Coronavirus

[Saint_clark]

3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Indian variant spreads 50% - 60% faster (on another note, are we allowed to keep referring to the UK, South African, Brazilian & Indian variants, but we're racists that should be hung if we call it the Chinese virus?)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57119579

Headlines from the article :

• It (possibly?) spreads a 'smidge' faster than the Kent variant!
• Sage are worried that at 40% more spreadable, pressure would be put on the NHS
• 36.2 million first doses of vaccine
• 19.3 million second doses (all 'vulnerable' people)
• 50k people currently infected - down from 1.25 million at the start of the year
• 1000 people in hospital - down from circa 25k(?) in January (but they don't give that figure, so it's a rough estimate based on hospitalisations per 100k people at the time)
• The much vaunted "herd immunity" was achieved many weeks ago

Anyone know how the NHS will become over run with this variant?  If it spreads 50% faster than the old one - which spread pretty quickly anyway! - how are people going to be ending up in hospital if all the 'vulnerable' people have had two vaccines and pretty much everyone over 40 has had one?  Unless this variant is more 'potent' for those aged 18 - 40 and will put more of them in hospital???

People are worried that the Indian variant might, just maybe, be able to seriously harm people who have been vaccinated, even though there's zero evidence for that. We can't extend lockdown for every variant....news flash, there will be multiple new variants of this virus every year for the rest of our lives.

[Weston Super Saint]

6 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

People are worried that the Indian variant might, just maybe, be able to seriously harm people who have been vaccinated, even though there's zero evidence for that. We can't extend lockdown for every variant....news flash, there will be multiple new variants of this virus every year for the rest of our lives.

Newsflash - as per the article I posted yesterday there will be multiple varaints of the virus (mutations) for each and every infection....

[egg]

42 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

It's becoming clear that we should just be fucking off international travel altogether this year and only allowing trade to occur. No-one NEEDS to go abroad for a holiday.

Yep, there's a reason life is normal in Australia and NZ, but not so here. 

We went to the Isle of Wight last year and will go again this year. I'd prefer Italy, but it isn't the end of the world and I'd rather focus on what we can do, than what we can't. 

[whelk]

55 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Indian variant spreads 50% - 60% faster (on another note, are we allowed to keep referring to the UK, South African, Brazilian & Indian variants, but we're racists that should be hung if we call it the Chinese virus?)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57119579

Headlines from the article :

• It (possibly?) spreads a 'smidge' faster than the Kent variant!
• Sage are worried that at 40% more spreadable, pressure would be put on the NHS
• 36.2 million first doses of vaccine
• 19.3 million second doses (all 'vulnerable' people)
• 50k people currently infected - down from 1.25 million at the start of the year
• 1000 people in hospital - down from circa 25k(?) in January (but they don't give that figure, so it's a rough estimate based on hospitalisations per 100k people at the time)
• The much vaunted "herd immunity" was achieved many weeks ago

Anyone know how the NHS will become over run with this variant?  If it spreads 50% faster than the old one - which spread pretty quickly anyway! - how are people going to be ending up in hospital if all the 'vulnerable' people have had two vaccines and pretty much everyone over 40 has had one?  Unless this variant is more 'potent' for those aged 18 - 40 and will put more of them in hospital???

I am amazed that they never face obvious questions about this. It is like they expect us to disengage with any logic and just swallow whatever a worried scientist says.

Explain the logic and we might all get on board. When articles say the vaccine protects from Indian variant how potentially can the NHS be overrun?

To me mostly just about information management now so we are get so excited when June happens but these cunts will probably have a variant to say we must still keep wearing masks in pubs etc so we will say oh well aren’t we lucky at least we have most freedoms back 

[egg]

5 minutes ago, whelk said:

I am amazed that they never face obvious questions about this. It is like they expect us to disengage with any logic and just swallow whatever a worried scientist says.

Explain the logic and we might all get on board. When articles say the vaccine protects from Indian variant how potentially can the NHS be overrun?

To me mostly just about information management now so we are get so excited when June happens but these cunts will probably have a variant to say we must still keep wearing masks in pubs etc so we will say oh well aren’t we lucky at least we have most freedoms back 

But what's the motivation for doing that? 

On the main part, I'm with you and Weston. If the vaccine is resistant to this strain, and the new strain not particularly harmful to the age groups who haven't been vaccinated, then there's no issue. 

No way should we have any restrictions to protect the divs who refuse the vaccine. It's on them if they get fucked up through their choice. 

Edited 15 May, 2021 by egg

[whelk]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep, there's a reason life is normal in Australia and NZ, but not so here. 

We went to the Isle of Wight last year and will go again this year. I'd prefer Italy, but it isn't the end of the world and I'd rather focus on what we can do, than what we can't. 

I think Sunak should give everyone a  £5k holiday hand out so we can all have UK holidays. That should cover a few days in Cornwall. We now know there is a magic money tree and think how much those holiday makers will spend on ice creams and also those Airbnb owners will get a much needed income boost and hopefully buy a house for their kids which will go up in value and make everyone happy

[egg]

Just now, whelk said:

I think Sunak should give everyone a  £5k holiday hand out so we can all have UK holidays. That should cover a few days in Cornwall. We now know there is a magic money tree and think how much those holiday makers will spend on ice creams and also those Airbnb owners will get a much needed income boost and hopefully buy a house for their kids which will go up in value and make everyone happy

Nobody is advocating hand outs to stay here...but nobody's life is gonna be adversely impacted if they holiday in Cornwall rather than Benidorm...the cultural education may do them the world of good. 

[whelk]

1 minute ago, egg said:

But what's the motivation for doing that? 

On the main part, I'm with you and Weston. If the vaccine is resistant to this strain, and the new strain not particularly harmful to the age groups who haven't been vaccinated, then there's no issue. 

No way should we have any restrictions to protect the divs who refuse the vaccine. It's on them if they get fucked up through their choice. 

I cynically believe behavioural science advisors are making sure it is drip fed, I have read too much George Orwell but we are being manipulated. Maybe I have been influenced by CollinsDic’s post#?

totally agree any fucker who doesn’t get vaccinated has it coming

[whelk]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Nobody is advocating hand outs to stay here...but nobody's life is gonna be adversely impacted if they holiday in Cornwall rather than Benidorm...the cultural education may do them the world of good. 

I was being sarcastic about the handouts obviously but do agree no need for foreign holidays and not too much hardship to suck up. UK prices are shocking esp still on 5% VAT. Profiteering fuckers

[RedArmy]

‘The India variant “could be” 50% more transmissible.’

Panic!!!!
 

Remember when they had a press conference to tell us the Kent scarient was more deadly than the original.
Nervtag released a study saying it was 70% more deadly, some other studies said twice as deadly and then when it had all blown over and it turns out it’s not more deadly at all. 
 

 

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

‘The India variant “could be” 50% more transmissible.’

Panic!!!!
 

Remember when they had a press conference to tell us the Kent scarient was more deadly than the original.
Nervtag released a study saying it was 70% more deadly, some other studies said twice as deadly and then when it had all blown over and it turns out it’s not more deadly at all. 
 

 

Yep, exactly. Then there was the panic over the South African and finish variant just before the last easing, funnily enough we don’t hear about them now. I see they are saying the Indian variant will become the dominant one. Probably, because hardly any fucker has Covid these days. 

[RedArmy]

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Yep, exactly. Then there was the panic over the South African and finish variant just before the last easing, funnily enough we don’t hear about them now. I see they are saying the Indian variant will become the dominant one. Probably, because hardly any fucker has Covid these days. 

Yeah it’s like we should be shocked that covid spreads in unvaccinated people. 

The places it’s spreading are the local areas of those towns and cities that have the lowest vaccine uptake. 
The media might tell you it’s “vaccine hesitancy” in BAME communities and we need to do more to convince them. The left would even go as far as saying we need to financially incentivise them but if it’s a white man on Twitter that doesn’t want it they’re an anti-vaxx nutter. 

[saint1977]

41 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

Yeah it’s like we should be shocked that covid spreads in unvaccinated people. 

The places it’s spreading are the local areas of those towns and cities that have the lowest vaccine uptake. 
The media might tell you it’s “vaccine hesitancy” in BAME communities and we need to do more to convince them. The left would even go as far as saying we need to financially incentivise them but if it’s a white man on Twitter that doesn’t want it they’re an anti-vaxx nutter. 

Overwhelming majority of electorate left or right would say ‘get vaccinated as soon as you get the opportunity’, no excuses. I would take a firm line with any anti vaccination sentiment, irrespective of the narrative. There is a very small part of the population who cannot have the vaccine because it would be more risky with their conditions than the virus which is fair enough. Historical narratives are broadly irrelevant for those not in the category in making a decision on this and I’d like to see some of the anti vaccine narratives left and right, and those specific to certain communities, challenged more strongly with the evidence.

Faith leaders and community leaders have all said ‘get it done’ so if anyone is still believing a load of BS on social media, it’s at their own risk. Sounds like there is a firm push in the worst affected areas to get u30s vaccinated so shortly it could be down to the refuseniks who are risking their local NHS running out of emergency capacity if there’s another spike. Trouble is, the selfish bastards will take a few members of their community with them who have been responsible and vaccinated where the vaccine isn’t quite working as well for them, which is statistically possible. 

[Fan The Flames]

2 hours ago, RedArmy said:

Yeah it’s like we should be shocked that covid spreads in unvaccinated people. 

The places it’s spreading are the local areas of those towns and cities that have the lowest vaccine uptake. 
The media might tell you it’s “vaccine hesitancy” in BAME communities and we need to do more to convince them. The left would even go as far as saying we need to financially incentivise them but if it’s a white man on Twitter that doesn’t want it they’re an anti-vaxx nutter. 

Anti-vaxxers do exist, so maybe it's just anti-vaxxers that are called anti-vaxxers. With the rest being called vaccine hesitant regardless of their colour, like this lot https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-57107754

[whelk]

10 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

Anti-vaxxers do exist, so maybe it's just anti-vaxxers that are called anti-vaxxers. With the rest being called vaccine hesitant regardless of their colour, like this lot https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-57107754

Can you be vaccine curious?

[Fan The Flames]

12 minutes ago, whelk said:

Can you be vaccine curious?

Yes, but it normally means you want a vaccine but are not ready to announce it to your friends or family.

[RedArmy]

49 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

Anti-vaxxers do exist, so maybe it's just anti-vaxxers that are called anti-vaxxers. With the rest being called vaccine hesitant regardless of their colour, like this lot https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-57107754

The outcome is the same whatever label you put on it. Covid spreads in the unvaccinated. 
 

Every single one of them is a selfish cunt

 

 

Except the ones that can’t have it obviously. 

Edited 15 May, 2021 by RedArmy

[Weston Super Saint]

5 hours ago, egg said:

But what's the motivation for doing that? 

On the main part, I'm with you and Weston. If the vaccine is resistant to this strain, and the new strain not particularly harmful to the age groups who haven't been vaccinated, then there's no issue. 

No way should we have any restrictions to protect the divs who refuse the vaccine. It's on them if they get fucked up through their choice. 

Panic and hesitancy driven by lack of knowledge regarding the variant, thus being over cautious and protective?

[The Cat]

Had my second jab this morning. Not sure why I was bumped up the queue as I only had the first one 7 weeks ago.

[aintforever]

22 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Panic and hesitancy driven by lack of knowledge regarding the variant, thus being over cautious and protective?

Or they are rightly being cautious because, unlike you, they understand the potential risks new variants pose.

[Whitey Grandad]

51 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Or they are rightly being cautious because, unlike you, they understand the potential risks new variants pose.

There are also risks from further restrictions. Many people and enterprises are up to their ears in debt and at breaking point.

[aintforever]

28 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

There are also risks from further restrictions. Many people and enterprises are up to their ears in debt and at breaking point.

Which they are fully aware of.

[whelk]

Not too many should be worried about Indian variant. Even then a decent leader woudl almost certainly have made red list decision earlier than the crowd pleaser Boris.

Near 70% of adults have first dose and nearly 40% fully vaccinated. 600k more each day so by June 21st why the hell are we worried?

[Weston Super Saint]

3 hours ago, aintforever said:

Or they are rightly being cautious because, unlike you, they understand the potential risks new variants pose.

When you say, 'they', who exactly are you referring to?

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, aintforever said:

Which they are fully aware of.

Same question about who you are referring to when you say 'they'....

[Weston Super Saint]

38 minutes ago, whelk said:

Not too many should be worried about Indian variant. Even then a decent leader woudl almost certainly have made red list decision earlier than the crowd pleaser Boris.

Near 70% of adults have first dose and nearly 40% fully vaccinated. 600k more each day so by June 21st why the hell are we worried?

 

I read somewhere that in the 'real' world (i.e now that the vaccine has been rolled out and actual results can be interpreted), the AZ vaccine is 85% effective after one dose, as opposed to the 60% that was theorised based on more limited data sets.

[The Cat]

Cases still seem relatively flat. If there was a more transmissible variant then you'd have thought more people would be testing positive. 

[Turkish]

5 hours ago, aintforever said:

Or they are rightly being cautious because, unlike you, they understand the potential risks new variants pose.

LOL and you’ve got the neck to say the daily mail pisses it’s pants about ever new variant story 

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

When you say, 'they', who exactly are you referring to?

SAGE of course.

[Fan The Flames]

4 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

When you say, 'they', who exactly are you referring to?

Alan Carr, Peter Beardsley and Ben Shephard obvs.

[Weston Super Saint]

10 hours ago, aintforever said:

SAGE of course.

Ah, that makes sense now (you've missed the point once more!).

The rest of us were discussing the Government response and the 'potential' to extend lockdown due to the variants - as far as I'm aware, SAGE aren't able to enforce a lockdown, only give scientific advice on which the sitting Government will base its decisions.

I would have thought everyone else already understood that SAGE would, by the very nature of their work, dealing with the unknown most of the time, be sitting on the ultra cautious side of the fence when it comes to new variants with little or no data.

[Weston Super Saint]

8 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

Alan Carr, Peter Beardsley and Ben Shephard obvs.

That wouldn't surprise me....

[whelk]

Would have some bollocks to call off at eleventh hour. This shouldn’t be about politics but are these left wing scientists? 
And fuck me the Observer cost £3.20!

 

[whelk]

Hancock has just said that those who are getting infected and having issues in Bolton and Blackburn are those that are in groups that have been offered the vaccine and haven’t had it. Of course they are never going to say from the Asian community. 
But panicky headlines basically about variant spreading amongst twats not doing as they should.

[Weston Super Saint]

58 minutes ago, whelk said:

Would have some bollocks to call off at eleventh hour. This shouldn’t be about politics but are these left wing scientists? 
And fuck me the Observer cost £3.20!

 

They also seem to want to move the goal posts.

When the 'road map' out of lockdown was launched, the steps were very clear with a four week gap between each one.  The four weeks were put in place - on the advice of scientists! - so that the effects of each stage / gradual reopening could be monitored effectively to see what effect it has on the number of infections, but more critically, the number of people in hospital.

Now, they are trying to say the next step should be cancelled because of 'fears'.  Thankfully, Boris doesn't appear to be working on the premise of 'fears' but what is shown in the data - which at the moment is telling us we have very few infections and even fewer hospitalisations, and therefore within the previously set parameters to carry on with the next stage of the road map!

[Tamesaint]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Ah, that makes sense now (you've missed the point once more!).

The rest of us were discussing the Government response and the 'potential' to extend lockdown due to the variants - as far as I'm aware, SAGE aren't able to enforce a lockdown, only give scientific advice on which the sitting Government will base its decisions.

I would have thought everyone else already understood that SAGE would, by the very nature of their work, dealing with the unknown most of the time, be sitting on the ultra cautious side of the fence when it comes to new variants with little or no data.

Ah well. Its nice to know that a bloke who sweeps the floor in a pub is a lot more knowledgable than all those professors and academics who sit on the SAGE committee. It makes you wonder why the Government bothers with SAGE.

[aintforever]

47 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

They also seem to want to move the goal posts.

When the 'road map' out of lockdown was launched, the steps were very clear with a four week gap between each one.  The four weeks were put in place - on the advice of scientists! - so that the effects of each stage / gradual reopening could be monitored effectively to see what effect it has on the number of infections, but more critically, the number of people in hospital.

Now, they are trying to say the next step should be cancelled because of 'fears'.  Thankfully, Boris doesn't appear to be working on the premise of 'fears' but what is shown in the data - which at the moment is telling us we have very few infections and even fewer hospitalisations, and therefore within the previously set parameters to carry on with the next stage of the road map!

The UK scientists are world leaders in this field, I think most people would agree that if the experts in viruses have fears over a new variant the government should listen. 

What they should not do is listen to graduates from the university of life who have a 2.2 in floor sweeping.

[whelk]

I see the mocking of Weston but you can’t just say ‘science’ each time. Scientist on Sky was saying ‘of course not everyone in vulnerable groups is vaccinated so if variant is so transmissible then it will find its way to them’. Well so what - are we taking measures to ensure the unvaccinated never get it? If so we will never meet the criteria. It was all about NHS not being overrun not protect everyone from ever getting ill. They also mention the 3% v 97% vaccine effectiveness. Again so what we going to do stay in measures until we get a vaccine that gives 100% efficacy as 3% might still get it and some of those may die. 

I have no problem with the Darwinian principles in wiping out those thick ‘not the fittest’ conspiracy theory nuts who refuse the vaccine.

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

I see the mocking of Weston but you can’t just say ‘science’ each time. Scientist on Sky was saying ‘of course not everyone in vulnerable groups is vaccinated so if variant is so transmissible then it will find its way to them’. Well so what - are we taking measures to ensure the unvaccinated never get it? If so we will never meet the criteria. It was all about NHS not being overrun not protect everyone from ever getting ill. They also mention the 3% v 97% vaccine effectiveness. Again so what we going to do stay in measures until we get a vaccine that gives 100% efficacy as 3% might still get it and some of those may die. 

I have no problem with the Darwinian principles in wiping out those thick ‘not the fittest’ conspiracy theory nuts who refuse the vaccine.

It's all about the numbers though isn't it. At the moment only 29% odd are fully vaccinated which means about 71% are either unvaccinated or partially vaccinated. So while much more people are protected, opening up to normal will massively increase the amount of person to person contact so the risk of spreading goes up a lot. If this variant is more transmissible it goes up even further, and if the vaccines are less effective against it then the number of vulnerable people potentially exposed also goes up.

I expect the concern is because they are not sure of the last part, or it's just a ploy to scare more people into being vaccinated.

Edited 16 May, 2021 by aintforever

[Whitey Grandad]

3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

They also seem to want to move the goal posts.

When the 'road map' out of lockdown was launched, the steps were very clear with a four week gap between each one.  The four weeks were put in place - on the advice of scientists! - so that the effects of each stage / gradual reopening could be monitored effectively to see what effect it has on the number of infections, but more critically, the number of people in hospital.

Now, they are trying to say the next step should be cancelled because of 'fears'.  Thankfully, Boris doesn't appear to be working on the premise of 'fears' but what is shown in the data - which at the moment is telling us we have very few infections and even fewer hospitalisations, and therefore within the previously set parameters to carry on with the next stage of the road map!

Five weeks!

[Weston Super Saint]

31 minutes ago, aintforever said:

It's all about the numbers though isn't it. At the moment only 29% odd are fully vaccinated which means about 71% are either unvaccinated or partially vaccinated. So while much more people are protected, opening up to normal will massively increase the amount of person to person contact so the risk of spreading goes up a lot. If this variant is more transmissible it goes up even further, and if the vaccines are less effective against it then the number of vulnerable people potentially exposed also goes up.

I expect the concern is because they are not sure of the last part, or it's just a ploy to scare more people into being vaccinated.

Where are you getting your figures from as they are a long way off the ones Whelk posted yesterday?

Not sure what your argument is with 'partially vaccinated' as I believe there hasn't been one single death from 'partially vaccinated' people since we started the program.

Not only that, but the efficacy of the vaccine is now stated at around 85% from one vaccine (up from the original prediction of 60% before real world studies could be carried out).

Further, of the 15% of 'partially vaccinated' people who are still potentially at risk of catching the virus, the effects of it for those that do are 'drastically' reduced due to the anti bodies created by the vaccine.

All this information has come from 'scientists'.

Since you are obviously way more educated than me (lol) and clearly far more knowledgable, where exactly is the risk to the NHS coming from?

[Weston Super Saint]

14 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Five weeks!

That makes more sense as they said it takes four weeks for the data to be 'evaluated'.

[S-Clarke]

34 minutes ago, aintforever said:

It's all about the numbers though isn't it. At the moment only 29% odd are fully vaccinated which means about 71% are either unvaccinated or partially vaccinated. So while much more people are protected, opening up to normal will massively increase the amount of person to person contact so the risk of spreading goes up a lot. If this variant is more transmissible it goes up even further, and if the vaccines are less effective against it then the number of vulnerable people potentially exposed also goes up.

I expect the concern is because they are not sure of the last part, or it's just a ploy to scare more people into being vaccinated.

Isn't this threatening to go down the road of 'nothing is ever going to be enough', though? The key statistics they need to look at are the infection rate, the amount of deaths and the amount of people going into Hospital. I'd say going forward the key stats need to be hospital admissions and deaths rather than infection rate though, the vaccines aren't designed to stop an infection entirely, they are there to reduce the severity of it. So if we still get people going for tests and it coming back positive, but they don't end up in hospital, then that alone isn't a reason to to panic.

The reality is that deaths and hospital admissions are at an incredibly low, low level now, thus they should continue with the easing as they have been. The chatter about bringing in local restrictions and stopping the ease of the restrictions just 'in case' and because it 'might' do x and y is entering very dangerous territory and a never ending lockdown cycle for the rest of our lives.

 

[whelk]

Sturgeon doing her tits about Rangers fans

 

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, aintforever said:

The UK scientists are world leaders in this field, I think most people would agree that if the experts in viruses have fears over a new variant the government should listen. 

 

Unless you've had your vaccine which is still, as it's always been, the way out of lockdown!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57134181

Quote

The UK has "increasing confidence" that Covid-19 vaccines work against the Indian variant of the virus, the health secretary has said.

Scientists believe that the variant is more transmissible and cases of it nearly tripled to 1,313 in the past week in England.

But Matt Hancock said early lab data showed vaccines remained effective.

He said the majority of those in hospital in Bolton - a hotspot for the Indian variant - were unvaccinated.

 

[Turkish]

Aintforver is a wind up merchant. Got to be 

[Whitey Grandad]

27 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

Isn't this threatening to go down the road of 'nothing is ever going to be enough', though? The key statistics they need to look at are the infection rate, the amount of deaths and the amount of people going into Hospital. I'd say going forward the key stats need to be hospital admissions and deaths rather than infection rate though, the vaccines aren't designed to stop an infection entirely, they are there to reduce the severity of it. So if we still get people going for tests and it coming back positive, but they don't end up in hospital, then that alone isn't a reason to to panic.

The reality is that deaths and hospital admissions are at an incredibly low, low level now, thus they should continue with the easing as they have been. The chatter about bringing in local restrictions and stopping the ease of the restrictions just 'in case' and because it 'might' do x and y is entering very dangerous territory and a never ending lockdown cycle for the rest of our lives.

 

Yep.

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, S-Clarke said:

Isn't this threatening to go down the road of 'nothing is ever going to be enough', though? The key statistics they need to look at are the infection rate, the amount of deaths and the amount of people going into Hospital. I'd say going forward the key stats need to be hospital admissions and deaths rather than infection rate though, the vaccines aren't designed to stop an infection entirely, they are there to reduce the severity of it. So if we still get people going for tests and it coming back positive, but they don't end up in hospital, then that alone isn't a reason to to panic.

The reality is that deaths and hospital admissions are at an incredibly low, low level now, thus they should continue with the easing as they have been. The chatter about bringing in local restrictions and stopping the ease of the restrictions just 'in case' and because it 'might' do x and y is entering very dangerous territory and a never ending lockdown cycle for the rest of our lives.

 

I don't disagree. I guess at this moment in time, where most people are not fully vaccinated, the new variants might pose a risk of another wave. Right from the start it has always been a case of balancing the risk of the virus with the risk of the effects of lockdown.

I'm not a Boris Johnson fan but even I can see that he wouldn't want to impose restrictions he didn't think were necessary. No one wants lockdowns, they don't benefit anyone except Netflix and Amazon.

This article explains the situation quite well: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/previous-waves-have-relatively-small-modellers-worried-indian/

"So why worry about the speed the variant travels when an estimated 69 per cent of the population now have Covid antibodies, rising to over 90 per cent among the most vulnerable?  What damage could it possibly do given those levels of population immunity?

It is this question that vexes almost everyone but the answer comes down to simple, if counterintuitive, maths. Professor Adam Kucharski, one of the Sage modellers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical medicine, explains it like this: “The issue is that many people have a mental image that we’ve [already] had the biggest possible epidemic waves, whereas we’ve actually had ones that are relatively small compared to what could have happened without control measures in place. 

“Because of these controls, only a fraction of the people who could have got infected in the past year or so have been infected, so they’re still out there. 

“Of course, for many of these people vaccines have now decreased their risk substantially. But a very large number of infections that come with a very small individual level of risk can produce a similar outcome to a smaller epidemic that carries a larger individual level of risk”.

 

Edited 16 May, 2021 by aintforever

[Whitey Grandad]

34 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I don't disagree. I guess at this moment in time, where most people are not fully vaccinated, the new variants might pose a risk of another wave. Right from the start it has always been a case of balancing the risk of the virus with the risk of the effects of lockdown.

I'm not a Boris Johnson fan but even I can see that he wouldn't want to impose restrictions he didn't think were necessary. No one wants lockdowns, they don't benefit anyone except Netflix and Amazon.

This article explains the situation quite well: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/previous-waves-have-relatively-small-modellers-worried-indian/

"So why worry about the speed the variant travels when an estimated 69 per cent of the population now have Covid antibodies, rising to over 90 per cent among the most vulnerable?  What damage could it possibly do given those levels of population immunity?

It is this question that vexes almost everyone but the answer comes down to simple, if counterintuitive, maths. Professor Adam Kucharski, one of the Sage modellers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical medicine, explains it like this: “The issue is that many people have a mental image that we’ve [already] had the biggest possible epidemic waves, whereas we’ve actually had ones that are relatively small compared to what could have happened without control measures in place. 

“Because of these controls, only a fraction of the people who could have got infected in the past year or so have been infected, so they’re still out there. 

“Of course, for many of these people vaccines have now decreased their risk substantially. But a very large number of infections that come with a very small individual level of risk can produce a similar outcome to a smaller epidemic that carries a larger individual level of risk”.

 

A fair and balanced article. The answer seems to be that “nobody knows”

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, whelk said:

Sturgeon doing her tits about Rangers fans

 

Seems perfectly legit to me - especially after all the protests of the past year.

Just looks like lots of small groups of six people out for an afternoon stroll - no guidnce on how far apart those individual groups of six should be