adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,668
Likes: 5,041
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 31, 2020 16:42:13 GMT
Umm, perhaps you missed the entire "Evidence was gathering, government were in denial and shouting down everybody that pointed it out to them, until absolutely undeniable" repetition there...? Isn't hindsight wonderful? The timescale here is little over one week, it's hardly a hanging offence to take what may turn out to be a slightly sub-optimal course, if indeed they did. It's not a perfect world. Remembering they still had to balance the need for our children to continue with some semblance of education. Had they closed schools then discovered a week later it proved unnecessary, Starmer would no doubt have hung them out to dry for 'wrecking our children's education'. I've been the first to criticise this government for some of its past mistakes, but here I think they really were wrong-footed by the unexpected and eye-wateringly fast spreading mutation and the science advice which necessarily has to lag behind it. Isn't that the whole point? They were blindsided despite all the evidence already pointing to it. Either they were blindsided, or they were wilfully ignoring the evidence in favour of soundbites. Which is worse? 10th - numbers rising 14th - Hancock briefs parliament 16th - Johnson shouts Starmer down and insists Xmas is sacrosanct Why couldn't Johnson have said "At the moment, we think this is still manageable, but if the situation changes, we'll be led by the science."...? Why did the government insist on throwing legal threats at schools who were concerned about what they were seeing? Were those two days of school time immediately prior to the Xmas holidays really ever going to be make-or-break for education? When there's one utterly major all-consuming potential-government-breaker of a crisis going on, it takes all the headspace to stop it turning itself into a dog's breakfast. Consciously choosing to have both at the same time? No, even a properly competent government couldn't handle that. After four and a half years, another six or twelve months of transition would not have been major at all. This isn't "once-and-for-all". This is the starting point of the future relationship. The "once-and-for-all" point was in March.
|
|
JamesFrance
Member of DD Central
Port Grimaud 1974
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 897
|
Post by JamesFrance on Dec 31, 2020 16:59:29 GMT
adrianc oh you mean that it should have been extended to give us a chance of reversing it if we keep dragging it out, time to let it drop now.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,668
Likes: 5,041
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 31, 2020 17:02:07 GMT
adrianc oh you mean that it should have been extended to give us a chance of reversing it if we keep dragging it out, time to let it drop now. Umm, no. That boat sailed back in March, remember? Y'know, when the UK actually left?
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,485
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by travolta on Dec 31, 2020 17:52:06 GMT
I'm still having weekly tests. Still negative. Been to stay at my son's house (both he & partner had recovered from Covid) and then they visited for Xmas. In this instance I would say that once you have had it and self isolated for the allotted period you are def. no longer a carrier.
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 31, 2020 17:55:14 GMT
Isn't hindsight wonderful? The timescale here is little over one week, it's hardly a hanging offence to take what may turn out to be a slightly sub-optimal course, if indeed they did. It's not a perfect world. Remembering they still had to balance the need for our children to continue with some semblance of education. Had they closed schools then discovered a week later it proved unnecessary, Starmer would no doubt have hung them out to dry for 'wrecking our children's education'. I've been the first to criticise this government for some of its past mistakes, but here I think they really were wrong-footed by the unexpected and eye-wateringly fast spreading mutation and the science advice which necessarily has to lag behind it. Isn't that the whole point? They were blindsided despite all the evidence already pointing to it. Either they were blindsided, or they were wilfully ignoring the evidence in favour of soundbites. Which is worse? 10th - numbers rising 14th - Hancock briefs parliament 16th - Johnson shouts Starmer down and insists Xmas is sacrosanct Why couldn't Johnson have said "At the moment, we think this is still manageable, but if the situation changes, we'll be led by the science."...? Because he's more the cavalier Eton toff sparring at the despatch box than serious prime minister. Does any politician ever take the reasonable approach that you suggest, if they spot an opportunity to put down the other side? But he probably did the right thing in the end at Christmas. I agree you could never set your diary according to anything Boris says. To be fair, " all the evidence" here seems to amount to two days' worth, from Hancock's briefing of the mutant variant. Until then, 'numbers rising' was nothing new. Was two days' evidence really sufficient that early on to raise the spectre of cancelling Christmas? It obviously was for the dour misery-guts Starmer. Could Boris have been taking a more optimistic view, trying to keep the people happy, hoping it wouldn't come to that? At that point, it doesn't seem a completely unreasonable position. But shifting sands... We'd already had Andy Burnham throwing his weight around and challenging the government's authority. Perhaps it was time for government to stamp its mark and let the local tin-pot dictators know who was in charge? Who knows what they had in mind. I disagree that six or twelve months more wrangling wouldn't have mattered. Making the December deadline a REAL deadline for a change actually concentrated minds and resulted in an outcome that seems to satisfy most observers. What would dragging on another six or twelve months have achieved, other than extending the general malaise that has been palpable in the UK?
|
|
|
Post by stevepn on Dec 31, 2020 17:59:17 GMT
They have blood on their hands, does that include some of the NHS doctors and nurses who have performed approximately 550 abortions today?
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,485
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by travolta on Dec 31, 2020 18:02:42 GMT
They all wear gloves.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,463
Likes: 2,904
|
Post by michaelc on Dec 31, 2020 18:13:17 GMT
Would it be correct to say that all these people who have had covid got it mainly by not wearing masks? Where have you been hiding all year? Masks aren't to protect you. They're to protect others FROM you. Remember, most infections are asymptomatic. It depends on the mask and the user wearing it. A cloth mask that is worn every day and stuffed into a pocket with hands that have been everwhere surely is unlikely to help the user much but should help others as Adrian says. But a methodical method employed by the user surely is a big first step. i.e. to ensure that stuff on the front of the mask doesn't come into contact with you mouth or eyes indirectly via touching one or more things. A good quality respirator should provide total protection (not the eyes though unless its full face) to the person wearing it as long as they are also methodical in their handling of it. That is why those in close contact with Covid patients wear it and thus unfortunately, Adrian's assertion is not correct.
|
|
daveb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 245
Likes: 201
|
Post by daveb on Dec 31, 2020 18:44:10 GMT
It's not certain how much of the spread is droplets and how much is just virus in the air. Wearing a mask even a pretty grotty old one should reduce the number of droplets you put out a fair bit. Combined with distance and ventilation and the lack of downsides it's clearly the right thing to do.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,956
Likes: 4,387
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 31, 2020 20:16:45 GMT
I'm no fanboy for this government, but I honestly don't think they could win whatever they did. If they'd left Christmas 'open' for five days as planned, they would have been crucified for the new mutant strain proliferating wildly. I hate knee-jerk politics as much as the next man, but here I truly believe they didn't have much option. The 'red' on the map - initially Kent only - was clearly developing faster than anyone could have imagined. Yesterday the MHRA approved the use of the AZ vaccine, suggesting that the second dose need not be given for 12 weeks. The government implemented this and this morning the doctors union association have been highly critical saying it is unfair that high risk people don't get the second jab after 3 weeks.
Boris really can't win
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Dec 31, 2020 21:09:02 GMT
Yesterday the MHRA approved the use of the AZ vaccine, suggesting that the second dose need not be given for 12 weeks. The government implemented this and this morning the doctors union association have been highly critical saying it is unfair that high risk people don't get the second jab after 3 weeks. More accurately, the MHRA just approved the vaccine, it's the JVCI that advised "initially prioritising delivery of the first vaccine dose", and not just for the AZ but for the Pfizer vaccine as well. Pfizer has also criticised the decision, saying that "the safety and efficacy of the vaccine has not been evaluated on different dosing schedules".
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,956
Likes: 4,387
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 1, 2021 9:27:03 GMT
Yesterday the MHRA approved the use of the AZ vaccine, suggesting that the second dose need not be given for 12 weeks. The government implemented this and this morning the doctors union association have been highly critical saying it is unfair that high risk people don't get the second jab after 3 weeks. More accurately, the MHRA just approved the vaccine, it's the JVCI that advised "initially prioritising delivery of the first vaccine dose", and not just for the AZ but for the Pfizer vaccine as well. Pfizer has also criticised the decision, saying that "the safety and efficacy of the vaccine has not been evaluated on different dosing schedules"...... if you only give one dose it will halve our profit margin
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,668
Likes: 5,041
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 1, 2021 9:34:23 GMT
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Jan 1, 2021 10:41:31 GMT
More accurately, the MHRA just approved the vaccine, it's the JVCI that advised "initially prioritising delivery of the first vaccine dose", and not just for the AZ but for the Pfizer vaccine as well. Pfizer has also criticised the decision, saying that "the safety and efficacy of the vaccine has not been evaluated on different dosing schedules"...... if you only give one dose it will halve our profit margin Except the JVCI proposal is not to only give one dose, it's to give the second dose after 12 weeks. Not to mention that Pfizer's biggest problem for the near future is manufacturing enough doses to satisfy all the pre-orders, it's not like they don't have enough demand.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,956
Likes: 4,387
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 1, 2021 12:33:12 GMT
After the second lockdown Devon moved into tier 2, and I immediately received an alert from the NHS app to say things have changed. Now that we are in tier 3 the app still says tier 2. Anyone else had this issue?
|
|