Omicron variant and the measures implemented in response to it

[brad465]

The retrospective vote on Plan B is due on Tuesday. There have been a number of vocal backbench calls to vote against them, and John Redwood thinks it'll be a record number (78 is the record so far on covid measures). I reckon at least 100 rebels will be enough to cause serious concerns in the party, and, while unlikely, if the number of rebels was high enough that opposition votes in favour of the plan was the difference between the vote passing and failing, Johnson would be facing a leadership challenge imminently.

Perhaps also of note is there are plans to try and bring the Christmas recess start forward by two days to next Tuesday, which seems to be a cowardly way of Johnson trying to escape another PMQs.

 

[Jonny]

The retrospective vote on Plan B is due on Tuesday. There have been a number of vocal backbench calls to vote against them, and John Redwood thinks it'll be a record number (78 is the record so far on covid measures). I reckon at least 100 rebels will be enough to cause serious concerns in the party, and, while unlikely, if the number of rebels was high enough that opposition votes in favour of the plan was the difference between the vote passing and failing, Johnson would be facing a leadership challenge imminently.

It would also make it look more like it was the opposition's restrictions. Sir Kier should be careful what he wishes for.

 

[brad465]

This comment from the FT absolutely nails the argument against mandatory vaccinations and those demanding it:

 

[yorkie]

Is it? I for example have had the two AZ jabs, and subsequently had covid. So my immune system is now very well aware of the virus....

How lengthy a gap did you have? There is evidence that even the enhanced 12 week gap many people had is sub optimal.

Also studies looking at heterologous vaccinations are likely to conclude that a combination of mRNA + viral vactor vaccines will offer a broader immune response.

So, while I don't disagree you are well protected, you would likely benefit from a booster; a booster is going to enhance the chances of you being asymptomatic when (not if!) you get exposed to the live virus.

Given the disruption that even a mild case could cause a booster is well worth getting in my opinion.

Have they actually quantified the risk to a double jabbed, healthy 40 year old for example, versus one who’s been “boosted”? Offering third primary doses to the immunocompromised seems to be based on actual science, but boosters for all yields diminishing returns.

The risk of what? The risks from vaccinations are tiny.

The benefits of a booster depend on what original vaccine you had and what gap you had (see above and see previous posts).

We’re supposed to believe that the vaccines are really good, yet at the same time we now require a booster as the “protection” (read anti-body levels) wanes after a few months?

If course antibodies wane; they are supposed to!

Protection against severe disease is almost certainly very long lasting.

The protection against an infection developing is a different matter; a booster will massively help with that.

How will they justify the fourth jab I wonder? Personally I’m incapable of performing sufficient mental gymnastics to get past thinking this is blatant profiteering, or we’ve been lied to, or more than likely both.

I don't think a 4th dose is likely to be justified, based on what we currently know, but how can we predict the outcome of any future studies or the future evolution of the virus?

As I said before, for most people two doses would have been absolutely fine, if we had known what we now know and if we had had the time to wait for the second doses (which is debatable but now a moot point).

Don’t get me wrong, if people are comfortable with boosters they should get them, it should be a personal choice. For me at this stage though the vaccines are just another element to the never ending Covid **** show I’m afraid (heresy I know)!

It should be a personal choice but it is a sensible choice.

I absolutely understand why people are fed up of restrictions, but it's not right to blame the vaccines for this, or to question the vaccines effectiveness.

Look at people like me now refusing to get a booster in protest at these restrictions as strike action against the government. A sudden drop in booster takeup would send a very effective message.

But that's not going to happen, at least not in sufficient numbers to have any effect. The only effects of such a strategy is to induce more infections.

Either way the point is we need to continue to build up immunity until endemic equilibrium is reached. Everyone is going to be exposed to the virus. The more people who get good immunity through vaccination, the fewer will get hospitalised.

Only a very small proportion of people who get infected will be hospitalised but a small proportion of a huge number is still a large number.

I totally get people wanting to send a message to the Government that we do not wish to comply with their nonsense and I agree with you. But declining boosters is not going to achieve anything positive.

 

[Bikeman78]

Dr Zubaida Haque from SAGE says these restrictions don't go far enough. Quelle Surprise.

In a way, she is right. We already have them in Wales and they have made no difference. So they are pointless.

 

[52290]

I've had all three COVID jabs plus the flu jab but I'm still concerned that they are going to cancel my pub Christmas dinner like they did last year. Am I paranoiac or are they still out to get me?

 

[Bantamzen]

How lengthy a gap did you have? There is evidence that even the enhanced 12 week gap many people had is sub optimal.

Also studies looking at heterologous vaccinations are likely to conclude that a combination of mRNA + viral vactor vaccines will offer a broader immune response.

So, while I don't disagree you are well protected, you would likely benefit from a booster; a booster is going to enhance the chances of you being asymptomatic when (not if!) you get exposed to the live virus.

Given the disruption that even a mild case could cause a booster is well worth getting in my opinion.

I had the second jab around 14 months after the first. But even if this is considered sub-optimal, I tested positive for covid 5 months later (last month) so I have recent exposure to the virus. A booster at this point seems pointless when the worst I felt was some mild, cold-like symptoms. I'd much rather mine and other's boosters go to people who have not yet even had the chance to have a single one. I know it doesn't work that way logistically, but I feel quite strongly about it. The developed countries have been too greedy with the vaccines, it is time to re-address the balance globally.

 

[westv]

I had the second jab around 14 months after the first.

14 months? I assume you mean weeks.

 

[Bantamzen]

14 months? I assume you mean weeks.

Yeah I did

 

[yorkie]

I had the second jab around 14 months after the first. But even if this is considered sub-optimal, I tested positive for covid 5 months later (last month) so I have recent exposure to the virus. A booster at this point seems pointless when the worst I felt was some mild, cold-like symptoms. I'd much rather mine and other's boosters go to people who have not yet even had the chance to have a single one. I know it doesn't work that way logistically, but I feel quite strongly about it. The developed countries have been too greedy with the vaccines, it is time to re-address the balance globally.

It doesn't work like that.

For example South Africa has a surplus of vaccines which they seem unable to use as people don't want the vaccine.

Other countries may have people who are willing but lack the infrastructure to actually deliver the vaccines.

Also the AZ vaccine is the best one for developing countries, however the booster is an mRNA which is less suitable because it needs to be stored at colder temperatures

The UK is going to be supplying many AZ doses around the world; taking a booster in the UK won't finish our ability to do that

 

[initiation]

The retrospective vote on Plan B is due on Tuesday. There have been a number of vocal backbench calls to vote against them, and John Redwood thinks it'll be a record number (78 is the record so far on covid measures). I reckon at least 100 rebels will be enough to cause serious concerns in the party, and, while unlikely, if the number of rebels was high enough that opposition votes in favour of the plan was the difference between the vote passing and failing, Johnson would be facing a leadership challenge imminently.

Perhaps also of note is there are plans to try and bring the Christmas recess start forward by two days to next Tuesday, which seems to be a cowardly way of Johnson trying to escape another PMQs.

I've had a response from my MP that although explicitly did not say what way he was going to vote, he said vaccine passports should not be government mandated.

Unfortunately many players may say 'I won't vote for these messures' but then just abstain. It needs actual votes against.

I give it a 50/50 chance it will only get through on labour votes.

 

[Eyersey468]

I've had all three COVID jabs plus the flu jab but I'm still concerned that they are going to cancel my pub Christmas dinner like they did last year. Am I paranoiac or are they still out to get me?

Although nothing would surprise me any more I think they know if they cancel another Christmas the public will never forgive them. To be honest I will never forgive them for the damage they have done over the last 2 years, as I have said before the chance of me voting for any of the main political parties for the foreseeable future is zero.

 

[21C101]

Although nothing would surprise me any more I think they know if they cancel another Christmas the public will never forgive them. To be honest I will never forgive them for the damage they have done over the last 2 years, as I have said before the chance of me voting for any of the main political parties for the foreseeable future is zero.

It will be reform for me this time or a local independent if one stands (which is not entirely unthinkable).

 

[nw1]

It will be reform for me this time or a local independent if one stands (which is not entirely unthinkable).

IMO Reform are as bad as the others, but in a different way.

How do you vote if you are a left-leaning, anti-Brexit, pro-immigration libertarian? It seems there are no choices left.

Labour really aren't adopting a good strategy. They could scoop up a load of votes from people who are fed up of work-from-home orders and lockdowns. And it wouldn't be against their principles - Labour are supposed to be the party of the working person, so by adopting an anti-lockdown position, they could be preserving jobs and livelihoods and fighting poverty. By adopting an anti-isolation position, they could be fighting the mental health issues that this brings. Who are Labour trying to appeal to? Don't get me wrong, they're less bad than the Tories, but they are not offering anyone any hope of anything better at the moment. Starmer just seems to be adopting hair-shirted, Cromwell-like puritanism.

No party is offering the "live with Covid and move on" strategy, even though many of us, I suspect, believe this is the least worst option.

 

[DustyBin]

The risk of what? The risks from vaccinations are tiny.

The benefits of a booster depend on what original vaccine you had and what gap you had (see above and see previous posts).

I actually meant the risk from the virus in double jabbed versus "boosted" individuals.

If course antibodies wane; they are supposed to!

Protection against severe disease is almost certainly very long lasting.

I know that, in fact it seems to be common knowledge. It's completely lost on the so-called experts though apparently!

The protection against an infection developing is a different matter; a booster will massively help with that.

We're falling into a trap here in my opinion. The original aim was to protect against serious illness and death, not prevent mild or asymptomatic infections. With Pfizer now claiming three doses "neutralizes" omicron we'll be aiming for zero-covid next....

I don't think a 4th dose is likely to be justified, based on what we currently know, but how can we predict the outcome of any future studies or the future evolution of the virus?

As I said before, for most people two doses would have been absolutely fine, if we had known what we now know and if we had had the time to wait for the second doses (which is debatable but now a moot point).

I'm fairly sure the vaccine manufacturers will be calling for fourth doses, why wouldn't they? They'll find the justification....

It should be a personal choice but it is a sensible choice.

On the former I agree. In regard to your second point, if you're low risk you can easily land on either side of the fence in my opinion.

I absolutely understand why people are fed up of restrictions, but it's not right to blame the vaccines for this, or to question the vaccines effectiveness.

I've maintained throughout that the vaccines are effective at preventing serious illness and death which was their original purpose. They're demonstrably not our way out of this however, not now that the goalposts have been shifted.

 

[yorkie]

IMO Reform are as bad as the others, but in a different way.

How do you vote if you are a left-leaning, anti-Brexit, pro-immigration libertarian? It seems there are no choices left.

That's me! And I suspect many others! And yes exactly.

Labour really aren't adopting a good strategy...

I agree. But it will appeal to socialist types and their most vocal members will be satisfied,so they won't realise how unelectable they are

However the Tories are pissing everyone off on all sides so Labour could get in even though they are inept.

It's very difficult to say. When is the next election due again? I think things could change a lot between now and then. And if Xmas doesn't get cancelled and if things go back to normal in 2-3 months people may not be quite so bothered about Covid matters by then.

 

[nw1]

That's me! And I suspect many others! And yes exactly.

I agree. But it will appeal to socialist types and their most vocal members will be satisfied,so they won't realise how unelectable they are

But will it appeal to socialist types? As I said, lockdowns cause economic problems, which cause job losses, which cause poverty. So one could argue lockdowns are actually anti-socialist. The argument of some on the so-called left seems to be that reducing Covid cases is worth it *at any cost* - which is arguably deeply flawed.

However the Tories are pissing everyone off on all sides so Labour could get in even though they are inept.

It's very difficult to say. When is the next election due again? I think things could change a lot between now and then. And if Xmas doesn't get cancelled and if things go back to normal in 2-3 months people may not be quite so bothered about Covid matters by then.

Hopefully yes. Next election would be May 2024 but maybe one will be forced earlier if Johnson resigns. When things get back to normal, or at least the semi-normal which prevailed from June to October, Labour will be a lot more appealing than the Tories to many people, even if the weak Starmer is still the leader. Might also depend on whether Johnson is still PM by then, though they have no strong replacements either.

 

[Eyersey468]

It will be reform for me this time or a local independent if one stands (which is not entirely unthinkable).

I will be voting independent

 

[MikeWM]

Labour really aren't adopting a good strategy. They could scoop up a load of votes from people who are fed up of work-from-home orders and lockdowns. And it wouldn't be against their principles - Labour are supposed to be the party of the working person, so by adopting an anti-lockdown position, they could be preserving jobs and livelihoods and fighting poverty. By adopting an anti-isolation position, they could be fighting the mental health issues that this brings. Who are Labour trying to appeal to? Don't get me wrong, they're less bad than the Tories, but they are not offering anyone any hope of anything better at the moment. Starmer just seems to be adopting hair-shirted, Cromwell-like puritanism.

Labour have a severe problem in that their base is a very uneasy coalition of trendy inner-city university types with working class people in the North and the Midlands. Trying to please both simultaneously is pretty much impossible, and much as I think Starmer has been a massive disappointment, I do think he's got a very difficult job.

Currently they appear to be trying to appeal to the former at the expense of the latter - the recent reshuffle (putting many of the most prominent former Remainers into shadow cabinet positions - whatever we may think of that, it hardly seems a good strategy to win back the 'red wall' seats) being a case in point, and it could well be argued their covid policies are similar.

No party is offering the "live with Covid and move on" strategy, even though many of us, I suspect, believe this is the least worst option.

I'd rather like to see one of those too, but worldwide there doesn't appear to be any party - outside the fringes - that is doing so.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Reform for me.

Labour are utterly useless and don’t deserve to be in power again

 

[MikeWM]

But will it appeal to socialist types? As I said, lockdowns cause economic problems, which cause job losses, which cause poverty. So one could argue lockdowns are actually anti-socialist. The argument of some on the so-called left seems to be that reducing Covid cases is worth it *at any cost* - which is arguably deeply flawed.

I agree entirely. The support of most of the 'left' for these measures is bizarre.

In addition, there is nothing socialist and/or in the spirit of solidarity about assuming your fellow human beings are dangerous vectors of disease and death, and are required to mitigate against such risks and/or hide away from other people. That's the exact opposite of what socialism is supposed to be about.

 

[21C101]

IMO Reform are as bad as the others, but in a different way.

How do you vote if you are a left-leaning, anti-Brexit, pro-immigration libertarian? It seems there are no choices left.

That is what the Libdems should be. But they are almost as supportive of this nonsense as Labour.

 

[Bayum]

I know that, in fact it seems to be common knowledge. It's completely lost on the so-called experts though apparently!

Maybe because they’re experts and have substantive evidence and experience behind them?

I'm fairly sure the vaccine manufacturers will be calling for fourth doses, why wouldn't they? They'll find the justification....

Aren’t the immunosuppressed receiving a fourth dose already?

 

[yorkie]

I agree entirely. The support of most of the 'left' for these measures is bizarre.

In addition, there is nothing socialist and/or in the spirit of solidarity about assuming your fellow human beings are dangerous vectors of disease and death, and are required to mitigate against such risks and/or hide away from other people. That's the exact opposite of what socialism is supposed to be about.

I agree but a significant number of people who are ostensibly on the left have very different views to us.

I don't really understand their logic but I think they are so deep into the rabbit hole there is no way to get them to see sense.

I think it's a tribal thing; some people are keen to paint a picture of left leaning equals support for measures that 'keep people safe' while right leaning equals prioritising money over health. It's a false argument but they won't accept that.

Some of them feel they need to support the rest of their tribe; if their friends and allies are for such measures and if Tort back benchers are against such measures then it's very difficult to convince such people that the measures are not proportionate and appropriate.

I am pretty sure some ostensibly 'left' leaning people who I was friends with have fallen out with me; that's their choice and if they ever see the light I will hold no grudges. But if they continue to take the view that lockdowns and restrictions are justified then I'm not too bothered if they want to have nothing to do with me.

 

[BRX]

The most obvious home for "left libertarians" is anarchism (the idea that the Lib Dems might be it, gave me a good laugh!)

Some reading for those of you who think an anti lockdown stance would be welcome in those circles

Anarchy, Lockdown and Crypto-Eugenics: A critical response from some anarchists in Wales & England

A text submitted anonymously to Montreal Counter-Info, critiquing covid-denialist, conspiracist, and "anti-lockdown" ideas within the anarchist movement.

libcom.org

 

[yorkie]

I'm fairly sure the vaccine manufacturers will be calling for fourth doses, why wouldn't they? They'll find the justification....

I would simply listen to Dr Sarah Gilbert. If she ever says fourth doses are necessary then I will take that as true.

My understanding is that she doesn't feel a booster is necessary for most people (notwithstanding the caveat I've covered before, regarding the gap between doses) so there would have to be a dramatic turn of events for this to happen.

I would deem her to be infinitely more trustworthy on this matter than a director of a company like Pfeizer

 

[Ediswan]

It doesn't work like that.

For example South Africa has a surplus of vaccines which they seem unable to use as people don't want the vaccine.

Also, India's Serum Institute is halving vaccine production due to lack of customers.

The world's largest vaccine maker will halve the production of its Covid-19 vaccine because it has no fresh orders, its top-ranking executive has said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-59574878

 

[yorkie]

The most obvious home for "left libertarians" is anarchism (the idea that the Lib Dems might be it, gave me a good laugh!)

But anarchism is a very extreme form of libertarianism.

Most people who are centre left leaning who are more on the libertarian side then authoritarian would be very much opposed to anarchism.

Equally it does not help if those who are supportive of restrictions are accused of being supporting of fascism.

The reality is that the vast majority of people are not a huge distance apart but restrictions of this nature are very divisive and people who fall just slightly to one side of the line could find themselves in deep disagreement with someone who is politically not that different who just marginally falls the other side of the line that has been drawn

Measures such as mandatory masks are incredibly divisive and people who have a strong view are not necessarily extremists on either side.

 

[MikeWM]

New mask regulations have landed, hurray :-/

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/1400/made

Lots more places as expected, nothing else appears surprising.

Expiry now 26th January. I must say that I was looking forward to the promised three-weekly review next week, but for some reason they seem to have forgotten about that now

(as usual, despite Parliament sitting, these are 'too urgent' to be approved ahead of time. But you guessed that already).

 

[BRX]

But anarchism is a very extreme form of libertarianism.

Most people who are centre left leaning who are more on the libertarian side then authoritarian would be very much opposed to anarchism.

Equally it does not help if those who are supportive of restrictions are accused of being supporting of fascism.

The reality is that the vast majority of people are not a huge distance apart but restrictions of this nature are very divisive and people who fall just slightly to one side of the line could find themselves in deep disagreement with someone who is politically not that different who just marginally falls the other side of the line that has been drawn

Measures such as mandatory masks are incredibly divisive and people who have a strong view are not necessarily extremists on either side.

Unfortunately some views being expressed on this thread are well beyond "falling just slightly to one side of the line", in my opinion. Some seem to be the product of misinformation and excessively narrow reading, again in my opinion.