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

How is personal responsibility going to work?
One may be responsible but the person next to them may not.

At least when people had to wear masks there was at least less risk or a feeling that everyone had a certain level of protection.

This latest idea of lifting these restrictions has given me extra anxiety and I think that I just won't be shopping or eating out etc

esgt1967 said The original point of vaccination was to protect the individual, that's why children are vaccinated routinely for measles, mumps etc and vulnerable people have the flu vaccine - to protect THEMSELVES. It has never been about stopping other people getting the flu, measles or whatever so why have we suddenly decided that everyone needs to be vaccinated to protect everybody else?
I agree, and would add that the risks of vaccinating the under 12s might be more dangerous and cause more problems for them than letting them catch mild covid. If my child were paddling in the waves on the seashore I would only see it at as a minuscule danger and would not rush to grab them. I would be prepared to take that tiny risk. If they were going to go out of their depths in the deep end of the pool, then of course I would act to preserve their life straightaway. No point vaccinating the very young unnecessarily, especially when scientists disagree here, just in case.
Parents will weigh up the dangers and decide. I think there will be a reluctance. Nothing will probably happen on that front until next year so we need to accept the new normal.

Just a comment.

World Doctors Alliance is made up of many eminent scientists and medics.

Do we trust them?

Unfortunately the two biggest studies surrounding the pandemic provided to us worldwide by The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine have been redacted . . . you only need to research to get a more balanced view as opposed to that of the main stream media that has been given to us world wide.
I have been preferring to check with the worlddoctorsalliance.com/
and with the Alliance for Human Research Protection
ahrp.org/the-lancet-published-a-fraudulent-study-editor-calls-it-department-of-error/
so as to come up with a more informed opinion.

PippaZ

Why all the desperation to "return to normal" and who defines what is normal?

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change. [Charles Darwin]

We seem to be shunning adaptability. So what if we have to have pubs with fewer customers? They will have to charge more and we may have to go out less frequently or more will open. So what if we have to pay front-line workers more to do those jobs? They are the very people who will need to spend what they earn and keep the economy churning.

Why defy what so many scientists are saying? Is it just because the rich worry about not holding power? For this, they will sacrifice so many to either death or long-term illnesses? So what if they are no longer in government? We might have younger/brighter people who can move us successfully into the future. But of course, Boris's only aim is power. He has nothing to offer but his past ability to garner votes and ignore our democratic rights.

Change and a proper understanding of a pandemic would no doubt help the many. I listened to a Minister speaking; he seemed shocked. It was as if he has only just been briefed on what is happening. Have all but the favoured few been kept in the dark?

Why not look to the future with the possibility that when the world recovers from this we could have better lives, not those the dinosaurs of this government would inflict on us.

YES!

When a scientist makes a claim or pronouncement about something scientific, other scientists will ask, What are their credentials? Are they qualified to comment on this topic from a position of knowledge?

When it is said that 122 scientists have signed this letter, or that science shouldn’t be political, another scientist will ask, well who are the 122? How can anyone think science isn’t political?

Scientists will wonder how a group of unaccountable scientists manage to get their views so widely disseminated around social media. They’ll wonder why they think they should be undermining the advice and decisions of their colleagues on accountable bodies. They’ll particularly wonder why one of their members is on SAGE but feels the need to be on Independent SAGE as well and cast doubt on the position held by SAGE.

If anyone has the time to read everything I’ve posted about this, you’ll see that I’ve never disagreed with what they say about keeping some restrictions. I didn’t say anybody wasn’t a real scientist either. I don’t expect anybody to trawl though and read my posts, so you’ll just have to take that on trust. But I’m reserving the right to ask what their motivation is and whether the opinion of a mathematician who works on gravity waves (i.e. one of the 122) is really valid in a scientific sense, at this time. If it is, then the opinion of a physicist who worked on solar cells is also valid. (Guess who that is?)

Oops, fat finger. The public is driving the change whether we like it or not and unless a Government stops issuing 'advice and applies actual laws and penalties the population will be the driving force no matter what any expert says..

Since the beginning I have seen individuals and families ignore the rules, especially in the 40s and under groups. So much emphasis was placed on how the young were at such a low risk of catching the virus or having serious consequences that a great many just lived as normally as they could. With the huge crowds being allowed and it seems a lot of young folk are involved, of course people now see the situation as safe. Mask wearing has reduced already. Sat observing people going into a supermarket Sunday and loads of young people not wearing a mask

Loads of nails been hit on heads here! Excellent post and my sentiments exactly. It's "normal" that got us into this mess in the first place!

Same old same old.confusion.mistrust .lazy governing. Anyone who works in an enclosed environment is being told that they have to take all the risks with none of the benefits. Little shopkeepr:please will you all wear a mask and not cram into my sweetie shop? Customers:NO! Little shopkeepr:well I'm afraid I'll have to insist.customers:make me.....
Umm.... I think public transport shops and enclosed public areas should still be masked areas. Common sense until we're in actual control of this disease. The younger generations have on the whole been ok about this but they are not grasping that they have possibly 60-70 years to make up time lost now......we however simply do not.these are our twilight years if you like.no second chances for those over 60.

Nannapat1

I too understand the worries but to describe replacing mandated restrictions with advice is hardly a 'Dangerous and unethical experiment'! Not that making restrictions legally enforceable has been entirely successful anyway!

But the aim is to achieve "herd immunity" by infection rather than vaccination. Given that the health risks of infection (even in the young) are greater than vaccination, I would say that's unethical and dangerous.

annodomini

Last night, pubs across England were crowded with fans watching some football match. A photo on my FB page shows people I know and some I don't know, unmasked, crowded together and grinning at the camera. Now, my DGD's partner caught Covid in similar circumstances a week or so ago. However many fans may have contracted the virus at Wembley itself, it's the crowds in pubs that worry me. I predict that the next week or ten days will see a huge upturn in cases, mostly, but not all, in males between 20 and 50.

There has already been an upturn in cases in young males. It can't be proved, but the hypothesis is that it's connected with the football.

esgt1967

Delaying the end of restrictions looks more and more like forcible vaccination and that's not how it should be. The original point of vaccination was to protect the individual, that's why children are vaccinated routinely for measles, mumps etc and vulnerable people have the flu vaccine - to protect THEMSELVES. It has never been about stopping other people getting the flu, measles or whatever so why have we suddenly decided that everyone needs to be vaccinated to protect everybody else?

Who has said anything about delaying the end of restrictions? Everything I have read indicates that the plan is going ahead.

Where have you picked up that any delay would be about forcing anybody to be vaccinated?

Children are vaccinated primarily to protect themselves, but mass vaccination also creates "herd immunity".

I'm afraid I really don't follow your logic. Why shouldn't teenagers be protected from a a potentially nasty illness, which could leave them with permanent disabilities? Why shouldn't we aim for herd immunity by a safer route than allowing everybody to be infected with all the risks that entails?

In any case, the argument isn't really about continuing with restrictions, but mitigating against risk, so that a further lockdown is avoided.

Last night, pubs across England were crowded with fans watching some football match. A photo on my FB page shows people I know and some I don't know, unmasked, crowded together and grinning at the camera. Now, my DGD's partner caught Covid in similar circumstances a week or so ago. However many fans may have contracted the virus at Wembley itself, it's the crowds in pubs that worry me. I predict that the next week or ten days will see a huge upturn in cases, mostly, but not all, in males between 20 and 50.

I too understand the worries but to describe replacing mandated restrictions with advice is hardly a 'Dangerous and unethical experiment'! Not that making restrictions legally enforceable has been entirely successful anyway!

MayBee70

Alegrias1

A group of scientists including Dr Alice Roberts

I do keep banging on about this, I know, but the group is Independent SAGE and Alice Roberts is an anthropologist who worked as a junior doctor for 18 months, nearly 25 years ago.

And you know better than her I suppose…..I don’t actually listen to things like this without deciding for myself if what they are saying makes sense or not you know. And to my stupid unscientific brain what she says sounds very sensible. I bow to your superior product knowledge yet again…..

MayBee My partner is a "real" scientist (one who knows a thing or two about viruses ). His brain isn't unscientific and he agrees with what Independent Sage is saying, so you're in good company.

Delaying the end of restrictions looks more and more like forcible vaccination and that's not how it should be. The original point of vaccination was to protect the individual, that's why children are vaccinated routinely for measles, mumps etc and vulnerable people have the flu vaccine - to protect THEMSELVES. It has never been about stopping other people getting the flu, measles or whatever so why have we suddenly decided that everyone needs to be vaccinated to protect everybody else?

I think it’s also important to realise that it’s not just ‘independent Sage’ that are saying these things. All three governments in the other nations of the UK are acting on scientific advice and not lifting restrictions as they are in England. There are also many notes of concern coming from Public Health doctors across the UK, and from front line medical and nursing staff and their leaders.

Alegrias1

^A group of scientists including Dr Alice Roberts^

I do keep banging on about this, I know, but the group is Independent SAGE and Alice Roberts is an anthropologist who worked as a junior doctor for 18 months, nearly 25 years ago.

Independent Sage does include some "real" scientists. Most "real" scientists are saying the same as Professor Roberts is saying.

Alegrias1

^A group of scientists including Dr Alice Roberts^

I do keep banging on about this, I know, but the group is Independent SAGE and Alice Roberts is an anthropologist who worked as a junior doctor for 18 months, nearly 25 years ago.

And you know better than her I suppose…..I don’t actually listen to things like this without deciding for myself if what they are saying makes sense or not you know. And to my stupid unscientific brain what she says sounds very sensible. I bow to your superior product knowledge yet again…..

I also follow Dr. John Csmpbell's Youtube channel and his daily updates and interviews with doctors, scientists and members of the public. They make contact from all across the world. Describing what is happening in their community.
The letter in question was signed by 121 eminent scientists and medical personnel.

Smileless2012

I understand the worries, I have them too but I don't agree that that the "UK government is embarking on a dangerous and unethical experiment" and think it's a ridiculous claim to make.

We live in a sea side resort and some people haven't been complying with the regulations for some time, and let's be honest, some never have.

Struggling with the logic of this post. How does the fact that ‘some people’ are not complying with regulations to slow the spread of the virus, protect the life and health of others, mitigate against further lockdowns and reduce the risk of a vaccine-resistant mutation emerging translate to suggesting that removing the regulations altogether is not dangerous and unethical? Of course it is.

A group of scientists including Dr Alice Roberts

I do keep banging on about this, I know, but the group is Independent SAGE and Alice Roberts is an anthropologist who worked as a junior doctor for 18 months, nearly 25 years ago.

If you think science has never been political, read up on Galileo. Or climate change. Or evolution.

blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/science-has-always-been-inseparable-from-politics/

A group of scientists including Dr Alice Roberts have said why is the government going for herd immunity by opening up the country now and letting young people get it when a couple more months of vaccinating people would have had the same effect but without subjecting young people to the risk of long covid. And if the projected figures for infection rate is anything to go by could mean 500 people a day are at risk of long covid.