Main points from today anyone?

[Yetiyoga]

Can someone give any info on what was said today? I don't know what to believe with media. I missed it

Agree with what the others have said about shielding. Sick of hearing 'All the vulnerable should shield. The rest of us will get on with it.' It is nowhere near as simple as that.

@Nat6999

They said a lot yet really didn't tell us anything we didn't know. We really need to know what the next government actions will be.

I think they were pointing out it’s our actions that matter every single one of us No matter what restrictions are brought in if people don’t adhere to them then we can see what is going to happen Whatever action any individual takes unless they have no contact whatsoever with others it will have an effect Restrictions are pointless for they few that will do as they like no caring what it does to other people

‘Luckily it's up to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock to unfuck us.‘

No it’s up to ourselves to ‘unfuck is’. We only really have one defence against this virus and it’s our own behaviour

[quote Orangeblossom7777]They still say that immunity based on antibody studies and ignore that may be T cell immunity as well, think they are not very up to date

www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563[/quote]
Yeah, right, as a microbiologist, Chris Whitty of course understands nothing about T cell immunity

I agree. The government can only do so much. If we want to get a grip on this virus or at least contain it then we need to take some personal responsibility.

Again as I’ve said on other threads but not received an answer to, what do you suggest for people who rely on grandparent childcare do for work? All give up their jobs?

And it’s ok suggesting personal responsibility - I have a responsibility to keep a roof over my children’s heads, buy food etc and I’d prefer not to throw away the last 13 years of building up my career because of government restrictions, thanks very much.

As Diggadoo pointed out they were basically addressing the several ridiculous untruths being spouted as fact on social media around the country, including Mumsnet, by people who think burying their heads in the sand and carrying on regardless will mean that only people they don't know and don't care about will die.

Hands, Face, Space.
Break social links.
Isolate.
It isn't the flu.
Winter will be shit.
Just wait till Boris gets let out tomorrow.

Yeah, right, as a microbiologist, Chris Whitty of course understands nothing about T cell immunity hmm

So why are they basing immunity purely on antibody tests?

which might not even have been done
which fade within a few weeks
which fail to take in T cell immunity...

@tappitytaptap

Again as I’ve said on other threads but not received an answer to, what do you suggest for people who rely on grandparent childcare do for work? All give up their jobs?

I wonder this too. We're very lucky, we'll have to book DS in for an extra day at nursery if that stays open but he can't have his usual day at his grandparents', which is an extra strain on our finances but doable for us, but for so many people it simply isn't an option. I think many people in that position will just flout it and I'll find it hard to blame them. In general I think the government are in a very difficult position because I don't see how they'll get compliance without either a) shutting down almost everything again, which they clearly don't want to do because of the economic ramifications or b) enacting a total police state. The will to comply seems to have collapsed.

8% immunity in the UK

Not quite.

8% of population believed to have antibodies. Nobody knows what that means for immunity.

@tappitytaptap

Again as I’ve said on other threads but not received an answer to, what do you suggest for people who rely on grandparent childcare do for work? All give up their jobs?

The two household rule would work for most families. So your parents can come in and touch you all like in a Bible, but no one else.

The difficulty is when your mom did childcare for you and your sister, you're mil does childcare for your and her daughter, your sister gets childcare from your mom and her mil etc. Someone will always lose out if you limit it to X households

@tappitytaptap

And it’s ok suggesting personal responsibility - I have a responsibility to keep a roof over my children’s heads, buy food etc and I’d prefer not to throw away the last 13 years of building up my career because of government restrictions, thanks very much.

What you cite is personal responsibility- I was emphasising the need for social responsibility ie caring about people other than yourself / own family/ very important career.

The November deaths may not be the peak, the other Coronavirus infections historically peak in January and February. They are not able to say this right now as the economy needs to run as long a possible.

Didn't finish.
So as PM I'd formally permit GPs or other family to do childcare but perhaps restrict it to only persons from I've other household.

So your mom would pick you or your sister, bit hopefully with a view that your sister had her mil who would choose her etc 3 households max so you, sister and mom

@SleepingStandingUp do you mean support bubbles? Because for those one of the adults has to be single so there are many families who rely on grandparent care but couldn't form a support bubble.

[quote Hardbackwriter]@SleepingStandingUp do you mean support bubbles? Because for those one of the adults has to be single so there are many families who rely on grandparent care but couldn't form a support bubble.[/quote]
Yes bubble not Bible, gosh I'm tired.
I know that's the current rules, I think it's a silly rule and I think it should be two or three households where it's needed for childcare

I think convincing people they can see one - but only one - of their adult children would be a hard sell under any circumstances. People simply will not do it if pubs etc are still open. It's really difficult because the evidence does suggest that household transmission is the main problem and so there might actually be some logic to allowing pubs but not home visits but it feels so inherently wrong and unfair to everyone that psychologically I think you need to start shutting businesses to have any hope of compliance with household distancing measures among families.

As I read it all, there's no stopping people mixing in pubs and the like and unless draconian measures (which id adhere to) are put into place in shops then it'll spread like it did before lockdown. Because nothing has changed much other than a few people having dubious immunity. And loads of mixing in school of course. What's important is who we mix with and how. A previous poster put it really well- sadly many people are thinking "I'm all right jack and don't care about those who aren't" So will continue to shop and socialise. I'd like to think that if you know someone vulnerable who you refuse to stop seeing (which I get) that you'll moderate your own mixing to protect them.

@Orangeblossom7777 I did explain. Best case scenario (which looks iffy anyway) is any cross reactive immunity via T Cells might lessen disease severity. It won’t stop infections as those people will be infectious.

Also South America has shown over 70% antibody levels which blows Prof Sikora and his T Cell fairy out there water unless you’re going to argue South American’s are a different species.

This thread contains a very concise and witty update on what was said. I love MN sometimes!

@Vikingess I mean yes, obviously what people will do is completely shaft their own families, that sounds like a great idea. My career is pretty important for you know, food, mortgage, those massive luxuries.

You can think all you like about others being selfish, but I would argue it’s the opposite of selfish to want to provide for your family. Crazy how people have been brainwashed during this to think it’s selfish for families to take care of each other!

Oaktree Some research seems to show high levels of antibodies (e.g. 70%) in more vulnerable populations which may have lower existing immunity, which may make sense. Same with slums in India which have high antibody rates too. It's interesting and don't want to argue.

And yes I suppose people with existing T cell immunity may be contagious but possibly not. It's not as simple as they made out at the briefing though 'the vast majority are not immune" how do they know or evidence that. I don't think that should be presented as fact.