Heading into autumn - what next?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
3,298
I would certainly take action to prevent what I experienced on Saturday, which was a bus so full that people were sitting on the stairs.
I had the same in Cardiff recently. Officially still no standing in Wales but neither driver nor passengers cared. There had been a 30 minute gap in the service and no one is going to hang about on the off chance that another bus might turn up. I'm not really sure what action can be taken in that situation.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
16,400
Location
West of Andover
How long before Sir Kier breaks out his little soapbox and starts demanding restrictions/wearing of masks everywhere come back etc.

Even with the booster jab, like with the vaccine, you can still catch the virus, you can still spread the virus. All the booster jab/vaccine does is limit the impact the virus has on your body if you do catch it.

I had the same in Cardiff recently. Officially still no standing in Wales but neither driver nor passengers cared. There had been a 30 minute gap in the service and no one is going to hang about on the off chance that another bus might turn up. I'm not really sure what action can be taken in that situation.

I had the same a couple weeks ago in Blackpool, it was late at night and there was a 30 minute gap in the service levels, the tram was full but nobody will want to hang around on the tram-stop in the hope the next tram won't be another 30 minutes later and also full.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
2,828
I never thought I'd say something like this, but I am glad to have somewhat of a hard nosed health secretary in charge. If this had been Starmer's army in charge, they would tearfully be announcing that Thursday night pot banging would become compulsory, that lockdowns would be re-introduced until the "NHS has been saved", full hazmat suits would be mandatory indoors & out, including our home, and that we worship Starmer at least once a day over a monitored Zoom call.....

I'm not so sure Labour are that bad. Indeed, 'Boris' rather than Starmer seems to me to be more of the sort of egotist type that would demand everyone worship him. However I think Labour have done themselves political damage by taking an overly hardline approach - remember how strict the Welsh leadership were, for example - imposing a hard border between England and Wales; complete nonsense given Wales had Covid too. Just like the UK government's restrictions on travelling abroad in April and May this year.

There is no party at the moment offering an internationalist (anti-Brexit, pro-immigration), left of centre on social issues (against benefits cuts for example, and pro employee rights) but also libertarian (against overly strict restrictions such as long and repeated lockdowns, and against excessive government interference in people's personal lives in general) stance. Such a party would I suspect gain quite a bit of the vote if it existed.

Don't get me wrong, I would vote Labour in an election, but not because I admire them, but rather because I intensely dislike the Conservatives, particularly since 'Boris' got in. To be honest that has been my stance since 2001, I was only ever a "fan" of Labour in the nineties, before they got in.
 
Last edited:

Class 317

Member
Joined
7 Jul 2020
Messages
52
Location
Cotswolds
A large amount of furlough payments have been offset by the income tax on them and also the NI contributions.

VAT on what recipient's have spent the furlough payments on also claws back an additional amount.

I seem to remember it being somewhere between 40% and 50% of payments made being returned to the treasury.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
58,579
Location
Yorkshire
There is no party at the moment offering an internationalist (anti-Brexit, pro-immigration), left of centre on social issues (against benefits cuts for example, and pro employee rights) but also libertarian (against overly strict restrictions such as long and repeated lockdowns, and against excessive government interference in people's personal lives in general) stance. Such a party would I suspect gain quite a bit of the vote if it existed.
And mine!
Don't get me wrong, I would vote Labour in an election, but not because I admire them, but rather because I intensely dislike the Conservatives, particularly since 'Boris' got in. To be honest that has been my stance since 2001, I was only ever a "fan" of Labour in the nineties, before they got in.
Right now it's pretty much anyone but Labour for me; they are the party of restrictions & lockdowns in my eyes. We'd not have many freedoms right now if they were in power, for sure.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
2,828
And mine!

Right now it's pretty much anyone but Labour for me; they are the party of restrictions & lockdowns in my eyes. We'd not have many freedoms right now if they were in power, for sure.
If that is in fact the case, that, as I said, is their mistake. I suspect the poor showing in May's elections against a terrible government has something to do with the harsh stance they were taking at the time.
 

TheBeard

Member
Joined
18 Oct 2014
Messages
117

Shielding against Covid-19 has had a significant impact on individuals who are clinically extremely vulnerable, according to a report published today.​

The government identified this group - over four million people - in March 2020 as being at a raised threat from the virus. They were advised to isolate at home over several periods lasting more than ten months in total and offered priority vaccinations.

The impact on this group was analysed by the Health Foundation’s Networked Data Lab. Findings suggest a "significant unmet health need and worsening mental health".

This group has experienced a higher rate of death since the start of the pandemic, over two and half times that in the general population during the first wave, according to the report.

Additionally, the reorganisation of NHS services reduced planned admissions for this group by 51% and outpatient appointments by 48%. Emergency care admissions fell by 32% between April 2019 and April 2020.

The report states that the reductions "are particularly concerning because clinically extremely vulnerable people have a high level of health need and many require additional support compared to the general population".

"There remains a particularly high level of unmet health need and potential-long term impacts concentrated within the clinically extremely vulnerable population," the report adds.

The Health Foundation is therefore calling for these patients to be prioritised by the NHS to prevent their conditions from deteriorating further.

Kathryn Marszalek of the Health Foundation adds: "Our research reveals the toll this has taken on the mental wellbeing of many clinically extremely vulnerable people who were already more likely to suffer from mental health conditions than the general population.

"Action is now needed by those planning the recovery at local and national levels to address the unmet need for NHS care."
 

initiation

Member
Joined
10 Nov 2014
Messages
425

Shielding against Covid-19 has had a significant impact on individuals who are clinically extremely vulnerable, according to a report published today.​

The government identified this group - over four million people - in March 2020 as being at a raised threat from the virus. They were advised to isolate at home over several periods lasting more than ten months in total and offered priority vaccinations.

The impact on this group was analysed by the Health Foundation’s Networked Data Lab. Findings suggest a "significant unmet health need and worsening mental health".

This group has experienced a higher rate of death since the start of the pandemic, over two and half times that in the general population during the first wave, according to the report.

Additionally, the reorganisation of NHS services reduced planned admissions for this group by 51% and outpatient appointments by 48%. Emergency care admissions fell by 32% between April 2019 and April 2020.

The report states that the reductions "are particularly concerning because clinically extremely vulnerable people have a high level of health need and many require additional support compared to the general population".

"There remains a particularly high level of unmet health need and potential-long term impacts concentrated within the clinically extremely vulnerable population," the report adds.

The Health Foundation is therefore calling for these patients to be prioritised by the NHS to prevent their conditions from deteriorating further.

Kathryn Marszalek of the Health Foundation adds: "Our research reveals the toll this has taken on the mental wellbeing of many clinically extremely vulnerable people who were already more likely to suffer from mental health conditions than the general population.

"Action is now needed by those planning the recovery at local and national levels to address the unmet need for NHS care."

I have 2 members of my family who shielded (age 55-60). They have muscle issues which are treated with a transfusion. For several months the transfusions stopped and for a longer period they were essentially confined to their houses in the name of 'protecting the NHS'. Their physical ability to move around independently and their mental confidence in doing so (such as going to the shop or walking across an uneven carpark on their own) has degraded noticably. This is a cost of lockdown however you put it and was not, and has never been seriously evaluated by the government.

However I agree that the government should have offered voluntary support to those who were vulnerable, however it should not have mandated the severe society wide restrictions on who we could see and what we could do, and hen dragged these restrictions on for many many months longer than planned.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
4,554
Location
London
There is no party at the moment offering an internationalist (anti-Brexit, pro-immigration), left of centre on social issues (against benefits cuts for example, and pro employee rights) but also libertarian (against overly strict restrictions such as long and repeated lockdowns, and against excessive government interference in people's personal lives in general) stance. Such a party would I suspect gain quite a bit of the vote if it existed.

Don't get me wrong, I would vote Labour in an election, but not because I admire them, but rather because I intensely dislike the Conservatives, particularly since 'Boris' got in. To be honest that has been my stance since 2001, I was only ever a "fan" of Labour in the nineties, before they got in.

I mean that sounds rather like the Lib Dems - who have generally been against vaccine passports although other things maybe less so (but no worse than any other party!)
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
4,554
Location
London
And there lies the problem. When all the parties are agreeing on something, there's usually a problem - especially when what they are agreeing on is not a good thing!

Well I more referred to the specific question is there's more commonalities than differences. That being said if almost 100% of mainstream parties agree on something - which is of course very rare and is a hypothetical not necesarrily related to Covid - perhaps because that's broadly the right course of action at that given time.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
15,066
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
And there lies the problem. When all the parties are agreeing on something, there's usually a problem - especially when what they are agreeing on is not a good thing!

It’s also the case that none of the parties seem sufficiently equipped to handle this.

Now to be fair this was going to test any politician, especially those in government making the actual decisions. However 18 months in it *still* feels like the government is urinating in the wind. The only crumb of comfort being that Javid is undoubtedly more competent than Hancock.

I do wonder how long they will keep up the “not reintroducing restrictions” line though, especially when it comes to masks. My eyes must be playing tricks on me in my advancing years, for when I go out I’m seeing fewer and fewer masks, yet on the news it’s virtually all we seem to hear about, the other being of course how there should be working from home. I tend to switch off when that gets mentioned, as straight away the real agenda becomes obvious.

I have a nasty feeling Johnson is going to bottle it at some point.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
7,980
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
The vaccination programme worked quickly and effectively because it used readily available data to allow prioritisation decisions to be made. We don't have ID cards, or other compulsory registration, so trying to link up factors like employment to work the prioritisation would have choked the rollout - whereas the NHS's patient records allowed a pretty good view of age and key health conditions. I'd expect the same to apply to boosters - they've got the dataset, so they can just work through the list.

As I understand, that prioritisation choice covered virtually all of those at seriously increased risk, even though there were some around the edges who arguably should have ended up in a different priority group.

As for the risk by age, it rises dramatically by age - I'm 47 and an otherwise identical 52 year old would have a much higher risk from Covid.
You've been reading too many newspaper health supplement magazines. Turning 50 doesn't trigger some dramatic rise in risk, if two people aged 47 & 52 have similar lives and body statistics & diet, then the risk is similar. Yes risk will increase over time, but age is not the only factor here.

I'm not so sure Labour are that bad. Indeed, 'Boris' rather than Starmer seems to me to be more of the sort of egotist type that would demand everyone worship him. However I think Labour have done themselves political damage by taking an overly hardline approach - remember how strict the Welsh leadership were, for example - imposing a hard border between England and Wales; complete nonsense given Wales had Covid too. Just like the UK government's restrictions on travelling abroad in April and May this year.

There is no party at the moment offering an internationalist (anti-Brexit, pro-immigration), left of centre on social issues (against benefits cuts for example, and pro employee rights) but also libertarian (against overly strict restrictions such as long and repeated lockdowns, and against excessive government interference in people's personal lives in general) stance. Such a party would I suspect gain quite a bit of the vote if it existed.

Don't get me wrong, I would vote Labour in an election, but not because I admire them, but rather because I intensely dislike the Conservatives, particularly since 'Boris' got in. To be honest that has been my stance since 2001, I was only ever a "fan" of Labour in the nineties, before they got in.
My comment was a little tongue in cheek. However Labour's performance in all of this has been dire. They have acted purely as restriction cheerleaders, not caring for one minute about the people they wanted to have suffer the most dire economic consequences even though these same people were at the heart of their supporter base. They are so self-absorbed, self-entitled, loathing & frightened that they may as well just re-brand themselves MumsNet. And Starmer is the worst of them all, he literally makes my skin crawl, like some creepy uncle that always shows up at family events. His "I haven't got time for this" tantrum with the pub landlord in Bath just demonstrated the contempt he has for anyone not lauding over him and his policies.

If they had been in charge I dread to think what state we would have been in. And this comes from someone who has voted Labour for most of his adult life.

A large amount of furlough payments have been offset by the income tax on them and also the NI contributions.

VAT on what recipient's have spent the furlough payments on also claws back an additional amount.

I seem to remember it being somewhere between 40% and 50% of payments made being returned to the treasury.
I'm not sure how you have come to this conclusion. For a start income tax & NI paid through furlough replaced income that would have come from the private sector, so that is an outright loss. Furthermore people on reduced incomes, especially those on lower incomes tend not to spend more. So any VAT they did pay on goods and services would have been reduced, and again came from the public purse and not privately owned companies. Plus many businesses were closed for mong periods of time, meaning it wasn't even possible to spend as much if people had spare income (which many didn't thanks to a 20% pay cut). All this was demonstrated by the fact that the economy shrank during furlough & lockdown periods.

There's no dressing up the big gaping hole left by all this I'm afraid. Its why from next year many people face higher NI bills, and this is just the start.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
32,470
Location
Yorks
Listening to an interview from the chief medical bod in Ipswich (which has a particularly high infection rate at the moment) the message seems to be that infection is being driven amongst the school age groups and spread upwards through the parents. Not their fault of course. SAGE and the medical establishment procrastinated on vaccinating the children.

They may have good reason to have done so, however it was known very well that this would happen, so I really don't really see why the general public should endure greater restrictions because the scientists were late in vaccinating children.

I think the BMA and their ilk would be of more value arguing for a quicker vaccination roll out to these school age groups, however they're wedded as usual to restrictions for the general public.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
3,079
Location
Birmingham/Smethwick
I think the BMA and their ilk would be of more value arguing for a quicker vaccination roll out to these school age groups, however they're wedded as usual to restrictions for the general public.

I said on the support conversation thread that the leader of the Royal College of GPs said that GPs are "too busy" providing routine care to their patients to assist with the roll out of the booster jabs.

The news that GPs are too busy providing routine care to their patients will come as a surprise to those patients who are struggling to get a telephone appointment, let alone a face to face one.

It is incredible that GPs are refusing to assist with the one measure that everyone agrees would actually help to stem the rise in cases, hospitalisations, serious illness and death.

Personally I think it is very selfish to advocate any type of restrictions (eg. masks and social distancing) when you don't have to suffer the adverse consequences of those restrictions.

How many more times do we have to point out that we need to have a healthy economy, in order to generate the tax revenues that will enable us to pay for a properly funded and fully functioning NHS?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
32,470
Location
Yorks
I said on the support conversation thread that the leader of the Royal College of GPs said that GPs are "too busy" providing routine care to their patients to assist with the roll out of the booster jabs.

The news that GPs are too busy providing routine care to their patients will come as a surprise to those patients who are struggling to get a telephone appointment, let alone a face to face one.

It is incredible that GPs are refusing to assist with the one measure that everyone agrees would actually help to stem the rise in cases, hospitalisations, serious illness and death.

Personally I think it is very selfish to advocate any type of restrictions (eg. masks and social distancing) when you don't have to suffer the adverse consequences of those restrictions.

How many more times do we have to point out that we need to have a healthy economy, in order to generate the tax revenues that will enable us to pay for a properly funded and fully functioning NHS?

And when "plan B" is implemented, how long until the BMA and the like start calling for a plan C. I just don't trust them, unfortunately.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
3,079
Location
Birmingham/Smethwick
And when "plan B" is implemented, how long until the BMA and the like start calling for a plan C. I just don't trust them, unfortunately.

About five minutes, I should imagine.

The question that all those people who are advocating masks, social distancing, working from home and other restrictions fail to answer is "..how long do you propose to keep these restrictions in place, and what is your exit criteria from these restrictions?.."

Unless you propose to keep face masks and social distancing permanently, at some point you are going to have to lift those restrictions. This will result in an "exit wave", such as we are seeing at the moment in the UK.
 

joncombe

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2016
Messages
693
And when "plan B" is implemented, how long until the BMA and the like start calling for a plan C. I just don't trust them, unfortunately.
Well they are also calling for a return to "Social Distancing". Ugh. That wasn't in the Government Plan B as far as I remember. So seems they are already calling for Plan C...

Cases in Scotland had a big peak after schools went back, dropped rapidly and now seem fairly flat. This being the case I'm hoping we'll see similar trends in England, where schools went back later and so cases will soon start to drop. It's whether the Government can resist the pressure until then. They don't have a good record on that score (though I keep a glimmer of hope that Sajid Javid will be less pro-restriction and less easy to manipulate than his predecessor).
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,086
Location
Redcar
Lots of calls for Plan C this morning which would include a ban on household mixing at Christmas. It's being denied by government of course so therefore it's pretty much nailed on.

Now remind me why I got double jabbed with a vaccine that I didn't particularly want?
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,100
You've been reading too many newspaper health supplement magazines. Turning 50 doesn't trigger some dramatic rise in risk, if two people aged 47 & 52 have similar lives and body statistics & diet, then the risk is similar. Yes risk will increase over time, but age is not the only factor here.
You make assumptions about my reading - and those supplements are not on my reading list. The statistics show that the risk of death from Covid rises by 12% per year, so (because this compounds) doubles for every 6 years. So that 52 year old is nearly twice as vulnerable as I am, assuming we are otherwise identical.

The age of 50 has been chosen as a cut-off for where that risk becomes particularly significant; like any threshold it is a slightly crude measure.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,469
And when "plan B" is implemented, how long until the BMA and the like start calling for a plan C. I just don't trust them, unfortunately.
Don't forget that despite the media calling them "top doctors" or "doctors leaders" the BMA are nothing more than a trade union. It's like calling the RMT "rail leaders"
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
3,298
Listening to an interview from the chief medical bod in Ipswich (which has a particularly high infection rate at the moment) the message seems to be that infection is being driven amongst the school age groups and spread upwards through the parents. Not their fault of course. SAGE and the medical establishment procrastinated on vaccinating the children.
Will vaccinating children make much difference? I thought the biggest benefit of the vaccine was reduced risk of Covid for the recipient. Very few children go to hospital with Covid so they won't be overloading the NHS. Most parents in their 20 to 40s have been vaccinated and they are fairly low risk anyway so also not much risk to the NHS. Anyway, if it's running riot through school children, soon it will run out of people to infect.
 

tommy2215

Member
Joined
10 Aug 2017
Messages
331
Even before covid, every single winter we were getting news stories about hospitals being overwhelmed. Before this year's summer we were getting told almost every week that hospitals were on the brink of being overwhelmed. Yet mysteriously, it never actually happened. Time and again we've seen covid predictions by so called experts be dramatically over the top. You would have thought this would cause the general public to be very sceptical of the latest round of scare stories, but sadly with the huge support for lockdowns and all the panic buying we've seen how easily spooked the public is. Support for lockdown will probably surge and we'll be back in one come December unfortunately.
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
32,470
Location
Yorks
Will vaccinating children make much difference? I thought the biggest benefit of the vaccine was reduced risk of Covid for the recipient. Very few children go to hospital with Covid so they won't be overloading the NHS. Most parents in their 20 to 40s have been vaccinated and they are fairly low risk anyway so also not much risk to the NHS. Anyway, if it's running riot through school children, soon it will run out of people to infect.

Yes and no.

Very few children go to hospital with it, but if they're then passing it onto adults who then become the argument for restricting society, then perhaps we ought to vaccinate them as well.
 

Class 33

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2009
Messages
2,258
Lots of calls for Plan C this morning which would include a ban on household mixing at Christmas. It's being denied by government of course so therefore it's pretty much nailed on.

If this nonsense returns again along with "The Rule of 6" nonsence also returning too, expect it to be very much largely ignored this time. Lots of people were ignoring these "rules" when they were last in force.

What an earth is the point of these vaccines(which have been going for 10 and a half months now!!) if we're still going to have these absolutely nonsense rules/laws returning?
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
7,980
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
You make assumptions about my reading - and those supplements are not on my reading list. The statistics show that the risk of death from Covid rises by 12% per year, so (because this compounds) doubles for every 6 years. So that 52 year old is nearly twice as vulnerable as I am, assuming we are otherwise identical.

The age of 50 has been chosen as a cut-off for where that risk becomes particularly significant; like any threshold it is a slightly crude measure.
A doubling of a very small risk does not represent a "dramatic" rise. For example, earlier this year the CDC in this report estimated that deaths from infections would be around 25 people in every 100,000 for 18-49 year olds, rising to 85 for the 50-64 year olds. This is not a dramatic rise in risk overall, its only when you get to the 65+ group at around 1,139 deaths per 100,000 infections do we start to see a statistically significant increase. So a healthy 52 year old has almost exactly the same chances of survival as a healthy 47 year old.
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
3,677
If this nonsense returns again along with "The Rule of 6" nonsence also returning too, expect it to be very much largely ignored this time.
Along with mask wearing. People will just claim to be exempt.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
3,298
Yes and no.

Very few children go to hospital with it, but if they're then passing it onto adults who then become the argument for restricting society, then perhaps we ought to vaccinate them as well.
How much chance is there of children with zero symptoms passing it on to vaccinated adults? How much does that reduce when the children are vaccinated? I remain to be convinced that it will make much difference. Remember at the start of the year when it was all about vaccinating the vulnerable? The goalposts haven't just moved; they've gone to another town!

An another note, how de we know that hundreds of children don't have asymptomatic flu? Are they being tested for it? Perhaps they should all have the flu vaccine too, just in case? Until Covid, I'd never really heard of people being "ill" with no symptoms, aside from HIV. If it can happen with Covid then I guess it can happen with other diseases.
 

philosopher

Member
Joined
23 Sep 2015
Messages
936
About five minutes, I should imagine.

The question that all those people who are advocating masks, social distancing, working from home and other restrictions fail to answer is "..how long do you propose to keep these restrictions in place, and what is your exit criteria from these restrictions?.."

Unless you propose to keep face masks and social distancing permanently, at some point you are going to have to lift those restrictions. This will result in an "exit wave", such as we are seeing at the moment in the UK.
The problem I suspect is that some do want such restrictions to be permanent. They like things such as pubs and museums being quieter or not having to commute.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top