This forum has been predicting widespread mass demonstrations for months, but very few have materialised.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not at all in favour of open-ended swingeing restrictions.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
When will restrictions finally end?
- Thread starter Huntergreed
- Start date
- Status
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not at all in favour of open-ended swingeing restrictions.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Freightmaster
Verified Rep
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 3,874
Maybe not so much mass demonstrations as much as mass disobedience, which to be truly effective
would have to include coordinated action by some of the businesses who have been forced to close.
For example, it would only take one of the larger pub chains such as Wetherspoons to break
the lockdown once vaccination of 'groups 1-4' is complete and start reopening their pubs for
other pubs/shops to quickly follow - safely in numbers and all that...
But the question is who would be be brave enough to risk fines/legal action to start the ball rolling??
MARK
The spirit of rebellion simply doesn't exist in sufficient numbers of people. A company like Wetherspoons would face massive difficulties in staying open - I am sure they have considered it!
Surveys says that a significant majority of people want the current lockdown, and whilst the figures might not be as high as some surveys say, I can nevertheless believe that it's a majority.
Until that changes, we will be going nowhere (of course, it won't change until the fearmongering stops).
I feel that the efficiency of such measures has been overstated, and the harms dramatically understated; if they are so effective, why weren't they included on any pandemic plans in the past?
Regarding Mr Starmer, I'm not surprised, it's a very politically 'easy' route to take; there was significant kickback from the party when he was pressuring Boris about an 'exit plan' back in early May 2020.
Unfortunately this means that we don't have a clear plan to get out of these measures, and with no scrutiny, no doubt we will be held to ransom whilst the virus does whatever it does.
Ian Cunningham
Member
One of the contributors on CAMRA Discourse has suggested this several times only to be shot down by people who actually run pubs
There is no "safety in numbers" for licenced premises - as some pubs have found breaching covid regulations gets your pubs licence pulled pretty damn quick
If pubs were to open in defiance of the regulations then the Police can immediately close them down using provisions in the Licencing Act(s) which can be turned into longer closures by Magistrate/Sheriff Courts.
It's probably the quickest way to put a pub out of business permanently and (with a possible loss of Personal Licence) the licencee out of the industry
It is frustrating that licensing ties into lots of other things, really it should only be at risk for breach of licensing conditions, and not other regulations.
Pubs are on eggshells. Only the most reckless of licencees would risk trading in an illegal manner. Around here the council have been very supportive in helping those who can trade as off licences to do so (there is basically no problem with people gathering to drink, there's nowhere to do it) but anyone who has put a foot out of line at any point has soon known about it.
When it comes to things like disobedience it is important to remember these forums are not representative. People who are annoyed seek them out to vent about being annoyed. "This makes me very angry." "Yes, I too am very angry." "We all are very angry - maybe there will be a revolution.".
The reality I'm afraid is that most people are broadly supportive about what is occurring, with a sizeable minority who are annoyed about it. Personally I hate it but I don't see it changing.
When it comes to things like disobedience it is important to remember these forums are not representative. People who are annoyed seek them out to vent about being annoyed. "This makes me very angry." "Yes, I too am very angry." "We all are very angry - maybe there will be a revolution.".
The reality I'm afraid is that most people are broadly supportive about what is occurring, with a sizeable minority who are annoyed about it. Personally I hate it but I don't see it changing.
Markdvdman
Member
I think you will find the people that are broadly supportive are those on MAXIMUM benefits so they can booze up all the time that WE pay their taxes for and the rich politicians who have so much they do not care what they do to us!
Also, the media make a lot of dimwits gullible to believe ever piece of propoganda they put out!
As for when restrictions will end? Hmm, cases are dropping in Wales in general, but I do not see any easing until March at the earliest sadly and even though history PROVES lockdowns make no difference except to devastate economies and well being, they will still insist on locking us down whenever they fell like going forward.
Outside of war, I cannot think of a worst period in modern day history!
Also, the media make a lot of dimwits gullible to believe ever piece of propoganda they put out!
As for when restrictions will end? Hmm, cases are dropping in Wales in general, but I do not see any easing until March at the earliest sadly and even though history PROVES lockdowns make no difference except to devastate economies and well being, they will still insist on locking us down whenever they fell like going forward.
Outside of war, I cannot think of a worst period in modern day history!
Philip
On Moderation
When do people think travel via ferry to a place like Ireland will allowed again, or wise?
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 9,163
They don't work for what?
The aim is to reduce people in hospital, which they do do. We can argue about whether they are a benefit overall, but the target is to reduce people in hospital, which lockdowns definitely do.
I neither agree or disagree with lockdowns BTW. As I think both ways we end up in a massive mess.
Think a bigger problem developing in this wave is the amount of people 40-50 having serious problems in hospital so not even sure just protecting everyone over 70 who have been shielding for ages now will solve everything.
It's still the long game I'm afraid but can't see why we can't have a more normal summer than last year given we have vaccine in play now.
It is allowed since Saturday if one has a clear PCR test (young children and professional drivers exempt).
Surprised COVID free didn’t make it in, I bet that has backfired on her now.
I took it that the vaccine was a way out by this lot? (thank god I’m not that stupid). The thing is you expect people like them to consider other parts of it for discussion but it’s clear that’s pushed to the back but still she gets paid like the politicians so if anything goes wrong she doesn’t take the flack
I’ll file this under “another goalpost move”
Some of us have been saying this for a while - the politicians are very keen not to trust the vaccine, as they are keen to keep these restrictions for as long as possible.
I presume there is some sort of motorised system for goalpost moving now?
221101 Voyager
Established Member
It makes me laugh all this talk I've heard in recent times about us being back to normal anytime soon! I don't think life will ever be the same again.
We will have restrictions for ages yet, even when lockdown eases we will no doubt have to go back to sqaure one again as infections will probably spiral again and no doubt there will be yet another variant to contend with to top it all off, then followed by lockdown 4, 5, 6, 7 & so on.
Even if say 25 million people got a vaccination in the UK that still less than half of the country done, so the other half can carry on spreading it.
Even if every member of the UK population got vaccinated straightaway it still wouldn't be enough.
And articles like this make me laugh too as it was obvious to me from the start that Covid will never be eliminated, as it has essentially become the new flu and despite flu jabs every year it is still a thing. Covid is the same on a much larger scale though.
www.mirror.co.uk
I think we are doomed and this is how life is going to be for quite some time.
We will have restrictions for ages yet, even when lockdown eases we will no doubt have to go back to sqaure one again as infections will probably spiral again and no doubt there will be yet another variant to contend with to top it all off, then followed by lockdown 4, 5, 6, 7 & so on.
Even if say 25 million people got a vaccination in the UK that still less than half of the country done, so the other half can carry on spreading it.
Even if every member of the UK population got vaccinated straightaway it still wouldn't be enough.
And articles like this make me laugh too as it was obvious to me from the start that Covid will never be eliminated, as it has essentially become the new flu and despite flu jabs every year it is still a thing. Covid is the same on a much larger scale though.
Covid will 'never be eliminated and vaccine will be needed every year'
Top scientist and ex-SAGE member Deena Pillay has said coronavirus is 'here to stay,' meaning the booster vaccine may be required annually almost like the flu jab
I think we are doomed and this is how life is going to be for quite some time.
Aren’t keen but still promote it, what else did they hope for a genie a bottle?
On the other the tables are turning as they can’t keep going with restrictions if the vaccine is the way to go (according to them of course)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yes
just like the promises they “keep” to break them again entitles it to moving a goalpost moment or better yet it’s their own goalI wouldn't read into that too much, that paper is very pro-labour and would no doubt support more authoritarian restrictions.
We know it'll mutate, just as the flu does every year. If we have year round vaccinations then it'll help suppress it.
The fact you don't hear many people being re-infected with the disease means some form of immunity is present having had it. It remains to be seen if this would also be the case with the vaccine and for what period. I'm confident it'll be 6 months at least listening to the experts.
I'd still plough along with vaccinating the over 50s, plus those with underlying health conditions of any age each year. Give them twice yearly vaccines if need be, at the expense of not vaccinating anyone under 50 who is fit and healthy.
We know it'll mutate, just as the flu does every year. If we have year round vaccinations then it'll help suppress it.
The fact you don't hear many people being re-infected with the disease means some form of immunity is present having had it. It remains to be seen if this would also be the case with the vaccine and for what period. I'm confident it'll be 6 months at least listening to the experts.
I'd still plough along with vaccinating the over 50s, plus those with underlying health conditions of any age each year. Give them twice yearly vaccines if need be, at the expense of not vaccinating anyone under 50 who is fit and healthy.
devon_metro
Established Member
I don't really understand the hysteria regarding eliminating the virus. As long as those who are vulnerable are adequately protected, why are young, healthy people in line for a vaccine? What is the point of achieving zero cases - viruses can spread very easily. I don't have a flu jab, so why would I need a jab for covid-19? I imagine by catching the virus there is some level of immunity anyway, much like a common cold. Each year people die of flu, yet we don't close down our economy. I don't see why covid-19 shoud be treated any diffierently once the vaccine is administered each year. Arguably, only those at risk of ending up in hospital need vaccinating and the system will have the capacity to deal with those rare exceptions from younger age groups that are hospotalised. Some of these medical experts need to take a lie down.
The average age of hospitalisation and ICU admission is just 60, a lot younger by 20+ years than the average age of those dying. A functioning health service needs very much smaller numbers of the younger age groups in hospital with covid.
The key bit you haven't understood is that the transmission rate, probability of death and probability of hospitalisation are all much higher for Covid than flu. Covid is not flu.
Getting the economy back on track needs vaccination.
bramling
Veteran Member
It makes me laugh all this talk I've heard in recent times about us being back to normal anytime soon! I don't think life will ever be the same again.
We will have restrictions for ages yet, even when lockdown eases we will no doubt have to go back to sqaure one again as infections will probably spiral again and no doubt there will be yet another variant to contend with to top it all off, then followed by lockdown 4, 5, 6, 7 & so on.
Even if say 25 million people got a vaccination in the UK that still less than half of the country done, so the other half can carry on spreading it.
Even if every member of the UK population got vaccinated straightaway it still wouldn't be enough.
And articles like this make me laugh too as it was obvious to me from the start that Covid will never be eliminated, as it has essentially become the new flu and despite flu jabs every year it is still a thing. Covid is the same on a much larger scale though.
Covid will 'never be eliminated and vaccine will be needed every year'
Top scientist and ex-SAGE member Deena Pillay has said coronavirus is 'here to stay,' meaning the booster vaccine may be required annually almost like the flu jab
I think we are doomed and this is how life is going to be for quite some time.
It is a matter for concern that we won't ever quite return to normal. Personally I don't think it's likely, however there's certainly a risk - in particular that lockdown will be a default response every time there's a whiff of the NHS being "at risk of becoming overwhelmed" (definition of which is itself, of course, a matter of conjecture). My worry is we are being driven to this position due to people wanting restrictions for nefarious reasons - for example that they don't want to have to travel to work every day - or some who claim to want tough restrictions, but then fail to observe what they advocate unto others.
A lot of people are going along with things to some extent simply in order to keep the peace, however I don't think that will be enough as the lockdown enthusiasts are highly vocal.
We're already starting to see goalposts moving. There's a vaccine now, yet notice how there's already sniffles of how this still isn't enough for some.
221101 Voyager
Established Member
I think with reagrds to vaccinations, anyone in a job that is in close contact with the public eg: NHS staff, shop floor workers and anyothers who spend most of thier day dealing with members of the public should be given a high priority regardless of whether they are healthy or not, they should at least have the choice.
Vaccinating those with pre existing conditions early is also a great idea.
I think if we can vaccinate those two groups then it should make a big difference, whereas vaccinating over 75s and so on only goes so far as they don't go out usually as much as those who have key worker roles or younger people in general.
I personally am against lockdowns but I don't go out protesting for or against it like those anti-lockdown groups do, little do those groups know those illegal gatherings are making things worse for everyone but they are too daft to realise it, the same goes for those groups chanting coivd is a hoax and those against the vaccine.
I think those lockdown groups and so on end up spreading the virus more and making things worse for those of us who do abide by the rules for the greater good.
Last edited:
Class 33
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,362
Absolutely sick and tired of the sight and sound of Whitty with his constant doom mongering and saying tougher measures are needed. I switched on BBC Breakfast this morning at 7:30 to see who was the government minister being interviewed today, but instead today it was bloody Whitty! I turned it straight off! A quick glance of a news website today and I see he is saying we need to lockdown till APRIL and tougher measures are needed to protect the NHS!!! We can't have another 3 months of lockdown and even tougher measures for crying out loud! Fed up all this "Protect the NHS" business. Whilst the NHS is in a bad state right now due to this darn virus, there is more to this country than just the NHS! What about the devastating damage all these lockdowns and restrictions are doing to thousands of businesses up and down the country?? What about the devastating effect all these lockdowns and restrictions are doing to MILLION'S of people mental health?? Why are these matters just brushed aside as if they just don't care about them?
Because SAGE don't provide advice on these measures, and Boris isn't a capable enough politician to realise that he's supposed to balance these risks.
devon_metro
Established Member
The latest data for England shows 8.3 per 100,000 hospitalisations for the 15-44 age bracket (I guess what I might consider "younger") - compared to 244.2 for those 85+. We don't know how many of those had a condition that made them more susceptible. Meanwhile, on todays data, the 15-44 age group represented 52% of positive cases in England. This seems pretty low risk to me from a healthcare perspective and something the NHS could cope with. Imperial puts the mortality rate at 0.1% or below for those under 40. I would suggest the economic and mental health harms far outweigh the risks for said age group and vaccination is only required to a point to get the economy back on track. As the medics say, said point is a political decision.
brad465
Established Member
In short, I believe human exceptionalism is why elimination hysteria exists, and the fact that just because a country with favourable geography (but also good leadership it must be said) in the form of New Zealand was able to eliminate it (for now) and in turn lift all internal restrictions, means everywhere can. Essentially we think because we're human we can beat anything with either little cost or whatever we lose can quickly be regained, where vaccine technology among other advancements in human capability are driving this exceptionalist belief. I reckon also our capability of eradicating smallpox has a lot to say about driving exceptionalism, because we can say "we've done it before why can't we do it again", without realising it's not possible to do this for every virus and even with smallpox it didn't exactly happen overnight.
When the fallout of from all these restrictions comes fully to light I expect a huge reality check about our species' capabilities to emerge; there's more on this issue though here:
Could Covid-19 end 'human exceptionalism'?
Also know more formally as "anthropocentrism", I strongly believe (and other posts in other threads suggest similar views are shared here), that our response to Covid is human exceptionalism at its worst; the general definition is the argument humans are the most important entity, but arguably...
www.railforums.co.uk
There are a couple of reasons that young people need to have the vaccine:
- not everyone can (or will) have the vaccine who should have it, and so by giving out to everyone else they get protection
- by vaccinating everyone you reduce further the number who need to go into hospital, whilst it may cost (say) £0.5bn to vaccinate everyone that's a small amount compared to what it would cost for a few hundred thousand people to spend a week in intensive care.
- if my boss found out that I was off work I'll with Covid-19 having not had a vaccine when offered they would not be best pleased, in a similar vein there are many companies who pay for their staff to have a flu vaccine as it's cheaper than having start taking time off. Likewise those who are on zero hour contacts or are there own bosses or any other job where if they don't work they don't get paid is very much in their interest to get the vaccine.
- whilst the risk of dying for younger heathy people is low it's not zero and anyway there may be some undiagnosed illnesses, also being vaccinated reduces that further risk further. If we had to pay for it then it's probably not worth doing, however it's provided by the NHS and so there's little disbenefit in getting it.
I assume that 8.3/100,000 is those who have gone into hospital in the last week, that has to be compared to the data from 2 weeks ago when the number of cases was bit lower than it currently is at about 40,000 cases per day. At a rough calculation that's about 2% of those infected. Whilst that sounds a small amount, nationally that would be about 1.35 million people (excluding the fact that the numbers are much higher for those in the older age group).
devon_metro
Established Member
It was the hospital data to 3 January (latest ONS figures). I believe case numbers were higher than those reported today (though I don't have the age distribution to hand).
Interesting point on employers and vaccinations. I'm not sure any employer could sanction an employee if they refused to have the vaccine? I'm sure the vast majority of people will have the vaccine but it does raise ethical questions, particularly if countries/companies introduce restrictions on unvaccinated people.
Did you ever find any hospitalisation stats? I've seen you quote the ICU stats a couple of times, but nothing to justify the claim that hospitalisations, or more importantly total current patient numbers follow the same profile. I'm also seeing limited evidence from the stats provided that ICU occupation is making that much of a difference to the younger patients going in - most aren't actually receiving any intensive treatment. I mean if you were offered a 5% improvement in your prognosis you personally would take it, but in the context of the fatality rates that everybody is so worried about it's a bit of a rounding error.
To be brutally clear, lockdown is very, very bad, and if the justification for keeping it going over another extended period is to prevent the "collapse" of the NHS, we should probably investigate what that looks like. Would the typical outcome for Covid patients be a great deal worse if they were dumped in a nightingale with limited staff support and a decent supply of Oxygen and HPAP machines?
Mark Harper, chairman of the Covid Recovery Group (aka the Conservative lockdown rebels), has called for a clear exit strategy, the criteria on which government will judge whether lockdown is required, and a provisional end date to lockdown of the 8th March, if we hit the required target for vaccination. While I doubt that he'll be listened to, that date could see at least some changes, and I'd definitely expect the tone of the debate to significantly change then (if not earlier).
- Status