Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion
- Thread starter Sasaferrato
- Start date
We don't know what advice or scientific insight he's being given. And neither does the Guardian.
elbows
Well-Known Member
We don't know what advice or scientific insight he's being given. And neither does the Guardian.
We know quite a lot of it, the SAGE meeting documents from this week, and from earlier in the month, were published quickly. I've quoted from them and linked to them too much already to do it again right now.
elbows
Well-Known Member
To be 'fair' to him in that way is to ignore the most obvious lessons from the previous waves. The ones that people go on about all the time in this thread.
elbows
Well-Known Member
No we havent, there have been very long periods of restrictions but I cannot overlook the relaxations last summer, and the wave they enabled. Anyway I'm not claiming it would work in the sense that I'm not expecting 99% of people to be keen on this idea. But I'd also say that if things pan out in a very terrible way this time then there will be plenty of people who say it was so obvious that we should not have proceeded with all the planned relaxations at this time, and they will understandably be very angry with Johnson. I'm just taking the same concepts and applying them in a different way, and before the doom rather than after. There are quite a lot of different ways I could frame this, for example I could tell people that if they think they might get angry with Johnson about this, they could do their bit now by not expanding the number of contacts they are making at the moment, by not visiting the indoor part of a pub, etc. As for employers, attempts to get staff back to the office should be resisted by anyone who is in a position to be able to do so without terrible consequences.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Plus there is the lesson we've learnt twice the hard way already - that in fact my sort of approach, if done at the right time, is actually the way to minimise the length of time people need to remain under the heaviest restrictions. Because allowing really large waves to happen means the authorities eventually have to slam on the brakes rather hard for rather a long period of time. The resistance to the cautious, timely approach doent end up saving people from long periods of lockdown, quite the opposite.
Factors such as vaccination do start to change this picture, so it would perhaps be unfair for me to lay this timing point down as heavily as it was appropriate to do in the first two waves. But I do not think its safe to say that the underlying principal is redundant quite yet.
Factors such as vaccination do start to change this picture, so it would perhaps be unfair for me to lay this timing point down as heavily as it was appropriate to do in the first two waves. But I do not think its safe to say that the underlying principal is redundant quite yet.
Let me rephrase that. For some (many?) of us, we've been doing the same lockdown stuff for the last 15 months. I've been following the rules -- more than the rules -- for all that time. I really really can't do this for much longer and most of my friends are in the same boat.
As to resisting employers...well, yeah. Trying that but at some point pretty soon it'll be back in the office or no job. (Also to add my workplace is very young so most people won't have been vaccinated by then.)
Yes, we do know imposing hard measures will reduce the overall length of time. But fuck me, I'm doing my bit and more but all this bollox about not closing borders etc in time and employers forcing people back to the office for no good reason makes it feel a bit fucking pointless.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Johnson is his name unless you know him personally
elbows
Well-Known Member
I totally sympathise with that stance, but the problem is that we've felt like that before and feeling that way doesnt make much difference to what actually ends up happening.
When I said a short time ago that perhaps due to vaccinations, I should tone down my point about acting early and strongly to reduce the overall length of burdens, I think at this stage of vaccination programme its actually the other way around - I should make the point even more strongly.
Because if this variant has a large transmission advantage, but does not get around the effectiveness of vaccines, then we only have to buy ourselves a certain amount of time to get the 'how many people protected by vaccines' and transmission situation to a much better point. It would be possible to state that the length of sacrifice required is not all that long, especially not compared to the length of sacrifice we will have to make if another large wave develops.
I hope people understand that I'm just calling for a pause so we can figure out the situation better and make a few attempts to get it under control. I have very deliberately not insisted that everyone must remain under tight lockdown for the entire pandemic, I have told people when I'm not comfortable with all the relaxation steps, but I have not insisted that my every concern must be adhered to at every point. I recognise the need to have at a minimum some periods where people can recharge their batteries somewhat. For example if this new variant does not turn out to have the potential to cause a wave of similar or larger size to the previous ones, then I would be able to join in with the stances people have started to take more in terms of the whole 'learning to live with covid' thing, the 'deaths and hospitalisations within manageable levels' thing. Those arent my ideal preference, I prefered zero covid/closed borders etc, but I would live with it due to the need to balance that with other forms of human suffering caused by lockdowns etc. But clearly the authorities have several reasons to be concerned about this variant and how it has grown so far, and if I'm going to make these points I have to make them now, not wait and end up joining in with the sort of delays Johnson prefers. It would actually be a nice novelty if I called for something that later proved to be excessive and unnecessary, because so far its been almost impossible to make that mistake in this pandemic, its always been the opposite. I just want to err on the side of caution because I too was looking forward to stuff being relaxed and I dont want the gains to be blown yet again!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
My biggest frustration is that the balance with human suffering has been massively skewed. It has been clear for a while now that closely controlling borders was the thing to do, and that the mistake made last year was the failure to see this. I would suggest that that is the least-bad option wrt suffering for the vast majority of people, but it hasn't been done for what seem to me to be purely political reasons, including the ludicrous exemptions for rich business travellers that were in place until very recently. Meanwhile people's entire support networks have been shut down for months.
Thing is elbows, you can call for this or insist on that or prefer whatever else but you're ultimately some random on a board, no matter how informed you are.
I'm sure we all massively appreciate the efforts you put in but apart from those of us here, it sadly doesn't matter a jot what you say or think.
I'm sure we all massively appreciate the efforts you put in but apart from those of us here, it sadly doesn't matter a jot what you say or think.
elbows
Well-Known Member
And thats exactly why my post that started us on this angle tonight involved me compalining that no entities with very loud voices and large audiences, including the 'official party of opposition', seemed to have the guts to call for the right measures, prefering instead to focus on more popular, less painful-sounding options.
Plus there is very little that I've said in this pandemic which is unique to me. Indie SAGE often says similar stuff. Hell even the official government SAGE often says similar stuff when we really compare the detail, thats why I end up quoting them so much! So lets not make the mistake of thinking I am some radical who frequently goes out on a limb. I just find new ways to express the basics. Half the time when I watch a press conference I see a lot of similarities between words coming out of Whittys mouth and things I've said on the forum in the preceding 24-48 hours.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Its not the whole picture though, not once the first opportunity to keep things out via border closures & properly tracing & containing the first trickle of cases into a country at the start of the pandemic is missed.
Obviously in this country we cant do anything about the original failings on that front at the start of the pandemc, and so a broader palette of measures is necessary. eg if you want to get back to a situation resembling the original start point, you need to keep managing travel and the borders but you also need to suppress the infections domestically. How you do that depends how many cases you've ended up with. And then you need to keep pushing things down, down down to a zero covid type level.
Otherwise when you relax again infections rise again, even without any fresh imports from other countries. And the Kent variant already demonstrates that we are more than capable of generating our own mutations of the virus in our own country, if we allow the virus in general to thrive and reproduce.
In this particular case the very same mutations that give the India variant its troublesome properties could have popped up here independently in our own future homegrown strain one day, if we gave the virus the opportunity. If it turns out to have properties that reduce our vaccines effectiveness then this would have been a big problem whenever it happened to occur. If on the other hand the main worrisome property of this variant turns out to just be transmissibility, then the fact we let it come into the country at this moment in time, when our vaccination rollout was not yet sufficient to counter the transmission advantage of this variant, is indeed an error that is even more worth shouting about, and in this particular instance you will have been right to focus mostly on the border aspect more than the other measures.
As for 'purely political reasons', well that phrase can cover quite a lot of ground. It can cover the economic system and the history of a nation, how we ended up as some kind of global hub and centre of travel etc over a long period, including the echos of empire past. It can cover ideological belief aspects in individual leaders and parties. If can cover others with various sorts of power putting pressure on those who make decisions. And it cam include the very differing beliefs that people like you and me have about what we think needs to be done, what we consider palatable, what lines up with own own priorities. Which very much includes the stuff I have a massive go at you about, something that I am not going to do again now given my display last night.
Last edited:
elbows
Well-Known Member
Some of which leads back to things that experts made reference to back when we were first beginning our journey into the pandemic vaccination era. We've had a lot of trouble already with mutations that increase transmissibility, so just imagine how bad the projections would be if we were talking about escape mutants that piss all over the levels of immunity we've gained thus far from a combination of natural infections and vaccinations. And one of the scenarios experts worry about is that if you have a good chunk of the population with immunity at the same time as quite high levels of prevalence and transmission, then you are taking quite the risk. Because the virus comes under pressure to escape immunity, or rather obtaining that ability gives a strain thats happened to obtain that property it a big advantage. And if there are still lots of cases at that time, then you are rolling the dice with far too a high a frequency when it comes to those opportunities to mutate. A viral version of monkeys and typewriters coming up with the works of Shakespeare.
Therefore at a minimum people need to be very careful with all sorts of versions of 'learning to live with Covid'. Taking shortcuts comes with the risk that you'll just go round in another loop and things will unavoidably turn back into 'learning to live with lockdown'.
Therefore at a minimum people need to be very careful with all sorts of versions of 'learning to live with Covid'. Taking shortcuts comes with the risk that you'll just go round in another loop and things will unavoidably turn back into 'learning to live with lockdown'.
Last edited:
elbows
Well-Known Member
Since vaccines are not expected to save everyone who has them from being hospitalised, the following news and the numbers it mentions are not enough to serve as proof that the India variant has vaccine-busting properties. A more complicated analysis of numbers vs expected numbers is required for that. But I'm still going to mention this story, in part because its being said to have influenced the Scottish governments approach:
www.dailyrecord.co.uk
Scots in hospital with Indian variant despite being vaccinated against Covid
There are believed to be six patients – who have had the vaccine – currently being treated for complications suspected to be related to the variant.
Last edited:
elbows
Well-Known Member
I'm going to take a break now but please note that my ability to cope with people not liking my tone or attitude is very much greater than my ability to stay cool if I start suspecting we are entering a period where some people are increasingly tempted to shoot the messenger.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Oh and even without factoring in the current variant of concern, I would recommend people at least be aware of the attitudes expressed in this sort of article:
Lockdown easing: Scientists tell us what they will (and won't) be doing
How will scientists use their new-found freedoms when Covid restrictions are eased on Monday?
www.bbc.co.uk
That's interesting, thanks for digging that out. Good to know they've thought about it at least. I'm not convinced it would work either as it's probably not possible to encompass a wide enough area (the council areas surrounding Bolton, the counties surrounding it, or even farther afield?) and it's almost certainly too late to contain it to those few areas since it's popping up all over anyway. But it might be possible for, say, Wales to create a 'hard border' (oh joy) with vaccines- assuming, of course, that some infected person doesn't simply drive across the firebreak like a brand from a forest fire and start a spot fire somewhere else.
If you make an official request for flexible working (specifically, to work from home, which is mentioned within the definition), which of the legal grounds for refusal do you think your employer could use to say no?
If the request is not possible: Responding to a flexible working request - Acas
What you can do if your employee's flexible working request is not possible.
Bear in mind that they have to prove their reason to be true, and they have to do so in the context of you having worked entirely home for a year, without apparent loss of service (I presume).
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
Although I belive 'that cunt' or similar is also acceptable.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Tl;dr? Don't be an early adopter of the new relaxationsOh and even without factoring in the current variant of concern, I would recommend people at least be aware of the attitudes expressed in this sort of article:
Lockdown easing: Scientists tell us what they will (and won't) be doing
How will scientists use their new-found freedoms when Covid restrictions are eased on Monday?www.bbc.co.uk
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Yep. I'm inclined to let the early adopters be my guinea pigs.
lazythursday
Well-Known Member
But that's what I did last year - held back to see how things went, and then within about six weeks we were back in restrictions across most of the north. So I missed out on a brief window of opportunity. So this year I feel quite anxious to take advantage of the relaxations and fuck the risk of the new variant, because I've got really stuck in an isolated rut, am really starting to worry for my mental health. I'd rather they delayed the changes, but if I can do stuff again I think I really need to go and do it this time.
Looby
Well-Known Member
This is actually reassuring as it’s pretty much where I am at the moment and I was starting to worry I was being over cautious. I’ll stick to outside socialising mostly. I’m not rushing to go to the cinema or gigs.Oh and even without factoring in the current variant of concern, I would recommend people at least be aware of the attitudes expressed in this sort of article:
Lockdown easing: Scientists tell us what they will (and won't) be doing
How will scientists use their new-found freedoms when Covid restrictions are eased on Monday?www.bbc.co.uk
I’m definitely not in step with some of my friends though and with one I feel almost bullied by her aggressive need to push and push.
We went out Friday and she was talking about being inside pubs and going to each other’s houses and seemed pissed off with me that I said I won’t really be doing that. Why would I sit inside a pub when I could sit in the garden (once the weather improves). Pub gardens are great now, people are making huge efforts.
Last summer we went to her garden and she spent all evening trying to get us to go inside because it was cold.
I gently said that her telling me she has already been breaking the rules doesn’t really make me want to be in close contact with her.
She thinks because I’m fully vaccinated that I don’t need to worry at all.
We had a calm chat about respecting each other’s boundaries and I though she got it then was ranting later when she was drunk about how we’re all shut ins and too anxious and it’s all ridiculous. My pregnant friend drove her home and she wouldn’t put a mask on and was bitching about the windows being open. I’d have left her on the side of the road.
How can someone be angry with me for wanting to be safe when I was shielding until April? If she doesn’t back off I won’t see her at all.
bimble
floofy
Just read the same thing, Not to worry because hancock goes on to say that the person in hospital after two jabs was 'frail' anyway.
Sunray
Its sunny somewhere.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
I saw that interview on the Marr show, so that's 6 out of 18 currently in Bolton hospital, the majority of those other 12 were entitled to a jab, but hadn't had one.
Whilst at first it seems worrying, being 1 out of 3, there's not enough detail to make much of it.
Let's say all those 12 could have had a jab, and the uptake is just 80% in Bolton, that would mean 12 cases from 20% population and equal 48 from the other 80% of population if the vaccines didn't work, rather than just 6, so that's positive.
We also don't know how long after a jab before they were infected, nor how seriously ill each group is, nor how many of those 18 are the Indian variant.
I guess we will learn fairly quickly over the next few weeks exactly how well the different vaccines are protecting people from the Indian variant.
Similar threads
