Freedom Day, June 21st, will go ahead.

[rscott]

ninja-lewis said:

vulture1 said:

AJL308 said:

Crafty_ said:

AJL308 said:

I don't think that's the case at all. We all know that there won't be a workable level of protection until something like 80% of the population are vaccinated. They aren't yet. The vaccination programme is clearly working as case numbers fell dramatically. Yes, it was due to the other elements as well but largely the vaccines.

Don't think I'm saying this because I'm some sort of government appeasing automaton who likes to be controlled - I'm not and I don't. In fact it's starting to get to me quite a bit now. What's the alternative if we don't have the required level of vaccinations? Not continuing this until it's logical end may turn out to be worse than another 4 weeks under these regs.

AJL308 said:

They haven't been given to enough people. That doesn't mean they are not the answer. You don't stop a house build half way though because you've concluded it's pointless because the rain is coming in due to you not having put the roof on yet.

As far as I can determine, the level of vaccinations are at least where they expected to be or better.

Why why plan for a relaxation of rules that they never intended to carry out ?

If we're at 78% now and Boris is stting himself do you honestly believe that another 2% will suddenly make it all ok again ?

No, me either. This is going to be a perpetual loop oh "oh, not yet, we cant do that" and then the next day talking about "building back better".

I don't think we are anywhere near 78% of the population having had the two doses.

It'll be 78% of the adult population and include those that could have had but chose not to. The age of teh UK population is very scewed to the higher end.

It's 78% of the adult population with at least one dose.

Second doses is currently 55% of adults.



From r/CoronavirusUK on Reddit

I think it highlights the inconsistent messaging from government. Would have been far better to relate the target dates to both levels of infection/admission AND vaccination rates.

And numbers vaccinated isn't the key, it's numbers who've been vaccinated for long enough for it to actually start working - about 3 weeks.

[Maximus_Meridius101]

johnboy1975 said:

Are we really going to unlock fully in July with January levels of cases? (Cant see it being that high btw)

Nope.

[Teddy Lop]

I'm beginning to come around to the belief that the end to restrictions won't come about until some form of civil disobedience takes place to dissuade the fools at the helm, akin to slapping someone being hysterical. If we're not allowed out in frickin July with our silly low numbers then that's it, let stop the charade.



Note for mods this isn't a condonement of potentially illegal things so much as an observation of where I believe we're headed.

[snuffy]

V1nce Fox said:

The protests i’ve seen so far have been huge and had a broad cross section of society.

As I posted on another thread, the biggest problem with anti-lockdown protests is all the 5G/Anti-Vax/Bill Gates nutters turn up and it loses all credibility.

[Jasandjules]

smn159 said:

Marches a couple of dozen strong with Farrage and the anti-5G lot?

I saw a video of a London protest/march and there were I suspect hundreds of thousands of people there. I don't expect the BBC readers know much about it though.

[liner33]

snuffy said:

As I posted on another thread, the biggest problem with anti-lockdown protests is all the 5G/Anti-Vax/Bill Gates nutters turn up and it loses all credibility.

Is that the way the media paints it though? I've not been on a march but often see pictures of anti lockdown protestors with placards but the papers brand them as anti vaxxers, its easy to shut down any potential discussion then rather than acknowledge an actual grievance

[snuffy]

liner33 said:

snuffy said:

As I posted on another thread, the biggest problem with anti-lockdown protests is all the 5G/Anti-Vax/Bill Gates nutters turn up and it loses all credibility.

Is that the way the media paints it though? I've not been on a march but often see pictures of anti lockdown protestors with placards but the papers brand them as anti vaxxers, its easy to shut down any potential discussion then rather than acknowledge an actual grievance

Good point. It is certainly the way the medio reports it, and it is a very good way to closing down debate, because anti-lockdown protesters don't want to be associated with anti-vaxxer (well, maybe some do).

[Tankrizzo]

liner33 said:

Is that the way the media paints it though? I've not been on a march but often see pictures of anti lockdown protestors with placards but the papers brand them as anti vaxxers, its easy to shut down any potential discussion then rather than acknowledge an actual grievance

Just watch any of the livestreams and count the number of placards you see for anti-vaccine stuff, and make your own mind up. There are hundreds upon hundreds, that's before you get into the ones about Bill Gates and a world control conspiracy.

[TopTrump]

Dagnir said:

Any need for the casual racism?

Don't be so frigging pathetic

[Dagnir]

TopTrump said:

Dagnir said:

Any need for the casual racism?

Don't be so frigging pathetic

You gonna have to explain that one.

Pathetic?

Better if people don't say anything and let it continue?

[vonuber]

Surely the acceptable limits have been set by the G7 - international travel, free mixing in groups over 6, no masks or social distancing etc.

[johnboy1975]

vonuber said:

Surely the acceptable limits have been set by the G7 - international travel, free mixing in groups over 6, no masks or social distancing etc.

Not to mention flying to Cornwall from London instead of driving.....

[liner33]

Tankrizzo said:

Just watch any of the livestreams and count the number of placards you see for anti-vaccine stuff, and make your own mind up. There are hundreds upon hundreds, that's before you get into the ones about Bill Gates and a world control conspiracy.

I watched one of the Bristol ones

Seems to me most of the anti vaxxers frequent the internet and social media rather to go outside and actually attend a march

[JeffreyD]

As an aside, the mods here seem to agree it's racist so unless you want a ban I'd change the subject.

[sim72]

JeffreyD said:

As an aside, the mods here seem to agree it's racist so unless you want a ban I'd change the subject.

Even if they do, I'd certainly hope you'd only get fnger-wagged for using it in a pejorative manner, rather than discussing its etymology.

[Dagnir]

robuk said:

Dagnir said:

It's a derogatory term based on skin colour.

Start a new thread and poll on here it will be hilarious.

A pork based insult might upset people, yes, but it is not racist no matter if you argue that point until you are red in the face.

Is it a derogatory term based on skin colour/race?

Edited by Dagnir on Saturday 12th June 21:03

[Dagnir]

sim72 said:

If it was racist, presumably that must be based on actions rather than words.

What economic or societal disadvantages have been incurred by those who happen to be irrationally angry white middle-aged men?

You've lost me...

[robuk]

Dagnir said:

Is it a derogatory term based on skin colour?

To be clear, I see someone who has over done it on the sun bed, and they now look like a fence panel, and say they are tantastic, you would call that racist?

It is after all a derogatory term based on skin colour.

[sim72]

Dagnir said:

sim72 said:

If it was racist, presumably that must be based on actions rather than words.

What economic or societal disadvantages have been incurred by those who happen to be irrationally angry white middle-aged men?

You've lost me...

Clearly.

[Dagnir]

robuk said:

To be clear, I see someone who has over done it on the sun bed, and they now look like a fence panel, and say they are tantastic, you would call that racist?

It is after all a derogatory term based on skin colour.

Oh how astute of you. Clearly your intellect dwarfs my own.


You know full well we're talking about race.


Will you answer the question now?

Is it, or is it not, a derogatory term based on race?

Edited by Dagnir on Saturday 12th June 21:32