Covid-19

[cricketfieldclarets]

A senior NHS employee informed me that it's actually the NHS managers job to buy PPE not the governments, and they should have started stockpiling back in February. They didn't and that's why the Ministers had to step in.

That’s more than likely the case. And not surprising. Having worked with nhs trusts before they’re notoriously late to invest in much needed services.

[Long Time Lurker]

Something people seems to be overlooking is that even a mild case in healthy people can affect your life. It's not die or fine.

Have a healthy friend in early 30s with no pre-existing conditions who had it only bad enough to lay him up at home for a few days in March. But now can't pass a lung strength test after 8 attempts and is also having fatigue/irritability problems.
Young people who've run marathons now unable to job to the shops, It's possible it's taken years of people's lives.

This strikes me as the important thing that we seem to be overlooking. Initial studies have shown that a symptom of Covid infection is lung damage.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... ng-damage/

We have also seen evidence of some people catching Covid for a second time. These instances of secondary exposure have been associated with even more severe symptoms. It could be because their lungs were damaged in the first exposure, haven't had time to heal, and they were forced to fight the second exposure in a weakened state. Naturally, that would result in their lung damage reaching a critical state quicker the second time around.

If that speculative assessment is correct it would change a lot of things. At the moment the powers that be are happy for the younger generation to catch Covid, because the majority seem to pull through it fairly quickly with no obvious symptoms.

However, if exposure does cause lung damage then we shouldn't just be protecting people who are obviously at a greater risk ( like older people or those with established medical conditions ) we should also be protecting young kids whose bodies are still developing.

It might be that exposure, while exhibiting no obvious signs of outwardly visible damage, is actually doing a great deal of damage that could have long term health implications for the youngest people in our society. Which could make sending kids back to school very dangerous.

Given recent findings, that infection spikes are being noticed in people who live in multi generational households, the idea of sending kids back to school should be of concern. At the moment outbreaks seem to be originating from young people being cavalier about exposure and transmission. If that is the case then sending kids from multi generation households back to school may lead to a massive increase in such spikes and put many lives in danger.

Earlier in the thread I was somewhat disparaging about the Oxford Vaccine and I still am. However, in their initial trial it was mentioned that their product may help alleviate symptoms, which could include the severity of lung damage. Now, if this is the case their product could have huge value in the fight against Covid. As a vaccine it might be worthless, but a product that could prevent long term lung damage would be highly desirable.

Unfortunately, if their clinical trials aren't looking specifically for changes in lung damage we won't know. It could be that they are rushing through the clinical trial process and wasting all of that time and human endeavour because they are ignoring something that might be of vital importance.

That is the problem with charging ahead, people make mistakes. We might have to go through the delay of having another round of testing where lung condition is monitored in participants, simply because a company wanted to get a potentially profitable drug to market as quickly as possible.

[dsr]

That is the problem with charging ahead, people make mistakes. We might have to go through the delay of having another round of testing where lung condition is monitored in participants, simply because a company wanted to get a potentially profitable drug to market as quickly as possible.

You're wrong about the motivation, I believe. The rush to find a coronavirus vaccine - which is all over the world, not just in Oxford - is derived mainly from government desires to have a vaccine as quickly as possible. But if you're right, then surely the government will put its foot down and insist on the usual lengthy trial - they won't allow them to rush in.

As for the children in the rest of the post, I see your point - just - but what's the solution? Lock them up for 5 years until the tests have been completed?It's a matter of weighing up the potential damage from allowing children to grow up in a bubble or allowing them into the wide world with all its (partly unknown) risks. There is no option that does not risk damage.

[taio]

All over by Christmas according to Boris don’t know what we are worrying about anymore.

I bet you thought when Boris said we can "turn the tide in 12 weeks" he was saying it would all be over by mid-June. He wasn't saying that at all and you've got the wrong end of the stick again. Hope is very important and he was spot on about turning the tide in 12 weeks.

[Zlatan]

A senior NHS employee informed me that it's actually the NHS managers job to buy PPE not the governments, and they should have started stockpiling back in February. They didn't and that's why the Ministers had to step in.

As someone who has been a senior management member of an NHS trust (albeit over 10 years ago) I agree that it is the trusts responsibility to procure equipment and PPE. However, this government hold the purse strings, and also allowed a stockpile of PPE which was intended to support NHS supplies in such a pandemic as this to deplete and expire. That is the governments responsibility not the NHS management.

That’s more than likely the case. And not surprising. Having worked with nhs trusts before they’re notoriously late to invest in much needed services.

See my response above, especially regarding the funding which this government has cut year on year until recently. The mentality of NHS procurement is clearly affected by government policy so it’s impossible to absolve the government of all responsiblity like many of the Tory supporters try to do on this forum and others. If you do absolve the government then I’m afraid you’re blind to the real world.

[taio]

As someone who has been a senior management member of an NHS trust (albeit over 10 years ago) I agree that it is the trusts responsibility to procure equipment and PPE. However, this government hold the purse strings, and also allowed a stockpile of PPE which was intended to support NHS supplies in such a pandemic as this to deplete and expire. That is the governments responsibility not the NHS management.


See my response above, especially regarding the funding which this government has cut year on year until recently. The mentality of NHS procurement is clearly affected by government policy so it’s impossible to absolve the government of all responsiblity like many of the Tory supporters try to do on this forum and others. If you do absolve the government then I’m afraid you’re blind to the real world.

There were 25,000 pallets of PPE stockpiled. Which NHS Trust were you a senior manager of and did they at any stage have no PPE? I work with multiple trusts and not one ran out of PPE at any point. They were low on stock at times which caused understandable concern.

[cricketfieldclarets]

I bet you thought when Boris said we can "turn the tide in 12 weeks" he was saying it would all be over by mid-June. He wasn't saying that at all and you've got the wrong end of the stick again. Hope is very important and he was spot on about turning the tide in 12 weeks.

That twelve week comment gave me plenty of optimism. And he was proved bang on.

He will have measures and plans in place that will ensure he is as good as he can be to this prediction.

[cricketfieldclarets]

As someone who has been a senior management member of an NHS trust (albeit over 10 years ago) I agree that it is the trusts responsibility to procure equipment and PPE. However, this government hold the purse strings, and also allowed a stockpile of PPE which was intended to support NHS supplies in such a pandemic as this to deplete and expire. That is the governments responsibility not the NHS management.


See my response above, especially regarding the funding which this government has cut year on year until recently. The mentality of NHS procurement is clearly affected by government policy so it’s impossible to absolve the government of all responsiblity like many of the Tory supporters try to do on this forum and others. If you do absolve the government then I’m afraid you’re blind to the real world.

No doubt they do. But I won’t go into detail on here. But I’ve seen nhs teams hold on to money until ‘after the event’ and then invest so many times.

[Spijed]

I doubt the rest of the world will be looking at the 12 week comment by Boris and thinking that Britain has handled the situation better than anyone else.

Far from it.

[taio]

I doubt the rest of the world will be looking at the 12 week comment by Boris and thinking that Britain has handled the situation better than anyone else.

Far from it.

Absolutely irrelevant point. The point is he was hammered on here for the 12 week comment which was completely misunderstood at the time. Unsurprisingly there has been no mention of it since. And I've seen some comments taking his "Christmas" comment completely out of context too.

[UnderSeige]

The problem with masks is that the government is saying "safe to go back to work, safe to go shopping, little danger, get on with life ... oh, by the way, always wear a mask even if you're only in a shop for a minute". Are people going to believe that it is really safe?

That's a good point. It's difficult to untangle the false information that was given about masks at the start. The government need to confess that they were hoodwinking us to protect the NHS PPI supply. They then need a firm statement to tell us the truth about mask wearing and how effective it is.

Quite apart from the stupidity of a rule that says if you visit a shop for a minute to buy a coffee to take away, you must wear a mask or get fined £100 because it's deadly dangerous not to. But if you visit a shop to sit inside for an hour, it's safe to take the mask off.

The stupidity (or perhaps ignorance is a better word) is to not wear a mask when you go into a shop. It is also selfish and inconsiderate.

[jrgbfc]

I think the masks are more a way of trying to reassure people and help get the economy going. The government have spent the last few weeks/months putting the fear of God into people and telling them to stay home. A lot of people, particularly the elderly are uneasy about leaving the house to go shopping now.

[UnderSeige]

Perhaps we are worrying about people who listen to three words of a speech and think they know what was said? People who think that Boris said it will all be over by Christmas, perhaps haven't understood much of the rest of what has been said by all; parties.

There is a possibility that it could be all over by Christmas if the vaccine transpires in Sept/Oct. Spring is my best bet for what it's worth (not much).

[UnderSeige]

This strikes me as the important thing that we seem to be overlooking. Initial studies have shown that a symptom of Covid infection is lung damage.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... ng-damage/

We have also seen evidence of some people catching Covid for a second time. These instances of secondary exposure have been associated with even more severe symptoms. It could be because their lungs were damaged in the first exposure, haven't had time to heal, and they were forced to fight the second exposure in a weakened state. Naturally, that would result in their lung damage reaching a critical state quicker the second time around.

If that speculative assessment is correct it would change a lot of things. At the moment the powers that be are happy for the younger generation to catch Covid, because the majority seem to pull through it fairly quickly with no obvious symptoms.

However, if exposure does cause lung damage then we shouldn't just be protecting people who are obviously at a greater risk ( like older people or those with established medical conditions ) we should also be protecting young kids whose bodies are still developing.

It might be that exposure, while exhibiting no obvious signs of outwardly visible damage, is actually doing a great deal of damage that could have long term health implications for the youngest people in our society. Which could make sending kids back to school very dangerous.

Given recent findings, that infection spikes are being noticed in people who live in multi generational households, the idea of sending kids back to school should be of concern. At the moment outbreaks seem to be originating from young people being cavalier about exposure and transmission. If that is the case then sending kids from multi generation households back to school may lead to a massive increase in such spikes and put many lives in danger.

Earlier in the thread I was somewhat disparaging about the Oxford Vaccine and I still am. However, in their initial trial it was mentioned that their product may help alleviate symptoms, which could include the severity of lung damage. Now, if this is the case their product could have huge value in the fight against Covid. As a vaccine it might be worthless, but a product that could prevent long term lung damage would be highly desirable.

Unfortunately, if their clinical trials aren't looking specifically for changes in lung damage we won't know. It could be that they are rushing through the clinical trial process and wasting all of that time and human endeavour because they are ignoring something that might be of vital importance.

That is the problem with charging ahead, people make mistakes. We might have to go through the delay of having another round of testing where lung condition is monitored in participants, simply because a company wanted to get a potentially profitable drug to market as quickly as possible.

Research has also shown that a number of asymptomatic people are now finding that they have serious lung damage despite having no symptoms when they initially tested positive.

[Zlatan]

There were 25,000 pallets of PPE stockpiled. Which NHS Trust were you a senior manager of and did they at any stage have no PPE? I work with multiple trusts and not one ran out of PPE at any point. They were low on stock at times which caused understandable concern.

‘Twas NWAS, like I said over 10 years ago.highlighted the part in your response that really should have been managed by government.

[Zlatan]

No doubt they do. But I won’t go into detail on here. But I’ve seen nhs teams hold on to money until ‘after the event’ and then invest so many times.

Oh I agree, many times we were told at the end of the financial year to “just spend the budget or we lose it” after scrimping and scraping for everything we needed for BAU. That policy was and still is driven by government funding policies.

[Lowbankclaret]

The USA and Brazil have tended to have short lived and limited lockdown. They are now experiencing high case rates. This would have been the same for the UK.

The UK are now squashing clusters through 'track and trace'. For example, if an outbreak occurs in a food processing plant, the plant will be closed and the workers made to self isolate for a time. If this was not occurring the clusters would expand into the communities (e.g. Leicester) causing the virus to take off in those areas. Matt Handcock has said that over 100 of these small lockdowns takes place every week.

It could be argued that 'track and trace' along with 'mask wearing', hygiene and 'social distancing' would have been enough to control the virus without having to go into lockdown.

Months ago I wrote about Taiwan’s tactics for controlling this virus. A country of 26 million, we have 66 million. Taiwan introduced compulsory masks when outside of your home. Hand sanitiser everywhere and Temperature checks before entering shops barbers etc.
They had 40 cases in the same week we had 40 cases.

They ended up with a total of 454 cases and 7 deaths.

Lockdown was required because we didn’t do the 3 things they did.

And we still haven't learnt. Padiham Tesco has removed cleaning stations and hand sanitizer, complete madness.

[taio]

‘Twas NWAS, like I said over 10 years ago.highlighted the part in your response that really should have been managed by government.

I work with NWAS and at no point did their paramedics not have PPE. The bit highlighted was understandable yet unavoidable.

[Zlatan]

I work with NWAS and at no point did their paramedics not have PPE. The bit highlighted was understandable yet unavoidable.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. My understanding of NWAS during this pandemic is that paramedics were not given the correct PPE, as there were shortages of the right masks, but that was from one of the union reps who I’m still in contact with.

[UnderSeige]

You're wrong about the motivation, I believe. The rush to find a coronavirus vaccine - which is all over the world, not just in Oxford - is derived mainly from government desires to have a vaccine as quickly as possible. But if you're right, then surely the government will put its foot down and insist on the usual lengthy trial - they won't allow them to rush in.

As for the children in the rest of the post, I see your point - just - but what's the solution? Lock them up for 5 years until the tests have been completed?It's a matter of weighing up the potential damage from allowing children to grow up in a bubble or allowing them into the wide world with all its (partly unknown) risks. There is no option that does not risk damage.

The early vaccine is possible due to the advances in the bio technology industry. It is likely to be much safer than traditional vaccines because it doesn't use toxic adjuvants. The trials so far show that it also might not be quite as effective.

We don't yet know what the risk is to children. We do know that a number of asymptomatic contractors of the virus have developed lung damage. Urgent research is required in order to avoid a 'polio type outcome'.

The vaccine is most likely going to be the solution for children. we don't need to lock them up or expose them to a dangerous disease any longer than is necessary.

[UnderSeige]

Months ago I wrote about Taiwan’s tactics for controlling this virus. A country of 26 million, we have 66 million. Taiwan introduced compulsory masks when outside of your home. Hand sanitiser everywhere and Temperature checks before entering shops barbers etc.
They had 40 cases in the same week we had 40 cases.

They ended up with a total of 454 cases and 7 deaths.

Lockdown was required because we didn’t do the 3 things they did.

And we still haven't learnt. Padiham Tesco has removed cleaning stations and hand sanitizer, complete madness.

It's so simple that it's stupid not to do it. Rather than enforcing a few hand washing, distancing and mask wearing measures, we have had to commit 'economic suicide' locking half of the nation down for three months.

It doesn't look like that Tesco store care about their customers and staff much. It's best to shop at places that are clean and 'safety conscious'.

At least they will have to abide by government regulations to make people wear masks. I think that stores that serve customers who are not wearing masks should be closed down until after the pandemic.

I can't help but think that there will be some people who will wear the mask as they enter the store and then take it off when they go in. They will probably then put it back on at the checkout in order to get served. There will also likely be people who don't wear the mask properly in order to make a point. Stores who allow these 'babyhouse capers' should also be closed down.

[UnderSeige]

We’ll have to agree to disagree. My understanding of NWAS during this pandemic is that paramedics were not given the correct PPE, as there were shortages of the right masks, but that was from one of the union reps who I’m still in contact with.

Also if there hadn't been a shortage the government wouldn't have had to hoodwink the nation into thinking masks are ineffective.

[Billy Balfour]

If I was 'World King (UK version) I would have passed laws making it compulsory for all supermarkets to wipe down handbaskets and trolley handrails after each use. Hand gel on entry to each store, as well. Also, Michael Gove's 'trust the British public’s common sense' would not have been an issue because facemasks would have been made compulsory as soon as we started to lift some of the lockdown restrictions.

[bfcjg]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-u ... 00180.html
If citizens and governments behave responsibly then early next year the battle against this virus will be all but over.

[Billy Balfour]

It will be made in the US if Trump says so.

[UnderSeige]

This strikes me as the important thing that we seem to be overlooking. Initial studies have shown that a symptom of Covid infection is lung damage.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... ng-damage/

We have also seen evidence of some people catching Covid for a second time. These instances of secondary exposure have been associated with even more severe symptoms. It could be because their lungs were damaged in the first exposure, haven't had time to heal, and they were forced to fight the second exposure in a weakened state. Naturally, that would result in their lung damage reaching a critical state quicker the second time around.

If that speculative assessment is correct it would change a lot of things. At the moment the powers that be are happy for the younger generation to catch Covid, because the majority seem to pull through it fairly quickly with no obvious symptoms.

However, if exposure does cause lung damage then we shouldn't just be protecting people who are obviously at a greater risk ( like older people or those with established medical conditions ) we should also be protecting young kids whose bodies are still developing.

It might be that exposure, while exhibiting no obvious signs of outwardly visible damage, is actually doing a great deal of damage that could have long term health implications for the youngest people in our society. Which could make sending kids back to school very dangerous.

Given recent findings, that infection spikes are being noticed in people who live in multi generational households, the idea of sending kids back to school should be of concern. At the moment outbreaks seem to be originating from young people being cavalier about exposure and transmission. If that is the case then sending kids from multi generation households back to school may lead to a massive increase in such spikes and put many lives in danger.

Earlier in the thread I was somewhat disparaging about the Oxford Vaccine and I still am. However, in their initial trial it was mentioned that their product may help alleviate symptoms, which could include the severity of lung damage. Now, if this is the case their product could have huge value in the fight against Covid. As a vaccine it might be worthless, but a product that could prevent long term lung damage would be highly desirable.

Unfortunately, if their clinical trials aren't looking specifically for changes in lung damage we won't know. It could be that they are rushing through the clinical trial process and wasting all of that time and human endeavour because they are ignoring something that might be of vital importance.

That is the problem with charging ahead, people make mistakes. We might have to go through the delay of having another round of testing where lung condition is monitored in participants, simply because a company wanted to get a potentially profitable drug to market as quickly as possible.

The Astrazenica/Oxford vaccine will be on a 'not for profit basis' until the pandemic is over. It is even going to supply 400 million doses to Europe not for profit. https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centr ... rofit.html

There is a possible loophole in that it could be argued that once the first wave has subsided the pandemic is over. However, if the first wave ends and there is a vaccine (there may be several by then) the pandemic will be more or less over anyway.

I think that there is a lot darker things going on in 'pharma' at the moment than the Oxford/Astrazenica vaccine.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Oh I agree, many times we were told at the end of the financial year to “just spend the budget or we lose it” after scrimping and scraping for everything we needed for BAU. That policy was and still is driven by government funding policies.

Hundred percent happens all the time.

[UnderSeige]

A recent YouGov poll found that a third of UK citizens will refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. This is a bit of a problem. If this plays out then the pandemic is likely to last longer with all the economic and health fallout that entails. On the other hand you can't force people to take a vaccine.

I like the idea of bribery. A reward (£500 shopping voucher or similar) to be given at the end of the pandemic for all those who have not fallen foul of the restrictions and have cooperated with any vaccine programmes.

[Long Time Lurker]

You're wrong about the motivation, I believe. The rush to find a coronavirus vaccine - which is all over the world, not just in Oxford - is derived mainly from government desires to have a vaccine as quickly as possible. But if you're right, then surely the government will put its foot down and insist on the usual lengthy trial - they won't allow them to rush in.

As for the children in the rest of the post, I see your point - just - but what's the solution? Lock them up for 5 years until the tests have been completed?It's a matter of weighing up the potential damage from allowing children to grow up in a bubble or allowing them into the wide world with all its (partly unknown) risks. There is no option that does not risk damage.

Trials

The trials will still be the same length, in terms of going through the necessary stages, but if speed is the primary concern things won't be done. Normally after each stage a period of evaluation follows which delays things and the more things you consider at each stage the longer the trial and the evaluation of the data takes.

Expecting the government to step in is probably not going to happen, because our Govenment isn't interested in a lengthy clinical trial. As you say, they are actively pushing for the trials to be completed quickly. The trials in other countries are progressing more slowly, which is why Oxford are leading the race. Why I'm not comfortable with using the term race for such a serious issue it could be a case of the Tortise and the Hare.

Children and Other Stuff

I would have closed down full schools attendance for a year. That would have allowed for us to learn more about this virus, build schools to increase provision and allowed for smaller groups of pupils to attend at regular intervals to keep their education topped up.

After the initial year I would have extended the joining/moving age of all pupils at every level by one year. That would mean that the youngest primary school kids would have to wait an additional year before joining the system. I sincerely doubt a year delay would negatively affect their finger painting that much.

As an added bonus, any struggling students could have used the year to catch up with their peers, benefitting their overall education. Students doing well could benefit from online learning to improve on their current standard.

The idea that closing schools will hurt the education of children is a fallacy. What is really hurting their education is an idiotic government that is making poor decisions that are influenced by the desire to get their parents back to work. A government that is putting profit before people, instead of finding ways to balance the two in what could be a lengthy fight against this virus.

To counter the need to quickly get people back into work I would have enforced a suspension of business rents and individual rents for people who have lost their jobs, along with mortgage payments. Landlords don't need rent if their buy to let mortgage payments are frozen and business won't fold if they don't have to keep paying rents. The banks could live without their interest payments for a year.

A similar thing could be done with credit card debts, but I think anyone daft enough to run them up without a good reason should still pay something.

Instead of a non means tested furlough scheme that paid some more than others I would have given all qualifiers £200 a week to cover food bills. With no rent to pay that would have been enough for most people. Monthly furlough payments of £800, instead of a floating figure that was £2500 in a lot of cases, would have allowed us to maintain the furlough payments longer.

More importantly, getting the business world back on its feet over a longer period would have given everyone more time to plan, more time to adjust and more time to react to any changes.

Those are just the quick ideas that came to me when the **** first hit the fan. I was hoping that the people elected to protect and serve us would come up with something far better, but sadly I don't think that they have. Our Governments handling of this life threatening scenario has been a fiasco and an expensive mess.

What we desperately need is more time to change the way we actively live until this virus is under control. While the lockdown reduced the initial spread of the virus it is still as virulent as ever. During that period we should have got all of our ducks in a row, but we are barely any further down the road in terms of the provisions made to fight this thing.

Profit and greed has become the motivating factor for decision making once again. Everything is now open again, social distancing has been reduced ( because schools aren't big enough to accommodate a full pupil return and businesses like restaurants can't function with limited covers to fill ). People are going to be flying into the country with no quarantine period, the shops are all open and groups can mix far more freely.

Everything is in place to support a second wave, which could occur in Winter when it will be far more devastating and the countries financial reserves have been depleted. Think of the lung damage done by Covid as a metaphor that could be used to describe what might happen to our society as a whole.

We are battle scarred, our finances are depleted which means our options are diminishing and the virus is still as strong as ever. This is a war that we are currently losing and throwing our children back into the trenches under the threat of fines is a National disgrace.

The last time we did that was in World War I when we decimated the youth of a generation by encouraging them to join up and wasted their lives by ordering them over the top at gun point to face a hail of machine gun fire, while our fat cat leaders stayed home in safety.

[fatboy47]

With respect LTL, I think you are mainly talking out of your arse.

[jrgbfc]

A recent YouGov poll found that a third of UK citizens will refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. This is a bit of a problem. If this plays out then the pandemic is likely to last longer with all the economic and health fallout that entails. On the other hand you can't force people to take a vaccine.

I like the idea of bribery. A reward (£500 shopping voucher or similar) to be given at the end of the pandemic for all those who have not fallen foul of the restrictions and have cooperated with any vaccine programmes.

How about anyone who refuses the vaccine is banned from any public area where they could potentially spread the virus? That would soon change their mind.

[tiger76]

Months ago I wrote about Taiwan’s tactics for controlling this virus. A country of 26 million, we have 66 million. Taiwan introduced compulsory masks when outside of your home. Hand sanitiser everywhere and Temperature checks before entering shops barbers etc.
They had 40 cases in the same week we had 40 cases.

They ended up with a total of 454 cases and 7 deaths.

Lockdown was required because we didn’t do the 3 things they did.

And we still haven't learnt. Padiham Tesco has removed cleaning stations and hand sanitizer, complete madness.

That's mental of that Tesco store, is it that much of a problem to have simple precautions in place to protect customers & staff, especially when you are a multi-million pound company, i can understand the smaller independent retailers struggling to meet the extra cost, but not a well-known name.

After all as i'm sure they'd agree 'Every Little Helps' i certainly would be wary about shopping in there for the foreseeable, if they can't even implement basic hygiene measures, then you do have to wonder how seriously they value their customers.

[Long Time Lurker]

With respect LTL, I think you are mainly talking out of your arse.

Maybe, but I would rather advocate a cautious approach to moves that could threaten the health and well being of children, even if it is just a throw away comment on a forum.

Imagine being forced to send your child into an environment ( under the threat of a punitive punishment / fine for not doing so ) and something bad happens to them. Maybe the worst happens to them or they just get lung scarring that impedes their health.

Imagine being a parent that has to live with the knowledge that they put their child in harms way, for the rest of their lives, because their Government ordered them to do so and they reluctantly complied.

Their isn't any question of right or wrong, denying responsible parents the freedom to decide what is in the best interest of their own children is always wrong.

[cricketfieldclarets]

A recent YouGov poll found that a third of UK citizens will refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. This is a bit of a problem. If this plays out then the pandemic is likely to last longer with all the economic and health fallout that entails. On the other hand you can't force people to take a vaccine.

I like the idea of bribery. A reward (£500 shopping voucher or similar) to be given at the end of the pandemic for all those who have not fallen foul of the restrictions and have cooperated with any vaccine programmes.

While a vaccine is likely much needed. I wouldn’t have any issue with people opting against it.

I personally wouldn’t take it.

If I was at risk I probably would.

[Billy Balfour]

I like the idea of bribery. A reward (£500 shopping voucher or similar) to be given at the end of the pandemic for all those who have not fallen foul of the restrictions and have cooperated with any vaccine programmes.

It's a poor do when we have to bribe a bunch of selfish idiots, but I do see what you mean.

A less costly option would be some kind of vaccine-passport. If you don't have the vaccine-passport, you don't get access to airports or events where large numbers of people gather, like sporting events and music festivals/venues.

I reckon the private sector would embrace the vaccine-passport and insist on it before granting access to restaurants, pubs/clubs and cinema etc. Employers would also insist on it to protect their business and their employees.

The refusenik third would quickly dwindle to where it wasn't a threat to the rest of the herd.

[NottsClaret]

Grassroots football is back from August, great news for kids.

[UnderSeige]

Trials

The trials will still be the same length, in terms of going through the necessary stages, but if speed is the primary concern things won't be done. Normally after each stage a period of evaluation follows which delays things and the more things you consider at each stage the longer the trial and the evaluation of the data takes.

Expecting the government to step in is probably not going to happen, because our Govenment isn't interested in a lengthy clinical trial. As you say, they are actively pushing for the trials to be completed quickly. The trials in other countries are progressing more slowly, which is why Oxford are leading the race. Why I'm not comfortable with using the term race for such a serious issue it could be a case of the Tortise and the Hare.

I thought that Oxford is leading the race (along with certain Chinese companies) because it started the vaccine in early January even before it was realised that there would be a pandemic. It initially started it as a project to see if it could produce a 'coronavirus vaccine' little knowing that it would be producing it to help stop a world wide pandemic a couple of months later.

[UnderSeige]

How about anyone who refuses the vaccine is banned from any public area where they could potentially spread the virus? That would soon change their mind.

Especially if it was football matches.

[dsr]

Children and Other Stuff
As an added bonus, any struggling students could have used the year to catch up with their peers, benefitting their overall education. Students doing well could benefit from online learning to improve on their current standard.

The idea that closing schools will hurt the education of children is a fallacy. What is really hurting their education is an idiotic government that is making poor decisions that are influenced by the desire to get their parents back to work. A government that is putting profit before people, instead of finding ways to balance the two in what could be a lengthy fight against this virus.

I have a suspicion that the reason some of these struggling pupils are struggling, is because they aren't self-motivated and don't have much significant or useful parental support. It's pie in the sky to suggest that the non-workers will work harder if they aren't made to.

To counter the need to quickly get people back into work I would have enforced a suspension of business rents and individual rents for people who have lost their jobs, along with mortgage payments. Landlords don't need rent if their buy to let mortgage payments are frozen and business won't fold if they don't have to keep paying rents. The banks could live without their interest payments for a year.

Do you think all landlords are buy to let and none of them make a profit out of rent? Do you think that all properties are self-maintaining and cost nothing in upkeep? The rental business is not as simplistic as you think. If you take someone's rental income, you are still taking income.

Instead of a non means tested furlough scheme that paid some more than others I would have given all qualifiers £200 a week to cover food bills. With no rent to pay that would have been enough for most people. Monthly furlough payments of £800, instead of a floating figure that was £2500 in a lot of cases, would have allowed us to maintain the furlough payments longer.

£200 per week to cover food? Regardless of family size? Well, I suppose single people will get fat. But families won't be spending much on heat, light, insurance, the car, rates, internet and TV, etc etc etc. Lucky it's summer - but you want this to go on all winter as well, families living in their unheated, uninsured houses with not a lot to eat and nowhere to go and not a lot to do. Brrr.

[UnderSeige]

While a vaccine is likely much needed. I wouldn’t have any issue with people opting against it.

I personally wouldn’t take it.

If I was at risk I probably would.

You are at risk unless you are living in a bubble. Everyone is and everyone who is not immune is putting everyone that they come into contact with at risk.

Like you say though, you can't stop people from opting out. It would be against the treaty for the Convention of Human Rights for a start.

What you could possibly do is prevent 'opt outs' from attending certain events where they might spread the virus. Football and other sports events could be easily be done. Pubs and restaurants might be more difficult.

It's a bit like the recent ban on smoking. You should have the right to smoke but only when it is not endangering the health of others nearby. If you think about it the virus will travel in a similar manner to someone who is exhaling cigarette smoke.

[UnderSeige]

It's a poor do when we have to bribe a bunch of selfish idiots, but I do see what you mean.

A less costly option would be some kind of vaccine-passport. If you don't have the vaccine-passport, you don't get access to airports or events where large numbers of people gather, like sporting events and music festivals/venues.

I reckon the private sector would embrace the vaccine-passport and insist on it before granting access to restaurants, pubs/clubs and cinema etc. Employers would also insist on it to protect their business and their employees.

The refusenik third would quickly dwindle to where it wasn't a threat to the rest of the herd.

That's an excellent idea. I think you should be a government adviser.

[Billy Balfour]

That's an excellent idea. I think you should be a government adviser.

Heh.

[bfcjg]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-gam ... 47501.html
We can agree or disagree about the quality or lack of it in our politicians, we can debate length of lock downs and how stringent they ought to be etc, but one thing is for sure we have some damned good scientists and medical experts, world leading I would suggest, and with the shambling politicians we have thank goodness the science community are the polar opposite. At least the government backed them, let's hope they will always fund science as required.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Grassroots football is back from August, great news for kids.

Fantastic

[cricketfieldclarets]

You are at risk unless you are living in a bubble. Everyone is and everyone who is not immune is putting everyone that they come into contact with at risk.

Like you say though, you can't stop people from opting out. It would be against the treaty for the Convention of Human Rights for a start.

What you could possibly do is prevent 'opt outs' from attending certain events where they might spread the virus. Football and other sports events could be easily be done. Pubs and restaurants might be more difficult.

It's a bit like the recent ban on smoking. You should have the right to smoke but only when it is not endangering the health of others nearby. If you think about it the virus will travel in a similar manner to someone who is exhaling cigarette smoke.

True. I am at risk. We all are. And I think a vaccine is essential especially for the highest risk. But right now I wouldn’t take it. And there’s no way they could enforce any measures to force people to have it.

Not only would it be impossible on a global scale. It would also be totally unethical to force people.

[cricketfieldclarets]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-gam ... 47501.html
We can agree or disagree about the quality or lack of it in our politicians, we can debate length of lock downs and how stringent they ought to be etc, but one thing is for sure we have some damned good scientists and medical experts, world leading I would suggest, and with the shambling politicians we have thank goodness the science community are the polar opposite. At least the government backed them, let's hope they will always fund science as required.

Absolutely. And brilliant news.

That’s why I’ve been confident from the start we will find great treatments and cures.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

True. I am at risk. We all are. And I think a vaccine is essential especially for the highest risk. But right now I wouldn’t take it. And there’s no way they could enforce any measures to force people to have it.

Not only would it be impossible on a global scale. It would also be totally unethical to force people.

If I recall correctly you're not a believer in the MMR vaccine either so it's not a massive shock that you'd refuse a Covid vaccine.

I'd take the Covid one, just like I've taken other vaccines when available.
I prefer to think about others around me being at risk if I catch it

[FactualFrank]

I bought the Burnley face mask from the club website, which arrived today - I can breathe perfectly well with it on, because the sides aren't tight to my face, which I thought they had to be. I guess it doesn't matter though, as masks are to protect other people, not yourself.

[UnderSeige]

True. I am at risk. We all are. And I think a vaccine is essential especially for the highest risk. But right now I wouldn’t take it. And there’s no way they could enforce any measures to force people to have it.

Not only would it be impossible on a global scale. It would also be totally unethical to force people.

That's right. You can't ethically force people to take any medication against their will just as you can't stop people from smoking. Vaccines are being pushed through the trials very quickly and are not without risk. I would agree that it is wrong to force people to have a vaccine.

What you can do though is ban those people from certain places and events until the pandemic is over. Probably not shopping for essentials and medicine but from most other places such as non-essential shops, pubs, football stadiums, concerts, hairdressers, cafe's, care homes, hospitals (unless being treated), public buildings and such.

This would be protecting both the 'opt-out person' and all those who they come into contact with. An individuals liberty to be 'free from being contaminated by a 'vaccine refuser' is just as important as the refuser's liberty to opt out of the vaccine. I would argue that both of these liberties are equal in weight.

[tiger76]

Just came across this article https://uk.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-s ... 0767.html

Don't think it's been posted before, this info should help the medical profession to work out which cases to prioritise, and therefore hopefully should in turn lead to fewer deaths.