-green-blob/

    ” Voters don’t like being treated like naughty children, let alone apathetic imbeciles, by technocrats convinced that they know best. Much of the electorate is now in a permanently defiant, irritable mood. It has grown allergic to stitch-ups by the ruling class across Westminster, the City, the arts and academia, and is repelled by attempts to impose a single political vision as a fait accompli, with no debate and no consultation. This applies as much to radical environmentalism and net zero, the groupthink du jour, as it does to Brexit, the NHS, overseas wars, crime or immigration.
  • 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.
    What is the alternative?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,911

    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.
    OK, traitor..... 😉
    Thanks, I love it.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2021

    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.
    Why do you keep saying my freedom? I believe everyone should have freedom!

    Do you want it to be illegal for a grandparent to hug their grandchild without both grandparent and grandchild wearing a mask when it happens? Do you want it to be illegal to sit in the same room as your parents without you and your parents wearing a mask?

    People get sick and die, its sad but its true. Restrictions got us to the point of us having vaccines and rolling them out. Post-vaccines, what's the endgame if not now?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,456

    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.
    Don't apologise Philip, on the contrary I think you have flattered me. I suspect I have several decades on you. I will be 67 in a month.

    You have made my day.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793
    Why do the spectator insist on being misleading about the models. They've emphasised the one that SAGE said was extremely unlikely for some reason.

    I wonder why.

    Meanwhile, the Covid Actuaries group have been following the models through over time, breaking out the ones with specific assumptions to try to get a handle on which assumptions are most appropriate

    image

    On the one hand, we can have the Spectator finding a reason to say "No restrictions ever," but without any useful information.

    On the other, we have people with experience at statistical analysis homing in on the actual assumptions.

    Who to listen to?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708
    'Labour won’t call for Plan B yet, but Tony Blair just has. Wants mandatory masks, 500k booster jabs a day and vaccine passports. The ex-PM tells @TimesRadio there is “a real possibility of having to take drastic action later on if the Government doesn’t act now”. '
    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1451106343201484802?s=20
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880

    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 NZ car market is weird. The new car market is Japanese econo-shitboxes and 1 ton pickups while the second hand market is JDM imports.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    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.
    Why do you keep saying my freedom? I believe everyone should have freedom!

    Do you want it to be illegal for a grandparent to hug their grandchild without both grandparent and grandchild wearing a mask when it happens? Do you want it to be illegal to sit in the same room as your parents without you and your parents wearing a mask?

    People get sick and die, its sad but its true. Restrictions got us to the point of us having vaccines and rolling them out. Post-vaccines, what's the endgame if not now?
    Your view is that everyone should have freedom.

    Yes, except for the tens or hundreds of thousands who will die. Unless you call death the ultimate freedom?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715

    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.
    OK, traitor..... 😉
    HYUFD has already appropriated that; for people who don't think the NI Border is a Good Thing!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2021

    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.
    Why do you keep saying my freedom? I believe everyone should have freedom!

    Do you want it to be illegal for a grandparent to hug their grandchild without both grandparent and grandchild wearing a mask when it happens? Do you want it to be illegal to sit in the same room as your parents without you and your parents wearing a mask?

    People get sick and die, its sad but its true. Restrictions got us to the point of us having vaccines and rolling them out. Post-vaccines, what's the endgame if not now?
    Your view is that everyone should have freedom.

    Yes, except for the tens or hundreds of thousands who will die. Unless you call death the ultimate freedom?
    No death should be the end of a life well lived.

    It isn't death that is important, its how you live your life that matters.

    I note you're pointedly ignoring the question as to whether you should wear a mask while in the same room as your parents. Hypocrite.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    tlg86 said:

    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.
    So if you're coughing all over someone by the tinned tomatoes in Tesco on a Tuesday, the fact that you've infected your parents and your brother 2 days ago over the roast beef, that makes it ok?
    Do you know there's a bit in between "do nothing" and "do everything"?
  • Why do the spectator insist on being misleading about the models. They've emphasised the one that SAGE said was extremely unlikely for some reason.

    I wonder why.

    Meanwhile, the Covid Actuaries group have been following the models through over time, breaking out the ones with specific assumptions to try to get a handle on which assumptions are most appropriate

    image

    On the one hand, we can have the Spectator finding a reason to say "No restrictions ever," but without any useful information.

    On the other, we have people with experience at statistical analysis homing in on the actual assumptions.

    Who to listen to?
    Its the doomtastic models which get all the publicity when they are revealed.

    And are used as 'evidence' by all the authoritarian and 'shut down the country to save the NHS' fanatics.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,442
    edited October 2021
    HYUFD said:

    'Labour won’t call for Plan B yet, but Tony Blair just has. Wants mandatory masks, 500k booster jabs a day and vaccine passports. The ex-PM tells @TimesRadio there is “a real possibility of having to take drastic action later on if the Government doesn’t act now”. '
    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1451106343201484802?s=20

    On the booster jabs, if we knew/suspected this was going to be a thing, then during the summer we should have trained 10-20k people to deliver the booster jabs. I don't see how we can do 500k booster jabs a day, flu jabs, NHS winter and NHS catch up all at the same time.

    People and government seem to live in a resource fantasy with no willingness to plan in advance.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,593

    Why do the spectator insist on being misleading about the models. They've emphasised the one that SAGE said was extremely unlikely for some reason.

    I wonder why.

    Meanwhile, the Covid Actuaries group have been following the models through over time, breaking out the ones with specific assumptions to try to get a handle on which assumptions are most appropriate

    image

    On the one hand, we can have the Spectator finding a reason to say "No restrictions ever," but without any useful information.

    On the other, we have people with experience at statistical analysis homing in on the actual assumptions.

    Who to listen to?
    What does Professor Peston think?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Interesting thread:

    1/ At some point in the past several years, China woke up and decided it needed to compete with the US on nuclear weapons in ways it hadn’t for decades previously. It is investing in a lot more survivability and a lot more penetrability. Why?....

    3/ Instead I lean toward another hypothesis: China estimates that the risk of a conventional war with the US is higher now than ever, and it needs to stalemate the US at the nuclear level—escape US nuclear coercion—in order to open space for more aggressive conventional options....

    4/So the take home risk with all these developments isn’t the risk of nuclear war with China—though that obviously goes up—but the risk of a really nasty conventional war where China unloads its massive arsenal of conventional missiles in theater w/o fear of US nuclear escalation


    https://twitter.com/NarangVipin/status/1451018534490976261?s=20
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    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.
    What is the alternative?
    I believe I gave my view below. We're currently at a manageable, if tragic, level of deaths and hospitalisations. If hospitalisations go up to a certain level - perhaps 1,200 to 1,500 a day, then we need to seriously consider more restrictions.

    I'm not saying we need them at the moment. But my view is that we need to be open to the need for more restrictions, and not just callously let any number of people die (and, incidentally, cause the hospital system to fail, potentially affecting all of us).

    Until we are in a more stable situation, we've got to be prepared to react.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,911
    HYUFD said:

    'Labour won’t call for Plan B yet, but Tony Blair just has. Wants mandatory masks, 500k booster jabs a day and vaccine passports. The ex-PM tells @TimesRadio there is “a real possibility of having to take drastic action later on if the Government doesn’t act now”. '
    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1451106343201484802?s=20

    I have to say that the government prevaricating, acting too late and having to be more aggressive ultimately as a result feels like a record we have heard before. I'm by no means certain it will play out like that, but if it does at least we can say that the government is being consistent.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    If anyone's interested in how the fuel crisis is going...

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    edited October 2021
    Just had another one of those damn' silly calls; 'This is the security department of your bank'
    Who on earth, nowadays, presses 1 'to be told what to do'?

    Sadly, it's a recording, so one can't be abusive!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. HYUFD, I'm unsurprised the man who wanted people to suffer the equivalent of a six month prison sentence without charge is comfortable with vaccine passports.
  • Just had another one of those damn' silly calls; 'This is the security department of your bank'
    Who on earth, nowadays, presses 1 'to be told what to do'?

    Sadly, it's a recording, so one can't be abusive!

    Enough to make it profitable sadly.
  • 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"

    "I'm comfortable damaging the education of kids to keep a few sick oldies alive for a few hours more, but I'm uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"

    "I'm comfortable destroying jobs and damaging people's mental health to delay but not stop anti-vaxxers being infected, but I'm uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Why do the spectator insist on being misleading about the models. They've emphasised the one that SAGE said was extremely unlikely for some reason.

    I wonder why.

    Meanwhile, the Covid Actuaries group have been following the models through over time, breaking out the ones with specific assumptions to try to get a handle on which assumptions are most appropriate

    image

    On the one hand, we can have the Spectator finding a reason to say "No restrictions ever," but without any useful information.

    On the other, we have people with experience at statistical analysis homing in on the actual assumptions.

    Who to listen to?
    What does Professor Peston think?
    Because the correct answer is the exact opposite!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,840
    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    No, it's actual supply. This is the point.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    HYUFD said:

    'Labour won’t call for Plan B yet, but Tony Blair just has. Wants mandatory masks, 500k booster jabs a day and vaccine passports. The ex-PM tells @TimesRadio there is “a real possibility of having to take drastic action later on if the Government doesn’t act now”. '
    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1451106343201484802?s=20

    On the booster jabs, if we knew/suspected this was going to be a thing, then during the summer we should have trained 10-20k people to deliver the booster jabs. I don't see how we can do 500k booster jabs a day, flu jabs, NHS winter and NHS catch up all at the same time.

    People and government seem to live in a resource fantasy with no willingness to plan in advance.
    I had my flu jab on Tuesday. The Boots in Huntingdon had two areas at different sides of the store: one giving flu jabs, the other Covid boosters (and, I think first and second shots). All very efficient: but it did take up a fair few numbers of staff - I think there were five or six between the two booths. Two in each booth (one greeting/registering patients, the other jabbing), one managing both processes, and another acting as a runabout.

    But that was only from one quick visit; it may be more, it might be fewer.

    I couldn't get my flu jab in St Neots, my preferred location, as apparently they didn't have enough staff at that time.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    edited October 2021
    HYUFD said:

    'Labour won’t call for Plan B yet, but Tony Blair just has. Wants mandatory masks, 500k booster jabs a day and vaccine passports. The ex-PM tells @TimesRadio there is “a real possibility of having to take drastic action later on if the Government doesn’t act now”. '
    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1451106343201484802?s=20

    Not sure about the masks, but I'll stick them back on if needs be. He's right about the boosters, the gov't should be able to go through the population at the same rate as the first jabs.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    Just been reminded that it's the 55th anniversary of the Aberfan Coal Waste Tip Disaster.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,701

    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.
    Why do you keep saying my freedom? I believe everyone should have freedom!

    Do you want it to be illegal for a grandparent to hug their grandchild without both grandparent and grandchild wearing a mask when it happens? Do you want it to be illegal to sit in the same room as your parents without you and your parents wearing a mask?

    People get sick and die, its sad but its true. Restrictions got us to the point of us having vaccines and rolling them out. Post-vaccines, what's the endgame if not now?
    Exactly. Covid is not going away. We are going to have to live with it and if vaccines and getting on with our lives are not the solution then what is ?

    We are going to have to accept a level of risk with Covid or a continual cycle of restrictions and easing.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    I see that the Met continues its campaign to prove that it is both the stupidest and most insensitive police force around.

    https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1450848637194547205?s=21
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793

    Why do the spectator insist on being misleading about the models. They've emphasised the one that SAGE said was extremely unlikely for some reason.

    I wonder why.

    Meanwhile, the Covid Actuaries group have been following the models through over time, breaking out the ones with specific assumptions to try to get a handle on which assumptions are most appropriate

    image

    On the one hand, we can have the Spectator finding a reason to say "No restrictions ever," but without any useful information.

    On the other, we have people with experience at statistical analysis homing in on the actual assumptions.

    Who to listen to?
    Its the doomtastic models which get all the publicity when they are revealed.

    And are used as 'evidence' by all the authoritarian and 'shut down the country to save the NHS' fanatics.
    I'm looking squarely at the media, who love the most extreme and scary stuff.

    I notice they've ignored all the projections that came out since that one - all of which were pointing low.
    And they ignored the ones before that didn't show what they wanted to amplify to get their sales and clicks.

    And they always ignore the line: "The projections represent what the trajectory might be if the epidemic continued to follow the trends seen in the latest available data up to 6th September. They are neither forecasts nor predictions"
    ... and describe them as either forecasts or predictions.

    They're simply showing "this is what would happen if the current trends continue," because too many decision makers can't even handle things like a week or two lag between cases and hospitalisations or a ten day lag between hospitalisations and deaths, and still seem to get surprised by them.

    And then outlets like the Spectator will seize on the scariest ones, shout "These predictions didn't come to pass," overemphasise the most extreme and lowest probability cases and present that as the central prediction, just so they can say "WE DON'T EVER NEED TO DO ANYTHING, THEY'RE SO STUPID AND WRONG WHEN THEY PREDICT BAD THINGS."
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    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"

    "I'm comfortable damaging the education of kids to keep a few sick oldies alive for a few hours more, but I'm uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"

    "I'm comfortable destroying jobs and damaging people's mental health to delay but not stop anti-vaxxers being infected, but I'm uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"
    Wearing a mask on the bus is destroying your mental health? I'm very sorry to hear that.
  • 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?

    Just looked at the date. All is clear now. Carlotta hasn't lost her place as PB's Joe Goebells
    What a disgusting think to say
  • 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).

    One of the odder things I've read are when people bewail having been recently infected for delaying their opportunity to be vaccinated.

    Clearly not realising that the infection acquired immunity will be far better than anything a vaccine currently offers.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,583
    Dura_Ace said:

    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 NZ car market is weird. The new car market is Japanese econo-shitboxes and 1 ton pickups while the second hand market is JDM imports.
    I suppose for us classic car enthusiasts if it becomes cheaper to re-import rust-free British/European classics from the 1960s and 70s- happy days. I've always fancied the Austin 1800 ute that was popular in NZ and Oz.

    I suspect that idea might just be another unicorn.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    Sandpit said:

    Not unexpectedly, the start of the COP26 backlash.

    Allister Heath: We need a referendum on Net Zero, to save Britain from the green blob.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/20/need-referendum-net-zero-save-britain-green-blob/

    ” Voters don’t like being treated like naughty children, let alone apathetic imbeciles, by technocrats convinced that they know best. Much of the electorate is now in a permanently defiant, irritable mood. It has grown allergic to stitch-ups by the ruling class across Westminster, the City, the arts and academia, and is repelled by attempts to impose a single political vision as a fait accompli, with no debate and no consultation. This applies as much to radical environmentalism and net zero, the groupthink du jour, as it does to Brexit, the NHS, overseas wars, crime or immigration.

    I come from a different angle but may end up in a similar place. The reality is that COP26 is all about China and they are threatening not to even come. Their increase in CO2 emissions over the next decade will make the question of whether we switch off every power source in the country completely academic. It will make no difference to global temperature increases overall.

    The response of our political class is that we must set an example, that we must do our bit, that we still actually matter (honest). It's pathetic and leads to ridiculous obsessions with marginal to non existent gains.

    What we really need to do is much, much harder. The production of an Iphone in China involves the use of lots of expensive and difficult to source metals and rare earths. That process, along with manufacture, puts a significant carbon footprint on the phone in cumulo. At the moment that is still "free", the planet pays the price but neither the manufacturer nor the consumer does. We cannot go on this way. We need to charge the "real" carbon cost of goods to discourage their rapid replacement and casual throw away attitudes that we have. The money generated should be massive and used to fund programs of carbon capture and restoration.

    But politicians run away from this as such a change in consumerism would be enormously unpopular and economically disruptive. And so the world keeps getting hotter. And our politicians insist that the formation of the deck chairs on the SS Titanic is of fundamental importance.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Cyclefree said:

    I see that the Met continues its campaign to prove that it is both the stupidest and most insensitive police force around.

    https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1450848637194547205?s=21

    They seen to be going miles out of their way, to give completely the wrong answers to the questions being asked of them.

    How’s about they actually start changing their practices with regard to plain clothes patrols, such as using more WPCs to make mixed couples of officers?
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,701
    Sandpit said:

    Not unexpectedly, the start of the COP26 backlash.

    Allister Heath: We need a referendum on Net Zero, to save Britain from the green blob.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/20/need-referendum-net-zero-save-britain-green-blob/

    ” Voters don’t like being treated like naughty children, let alone apathetic imbeciles, by technocrats convinced that they know best. Much of the electorate is now in a permanently defiant, irritable mood. It has grown allergic to stitch-ups by the ruling class across Westminster, the City, the arts and academia, and is repelled by attempts to impose a single political vision as a fait accompli, with no debate and no consultation. This applies as much to radical environmentalism and net zero, the groupthink du jour, as it does to Brexit, the NHS, overseas wars, crime or immigration.

    The Politicians and political classes view will remain the same. The voters are wrong, they (and the lobbyists) are right, so the will proceed further and faster.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,840

    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.
    So your answer is to keep restrictions in the hope that at some point in the future we might, possibly,. develop something more effective against the virus and in the meantime you are willing to blight the lives of millions of people and destroy tens of thousands of businesses.

    Will you do the same for the next bout of winter flu? That might only kill ten or twenty thousand. Is that enough to bring in more restrictions again?

    I agreed entirely with the restrictions when we were waiting for vaccine. But we have that now. And I repeat; This is as good as it gets. Logically whatever restrictions you impose at the moment are what you should impose for ever more with all the concomitant consequences.
    We're just talking about "plan B" for a while, aren't we? I don't have a strong opinion either way but this would hardly "blight the lives of millions of people and destroy tens of thousands of businesses".
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,593

    Interesting thread:

    1/ At some point in the past several years, China woke up and decided it needed to compete with the US on nuclear weapons in ways it hadn’t for decades previously. It is investing in a lot more survivability and a lot more penetrability. Why?....

    3/ Instead I lean toward another hypothesis: China estimates that the risk of a conventional war with the US is higher now than ever, and it needs to stalemate the US at the nuclear level—escape US nuclear coercion—in order to open space for more aggressive conventional options....

    4/So the take home risk with all these developments isn’t the risk of nuclear war with China—though that obviously goes up—but the risk of a really nasty conventional war where China unloads its massive arsenal of conventional missiles in theater w/o fear of US nuclear escalation


    https://twitter.com/NarangVipin/status/1451018534490976261?s=20

    Sometimes, over thinking misses the real issue.

    1) Before this hypersonic stuff - China can nuke the US, The US can nuke China
    2) After - China can nuke the US, The US can nuke China

    The American ABM systems were not designed or positioned to stop a Chinese nuclear attack, previously.

    So why develop this stuff?

    Well, China isn't a monolith. The military like their toys and they have their industrial power base. A new shiny thing makes them look good.

    An example of this kind of thing was the Chinese ABM test a while back. The idiots doing it, did it as a moderately high altitude in space. Which meant debris crossing orbits of satellites. If things had gone wrong maybe even a risk to the International Space Station.

    But this wasn't Chinese government policy - it was an enclave in the military that did this without telling people what they were doing or the risks. When the civilian scientists pointed out that there had been a tiny, but real possibility that they could have damaged the ISS (which would have been a good way for China to annoy everyone on the planet and look like a gang of pirates to boot) ... Well, the people who did the test had their toys taken away.
  • 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.
    What is the alternative?
    I believe I gave my view below. We're currently at a manageable, if tragic, level of deaths and hospitalisations. If hospitalisations go up to a certain level - perhaps 1,200 to 1,500 a day, then we need to seriously consider more restrictions.

    I'm not saying we need them at the moment. But my view is that we need to be open to the need for more restrictions, and not just callously let any number of people die (and, incidentally, cause the hospital system to fail, potentially affecting all of us).

    Until we are in a more stable situation, we've got to be prepared to react.
    Again and do what? Whose businesses are you prepared to destroy and lives ruin pursuing an impossible goal?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    edited October 2021

    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).

    One of the odder things I've read are when people bewail having been recently infected for delaying their opportunity to be vaccinated.

    Clearly not realising that the infection acquired immunity will be far better than anything a vaccine currently offers.
    I do feel safer than I did, although TBH, I was OK before I, as a double jabbed OAP I caught Covid!

    Doing so has given me a bit of a jolt. We developed symptoms just over 6 months from our second jabs.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841

    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).

    One of the odder things I've read are when people bewail having been recently infected for delaying their opportunity to be vaccinated.

    Clearly not realising that the infection acquired immunity will be far better than anything a vaccine currently offers.
    Would be a bit annoying if you needed to be double jabbed for a holiday or something similar though :p
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    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?

    Just looked at the date. All is clear now. Carlotta hasn't lost her place as PB's Joe Goebells
    What a disgusting think to say
    You really are unique. If you didn't exist someone would have to invent you!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    edited October 2021
    But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.

    I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.

    Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,701

    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?

    Just looked at the date. All is clear now. Carlotta hasn't lost her place as PB's Joe Goebells
    What a disgusting think to say
    Deeply unpleasant.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,593
    Cyclefree said:

    I see that the Met continues its campaign to prove that it is both the stupidest and most insensitive police force around.

    https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1450848637194547205?s=21

    The saving grace of UK policing is that their corruption is done by stupid people. Hence the Plebgate thing with the "witness" sending a copy of the policeman's statement. The West Midlands Serious Crimes squad put a lot of effort into being caught.

    The downside to this is the stupidity with which they normally operate......
  • 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.
    I know that - I am not suggesting that we go back to mandatory booking, socially distanced tables etc etc. Pubs have already invested in a lot of outdoor space - marquees and heaters etc - so people can spread out more than they used to. And if they can't, fine.

    This is about cutting the number of transmission points. We can't cut them in pubs etc. We can cut them in shops, on public transport, by not trying to force people back into offices so they can spend £5 a day on a Starbucks etc.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    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?
    You accuse others of not thinking yet propose completely stupid ideas like social distancing without thinking through the consequences. It is nothing more than showing us how virtuous you are and the love of being able to accuse others of not being virtuous. The consequences of social distancing are dire for businesses. You say that the pandemic is bad for business but the reality is that it's people like you who want to keep hold of the NPIs that are bad for business. Creating uncertainty where we don't need to. The vast, vast majority of people dying of this are the very old or vaccine refusers, the Italian study from yesterday made it very clear that we are now already at the endemic stage of this process.

    Putting social distancing in place because fools refused to get vaccinated is punishing businesses for other people's idiotic decisions. I think maybe we should just get on with life and let nature take its course with those who refuse to be vaccinated. If that means 30-40k people dying per year that wouldn't otherwise have done so then that's the way it will have to be. They made their choice.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    Not unexpectedly, the start of the COP26 backlash.

    Allister Heath: We need a referendum on Net Zero, to save Britain from the green blob.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/20/need-referendum-net-zero-save-britain-green-blob/

    ” Voters don’t like being treated like naughty children, let alone apathetic imbeciles, by technocrats convinced that they know best. Much of the electorate is now in a permanently defiant, irritable mood. It has grown allergic to stitch-ups by the ruling class across Westminster, the City, the arts and academia, and is repelled by attempts to impose a single political vision as a fait accompli, with no debate and no consultation. This applies as much to radical environmentalism and net zero, the groupthink du jour, as it does to Brexit, the NHS, overseas wars, crime or immigration.

    The Politicians and political classes view will remain the same. The voters are wrong, they (and the lobbyists) are right, so the will proceed further and faster.
    Until, as with EU membership, the backlash from the voters becomes too big to ignore.

    As I may have said before, if anything gets the PM in the next 12 months, it’s going to be the green crap. There’s no way a couple of hundred backbench Tories line up, to vote through massive tax increases and restrictions on freedom. Someone will appear and challenge them from the right, just as Farage did with EU membership.
  • HYUFD said:

    'Labour won’t call for Plan B yet, but Tony Blair just has. Wants mandatory masks, 500k booster jabs a day and vaccine passports. The ex-PM tells @TimesRadio there is “a real possibility of having to take drastic action later on if the Government doesn’t act now”. '
    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1451106343201484802?s=20

    On the booster jabs, if we knew/suspected this was going to be a thing, then during the summer we should have trained 10-20k people to deliver the booster jabs. I don't see how we can do 500k booster jabs a day, flu jabs, NHS winter and NHS catch up all at the same time.

    People and government seem to live in a resource fantasy with no willingness to plan in advance.
    Why did the government need to bother? Once everyone gets the vaccine its over, isn't it...?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880

    Dura_Ace said:

    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 NZ car market is weird. The new car market is Japanese econo-shitboxes and 1 ton pickups while the second hand market is JDM imports.
    I suppose for us classic car enthusiasts if it becomes cheaper to re-import rust-free British/European classics from the 1960s and 70s- happy days. I've always fancied the Austin 1800 ute that was popular in NZ and Oz.

    I suspect that idea might just be another unicorn.
    The Aus/NZ variant of the Marina Pickup with the 2.6 E series would be cool. Same indicator stalks as a Lamborghini Diablo.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I see that the Met continues its campaign to prove that it is both the stupidest and most insensitive police force around.

    https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1450848637194547205?s=21

    They seen to be going miles out of their way, to give completely the wrong answers to the questions being asked of them.

    How’s about they actually start changing their practices with regard to plain clothes patrols, such as using more WPCs to make mixed couples of officers?
    Or, indeed, stop hiring people unfit to be policemen? They could even try training them properly and disciplining or sacking them when they do wrong.

    A novel idea I know but they could try it for a change.

    The sad reality is that they are doing what they always do whenever they are criticised: a combination of mulish obstinacy to avoid making any real change and some token PR nonsense to make them look as if they are doing something.

    See all the headers I have ever written about the police.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    tlg86 said:

    If anyone's interested in how the fuel crisis is going...

    Crisis? What crisis?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    A question for those wanting to impose restrictions. What if the chosen restrictions don't make any difference, what should we do then?
  • kinabalu said:

    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.
    So your answer is to keep restrictions in the hope that at some point in the future we might, possibly,. develop something more effective against the virus and in the meantime you are willing to blight the lives of millions of people and destroy tens of thousands of businesses.

    Will you do the same for the next bout of winter flu? That might only kill ten or twenty thousand. Is that enough to bring in more restrictions again?

    I agreed entirely with the restrictions when we were waiting for vaccine. But we have that now. And I repeat; This is as good as it gets. Logically whatever restrictions you impose at the moment are what you should impose for ever more with all the concomitant consequences.
    We're just talking about "plan B" for a while, aren't we? I don't have a strong opinion either way but this would hardly "blight the lives of millions of people and destroy tens of thousands of businesses".
    Social distancing and restrictions in entertainment venues would certainly drive many to the wall. They are already on their knees after the previous rounds of lockdowns and restrictions and many of those who just managed to survive will not be able to cope with yet another round. In 2020 almost 10,000 licenced premises shut down permanently in the UK due to the restrictions. Many more only just survived. So yes I think my claim stands up well.
  • 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.
    What is the alternative?
    I believe I gave my view below. We're currently at a manageable, if tragic, level of deaths and hospitalisations. If hospitalisations go up to a certain level - perhaps 1,200 to 1,500 a day, then we need to seriously consider more restrictions.

    I'm not saying we need them at the moment. But my view is that we need to be open to the need for more restrictions, and not just callously let any number of people die (and, incidentally, cause the hospital system to fail, potentially affecting all of us).

    Until we are in a more stable situation, we've got to be prepared to react.
    Again and do what? Whose businesses are you prepared to destroy and lives ruin pursuing an impossible goal?
    People love to act like restrictions are meaningless or cost free. It's not true, if it was it's how we'd choose to live our lives normally.

    There's 67 million people in this country. Every day lost to restrictions is the equivalent of 184k lives lost for a year.

    People need to live their lives. Restrictions got us to the point of being vaccinated and there's no other plausible endgame proposed so this is it. This is as good as it gets.

    To quote Douglas Adams after the infinite probability drive was used:

    Probability factor of 1 to 1 achieved. We have normality.
    Anything you still cannot deal with is therefore your own problem.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    edited October 2021
    Roger said:

    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?

    Just looked at the date. All is clear now. Carlotta hasn't lost her place as PB's Joe Goebells
    What a disgusting think to say
    You really are unique. If you didn't exist someone would have to invent you!
    You think it is OK to compare a poster to Joe Goebell

    It is just nasty and wrong

    These are your words

    'Just looked at the date. All is clear now. Carlotta hasn't lost her place as PB's Joe Goebell'
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    I see that the Met continues its campaign to prove that it is both the stupidest and most insensitive police force around.

    https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1450848637194547205?s=21

    The saving grace of UK policing is that their corruption is done by stupid people. Hence the Plebgate thing with the "witness" sending a copy of the policeman's statement. The West Midlands Serious Crimes squad put a lot of effort into being caught.

    The downside to this is the stupidity with which they normally operate......
    Not so stupid. They keep their jobs, get a fat pension at the end of it, some sinecure when they retire and some of them get titles etc.

    We reward exactly the wrong things: incompetence, stupidity, corruption and dishonesty. Which is why we have so much of it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    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.
    Why do you keep saying my freedom? I believe everyone should have freedom!

    Do you want it to be illegal for a grandparent to hug their grandchild without both grandparent and grandchild wearing a mask when it happens? Do you want it to be illegal to sit in the same room as your parents without you and your parents wearing a mask?

    People get sick and die, its sad but its true. Restrictions got us to the point of us having vaccines and rolling them out. Post-vaccines, what's the endgame if not now?
    Your view is that everyone should have freedom.

    Yes, except for the tens or hundreds of thousands who will die. Unless you call death the ultimate freedom?
    You could make the same argument every winter re flu. Yet no-one does.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    Cyclefree said:

    But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.

    I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.

    Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?

    I recall going round Audley End, near Saffron Walden, some years ago and being told that in Victorian times the gardeners would build South facing walls out of (relatively) heat-retaining bricks and plant such trees up against them, while shielding them from North and East winds. As a result they were able to supply the 'squires' table with, IIRC, lemons and sometimes oranges. They were also able to keep some fruits on the table 10 months of the year.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I see that the Met continues its campaign to prove that it is both the stupidest and most insensitive police force around.

    https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1450848637194547205?s=21

    The saving grace of UK policing is that their corruption is done by stupid people. Hence the Plebgate thing with the "witness" sending a copy of the policeman's statement. The West Midlands Serious Crimes squad put a lot of effort into being caught.

    The downside to this is the stupidity with which they normally operate......
    Not so stupid. They keep their jobs, get a fat pension at the end of it, some sinecure when they retire and some of them get titles etc.

    We reward exactly the wrong things: incompetence, stupidity, corruption and dishonesty. Which is why we have so much of it.
    And when they do find themselves under investigation for doing something stupid or outrageous, they can retire from the force on the grounds of ill health, and the investigation automatically gets dropped.
  • MaxPB said:

    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?
    You accuse others of not thinking yet propose completely stupid ideas like social distancing without thinking through the consequences. It is nothing more than showing us how virtuous you are and the love of being able to accuse others of not being virtuous. The consequences of social distancing are dire for businesses. You say that the pandemic is bad for business but the reality is that it's people like you who want to keep hold of the NPIs that are bad for business. Creating uncertainty where we don't need to. The vast, vast majority of people dying of this are the very old or vaccine refusers, the Italian study from yesterday made it very clear that we are now already at the endemic stage of this process.

    Putting social distancing in place because fools refused to get vaccinated is punishing businesses for other people's idiotic decisions. I think maybe we should just get on with life and let nature take its course with those who refuse to be vaccinated. If that means 30-40k people dying per year that wouldn't otherwise have done so then that's the way it will have to be. They made their choice.
    I have no interest in being "virtuous" however you define it (sounds a bit like being called "woke").

    This one is brutally simple. The NHS is still on its knees after Covid, and its senior managers can see the tsunami coming in. So we either start acting now or we face the consequences of a health system unable to cope through the winter.

    Perhaps these NHS managers are also being "virtuous". I hope they are - someone has to give a fuck.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    edited October 2021
    Cyclefree said:

    But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.

    I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.

    Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?

    Yes and in my case for quite sometime

    However, do not hesitate to go back to your dentist.

    I hesitated and was told I should have contacted her earlier which would have saved me a lot of pain
  • HYUFD said:

    'Labour won’t call for Plan B yet, but Tony Blair just has. Wants mandatory masks, 500k booster jabs a day and vaccine passports. The ex-PM tells @TimesRadio there is “a real possibility of having to take drastic action later on if the Government doesn’t act now”. '
    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1451106343201484802?s=20

    On the booster jabs, if we knew/suspected this was going to be a thing, then during the summer we should have trained 10-20k people to deliver the booster jabs. I don't see how we can do 500k booster jabs a day, flu jabs, NHS winter and NHS catch up all at the same time.

    People and government seem to live in a resource fantasy with no willingness to plan in advance.
    Why did the government need to bother? Once everyone gets the vaccine its over, isn't it...?
    I have never said its over, I think it will be with us for many years to come, and accept that there is a place where legal restrictions are necessary again although we are very far from that level currently imo.

    There is nothing at all inconsistent with wanting no legal restrictions but being willing to fund training for people to deliver jabs without diverting resource from existing healthcare.
  • MaxPB said:

    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?
    You accuse others of not thinking yet propose completely stupid ideas like social distancing without thinking through the consequences. It is nothing more than showing us how virtuous you are and the love of being able to accuse others of not being virtuous. The consequences of social distancing are dire for businesses. You say that the pandemic is bad for business but the reality is that it's people like you who want to keep hold of the NPIs that are bad for business. Creating uncertainty where we don't need to. The vast, vast majority of people dying of this are the very old or vaccine refusers, the Italian study from yesterday made it very clear that we are now already at the endemic stage of this process.

    Putting social distancing in place because fools refused to get vaccinated is punishing businesses for other people's idiotic decisions. I think maybe we should just get on with life and let nature take its course with those who refuse to be vaccinated. If that means 30-40k people dying per year that wouldn't otherwise have done so then that's the way it will have to be. They made their choice.
    I have no interest in being "virtuous" however you define it (sounds a bit like being called "woke").

    This one is brutally simple. The NHS is still on its knees after Covid, and its senior managers can see the tsunami coming in. So we either start acting now or we face the consequences of a health system unable to cope through the winter.

    Perhaps these NHS managers are also being "virtuous". I hope they are - someone has to give a fuck.
    Does the country exist to serve the NHS or does the NHS exist to serve the country.

    This is as good as it gets. If the NHS struggles, the NHS struggles. It supposedly does every single winter so what else is new? They need to do the best with what they've got and that's that.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,911

    MaxPB said:

    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?
    You accuse others of not thinking yet propose completely stupid ideas like social distancing without thinking through the consequences. It is nothing more than showing us how virtuous you are and the love of being able to accuse others of not being virtuous. The consequences of social distancing are dire for businesses. You say that the pandemic is bad for business but the reality is that it's people like you who want to keep hold of the NPIs that are bad for business. Creating uncertainty where we don't need to. The vast, vast majority of people dying of this are the very old or vaccine refusers, the Italian study from yesterday made it very clear that we are now already at the endemic stage of this process.

    Putting social distancing in place because fools refused to get vaccinated is punishing businesses for other people's idiotic decisions. I think maybe we should just get on with life and let nature take its course with those who refuse to be vaccinated. If that means 30-40k people dying per year that wouldn't otherwise have done so then that's the way it will have to be. They made their choice.
    I have no interest in being "virtuous" however you define it (sounds a bit like being called "woke").

    This one is brutally simple. The NHS is still on its knees after Covid, and its senior managers can see the tsunami coming in. So we either start acting now or we face the consequences of a health system unable to cope through the winter.

    Perhaps these NHS managers are also being "virtuous". I hope they are - someone has to give a fuck.
    Talking to GP relatives from Leeds last weekend, the system is absolutely on its knees there. It was a very sobering conversation.
  • HYUFD said:

    'Labour won’t call for Plan B yet, but Tony Blair just has. Wants mandatory masks, 500k booster jabs a day and vaccine passports. The ex-PM tells @TimesRadio there is “a real possibility of having to take drastic action later on if the Government doesn’t act now”. '
    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1451106343201484802?s=20

    On the booster jabs, if we knew/suspected this was going to be a thing, then during the summer we should have trained 10-20k people to deliver the booster jabs. I don't see how we can do 500k booster jabs a day, flu jabs, NHS winter and NHS catch up all at the same time.

    People and government seem to live in a resource fantasy with no willingness to plan in advance.
    Why did the government need to bother? Once everyone gets the vaccine its over, isn't it...?
    I have never said its over, I think it will be with us for many years to come, and accept that there is a place where legal restrictions are necessary again although we are very far from that level currently imo.

    There is nothing at all inconsistent with wanting no legal restrictions but being willing to fund training for people to deliver jabs without diverting resource from existing healthcare.
    That's very true. Vaccines are the endgame for this. If that means booster jabs then take as many boosters as it needs.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    Cyclefree said:

    But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.

    I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.

    Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?

    I recall going round Audley End, near Saffron Walden, some years ago and being told that in Victorian times the gardeners would build South facing walls out of (relatively) heat-retaining bricks and plant such trees up against them, while shielding them from North and East winds. As a result they were able to supply the 'squires' table with, IIRC, lemons and sometimes oranges. They were also able to keep some fruits on the table 10 months of the year.
    Romans had a warmer climate, though. Vineyards in Yorkshire etc
  • 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.
    I know that - I am not suggesting that we go back to mandatory booking, socially distanced tables etc etc. Pubs have already invested in a lot of outdoor space - marquees and heaters etc - so people can spread out more than they used to. And if they can't, fine.

    This is about cutting the number of transmission points. We can't cut them in pubs etc. We can cut them in shops, on public transport, by not trying to force people back into offices so they can spend £5 a day on a Starbucks etc.
    Oh I don't disagree with you on that. But that is not what some people on here are proposing.

    I wear a mask in shops and on public transport. I do so as a matter of courtesy because it makes others feel more comfortable not because I think it actually makes much difference these days. But I organised a large trade hobby convention a couple of weeks ago with almost 2000 people attending. If they had had to wear masks all day then the event would have been a disaster. It simply isn't practical to ask people to wear masks continuously for that amount of time. In the end they just give up and leave.

    And as I asked JJ, for what? Is the proposal that we do this forever? Because right now I don't see things getting any better than they are now on a seasonal basis.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,112

    Cyclefree said:

    But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.

    I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.

    Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?

    I recall going round Audley End, near Saffron Walden, some years ago and being told that in Victorian times the gardeners would build South facing walls out of (relatively) heat-retaining bricks and plant such trees up against them, while shielding them from North and East winds. As a result they were able to supply the 'squires' table with, IIRC, lemons and sometimes oranges. They were also able to keep some fruits on the table 10 months of the year.
    I remember being fascinated to read a gardening book by William Cobbett (I think) - 1820s? - which talked about such things and also hot beds (?) - basically centrally heated by heaps of decomposing compost.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,840

    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.
    Why do you keep saying my freedom? I believe everyone should have freedom!

    Do you want it to be illegal for a grandparent to hug their grandchild without both grandparent and grandchild wearing a mask when it happens? Do you want it to be illegal to sit in the same room as your parents without you and your parents wearing a mask?

    People get sick and die, its sad but its true. Restrictions got us to the point of us having vaccines and rolling them out. Post-vaccines, what's the endgame if not now?
    Your view is that everyone should have freedom.

    Yes, except for the tens or hundreds of thousands who will die. Unless you call death the ultimate freedom?
    No death should be the end of a life well lived.

    It isn't death that is important, its how you live your life that matters.

    I note you're pointedly ignoring the question as to whether you should wear a mask while in the same room as your parents. Hypocrite.
    Isn't part of a life well lived playing your small part in helping the community fight Covid-19?

    What you seem to be saying is, "Ok, had the jab, and that's it. I'm done. It's outrageous to ask me to do anything else. Regardless of the situation in the NHS, no restrictions are acceptable to me."

    This is a tad unreasonable imo.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 5,997
    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"

    That's an increase of about half a percent in the chance of dying in any one particular year. (Going on 10,000 deaths a week). I would reckon most people would regard that as negligible risk for the ability to live a normal life again. People already take unnecessary risks like not looking when they cross the road, driving dangerously, eating crap food, not exercising, smoking, drinking etc
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Roger said:

    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?

    Just looked at the date. All is clear now. Carlotta hasn't lost her place as PB's Joe Goebells
    What a disgusting think to say
    You really are unique. If you didn't exist someone would have to invent you!
    You think it is OK to compare a poster to Joe Goebell

    It is just nasty and wrong

    These are your words

    'Just looked at the date. All is clear now. Carlotta hasn't lost her place as PB's Joe Goebell'
    Don't mind - Rogerdamus, apologist for Jimmy Saville "fuss over nothing" place is secure on PB. As I learned in the playground "sticks and stones...."
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,593
    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.

    I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.

    Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?

    I recall going round Audley End, near Saffron Walden, some years ago and being told that in Victorian times the gardeners would build South facing walls out of (relatively) heat-retaining bricks and plant such trees up against them, while shielding them from North and East winds. As a result they were able to supply the 'squires' table with, IIRC, lemons and sometimes oranges. They were also able to keep some fruits on the table 10 months of the year.
    Romans had a warmer climate, though. Vineyards in Yorkshire etc
    Depends what wine you are trying to make - many varieties of vine are actually rather hardy.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,840

    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.
    What is the alternative?
    I believe I gave my view below. We're currently at a manageable, if tragic, level of deaths and hospitalisations. If hospitalisations go up to a certain level - perhaps 1,200 to 1,500 a day, then we need to seriously consider more restrictions.

    I'm not saying we need them at the moment. But my view is that we need to be open to the need for more restrictions, and not just callously let any number of people die (and, incidentally, cause the hospital system to fail, potentially affecting all of us).

    Until we are in a more stable situation, we've got to be prepared to react.
    Again and do what? Whose businesses are you prepared to destroy and lives ruin pursuing an impossible goal?
    What's the impossible goal? All we're talking about is managing an epidemic within NHS capacity.
  • Cyclefree said:

    But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.

    I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.

    Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?

    Yes and in my case for quite sometime

    However, do not hesitate to go back to your dentist.

    I hesitated and was told I should have contacted her earlier which would have saved me a lot of pain
    I hate to say it Cyclefree but apparently a week to two weeks can be normal for a wisdom tooth.

    Coincidentally I had one of mine removed last week and its been agony for most of a week. My face swelled up so much on that side of my mouth that my jaw locked and I've taken the past week off work because it was painful to even talk. Feeling a lot better today though, hopefully you feel better soon.

    Ibuprofen and parcetamol alternated every 2 hours upto the permitted limit is what I was advised and have been taking. I didn't realise you could take both to their allowed maximum, I always thought it was either/or. Irritating that the shops do a cap of only 2 of either of them as if you're taking both then 1 box of each doesn't go very far.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    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.
    Surely you mean herd animals?!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    Carnyx said:

    Cyclefree said:

    But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.

    I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.

    Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?

    I recall going round Audley End, near Saffron Walden, some years ago and being told that in Victorian times the gardeners would build South facing walls out of (relatively) heat-retaining bricks and plant such trees up against them, while shielding them from North and East winds. As a result they were able to supply the 'squires' table with, IIRC, lemons and sometimes oranges. They were also able to keep some fruits on the table 10 months of the year.
    I remember being fascinated to read a gardening book by William Cobbett (I think) - 1820s? - which talked about such things and also hot beds (?) - basically centrally heated by heaps of decomposing compost.
    Back 300 or so hundred years ago there was quite a lot, it seems, of imaginative 'technology' to solve problems for which we use electricity and gas.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2021
    kinabalu 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' ...
    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.
    Why do you keep saying my freedom? I believe everyone should have freedom!

    Do you want it to be illegal for a grandparent to hug their grandchild without both grandparent and grandchild wearing a mask when it happens? Do you want it to be illegal to sit in the same room as your parents without you and your parents wearing a mask?

    People get sick and die, its sad but its true. Restrictions got us to the point of us having vaccines and rolling them out. Post-vaccines, what's the endgame if not now?
    Your view is that everyone should have freedom.

    Yes, except for the tens or hundreds of thousands who will die. Unless you call death the ultimate freedom?
    No death should be the end of a life well lived.

    It isn't death that is important, its how you live your life that matters.

    I note you're pointedly ignoring the question as to whether you should wear a mask while in the same room as your parents. Hypocrite.
    Isn't part of a life well lived playing your small part in helping the community fight Covid-19?

    What you seem to be saying is, "Ok, had the jab, and that's it. I'm done. It's outrageous to ask me to do anything else. Regardless of the situation in the NHS, no restrictions are acceptable to me."

    This is a tad unreasonable imo.
    Why is it unreasonable?

    The way we can do our part in helping the community "fight Covid-19" and cancer and diabetes and heart disease and strokes and everything else is by going out and living our lives in full, supporting businesses, creating jobs, aiding the community and generating the taxes that pay for the NHS.
  • IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.

    I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.

    Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?

    I recall going round Audley End, near Saffron Walden, some years ago and being told that in Victorian times the gardeners would build South facing walls out of (relatively) heat-retaining bricks and plant such trees up against them, while shielding them from North and East winds. As a result they were able to supply the 'squires' table with, IIRC, lemons and sometimes oranges. They were also able to keep some fruits on the table 10 months of the year.
    Romans had a warmer climate, though. Vineyards in Yorkshire etc
    Depends what wine you are trying to make - many varieties of vine are actually rather hardy.
    No the Roman's really did have a substantially warmer climate. You can see it in data as diverse as tree rings, Oxygen isotope ratios and varve deposits. The wine one might be somewhat misleading for the reason you give but that doesn't change the basic premise.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    "How Poland could bring down the EU

    Attempts at blackmail are bound to backfire
    Peter Franklin"

    https://unherd.com/2021/10/poland-could-bring-down-the-eu/
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    kinabalu 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' ...
    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.
    What is the alternative?
    I believe I gave my view below. We're currently at a manageable, if tragic, level of deaths and hospitalisations. If hospitalisations go up to a certain level - perhaps 1,200 to 1,500 a day, then we need to seriously consider more restrictions.

    I'm not saying we need them at the moment. But my view is that we need to be open to the need for more restrictions, and not just callously let any number of people die (and, incidentally, cause the hospital system to fail, potentially affecting all of us).

    Until we are in a more stable situation, we've got to be prepared to react.
    Again and do what? Whose businesses are you prepared to destroy and lives ruin pursuing an impossible goal?
    What's the impossible goal? All we're talking about is managing an epidemic within NHS capacity.
    Do you think the government should do whatever it takes to protect the NHS from having a difficult winter? If necessary, should we shut schools? Should we (try to) cancel Christmas?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,456
    Cyclefree said:

    But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.

    I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.

    Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?

    I don't want to sound negative about such a positive post (we have enough of that) but why import a wisteria from Italy? Seems unnecessary from a cost and environment point of view both from the point of view of CO2 and importing viruses and bugs. It is pretty common here.

    I love wisteria and had to lose all of mine about 10 years ago because of work done on the house and garden. I had several mature plants. I used an axe to chop through several bits of very large root, planted them and most of them took and now have them back and flourishing.

    Could you not have bought them in the UK?
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 3,853
    edited October 2021
    Farooq said:

    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"

    "I'm comfortable damaging the education of kids to keep a few sick oldies alive for a few hours more, but I'm uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"

    "I'm comfortable destroying jobs and damaging people's mental health to delay but not stop anti-vaxxers being infected, but I'm uncomfortable being emotionally shamed for saying so"
    Wearing a mask on the bus is destroying your mental health? I'm very sorry to hear that.
    Some people might not feel comfortable getting on a bus if there is a mask mandate, because it suggests that it isn't safe. They may therefore become somewhat trapped, which isn't good for anyone.

    The reality is that - as we were told at the very beginning - masks might work if used properly, but they very rarely are. The effect is marginal at best.

    I went to a meeting recently at which people were wearing masks. Fine. I put one on out of politeness. Then I found that half the people present took them off to speak so that they could be heard. Doh! What was the point of that?
  • MaxPB said:

    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?
    You accuse others of not thinking yet propose completely stupid ideas like social distancing without thinking through the consequences. It is nothing more than showing us how virtuous you are and the love of being able to accuse others of not being virtuous. The consequences of social distancing are dire for businesses. You say that the pandemic is bad for business but the reality is that it's people like you who want to keep hold of the NPIs that are bad for business. Creating uncertainty where we don't need to. The vast, vast majority of people dying of this are the very old or vaccine refusers, the Italian study from yesterday made it very clear that we are now already at the endemic stage of this process.

    Putting social distancing in place because fools refused to get vaccinated is punishing businesses for other people's idiotic decisions. I think maybe we should just get on with life and let nature take its course with those who refuse to be vaccinated. If that means 30-40k people dying per year that wouldn't otherwise have done so then that's the way it will have to be. They made their choice.
    I have no interest in being "virtuous" however you define it (sounds a bit like being called "woke").

    This one is brutally simple. The NHS is still on its knees after Covid, and its senior managers can see the tsunami coming in. So we either start acting now or we face the consequences of a health system unable to cope through the winter.

    Perhaps these NHS managers are also being "virtuous". I hope they are - someone has to give a fuck.
    Talking to GP relatives from Leeds last weekend, the system is absolutely on its knees there. It was a very sobering conversation.
    I know. And yet some posters seem to think I am banging on to be virtuous / holier than thou. I'm not. Yesterday's news developments were eye-opening. We need to act quickly or the NHS will be screwed and large numbers will die of things that are not covid. One poster seems not to care how many people die, almost everyone else has a different perspective.
  • kinabalu 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' ...
    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.
    What is the alternative?
    I believe I gave my view below. We're currently at a manageable, if tragic, level of deaths and hospitalisations. If hospitalisations go up to a certain level - perhaps 1,200 to 1,500 a day, then we need to seriously consider more restrictions.

    I'm not saying we need them at the moment. But my view is that we need to be open to the need for more restrictions, and not just callously let any number of people die (and, incidentally, cause the hospital system to fail, potentially affecting all of us).

    Until we are in a more stable situation, we've got to be prepared to react.
    Again and do what? Whose businesses are you prepared to destroy and lives ruin pursuing an impossible goal?
    What's the impossible goal? All we're talking about is managing an epidemic within NHS capacity.
    That implies we can keep it at a level low enough to make a difference. We can't. Not without compulsory vaccination. And maybe not even then.

    Trouble is this is a great get out for the Government. The NHS is unfit for purpose (keeping people alive) but they can blame its failings on covid.
  • Cyclefree said:

    But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.

    I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.

    Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?

    Yes and in my case for quite sometime

    However, do not hesitate to go back to your dentist.

    I hesitated and was told I should have contacted her earlier which would have saved me a lot of pain
    I hate to say it Cyclefree but apparently a week to two weeks can be normal for a wisdom tooth.

    Coincidentally I had one of mine removed last week and its been agony for most of a week. My face swelled up so much on that side of my mouth that my jaw locked and I've taken the past week off work because it was painful to even talk. Feeling a lot better today though, hopefully you feel better soon.

    Ibuprofen and parcetamol alternated every 2 hours upto the permitted limit is what I was advised and have been taking. I didn't realise you could take both to their allowed maximum, I always thought it was either/or. Irritating that the shops do a cap of only 2 of either of them as if you're taking both then 1 box of each doesn't go very far.
    The dentist will prescribe sufficient paracetamol and ibuprofen in these cases and I had a very similar experience
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,262
    Cyclefree said:

    But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.

    I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.

    Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?

    I'm just wondering why you have to import a wisteria from Italy? 100s available from UK nurseries: fewer plant-miles, less risk of spreading disease, more chance of it suiting the UK climate, cheaper too I suspect.

    On the still sore mouth, I sympathise. I had a benign lump removed from my tongue in August under local anaesthetic. The actual op was fine, afterwards I had very little pain from the opsite as it healed. But the rest of my mouth was agony for the next few days - like a really bad sore throat but all over my mouth. I can only assume it was some kind of reaction to the local anaesthetic.

    It was all fine after 3-4 days though. Hopefully yours will improve soon.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,112
    edited October 2021

    Carnyx said:

    Cyclefree said:

    But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.

    I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.

    Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?

    I recall going round Audley End, near Saffron Walden, some years ago and being told that in Victorian times the gardeners would build South facing walls out of (relatively) heat-retaining bricks and plant such trees up against them, while shielding them from North and East winds. As a result they were able to supply the 'squires' table with, IIRC, lemons and sometimes oranges. They were also able to keep some fruits on the table 10 months of the year.
    I remember being fascinated to read a gardening book by William Cobbett (I think) - 1820s? - which talked about such things and also hot beds (?) - basically centrally heated by heaps of decomposing compost.
    Back 300 or so hundred years ago there was quite a lot, it seems, of imaginative 'technology' to solve problems for which we use electricity and gas.
    And coal before that. THis has brought back memories of summer work in my student days with a firm setting up in the derelict remains of a mid-Victorian walled garden. The garden in its heyday had a high back wall facing south which had greenhouses extending along most of it. The mushroom house, offices, bothy for unmarried gardeners, boiler house, and estate smithy were in a row along the north face of the wall - would have helped to keep the wall warm. And the landed family in question owned their own coal mines!
  • MaxPB said:

    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?
    You accuse others of not thinking yet propose completely stupid ideas like social distancing without thinking through the consequences. It is nothing more than showing us how virtuous you are and the love of being able to accuse others of not being virtuous. The consequences of social distancing are dire for businesses. You say that the pandemic is bad for business but the reality is that it's people like you who want to keep hold of the NPIs that are bad for business. Creating uncertainty where we don't need to. The vast, vast majority of people dying of this are the very old or vaccine refusers, the Italian study from yesterday made it very clear that we are now already at the endemic stage of this process.

    Putting social distancing in place because fools refused to get vaccinated is punishing businesses for other people's idiotic decisions. I think maybe we should just get on with life and let nature take its course with those who refuse to be vaccinated. If that means 30-40k people dying per year that wouldn't otherwise have done so then that's the way it will have to be. They made their choice.
    I have no interest in being "virtuous" however you define it (sounds a bit like being called "woke").

    This one is brutally simple. The NHS is still on its knees after Covid, and its senior managers can see the tsunami coming in. So we either start acting now or we face the consequences of a health system unable to cope through the winter.

    Perhaps these NHS managers are also being "virtuous". I hope they are - someone has to give a fuck.
    Does the country exist to serve the NHS or does the NHS exist to serve the country.

    This is as good as it gets. If the NHS struggles, the NHS struggles. It supposedly does every single winter so what else is new? They need to do the best with what they've got and that's that.
    And if that means that you and yours die by not getting quick enough treatment after a nasty car crash then "that's that"? You are very dismissive about death and a lack of capacity to treat people for everything that isn't Covid.

    I very sincerely hope this perspective doesn't come back to bite you. As the National Lottery used to say "it could be you".
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    Cyclefree said:

    But in jollier news I have just had a wisteria delivered all the way from Italy. It is large and mounted on a trellis and will climb up a sunny side wall of my house. A bit of an experiment this so wish me luck. I have a Mediterranean-style corner in my front garden with limes, lemons, orange, fig, vines and clementine trees. And now this wisteria.

    I do realise that I am thousands of miles from Naples, on the edge of the Irish Sea and the rain sometimes comes in horizontally. But the corner I have chosen is very sunny and protected and, so far, they are all thriving. I am taking inspiration from the Romans who got here and further north as well. An Australian who has just moved into the village down the road from us is viewing my experiment with interest - and a fair amount of scepticism. I look forward to inviting him to a G&T on the terrace with homegrown lemons.

    Gums and jaw still hurt, mind. Is this usual?

    Yes and in my case for quite sometime

    However, do not hesitate to go back to your dentist.

    I hesitated and was told I should have contacted her earlier which would have saved me a lot of pain
    I hate to say it Cyclefree but apparently a week to two weeks can be normal for a wisdom tooth.

    Coincidentally I had one of mine removed last week and its been agony for most of a week. My face swelled up so much on that side of my mouth that my jaw locked and I've taken the past week off work because it was painful to even talk. Feeling a lot better today though, hopefully you feel better soon.

    Ibuprofen and parcetamol alternated every 2 hours upto the permitted limit is what I was advised and have been taking. I didn't realise you could take both to their allowed maximum, I always thought it was either/or. Irritating that the shops do a cap of only 2 of either of them as if you're taking both then 1 box of each doesn't go very far.
    The dentist will prescribe sufficient paracetamol and ibuprofen in these cases and I had a very similar experience
    Possibly in Wales where prescriptions are free but not in England.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Interesting how the Pfizer advantage over AZ declines sharply so by 150 days after 2nd dose they're pretty similar, also children, by a wide margin more likely to test positive. In addition, people who can't "wfh" in manufacturing and education also more likely:



    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveycharacteristicsofpeopletestingpositiveforcovid19uk/21october2021
This discussion has been closed.