Search results

i think you're conflating issues there. the Xmas amnesty shouldn't have featured in business preparations, it was for people visiting family not a promise business would stay open. cant blame government for business failure to make contingency plans, there was a review scheduled for 16th and...

yes, the language and position taken in PMQ was childish. the numbers never really supported a Christmas amnesty and PM wanted some hope for everyone. they didnt take that position out of malice, situation changed. if we'd followed lockdown advocates we'd simply have cancelled christmas a few...

the scientist calling for no Christmas break were not doing so because of knowledge of the variant strain. they did so because variously they are perma-lockdown advocates or out of general caution in response to rising rates. lets stop pretending there was a widespread knowledge of the variant...

according to BMJ, the variant wasnt identified by Genomics UK until October, on samples taken in Septemeber. since then about 1000 samples identified, out of about 150k (about 10% total tests are genetically sequenced).

its not about government at that point, the question is do you trust the health service to deliver. they do so every year so i dont see why not.

no. there was never talk of vaccination targets until there were approvals, many didnt expect a vaccine this year at all. there was talk about tests in those sorts of numbers.

we're waiting for the Oxford vaccine approval, easier to roll out. we vaccinate about 30m people with flu jab every year in a few months, no reason this one cant be done as swiftly.

south wales have the highest rates in the UK, some 800-1000+ per 100k. what ever they are doing is not working either.

so situation has changed and government reacted to change. isnt that what we want to happen? apart from the puritans that wanted full lockdown since March of course.

which science, the science that says we should have full lockdown or the science that says we shouldnt bother at all? as i say the official and unofficial SAGE both favour harder lockdown, the government is balancing that with other factors, because there's more than science to consider. your...

the purpose and extent of lockdowns in the western democracies has always been to "flaten the curve", reduce the impact, lessen the headline hospitalisation and death rates. it has never been intended to end the spread of covid. for that you need to go hardcore authoritarian style, shut people...

on the bright side, no need to buy meat for a month.

and Manchester should have presumably stayed in tier 3? its not cherry picking to note different boroughs have different rates. point was really about saying "months" when the situation you refer to was weeks ago, and that the situation in London has accelerated.

thats 3 weeks ago not months, and you're cherry picking data. numbers i was looking at for Dec 9th the whole of London was still around ~200/100k, some boroughs above 300, some below the then national average of 150.

Christmas has clearly gone beyond its religious roots to form a secular celebration of family. which is probably its origin before it was appropriated by the church.

thats bollocks though. "months ago" when Manchester was high and going into tier 3, London rates were low. its only this past week or two rates have shot up. the Manchester rates were in the 400 region while London is only just going over 300 in many boroughs. Last week some were Sussex levels...

coming in late, are all those calling for tighter lockdown pleased and supporting the change of policy, or complaining about it?