When will this shit end?

[zahidf]

2 minutes ago, incident said:

So the Telegraph says - "Ministers are looking at proposals to triple the length of time between taking a first and second dose from three weeks to 12 weeks, in order to speed up the delivery of the vaccine."

Aside from the very dodgy maths there, why the hell should Ministers even have input on that? It should be a medical decision and should be left for medical people to decide based on facts. Politicians should shut the fuck up on aspects like that.

I assume the NHS CANT do that unless the MHRA approve?

 

Edited December 27, 2020 by zahidf

[MrBarry465]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I dont even think that tbh. Tourism is too important.

Travel restrictions will absolutely be in place in some countries. Australia and New Zealand for one.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Yeah that isn't the message politicians are giving and I dont think it is the right thing to do to mess up the economy or peoples employment one minute more than is absolutely necessary to stop multiple deaths.

Once the death rate and hospitalisation rates are massively down thanks to mass vaccination (hopefully by easter) then social distancing can get and stay in the bin as far as I am concerned.

Yes it is, I have heard in the daily briefings several members of government say that even if you've had the vaccination then you'll still need to follow the rules/socially distance. The main reason being is that they don't know if the vaccine prevents spread of the virus.

2 minutes ago, MEGABOWL said:

There’s going to be some fabulous psychology studies done about human behaviour in this Pandemic

There will be, it be fascinating to go back on in years to come. In the war when people were being asked to turn off lights in the Blitz, I wonder if they were saying this is a punishment?

[zahidf]

Just now, Ozanne said:

Yes it is, I have heard in the daily briefings several members of government say that even if you've had the vaccination then you'll still need to follow the rules/socially distance. The main reason being is that they don't know if the vaccine prevents spread of the virus.

There will be, it be fascinating to go back on in years to come. In the war when people were being asked to turn off lights in the Blitz, I wonder if they were saying this is a punishment?

Did turning out the lights lead to mass unemployment and mental health issues?

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, MrBarry465 said:

Travel restrictions will absolutely be in place in some countries. Australia and New Zealand for one.

Ok, fair enough. But the US and Europe? I doubt it.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Ha on both ends!

 

I'm no lockdown sceptic. I acknowledge the need for it when we need to control things. I'm just amazed that some people seem to want it past a point when restrictions will be worse than covid past mass vaccinations.

I don't think anyone has said that? This is the same discussion as a week ago where some of us were saying that there will be SOME restrictions in place past a certain point but you took that to mean we think there will be full restrictions.

[incident]

Just now, zahidf said:

I assume the NHS CANT do that unless the MHRA approve?

I don't know really.

My understanding has been that the MHRA approve the vaccine as safe to use (along with any specifics about how), and based on that the JCVI recommend how it's deployed and the NHS follow that. But in theory both of those are supposed to be science led and free of political involvement/influence.

[MrBarry465]

 

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I don't think anyone has said that? This is the same discussion as a week ago where some of us were saying that there will be SOME restrictions in place past a certain point but you took that to mean we think there will be full restrictions.

Correct, some people seem to think it will literally just be light turning a light switch off and on. It won't be the case.

For instance, do I think nightclubs will be open by the end of next year - yes I do. Will they be open at full capacity - no I don't think so.

Edited December 27, 2020 by MrBarry465

[Copperface]

3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Do you genuinely think we will have restrictions until the end of next year and people will go along with it?

In some way shape or form, then yes, probably, at least until late summer, early autumn, depending on vaccination rate and transmission rates/spread. They'll be fairly derestricted by then but all restrictions will not be totally lifted. 

Said this many times, but most likely is eventually, restaurants and pubs will be open, you'll be able to have parties at home, you can bugger off on holiday to Spain and most will be happy with that and will go along with it. 

That is very different to allowing mass gatherings at a time they will be trying to stop the spread before they have reached a critical mass. 

And this is actually before you take into account how it is actually going to take to vaccinate sufficient people to get through the first phase and b. to hit the desired critical mass of 65 to 70%.

The government just have a really crap communications operation - there is a strategy but they just can't help deviating from it under pressure. They have to manage public expectations and needs so can't just come out and say brutally what the likely projections are -  they have to drip feed it.

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Did turning out the lights lead to mass unemployment and mental health issues?

In some cases yes but when the alternative was giving the Luftwaffe sight of targets on the ground then most people saw this was to act in the greater good.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, MrBarry465 said:

 

Correct, some people seem to think it will literally just be light turning a light switch off and on. It won't be the case.

For instance, do I think nightclubs will be open by the end of next year - yes I do. Will they be open at full capacity - no I don't think so.

It's wishful thinking on the part of some as they are so eager for things to get back to normal that it's clouding their judgment of when that might happen. Look too late summer of a good idea of how that normality will begin then if all goes well it improve from there.

[zahidf]

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

In some cases yes but when the alternative was giving the Luftwaffe sight of targets on the ground then most people saw this was to act in the greater good.

Oh come on. Its not the same. Using Ww2 metaphors for lockdowns is the same as when the brexit nutters use it for no deal.

[MEGABOWL]

7 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Yes it is, I have heard in the daily briefings several members of government say that even if you've had the vaccination then you'll still need to follow the rules/socially distance. The main reason being is that they don't know if the vaccine prevents spread of the virus.

There will be, it be fascinating to go back on in years to come. In the war when people were being asked to turn off lights in the Blitz, I wonder if they were saying this is a punishment?

Quite possibly, given how much pushback there was to what people were asked to do during WW2. Some pretty good parallels there too. The Lancet did an interesting comparison too. So many good angles to explore.

[zahidf]

5 minutes ago, Copperface said:

In some way shape or form, then yes, probably, at least until late summer, early autumn, depending on vaccination rate and transmission rates/spread. They'll be fairly derestricted by then but all restrictions will not be totally lifted. 

Said this many times, but most likely is eventually, restaurants and pubs will be open, you'll be able to have parties at home, you can bugger off on holiday to Spain and most will be happy with that and will go along with it. 

That is very different to allowing mass gatherings at a time they will be trying to stop the spread before they have reached a critical mass. 

And this is actually before you take into account how it is actually going to take to vaccinate sufficient people to get through the first phase and b. to hit the desired critical mass of 65 to 70%.

The government just have a really crap communications operation - there is a strategy but they just can't help deviating from it under pressure. They have to manage public expectations and needs so can't just come out and say brutally what the likely projections are -  they have to drip feed it.

 

Fauci said something similar about lying to the public to get them to comply with vaccinations and lockdowns. Ethically, I dont think that's right, and once granny is vaccinated and isn't going to die, I think public approval of stuff like lockdowns or restrictions will go right down.

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

3 minutes ago, Copperface said:

In some way shape or form, then yes, probably, at least until late summer, early autumn, depending on vaccination rate and transmission rates/spread. They'll be fairly derestricted by then but all restrictions will not be totally lifted. 

Said this many times, but most likely is eventually, restaurants and pubs will be open, you'll be able to have parties at home, you can bugger off on holiday to Spain and most will be happy with that and will go along with it. 

That is very different to allowing mass gatherings at a time they will be trying to stop the spread before they have reached a critical mass. 

And this is actually before you take into account how it is actually going to take to vaccinate sufficient people to get through the first phase and b. to hit the desired critical mass of 65 to 70%.

The government just have a really crap communications operation - there is a strategy but they just can't help deviating from it under pressure. They have to manage public expectations and needs so can't just come out and say brutally what the likely projections are -  they have to drip feed it.

 

You dont need herd immunity to release restrictions though. That is what the 65-70% is all about. 

Once the eldest and those with ore existing conditions are injected the pressures on the NHS should massively fall away - look at the demographics for the deaths and those getting seriously ill. Its like a cliff edge below the age of 60. Yes this means people will still get infected, yes it means some will end up in hospital, yes.it means some people will die like any illness can still kill some people if they are especially unlucky. 

People of all ages are always going to die unfortunately. 

[Copperface]

20 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

And now even you are quoting articles that highlight the aim to complete one million vaccinations per week. 

I thought that figure had comprehensively been 'put to bed' by some 'back of the fag packet maths'.

[MrBarry465]

2 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

You dont need herd immunity to release restrictions though.

As has been said many times, it's in the global communities best interest to stop people mixing and mutating the virus further.

The government keeps restrictions until as late as possible imo - I reckon they will want at least 40% of the population done.

[Copperface]

1 minute ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

You dont need herd immunity to release restrictions though. That is what the 65-70% is all about. 

Once the eldest and those with ore existing conditions are injected the pressures on the NHS should massively fall away - look at the demographics for the deaths and those getting seriously ill. Its like a cliff edge below the age of 60. Yes this means people will still get infected, yes it means some will end up in hospital, yes.it means some people will die like any illness can still kill some people if they are especially unlucky. 

People of all ages are always going to die unfortunately. 

Read what I wrote. I'm talking about lifting all restrictions.

[zahidf]

2 minutes ago, Copperface said:

And now even you are quoting articles that highlight the aim to complete one million vaccinations per week. 

I thought that figure had comprehensively been 'put to bed' by some 'back of the fag packet maths'.

Thats in Jan first weeks. Its all going to be leveled up so more by Feb hopefully.

[zahidf]

February days the mirror

[steviewevie]

48 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

The same discussion basically goes round and round in this thread about when the restrictions will be relaxed. I think it boils down to much the same thing that it did in the first thread about coronavirus and Glastonbury: that some people find it easier to think positively and err on that side, and others prefer to prepare themselves for the worst and that way anything less is a bonus. I'm in the latter camp but I think it's quite an even split in here having followed this thread for some time.

stop being so mature.

[Copperface]

4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Fauci said something similar about lying to the public to get them to comply with vaccinations and lockdowns. Ethically, I dont think that's right, and once granny is vaccinated and isn't going to die, I think public approval of stuff like lockdowns or restrictions will go right down.

That's why there is a Government behavioural science strategy, and people trying to nudge the public along to accept such restrictions. You are the one blindly accepting some bits of what hey are saying.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/nudge-unit

[Crazyfool01]

Booked a test tomoro ... precautionary but my year long cough has got slightly worse 😞 

[MrBarry465]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

February days the mirror

Ah yes, a realiable source...

[Guest]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Oh come on. Its not the same. Using Ww2 metaphors for lockdowns is the same as when the brexit nutters use it for no deal.

It's not a metaphor, I'm using the Blitz to compare people behaviours to now. It isn't all that silly considering it was probably the last major event like this in this country. In the pandemic we have COVID Marshalls, in the Blitz they had air raid precautions wardens going round to homes asking people to turn lights off. I think it's a fairly decent exercise to compare the 2 as they could both be seen as infringements on freedoms but for the greater good. It's widely acknowledged in this country that the War was this defining moment for the country, if that's the case I wonder if people back then considered it a punishment too? 

9 minutes ago, MEGABOWL said:

Quite possibly, given how much pushback there was to what people were asked to do during WW2. Some pretty good parallels there too. The Lancet did an interesting comparison too. So many good angles to explore.

Thanks for the link, I'll have a read of that. It's good to know the comparison has been explored by academics.