The decision to end restrictions is dangerous and premature, unethical and illogical.

Rosie1959 that’s been true since the start, but now those who never gave a toss about rules, will have someone to blame for their selfishness.

Its not an experiment but its an unprecedented situation because we've got a new pandemic here and the UK is in an interesting position because we have such a successful vaccine program.

Well, that's just another way of saying that it's an experiment, isn't it?

I don't actually care to be in this 'interesting position' with a lunatic running the country.

I'm also seeing that the Delta version is proving to be a bit resistant to the AZ vaccine twitter.com/GuptaR_lab/status/1416350408344223748

But the person making the decisions is Johnson, Alegrias and he can have all the opinions of the scientists of all specialisations.

Johnson is, was and probably always will be a high priest of the free market economy. That is where his priority lies. Tens of thousands have already lost their lives because he is compelled by his view of economics and I would guess tens of thousands more will too.

At the beginning of February 2020 when we already knew about the virus he said:

Trade used to grow at roughly double global GDP – from 1987 to 2007. Now it barely keeps pace and global growth is itself anaemic and the decline in global poverty is beginning to slow.

Johnson is a man of another age, another era. One who is as blind to climate change as he is to covid. To keep faith with his fellow extreme free-market economists - a form of capitalism that was already dead - he will allow people to starve, he will allow them to be homeless and he will allow them to die.

It is good to see what the various scientist are saying. However, we must remember who makes the decisions.

B Johnson's libertarian policy of leaving public hygiene to individuals' consciences is an example of right -wing optimism about human nature.

REALLY!

Where can one begin to disentangle the irony in this statement?

rosie1959

Caleo how much longer do we need to live under ‘rules’ the majority will use their common sense from Monday and those the don’t probably don’t give a toss about rules anyway

How long did our parents and grandparents have to "live under rules" during the war? I make it six years. When the bombs fell on people's homes, most people ran to the shelter as the rules and laws told them to do. Some didn't. Of those who didn't some individually paid the price. I imagine some of the first responders of their day took some casualties because of their selfishness too.

When the bombs stopped, they stopped going to shelters. The bombs have not yet stopped falling in this crisis.

MaizieD

^Its not an experiment but its an unprecedented situation because we've got a new pandemic here and the UK is in an interesting position because we have such a successful vaccine program.^

Well, that's just another way of saying that it's an experiment, isn't it?

I don't actually care to be in this 'interesting position' with a lunatic running the country.

I'm also seeing that the Delta version is proving to be a bit resistant to the AZ vaccine twitter.com/GuptaR_lab/status/1416350408344223748

For every Tweet there is an equal and opposite anti-Tweet.

Why don't you call up Prof Woolhouse and tell him he's not quite right and it is an experiment really, he just doesn't understand that?

It is good to see what the various scientist are saying. However, we must remember who makes the decisions.

I wouldn't argue with that PippaZ. And that's why I think its counterproductive to just keep getting the one view expressed on here and the pitting of "Johnson" against "The Scientists".

I think the man's a liability, but "The Scientists" aren't all agreed on this either.

The bombs may have not stopped falling but the reality is some either don’t give a toss or are prepared to live with this virus and get on with their lives
I am in the middle ground will continue to take sensible precautions but no point in getting het up over what may or may not happen over the next months

For every Tweet there is an equal and opposite anti-Tweet.

Why don't you call up Prof Woolhouse and tell him he's not quite right and it is an experiment really, he just doesn't understand that?

And that is a good discussion post? I'm sure your university and your "science" degree would have taught you better Alegrais

rosie1959

The bombs may have not stopped falling but the reality is some either don’t give a toss or are prepared to live with this virus and get on with their lives
I am in the middle ground will continue to take sensible precautions but no point in getting het up over what may or may not happen over the next months

You cannot "live with this virus". That is a silly Tory meme. At the very least you will have to "live with" frequent vaccination. You may find that there are other impositions, as you seem to see them, to stop you from dying with this virus.

Perhaps, instead of quoting the idiot at the head of this government, you could explain what "living with this virus" actually means to you. Then you could let us know how many agree with you imposing your "rules" on them.

PippaZ can’t help wondering when someone makes a straight forward comment it has to be picked to bits
What impositions do you think I see
I have no rules to impose use your common sense and get on with your life

Living with the virus means exactly the same as living with flu. In other words, it’s not going away anytime soon, and we may probably have to have regular vaccinations, just like we do with flu. Almost every winter people die from flu. Every death is sad, but when older people become ill with flu and go on to develop chest infections that kill them, society accepts this as a normal end of life. Covid will also continue to kill some people, but the majority, like with flu,will suffer mild symptoms and get well. That is what people mean when they say living with Covid. I think.

Good post maddyone. I agree.

But someone will come along in a moment to yell "Do you not understand Long Covid!!!"

Most probably Alegrias.

Well put maddyone

I think the illogicality of the rules, the contradictions and now the complete removal of everything is just madness, with the present data. At least sustain some basic precautions such as mask wearing. Said in paper today that countries that introduced compulsory masks early as a pragmatic precaution, had less overall deaths in first wave! We don't need 100% proof of workability to do something, and infact now there is lots of evidence of masks reducing infection

Baroness Sal Britton has tweeted that advice for the Clinically Extremely Vulnerable has eventually been updated to:

“Don’t mix with the unvaccinated
Meet outside
Don’t go to work if possible”

In a shop, dentist or NHS setting this is impossible.

Clinically Extremely Vulnerable make up 3.8m of the population

I think Boris is thinking we have to start somewhere. And I agree we have to live with this and just be careful as individuals.

Why can't England start, as the rest of the UK is doing, with much reduced restrictions but still compulsory mask wearing in some indoor situations, some physical distancing and a recommendation to continue working from home where possible?

Would the majority really find that so difficult.

Alegrias1

Good post maddyone. I agree.

But someone will come along in a moment to yell "Do you not understand Long Covid!!!"

What is your answer to those people?

- A little more than 'Yes, I do' would be helpful.

How about "Stop being so dismissive of what other people do and don't understand, implying they are anti-science idiots with their heads in the sand?"

I might suggest they word their concern as: "I still think Long Covid is a big issue though, that's a worry for me"

Alegrias1
1. I never suggested such a thing.
2. I would, indeed, be more likely to word it that way, but the worry is the same.

What is your reply to those who are worried about Long Covid?

People do write things like that though FarNorth, and I find it annoying, sorry

I don't know what the answer is about Long Covid and I've never pretended to. What I was drawing attention to is that there are posters who will use the existence of Long Covid as an argument for continuing restrictions, when what we need is a sensible look at what the situation is and a proper risk analysis. Maybe that's what "living with the virus" means as well.

maddyone

Living with the virus means exactly the same as living with flu. In other words, it’s not going away anytime soon, and we may probably have to have regular vaccinations, just like we do with flu. Almost every winter people die from flu. Every death is sad, but when older people become ill with flu and go on to develop chest infections that kill them, society accepts this as a normal end of life. Covid will also continue to kill some people, but the majority, like with flu,will suffer mild symptoms and get well. That is what people mean when they say living with Covid. I think.

It is not "exactly" the same as living with flu. Only flu is the same as living with flu.

I could say to you that it is "exactly" the same as living with chicken pox, mumps, german measles, measles, whooping cough, polio or tuberculosis. All of these can be vaccinated against and all require reporting to Public Health England and require the person to quarantine as does Covid-19.

Just because people die from flu does not justify allowing CV to run riot as some seem to be suggesting. Let's just hope you and others with this devil may care attitude do not lead to you or I getting it and dying. I should not be happy with that although it does sound as if you don't care.

rosie1959

PippaZ can’t help wondering when someone makes a straight forward comment it has to be picked to bits
What impositions do you think I see
I have no rules to impose use your common sense and get on with your life

What do you think a discussion is about? Do you think we should all just leave things we believe to be untrue? Why bother being part of a discussion if you feel that is the case?

It is those who have decided not to take others into account with how they behave who are inflicting their "rules" on other people's lives.