some people really can't help themselves can they ? Feel free to provide some evidence to your statement.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Massive government U-turn on Covid restrictions
- Thread starter Wozza
- Start date
some people really can't help themselves can they ? Feel free to provide some evidence to your statement.It could well be. So many I speak to seem unable to distinguish. The media have never settled on figures to focus on or aided clarity. People still believe that the infection rate is entirely hospital settings
daveinplzen
New member
- Aug 31, 2018
- 2,846
Welll, to start with, you clearly did not see the word MAY, but, here you are, its not like its not been spoken about.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50096400
https://www.ft.com/content/5eb0944e-f67c-11e9-9ef3-eca8fc8f2d65
https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/the-impact-of-brexit-on-workers-rights
How is the trade off schools for pubs?
Seems very odd
It’s almost like it’s guess work
Seems very odd
It’s almost like it’s guess work
Farehamseagull
Solly March Fan Club
Normal by Christmas suddenly seems a long way off.
How have we ended up with this complete imbecile in charge of the country?! He speaks more shit than most football forum users combined.
How have we ended up with this complete imbecile in charge of the country?! He speaks more shit than most football forum users combined.
I actually think it's quite straight forward.
Directly there is no link between schools and pubs.
However, our aim is to keep R (the reinfection rate of the virus) below 1.0. In doing so, the virus is in decline, meaning fewer new people are contracting it.
If R goes above 1.0 then the number of infected people is growing. That can become exponential, lots of people get sick and, ultimately, health services can become over-run.
Each of the lockdown restrictions we loosen are likely to cause R to go up, but by quite how much we may not know until we do it and monitor the effect on infection rates.
These numbers are completely hypothetical, but I'm using it to try and illustrate the balance that is likely being attempted by HM Government with the assistance of SAGE advice. Different changes will impact the R number, either making it go up or down, eg:
Open pubs: +0.2
Open public transport: +0.1
Mandatory face coverings in shops: -0.15
Open schools +0.3
Open gyms: +0.13
Mandatory face coverings in all indoor settings: -0.25
...and so on.
Officially the UK's R number has been stated as being between 0.8 and 0.9 currently but if you open schools that could become, say, 1.1 to 1,2.
So having pubs and restaurants open AND schools open pushes R above 1.0., meaning closing either of these settings would reduce R to below 1.0, thereby "closing pubs will allow schools to be opened" because there is the unspoken suffix "...and keep the UK's R number below 1.0".
TL;DR - there is a basket of measures which affect the R number, and the aim is to find a combination which allows as much "normal" to go on as possible, whilst keeping R below 1.0.
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
Any best guesses as to which 2nd/3rd account the OP is?
Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
Boris actually said 'significant return to normality' by Christmas. Not normal by Christmas. Personally I don't like the language he used as most people are either unable or indeed unwilling to discern that he is not speaking with an absolute in mind but with a nuanced possibility. I wonder, if he is so encouraged by the progress of the Oxford vaccine, that he has been unable to contain himself and 'let the cat out of the bag' if he thinks it likely that mass vaccinations will be possible by then.
Farehamseagull
Solly March Fan Club
Yeah I know. I think it’s totally irresponsible for the man in charge of this fiasco to come out with that sort of language at all and then a week later have to rein it all in. The public have not good a clue what is going on anymore and yet you can guarantee this government will be blaming the public when we have spikes.
Last edited:
darkwolf666
Well-known member
Of course they will, the public won't have been following the advice to "stay alert" - it's all the great unwashed's fault...
Not that simple. R has relevance only when you consider the group size, and indeed also the rate of spread (which is determined by population clustering and will cause R to stay stable or to change). In Germany a while ago they had the occasional massive R, with R swinging up and down on an almost daily basis, but the numbers infected were initially so low the increase in cases was trivial, and the social distancing meant it took a while for the infection to spread so R quickly fell again. With 10 people ill, an R of 2 and a slow spread will give you anywhere from 30 (if each person infects 2 others then social distancing stops the spreading any further) to a couple of hundred if social distancing is slow to resume. With 100 people ill, if R is only 1 but social distancing is poor and lock down measures slow to resume you'll get anything between 200 and thousands of cases in a couple of weeks.
The brave call would be to send the nation back to work but screen the old (over 50s, maybe over 55s, not certain) and immunocompromised. Anything else, till we get a vaccine, is gaming with peoples' lives and, with the present government, has a strong whiff of dickwittery about it. If I hear Boris describing aspects of the UK's reponse as the 'finest in the world' again I'll vomit.
Leaking good news about the success of a vaccine is impossible if the trial is being done properly (blinded and randomised) and is in any case unethical. If data are emerging on a vaccine's effectiveness Boris won't know anything about it, not least because the data will still be coded.
'Significant return to normality' is more meaningless waffle, I'm afraid. Let us not forget that this is the man who claimed he would deliver a cracking Brexit deal, of which there remains no sign.
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
There have been many such small 'leaks' about the success of the Oxford and indeed other vaccines. I am not sure how any other interpretation is possible?
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,303
heard on the radio this is being suggested, along with outrage from group representing over 50s that this would be ageist.
heard on the radio this is being suggested, along with outrage from group representing over 50s that this would be ageist.
I'm 62 so it will affect me, but there is no way I'm schlepping it up to London to work any thime soon. Utter madness.
I'd call it 'stayingalive-ist'
Interpretation of Boris' statement? Significant something by Christmas? That's the easiest thing in the world for him to say as it is both positive and meaningless. And, in his inimicable style, if by Christmas we can invite one family from ourside our bubble to dinner (albeit it would have to be al fresco - not ideal in December, but hey ho) he will be able to say 'see, time and time again we deliver on our promises, unlike Corbynlabour'.
If you meant something else about leaking of vaccine data, I misunderstood. I haven't seen any leaks at all.
No leaks here: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/research/coronavirus-vaccine-research/
I will stoop to the Guardian. Here, reports are clear:
"University of Oxford/AstraZeneca
The University of Oxford vaccine is delivered via a chimpanzee virus, called the vaccine vector. The vector contains the genetic code of the protein spikes found on the coronavirus and triggers a strong immune response in the human body. The vaccine is in a combined phase 2/3 trial in the UK and has recently gone into phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil."
What does this mean? Phase 3 is to properly test effectiveness and safety. This means the vaccine has passed phase 2 (actually it probably has not, and the Brazil/South Africa trials have gone ahead because these countries require less proof and less paperwork to risk testing a new medicine). What this means is that the vaccine triggers an immune response and may be effective. But we don't know how effective.
On the basis of that I would estimate that we may or may not have a vaccine by Christmas. Which is, I suspect, what Boris meant.
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
Interpretation of Boris' statement? Significant something by Christmas? That's the easiest thing in the world for him to say as it is both positive and meaningless. And, in his inimicable style, if by Christmas we can invite one family from ourside our bubble to dinner (albeit it would have to be al fresco - not ideal in December, but hey ho) he will be able to say 'see, time and time again we deliver on our promises, unlike Corbynlabour'.
If you meant something else about leaking of vaccine data, I misunderstood. I haven't seen any leaks at all.
No leaks here: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/research/coronavirus-vaccine-research/
I will stoop to the Guardian. Here, reports are clear:
"University of Oxford/AstraZeneca
The University of Oxford vaccine is delivered via a chimpanzee virus, called the vaccine vector. The vector contains the genetic code of the protein spikes found on the coronavirus and triggers a strong immune response in the human body. The vaccine is in a combined phase 2/3 trial in the UK and has recently gone into phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil."
What does this mean? Phase 3 is to properly test effectiveness and safety. This means the vaccine has passed phase 2 (actually it probably has not, and the Brazil/South Africa trials have gone ahead because these countries require less proof and less paperwork to risk testing a new medicine). What this means is that the vaccine triggers an immune response and may be effective. But we don't know how effective.
On the basis of that I would estimate that we may or may not have a vaccine by Christmas. Which is, I suspect, what Boris meant.
I believe that Boris is possibly interpreting things both said publicly, which contain no data but do contain personal opinions as to the likelihood of efficacy for the Oxford and other vaccines, and also to him which may contain data (unethical if so as you say). I already stated I didn't like the language he used to frame a bit of hope and positivity. Unfortunately, the phrase he used was clumsy and it allowed a timeframe into an uncertain situation along with an unclear idea of exactly what 'normal' or near normal may look like.
He's a brilliant politician, though. He knows how to maximise his attachment to successes and his distance from failure. It is a gift.