# Old duffers rebellion.



## Rorschach (18 Feb 2021)

My mother got a phone call last night from one of her friends, they are organising a sherry tasting evening next week. She was a bit confused but her friend told her that everyone in their OAP community group has now been vaccinated, quite a few twice, so they can't see why they shouldn't get together as they believe it to be safe. I wonder how many other clandestine meetings are going on like this now?


----------



## paulrbarnard (18 Feb 2021)

It’s all a percentages game. They can play a guessing game while they drink the Sherry to see which two in 10 will still get Covid.


----------



## dzj (18 Feb 2021)

In my neck of the woods, most elderly people have been vaccinated, so those in their 20s and 30s have let their
guard down a bit. Now that no one can accuse them of 'Boomer remover' behaviour, speakeasy type clubs are becoming more common, 
with quite a few attending at times.
The numbers have gone up as a result, but most are mild cases.


----------



## Rorschach (18 Feb 2021)

paulrbarnard said:


> It’s all a percentages game. They can play a guessing game while they drink the Sherry to see which two in 10 will still get Covid.



You have misunderstood how the vaccine works, it doesn't stop infection (generally), it lessens the severity so even if they do catch it they are going to suffer a milder disease.

Speaking of one of them, he is over 80 and riddled with cancer (bladder, lung, bowel), it's being treated but he was given about a year to live and that was 18 months ago. He is a real go-getter for his age but cancer is going to take him, I guess in his mind he wants to spend time with his friends while he can.


----------



## paulrbarnard (18 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> You have misunderstood how the vaccine works, it doesn't stop infection (generally), it lessens the severity so even if they do catch it they are going to suffer a milder disease.


Pedant... If a tree falls in a forest with no one there to hear it does it still make a sound.


----------



## Cabinetman (18 Feb 2021)

I always understood that for diseases like Polio and German measles we had the vaccine so we couldn’t get the disease, are we now being told that Covid vaccines work in a different way? That they are not actually vaccines in the true sense? Or is it that they are just not 100% effective?


----------



## Rorschach (18 Feb 2021)

paulrbarnard said:


> Pedant... If a tree falls in a forest with no one there to hear it does it still make a sound.



Pedant? For pointing out your mistake? Everyone on this forum is a pedant then


----------



## Jelly (18 Feb 2021)

Cabinetman said:


> I always understood that for diseases like Polio and German measles we had the vaccine so we couldn’t get the disease, are we now being told that Covid vaccines work in a different way? That they are not actually vaccines in the true sense? Or is it that they are just not 100% effective?



The vaccines for those particular diseases are so effective that when you get exposed to it, the body destroys the infective agent so quickly it doesn't have a chance to take hold, so you never get symptoms, or to the stage where it's easy to pass it on.

The current COVID vaccines work just the same, but because of just how rapidly the virus infects people, aren't always quite as effective.

An immune response which would destroy polio, might only hold back COVID, meaning that whether the vaccine is "I don't get it at all" protective or "I get it but it's no worse than a bad cold because of the vaccine" protective depends on the underlying strength of each individual's immune system, as well as the response the vaccine provokes.


----------



## Droogs (18 Feb 2021)

I think you will find that your "then" should be at the start of that sentence @Rorschach


----------



## Duncan A (18 Feb 2021)

Interesting behaviour. It is still not entirely proven that vaccinated people can't transmit to others.
Also, I believe that full protection is not established until a few weeks have passed.
Do we all get to pick and choose which laws we should obey?
Not judging anyone here, I just find the behavioural aspects fascinating.
Duncan


----------



## Rorschach (18 Feb 2021)

Duncan A said:


> Interesting behaviour. It is still not entirely proven that vaccinated people can't transmit to others.
> Also, I believe that full protection is not established until a few weeks have passed.
> Do we all get to pick and choose which laws we should obey?
> Not judging anyone here, I just find the behavioural aspects fascinating.
> Duncan



Oh they all waited until the 2/3 weeks after the vaccine, most in the group had their vaccine in Dec or early Jan and some even had 2 doses because their first dose was so early.

And yes we do get to choose which laws we obey, as long as we are happy to accept the consequences. A lot of people don't follow the law on speeding for example.


----------



## paulrbarnard (18 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Pedant? For pointing out your mistake? Everyone on this forum is a pedant then


Some far more so that others. Was that pedantic of me for making that observation?


----------



## Terry - Somerset (18 Feb 2021)

The effectiveness of the vaccine seems to be ~70% after 1 jab + 2 weeks, and ~90% after the second jab. It is not clear if this relates to the risk of getting Covid, or the risk of severe disease or death.

An important distinction - if Covid post vaccine is either asymptomatic or mild, it is a trivial risk. If there is a 30% risk of severe illness or death this changes my views somewhat!

If a bunch of geriatrics (of which I must be one having had the vaccine) get together for games of cards, drinks, rumpy pumpy (?) etc - they are simply breaking the rules in a minor way - similar to many 40-50 years younger.

As those vaccinated increase, and cases and deaths decline, compliance will anyway increasingly become a rarity.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Feb 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> If a bunch of geriatrics (of which I must be one having had the vaccine) get together for games of cards, drinks, rumpy pumpy (?) etc - they are simply breaking the rules in a minor way - similar to many 40-50 years younger.
> 
> As those vaccinated increase, and cases and deaths decline, compliance will anyway increasingly become a rarity.



Anecdotal experience tells me the old are complying less than the young.


----------



## Robbo60 (19 Feb 2021)

Why not just stick to the rules for a bit longer please? It appears to me to be very simple statistics. The less number of contacts, the less chance of spreading it.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Feb 2021)

Robbo60 said:


> Why not just stick to the rules for a bit longer please? It appears to me to be very simple statistics. The less number of contacts, the less chance of spreading it.



An indeterminate "bit longer" might be more time that some people feel they have left (remember it was 3 weeks to flatten the curve, that was almost a year ago). I heard on the radio last week of an grandmother who died (not of covid, I think they said it was cancer but I can't find a news story on it) having never met her granddaughter who was born in lockdown 1.
A few more months of lockdown is an awfully long time when you might have less than a year to live.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Feb 2021)

Droogs said:


> I think you will find that your "then" should be at the start of that sentence @Rorschach


Or " Everyone on this forum, then, is a pedant."


----------



## Droogs (19 Feb 2021)

You have to love the flexibility of the english language and its ability to still be fully understandable when you play around with it.


----------



## Dee J (19 Feb 2021)

Duncan A said:


> .....
> Do we all get to pick and choose which laws we should obey?
> ....
> Duncan



Yes. Yes we do. We are all entirely free to do exactly what we each want to do and part of that is choosing which laws we obey. The sting in the tail is that our decisions are not consequence-free. As a result of that awareness, and conditioning, and humanity, and morality and self preservation etc. we mostly obey most laws. That shouldn't stop each of us critically examining laws and challenging them when, by our own judgement, they are wrong.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Feb 2021)

Droogs said:


> You have to love the flexibility of the english language and its ability to still be fully understandable when you play around with it.



Capitalise English please


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Feb 2021)

Duncan A said:


> Do we all get to pick and choose which laws we should obey?



Why shouldn't we? The police do.


----------



## Droogs (19 Feb 2021)

As it is being used not as the title of nationality and as the name of a language, its use above is correct


----------



## Rorschach (19 Feb 2021)

Droogs said:


> As it is being used not as the title of nationality and as the name of a language, its use above is correct



Actually......





Do You Capitalize the Names of Countries, Nationalities, and Languages?


You should capitalize the names of countries, nationalities, and languages because they are proper nouns—English nouns that are always capitalized. Consider the following sentences…




www.grammarly.com




.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Feb 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Why shouldn't we? The police do.



You're trying to get me in trouble talking about public services again


----------



## Jester129 (19 Feb 2021)

Rorschach, shouldn't there be a questionmark after 'again', or is it a statement?


----------



## Rorschach (19 Feb 2021)

Jester129 said:


> Rorschach, shouldn't there be a questionmark after 'again', or is it a statement?



It was a statement, and should have started "You're", edited now.


----------



## Droogs (19 Feb 2021)

@Rorschach I stand (well sit( corrected


----------



## Rorschach (19 Feb 2021)

Droogs said:


> @Rorschach I stand (well sit( corrected



That's what my cousin said after he visit the physiotherapist.


----------



## Braddersmd (19 Feb 2021)

Interesting thread. Aside from the personal dangers of infection (whether the vaccine works for each and every individual involved), there is a major issue with spread. The more contact, the bigger the groups, the more chance of infection and spread. 

Why is this important - mutations. Contrary to the way most of the recent reporting has been forced upon everyone, mutations are extremely common. Each and every infected body gives a chance to a viable mutation. The "lucky few" survive and spread. The more infection, the more chance of a viable mutation, and the more chance of one arriving that can evade the defences of the vaccination program. 

Pretty much the whole reason why groups are still not theoretically allowed to mix despite already being vaccinated. As the overall infection rates decline (due to all reasons, vaccine and isolation included), the chance of a viable mutation that can evade the defence of the vaccine program diminishes. It's all in the probabilities.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Feb 2021)

Braddersmd said:


> Interesting thread. Aside from the personal dangers of infection (whether the vaccine works for each and every individual involved), there is a major issue with spread. The more contact, the bigger the groups, the more chance of infection and spread.
> 
> Why is this important - mutations. Contrary to the way most of the recent reporting has been forced upon everyone, mutations are extremely common. Each and every infected body gives a chance to a viable mutation. The "lucky few" survive and spread. The more infection, the more chance of a viable mutation, and the more chance of one arriving that can evade the defences of the vaccination program.
> 
> Pretty much the whole reason why groups are still not theoretically allowed to mix despite already being vaccinated. As the overall infection rates decline (due to all reasons, vaccine and isolation included), the chance of a viable mutation that can evade the defence of the vaccine program diminishes. It's all in the probabilities.



That's true, but the likelihood is any problematic mutation will be imported rather than homegrown as the virus is merrily doing the rounds in India, Africa etc. And of course you are talking about a theoretical problem of a mutation rather than the very real problem of wasting months of your limited remaining life alone and miserable.


----------



## Braddersmd (19 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> That's true, but the likelihood is any problematic mutation will be imported rather than homegrown as the virus is merrily doing the rounds in India, Africa etc. And of course you are talking about a theoretical problem of a mutation rather than the very real problem of wasting months of your limited remaining life alone and miserable.



Very true, and in a pandemic the whole world is aware of the issue. More locally, it explains the long overdue introduction of quarantine hotels, which have served other areas well so far. 

Mutations are not theoretical though, they are probable. Whether you agree with the level of probability to trigger lockdown release is another matter entirely, and I deliberately didn't mention it for the very reason that many disagree with those "in charge" on the matter.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Feb 2021)

Braddersmd said:


> Very true, and in a pandemic the whole world is aware of the issue. More locally, it explains the long overdue introduction of quarantine hotels, which have served other areas well so far.
> 
> Mutations are not theoretical though, they are probable. Whether you agree with the level of probability to trigger lockdown release is another matter entirely, and I deliberately didn't mention it for the very reason that many disagree with those "in charge" on the matter.



I should have been more clear, you are quite right that mutations are not theoretical, they happen all the time, arguably with every single infection there is probably a mutation. My point was that a "bad" mutation is theoretical, or hypothetical at the moment. We might get one, we might not and we cannot base policy or our personal risk decisions on things that could happen as opposed to the things we know are definitely happening.


----------



## Droogs (19 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> . We might get one, we might not and we cannot base policy or our personal risk decisions on things that could happen as opposed to the things we know are definitely happening.


But that is what government does 100% of the time. It is why we have a standing military and not a volunteer malitia that forms once invaded. It is why we have a health service in the first place.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Feb 2021)

Droogs said:


> But that is what government does 100% of the time. It is why we have a standing military and not a volunteer malitia that forms once invaded. It is why we have a health service in the first place.



I get your point but the analogy is flawed. Comparing it to the military for instance, current government policy is not like having a military on standby in case of a problem but acutally expecting imminent invasion and having the entire country armed and in a bunker 24/7.


----------



## Braddersmd (19 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> I should have been more clear, you are quite right that mutations are not theoretical, they happen all the time, arguably with every single infection there is probably a mutation. My point was that *a "bad" mutation is theoretical, or hypothetical at the moment*. We might get one, we might not and we cannot base policy or our personal risk decisions on things that could happen as opposed to the things we know are definitely happening.



It isn't theoretical or hypothetical, it is probable. Probable, even if, as an individual, you feel it highly unlikely. As before, whether you agree with the level of probability to release freedoms is not something I am getting into - it's a matter for the scientific community to advise upon and governments to make decisions on, and individuals to decide whether they agree with the decisions made, or not - the individuals being the ones that eventually decide if we need new decision makers.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Feb 2021)

Braddersmd said:


> It isn't theoretical or hypothetical, it is probable. Probable, even if, as an individual, you feel it highly unlikely. As before, whether you agree with the level of probability to release freedoms is not something I am getting into - it's a matter for the scientific community to advise upon and governments to make decisions on, and individuals to decide whether they agree with the decisions made, or not - the individuals being the ones that eventually decide if we need new decision makers.



We'll have to agree to disagree on that point then.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (19 Feb 2021)

All viruses mutate to some extent. With flu we modify the vaccine once a year and vaccinate the vulnerable - it is still only ~50% successful.

So what is it about Covid 19 which makes this virus so special that we need to lockdown society to reduce the chance of mutations?

Mutations are far more likely outside the UK simply because there are more people. To believe that we can prevent the virus entering the UK is implausible.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Feb 2021)

I commented on a thread in a newspaper back in about May that it had been reported that there'd been another strain identified and a lady I know to be an Oxbridge professor replied that by then there would already have been hundreds.


----------



## Braddersmd (19 Feb 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> All viruses mutate to some extent. With flu we modify the vaccine once a year and vaccinate the vulnerable - it is still only ~50% successful.
> 
> *So what is it about Covid 19 which makes this virus so special that we need to lockdown society to reduce the chance of mutations?*
> 
> Mutations are far more likely outside the UK simply because there are more people. To believe that we can prevent the virus entering the UK is implausible.



I am not sure anyone suggested locking down purely to reduce the chance of mutations. Only that mutations that evade the vaccination program are more probable with greater spread.


----------



## Braddersmd (19 Feb 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> I commented on a thread in a newspaper back in about May that it had been reported that there'd been another strain identified and a lady I know to be an Oxbridge professor replied that by then there would already have been hundreds.



Precisely. Bad reporting throughout this pandemic has done nobody any favours. At times the media give the impression the virus mutations are hive minded. Mutations are constant. Always have been. Some are more successful than others, if such a phrase is appropriate.


----------



## Braddersmd (19 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree on that point then.



May be my use of the word probable, in the mathematical sense that sets my post at odds, rather than the common vernacular use. Happy to agree to disagree though. Didn't post to start any confrontation, just to illustrate why groups are still not supposed to be together (I fully acknowledge individuals thoughts mind you). Thankfully, things are changing quickly, infections are reducing, and measures will be relaxed. We may find out more on the why's and when's on Monday.


----------



## profchris (19 Feb 2021)

It would be nice if, on Monday, the government explained what it was aiming at when relaxing/removing lockdown. There was an interesting discussion on Radio 4's Today programme this morning, two scientists taking opposing positions on when and how fast things could be relaxed. But they both made the point, and agreed emphatically with each other, that it's only possible to make sense of the scientific, economic etc advice if you have an end in view.

I think much of the heat in the debates I've seen here, and elsewhere, is that people have very different ideas about the end aim but don't say what their view is.

Current lockdown policy has one express aim, to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. That seems to have succeeded, and we are probably close to the point where completely abandoning lockdown would not lead back to such an overwhelming.

But, what's the aim thereafter? Return to the previous "normal" with a focus on treatment for the large number of hospital cases which would continue? Complete eradication of the virus in the UK (with plans for dealing with the inevitable reintroduction)? Something in between?

If we're not told that expressly, and if society doesn't buy into that aim, then (a) it probably can't be achieved, and (b) we can't properly assess whether the government's plans are likely to achieve that aim.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Feb 2021)

@profchris I think we are not told the aims for two reasons:

1. The government don't know which aim most people would accept as being the best choice. 
2. If they give their aim and then fail they would face criticism from all sides.

Complete eradication is impossible for a disease that is worldwide, at least in the next say 5-10 years, so it would be foolish to go down this route, but it is politically appealing to have that aim but economically and socially very damaging.
Learning to live with the virus has social and economic benefits but is politically a bad move because it means the government must choose a number of deaths that they are willing to accept in order for normality to resume. Now of course they do this all the time, we accept many tens of thousands of flu deaths every winter with little more than a murmur but the government has made a rod for their own back by publishing daily death figures with no context given. You have large swathes of the public who see e.g. 200 deaths a day and think that sounds awful and must be stopped, not realising that 500 a day die of cancer, and another 500 of heart disease and so on.


----------



## Jelly (19 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Capitalise English please



The concept of English capitalisation probably just needed a rest...

If you speak to the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Indians or Africans they'll tell you the English have been capitalising on things for centuries, that's gotta be hard work.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (19 Feb 2021)

Jelly said:


> The concept of English capitalisation probably just needed a rest...
> 
> If you speak to the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Indians or Africans they'll tell you the English have been capitalising on things for centuries, that's gotta be hard work.


Just taking their turn, after the Normans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Romans and Lord knows who else had capitalised on them. Oh, and the Vikings - nearly forgot them!

I doubt there's a race or a tribe anywhere on the planet that hasn't both colonised and been colonised by others over the centuries.

However - this is a long way from the ending of Covid lockdown and older folks having some social time at last!


----------



## Cabinetman (19 Feb 2021)

On the news the other night, the first people arrived in their quarantine hotel and one of the first things they said was that the Windows didn’t open, this got me thinking that this could be a recipe for disaster, as on the cruise ships one person has the virus and it spreads throughout via the air-conditioning/ ventilation system. 
Or was it done deliberately like that to stop people escaping/having things handed in to them, or even to stop their bugs escaping outside the hotel through the open window. Either way I think I’d rather have a window that opened.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Feb 2021)

Cabinetman said:


> On the news the other night, the first people arrived in their quarantine hotel and one of the first things they said was that the Windows didn’t open, this got me thinking that this could be a recipe for disaster, as on the cruise ships one person has the virus and it spreads throughout via the air-conditioning/ ventilation system.
> Or was it done deliberately like that to stop people escaping/having things handed in to them, or even to stop their bugs escaping outside the hotel through the open window. Either way I think I’d rather have a window that opened.



Ooof that would be a big problem for me. I love heating and air conditioning in a hotel but the first thing I do in the morning no matter the temperature outside is to open the window and get some fresh air. Not only to clear the stale air from the room but also to wake me up. I would not cope well with a room that didn't have an opening window.


----------



## Jelly (19 Feb 2021)

Cheshirechappie said:


> Just taking their turn, after the Normans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Romans and Lord knows who else had capitalised on them. Oh, and the Vikings - nearly forgot them!
> 
> I doubt there's a race or a tribe anywhere on the planet that hasn't both colonised and been colonised by others over the centuries.



None quite as thorough or enterprising as England has been though... Despite our lack of Roman organisation, Norman culture or Viking ferocity.

If you're just making lists on wax tablets, playing the lute, or roaring as your beard lofts majestically in the breeze all day, then you're bound to still have a bit of get up and go.

But if you're endlessly seeking the next way of best utilising any resource you can lay your hands on...

Eventually you're gonna need a break, which is exactly when @Droogs caught the nebulous concept of "English", having a nap and too tired to do any more capitalisation just then.


----------



## artie (19 Feb 2021)

Here's some interesting info I found today.

FOI DoF/2021-0061 – Death stats in NI from January 2020 to end January 2021, were only Covid-19 is specified on the death certificate | Department of Finance (finance-ni.gov.uk)


----------



## Rorschach (19 Feb 2021)

artie said:


> Here's some interesting info I found today.
> 
> FOI DoF/2021-0061 – Death stats in NI from January 2020 to end January 2021, were only Covid-19 is specified on the death certificate | Department of Finance (finance-ni.gov.uk)



You can't post stuff like that, the BBC mafia will be on to you, it goes against the narrative!


----------



## Deadeye (19 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> we cannot base policy or our personal risk decisions on things that could happen as opposed to the things we know are definitely happening.



Well, I survived several of your posts with a twitchy finger and kept it off the keys...but this one beat me.

Just think a little harder about "we cannot base our personal risk decisions on things that could happen".

See any problems in that line of argument?

Do you use a riving knife? Just curious and asking for a friend...


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Ooof that would be a big problem for me. I love heating and air conditioning in a hotel but the first thing I do in the morning no matter the temperature outside is to open the window and get some fresh air. Not only to clear the stale air from the room but also to wake me up. I would not cope well with a room that didn't have an opening window.


I think that comes with where we live, we're so used to wind. One of the reasons I dislike London is it's impossiblr to get fresh air there.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Feb 2021)

Deadeye said:


> Well, I survived several of your posts with a twitchy finger and kept it off the keys...but this one beat me.
> 
> Just think a little harder about "we cannot base our personal risk decisions on things that could happen".
> 
> ...



Yes, but kickback due to lack of a riving knife is a very real possibly, well documented and known to happen. As you will see I agree that mutations happen, but as yet we have no evidence that a "bad" mutation can happen, the only mutations we have seen so far are just easier to spread, no evidence they are more (or less) deadly at the moment. If we base our policy on the possibility of a bad mutation happening we might as well lockdown forever because every infection is a chance of a bad mutation and who knows, maybe a new virus will pop up, better lockdown, just in case. See my point?


----------



## Rorschach (19 Feb 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> I think that comes with where we live, we're so used to wind. One of the reasons I dislike London is it's impossiblr to get fresh air there.



I love London but I know what you mean, very little proper "fresh" air there.


----------



## Braddersmd (19 Feb 2021)

artie said:


> Here's some interesting info I found today.
> 
> FOI DoF/2021-0061 – Death stats in NI from January 2020 to end January 2021, were only Covid-19 is specified on the death certificate | Department of Finance (finance-ni.gov.uk)



Interesting that it shows how much Covid pushes those to death with pre-existing conditions that were otherwise alive, yeah! Also interesting in how many actually have pre-existing conditions that were otherwise benign. Interesting also for those that wish to show Covid isn't the big problem, that I (and many others, it seems) believe it is.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Feb 2021)

Braddersmd said:


> Interesting that it shows how much Covid pushes those to death with pre-existing conditions that were otherwise alive, yeah! Also interesting in how many actually have pre-existing conditions that were otherwise benign. Interesting also for those that wish to show Covid isn't the big problem, that I (and many others, it seems) believe it is.



Oh dear.


----------



## Deadeye (19 Feb 2021)

artie said:


> Here's some interesting info I found today.
> 
> FOI DoF/2021-0061 – Death stats in NI from January 2020 to end January 2021, were only Covid-19 is specified on the death certificate | Department of Finance (finance-ni.gov.uk)



I guess you may not be familiar with how death is recorded or how serious viral infection works? Bilateral interstitial pneumonia is exactly and precisely the most common presentation of C19. It means that in both lungs the tissue becomes inflamed and fluid fills the spaces between the cells and floods the small air spaces.

So I would expect that an otherwise healthy person who succumbed to Covid to most commonly (>90%) have consequential pneumonia. The linked question asks for certificates only specifying C19. Those found are virtually certainly in error. They almost 100% should have found an associated condition, pneumonia.

The "story" (if there is one) in your link is not that C19 doesn't kill. It is that in a small percentage of cases doctors did not fully record the modality of the consequences of infection.

Those doctors made a mistake - and I'm 100% confident they'd admit it.

But they're probably pretty tired, having not had a break since the summer.

And they're probably a bit worn, having watched too many patients drown in their own fluids; some because other folk think they're above the guidance.

And they're probably a bit despairing, having to explain basic science to idiots that post nonsense on the internet to ?somehow, well, what? Why? Why do you guys insist on spouting rubbish in a way that, if the stakes were lower, you'd be embarassed to be so ignorant about?

And yes, I'm upset. The truth is actually very simple to understand. The virus is dangerous. No category is exempt. We may not be able to save you. You can help by getting vaccinated. Even when you are, you should follow the guidance.

And, please, stop posting dung you know nothing about on the internet.


----------



## Deadeye (19 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Yes, but kickback due to lack of a riving knife is a very real possibly, well documented and known to happen. As you will see I agree that mutations happen, but as yet we have no evidence that a "bad" mutation can happen, the only mutations we have seen so far are just easier to spread, no evidence they are more (or less) deadly at the moment. If we base our policy on the possibility of a bad mutation happening we might as well lockdown forever because every infection is a chance of a bad mutation and who knows, maybe a new virus will pop up, better lockdown, just in case. See my point?



Look. I'm out. If you turn up in my A&E I'll try to help you. I'd be grateful in the meantime if you'd refrain from actively trying to make the very real problem worse.
Which you are.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Feb 2021)

Deadeye said:


> Look. I'm out. If you turn up in my A&E I'll try to help you. I'd be grateful in the meantime if you'd refrain from actively trying to make the very real problem worse.
> Which you are.



Thanks for your contributions.


----------



## artie (19 Feb 2021)

Braddersmd said:


> Interesting that it shows how much Covid pushes those to death with pre-existing conditions that were otherwise alive, yeah! Also interesting in how many actually have pre-existing conditions that were otherwise benign. Interesting also for those that wish to show Covid isn't the big problem, that I (and many others, it seems) believe it is.


I didn't see where it said any of that.


----------



## artie (19 Feb 2021)

Deadeye said:


> I guess you may not be familiar with how death is recorded or how serious viral infection works? Bilateral interstitial pneumonia is exactly and precisely the most common presentation of C19. It means that in both lungs the tissue becomes inflamed and fluid fills the spaces between the cells and floods the small air spaces.
> 
> So I would expect that an otherwise healthy person who succumbed to Covid to most commonly (>90%) have consequential pneumonia. The linked question asks for certificates only specifying C19. Those found are virtually certainly in error. They almost 100% should have found an associated condition, pneumonia.
> 
> ...


I'd like you to read that again in twenty four hours, and if you think it's a fair and honest, good faith comment on the FOI answer. Post it again.

BTW is the .gov website all dung or just the parts you don't want to consider.


----------



## Rorschach (20 Feb 2021)

Some sensible people at the WTO it seems.

I think it madness to be vaccinating young people like myself when we could be saving the lives of those in poorer countries, not only is it a good thing to do but it is in our self interest as well as it will open up worldwide travel faster and lead to less problems of importation.









Covid-19: UK should send vaccines to poorer nations now - WTO chief


The head of the World Trade Organization says it is in richer countries' interest to share vaccines.



www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Ozi (20 Feb 2021)

Deadeye said:


> I guess you may not be familiar with how death is recorded or how serious viral infection works? Bilateral interstitial pneumonia is exactly and precisely the most common presentation of C19. It means that in both lungs the tissue becomes inflamed and fluid fills the spaces between the cells and floods the small air spaces.
> 
> So I would expect that an otherwise healthy person who succumbed to Covid to most commonly (>90%) have consequential pneumonia. The linked question asks for certificates only specifying C19. Those found are virtually certainly in error. They almost 100% should have found an associated condition, pneumonia.
> 
> ...


And please keep posting stuff you obviously do know about to balance all the rubbish


----------



## Deadeye (20 Feb 2021)

artie said:


> I'd like you to read that again in twenty four hours, and if you think it's a fair and honest, good faith comment on the FOI answer. Post it again.
> 
> BTW is the .gov website all dung or just the parts you don't want to consider.


My reply stands. The FOI is of course accurate...but the question asked is deliberately chosen and gives a very misleading picture, which then turns up in internet fora posted by people thinking they've found evidence of something.
They haven't but the posting adds to the noise.
Misinformation includes misusing genuine data or misunderstanding the limitations of data.
So, no I'm not selective in my willingness to review information. However I am very careful to understand what it actually means.


----------



## artie (20 Feb 2021)

Deadeye said:


> The FOI is of course accurate..


So why the tirade of abuse?

I simply posted the link, I found it interesting you called it dung.


----------



## Jelly (20 Feb 2021)

artie said:


> So why the tirade of abuse?
> 
> I simply posted the link, I found it interesting you called it dung.


I think he's made it very clear that he considers that a question was carefully selected, *in bad faith* to ensure the FOI outcome would, support an argument which when correctly presented in with proper contextualisation is clearly invalid.


----------



## artie (20 Feb 2021)

Jelly said:


> I think he's made it very clear that he considers that a question was carefully selected, *in bad faith* to ensure the FOI outcome would, support an argument which when correctly presented in with proper contextualisation is clearly invalid.


Are you his interpreter, if so it's refreshing that you can make a point without using the words, silly person and dung.


----------



## artie (20 Feb 2021)

Anyone know why silly person is censored for some and not others?


----------



## Jelly (20 Feb 2021)

artie said:


> Are you his interpreter, if so it's refreshing that you can make a point without using the words, silly person and dung.



I am a person who interpreted his words successfully and didn't feel the need to ask questions with answers which are self evident from the information provided in those words having done so.

I of course don't feel it quite as strongly as he does, because I'm somewhat removed from the realities of people dying of COVID, so don't have the same viscerally emotional response.

I assure you that in his shoes my language pallette would be rather coarser and more expletive laden.





artie said:


> Anyone know why silly person is censored for some and not others?



I would guess the singular (silly person) is censored, whilst the plural (idiots) is not in the filter list to be replaced with "silly people"; phpBB is not particularly sophisticated in that regard.

*Edit: *yep, that confirms it, the original word in brackets is censored, but not it's plural.


----------



## selectortone (20 Feb 2021)

.


----------



## Mark Karacsonyi (21 Feb 2021)

I get my vaccine next Wednesday. I hear if it’s the Russian one, I need to drink vodka to activate it. If it’s the Chinese one, bat should be eaten.

Regardless, after I will get a vaccination passport, allowing me to go to open and sporting events. Bit like a pet passport I suppose.


----------



## OldWood (21 Feb 2021)

Dee J said:


> Yes. Yes we do. We are all entirely free to do exactly what we each want to do and part of that is choosing which laws we obey. The sting in the tail is that our decisions are not consequence-free. As a result of that awareness, and conditioning, and humanity, and morality and self preservation etc. we mostly obey most laws. That shouldn't stop each of us critically examining laws and challenging them when, by our own judgement, they are wrong.



Umm - please change 'judgement' to 'convenience' and then that makes social sense.


----------



## Rorschach (21 Feb 2021)

OldWood said:


> Umm - please change 'judgement' to 'convenience' and then that makes social sense.



Judgement works perfectly fine in what he is saying. We have to apply our own moral judgement to laws before we choose if we are going to follow them.


----------



## artie (21 Feb 2021)

Jelly said:


> I am a person who interpreted his words successfully and didn't feel the need to ask questions with answers which are self evident from the information provided in those words having done so.
> 
> I of course don't feel it quite as strongly as he does, because I'm somewhat removed from the realities of people dying of COVID, so don't have the same viscerally emotional response.
> 
> I assure you that in his shoes my language pallette would be rather coarser and more expletive laden.


Methinks Thou doth protest too much.

Especially to a link from a .gov website posted without comment other than that I found it interesting.

So I'll save you any trouble of resorting to expletives instead of adult discourse. I won't reply to you again.


----------



## RobinBHM (21 Feb 2021)

artie said:


> .gov website all dung or just the parts you don't want to consider


It is sadly no better than any of the rest of the spin they produce these days


----------



## RobinBHM (21 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> You have large swathes of the public who see e.g. 200 deaths a day and think that sounds awful and must be stopped, not realising that 500 a day die of cancer, and another 500 of heart disease and so on.


No you dont have large swathes of the public thinking that.

please dont make assumptions on others to support your argument.


----------



## Davey44 (21 Feb 2021)

Ozi said:


> And please keep posting stuff you obviously do know about to balance all the rubbish


Thank you so much for your 'No Holds Barred' response to what has largely become OPINION based on little or no factual evidence at all. Please repeat ad-infinitum.


----------



## RobinBHM (21 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Learning to live with the virus has social and economic benefits but is politically a bad move because it means the government must choose a number of deaths that they are willing to accept in order for normality to resume.



Government strategy is not based on number of deaths that are acceptable -that is not the criteria used, although I realise it is yours, as you like to use the simplistic binary argument if lockdown versus economy as the over simplistic choice.

the real concern for PHE and govt is that viral transmissions grow exponentially -so their strategy to keep community transmission low to prevent that happening.


----------



## RobinBHM (21 Feb 2021)

Deadeye said:


> I guess you may not be familiar with how death is recorded or how serious viral infection works? Bilateral interstitial pneumonia is exactly and precisely the most common presentation of C19. It means that in both lungs the tissue becomes inflamed and fluid fills the spaces between the cells and floods the small air spaces.
> 
> So I would expect that an otherwise healthy person who succumbed to Covid to most commonly (>90%) have consequential pneumonia. The linked question asks for certificates only specifying C19. Those found are virtually certainly in error. They almost 100% should have found an associated condition, pneumonia.
> 
> ...



I listened to Theo Usherwood, political correspondent on LBC talking about his experience of having covid. He is 38 an got covid in March last year

he spent a week at home until too ill, then 6 days in hospital. 
He was saying that afterwards he was so weak he had to have a lie down every day for 3 hours
and even now, almost a year later, he says his stamina is considerably lower -playing sport for example, he can only play for 10 ins before being exhausted.

the damage to the lungs is considerable.


----------



## Droogs (21 Feb 2021)

Seems to me that people who get Covid are an the whole being left with some form of COPD


----------



## RobinBHM (21 Feb 2021)

I think throughout this pandemic the majority of people made an assessment of risk and made their choices from that.

elderly people, those with health conditions that made them vulnerable took more personal precautions to limit their risk of catching it.

and therefore it makes sense that those people feel more confident once theyve been vaccinated to bend the current rules.

I would estimate that the majority of those people who have been loudly protesting against lockdown are those who are neither vulnerable or old. Most I would guess are in their 30s and 40s.


----------



## Rorschach (21 Feb 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> No you dont have large swathes of the public thinking that.
> 
> please dont make assumptions on others to support your argument.



You're breaking the ceasefire please stop it.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (21 Feb 2021)

The government is shifting the goal posts again.

Very early on last March the strategy was briefly herd immunity.

Changed for good reasons to protect (don't overwhelm) the NHS. 

Last March there was no immunity to the virus. Now approx 45% have a high level of protection - vaccinated 33% + natural immunity ~12%.

It is unclear what the strategy now is - fed by speculation over whether those vaccinated can transmit, is the virus going to mutate, why do we need to get case numbers in the community down (to what?). 

Goverment and scientists must have a clear understanding by now, and need to be far more transparent over confidence levels. 

The media is also reporting that one person may now be able to visit loved ones in care homes once a week. Profoundly daft - care home residents have been vaccinated, and any spread of the disease is likely to be from unvaccinated care home staff.

It's starting to look like a shambles again - the chances of general public compliance with any rules after the middle of March is looking remote unless very clearly articulated.


----------



## Jelly (21 Feb 2021)

artie said:


> Methinks Thou doth protest too much.



That idiom doesn't make any sense in that context.




artie said:


> Especially to a link from a .gov website posted without comment other than that I found it interesting.



You were surely aware that doing that would feed the flames of controversy in this thread, which is exactly why you used vague wording and added no commentary.

That would have given you good plausible deniability (or allowed you to go "Huh I didn't realise that" if you were being genuine), when @Deadeye provided that commentary from the point of view of someone who is professionally skilled in that area.

But when you kicked off at him for both doing so, and for injecting some emotion into his post, you eliminated your wiggle room and nailed your colours to the mast; so dinnae go playing the offended party now you've got the results you intended.




artie said:


> So I'll save you any trouble of resorting to expletives instead of adult discourse. I won't reply to you again.



*Translation:*
_I don't like the fact that I've been called out in a manner that's hard to argue against, so I'm taking my bat home...

But first I want to make a last ditch attempt to paint you as the bad guy for saying you might in fact get a bit sweary if you were the person who had a reason to feel a specific emotional connection to the issue at hand._


----------



## MikeK (21 Feb 2021)

Friendly reminder...keep the conversations civil and on topic. We all know what happens to threads in the Off-Topic forum when the conversations turn to personal attacks. Just sayin'...


----------



## Rorschach (21 Feb 2021)

Yes please listen to MikeK, things were going along well for a change. 

Saw plenty of people "breaking rules" today when out for a walk on the coast. Clearly multiple households meeting and groups meeting for exercise too, a large group of about 8 were out swimming in the sea and their respective families were all gathered as well, some kind of club. Most of the swimmers were in the old duffers category as well, nearly all grey haired and wrinkly. Nice to see people enjoying socialising. Probably the most "blatent" breaking of the rules I have witnessed for a long time so I seems the public are ahead of the government as usual, good in my mind as it will push the government to open up more for fear of looking even more impotent.


----------



## Rorschach (22 Feb 2021)

Very worrying news today on the slow pace of removal of restrictions. If things are going to be as slow as they say I wonder if there will be any business to actually re-open.


----------



## MikeJhn (22 Feb 2021)

Better the business fold then there being no one left alive to buy anything.


----------



## Rorschach (22 Feb 2021)

MikeJhn said:


> Better the business fold then there being no one left alive to buy anything.



Really? That's your response. No wonder the country is stuffed.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (22 Feb 2021)

I keep hearing those who advise caution starting their sentence with "the last time we came out of lockdown ........"

This time is NOTHING like last time.

In June 2020 we had naturally acquired immunity in approx 5% of the population. We now have natural immunity and vaccinated totalling ~50% of the population. 

We also have increasingly reliable evidence that (a) the vaccine is very effective, and (b) that it very substantially reduces transmission.

Collateral damage - mental health, job losses, economic growth etc - will in a few weeks far exceed the consequences of relaxing lockdown more rapidly.

Timescales currently being reporting are far too extended, although perhaps we should wait for Boris to pronounce rather than relying on the media for accurate reporting.


----------



## Rorschach (22 Feb 2021)

Well said @Terry - Somerset 

Something I do find interesting, I had an email from a hotel chain I frequently use and have a business account with. The email was offering special deals for stays following the school break in Easter. So the hotels that are currently closed for general travel are clearly expecting to be able to host people from the 18th April. This would very much fly in the face of a possible opening of hotels in June that is being touted in the media today.


----------



## rafezetter (22 Feb 2021)

Deadeye said:


> Look. I'm out. If you turn up in my A&E I'll try to help you. I'd be grateful in the meantime if you'd refrain from actively trying to make the very real problem worse.
> Which you are.




You're barking up the wrong tree deadeye - we've been telng rorschach that for almost a year with all the evidence that has been presented, and yet he hasn't stopped; why would he do so now?

He thinks he's right, even with empirical evidence to the contrary.

"He who knows, and knows that he knows, is wise - follow him
He who knows not, but knows that he knows not, is intelligent - teach him
He who knows not, but beleives that he does, is a fool - shun him"

One of the few bits of good advise my father ever gave me.


----------



## rafezetter (22 Feb 2021)

artie said:


> Are you his interpreter, if so it's refreshing that you can make a point without using the words, silly person and dung.



Artie considering the tripe you (and others) are peddling, you should be thankful that's all you got - why are you picking a fight with one of the people whom are on the front lines dedicating (and risking) thier own lives to help others? His profession requires him to have a greater understanding about this whole situation that you obviously do, and yet you seem to be refuting what he is saying as though you have an _even more frontline source; _which begs the question what do YOU do for a living every day to justify your opinion, or is it as I suspect and you've merely "read something on the internet and took it as gospel" without even remotely considering that almost every single item of news in the world produced today is ALWAYS done with a particular agenda or angle.

He has said it's misinformation, by cherrypicking results to get the answer they wanted and only a complete moron would beleive a "news source" on the internet over an A&D doctor who's been on the frontline for a year now.

and you wonder why he's got no more patience for people spreading misinformation that just makes all frontline workers jobs harder every day.


----------



## Rorschach (22 Feb 2021)

Honestly can't quite believe what I am seeing on the lockdown lifting, they must be absolutely barmy!


----------



## artie (22 Feb 2021)

rafezetter said:


> Artie considering the tripe you (and others) are peddling, you should be thankful that's all you got - why are you picking a fight with one of the people whom are on the front lines dedicating (and risking) thier own lives to help others? His profession requires him to have a greater understanding about this whole situation that you obviously do, and yet you seem to be refuting what he is saying as though you have an _even more frontline source; _which begs the question what do YOU do for a living every day to justify your opinion, or is it as I suspect and you've merely "read something on the internet and took it as gospel" without even remotely considering that almost every single item of news in the world produced today is ALWAYS done with a particular agenda or angle.
> 
> He has said it's misinformation, by cherrypicking results to get the answer they wanted and only a complete moron would beleive a "news source" on the internet over an A&D doctor who's been on the frontline for a year now.
> 
> and you wonder why he's got no more patience for people spreading misinformation that just makes all frontline workers jobs harder every day.


I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you.
I posted a link from .gov if that's what you call picking a fight? Is the .gov web site tripe?
I don't know who or what he is any more than you know who I am.
I asked a couple of questions there but I don't want you to answer unless you can do it in a civil manner without resorting to melodrama and quoting studies or modelling as fact.


----------



## Rorschach (22 Feb 2021)

artie said:


> I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you.
> I posted a link from .gov if that's what you call picking a fight? Is the .gov web site tripe?
> I don't know who or what he is any more than you know who I am.
> I asked a couple of questions there but I don't want you to answer unless you can do it in a civil manner without resorting to melodrama and quoting studies or modelling as fact.



Rafezetter is just up to his old tricks, rant and insult to cause trouble and get a thread shut down that he doesn't like. Don't rise to it, I don't, indeed you will notice the vast majority of his posts on any thread go unnoticed by almost everyone, I suspect many have him on ignore or just skip past his posts.


----------



## Lons (22 Feb 2021)

Give it a rest Rorschach, don't you ever stop for breath?


----------



## Rorschach (22 Feb 2021)

Lons said:


> Give it a rest Rorschach, don't you ever stop for breath?



Boom Boom!


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Feb 2021)

The government is taking the sensible approach of unlocking slowly.

That action obviously costs a huge amount of money, so I'm sure the govt will have done significant modelling to do the safe minimum.

I'm not sure why some people think restrictions can be removed faster, safely......why would they know better?


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Feb 2021)

Lons said:


> Give it a rest Rorschach, don't you ever stop for breath?


It must be wonderful to know better than all of the many governments scientists working full time on this.

Reminds me of that Harry Enfield character..."you don't wanna do it like that...."


----------



## Owd Jockey (23 Feb 2021)

Thought I was actually on the Vaccination thread there for a minute, with the same opinions being expressed_ ad nauseam _by a very small group of individuals, whose ignorance on the subject matter is clear to see. They obviously represent a tranche of society which manifests itself in toilet roll stock-piling at the merest whiff of a disaster, drinking in pubs during lockdown, attending raves or other illegal over 65's events, putting two fingers up at Hands- Face- Space guidance, believing in what Icke and Trump have to say, casting doubt on vaccines by expounding stupid and ignorant nonsense re: microchip insertion or any other conspiracy theory or qAnon claptrap. Listen to what the science is saying for crying out loud!!


----------



## Rorschach (23 Feb 2021)

Owd Jockey said:


> Thought I was actually on the Vaccination thread there for a minute, with the same opinions being expressed_ ad nauseam _by a very small group of individuals, whose ignorance on the subject matter is clear to see. They obviously represent a tranche of society which manifests itself in toilet roll stock-piling at the merest whiff of a disaster, drinking in pubs during lockdown, attending raves or other illegal over 65's events, putting two fingers up at Hands- Face- Space guidance, believing in what Icke and Trump have to say, casting doubt on vaccines by expounding stupid and ignorant nonsense re: microchip insertion or any other conspiracy theory or qAnon claptrap. Listen to what the science is saying for crying out loud!!



You couldn't be more wrong in your opinions there.


----------



## fixit45 (23 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Really? That's your response. No wonder the country is stuffed.


So lives are less important than money!!!!!!


----------



## Rorschach (23 Feb 2021)

fixit45 said:


> So lives are less important than money!!!!!!



It's not lives vs money, it's lives vs lives. The damage of being in lockdown is greater than the damage of not being in lockdown, I have said that for almost a year. With vaccinations increasing by hundreds of thousands every day the death rate is plummeting by more than 25% a week yet apparently we need 3 months to lift the lockdown.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (23 Feb 2021)

Owd Jockey said:


> ,,,,,,, Listen to what the science is saying for crying out loud!!


Therein lies the problem. There are differing legitimate interpretations of raw 'scientific' data, held even amongst professional medics and epidemiologists of long and reputable standing, so some debate is perfectly reasonable. It's also reasonable to debate the balance between lockdown and freedom from it, weighing the rights of individuals to live life as they see fit, and for businesses to trade and thus survive, against the wish to preserve life by imposing restrictions. There's a trade-off between damage inflicted by virus and damage inflicted by lockdown and similar measures, and debating them is quite reasonable.

What I do feel is unfortunate is for debate to descend into the modern tendency to denigrate differing opinions by referring to the people expressing them as somehow evil or unintelligent. For me, that reflects more on the person calling others fools for not holding the 'correct' opinion than on a temperately-expressed comment (with which I may or may not agree).

If a forum member can't post a comment without resorting to insult, please just don't post. All that does is bring a thread one step closer to locking or deletion.

By the way, Owd Jockey, I'm not having a personal go at you - your comment was at least reasonably temperate, and didn't insult any individual. There are far worse examples spread over the 'political' threads.

Sorry to post like this, but one of the reasons I gave up posting on threads like these is because I'm not interested in having a fight. It's interesting to see different experiences, links to data and opinions, but not to see otherwise decent woodworkers acting like culture war Twitter trolls.


----------



## Rorschach (23 Feb 2021)

Cheshirechappie said:


> Therein lies the problem. There are differing legitimate interpretations of raw 'scientific' data, held even amongst professional medics and epidemiologists of long and reputable standing, so some debate is perfectly reasonable. It's also reasonable to debate the balance between lockdown and freedom from it, weighing the rights of individuals to live life as they see fit, and for businesses to trade and thus survive, against the wish to preserve life by imposing restrictions. There's a trade-off between damage inflicted by virus and damage inflicted by lockdown and similar measures, and debating them is quite reasonable.
> 
> What I do feel is unfortunate is for debate to descend into the modern tendency to denigrate differing opinions by referring to the people expressing them as somehow evil or unintelligent. For me, that reflects more on the person calling others fools for not holding the 'correct' opinion than on a temperately-expressed comment (with which I may or may not agree).
> 
> ...



Thank you for writing this. I know we do not agree on many matters but we definitely agree on this.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (23 Feb 2021)

Politics may be partly responsible for the extended relaxation:

scientists will play it safe - getting their advice wrong would make them a government scapegoat.
the government want to end the crisis on an unambiguously positive note having made major misjudgements over the past 10 months
the next election is 3-4 years away - memories of the pandemic may be dominated by the end game, not the whole match.
Timescales are far too extended. Cases, hospitalisations, and deaths are falling (~20-30% per week). Within 4-6 weeks more damage to individuals and society will be done by restrictions than the virus. 

We now have the ridiculous situation where one person can visit a care home in PPE and after a test, yet care home workers can refuse vaccination, and all residents will already have been vaccinated.

I can only hope that the timelines set out will be modified in a few weeks - I see little prospect of general public compliance when the risk will have so obviously diminished.


----------



## Rorschach (23 Feb 2021)

That is my hope too Terry, set out a very cautious plan now so they cant be accused of acting too fast or having to back track in a few weeks when kids go back to school. Then if numbers keep dropping the way they are there will be a public outcry and the government can say "on your heads be it" and open up early. 
That's the optimist and the cynic in me of course. If they really do stick to the timeline they have set out I really do worry what kind of country we will living in come July.


----------



## TominDales (23 Feb 2021)

Just seen these posts, I work in the vaccine area and from what I've heard, in this complex and uncertain situation, the dominant thinking by PMs close circle is protecting the NHS.
Lockdown is devastating business and peoples lives, the cabinet is very alive to this. I think we should expect the lifting of lockdown to be dynamic, if the early steps go well, they will accelerate opening up, if not then its will slow down. The caution is due to a number of concerns (virus mutation, vulnerability of at risk groups etc) BUT the dominant reason is the fragile state of the NHS right now. Despite cases falling very quickly, the NHS is fully stretched focusing on the biggest vaccination in history, hospitals still full and staff exhausted. This has big knock on effects to the whole population, cancer services are stretched, A&E has lost capacity which means people of all ages are vulnerable by the knock on effects of COVID right now. The NHS came close to being overwhelmed this month, with ambulance waiting times went through the roof, that scared the PMs circle as the NHS's viability if highly political. The governments thinking (ie the PM) is cautious open-up until the NHS is back in kilter. My guess for what its worth, is if hospitalisations come down they will open up faster, but if cases continue they wont. Lockdown is very hard on the young and healthy, but most MPs are now acquainted with people who have lost loved ones to covid, or who are not receiving urgent medial help.
Hope that provides some explanation on what is a confusing picture. The state of the NHS is the thing to watch.


----------



## Rorschach (23 Feb 2021)

@TominDales I suspect there is a lot of truth in what you say there.

Fingers crossed that this whole thing leads to the reforms that are badly needed in the NHS and by that I mean stop throwing money at it and actually do something. Every winter we see it in crisis and that should not be the case, winter happens every year and the NHS should be prepared. I understand that C19 is a somewhat special case in that regard as unlike normal seasonal respiratory illnesses we had no vaccine until recently but that doesn't excuse the NHS for being unfit for purpose in the first place. 
Its not my job to protect the NHS, it's the NHS's job to protect me, that's what I pay my NI for. If the NHS can't protect me, it's not me that needs to change, it's the NHS that needs to change.


----------



## Braddersmd (23 Feb 2021)

TominDales said:


> Just seen these posts, I work in the vaccine area and from what I've heard, in this complex and uncertain situation, the dominant thinking by PMs close circle is protecting the NHS.
> Lockdown is devastating business and peoples lives, the cabinet is very alive to this. I think we should expect the lifting of lockdown to be dynamic, if the early steps go well, they will accelerate opening up, if not then its will slow down. The caution is due to a number of concerns (virus mutation, vulnerability of at risk groups etc) BUT the dominant reason is the fragile state of the NHS right now. Despite cases falling very quickly, the NHS is fully stretched focusing on the biggest vaccination in history, hospitals still full and staff exhausted. This has big knock on effects to the whole population, cancer services are stretched, A&E has lost capacity which means people of all ages are vulnerable by the knock on effects of COVID right now. The NHS came close to being overwhelmed this month, with ambulance waiting times went through the roof, that scared the PMs circle as the NHS's viability if highly political. The governments thinking (ie the PM) is cautious open-up until the NHS is back in kilter. My guess for what its worth, is if hospitalisations come down they will open up faster, but if cases continue they wont. Lockdown is very hard on the young and healthy, but most MPs are now acquainted with people who have lost loved ones to covid, or who are not receiving urgent medial help.
> Hope that provides some explanation on what is a confusing picture. The state of the NHS is the thing to watch.



A lot of logic in that. Daily infection rates appear to be stationary at the moment. Although many of the vulnerable have been vaccinated for the first time, the mass text service to Cohort group 6 only went live yesterday to allow them to book vaccines. If they get through all 9 groups (progress has been excellent, so they should) by the end of March, it'll be the end of June before they've all received their second dose at current rates (let alone had the wait after for full effectiveness). A full re-opening on 21st June doesn't sound that restrictive when you consider that.


----------



## Jelly (23 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> @TominDales I suspect there is a lot of truth in what you say there.
> 
> Fingers crossed that this whole thing leads to the reforms that are badly needed in the NHS and by that I mean stop throwing money at it and actually do something.
> 
> Every winter we see it in crisis and that should not be the case, winter happens every year and the NHS should be prepared.



I couldn't agree with you more on this.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the government's decision to unwind the 2012 changes to the NHS will eliminate significant inefficiencies that were baked in by trying to push competition for ideological reasons, within a natural monopoly.

Certainly within procurement (which is where I have had most contact with the NHS in a professional capacity) has ended up becoming so overly bureaucratic and rigid, that it in effect discourages the exact competition it's intended to stimulate, by refusing to allow bidders to differentiate themselves other than on price per unit of something highly specific, and being wholly unwilling to accept tenders which offer alternative solutions for evaluation by healthcare/technical professionals as to feasibility or merit.




Rorschach said:


> that doesn't excuse the NHS for being unfit for purpose in the first place.



However I'm not sure how you got to this conclusion...

If my car goes into limp mode on the motorway, that doesn't mean it was "Unfit for Purpose in the first place", it means I need to undertake maintenance.

If having spent a decade not maintaining my car at all and barely putting any fuel in to keep it going, I then attempted to take it back to ford as "unfit for purpose" they'd laugh me out of the dealership.

The same is true of the NHS, it has not been maintained, so much as kicked about kicked about like political football; being told to constantly do better, whilst given ever less money (in real terms) to do it with.

And in fairness to them, they've worked wonders in terms of achieving the cheapness which is inherent within that pressure. Our healthcare system is now far and away the least expensive per capita at delivering "first world" care... 

And that's whilst it's in a state we both agree is pretty poor, imagine what it might do with some funding.




Rorschach said:


> Its not my job to protect the NHS, it's the NHS's job to protect me, that's what I pay my NI for. If the NHS can't protect me, it's not me that needs to change, it's the NHS that needs to change.



That's probably the single most entitled thing I've heard said in several weeks.

Paying a tax does not somehow absolve you of the duty to take responsibility for how your actions affect others in society.


----------



## Droogs (23 Feb 2021)

@Rorschach unfortunately that is a misconception that most people have. NI payment from the public have absolutely nothing to do with the NHS, the money is used to pay the pensions of those currently drawing a state pension. It has never been about health cover, it gets its funding from the general tax pool. There is a lot to be said of treating the NHS like one of the Services and make the amount of money it receives relational to the previous years costs plus a bit extra and have it totally ringfenced so that no government can change how it is funded except by vote in the full parliament. but that would probably mean a base income tax level around 30% which a lot of people would not be happy with.

edit typos


----------



## Terry - Somerset (23 Feb 2021)

National Insurance may once have been intended to fund pensions - it is now simply a tax. 

It has a residual role in recording the number of years contributions which determine the state pension entitlement. The pension is inflated annually and is completely disconnected from the total of NI paid.

There are very few goverment services funded directly by taxpayers - the most obvious is the BBC through the licence fee.


----------



## Droogs (23 Feb 2021)

The amount you get in your state pension is very much linked to how much NI you have paid each year. It is the reason that the DSS made me go to a job club for 35 hours a week for 5 months even though I was not entitled to receive any benefits but to ensure that they would continue to pay for my NI stamp each week (at that time was around £2.20) as if i didn't, i would not be able to claim a full state pension on reitirement. I was not a happy bunny at the time


----------



## Rorschach (23 Feb 2021)

@Droogs discount the NI bit then and replace with tax in general.


----------



## Rorschach (23 Feb 2021)

Jelly said:


> That's probably the single most entitled thing I've heard said in several weeks.
> 
> Paying a tax does not somehow absolve you of the duty to take responsibility for how your actions affect others in society.



I don't think so, not when I am paying for something that isn't fit for purpose through no fault of my own.

Since you like analogies it's like me having a washing machine that doesn't get my clothes clean. I complain and the manufacturer says well it's your fault for having dirty clothes, if you didn't get dirty then the washing machine wouldn't struggle to get your clothes clean.

If I need to pay more tax to get the NHS working properly then fine, I will do that, but I want it done properly, not just throwing money at highly paid bureaucrats to fiddle the figures and then when the system starts to break down we are told it's our fault for getting sick.


----------



## Jelly (23 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Since you like analogies it's like me having a washing machine that doesn't get my clothes clean. I complain and the manufacturer says well it's your fault for having dirty clothes, if you didn't get dirty then the washing machine wouldn't struggle to get your clothes clean.



I do like a good analogy, the more bizarre and humorous the better, although there's limited scope for that here.

So picking on the washing machine analogy:

It's more like you inherited a twintub from your grandparents, who found it to be perfectly functional for getting their lightly soiled clothes clean, and you also found it to be fine for that purpose.​​But then suddenly got voluntold to wash 5 rugby teams worth of muddy kit and found it just didn't cut the mustard, took forever and constantly looked like it was on the verge of packing up.​​It's not the fault of the machine, or of your grandparents who gave you it, nor is it your fault because you didn't set out to be in the situation...​​But you're still faced with spending a long time trying to baby the machine through all that muddy kit one way or the other, before you can sort out an alternative arrangement.​




Rorschach said:


> If I need to pay more tax to get the NHS working properly then fine, I will do that, but I want it done properly, not just throwing money at highly paid bureaucrats to fiddle the figures and then when the system starts to break down we are told it's our fault for getting sick.



Now, taking that as a general point I can fully agree with you on that!

In general I'm not overly fussed by paying tax, but I'm deeply miffed when it's obvious that the money we all put in is not being used wisely.

However in the wider context of your remarks, around lockdowns, etc, I feel that my point stands; the fact that we're both angry about mismanagement of taxpayer funded public services leading us to a situation where one of the ones we all rely on doesn't have the resources to deal with a foreseeable natural disaster, doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to do (or rather not do) what we can to help the wider community.


Continuing the analogies, the argument that because you pay tax, and the NHS is still underfunded and if it wasn't we shouldn't need a lockdown...
​Is similar to standing in a burning building, arguing that because you've paid fuel duty, and the building shouldn't be on fire, it's perfectly reasonable to expect you can pour petrol into jam-jars at this very instant.​​In normal circumstances it is a perfectly reasonable expectation, but the context of the specific situation absolutely matters, even if the situation shouldn't ever have arisen.​​​​Taking one such point in particular...



Rorschach said:


> I don't think so, not when I am paying for something that isn't fit for purpose through no fault of my own.



I'm not sure if you're one for poetry, but this counterpoints your sentiment quite well:

_No man is an island entire of itself,_​_Every man is a piece of the continent,_​_A part of the main._​​_If a clod be washed away by the sea,_​_Europe is the less,_​_As well as if a promontory were,_​_As well as any manor of thy friend's,_​_Or of thine own were._​​_Any man's death diminishes me,_​_Because I am involved in mankind._​_And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls_​_It tolls for thee._​*— John Donne*_, _Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions and Seuerall Steps in my Sicknes - Meditation XVII_, 1624 _​


----------



## Rorschach (23 Feb 2021)

@Jelly I guess we will have to disagree on some of the points but I think we broadly agree on reform at least.

The main worry for me I suppose about the "protect the NHS" message (going forward) is that it will be used in the future to both shame the public and as an excuse to avoid the reform needed. If instead of fixing the washing machine or buying a new one the government instead keeps saying we are all too dirty and must stay cleaner, that's a big problem and will prevent the NHS being fixed. I would hope you can agree with me their?


----------



## Jelly (23 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> The main worry for me I suppose about the "protect the NHS" message (going forward) is that it will be used in the future to both shame the public and as an excuse to avoid the reform needed. If instead of fixing the washing machine or buying a new one the government instead keeps saying we are all too dirty and must stay cleaner, that's a big problem and will prevent the NHS being fixed. I would hope you can agree with me their?



Oh yes, I can fully agree with you on that.

After all the NHS is the closest thing we have to a national religion (I can hear the entire C of E wincing in unison there)...

And if it's a choice between evoking that connection Britain has, misusing the "Protect" message ad-infinitum or communicating to voters about difficult realities like the choice between tax rises, or reduced provision; I can see both the current government and subsequent ones being all to willing to do the former.



For me it's important that when the immediate threat of COVID has passed, the government is held to account for how the hell we got to a place where the NHS was so vulnerable, and our national emergency preparedness was so limited.

We would all be suffering from a collective case of idiocy if we allow a situation to come about where we have to endure this again for some other foreseeable threat.


----------



## Rorschach (23 Feb 2021)

@Jelly Now if only we could agree that the country needs to get moving ASAP (way quicker than the current timeline) so we actually have an economy and businesses paying the taxes needed to see what we both want to see happen.


----------



## Jelly (23 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> @Jelly Now if only we could agree that the country needs to get moving ASAP (way quicker than the current timeline) so we actually have an economy and businesses paying the taxes needed to see what we both want to see happen.



I think that the damage of the existing lockdown is largely already done, and even a couple of months difference isn't going to make a huge difference to that one way or the other. 

From my perspective (and in this it's worth bearing in mind I've only ever worked for or managed business units within "Huge Corporations", so it's a view which is coloured by those experiences), _the state of a business going into lockdown, is much more important in determining if it will survive than the length of time that it's required to stay "paused"._

Purely anecdotally from a B2B sales point of view, we've seen a much more buoyant market at work recently, with a lot of businesses having survived, adapted and gone back to growing, leading us to beat our forecasts (including COVID impact adjustment) and budget (set before COVID was expected to be a thing) for the year...



However, I am convinced that if we manage to create a situation where we open up too fast, then are forced to consider (not necessarily even go, for but just seriously discuss) a third lockdown, the impact on both market sentiments, and consumer confidence will result in even more damage to business.

Moreover, because they're likely to only just be starting to get back on their feet, and at the bottom of their reserves from restarting yet again... That has the potential to be a much much worse hit, than any previous impacts.



Some people would go so far to say that it's a good thing that weak businesses collapse, market forces, blah, blah, but I'm not convinced that one-dimensional analysis has much to merit it, given the major social costs associated with businesses folding, and how callous it sounds to the real people who have lost their livelihoods.

But the events of FY20/21 should be a stark warning for businesses and investors of how important it is to maintain healthy reserves and develop meaningful contingency and disaster recovery plans before they're needed... 

Which probably means it's a good sign if investor returns and commercial lending rates return to normal slower than the speed at which businesses return to normal; which will result in slower GDP growth for the UK, because so much of GDP is linked to financial services.


----------



## Rorschach (23 Feb 2021)

Just released, 548 deaths for today. As everyone knows Tuesday is almost always the "worst" day for death figures as it has the missed figures from the weekend. 

548 is a 32% drop compared to last weeks 799. The 7 day average has also fallen by almost exactly the same amount. If rates continue to fall at that rate we would be under 100 deaths in a month. Will be interesting to see if that's true and how pressure on the government changes with those kinds of numbers.


----------



## Rorschach (23 Feb 2021)

Jelly said:


> I think that the damage of the existing lockdown is largely already done, and even a couple of months difference isn't going to make a huge difference to that one way or the other.



That's not what I am hearing from hospitality on the radio, literally every day makes things worse and apparently 1 in 3 businesses do not expect to survive past mid March.
I agree a lot of the damage has already been done (we won't see the true results until subsidies are removed) but I think there is still plenty more damage that can be done. Remember, another 3 months for some business represents an approx 50% increase in their time closed since last March.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (24 Feb 2021)

I think a significant number of businesses have, and will, fail. Owners and staff have my sympathy - it is a very difficult time. Economically the consequences may be far less severe.

it is estimated that lockdowns increased savings by the more fortunate by £150bn. A large part may be spent later in the year on holidays, consumer goods, cars, house improvements etc
many failed hospitality businesses (hotels, bars, restaurants) will be sold by adminstrators to pay creditors. Many will be sold to new investors with (probably) banks absorbing most of the losses
changes to the high street are likely to be more permanent as online shopping and work from home are increasingly embedded. The major losers will be the property companies and the banks whose security is devalued
The skills and assets which sustained the UK economy have not disappeared. The UK is a service based economy - growth is linked to emotion (optimism), confidence, and eliminating barriers to progress.


----------



## Rorschach (24 Feb 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> I think a significant number of businesses have, and will, fail. Owners and staff have my sympathy - it is a very difficult time. Economically the consequences may be far less severe.
> 
> it is estimated that lockdowns increased savings by the more fortunate by £150bn. A large part may be spent later in the year on holidays, consumer goods, cars, house improvements etc
> many failed hospitality businesses (hotels, bars, restaurants) will be sold by adminstrators to pay creditors. Many will be sold to new investors with (probably) banks absorbing most of the losses
> ...



I am an optimist but I am not as optimistic as you. A whole years worth of holidays (possibly more) are missing, even with savings made there are only so many holidays that people will have time for or want to take. Same goes for consumer goods and cars, there is only so much stuff people will want to buy and since a lot of people will have gone for a year without XXX item, maybe they realise they didn't need it after all. 

Also for all the people that have saved lots of money there are many more who have lost a lot of money and lost their jobs. When the furlough scheme ends there will hundreds of thousands, maybe millions added to the unemployed, regardless of the economic impact for those people losing your job is a massive mental health strain, I know how awful it feels.


----------



## Phillemare (24 Feb 2021)

Owd Jockey said:


> Thought I was actually on the Vaccination thread there for a minute, with the same opinions being expressed_ ad nauseam _by a very small group of individuals, whose ignorance on the subject matter is clear to see. They obviously represent a tranche of society which manifests itself in toilet roll stock-piling at the merest whiff of a disaster, drinking in pubs during lockdown, attending raves or other illegal over 65's events, putting two fingers up at Hands- Face- Space guidance, believing in what Icke and Trump have to say, casting doubt on vaccines by expounding stupid and ignorant nonsense re: microchip insertion or any other conspiracy theory or qAnon claptrap. Listen to what the science is saying for crying out loud!!


You have hit the nail on the head.....well I did think this was a woodworking page....listen to those on the front line, Our NHS nurses putting their lives at risk for us, listen to the scientist, especially those from SAGE that have no axe to grind, look and fully understand the all statistics that emanate from this government, at last it looks as if Johnson is going in the right direction with this pandemic, and my god he has made some life costing mistakes this year, get a grip you doubters and for once believe the experts and the majority.


----------



## MikeJhn (24 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Really? That's your response. No wonder the country is stuffed.


And how stuffed would the country be with no one left.


----------



## Rorschach (24 Feb 2021)

MikeJhn said:


> And how stuffed would the country be with no one left.



What a silly argument since that is clearly never going to be the case is it? We know C19 has a survival rate of over 99.9%, so we are not going to reach a point where there is no-one left even if we did absolutely nothing in the way of vaccinations or social distancing. We could quite literally all go out and lick the face of every stranger we meet and still more than 99% of the population would be left alive afterwards.


----------



## MikeJhn (24 Feb 2021)

No I think you have the exclusive rights to silly arguments.


----------



## Rorschach (24 Feb 2021)

MikeJhn said:


> No I think you have the exclusive rights to silly arguments.



Oh so I am wrong and it will kill everyone?


----------



## MikeK (24 Feb 2021)

Enough already.


----------

