When will this shit end?

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Under 35 year olds haven't stopped having sex. 

 

[Reckoner]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

if vaccines work well in stopping transmission and we get enough people vaccinated then we can get covid levels low and suppress any new vaccine evasive variants until have a vaccine that works..?

For sure, the vaccine is the greatest weapon in driving cases low, or stopping any adverse consequences of being positive but the other stuff needs to continue to happen alongside it, at least initially while the roll-out happens and it's a lot easier and less resource intensive to contact trace and Test, Track, isolate 5 cases a day than it is 1000. 

[efcfanwirral]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

⁰

Assuming no children if no unvaccinated? I'd also hope that extends to holidays, pubs and everything else the vaccine proof is required for. If people are scared about being around unvaccinated people then surely children are the same?

[efcfanwirral]

1 minute ago, Gregfc15 said:

For sure, the vaccine is the greatest weapon in driving cases low, or stopping any adverse consequences of being positive but the other stuff needs to continue to happen alongside it, at least initially while the roll-out happens and it's a lot easier and less resource intensive to contact trace and Test, Track, isolate 5 cases a day than it is 1000. 

For this country to get there would need a proper lockdown and proper policing of people's behaviour. Its not really possible in the UK I don't think

[Zoo Music Girl]

Just a quick question on the guidance as I've seen conflicting things (and yes I know loads of people are already breaking the rules and etc): stay at home order is in place until 29th March, right? From then is travel out of your area allowed? Or are there still suggested limits on travel until April 12?

[balthazarstarbuck]

3 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Just a quick question on the guidance as I've seen conflicting things (and yes I know loads of people are already breaking the rules and etc): stay at home order is in place until 29th March, right? From then is travel out of your area allowed? Or are there still suggested limits on travel until April 12?

Think the the guidance is the “minimise” travel post 29 March (so no stay at home order). Make of that what you will.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Just a quick question on the guidance as I've seen conflicting things (and yes I know loads of people are already breaking the rules and etc): stay at home order is in place until 29th March, right? From then is travel out of your area allowed? Or are there still suggested limits on travel until April 12?

This is from GOV.uk:

People should continue to minimise travel wherever possible, and should not be staying away from home overnight at this stage.
 

Whilst the stay at home order will be gone we are advised to try to minimise travel but technically you would be allowed to travel.

Edited February 24, 2021 by Ozanne

[km9]

1 hour ago, stuie said:

Anyone else wondering how people on the tele have got their fresh trims? Gavin Williamson has got his done somehow now. 

And it’s not the same grade all over!

I read somewhere that people who are being interviewed on TV are allowed the use of a stylist on site. This was linked to the case of a footballer getting his hair cut by a normal barber, when actually he would have been allowed to use a stylist on match day (that's how I remember it anyway).

[Zoo Music Girl]

2 minutes ago, balthazarstarbuck said:

Think the the guidance is the “minimise” travel post 29 March (so no stay at home order). Make of that what you will.

 

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

This is from GOV.uk:

People should continue to minimise travel wherever possible, and should not be staying away from home overnight at this stage.
 

Whilst the stay at home order will be gone we are advised to try to minimise travel but technically you would be allowed to travel.

Thanks both. Kind of what I thought. It's pretty vague! We can't see anyone unless we travel by public transport (hired cars a couple of times last year but was pricey), so basically I guess we just make a judgement on what's an acceptable amount to be able to see people outdoors.

[zahidf]

32 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

Assuming no children if no unvaccinated? I'd also hope that extends to holidays, pubs and everything else the vaccine proof is required for. If people are scared about being around unvaccinated people then surely children are the same?

Itll be proof of vaccine or negative test

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

 

Thanks both. Kind of what I thought. It's pretty vague! We can't see anyone unless we travel by public transport (hired cars a couple of times last year but was pricey), so basically I guess we just make a judgement on what's an acceptable amount to be able to see people outdoors.

Plus you have the dilemma of not being able to stay anywhere over night so that naturally limits you. 

[efcfanwirral]

12 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Itll be proof of vaccine or negative test

Makes sense for a big event but what about the day to day stuff? There'll be unvaccinated kids sitting next to people on planes and in restaurants when we get to that point

[Reckoner]

43 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

For this country to get there would need a proper lockdown and proper policing of people's behaviour. Its not really possible in the UK I don't think

I think it’s fair to say that the UK has  missed its chance, and that the current roadmap presents the best chance of resuming normality whilst mitigating  risk. 
 

Saying it’s not possible though feels like the same excuse that’s been used for the last 12 months at each point a hard decision needed to be made, before making the wrong one, and returning to the hard one weeks too late. 

[efcfanwirral]

5 minutes ago, Gregfc15 said:

I think it’s fair to say that the UK has  missed its chance, and that the current roadmap presents the best chance of resuming normality whilst mitigating  risk. 
 

Saying it’s not possible though feels like the same excuse that’s been used for the last 12 months at each point a hard decision needed to be made, before making the wrong one, and returning to the hard one weeks too late. 

Of course anything is possible - it could be done now if they were willing to keep lockdown in place over summer, but I could see riots at that point

 

This is good timing as I actually came on to post this, which is at least a good sign that something is working with these foreign variants. 

[squirrelarmy]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

Under 35 year olds haven't stopped having sex. 

Can confirm. I’ve been having a lot of sex with a 32 year old. 😏

[Quark]

Just now, squirrelarmy said:

Can confirm. I’ve been having a lot of sex with a 32 year old. 😏

Keeping it classy

[Toilet Duck]

12 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

Of course anything is possible - it could be done now if they were willing to keep lockdown in place over summer, but I could see riots at that point

 

This is good timing as I actually came on to post this, which is at least a good sign that something is working with these foreign variants. 

Crikey, the replies to that PHE post are mental! 

[squirrelarmy]

1 minute ago, Quark said:

Keeping it classy

As always. 

[Zoo Music Girl]

40 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Plus you have the dilemma of not being able to stay anywhere over night so that naturally limits you. 

For us we are lucky enough to be able to see most of our friends and both sets of family in a day. Most people are under 1.5 hours away by train.

Is it different from 12th April? Thinking it might be worth waiting until then when beer gardens will be open as well.

[Zoo Music Girl]

2 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

For us we are lucky enough to be able to see most of our friends and both sets of family in a day. Most people are under 1.5 hours away by train.

Is it different from 12th April? Thinking it might be worth waiting until then when beer gardens will be open as well.

Not all the same day obvs! 

[zahidf]

33 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

Makes sense for a big event but what about the day to day stuff? There'll be unvaccinated kids sitting next to people on planes and in restaurants when we get to that point

Its about mitigating risk, not completely eliminating it

[zahidf]

this is interesting on another forum

 

There is a very hardhearted way of looking at it that lack of immunity in a fraction of the population due to vaccine hesitancy is an unstable situation that resolves itself over time.

Either we have enough immune to reach herd immunity or we do not. If we do, there is not a problem here.

If we do not, we have three sections of the population with regards to vaccination:

1 - Vaccine willing and eligible. These get vaccinated. Immunity rises in this section
2 - Vaccine willing but ineligible. This is overwhelmingly under-16s and trials are already in train for these; I'd expect them to be eligible by autumn at the latest. These get vaccinated; immunity rises.
3 - Vaccine hesitant.

The crucial number is Number-immune / Number-total. We need this to be as large a fraction as possible.
In a situation with an endemic virus and lack of herd immunity, reality itself imposes a harsh choice: vaccine or virus. You will get exposed to the virus in time.

Accordingly, category three will slough away into three sub-categories:
- Vaccine-reluctant-but-eventually-willing. As time goes by, their fears are mollified, and they take the vaccine, anyway. Result.
- Vaccine-rejected-but-infected-and-acquired-immunity. Fine, they got there the hard way, but ended up ticking up the numerator in that fraction in the end, anyway.
- Vaccine-rejected-but-infected-and-died. They tried the hard way and, tragically, were unfortunate. They reduced the denominator in the end and the fraction ticks up in the harshest possible way.

[Quark]

16 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Crikey, the replies to that PHE post are mental! 

This is why we can't have nice things

[steviewevie]

 

[BobWillis]

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

this is interesting on another forum

 

There is a very hardhearted way of looking at it that lack of immunity in a fraction of the population due to vaccine hesitancy is an unstable situation that resolves itself over time.

Either we have enough immune to reach herd immunity or we do not. If we do, there is not a problem here.

If we do not, we have three sections of the population with regards to vaccination:

1 - Vaccine willing and eligible. These get vaccinated. Immunity rises in this section
2 - Vaccine willing but ineligible. This is overwhelmingly under-16s and trials are already in train for these; I'd expect them to be eligible by autumn at the latest. These get vaccinated; immunity rises.
3 - Vaccine hesitant.

The crucial number is Number-immune / Number-total. We need this to be as large a fraction as possible.
In a situation with an endemic virus and lack of herd immunity, reality itself imposes a harsh choice: vaccine or virus. You will get exposed to the virus in time.

Accordingly, category three will slough away into three sub-categories:
- Vaccine-reluctant-but-eventually-willing. As time goes by, their fears are mollified, and they take the vaccine, anyway. Result.
- Vaccine-rejected-but-infected-and-acquired-immunity. Fine, they got there the hard way, but ended up ticking up the numerator in that fraction in the end, anyway.
- Vaccine-rejected-but-infected-and-died. They tried the hard way and, tragically, were unfortunate. They reduced the denominator in the end and the fraction ticks up in the harshest possible way.

This completely disregards any existing immunity from prior infection in the non vaccinated groups. 
 

edit: no it doesn’t I’ve just seen it 

Edited February 24, 2021 by BobWillis