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

Well said Greeneyedgirl. I can't believe we are still having this conversation.

Targeting older people first and working down the age ranges have saved 27,000 lives and prevented 7.2 million infections.

If we think back 12 months the problem was that people were dying in droves and the best way to stop that was to have the vaccination program we did. Now we have another problem, Long Covid, and whether children are affected. That doesn't mean that the decision to vaccine the older people first was wrong.

Other countries have made different decisions but given the situation we were faced with, the course we took was, IMO, the right one.

www.gov.uk/government/news/covid-19-vaccines-have-prevented-7-2-million-infections-and-27-000-deaths

Yes, you’re absolutely right Alegrias,but the point is, we can’t have it both ways. The decision was made to vaccinate older and vulnerable people first, so that’s what we did. Therefore it’s pointless some (only some and not all) Gransnetters now complaining that younger people are becoming ill, and sadly a few dying.

Agreed maddyone

I can't believe we are still having this conversation.
Why do you sound so incensed Alegrias? Greeneyedgirl gave a good comment worthy of consideration. Where in the conversation did anyone say the decision to vaccinate to older people first was actually wrong?. I said the decision was taken and whether we agree or not, we live with it and accept any consequences. Someone else rightly said, we can't have it all ways.

Crossed posts!

Yes*maddyone*, judging by comments I've read older, vulnerable, more cautious people would actually have preferred to be locked up for longer anyway.

Greeneyedgirl has already commented on this.

His retired sister is still waiting and more than happy to do so.

She is in a country with a tiny case and death rate compared to ours. I imagine her life is going on pretty much as normal?

I'm expressing my view. Still allowed, I believe?

Me too, just expanding my thoughts to other countries, alternative methods, different generations. Nowhere saying decsions were "wrong".

this govt's attitude is quite extraordinary. Everyday we listen to scientists telling us that the plan for complete abandonment of precautions is foolhardy, to say the least, and then, the BBC, ever keen on not being accused of "partisanship" says "well, it must be a difficult balancing act for the govt". No it isn't difficult - abandonment of masks on public transport and in enclosed spaces will result in harming many people at risk, and result in another spike in infection rates. When did science become political as opposed to fact? Are we now going to discuss the proposition that all male children under the age of two should be slaughtered - scientists seem to think it's a bad idea, but, for a balanced discussion let's ask Herod. And can we hand out some cojones to the news editors at the BBC.

I’m sure we all have reservations but I think the time has come to ‘loosen up’ a bit whilst maintaining care regarding hygiene etc. We can’t go on like this for ever - how many of us shut ourselves away in case we catch the flu?

I’m very reluctant, and a little scared, but forcing myself to do something more each day without putting myself or others at risk.

I remember many GNs saying they would rather give up their place in the vaccination queue for a medic or a teacher to get the jab. Me too at the time, and I would thereby have happily stayed locked down for longer.
I am now equally happy to go with the decision that that would not have been sensible.
The conversation can evolve along those lines with hindsight.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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…..

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.