When will this shit end?

[xxialac]

1 minute ago, BobWillis said:

It’s not illogical. The most vulnerable will be protected as of March 6th, 3 weeks after the last of groups 1-4 received their first dose. This will show up in the data about a month later, at which point things can start to move more quickly knowing that all over 50’s will also have that same level of protection by the end of April and so on and so forth. Once the first proper signs come through that the vaccine has worked in the most vulnerable it is illogical to continue going slowly and is doing more socioeconomic damage than waiting to see what you already know. 

Today on 21 February we are in lockdown.

The first moves away from lockdown are on 8 March when 'at the earliest' some schools will open, which in turn will increase the R rate.

I would say that going from a position of total lockdown on 7 March to the whole economy being open with the exception of mass events by 11 June would actually be reasonably rapid and definitely not 'slow'...

And one thing missed is that getting this wrong by reopening too quickly has both health and economic consequences.

The country cannot afford another lockdown.

[hodgey123]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Burn-Murdoch has the best graphs 🙂

 

 

Just came here to post this. Encouraging. 

[Fuzzy Afro]

1 minute ago, xxialac said:

Today on 21 February we are in lockdown.

The first moves away from lockdown are on 8 March when 'at the earliest' some schools will open, which in turn will increase the R rate.

I would say that going from a position of total lockdown on 7 March to the whole economy being open with the exception of mass events by 11 June would actually be reasonably rapid and definitely not 'slow'...

And one thing missed is that getting this wrong by reopening too quickly has both health and economic consequences.

The country cannot afford another lockdown.

You realise the government could avoid another lockdown by, you know, simply not fucking imposing another lockdown?

 

[aj6658]

15 minutes ago, xxialac said:

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the need to "go back to normal".

It's just a question of timing. More will need to be vaccinated - and had the benefit of that vaccination kick in 3 weeks later - by the time of the Euros in my opinion

First week of June seems too early as cases will still be too high and we are starting from a very high caseload. This seems to be both the government and scientific community view.

Thing is the number of people who have died because of COVID <50 is like 500. Its tiny. Also by the time we get to 1st June, there will be 12m not vaccinated ( Based on 3m per week vaccinated and the predicted 1st Jab goal of 22nd June). These people are not at risk at all. 

If the goal is to save lives/ stop hospitalisations you're not gonna see it in these populations. Think the data coming out of Israel is very promising.

Personally I think once everyone everyone has had one jab with 1-9 being double jabbed, there should no more restrictions. since that's not by the time we get to the Euros then e should have mandatory facemasks on public transport and mass testing and we should be fine.

 

[aj6658]

21 minutes ago, MrBarry465 said:

I think it will just be a gradual thing and we will progessively get back up to 'normal'. But anyone who thinks that from May it will be a 'free for all' is kidding themselves.

Think the key question is what is the risk and what you protecting?

If everyone is vaccinated is there need for restrictions? If the answer if yes then we accepting that this is the new normal because sorry to say there will always by new mutations and variants and if vaccines aren't a way out then nothing is. We genuinely cant keep living like this.

We are on track to have everyone vaccinated by the end of June with high risk double dosed by then. If all high risk are vaccinated then hospitalisations and deaths will plummet. If deaths and hospitalisations are small then I don't see why we shouldn't open up. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Today on 21 February we are in lockdown.

The first moves away from lockdown are on 8 March when 'at the earliest' some schools will open, which in turn will increase the R rate.

I would say that going from a position of total lockdown on 7 March to the whole economy being open with the exception of mass events by 11 June would actually be reasonably rapid and definitely not 'slow'...

And one thing missed is that getting this wrong by reopening too quickly has both health and economic consequences.

The country cannot afford another lockdown.

Some are also ignoring that the recent leaks are suggesting that household mixing indoors will be allowed by July if that’s the case it would make full stadiums nearly impossible. 

[km9]

3 hours ago, xxialac said:

A beach cannot even begin to be compared to a 90,000 full Wembley stadium.

A full Wembley is rammed tube train after tube train, a walk up to the stadium where you're elbow to elbow and a huddle at *indoor* bars getting drinks at half time, heaving pubs and a lot of drunk people who lose their inhibitions.

I can only think you've forgotten what a packed mass event is like.

Sounds brilliant 

[zero000]

7 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Some are also ignoring that the recent leaks are suggesting that household mixing indoors will be allowed by July if that’s the case it would make full stadiums nearly impossible. 

The problem is the Tories are employing their classic COVID media strategy of "lets brief conflicting plans to the media and test the publics reaction to them". Until we have an official announcements I take everything with a pinch of salt. 

[BobWillis]

14 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Today on 21 February we are in lockdown.

The first moves away from lockdown are on 8 March when 'at the earliest' some schools will open, which in turn will increase the R rate.

I would say that going from a position of total lockdown on 7 March to the whole economy being open with the exception of mass events by 11 June would actually be reasonably rapid and definitely not 'slow'...

And one thing missed is that getting this wrong by reopening too quickly has both health and economic consequences.

The country cannot afford another lockdown.

You’re just saying the same things over and over again without taking anything I’m saying in. 
 

If the data at Easter shows that one dose was enough to protect groups 1-4 from severe disease and death, and groups 5-9 have already received their first dose and will have the same level of protection 3 weeks later. This cuts deaths by 98%, hospital admissions by 86% and icu admissions by 78%. 
 

Explain to me at what point thereafter do you expect catastrophic failure of the vaccine in under 50’s (despite that being the most common ages in vaccine trials) that will result in an overwhelmed health service and return to lockdown? 

 

Once you have sufficient data that the vaccine has worked in the over 50’s which we should have by mid May at the latest, then there is no reason to go slow any more because there is no risk to the health service and minimal risk to life. 

[BobWillis]

Going slow until the data shows sufficient signs that over 50’s are protected makes perfect sense, thereafter it is damaging an already wounded economy based on what ifs. 

[JoeyT]

 

[zahidf]

24 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Some are also ignoring that the recent leaks are suggesting that household mixing indoors will be allowed by July if that’s the case it would make full stadiums nearly impossible. 

I don't think the CRG would go for that 

The former chief whip and Conservative MP Mark Harper said he hoped the prime minister’s road map would be one the Covid Recovery Group of Tories can support.

Harper told BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show:

We think by the end of April the case for domestic legal restrictions, limiting what people can do, falls away. We think at that point people should be able to get on with their lives.

The government may still give them health advice and there may be things people do voluntarily, but the legal restrictions should fall away at the end of April.

Asked if there could be a Commons revolt over the continuation of the current restrictions if the road map fails to meet their demands, Harper said:

I’m hoping what the prime minister announces tomorrow will be something that I and my colleagues can support.

[tigger123]

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I don't think the CRG would go for that 

The former chief whip and Conservative MP Mark Harper said he hoped the prime minister’s road map would be one the Covid Recovery Group of Tories can support.

Harper told BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show:

We think by the end of April the case for domestic legal restrictions, limiting what people can do, falls away. We think at that point people should be able to get on with their lives.

The government may still give them health advice and there may be things people do voluntarily, but the legal restrictions should fall away at the end of April.

Asked if there could be a Commons revolt over the continuation of the current restrictions if the road map fails to meet their demands, Harper said:

I’m hoping what the prime minister announces tomorrow will be something that I and my colleagues can support.

The CRG’s position will become increasingly strong too as more people get vaccinated. Yes maybe the polls will suggest otherwise that people want lockdown to be eased slowly, but I think we need to take that with a big pinch of salt as what people say on a poll doesn’t always reflect what they’re actually doing in terms of their lockdown behaviour. Driving through London yesterday the pavements and green spaces were heaving with people, a lovely sight to see tbh as it felt like normality. 
 

the more people that get vaccinated the more law breaking will be happening, as people will increasingly think whether we like it or not that they’re prepared to socialise if they and their loved ones are vaccinated and therefore offers little to no risk. People’s fear of catching covid will be a big reason why lockdown compliance has been high. This will diminish each day as more and more are vaccinated 

Edited February 21, 2021 by tigger123

[stuartbert two hats]

44 minutes ago, aj6658 said:

Thing is the number of people who have died because of COVID <50 is like 500. Its tiny. Also by the time we get to 1st June, there will be 12m not vaccinated ( Based on 3m per week vaccinated and the predicted 1st Jab goal of 22nd June). These people are not at risk at all. 

If the goal is to save lives/ stop hospitalisations you're not gonna see it in these populations. Think the data coming out of Israel is very promising.

Personally I think once everyone everyone has had one jab with 1-9 being double jabbed, there should no more restrictions. since that's not by the time we get to the Euros then e should have mandatory facemasks on public transport and mass testing and we should be fine.

 

That's not correct.  It's not high, in the grand scheme of things, but it's not < 500. It's 2429.

It is 465 this year for < 45 if that's what you're thinking of?

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by stuartbert two hats

[JoeyT]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

That's not correct.  It's not high, but it's not < 500.

It is 465 this year for < 45 if that's what you're thinking of?

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

 

Perhaps he means with no underlying health conditions? 

About to go shopping so can’t check data on that.

[zahidf]

Two studies from Israel showing massive cuts in TRANSMISSION post Pfizer

 

[Fuzzy Afro]

5 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

That's not correct.  It's not high, in the grand scheme of things, but it's not < 500. It's 2429.

It is 465 this year for < 45 if that's what you're thinking of?

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

 

How many of those 465 had underlying health conditions such that they’d have been vaccinated by now?

[Leyrulion]

1 hour ago, sisco said:

Most?! How’s that possible.  Surely only the last 2 weeks of July won’t be protected?! 

Factoring in the time from jab to actual protection, about 28 days (although starts phasing in from about 10 days)

So if the everyone jabbed by end of July is correct then throughout August is when you start getting a lot of protection in the roughly 12 million that will be jabbed in July.

[stuartbert two hats]

5 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

How many of those 465 had underlying health conditions such that they’d have been vaccinated by now?

I'm not sure if there is any ONS data breaking down by vaccination cohort, which would obviously be very useful.

If we opened up once the 40+ are jabbed, we'd probably be in a really great position to open a lot up.

Note though, the 465 isn't the figure to discuss if we're talking about taking all the breaks off once 50+ are done, as that's not including 45-50.

[xxialac]

37 minutes ago, BobWillis said:

You’re just saying the same things over and over again without taking anything I’m saying in. 
 

If the data at Easter shows that one dose was enough to protect groups 1-4 from severe disease and death, and groups 5-9 have already received their first dose and will have the same level of protection 3 weeks later. This cuts deaths by 98%, hospital admissions by 86% and icu admissions by 78%. 
 

Explain to me at what point thereafter do you expect catastrophic failure of the vaccine in under 50’s (despite that being the most common ages in vaccine trials) that will result in an overwhelmed health service and return to lockdown? 

 

Once you have sufficient data that the vaccine has worked in the over 50’s which we should have by mid May at the latest, then there is no reason to go slow any more because there is no risk to the health service and minimal risk to life. 

Reason we can't have the total-free-for-all you're envisaging as soon as you'd like is a combination of:

-cases starting at a high point today

- vaccines not 100% at stopping transmission, need more evidence of how effective in UK context

- some won't take the vaccine or can't take the vaccine and some of them at risk of hospitalisation/death/increased transmission

- schools opening expected to add a lot to R and will need time to monitor outcome of this before subsequent easing

- risk of variations

The last one can't be stressed enough. The more cases, the more variations. Keeping case numbers low reduces the risk of a problematic variation.

[zahidf]

8 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Reason we can't have the total-free-for-all you're envisaging as soon as you'd like is a combination of:

-cases starting at a high point today

- vaccines not 100% at stopping transmission, need more evidence of how effective in UK context

- some won't take the vaccine or can't take the vaccine and some of them at risk of hospitalisation/death/increased transmission

- schools opening expected to add a lot to R and will need time to monitor outcome of this before subsequent easing

- risk of variations

The last one can't be stressed enough. The more cases, the more variations. Keeping case numbers low reduces the risk of a problematic variation.

Variations are overstated. Cant stay locked down 'just in case '. 

I dont see why we should have restrictions because of idiots not taking the vaccine 

[st dan]

7 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Reason we can't have the total-free-for-all you're envisaging as soon as you'd like is a combination of:

-cases starting at a high point today

- vaccines not 100% at stopping transmission, need more evidence of how effective in UK context

- some won't take the vaccine or can't take the vaccine and some of them at risk of hospitalisation/death/increased transmission

- schools opening expected to add a lot to R and will need time to monitor outcome of this before subsequent easing

- risk of variations

The last one can't be stressed enough. The more cases, the more variations. Keeping case numbers low reduces the risk of a problematic variation.

These are all very true, but it’s measuring up the risk vs reward which is the key with all of this. Once people have stopped dying and becoming seriously ill, then the crisis will become the mental and physical impacts the restrictions are causing to the public. 

[MrBarry465]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Variations are overstated. Cant stay locked down 'just in case '. 

I dont see why we should have restrictions because of idiots not taking the vaccine 

Your gonna be gutted bae 😛

I know for a fact the governments 'unlocking' is measured. 

Lets all come back here and catch up again tomorrow night.

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by MrBarry465

[MrBarry465]

Its potentially the LSD / Booze.

LETS NOT FORGET WE'VE BEEN THROUGH A PANDEMIC FFS

A lot of people have suffered and died. Lets not obsess over 'WHEN CAN I GET DOWN THE FACKIN PUB'

We must build better from this.

Cheers and I will see you all at the stone circle in 2022. 

[Copperface]

34 minutes ago, tigger123 said:

The CRG’s position will become increasingly strong too as more people get vaccinated.

What are they actually going to do except bitch on about what they think should happen about it in the media?

They also might not want to create too many waves in the runup to the local elections.