Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Are we really sure that we should be allowing the rules to be relaxed for 5 days over Christmas, with numbers going up in Kent, Essex and London (as well as elsewhere) ?


I know we all want to celebrate and be with family, but shouldn't the Chief Medical Officer and government be advising people not to travel or see family and have a quiet Christmas in their own household group?


The vaccine(s) are being rolled out and we've made it through restrictions, cancelled religious festivals and lockdowns so why throw it away now for the sake of a commercial celebration ?


Sounds a bit bah humbug but a smaller quiet Christmas may be the perfect gift to your loved ones this year and not giving the gift of Covid. We can still celebrate but in smaller household groups and next year when it's all over have that big blow out Christmas gathering again.


What are other people's thoughts ?

I agree Nigello , we shouldn't need a big Government figure to say it, however as big Government figures have told us it's okay to relax the rules two things will happen.

A) the majority of people are sheep and will mix over Christmas as they won't think through the consequences.

B) when we are in the third wave at the end of January, the Government will be blamed for not stopping Christmas gatherings


So whilst we shouldn't need them to say it, if they don't then the backlash will happen when granny or grandad don't make it till next Christmas.

Wales has now said it's going into law that only 2 bubbles can meet at XMas - which mucks up the PMs statement at PMQs and breaks the "unity" between the nations.



Scotland and Wales are hearing rumours that Gove has been tasked with undoing devolution - so they're understandably a bit annoyed at this government - not that it's linked of course.

Christmas for us is usually seven households mixing for a big xmas feast. We won't be doing that this year. Everyone is staying in their own household, apart from the two family members that live alone. They will join a household each, in their bubble. That is a small effort to make for one year. Boxes of presents have been sent to everyone and we'll have a zoom xmas present opening shindig as well as copious 'our xmas dinner is better than yours' photos going back and forth. It will be different, but it won't kill us, and we'll make up for it next year hopefully.


That should be perfectly possible for every household to do, but we know they won't. Government knows that people will still meet up with friends, travel all over the place in the days around xmas to drop off gifts, and took I think the decision that encouraging sensible behaviour was going to be more effective than demanding it. Who wants to be the government sending Police to people's homes over the Christmas Break?


My impression is that most people are indeed going to be sensible. In London at least, you can see evidence that people have shopped early, possibly endeavoring to isolate a little in the days leading up to that five day period.

I have lived on my own since 1985 (35 years)


Between 1993 - 2012 I did spend Christmas Day with my mother.

She did not eat or drink much and it was a mainly dry affair.


I have no family.. My mum died in 2012. I have no brothers or sisters.


I have spent the last 8 years on my own on Christmas Day.

I do not see anyone or speak to anyone.


This year will be no different for me.


Foxy

One of the benefits of lockdown was reconnecting with my sibblings through Zoom, in a weekly quiz. Who needs to go down the pub and get legless on a Friday when you can have a pizza, glass or two of wine, a natter and some fun. Xmas falls on a Friday so this will be a shorter get together rather than the full two hours. We are not estranged but one lives over the pond and the others 120 miles away so it works well.

I think the 5 days should be reduced to 3 - Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing Day (or substitute Christmas Eve for Bank Holiday Monday) We are having family over on Boxing Day only otherwise it will just be the 2 of us. We will be following guidelines re SD and making sure plenty of fresh air is circulated. Meals will be buffet type so no sitting at a dining table. We have not seen our grandchildren since August and it is especially hard not to see the 4 and 6 year old. Neither of us have Zoom but are in contact by phone and emails.


If the government were to cancel Christmas - too many people would ignore the advice and still meet up in larger numbers as a show of defiance.

The Health Secretary (just now) talking about personal responsibility rather than enforcing restrictions.


I'm not sure that works in all cases - but I do know it's easier for us that can order in beer and food. You can't really cancel Christmas, it's still there but different.

Pugwash Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Neither of us have Zoom but are in contact by

> phone and emails.



If you don't have zoom, but have a smartphone and internet use, use whatsapp instead for a video call.


I agree on the three day thing personally but think the five days relaxation has been set to allow for traveling. You can't travel to most other areas under the tier system, so the days before Xmas Eve and after Boxing Day are needed.

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It does, but for calls longer than 40 mins, you

> have to pay for a subscription. Whatsapp calling

> is entirely free.


I think for arranged calls where you invite others to join a zoom meeting you are correct


But from experience if you do a direct person to person call then there is no time limit

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Health Secretary (just now) talking about

> personal responsibility rather than enforcing

> restrictions.

>

Personal responsibility is I can go to a Covid secure pub and have a beer.


This is the usual sh-tshow. Stay home kids. By the way I agree.

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It does, but for calls longer than 40 mins, you

> have to pay for a subscription. Whatsapp calling

> is entirely free.


For calls longer than 40 minutes on zoom you just stop the meeting briefly and then start it again, if you don't want to pay the monthly subscription (which is about a tenner).

The new variant (not correct to call it a new strain) appears to be more infectious and is driving up infections in the SE quickly. Hospitals across the UK are at 90 per cent capacity as it is, so the question is one of a potential surge as people travel from the SE travel all over the country spreading this more infectious strain, leading to a January crisis for the NHS. That is what government is having to consider.


Personally, I think that surge is inevitable, and will not be surprised to see a hard lockdown in Jan/Feb. It is worth remembering that the first lockdown was to drive down spread and infection rates from a high R number, to below 1. The policy since has been about managing the R number and trying to keep it below 1. But that has resulted in the R number staying at 1 or thereabouts, over bringing it down further. As a result, the present surge has not gone down significantly enough from the extra November restrictions (I won't call it a lockdown because it wasn't in reality), 400+ people are still dying every day on average, and any surge is going to come on top of that. The peak of Flu intake is also about to hit, although that might actually be lower this year because of social distancing.


The data shows that infection rates in schools among teenagers especially, are the issue at the moment. Hence the scrambling to get rapid testing facilities set up over the Christmas break. So the best advice for Christmas would be to keep teenagers away from vulnerable and elderly relatives, and to restrict travel from the SE to other parts of the country. I suspect it will emerge as advice, over any actual restrictions.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...