COVID-19

Probably semantics but no, not technically a sting in the truest sense.

They were definitely deploying resources there specifically to catch people doing that activity and were going to enforce rules in the strictest possible sense. You're quite right that there was nothing deceptive or covert about it.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1385623/jeremy-corbyn-news-Covid-vaccine-boris-johnson-coronavirus-UK-latest?utm_source=express_newsletter&utm_campaign=politics_newsletter2&utm_medium=email

Looks like Jeremy never learns, not sure it would go down too well with many of the British population if we did not look after our own citisens before other nations.
"JEREMY CORBYN has attacked Boris Johnson for securing millions of coronavirus jabs for Brits, accusing him of "vaccine nationalism".

 

Magic Grandpa just trying to stay relevant. He is in court today trying to force his way back into the parliamentary Labour Party. What a waste of space he is.

 

Every night the BBC news at 10pm tells us how overwhelmed the NHS is, then spends the next 10minutes showing a film crew interviewing hard working staff.
Why do hospital managers not tell them to go away and let them get on with treating patients.
It's like when someone has suffered a loss and the interviewer says "How do you feel?"

 

I think the aim is to spread the awareness that the virus is reall in the hope that all the morons who don't adhere to the rules will realise it is real

 

Some papers are quoting Blair and Major trying to get some form of group/party together to try and find a way forward to eventually get the UK back into the EU, I wonder if there will be an invitation for Jeremy, then again for the leader of an opposition party facing a General Election to make the comment he was "brexit neutral" wouldn't help the situation.

 

Could run as 'The Losers Party' ..

 

The last throw of the political dice.

 

It always amazes me how someone who clearly hates Britain and all it stands for, continues to want to live here. Deport him to Venezuela I say

 

You could show people dying on beds and a large number of people still wouldn't believe it.

 

Reports from Israel research show that the Pfizer vaccine is not as effective as claimed and barely gives any level of protection, Coming from Israeli scientists there is little chance they are wrong

 

Not often I agree with Priti Patel but she was correct on this one.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/20/priti-patel-says-she-wanted-uk-borders-shut-last-march-over-covid?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

 

There are some absolute nutters out there. My partners dad sadly passed away in a London hospital at the weekend after contracting COVID, his wife had to come out of the hospital to be picked up walking through a group of about 10 nutters hanging around outside with signs and leaflets saying COVID was "a hoax", and the extremely witty "scamdemic".

Apparently they are there regularly, I'm amazed no-one has given them a pasting.

 

When I've said before that people shouldn't plead for greater restrictions and glib comments are made about always following the science, this is exactly what I fear.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-bars-and-restaurants-should-stay-shut-until-may-to-avoid-disastrous-r-rate-12194829?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter

Scientists talking about MAY as too early to remove these types of restrictions with the justification that even if 90% of the population are vaccinated the other 10% are still at risk. Added to the talk about schools possibly not going back until Easter this is starting to sound like these restrictions are just going to go on and on.

 

And on the flip side look at this financial horror show.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55762674

God knows how that will ever be paid back, especially since quite a lot of people who have benefitted from that money in the first place are likely to be politically protected from contributing more in the future.

 

So, what do you see as the alternative? Genuine question, not a dig.
Isn't it a trade off between keeping restrictions for longer, or allowing the virus to keep killing people, keep mutating and keep dominating our lives for another year or more. Surely it's better to stick with the restrictions a bit longer and really get on top of the virus, rather than have this zombie half life we're all living go on and on and on with no end in sight?
And, yes, the economics are alarming. But so is the economic prospect of this situation carrying on for far longer.

 

If there was ever a time to print money to pay the governments bills rather than borrow it now is the time as with the economy in the doldrums it would be a free shot, Print a trillion £ and buy back bonds over the year with the highest interest bought back first, This achieves much reduced debt and puts money back in to the economy and banks

 

I don’t really understand why someone’s come out and said this, the argument pushed lacks consistency. It seems to assume by that point that nobody will have been vaccinated and the pressure on the NHS will remain at this level. Obviously it’s a compromise and always has been.

Besides which, I don’t understand why anyone at all is commenting on an official capacity while there’s still an absolutely massive unknown in between now and then on how the vaccine performs. Stuff like that isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

 

I didn't take it as a dig and always happy to discuss.

Well firstly, and most importantly, I wouldn't have been encouraging governments to be so keen to lockdown but that's an intangible societal reaction rather than anything that would make a difference to the virus. Governments would have locked down anyway - but as people we should always be questioning and skeptical about our removal of liberties as otherwise once you give that power away they don't easily give it back . All a government has to say at the moment is that a scientist has recommended things like the statement in the article and the section of the people who have created the mantra that the "we must always follow the science" just have to blithely go along with it. But when they're justifying restrictions once 90% of people have had the vaccine? What was the point in that case? That's just control.

The second bit of your post is the key bit and it's the false premise that the choice is between a quick, harsh lockdown followed by everything getting back to normal and perpetual middle grounds. The Australian Tennis open at the moment is showing that false dichotomy. Australia have dealt with it "well" by cutting themselves off and chasing a zero-covid strategy internally but a 'normal' life isn't just being able to do whatever you want within the boundaries of your own country, it's global, and involves overseas travel and people coming into your country for events. If their long term strategy is to be covid-free then they will actually never get back to "normal" until everyone - in every country of the world - is immune. Which is pretty likely never going to happen.

So the difficult bit is this - there has to be more of an acceptance that this is actually never going away and there is actually no "end". Covid-19 will always be with us in some format and will sadly always cause people to die. People need to accept this fact themselves and stop looking to governments and scientists to eradicate it while they live a zombie half life. This is not the same as saying that we should have chased a herd immunity strategy from the beginning, we shouldn't, but over time and once everyone gets more knowledgeable the balance needs to tip from doing what is scientifically right to what is socially right.

There was a behavioral scientists I heard the other day (can't fine any article on it unfortunately) who was saying that regardless of immunity statistics, once the death numbers get down to anywhere close to flu - I think he was talking about somewhere in the region of 20k per year which I know is more than flu but not massively more - then people will not accept ANY restriction on their lives.

If you agree with that premise then the parameters of the conversation changes because if we're saying that 10,000 or 20,000 dying per year is "okay" (and I know that's not the right phrase when we're talking about deaths because pure statistics are far too glib in reality) then it becomes a conversation which is less about what the government can do to eradicate this and more about what level death is acceptable as a trade off for a regular life. It's an awful conversation topic to have but It's probably more realistic than "what can the government do to stop this" so when you say 'what I would do' I think the most importation thing is probably to change our outlook, expectations and how the debate is framed.