• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Coronavirus

Coronavirus - The Poll

  • Total voters
    97
Matt N said:
Interestingly, it would appear that the government has shifted its vaccination strategy towards giving as many people as possible their first dose, as even one dose apparently still gives “very effective protection”. Everyone will still receive their second dose, but within an extended deadline of 12 weeks of the first dose as opposed to the 3-4 that it was before.

Interesting... what do you guys think?
Click to expand...

@Dave mentioned this earlier in the thread that they are dosing as many as they can (with the Pfizer vaccine at least at that time) and banking on the delivery of the second dose not being delayed.

Which is great for getting it out there and building some resistance but what happens if you get a delayed second response does the efficacy go down? Is it completely useless? Etc...

I don't have the answers but it definitely comes across as a roll of a dice strategy out of desperation more than appearing to be part of the plan.
 
Craig said:
That's incorrect, the lockdown in November was not due to London. It was a response to a steep upward curve mainly in the Midlands and North East, but rises were starting to be seen everywhere when the decision was made except for one region in England (North West). Lockdown was announced on 31st October and put in place on 5th November, and peaks of 7 day average case rates were seen after the restrictions came in in the majority of areas according to the government dashboard:

North East: 10th November
London: 11th November
East Midlands: 9th November
East of England: 9th November
South East: 11th November
South West: 11th November
West Midlands: 11th November

London was actually on a far less steeper curve than the majority of other regions. At the time, the Midlands, especially West Midlands and the North East was of particular concern, but most areas were seeing a rise nonetheless. In fact, the regions who appear to have lost out if you solely look at cases were:

Yorkshire and Humber: 6th November
North West: 19th October

Yorkshire and the North West was likely due to the harsher tiers being in place in a lot of areas within those regions, hence the earlier peak. The Tees Valley area of the north east for example (that's me) was under Tier 2 pre lockdown. But then hospitalisation and patients on ventilation data will also have had to have been factored into the decision as well. I'd also speculate that schools returning from October half term also contributed to increases in cases too.

I can't find anything to argue against the fact that the national lockdown did have an effect on case numbers, when the data points to drops being seen when it was implemented in most areas. Even where data only shows things levelling off, without them an increase would likely be seen despite those tougher restrictions being in place.

My argument has always been what happened after lockdown ended on the 2nd December. Cases in London showed a shallower decline during lockdown compared to other regions, and the 7 day average began flattening off around the 20th November, before the new tiers were announced on the 26th November. Alarm bells then should've been sounding soon after the 23rd when that average started to increase even with the lockdown still in place.

The government had between the announcement on 26th November and when lockdown ended on the 2nd December to backtrack with an explanation to the public as to why London's tier should be revised, but chose not to. That's despite the 7 day average of London cases increasing between 26th November and 2nd December by nearly 10%, and from the start of the lockdown until the 2nd December by 17%. Politics took preference over health, and unfortunately we're all now paying the price for it.
Click to expand...

I think we will have to agree to disagree, if you look at the hospital admissions here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55480761
These figures are delayed from the case peaks by around two weeks so a peak in the middle of November would of been down to the tier system not the lockdown.
A snip from The Metro shows the cases rises in London at the end of October.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/metr...ier-3-lockdown-within-two-weeks-13505285/amp/

it’s also a proven fact the data used for the November lockdown was out of date by two weeks, anyway the pandemic has moved on and I agree the real issue was when we came out of lockdown not going into it.
 
Rojo said:
The Premier League had dismissed the idea of a circuit break. I wonder if they are banking on the Government halting elite sport again so they don't take the brunt of any blame.

Football isn't immune to everything going on around the UK and the amount of games cancelled recently proves that the sport "bubbles" is just theatre.
Click to expand...

Personally think some clubs and players have taken more precautions than others in the Premier League. However, I think there's been an overreaction to this anyway. The positivity % is actually lower than it was on the last highest number of positive tests in November.

It is also convenient those asking for a circuit breaker are those struggling down the bottom of the table. The cynic in me thinks Allardyce has come in and realised what a mess of a team he's got so is trying to buy time.

Some sports have been fine, like in the US, tennis, F1 generally, others haven't handled it as well like rugby. The Premier League have their own testing in place, the EFL is not so lucky.
 
I'm somewhat surprised to see Cheshire move into Tier 4, though being between two other areas moving into Tier 4 (Manchester and Staffordshire), it does make sense. I don't like it, but if we're to get a hold on this new strain, then so be it.
 
Jonathan said:
I'm somewhat surprised to see Cheshire move into Tier 4, though being between two other areas moving into Tier 4 (Manchester and Staffordshire), it does make sense. I don't like it, but if we're to get a hold on this new strain, then so be it.
Click to expand...

I wasn't expecting Staffordshire to go into T4, as the rises are less than many other areas. Oh well. To hell with it. STAY AT HOME.

Now, will I actually? I mean, let's see what Gav says about that any moment now...
 
My area, Gloucestershire, also surprisingly went into Tier 4. Around 78% of England is now in Tier 4; I think the government is trying to be as stringent as possible when applying these restrictions.

In other news, it would appear that Gavin Williamson has officially announced that primary schools will open on 4th January as planned, with only the highest risk areas having vulnerable children and children of key workers as a last resort. Exam year pupils will return to secondary schools on 11th January, while other years will return on 18th January. In the first week of term (week commencing 4th January), only key worker children and vulnerable children will attend.

Apologies if I’ve missed anything; I was watching the statement live and trying to type as I went, so I may have missed a few things.
 
So, at 3.00pm - Matt Hancock said things are really bad, and we now need to STAY AT HOME.

At 4.15pm - Gavin tells me that I am to go into school on Monday as usual and crack on with my kids from 20 different families, who have brothers and sisters in classes associated with dozens more. And staff from all their families, too. With a new variant that may transmit more quickly in children according to ongoing research.

The level of disagreement in the government's own policies is incredible.
 
AstroDan said:
So, at 3.00pm - Matt Hancock said things are really bad, and we now need to STAY AT HOME.

At 4.15pm - Gavin tells me that I am to go into school on Monday as usual and crack on.

The level of disagreement in the government's own policies is incredible.
Click to expand...
Are you a primary school teacher, then?

In the very highest-risk areas, the government has said that even primary schools will be shut; I’m not sure where these are, but he has said that this is not the case in all tier 4 areas, only the very highest risk ones.

The reason for the government being so stern in reopening schools is because studies have concluded that the harm on education and long-term prospects is greater than the harm of the virus, so reopening schools is of vital importance.
 
Agree about the schools, it’s crazy opening them. Everyone knows schools are a breeding ground for every bug and virus under the sun for the kids to bring home to their parents!!
We’ve just gone in to tier 3 here in Devon.
 
Crazy decision making again, I live in one of the lowest rates in Staffordshire/Derbyshire and tier 4, I’m not saying any more on this or I will say something I will later regret.

Schools should go back on time, enough time has been missed, the only other option would be to repeat the year.
 
No doubt everyone will still be mingling and bumping into each other in the supermarkets still though, even though there was a report that shopping in such places was having quite an effect on the spread. I'm not expecting anyone to be closing supermarkets or anything but some proper strict restrictions outlined by the government would be good. Numbers in large stores have been ridiculous for large portions of this year. Numbers allowed in any store at any one time need cutting right down and a strict one shopper per household allowed in limit apart from a single parent with young children. If they can't roll this out then I don't believe they're taking this seriously. Most stores won't do this without being pushed as they're worried about losing customers to other less strict stores. It has to come from government policy.
 
Matt N said:
The reason for the government being so stern in reopening schools is because studies have concluded that the harm on education and long-term prospects is greater than the harm of the virus, so reopening schools is of vital importance.
Click to expand...
Harm caused to the kids or harm caused to those the kids spread it to?
 
If schools are going to be reopening then all school staff need to receive the vaccine now.

It is either total ineptitude or negligence for the government to be allowing all primary school children back.

Either there is a total misunderstanding of the extent to which primary schools are running as if it's business as usual (as is necessary with children of this age) OR, more likely, a purely political decision has been made so as to not disrupt the workforce as a whole.

I've said all along, school staff are at huge risk and are generally unable to wear much, if any, PPE, as this is detrimental to their ability to do their jobs. There is no other profession where I imagine this to be the case.

Not even on the vaccine priority list ffs.
 
I'm all for teachers being given priority for the vaccine. I'd also suggest adding retail workers to that list. We've been working throughout the whole pandemic, and supermarkets are a huge hotspot for COVID. Do we not deserve extra protection as well, given how our work environment is so high-risk in terms of the virus?
 
Regardless of teachers having the vaccine I find it crazy that almost we have to be very careful not to mix with others particularly indoors, you have 30+ kids crammed in to a small room all day each one capable of bringing the virus home. The schools should stay closed until the spring
 
Well if we are talking priorities then food process workers should be first in line as well, more cases in food factories than any other industry and also worked all of the way through.
And here lies the problem, most people can make a good case on why they should get it first.

Children should be in school learning not hanging around outside of Sainsbury’s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top