Let's face it, they're letting it rip.

[ZednotZee]

Aren't they?

The vaccines aren't seemingly preventing transmission.

We are opening up on the 19th.

This is being done presumably as the public appetite for further lockdowns will be nil come October/November so best to get it over with now and have heard immunity come the autumn.

They won't say it but its becoming very clear that the immunocompromised need to continue to shield til the rest of us have contracted and got over the infection.

cantkeepawayforever

I can see how difficult that could be for CEV staff. Hopefully you and your colleagues are vaccinated?

I just don’t see what the alternative is, though. If death rates remain low, society can’t shut down because of 35 daily deaths. My husband could be one of them but we don’t expect millions to restrict their lives for us any longer. Unreasonable and unrealistic. In the early days, when little was known, lockdown was the only sensible course: we wanted it to happen earlier.
With the success of the vaccinations and their easy access availability, personal risk assessment and responsibility need to take over going forward.
We will take every precaution we have to to get by, we’ve always had to, an infection resulting from a simple cold could put him in hospital. That’s life for many and they have always had to act accordingly. We’re not prepared to sacrifice our children’s futures, that’s the bottom line. They need to get to university/work and live their lives.

The mask-wearing in school (by teachers) I agree is a major issue which will have to be addressed if infections are still high come September. Personally, I believe that summer will see millions of children infected, fully recovered and left with some degree of immunity. (Not a scientist though so what do I know just seems logical and obvious)
In the meantime An FFP3/N95 will afford us excellent personal protection in shops/transport/crowded spaces. They’re designed to protect the wearer, not just others. Ours are winging their way as I write because virus levels will no doubt increase in shops etc. after 19th July.

Personally, I believe CEV children must be offered vaccinations beginning now and I hope many 12-18 year olds come forward when it’s given the go-ahead, as many believe it will when the JCVI reaches its conclusion: that will make a big difference to spread.
The UK must also act urgently to play it’s part in ensuring the whole world has access to vaccinations: if it doesn’t, this will be a perpetual cycle with new strain after new strain threatening to overcome the vaccines.
Govt. has to completely reassess the needs of the NHS and fund it fully if we’re not to continue to lurch from crisis to crisis. Here’s hoping

I do believe though, that we have to carefully open now or there will be little left to open.

A few points here.

A friend pointed out that the research into mask wearing is interesting. Masks generally protect others from you and not the other way round. But not all masks are equal. The really good masks - FFP3 - that are recommended for ICU have actually been shown to protect the user not just others. Therefore there should be more promoted about this for the extremely clinically vulnerable. The reason that this might not be being done is due to supply issues.

But in theory there is a way to protect yourself on places like a crowded tube if you really need to.

The next is we need to separate the concerns about children here. In terms of extreme clinical vulnerability then children in this group should be vaccinated. Certainly there are a couple of conditions which came out particularly badly. And this is where i think there is a lack of oversight.

This is different to the majority of kids though. And i think that the argument to vaccine in the uk, is driven more by worried parents and a high level of trust in vaccines rather than the case definitively being there for all children. In terms of death the numbers just don't merit vaccinations - certainly not at the moment with supply issues of pfizer and moderna. Other jobs absolutely remain a priority over kids and we can't move away from this risk profile. In terms of long covid we just don't know where we are with it.

People self reporting long covid is 100 times higher than doctors are diagnosing. Now there could be a few reasons for this 1) its very mild and not a cause for concern 2)doctors aren't diagnosing well enough but a discrepancy of that scale suggests more is going on. We don't know.

We do know the levels of side effects in young adults and we know that even in this age group there is a much more finely balanced argument for vaccinated purely on covid alone in terms of benefit to this age group.

When you start getting into ethics debates over vaccinating children for the benefit of society as a whole when the benefit isn't for the children themselves and may actually be more risky for them you have a bit of an issue. At the moment because vaccines are always framed as inherently 'good' we aren't always seeing this as a potential ethical consideration.

This has even more importance in a society with exceptionally high levels of adult vaccination. The benefits to society as a whole are reduced again. And the UK possibly is one of the very few countries in which this may be the scenario.

So we get back to the argument about protecting the most vulnerable in society. Children always score highly on this. Arguably the case to vaccine the majority if there is little to no benefit to them personally and there is little to be gained on a wider societal level becomes much more important and significant. Ethically you can't do it.

You also can't do it, if children remain at lower risk and we have a problem with higher risk vulnerable adults needing a booster shot in the context of restricted availability of appropriate vaccines. Ethically you have to protect your most vulnerable on the basis of risk and priority.

In theory the argument about children living with clinically vulnerable adults has two facets. First is that these adults should in most cases be vaccinated themselves and be more protected from serious disease. The number of vulnerable adults who have not been able to be vaccinated for a specific risk is small - and at this point you might be better to take an approach where their school age children are given a vaccine on a case by case due to individual circumstances because there is a tangible (and ethical) argument to do so both in terms of real risk and benefit to the child. Again i think this is an area that should be identified.

In terms of clinically vulnerable vaccinated adults, i think it really depends on the condition. We are starting to see patterns of who still remains at potential risk. Even then these still don't tend to be in age groups which have children in the house though - they tend to be older. And you arguably have to look at other ways to protect the most vulnerable in society rather than using children (who are also termed as vulnerable for different reasons and can't ethically be used as 'human shields').

This is the problem. We are reduced our understanding of 'the most vulnerable in society' to an over simplified definition and we have created the idea of vaccines as always being 'good'. Thus we have a bit of a potential blind spot over children and doing the ethically best thing.

If it doesn't turn out to be that vaccines are, on balance, quite as good for children for their own sake due to side effects then you have a problem. And this problem might be different in the uk than elsewhere due to vaccination rates. We have to be mindful of this and we have to be mindful of the priotisation of supply issues too.

Don't get me wrong i do think there is an oversight in terms of clinically vulnerable children whom we know to be at elevated risk due to their condition and for the unvacinated clinically vulnerable who cannot be vaccinated.

But at this stage the ethical argument over protecting the most vulnerable is much more finely balanced than the 'all the children should be vaccinated immediately' crew make out.

This also includes arguments about keeping restrictions and even masks in theory. Flu and other respiratory diseases pose more threats to children particularly young children. They need to be exposed to them at low levels and preferably during summer months to lessen the severity / impact on hospitals. For health reasons. Again this is something which is currently being overlooked in the narrative here.

These are the arguments that people with hard and fixed beliefs want to hear. Indeed i think a lot of them will be instantly dismissed because its inconvenient to that belief. But the idea that there is a deliberately unethical decision making process going on, i struggle with. I think there are fatality flawed ommisions that could be addressed without vaccinating all children and i think there are certain considerations regarding vulnerable people which need to be looked at from multiple angles without prejudice (which includes the idea that vaccines are better for children in the absence of evidence for this point of view).

We may find compelling data in the next few weeks which changes our position and thus decision making either way. Our position (in terms of supply mainly) may also change in the coming weeks and months ahead.

But from where we stand now, i dont think we can definitively say that a) children are being thrown under a bus b) there isn't a proper ethical decision making process going on.

As i say i think there are a couple of areas where certain groups are falling through cracks are the argument may differ on an individual level and this is where i would like to see more work done, but i also can't say its done with either malicious intent or a callous attitude of indifference either. More that these cracks need to be flagged and addressed better because they fall into a blind spot rather than a moral vacuum.

Also in the absence of a clear clinical benefit from drugs the ethical default ALWAYS has to be 'do nothing' rather intervention until such time as we know different.

Rightly or wrongly.

There are ethical issues ahead if we find that vaccines aren’t particularly beneficial for children themselves, but we struggle to achieve herd immunity without vaccinating that pool.

Though I suppose a reasonable proportion of parents just won’t consent anyway, so we’d never get anywhere close to the levels of take up we have in the adult population.

@RedToothBrush

A few points here.

A friend pointed out that the research into mask wearing is interesting. Masks generally protect others from you and not the other way round. But not all masks are equal. The really good masks - FFP3 - that are recommended for ICU have actually been shown to protect the user not just others. Therefore there should be more promoted about this for the extremely clinically vulnerable. The reason that this might not be being done is due to supply issues.

But in theory there is a way to protect yourself on places like a crowded tube if you really need to.

The next is we need to separate the concerns about children here. In terms of extreme clinical vulnerability then children in this group should be vaccinated. Certainly there are a couple of conditions which came out particularly badly. And this is where i think there is a lack of oversight.

This is different to the majority of kids though. And i think that the argument to vaccine in the uk, is driven more by worried parents and a high level of trust in vaccines rather than the case definitively being there for all children. In terms of death the numbers just don't merit vaccinations - certainly not at the moment with supply issues of pfizer and moderna. Other jobs absolutely remain a priority over kids and we can't move away from this risk profile. In terms of long covid we just don't know where we are with it.

People self reporting long covid is 100 times higher than doctors are diagnosing. Now there could be a few reasons for this 1) its very mild and not a cause for concern 2)doctors aren't diagnosing well enough but a discrepancy of that scale suggests more is going on. We don't know.

We do know the levels of side effects in young adults and we know that even in this age group there is a much more finely balanced argument for vaccinated purely on covid alone in terms of benefit to this age group.

When you start getting into ethics debates over vaccinating children for the benefit of society as a whole when the benefit isn't for the children themselves and may actually be more risky for them you have a bit of an issue. At the moment because vaccines are always framed as inherently 'good' we aren't always seeing this as a potential ethical consideration.

This has even more importance in a society with exceptionally high levels of adult vaccination. The benefits to society as a whole are reduced again. And the UK possibly is one of the very few countries in which this may be the scenario.

So we get back to the argument about protecting the most vulnerable in society. Children always score highly on this. Arguably the case to vaccine the majority if there is little to no benefit to them personally and there is little to be gained on a wider societal level becomes much more important and significant. Ethically you can't do it.

You also can't do it, if children remain at lower risk and we have a problem with higher risk vulnerable adults needing a booster shot in the context of restricted availability of appropriate vaccines. Ethically you have to protect your most vulnerable on the basis of risk and priority.

In theory the argument about children living with clinically vulnerable adults has two facets. First is that these adults should in most cases be vaccinated themselves and be more protected from serious disease. The number of vulnerable adults who have not been able to be vaccinated for a specific risk is small - and at this point you might be better to take an approach where their school age children are given a vaccine on a case by case due to individual circumstances because there is a tangible (and ethical) argument to do so both in terms of real risk and benefit to the child. Again i think this is an area that should be identified.

In terms of clinically vulnerable vaccinated adults, i think it really depends on the condition. We are starting to see patterns of who still remains at potential risk. Even then these still don't tend to be in age groups which have children in the house though - they tend to be older. And you arguably have to look at other ways to protect the most vulnerable in society rather than using children (who are also termed as vulnerable for different reasons and can't ethically be used as 'human shields').

This is the problem. We are reduced our understanding of 'the most vulnerable in society' to an over simplified definition and we have created the idea of vaccines as always being 'good'. Thus we have a bit of a potential blind spot over children and doing the ethically best thing.

If it doesn't turn out to be that vaccines are, on balance, quite as good for children for their own sake due to side effects then you have a problem. And this problem might be different in the uk than elsewhere due to vaccination rates. We have to be mindful of this and we have to be mindful of the priotisation of supply issues too.

Don't get me wrong i do think there is an oversight in terms of clinically vulnerable children whom we know to be at elevated risk due to their condition and for the unvacinated clinically vulnerable who cannot be vaccinated.

But at this stage the ethical argument over protecting the most vulnerable is much more finely balanced than the 'all the children should be vaccinated immediately' crew make out.

This also includes arguments about keeping restrictions and even masks in theory. Flu and other respiratory diseases pose more threats to children particularly young children. They need to be exposed to them at low levels and preferably during summer months to lessen the severity / impact on hospitals. For health reasons. Again this is something which is currently being overlooked in the narrative here.

These are the arguments that people with hard and fixed beliefs want to hear. Indeed i think a lot of them will be instantly dismissed because its inconvenient to that belief. But the idea that there is a deliberately unethical decision making process going on, i struggle with. I think there are fatality flawed ommisions that could be addressed without vaccinating all children and i think there are certain considerations regarding vulnerable people which need to be looked at from multiple angles without prejudice (which includes the idea that vaccines are better for children in the absence of evidence for this point of view).

We may find compelling data in the next few weeks which changes our position and thus decision making either way. Our position (in terms of supply mainly) may also change in the coming weeks and months ahead.

But from where we stand now, i dont think we can definitively say that a) children are being thrown under a bus b) there isn't a proper ethical decision making process going on.

As i say i think there are a couple of areas where certain groups are falling through cracks are the argument may differ on an individual level and this is where i would like to see more work done, but i also can't say its done with either malicious intent or a callous attitude of indifference either. More that these cracks need to be flagged and addressed better because they fall into a blind spot rather than a moral vacuum.

Thank you for this post. I’m going to reread to take in all your points. One thing leapt out, the irony (or paradox?) of the risk benefit in a high vaccinated country swings away from vaccinating kids which may not be the case in a lower vaccinated country. Similar in how in a zero Covid country the risk balance of anyone at all having a vaccine swings away from the vaccine. A conundrum for sure!

Just thinking out loud about the kids/ vaccine arguments, could it be argued that as cases rise over the summer as predicted, the pendulum will naturally swing back towards vaccinating kids as a positive again?
Similar to the changes in risk analysis for AZ in 30-40 adults as the cases grew and fell

@TheKeatingFive

There are ethical issues ahead if we find that vaccines aren’t particularly beneficial for children themselves, but we struggle to achieve herd immunity without vaccinating that pool.

Though I suppose a reasonable proportion of parents just won’t consent anyway, so we’d never get anywhere close to the levels of take up we have in the adult population.

Indeed. The whole subject is an absoluete ethical minefield.

But the default is always non-intervention without compelling benefits and evidence as an ethical fall back position. This isn't restricted to covid.

The UK's situation is particularly complex. Wales has reached 90% on first doses for adults which makes the society level argument for kids much more difficult for example.

I think there are also ethical issues with vaccinating children and then getting well publicised outliers with deaths and side effects - which could undermine public confidence in vaccines and in turn end up leaving vulnerable children at risk of other health impacts unrelated to covid because they don't get vaccinated for other things.

We HAVE to think about possibilities like this. Indirect, unintended consequences are important in the long run.

Its so, so, difficult to get this right. I would argue that its impossible to get it right for everyone precisely because the whole things is about balancing competing needs - and in this that means that there will be winners and losers. And this is unavoidable.

This doesn't mean that vulnerable people have been forgotten. It can also mean that a larger number of equally vulnerable have been considered and on balance that is the way that decisions have been tipped - to save/protect as many vulnerable as possible - but that isn't without cost either. Those who are in effect 'saved' almost become 'invisible' as there isn't a 'moral outrage' about what happens to them. We just are unaware of how decisions have been made to protect them.

If you happen to be one of the losers then obviously you aren't going to be happy. It doesn't mean that ethical considerations haven't been employed though. It might very well mean that they have but in terms of the limits of what can be done, there is a problem and a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Its not a nice subject.

I think it is one that is important to understand though.

Does anyone have any idea when this will realistically end?

What do you mean, by “end”?

Thinking about the HPV vaccine for boys. Benefit is for girls only ( I think) but all boys had the jab this year. My son had it last September.
So an example of a vaccine that does not particularly benefit the vaccinee ( in the case of boys) but obviously does benefit society generally?

@sashagabadon

Just thinking out loud about the kids/ vaccine arguments, could it be argued that as cases rise over the summer as predicted, the pendulum will naturally swing back towards vaccinating kids as a positive again? Similar to the changes in risk analysis for AZ in 30-40 adults as the cases grew and fell

It depends mainly on supply I think. At the moment are kids or adults who need a booster going to be the priority in September. Which is likely to save more lives? Does this benefit children in their own right.

I think the debate is ongoing.

Things can change and we need to understand that if it does it doesn't necessarily mean that government have 'u-turned due to public pressure'. It could easily mean that they are 'following the science' but the science is now showing a different profile after collecting more data.

I think seeing how vaccination programmes for 12 - 16 year olds else where in the world will be what they will be looking at closely.

This could throw up issues or it could look perhaps better than data for 18 - 25 year olds might imply.

We don't know.

At the moment, I don't think we are in a position to make a decision because we don't have the means to vaccinate children so why make the decision in the absence of incoming data before that point?

sashagabadon

Thinking about the HPV vaccine for boys. Benefit is for girls only ( I think) but all boys had the jab this year. My son had it last September.
So an example of a vaccine that does not particularly benefit the vaccinee ( in the case of boys) but obviously does benefit society generally?“

Completely agree. Our son missed out by a year or two so we (remortgaged to ) have it privately. He was keener than we were, for just that reason.

@sashagabadon

Thinking about the HPV vaccine for boys. Benefit is for girls only ( I think) but all boys had the jab this year. My son had it last September. So an example of a vaccine that does not particularly benefit the vaccinee ( in the case of boys) but obviously does benefit society generally?

The point is also that the negative impact and risk to boys is so minimual as not to be a deemed 'a problem' to them either though. So it doesn't disadvantage boys but also benefits society too.

But the default position was to not intervene until such time as it was deemed ethical to vaccinate them.

Yes understand the point re. Minimal risk of HPV as long standing vaccine. That must have tipped the balance

@sharkrabbitmusician

Does anyone have any idea when this will realistically end?

Whitty's position is he thinks this summer, autumn and winter will be difficult.

When we get to spring he thinks things will become more predictable (and therefore manageable) and at a level where it becomes more managable.

HOWEVER this is without some unknown spanner being thrown into the works (basically a rogue variant being the most likely issue here).

So winter 2022 should be better, but that does not mean things will be back to pre-covid world. Just that we will have an ongoing battle with covid which we have to get used to managing long term.

The rest of the world is unlikely to be vaccinated before 2023 at the earliest, so that raises other long term issues about travel and border control.

So when does this 'end'?

We are leaving the 'crisis' phase and moving into the medium to long term management phase. And we will stay in the long term phase indefinitely in a 'new normal'.

So this doesn't 'end' as such. We just 'learn to live with it' as the cliche saying thrown about says.

@RedToothBrush
I think your posts on vaccinating children are very well put and reasonable.

I think that after over a year of taking measures to stop children getting covid and given the high level of trust in vaccinations in the UK, people struggle with the idea that a child being exposed to covid may be safer than vaccinating them.

I doubt that there is significant risk to vaccinating children but from a medical ethics point of view I don’t think it is right to give a person a medical treatment which has some risk if that risk does not outweigh the benefit to that individual.

It may well be right to vaccinate CV children though and I would think that that decision should be made on an individual basis by their doctors. That to me makes much more sense than pursuing suppression measures which negatively affect all children and do not effectively keep CV children safe anyway.

Chessie678

At the moment I am in the camp of not wanting my 6 year old to be vaccinated on the basis of the evidence available.

However I am aware that we might find this changes. Or there becomes a personal reason why it becomes apparent that it is beneficial to him to be vaccinated to him.

I think its important to come from an informed position rather than one which is driven out of fear and social pressure. And to be open minded to the fact that this is a fixed position right now, but one which is in flux and constantly shifting.

My concern is at the moment we have too many people who sit in the latter rather than the former camp, and that in itself needs to be addressed.

I've seen far too many posts which are almost absolutionist at this point (in either direction) and that isn't good.

Following the science means actually following the evidence (and the ethics) not merely the viewpoint (which can use selective scientific opinions) that you like the sound of.

I'm a bit of stickler on this over the years on MN and my own life. Its certainly not a viewpoint I've come to due to covid. There are problematic issues about how ideology / predetermined views interact with medicine in general which I've always been keen to draw attention to and get people thinking about and therefore better placed to make the decision thats appropriate for individuals on any number of health related issues.

There is no such thing as 'the right' thing to do with medicine. Only the most appropriate for your individual circumstances or in the case of government decision making the most appropriate for the population based on risk profiles and balance of the best interests of as many as possible - taking into account the particular competiting interests of various vulnerable groups. I think this is where we are getting bogged down in argument with covid. And I do think some people are falling through the cracks and not able to make informed, appropriate decisions where relevant. Ironally, I do fundamentally believe that the 'greater good' argument usually falls in line with the overall arguments on whats best for the individual anyway because if society is fucked thats not good on an individual level anyway. This is why we shouldn't be 'compelled' into this because that has negative consequences in its own right. The argument should stand on its own merits, and if it can't its not compelling enough to enforce.

@RedToothBrush

Great posts. If you were the one deciding then I'd have more confidence. But when our country is so out of step with others who demonstrably care about kids more (e.g. by funding state education at far higher levels, including pandemic catch up) I simply don't believe that decisions aren't driven by narrow ideological motives.

I suspect this poet has it right twitter.com/RoseMarshSteven/status/1410972798642790400/photo/1

Throughout, even before vaccination, schoolkids have been abandoned. I have friends with children around the world and the message many of them has got is that they're valued. They've had free laptops, blended learning and no more lockdowns. I think our kids have had the opposite message (e.g. let's send you all back for ONE DAY at the peak of infections then lock down).

So I think at this point given the government is so keen to throw up their hands and leave it all to 'personal choice' many parents and children 12+ would very much like to do just that and make their own choices.

Many CV kids cannot develop an immune response to the vaccine or may not be able to have a vaccine for other reasons. Many children, my daughter included, would like to protect their CV classmates by having the vaccine. Or there's a good chance they might never see them again as it's getting to the point these families will be forced to homeschool.

Many CV kids cannot develop an immune response to the vaccine or may not be able to have a vaccine for other reasons. Many children, my daughter included, would like to protect their CV classmates by having the vaccine. Or there's a good chance they might never see them again as it's getting to the point these families will be forced to homeschool.

That is commendable and my DD would probably be the same, but what we need to understand- are the CV children genuinely at risk? That's where I think the message in the UK is very confused at the moment. As a nation we seen to have lost all ability to determine risk.

I do agree with children who are genuinely at risk being offered the vaccine and I think it was mentioned above there may be instances it has value when there is a clear risk to another household member. But this should be done case by case.

My own personal view is that my kids have given up so much to protect others. It's a mute point as both mine are under 12 but I am not sure that I would consent at this time.

The thing that I really struggle with is the fact that children may have to be vaccinated because if those adults who have chosen not to get it!

@RedToothBrush

Agree to the point about it being necessary to reassess over time and not form an entrenched position.

I have a one year old who has already had covid and was fine. At this point in time, even if vaccination was available to him, I think that the risks would likely outweigh the benefit.

If in a few years time if there is lots of data about vaccinating young children and it appears to be safe and overall in his best interest, then I will reconsider.

In terms of whether there is such a thing as a "right" decision in medicine I take the point and can see that most decisions will have pros and cons for different groups. But I think that within a medical ethics framework you can have a right and wrong decision in many cases. From a pure utilitarian point of view, the greatest good for greatest number might be to force people to donate organs or tissues, as an extreme example - there may be little risk to the individual but great benefit to the recipients. But from a medical ethics standpoint it is clearly unethical to force donation on someone because there is some risk to them and no medical benefit for them personally. There is obviously a point around informed consent which may change the analysis.

I actually think more consideration has been given to the ethics of vaccinating children than to many of the other measures which have affected children throughout the pandemic, probably because vaccination is a medical intervention and we already have established medical ethics rules which govern medical interventions. If we had applied this thought process to decisions like self-isolation for children, closing parks and children's sports etc., all of which also have health risks for children (possibly more so than vaccination) but potential benefits for others, I think those decisions may well have been made differently.

[quote theemperorhasnoclothes]@RedToothBrush

Great posts. If you were the one deciding then I'd have more confidence. But when our country is so out of step with others who demonstrably care about kids more (e.g. by funding state education at far higher levels, including pandemic catch up) I simply don't believe that decisions aren't driven by narrow ideological motives.

I suspect this poet has it right twitter.com/RoseMarshSteven/status/1410972798642790400/photo/1

Throughout, even before vaccination, schoolkids have been abandoned. I have friends with children around the world and the message many of them has got is that they're valued. They've had free laptops, blended learning and no more lockdowns. I think our kids have had the opposite message (e.g. let's send you all back for ONE DAY at the peak of infections then lock down).

So I think at this point given the government is so keen to throw up their hands and leave it all to 'personal choice' many parents and children 12+ would very much like to do just that and make their own choices.

Many CV kids cannot develop an immune response to the vaccine or may not be able to have a vaccine for other reasons. Many children, my daughter included, would like to protect their CV classmates by having the vaccine. Or there's a good chance they might never see them again as it's getting to the point these families will be forced to homeschool.[/quote]
I definitely think there are some in government who are completely feckless. But I think thats a long term trait that has led them into politics rather than a career in something else. And thats a whole different debate.

The uk has some unique situations which left us more vulnerable pre-pandemic and that in turn left us with fewer options and bigger margins to fuck up. We were fucked by covid in mid 2019 prior to Wuhan.

I think chronic under funding of schools and poor underlying health left us in a position where generally speaking, we had to make harsher decisions than elsewhere. Small errors which would have been minor in other countries were amplified and had greater consequences.

We also had the misfortunate (perhaps because of our fuck ups) of being on the front line of Alpha and being hit earlier than other European Countries (except Italy) - other countries were able to make different decisions based on our experience simply because they had more time.

This made more of an impact than mistakes made during the pandemic. They left us able to respond in a better way in many cases.

So I don't think its purely about ideological stuff, whilst I also think its down to ideological stuff (if that paradox makes sense). Its easy to just throw mud at the government crisis management rather than focusing on the long term issues which are generally more significant.

The example you use about the first day of school is however, one I found unforgiveable and agree with. It was obvious it was always going to be rolled back on too. That was avoidable but I think most other mistakes were arguable to an extent. Gavin Williamson being fucking useless waste of space who acts like a mafia boss in blackmailing other MPs, is however, a pre-existing long term condition.

Going forward, I think in terms of the latest decision to reopen on the 19th, I think the football is really throwing a spanner in the works and affecting projections and that might yet be a problem.

I was looking at this graph to illustrate the point. The England v Scotland match was on the 18th June and you clearly see a spike which has to be due to behaviour. (See the spike in males under 50 testing positive) Its stuff like this which can make it much harder to make decisions based on science alone because 'events' can be outside of expectations and predictions.

BUT I have to say that I feel the euros are part of a wider breakdown in compliance that was already in progress so that the 19th July almost becomes irrelevant. The Euros just speeded up the problem.

The government may be blamed for this in the long run, but I feel it would perhaps have been a spontaneous thing anyway, and therefore potentially beyond government control and the end result wouldn't be a whole lot different. I think we were reaching the limit of how restrictions would have been tolerated / effective anyway and it was better to bite the bullet - and have reintroduction of restriction in the bag without damaging public willingness to do this, should circumstances dictate it, further down the line.

Again - the 'its complicated argument'. I think Johnson's hand and the cards he could play was much more difficult and had less room to move than many would have us believe - for their own political reasons and ambitions too...

I don't think it really gets us very far. I would rather look at the structural issues - that span back multiple governments - that left us on the backfoot before we even started when we look into the post-covid inquest tbh.

The truth is, whoever was in power was highly likely to be seen to be making a hash of things by the public and press. It just might have been different things. I can't look at Labour, and think with honest sincerity, they would have had a better grip on procurement and supply issue for PPE or vaccines than the Tories. And that would have had massive consequences - and resulted in deaths.

And yes the splinters on my arse hurt. Badly.

This thread is great because it’s nuanced and doesn’t have entrenched positions. We’ve all learnt so much since March 2020 and there is still lots to learn. Personally I don’t think we were the worse for considering children, Spain didn’t even allow kids to leave their home for 6 weeks which we didn’t do and the Government here did try and get schools open for all kids after May half term 2020 but was stopped by the unions. I remember really clearly the union representative was on radio 4 one morning in June clearly delighted schools had won the battle to stay closed. It disgusted me at the time. So I think the government did understand the harm to children. But agree overall children have been neglected. Anyway, that was last year, old arguments.
But I think we have come a long way and in a way, deciding whether to vaccinate our children is ( globally speaking) a nice problem to have as it is a result of a) having a high adults vaccinated rate and b) actually have vaccines ( or will have) to give them.

Yes the paradoxes of doing well / badly at various points during the pandemic are curious.

And do highlight how each country has a very different set of circumstances unique to their borders despite the same overall problem.

We could have done better. But i think everyone else could too. That's the nature of any international crisis.

Government here did try and get schools open for all kids after May half term 2020 but was stopped by the unions.

Could you possibly cite the evidence for that? What actually stopped the government from opening schools for all were their own rules. Having very clearly laid out all the rules for e.g. half size classes, bubbles, distancing etc, they were then blindsided by the realisation that it meant they couldn't get all children in because there wasn't enough space (2x the usual number of classrooms) and there weren't enough staff (2x the usual number).

The unions - and a whole lot of other people - did point out the problem, which allowed the Government to blame the unions for the situation, even though it was entirely of their own making.

They COULD have changed the rules (as they did for September), to make full-size classes with no distancing, to allow staff to move between classes etc, but they didn't choose to.

I know you say it is water under the bridge, but it is distressing how that particular Government-created myth around their own mess-up has stuck.

(The unions, quite reasonably, have continued to point out that schools are covid-unsafe environments, given the total lack of social distancing - but we can see from how events have unfolded from September that they have absolutely no power to prevent schools from re-opening if the government creates guidance that allows them to do so. It illustrates that it wasn't the unions back in May / June, but instead the government's own guidance and the Government's own choice)