Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Mellotr0n said:

Hancock saying they're hoping to allow us to OFFICIALLY hug friends and family on May 17th.

Don't you be going out May 16th evening for an illegal back alley 2am hugging session.

You try and stop me!

 

Edited by JoeyT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UK health secretary, Matt Hancock, has said that everyone needs to play their part in order to meet the targets set for easing lockdown in England with the aim to move to “personal responsibility” rather than having social distancing laws “that get in the way of normal life”.

Hancock said that while England’s chief scientific adviser, Patrick Vallance, made it clear that people might still need to wear a mask this winter, the government wanted to “get rid of social distancing-type laws” that “dictate how all of us live our daily lives.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mellotr0n said:

Hancock saying they're hoping to allow us to OFFICIALLY hug friends and family on May 17th.

Don't you be going out May 16th evening for an illegal back alley 2am hugging session.

Looolll. I'll be doing more than hugging people from March. Back to bumble!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

The UK health secretary, Matt Hancock, has said that everyone needs to play their part in order to meet the targets set for easing lockdown in England with the aim to move to “personal responsibility” rather than having social distancing laws “that get in the way of normal life”.

Hancock said that while England’s chief scientific adviser, Patrick Vallance, made it clear that people might still need to wear a mask this winter, the government wanted to “get rid of social distancing-type laws” that “dictate how all of us live our daily lives.”

Exactly. Winter restrictions most likely = guidance on masks in shops/public transport. Not lockdowns.

Edited by Mellotr0n
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JoeyT said:

 

Detailed??? 

The 4 tests could not be more vague. No numbers provided on what success looks like.

  • The vaccine deployment programme continues successfully
  • Evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated
  • Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS
  • The assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new variants of concern.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

4 weeks to gather the data and one week to examine it is perfectly reasonable, not everyone is going to immediately start going to pubs/restaurants etc as soon as they are opened, you need time to fully assess the impact.

According to Hancock, they're going to confirm the actual changes a week before they take effect - so in practice the important parts of evaluation and assessment will have to be done during the initial 4 weeks and the 5th week becomes just a token waiting period.

So if they stuck rigidly to the 5 week gap and for all restrictions (which they won't for this reason), then there could and likely would be a situation where they've officially determined an activity is safe and yet are telling people that they can't do it for another week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Detailed??? 

The 4 tests could not be more vague. No numbers provided on what success looks like.

  • The vaccine deployment programme continues successfully
  • Evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated
  • Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS
  • The assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new variants of concern.

They have the targets for vaccine set out in broad terms. So they can see if that's on track based on supply for 1.

2. They are tracking the vaccine effectiveness. If it reduces hospitalisations...

 

3. Is vague I agree but that's because they want to downgrade cases.

4. Thats just saying things may change if thee is a bad new variant. What so you want quantified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Detailed??? 

The 4 tests could not be more vague. No numbers provided on what success looks like.

  • The vaccine deployment programme continues successfully
  • Evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated
  • Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS
  • The assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new variants of concern.

They will have internal goals and targets for each of these criteria - they don’t need to share these with the public at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, incident said:

According to Hancock, they're going to confirm the actual changes a week before they take effect - so in practice the important parts of evaluation and assessment will have to be done during the initial 4 weeks and the 5th week becomes just a token waiting period.

So if they stuck rigidly to the 5 week gap and for all restrictions (which they won't for this reason), then there could and likely would be a situation where they've officially determined an activity is safe and yet are telling people that they can't do it for another week.

The extra week is to give people and businesses time to plan. So they have the 4 weeks data collection and review then if all good that extra weeks is to let people know and give them the time to prepare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

The extra week is to give people and businesses time to plan. So they have the 4 weeks data collection and review then if all good that extra weeks is to let people know and give them the time to prepare. 

So you agree that for non business related aspects, it's functionally pointless?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

The extra week is to give people and businesses time to plan. So they have the 4 weeks data collection and review then if all good that extra weeks is to let people know and give them the time to prepare. 

Makes sense for businesses that require notice to open but some simply don't?

Also, being told the data says it is safe to hug granny for instance what is the sense in waiting an additional week?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zahidf said:

I imagine people will be hugging as soon as confirmation is given. They wont wait a week for no reason

Yes exactly.

And the Government will take great pleasure in "generously" telling them that they don't need to wait that extra week after all.

Can spot this coming a mile off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, incident said:

So you agree that for non business related aspects, it's functionally pointless?

I was just saying the reason they had used for the 5 weeks. I presume they are using that period for all businesses and people as it’s easier than giving some an option 1 week and 1 the other. They want us all moving into these different steps together. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me who's thinking if there was a general election in May they'd announce that we've all done so well pubs can reopen a couple of weeks earlier than planned? Don't know if they'd bother doing this just for local elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, incident said:

Yes exactly.

And the Government will take great pleasure in "generously" telling them that they don't need to wait that extra week after all.

Can spot this coming a mile off.

TBH i think they can probably reinstitue rule of 6 outside tomorrow without any changes to the R Rate. Waiting a month seems pointless to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, incident said:

Yes exactly.

And the Government will take great pleasure in "generously" telling them that they don't need to wait that extra week after all.

Can spot this coming a mile off.

Feel sorry for any food and beverage places frantically trying to bring forward their deliveries and call in their staff a week earlier. 
 

Beer can’t brew any faster and staff may already have other plans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

Feel sorry for any food and beverage places frantically trying to bring forward their deliveries and call in their staff a week earlier. 
 

Beer can’t brew any faster and staff may already have other plans. 

We're literally talking about the non-business related restrictions though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Is anything said we need to be aware of?
    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...