Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[1971fozzy]

39 minutes ago, Barack said:

BBC News - Covid: All sports events in Wales go behind closed doors
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-59729129

 

 

It begins...

no doubt Sturgeon will be sharpening her pencil as I type.

nothing surer 😢.  When I bought the derby tickets I had a feeling in the pit of my stomach that this would happen.  It’s shit

[pablo]

8 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Ok name the  ethinically less diverse capitals in the world. I admit I have only checked the most obvious comparators. Ones like Oslo and Stockholm and Copenhagen . Apart from London. I am sure you can up with more but if you want a competition come up with a few less diverse capitals. Preferably ones remotely comparable to Edinburgh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about Dublin and Cardiff? I bet they're broadly similar.

 

[JFK-1]

Quote

With Omicron on the rise, what might next year have in store? Nicholas Christakis is director of the Human Nature Lab at Yale University and author of the bestseller Apollo’s Arrow.

He speaks with Hari Sreenivasan about what’s to come in the next phase of the pandemic. Originally aired on December 20, 2021.

 

Yale Sociologist Nick Christakis: COVID-19 Will Reshape Humanity

 

 

 

 

[Malinga the Swinga]

50 minutes ago, 1971fozzy said:

no doubt Sturgeon will be sharpening her pencil as I type.

nothing surer 😢.  When I bought the derby tickets I had a feeling in the pit of my stomach that this would happen.  It’s shit

It is shit. Government protecting rights of the minority over those of the majority. 

Another kick in nuts for those who follow guidelines and have done as requested.

Those feckless ****s who have disregarded every rule since start of this must be laughing at rest of us, looking forward to another bout of sitting on their arses doing **** all.

[Taffin]

25 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Yale Sociologist Nick Christakis: COVID-19 Will Reshape Humanity

 

 

 

 

 

Really interesting, thanks for sharing.

 

He lost me a bit when he went off about how this virus might have been a lot worse as an argument against people not taking it seriously. Was a bit "if my auntie had baws".

 

 

[Taffin]

2 hours ago, steve123 said:

Probably been discussed before but I fail to see how someone triple jabbed or with the willingness and on the way to be should be living under same restrictions as people who have decided not to take vacine.

 

Because we set off on a path of placing the needs of the minority over that of the majority so we should stick with it now. Why certain people are more at risk or more likely to spread it doesn't seem to have been a consideration. The approach to the unvaccinated just remains consistent with that. 

 

Maximin principle in action.

[Lord Montpelier]

2 hours ago, Barack said:

BBC News - Covid: All sports events in Wales go behind closed doors
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-59729129

 

 

It begins...

You know who will be loving this. She will no doubt be on the phone to fellow regional administrator Drakeford this morning asking to copy and paste the rules

[Dennis Denuto]

32 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Because we set off on a path of placing the needs of the minority over that of the majority so we should stick with it now. Why certain people are more at risk or more likely to spread it doesn't seem to have been a consideration. The approach to the unvaccinated just remains consistent with that. 

 

Maximin principle in action.

I understand your views on this and I can't say if I was still in my 20s and no kids I'd not have exactly the same view as you having had 2 valuable years of my life so curtailed, but you must see there is a difference in being elderly and not getting vaccinated.  There are plenty of people with very manageable underlying conditions that lead perfectly normal lives that have been suddenly put at danger by the virus.  I just don't see the two minorities as comparable as you seem to.

 

We often go on about blaming sections of society for being the ones 'breaking the rules' or 'causing the spread', but on here anyway we never seem to consider the people whos lives have been the hardest hit - i think young people 18-30 have had massive issues with al the social interactions taken away, what about the people that have been shielding? Their lives of almost total isolation and fear that any normal contact could be the one that gets them the virus. There are many more groups of people that this has been a much harder situation to endure than thankfully most of us, me very much included.

 

So not getting vaccinated when it is there in your country begging for you to get it, when it has been proven to be a safe way and only way out of this for everyone, is pretty ****ed up position to take. I wouldn't lose any sleep over life being a bit tougher on them in terms of restrictions.

[luckydug]

4 minutes ago, Lord Montpelier said:

You know who will be loving this. She will no doubt be on the phone to fellow regional administrator Drakeford this morning asking to copy and paste the rules

If it has to happen then we should get on with it now. 

Cancel the games due before the winter break then we have up till the end of January to assess the situation. 

It would be helpful if some people could leave politics out of it indeed I have always thought that an all party task force should have been  formed then perhaps the country would have been more united in our approach to this pandemic. 

In some ways this is like a war time situation. 

We had a coalition then. 

[Dennis Denuto]

They can count one vote less for the SNP if they do this today and keep hairdressers and nail bars etc open!!

[Lord Montpelier]

12 minutes ago, luckydug said:

If it has to happen then we should get on with it now. 

Cancel the games due before the winter break then we have up till the end of January to assess the situation. 

It would be helpful if some people could leave politics out of it indeed I have always thought that an all party task force should have been  formed then perhaps the country would have been more united in our approach to this pandemic. 

In some ways this is like a war time situation. 

We had a coalition then. 

Government of national unity should have been convened when this all kicked off. 

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

30 minutes ago, Dennis Denuto said:

I understand your views on this and I can't say if I was still in my 20s and no kids I'd not have exactly the same view as you having had 2 valuable years of my life so curtailed, but you must see there is a difference in being elderly and not getting vaccinated.  There are plenty of people with very manageable underlying conditions that lead perfectly normal lives that have been suddenly put at danger by the virus.  I just don't see the two minorities as comparable as you seem to.

 

We often go on about blaming sections of society for being the ones 'breaking the rules' or 'causing the spread', but on here anyway we never seem to consider the people whos lives have been the hardest hit - i think young people 18-30 have had massive issues with al the social interactions taken away, what about the people that have been shielding? Their lives of almost total isolation and fear that any normal contact could be the one that gets them the virus. There are many more groups of people that this has been a much harder situation to endure than thankfully most of us, me very much included.

 

So not getting vaccinated when it is there in your country begging for you to get it, when it has been proven to be a safe way and only way out of this for everyone, is pretty ****ed up position to take. I wouldn't lose any sleep over life being a bit tougher on them in terms of restrictions.

 

 

 

[Taffin]

36 minutes ago, Dennis Denuto said:

I understand your views on this and I can't say if I was still in my 20s and no kids I'd not have exactly the same view as you having had 2 valuable years of my life so curtailed, but you must see there is a difference in being elderly and not getting vaccinated.  There are plenty of people with very manageable underlying conditions that lead perfectly normal lives that have been suddenly put at danger by the virus.  I just don't see the two minorities as comparable as you seem to. 

 

Of course, there's a whole myriad of vulnerable people who are all vulnerable for varying reasons. Some are completely out of their control, some are not. 

 

Voluntarily unvaccinated, overweight, people with co-morbitities due to abuse of their body are (largely, accepting there are exceptions to the rule) for me are all in the same camp.

 

The elderly, people with other illnesses they didn't cause themselves, people who cannot be vaccinated, people with extreme vaccine hesitancy based on historic wrongdoings; I feel extremely for all of them and would go out of my way to help them as best I can. 

 

It's very difficult both practically and ethically to split those two groups out in reality though; so you're left with either taking action to protect the minority regardless of why they are vulnerable, or taking action to reduce impact on the majority.

 

I'm a bit more lassez-faire on healthcare given our culture, society and the UKs voting habits; some might consider me 'conditioned' by it. In an ideal world, I'd be all in favour (and vote as best I can for it) of a socialist state but this isn't a transition to that, it's an anomaly and isolated from the other benefits (imo) of a socialist society. Therefore I'm left torn between which of the two approaches to take, but what I'm certain of, is that there should no be a halfway house of flinging the unvaccinated under a bus for their views but turning a blind eye to the overweight, heavy drinkers, smokers etc for their views...all of which damage their own healthcare outcomes and apply additional pressure on the NHS. 

 

All of that said, I don't have much sympathy with the elderly as they would largely be getting what they vote for: non-state intervention and every man for themselves. They're choice, as much as anyone unvaccinated. Of course that damns those of them who do vote more progressively, but there's no perfect solution unfortunately. 

 

So I've generally come down on the side of we should minimise our intervention. But given we haven't, let's commit to that...for all.

 

 

Quote

 

We often go on about blaming sections of society for being the ones 'breaking the rules' or 'causing the spread', but on here anyway we never seem to consider the people whos lives have been the hardest hit - i think young people 18-30 have had massive issues with al the social interactions taken away, what about the people that have been shielding? Their lives of almost total isolation and fear that any normal contact could be the one that gets them the virus. There are many more groups of people that this has been a much harder situation to endure than thankfully most of us, me very much included. 

 

Agreed but It's also worth noting that whilst the vaccine will help those who I've deemed worthy (god-complex is not intended but I don't know how else to put it. Happy to take the flak for that) and those you mention above, it won't fully protect them, and some cannot take it. So the idea that we remain open because the unvaccinated have made their beds is also at the expense of the those people, it makes them collateral damage...and then you're back at square one. To avoid 'punishing' the majority (vaccinated), you will kill or exclude others who are not the 'mad vax out' type. So for me, people saying screw the unvaccinated are pretty much taking the same approach as me anyway, they're just wrapping it up in a more digestible bow. 

 

 

Quote

 

So not getting vaccinated when it is there in your country begging for you to get it, when it has been proven to be a safe way and only way out of this for everyone, is pretty ****ed up position to take. I wouldn't lose any sleep over life being a bit tougher on them in terms of restrictions.

 

Targeted restrictions on the unvaccinated would avoid the collateral damage to some extent I mention above. It does largely ignore that the vaccinated will continue to get ill, and spread the virus amongst themselves though...albeit to a lesser extent (based on Delta). That said, we're now hearing the concern around impact on the workforce, unless you remove the unvaccinated from that then you've still got them mixing with others ever single day or you've depleted your workforce massively. 

 

And what about schools? No vaccine, no education?

 

 

 

Sorry for the essay, and I appreciate I'm viewing through a largely theoretical, idealistic and philosophical lense. But given I've no power to act, it's just my view and nothing more 👍

Edited December 21, 2021 by Taffin

[Ray Gin]

44 minutes ago, Lord Montpelier said:

You know who will be loving this. She will no doubt be on the phone to fellow regional administrator Drakeford this morning asking to copy and paste the rules

 

No we are constantly assured that she has to do things just to be different, why would she copy and paste somebody else?

 

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

48 minutes ago, Lord Montpelier said:

You know who will be loving this. She will no doubt be on the phone to fellow regional administrator Drakeford this morning asking to copy and paste the rules

[Konrad von Carstein]

51 minutes ago, Lord Montpelier said:

You know who will be loving this. She will no doubt be on the phone to fellow regional administrator Drakeford this morning asking to copy and paste the rules

[JFK-1]

1 hour ago, Taffin said:

 

Really interesting, thanks for sharing.

 

He lost me a bit when he went off about how this virus might have been a lot worse as an argument against people not taking it seriously. Was a bit "if my auntie had baws".

 

 

 

I think the most significant points he made is that first omicron is the one that's going to make if officially endemic and fast. By sometime in 2022 every last human on the planet will either be vaccinated, unvaccinated and exposed to the virus but survived, or dead. That's herd immunity point.

But another statistic is that 5 times the number who died from covid will experience some sort of permanent disablement. I don't mean long covid, I'm talking permanent physical damage with some degree of disablement. Pulmonary fibrosis, cardiac problems, pancreatic issues and more as examples.

Currently around 150,000 UK deaths I think, so that would mean another 750,000 going to experience the above issues or others. This thing wont be over, we wont be in what we would all call post pandemic, till about 2024.

[XB52]

11 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Ok name the  ethinically less diverse capitals in the world. I admit I have only checked the most obvious comparators. Ones like Oslo and Stockholm and Copenhagen . Apart from London. I am sure you can up with more but if you want a competition come up with a few less diverse capitals. Preferably ones remotely comparable to Edinburgh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who the hell cares. You like London, well done. Most on here live in or near Edinburgh so that's what we prefer. As previous poster said it's not a competition

[XB52]

11 hours ago, Ked said:

My point was obvious .

Yours?

If you had been to San Fransisco you wouldn't have used that city as an example of being mostly white, that was my point 

[Taffin]

8 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I think the most significant points he made is that first omicron is the one that's going to make if officially endemic and fast. By sometime in 2022 every last human on the planet will either be vaccinated, unvaccinated and exposed to the virus but survived, or dead. That's herd immunity point.

But another statistic is that 5 times the number who died from covid will experience some sort of permanent disablement. I don't mean long covid, I'm talking permanent physical damage with some degree of disablement. Pulmonary fibrosis, cardiac problems, pancreatic issues and more as examples.

Currently around 150,000 UK deaths I think, so that would mean another 750,000 going to experience the above issues or others. This thing wont be over, we wont be in what we would all call post pandemic, till about 2024.

 

It was a really good listen/watch. It seems as though our card is marked whatever we do.

 

Personally I'm now resigned to additional restrictions so I'd be in favour of bringing them in now, slowing the spread until everyone has had a chance to get a booster (and it's conferred immunity) and then get on with things again as we'll have played our cards by that point.

 

[Taffin]

2 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Who the hell cares. You like London, well done. Most on here live in or near Edinburgh so that's what we prefer. As previous poster said it's not a competition

 

Nobody, so let's leave it in yesterday.

[XB52]

3 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Nobody, so let's leave it in yesterday.

Sorry, just logged on after an early logoff last night. 

Anyway, back on subject, I can see a total ban on crowds coming but for a very short time. After everyone gets, or could get, boosters then things will open up by end of January. 

[joondalupjambo]

53 minutes ago, Lord Montpelier said:

Government of national unity should have been convened when this all kicked off. 

Interesting option.

I remember Boris standing up at the time when this all kicked off and his usual style said along the lines of, "we are war with the virus and on a war footing". Many took that as his way and a speech for the masses but I have always had an inkling that was a calculated use of words because he wanted to control any actions from a war type cabinet, i.e. fewer folk who could take faster decisions based on the evidence presented to that group and be able to implement nation wide.  Now there are lot's of ways to argument against that style of leadership for the nation however if you look how it all panned out for him he always seemed to be that bit behind the eight ball in decision making for England.  I assume because he had to consult so much, and have the economic pressures higher than health ones put to him by so many MP's in parly.

Would that have worked though and could he have taken overall UK control with a "Covid War Cabinet", who knows but I always thought that was what in his advisor's mind's hence the war cry.

[Mikey1874]

1 hour ago, Taffin said:

 

Because we set off on a path of placing the needs of the minority over that of the majority so we should stick with it now. Why certain people are more at risk or more likely to spread it doesn't seem to have been a consideration. The approach to the unvaccinated just remains consistent with that. 

 

Maximin principle in action.

 

The Covid plan was and is based on capacity in the health service. 

[Dennis Denuto]

1 minute ago, XB52 said:

Sorry, just logged on after an early logoff last night. 

Anyway, back on subject, I can see a total ban on crowds coming but for a very short time. After everyone gets, or could get, boosters then things will open up by end of January. 

I am really struggling to see the case for it in the numbers and why should you cut outdoor events?  There are only a few big events left before the winter shutdown in football, why do we need to rush into it now when the pressure is not there? 

 

Schools are closing which will help take some of the numbers down, plenty are already off school anyway. For me it is not justified at all at this time.

[Ray Gin]

6 minutes ago, Dennis Denuto said:

I am really struggling to see the case for it in the numbers and why should you cut outdoor events?  There are only a few big events left before the winter shutdown in football, why do we need to rush into it now when the pressure is not there? 

 

Schools are closing which will help take some of the numbers down, plenty are already off school anyway. For me it is not justified at all at this time.

 

We are trying to avoid added pressure. 

 

We can't avoid the added pressure if it is already there.

[Malinga the Swinga]

1 hour ago, Lord Montpelier said:

Government of national unity should have been convened when this all kicked off. 

Agree totally and for about 5 minutes, it looked like it could happen.

Then those involved, and that's all if them, decided that playing party politics was more important than the country.

From Johnson to Sturgeon, Ross to Blackford and including all parties, the behaviour of our governments has been shameful.

After first lockdown, they threw themselves into point scoring, petty squabbles and campaigning instead of focussing attention on those impacted, either individually, through families and entire industries.

All parties have set rules for us and then ignored them themselves, whilst refusing to take or accept responsibility.

They are accountable to us, yet act as if it's the other way round.

I only wish that people wouldn't be blinded by their ambitions and recognise the complete failure of politicians throughout UK.

[Costanza]

23 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I think the most significant points he made is that first omicron is the one that's going to make if officially endemic and fast. By sometime in 2022 every last human on the planet will either be vaccinated, unvaccinated and exposed to the virus but survived, or dead. That's herd immunity point.

But another statistic is that 5 times the number who died from covid will experience some sort of permanent disablement. I don't mean long covid, I'm talking permanent physical damage with some degree of disablement. Pulmonary fibrosis, cardiac problems, pancreatic issues and more as examples.

Currently around 150,000 UK deaths I think, so that would mean another 750,000 going to experience the above issues or others. This thing wont be over, we wont be in what we would all call post pandemic, till about 2024.

That was a good interview and important that he talked about the long term health impacts from people who survive Covid.

Often here, the focus on the harms of covid focus solely on death and to be honest it feels deliberately disingenuous, as by only comparing mortality and ignoring long covid etc. to the collateral effect of lockdown, it made the original anti lockdown argument stronger.

 

When you see how this is playing out with the repeat process of opening up and then tightening of restrictions, it convinces me further than we should have gone for a zero covid/suppression route at the start. Allowing mass infection here or elsewhere is just running the risk of more variations that are going to feck up our normal way of life continuously.

 

 

[Savage Vince]

13 minutes ago, Dennis Denuto said:

I am really struggling to see the case for it in the numbers and why should you cut outdoor events?  There are only a few big events left before the winter shutdown in football, why do we need to rush into it now when the pressure is not there? 

 

Schools are closing which will help take some of the numbers down, plenty are already off school anyway. For me it is not justified at all at this time.

 

There is real pressure now. 

 

Politicians are also under immense pressure not to make the same mistakes that they have made at least twice, locking down too late and the mistake that was made last year, putting Christmas before public health-a ludicrous decision. 

[The Real Maroonblood]

Just now, Savage Vince said:

 

There is real pressure now. 

 

Politicians are also under immense pressure not to make the same mistakes that they have made at least twice, locking down too late and the mistake that was made last year, putting Christmas before public health-a ludicrous decision. 

This save Xmas shite is nauseating. 

Seems more important than dealing with Covid19. 

[JFK-1]

10 minutes ago, Costanza said:

That was a good interview and important that he talked about the long term health impacts from people who survive Covid.

Often here, the focus on the harms of covid focus solely on death and to be honest it feels deliberately disingenuous, as by only comparing mortality and ignoring long covid etc. to the collateral effect of lockdown, it made the original anti lockdown argument stronger.

 

When you see how this is playing out with the repeat process of opening up and then tightening of restrictions, it convinces me further than we should have gone for a zero covid/suppression route at the start. Allowing mass infection here or elsewhere is just running the risk of more variations that are going to feck up our normal way of life continuously.

 

 

 

He made me think this might be the way it had to play out. The lockdowns were because the NHS was going to be overwhelmed. The nation has been nursed to herd immunity and as he said, to steal Churchillian phrase that's the end of the beginning.

And as he also mentioned, we got lucky, other coronaviruses such as MERS have 30% fatality rates. Think there would have been the same level of vaccine refusal if that were the case? 

[Malinga the Swinga]

12 minutes ago, Dennis Denuto said:

I am really struggling to see the case for it in the numbers and why should you cut outdoor events?  There are only a few big events left before the winter shutdown in football, why do we need to rush into it now when the pressure is not there? 

 

Schools are closing which will help take some of the numbers down, plenty are already off school anyway. For me it is not justified at all at this time.

Honestly don't know. Personally, I'm not planning on going anywhere where I need to register as i don't want pinged and told to isolate before Christmas.

I feel the isolation rules are a joke and should be changed but they won't be. 

The Edinburgh street party is interesting. Do we need it? Not in my opinion but I'm not a fan if it anyway.

We have Covid passports though, we just choose not to use them. 

19 months of shit and our government, UK and Scottish, still running about with their heads stuck up their backsides, panicking, making a decision Monday afternoon, by Tuesday morning they want to review it and Wednesday they start process again.

While vaccine program a relative success, it has failed to persuade a huge amount of people in country that it's worthwhile having, so that minority is holding rest of us hostage.

Not the people who are medically unable to take it, and as such need to shelter, though. I do feel sorry for them, this must be horrific as they are restricted on who they can meet and where they can go, but as for those who choose not to have it because of, imo, fantasy theories such as slavery, tracking devices, experiments, mind control and the rest, I just wish they would shut the **** up, move elsewhere, and let the vast majority just get in with their lives.

[Savage Vince]

13 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

This save Xmas shite is nauseating. 

Seems more important than dealing with Covid19. 

 

Agreed. It's just not normal behaviour during a pandemic. It's up there with guarding statues and travelling the length of the country just to tell people you managed to have a pint. 

[Taffin]

15 minutes ago, Costanza said:

That was a good interview and important that he talked about the long term health impacts from people who survive Covid.

Often here, the focus on the harms of covid focus solely on death and to be honest it feels deliberately disingenuous, as by only comparing mortality and ignoring long covid etc. to the collateral effect of lockdown, it made the original anti lockdown argument stronger.

 

When you see how this is playing out with the repeat process of opening up and then tightening of restrictions, it convinces me further than we should have gone for a zero covid/suppression route at the start. Allowing mass infection here or elsewhere is just running the risk of more variations that are going to feck up our normal way of life continuously.

 

 

 

It's worth pointing out that the WHO still advise against lockdowns despite recognising that they work in achieving a single aim.

 

Focusing on the physical health impacts of lockdown feels disengenuous as by ignoring all of the mental health issues and financial issues it makes the pro-lockdown argument stronger.

[XB52]

34 minutes ago, Dennis Denuto said:

I am really struggling to see the case for it in the numbers and why should you cut outdoor events?  There are only a few big events left before the winter shutdown in football, why do we need to rush into it now when the pressure is not there? 

 

Schools are closing which will help take some of the numbers down, plenty are already off school anyway. For me it is not justified at all at this time.

Hope you're correct 

[The Real Maroonblood]

8 minutes ago, Savage Vince said:

 

Agreed. It's just not normal behaviour during a pandemic. It's up there with guarding statues and travelling the length of the country just to tell people you managed to have a pint. 

Exactly.

If I don’t laugh I’ll just greet.

[Savage Vince]

13 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Exactly.

If I don’t laugh I’ll just greet.

 

Keep laughing pal. 😊👍

[The Real Maroonblood]

Just now, Savage Vince said:

 

Keep laughing pal. 😊👍

👍🍺

[Malinga the Swinga]

19 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

It's worth pointing out that the WHO still advise against lockdowns despite recognising that they work in achieving a single aim.

 

Focusing on the physical health impacts of lockdown feels disengenuous as by ignoring all of the mental health issues and financial issues it makes the pro-lockdown argument stronger.

Perhaps the WHO should have word with SAGE advisors instead of appearing on TV programmes and media shows.

[Dazo]

You know what would be nice and likely be appreciated by the masses is a bit of notice. Clearly something in terms of restrictions is coming so why not tell us now so we can prepare. 

[Malinga the Swinga]

3 minutes ago, Dazo said:

You know what would be nice and likely be appreciated by the masses is a bit of notice. Clearly something in terms of restrictions is coming so why not tell us now so we can prepare. 

They tell you today and by tomorrow, they'll announce a further meeting as the restrictions just announced won't be far reaching enough.

Trouble is, they all make separate announcements, they all want to look like they are ones calling shots and they all want the last word 

[Costanza]

27 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

It's worth pointing out that the WHO still advise against lockdowns despite recognising that they work in achieving a single aim.

 

Focusing on the physical health impacts of lockdown feels disengenuous as by ignoring all of the mental health issues and financial issues it makes the pro-lockdown argument stronger.

I mentioned the collateral damage of lockdown which the WHO article is correct to point out but a zero covid/suppression policy doesn't mean constant lockdowns which is what we are doing.

Once you get infection rates down, you have tight border control, effective track and trace and mitigations to reduce the need for lockdown.
I mentioned earlier in the thread that I had a mate who lives in Hong Kong and they have had no community transmission since July and bar travel, life is normal.

For business, hospitality, mental health that is surely better than our approach, where we are 5 days from Christmas and we know restrictions are coming but don't know when.

I'm just fed up with the constant cycle of opening up and then restrictions. I was more talking about what I wish we had done at the start but accept that ship has sailed.

[Costanza]

50 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

He made me think this might be the way it had to play out. The lockdowns were because the NHS was going to be overwhelmed. The nation has been nursed to herd immunity and as he said, to steal Churchillian phrase that's the end of the beginning.

And as he also mentioned, we got lucky, other coronaviruses such as MERS have 30% fatality rates. Think there would have been the same level of vaccine refusal if that were the case? 

The severity aspect is interesting, if the virus had a mortality aspect impacting a lot younger population I imagine that yeah, the anti vaxxers would be very different, probably because they are selfish pricks.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So let me get this right. They are considering banning crowds but are happy to keep pubs open where people can go and watch the game?

 

WTAF!

[The Mighty Thor]

1 hour ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Agree totally and for about 5 minutes, it looked like it could happen.

Then those involved, and that's all if them, decided that playing party politics was more important than the country.

From Johnson to Sturgeon, Ross to Blackford and including all parties, the behaviour of our governments has been shameful.

After first lockdown, they threw themselves into point scoring, petty squabbles and campaigning instead of focussing attention on those impacted, either individually, through families and entire industries.

All parties have set rules for us and then ignored them themselves, whilst refusing to take or accept responsibility.

They are accountable to us, yet act as if it's the other way round.

I only wish that people wouldn't be blinded by their ambitions and recognise the complete failure of politicians throughout UK.

Perhaps the devolved administrations could be excused for playing politics but initially the Westminster government's head was turned as Spaffer and his mates were rather busy making each other money in true disaster capitalism style.

[Malinga the Swinga]

I see independent article quoting those who are double jabbed and then catch Covid are super protected and have 1000 times stronger anti bodies than those who are double jabbed alone.

Confusing though as does this not imply your better catching milder strain. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

I see independent article quoting those who are double jabbed and then catch Covid are super protected and have 1000 times stronger anti bodies than those who are double jabbed alone.

Confusing though as does this not imply your better catching milder strain. 

I've said this for ages. Fully jabbed and I'd happily catch it.

[Malinga the Swinga]

1 minute ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Perhaps the devolved administrations could be excused for playing politics but initially the Westminster government's head was turned as Spaffer and his mates were rather busy making each other money in true disaster capitalism style.

No, stop making excuses for them. They have all been tested and they all failed. Devolved administrations have been more concerned with point scoring over Westminster and that's contributed to the whole thing being a fiasco.

 

 

[The Mighty Thor]

The bottom line is that Johnson is stuck between a rock and a hard place of his own design.

 

the scientists want to put the brakes on (rightly or wrongly).

The devolved administrations want to put the brakes on.

Spaffer probably even wants to put the brakes on.

 

He can't. He's got no authority. He's a dead man walking and rather than making decisions on public health from a public health standpoint, he's making them on a political self preservation standpoint. Basically the ERG's offspring the Global Clean Brexit group of ****s like Steve Baker, Desmond Swaine, Andrew Bridgen et al are really running the country.

 

What a shambles. 

[The Mighty Thor]

3 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

No, stop making excuses for them. They have all been tested and they all failed. Devolved administrations have been more concerned with point scoring over Westminster and that's contributed to the whole thing being a fiasco.

 

 

That's not really the case at all. 

They've buggered things up at times but they've acted quicker and with greater conviction than Westminster. The message from the devolved administrations has always been clearer and more concise than the 'go to work, don't go to work' pish from spaffer.