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!
For all the complaints here about possible restrictions and lockdowns, we need to acknowledge that they are essentially irrelevant to the situation we now face. Normal life is being disrupted simply as a result of the extremely rapid spread of Omicron. Public services are beginning to struggle as staff fall ill at the same time, and people are coming to their own conclusions about what level of social contact they want to prioritise, with inevitable effects on the hospitality and entertainment industry.
For all the complaints here about possible restrictions and lockdowns, we need to acknowledge that they are essentially irrelevant to the situation we now face. Normal life is being disrupted simply as a result of the extremely rapid spread of Omicron. Public services are beginning to struggle as staff fall ill at the same time, and people are coming to their own conclusions about what level of social contact they want to prioritise, with inevitable effects on the hospitality and entertainment industry.
Public services are beginning to struggle as staff fall ill at the same time, and people are coming to their own conclusions about what level of social contact they want to prioritise, with inevitable effects on the hospitality and entertainment industry.
Although I do not agree with vaccine passports / compulsory vaccinations for jobs etc I do think it is heading to a situation where the majority of us who've made the right decision to look at the evidence and got vaccinated shouldn't be restricted because of them.
I do get this, and I don't have much sympathy for the unvaxxed, but the point is that's...pretty unscientific. It wouldn't really solve the issue, would it?
For all the complaints here about possible restrictions and lockdowns, we need to acknowledge that they are essentially irrelevant to the situation we now face. Normal life is being disrupted simply as a result of the extremely rapid spread of Omicron.
Public services are beginning to struggle as staff fall ill at the same time, and people are coming to their own conclusions about what level of social contact they want to prioritise, with inevitable effects on the hospitality and entertainment industry.
What exactly do you mean by “fall ill”? Being told you’re ill isn’t the same as actually being ill. And cold-like symptoms are something we have traditionally lived with.
People are coming to their own conclusions off the back of unjustified fear mongering. They’re being made to doubt their own judgement. It’s what the Guardian refers to as “gaslighting”.
Please spare a thought for those who’s lives depend on hospitality and entertainment. They’re real people not just collateral damage.
For all the complaints here about possible restrictions and lockdowns, we need to acknowledge that they are essentially irrelevant to the situation we now face. Normal life is being disrupted simply as a result of the extremely rapid spread of Omicron. Public services are beginning to struggle as staff fall ill at the same time, and people are coming to their own conclusions about what level of social contact they want to prioritise, with inevitable effects on the hospitality and entertainment industry.
Omicron is probably going to cause a surge in infections at just the wrong time, but a lockdown after Christmas makes little sense, because hospitalisations will be peaking at that time - and the lag between infection and hospitalisation will mean infections and hospitalisations are likely already on the way down by the time it's enacted.
Omicron is probably going to cause a surge in infections at just the wrong time, but a lockdown after Christmas makes little sense, because hospitalisations will be peaking at that time - and the lag between infection and hospitalisation will mean infections and hospitalisations are likely already on the way down by the time it's enacted.
Not many at present. But that's irrelevant - even if Omicron causes zero hospitalisations you will still see significant short term disruption to normal life if large numbers of people are in bed for a couple of weeks.
For all the complaints here about possible restrictions and lockdowns, we need to acknowledge that they are essentially irrelevant to the situation we now face. Normal life is being disrupted simply as a result of the extremely rapid spread of Omicron. Public services are beginning to struggle as staff fall ill at the same time, and people are coming to their own conclusions about what level of social contact they want to prioritise, with inevitable effects on the hospitality and entertainment industry.
The quarantine period for those testing positive is currently 10 days, which people have to abide by even if they have completely recovered after day 5. Allowing people to end quarantine if they test negative on two consecutive days would almost instantly ease pressure on public services due to staff isolating.
Also this 10 quarantine period is probably a big factor in why people are limiting social contact. They do not want catch Covid a week before Christmas and have their Christmas plans in tatters. I think many are more frightened of self isolation rather than Covid.
I'm not quite so pessimistic. Whilst we all know SAGE et al would dearly love to impose something, especially if it disrupts Christmas, for reasons we've covered on here, at the present time caving in to this isn't within Johnson's gift, not without taking a considerable personal risk. He may of course decide that the risk of disregarding SAGE outweighs that to his job security.
I wouldn't be getting too worried, at least not until we hear that an 8pm address is planned!
What exactly do you mean by “fall ill”? Being told you’re ill isn’t the same as actually being ill. And cold-like symptoms are something we have traditionally lived with.
I'm using it in its normal meaning. Being ill and not able to go to work or having to stay in bed. The issue is not people getting severely ill, but lots of people ill enough they need a week or so off work at the same time.
People are coming to their own conclusions off the back of unjustified fear mongering. They’re being made to doubt their own judgement. It’s what the Guardian refers to as “gaslighting”.
People are more sensible than you give them credit for. They are coming to their own conclusions. However, the conclusions they are coming to don't align with your personal views, so you've got to invent another explanation: 'fear mongering', 'gaslighting', whatever.
The quarantine period for those testing positive is currently 10 days, which people have to abide by even if they have completely recovered after day 5. Allowing people to end quarantine if they test negative on two consecutive days would almost instantly ease pressure on public services due to staff isolating.
Also this 10 quarantine period is probably a big factor in why people are limiting social contact. They do not want catch Covid a week before Christmas and have their Christmas plans in tatters. I think many are more frightened of self isolation rather than Covid.
Covid affects people for different lengths of time. You could be right as rain after a couple of days or laid up in bed for two weeks. Understandably, people are reluctant to take that risk in the run-up to Christmas, particularly given last year's Christmas was effectively cancelled.
The difficulty is we're reaching the point where the magic money tree really is running bare. We already have a severe problem with inflation, which is probably going to be the biggest issue for 2022.
It doesn't help that we've wasted a lot of initiative doing things we didn't really need to do, or for longer than was necessary.
I do get this, and I don't have much sympathy for the unvaxxed, but the point is that's...pretty unscientific. It wouldn't really solve the issue, would it?
I suppose the argument is that if they're worried that ICU's are filling up, and if the majority admitted to them are unvaccinated, then they should be the ones required to sit things out for a bit.
I'm not sure whether this is the case or not, but if it were, it would make more sense than shutting down lots of people who aren't likely to end up there. In some ways it would be better to to let it progress through the rest of the population at its natural speed.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Not many at present. But that's irrelevant - even if Omicron causes zero hospitalisations you will still see significant short term disruption to normal life if large numbers of people are in bed for a couple of weeks.
The difficulty is we're reaching the point where the magic money tree really is running bare. We already have a severe problem with inflation, which is probably going to be the biggest issue for 2022.
It doesn't help that we've wasted a lot of initiative doing things we didn't really need to do, or for longer than was necessary.
No, we're way off that point. Our debt payments as a % of GDP are at historic lows.
And besides, you don't improve the public finances by letting businesses go to the wall due to a temporary loss of customers. The big mistake over the last 10 years was to prioritise public sector cuts over getting the economy back up to historical growth trends.
No, we're way off that point. Our debt payments as a % of GDP are at historic lows.
And besides, you don't improve the public finances by letting businesses go to the wall due to a temporary loss of customers. The big mistake over the last 10 years was to prioritise public sector cuts over getting the economy back up to historical growth trends.
You’re absolutely right, however we’ve been here before. The modus operandi seems to be to leak the plan to the press so that it doesn’t come as a shock later on……
A rather worrying but very real possibility.
I’ve always supported press freedom, vehemently so in fact. No longer however; they’re rabid, out of control and are doing real damage to this country and it’s people.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Here we go again……
I know you’re angry but please try and think for yourself. These restrictions aren’t being introduced because a few million people declined the vaccine. And even if they were, it wouldn’t be on medical grounds it would effectively be a punishment. I get that you think we can comply our way out of this, but can you not see that the goalposts keep moving? And can you not see that there’s always somebody to blame (never the government though obviously)?
You do yourself no favours referring to people as “anti-vax idiots” by the way.
If people refuse the vaccine because they can’t see the obvious benefits then they ARE idiots! Hospital ICUs are full of them. I have no time for them.
Yes, things change but the vaccine is the way out even though the situation is changing. There is the potential for hospitals to become very busy again and because the unvaccinated are putting a larger pressure on ICU then they maybe are the ones to be restricted rather than the rest of us. I’m not comfort with this but if it’s a choice between the whole population or just the unvaccinated (by choice) then tough luck.
For all the complaints here about possible restrictions and lockdowns, we need to acknowledge that they are essentially irrelevant to the situation we now face. Normal life is being disrupted simply as a result of the extremely rapid spread of Omicron. Public services are beginning to struggle as staff fall ill at the same time, and people are coming to their own conclusions about what level of social contact they want to prioritise, with inevitable effects on the hospitality and entertainment industry.
Are you saying that we should enact a lockdown because people are restricting themselves voluntarily anyway? That makes no sense. If they are doing it voluntarily then why is a lockdown needed?
In any sane world, those who are asymptomatic or not severely affected (i.e. the vast majority of people with Covid) would simply live normally, as if they had a cold. Instead we are cutting off our nose to spite our face and forcing essentially healthy people to self-isolate.
I do get this, and I don't have much sympathy for the unvaxxed, but the point is that's...pretty unscientific. It wouldn't really solve the issue, would it?
The only thing which seems to really drive vaccine uptake is mandating it, or making it a prerequisite to take/retain a job. I don't want to get into the questionable ethics of that, but locking down the unvaxxed doesn't work and frankly this country struggles to get people to wear a mask on a train so I don't think locking down the unvaxxed would even work anyway.
Are you saying that we should enact a lockdown because people are restricting themselves voluntarily anyway? That makes no sense. If they are doing it voluntarily then why is a lockdown needed?
In any sane world, those who are asymptomatic or not severely affected (i.e. the vast majority of people with Covid) would simply live normally, as if they had a cold. Instead we are cutting off our nose to spite our face and forcing essentially healthy people to self-isolate.
Don't be fooled by those who seek to cause hyperinflation and unsustainable levels of debt; their arguments do not hold water and they will use any argument to convince people to take their views, in order to downplay the negative financial effects of lockdowns.
I'm using it in its normal meaning. Being ill and not able to go to work or having to stay in bed. The issue is not people getting severely ill, but lots of people ill enough they need a week or so off work at the same time.
People are more sensible than you give them credit for. They are coming to their own conclusions. However, the conclusions they are coming to don't align with your personal views, so you've got to invent another explanation: 'fear mongering', 'gaslighting', whatever.
We are already at huge levels of debt and we are already suffering high levels of inflation. People like you seek to make that even worse for no tangible gain.
Covid affects people for different lengths of time. You could be right as rain after a couple of days or laid up in bed for two weeks. Understandably, people are reluctant to take that risk in the run-up to Christmas, particularly given last year's Christmas was effectively cancelled.
The vast majority of people are not going to be particularly ill; most people are vaccinated, many have had a prior exposure to the virus, the virus has mutated in a manner that was predicted/expected and makes people less ill.
If people refuse the vaccine because they can’t see the obvious benefits then they ARE idiots! Hospital ICUs are full of them. I have no time for them.
Only a small percentage of people in ICUs and hospital due to Covid are unvaccinated. Yes, proportionally the unvaccinated are overrepresented. But they make up such a small percentage of the population (and particularly those at "high" risk) that even if you imposed a lockdown on the unvaccinated, it would make very little difference to hospitals.
Seeing as we are on the subject - do you also have no time for people who smoke? Or drink? Or have an unhealthy lifestyle? After all, all these groups are overrepresented in hospital as well. But nobody is suggesting they should face restrictions "for the greater good".
Yes, things change but the vaccine is the way out even though the situation is changing. There is the potential for hospitals to become very busy again and because the unvaccinated are putting a larger pressure on ICU then they maybe are the ones to be restricted rather than the rest of us. I’m not comfort with this but if it’s a choice between the whole population or just the unvaccinated (by choice) then tough luck.
It's a completely false dichotomy. Look at what happened in Austria, locking down the unvaccinated made very little difference (if any). Less than a week later they decided to extend the lockdown to everyone.
Don't be fooled by those who seek to cause hyperinflation and unsustainable levels of debt; their arguments do not hold water and they will use any argument to convince people to take their views, in order to downplay the negative financial effects of lockdowns.
To be honest, I think we're at the stage where some businesses will require support, even without a lockdown (just to reiterate, I don't support a lockdown).
Are you saying that we should enact a lockdown because people are restricting themselves voluntarily anyway? That makes no sense. If they are doing it voluntarily then why is a lockdown needed?
In any sane world, those who are asymptomatic or not severely affected (i.e. the vast majority of people with Covid) would simply live normally, as if they had a cold. Instead we are cutting off our nose to spite our face and forcing essentially healthy people to self-isolate.
Oh not this again - those who may be severely affected will have been booster vaccinated. You know the thing that stops people from being "severely affected" as you put it.
Some people are talking as if this is 2020 all over again not 2021.
Yes but the same is true of the 'flu. People who are at elevated risk if they caught Covid can decide for themselves whether they wish to take measures such as getting vaccinated, avoiding/reducing social contact, wearing an FFP3 mask etc. But they can't expect society to drastically change for them.
Which is a nice way of saying 'coerce', which is the opposite of informed consent, ie. the basic principle required for any medical intervention, else we're going down a path none of us should want to go down.
But ok, let's leave that aside for a second and let's say we decide to punish the unvaccinated for their decision. What restrictions do you propose? Why would they help? How would you determine who was or wasn't in order to enforce? And when would this last until?
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
