When will this shit end?

[xxialac]

4 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

We just have to follow the data. I suspect we'll actually be fine for a good while once everyone is vaccinated. 

If I had to bet, we'll be fully open by September, but start administering all the second gen vaccines as boosters and to deal with the new variants in late autumn/early winter this year.

And then we'll probably be done for a while. We'll see.

This feels spot-on timing wise based on all the leaks coming out.

[zahidf]

 

[st dan]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

 

That last quote .. and there we go. They are going to essentially open up what they can control slowly, but realise that people are going to take their social lives into their own hands. It’s a win/win scenario for them, with the key being no blame if it goes wrong and hospitalisations and deaths start to climb again (but they won’t!). 

[zahidf]

More from Hancock 

So... we would prefer you to do it but up to you 

[eFestivals]

anyone know how long test results are taking at the mo? Am waiting on a test from yesterday.

[zahidf]

Just now, eFestivals said:

anyone know how long test results are taking at the mo? Am waiting on a test from yesterday.

Its  normally 24 hours but I'm guessing it's longer for it being a Sunday 

[zahidf]

25 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Yes, very strongly by Marr for once.

And he dismissed the conclusions that he acted unlawfully as of no importance.

This government again thinks it is above the law - these are dangerous people.

Am I missing something or was it just them taking a few weeks to publish the contracts?

[eFestivals]

Just now, zahidf said:

Am I missing something or was it just them taking a few weeks to publish the contracts?

essentially yeah.

The scandal here isn't really with the lateness - because shit happens in a pandemic - it's with them not publishing when they were asked about it, and then spending taxpayers money defending their lateness/refusal to publish in court.

 

[xxialac]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Am I missing something or was it just them taking a few weeks to publish the contracts?

Pull the other one...

They have the resources to completely finalise contracts worth 18 billion pounds but don't have the resource to spend 1 minute uploading the documents to the tender database within the statutory 30 days?

The reason they didn't do it was to avoid scrutiny and had it not been for this legal case being brought against them the delays would be even longer and there would be more that we don't know.

The government should be leading by example, not getting into the habit of breaking its own laws.

 

[steviewevie]

Bojo is going to have to do a good job of explaining clearly the reasons for the gradual easing of restrictions to the CRG crew, as well as the public.

[DeanoL]

21 hours ago, Matt42 said:

Coupled with younger people missing their friends and family badly and wanting to make up for lost time.

We are bound to get a new variant which isn’t as effective so we need a new vaccine, but that happens with the flu every year - we don’t go into lockdown yearly for the flu.

If a new summer variant of the flu turned up in April this year we would go straight back into full lockdown. The problem is NHS capacity. And there’s a lag on that (as people are often hospitalised for months after catching it) - if we just open up enough to keep us on the cliff edge, anything new that will impact on the NHS will push us back into lockdown.

Not to mention the staff that have been working 50-60 hour weeks for a year and are still doing so, in horrible conditions, and we’ve gone from “clap for the NHS” to “nah they can keep doing that so I can go pub”.

17 hours ago, jparx said:

So hold on, according to that 44% of people left the house for non-allowed reasons? That doesn’t suggest very high compliance to me..? And to be honest, 44% of people bending/breaking the rules seems much more aligned with where I live.

That sounds about right. Plenty of people breaking the rules, but a (small) majority still following them. It’s not 96% compliance but it’s also not “everyone is breaking the rules, they must be as me and all my mates are”.

 

[Ozanne]

12 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Pull the other one...

They have the resources to completely finalise contracts worth 18 billion pounds but don't have the resource to spend 1 minute uploading the documents to the tender database within the statutory 30 days?

The reason they didn't do it was to avoid scrutiny and had it not been for this legal case being brought against them the delays would be even longer and there would be more that we don't know.

The government should be leading by example, not getting into the habit of breaking its own laws.

 

Regardless of severity they still broke the law, they are the government they should be following them. 

[Paul ™]

39 minutes ago, Copperface said:

Not being funny and just to avoid confusion, the managed isolation measures are not up for review in March and are not anything to do with the Coronavirus Act (which does have a review in March but will undoubtedly be passed).

They are a Statutory Instrument Reg and can be switched on or off at any time, but unrelated to the Act which is due to expire in 2022.

Ok I should have said that the hotel contracts and pricing are in place till the end of March and those are being reviewed then.

I still think it will be scrapped around then.

[Fuzzy Afro]

41 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

How it should have been since day 1. 

[stuartbert two hats]

3 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

How it should have been since day 1. 

Infectious diseases are not about personal responsibility, they're about collective responsibility.

[Copperface]

8 minutes ago, Paul ™ said:

Ok I should have said that the hotel contracts and pricing are in place till the end of March and those are being reviewed then.

I still think it will be scrapped around then.

Yeah, no problem. It's just that a lot people think that the Coronavirus Act is used for any of the restrictions and that it'll be scrapped in March. It isn't and won't.

[JoeyT]

Good news in Bristol

 

[xxialac]

9 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

How it should have been since day 1. 

I wish I had as much faith in human beings as you appear to have.

[eFestivals]

Just now, JoeyT said:

Good news in Bristol

 

hmmmm ... not sure how effective they've been. Was dead when I was there yesterday.

Also, has been dreadfully publicised. I only found out by chance on Friday night that my postcode was in the list - but hadn't been listed when I'd looked a week or so before.

[Leyrulion]

1 hour ago, xxialac said:

Yeah, that's scientifically illiterate isn't it.

He's also dismissed the reports on the UK having the Euros

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/uk-euro-2020-host-matt-hancock-b920637.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1613901147

From the quote that he "hasn't seen anything on that" it's possible he just isn't upto date with the latest or an offer of assistance has been made but its not quite what's been reported.

1 hour ago, sisco said:

I just don’t get it anymore.  The idea was we needed lots to be vaccinated for things to open up.  Will we get to the point the following summer where everyone has to be re-vaccinated, and the summer after that etc....

Surely once most are protected, the NHS won’t be overwhelmed and the country can get back to normality?! 

The thinking is that with jabs for all by end of July then most won't actually be protected until August.

[ace56blaa]

1 hour ago, xxialac said:

Yes, very strongly by Marr for once.

And he dismissed the conclusions that he acted unlawfully as of no importance.

This government again thinks it is above the law - these are dangerous people.

And Keir Starmer says he won't be calling for a resignation, because the people "don't want it." Keir Starmer is a dangerous Labour leader atm, I thought they were supposed to be "no more mr nice guy" and yet there's proof that Matt Hancock has been unlawful in handing contracts to tory donors and friends, something he has been bringing up at PMQs recently yet this isn't enought to call for a resignation. 

I know it most falls on the Tory's committing the crimes and injustice, but Keir really values Tory voters and tabloids opinion as those are the people who oppose Labour doing stuff like calling for a resignation. 

[Fuzzy Afro]

24 minutes ago, xxialac said:

I wish I had as much faith in human beings as you appear to have.

What do you mean? 

[sisco]

22 minutes ago, Leyrulion said:

From the quote that he "hasn't seen anything on that" it's possible he just isn't upto date with the latest or an offer of assistance has been made but its not quite what's been reported.

The thinking is that with jabs for all by end of July then most won't actually be protected until August.

Most?! How’s that possible.  Surely only the last 2 weeks of July won’t be protected?! 

[zahidf]

13 minutes ago, ace56blaa said:

And Keir Starmer says he won't be calling for a resignation, because the people "don't want it." Keir Starmer is a dangerous Labour leader atm, I thought they were supposed to be "no more mr nice guy" and yet there's proof that Matt Hancock has been unlawful in handing contracts to tory donors and friends, something he has been bringing up at PMQs recently yet this isn't enought to call for a resignation. 

I know it most falls on the Tory's committing the crimes and injustice, but Keir really values Tory voters and tabloids opinion as those are the people who oppose Labour doing stuff like calling for a resignation. 

Or he doesn't think it's much of a story or that people will care about contracts being put on the website a few weeks late in the middle of a pandemic.  

[steviewevie]

17 minutes ago, ace56blaa said:

And Keir Starmer says he won't be calling for a resignation, because the people "don't want it." Keir Starmer is a dangerous Labour leader atm, I thought they were supposed to be "no more mr nice guy" and yet there's proof that Matt Hancock has been unlawful in handing contracts to tory donors and friends, something he has been bringing up at PMQs recently yet this isn't enought to call for a resignation. 

I know it most falls on the Tory's committing the crimes and injustice, but Keir really values Tory voters and tabloids opinion as those are the people who oppose Labour doing stuff like calling for a resignation. 

I think a lot of Starmer's decisions are based more on what focus groups and polling are saying at the moment, then what is actually the right thing to do.