Freedom Day, June 21st, will go ahead.

[NRS]

poo at Paul's said:

JeffreyD said:

It's evidently ridiculous that thousands of people could travel to and from a hotspot when I couldn't open a shop in Manchester.

I don’t disagree!
But just because one ‘can’ do something, doesn’t mean one ‘should’ do something. And of course all but essential foreign travel was not allowed.

When you could not open your shop, and people knew that, why would they think it ok, wise, or anything other than bloody stupid and selfish to fly half way round the world and back…..

Do you really think we’d keep it out though long term? Same as a lot of other countries had to deal with the Kent strain once a ‘good’ mutation comes it takes off and spreads everywhere. You’d only keep it out if the borders were fully closed, and that is likely impossible given the food and goods imports. Closing off India would have just bought a few weeks or a month or two before it arrived.

It’s one of the huge risks for countries with locked borders. The new strains have much worse R numbers, and given they have no immunity in the population from earlier infections and typically low vaccine rates it will run absolute riot if there’s a few outbreaks. The higher R numbers will compress the growth into a much smaller period, and so there is far greater strain on the health services as so many will be sick at the same time. That's at the same time as it being harder to stop as it's easier to spread. Ironically, the U.K. might have got a bit lucky given the earlier outbreaks combined with a good vaccine program. If the Delta version gets out in somewhere like Australia they could be in big trouble.

Edited by NRS on Tuesday 15th June 15:31

[JeffreyD]

NRS said:

Do you really think we’d keep it out though long term? Same as a lot of other countries had to deal with the Kent strain once a ‘good’ mutation comes it takes off and spreads everywhere. You’d only keep it out if the borders were fully closed, and that is likely impossible given the food and goods imports. Closing off India would have just bought a few weeks or a month or two before it arrived.

You don't need to keep it out for ever.
Just for a "month or two"

Then our apparently world beating vaccine programme would have been "a month or two" more advanced.

So even if we had just treated India like Pakistan we would have had a few weeks more vaccines in arms.

There is no excuse to treat India in a different way than Pakistan and Bangladesh.

If the vaccines don't work then we are fully fked so that's a different argument

[NRS]

JeffreyD said:

NRS said:

Do you really think we’d keep it out though long term? Same as a lot of other countries had to deal with the Kent strain once a ‘good’ mutation comes it takes off and spreads everywhere. You’d only keep it out if the borders were fully closed, and that is likely impossible given the food and goods imports. Closing off India would have just bought a few weeks or a month or two before it arrived.

You don't need to keep it out for ever.
Just for a "month or two"

Then our apparently world beating vaccine programme would have been "a month or two" more advanced.

So even if we had just treated India like Pakistan we would have had a few weeks more vaccines in arms.

There is no excuse to treat India in a different way than Pakistan and Bangladesh.

If the vaccines don't work then we are fully fked so that's a different argument

That seems to be the argument now though - the argument seems to be the vaccines are not giving enough protection as they're focused on cases, and not really talking about the death rates.

[JeffreyD]

NRS said:

That seems to be the argument now though - the argument seems to be the vaccines are not giving enough protection as they're focused on cases, and not really talking about the death rates.

I'm not here to make the government's case for them, they've fked this totally.

I'm not arguing that we would have totally prevented the Indian issue here - I am arguing that we could have easily prevented the current situation, and kicked the can down the road long enough to vaccinate significantly more people. The vaccine is not ineffective, it's just not 100% effective.

[survivalist]

liner33 said:

TEKNOPUG said:

Stay at home, save the NHS.

The NHS didn't even come close to collapse during the Jan peak of 39k admissions. Given the massive vaccine rollout, how is it possible that we will even approach those figures again? Unless the vaccines don't work? The data proves that the vaccines do work - the admissions are those unvaccinated. The vast majority of those testing positive are under 40s who haven't been vaccinated yet. The data has already shown that only a tiny percentage of that age group will require hospitalisation.

So where is the threat to the NHS? There isn't one, is there? That was the whole justification for lockdown and restrictions. Now it seems that is an inconvenient truth and they are ignoring the data that they relied upon previously to support restrictions, as it no longer supports their narrative.

It's like saying it's raining so you should wear a cost. It's now stopped raining but it might rain again, so keep wearing a cost.....even when the sun is shining and their isn't a cloud in the sky....

Last May my elderly dad was ill (not COVID) in his nursing home which had cases of COVID, the local hospital refused to take him in because of this and because they were overwhelmed , unsurprisingly he died

I read the other day at 29% of the fatalities with the delta variant had received both jabs so one would assume that these were likely over 50 but that data suggests that 71% of fatalities had either refused the vaccine or were UNDER the age of 50 without additional co-morbidities would indicate a significant increase in lethality for the younger population

I read that too. The statistics are based on 42 deaths. So 12 people died having had both vaccinations, 23 people died having not been vaccinated and 7 had received the first dose of the vaccine.

Given the low numbers, it's entirely feasible that the unvaccinated had either refused the vaccine or were unable to receive it for other reasons. Deciding on the basis of such a small sample means a "significant increase in lethality for the younger population" is either hysteria or fear mongering.

I also didn't see a reference to co-morbidities, but that's not to say they didn't exist. The term no 'known' co-morbidities is used for a reason.

[jameswills]

survivalist said:

I read that too. The statistics are based on 42 deaths. So 12 people died having had both vaccinations, 23 people died having not been vaccinated and 7 had received the first dose of the vaccine.

Given the low numbers, it's entirely feasible that the unvaccinated had either refused the vaccine or were unable to receive it for other reasons. Deciding on the basis of such a small sample means a "significant increase in lethality for the younger population" is either hysteria or fear mongering.

I also didn't see a reference to co-morbidities, but that's not to say they didn't exist. The term no 'known' co-morbidities is used for a reason.

We can all play the UK government percentage stats game. Using those figures being double jabbed makes you 70% more likely to die than if you had just the single dose.

[anonymous-user]

jameswills said:

survivalist said:

I read that too. The statistics are based on 42 deaths. So 12 people died having had both vaccinations, 23 people died having not been vaccinated and 7 had received the first dose of the vaccine.

Given the low numbers, it's entirely feasible that the unvaccinated had either refused the vaccine or were unable to receive it for other reasons. Deciding on the basis of such a small sample means a "significant increase in lethality for the younger population" is either hysteria or fear mongering.

I also didn't see a reference to co-morbidities, but that's not to say they didn't exist. The term no 'known' co-morbidities is used for a reason.

We can all play the UK government percentage stats game. Using those figures being double jabbed makes you 70% more likely to die than if you had just the single dose.

It does make you think

[survivalist]

jameswills said:

survivalist said:

I read that too. The statistics are based on 42 deaths. So 12 people died having had both vaccinations, 23 people died having not been vaccinated and 7 had received the first dose of the vaccine.

Given the low numbers, it's entirely feasible that the unvaccinated had either refused the vaccine or were unable to receive it for other reasons. Deciding on the basis of such a small sample means a "significant increase in lethality for the younger population" is either hysteria or fear mongering.

I also didn't see a reference to co-morbidities, but that's not to say they didn't exist. The term no 'known' co-morbidities is used for a reason.

We can all play the UK government percentage stats game. Using those figures being double jabbed makes you 70% more likely to die than if you had just the single dose.

OMG the vaccines accelerate death

[TEKNOPUG]

survivalist said:

jameswills said:

survivalist said:

I read that too. The statistics are based on 42 deaths. So 12 people died having had both vaccinations, 23 people died having not been vaccinated and 7 had received the first dose of the vaccine.

Given the low numbers, it's entirely feasible that the unvaccinated had either refused the vaccine or were unable to receive it for other reasons. Deciding on the basis of such a small sample means a "significant increase in lethality for the younger population" is either hysteria or fear mongering.

I also didn't see a reference to co-morbidities, but that's not to say they didn't exist. The term no 'known' co-morbidities is used for a reason.

We can all play the UK government percentage stats game. Using those figures being double jabbed makes you 70% more likely to die than if you had just the single dose.

OMG the vaccines accelerate death

It's all bks though. 12 people died within 28 days of testing positive for covid19, that had both vaccines. That's not 12 people have died from covid19.

[interstellar]

The same goes for the fact 128,000 people haven’t died of covid.

[survivalist]

interstellar said:

The same goes for the fact 128,000 people haven’t died of covid.

It’s almost as if, in general, a novel virus kills people who are already at or close to the end of their lives, or who are already suffering from a severe condition.

Wow, this feels more like 2020 than 2021. Maybe eat out to help out will make a comeback.

[anonymous-user]

This must be the first time that the BBC have covered an anti lockdown protests and thus admitted their existence

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57486222

[sim72]

garyhun said:

This must be the first time that the BBC have covered an anti lockdown protests and thus admitted their existence

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57486222

The question has to be asked as to why they're attacking journalists and not the Government. I mean, I realise it's the BBC and therefore a Tory mouthpiece anyway, but they're still not the main target,

[anonymous-user]

sim72 said:

garyhun said:

This must be the first time that the BBC have covered an anti lockdown protests and thus admitted their existence

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57486222

The question has to be asked as to why they're attacking journalists and not the Government. I mean, I realise it's the BBC and therefore a Tory mouthpiece anyway, but they're still not the main target,

I’m pretty sure Hancock, Boris, Valance et.al would have received a good welcome too!

[youngsyr]

sim72 said:

garyhun said:

This must be the first time that the BBC have covered an anti lockdown protests and thus admitted their existence

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57486222

The question has to be asked as to why they're attacking journalists and not the Government. I mean, I realise it's the BBC and therefore a Tory mouthpiece anyway, but they're still not the main target,

Pretty obvious, isn't it? The government are dodging serious interviews by the heavy weight press and the people are taking out their anger on the people whom they pay to hold the government to account.

Not ideal, but neither is the government hiding behind orchestrated press conference with cherry picked questions (max 2 per journalist).

[sim72]

youngsyr said:

sim72 said:

garyhun said:

This must be the first time that the BBC have covered an anti lockdown protests and thus admitted their existence

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57486222

The question has to be asked as to why they're attacking journalists and not the Government. I mean, I realise it's the BBC and therefore a Tory mouthpiece anyway, but they're still not the main target,

Pretty obvious, isn't it? The government are dodging serious interviews by the heavy weight press and the people are taking out their anger on the people whom they pay to hold the government to account.

Not ideal, but neither is the government hiding behind orchestrated press conference with cherry picked questions (max 2 per journalist).

Well, absolutely (I'd love to hear "Mr Johnson, what would you say to the thousands of people who will now lose their businesses due to your incompetence in not closing our borders to South Asia because you were obsessed with your trading deal with Modi?") but you should know by now that this Government doesn't allow dissent. And why should they? The stupid are still going to vote for them.

[LaurasOtherHalf]

Covid: Epidemic growing across England, says study

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57504172


Although it’s hyped as growing by the bbc, early signs are that it could be flattening in the north west.

[sevensfun]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

Covid: Epidemic growing across England, says study

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57504172


Although it’s hyped as growing by the bbc, early signs are that it could be flattening in the north west.

Oh fk right off. This is boy who cried wolf. Same st week after week, month after month and nothing happens. They really are sick in the head these people.

[LaurasOtherHalf]

sevensfun said:

LaurasOtherHalf said:

Covid: Epidemic growing across England, says study

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57504172


Although it’s hyped as growing by the bbc, early signs are that it could be flattening in the north west.

Oh fk right off. This is boy who cried wolf. Same st week after week, month after month and nothing happens. They really are sick in the head these people.

Nick Triggle said:

The picture presented by React is one from 10 days ago. But if we look at the daily figures published by the government, there are some encouraging signs, albeit it very tentative.

Last week, cases appeared to be doubling every 10 days, but this week that has slowed to something closer to 14 days.
It still means the epidemic is growing - but it is the first sign of a flattening of cases.

[sevensfun]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

sevensfun said:

LaurasOtherHalf said:

Covid: Epidemic growing across England, says study

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57504172


Although it’s hyped as growing by the bbc, early signs are that it could be flattening in the north west.

Oh fk right off. This is boy who cried wolf. Same st week after week, month after month and nothing happens. They really are sick in the head these people.

Nick Triggle said:

The picture presented by React is one from 10 days ago. But if we look at the daily figures published by the government, there are some encouraging signs, albeit it very tentative.

Last week, cases appeared to be doubling every 10 days, but this week that has slowed to something closer to 14 days.
It still means the epidemic is growing - but it is the first sign of a flattening of cases.

Headline: The Covid epidemic in England is growing - was enough for me.