Covid - coming out of Lockdown 3 - no politics, less opinion and more facts and information.

[Pete the Elaner]

3 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

For some reason people have a hate on having to conform

 

Take a driving licence, firstly it allows you to drive a car and or lorry coach etc, in accordance with the limitations imposed on the licence.  You do not have to have one, but if you don't you cannot drive a vechial. It probably has the same info as an ID card, but unlike the ID card is accepted and often used when there is a benefit to the owner as a form of ID, on the plus side technology is such that the police can check that the licence being used is both valid and confirms visually its owned.

 

No one is making anyone travel abroad or go to events that attract larger groups than present rules allow. Fine if you don't like it, but many will have valid reasons to have/use one 

 

As an example, I've not been vaccinated yet because I am not old enough or classed as a high risk, so I am not an exemption.

If passports are introduced & apply to model railway shows, I may not be able to go until I get my second vaccination. I accept that & wish everybody has a good time.

 

I've just checked the government website for details on it (which as Hobby suggests is the only source you should believe) & there is nothing about it because no decisions have been made yet.

[hayfield]

1 minute ago, woodenhead said:

There is always the argument if you have nothing to hide there is nothing to worry about and all those CCTV cameras are there to protect you - but not we live in a society where people have camera's and microphones in their doorbell that pick up everything that goes on around the house, people flying drones everywhere with cameras whilst the Government is introducing bills to restrict people's right to protest.

 

I know this is going off topic but I worry for the future and I have a real concern that a Covid status app is just another name for a Covid ID status which is another name for an ID.

 

There is a large sector in society who do not have the ability to have the app. Enjoy what you can do and don't worry about what you cannot control 

[woodenhead]

Just now, Pete the Elaner said:

 

As an example, I've not been vaccinated yet because I am not old enough or classed as a high risk, so I am not an exemption.

If passports are introduced & apply to model railway shows, I may not be able to go until I get my second vaccination. I accept that & wish everybody has a good time.

 

It will probably be numbers based and how far people are likely to travel to attend - a small show for example my be exempt but Warley given it's size and proximity to other shows in the same location and the spread of people would probably not be.

[Hobby]

For Pete's* sake why can't we just wait and see what they decide rather than this endless (and useless) speculation?! I'm sure they'll work out something but we'll have to wait... I get the impression the word patience isn't in some people's vocabulary...

 

(Not Pete the E!)

[Neil]

1 hour ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

 

Because if unvaccinated people can't go to the pub, they are more likely to socialise together outside of the pub, instead of with their vaccinated mates inside the pub, so the virus will spread more easily between them. They then visit a supermarket, which under current plans is expempt from the 'passport'. They also go home to their families and into their places of work. That's just one vector off the top of my head.

 

Now which is safer, unvaccinated people meeting outside or mingling indoors? If infectious they're more likely to spread it indoors if not they're more likely to catch it indoors.

 

I'm sorry but your logic just doesn't hold water.

[Dunsignalling]

46 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

 

For going abroad, covid tests / proof of vaccination I don't have an issue, it's sensible.  But domestically I don't believe an ID system is the way forward because it will evolve, these things start off innocent enough and then someone finds a new use for them.  We're already tracked enough as it is.

Anybody who wishes to waste their lives tracking my movements is welcome to the brain damage the resulting boredom is likely to cause.

 

My only objection is, as a taxpayer, paying for it!

 

On the other hand, what we see/read in the news suggests that there is no shortage of people who aren't under anything like enough surveillance.

 

John

[woodenhead]

23 minutes ago, Hobby said:

For Pete's* sake why can't we just wait and see what they decide rather than this endless (and useless) speculation?! I'm sure they'll work out something but we'll have to wait... I get the impression the word patience isn't in some people's vocabulary...

 

Probably because there is a ticking mental health timebomb and the Government drip feeding ideas into media causing speculation is no help.

 

We've yet to feel the full effect of Covid, so far it has been restricted to the virus itself, the other economic impacts have been somewhat numbed by the Treasury but in a week when the shops that still exist re-open then furlough will begin to end and those who's livelihoods have been utterly destroyed will find themselves on the outside:

• John Lewis stores that won't be reopening
• Holiday shops that won't be reopening
• Airports with surplus staff
• Hotels with surplus staff

Some companies were already on the way out like Arcadia but there is going to be a lot more unemployment soon and a long road ahead to recovery.

[Roger Sunderland]

I agree. This isn’t really about spying on people it’s about trying to stop people dying from a virus. From speaking to people I know and hearing comments from people on radio/TV the vast majority of people , who don’t have an “agenda” would fully support the idea of some form of proof to enter into an indoor environment where there is a high risk to themselves.

I agree you can’t do this for everyday essentials like shopping- people have to eat and it’s not workable. But Cinemas,theatres and even pubs and certainly model railway exhibitions are not essential.

[John M Upton]

You can see in the high streets many shops which started this lockdown with signs in windows saying 'We will be back soon' have since been quietly emptied, signs have disappeared and To Let boards are now everywhere. 

 

If the Government and indeed Joe Public think all retailers are going to magically return from their enforced hibernation on Monday, they are going to be in for shock as I reckon a lot have simply thrown the towel in and gone.

[Dunsignalling]

40 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Probably because there is a ticking mental health timebomb and the Government drip feeding ideas into media causing speculation is no help.

 

We've yet to feel the full effect of Covid, so far it has been restricted to the virus itself, the other economic impacts have been somewhat numbed by the Treasury but in a week when the shops that still exist re-open then furlough will begin to end and those who's livelihoods have been utterly destroyed will find themselves on the outside:

• John Lewis stores that won't be reopening
• Holiday shops that won't be reopening
• Airports with surplus staff
• Hotels with surplus staff

Some companies were already on the way out like Arcadia but there is going to be a lot more unemployment soon and a long road ahead to recovery.

Without wishing to sound brutal, the pandemic would have made all that happen a year ago, in one fell swoop, had HMG not placed the mitigating measures in place.

 

All of those will have to end sometime, but preferably not all on the same day.

 

In the meantime,  hopefully, those who will be affected will have planned their strategies for dealing with "the new normal", just as a not inconsiderable number who slipped through the various safety nets have already been forced to do.

 

One thing is certain; some aspects of what we considered "normal life" in 2018 will have gone, possibly for ever.

 

John

 

 

Edited April 7, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[woodenhead]

7 minutes ago, Roger Sunderland said:

I agree. This isn’t really about spying on people it’s about trying to stop people dying from a virus. From speaking to people I know and hearing comments from people on radio/TV the vast majority of people , who don’t have an “agenda” would fully support the idea of some form of proof to enter into an indoor environment where there is a high risk to themselves.

I agree you can’t do this for everyday essentials like shopping- people have to eat and it’s not workable. But Cinemas,theatres and even pubs and certainly model railway exhibitions are not essential.

Good innocent ideas can have bad outcomes - even within the Tory party there are many who are still concerned about how much power their party currently wields and it's impact on democracy.  There are a lot of emergency powers at play and it is making Government less accountable - we could fall into a permanent state like this if we're not careful, power corrupts unfortunately.

[Dunsignalling]

6 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

You can see in the high streets many shops which started this lockdown with signs in windows saying 'We will be back soon' have since been quietly emptied, signs have disappeared and To Let boards are now everywhere. 

 

If the Government and indeed Joe Public think all retailers are going to magically return from their enforced hibernation on Monday, they are going to be in for shock as I reckon a lot have simply thrown the towel in and gone.

Or calculated it was better to get out, see how things develop once the virus is more under control, and relaunch if/when conditions look favourable.

 

I also suspect that quite a few were at ages when retirement was under consideration, if not delayed. 

 

John

[Hobby]

Which is why we have elections every few years... So if things do get out of hand we can turf them out... Unlike some countries where this isn't an option... Having just re-read 1984 I can safely say we are nowhere near that, despite what some people on social media would have us think... However those in North Korea are living the book...

 

(Reply to Woodenhead's last post above)

Edited April 7, 2021 by Hobby

[woodenhead]

Just now, Hobby said:

Which is why we have elections every few years... So if things do get out of hand we can turf them out... Unlike some countries where this isn't an option... Having just re-read 1984 I can safely say we are nowhere near that, despite what some people on social media would have us think... However those in North Korea are living the book...

I would argue the pandemic has caused a paradigm shift in Government across the globe unheard of outside of a country being on a war footing.  With a war footing you can identify when hostilities have ended but with Covid we are being told it it is a war that will never be won and the medics are now talking about when, not if, a vaccine resistant strain of Covid will emerge.  

 

That is scary, we have an invisible enemy that will continue to kill people forever more and at any point may turn even more lethal - how does a Government step back from it's war footing if the war is never going to be over.

 

Yes there are elections, but we know how close the two main parties are and neither will campaign on the basis of loosening controls as the other party will use it against them to stoke fear of the consequences of backing the other side.  It would be a political death spiral, we need to be back to normal government this year so the parties can squabble over economics.

 

Time to back out Woodenhead, you're getting dark on this topic....

[Nick C]

1 hour ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

To illustrate my point above:

 

If you have 1 unvaccinated person in a pub (or cinema etc) with 30 vaccinated people, even if the unvaccinated person has Coronavirus it probably won't spread.

 

If you have 10 unvaccinated people in someone's home socialising (because they can't go to the pub/cinema), if one person has the Coronavirus, it will spread to 2 or 3 others as none of them are vaccinated.

 

In both scenarios, everyone is going to the supermarket the next day, only in one scenario there is one person with Coronavirus, the other scenario there are 3 people with Coronavirus.

 

The vaccination passport will push the unvaccinated to socialise together, this will change how the virus spreads.

 

This is just one example of how the passport could have unintended consequences. The reality is far more complex, so there should be thorough studies conducted before such a policy is implemented. We have the vaccines, we have summer and we have greater immunity overall, so we have a low risk period to undertake such a study.

 

But you seem to be suggesting that it's a choice of vaccine passport vs freedom - it's not, it's a choice of passport vs lockdown.

 

Without the passport, the first 31 people will still be sitting at home because they're not allowed to go out, so there will be no difference to the spread - the other 10 will still be socialising in someone's home, because they're too selfish to care about anyone else, so again there ill be no difference to the spread.

[Rods_of_Revolution]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

 

Now which is safer, unvaccinated people meeting outside or mingling indoors? If infectious they're more likely to spread it indoors if not they're more likely to catch it indoors.

 

I'm sorry but your logic just doesn't hold water.

 

I didn't mean outside the pub as in the smoking shelter, I meant the unvaccinated meeting outside the pub as in at someone's house. 10 unvaccinated people in one house is going to spread the virus more than 1 unvaccinated person and 30 vaccinated people in a pub. If you make vaccination or tests a requirement to socialise, then more unvaccinated people will probably socialise together and their peer groups will change to reflect this. Obviously it's a simplistic example and it may not pan out that way, the only point I'm making is these things need to be considered before any policy is implemented.

Edited April 7, 2021 by Rods_of_Revolution

[Hobby]

7 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Time to back out Woodenhead, you're getting dark on this topic....

 

Your just doing what SAGE do, look for the worst possible scenario, I, for one, don't believe we'll ever get as far as you think. Yes it will be around for a while, but we'll work out a way forward, like humans always do.

[Rods_of_Revolution]

11 minutes ago, Nick C said:

 

But you seem to be suggesting that it's a choice of vaccine passport vs freedom - it's not, it's a choice of passport vs lockdown.

 

 

No it's not. Lockdown is a policy of government. It's also an option to have neither lockdowns or passports.  All the options have costs and benefits that have to be weighed up.

 

Seasonality is an example of something we can't control, which is why there is no debate about whether we should or should not have seasonality, because it's not a choice.

Edited April 7, 2021 by Rods_of_Revolution

[Taz]

29 minutes ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

 

I didn't mean outside the pub as in the smoking shelter, I meant the unvaccinated meeting outside the pub as in at someone's house. 10 unvaccinated people in one house is going to spread the virus more than 1 unvaccinated person and 30 vaccinated people in a pub. If you make vaccination or tests a requirement to socialise, then more unvaccinated people will probably socialise together and their peer groups will change to reflect this. Obviously it's a simplistic example and it may not pan out that way, the only point I'm making is these things need to be considered before any policy is implemented.

Or, conversely, it could have the effect of encouraging vaccine uptake. There is a fear that the young (18-30) age group may have a lower uptake of vaccination as they are much less likely to suffer severe illness or death.

Take away their ability to go to the pub or out clubbing and suddenly they have a big incentive to get the jab.

[monkeysarefun]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

If Monkeysarefun is reading the last few pages he may now realise why some of us were saying that comparing Aus and the UK was like comparing apples and pears... What chance do we stand when a sensible suggestion to help reduce infections and deaths is questioned so much!

 

 

We don't have a vaccine passport because the EU won't export the 4 million doses of vaccines we paid for last August, but  luckily we are manufacturing it here now and rollout will start soon.

.

,

Instead of a passport we have a QR code system - every  venue, pub restaurant cinema etc has a QR code on the front door which you scan with your phone. It goes to a government site to let them know you are at the pub. If a case does escape quarantine and goes to the same pub around the same time then you get notified and told what actions to take.

 

Now those there thinking that a Vaccine passport is a privacy  invasion would probably have exploding heads thinking how the government knows how many times you go to the pub...   But I don't think most people here have had that thought occur to them yet.

 

The Sydney Easter show was held over Easter ( as you'd expect) and limited to 60,000 people per day - restricted in case of covid. That  sure would have tested our track and tracers  had an outbreak occurred. 

 

AS for international travel, a travel bubble between here and New Zealand begins operation on 19th April in time for ANZAC Day. It allows unlimited travel between here and there with no need for either of us to quarantine at the other end. 

Edited April 7, 2021 by monkeysarefun

[Rods_of_Revolution]

1 minute ago, Taz said:

Or, conversely, it could have the effect of encouraging vaccine uptake. There is a fear that the young (18-30) age group may have a lower uptake of vaccination as they are much less likely to suffer severe illness or death.

Take away their ability to go to the pub or out clubbing and suddenly they have a big incentive to get the jab.

 

Yes, but we don't know. It's also quite a common reaction for people to resist what they perceive as coercion, so it may decrease the uptake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)

 

My point is, until we have at least a reasonable cost/benefit analysis done, the legislation shouldn't even be presented to parliament. I haven't seen one estimate for how many lives will be saved or cases of hospitalisation reduced by the 'vaccine passports'. I haven't seen anything beyond a YouGov poll as evidence to suggest whether there will be an increase or decrease in vacine uptake because of it.

[Neil]

52 minutes ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

 

I didn't mean outside the pub as in the smoking shelter, I meant the unvaccinated meeting outside the pub as in at someone's house. 10 unvaccinated people in one house is going to spread the virus more than 1 unvaccinated person and 30 vaccinated people in a pub. If you make vaccination or tests a requirement to socialise, then more unvaccinated people will probably socialise together and their peer groups will change to reflect this. Obviously it's a simplistic example and it may not pan out that way, the only point I'm making is these things need to be considered before any policy is implemented.

 

Still flawed, your reasoning is that if people are barred from meeting in the pub they'll meet at each others houses.  If ten unvaccinated people want to meet up then I'd rather they did it in one of their houses rather than in company with many other people at the pub.

 

Edit: It's becoming apparent that you find the notion of Covid passports distasteful and you're putting up spurious arguments to justify that position. I'm fairly sure that what we say here will have absolutely no effect on government policy. Rather than wasting time and energy on further argument why not try exploring the benefits that such a scheme might bring.

Edited April 7, 2021 by Neil

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

Probably because there is a ticking mental health timebomb and the Government drip feeding ideas into media causing speculation is no help.

 

We've yet to feel the full effect of Covid, so far it has been restricted to the virus itself, the other economic impacts have been somewhat numbed by the Treasury but in a week when the shops that still exist re-open then furlough will begin to end and those who's livelihoods have been utterly destroyed will find themselves on the outside:

• John Lewis stores that won't be reopening
• Holiday shops that won't be reopening
• Airports with surplus staff
• Hotels with surplus staff

Some companies were already on the way out like Arcadia but there is going to be a lot more unemployment soon and a long road ahead to recovery.

 

Long before the pandemic John Lewis was making plans to reduce the amount of floor selling space, plus the partnership has always been quite ruthless in closing unprofitable sites. They have a new Chairwoman without any preconceived ideas about the business. Added to this the pandemic changing retail habits in months which would have occurred over a number of years

 

The green party and climate warriors over years have been telling us cheap air travel is killing the planet, perhaps in future people will think twice about cheap air travel

 

The UK hospitality sector has been badly affected, but this year is going to be a bumper year for them. For many a staycation is the only option.

 

Whilst businesses and jobs have been lost there have and will be many new opportunities in all sectors.

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

Good innocent ideas can have bad outcomes - even within the Tory party there are many who are still concerned about how much power their party currently wields and it's impact on democracy.  There are a lot of emergency powers at play and it is making Government less accountable - we could fall into a permanent state like this if we're not careful, power corrupts unfortunately.

 

You are so far off the mark

[alastairq]

3 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Whilst businesses and jobs have been lost there have and will be many new opportunities in all sectors.

  All of which most quite a few  on here will have seen before?

[Collapse of the coal industry, the motor industry, the heavy engineeeering industry, cotton, wool, etc etc etc]