When will this shit end?

[Ozanne]

3 minutes ago, topmarksbri said:

Might this indicate that xmas mixing not as bad as we thought it might be? We're presumably bang smack in the middle of when symptoms from that would start to show. Although I guess most people mixing for xmas would be people traveling outside of London. 

If that’s true which to be honest the specimen data doesn’t show a levelling off yet then it would indicate preventing Christmas mixing was a good thing as Londoners couldn’t mix households at Christmas.

[topmarksbri]

Just now, Ozanne said:

If that’s true which to be honest the specimen data doesn’t show a levelling off yet then it would indicate preventing Christmas mixing was a good thing as Londoners couldn’t mix households at Christmas.

Right, but Londoners who travelled before the lockdown was announced (the vast majority of people I know) to the regions/outside of the city wouldn't show up on this anyway as it's London specific. So the actual damage caused by people travelling for xmas won't be in London itself but wherever they go. 

[st dan]

13 minutes ago, aj6658 said:

My personal thought it that if we can Vaccinate everyone over 50+ (first 8 at risk groups) i dont see why we need restrictions at that point - wouldn't 99% of hospitalisations be prevented at the point?  

Yep, I’m thinking the same and the constant messaging from the government as ‘back to normal by Easter’ would also suggest likewise. There could be 100,000 cases per day and I’m not sure they would be too concerned as long as the most vulnerable have been vaccinated and the deaths and hospital admission numbers are low. 

[Fuzzy Afro]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

If that’s true which to be honest the specimen data doesn’t show a levelling off yet then it would indicate preventing Christmas mixing was a good thing as Londoners couldn’t mix households at Christmas.

Many of them DID mix households though. Just because they were legally banned doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. 

[zahidf]

9 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Tier 4 potentially starting to work in London now. 

Paton is a bit anti lockdown so bit dubious about him on this 

[Fuzzy Afro]

Just now, zahidf said:

Paton is a bit anti lockdown so bit dubious about him on this 

Yes he’s anti-lockdown, and what?

[zahidf]

2 minutes ago, st dan said:

Yep, I’m thinking the same and the constant messaging from the government as ‘back to normal by Easter’ would also suggest likewise. There could be 100,000 cases per day and I’m not sure they would be too concerned as long as the most vulnerable have been vaccinated and the deaths and hospital admission numbers are low. 

They'd just stop publishing the figures to the same extent. 

[Toilet Duck]

12 minutes ago, zahidf said:

What's your take on this out of curiosity?

 

 

 

Looks interesting and is a step towards providing some hard data on on prior infection and the type of protection it might confer (at least transiently). If we couple with findings that suggest that the immune response remains pretty robust for at least 8 months after infection, then it's good news. The preliminary findings on the rate of asymptomatic infection are particularly interesting as it suggests that immunity (either naturally or via vaccination) could at least suppress reinfection (I don't see how frequently they tested for asymptomatic disease, so it's all down to when you test), but the complete lack of symptomatic cases in previously infected individuals that remain exposed to symptomatic patients is encouraging. 

[Fuzzy Afro]

“Tougher measures” getting teased more than the new 1975 album. Just bloody announce them already. 

[zahidf]

Ha

 

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, Toilet Duck said:

Looks interesting and is a step towards providing some hard data on on prior infection and the type of protection it might confer (at least transiently). If we couple with findings that suggest that the immune response remains pretty robust for at least 8 months after infection, then it's good news. The preliminary findings on the rate of asymptomatic infection are particularly interesting as it suggests that immunity (either naturally or via vaccination) could at least suppress reinfection (I don't see how frequently they tested for asymptomatic disease, so it's all down to when you test), but the complete lack of symptomatic cases in previously infected individuals that remain exposed to symptomatic patients is encouraging. 

Cool thanks. Was having difficulty interpreting it!

[alanr]

31 minutes ago, Chef said:

I think the point you make is just one of many reason why individuals may not be following the rules - others include seeing people around them not following rules so why should they, general lockdown fatigue, missing loved ones, social media conspiracy theories etc. but whatever the reason it is still going to be an issue if people do not do what is asked of them, and that's what needs to be looked at alongside all the other problems with government response, schools, sports, mixing etc. 

I agree, but the cummings fiasco legitimised much of this behaviour. Before almost everyone was following both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, then it became acceptable to follow the letter of the law and even actively seek loopholes to avoid the law. Many loopholes are inevitable with laws which are drafted as rapidly as is required in the present situation.

Also there are many guidelines which too many people discard as they are not backed by law

[zahidf]

5 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Yes he’s anti-lockdown, and what?

He has a habit of promoting his stance with some dubious sharing IMO

[squirrelarmy]

2 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

“Tougher measures” getting teased more than the new 1975 album. Just bloody announce them already. 

Patiently waiting news on the announcement drop...

[stuartbert two hats]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

Medically it would be sensible to do that. However, politically this govt and with the backbenchers are clearly going to open up a lot earlier than they should.

I know how disappointing it will be for you personally if we do get back to normal earlier 

I'm always disappointed when people die.

[Fuzzy Afro]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I'm always disappointed when people die.

You realise the point of opening up after the vulnerable are vaccinated is that there WONT be many deaths, right?

[ace56blaa]

So like people are saying the Government are never 100 percent to blame for rising infections and rule breakers. 

But if you look back to the march lockdown, the government fucked up a lot, locked down too slowly, moving ICU patients to care home etc. But the public compliance was still very good. - There was still arsehole breaking the rules but nowhere near enough to make a dent, as we saw, with some of the big news stories about V-day parties or people flooding the beach, it didn't really result in an uptick in cases. But you rarely heard of any consequences for rule breakers, there were fines that seemed to barely be implimented and you could explain your way out of easily and then obviously Dominic Cumming showed us that even in government there's no repercussions for breaking the rules. These are things the government could have used to make sure the public followed the rules, instead of condemning street parties on v-day they were celebrating Vera Lynne, instead of firing Cummings almost every minister defended him!

Then summer came, cases were going down and people were thinking, this is going away now. Enjoy summer safely was the governments slogan as the opens everything back up, starting with the most important pubs, (lol) and ending with ridiculous unnecessary stuff like Arcades and allowing 30 person weddings (pointed out by Neil, possibly because spaffer himself was to be married.) So the entire general public perception as lead by the government messaging was this virus is going away. That you should go back to work and restaurants and restore the economy because the virus is fading and we need to worry about money now. 

Then obviously (obvious to people paying attention) the virus started rising again, because thats what happens when you systematically remove more and more restrictions unessacerily, ignoring scientists, because you have a "hunch" the virus will be gone by easter autumn Christmas. Over and over again the government promises this to be over, often just so people will go out and spend money. 

Of course more and more people are gonna start getting conspiratorial or suspicious because the government is simultaneously playing down the virus when they need people to pend or go back to work or school and then implementing lockdowns and strict measures the next second once cases inevitably go back up. Yes there's arseholes out there but there's so much more the gov could be doing to A) give repercussions to rule breakers (even if it's just calling them out rather than defending them) B)Messaging, not consistently telling the public the virus has finished and there's little to worry about and C) give the support to help people who genuinely cant avoid breaking the rules because of work or money or need to help their family 

At the end of the day yes there's arseholes out there, but what made these arseholes sick of lockdown, what made ordinary people less likely to take note of government safety precautions now? Cause the main meme i've seen across all social medias and from friends and gammons alike is that the government rules and messaging is inconsistent. It's just that some take that as government incompetence and some think that means they are lying. 

 





 

[JoeyT]

Did my test this morning.

As rank as I remember it being back when I had a cough (negative result) back in October.

Tears & vomit inducing. Yuck.

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, Fuzzy Afro said:

You realise the point of opening up after the vulnerable are vaccinated is that there WONT be many deaths, right?

You realise we can't vaccinate quickly enough to protect enough people to open up before Easter without lots of death, right?

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, st dan said:

Yep, I’m thinking the same and the constant messaging from the government as ‘back to normal by Easter’ would also suggest likewise. There could be 100,000 cases per day and I’m not sure they would be too concerned as long as the most vulnerable have been vaccinated and the deaths and hospital admission numbers are low. 

if hospitalisations/death rates drop and stay low then I expect a lot of restrictions would be lifted...but who knows, we keep going round and round with this argument but in the end we'll have to see where we are at the end of winter. There will always be an argument for trying to get to zero covid, but that's probably very diffcult as it's everywhere. And I guess there's always the possibility of virus mutating and there needing to be a new vaccine (or tweak to current vaccine) which will screw things up for a while. 

My best guess is restrictions will start to be eased from spring onwards, and by summer we'll be in a much better place.

[Fuzzy Afro]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

You realise we can't vaccinate quickly enough to protect enough people to open up before Easter without lots of death, right?

Is anyone suggesting opening up BEFORE Easter?

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

You realise we can't vaccinate quickly enough to protect enough people to open up before Easter without lots of death, right?

not sure about that. A very decent chunk of those most likely to die should have been vaccinated by the end of January, and we should start seeing a difference in the death numbers because of it.

[philipsteak]

8 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Ha

 

Never really got the appeal of immortality. Just seems like a lot of effort

[Fuzzy Afro]

4 minutes ago, philipsteak said:

Never really got the appeal of immortality. Just seems like a lot of effort

I think it only prevents you dying from Covid. There is still a risk that you would die from other causes. 

[zahidf]

Germany is seeking advice on whether to delay giving the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to make supplies go further, in a similar move to the UK, according to a document seen by the Reuters news agency.

The country's health ministry has asked an independent vaccination commission for its opinion on administering the second shot later than 42 days after the first.