Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36083039)

Why? You'll only describe them as small in any case.

Let's just call it a small number. I'll say it has the potential to grow as cases grow. You'll claim there's no evidence for that. I'll say it stands to reason as it has throughout the pandemic. And we can continue on the merry go round for another 4 weeks.

Old Boy implied the number to be zero. Which it is not.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36083158)

You know very well I didn't mean zero. I meant that young people are not being hospitalised in significant numbers.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36083103)

There’s very little granular data and depends what your definition of “younger” is, but if you want to score a point as OB posted his as an absolute statement, I would doubt him to be correct.

That said, it’s irrelevant as the numbers are so low. Even now in the North West, where the vast majority of those being infected are “younger”, those being hospitalised are still the over 85’s, not the young.

---------- Post added at 19:26 ---------- Previous post was at 19:21 ----------



With an option to do it sooner if the data allows.

If we get to July 7th and hospitalisations remain under the threshold ( which they are now, well under the SAGE prediction level for opening up) hen they should open up on the 8th along with an apology.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36083165)

I was thinking and chatting with family last night about the small changes and why they couldn't release some restrictions on private gatherings in homes. I mean changing from inviting one family round to two or maybe three couples isn't really increasing the chances of spread much.
Then I remember the great British public who wouldn't use a bit of common sense and slowly ramp up but would go wild, have a big shing ding with no controls.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36083174)

That is the biggest problem. The public are thick.
Half these restrictions wouldn't be necessary if we could rely on people to use common sense, but we can't.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36083174)

That is the biggest problem. The public are thick.
Half these restrictions wouldn't be necessary if we could rely on people to use common sense, but we can't.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36083177)

Expecting the public to be able to put up with such major changes in their lives for such a significant period of time doesn't make them thick IMHO

collectively, the public can be easily swayed & unsurprisingly there will be a significant amount of lockdown fatigue.

Lockdown 1. Almost everyone in my area strictly adhered to the rules.
Lockdown 2. (The lockdown that wasn't) people in my area took greater risks (myself included)
Subsequent lockdowns? pretty much a free for all

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36083191)

Some interesting back of cigarette paper calculations on Twitter.

Had we red listed India when we red listed Bangladesh we would have kept out 96% of Delta seedings.

Yes, it'd inevitably have grown, but it could have bought is an extra 4 to 7 weeks before the current "wave" got to where it is now.

We could all have been down the lap dancing after all on June 21st had the Government took such a simple step.

Still it's only 4 weeks and we can get the economy going by spending £30 every 3-5 minutes or so.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36083192)

Link for that claim?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36083191)

Some interesting back of cigarette paper calculations on Twitter.

Had we red listed India when we red listed Bangladesh we would have kept out 96% of Delta seedings.

Yes, it'd inevitably have grown, but it could have bought is an extra 4 to 7 weeks before the current "wave" got to where it is now.

We could all have been down the lap dancing after all on June 21st had the Government took such a simple step.

Still it's only 4 weeks and we can get the economy going by spending £30 every 3-5 minutes or so.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36083192)

Link for that claim?