June 21st

To say there is nothing we can do about it is true though, isn't it? To that extent, debating the policy or disagreeing with it doesn't matter! But that's not to impute that I'm saying people shouldn't do it. This thread is on it's 46th page and I have dipped in and out of it along the way. It might be fun to lob in one's preferred killer data in order to attempt to win the argument, but my point is that because we can't individually affect the current policy then I'm not inclined to trawl through all the available (and frequently conflicting) information that is out there. It's clear that the government is relying on some information. And given that it has SAGE, the chief scientist and the chief medical officer available to it, that is (or certainly ought to be) very good information. What's the old adage? Change the things you can't accept and accept the things you can't change?

 

69% not very confident the new date will happen. Sample size of over 24,000 voters so it's not a small portion.

 

I’ve literally just said that if it was up to me the restrictions would be lifting on the 21st, yet your first response to me is “I know you want restrictions in place for a lot longer”?

I’ve never wanted restrictions for longer than is necessary, I find it laughable that you seem to think anybody would want restrictions for no reason. I think the outcry over things like masks is ridiculous to the point where I struggle to even class them as a ‘restriction’, but I wouldn’t argue if they were relaxed on the 21st. I believe that if we’d have followed the advice of the experts from the start we’d have had far less restrictions over the last year. People like yourself pushed against any sort of restriction, which made the government delay which led to us being in limbo for much of the last year when we really didn’t need to be. It was short sighted to push against hard restrictions last March and it’s cost the country greatly over the last year. Obviously you’ll disagree and claim that it’s people like myself that were at fault for the last year and that restrictions were not necessary at all (or at least not on everybody). The truth is that either method would have been better than what we ended up doing, which is something that nobody wanted. “My method” (for lack of a better term, you know what I mean) would have saved lives and saved money and saved jobs. “Your method” (again for lack of a better term) would have cost lives to the virus, however it would have saved a lot more money and would have saved most of the jobs that were lost over the last year. Both are better than what we ended up doing, which saved a few lives from the virus but decimated the economy. It’s something that nobody asked for and nobody wanted.

The issue with the current situation is that the government have stupidly promised that this is the final lifting of restrictions. That means they have to delay until they’re extremely sure it’s fine to do so. To me that means an observable change in the relationship between cases and hospitalisations. To say again, if it was down to me, the restrictions would be lifted and then as the cases ramp up if that relationship is not looking as good as it needs to be, I’d bring back in some temporary restrictions again while the vaccination efforts continue.

I know what you’re saying about the number of tests, however (and again this is conjecture as this data doesn’t exist or isn’t released at least) I think a lot of people are getting tested multiple times a week, and a lot of them are also the same people getting tested every week. Back 6-10 months ago I knew people getting tested all the time, but right now the only people I know that are getting tested are doing so for work multiple times a week.

Also with regards to your “do we trust the people running the country or hate them?” comment - I trust the experts that are analysing the data. I don’t trust the politicians that are making the decisions. Boris Johnson and the government pushed against restrictions from the start and did nothing for far too long

 

I don't think Step 4 actually makes much difference to me, although I appreciate it might do for others.

 

Hopefully my previous post (#922) assists. Age and not working for a living also influence my perspective!

 

You said “I know your ideal position is for restrictions to remain a lot longer” how is that to be taken in any way other than “you want restrictions for no reason”? Nobody has any idea what the future holds, so wanting restrictions for “a lot longer” can be based on nothing other than just a desire for restrictions for restrictions sake, no?

And I read my post a few times before sending and deleted the paragraphs ranting about Trump, so you’d be proud! (Joking, obviously!) In all seriousness it’s a fair point, I often read the BBS while in meetings so often get (very rudely!) interrupted while in the middle of a reply.

 

Deaths are a subset of cases - so reducing deaths means firstly reducing cases (you can't die from covid if you don't have it) and also encouraging vaccine uptake and improving care and treatment obviously important too - and the modelling of deaths is built on the modelling of cases - and those numbers aren't small. That's not to say the modelling is spot on - partially because the models influence policy and the policy influences the data and then everyone says that the model was wrong.

I don't think that thinking of goalposts or targets helps - it is really about those four tests that taken together will control this virus to an extent that government can remove the restrictions - and it's fairly clear that Delta is more transmissible and on the rise and therefore test 4 failed.

 

All good points - and I'm not trying to defend or attack any particular positions - I suppose we could say that COVID has shone a light on quite how poorly we've been taken influenza as a society. Perhaps we should have been funding social care in a way that they could buy and use PPE better, perhaps we should be more stringent on people actually washing their hands (I was fortunate to go to Oakwell in the play-off semi final but unfortunate enough to see a lot of people not washing their hands after going to the gents ffs), or practicing respiratory hygiene or doubling our efforts to get the flu vaccine. Influenza has pandemic potential too.

'at the moment' yes, but it's growing and unlocking would fuel it even more

'explanations around general health at play' by which I think you mean that COVID takes the poorly - or those living with diseases already - and, so what ??

'expected to be when you factor in what we've allowed' - I think I agree - the progress was tangible and rates were looking very low - the emergence of Delta has ruined that - sadly.

 

I think the failure to put India into the red destinations list 2 months ago for clearly political reasons should be grounds for a legal case against Boris Johnson.

 

Sadly I'm one of them. It's just a rolling nightmare now.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ths-plunge-low-just-52-victims-week-June.html

Bloody heck Mogg for PM The PM will probably be having a quiet word with him after some of those comments.

 

**** me! Comedy Central!

 

Another state going back to how it should be.

 

Interesting that you choose that as an example when they’ve vaccinated a much higher % of people than the UK.

We’re at just over 50% fully vaccinated are we not?

Edit: we’re at 57% of adults. Just to clear that up. New York is actually at about 63% it seems - as the 70% includes half-vaccinated people. There’s still a difference there, but not as much as I first thought. We’ve also half-vaccinated more than New York, as we’ve gone for the longer time between shots method.