Blah Blah

Too early to tell on the longer term effects of the vaccine. All that is known so far is that they appear to suppress infection.

I think it is a sensible roadmap, allowing time to measure the impacts of each stage on the R number. This is the only way to go if we are not to repeat the mistakes of last year. It is not about stopping all deaths either. It is about getting things to a manageable level with a reopened economy. The monitoring for mutations will be ongoing just as is the case with influenza. Repairing the economic and mental health impacts however is going to be a different challenge. And that is where normal party politics will return, over who bears the true burden of the borrowing etc etc.

Those who are vaccine hesitant are expected to eventually take the vaccine, so there may be a small percentage of genuine anti-vaxers left. How much influence they can exert over others is the real question. I would guess it will be less and less as the vaccine rolls out and the economy opens up again.

Surge testing taking place in Croydon and Addington from this morning after local outbreak of the South African variant.

I'm not lecturing you though. I am pointing out why this conversation around 'with or of' really doesn't matter. Yet it gets trotted out all the time, usually by people trying to question the risk the virus presents, as though the death figures themselves are not significant in a landscape of severe restriction on social contact. Bear in mind where this thread begins (although I did not see the deleted posts) with the OP complaining about have posts removed by admin.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not supporting Uplannd's broader position on > this thread KK....but to this specific point, > isn't this actually directly relevant to the point > about mis-recorded deaths? > > I.e. If someone who has had a positive Covid test > within 4 weeks prior of death, then actually dies > of undiagnosed cancer...then it will be recorded > as a Covid death..... > > Am I missing something? No, because this in not how it works. The conditions covid induces or exacerbates to cause death are pretty well understood by now. There has to be a strong opinion that covid played some role in the death of a person for it to be recorded as a covid death. A better question to ask might be 'where are the grey areas?'. So a grey area might be someone who has an underlying condition that can be deadly, even with treatment. If their death is not expected, and they have covid, then that may be an explanation offered for the sudden turn for the worse in their underlying condition. Why? Because covid is triggering the immune system, and if the immune system is already having to work hard on something else, then you can see where logically, covid may be argued to have played a role. So linking back to my previous post, it becomes about excess deaths again. Higher numbers of people in any group, suddenly dying isn't coincidence. There will always be a common causal factor. Will the conclusion around covid in every case be right? No it won't, but it will be right enough of the time to indicate where we are realistically in relation to the virus.

'There is a big difference between dying with Covid or of Covid. If you currently die of a Heart attack and have mild symptoms of covid it is recorded as a Covid death.' This kind of statement is actually pretty offensive. Doctors treating patients in hospitals know very clearly when someone is dying because their respiratory system is collapsing from covid induced pneumonia. And that is what those figures are recording in the main, hospital deaths. In all likelihood, that actual figure is significantly higher, if we were to account for death in other places than a hospital. Autopsies take time to do and results are needed fast in a pandemic. So the emphasis is on 'excess' deaths compared to the five year average for the time of year, to gauge where we are. It is an indicator, not an absolute. Arguing the toss about absolutes it irrelevant and doesn't change the fact we are facing a epidemic virus that kills. Also, on deaths where people have also been vaccinated. In most cases, that will be coincidental. The very elderly are still dying from more natural causes, linked to old age. In some however, the work the body has to do to create the new antibodies may also be a factor, but that is a risk with all treatments given to the very elderly. There is a greater good element to this. You can have lots of elderly dying because they have no immunity to the virus, or you can have a few dying because their immune systems are not capable of responding to the vaccine. For government, that decision is an easy one, but I also understand how relatives may think the vaccine may have caused their loved ones death. We have to show understanding on that one where it arises.

The latest Adam Curtis doc on BBC iplayer gives some insights into why modern political systems are collapsing. Worth a look. Some insights on protest culture too that seem very relevant at the moment.

Brilliant effort. Will share and donate.

Removal of the trees may well be to allow for access for heavy machinery and materials. There are always other ways to do this. Having said that, using a crane costs considerably more than driving a vehicle onto site, but worth querying precisely why that space needs to be cleared.

Veola are contracted by Southwark Council so definitely complain to councillors and to the council itself. The council demands certain standards from its contractors.

Yes, social distancing in open air is the key. Mask wearing is not mandatory because it is negligible in the open air where people socially distance. However, it is worth having a face covering to hand where people are prone to ignore the social distancing, and always sanitise after touching shared play equipment.

Oh Cat, it is a bit rich of you to claim some remainers voted on on instinct and did no research when ignorance so typified a lot of leave voters and the lies they were sold. You were actually doing very well in your counter arguments until that point.

I am inclined to agree with that Alex.

I agree with that too. Scotland voted to stay part of a UK that was also part of the EU. Now that we are not, it changes everything. But here is the rub. Sturgeon in some ways is arguing for a choice between the EU or the Union, but the SNP are nationalists at heart and that has to be remembered. How will that nationalism sit in the context of the EU? Scottish voters will themselves decide which serves them best, but with Scottish fishing hurting and with other economic losses for farmers, Scotland may decide being part of that bigger market on the doorstep is going to serve them better than Westminster. They may also see rejoining the EU as beneficial for investment too. I could easily see an exodus to Scotland of business, skills and investment. Like many others, I would also qualify for a Scottish passport through lineage.

One glance at the flippant tone brought by Troll Snatcher and your endorsement of his (or her) notion that disagreement equates to bullying, speaks for itself. You are not in the best shape to preach about credibility either.

You make a valid point Seabag. The UK has indeed already split with a range of divisions that will take decades to heal. But aren't they also a range of divisions that have always existed in some form somewhere? It is a set of certain circumstances that have amplified and brought them to the fore.

I do find it odd that people who support Brexit are calling Scottish Independence a bad idea. If Brexit could promise sunlit uplands, then Scottish indy can do the same. After it, it doesn't seem to matter anymore if anything is actually true. Just on the Euro, pretty sure two years membership of the ERM is required before switching to it anyway.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have a Scottish parent. > > Does that mean if Scotland gains independence I > can have a Scottish passport? > > And if it joins the EU, an EU passport? > > Assuming I live that long, of course 😂 Yes it does. A lot of Brits will be able to take advantage of this. England could in theory lose half its population, given the right incentives :D

Hamletter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As expected, more bullying intended to suppress > views that you don't agree with. It is clear that you are here to pick fights and nothing else.

You don't have to let anyone into your home, not even your landlord. That is the law. They have to go to court if they want to force entry. If it is an essential repair, then you have the right to negotiate terms. Contact renter rights as cited above. They will give you legal advice. Personally, I wouldn't let anyone in unless you are sure they are covid negative, mask or no mask. It is your home. It needs to be safe.

In all of this, it is worth remembering, and pointing out, that the UK is a major player in genetics and vaccine development. Pharmaceuticals are our second biggest export to the EU too. So the UK was always going to be in the race to develop a vaccine, with huge investment from government money. In other words, this is one of the things we excel in. As for the EU, their behaviour is unacceptable on this. They failed to pre-order enough, took too long to approve, and have left themselves susceptible to supply issues. To deal with that by trying to block exports of a vaccine WE developed and are licensing at cost price has angered a lot of remainers too. Not the EU's finest hour for sure.

I have to support Seabag here. Why? Because even though you have been hit by the impacts of 2008 etc TheCat, I am willing to wager you were still left with a decent livelihood. The people being hit by the disruptions in trade are in no such comfortable position. And you are incredibly glib about that, as Seabag points out. You clearly see people's livelihoods as mere collateral damage, well people not as fortunate as you that it. Because those are the people that this lousy trade agreement are going to hit hardest. They don't have ten years for things to adjust and iron themselves out. The best deal was always the one we had as a member of the EU. Nothing changes that. Replacing what is lost by leaving is going to be harder than you think.

The problem is that everything was wrong from the off. Taiwan had suffered from the first SARS outbreak in 2003 and they learned the lesson. As soon as an outbreak was known about in China, they closed their borders, put into action the localised track and trace they had already the infrastructure in place for and EVERYONE had to wear masks with no exemptions. The result is that Taiwan has never locked down and only has 7 deaths so far. They have a population that is around one third of the UK's, so not insignificant. The west however, never took a pandemic as any kind as a real serious threat, and while her economies are on a roller coaster, Asia is functioning pretty much as before. Boris had no excuse. We had more time than anyone to see what was coming. Trump had even more time. There is no way of excusing the government on the slow responses. Starmer has been consistent on calling for those responses sooner. Things absolutely would have been different under Labour. They would have given the role of track and track to local public health bodies for a start, and not wasted tens of millions on their mates business enterprises.

He is the opposition leader. It is his job to oppose and the opposition itself signifies what he is for. Not sure what the point of this thread is to be honest. Are we going to have a thread for every vacuous comment made by an irrelevant back bencher?