When will this shit end?

[Mellotr0n]

7 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

 

This is the huge unanswered question that really needs addressing in broad terms. What is the plan after the vulnerable are vaccinated?

Essentially: are we going to try and keep cases down or not.

Probably be a case of trying to tread a middle line, I would guess. Slow easing of restrictions.

[steviewevie]

13 minutes ago, mikegday said:

There will be a deal before years end, what of a small transition extension though? My concern is in the gap between signing off on and implementing deal and end of this year. But I have no doubt - there will be a deal, with much fanfare and dashes across to continent.

It's always been my thought that there will be a deal...but that is being severly tested at the moment. Everything has been ratcheted up now making any compromise very difficult. They've really done a bad job with these negotiations (unless it all works of course and EU cave in and give us all the cake).

[xxialac]

1 hour ago, xxialac said:

For one of Johnson's preferred attack points to be 'dither and delay' just blows my mind at the shameless level of hypocrisy.

Similarly two weeks ago he sold his Islington home for £3.3m. From the a man who's been trying to smear Starmer as the Islington Elite.

[st dan]

11 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The problem will be what level of death numbers will people accept when those deaths are not 95%+ people over 70 or with underlying health problems. The numbers could be a lot smaller but a lot scarier.

Yeah this is a key point. Although once the vaccine is widely available I suppose a cynical view if that restrictions can’t remain in place if people aren’t choosing to take up the vaccine for whatever reason.
Unofficially (and I’m stating this probably more harshly than intended) I assume the stance will be that if you choose not to get a vaccine then it is your risk, and any death that may arise from Covid is therefore down to personal choice. 

[Ozanne]

3 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Similarly two weeks ago he sold his Islington home for £3.3m. From the a man who's been trying to smear Starmer as the Islington Elite.

“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.”

[Greenelk]

1 hour ago, incident said:

If they were going based on the data, they kind of had to last time and still didn't.

Which is why London has got worse.

The reports are showing that it's school children aged 11-18 in London and Essex that are causing the massive spike, with adult levels staying broadly flat, so unless they make the decision to close schools as part of moving them to Tier 3, it will continue to get worse until they break up for Xmas.  Putting both into Tier 3 to stop the spreading makes perfect sense, but they can't ignore the data on cause (they will)

[DeanoL]

 

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

It's always been my thought that there will be a deal...but that is being severly tested at the moment. Everything has been ratcheted up now making any compromise very difficult. They've really done a bad job with these negotiations (unless it all works of course and EU cave in and give us all the cake).

We are starting to see now something quite interesting, which is the "no deal" contingency planning. The EU published this:

Quote

• Basic air connectivity: A proposal for a Regulation to ensure the provision of certain air services between the UK and the EU for 6 months, provided the UK ensures the same.
• Aviation safety: A proposal for a Regulation ensuring that various safety certificates for products can continue to be used in EU aircraft without disruption, thereby avoiding the grounding of EU aircraft.
• Basic road connectivity: A proposal for a Regulation covering basic connectivity with regard to both road freight, and road passenger transport for 6 months, provided the UK assures the same to EU hauliers.
• Fisheries: A proposal for a Regulation to create the appropriate legal framework until 31 December 2021, or until a fisheries agreement with the UK has been concluded – whichever date is earlier – for continued reciprocal access by EU and UK vessels to each other's waters after 31 December 2020. In order to guarantee the sustainability of fisheries and in light of the importance of fisheries for the economic livelihood of many communities, it is necessary to facilitate the procedures of authorisation of fishing vessels.

It's stuff we absolutely have to sort out, but there's some interesting language in it, isn't there: "provided the UK ensures the same", "reciprocal access"... that almost sounds like... a deal?

And it is. Because "no deal" is a fantasy. With no deal, UK planes can't fly over the EU. With no deal, people can't move between the EU and UK because our passports aren't recognised. With no deal, there are no rules defining what happens to goods going through the channel tunnel.

There's some very basic stuff that has to be agreed, but even when that's agreed, it'll still be a "no deal Brexit". 

So, why not add other stuff to that list? 

That's what I think will happen. We will have our "no deal" Brexit that is so wanted, but a bunch of stuff from the deal itself will get put into the "contingency plans" - probably 90% of what is being discussed now anyway. It'll kick the can down the road a bit, and give another 12 months or so for an actual trade deal to happen, by which point Brexit will be "done" and the leavers will shut up, and it will be obvious Brexit is done because, even with a deal, every single citizen of the UK will feel and see the impact of Brexit - most of the bad stuff will still happen, food prices will go up, many goods won't be available, visiting countries in the EU will be more of a faff...

And the sad thing is, all that stuff, all the "project fear" stuff - that's what needs to happen. Not for us remainers, but for the Brexiteers. Because the Brexiteers don't know what they want. They don't know what actual benefits they want to get out of Brexit, it's all "sovereignty" and "take back control". You could do that, but still join the single market, you could do that but still join a customs union, you could do that but still have a deal. But we won't. Because if we did that it's "Brexit in name only".

The only thing that will convince the leavers that Brexit has actually happened properly, is when we start to suffer.

"The Remainers said if we leave, all these bad things will happen, therefore I won't be happy until all these bad things happen, as that's the only way I can know for sure we have left"

[Gingerfish79]

and so, the 'great british' roll-back of quality and environmental standards begins. expect most of it to go on behind closed doors with no scrutiny. 

 

[efcfanwirral]

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/11/brexit-disaster-capitalism-8-billion-bet-on-no-deal-crash-out-by-boris-johnsons-leave-backers/

I'm not 100% on believing this lot as a legitimate source as they seem a bit radical/activist to say the least, but I remember reading this last year and thinking IF true that we'd be heading for all the chaos for a short period when this money is made, then they get their positions right early January to make money from the bounce back when they have to sign something

Edited December 11, 2020 by efcfanwirral

[Toilet Duck]

Actually, complete forgot to mention in my earlier post about the Pfizer vaccine that we now have two sets of interim phase 3 data published and only 1 case of severe COVID in vaccinated individuals. Two different vaccines, two completely independent trials and over 60,000 people enrolled in them. No signal for vaccine-induced disease enhancement (which was something people on here have been worrying about), so I think we can put that one to rest. 

[Ozanne]

Hehe

 

[eastynh]

Well I have just had a msg off the NHS telling me to be prepared for my turn to have the vaccine over the next few weeks, if I want to have it.

A little bit of good news after 2 horrific years for me personally.

[Fuzzy Afro]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

 

This is the huge unanswered question that really needs addressing in broad terms. What is the plan after the vulnerable are vaccinated?

Essentially: are we going to try and keep cases down or not.

There's an argument for both - not many non-vulnerable will die from it, so we can open up the economy and let it spread around. Or we can keep restrictions in place until we have vaccinated everyone who wants it

The problem will be what level of death numbers will people accept when those deaths are not 95%+ people over 70 or with underlying health problems. The numbers could be a lot smaller but a lot scarier.

About 600-700 people have died from covid-19 that don’t fall into the vulnerable group (1% of the 60k-70k)

 

Thats roughly 2-3 people per day since the start of the pandemic. And in reality, those numbers will be skewed towards the early days before we found effective treatments.

 

Do you really think we should have restrictions when the numbers are that low?

 

[mikegday]

15 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

About 600-700 people have died from covid-19 that don’t fall into the vulnerable group (1% of the 60k-70k)

 

Thats roughly 2-3 people per day since the start of the pandemic. And in reality, those numbers will be skewed towards the early days before we found effective treatments.

 

Do you really think we should have restrictions when the numbers are that low?

 

Why is death the only thing to avoid? What about those who have a rough ride but survive?

[mikegday]

Just now, mikegday said:

Why is death the only thing to avoid? What about those who have a rough ride but survive?

And, if enough have a bad time of it at once  then that in turn would result in more deaths, because medical resources would be stretched, beds, ventillators occupied, staff sickness. You can’t only look at deaths! I’m as confident as I can be that COVID wouldn’t kill me, but there’s no guarantee I wouldn’t get severely sick right?

[fraybentos1]

3 minutes ago, mikegday said:

Why is death the only thing to avoid? What about those who have a rough ride but survive?

How is people having a 'rough ride' (not really even sure what that means) a reason to keep society shut down the way it is now. As soon as deaths and hosptilisations drop and stay down we need to move back to normality there is no reason not to.

[Crazyfool01]

1 hour ago, eastynh said:

Well I have just had a msg off the NHS telling me to be prepared for my turn to have the vaccine over the next few weeks, if I want to have it.

A little bit of good news after 2 horrific years for me personally.

fantastic news .... what group number do you fall in if you dont mind me asking ? I just want some idea of how well its progressing :) 

[xxialac]

Just now, fraybentos1 said:

How is people having a 'rough ride' (not really even sure what that means) a reason to keep society shut down the way it is now. As soon as deaths and hosptilisations drop and stay down we need to move back to normality there is no reason not to.

What restrictions do you think should remain next Summer?

[mikegday]

Just now, fraybentos1 said:

How is people having a 'rough ride' (not really even sure what that means) a reason to keep society shut down the way it is now. As soon as deaths and hosptilisations drop and stay down we need to move back to normality there is no reason not to.

Because as I’ve just said if too many people get sick, go into hospital and occupy a bed then we have a problem. These people dont all die - some go in and come out - but we can’t have too many doing that at once! My brother-in-law’s, mother-in-law (confusing!)  only last month was admitted for 4 days, she’s quite a way off vaccine priority and certainly not ‘vunerable’ - but we couldn’t have everyone like her going into hospital!

[fraybentos1]

Just now, xxialac said:

What restrictions do you think should remain next Summer?

Depends on what the deaths etc are like. If deaths are very very low and hospitals can operate more normally then very little restrictions imo like I seriously don't get what the need for them would be? Maybe more testing to get into certain things/ travel? Masks I don't have an issue with really but as i say not sure the need if people aren't being seriously harmed in big numbers.

[fraybentos1]

Just now, mikegday said:

Because as I’ve just said if too many people get sick, go into hospital and occupy a bed then we have a problem. These people dont all die - some go in and come out - but we can’t have too many doing that at once! My brother-in-law’s, mother-in-law (confusing!)  only last month was admitted for 4 days, she’s quite a way off vaccine priority and certainly not ‘vunerable’ - but we couldn’t have everyone like her going into hospital!

No idea what age she is but she is in the minority if she is under 60. As more people get vaccinated and more people have had it immunity will also build in the population and everyone will be less likely to get it anyway. 

[eastynh]

7 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

fantastic news .... what group number do you fall in if you dont mind me asking ? I just want some idea of how well its progressing :) 

I am 3, the extremely vulnerable group. I am up there with the 75 year olds.

[Fuzzy Afro]

10 minutes ago, mikegday said:

And, if enough have a bad time of it at once  then that in turn would result in more deaths, because medical resources would be stretched, beds, ventillators occupied, staff sickness. You can’t only look at deaths! I’m as confident as I can be that COVID wouldn’t kill me, but there’s no guarantee I wouldn’t get severely sick right?

The NHS won’t be overwhelmed when the most vulnerable 1/3 of society are vaccinated 

[Fuzzy Afro]

6 minutes ago, mikegday said:

Because as I’ve just said if too many people get sick, go into hospital and occupy a bed then we have a problem. These people dont all die - some go in and come out - but we can’t have too many doing that at once! My brother-in-law’s, mother-in-law (confusing!)  only last month was admitted for 4 days, she’s quite a way off vaccine priority and certainly not ‘vunerable’ - but we couldn’t have everyone like her going into hospital!

We wouldn’t...

 

We’d have a small % of such people going in. 

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

I am 3, the extremely vulnerable group. I am up there with the 75 year olds.

Thats good news .... not that you fall in that group ... the progress seems good to me ... im group 6 so im hoping that at least one of my jabs will be in Jan ... that seems reasonable assumption at the moment 🙂 and my folks will also be very soon after that too in the over 70s 🙂