Opening Up - they're already taking it back?

[PicsInRed]

Boris was on earlier responding to a question as to why we can't open once we have vulnerable groups 1-9 vaccinated - which would represent 99% of deaths and 80% of hospitalizations - and he essentially said that we can't simply open up at that point as not all of those individuals will choose (or be able) to be vaccinated. As in, at all. Ever. So what do we do then? Continue this horror until every vulnerable person takes a vaccination?

Surely once vaccines are AVAILABLE to all vulnerable persons, the rest of the country MUST be permitted to re-enter society and resume a normal life?

Have I misunderstood what he said? Because if I haven't, he's basically just admitted in the Commons that they don't have any real plan to actually open up (unless they compel vaccination, which is another story).

As long as the nhs isn’t overwhelmed it doesn’t matter if some people are not vaccinated.

The vaccine isn’t 100% so people will still die, as long as too many are not dying at the same time things will reopen

I thought the plan was for everything to be back to normal by June.

At the moment they are saying all adults will be vaccinated by the end of July but I suspect the aim is for it to happen sooner than that.

I presume the question was more along the lines of “why not delay opening up until everyone is vaccinated” and his answer was “because that will never happen”

The NHS is overwhelmed every winter. It WILL be overwhelmed. It will.

I hope to God I'm wrong, I just don't think I am. I'm desperate to open up and travel and see people and eat in restaurants and do away with the fucking masks...but I think they're double speaking us again.

When they take it back, they'll say it's all our fault for socialising too much and breaking the myriad of impenetrable, geographically variant and ever changing rules.

Copied from the guardian live blog, is this the question and answer you mean?

'It's pure mathematics' - Johnson says 'large minority' at risk if all restrictions ends after over-50s vaccinated
In the Commons Mark Harper, chair of the Covid Recovery Group, which represents lockdown-sceptic Tories, says the government wants to vaccinate all over-50s, and people with underlying health conditions, by 15 April. These people account for 99% of Covid deaths and 80% of hospital cases. So why can’t all restrictions be lifted from the end of April, once those first doses of vaccines have taken effect?

Johnson says Harper is making an excellent point, but that “a significant minority” of people either won’t take the vaccine, or won’t get protection from it.

"We believe that the protection is very substantial. But there’ll be a large minority will not have sufficient protection and the risk is that if you let the brakes off, then the disease could surge up in such a way as again to rip through a large number of [that] group in a way that, alas, I don’t think anybody in this country would want to see.

So I’m afraid it’s pure mathematics. There is still a substantial body of risk.

We also need to wait and see exactly what the effects of the vaccine. There are some promising data, but I think what the country would want at this stage is caution and certainty and irreversibility, and that is what we aim to provide."

Yes! That's the question and answer! Very good Carlislemum!

What am I missing? He's basically insinuating that if people won't get vaccinated, we stay locked down, right?

Please tell me I'm missing something in that exchange. I hoped I'd heard it wrong.

I take it as him just explaining why it needs to be a gradual process from now until June if all goes to plan. April would still be too early to lift all restrictions like some back bench Tories are asking for him to do.

@PicsInRed

Yes! That's the question and answer! Very good Carlislemum!

What am I missing? He's basically insinuating that if people won't get vaccinated, we stay locked down, right?

Please tell me I'm missing something in that exchange. I hoped I'd heard it wrong.

He is not saying that at all.

Once the vaccines move on to the less vulnerable it gives more protection to everybody, We don't want to be in a situation where we lift everything and then a mutation undoes all the work so far. We need to keep it slow and steady until the vast majority of the population has at least 1 dose. If we don't then we run the risk of a mutation occuring when a huge number of people are not yet protected. That mutation could then affect younger people in a worse way than any of the strains so far.
The more people vaccinated the less chance of that happening.

Don't forget that Long covid does not discriminate by age or health and can have life changing implications.

It is not just about people dying.

Believe nothing from this Government
There are so many ifs and buts written into this they will be wriggling on everything

He’s really saying “We just don’t know yet and we have to be cautious” - Is how I read it.

Not a bloody chance will I stay locked down to protect anyone that chooses not to have a vaccine 😡.

Once the vaccines move on to the less vulnerable it gives more protection to everybody

Yes, I think that's fair. If we wait until every adult (and child, presumably?) is vaccinated, it provides more coverage to those who can't be vaccinated (or for whom it doesn't effect immunity). But what happens if or when too many young or healthy people refuse the vaccination?

As Beanie says, there are a lot of ifs and buts designed into this roadmap. Let's say vaccine uptake across the population ends up, for arguments sake, at only 75%. Do we still open up? Do we stay in restrictions? Do we compel vaccination my personal answer to compulsion is no?

The vaccines are shown to reduce transmission too.

so we can open up slowly and have low transmission running through with most vulnerable protected which will happen alongside transmission naturally slowing due to vaccines.

It's basically a balancing act of infections matching vaccine programme.

But considering they are talking about night clubs in 4 months time it's far quicker and much more positive than I thought.

I think it's a maths sort of issue.

For example if you have an indoor event of 1000 and 800 are vaccinated it's better than 300 unvaccinated people iyswim?

Will there always be people who refuse or can't have the vaccine? Yes

Will we stay unable to mix or do business forever due to them? No way.

If you trust nothing else, trust the power of Capitalism. No government wants to keep losing that money. It's taken them most of a year and 100k deaths to start being cautious over things.

"If we ease lockdown now, or in 6 or 9 months time..."

What the fuck Boris.

No, he's not saying that we can never open up - his point was - whether we open up now, open up in 6 months time or 9 months time there will likely be an increase in cases and deaths. But that the modelling for the CRG timeline suggested hospitalisations back above the Jan 21 peaks and an additional minimum 60k deaths. So he's saying there is a bit more pain to come but we think we can edge our way more safely to a sweet spot of 21st June if we take it in stages, look at the data and then move on.

"We believe that the protection is very substantial. But there’ll be a large minority will not have sufficient protection and the risk is that if you let the brakes off, then the disease could surge up"
Say 10-15% of vulnerable don't get protected by the vaccine (it'll be at the high end because young people are more likely to get immunity), then everyone is out and thinking 50,000 cases per day won't matter because they're not vulnerable people. Even putting aside long covid issues, a good proportion of that 10-15% will get infected and die because community infection rates are so high they can't avoid being infected, same as we couldn't "just shield the vulnerable". There will be fewer of them, but we don't want them to die. Once more people are vaccinated, the transmission reduces too, so that protects the 10-15%. So what he's saying is still "vaccinate our way out asap", just clarifying why that's not just the vulnerable.

u-turned on museums already.

Twats.

And so it begins

@PicsInRed

"If we ease lockdown now, or in 6 or 9 months time..."

What the fuck Boris.

He meant it as in regardless as to when we open up, covid will still be there and we have to live with it

@Doomsdayiscoming

u-turned on museums already.

Twats.

Ahh that was quick, I even checked to make sure it wasn't my imagination - nope they said 12 April, now it's 17 May, less than an hour later.

Well then. Shocked.

Dont forget- those of us who are pregnant and or breastfeeding won’t be vaccinated (unless the risk of covid outweighs the risk of the unknowns of the vaccine in these circumstances).
Sure there are other ‘groups’ too that can’t be vaccinated for a reason or other.
Pls don’t assume that everyone should/will be vaccinated and if they aren’t then fuck social distancing etc cos they chose not be take the vaccine!

Where did they say 12th April for museums. In the guidance that was released around the time of PM statement to the House it says 17th May

@Lisyloo725
So I should stay locked down because you are pregnant? Seriously?

I will be dead by my own hand before you give birth at this rate. I cannot cope with any further delay on the indecision.