Jump to content

When will covid end ? Please be nice and respectful to others


Crazyfool01
 Share

Recommended Posts

Third point is interesting:

 

Dr David Nabarro, the World Health Organization’s special envoy on Covid, said the virus is going to pose a very difficult situation for the next three months “at least” but “we can see the end in sight”.

He told Sky News:

I’m afraid we are moving through the marathon but there’s no actual way to say that we’re at the end - we can see the end in sight, but we’re not there. And there’s going to be some bumps before we get there.

And I can’t tell you how bad they’re going to be, but I can at least tell you what I’m expecting. First of all, this virus is continuing to evolve - we have Omicron but we’ll get more variants.

Secondly, it really is affecting the whole world. And, whilst health services in Western Europe are just about coping, in many other parts of the world, they are completely overwhelmed.

And thirdly, it’s really clear that there’s no scope for major restrictions in any country, particularly poor countries. People have just got to keep working and so there are some very tough choices for politicians right now. It’s going to be difficult for the next three months at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

So Gove has had a glow up into an anti-lockdown hawk and his other lockdown lover buddy Hancock isn’t in the cabinet any more. Just need Nadine Dorries to shut up and we have the dream cabinet of hawks. 

I've got to say seeing the reports of the culture Minister being heavily in support of restrictions didn't sit well with me. Giving her the benefit of the doubt maybe she saw the harms being done and saw restrictions and money as better than the pre Christmas situation but it wasn't reported with that caveat 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Its pretty standard political practice.  Since the story Gove and others have said "there are no plans to end testing yet".  

Release the story, deny its happening, see the reaction...  then do it 😛 

But the standard is to leak the story not to leak the wrong end of the stick. As the widespread news has been end free LFTs not expand the remit of free LFTs to symptomatic cases end the advice for asymptomatic testing.

If they want to make policy based on the reaction it helps if people are reacting to the right thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Barry Fish said:

Yeah but Dean you have always been a bit of blinkered empty head haven't you.  You need to get out more and see the world - or at least twitter 😄 

I learned not to listen to Twitter some years ago! It's an utter cesspit, makes this thread look positively civilized!

40 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

So Gove has had a glow up into an anti-lockdown hawk and his other lockdown lover buddy Hancock isn’t in the cabinet any more. Just need Nadine Dorries to shut up and we have the dream cabinet of hawks. 

No, Gove actually seems to be looking at the data and being for or against restrictions based on how bad it is. That he's the only member of the cabinet actually doing that (and he's Michael fucking Gove) is a scary idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, zahidf said:

Out of curiosity, what's you're take then? Was Boz right not to put in Xmas restrictions?

I think the mask restrictions were pointless without social distancing as I've said before. I think the work at home guidance was sensible. I would have given stronger guidance around Christmas - I think after last year people were going to do it anyway, but I'd have encouraged people to be aware of how it could spread - maybe just go see one set of family, not multiples. I'd have considered stronger measures over new year too - lots of businesses were left in limbo anyway, and there was a lot of hesitance, I'd have just shut hospitality over new year and first two weeks of January and given them the support they needed to survive. 

More generally it's quite difficult isn't it? My feeling right now is that it's fine, so retrospectively the choice we made was for the best (staffing issues because of isolation aside, as that's a policy issue). But it was a gamble. Given how massively transmissible Omicron seems to be, if it turned out it wasn't massively less deadly, or easily defeated by boosters or whatever, we'd be extremely fucked right now. Last January would have looked like a walk in the park. And we didn't know this in December. We had indications it might be - in fact I'd have given you good odds it would have been. Said as much at the time: we were more likely to be fine than not. The problem is if we weren't fine, it would have been really bad. It's not a gamble I would have taken.

I means it's obvious now Johnson made the best choice, but that doesn't mean it was the right choice at the time with the information he had. If I tell you there are two boxes A & B, one with £50,000 in it, and one with nothing. And I tell you there's a 75% chance that box A has the £50k. And you can pick one. The correct choice is box A. If you pick box B, and get lucky, it doesn't retrospectively mean you made the correct decision.

And to be fair on the government they've been dogged by this results-oriented approach all along. At many points earlier in the pandemic they made choices on the best data available and those choices turned out to be a disaster and they got criticised for it, and I've never been convinced that was fair either.

Still, looking okay now, I genuinely think with Omicron being milder and spreading around, that with the vaccine will finally end this thing for good.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best information we had was surely South Africa? I know Sage wanted to discount it but you can make an argument the country that was the first to deal with omicron had the best information on omicron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Barry Fish said:

Echo chamber...

Isn't that exactly what Twitter is? You follow the people you like. Or follow women you hate so you can call them names? To be honest I follow the whole COVID thing by reading the BBC News website and this thread. It's laughable that you'd say I'm in an echo chamber given I normally argue with you or someone else in here most days.

2 hours ago, Barry Fish said:

Bollocks...

Data is raw....  How you analysis that data and the conclusions that come from it are key.

He failed...  At least he can admit his failures - maybe you should consider it from time to time ? 

So did you fail when you had your wobble just before Christmas and started saying you thought we probably would need more restrictions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Maybe try a little harder...

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-hints-long-term-25907812

 

"Sometimes when you hear people talk about learning to live with Covid, what seems to be suggested is that one morning we’ll wake up and not have to worry about it anymore, and not have to do anything to try to contain and control it," she told STV News.

"That’s not what I mean when I say ‘learning to live with it’.

"Instead, we will have to ask ourselves what adaptations to pre-pandemic life – face coverings, for example – might be required in the longer-term to enable us to live with it with far fewer protective measures."

Sturgeon added: "We are in a position where we all want to get to as much normality as possible. All of us, me included, really crave that.

"But we need to recognise that this virus, although we hope Omicron is milder than previous variants, this virus still takes lives and it still causes significant health impacts for people.

"So we have got to treat it seriously and not underestimate the damage that it can do."

Maybe I'm too pedantic in my search; "forever"  should have tried " longer-term' 😟

Not gonna happen anyway....

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Barry Fish said:

I don't think it will happen - I think this is just nasty nicky playing politics again at the expense of the Scottish people again...

 

SNP +10

absolute bollocks as usual Barry.

 face coverings, for example – might be required in the longer-term to enable us to live with it with far fewer protective measures."

is not the same as

Sturgeon saying she thinks face masks might be mandatory in shops forever

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LJS said:

absolute bollocks as usual Barry.

 face coverings, for example – might be required in the longer-term to enable us to live with it with far fewer protective measures."

is not the same as

Sturgeon saying she thinks face masks might be mandatory in shops forever

 

 

 

 

How long term though since covid is never going away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LJS said:

absolute bollocks as usual Barry.

 face coverings, for example – might be required in the longer-term to enable us to live with it with far fewer protective measures."

is not the same as

Sturgeon saying she thinks face masks might be mandatory in shops forever

 

 

if we're going to use face coverings, we need to use coverings which work this guy knows the score.

Edited by Neil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...