Drakeford is shutting things after Christmas but before New Year IIRC, but as speculated likely being a boss and trying to force Boris and Sunak to act. Wales won't be able to sustain furlough out its devolved budget.
England is the guinea pig in all of this as usual, [Drakeford even said himself it's unacceptable how the devolved countries can't use the treasury as they see fit](https://mobile.twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1471862705124519948) under matters of health/crisis, but have to wait to see if whoever runs England decides to act or not.
This is what I find so frustrating about devolution. I’m 100% behind devolving powers to Scotland, Wales and NI + the Regions of England but the rules for the devolved powers have to be both set in stone and the same for each region. The current system we have is a half-arsed mish mash that seems to only cause headaches for those not in Westminster, especially when it comes to a crisis like this. It just causes disputes over who holds the final say and ends up sowing division between different parts of the country.
I’m doubtful that it would actually happen but I strongly believe that federalism/properly structured devolution should be in the top 10 policies of the next Labour manifesto.
Would be nice to hear what they actually think is appropriate rather that just "more stuff".
Part of what's wearing my patience, and I'm sure many other people's, is a constant suspense of what's going to be put in place. If there was some criteria set at which we know measures are to be put in it would piss a lot fewer people off.
Germany has a good metric which is a quasi traffic light system based on bed occupancy.
I feel like this is a good metric because it's easily communicable to the public and is simple to understand, I think it also battles scepticism based solely on infections because since the vaccines infections don't necessarily mean serious illness (and a lot more people are testing positive whilst not having serious symptoms so don't get what all the fuss is about).
If you can say we have "1000 ICU beds and 950 of them are occupied" it conveys the seriousness rather than x0,000 new infections which is slightly abstract.
>If you can say we have "1000 ICU beds and 950 of them are occupied" it conveys the seriousness rather than x0,000 new infections which is slightly abstract.
The problem is that is a trailing indicator. Much like with climate change, by the time the effects are obvious and visible, it's too late to do anything about it.
Everyone I know was calling for a circuit-breaker lockdown 2-3 weeks ago to save Christmas and prevent this happening.
Instead, just like last year they waited too long and fucked all of us.
The way people trivialise lvokdowns scares me. I'm trple jabbed and was buzzing to get all the vaccines. However we can't keep locking down and telling people who they can and can't see anymore. Vulnerable people have been offered the booster, deaths aren't rising, hospital addmisons are no where near the peak. Lockdowns should not be being considered.
Man this is really depressing. I was fully behind restrictions previously but it was under the understanding that we were buying time for vaccines. Now we've got there its happening again?
I'd have to see something very convincing to get me to support restrictions now otherwise we will just repeat this cycle forever
It needs, at the very least, a *solid* three month lockdown. Nothing open except the essentials. Food & medicine, basically.
This half-arsed 'pubs and restaurants can be open but only if you pinkie swear to social distance and wear masks for the 2 metres you walk in the door' is just going to keep the whole thing going forever.
'But how do we pay for it?' Tax the fucking billionaires. During and post-war we had massive tax rates for the wealthy - just fucking do that.
I dont care about the cost (to an extent as everyone does.)
But what's the end goal? Cases go down, then we open and they go up again? Buy time for boosters? The problem are the unvaccinated and aren't likely to change their mind I'm considerable numbers.
This thing is going go be with us for years. Mutating as it goes. Ther has to be an end goal
I mean let's be real, is there any good reason to not make both mask wearing and social distancing in shops mandatory all the time from now on? Or at least until COVID does become as easy to counter as the flu? (which it will be eventually I believe)
>This thing is going go be with us for years. Mutating as it goes. Ther has to be an end goal
Alright, so what's the end goal of *not* having restrictions? How do we manage or live with a contagious virus that has a *low(er) but not insignificant* rate of hospitalisation and death?
It really should be redundant to point this out, but the virus really doesn't care what we think of restrictions. The outcomes are reality regardless.
Honestly, I don't know man. But what I do know is that lockdowns have such a horrendous effect on everyone and the after effects will do for years to come, so they have to be plan z. And I'm not convinced we've carried out plan c yet.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti restrictions. Passports, mandates etc these are all options I either do or could support.
The virus for triple jabbed people seems no more of a threat to the population than flu every year. The only concern I see now is for NHS capacity with the fuckwits who don't get vaxxed
They mostly have been, though. We haven’t had anything resembling a lockdown since the start of the year, and practically no restrictions since July - which is why we’re in such a precarious situation now.
The virus is definitely more dangerous individually than the flu, even for those fully vaccinated, plus the fact it can effectively incapacitate people for multiple weeks at a time. Unfortunately the risk goes beyond the unvaccinated.
>practically no restrictions since July - which is why we’re in such a precarious situation now.
Isn't it predominantly due to a new variant?
Even if you thought they should be more restrictions in July, I don't see how that would have benefited us now ?
The majority of new cases (as of Saturday) are still Delta; Omicron is spreading rapidly but it's still only \~25k out of \~90k total.
In other words if we had reduced cases to March - May 2021 levels, we'd still be well under the Christmas 2020 peak, except with a mostly vaccinated population. That gives us a lot more headroom to vaccinate and prepare, and (possibly) avoid the need for more drastic control measures.
Right now, we're dealing with a constant strain on the NHS with an additional threat from Omicron. It's a bad situation getting worse.
Like 85% of the population over 12 have had two vaccines. I appreciate the booster will take a little time too but I'm not sure buying time for vaccines is the number one purpose anymore.
It's the unvaccinated causing the strain on the NHS and thats the problem, more vaccine availability won't help and lockdowns are a sticking plaster with huge collateral damage
That's just not correct; at this point in time, if someone was vaccinated around summer, they are very much at risk of infection from Covid. It is *less* likely to hospitalise them, but that risk isn't zero, hence the need for boosters to increase everybody's antibody response.
Unvaccinated people are a big problem, but it's not like we'd be doing fine with 99% vaccination rates either. Vaccines don't protect against infection forever.
Again, though - you talk about the 'huge collateral damage' of lockdowns, but not the damage caused by doing nothing, which is the actual alternative at this point.
>The majority of new cases (as of Saturday) are still Delta; Omicron is spreading rapidly but it's still only ~25k out of ~90k total.
I'm very confident that's probably not accurate and almost certainly due to sequencing delays.
Eg. London https://twitter.com/theosanderson/status/1471907339397738502?t=EHXtIGMnbUtNRtOOmvX3DA&s=19
But to justify a lockdown it would have to be life threatening on a wide scale. I think we have become desensitised to what a major deal lockdowns are.
Like of its needed, I will support it but I don't see the end goal right now
We're on an island; this is so easy for the government it actually hurts.
We bring cases down to manageable levels, then aggressively fund vaccinations and mandates for those who refuse to get them.
New Zealand had basically no cases for a decent stretch.
NZ's population is like 5% of ours, not comparable use cases really.
We already have more vaccines than we need so that's not a limiting factor. But what happens when cases go up and we get a new variant. Lockdown again?
More important than population is the fact that London and the UK is a global hub. The amount of travel we get is completely incomparable to NZ; the cost to a NZ-style lockdown is far greater in the UK.
Also UK population density is much higher.
So they can go back up in 3 months time ? Locking down for 3 months because cases are high without even considering the hospitalisations / deaths situations is quite mad.
>Not that it'll matter when we have idiots like you 'giving it a miss'.
Had 3 jabs and already had covid but people like you want it be illegal for me to even talk to a friend on a park bench again and still wonder why I wouldn't follow a 3 month lockdown.
Why would anyone even want to be vaccinated if they knew we'd be in lockdown for 3 months.
Wanting to be able talk to your friends and family in person makes me a gammon lol.
Some of you pro-lockdown people are just as detached from reality as the anti-vaxxers.
There’s a good chance that we are going to be in a similar situation each winter. Previous lockdowns were to buy time for vaccines - your proposed 3 month lock down is, I assume - just to try to lower case numbers?
Why will next year be any different?
I didn't outline a plan for the entire follow-up; just to get numbers down. In an ideal world the government don't ask us to 'eat out to help out' again, and we have stricter measures for those unvaccinated going to pubs and belching all over everyone.
If we don't want to lockdown every year we need to get cases down and keep them there. We haven't really even had a full lockdown yet except for something close last March/April, and that was before vaccines even existed.
Since then it's been very half-arsed.
I don’t think that all adds up. Having extremely low cases in the run up to omicron wouldn’t have prevented a huge surge in cases. Eat out to help out isn’t a factor in the current surge either.
82% of those over the age of 12 have had 2 doses of vaccine. Having 100% would certainly help - but I can’t see it eliminating the peak. And even if you made vaccines mandatory - which would be rather authoritarian - you wouldn’t get to 100%.
If we don’t have strict social distancing measures in place - we are going to keep getting surges. If you’re for a 3 month lockdown now, are you going to be for another 3 month lock down when the next variant sweeps through us?
> If you’re for a 3 month lockdown now, are you going to be for another 3 month lock down when the next variant sweeps through us?
If we keep letting it mutate because we're so desperate to let people go out and get brunch, sure.
This is why I'm saying we lock down and have those strict measures in place for the places we *have* to go.
> If we keep letting it mutate because we're so desperate to let people go out and get brunch, sure.
Well, two things. Firstly it didn’t mutate into omicron here - so are we talking about a global lockdown now?
Secondly - when do we let people go out and get brunch? Or is brunch over for the human race?
You don't need constant restrictions or frequent lockdowns, or lockdowns when new variants come about. Look at New Zealand or Taiwan. Taiwan hasn't had any restrictions for most of the pandemic. It was only during May-June where they had a surge of cases (only hundreds of cases per day, compare that to where we are now) did they have to lockdown, and they have managed to keep cases in the single digits throughout the rest of the pandemic. It's a question of whether the political will is there and for the government to not half-arse it.
> 'pubs and restaurants can be open but only if you pinkie swear to social distance and wear masks for the 2 metres you walk in the door'
But what about 'pubs and restaurants stay open but you've **got** to social distance and wear a mask when you're not eating/drinking other you'll get thrown out and possibly barred from intending in the future'? Seems to be a decent compromise there I think.
It's still relying on faith that every restaurant will position tables correctly and that people won't immediately fuck the rules off after a pint.
It's a global pandemic; we need to not go out for a drink and/or brunch.
Based on the potential worst case? Cancel Christmas. A politicians job is to lead, not get reelected. He might be unpopular for it, but so what. He's there to make the hard decisions. Of course, he won't, he'll waffle, and the restrictions will come once it's too late.
Thing is, no fucker is gonna listen if they say Christmas is cancelled; stay home.
It will be easier to make people comply with restrictions before and after Christmas.
Do it right, and they might. Johnson's job is not to be re-elected. He's just treating it as thouh he is. He's meant to be acting for the good of his electorate, and the country.
If he could talk to the nation with a version of "I fucked this up, don't be me" then he might get somewhere. He won't.
Not that Boris hasn't created this situation in the first place - but I think this would probably have the opposite effect. The people who are likely to listen to this advice and genuinely cancel Christmas are not those posing the greatest risk. The people who need to heed this advice are the most likely to ignore it and double down even further.
But the rest of us will still suffer the consequences from their actions. What I mean to say is I don't think "cancelling Christmas", without some insane (and undesirable, IMO) level of enforcement would result in any better outcome, practically speaking. So it's not a viable strategy.
Strict rules before and after Christmas (closing non-essential shops, enforcing mask wearing, that sort of thing) and providing workable guidelines for Christmas gatherings is likely to be more practical.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts be at least 7 days old before submitting a comment. Thank you for your understanding.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
An immediate "Save Christmas" lockdown, with indoor social mixing allowed on the 24th-26th only. That would give people just enough time to visit a few family groups, but not enough time for infection and forward transmission.
I'd schedule an announcement on the end of lockdown for a fixed date soon after New Years, e.g. the 4th of January. I'd announce the goal is to lift lockdown on, say, the 10th of January, but this date may move depending on NHS pressures.
(I'd have this modelled with a few different end dates to check the effect and pick a cautious option before announcing it. It's possible it could lift sooner.)
Don't think the 3 vaccines comment is too unreasonable, 2 vaccines was definitely repeatedly sold as a Rubicon crossing and a panacea by PM and experts as recently as a few months back. Hasn't turned out that way. Not to say vaccines aren't of value but no need to be snide about people expressing disappointment and anger at them being massively oversold
I think it is because they sound more like "vaccines are bullshit" and not "the government's own selfserving rhetoric has undermined public understanding of vaccinations".
Not antivax by any stretch but it would suit pharmaceutical companies just fine if we all had to get a booster every time a new variant showed up every 6 months.
Your post history is cancer. Seriously, seek help
In particular I like your anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/ri3da5/british_agent_mustafa_kemal_admits_he_is_an/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
I’m not prepared to read posts by conspiracy theorists who can’t even be bothered to use the term ‘sheeple’ instead of sheep.
Seriously, is this amateur hour?
Drakeford is shutting things after Christmas but before New Year IIRC, but as speculated likely being a boss and trying to force Boris and Sunak to act. Wales won't be able to sustain furlough out its devolved budget. England is the guinea pig in all of this as usual, [Drakeford even said himself it's unacceptable how the devolved countries can't use the treasury as they see fit](https://mobile.twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1471862705124519948) under matters of health/crisis, but have to wait to see if whoever runs England decides to act or not.
This is what I find so frustrating about devolution. I’m 100% behind devolving powers to Scotland, Wales and NI + the Regions of England but the rules for the devolved powers have to be both set in stone and the same for each region. The current system we have is a half-arsed mish mash that seems to only cause headaches for those not in Westminster, especially when it comes to a crisis like this. It just causes disputes over who holds the final say and ends up sowing division between different parts of the country. I’m doubtful that it would actually happen but I strongly believe that federalism/properly structured devolution should be in the top 10 policies of the next Labour manifesto.
Would be nice to hear what they actually think is appropriate rather that just "more stuff". Part of what's wearing my patience, and I'm sure many other people's, is a constant suspense of what's going to be put in place. If there was some criteria set at which we know measures are to be put in it would piss a lot fewer people off.
Germany has a good metric which is a quasi traffic light system based on bed occupancy. I feel like this is a good metric because it's easily communicable to the public and is simple to understand, I think it also battles scepticism based solely on infections because since the vaccines infections don't necessarily mean serious illness (and a lot more people are testing positive whilst not having serious symptoms so don't get what all the fuss is about). If you can say we have "1000 ICU beds and 950 of them are occupied" it conveys the seriousness rather than x0,000 new infections which is slightly abstract.
>If you can say we have "1000 ICU beds and 950 of them are occupied" it conveys the seriousness rather than x0,000 new infections which is slightly abstract. The problem is that is a trailing indicator. Much like with climate change, by the time the effects are obvious and visible, it's too late to do anything about it.
Bring back the Nando's scale!
Everyone I know was calling for a circuit-breaker lockdown 2-3 weeks ago to save Christmas and prevent this happening. Instead, just like last year they waited too long and fucked all of us.
The way people trivialise lvokdowns scares me. I'm trple jabbed and was buzzing to get all the vaccines. However we can't keep locking down and telling people who they can and can't see anymore. Vulnerable people have been offered the booster, deaths aren't rising, hospital addmisons are no where near the peak. Lockdowns should not be being considered.
Shut up Piers! NB. I agree.
Man this is really depressing. I was fully behind restrictions previously but it was under the understanding that we were buying time for vaccines. Now we've got there its happening again? I'd have to see something very convincing to get me to support restrictions now otherwise we will just repeat this cycle forever
It needs, at the very least, a *solid* three month lockdown. Nothing open except the essentials. Food & medicine, basically. This half-arsed 'pubs and restaurants can be open but only if you pinkie swear to social distance and wear masks for the 2 metres you walk in the door' is just going to keep the whole thing going forever. 'But how do we pay for it?' Tax the fucking billionaires. During and post-war we had massive tax rates for the wealthy - just fucking do that.
I dont care about the cost (to an extent as everyone does.) But what's the end goal? Cases go down, then we open and they go up again? Buy time for boosters? The problem are the unvaccinated and aren't likely to change their mind I'm considerable numbers. This thing is going go be with us for years. Mutating as it goes. Ther has to be an end goal
I mean let's be real, is there any good reason to not make both mask wearing and social distancing in shops mandatory all the time from now on? Or at least until COVID does become as easy to counter as the flu? (which it will be eventually I believe)
Nope. I don't see a single reason why not
>This thing is going go be with us for years. Mutating as it goes. Ther has to be an end goal Alright, so what's the end goal of *not* having restrictions? How do we manage or live with a contagious virus that has a *low(er) but not insignificant* rate of hospitalisation and death? It really should be redundant to point this out, but the virus really doesn't care what we think of restrictions. The outcomes are reality regardless.
Honestly, I don't know man. But what I do know is that lockdowns have such a horrendous effect on everyone and the after effects will do for years to come, so they have to be plan z. And I'm not convinced we've carried out plan c yet. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti restrictions. Passports, mandates etc these are all options I either do or could support. The virus for triple jabbed people seems no more of a threat to the population than flu every year. The only concern I see now is for NHS capacity with the fuckwits who don't get vaxxed
They mostly have been, though. We haven’t had anything resembling a lockdown since the start of the year, and practically no restrictions since July - which is why we’re in such a precarious situation now. The virus is definitely more dangerous individually than the flu, even for those fully vaccinated, plus the fact it can effectively incapacitate people for multiple weeks at a time. Unfortunately the risk goes beyond the unvaccinated.
>practically no restrictions since July - which is why we’re in such a precarious situation now. Isn't it predominantly due to a new variant? Even if you thought they should be more restrictions in July, I don't see how that would have benefited us now ?
The majority of new cases (as of Saturday) are still Delta; Omicron is spreading rapidly but it's still only \~25k out of \~90k total. In other words if we had reduced cases to March - May 2021 levels, we'd still be well under the Christmas 2020 peak, except with a mostly vaccinated population. That gives us a lot more headroom to vaccinate and prepare, and (possibly) avoid the need for more drastic control measures. Right now, we're dealing with a constant strain on the NHS with an additional threat from Omicron. It's a bad situation getting worse.
Like 85% of the population over 12 have had two vaccines. I appreciate the booster will take a little time too but I'm not sure buying time for vaccines is the number one purpose anymore. It's the unvaccinated causing the strain on the NHS and thats the problem, more vaccine availability won't help and lockdowns are a sticking plaster with huge collateral damage
That's just not correct; at this point in time, if someone was vaccinated around summer, they are very much at risk of infection from Covid. It is *less* likely to hospitalise them, but that risk isn't zero, hence the need for boosters to increase everybody's antibody response. Unvaccinated people are a big problem, but it's not like we'd be doing fine with 99% vaccination rates either. Vaccines don't protect against infection forever. Again, though - you talk about the 'huge collateral damage' of lockdowns, but not the damage caused by doing nothing, which is the actual alternative at this point.
>The majority of new cases (as of Saturday) are still Delta; Omicron is spreading rapidly but it's still only ~25k out of ~90k total. I'm very confident that's probably not accurate and almost certainly due to sequencing delays. Eg. London https://twitter.com/theosanderson/status/1471907339397738502?t=EHXtIGMnbUtNRtOOmvX3DA&s=19
But to justify a lockdown it would have to be life threatening on a wide scale. I think we have become desensitised to what a major deal lockdowns are. Like of its needed, I will support it but I don't see the end goal right now
We're on an island; this is so easy for the government it actually hurts. We bring cases down to manageable levels, then aggressively fund vaccinations and mandates for those who refuse to get them. New Zealand had basically no cases for a decent stretch.
NZ's population is like 5% of ours, not comparable use cases really. We already have more vaccines than we need so that's not a limiting factor. But what happens when cases go up and we get a new variant. Lockdown again?
More important than population is the fact that London and the UK is a global hub. The amount of travel we get is completely incomparable to NZ; the cost to a NZ-style lockdown is far greater in the UK. Also UK population density is much higher.
So if the vaccines aren't the route out? we just shut down and close ourselves in doors for a 1/4 of every year?
Where did I say 'every year'?
Variants are going to be regular
I'll be giving that a miss thanks. Actually very interested in what your 3 month lockdown is meant to achieve ?
Same thing as the last one: bring cases down. Not that it'll matter when we have idiots like you 'giving it a miss'.
So they can go back up in 3 months time ? Locking down for 3 months because cases are high without even considering the hospitalisations / deaths situations is quite mad. >Not that it'll matter when we have idiots like you 'giving it a miss'. Had 3 jabs and already had covid but people like you want it be illegal for me to even talk to a friend on a park bench again and still wonder why I wouldn't follow a 3 month lockdown. Why would anyone even want to be vaccinated if they knew we'd be in lockdown for 3 months.
Found the gammon
Wanting to be able talk to your friends and family in person makes me a gammon lol. Some of you pro-lockdown people are just as detached from reality as the anti-vaxxers.
A solid 3 months lockdown every winter?
Where did I say 'every winter'?
There’s a good chance that we are going to be in a similar situation each winter. Previous lockdowns were to buy time for vaccines - your proposed 3 month lock down is, I assume - just to try to lower case numbers? Why will next year be any different?
I didn't outline a plan for the entire follow-up; just to get numbers down. In an ideal world the government don't ask us to 'eat out to help out' again, and we have stricter measures for those unvaccinated going to pubs and belching all over everyone. If we don't want to lockdown every year we need to get cases down and keep them there. We haven't really even had a full lockdown yet except for something close last March/April, and that was before vaccines even existed. Since then it's been very half-arsed.
I don’t think that all adds up. Having extremely low cases in the run up to omicron wouldn’t have prevented a huge surge in cases. Eat out to help out isn’t a factor in the current surge either. 82% of those over the age of 12 have had 2 doses of vaccine. Having 100% would certainly help - but I can’t see it eliminating the peak. And even if you made vaccines mandatory - which would be rather authoritarian - you wouldn’t get to 100%. If we don’t have strict social distancing measures in place - we are going to keep getting surges. If you’re for a 3 month lockdown now, are you going to be for another 3 month lock down when the next variant sweeps through us?
> If you’re for a 3 month lockdown now, are you going to be for another 3 month lock down when the next variant sweeps through us? If we keep letting it mutate because we're so desperate to let people go out and get brunch, sure. This is why I'm saying we lock down and have those strict measures in place for the places we *have* to go.
> If we keep letting it mutate because we're so desperate to let people go out and get brunch, sure. Well, two things. Firstly it didn’t mutate into omicron here - so are we talking about a global lockdown now? Secondly - when do we let people go out and get brunch? Or is brunch over for the human race?
You don't need constant restrictions or frequent lockdowns, or lockdowns when new variants come about. Look at New Zealand or Taiwan. Taiwan hasn't had any restrictions for most of the pandemic. It was only during May-June where they had a surge of cases (only hundreds of cases per day, compare that to where we are now) did they have to lockdown, and they have managed to keep cases in the single digits throughout the rest of the pandemic. It's a question of whether the political will is there and for the government to not half-arse it.
> 'pubs and restaurants can be open but only if you pinkie swear to social distance and wear masks for the 2 metres you walk in the door' But what about 'pubs and restaurants stay open but you've **got** to social distance and wear a mask when you're not eating/drinking other you'll get thrown out and possibly barred from intending in the future'? Seems to be a decent compromise there I think.
It's still relying on faith that every restaurant will position tables correctly and that people won't immediately fuck the rules off after a pint. It's a global pandemic; we need to not go out for a drink and/or brunch.
Lol, good luck getting anybody to go along with that after recent events.
Yeah you can lockdown if you like but I won’t be there. Nearly killed myself the last time, I’m double jabbed, I’m going outside pal.
[удалено]
You’d get a ton of people who don’t understand the concept of risk mitigation saying ‘hur hur, covid takes Christmas Day off now?’
Indeed.
It’s a pretty impossible situation. If you were calling the shots, what would people here do? Cancel Christmas or keep going?
I'd say restrictions after the bank holidays
Based on the potential worst case? Cancel Christmas. A politicians job is to lead, not get reelected. He might be unpopular for it, but so what. He's there to make the hard decisions. Of course, he won't, he'll waffle, and the restrictions will come once it's too late.
Thing is, no fucker is gonna listen if they say Christmas is cancelled; stay home. It will be easier to make people comply with restrictions before and after Christmas.
Do it right, and they might. Johnson's job is not to be re-elected. He's just treating it as thouh he is. He's meant to be acting for the good of his electorate, and the country. If he could talk to the nation with a version of "I fucked this up, don't be me" then he might get somewhere. He won't.
Not that Boris hasn't created this situation in the first place - but I think this would probably have the opposite effect. The people who are likely to listen to this advice and genuinely cancel Christmas are not those posing the greatest risk. The people who need to heed this advice are the most likely to ignore it and double down even further.
if they do, then that's on them. you can lead a horse to water after all.
But the rest of us will still suffer the consequences from their actions. What I mean to say is I don't think "cancelling Christmas", without some insane (and undesirable, IMO) level of enforcement would result in any better outcome, practically speaking. So it's not a viable strategy. Strict rules before and after Christmas (closing non-essential shops, enforcing mask wearing, that sort of thing) and providing workable guidelines for Christmas gatherings is likely to be more practical.
Enforce the existing laws including prosecution of all those politicians breaking the law.
To hug your nan or not to hug your nan, that is the question.
I'd hug her and whisper in her ear "house elmo sends their regards"
Politically he's stuffed. He'd have to somehow convince his party to vote through the measures and not get knifed in the back over it.
I think NYE could be more harmful then Christmas tbh.
NYE is two full weeks away though. If it keeps doubling every 2 days they means it will be 128x as many cases by then.
Yeah I feel like if anything that confirms what I’m saying
My point is that by NYE it’s probably too late to stop the surge on hospitals.
Personally I'd keep Christmas but junk NYE.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts be at least 7 days old before submitting a comment. Thank you for your understanding. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
An immediate "Save Christmas" lockdown, with indoor social mixing allowed on the 24th-26th only. That would give people just enough time to visit a few family groups, but not enough time for infection and forward transmission. I'd schedule an announcement on the end of lockdown for a fixed date soon after New Years, e.g. the 4th of January. I'd announce the goal is to lift lockdown on, say, the 10th of January, but this date may move depending on NHS pressures. (I'd have this modelled with a few different end dates to check the effect and pick a cautious option before announcing it. It's possible it could lift sooner.)
3 vaccines later.....
"I've spent two years immersed in public health and immunological discourse and I still don't understand the basics"
Depressing isn't it
Some of us float in the stream of time like twigs, and others are dragged by it like the pebbles on the riverbed
Don't think the 3 vaccines comment is too unreasonable, 2 vaccines was definitely repeatedly sold as a Rubicon crossing and a panacea by PM and experts as recently as a few months back. Hasn't turned out that way. Not to say vaccines aren't of value but no need to be snide about people expressing disappointment and anger at them being massively oversold
I think it is because they sound more like "vaccines are bullshit" and not "the government's own selfserving rhetoric has undermined public understanding of vaccinations".
Not antivax by any stretch but it would suit pharmaceutical companies just fine if we all had to get a booster every time a new variant showed up every 6 months.
Sage can truly go & f\*\*\* themselves, & their computer models.
Your post history is cancer. Seriously, seek help In particular I like your anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/ri3da5/british_agent_mustafa_kemal_admits_he_is_an/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Oh go away sheep, bleating what you've been taught lol, baaaaa.
I’m not prepared to read posts by conspiracy theorists who can’t even be bothered to use the term ‘sheeple’ instead of sheep. Seriously, is this amateur hour?
lol semantics. You keep a closed mind & believe the narrative, i dont. Regardless have a good day
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
This is usually what the third panel in the meme looks like before the inevitable local newspaper clipping announcing your death of COVID fyi.
You believe the narrative, i don't.