Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[RH33]

I’d kinda hoped get north for my dads 70th mid Feb but that won’t be happening. Hopefully make it for my Granny’s 100th in Sept 22......

[Erih Shtrep]

22 minutes ago, virginton said:

That depends on what you mean by 'keep locked down'. If you mean 'tiered restrictions according to regional cases', then absolutely. Just bring schools into the setup instead of pretending that they don't have an impact and the measures can clearly be ratcheted up/down according to need. If you mean 'keep the current near blanket lockdown for another 10-12 weeks because big scary mutation threat' then no, that strategy can f**k off quite frankly.

And after the vulnerable categories have been vaccinated then tier 0 should actually mean zero restrictions instead of this 'nearer to normal' goalpost shifting exercise.

I'm suggesting I'm more sympathetic to the current lockdown that I was in summer '20.    I'm also enjoying some time off work for the first time in 80 years.  

[Todd_is_God]

27 minutes ago, virginton said:

That depends on what you mean by 'keep locked down'. If you mean 'tiered restrictions according to regional cases', then absolutely. Just bring schools into the setup instead of pretending that they don't have an impact and the measures can clearly be ratcheted up/down according to need. If you mean 'keep the current near blanket lockdown for another 10-12 weeks because big scary mutation threat' then no, that strategy can f**k off quite frankly.

And after the vulnerable categories have been vaccinated then tier 0 should actually mean zero restrictions instead of this 'nearer to normal' goalpost shifting exercise.

Somewhere in the middle tbh. If their concerns about the transmissibility of this new variant have any grounding at all, shielders and the rest of the "highest risk" categoried shielding until 3 weeks after their first dose would be wise. If they don't, then please shut up about it as it's irrelevant.

Either way, I don't see why the current restrictions need to be applied outwith those people, however, if the figures in general support lower tiers.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Todd_is_God

[Jacksgranda]

2 hours ago, superbigal said:

Since January 1st we are top.

Overall still in 8th place.

Must die harder...

[Todd_is_God]

19 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

That would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that the majority of hospital admissions at the moment are from 'non vulnerable' categories. 

Yeah that's not true at all.

[Left Back]

10 minutes ago, Erih Shtrep said:

I'm suggesting I'm more sympathetic to the current lockdown that I was in summer '20.    I'm also enjoying some time off work for the first time in 80 years.  

You should retire.  We have pensions these days.  Not like when you were a lad.

[101]

1 hour ago, Elixir said:

Oh for sure the levels of death right now are morally unacceptable, but I'm talking in a more general sense that a lot of people don't seem to realise the horrors of death and poverty that existed long before the pandemic and will still exist long afterwards.

At this stage I really don't think there's much more we can do. The vast majority of the population is going to catch this sooner or later, it just depends if they'll have been vaccinated by then first.

My only hope is that by next winter deaths return to pretty much average levels, with few if any restrictions in place, as that is what will signal the end of the pandemic and will make the suppression of liberties unjustifiable.

I agree with you that too many didn't think poverty and death didn't effect them that it effects us all hopefully people will realise that in order to fight pandemics we need a healthy and financially stable population. But with the Scottish Tory MPs voting to reduce Universal Credit I can't but think that the last year has taught them nothing. They are idiots destined to bring us another pandemic.

I think maintaining a balance of restrictions and vaccinations is the way to ease things and hopefully ease pressure on the hospitals.

I hope things like better handwashing and maybe even mask wearing (although more convulsive science is needed in their effectiveness) might return next winter to bring deaths from flu to a new low and keep things that way.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

7 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Yeah that's not true at all.

The '45 to 64' category surely comes under 'non vulnerable' ?

It covers a huge 20 year age gap, but as far as I'm aware there's no plan to vaccinate this group anytime soon. In fact those aged 45 to 49 may not get vaccinated until well into the summer. 

The fact is, as much as we all want restrictions lifted ASAP, if hospital admissions in those in non vaccinated age groups continues to remain high, there will be absolutely no chance of restrictions being removed quickly. 

[BaaBaaBlackSheep]

17 minutes ago, The Stig said:

No one is saying that it is going to be "normal" in April. I personally would like to see my parents somehow before then though as a few people seem to suggest that this current lockdown in this format should remain until the end of April.  That can get so far in the sea that aquaman would not be able to save it.

Thing is, everybody gets hung up on "normal" but it's a vague term really.

"Normal" suggests to me going back to the way things were before March 2020 -  there's no way anybody will be able to jump on a plane to literally anywhere in the world for months an months yet, or to go to some shitey nightclub and eat the face off some random.

Pubs, cinemas, restaurants, full football stadiums are probably going to be a thing again fairly soon you'd think - probably on the proviso that things like table service, using an app to order/book are to be encouraged until most folk have their jab.

Home visits will probably be back soon enough too.

People simply won't abide by the policies needed for the zero COVID approach, as if they tried to impose them on, for example, people who want to visit their vaccinated, elderly parents then people would tell them to f**k off.

[Todd_is_God]

13 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

The '45 to 64' category surely comes under 'non vulnerable' ?

It covers a huge 20 year age gap, but as far as I'm aware there's no plan to vaccinate this group anytime soon. In fact those aged 45 to 49 may not get vaccinated until well into the summer. 

The fact is, as much as we all want restrictions lifted ASAP, if hospital admissions in those in non vaccinated age groups continues to remain high, there will be absolutely no chance of restrictions being removed quickly. 

About 25% of it does, yes. I'd be inclined to suggest that the vast majority of those numbers are in the 50-64 range given that the JCVI have classified adults over 50 as "at risk" rather than adults over 45.

Even without taking that in to account, though, your statement was still wrong.

Going forward I would expect the average age of admissions to slowly drop, and the percentage from outwith the at risk groups to increase, but not because the numbers from this group are actually getting bigger.

In fact I can already picture the BBC news tweet and the hysterical replies to it when this happens.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Todd_is_God

[djchapsticks]

31 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Somewhere in the middle tbh. If their concerns about the transmissibility of this new variant have any grounding at all, shielders and the rest of the "highest risk" categoried shielding until 3 weeks after their first dose would be wise. If they don't, then please shut up about it as it's irrelevant.

Either way, I don't see why the current restrictions need to be applied outwith those people, however, if the figures in general support lower tiers.

In addition to this, there should be no realistic reason, as restrictions are lifted gradually and vaccine uptake increases on a massive scale, for us to ever again be anywhere close to the level of restriction that we've had imposed on us for the past year.

I'm still understanding of the restrictions at this point in time and I'm on board with the gradual lifting of them whilst the population are vaccinated - even if that takes several months to fully do so but as we now have a vaccine and treatments, there should be no circumstances where we end up bouncing back and forth through the tiers and having lockdowns held to our collective heads like a gun for 'not behaving'.

Once we reach the point where they do decide to end lockdown and we gradually begin dropping down through the tiers, any return to a point where society is again threatened with tightened restrictions or mass closure would be absolutely catastrophic given the constant rhetoric of the vaccine being the saviour of lockdown.

[The Stig]

7 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

In addition to this, there should be no realistic reason, as restrictions are lifted gradually and vaccine uptake increases on a massive scale, for us to ever again be anywhere close to the level of restriction that we've had imposed on us for the past year.

I'm still understanding of the restrictions at this point in time and I'm on board with the gradual lifting of them whilst the population are vaccinated - even if that takes several months to fully do so but as we now have a vaccine and treatments, there should be no circumstances where we end up bouncing back and forth through the tiers and having lockdowns held to our collective heads like a gun for 'not behaving'.

Once we reach the point where they do decide to end lockdown and we gradually begin dropping down through the tiers, any return to a point where society is again threatened with tightened restrictions or mass closure would be absolutely catastrophic given the constant rhetoric of the vaccine being the saviour of lockdown.

 

[101]

19 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

In addition to this, there should be no realistic reason, as restrictions are lifted gradually and vaccine uptake increases on a massive scale, for us to ever again be anywhere close to the level of restriction that we've had imposed on us for the past year.

I'm still understanding of the restrictions at this point in time and I'm on board with the gradual lifting of them whilst the population are vaccinated - even if that takes several months to fully do so but as we now have a vaccine and treatments, there should be no circumstances where we end up bouncing back and forth through the tiers and having lockdowns held to our collective heads like a gun for 'not behaving'.

Once we reach the point where they do decide to end lockdown and we gradually begin dropping down through the tiers, any return to a point where society is again threatened with tightened restrictions or mass closure would be absolutely catastrophic given the constant rhetoric of the vaccine being the saviour of lockdown.

Very sensible the only possible caveat to that is continuing Test and Protect and quick lockdown on new and *markedly* different strains.

Edited January 19, 2021 by 101

[Todd_is_God]

14 minutes ago, 101 said:

Very sensible the only possible caveat to that is continuing Test and Protect

Errr no. Why? What are you wanting to protect in this scenario? Those protected by their vaccine, or those at incredibly low risk?

15 minutes ago, 101 said:

quick lockdown on new and *markedly* different strains.

Hancock-esque goalpost shifting. Bin.

[tamthebam]

2 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

It's helpful in that it reinforces the message as to why there is a need for restrictions to remain in place for about 3 weeks following the completion of vaccines for a particular at risk group, but that's about it.

The media in the UK have been utterly dreadful throughout the whole debacle tbh.

"Newspaper: a device unable to distinguish between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilisation"

George Bernard Shaw

[BaaBaaBlackSheep]

 

 

 

[10menwent2mow]

One thing that concerns me at the moment is how accepting people are becoming of the restrictions. Talk of it being April until what is essentially 'lockdown' is lifted and folk going, ah well, that's OK then. That's 3 full months of it being pretty much where we were in March of last year, longer if you were in a tier 3/4 area prior to the tier 4 restrictions coming in on Boxing Day.

The parameters on which lockdown is justified seem to change to suit that very objective. It feels like one day we hear about new cases, the next it's hospital admissions, the next it's ICU numbers, the next it's deaths, the next it's percentage of positive tests and there appears little to no context for any of these figures other than that they are bad. More people get tested, more people are positive, people only go and get tested if they are symptomatic, higher percentage of positive tests.

I dunno, maybe I'm ranting and howling at the moon but the prospect of it being April until we are released from tier 4 other than the possibility of schools going back utterly utterly depresses me.

[Todd_is_God]

12 minutes ago, 10menwent2mow said:

One thing that concerns me at the moment is how accepting people are becoming of the restrictions. Talk of it being April until what is essentially 'lockdown' is lifted and folk going, ah well, that's OK then. That's 3 full months of it being pretty much where we were in March of last year, longer if you were in a tier 3/4 area prior to the tier 4 restrictions coming in on Boxing Day.

The parameters on which lockdown is justified seem to change to suit that very objective. It feels like one day we hear about new cases, the next it's hospital admissions, the next it's ICU numbers, the next it's deaths, the next it's percentage of positive tests and there appears little to no context for any of these figures other than that they are bad. More people get tested, more people are positive, people only go and get tested if they are symptomatic, higher percentage of positive tests.

I dunno, maybe I'm ranting and howling at the moon but the prospect of it being April until we are released from tier 4 other than the possibility of schools going back utterly utterly depresses me.

For me personally the acceptance of that is based on the time being used wisely to enable us to start methodically moving away from restrictions at that point, and not be looking back.

The last 10 months have been utter shite, but if putting up with tighter than desireable restrictions for another 2½ months means we never need to do anything like this again, and can start looking forward to enjoying life again then f**k it, just get it out the way.

Appreciate not everyone will feel that way, and if it doesn't pan out like that i'll be absolutely fuming tbh.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Todd_is_God

[Theroadlesstravelled]

57 minutes ago, BaaBaaBlackSheep said:

 

 

 

School children?

I thought under 16s were exempt.

[10menwent2mow]

For me personally the acceptance of that is based on the time being used wisely to enable us to start methodically moving away from restrictions at that point, and not be looking back.
The last 10 months have been utter shite, but if putting up with tighter than desireable restrictions for another 2½ months means we never need to do anything like this again, and can start looking forward to enjoying life again then f**k it, just get it out the way.
Appreciate not everyone will feel that way, and if it doesn't pan out like that i'll be absolutely fuming tbh.

That's the thing though, there appears to be very little in the way of a strategy for moving out of lockdown other than 'once we've done some vaccines and then we see how things are going then we'll look at easing restrictions'

I get that they maybe don't want to get folks hopes up and that they don't want to set a defined road map incase they get burned. However, we were told at the very beginning way back in March that it would be a few weeks, then maybe a couple of months, here we are 10 months down the line and we are being told the same thing. Just hang on for another 8/10 weeks and even then it looks like we'll be going back to some sort of tiered system where a wee outbreak will lead to the possibility of almost full lockdown in your area again.