Massive turn in opinion…

[Normando91]

Is it just me or has opinion on a possible lockdown or circuit breaker in the coming days or week completely changed in the past 24 hours?

I hadn’t looked at Sky News in the last 2 days as it all just seemed speculation and bleak but having looked tonight it looks inevitable that we’re going to face some kind of stricter restrictions, most likely after Christmas, but possibly before.

Everyone I’ve spoke to has gone from, no we will not go into lockdown (or further restrictions) to yeah, it’s coming.

Who would have thought we’d be back here a year later from lasts Christmases shit show.

They can do what they like as I won't be sticking to it anymore.
I obviously can't go to places that will be legally closed but I will definitely still see family and friends

I haven't RTFT but I will be spending this christmas with family regardless of any rules. By last February I was suicidal and very unwell. I don't cope well with winter as it is. I am terrified at the thought of being back there as I know another lockdown is coming. I will see my family for Christmas. Then I will have to cope as best I can afterwards. I daresay that makes me selfish but as far as I am concerned I have to think of myself this year.

[quote phishy]@VikingOnTheFridge

That people saying they won't comply now are the same people who were previously covigilantes. But if I'm wrong and there's more to this than what's in your head, do show us.

Did you miss that I said they’re probably the same people?

Or have you conveniently missed that out?[/quote]
No, it's just that it doesn't remotely affect my point.

From the CEO of NHS Providers: "London NHS pressure mounting rapidly. Hospitalised covid patients up 30% in week vs national 4%. At 1,534 yesterday (vs 8k in Jan'21 peak). Covid linked staff absences up 140% from 1,900 Sunday to 4,700 Thurs. Some trusts now having to postpone non essential activity"

twitter.com/chrisceohopson/status/1472297080672722954?s=21

Who knows if these increases will continue and spread across the entire country but if it does healthcare will become unavailable. That's why we may need to reconsider our social plans and delay big family get togethers.

@IcedPurple

The Director of Emergency Medicine was on TV this morning saying just this - the whole situation is exacerbated by so many staff being off sick.

Many if not most won't actually be 'sick', but having to isolate even if asymptomatic.

Maybe - but we have no way of knowing if they are actually 'sick' or self-isolating.

The moot point is that they aren't at work.

Sajid Javid has been on TV saying that the situation is under constant review and that he can't guarantee that stricter measures won't be imposed before Christmas.
This of course would require Parliament to be reconvened.

The moot point is that they aren't at work.

In many places, because of government policies which can be changed.

Has anyone seen the film, "Jaws"?

In that, the scientists were trying to tell the mayor and the people of the town that there was a shark in the waters. The scientists begged that the beaches be closed.

Of course, the mayor didn't want to close the beaches. It was the height of the tourist season and would have had a negative economic impact.

Many of the townspeople didn't want the beach closed either , again because of worries about the economic impact and because it was summer and they liked going to the beach and into the water.

Eventually, when damage had been done, then the beaches were eventually shut.

In our situation, the scientists are still the scientists, the government is the mayor and the townspeople are represented by some of the very foolish posters on here who insist upon seeing any measures as a direct and personal punishment to them.

Of course, as Dr Johnson said, "There are idiots in every county, sir" and centuries later, that hasn't changed.

If any measures, measures that much of the rest of the world are taking, are ignored by uninformed and uneducated people, then-if there is a significant number of them- the infrastructure of the country will suffer.

Yes, that's right: the infra structure. It will not affect the idiots if old Matilda down the road dies, of course not. They themselves may avoid the virus altogether-many will.

But what will happen, if it gets a grip-and the rest of the world and the scientists seem to think it will (their thoughts based on data, not on what they feel) then society will be affected.

The doctors, the nurses, the bin men, the police, the schools, the prisons, the supermarkets. Many of these workers will be ill and if enough of them are ill, the service they provide will not function because they will not be in work.

You will then find that your mental health will really be affected.

However, one may as well speak to the back end of a cow as try to reason with some.

After all, it is difficult to reason someone out of a position when reason played no part in them reaching that position in the first place.

Excellent post @TameDucksAtChatsworth

And sadly they'll still stick their fingers in the ears and sing la la la.

On a related note, next time someone has to do a long train journey whilst very stressed...after some bad news maybe...if they need a smoke to deal with the stress, if they will not comply with the anti freedom smoking ban...they'll do what they want...I'm confident they'll have the full backing from the freedom lovers here. Which is good news for the economy at least. Bring on the smoking tax revenue. Heaven knows we'll need it after the damage caused by failing to mitigate against Covid.

Lockdowns may feel like a solution but you’ll still need to resolve what happens when you lift them and fast growth returns

@Choux

From the CEO of NHS Providers: "London NHS pressure mounting rapidly. Hospitalised covid patients up 30% in week vs national 4%. At 1,534 yesterday (vs 8k in Jan'21 peak). Covid linked staff absences up 140% from 1,900 Sunday to 4,700 Thurs. Some trusts now having to postpone non essential activity"

twitter.com/chrisceohopson/status/1472297080672722954?s=21

Who knows if these increases will continue and spread across the entire country but if it does healthcare will become unavailable. That's why we may need to reconsider our social plans and delay big family get togethers.

Action will only be taken once it's clear it threatens the rest of the UK. Just London, and nothing will be done - because London is the country's cash cow (often at the expense of Londoners...plus ca change). Each bad wave, measures have come in only after it's too late for London.

But anyway it's looking like it won't be contained to just London - so presumably something will be done at some point. Hopefully in time for everywhere else, even if too late for London.

@Topseyt

I won't comply with any instruction not to see my elderly and disabled mother. I will see her as planned - inside.

If someone is elderly and disabled it counts as an essential care visit . Which has always been allowed.

To enforce a lock down the government need to set up furlough, grants or financial packages.
I think some posters seem quite unaware of the enormous costs involved. Someone the other day thought restaurants would be ok if everyone who cancelled
had paid a deposit Its not just about everyone going home, shutting the door, and spending time with only their household, wfh , schooling from home. Businesses need to be compensated if they are forced to close.

Tameducks

Bravo. I hope to God the silent majority agrees with you and acts accordingly.

@ShinyHappyPoster

It's one approach to psychology. It isn't the only approach. It's why it's accompanied with all the media pushing people against complying, the disproportionate publicity for Us for Them etc.

The government wants to prioritise big business - and it is big business. The Tories are not the party for the nation of shopkeepers any more. This way they get to pretend that it's the public 'helping' to make the decisions about lockdown. It's a way of diminishing political responsibility whilst painting the UK population as incapable of collective responsibility. All of which is a gift for a government that ultimately wants to privatise the NHS.

The more they can convince sections of the population that they don't need to care about those who are more vulnerable; they don't need to care about hospital numbers or the NHS coping; they need to care more about large conglomerates and chains - the easier it is for them to trash the NHS.

Look at how other countries have managed their communications and decision-making around lockdowns. Very different approaches than the one the WM government has - because they have different outcomes.

Yes this.

Although also many other countries have taken sensible basic infection control mitigation measures. Hence avoiding the need for a lockdown - or at least limiting it. Longer and/or repeated lockdowns are the consequences of failed mitigation.

Many other countries took expert advice and went for Vaccine Plus. Masks (worn properly), good ventilation (including HEPA filters), vaccine passes. We didn't.

Guess which countries have not just (much) lower death counts but also healthier economies? The answer is, not us.

Why didn't we take steps to reduce the need for a lockdown?

Why did we get rid of the mask mandate?

Why did we never enforce it well in the first place (including politicians leading by example, and teaching people how to wear one properly)?

Why didn't we enact decent pandemic border control (with well run quarantine for essential travel)?

Why didn't make more use of HEPA filters?

Why didn't we do as many other countries did worldwide did and introduce vaccine passes?

Yes other countries still have pandemic issues but few are in such bad do position as we are. Because, mitigation.

Vaccine passports all the way moving forward

@IcedPurple

The moot point is that they aren't at work.

In many places, because of government policies which can be changed.

The self-isolation period has already been reduced from 14 days to 10.

What government policies do you think should be changed?

@canary1

It seems this is driven by the unvaccinated who are making up the majority of admissions. They should be restricted, if they choose to not have the jab. The rest of society should suffer because of their choices

Please stop spreading misinformation @Canary1. The majority of admissions are among the vaccinated - currently 65%. The young and vaccinated are also now driving infection according to recent newspaper reports so maybe they should be the ones locking down to 'keep you safe'.

I will certainly not be restricting my teenagers from seeing and socialising with their friends and family again. It damaged their mental health more than enough the first two times.

@nojudgementhere I'm not sure that is completely true. ICU beds are under pressure from the unvaccinated.

"Staff who spoke to the Observer during a visit to the Covid wards said most of these dangerously ill patients recently admitted to critical beds were unvaccinated."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/19/london-hospital-staff-speak-out-were-not-here-to-judge-but-please-get-your-covid-vaccines?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

@TameDucksAtChatsworth Brilliant and extremely well articulated post.

For those posters concerned about the economic costs of lockdown, the economic costs of doing nothing will be much worse and the government know this. Furlough will be reintroduced for hospitality and other businesses that can’t operate.

If we didn’t have such an idiotic press and the ‘freedom day’ and ‘irreversible roadmap’ nonsense spouted by the government and behaved like grownups and carried on wearing our masks and doing other mitigations we might not be in such a dire situation right now.

@nojudgementhere also

"The health secretary also told Sky News that 10% of the population - more than five million people - have still not taken up the offer of the vaccine, and that around nine out of 10 of those needing the most hospital care were unvaccinated."

news.sky.com/story/covid-19-javid-refuses-to-deny-plans-for-more-restrictions-as-he-accuses-anti-vaxxers-of-having-damaging-impact-12499691

@Tealightsandd

Why didn't we take steps to reduce the need for a lockdown?

Why did we get rid of the mask mandate?

Why did we never enforce it well in the first place (including politicians leading by example, and teaching people how to wear one properly)?

Why didn't we enact decent pandemic border control (with well run quarantine for essential travel)?

Why didn't make more use of HEPA filters?

Why didn't we do as many other countries did worldwide did and introduce vaccine passes?

Yes other countries still have pandemic issues but few are in such bad do position as we are. Because, mitigation.

Maybe because when you look at the way rates have recently shot up in countries that do follow these rules it is easy to see that they have little to no effect? Vaccine passports in particular show how illogical much of the thinking is. We have clear evidence now that vaccinated people can catch and transmit the virus in large numbers so why are we all pretending they are still somehow miraculously safe to be around? We should have been focusing on buidling up capacity in our health service and putting in mitigations that actually work like improving ventilation in schools.

@nojudgementhere to use the stat you provided:

65% of hospital admissions are vaccinated. Therefore 35% are not.

But the Health Secretary says only 10% of the population is unvaccinated. If they are making up 35% of admissions then the unvaccinated are 3.5 times more likely to be admitted to hospital than a vaccinated person.

When we are seeing 90k plus reported cases per day in the current wave and the unvaccinated are 3.5 times more likely to end up in hospital then the unvaccinated are clearly disproportionately using up hospital capacity. How can that not be true?

We have clear evidence now that vaccinated people can catch and transmit the virus in large numbers so why are we all pretending they are still somehow miraculously safe to be around?

I don't think anyone is miraculously safe to be around. But unvaccinated people need to be kept out of large crowds and busy public places because if the catch covid they are 3.5 times more likely than a vaccinated person to end up in hospital.

Large crowds with no social distancing are exactly what Covid transmission loves. To reduce the likelihood of a super spreader event which impacts local health services the unvaccinated need to be kept out.

[quote Choux]@nojudgementhere I'm not sure that is completely true. ICU beds are under pressure from the unvaccinated.

"Staff who spoke to the Observer during a visit to the Covid wards said most of these dangerously ill patients recently admitted to critical beds were unvaccinated."

[[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/19/london-hospital-staff-speak-out-were-not-here-to-judge-but-please-get-your-covid-vaccines?CMP=Share]]iOSAppp_Other[/quote]
Couldn't actually see any facts or figures in the report but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong as I just scanned it briefly? To put things in perspective Fullfact have recently reported that 9 out of 10 Covid deaths in Scotland are currently in people that have had at least 1 dose of the vaccine and 8 out of 10 are double vaccinated. I think this shows that the unvaccinated are not the only ones putting pressure on the health service and the constant misreporting of this fact is getting a little bit dull now.