The 9am figures not disclosed yet?

Today's headline analysis:

• 26,680 new cases reported in 24-hour period, down from yesterday's 27,301
• 7-day average for new cases increases by 1.1% to 24,702 per day, following 2.4% increase yesterday (and 5th increase in the past 6 days)
• 7-day average for new cases is 8.2% higher than one week ago (from 9.1% higher yesterday) and 9.7% higher than two weeks ago (from 7.7% higher yesterday and 7.5% higher 7 days ago)
• 462 new deaths within 28 days of a positive test reported in 24-hour period, up from 376 yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test increases by 1.7% to 411 per day, following 0.7% increase yesterday (and 57th increase in the past 60 days)
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test is 23.4% higher than one week ago (from 26.0% higher yesterday) and 59.0% higher than two weeks ago (from 70.6% higher yesterday and 100.1% higher 7 days ago)
 
Alvez_48 said:
I disagree @Chris_Boro that's why I state personal choice and if that choice is to shield state funded.

The problem comes in the care home, for that I have no solution but lockdowns have done nothing to resolve that issue either.
Click to expand...

Its not a personal choice though, I have literally been through this twice now.

You're simply ignoring the vast scale and severity of your suggestion as it critically undermines your no lockdown option.

I've also missed out on furlough twice through no fault of my own, simply suggesting the state will pick up the tab for those shielding is simplistic at best, ignorent at worst.

Its very disappointing that choose not to engage further on this.
 
Chris_Boro said:
Its not a personal choice though, I have literally been through this twice now.

You're simply ignoring the vast scale and severity of your suggestion as it critically undermines your no lockdown option.

I've also missed out on furlough twice through no fault of my own, simply suggesting the state will pick up the tab for those shielding is simplistic at best, ignorent at worst.

Its very disappointing that choose not to engage further on this.
Click to expand...

So stuff like this should continue?
https://twitter.com/x/status/1327637048254230530
 
Chris_Boro said:
Its not a personal choice though, I have literally been through this twice now.

You're simply ignoring the vast scale and severity of your suggestion as it critically undermines your no lockdown option.

I've also missed out on furlough twice through no fault of my own, simply suggesting the state will pick up the tab for those shielding is simplistic at best, ignorent at worst.

Its very disappointing that choose not to engage further on this.
Click to expand...

Eh?! I'm saying what I would do not what the state would do.

You asked me what I think we should do then you just randomly change the criteria saying 'the government won't do that' eh.
 
RandySavage said:
So stuff like this should continue?
Click to expand...
Do you think it should or it shouldn't?
What do you suggest?

I'm surprised you posted that, as you appeared to think it would happen as a consequence, a few posts up? I'm not saying you want that, I'm saying you realise it's being prepared for.

RandySavage said:
The place where my wife works, whilst it is an assisted living care home, has recently put in plans should even just 1 covid positive test amongst the residents arises.
The complex will be locked down within the day. Nobody allowed in and nobody allowed out.
You would hope every care home and assisted living complex in the country would have similar plans in place.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that you accept/ understand that cases would increase if there was no lockdown, and that's why they have the measures planned?
If the wider population has more infection, then so would the care homes, unless they took stronger preventive measures.
The NHS would be put under more strain, due to the increase in cases in the general population.

We wouldn't have to impose lock downs on the care homes if the virus was under relative control though, or we would have to do it far less at elast. So if we had locked down or had a circuit breaker ages ago, like was suggested, then we wouldn't be in as much of a mess.

Either way though, if it's badly managed (which the UK is currently doing, which I'm sure most agree on), then we're either being forced into looking at relatives through the window, or never looking at some of them again. It's a terrible situation, and the only way to make it better is to eradicate the virus or control/ limit it long enough for a vaccine to come. By most accounts this seems to be coming this year/ early next year, and anyone at major risk can probably get it and I expect it would be compulsory for the NHS.

I imagine most care homes would make it compulsory too, for patients and staff, so conditional to acceptance or employment. Might get the odd one which doesn't but I can't see vaxers or their families wanting them to go to an anti-vaxer care home, so could end up with all the anti vaxers in one place, which sounds like a recipe for disaster.
 
Last edited:
Statto1 said:
Do you think it should or it shouldn't?
What do you suggest?

I'm surprised you posted that, as you appeared to think it would happen as a consequence, a few posts up? I'm not saying you want that, I'm saying you realise it's being prepared for.



I'm assuming that you accept/ understand that cases would increase as lockdown is lifted, and that's why they have the measures planned?
If the wider population has more infection, then so would the care homes, unless they took stronger preventive measures.
The NHS would be put under more strain, due to the increase in cases in the general population.

We wouldn't have to impose lock downs on the care homes if the virus was under relative control though, or we would have to do it far less at elast. So if we had locked down or had a circuit breaker ages ago, like was suggested, then we wouldn't be in as much of a mess.

Either way though, if it's badly managed (which the UK is currently doing, which I'm sure most agree on), then we're either being forced into looking at relatives through the window, or never looking at some of them again. It's a terrible situation, and the only way to make it better is to eradicate the virus or control/ limit it long enough for a vaccine to come. By most accounts this seems to be coming this year/ early next year, and anyone at major risk can probably get it and I expect it would be compulsory for the NHS.

I imagine most care homes would make it compulsory too, for patients and staff, they might even get forced. Might get the odd one which doesn't but I can't see vaxers or their families wanting them to go to an anti-vaxer care home, so could end up with all the anti vaxers in one place, which sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...
Good luck forcing vaccines on people.
 
I don't think enforced vaccinations is what Statto is saying. Those who run a care home could insist a condition of residency would be to be vaccinated. That is a reasonable condition of stay. Other care homes would not have that condition so non vaccinated residents would naturally gravitate together.
 
Laughing said:
I don't think enforced vaccinations is what Statto is saying. Those who run a care home could insist a condition of residency would be to be vaccinated. That is a reasonable condition of stay. Other care homes would not have that condition so non vaccinated residents would naturally gravitate together.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that explains it better, cheers (y)
 
RandySavage said:
Good luck forcing vaccines on people.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't explain that too well. But I didn't mean pinning people down, I meant more like having them moved elsewhere if they would not get vaccinated or having vaccines conditional of entry or employment.

Care to answer any of the other points?
 
Alvez_48 said:
Eh?! I'm saying what I would do not what the state would do.

You asked me what I think we should do then you just randomly change the criteria saying 'the government won't do that' eh.
Click to expand...

And the rest of what I said?

I'm asking you to explain in more detail how your no lockdown option would work in reality to shield the vulnerable beyond a sentence that spectacularly simplifies a very complex issue.

You're more than happy to post link after link in attempts to prove your opinion right and the government wrong but oddly your opinion has the government performing a catch all benefit based on a person's choice to not work. It simply would not happen.
 
Statto1 said:
Yeah, I didn't explain that too well. But I didn't mean pinning people down, I meant more like having them moved elsewhere if they would not get vaccinated or having vaccines conditional of entry or employment.

Care to answer any of the other points?
Click to expand...
Moving people elsewhere?

You mean like the the Nazis did with people?
 
Chris_Boro said:
And the rest of what I said?

I'm asking you to explain in more detail how your no lockdown option would work in reality to shield the vulnerable beyond a sentence that spectacularly simplifies a very complex issue.

You're more than happy to post link after link in attempts to prove your opinion right and the government wrong but oddly your opinion has the government performing a catch all benefit based on a person's choice to not work. It simply would not happen.
Click to expand...

Well to simplify it would be part of the process..
Use all the levers of power and resources to allow people who wish to isolate due to being very vulnerable be able to do so.

You're saying it's not possible so we should lockdown everyone, all the damage it has caused and is causing, all the money spent on something that there is no evidence it provides any positive outcome.

And then you're getting frothy just because my answers are perfectly reasonable. It's fine you crack on, it's just an internet disagreement at the end of the day.
 
RandySavage said:
Moving people elsewhere?

You mean like the the Nazis did with people?
Click to expand...

No I don't mean that, what a disgusting suggestion and a bit rich coming from someone who seems to want us let a virus run free across the UK,
which is a death sentence to a lot of those most at risk.

I'm the one that's been trying to prioritise public health and asking people to do as the public health advisors and NHS are requesting.

What is your idea as to what we should do?

I just thought you would have a solution for where those who object to a vaccine would go? I would assume anti vaxers would be ok with being in a care home with other anti vaxers and anti vaxer staff?

If I was in care home or was working in one, I would want a vaccination and ideally to only be around those that had one too, or were willing to get one.
 
Alvez_48 said:
Well to simplify it would be part of the process..
Use all the levers of power and resources to allow people who wish to isolate due to being very vulnerable be able to do so.

You're saying it's not possible so we should lockdown everyone, all the damage it has caused and is causing, all the money spent on something that there is no evidence it provides any positive outcome.

And then you're getting frothy just because my answers are perfectly reasonable. It's fine you crack on, it's just an internet disagreement at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
Just playing devil's advocate here Alvez, but if lockdown don't work why would we bother shielding the vulnerable? Surely shielding is also pointless.
 
Statto1 said:
No I don't mean that, what a disgusting suggestion and a bit rich coming from someone who seems to want us let a virus run free across the UK,
which is a death sentence to a lot of those most at risk.

I'm the one that's been trying to prioritise public health and asking people to do as the public health advisors and NHS are requesting.

What is your idea as to what we should do?

I just thought you would have a solution for where those who object to a vaccine would go? I would assume anti vaxers would be ok with being in a care home with other anti vaxers and anti vaxer staff?

If I was in care home or was working in one, I would want a vaccination and ideally to only be around those that had one too, or were willing to get one.
Click to expand...
I'm not anti vaxx but I don't see the issue with those who would choose not to have a covid vaccine just yet? If someone is vaccinated why would they have an issue with someone who isn't?

You used the words compulsory and forced and you find my suggestion disgusting? Do you see where your mindset is heading?

"Have you been vaccinated against covid?"

"No"

"Sorry you can't work here" or "sorry no food for you today".

As it is, the majority of the population will take the vaccine so hopefully those two scenarios never come to be.

Also please quote me where I've ever said the virus should rip through the country. I believe the virus has been and is more widespread then we have been led to believe but that's a whole other conversation.

T-Cells!!!
 
Laughing said:
Just playing devil's advocate here Alvez, but if lockdown don't work why would we bother shielding the vulnerable? Surely shielding is also pointless.
Click to expand...

Sure maybe it doesn't .. that's why it's a choice and if that choice is made then the individual is funded to make it.
 
Alvez_48 said:
Sure maybe it doesn't .. that's why it's a choice and if that choice is made then the individual is funded to make it.
Click to expand...
But Alvez you would claim that shielding doesn't work, wouldn't you? That being the case why would you even give them the choice of funded shielding. I don't understand your stance on this given your belief about the ineffective lockdowns
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top