When will this shit end?

[steviewevie]

46 minutes ago, Homer said:

BBC news reporting they are thinking of extending the Brexit transition period - but they can’t admit that so they’re going to call it an ‘adjustment’ period instead 🤣

you got a link to this?

[efcfanwirral]

 

30 minutes ago, philipsteak said:

I'd be interested in what they say. Back in work tomorrow so I'll find out what our plans are then

New Year will be interesting. We don't do anything other than setting off fireworks at midnight but are usually booked up months in advance despite charging top whack. Although top whack in a hostel is still much less than what some of the hotels charge

That's a big issue they need to address - if pubs kick out at 10 on that night, surely that then will lead to piling back to people's houses? Is a socially distanced night better than that in the bigger picture of things? On the other extreme closing them completely would lose a lot of vital revenue, but how many would go if they needed to leave at 10 anyway? Really tough decisions. 

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

yes, some sort of delay. Maybe they can sign something before end of year, and then have some implementation period for months (or years?!). A year was always to sort out future relationship was always extremely optimistic, and that was before the pandemic.

It's the only option to avoid massive chaos. Surely even the extreme Brexit lot would acknowledge that it isn't the ideal time to change things so drastically without a plan? (as if there ever is a right time for that but there has to be at some point)

[tigger123]

8 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

 

That's a big issue they need to address - if pubs kick out at 10 on that night, surely that then will lead to piling back to people's houses? Is a socially distanced night better than that in the bigger picture of things? On the other extreme closing them completely would lose a lot of vital revenue, but how many would go if they needed to leave at 10 anyway? Really tough decisions. 

Maybe what they should do to stop people going back to others houses is to stop shops from selling alcohol after 11pm too? 

[Ozanne]

19 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

yes, some sort of delay. Maybe they can sign something before end of year, and then have some implementation period for months (or years?!). A year was always to sort out future relationship was always extremely optimistic, and that was before the pandemic.

The year is 2044 and the UK Prime Minister makes the annual pilgrimage to Brussels to file the extension request to the transition period that has now been running for over 20 years; this is after a deadline for a trade deal was missed for the 1,069th time. 

[efcfanwirral]

6 minutes ago, tigger123 said:

Maybe what they should do to stop people going back to others houses is to stop shops from selling alcohol after 11pm too? 

Would definitely help the un-organised but with a 10pm finish I reckon people would plan ahead and make sure they have booze in. Nightmare situation all round really

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, fraybentos1 said:

Early reporting suggests that even if it is only 90% (or less) effective at providing full immunity, it seems to stop people that do get it from getting seriously ill.

This is about limiting strain on the NHS and deaths. If the most vulnerable aren't dying in large numbers and hospitilisations are low then why can't things start getting back to normal?

It's not just about the NHS though. Yes, we've heard that over and over again, as a response to people that want to take more risks: you shouldn't, as it could overwhelm the NHS. It's the right message. The vaccine effectively fixes that problem. It doesn't fix the fundamental problem: people are still scared.

There was a period between lockdowns where lots of places were sort of back to normal. Pubs and restaurants were open, but most at around 50% capacity. Remember that? It was a disaster wasn't it, you couldn't get a booking anywhere, every pub was full and people were queueing round the block to get in... oh no, hang on, I could still get a table The Cosy Club on Saturday night when I called up Saturday afternoon, even though they were running at 50% capacity. I couldn't even do that in January. 

People weren't going out. There was space everywhere, even though places were only admitting half the number of people.

The whole point of "eat out to help out" was to encourage people to actually start going out again. 

Just because you're comfortable with getting back to normal as soon as the NHS is okay, doesn't mean everyone else will be. And unfortunately many of the things that you do, the places that you go, need *everyone* on board. They can't run successfully if 20% of their audience is still afraid to go out. 

14 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

That's a big issue they need to address - if pubs kick out at 10 on that night, surely that then will lead to piling back to people's houses? Is a socially distanced night better than that in the bigger picture of things? On the other extreme closing them completely would lose a lot of vital revenue, but how many would go if they needed to leave at 10 anyway? Really tough decisions. 

Would they lose a lot of revenue though? Traditionally on NYE pubs make loads of money as everyone is crammed in and it's mental, but that's not going to be an option is it? It'll be table service and social distancing still. It'll be busier than your average night but capacity limits mean it's probably not going to be more profitable than your average Friday night pre-COVID.

[topmarksbri]

14 minutes ago, tigger123 said:

Maybe what they should do to stop people going back to others houses is to stop shops from selling alcohol after 11pm too? 

Not sure it would be popular but I would just say stop pubs from opening on NYE...

[Toilet Duck]

1 hour ago, Copperface said:

All of this 'once the vulnerable are vaccinated' stuff has been widely and continually debunked over the past several months. 

You cannot simply isolate whatever you define as 'vulnerable'. 

You can't fully remove restrictions until a critical mass of the population has been vaccinated. Even then, there are many unknowns such as reinfection rates, length of immunity and a whole host of other factors. The only ones supporting this idea are the outlier weirdos who came up with the Great Barrington Declaration, picked up by all the nutter wings of each faction.

Shielding the vulnerable while society chases herd immunity via natural infection and vaccinating the vulnerable are two different things (one is achievable, the other isn't). I'm no weirdo (matter of opinion!) and completely disagree with the Great Barrington Declaration....but if morbidity and mortality fall off a cliff once the more vulnerable members of society are vaccinated, then we start to move back towards normal (and a reasonable timeline for that is Spring/Easter). Will still require wider uptake of the vaccines later in the year to reinforce that protection (and with any luck, there will be even more choice available), but we won't be locking down/imposing severe restrictions if the hospitals are empty of COVID patients and mortality drops in line with the personal protection levels supposedly provided by the various vaccines. How prevalent long COVID is really represents the major unknown and the possible spanner in the works...best data I've seen so far suggests about 2% of symptomatic infections, we just don't have an entirely accurate picture of how many infections are asymptomatic. It's estimated that at least 90% are undetected, but that includes mild infections...how prevalent is long COVID in "mild" cases? we still don't fully know (but there does seem to be a correlation with initial symptoms...those that had scratchy throats and not much else aren't reporting breathlessness months later in their droves...and the case definition of long COVID itself is still a bit up in the air. It remains a worry, but thankfully, something the vaccines can deal with too). Anyway, we don't need vaccine-driven herd immunity (60-70% of the population) to open things back up again given the huge disparity in risk across different age ranges. 

[Crazyfool01]

David Davis making some valid points about more localised lockdowns ... I reckon that should work well with a world beating track and trace .... I wonder if he thinks we have that ? 

[JoeyT]

6 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

David Davis making some valid points about more localised lockdowns ... I reckon that should work well with a world beating track and trace .... I wonder if he thinks we have that ? 

How local do you go though?

We can discuss until the sky turns purple whether it's right or not but people will travel to lower tiers to have a meal out / beer or to socialise with friends / family and that's just a fact.

Making the tiers smaller won't have an impact on that in my opinion.

[Punksnotdead]

24 minutes ago, tigger123 said:

Maybe what they should do to stop people going back to others houses is to stop shops from selling alcohol after 11pm too? 

Cue thousands of people digging out that 6 year old bottle of creme de menthe from the back of their drinks cabinet! 😄

[zahidf]

I though the 10pm curfew has been abandoned to 11pm?

[xxialac]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

That’s just ridiculous, how many pointless deadlines have there been? The summer was a deadline then it was October, then mid November and now we have ‘days left to agree’. Here’s an idea, don’t have pick a deadline if you aren’t going to stick to it.

Turns out "Oven-ready" is just a deceitful and meaningless phrase designed to win votes.

Who knew?

[fraybentos1]

13 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

It's not just about the NHS though. Yes, we've heard that over and over again, as a response to people that want to take more risks: you shouldn't, as it could overwhelm the NHS. It's the right message. The vaccine effectively fixes that problem. It doesn't fix the fundamental problem: people are still scared.

There was a period between lockdowns where lots of places were sort of back to normal. Pubs and restaurants were open, but most at around 50% capacity. Remember that? It was a disaster wasn't it, you couldn't get a booking anywhere, every pub was full and people were queueing round the block to get in... oh no, hang on, I could still get a table The Cosy Club on Saturday night when I called up Saturday afternoon, even though they were running at 50% capacity. I couldn't even do that in January. 

People weren't going out. There was space everywhere, even though places were only admitting half the number of people.

The whole point of "eat out to help out" was to encourage people to actually start going out again. 

Just because you're comfortable with getting back to normal as soon as the NHS is okay, doesn't mean everyone else will be. And unfortunately many of the things that you do, the places that you go, need *everyone* on board. They can't run successfully if 20% of their audience is still afraid to go out. 

'Sort of back to normal' isn't back to normal though is it? Nothing felt close to normal this summer imo. Cause things were still strict with booking slots etc there was no opportunity for spontaneity and just popping out etc. Also, I can only speak for myself but i saw plenty of mobbed places during the summer.

I get that some people will be scared for a while (my mum for example) but a lot won't be (most of my age group of around 25). Gradually, people will become more comfortable and that will happen when deaths drop and seem like they're gonna stay lower ( as opposed to summer where it seemed like it was just a pause before the 2nd wave).

You say people are still scared but that will not be the case forever and there is objectively no reason to be scared if the vaccine works well and we give it time to work and people see they aren't gonna drop dead going down the pub and if their old granny is vaccinated too there will be less worry.

[Homer]

47 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

you got a link to this?

No, was on BBCNews24, interview with their fact check guy who said it. Then they cut to a correspondent in Ireland who said, more shock news, the infrastructure and IT systems aren't anywhere near ready there. I guess it would be quite hard to build a border through someone's house.

Edited December 1, 2020 by Homer

[Crazyfool01]

5 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

How local do you go though?

We can discuss until the sky turns purple whether it's right or not but people will travel to lower tiers to have a meal out / beer or to socialise with friends / family and that's just a fact.

Making the tiers smaller won't have an impact on that in my opinion.

He was making the point that it’s operates on a more local level in many other countries including Germany and works better because it is targeted and gets better compliance because it’s not just never ending restrictions ... my experience of the latest one is that restrictions are becoming some kind of joke and that people that want to will always find some way around them anyway wether it’s very local or larger 

[efcfanwirral]

20 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

David Davis making some valid points about more localised lockdowns ... I reckon that should work well with a world beating track and trace .... I wonder if he thinks we have that ? 

probably push it onto the local councils....

[Leyrulion]

27 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Shielding the vulnerable while society chases herd immunity via natural infection and vaccinating the vulnerable are two different things (one is achievable, the other isn't). I'm no weirdo (matter of opinion!) and completely disagree with the Great Barrington Declaration....but if morbidity and mortality fall off a cliff once the more vulnerable members of society are vaccinated, then we start to move back towards normal (and a reasonable timeline for that is Spring/Easter). Will still require wider uptake of the vaccines later in the year to reinforce that protection (and with any luck, there will be even more choice available), but we won't be locking down/imposing severe restrictions if the hospitals are empty of COVID patients and mortality drops in line with the personal protection levels supposedly provided by the various vaccines. How prevalent long COVID is really represents the major unknown and the possible spanner in the works...best data I've seen so far suggests about 2% of symptomatic infections, we just don't have an entirely accurate picture of how many infections are asymptomatic. It's estimated that at least 90% are undetected, but that includes mild infections...how prevalent is long COVID in "mild" cases? we still don't fully know (but there does seem to be a correlation with initial symptoms...those that had scratchy throats and not much else aren't reporting breathlessness months later in their droves...and the case definition of long COVID itself is still a bit up in the air. It remains a worry, but thankfully, something the vaccines can deal with too). Anyway, we don't need vaccine-driven herd immunity (60-70% of the population) to open things back up again given the huge disparity in risk across different age ranges. 

I was going to say this but you've articulated it much more clearly!

[Copperface]

17 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

 ......then we start to move back towards normal (and a reasonable timeline for that is Spring/Easter). Will still require wider uptake of the vaccines later in the year to reinforce that protection (and with any luck, there will be even more choice available), but we won't be locking down/imposing severe restrictions if the hospitals are empty of COVID patients and mortality drops

I understand all that, but my point is still, and even you have said the same above, is that Spring/Easter may be the time when we start to move back to normal. Not, as perceived by many, that we will be back to normal by Spring. By normal, I mean no restrictions whatsoever, back to pre March 2020.

Everything I can find in open source seems to correlate that, and even things like John Bell's famous 'It'll be normal by Spring' was not exactly that -  the actual wording was things could be 'returning to normal'.

And to reiterate, I'm not talking about 'locking down/imposing severe restrictions', but there will be some kind of flexible imposition and lifting of restrictions in certain areas for a long time yet. The majority of life as we know it, shopping, restaurants, potentially travel, visiting other households may return but some wide ranging restrictions on potential high impact/spreader events will remain for sometime yet.

[mcshed]

5 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

probably push it onto the local councils....

Which is what we are doing up here in Scotland. I live on the outskirts of Edinburgh but I'm in Midlothian council so it is currently illegal for me to go into Edinburgh for non-essential reasons. My wife and I both work in Edinburgh as do most people who live in this commuter town, so we are all travelling in and out of Edinburgh 5 days a week but would be fined £60 if we did it on our days off. It is silly.

[stuartbert two hats]

30 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

It's not just about the NHS though. Yes, we've heard that over and over again, as a response to people that want to take more risks: you shouldn't, as it could overwhelm the NHS. It's the right message. The vaccine effectively fixes that problem. It doesn't fix the fundamental problem: people are still scared.

There was a period between lockdowns where lots of places were sort of back to normal. Pubs and restaurants were open, but most at around 50% capacity. Remember that? It was a disaster wasn't it, you couldn't get a booking anywhere, every pub was full and people were queueing round the block to get in... oh no, hang on, I could still get a table The Cosy Club on Saturday night when I called up Saturday afternoon, even though they were running at 50% capacity. I couldn't even do that in January. 

People weren't going out. There was space everywhere, even though places were only admitting half the number of people.

The whole point of "eat out to help out" was to encourage people to actually start going out again. 

Just because you're comfortable with getting back to normal as soon as the NHS is okay, doesn't mean everyone else will be. And unfortunately many of the things that you do, the places that you go, need *everyone* on board. They can't run successfully if 20% of their audience is still afraid to go out. 

Would they lose a lot of revenue though? Traditionally on NYE pubs make loads of money as everyone is crammed in and it's mental, but that's not going to be an option is it? It'll be table service and social distancing still. It'll be busier than your average night but capacity limits mean it's probably not going to be more profitable than your average Friday night pre-COVID.

People didn't go out because the virus was still around.  It wasn't some kind of irrational fear of shadows that kept people at home.  The public were ahead of the politicians on this one - staying away from people made sense even in summer, because even when case numbers are low, bringing them slightly higher takes you further along that exponential curve.

Speaking for myself, I was not comfortable  going out, because the pandemic wasn't over.  I wasn't (am not!) immune and nor are my family.  Once we're all jabbed, it changes everything.  Two weeks after my second shot, I am going to the pub. And not for a meal.

Basically, I think you're wrong, it's a totally different situation.

[zahidf]

10 minutes ago, Copperface said:

I understand all that, but my point is still, and even you have said the same above, is that Spring/Easter may be the time when we start to move back to normal. Not, as perceived by many, that we will be back to normal by Spring. By normal, I mean no restrictions whatsoever, back to pre March 2020.

Everything I can find in open source seems to correlate that, and even things like John Bell's famous 'It'll be normal by Spring' was not exactly that -  the actual wording was things could be 'returning to normal'.

And to reiterate, I'm not talking about 'locking down/imposing severe restrictions', but there will be some kind of flexible imposition and lifting of restrictions in certain areas for a long time yet. The majority of life as we know it, shopping, restaurants, potentially travel, visiting other households may return but some wide ranging restrictions on potential high impact/spreader events will remain for sometime yet.

Hancock and Bojo both specifically said the aim would be for no more social distancing measures by the spring. ( with some usual caveats). They'll use Feb/March to see how the vaccine roll out goes and put areas into Tier 1 IMO

Edited December 1, 2020 by zahidf

[Copperface]

Just now, zahidf said:

Hancock and Bojo both specifically said there wouldnt be social distancing measures by the spring. 

They lie easily and without compunction.

[squirrelarmy]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Hancock and Bojo both specifically said there wouldnt be social distancing measures by the spring. 

Bojo says a lot of things that turn out to be complete bollocks once it’s been analysed. 

[tigger123]

47 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

Would definitely help the un-organised but with a 10pm finish I reckon people would plan ahead and make sure they have booze in. Nightmare situation all round really

Very true, but then people find ways around all laws, drugs are illegal yet they’re still very easy to get hold of.

I think the government should try to do everything possible to stop people meeting after and I think stopping booze sales will definitely help. Relatively easy thing to put into place too.