To think they should pause meeting inside

[LastOrdersMaura]

In the last person to be overly concerned about the virus but the SAGE minutes show that there is something to be concerned about.
I think the economy can't take anymore and I really feel for all the businesses who are gearing up for opening on Monday. My friends cafe hasn't opened since October last year so she missed all the Christmas trade and has no outside seating. Her customer base are mostly elderly so unlikely to come out for takeaway. It would likely bankrupt her to hold off opening any longer.

The mixing in people's houses seems the least destructive part to hold off on. I know a lot of people have been looking forward to it but prolonged contact in a small space seems to be a major factor in transmission.
I'm looking forward to seeing others for a drink in their houses but I can see how it can go wrong. Most people aren't able to go for a meal in a restaurant every night of the week. I could however go to a different friends house every day, even multiple friends houses! Then if that friend does the same, that's a lot of indoor mixing. We have small children so the likelihood of them SD'ing is unlikely. Then there's older siblings at school, working parents, nursery etc leading to an increase in transmission. I feel restaurants are quite safe in comparison.
Those who want to will mix indoors anyway but it might make some think twice or not accept as many invitations. It has no impact on the economy. Yes it will have an impact on mental health but I think we're screwed on that part anyway. Anxiety is through the roof!
I'm fully expecting people to tell me to fuck off but this is the most sensible decision that BJ could make in light of the new variant. I'm not a lockdown lover, frankly as I haven't had a lockdown due to working out of the house throughout. I just want this to be over, properly over, not just kicking the can down the road.

[quote KurtWilde]@picturesandpickles you're fond of telling people they've misunderstood I notice, same as on the other thread where all you seem intent on doing is trawling out the same same old. [/quote]
It is in response to the other side of the same old same old though - there is not much original on the other side either.

I use the word 'misunderstood' because I feel a bit inhibited saying people are wrong! But going forward I will try to vary my choice of word if that will help.

@picturesandpickles see?? You're intent on being right! Even though it's literally all just conjecture and future modelling at the moment and technically at this point in time it's impossible to see who'll be right and who'll be wrong.

Are you imagining the government will massage the figures and involve a lot of doctors and registrars in the process?

Not at all. I think they’d just massage the figures when they reach the DoH. It wouldn’t be the first time.

[quote KurtWilde]@picturesandpickles see?? You're intent on being right! Even though it's literally all just conjecture and future modelling at the moment and technically at this point in time it's impossible to see who'll be right and who'll be wrong. [/quote]
Have you ever met anyone intent on being wrong ?

I think there is some absolutely wacky nonsense on this thread. So I have said so, trying not to be too rude whilst doing it.

It is not conjecture, it is an emerging situation, either you can view it scientifically or you can view it based on nothing.

And in doing so pictures you're shouting everyone else down and calling them all wrong. Everything you're talking about is conjecture, nothing more, yet you're spreading it across 2 threads now like it's gospel.

In reality, it doesn't matter whether people on this thread think meeting inside should be paused or things extended for a few weeks, they aren't. If you do not wish to meet people inside or go places then that's completely your decision. As is other people's to start going out again. The advice by SAGE is not gospel, it's not a guarantee it will happen. They are learning all the time and sometimes they can be wrong.

twitter.com/BBCMarkEaston/status/1394218979514884096?s=20

Mark Easton
@BBCMarkEaston
·
9h
In Burnley last year, just 13% of workers ever 'worked from home'. In Richmond-upon-Thames, it was 71%.
@ONS

@KurtWilde

And in doing so pictures you're shouting everyone else down and calling them all wrong. Everything you're talking about is conjecture, nothing more, yet you're spreading it across 2 threads now like it's gospel.

I would like you to leave me be. You have the option to report any of my posts you think contradict forum rules. You have made a number of remarks to me now that are nothing to do with the subject matter. We are in the coronavirus topic where we are supposedly discussing coronavirus, and that is what I would like to do.

Kokeshi123

amylou8 please read my OP, vaccine uptake is actually low, especially in my area. There are a multitude of reasons for this. Do we not owe these people protection?“

Nonsense. Uptake is high.

No, we don’t owe these people protection. If they choose not to take the vaccine, frankly that’s their lookout and they can’t expect millions of people to continue to live in dire straits because of their ill-informed decision.

Those who can’t take the vaccine for medical reasons,, obviously an incomparable situation: it’s precisely for the safety of those people that everyone else should take it.

Once every adult has been offered their second vaccine at the end of August, there will be only two valid reasons why all of life life in the UK can’t open up: a completely vaccine evading variant - which is unlikely (though new generation vaccines are already being worked on to pre-emp this) - or a variant that seriously affects children. In both cases, I would fully support a further lockdown.
Failing that, if you’ve turned down a vaccine without medical reason, that’s your lookout.

No, we don’t owe these people protection. If they choose not to take the vaccine, frankly that’s their lookout and they can’t expect millions of people to continue to live in dire straits because of their ill-informed decision

Exactly. People choosing to not take the vaccine can't expect others to lockdown on their behalf.

Interesting, TheKeatingFive.

A matter of months ago I vehemently disagreed with many of your posts. My husband is CEV, youngest child CV and we all shielded for over a year. I fully supported both lockdowns and wished the Govt’s. had acted way sooner. We pulled our youngest out of College mud-February, 2020.

That was all pre a vaccination programme that exceeded our wildest dreams, though. The situation in the UK has completely changed and I can’t tell you the sheer joy to be embracing the idea of opening up - something that terrified me just late November.

I think I’m a pragmatist, my opinion is based on current circumstances but several posters seem to be completely unable or unwilling to acknowledge that UK circumstances have drastically changed.

(Are you Sue, by any chance? 😬 you remind me of someone from my sometime dubious past 🤣)

The situation in the UK has completely changed and I can’t tell you the sheer joy to be embracing the idea of opening up - something that terrified me just late November.

That's really great to hear.

I'm not Sue. Kinda interested in who she is now though

I'm not Sue. Kinda interested in who she is now though grin“

See, if I now tell you why I think you're her, I’ll kind of let the cat out of the bag, won’t I 🤣

Thankfully, she is long married now.

But, husband-wise, think kind of James Bond-ish line of work (seriously - but she definitely wore the trousers).

I’m still pretty sure you’re her. She was bloody forthright too 🤣

Now I’m even more intrigued 😂

@DenisetheMenace offered the vaccine is what the government measures. It ignores the fact that housebound people are offered a jab thirty miles away, turn it down and have to wait for a home visit. Or that where I am ran out of vaccine and people were having to travel a way to get a vaccine. Not everyone can do this.

@TheKeatingFive

No, we don’t owe these people protection. If they choose not to take the vaccine, frankly that’s their lookout and they can’t expect millions of people to continue to live in dire straits because of their ill-informed decision

Exactly. People choosing to not take the vaccine can't expect others to lockdown on their behalf.

But the majority of those who would get sick have been vaccinated. So are people happy to let the vaccinated get ill and die, just to prove a point to the unvaccinated?

So are people happy to let the vaccinated get ill and die, just to prove a point to the unvaccinated?

No, we’re prepared to let the unvaccinated get ill and die because that’s what they’ve chosen. It’s called personal responsibility. A bit like wearing a seat belt.

But the majority of those who would get sick have been vaccinated. So are people happy to let the vaccinated get ill and die, just to prove a point to the unvaccinated?

So just how long then, do we carry on living like this? Until there's a perfect vaccine that stops 100% of deaths and 100% of all symptoms? Why stop there, let's carry on living a half life until they've created a vaccine for all illness EVER!

This is ridiculous now, we have fantastic vaccines, if we had been told one year ago that by Christmas 2020 safe vaccines with an incredible efficacy rate would be created, we'd have been delighted. But it just doesn't seem to be enough for some people. Yes a tiny number (mostly very very elderly) vaccinated people will still die. Should we stop living because of that, or do we accept that we have done all that is reasonably possible and crack on with you know, actually living?

@Blossomtoes

So are people happy to let the vaccinated get ill and die, just to prove a point to the unvaccinated?

No, we’re prepared to let the unvaccinated get ill and die because that’s what they’ve chosen. It’s called personal responsibility. A bit like wearing a seat belt.

I think it would be useful to hear how you intend to keep spread only to the unvaccinated. Are you planning to send them off to a colony?

Whilst I can see emotionally you want to pursue this course, it is futile and wouldn't work. The wisest humans focus on the best outcome, not the emotional aspects.

@StrawberryLipstickStateOfMind

But the majority of those who would get sick have been vaccinated. So are people happy to let the vaccinated get ill and die, just to prove a point to the unvaccinated?

So just how long then, do we carry on living like this? Until there's a perfect vaccine that stops 100% of deaths and 100% of all symptoms? Why stop there, let's carry on living a half life until they've created a vaccine for all illness EVER!

This is ridiculous now, we have fantastic vaccines, if we had been told one year ago that by Christmas 2020 safe vaccines with an incredible efficacy rate would be created, we'd have been delighted. But it just doesn't seem to be enough for some people. Yes a tiny number (mostly very very elderly) vaccinated people will still die. Should we stop living because of that, or do we accept that we have done all that is reasonably possible and crack on with you know, actually living?

If it is a tiny number, no one will propose doing anything.

But the issue is that SAGE (not me, SAGE) have advised that if the Indian variant is 50% more transmissible the UK is at risk of a wave greater than that seen already with very high hospitalisations. If hospitalisations are very high, then we would have to do something.

But the issue is that SAGE (not me, SAGE) have advised that if the Indian variant is 50% more transmissible the UK is at risk of a wave greater than that seen already with very high hospitalisations. If hospitalisations are very high, then we would have to do something.

What was the point in the vaccines then? You can say that we will have to do something but at the most basic level, even if pubs are closed etc, people are not going to carry on complying with restrictions. There is such a difference on this board compared to 6 months ago.

Lockdowns and restrictions will only be tolerated for so long and I think the government are acutely aware of this. I mean fgs even the PM said 'let the bodies pile up' and this was last autumn. Do you think over 6 months on from that, that the majority of people will follow restrictions? Because I don't.

What was the point in the vaccines then?

If we had a wave where 20,000 people died despite a partially vaccinated population, presumably without vaccines that would be 100,000+? So the point of the vaccines would be tens of thousands of lives saved.

Vaccines are not a blanket cure. But we would be far, far worse off without them.

If lots of unvaccinated people are admitted to hospital it will affect anyone who needs medical treatment.

Do you think over 6 months on from that, that the majority of people will follow restrictions The majority of people are good people, if they believed that restrictions were required to save lives, I think the percentage that followed the rules would remain pretty similar to the last two times.

There has been very little reduction in compliance since the outset, those who disagree are pretty vociferous but the data shows decent compliance remained.

@picturesandpickles

Do you think over 6 months on from that, that the majority of people will follow restrictions The majority of people are good people, if they believed that restrictions were required to save lives, I think the percentage that followed the rules would remain pretty similar to the last two times.

There has been very little reduction in compliance since the outset, those who disagree are pretty vociferous but the data shows decent compliance remained.

You don't think that after over a year of this that compliance might start to change?

The data may show that up to now but how are they going to be able to bully the young with 'don't kill granny' when granny has had both of her vaccinations? People will see the vast majority of people, included all those at risk, having been vaccinated, and will decide enough is enough. I think for many, this summer was always going to be that point.