When will there be an update?

[ShepherdMoons]

I thought yesterday they were going to give us the update about what will happen regarding restrictions?

I'd rather know than just be left in the dark. I don't mind whether we have a lockdown, circuit breaker or something else but I'd just like to know!

Hmmm. Javid is pretty libertarian - seeing his comments makes me think lockdown is imminent.

I imagine more tham ever it must be hard to weigh the lives lost with overwhlmed nhs with the known harms of lockdown. I wouldn't want to be making the decisions and can see they could well be divided.

@jassixa I don't think it's about the numbers dying from Covid - more around disruption to services - and not just NHS but other essential services.

@RunnerDown

The scientists clearly want a lock down. It needs to happen now rather than in a weeks time. But Boris is more worried about his own position, and the wrath of his party if he imposed restrictions again. His position is already precarious and he has no concern about risking many lives to save his own skin. He is an utter shit of a man. And before the pile on - I don’t want another lockdown and I really worry about the impact it will have on businesses and my own young adult dc. But I used to work for the NHS , and it’s unimaginable the stress staff must be under given the PMs inability to put the country first and make the unpopular but right decisions.

Exactly this!! (Except I've never worked for the NHS)

I also think they like ti build the fear /threaten the worst and then what theybdo bring in seems relatively not so bad. 22 weeks ago there wouldnt have been all tuis discussion around lockdown yet the scientists could see where it was going.

Also more than ever it must be hard to weight (those things) and (those other things) against how likely Boris is to get kicked out of Downing Street.

"The scientists" only have one concern. Government (and the rest of us) have to balance the benefits of lockdown against all the harm it will cause.

And yes, of course they're concerned about how it plays out politically. That's what democracy is. Governments who don't need to worry about that are leading a dictatorship

@Peakedtoosoon

"The scientists" only have one concern. Government (and the rest of us) have to balance the benefits of lockdown against all the harm it will cause.

And yes, of course they're concerned about how it plays out politically. That's what democracy is. Governments who don't need to worry about that are leading a dictatorship

Exactly well put

@Legoninjago1

Apologies - I meant only 2/3 of Londoners are vaccinated.

Barely a quarter where I live have had both jabs+ booster 😳

Scientists do weigh up what is best for humans, but they don't weigh up what is best for politicians to keep their own jobs. If the scientists generally think we need a lockdown, then I suspect they are right.

I’ve read a few comments about the rate deaths being ‘stable’, before we all get too excited we just need to remember that there is a time lag from an increase in cases to seeing an increase in hospitalisations, ICU admissions and then sadly, deaths. The picture on these won’t be clear for a little while yet.

Tweet from Pippa Crerar now - "We're not expecting a Boris Johnson press conference today or any TV clips at this stage - which presumably means no update on restrictions.

I'm told the PM is "always in touch with his advisers" and "kept abreast of the data" whether he is technically working or not."

But I bet there will be something tomrrow or Tuesday.

@YellowandGreenToBeSeen

Surely any lockdown will be after 27th so people can get home? I’ll be travelling on the 27th - can’t catch trains on Boxing Day.

27th and 28th are both bank holidays this year so also limited trains. If they expect people to get home then many won't be able to until at least 29th.

My guess is that we'll hear late on Christmas eve - that's AFTER the Christmas shopping/spending frenzy is over. That way, the economy is 'boosted' before another winter of restrictions.

Tbf the economy needs all the help it can get.

I doubt it’s that but if it is spend away

@Delatron

Crossed post with your second post *@RobinPenguins* but we’re basically saying the same thing.

What are we locking down for? For how long and why? What will change when we open up?

It’s really shit but lockdowns are not a long term solution.

We would be locking down because if transmission is so fast and isolation is necessary then there won't be enough staff in the already understaffed NHS and in schools to keep them running properly. According to family who are nurses in our local hospitals (one in ITU) all the COVID cases in there are unvaccinated. Yeah, they may not end up dying from it but they need looking after - their anti-vaxing stance doesn't help anyone if they're taking up an ITU bed unnecessarily during a pandemic-related staffing crisis.

A small part of me thinks that if you're going to choose to be unvaccinated for no good reason then you should just deal with the ill health consequences yourself and stop expecting the health service to pick up after your mess.

[quote DumplingsAndStew]@Legoninjago1

We already know they don't distinguish for the purposes of the figures.

Do we?

Numbers are reported of those who have Covid listed as a cause on a death certificate.[/quote]
But do not specify whether it was contracted when already in hospital for another reason.

The only answer is really for everyone to get vaccinated, for the vulnerable to get the necessary top up jabs, and for us to eventually be treating this like a cold or any other virus and getting on with our lives, with the majority of us needing a couple of days off work or school ill, and some of us not even that. Depending on what research shows the long-term effect of Delta and Omicron to be, of course. I don't think we can play Russian Roulette with people's health if we don't know enough about long COVID yet.

It's the lockdowns and effect of isolations that are ruining people's lives and livelihoods.

Is it? I thought it was deaths within 28 days of a positive test? If that's not the case then great - puts my mind at rest on that at least.

I believe this is the difference between Government stats and ONS stats? The Government measure by "within 28 days" and the ONS look at the actual causes of death on the death certificate, hence their figures are more accurate but take longer to collate.

@Scrooge89

My sources (well someone who works for test and trace) said look out for announcement on the 20th and get your food in!

Is that the same guy who said don't go into London on a particular Saturday a few years ago because there was going to be a terrorist atrocity? 🤔

But do not specify whether it was contracted when already in hospital for another reason.

But it still matters if they died with COVID or not even if they were already in hospital for another reason. If you had a relative who was very ill, but after having the usual treatment for their case is certain to fully recover and go home - if that relative caught COVID and that turns out to be one more thing than their body can cope with and they then die, when without COVID they were certain NOT to, then those figures still matter, don't they?

They would have to drill down the data and split those cases who would have recovered had they not caught COVID from those in hospital because they were already at the end of their life, whether terminally ill, or they're 98, had a fall and got pneumonia and THEN got COVID.

A small part of me thinks that if you're going to choose to be unvaccinated for no good reason then you should just deal with the ill health consequences yourself and stop expecting the health service to pick up after your mess.

THIS!!
Why should the rest of us have to pay for their pig headed stupidity? Mental health is in crisis everywhere and that is also going to bring the NHS to it’s knees as the MH provision is already overstretched.

Is me saying this selfish? Yes, but no more so than morons not getting vaccinated!!

@CurlyhairedAssassin

But do not specify whether it was contracted when already in hospital for another reason.

But it still matters if they died with COVID or not even if they were already in hospital for another reason. If you had a relative who was very ill, but after having the usual treatment for their case is certain to fully recover and go home - if that relative caught COVID and that turns out to be one more thing than their body can cope with and they then die, when without COVID they were certain NOT to, then those figures still matter, don't they?

They would have to drill down the data and split those cases who would have recovered had they not caught COVID from those in hospital because they were already at the end of their life, whether terminally ill, or they're 98, had a fall and got pneumonia and THEN got COVID.

Of course they still matter. The point is that determining what mitigation measures are appropriate and what impact they will have is massively affected by whether 50% of people that die with Covid contracted it in hospital, or only 10%. The argument for more measures out in the community is weakened if a significant proportion of the deaths were from contracting Covid while already in hospital.

Measures should all be assessed based on their positive and negative impacts on a cost/ benefit basis and that can't happen if the data doesn't contain the information required to make that assessment.

They need to wake up , grow a pair and lockdown ASAP. This variant is far worse than the last one.

Didnt the lady at the initial briefing say the data wouldn't all be in until january?