Re: Coronavirus
 

que?

Re: Coronavirus
 

:confused:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I was thinking more like,

He was the latest, also

And

That’s just a few quoted in a few articles today, and I’m sure there’s probably more, that’s just one day, and they wheel out any available science hack every day with their opinion on what the Gov should or shouldn’t do, and I’m very bored of it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Excellent news

Re: Coronavirus
 

The good news is decision-making isn't being led by what does (or doesn't) bore Pierre.

While 0 Covid deaths is obviously welcome that doesn't equate to being able to lift all restrictions imminently given the proportion of unvaccinated people and lower efficacy of the vaccines now compared to when the road map was published.

I'm bored of Covid deniers like Toby Young, Isabel Oakeshott and Hartley-Brewer being given airtime so I think we can confidently say the UK airwaves are tediously balanced.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Mmmmm - who to believe? a bunch of rentaquote journos whose aim is to get clicks/revenue with no immunology/virology/medical background or experience, or Professor Ravi Gupta, a member of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group, Professor Adam Finn, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), and Professor Devi Sridhar, chair of global public health at Edinburgh University, who between them have over a century's experience in those fields.

Tricky decision... :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

100%. The alternative to managing localised increases is allowing them to spread and then you are managing national increases. That's a one way street.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I agree, we should wait until we get -n Covid deaths, once the corpses reanimate - and subsequently test negative of course, as long as we get the tests done before they eat our brains, then we’ll be in a much better place.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's probably the most sensible thing you've said about COVID... :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Toby Young, Isabel Oakeshott and Hartley-Brewer . . . nope, never heard of them, sorry :shrug:

However, that chap Ravi Gupta seems to be the current flavour of the month with the media.

I remember when the media reported SAGE says this, SAGE says that, SAGE says . . but now it's mostly some random chap from a college getting his 2p worth in . . maybe in the interest of diversity and fairness, the media have to give them all a turn at their '15 minutes of fame' when announcing their findings for 'the end is nigh' :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Finally a scientist on Sky that talks sense, I knew we’d get one eventually by the law of averages at least.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The problem being that a new variant could be easier to transmit, asymptomatic for longer whilst still being exhaled, worse for our health, and thus a higher risk to the NHS.

And it could also escape the vaccines we have at the moment.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Another one to add to the list then, alongside deaths from:-

RTA's
Falling (off ladders/scaffold, down stairs, slipping in the bath etc)
Obesity
Influenza
Electrocution (work & home)
Industrial accidents
Smoking & Drinking
Drug misuse
Murder
Suicide
etc etc

If Covid deaths are kept to around 1000 a year it fits well ;) :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

He was on BBC Radio 4, not Sky! ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

"Scamper down the rabbit hole" is not equal to maintaining sensible restrictions based on the data.

However he's telling you what you want to hear after a selective interpretation so hooray for your mood for now. Less so on June 22.

The easiest way to manage hospitalisations and deaths is maximise vaccine rollout.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The article I copied and posted was on Sky News website ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

You let him in by not posting a link to it.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

You're lucky!

Re: Coronavirus
 

:D more like down to the fact I don't do Twitter & Farcebook ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

.... and an asteroid could hit the earth and that would be equally bad for us, and the NHS.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Probability vs possibility - it's probable (likely) that a new variant could be easier to transmit (cf. the Vietnam variant), it's possible that an asteroid could hit the Earth (but unlikely).

If something is possible, it could happen.
If something is probable, it is likely to happen.

It's possible that Old Boy would support further lockdown measures - it's probable that he won't... :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

I could possibly mow the lawn tomorrow, but . . ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

A decision based on what could happen that probably won’t happen is not at all sensible when it would cause struggling businesses to fail and more people to be thrown out of work.

There will be many more variants before this is over but as long as hospital admissions can be kept under control, this should not be of major concern.

The PM would be rightly criticised if he failed to end restrictions based on what some people think could happen when we have a very successful vaccination programme which is nearing completion and with boosters planned to tackle variants on the way.

I suspect that many of those shouting from the rooftops for the measures to continue are benefiting from the furlough scheme and don’t want to return to work.

---------- Post added at 19:45 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ----------

You are right on that point. By the way, the Vietnam variant is said to be under control.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Old Boy can we get a correction on your "less than 20" hospitalisations claim? I checked Pierre's post and he was definitely referring to deaths.

On that note I'm very reluctant to take credible the thoughts of anyone who confuses the two, yet still reaches the same conclusion every time.

I doubt all those nightclub workers and those who work in stadium venues are making the most noise to be fair. But your snide dig at the lowest paid and most at risk was noted.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, I meant to confirm that you were right on that point. I should have looked back at Pierre’s post before responding. I was relying on memory only, for which I do indeed apologise.

However, there are no concerns currently regarding hospitalisations, which are running flat nationwide. Transmission may be increasing, but clearly the vaccination programme is preventing this from becoming a problem like the first two waves. Assuming this remains the case in two weeks time (why wouldn’t it?) the PM will be very confident indeed that current restrictions can end.

I did not have a ‘dig’ at low paid workers, by the way. You don’t have to be low paid to be on furlough. The point was that those who are still receiving sufficient money to live on without having to work are the most likely not to want to see restrictions lifted.

Those who need to get the restrictions ended so that they can keep their businesses going or go back to work before their employer’s business folds are absolutely desperate for this to end.

I get it that some people want to keep the mask wearing and social distancing, but there is nothing to stop them continuing to observe these precautions. I shouldn’t think there are many clubbers amongst them, though. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m surprised that hospitalisations can be 7 times higher than you originally opined yet still you reach the same conclusion. The same conclusion you reach every time.

I doubt many want mask wearing and distancing to continue to be fair. The fact is they reduce transmission and this allows more aspects of the economy to open up. Nobody benefits from another lockdown, least of all the business owners you seemingly care for more than their workforce.

If you are right a delay is just that. A delay of the inevitable. The stats will remain low. The case to continue easing gets stronger. In particular when schools close for summer ending a significant vector of transmission for weeks.

If you’re wrong it’s lockdown. And that’s months knee deep in it. Plus months to ease in phases.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

He could be.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ly-conditions/

Re: Coronavirus
 

”Said to be under control" by whom?

---------- Post added at 00:14 ---------- Previous post was at 00:12 ----------

And if he isn’t?

Re: Coronavirus
 

and if he is ..... :erm:

We could just keep repeating this forever, not really a useful response.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

The daily figure of hospitalisations UK-wide as of now is 123, and it is stable, despite the number of cases rising. Why? The vaccination programme, which, like it or not, is the game changer that will enable the government to remove restrictions on 21 June. There is no case for delay. Time to move on and get our lives back to normal.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This morning I have been looking the numbers for the UK to try and get a handle on what might happen going forward and I am not sure how conclusive things are right now....

The cases are definitely on the way up (link) Not unexpected given the looser restrictions now. However, I went all Donald Trump and wondered if this was due to more testing and so had a look at the positivity rate and that is also on the way up (link) too so this isn't just because we are looking more.

There is also an uptick on hospitalisations - 17% week on week (link) which is a bit more worrying.

However, deaths remain flat right now (link) which is good news.

I guess the decision for what will happen on the 21st depends on the following questions;

• Will the hospitalisations go up in line with the case load?
• Will the death rate follow this?

Historically, there has been a couple weeks to go from case to hospital and hospital to death so I think this will be a last minute decision

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Different facts twisted to the same old tune OB.

I'm unsure why you include "like it or not" - everyone welcomes the impact vaccination is having on more positive outcomes. It is indeed a game changer unfortunately you see the game as a binary choice of restrictions against no restrictions.

A significant proportion of the population remain both unvaccinated and partially vaccinated. It's a game changer but you wish to cut the game short and hope for the best - then again that was your attitude on 23 March 2020 to hope for the best.

I'll stick to getting my insightful analysis from others on the forum happy to utilise evidence and cite their sources. The other day, while confusing hospitalisations with deaths (minor error, I know) you also made the unsubstantiated claim that most people are now asymptomatic?

Do you have a source for that one or was it merely invented to suit your dogmatic view that we should not, and never have had, restrictions regardless of the impact on hospitalisations and deaths?

If vaccination is the game changer you profess it to be what's the problem with a few more weeks of getting more out there while also keeping large swathes of the economy open? When the alternative - if you are wrong - is lockdown? I'm sure those business owners open just now wouldn't thank you for it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you click on the data tab on Jon’s link (on the Patients admitted to hospital table), the last 7 days (21-27 May) add up to 869, and the previous 7 days (14-20 May) add up to 742.

That works out to a 17% increase week on week.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, that's right. It's also on the front page (link) where they give change on the previous 7 day period. Here's all the main bullet points;

• Cases up 34.7%
• Deaths down 14.8%
• Hospitalisations up 17.1%
• Tests down 17.3%

The data is not pretty viewing. Hopefully, the ultimate lagging measure of deaths will not follow the trends for cases and hospitalisations. That would be expected due to the vaccination program but hard data would be preferred of course

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you've been vaccinated and subsequently tested 2 months later, does the test pick up the active virus or antibodies?

Simply asking in order to ascertain if mass testing is picking up an active virus or the remnants of a dead one ;)

Not that I really give a brown smelly one, currently the biggest threat to my health is bored frustration and a desire to lash out . . . thank God I don't own a weapon :shocked:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Didn’t have you down as one for nightclubs ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Depends what test you mean, but basically, no. I've had two PCR and two LFT tests since my first vaccine, and all were negative. If I had an antibody test, hopefully that would be positive.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unfortunately, "local local downs" are as effective as "no-peeing" zones in a swimming pool…

---------- Post added at 14:00 ---------- Previous post was at 13:51 ----------

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsu...tions-answered

Re: Coronavirus
 

Quite, Add to this the government have already stated local lockdowns will not be used (if you believe what they say that is)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Whilst hundreds of people are still arriving at the ports and airports and then using public transport to get home, I expect no sudden end to this.

And after all this time, I wish the daily figures were all sent in on a daily basis, and not in the bonkers way they are still being submitted. "We don't send in over the weekend". We don't submit daily". We don't submit on public holidays".

That's why the graphs look so odd. This is the daily death rate graph, and daily case graph for the same period.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We do have to watch the hospitalisations, because whether or not people die at the end of it, this increases pressures on the NHS. However, I am not convinced by the percentage increases unless these become maintained, because we are dealing with small numbers here. Cases in half of the hotspots are already starting to decline.

This is not sufficiently significant to warrant the delay of relaxation of our control measures.



Jfman, if you think the answer to all this is lockdowns, you are on your own. The lockdowns were an extreme response to an extreme danger, but we have the vaccines now, which have made the need for more damaging lockdowns unnecessary. You seem to think that extending the emergency measures by a few weeks won’t matter, when you must have read the news items showing that many businesses will finally collapse if that happens.

Look at the graphs, which clearly show that under 40s were largely unaffected by the virus, with only small numbers being admitted into hospital. Given that the vast majority of under 40s are now vaccinated, why are you so concerned?

Now we are inviting over 20s to be vaccinated. Your obsession with lockdowns is clearly overkill, but you just don’t see it, do you?

As far as the number of asymptomatic cases is concerned, I think we are underestimating, however, I would point you to the article from The Independent:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-b1828361.html

[EXTRACT]

More than half of people with a strong Covid infection did not report any of the major symptoms, new figures from the Office for National Statistics have revealed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A delay in easing restrictions does not equate to lockdown.

I’m not really willing to accept there’s a plethora of businesses who have sustained restrictions from March 2020 to date - including actual lockdown that are on breaking point over the next few weeks.

These are classic Old Boy straw men.

Doesn’t sound like the figures clearly say anything. Was that a small number of hospitalisations or deaths I know you’ve been confused over this matter before.

Straw man once more. Current restrictions aren’t lockdown.

There’s also a ton of data one dose of the vaccine isn’t sufficient against the latest strain.

One report versus all the previous data around it. I remain sceptical, in particular using the phrase “strong covid infection”. Either the majority of cases are asymptomatic or aren’t.

Old Boy you claim to not want lockdowns yet insist upon car crash approaches from March 2020 to date. So forgive me for not believing you have the best interests of the nations health at heart.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Tough luck. All those who went racing out to Portugal and Spain on the assumption that both countries would be green by the time they returned will now be hit with testing bills and mandatory isolation. I have zero sympathy.

How could you be so stupid?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Covid: Indian variant 'now dominant' in the UK

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57287112

As reported by the BBC . . dominant . . DOMINANT :shocked:

12,431 cases across the whole UK, my god that's . . erm . . not many really is it, and that's the dominant strain?

aah but remember in the small writing folks, shares can go down as well as up ;) :p:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, agreed. All UK citizens should holiday in this country this year. With a traffic light system that changes as frequently as, well, traffic lights, no-one can rely on the green light to give you any confidence at all that it will remain so.

It’s just a pity that our seaside resorts come as such a poor second to those on the continent. We need to modernise our seaside towns so that when the weather disappoints, there’s plenty of alternatives to amuse visitors.

Accommodation needs to be upgraded, too!

---------- Post added at 18:19 ---------- Previous post was at 18:15 ----------

They are not ‘straw men’, jfman. In many parts of the hospitality sector, they are absolutely relying on the dismantling of restrictions on 21 June. Even where pubs and restaurants have opened, they tend not to be profitable with the current restrictions in place.

You don’t have to accept what these businesses are saying. But the government ignores this at their peril.

---------- Post added at 18:23 ---------- Previous post was at 18:19 ----------

So even figures don’t convince you now. Well, well. That’s your credibility completely shot to pieces. Admitting you are wrong would be much less damaging to your reputation!

You are the one confused, jfman.

---------- Post added at 18:27 ---------- Previous post was at 18:23 ----------

Current restrictions are crippling some businesses. Not that you care.

One dose of the vaccine does prevent illness in some cases and prevents severe illness in others. As time goes on, the risk of hospitalisations is decreasing. It’s also worth saying that most of those who have had only one jab are younger than 40. In other words, they are not in the vulnerable category.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Don’t make me laugh Old Boy we have a Government consistently polling ahead of rival parties by a country mile despite scandal, corruption and even one of their top advisers coming out and berating them.

After 15 months if you think the hospitality sector will even nudge the dial in polls by extending restrictions for a month or two then you are kidding only yourself.

The Government cannot manage a pandemic by focusing on one sector alone.

From someone who will literally say anything to back up their flawed argument, no. You will never convince me.

At least I have sufficient credibility having never confused 16 deaths with 16 hospitalisations then still came to the same conclusion regardless because I’ve not got blinkers on.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You are so predictable! You rubbish opinions you don’t agree with and then when corroboration is provided for the view you derided, you then find excuses not to agree with the article! And you never provide any articles to support your extraordinary views, either.

I think we have the measure of you, jfman.

No, I don’t want any more lockdowns. They are unnecessary, and do not, in the end, prevent deaths. They delay deaths, and that is all.

It is vaccinations that have saved us. Not lockdowns.

Re: Coronavirus
 

:D

“Extraordinary views” - agreeing with Conservative Government policy.

You’re clearly not paying attention to the new data, but I find that completely unsurprising. If the Government can support businesses for fifteen months they can support them for sixteen.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nice attempt to change the subject! This is not about politics, although that is clearly your motivation.

Nobody will ever convince you that you are wrong. On anything. Once you commit to an argument, you cannot bring yourself to admit you are wrong.

The deaths/hospitalisations issue has already been explained, so move on.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

most of the under 15's probably

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’ve explained that you misunderstood but not explained how, in light of new information you reach the same conclusion? It’s almost as if it’s nothing to do with the data, nothing to do with the vaccination programme, nothing to do with variants.

At least just level with us and say you despise how Covid has extended the role and function of the state, and it’s exposure of the myth of private sector efficiency through the PPE contracts and test and trace.

The data could literally say anything and you’d push no restrictions from June 22, because you’ve opposed restrictions all along. It’s bare naked dogmatic ideology we all see through.

Re: Coronavirus
 

For all those who wonder what's going on in this thread . . .

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2021/06/1.gif

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=4015

“We cannot afford another lockdown” 16 June 20.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=4143

“We need to get to herd immunity” 21 June

Yet now we have a vaccination programme it doesn’t matter about getting there evidently. Open up!

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=4777

“The UK is not a suitable place for Brits to holiday in because:

1. Lack of good weather.
2. High prices when compared with abroad.
3. Run down holiday towns.
4. Lack of good accommodation and facilities.
5. Expensive drinks and food.”

I liked that one.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=4887

A late comeback for “just shield the vulnerable” 2 August 20

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=5335

“We may not get that second wave” 6 September 20.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=5625

“Hospital admissions remain very low” 15 September 20.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=5904

“If we get a vaccine, then we have a solution” 22 September 20.

Indeed we do, so why not give it the best chance?

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...2&postcount=79

“Certainly, there should be no mandatory restrictions. The public should be advised on how to behave during the pandemic and to stay away from vulnerable friends and relatives” 12 October 20 -

I note nothing about those who don’t have a choice unpaid carers who also work in public facing environments.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=2150

“ The emergency measures are necessary only until the vaccine has reduced hospital admissions to a safe level. The vaccine alone should ensure that happens by February or March.” 30 December 20.

I’ve tried really hard OB but whatever data says you always have fundamentally the same message that restrictions should be removed imminently, regardless of whether we are entering a new wave or exiting one.

Re: Coronavirus
 

*Yawn* Have you nothing better to do ?

Most restrictions could be removed on June 21st, and I'd definitely like them to be.
Some are already unnecessary and based on faulty beliefs (there is no real evidence of people catching it via touch)

Will they be removed ? My bet atm is no, probably not until at least July.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And exactly what new data do you find so compelling in the light of who is vulnerable and the current vaccine rollout?

Considering your dislike of straw men, you don’t half like clutching at straws! :p:

Re: Coronavirus
 

A more transmissible variant putting vaccinated (largely one dose) people in hospital. That is an 8 week delay to getting the similar projected one dose efficacy for the Astrazenica vaccine into the population. As herd immunity man I thought you'd have worked that out easily enough.

I'll heed Paul's nudge above. Everyone can read the posts for themselves and decide.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Spot on. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Perhaps you would like to explain how this data changes anything, given the vaccine rollout.

You are trying desperately to turn this into a political argument. I am not arguing politics. I am arguing that these unprecedented restrictions are destroying people’s businesses, livelihoods and people’s hopes for the future. You are clutching at straws to find any reason you can hold onto to extend their pain, and at any cost.

I am at a loss to explain any motivation other than a purely political or otherwise disruptive reason you may have for this cruelty.

---------- Post added at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was at 20:42 ----------

That bloody mouse just won’t shut up! :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

[/COLOR]That must make you the pussy... ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

A Conservative Government managing it's way out of a pandemic - "cruelty". Such hyperbolic nonsense.

Again for what must to myself and others feel like is the millionth time the vaccine rollout by virtue of the new variant is behind where it needed to be when the initial road map was published.

Businesses, livelihoods and hopes for the future will be ruined if there's another lockdown because we had to hit the emergency brake for easing restrictions doesn't support it. Not if the Conservative Government - led by science - delays the next step while firing out over 2 million vaccinations a week. Effectively loading the dice in our favour.

Expect masks to remain, working from home to continue at a minimum.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of People will have done the same over the past 16 months, myself included.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Except that the government will in fact end these restrictions on 21 June. You are the one desperately trying to prolong the agony.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There’s no science behind it, you’re more likely to contract Covid in the U.K. than in Portugal. The government want to scrap international travel this year for some reason and this is how they’ll do it.

Perhaps they’re more concerned about Portugal, and don’t want all our vaccinated people going to Portugal and not causing any issue there, and coming home and not causing any issue here. That’s it.

---------- Post added at 22:17 ---------- Previous post was at 22:15 ----------

You have far too much time on your hands.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Probably worth reminding ourselves of all of the assumptions we've all had that were proven to be wrong when we then so confidently make similar statements now....

I suspect the 21st will either be postponed or some restrictions will remain.

Cases are now of a lesser concern unless they translate to increased hospitalisations and the vaccine means they're no longer so tightly linked. So an eye will be kept on those numbers especially in light of one shot of the vaccine being less effective against this variant than the other ones, that's quite a big deal as the one-shot regime was so effective.

Personally, I am happy with the current rules and I wouldn't mind a delay to the lifting of the remaining restrictions if it means less risk to the ones we have now. I do not want to do a full lockdown again, that's done, but caution for a couple more months until the 2nd dose is widely given is acceptable to me at least.

Re: Coronavirus
 

My friends tell me I’m a cool cat. :cool:

Re: Coronavirus
 

No evidence for this whatsoever, in fact most results that I have seen show that one dose reduces serious disease and hospitalisation

https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/cl...-more-than-75/

There is also scarce evidence that the vaccines are less effective against the numerous new variants.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not to those who will lose their businesses or lose their jobs, though.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well that's the advantage of the current rules where most things are open outdoors and indoors. Obviously, the full relaxation of rules means pubs can have bar services and people standing, I really miss proper pubs, but the risk is if we need to increase measures back to outdoor-only for the summer IMO.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But those pubs and restaurants that are open are surviving by the skin of their teeth. The measures need to be relaxed without delay. There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And death…

Re: Coronavirus
 

Your friends that live in 1973...

And a particularly unpleasant one at that

Re: Coronavirus
 

We can only wait and see. From my comprehensive list produced earlier you’re track record isn’t exactly solid.

I want out of this situation as much as the next person so please refrain from personalising it. However, I’m completely realistic that there are no short cuts.

---------- Post added at 06:07 ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 ----------

Or “hospitalisation” as OB once described it.

---------- Post added at 06:13 ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 ----------

“Scarce evidence”. I direct you to Public Health England’s risk register on the Delta variant.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, post the link and I’ll take a look

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://assets.publishing.service.go...iant_DELTA.pdf

Notably it was published last night and not 22 February as the news article you linked to. The news article predates the emergence of variant delta.

It confirms a reduction in vaccine efficacy which is being denied and highlights particular concern around the Oxford vaccine.

There is more confidence after two doses.

It's very red as far as risk registers go. It would be very challenging for a following the science Conservative Government to ignore.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I have always advocated protecting the vulnerable and allowing the virus to pass through the healthy population. As for the observation that there would not be a need for a second lockdown, that was before we knew that the new Kent variant was far more transmissable.

On your second point, it was only a few posts ago when you said you were 'looking forward' to restrictions being extended beyond 21 June. This despite the continuing hardship that would impose on those struggling to survive under these conditions, so I don't believe that you want this disruption to end at all.

As for personalising this argument, you've got a nerve saying that, given your previous posts! Anyhow, if you want to call a truce to hostilities, I am all for that. Let's just keep to the argument. It is possible to agree to disagree.

---------- Post added at 08:53 ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 ----------

...And the current average daily tally stands at.....

Covid is no longer the biggest killer in the UK.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Of course I look forward to the Government making a decision that effectively manages the pandemic as opposed to pandering to Great Barrington Declaration types. That provides the best outcome in both economic and health terms by avoiding a further total lockdown.

It’ll also allow this thread to move forward to consider future management of the pandemic when some finally accept June 22 isn’t happening.

I don’t view this as hostile, but claiming I’m judging my analysis based on personal preference just isn’t true.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yep, they’ve plastered a big red mark next to it, and then said

I didn’t say that there wasn’t any evidence, I said it was scarce, this does nothing as yet to alter that assessment.

So they don’t really know yet.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sounds to me like proposing to bury your head in the sand rather than acknowledge the inevitable delay that is inbound.

Vaccines are less effective - that means more hospitalisations. More deaths. These things are absolutely inevitable.

If ever there was evidence to support a delay it's all there in red and white. Unless you are that desperate to force another lockdown?

Professor Pantsdown has been on Radio 4 saying the end is nigh so that's a done deal in my book.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The fact that Portugal has been taken off the green list and no new countries added suggests the government is not afraid to take a cautious approach.

Re: Coronavirus
 

When the alternative is months in lockdown it’s the only sensible course.

The vast, vast majority of people would prefer to keep where they are now as they don’t have an ideological dog in the game.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Would you happen to have on hand any figures to support that claim . . . maybe . . you know . . a poll of 1382 people done by an independent marketing company specialising in hair transplants or something?

;) :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is a high level of uncertainty to that statement...............according to your source.

Re: Coronavirus
 

To the extent - for one specific vaccine after two doses.

That doesn't apply to the statement on reduced efficacy overall or the Pfizer vaccine at all.

Less time spent selectively interpreting it and more time spent reading what it actually says and we'd all spend less time discussing it.

Even if I conceded you were right - which I absolutely do not - uncertainty justifies delay until more data is available.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So it looks like the discussion here is at an impasse - some want to open up unless it is proved unsafe to do so and others want to stay locked down unless it is proved safe to open up.

Only one of these options is fail safe in terms of COVID and that is the second one. I feel that the government got its fingers burnt badly late last year and would tend to err towards being more cautious.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's only one vaccine. The report itself states a high degree of confidence in that finding. They do this each week and it's been getting progressively more certain in their finds.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some good news the MHRA has approved the Pfizer vaccine for use 12 years and upwards - safe and effective.

We can now find out how serious the JCVI are about reaching population level immunity via vaccination.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That is great news. I would be all up for my kids having the jab if it makes things safer for seeing their grandparents. There will of course be the argument that kids aren't really affected by COVID so why have the jab but reducing the chances of spread is a good thing.

The same argument is used for HPV vaccination of teenage boys - they'll just get warts from HPV (plus an extremely low rate of penile cancer) but it will help reduce cases of cervical cancer in the long term

Re: Coronavirus
 

You do realise that the two points you make in your opening paragraph are contradictory?

Allowing the virus to "pass through the healthy population" creates the likelyhood of more variants, some of which are likely to be more transmissable - doing the first creates the opportunity for the second.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Does that mean the vaccines are now almost 100% effective against catching and spreading it?

Re: Coronavirus
 

You have not taken those remarks in the context in which they were made. I have never argued for a lockdown - I was answering the question of why I had previously asserted that a further big wave was unlikely. The impact of the Kent variant took everyone by surprise.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Point.
missed.
completely...

You were/are advocating the spread of the virus throughout the population, then you were surprised that a more transmissable variant arose.


The more the virus spreads, the more likelyhood of variants arising, and the more likelyhood of one or more of those variants being more transmissible.

Science... :(

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well I’m bookmarking this post for three months time when you claim the Indian variant took everyone by surprise. It absolutely didn’t.