UK Politics: Last Chrismas we partied so hard, now it was leaked before a repeat.

[Heartofice]

10 hours ago, mormont said:

When medical advice suggests that it is no longer necessary, in line with the precautionary principle.

Again, that feels like you are just passing off responsibility. Why would someone like SAGE (who I guess is who you are referring to when talking about medical advice) have an opinion on the cost of LFTs, their focus is only on the medical side? Why wouldn't would want everyone tested all the time forever, that allows them to have as much data as possible. Add in the fact that they have consistently over estimated the scale and damage of the pandemic, why would you only take their advice when it comes to deciding on the cost of anything?

Plus, something I don't think you want to acknowledge, since the UK introduced free Lateral flow tests last year we've tested more people than anyone in Europe. How well has that helped to stem the flow of the virus?  Is it now a useful allocation of resource? How can someone like SAGE decide that?

10 hours ago, mormont said:

What about the ongoing expense of trying in vain to get back to 'normal' and having to change course? What about the enormous savings? Why would I be suggesting it if I didn't consider it necessary?

What enormous savings? Why would there be a need to change course? 
 

10 hours ago, mormont said:

Go read some of your own posts, I would suggest, because ever since vaccines became available you've been an evangelist for how they protect people even if they become infected. In fact you've been arguing this exact point in the current COVID thread. And long term, vaccination rates in the high nineties are the only viable way out of this.

Yes I've been pretty consistent. Vaccines are very good at protecting people from serious disease and death. We've now vaccinated almost the entire population who are vulnerable to the virus (with 3 doses I might add), and a lot more. We've also lived with the virus for 2 years and a lot of people have had it. We are not in the same position as 2 years ago where a brand new virus entered a totally naive population. 
The vaccines however don't appear to be doing a very good job at preventing spread, and cannot be relied on as a good measure to decide whether someone is infectious or not. The argument for vaccine mandates was always pretty shaky, and Omicron has basically destroyed it. Vaccine mandates should be made illegal rather than encouraged. What is the argument for them in 2022 in the UK?  What do you imagine changes at a high nighties vaccination rate? It really isn't the only way out of this at all, you are living in a dream. 
 

10 hours ago, mormont said:

You may want to read the first post I made: it suggests not that the government has been letting it rip, but that it is about to do so.

Your posts have always suggested the government is trying to let it rip, and you are incorrect in suggesting that is what is happening now. How can a government be about to let the virus rip when it's spent the last year boosting more than almost any other country on the planet? It's a nonsensical thing to say which is purely partisan.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Tennis player Andy Murray pointing out Farage’s hypocrisy 

 

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Again, that feels like you are just passing off responsibility.

I'm sorry if it feels that way to you, but it would appear that's because you don't understand the difference between taking responsibility and accepting advice.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Your posts have always suggested the government is trying to let it rip

I've suggested that there's a desire to do so, yes, but not that this is what they have in fact been doing, which is what you claimed. It would have been easier to admit that you got that wrong rather than trying to shift the goalposts.

As for the rest, I've been more than polite in explaining to you my entirely hypothetical plan for government: but I fail to see why I should have to continue to do that in order for you to accept my right to criticise the government's direction of travel, their systemic mishandling of the pandemic and the philosophical and personal failures that underly both. Based on past interactions, that acceptance is something you will never offer anyway and I have to say it has no value to me even if you did, so what would be the point?

 

[Heartofice]

21 minutes ago, mormont said:

As for the rest, I've been more than polite in explaining to you my entirely hypothetical plan for government: but I fail to see why I should have to continue to do that in order for you to accept my right to criticise the government's direction of travel, their systemic mishandling of the pandemic and the philosophical and personal failures that underly both. Based on past interactions, that acceptance is something you will never offer anyway and I have to say it has no value to me even if you did, so what would be the point?

 

Look, it's good of you to spend to the time to write out your plan. I don't happen to agree with much of it or think it's especially well thought through, which is why I'm challenging you on it all. 

I also agree that there is a level of mishandling of this pandemic, but at the same time I find it continuously frustrating that you and other posters act like the government is pursuing a policy which seems to not care about the virus. They've pushed ahead with a vaccine and booster programme that was probably the best in the world, we've done more testing than anyone else in Europe. If we look at the measures taken by the other nations like Wales and Scotland, who like to pride themselves on being more tough on the virus than the English, they haven't worked. Crying for more measures isn't always the right policy. 

I also find it frustrating when posters such as yourself act as if the measures introduced are free of cost, both monetarily, or to peoples physical and mental health. They are not, and the point about medical advice is that it doesn't take into account the many other factors at play, Sage have been very open about that fact. Its not as simple as saying we should do everything Sage tell us all the time, because they are not looking at the big picture. 

Its ok to criticise the government, god knows they deserve it, but at the same time we shouldn't over state the case or pretend like we are being left to the dogs. Some of the language used just betrays the fact that many people have a very skewed view of the situation and what is happening.

[mormont]

12 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Look, it's good of you to spend to the time to write out your plan. I don't happen to agree with much of it or think it's especially well thought through, which is why I'm challenging you on it all. 

Your opinion is noted. I'll give it the weight it deserves.  

12 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I also agree that there is a level of mishandling of this pandemic, but at the same time I find it continuously frustrating that you and other posters act like the government is pursuing a policy which seems to not care about the virus. They've pushed ahead with a vaccine and booster programme that was probably the best in the world, we've done more testing than anyone else in Europe. If we look at the measures taken by the other nations like Wales and Scotland, who like to pride themselves on being more tough on the virus than the English, they haven't worked. Crying for more measures isn't always the right policy. 

The actual policy differences are relatively small, partly because the Scottish, Welsh and NI governments are constrained by the actions of the UK government. Nor are the nations completely comparable - English figures will always be distorted somewhat by London and the other large cities. Drawing any conclusions from the limited data available is therefore a difficult task. However, public approval of the devolved governments' handling of the pandemic has consistently been higher, at least in part because the devolved governments don't have ministers constantly undermining their own messaging.

12 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I also find it frustrating when posters such as yourself act as if the measures introduced are free of cost, both monetarily, or to peoples physical and mental health.

I don't know why you are frustrated at this because it has never happened. 

12 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Some of the language used just betrays the fact that many people have a very skewed view of the situation and what is happening.

Your own language is frequently dismissive of the importance of the concerns, the health and even the lives of vulnerable people and downplays the death toll, the long term health effects and the other impacts of the pandemic. I'd suggest that if anyone has a skewed view of the pandemic, it's the person who has from day one been using language that suggests what is happening should mostly be viewed as an inconvenience to healthy young people. 

[Heartofice]

15 minutes ago, mormont said:

Your opinion is noted. I'll give it the weight it deserves.  

Honestly, its not like I ever expected any sort of response to my challenges to what you said, and I didn't really get that. Clearly we aren't going to agree on this in the same way we rarely agree on anything else. You can dismiss the things I'm saying to you but it doesn't make you any more correct.

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

The actual policy differences are relatively small, partly because the Scottish, Welsh and NI governments are constrained by the actions of the UK government.

They are more similar now the UK gov has implemented Plan B, but its been obvious for a while that the differing actions taken by the devolved governments have not had the intended effects. They have been bullish in trying to do more than England and it hasn't worked. 

18 minutes ago, mormont said:

Nor are the nations completely comparable - English figures will always be distorted somewhat by London and the other large cities. Drawing any conclusions from the limited data available is therefore a difficult task

Quite a convenient side step. If anything you'd think you'd see far worse results in London than in devolved nations, London having a worse vaccination rate, being denser etc. The fact that Scotland and Wales have similar levels is actually more shocking when you make that comparison.

20 minutes ago, mormont said:

However, public approval of the devolved governments' handling of the pandemic has consistently been higher, at least in part because the devolved governments don't have ministers constantly undermining their own messaging.

Higher support doesn't mean it's the correct action, nor am I entirely convinced by much of the polling on the issue. 

21 minutes ago, mormont said:

Your own language is frequently dismissive of the importance of the concerns, the health and even the lives of vulnerable people and downplays the death toll, the long term health effects and the other impacts of the pandemic. I'd suggest that if anyone has a skewed view of the pandemic, it's the person who has from day one been using language that suggests what is happening should mostly be viewed as an inconvenience to healthy young people. 

I've always been concerned by the health and lives of vulnerable people. Basically every post on the topic by me has been about protecting them, because it's been obvious for so long that the virus is far more dangerous for certain segments of society. Thats why I've talked so much about making sure to vaccinate them first.

The other side of that is that the virus is also not especially dangerous to the other, larger section of society. Simply saying this true statement seems like blasphemy to some people. It isn't downplaying anything.  It is simply reality and that is why I think a lot of peoples views here are skewed. That and not accepting that conditions change and evolve. 

I wonder at what point you and other think the pandemic will have ended? What is the exit plan? Because there needs to be an exit plan. As much as its hurts you to admit, we do need to go back to relative normality at some point, this is not sustainable, even if it's comfortable enough for some people. 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

12 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Honestly, its not like I ever expected any sort of response to my challenges to what you said, and I didn't really get that. Clearly we aren't going to agree on this in the same way we rarely agree on anything else. You can dismiss the things I'm saying to you but it doesn't make you any more correct.

They are more similar now the UK gov has implemented Plan B, but its been obvious for a while that the differing actions taken by the devolved governments have not had the intended effects. They have been bullish in trying to do more than England and it hasn't worked. 

Quite a convenient side step. If anything you'd think you'd see far worse results in London than in devolved nations, London having a worse vaccination rate, being denser etc. The fact that Scotland and Wales have similar levels is actually more shocking when you make that comparison.

Higher support doesn't mean it's the correct action, nor am I entirely convinced by much of the polling on the issue. 

I've always been concerned by the health and lives of vulnerable people. Basically every post on the topic by me has been about protecting them, because it's been obvious for so long that the virus is far more dangerous for certain segments of society. Thats why I've talked so much about making sure to vaccinate them first.

The other side of that is that the virus is also not especially dangerous to the other, larger section of society. Simply saying this true statement seems like blasphemy to some people. It isn't downplaying anything.  It is simply reality and that is why I think a lot of peoples views here are skewed. That and not accepting that conditions change and evolve. 

I wonder at what point you and other think the pandemic will have ended? What is the exit plan? Because there needs to be an exit plan. As much as its hurts you to admit, we do need to go back to relative normality at some point, this is not sustainable, even if it's comfortable enough for some people. 

Personally I think we do need to learn to live with the Virus.  because unfortunately it is here to stay.  That said the pandemic footing we are on should not end as you put it until our Hospitals and NHS can cope with not just the Covid patients but all the people they would normally be treating.    While they are being significantly effected its obvious that we need some kind of response and measures.

 

Long term this means more sustained funding for the NHS, more recruitment more staff and more beds.  Short term until the effects of that extra funding staff and beds has an impact, we need to do what we can to reduce the people needing those resources, thus we have measures in place to help.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

Personally I think we do need to learn to live with the Virus.  because unfortunately it is here to stay.  That said the pandemic footing we are on should not end as you put it until our Hospitals and NHS can cope with not just the Covid patients but all the people they would normally be treating.    While they are being significantly effected its obvious that we need some kind of response and measures.

 

Long term this means more sustained funding for the NHS, more recruitment more staff and more beds.  Short term until the effects of that extra funding staff and beds has an impact, we need to do what we can to reduce the people needing those resources, thus we have measures in place to help.

Well I do agree that more long term funding and possible reform and improvement of the NHS should be a priority. This isn't going to be the last pandemic we experience and the next one might be a lot worse. 

Having said that we have been living through years of backlog and exhausted NHS workers, long before the pandemic. If you start to create a precedent for closing down society and introducing restrictions on people based simply on the fact that the NHS is underfunded then you wonder what happens next year and the year after. 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

10 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well I do agree that more long term funding and possible reform and improvement of the NHS should be a priority. This isn't going to be the last pandemic we experience and the next one might be a lot worse. 

Having said that we have been living through years of backlog and exhausted NHS workers, long before the pandemic. If you start to create a precedent for closing down society and introducing restrictions on people based simply on the fact that the NHS is underfunded then you wonder what happens next year and the year after. 

maybe we have been living though years of backlog and exhausted NHS workers because the NHS has been so underfunded for years.  Going back to what we had before Covid is not good enough.   especially as Covid even when managed will create seasonal additional stress on the NHS that was not there before.  

If we fund it properly there should be some flex in the system to allow for emergencies when they do happen.  (I don't think any country really had this capacity)  Of course having that flex and extra budget in the system means its a very tempting target for any future cuts.  The precedent is set by running a health system that is only just scrapping by for years when we don't have a pandemic.

[Zorral]

6 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I've always been concerned by the health and lives of vulnerable people.

Going back to the earlier covid threads when the pandemic started you steadfastly insisted it was wrong, particularly for the Almighty Economy, especially YOUR ALMIGHTY ECONOMY, that gyms etc.  be closed, and if elderly got it and died, not a problem because the elderly don't contribute to the Almighty Economy.  Plus their deaths contributed to faster herd immunity.  You were all in that phantasm, herd immunity, which only recently have you dropped -- in favor of 'decoupling.'

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Going back to the earlier covid threads when the pandemic started you steadfastly insisted it was wrong, particularly for the Almighty Economy, especially YOUR ALMIGHTY ECONOMY, that gyms etc.  be closed, and if elderly got it and died, not a problem because the elderly don't contribute to the Almighty Economy.  Plus their deaths contributed to faster herd immunity.  You were all in that phantasm, herd immunity, which only recently have you dropped -- in favor of 'decoupling.'

What a tissue of lies. You are talking out of your backside as usual

[Raja]

The NHS staff will keep going, as we have throughout the last 2 years - but we have not seen cancelled operations, redeployment of staff, employment of medical students, going to covid rotas for staff, ICU nurses looking after 4-5 patients as opposed to 1 or 2 before. 

Restrictions are based on avoiding the things I have listed above ( such as cancelled cancer care, cancelled operations & critical incidents) not just for 'exhausted staff', and stating it is for the latter is dishonest - we have already failed at the cancelling operations part as lots of trusts have done that in the last 2 months.

[TrueMetis]

The demand for a hard timeline during a disaster is so bizarre to me. I'd ask if people were demanding to know when WW2 would be over... but seeing how people responded to this they probably were. The policy's around Covid should end when covid is over, like entirely over not just cases receding. Doing otherwise only leads to the fucking yoyoing we've seen throughout this pandemic.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

1 minute ago, TrueMetis said:

The demand for a hard timeline during a disaster is so bizarre to me. I'd ask if people were demanding to know when WW2 would be over... but seeing how people responded to this they probably were. The policy's around Covid should end when covid is over, like entirely over not just cases receding. Doing otherwise only leads to the fucking yoyoing we've seen throughout this pandemic.

I believe they said the War would be over by Christmas.

 

Its just they never clearly stated which Christmas.   On that note,  those wanting a hard timeline to Covid    - It will be over by Xmas.

[TrueMetis]

3 minutes ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

I believe they said the War would be over by Christmas.

 

Its just they never clearly stated which Christmas.   On that note,  those wanting a hard timeline to Covid    - It will be over by Xmas.

Wasn't that said about WW1? Anyway I guess they were right, September 1945 was before Christmas.

[BigFatCoward]

Boris definitely went to another party. What a mad bastard, he doesn't give a fuck does he. 

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

The demand for a hard timeline during a disaster is so bizarre to me. I'd ask if people were demanding to know when WW2 would be over... but seeing how people responded to this they probably were. The policy's around Covid should end when covid is over, like entirely over not just cases receding. Doing otherwise only leads to the fucking yoyoing we've seen throughout this pandemic.

What is your definition of ‘Covid is over’

[Pebble thats Stubby]

1 minute ago, TrueMetis said:

Wasn't that said about WW1? Anyway I guess they were right, September 1945 was before Christmas.

I think they might have said it for both Wars.

 

1 minute ago, BigFatCoward said:

Boris definitely went to another party. What a mad bastard, he doesn't give a fuck does he. 

and this surprises you?  I just don't care anymore.  I mean no revelation about breaking lockdown rules or corruption was ever gonna change how I vote.

[mormont]

9 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Honestly, its not like I ever expected any sort of response to my challenges to what you said, and I didn't really get that.

That's just rude. You did get a response, and a pretty detailed and polite one. I'm sorry if you didn't like or agree with parts of it but it's disrespectful to say you didn't get one.

9 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Clearly we aren't going to agree on this in the same way we rarely agree on anything else. You can dismiss the things I'm saying to you but it doesn't make you any more correct.

We can agree that I am no more or and no less correct because of the things you have said, certainly.

9 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Quite a convenient side step. If anything you'd think you'd see far worse results in London than in devolved nations, London having a worse vaccination rate, being denser etc.

That was part of my point, yes, and I'm not sure why you think I don't realise this, or why you feel the need to throw in the little snipe at the beginning.

You sometimes complain about people not engaging with you. Stuff like these last few responses makes it hard to do so, to be quite honest. You can disagree with someone respectfully.

9 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I've always been concerned by the health and lives of vulnerable people. Basically every post on the topic by me has been about protecting them, because it's been obvious for so long that the virus is far more dangerous for certain segments of society. Thats why I've talked so much about making sure to vaccinate them first.

If that's true, I think you should reflect not only on why people sometimes struggle to engage with you (honestly, it's quite tiring to do so) but also on why many people you engage with on this issue in particular have come away with quite the opposite impression. It could be them, of course. But it could also be a you problem.

9 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I wonder at what point you and other think the pandemic will have ended? What is the exit plan? Because there needs to be an exit plan. As much as its hurts you to admit, we do need to go back to relative normality at some point, this is not sustainable, even if it's comfortable enough for some people. 

It doesn't hurt me to admit it: one doesn't have to admit what is, in the end, an opinion, particularly one I don't share.

And nor do you really - you've agreed that we need to see changes to make society more able to cope with future pandemics, more investment in healthcare capacity, ventilation, etc. These are part of the exit plan. Other parts I discussed earlier. We don't exit this pandemic by going back, we exit it by going forward. That will require, in my opinion, substantial change. Which is something this government don't want, but will find themselves having to accept.

We're all living with the virus already. The question is who should pay the price for that. To bring this back to the original point, when the government float cutting self-isolation and ending free testing, what they're really saying is, the price for living with the virus won't be paid by business or the government: it'll be paid by you and me and our friends and family.

[The Anti-Targ]

As they say, if you don't measure it you can't manage it. If the govt has moved to a different way of measuring the pandemic in the UK in order to manage it better then ending free testing is a reasonable course of action. But if there isn't a different way of measuring then what ending free testing suggests is the govt is giving up on trying to manage. That would effectively be declaring the pandemic and the crisis over. Such a declaration may be a bit premature.