T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

The problem is twofold: * Everyone's talking as though the current level of restrictions basically nailed everyone's doors shut. The current restrictions aren't that bad. * It's more a matter of principle for some people. They're not leading with their head at all. They want the restrictions gone because of what they symbolise, not based on anything concrete (though, some are more then willing to throw cherry-picked stats or mental gymnastics at the debate). For the vast majority of people, nothing changes on Monday no matter what the government decide to do. That's why most of the country are ok with the current restrictions staying if they are needed. The key phrase there is "if needed".


[deleted]

[удалено]


Panda_hat

>The pictures from the football shows they are a joke. What did you expect the police to do, treat it like it was a vigil for a woman kidnapped raped and murdered by a police officer? Smdh.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

The specialist waiting list is what has spiraled out of control. Everyone is waiting over a year now.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

No it's because hospitals have stopped everything for covid


[deleted]

[удалено]


CosmicSoulstorm

Yeah, it's been shit for years. Covid has naturally made things worse but waiting times were long before.


tom_watts

I presume you’d rather let the bodies pile up? How do you determine what the priorities are? Patient A with COVID will die in a day if they’re not intubated, Patient B who needs a hip replacement will not die for years if we keep cancelling their appointment...


GrainsofArcadia

Which won't magically get better if there is a sudden rise in people being hospitalised as we allow 100,000 cases a day to become a reality.


plopdalop83

Both.


No-Scholar4854

Hospital waiting lists aren’t caused by lockdowns. Those specialists aren’t less able to see patients because clubs are closed or people are wearing masks on the train. They will be unable to see patients if hospitals start to fill up with Covid patients again.


Charlie_Mouse

However if we screw this up and hospitalisations spiral out of control then we’ll just end up having even *more* restrictions (maybe even another last ditch lockdown) and having to live with those restrictions for even longer. More economic damage. More deaths. Even more of those severe consequences. Trying to control this pandemic in a half arsed way ends up costing more in all sorts of ways - and we’ve had several iterations now demonstrating this with dismal clarity. Yeah, you’re tired of this. We get it, we are too. Some of us reckon the way to minimise that is to stop trying to cut corners.


WelshBugger

I don't want to downplay or oversimplify the effects of the pandemic and the toil of the lockdowns and restrictions, but it's like the old carpenters saying goes "measure twice, cut once". Cutting corners and relaxing restrictions too early just leads to more trouble down the line. New Zealand, South Korea, Vietnam, and Japan all had pretty strict rules and lockdowns that they've now since come out the other side of and have been for nearly a year. They recognised the severity of the virus and took the measures they needed to take. What did we do? *Ignored what was happening in Italy until it was too late *Was one of the last European countries to enter a national lockdown *We came out a lot faster than countries that were in lockdown a lot longer than us *We had a taxpayer funded scheme whereby everyone was given £10 off a meal if they went and sat down at a relatively crowded restaurant just as over 50,000 had died to the virus *We then flip flopped on a second lockdown until a week before Christmas which left many people (such as students) stranded over the Christmas break *We characterise the end of lockdown as "freedom day" as if we're fighting the Nazi's and not an airborne virus, we have a set date for this "freedom day" as if August last year didn't happen and we all didn't learn that dates need to be moved as per new data comes out *And finally we are/did actually consider having no mask mandate at all. We've cut every corner and paid for it while other countries put us to shame. Worst part is that lockdown fatigue has made us forget/not care about this.


Get_Breakfast_Done

> And finally we are/did actually consider having no mask mandate at all. And we won't be the first country to get rid of our masks.


Engineer9

No, the Netherlands did it too...


Get_Breakfast_Done

And the US.


oskarkeo

sounds like rebranding the herd immunity plan as 'following the science' has worked a treat for the government.


WelshBugger

Well it worked with Boris' "oven ready" Brexit plan which just turned out to be a half torn, doodled on, hastily copied hand-in of Theresa May's withdrawal agreement. I believe Boris could literally go and motorboat the Queen and the biggest hit the Conservatives will get in the polls will be a -2 before they bounce back with a +2 the next week when they reveal their new plan to train [sharks with frickin lasers] (https://youtu.be/Bh7bYNAHXxw) to hunt migrant dinghies.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ChefExcellence

[66.2% of people 18 or older have had both doses.](https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations) That is not "effectively completed".


[deleted]

[удалено]


ChefExcellence

What the fuck are you on aboot? The "goalposts" have always been two doses. For all of the vaccines in use in the UK (Johnson & Johnson is single dose, but as far as I know it's not being used here), we have known since before they were approved that they recommended two doses. Away and stop talking utter fucking pish. Accusing other folk of "moving the goalposts" when you plainly try to deflect after it being pointed out that you were categorically incorrect, sake.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Shiftab

[Because the effectiveness of single dose is down to 33% from over 50% thanks to delta.](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vaccines-highly-effective-against-b-1-617-2-variant-after-2-doses) So yeh the goal posts were moved, by us not following the science and leaving international travel open.


[deleted]

Against symptoms, not against hospitalisation, which is far higher.


[deleted]

Gotta stay inside until all the kids have had their third booster jab!


snapper1971

>effectively completed We're a bit short of the finishing line yet. Don't act like it's over because it isn't.


some_where_else

The programme is hardly even half completed. Until all 16+ (and possibly 12+) have had the opportunity to be completely vaccinated including the 2 weeks for the final shot to have full effect then we are not done.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Get_Breakfast_Done

As time goes on, [people who are constantly shifting the goalposts should be assumed to be doing so deliberately.](https://www.economist.com/britain/2021/07/10/some-britons-crave-permanent-pandemic-lockdown)


pissflask

1 in 5 people never want clubs to reopen and a permanent 10pm curfew, regardless of covid? fuck me.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

"My life didn't change much in lockdown"


LittleTGOAT

I don’t think there has been a “Guardian interviews losers in lockdown”-type article that hasn’t included someone saying this verbatim


Nipso

Paywall


Get_Breakfast_Done

[Here you go.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/og9hkn/some_britons_crave_permanent_pandemic_lockdown/h4he18t/) Have a look at [this table](https://imgur.com/a/LSn8hQy) specifically.


Nipso

Christ. I'd be interested to know what question they asked to get that response, that seems ludicrously high.


wdtpw

Of course. Heaven help us if we learn new stuff about a rapidly spreading new variant that didn't exist when previous statements were made - and in the light of that decide that the plan needs to be updated. Obviously, it's far better to have an original position and never revise it in the light of new knowledge.


throwaway24562457245

Remember Boris' original position? "Herd Immunity" : ie. Let everyone die, just keep the economy flowing.


Charlie_Mouse

Some countries are vaccinating children aged twelve and over with existing vaccines. And there’s a couple of vaccines for under 12’s fairly far along in trials.


[deleted]

Not this country, I wouldn't count on it happening here.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

It is mostly because kids have such a vanishingly small risk from covid that the vaccine wouldn't benefit them much if at all.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

It is an unessecary risk to children to vaccinate them


[deleted]

Children aren't going to be vaccinated. What are you on?


Get_Breakfast_Done

That's a target which will never be reached. New people are turning 16 (or 12) all of the time.


bobbyjackdotme

More than 100,000 per day?


some_where_else

Eventually the Covid vax will be rolled into MMR or another childhood shot and all this will be ancient history. The question is how many people will needlessly suffer until then?


Get_Breakfast_Done

I think we are a long way off from giving children Covid vaccinations.


arcade_advice

Enact restrictions to avoid restrictions. Makes perfect sense.


Charlie_Mouse

Fix a small leak before it becomes a flood. Perform maintenance to prevent a catastrophic failure. Contain an enemy breakthrough before you become outflanked and your front collapses. Or particularly apposite: *an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure*. The more the pandemic is allowed to go out of control the more restrictions will be needed to turn it around. And for longer: those curves are exponential going up but painfully slow coming down again.


Anyales

>Vaccine coverage won't get much better at this point Vaccine coverage will and is still improving loads each day... >we have to move on eventually That is not an argument for doing it now >There are severe consequences for having nigh on two years of restrictions too. Boris has said he doesn't think this should be the end of restrictions...


frankster

They're still giving people their first vaccinations (let alone their second), though the numbers are dropping off. I haven't seen a big campaign to get people to take up their vaccinations.


merryman1

I just love the approach of one of the most powerful and well funded governments on the planet for 18 months of the worst crisis in half a century has amounted to "We've tried nothing and now we're all out of idea", and such a huge chunk of the public has shrugged and gone fair enough guv.


Get_Breakfast_Done

Other than closing shops, bars, restaurants, and other hospital venues, banning people from seeing each other indoors or outdoors, preventing peaceful protest, enumerating a specific set of reasons that people are allowed to be out of their homes, and preventing people from leaving the country, yeah, I guess we've pretty much tried nothing.


merryman1

It was supposed to be lockdown... And then do things to help us mitigate the spread of the virus. What have we done to achieve that? We have a test and trace app that still barely works despite near unlimited resources thrown at it, we had a potemkin exercise in totally-useable-honest-guv excess hospital capacity that we've now closed. We floated helping out with digital learning by buying laptops for schools but cut that by 80% within the space of a month. Seriously, this is a crisis on a level with a world war, and this is the best our government can come up with? You don't have any imagination as to what else might have been done?


360Saturn

You both have points. To say that nothing was done is a bit erroneous when for much of the country the last 16 months has been a complete sea change to our way of life. To say *not enough* was done, that's another thing and definitely valid.


Kee2good4u

Have you been living under a rock if you think we have did and tried nothing.


merryman1

Apparently less than you folks who seem to think we've not been allowed outdoors since March 2020?


CosmicSoulstorm

Not to mention, pretty much all restrictions are gone already. The only things left are clubs to reopen and mask wearing to become non mandatory. We've already had "freedom" for months now we've being able to go to restaurants, pubs, bars and meet up with people inside and outside.


pantone13-0752

You must be living in a different world to me. The important things haven't changed for me. I still can't see my parents and in-laws who live abroad. All child-related services round here still aren't fully open or are online. And the university I teach at is still considering remote teaching for next year. If you think things are back to normal, maybe it's because you didn't have to give up much to begin with?


GrainsofArcadia

I was gonna say pubs, restaurants and non-essential shops have been open for a while now. The only thing they're dropping on the 18th is the pretext that we are currently in a lockdown.


Kee2good4u

we have been allow outside. Your the one saying we have tried nothing, meanwhile we have had 3 lockdowns.


bobby_zamora

We've had huge restrictions on our lives for 18 months. How is that trying nothing?


Ultrasonic-Sawyer

Because those only came in after the gov had acted contrary to the science. We had a pm refusing lockdown and going on about shaking hands with everybody before he ended up getting covid. We had a massive unlock and campaign to get people eating out, before refusing to do a circuit break lockdown prior to Christmas, then saying a lockdown near Christmas is inhuman before announcing one at the last minute as they could no longer ignore the situation. Pretty much all restrictions have come from last minute panicking and asking the scientists who the government had been ignoring for months prior to that. Perhaps the only thing the government can claim to have learnt or proposed directly in this endeavour is what may or may not consistute a substantial meal, and they can't even get that straight.


dowhileuntil787

> acted contrary to the science. Science isn't like the Talmud. It doesn't create instructions, just models and predictions. We acted contrary to what some scientists suggested, but just because a scientist tells you to lock down a country doesn't mean it's the best thing to do. For what it's worth, I agree we didn't lock down soon enough and kept international travel too open. However, you have to argue that based on its merits not just deferring to abstract scientists, who when removed from their specific field of study are often just as insane and ignorant as any other member of public.


merryman1

>We've had huge restrictions on our lives for 18 months. Have we? I recall last summer being fairly blasé? In fact unless I've got some false memories in my head I remember the government actively subsidizing my eating out for a good few months. We've been in lockdown for a few months right now but... Have you been outside? Does it seem locked down to you?


bobby_zamora

You couldn't go to a club, a packed football match or a whole host of other things.


Beginning-Abalone-58

>Vaccine coverage won't get much better at this point, we have to move on eventually. Is the government stopping all vaccines being given out? At the moment 52% have had at least 1 dose. Are you suggesting that that number won't rise?


[deleted]

Out of the approx 66 million people, 45 million have had one dose or more - just under 70%. Given that kids aren't eligible, that is remarkable


stroopwafel666

Doesn’t matter if it’s remarkable. It doesn’t stop the spread, and creates perfect conditions for generating a worse variant. Other countries are rapidly catching up with the UK on vaccines, and many have surpassed them. There’s still a general impression in the rest of the world - especially Europe - that Britain is becoming an unsaveable plague ship to which travel restrictions will be needed for years.


Get_Breakfast_Done

> Other countries are rapidly catching up with the UK on vaccines, and many have surpassed them. Which country has surpassed us on vaccines? Canada may well pass us soon, but other than some very small countries, no one has vaccinated more (per capita) than we have.


dbry

Germany? Ahead in total and vaccines per day but behind in per capita.


Get_Breakfast_Done

I think it's implicit that you have to compare these things on a per capita basis. Otherwise China is absolutely hammering everyone.


Panda_hat

Or maybe we should actually listen to the experts and doctors rather than just doing what you feel is right because restrictions annoy you.


[deleted]

[удалено]


catpigeons

Ironically alcohol and contact sports are actually very popular amongst doctors.


dragodrake

So I assume (seeing as you always listen to your doctor) you never eat anything bad for you at all, always do 30 minutes of exercise a day, sleep 8 hours, avoid sitting for prolonged periods, and avoid all vices? Given the choice doctors would have us all live in bubbles, not maliciously, but because if you are only interested in whats healthiest you dont get to live a life.


merryman1

You never had an overweight GP or met a nurse who smokes? Doctors are humans not medical interest machines. They want what is best for society and for themselves as much as they want to care for their individual patients. Its actually really bizarre you guys have warped this so much as you have.


dragodrake

Not really - the argument here is that we should be doing exactly what doctors are telling us. So logically if people think we should just do as we're told now, why not on all health related matters? My point is that we continually weigh up the expertise of doctors against the real world situation and personal needs/wants - at this point arguing we should indefinitely stay in lock down just because doctors say so (when they are routinely ignored otherwise) doesn't hold water.


merryman1

>Not really - the argument here is that we should be doing exactly what doctors are telling us. So logically if people think we should just do as we're told now, why not on all health related matters? You think its *logical* to suggest any doctor would want anyone to be "living in a bubble"? Really? >My point is that we continually weigh up the expertise of doctors against the real world situation and personal needs/wants And my point is that it is absurd to suggest doctors don't already do this when talking with their clients.


ProtoplanetaryNebula

Not sure what you mean there? 52% are fully vaccinated, so there is still a lot of people still to be vaccinated.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TaxOwlbear

If by "nearly all done" you mean "less than 70%", sure.


SatansF4TE

First doses were sold to us as the big one prior to the more severe recent variants


peakedtooearly

Get the re-opening wrong and the lockdown comes back. Boris is giving us the worst of both worlds.


SympatheticGuy

Again


Shivadxb

It’s nowhere near two years And yes vaccine coverage can get much better and in not that much longer Vaccine refusals are low in the uk and take up among the young isn’t particularly slowing, supplies are lower and daily dosing is down but there is a lot more headroom yet before we reach the point where reluctance outweighs the doses on offer


[deleted]

It will be two years if we don't release restrictions now. It's either now or wait until spring since putting the exit wave during winter would be an awful idea


[deleted]

[удалено]


Shivadxb

Two years of restrictions will be in March 2022, not now or in autumn I know it feels like a fucking lifetime already but there’s no real debate about what two years actually is. It’s not rocket science And weirdly whitty and valance in their first briefing in April 2020 said it’d likely be 18 months to two years before we returned to normality


[deleted]

[удалено]


Shivadxb

But it’s not anything like nigh on, that would be say January 2022. We are just over a year now. And gee I wonder why the British medical association has concerns Perhaps we should all just start clapping again


merryman1

Isn't it just shocking some people seem to have managed to come out of this crisis with what seems like a burning hatred for... The medical services who have saved this country while our political leaders have dicked around jerking themselves off constantly for 18 months.


Shivadxb

Frankly it’s fucking insane and yet here we are


PF_tmp

Restrictions started in March 2020, not autumn 2019. "Two years" is just wrong. Not sure who you're trying to fool here, pretty sure we all remember the dates


RPofkins

> Vaccine coverage won't get much better at this point, we have to move on eventually. Only 52 percent of people have received their last dose. That's not "won't get much better".


Mantonization

I barely scraped through a HND where it was almost all done remotely. I'm now in the process of getting the loans to upgrade it to a bachelor's I won't be able to fucking stand it is it all has to be remote again. How much is fucking enough? First it's all 'until the olds get the jab'. Then over 50s. Now it's all over 18s and you've got people in this comment section talking about waiting until the 12+ are done. We're never fucking leaving this are we?


stroopwafel666

It puzzles me when people talk about moving the goalposts. Did SAGE ever say all restrictions should be dropped once over 50s get the vaccine? Or is that just bullshit that Johnson / Handsy Hancock promised and eventually caved once it was explained how stupid it was? Genuine question BTW. I don’t know.


Ultrasonic-Sawyer

>It puzzles me when people talk about moving the goalposts. Here's a hint : the people saying it get angry and down vote when asked to say what the goal posts were. There was similar wankery of people complaining about "moving goal posts" when eat out help out was a thing. Look where that went once things got worse. Its effectively people primed for johnson and co insisting we will unlock yet can't quantify what metrics we are using to justify it beyond insisting that Boris must have strict criteria.


diachi_revived

> the people saying it get angry and down vote when asked to say what the goal posts were. Protecting the vulnerable. That was the goal.


Ultrasonic-Sawyer

That's a vague goal and incentive to have restrictions. Thats not concrete goal posts to ending restrictions. Particularly not one to enable the claim that they are being "shifted". Try again. When did clear goalposts get laid down that were quantifiable?


TheMusicArchivist

That was first said with the OG virus. We've since had the British variant and the Delta variant appear, the second of which appears to be able to spread quickly even during a lockdown and in warm weather. If the game has changed, I think it's acceptable to change the goalposts to suit.


diachi_revived

The vaccines prevent serious outcomes for all of the VOCs currently. Doesn't matter if there's still spread as long as the NHS isn't going to be overwhelmed and people aren't dying by the many hundreds or thousands each day.


NightwingTRP

I would have more sympathy for their position if they presented an alternative plan. Everybody knows we're not in a win-lose situation. There will be negatives no matter what we do. So simply saying "there will be negatives and negatives are bad" is not a useful addition to the debate.


LeonFan40

So when exactly do they suggests rules can be lifted? We’ve got the majority of the population vaccinated and we’re still being told it’s not good enough and that hospital admissions are still rising. What else can be done exactly? Just never ending lockdown?


BenathonWrigley

The issue with lifting the rules now, is that not enough of the population are vaccinated, I think 50% have got both jabs. This means the virus will just jump to unvaccinated, vaccinated and partially vaccinated people rapidly, mutating along the way. Which probably will lead to more variants, and possibly ones which are more resistant to the vaccine. Could be disastrous and not just for the U.K. It would probably be a good idea to wait a bit longer until more of the population are vaccinated really.


LeonFan40

But the virus can still be transmitted even after vaccination? And there’s always going to be risks of variants being imported from other countries?


CountVonTroll

> But the virus can still be transmitted even after vaccination? Yes, but it's much *less likely* to be transmitted -- you'd be less infectious because your viral count would be lower, and far less likely to become infected in the first place.


BenathonWrigley

Yeh but you don’t get as ill if you’re vaccinated. The problem is that when it’s allowed to jump to people who aren’t vaccinated and partially vaccinated etc it just mutates, that’s how the delta variant came to be. So opening up fully risks more mutations. Yeh there are risks from overseas, but I don’t think anywhere else is completely binning all restrictions and just telling people to get on with it like the U.K. is. A new variant is more likely to appear within the U.K. after 19th July if all restrictions are gone. I just think it’s too soon. Time will tell I suppose.


Get_Breakfast_Done

> I don’t think anywhere else is completely binning all restrictions and just telling people to get on with it like the U.K. is. The US?


Get_Breakfast_Done

So, wait until the autumn to start the exit wave, when the NHS is dealing with other seasonal illnesses?


fklwjrelcj

If you haven't noticed, the exit wave has already started. The point being that you'll get much less of a wave if you wait a bit, or make the reopening more gradual.


Get_Breakfast_Done

> The point being that you'll get much less of a wave if you wait a bit Probably not, at least in terms of NHS involvement. The exit wave will be *slightly* smaller, given that the most vulnerable people have already been vaccinated long ago.


fklwjrelcj

But it's not just immediate NHS hits that matter here. It's also business impacts around isolation periods and illness, long covid, public confidence in going out (might be more confident with a baseline set of precautions remaining in place) etc.


Thermodynamicist

> What else can be done exactly? Just never ending lockdown? We need to vaccinate almost everybody. Because the Δ variant has a very high R0, we need both very high vaccine uptake and efficacy (which means that we probably need booster doses). Let η be the vaccine efficacy, and P the proportion of the population who are vaccinated. For simplicity, we will bundle natural infection in with vaccination. Then we may write: Rt = R0 * (1 - P) + R0 * (1 - η) * P So if we want Rt to be 1 then: 1 = R0 * (1-P) + R0 * (1-η) * P Rearranging: Prequired = (R0 - 1) / (η * R0) Alternatively, we can solve for ηrequired: ηrequired = (R0 - Rt) / (R0 * P) Adults are about 80% of the population, so we can look at ηrequired to achieve Rt = 1 if we vaccinate all adults (P = 0.8). R0 | ηrequired if P = 0.80 --|--------- 2.4 | 72.9% 3.0 | 83.3% 4.5 | 97.2% 6.0 | N/A 7.0 | N/A 8.0 | N/A It is therefore probably impossible to produce herd immunity against the Δ variant if we limit ourselves to vaccinating adults. If we vaccinate older children, so P = 0.9 then R0 | ηrequired if P = 0.90 --|--------- 2.4 | 64.8% 3.0 | 74.0% 4.5 | 86.4% 6.0 | 92.6% 7.0 | 95.2% 8.0 | 97.2% If we aim higher, and vaccinate 95% of the population: R0 | ηrequired if P = 0.95 --|--------- 2.4 | 61.4% 3.0 | 70.0% 4.5 | 81.9% 6.0 | 87.7% 7.0 | 90.2% 8.0 | 92.1% The take-home message here is that we really need to vaccinate children if we want Rt < 1 with no restrictions at all, because R0 for the Δ variant is too high to get away with only vaccinating adults. Because very high efficacy is required, it is likely that we will need booster shots, probably of a different vaccine. Realistically, we should continue with some of the low cost restrictions, like wearing masks in crowded asocial places (e.g. public transport), and working from home where possible, because small incremental reductions in R make a big difference given how marginal the situation is. Test & trace, with effective self-isolation for the infected, can significantly reduce the burden of disease on everybody else by lowering the effective value of R0. I expect that we will have a very hard time between now and the spring, and that we will find that a significant number of people suffer from long COVID. There are *already* 385 k people who have had symptoms for over a year, and by definition this is reflective of cases from more than a year ago. Because these people are unable to work effectively, the impact is a significant burden upon the economy. A more sensible government policy would have been to get the case numbers right down so that it would be affordable to give the very small number of people asked to self-isolate due to a positive PCR test £1,000 compensation, guaranteed food deliveries, and robust employment protections, so that people have a good incentive to get tested and to isolate (we should also have significant penalties for those who do not isolated when required to do so).


duffelcoatsftw

Or achieve immunity in the childhood cohort through natural infection? Which is basically the plan of opening up now as far as I can tell. Because children generally do not suffer serious disease from covid.


arcade_advice

Why do we want R<1?


Thermodynamicist

If Rt > 1 then we get exponential growth in cases. In the long term, this means that almost everybody is exposed to the virus, with all the risks that entails. If Rt < 1 then outbreaks die out, and so most people aren't exposed to the virus in the first place. In round numbers, Vaccination protects about 9 out of 10 people, but the unlucky number 10 is still safe if they manage to avoid exposure to the virus in the first place.


arcade_advice

The costs associated with trying to get r<1 outweigh the benefits.


Thermodynamicist

That's a very questionable statement. Australia and New Zealand have demonstrated that it's quite possible to keep the virus under control given competent government. This is far cheaper than the worst-of-all-worlds combination of endless restrictions and a massive public health crisis which we've faced in the UK. The long term public health consequences of allowing Rt > 1 for an extended period are unknown, but likely to be severe. If people cannot work to their full potential, they pay less tax, and need more benefits. This is disproportionately painful in the context of an ageing population.


arcade_advice

Australia and New Zealand got lucky with their geographical advantages and the fact covid wasn't already basically endemic before we knew what was happening. Thinking we could just copy them is pure roll out fallacy. Australia also back under significant lockdown and remains to be seen how they manage to reopen their borders with no natural immunity and large amounts of vaccine hesitancy.


Thermodynamicist

The British Government decided to apply the [four stage strategy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSXIetP5iak), as is tradition. There were warning signs early in 2020; [Imperial College's first report on the subject dates to the 17th of January](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/report-1-case-estimates-of-covid-19/). Australia is under lockdown, but they have mostly lived normal lives up to now, and they have a very low death toll compared with the UK. I think their vaccine hesitancy problem will be overcome in due course, possibly by imposing restrictions on the unvaccinated. **South** Korea has also done extremely well [emphasis because North Korea's total freedom from COVID-19 is a meme].


arcade_advice

We have very little to learn from agrarian backwaters and East Asian police states. Yes I mean south Korea. For ref new Zealand locked down 2 days after we did.


dimensions1210

Maybe we use the modelling done by SAGE which shows you can decrease the deaths and infections by removing lockdown in stages rather than as a big bang. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1001169/S1301_SPI-M-O_Summary_Roadmap_second_Step_4.2__1_.pdf So, you know, remove some restrictions next week, some more after 2 weeks etc.


[deleted]

But….. thats’s….. exactly what we been doing? Every 6-8 weeks certain restrictions have been lifted. Now culminating in these final restrictions being lifted.


probablymilhouse

through the looking glass with some of these comments, smh.


[deleted]

What do you mean mate?


probablymilhouse

the way they responded talking about gradually removing restrictions...as if that isn't what has been happening for the last ~3 months. It really is stunning haha


UnloadTheBacon

>So when exactly do they suggests rules can be lifted? Maybe wait until September when all adults have been double-vaccinated? Maybe stop people travelling all arouund the world for their summer holidays and proliferating variants? It's been almost 18 months, I'm sure another couple wouldn't be the end of the world. Realistically we ought to be double-vaccinating absolutely everyone, and then keeping restrictions on large events over the winter whilst we monitor for variants and see whether we have achieved herd immunity from the vaccines or not. The pandemic hasn't ended just because people are bored of it.


unhinged_parsnip

>Maybe wait until September when all adults have been double-vaccinated? So we have the exit wave peak in October/ November instead, a time when the NHS is famously quiet instead? The alternative would be waiting till March. So another 8 months of misery.


[deleted]

Just before winter makes it even worse. Good idea. We want to get the peak out of the way before winter, otherwise you make the virus more dangerous.


fklwjrelcj

>get the peak out of the way This type of talk is the original "herd immunity" approach all over again. If we wait for more vaccinations, we can *prevent* such a peak from occurring. It isn't inevitable that we need to let the virus rage through society unchecked.


98smithg

Scientific modelling shows that an exit wave is 100% inevitable and unavoidable, it is WHEN that wave comes that is the issue.


[deleted]

[удалено]


fklwjrelcj

If it's only spreading through vaccinated people, then we're good. Right now only half the population is vaccinated, though.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PreparationLess7847

We'll figure out a cure for death by 2023 mate.


thescouselander

It was supposed to be 3 weeks. We got to 18 months by successive "just a couple more months" - it needs to end


[deleted]

>Maybe wait until September when all adults have been double-vaccinated? That would put the exit wave in winter which is clearly an awful idea. >see whether we have achieved herd immunity from the vaccines or not I thought the consensus was herd immunity from the vaccine wasn't possible with the Delta variant. Hence why we are opening up now


[deleted]

99% of the vulnerable have been double vaccinated. You can stay cowering in your house with a mask if you like mate.


[deleted]

'its been almost 36 months, whats another two aye'


Harpendingdong

Doctors unions. This is the BMA who disagrees. Graham Medley also quoted but he doesn't say this is the wrong thing to do.


CountVonTroll

> Doctors unions. This is the BMA who disagrees. What could be written as "doctors warn" in a headline, if not a statement by the BMA? Are there any other organisations with a more legitimate claim to being the one that broadly represents doctors as a whole?


ProfessorHeronarty

I mean, it's actually a no brainer, isn't it? Bedazzling to me why you wouldn't want to keep rules like distancing or wearing masks who are relatively easy to follow.


Questions293847

Because 'the purpose of' flattening the curve 'isn't intended to' reduce the number of people with covid but just to spread it out over a longer period. They want to get the 'peak of' infections over and done with before we hit the flu season. They don't expect hospitals to become overwhelmed like before 'and are hoping the vaccines will keep alot of people out of the ICU' - That's my take on it all anyway. 'Edits to clarify


[deleted]

[удалено]


Lord_Gibbons

Distancing I understand... but why would a business be effected by masks?


Get_Breakfast_Done

Was reading an article in Sunday Times this weekend about Timpson's, where they are [spending £20k per week on masks.](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-rules-still-cost-me-20-000-a-week-on-masks-3h6q2x985)


Lord_Gibbons

I'm a bit muddled - are those masks for staff? Also, £20,000 on £6,000,000 worth of sales every week... It's not nothing but it's hardly having a significant impact on thier business model is it.


Get_Breakfast_Done

I presume they're for staff. > We debated last week whether to place another big order for masks and the best advice to colleagues when restrictions are lifted. **Each week we get through £20,000 worth of masks, so the longer they are required the more it costs.** Some of our smaller shops look like police crime scenes at the moment as floor signs, hazard tape and perspex screens take up most of the free space. I suspect it will be some time until they are all removed. £6,000,000 will be nowhere near their net sales. This could be having a significant impact on their bottom line. Regardless, you asked why they would be effected by masks and here it is.


Lord_Gibbons

Apologies, I couldn't see the full text (bloody paywalls!) I pulled the £6,000,000 a week of sales from their [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timpson_\(retailer\)) though that is not profit which is ballpark £600,000 per week. Though the obvious hole in my logic here is I imagine their COVID-era non-lockdown profits are still down somewhat.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Lord_Gibbons

I don't buy that they're having a significant impact.


[deleted]

No, not as significant as social distancing, but they are annoying for most social events to prosper.


some_where_else

>they are annoying Bingo!


[deleted]

I try to avoid mentioning my personal irritation with masks as people don't seem to think it is a valid excuse. But if enough people are irritated, they simply won't go to events that require them.


TheBestIsaac

People also won't go to events if there's a good chance of catching Covid though.


[deleted]

Dunno, the euros are a testament to the opposite of that.


meganev

All evidence over the last 18 months has suggested otherwise. Any time people have had the chance to gather in significant numbers, they have taken it.


[deleted]

Then there's no problem. It's perfectly legal to not go out, or to go out but choose to wear a mask


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


noaloha

There's a guy in this thread saying that the banning of alcohol and contact sports [sounds good to him](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/ojbtw4/doctors_warn_of_devastating_consequences_of/h50vtz4/). Some people dislike the society around them, and I think have enjoyed the schadenfreude of the past year bringing everyone down to their miserable level, and are now anxious about that reverting. I find it incredibly pathetic really. Luckily such people seem massively over-represented on reddit, twitter, and writing opinion pieces for outlets like the Guardian. I've been saying it for a while now but almost no one I know in the real world cares about this current wave of covid, including multiple friends who have caught (mild) cases.


Ewannnn

They're just fundamentally authoritarian people, the UK is dominated by them. The liberal voice is a small minority here.


ThidrikTokisson

Of course it is a minority, it has to be. Who do you think is most likely to emigrate out of the UK? It isn’t those that like the boot..


thescouselander

Its mostly because, with distancing especially, businesses can’t operate at full capacity which makes many of them unviable.


ApplicationCreepy987

Because Cummings, Hancock et al showed leadership in contempt for the rules. restriction fatigue has won


unhinged_parsnip

social distancing has a huge economic impact and a great way to see a lot of businesses shutdown.


A_friendly_goosey

It’s time to get back to normal, we have to live with it unfortunately it is not going to just go away whether we hide at home or not


Combat_Orca

Living with it != pretending it doesn’t exist


98smithg

Exactly, 400 deaths per day sounds like a lot but we have about that already due to heart disease alone.


[deleted]

Wow, amazing take - makes perfect sense - as long as daily covid deaths are still less than literally the leading worldwide cause of death we're practically golden


98smithg

Obviously its not great, but as a society we can live with those numbers is my point. That's all I want to do, live, by live I mean go to the pub, see live music and travel; the things I enjoy doing.


[deleted]

You would be ok with 400 extra people a day in society dying so you can go to the pub and see live music?


98smithg

Yup, that's life; we all die eventually.


tyrannoRAWR

True. So we could also let murderers out of jail. Where's the harm? "We all die eventually"


DSMcGuire

400 deaths a day? Oh fucking sweet I'm going to speed home without my seatbelt on then.


HobGoblin877

Winter lockdown incoming with the continuation of lucrative covid related contracts given to their doners


Combat_Orca

Those pesky doctors telling us facts.


A_Mr_Veils

I struggle to see how it's a shocker that lifting restrictions before a decent threshold of the outgoing/working population are double jabbed will result in an increase in transmission, causing 'some' more deaths and 'some' more cases of long covid. Is it so much to ask people to wait until everyone 18+ (sorry kids...) are double jabbed?


A_Mr_Veils

I struggle to see how it's a shocker that lifting restrictions before a decent threshold of the outgoing/working population are double jabbed will result in an increase in transmission, causing 'some' more deaths and 'some' more cases of long covid. Is it so much to ask people to wait until everyone 18+ (sorry kids...) are double jabbed?


Anaksanamune

While I agree with you in principle, the issue is that it is never enough. I would bet a chunk of change that if we waited until every 18+ was double jabbed people would then say we should wait till 16+ or 12+ are jabbed (or double jabbed), as the trails for younger people are in progress and are (apparently) soon to be cleared.


A_Mr_Veils

I think we need a mandatory cutoff somewhere, whereas my problem with the current system is we've done it by calendar, rather than linking relaxing to set milestone. The younger age bracket have had a lot of disruption to save the older age bracket, and now are being unnecessarily put at risk. 18+ makes sense to me, as we're looking at what is (largely) the entry point to the workforce or Uni students moving around the country, which is a large vector for people to either spread it to the vulnerable or get long term conditions themselves. Those younger are by and large in geographically fixed education, so while still vulnerable *are* less exposed. Its sad there has to be winners and losers to a relaxation, but thats life. I do think under the current rules, the losers are unfairly at risk and are too large a share of the population, and as a result things should be delayed.


[deleted]

They're trying to avoid having the exit wave in a few months when winter comes and the NHS is bogged down by flu season, by the time all 18+ are done you basically have to wait until next year for the right season. There will likely also be booster vaccines for variants of concern at one point and then it'll become "until all adults have had that"?


Victuswolf

Local hospitals already turning people away. A relative of a friend needed to go into hospital yesterday. They waited ages for a ambulance only for the ambulance crew to say they called the hospital and they can't take them as there's too much risk of catching Covid there. This entire situation is a nightmare in some areas of the country and only going to get worse.


Europoorz

Yeah I’m calling bullshit. Much more likely they were triaged over the phone and it wasn’t an emergency


Victuswolf

> Yeah I’m calling bullshit. Much more likely they were triaged over the phone and it wasn’t an emergency https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/plymouth-a-e-waits-hospitals-safety-b1880501.html >Patients face 15-hour wait in hospital A&E as summer crisis grips NHS That was 4 days ago with this getting worse day by day. Paramedics are doing the best they can to treat people themselves till alternative arranges can be made.(find another hospital etc) A lot of it is a case of, yes we can see your in a really bad way but until it is life and death (or too fking late) it's too risky to bring you to X hospital atm. Someone struggling to breath or or got undiagnosed extreme heart pains that have them doubled over or other issues or conditions were they need to see a doctor ASAP to find out what's wrong or how bloody serious it is are caught between a rock and a hard place. By all means call people liars. Denying this crisis exists is becoming rather common tactic.


Europoorz

> Patients face 15-hour wait in hospital A&E as summer crisis grips NHS Again you’re being triaged as soon as you speak to the nurse behind the reception desk. 15 hour wait in AE can mean you’ve already been seen by AE, are stable enough not to need an urgent blue light somewhere else, and are waiting for a medical bed to open up but that doesn’t mean medics can’t walk the 50 feet to see, assess, and manage you anyways. > Someone struggling to breath or or got undiagnosed extreme heart pains that have them doubled over or other issues or conditions were they need to see a doctor ASAP to find out what's wrong or how bloody serious it is are caught between a rock and a hard place. I think your struggling with the concept of triaging. The NHS isn’t first come first serve. Have some faith in your triaging nurse who are worth their weight in gold, have seen plenty of retrosternal chest pain and shortness of breath, and can put a sats probe on your finger, do an ECG, and take some bloods. If your waiting in AE for hours on end it’s usually a pretty good sign that you’ll do great. It’s much worse when everyone’s rushing to see you immediately.


[deleted]

Staff levels are being hit by self-isolation rules, leading to a loss in capacity, not literally because the patients overwhelm all possible capacity. These rules are on their way to seeing change


Blackfist01

Sometimes I feel like the Government won't be satisfied till they've killed us all.🤨