Should restrictions be eased fully if Indian Variant case rates do not decline before June 21st?

[yorkie]

It doesn’t mean that Labour would gain the vote of someone who was to decide that they will no longer support the Tories. I see it differently to you on the Labour issue, because they were asking for decisions to be acted upon faster, ....

Yes Labour want restrictions to be applied earlier, and for longer, at lower levels of the virus circulating. Like the Republic of Ireland, who were very slow to release restrictions (and, when they did, cases shot up to the highest levels in Europe, because of the lack of population immunity).

Labour are absolutely a party of restrictions, lockdowns and authoritarianism and are absolutely not a viable alternative for anyone who is fed up of the restrictions under the Tories. Labour are the party of choice for people who want harsher, longer lasting restrictions. That's not for me.

 

[Purple Orange]

Yes Labour want restrictions to be applied earlier, and for longer, at lower levels of the virus circulating. Like the Republic of Ireland, who were very slow to release restrictions (and, when they did, cases shot up to the highest levels in Europe, because of the lack of population immunity).

Labour are absolutely a party of restrictions, lockdowns and authoritarianism and are absolutely not a viable alternative for anyone who is fed up of the restrictions under the Tories. Labour are the party of choice for people who want harsher, longer lasting restrictions. That's not for me.

Sorry, but I can’t relate to any of that. As I see it, the high volume of deaths are higher than they should have been because of the poor decisions made by the Tories. If we had closed the border to India at the same time as closing the border to Pakistan and others, we may have been able to relax restrictions on June 21st as a result of giving more time to vaccinate in an environment where the Delta Variant was not as high as it has become.

This is all the fault of the Tory Party and no other. You can’t blame a party that is not in power.

You can’t honestly believe the Tories have done a good job of this can you?

 

[MikeWM]

We need to distinguish between measures that are 'light touch' (such as masks) and genuine restrictions (certain parts of the economy still closed, limitations on travel etc.). Appreciate there's a variety of opinion but for me mask wearing is not a restriction; I can still go about my day without hindrance.

It isn't just a 'variety of opinion' though, even though there certainly is that!

There's a decent sized-group of people for whom this is a significant barrier to going about their day, either because they are unable to wear a mask themselves and are concerned about the reaction of others and/or confrontations with authority, or because others wearing a mask make their life significantly more difficult (eg. people who rely partly or fully on lip-reading).

If you want to keep any measures like this, you have to show that (a) they are necessary to achieve some aim, (b) they are effective at doing so, and (c) the good that they do outweighs the negatives.

In the case of masks, I'd say they very clearly fail all three of those criteria - but even for those who believe that they are effective and possibly pass (b) and (c), I don't see how anyone can argue they pass (a) once the 'crisis' is over.

 

[brad465]

Mark Harper (CRG chair) is on Question Time tonight and will certainly have reservations to voice about this delay, along with Rosemary Squire, who's run a theatre and cinema entertainment business, who may have similar views.

 

[quantinghome]

Yes Labour want restrictions to be applied earlier, and for longer, at lower levels of the virus circulating. Like the Republic of Ireland, who were very slow to release restrictions (and, when they did, cases shot up to the highest levels in Europe, because of the lack of population immunity).

Labour are absolutely a party of restrictions, lockdowns and authoritarianism and are absolutely not a viable alternative for anyone who is fed up of the restrictions under the Tories. Labour are the party of choice for people who want harsher, longer lasting restrictions. That's not for me.

Labour are the party of well funded public services that can cope with health emergencies rather than being caught on the hop.

Labour are the party of bringing in lockdowns early before the virus gets a grip, so restrictions don't have to go on for as long, rather than dithering and making matters orders of magnitude worse.

Labour are the party of competent test, trace and support systems run by local authority health professionals rather than dodgy contracts to Ministers' mates.

Labour are the party of funding catch-up education properly in line with other advanced countries.

Labour are the party of a global vaccination programme so everyone is protected, international travel can resume, and we don't get more variants in the future.

 

[yorkie]

Sorry, but I can’t relate to any of that. As I see it, the high volume of deaths are higher than they should have been because of the poor decisions made by the Tories...

How do you explain the high volume of deaths in countries such as the Czech Republic?

If we had closed the border to India at the same time as closing the border to Pakistan and others, we may have been able to relax restrictions on June 21st as a result of giving more time to vaccinate in an environment where the Delta Variant was not as high as it has become.

It would have just come in from elsewhere; this is a natural selection process which cannot be avoided. You cannot easily just "close a border"; it is impossible to keep a virus out by "closing borders" as people can travel via other countries.

This is all the fault of the Tory Party and no other. You can’t blame a party that is not in power.

You can’t honestly believe the Tories have done a good job of this can you?

They have done a terrible job but Labour would have had us under even harsher, longer restrictions. They have been calling for restrictions on a regular basis. I understand you are pro-restrictions and so are Labour so I can see why they would appeal to you but it does not appeal to me.

 

[kristiang85]

Labour are the party of well funded public services that can cope with health emergencies rather than being caught on the hop.

Labour are the party of bringing in lockdowns early before the virus gets a grip, so restrictions don't have to go on for as long, rather than dithering and making matters orders of magnitude worse.

Labour are the party of competent test, trace and support systems run by local authority health professionals rather than dodgy contracts to Ministers' mates.

Labour are the party of funding catch-up education properly in line with other advanced countries.

Labour are the party of a global vaccination programme so everyone is protected, international travel can resume, and we don't get more variants in the future.

Most of this is hindsight though, which is very easy for opposition to do.

What is also easy for them to do is to question whether the restrictions are proportionate and properly backed up by science - clearly the government fail both of these tests (especially with the data revelations this week), yet the Labour party barely raise a squeak about that and blindly vote them through.

Are Labour the party of the looming non-COVID health crisis? I don't think so.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Yes there have been some marches, and the numbers on them have not been huge - even the ones that have been big enough to get press. The claims of a million are just hyperbole, and the claims of a backlash are just that - claims. I'm with @ainsworth74 on this - that the polls don't say what you want doesn't make them wrong, nor does it undermine the conclusions drawn from them.

I observe that it took Farage and his mates over a decade of single issue campaigning, together with some very particular political alignments, to get Brexit from an issue that focussed a few very intensely, and didn't feature on the public's top 10 list of political issues, to being the issue of the day. That's not to open up a discussion about Brexit, but to emphasise the distance between those very focussed on a particular issue, and the wider population.

The reaction to Lloyd-Webber is interesting, and does show that opinion is not binary - as does the government's willingness to use his show as a "test event" as a way round the restrictions.

Hyperbole is it? Are you really sure you want to make that claim? it was much much closer to a million marchers than the 300 the BBC reported, I had friends who attended so I trust them over the BBC any day, so I’ll stand by my correct statement that it was at least a million, there have been many protests about lockdown it’s just not reported by the government mouthpiece, these aren’t just claims this is fact now, this isn’t last year when we weren’t sure what Covid would do, we’re in a different place now, and the mood has turned whether you want to see it or not.

Polls ask an echo chamber of those who agree with lockdowns or what ever the issue of the day is and claim that this is the mood of the nation when it isn’t, the poll I referred to was one I saw in the 2017 GE not the 2019 GE, I also saw a poll that says remain would’ve the likely winner and a poll that people changed their minds about leaving the EU, and look what happened.

 

[kristiang85]

Hyperbole is it? Are you really sure you want to make that claim? it was much much closer to a million marchers than the 300 the BBC reported, I had friends who attended so I trust them over the BBC any day, so I’ll stand by my correct statement that it was at least a million, there have been many protests about lockdown it’s just not reported by the government mouthpiece, these aren’t just claims this is fact now, this isn’t last year when we weren’t sure what Covid would do, we’re in a different place now, and the mood has turned whether you want to see it or not.

Polls ask an echo chamber of those who agree with lockdowns or what ever the issue of the day is and claim that this is the mood of the nation when it isn’t, the poll I referred to was one I saw in the 2017 GE not the 2019 GE, I also saw a poll that says remain would’ve the likely winner and a poll that people changed their minds about leaving the EU, and look what happened.

Also, I didn't see much mention of the lead up to previous marches going round - I only really noticed them when people were posting about it on the day.

However, I am seeing lots of mentions of the 26th June going around, even outside the normally very anti-restrictions circles, so I think this one is going to be very significant.

And there is a news channel now that will report on it.

 

[MikeWM]

Polls ask an echo chamber of those who agree with lockdowns or what ever the issue of the day is and claim that this is the mood of the nation when it isn’t, the poll I referred to was one I saw in the 2017 GE not the 2019 GE, I also saw a poll that says remain would’ve the likely winner and a poll that people changed their minds about leaving the EU, and look what happened.

Also the 2015 GE polls were disastrously wrong, as were those for the US Presidential election in both 2016 and 2020. Pollsters have a record a little better than modern epidemic modelers, but not by much!

Polls are interesting but in the end have many many issues, and anyone trying to govern or set policy based upon them is on a fool's errand.

 

[quantinghome]

Most of this is hindsight though, which is very easy for opposition to do.

It really isn't though. Labour have always been pushing for a well funded health service. Labour demanded a circuit breaker lockdown in September then had to wait as Johnson dithered about and the death rate climbed ever higher before he finally fully locked down months later at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of pounds. Calling for proper catch-up education funding and proper international leadership on a global vaccination programme isn't 'hindsight' either. It's just sensible policy making.

What is also easy for them to do is to question whether the restrictions are proportionate and properly backed up by science - clearly the government fail both of these tests (especially with the data revelations this week), yet the Labour party barely raise a squeak about that and blindly vote them through.

The position we are in right now is a difficult one because there's not enough data to say either way. There's a big increase in cases and we're starting to see that feed through into hospital admissions, although at a lower rate than previously thanks to the vaccination programme. What we don't yet have enough data on is the consequences of the increase in cases. There may be only a small increase in deaths as a result, there may be a big increase. Surely it's sensible to wait a few weeks until we have the data to make the call and get vaccinations up to herd immunity levels. Past experience of dealing with this virus suggests a cautious approach is better than letting it rip.

 

[Purple Orange]

How do you explain the high volume of deaths in countries such as the Czech Republic?


It would have just come in from elsewhere; this is a natural selection process which cannot be avoided. You cannot easily just "close a border"; it is impossible to keep a virus out by "closing borders" as people can travel via other countries.


They have done a terrible job but Labour would have had us under even harsher, longer restrictions. They have been calling for restrictions on a regular basis. I understand you are pro-restrictions and so are Labour so I can see why they would appeal to you but it does not appeal to me.

Citing Czech Republic completely avoids looking at what our government has done. It lets them off the hook. “Ah b... b... but... but what about Brazil? What about Germany? What about France and New Zealand?” No. What about looking at the decisions the Tories have made and whether they were the right thing for our country?

Yes the Delta variant would have still come in, but it wouldn’t be as prevalent as it is right now and the decision to remove restrictions on June 21st may have gone forward. With a longer lead time for the delta variant to take hold and increasing levels of vaccination overall infection rates would be lower. Plus it becomes harder for a new variant to take hold as we move through the vaccination programme.

We have zero understanding of how things would have been under a Labour government, it could have had the same outcome, or better or worse. Yet we can’t judge the poor decisions by this government by a mythical assumption on what others could have done but rather by the actions it has taken and whether they were right or wrong.

As for my position, painting me as ‘pro-restrictions’ is completely false. You label me with that because I disagree with you, rather than attempting to understand my position. I want to see restrictions lifted, but I want it done in a way that will not result in us going back in to restrictions later. I believe we would be out of restrictions on June 21st had the Tories not been so abysmal.

 

[35B]

Hyperbole is it? Are you really sure you want to make that claim? it was much much closer to a million marchers than the 300 the BBC reported, I had friends who attended so I trust them over the BBC any day, so I’ll stand by my correct statement that it was at least a million, there have been many protests about lockdown it’s just not reported by the government mouthpiece, these aren’t just claims this is fact now, this isn’t last year when we weren’t sure what Covid would do, we’re in a different place now, and the mood has turned whether you want to see it or not.

Polls ask an echo chamber of those who agree with lockdowns or what ever the issue of the day is and claim that this is the mood of the nation when it isn’t, the poll I referred to was one I saw in the 2017 GE not the 2019 GE, I also saw a poll that says remain would’ve the likely winner and a poll that people changed their minds about leaving the EU, and look what happened.

Yes I am sure. I agree that it was a large crowd, but if I were in a large crowd, I wouldn't presume to assess the size of the crowd - and whether it was 1,000, 100,000, or 1,000,000.

As for polls, I'm sure some are designed to produce results. But I observed the reactions to the pollsters errors in both the 2015 election and the Brexit referendum, and their sensitivity to where their models have weaknesses. One of those weaknesses has to do with how they adjust for the representativeness of the samples, and on Brexit they called a close vote wrong but within the margin of error on their numbers. Election polls - here and in the US - are difficult because of the way the country is divided up into constituencies.

They aren't perfect, but if you're going to substitute your view for what they say, you need to come up with something better than "my mate said".

 

[yorksrob]

As for my position, painting me as ‘pro-restrictions’ is completely false. You label me with that because I disagree with you, rather than attempting to understand my position. I want to see restrictions lifted, but I want it done in a way that will not result in us going back in to restrictions later. I believe we would be out of restrictions on June 21st had the Tories not been so abysmal.

This seems to be one of the biggest myths perpetuated by the pro lockdown camp to me.

The idea that if only you somehow lockdown earlier or longer, you have any control over whether the virus will come back at a later date.

It seems to me that lockdown has no effect on whether the virus will get in now or later. There's not a scenario where you get transmission down and the virus goes away forever. It will get back in. Therefore, if you accept a lockdown earlier, even if infection rates go down, you're still inviting a lockdown later. The argument of "avoiding a lockdown later by being locked down now" seems to come from those intent on imposing the lockdown now, rather than any belief that it will prevent it later.

The only real way to avoid lockdown is to perfect a non-lockdown approach (as Sweden has) or develop and roll out a vaccine/effective treatments.

 

[initiation]

The idea that if only you somehow lockdown earlier or longer, you have any control over whether the virus will come back at a later date.

Yep, see circuit breaker lockdowns last year in Wales and Scotland, Australian states entering random lockdowns each time after it has been supposedly eliminated, Ireland over the winter.

It is human hubris/exceptionalism that we think we can control things in such a manner.

 

[Yew]

I thought you would have been knowledgeable enough to realise the century was in which Wat Tyler led what was at that time referred to as the Peasants Rebellion. It was sixty years ago when I learnt about that in English History lessons and the terminology to which you attempt to transfer to what you refer to "working class people" over 500 years later shows your lack of understanding of England in the early Middle Ages. That term you use seems that you are living in the past and seems only still current in the minds of "Corbyn et al".

The history of mankind is the history of class antagonisms. The names and quantity of the subordinate degradations of society may change, but the injustices are ever-present.

 

[Purple Orange]

This seems to be one of the biggest myths perpetuated by the pro lockdown camp to me.

The idea that if only you somehow lockdown earlier or longer, you have any control over whether the virus will come back at a later date.

It seems to me that lockdown has no effect on whether the virus will get in now or later. There's not a scenario where you get transmission down and the virus goes away forever. It will get back in. Therefore, if you accept a lockdown earlier, even if infection rates go down, you're still inviting a lockdown later. The argument of "avoiding a lockdown later by being locked down now" seems to come from those intent on imposing the lockdown now, rather than any belief that it will prevent it later.

The only real way to avoid lockdown is to perfect a non-lockdown approach (as Sweden has) or develop and roll out a vaccine/effective treatments.

Let me clarify then. I want to see restrictions lifted but I don’t want a situation whereby we go back in to it later as a result of bad decisions now. That is not the same as saying having restrictions now and lasting longer will do the trick, but we should have started earlier. Another variant will come along at some stage and by then the vaccination levels will hopefully be at a stage it has a much smaller impact than the Delta variant does today.

 

[ainsworth74]

Also the 2015 GE polls were disastrously wrong, as were those for the US Presidential election in both 2016 and 2020. Pollsters have a record a little better than modern epidemic modelers, but not by much!

Polls are interesting but in the end have many many issues, and anyone trying to govern or set policy based upon them is on a fool's errand.

Yes and no. The 2015 General Election and the 2016 US Presidential (and I'd add the Brexit referendum to that list as well) were the clangers I referred to in my earlier post. They got them wrong. But the 2020 US Presidential was pretty good. It under estimated Trump's level of support but it basically nailed Biden's:



(Graph showing September 2019 through to November 2020 which has a sustained lead for Biden throughout and in the final months hovering at around 50% to 52% whilst Trump was hovering around 43%)

Source

Of course the ridiculous electoral college system means it felt a lot closer than that but on the popular vote the nation wide polls basically nailed it. There were certainly issues down ballot with the Dems not performing as strongly as expected by polling but again the broad picture was one of the Dems taking both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. Just not quite as convincingly in Congress as expected.

It's very easy, and has become very popular to, dismiss all polling as wrong, flawed, irrelevant, inaccurate, etc. But a lot of the time it seems to be being done by people who don't want to believe what the polls are telling them. See Labour activists in the run up to the 2019 General Election or perhaps more entertainingly in recent years Paddy Ashdown on election night 2015:

Polls are not always right that is an absolute certainty (perhaps we should add that to the other two certainties in life of death and taxes?). But I think there is a danger of a) dismissing polling to easily as "always wrong" and b) doing so especially when it says things we don't want to believe. Despite the repeated protestations of many in this section that they'll never vote Tory or Labour again due to their pro-restriction policies/statements we have yet to see a sustained collapse in Tory support and Labour continue to be the second most popular party. Despite being assured that there are millions of people who are fed up with restrictions, as far as I can tell, the polling currently suggests a most support (no doubt reluctantly) the extension of restrictions to July.

 

[kristiang85]

Yes I am sure. I agree that it was a large crowd, but if I were in a large crowd, I wouldn't presume to assess the size of the crowd - and whether it was 1,000, 100,000, or 1,000,000.

As for polls, I'm sure some are designed to produce results. But I observed the reactions to the pollsters errors in both the 2015 election and the Brexit referendum, and their sensitivity to where their models have weaknesses. One of those weaknesses has to do with how they adjust for the representativeness of the samples, and on Brexit they called a close vote wrong but within the margin of error on their numbers. Election polls - here and in the US - are difficult because of the way the country is divided up into constituencies.

They aren't perfect, but if you're going to substitute your view for what they say, you need to come up with something better than "my mate said".

I've dropped this here before, but its a good time to do so again:

For what it's worth, I've never had one of these pollsters ring me, but my Dad had one a couple of months back. They asked for 10 minutes of his time, but he said no he was working. Presumably those who do reply are those not working (i.e. retired/furloughed) who would more likely spend 10 minutes answering questions. Now I'm sure good pollsters will take this into account when processing results, but a lot of the spot polls probably won't.

 

[MikeWM]

Yes and no. The 2015 General Election and the 2016 US Presidential (and I'd add the Brexit referendum to that list as well) were the clangers I referred to in my earlier post. They got them wrong. But the 2020 US Presidential was pretty good. It under estimated Trump's level of support but it basically nailed Biden's:

I'd say 'yes and no' to that too. I'd agree that they managed to get the overall popular vote fairly close, but the state-by-state polls in the battleground states (the ones that actually matter in a Presidential election) gave Biden a much larger lead than he actually got in the end, and also suggested states like Florida, Iowa and even Texas (!) were in play for Biden, all of which Trump won easily.

It's very easy, and has become very popular to, dismiss all polling as wrong, flawed, irrelevant, inaccurate, etc. But a lot of the time it seems to be being done by people who don't want to believe what the polls are telling them. See Labour activists in the run up to the 2019 General Election or perhaps more entertainingly in recent years Paddy Ashdown on election night 2015:

I think there may have been more an element of hopeful thinking in 2019 - I had a little of that myself! Though it was fairly clear in the last couple of weeks that the best Labour could have done in 2019 was more-or-less standing still from 2017; in the end of course, they did rather worse.

And Paddy Ashdown's error was that he was responding to an exit poll. We know they are usually much more accurate than pre-polling polls.

Polls are not always right that is an absolute certainty (perhaps we should add that to the other two certainties in life of death and taxes?). But I think there is a danger of a) dismissing polling to easily as "always wrong" and b) doing so especially when it says things we don't want to believe.

I'd agree that they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but it is also good to retain a healthy scepticism about them (as it is with most things).

It is definitely worth checking the questions actually asked, and in what context, and in what order.

 

[STINT47]

I think there can be little doubt that cases are rising. People are concerned and suport action.

It may be worth considering another one to two month lockdown till everyone has had two doses of thr vacine. Its not nice wieking part time from home but that way we can eliminate covid once and for all then return to normal

One needless death or hospitalisation is still one to many. Like a pebble falling 8nyo a pond a death impacts so many and we must do everything to prevent them.

 

[bramling]

Who knows whether this will happen or not, but compared to the sort of restrictions we've had to put up with over the last 15 months (stay at home, don't travel, don't meet friends and family, schools shut, shops shut) surely light touch measures like masks are a pretty minor inconvenience.

That’s a matter for debate. Someone doing a rail commute (yes there are still such people, unlike the work-from-home contingent!) might well find them more of a minor inconvenience. And for those who actually *cannot* wear them, the constant potential for dirty looks, unpleasantness, confrontation or even harassment is a big issue.

Likewise I’d say having faces covered makes diffusing situations difficult, though of course in reality so many masks find their way down to the chin that this perhaps resolves itself.

Personally masks is the no1 thing I want to see the back of. On a personal level I’m not that fussed about the remaining distancing, though I would like to see the back of that too simply to aid businesses.

 

[Purple Orange]

I think there can be little doubt that cases are rising. People are concerned and suport action.

It may be worth considering another one to two month lockdown till everyone has had two doses of thr vacine. Its not nice wieking part time from home but that way we can eliminate covid once and for all then return to normal

One needless death or hospitalisation is still one to many. Like a pebble falling 8nyo a pond a death impacts so many and we must do everything to prevent them.

As others have said, we aren’t in lockdown. Lockdown is staying at home, no shops, restaurants, pubs etc open, no sporting events to attend. We do have restrictions though, which are a massive pain in the arse and economically damaging, not to mention mental health aspects, it’s not quite the same as it was.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think there can be little doubt that cases are rising. People are concerned and suport action.

It may be worth considering another one to two month lockdown till everyone has had two doses of thr vacine. Its not nice wieking part time from home but that way we can eliminate covid once and for all then return to normal

One needless death or hospitalisation is still one to many. Like a pebble falling 8nyo a pond a death impacts so many and we must do everything to prevent them.

Just to point out not everyone is able to work from home, some people have been putting up with a 20% pay cut, and that could rise to 30% in a couple of weeks. Others have lost their jobs altogether.

Oh, and we won't eliminate covid even if we had 100% vaccination. I thought that was common knowledge now?

 

[Purple Orange]

Just to point out not everyone is able to work from home, some people have been putting up with a 20% pay cut, and that could rise to 30% in a couple of weeks. Others have lost their jobs altogether.

Oh, and we won't eliminate covid even if we had 100% vaccination. I thought that was common knowledge now?

Many people have had more than a 20% pay cut too. If you earned £40k and were put on furlough, your effective annual salary dropped to £30k. Some people had bigger drops.

 

[roversfan2001]

I think there can be little doubt that cases are rising. People are concerned and suport action.

It may be worth considering another one to two month lockdown till everyone has had two doses of thr vacine. Its not nice wieking part time from home but that way we can eliminate covid once and for all then return to normal

One needless death or hospitalisation is still one to many. Like a pebble falling 8nyo a pond a death impacts so many and we must do everything to prevent them.

I'm sure you'll be saddened to learn that the human race isn't immortal and people will sadly die. Nearly 2,000 people die a day on average in the UK. At this point, I assume anyone with your viewpoint is on a wind-up, but if you're serious, then you clearly have no idea about the negative implications of lockdown. I'm absolutely convinced that a hypothetical fourth lockdown would cost more lives than it saved.

 

[bramling]

I think there can be little doubt that cases are rising. People are concerned and suport action.

It may be worth considering another one to two month lockdown till everyone has had two doses of thr vacine. Its not nice wieking part time from home but that way we can eliminate covid once and for all then return to normal

One needless death or hospitalisation is still one to many. Like a pebble falling 8nyo a pond a death impacts so many and we must do everything to prevent them.

I can’t see there being much appetite for any more lockdowns now. From what I’m seeing people are pretty much done with this now. Where I am in mid-Wales at the moment apart from masks in the few required settings and notices in every shop doors, you wouldn’t know there’s anything abnormal. In terms of behaviours people are back to normal - including getting up close to each other and chatting.

No doubt when I get back to the Home Counties next week it will be back to the “I went for coffee in town today and was utterly shocked to see youths sitting on benches which elderly people have to walk past, isn’t it awful”, and of course the stamping-feet of “I am *not* returning to the office”.

 

[quantinghome]

Oh, and we won't eliminate covid even if we had 100% vaccination. I thought that was common knowledge now?

I think it is common knowledge that vaccines are effective but not 100% so. A high level of prevention up at the 95%+ level would still result in a further significant wave of fatalities (in the tens of thousands) if the virus were to spread to everyone. The solution to preventing this is it spend the next few weeks sticking as many vaccines into people's arms as possible to get herd immunity, or close to it, and prevent the virus from spreading. 19 July also happily coincides with schools breaking up for summer holidays which will reduce the risk of spreading among the age group most likely to be infected.

 

[Class 33]

​

​

​

'Terminus means end', says Jacob Rees-Mogg​

Jacob Rees-Mogg has insisted the "terminus day" will be the end of all restrictions, comparing it to "Paddington not Crewe".
Responding to a question about visiting rights for care home residents the Commons leader told MPs: "This has been a really difficult time for people in care homes and as the Prime Minister himself said, we will soon reach the terminus day.
"The terminus means the end.
"Some people have thought it means an interchange, but it is Paddington not Crewe. And when we reach the end, the restrictions will go."

Well this had better turn out to be the case, Rees-Mogg. All restrictions GONE. And this "terminus day" had better be ON TIME on 19th July and not DELAYED!

 

[kristiang85]

I think it is common knowledge that vaccines are effective but not 100% so. A high level of prevention up at the 95%+ level would still result in a further significant wave of fatalities (in the tens of thousands) if the virus were to spread to everyone. The solution to preventing this is it spend the next few weeks sticking as many vaccines into people's arms as possible to get herd immunity, or close to it, and prevent the virus from spreading. 19 July also happily coincides with schools breaking up for summer holidays which will reduce the risk of spreading among the age group most likely to be infected.

Vaccines this effective for a respiratory illness are very atypical - influenza vaccines given out every year are normally only at 40-50%.