ChatterBank5 mins ago
There's Just No Getting Away With It
69 Answers
Boris is as thick as a blank of wood. He's got a golden opportunity to hold back the Indian variant, but NO open up on Monday and let it rip. Anyone with any brain what so ever would hold fire for at least until the 21st June to give more time to vaccinate more people. Even after all that's happened over the last few months, he still can't see the wood for the trees. What a complete dip stick.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by teacake44. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Because the vaccinations won't be effective until at least three weeks have passed.//
Three weeks ago over 13m people had received two shots of the vaccine. This represents most people over the age of 65 as well as a number under that age and it provides them with as much protection as is available. In addition to that, another 21m people had received their first shot. This represents those between around 42 and 65 and they have been provided with around 65% protection. The vast majority of those likely to be admitted to hospital and almost all of those likely to die have received protection. This is reflected in the number of hospital admissions and deaths. Unless you are saying that we must wait until everybody has been fully vaccinated (and even then some people will contract the virus and sadly some of them will die) I don’t really know when you expect the lockdown to be eased.
The number of infections is not really the issue (though there seems at the moment to be no significant increase since the Indian variant was detected). The things that matter are the number of hospital admissions and deaths. Neither are increasing. But even if they do, with a population where the most vulnerable are largely protected the country will have to learn to live with it.
//Your take from the beginning of this pandemic to a degree was to just go with pretty much normal life.//
That was never my countenance. If you go back a year or so you will find that my preferred strategy was the proper shielding of the most vulnerable and I explained what I meant by that at the time. Meantime the rest of the population could carry on with non-brutal precautions. However, that’s history. The country is in a totally different situation now, one where, at least for the present, widespread restrictions are unnecessary.
Lockdown does not cause me any particular difficulties. It has not altered my financial position and whilst I'd like to resume a normal lifestyle, it doesn't really present me with any emotional, social or mental problems. But a lot of people are effected profoundly in one or more of those ways. Put simply, the country cannot continue in its present state because the long term (non-Covid) damage is increasing more exponentially than the pandemic ever was.
Three weeks ago over 13m people had received two shots of the vaccine. This represents most people over the age of 65 as well as a number under that age and it provides them with as much protection as is available. In addition to that, another 21m people had received their first shot. This represents those between around 42 and 65 and they have been provided with around 65% protection. The vast majority of those likely to be admitted to hospital and almost all of those likely to die have received protection. This is reflected in the number of hospital admissions and deaths. Unless you are saying that we must wait until everybody has been fully vaccinated (and even then some people will contract the virus and sadly some of them will die) I don’t really know when you expect the lockdown to be eased.
The number of infections is not really the issue (though there seems at the moment to be no significant increase since the Indian variant was detected). The things that matter are the number of hospital admissions and deaths. Neither are increasing. But even if they do, with a population where the most vulnerable are largely protected the country will have to learn to live with it.
//Your take from the beginning of this pandemic to a degree was to just go with pretty much normal life.//
That was never my countenance. If you go back a year or so you will find that my preferred strategy was the proper shielding of the most vulnerable and I explained what I meant by that at the time. Meantime the rest of the population could carry on with non-brutal precautions. However, that’s history. The country is in a totally different situation now, one where, at least for the present, widespread restrictions are unnecessary.
Lockdown does not cause me any particular difficulties. It has not altered my financial position and whilst I'd like to resume a normal lifestyle, it doesn't really present me with any emotional, social or mental problems. But a lot of people are effected profoundly in one or more of those ways. Put simply, the country cannot continue in its present state because the long term (non-Covid) damage is increasing more exponentially than the pandemic ever was.
We already know that the vaccines are working.
The hospitality industry, even in its currently "open" form, is losing £200m per DAY. Five weeks at that rate equates to £7billion.
I've explained, with numbers, why I believe the lockdown is no longer necessary. If circumstances change there may be a need to reintroduce restrictions though, unless a strain emerges that is resistant to vaccine and which causes severe symptoms, I doubt it. What you are advocating is the continuation of those restrictions, counselling against even the very modest changes due next Monday, "just in case". The country cannot afford that luxury.
The hospitality industry, even in its currently "open" form, is losing £200m per DAY. Five weeks at that rate equates to £7billion.
I've explained, with numbers, why I believe the lockdown is no longer necessary. If circumstances change there may be a need to reintroduce restrictions though, unless a strain emerges that is resistant to vaccine and which causes severe symptoms, I doubt it. What you are advocating is the continuation of those restrictions, counselling against even the very modest changes due next Monday, "just in case". The country cannot afford that luxury.
What do you stay to these people teacake who take the opposite view to yours- there protesting about the remaining lockdown rules saying they should be removed.
We need to open up as planned but take tough action in areas with rocketing rates of infection- curfews, mobile vaccination services to any age in those communities that are spreading it most (multigenerational mainly Asian but also the poorest), compulsery free door to door testing, breaking up groups celebrating Eid/football /pub openings/protesting about anything in large groups not socially distanced
We need to open up as planned but take tough action in areas with rocketing rates of infection- curfews, mobile vaccination services to any age in those communities that are spreading it most (multigenerational mainly Asian but also the poorest), compulsery free door to door testing, breaking up groups celebrating Eid/football /pub openings/protesting about anything in large groups not socially distanced
heres the link to todays antilockdown protest in North England
https:/
https:/
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|