Matt Hancock finally starts telling the truth

[jomartin281271]

This is an extract from an interview Matt Hancock gave on Radio 1 this morning, when he was reacting to the sharp increase in reported cases.

The health secretary stressed how serious coronavirus can be for young people, even though they are less likely to die or get seriously ill.
"Long Covid is really serious. And people can be in a bad way for months and months and months," he says.
"The second really important message is that younger people spread the disease, even if they don't have symptoms.
"Don't kill your gran by catching coronavirus and then passing it on. And you can pass it on before you've had any symptoms at all."

And now that schools have opened the number of cases has rocketed and children are unwittingly bringing the virus back into their homes, possibly infecting older members of their family. Isn't it about time we had some joined up thinking from this government. It's only a week ago that Gavin Williamson and Boris Johnson were telling us that young people were almost immune.

@SheepandCow

Too late, too late - like pretty much everything else the government has done (or not done!), too late

@PremierInn

I don’t think so - bad as London had it, nowhere near high enough to have herd immunity (assuming having it once prevents you from getting it again for more than a limited time)

[quote Aridane]@PremierInn

I don’t think so - bad as London had it, nowhere near high enough to have herd immunity (assuming having it once prevents you from getting it again for more than a limited time)[/quote]
Hard to explain it otherwise though?

I’m not sure London is our if the woods yet. As all the wfh start returning to work, if they do, it could have an impact.

I signed up to COVID messenger and it has gone up in last couple of days, I hope it won’t get too bad, but hard to know.

Out

@Alex50

Oh and lots of young people out enjoying themselves in London but it seems only young people from up North spread it 😊

Cases are definitely on the rise in London suburbia and Hertfordshire/ London border.

I don't think it is accurate to see the local lockdowns as an anti-northern conspiracy. The first town affected was Leicester, arguably in the Midlands. Plus there are local lockdowns in Wales and Scotland enforced by their own regional governments.
The ONS is reliable, I think, and often takes a stance against the government, e.g. in reporting deaths from Covid-19 it has maintained its much higher figures. If the figures that back up local lockdown are not correct, I feel the ONS would say something.

Yeah. Carry on being scared.

There have been outbreaks in the South, e.g. Herefordshire and Swindon, but the nature of these is that they have been focussed on workplaces and so it has been possible to act by closing those workplaces and quarantining the employees without needing wider action.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/health-and-fitness/cities-with-herd-immunity/amp

This is an interesting theory

Well we will have to watch this space and see if London area will appear in the top 10 cities with infection.

Yes, I think it’s wait and see for London.

I haven’t seen any data as to SD compliance etc in London vs elsewhere in UK (to the extent that such data is gathered and / or available)

Rates are extremely high in a couple of wards in Hackney borough (the areas with large orthodox Jewish communities - see news.hackney.gov.uk/an-update-on-rising-coronavirus-cases-in-hackney/). It seems that the areas being hit hardest at the moment are those with tightly-knit communities of one religion/ethnicity, with multi-generational households (eg Oldham, Bradford etc). Religious/ethnic communities in London tend to be less insular (for want of a better word) which may have something to do with the lower rates at the moment in most of the capital. Plus there is a higher percentage of white collar workers who can work from home indefinitely, and people aren't travelling into central London much for pubs and restaurants - these are factors too, I think.

It is very worrying people in London we're struggling to get tests yesterday, this means the numbers may not reflect the real picture in the city.

It some kind of messed up society when we think 3 months of lockdown is an unbearable hardship for the young to endure to protect other people, Jesus. Fully support getting their education, apprenticeships and other support back on track but their social life doesn’t trump anyone’s health
And a northern lock down conspiracy? Nope again just lack of SD.....

@sleepwouldbenice

It some kind of messed up society when we think 3 months of lockdown is an unbearable hardship for the young to endure to protect other people, Jesus. Fully support getting their education, apprenticeships and other support back on track but their social life doesn’t trump anyone’s health And a northern lock down conspiracy? Nope again just lack of SD.....

It’s not been 3 months though has it. It’s 6 months and no end in sight.

It was three months of lockdown, but the restrictions etc are likely to.continue. My kids have been ok since they could start seeing friends again, they don't mind doing socially distant things. I'm sure many young people are being responsible.

Er, it was x3 months -

@Aridane

Er, it was x3 months -

It’s not all done though is it?

@Boredbumhead

Because not having an education is putting them at far more risk, especially those from poorer backgrounds. The figures released today show it is youngsters in affluent areas socialising that's the issue, not that I begrudge them that. It is actually probably safer to have them at school/college/university and occupied, at least there's an element of supervision then

No, not all done - but incorrect to say ‘lockdown’ lasted x6 months. I can noW go,out more than Once a day and then only for exercise / essential shopping and I can meet people. I am not in ‘lockdown’

@Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow

Why should the young fuck their lives any more thing? They gave us six months. We can’t ask for more. A year is a huge time for a teen - and a decade of austerity is longer.

We have been selfish. Humans are sociable animals. We have to embrace this virus and move on and for those more at risk, they will have to take extra care. But we cannot ask more of our young and it’s highly selfish to do so.

Oh cry me a river! If 18-30s with their whole lives in front of them can’t give up one year of going on a shag fest to Zante it’s a poor bloody show and an opportunity to demonstrate the social responsibility they’re all so keen on banging on about.

Oh cry me a river! If 18-30s with their whole lives in front of them can’t give up one year of going on a shag fest to Zante

Yes, of course, that's the only thing young people have been asked to give up and they are facing no other disruption to their lives at all.

an opportunity to demonstrate the social responsibility they’re all so keen on banging on about

Maybe. Or maybe they will think, why the fuck would I listen to these selfish, demanding people who sneer about social responsibility unless they want it demonstrating in a way that benefits them?

If you talk about groups of people with that sort of contempt and refuse to consider that they are facing genuine disruption and hardships, but insist on dismissing concerns with rubbish about shagfests to Zante, what do you think you will get in return?

I feel that emphasising the role of the elderly/vulnerable in all this is a bit of a red herring (and I don’t mean this in an uncaring way). All this talk about “they should shield and leave the rest of us to get on with things“ is totally illogical. Suppose you took the vulnerable out of the equation, large numbers of people testing positive will lead to even larger numbers of contacts who have to isolate, leading to potential closures of schools, pubs and the like. If the whole of a pub’s staff have to isolate, how can that pub stay open? Doesn’t matter if they’re only mildly ill or not ill at all, the damage is done.

If everyone did their bit, not by never going out but by sensible measures with regard to hygiene, SD and things that really don’t matter in the grand scheme of things, life could grumble on a lot more efficiently in the short term and you wouldn’t have this destructive stop-start situation.

To me it’s perfectly encapsulated by the attitude which I see a lot on here of “schools must stay open at all costs but it is the inalienable right of my child to have a birthday party” (or go to the pub and crowd together with 20 other people, just in case I start being accused of being childist).

@MrsFezziwig

I think the idea is to have the 7m vulnerable shield / go into a ghetto / whatever and then the rest of the population can do whatever they want because, you know, the chances of them getting covid are VANISHINGLY RARE and if they do, it will be so MILD or ASYMPTOMATIC. Not shouting, just repeating the —over— much used phrases in Mumsnet when this gets trotted out