Penguin68

The biggest problem is that Southwark's plans make no allowance for the fact that the borough is not uniform. The North is well served by public transport (some parts are very well served) with tubes and buses that traverse the compass. It is also flat, which makes cycling far easier for the less fit. The South, where we are, is very hilly and poorly served by public transport. Its car ownership is much higher, but then it mimics that of Bromley - similar in nature. Things here are further apart - so 'walk it or cycle it' is a less acceptable mantra, particularly for the more elderly and infirm (or indeed those with a handful of toddlers to cope with). We are only 'inner London' because of a stitch-up which meant that the old Borough of Camberwell was subsumed by Southwark, which carries that title and topology. So a single policy (that which looks sensible if you are sitting in Tooley St surrounded by good public transport and no hills) looks less sensible here. And it doesn't help that the streets which you can readily cut-off from the real world are those where the (most) wealthy live, and the streets onto which the traffic is diverted are where the state schools and the less wealthy are. And (despite the current low levels of traffic associated with continuing lock-down) when the economy and society releases there are going to be bad levels of traffic in those streets - which will get worse over time.

We motorists are really nothing but cash cows to them I think you'll find that's polluting, poisonous, despicable cash cows who must be driven (sic) out of the borough

I think different centres had different policies - some booked the second at the time of the first, some booked both together, but others chose to contact their first vaccine patients when it was time for the second. If you were vaccinated in a hospital I think that last policy was more common.

This is a very difficult time - with different sets of needs, each, taken singly, very compelling. Social isolation and mental health deterioration as a function of that are clearly dreadful, but so are (a) the actual effects of Covid-19 and (b) fears about catching Covid-19 - which also impacts mental health. The police are caught between a rock and a hard place - intervening seems heavy handed, but not intervening causes those fearful and worried huge distress and even anger. Ideally there would be places, fully marked out with social distancing limits, where groups could come together, in the open, to exercise communally and safely - but these don't exist, and aren't anyway licenced by the current government rules (and if they were would favour those living in leafy suburbs with 'free' parkland over those in crowded inner cities, which many would not see as 'fair' - I'm not sure I would!). So I don't think there is a 'reasonable' course here which would satisfy all. What the police are reported as doing wasn't as heavy handed as it might have been - they could have legally fined participants (or at least the organiser) rather than asking them to move along - indeed it appears to have been well judged, given the legislation they are bound to abide by and administer. Of course most reading this will have felt your pain - but then we've also felt the pain of those writing to complain about the actions of parents with children at a playground - and certainly children are really suffering from isolation at a time when they are meant to be building up social skills - which at least the OP will have had the opportunity to do many years ago.

was a Lib Dem and therefore not running Southwark There was a time when we were not a one party state, and indeed when Lib Dems had influence and power.

it's difficult to see how the result of a statutory consultation on a particular CPZ would come out other than in favour of the CPZ unless there were some very specific objections that couldn't be ignored? You're probably right, but it says all we need to know about this council that the wants or needs of their constituents are irrelevant to their plans. We only get one go at democracy, on one day every 3 years (or more if they can postpone the polls). Maybe the next time we get the chance we shouldn't blow it on knee jerk 'we are all left wing here' responses. When socialism used to have some relationship to democracy and the will of the people. Long past in Southwark, I fear.

About twenty odd saplings in plastic, protective tubes have been planted on the lower slopes of Dawson's Hill. Interesting to know the purpose of the planting - maybe to stabilize that slope - or maybe the trees are decorative - more flowering cherry trees would be good - we've had a great show in ED recently. Or maybe productive and they're real fruit trees, not ornamental?

GDPR prevents aany information being published or just the names? GDPR only prevents publication when such publication is not included as an authorised use. If (as I believe should have happened) applications were sought with the proviso that details other than bank account details may be published then that would have been fine. I believe that applying for public funding is a public act, and the details of applications (who is applying) should be made available to the public - other, perhaps, than details of bank accounts. Otherwise relatives and spouses of councillors could apply for funding and get it and no one would be the wiser. Too many people are now hiding under the cloak of GDPR in order to keep what should be public, private. That way (alleged) SNP style corruption lies. To clarify - GDPR does not give blanket secrecy to individual names (personal data) - if and unless such a purpose was stated when the data was collected. What people do have is the right to get access to personal data held and to get something corrected, if in error. Hence, unless you tick the right box, your personal details, as captured in the Electoral Register, are made available from the electoral register. If applications for funding clearly stated that applicants names/ and or applicant organisation names would be made available, then making them available is in breach of nothing.

There has been some suggestion that side effects are more marked if the person being vaccinated has had Covid-19. (And, as a corollary, for those that have had a second vaccine that their side effects have been worse than when they had the first). Perhaps those who have had significant side effects (worse say than a partner) could include with their feedback whether they have had, or suspect they've had, Covid already. My partner and I (both vaccinated together, neither, we think, have had Covid-19, or at least not symptomatically) had limited (12-15 hours) 'feeling rough' before returning to normal.

I suspect that it is commercial interests that are driving this proposed festival. There is nothing, per se wrong with commercial interests, IMHO, but if it is I would be worried that they are getting council funding on top of that. Indeed that would be quite improper. A council funded event which does then include commercial partners to provide additional funding (by e.g. paying for food concessions) is a different issue, but these should not be 'behind' such an event.

I see public transport as being pretty good (a relative term) you choose to see it as not pretty good. I assume you have no occasion to travel East: West through/ out of ED? Travel into and out of the City is fine (North: South) - and this described the bulk of traffic pre-lockdown and WFH (although there was still quite a reasonable flow East West as people who lived south of the river in South East, South and South West London tried to communicate). The nature of the road closures has been to further restrict East West flow - so channelling traffic into the few roads left that feed into the South Circular - the only East West route left open. Hence the traffic nightmares in rush hour now in Underhill (when we are not in an obligatory lock-down). So we have little public transport East West of any use (a 12 minute car journey for me to see friends in Ladywell takes 90 minutes by the only circuitous hopper bus that reaches that destination - and that's not atypical). Oh, and with the hills between them and me, and my age and infirmity, cycling isn't an option.

Possibly they are pro vaccine, if they are, because they are not complete idiots. Which would not stop them favouring particular manufacturers. If they do as I haven't read their views. Just commentating on their credentials.

Medscape is a commercial publisher. It is owned by WebMD - Wiki notes these criticisms of this publisher The New York Times Writing in The New York Times Magazine in 2011, Virginia Heffernan criticized WebMD for biasing readers toward drugs that are sold by the site's pharmaceutical sponsors, even when they are unnecessary. She wrote that WebMD "has become permeated with pseudo-medicine and subtle misinformation." Vox Media Julia Belluz of Vox criticized WebMD for encouraging hypochondria and for promoting treatments for which evidence of safety and effectiveness is weak or non-existent, such as green coffee supplements for weight loss, vagus nerve stimulation for depression, and fish-oil/omega-3 supplements for high cholesterol. I cannot confirm these criticisms, nor say they relate also to Medscape - but in reading Medscape you may wish to note its stable companion. The source is commercial, it is neither academic nor specifically medical (i.e. not from those involved in medical research or provision of medical services) save as a commercial publisher of information targeted at medics.

Funerals are not cheap, and I wouldn't tip anyone there, but I would write a letter of thanks and I would post in whatever relevant social media (I'm sure there are sites for funeral Directors, otherwise Google at least) an appreciation of what they've done (which is more likely to bring them in business and value than a tip). You could ask them where they would appreciate a positive review. Sometimes there are functionaries at a crematorium - if they've organised things for you out of standard - whom you might tip, however. You wouldn't tip a solicitor. Or an accountant. Or a travel agent.

It is worth noting that this 'flu season' there have been no reported cases (!). This suggests 2 things. Firstly that vaccination, social distancing, isolation, mask wearing and handwashing protects from flu - good news! - and secondly that people who suggested Covid-19 was 'like' or 'no worse' than seasonal flu are clearly wrong - people have been catching Covid (in droves) and dying from it whilst of seasonal flu there has been no sign. I am not sure that in future I will not be following some form of continued social distancing - or at least eschewing crowds in unventilated areas. Or at least cutting back from past social activity.

Clearly supporting these things leads to a sense of humour bypass. Your list of exercise positives is indisputable, and yet it was weight issues which you put first "obesity" "25% of Brits overweight" "fifth fattest country in Europe" in your initial listing. - And it is weight reduction through exercise which is most disputable. Whereas 'eating less' is what most authorities place as the most likely way to lose weight. And the only way that road closures lead to people eating less is if they can't get access to food because of them. Hence my, I thought humorous, hyperbole. But this is clearly, for you, no laughing matter. Sorry. I should have realised that jihad and humour are not happy bedfellows.

On the 3rd of March there is a seminar from the Zoe people, if you are registered, which looks at "We?ll explore the latest ZOE data from over 500,000 logged vaccines to understand how they are working in the real world. We?ll cut the data to look at efficacy and after-effects in the different vaccines and different groups. We'll unpack what this means for people with compromised immune systems, including those on immunosuppressive drugs. As always, we?ll be taking questions so please submit any questions you might have in advance via this link and we will do our best to address it. " Register on the Zoe app if you want to, virtually, attend.

You could also have "obesity" "25% of Brits overweight" "fifth fattest country in Europe" "increased pressures on the NHS" "Type 2 diabetes/CHD" As the most recent studies suggest that exercise has minimal impact on weight loss (the body is good at compensating, apparently) I'm assuming that you are hoping that the road closures will be restricting people's ability to get out to shops at all, or encourage the shops to close through lack of transient business, or to block deliveries of food, such that people will lose weight through starvation. Cycling sure as hell won't be doing it.

there is no way for the Virus to know when a child turns 18 and becomes a super spreader, i know they have to wear masks now in school but surely we must give them this new drug to protect the community. (1) - It seems very unlikely, given the way that the virus evolves, that any vaccine given to a young child (or indeed to me, or you) will be relevant in perhaps 10 years time. Like flu, it is seems very possible that we will need a new vaccine possibly every year. AZ is now working on a vaccine for September to pick up on the SA variant which appears less susceptible to current vaccines. (2) - Research is now going on to see whether vaccines will work/ are safe, on children - if they do and are I expect to see children vaccinated - as we now see for flu. (3) As a matter of record I think it is secondary school children who are expected to wear masks, not primary. (4) - The UK reports on Covid deaths currently state that the patient died having tested positive for Covid within 28 days. Causation may be implied, but it's not stated. The death reports are an attempt to be as 'honest' as you can be about the Covid impact (possibly partly at least to justify the concentration of medical resource there and not on other diseases such as heart disease and cancer). (5) The CDC (the primary source of your information, but not its collation and presentation) isn't anti-vaccine, clearly, but your source (possibly) is (although their formal schtick is about civil liberties). You are right that we don't know of any impact on fertility (although it's not clear what the mechanism for that could be) - we don't know of its impact on loads of other things either, good or bad - but fertility is a good scare area, isn't it? Assuming you have no underlying health problems which lead your doctors to advise against having the vaccine, choosing not to have it can be understood to be an act of personal selfishness - in the end relying on either not being that sick yourself, or in others protecting you by having the vaccine - if society (probably not HMG itself) decides that without the vaccine you are (or may be) a danger to others, and excludes your from parts of the public experience because of that - well that, like not having a vaccine, is your choice - and that, equally, like choosing to have a vaccine, is theirs. Edited to add - apologies for extending this debate away from the very useful exchange of information on actual side-effects (or lack of them) of readers of this board.

to each of these people after their injection with mRNA after but not necessarily caused by. The site you choose to use is one dedicated to justify non-take up of vaccinations (in general) - that is a perfectly good civil liberties stance to take, but is driven by politics (small p) and not science. 'Most' people don't recover from Covid - if they are elderly or have many underlying conditions. Sadly some who are both young and fit also suffer badly, and may die. The position taken by your source is that no one owes anything to society - if you are not going to be very ill with Covid then it's fine for you to have it and very possibly infect some other poor sucker who will be very ill, but why should you care so long as 'Your Family's' health is protected? Your choice, but I think if society then decides to exclude you from its nightclubs and pubs and sports grounds and airports because you rate yourself higher than them, well don't whinge. If you can make selfish judgements on your behalf. so can the rest of society.

There have only been 906 Deaths and 3126 Severe reactions in USA from the Vaccine up till 12th Feb so it is fairly safe. I don't think that is right. There have certainly been that number of deaths reported in people who have been recently vaccinated - but given the cohort being vaccinated (elderly, with underlying medical conditions) and the very large numbers involved, that's probably the natural death rate for that cohort, vaccine or no. If there had been 906 (or whatever large number) of deaths which were directly attributable to the vaccine (i.e. probably derived at this stage from excess deaths over the expected number for that cohort) they would have halted the vaccine programme. So I think you are probably safer than even this poster believes. I would expect the 'reported death rate' of vaccinated to fall as the cohort ages do.

I find impressive the fact that the VAERS (that stands for Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) as of 22 Feb reported 7555 cases of adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccine(s). The most serious reactions recorded: - death: 792 cases - permanent disability: 551 cases - hospitalisation: 315 cases - A&E emergency visits: 1730 cases - Office visits: 1494 cases Please do not get confused by these figures - they are about correlation, not causation. All incidents are reported when vaccines are given (and very properly) - for the cohorts mainly being vaccinated now (other than health operatives) most are elderly and/ or have underlying health conditions - so death, illness and hospitalisation would be a typical path for very many (given the huge numbers being vaccinated in the US and here), vaccinated or not. The 551 'permanent disability' cases being reported are just rubbish - the vaccines has only started to be given anywhere in December, it is now the end of January so just how 'permanent' does this have to be after 3 months? Had there been any suggestion or thought that the vaccines were actually causing this amount of mayhem (but people do have adverse reactions to vaccines) they would have been withdrawn. Inevitably a number of those vaccinated will have had active Covid already (but not yet visible). The reporting process is that all medical incidents following vaccination are recorded and reported - in case a pattern of adverse effects arise (I think the same is true when new medicines are released as well, or old ones used to treat new diseases). Had such a pattern been visible the vaccine programme would be halted (as the trials of some vaccines were following such incidents, until cause could be bottomed out). This hasn't happened (roll-out was halted in Norway I think when there were a cluster of incidents, but then re-started) - and recipients of the Pfizer vaccine are held for 15 minutes after the vaccine in case there is a reaction, when some were noted early on. But the VAERS figures are not adverse reactions to the Covid vaccine (necessarily), but adverse events following the Covid vaccines being administered. We know that there are reactions to the vaccines (painful arms, mild flu symptoms) and many of these may have led to A&E attendance or visits to GPs - as may, of course, many conditions associated with age and underlying conditions. But (even given the very large numbers being vaccinated in the US) 792 deaths actually (and determinedly) being caused by the vaccine would have rung huge official alarm bells, which they haven't. Had the authorities suspected that any of the vaccines in use were actually dangerous they would now be acting to stop their use (although they may be increasing lists of people for whom the vaccines aren't advised, because of existing conditions). Do not let these figures put you off from being vaccinated.

I'm sure I had such a reaction due to having had Covid so recently. For the same reason second vaccines can have more marked side effects than first vaccines, apparently. So don't be surprised if you feel worse after the second than you did after the first. That's expected and normal.

Clearly your name is legion - I clearly said for most people under 40 - not for all people under 40. I am well aware that a comparative few under 40 will suffer severe illness and indeed may die - or develop Long Covid. But, and in general, those under 40 will, in the main, either be asymptomatic or have what is a relatively mild and short lived illness. Some, clearly, won't be so lucky. But the odds are very much in favour of under 40s carrying a 'get out of jail free' card, when others (and I am over 70) don't.

69 residents sent objections in and 10 were for the mast. Whilst I recognise your pain - this was not however a democratic process or plebiscite - those who object to things are more likely to write-in than those in favour or broadly indifferent - and I suspect complainers were either aesthetic objectors or those confused by the science (masts aren't dangerous, most studies demonstrate). Those who will benefit from the improved connectivity and signal offered by the mast probably didn't know to support the proposal - but that local improvement in infrastructure may (indeed should) have been part of the influence on the councillors making the decision - particularly as more and more are working pretty-well full time from home, and quality communications is a pre-requisite for this. Of course Southwark will do whatever it wants - it pays slim lip service even to the concept of consultation - and it would be good to know why they made the decision they did; but sometimes councillors, and quite properly, listen to issues of 'greater good' and may over-rule the desires of locals. You are not asked to 'cast a vote' on consultations - you are asked only to cast a vote in council elections - and it is that vote which is your only real power, once every three years, to influence what's happening locally. If you don't like the mob we have, vote for another mob.