|
Post by northwestman on Feb 23, 2021 12:44:32 GMT 1
Well we know the road map out of lockdown but for me the worrying thing is we’re starting with the highest risk strategy by opening all schools on one day which will result in 12 million kids being taken to and from school by a variety of parents, grand parents and public transport.... everyone will then meet up before and after school. Older kids will meet their mates for the first time in 3 months and will they really stick to the rules that are still in place. Testing for every pupils been mentioned but again 2 weeks to test 12 million kids is unlikely. It was said in August by the scientists that other sectors may need to be 'traded off' in order to allow a full opening of schools. Nothing much changes. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53621613news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-national-priority-to-get-children-back-to-school-but-scientists-warn-it-could-require-trade-offs-12040408
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Feb 23, 2021 12:47:50 GMT 1
whilst you clearly dont like him, im not a fan but even so i think this seems sensible He was bang on about the single jab and this seems sensible too. He's certainly shown more decisive leadership during this crisis than either starmer or Johnson for that matter. To be fair, Blair doesn't have a lot else to worry about these days.
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Feb 23, 2021 13:10:25 GMT 1
Well we know the road map out of lockdown but for me the worrying thing is we’re starting with the highest risk strategy by opening all schools on one day which will result in 12 million kids being taken to and from school by a variety of parents, grand parents and public transport.... everyone will then meet up before and after school. Older kids will meet their mates for the first time in 3 months and will they really stick to the rules that are still in place. Testing for every pupils been mentioned but again 2 weeks to test 12 million kids is unlikely. It was said in August by the scientists that other sectors may need to be 'traded off' in order to allow a full opening of schools. Nothing much changes. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53621613news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-national-priority-to-get-children-back-to-school-but-scientists-warn-it-could-require-trade-offs-12040408When we reopened schools in September the death toll was around 48,000 it’s now nearly 121,000 and they were only there 3 months!
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Feb 23, 2021 13:20:24 GMT 1
Prof Whitty has also been on the record at a previous Downing Street briefing on 3 February as saying: “We consider school is a safe place for children to be as well as the right place for children to be.” He gave four reasons why he considers schools to be safe: 1. 'Universally accepted' Prof Whitty said: “It is absolutely universally accepted that there are huge advantages for children to be at school from a health point of view – mental and physical – as well as educational… if you keep children out of school, every single one of them you keep out of school is disadvantaged” 2. 'Incredibly low' Covid risk Prof Whitty cited the “incredibly low” risk of children catching Covid-19, whether at school or not. “Therefore we are confident that given the huge benefits of school, the very small residual risk is strongly in favour of children primary or secondary going to school.” 3. R rate 'headroom' He cited the UK’s latest reproduction “R” rate of between 0.6 to 0.9, which being below 1.0 means the outbreak is not growing exponentially. As a result, Prof Whitty said there is “headroom” to pursue the “first priority” of reopening schools. He added there will be a “natural fire break” in the form of the Easter holidays from 29 March which could mitigate the impact reopening schools has on infections, while also pointing to the wider use of testing and masks in schools. 4. Relatively low risk for teachers Prof Whitty pointed out: “Relative to many of the professions that continue to wor2. 'Incredibly low' Covid risk Prof Whitty cited the “incredibly low” risk of children catching Covid-19, whether at school or not. “Therefore we are confident that given the huge benefits of school, the very small residual risk is strongly in favour of children primary or secondary going to school.” 3. R rate 'headroom' He cited the UK’s latest reproduction “R” rate of between 0.6 to 0.9, which being below 1.0 means the outbreak is not growing exponentially. As a result, Prof Whitty said there is “headroom” to pursue the “first priority” of reopening schools. He added there will be a “natural fire break” in the form of the Easter holidays from 29 March which could mitigate the impact reopening schools has on infections, while also pointing to the wider use of testing and masks in schools. 4. Relatively low risk for teachers Prof Whitty pointed out: “Relative to many of the professions that continue to work through this, [such as] nurses and care home workers, teachers are not high risk professions in the way that those kinds of professions are high risk.” through this, [such as] nurses and care home workers, teachers are not high risk professions in the way that those kinds of professions are high risk.” AOL. 1. Nothing whatsoever to do with covid safety. Admittedly, 'there will be mass Covid testing in secondary schools - with parents expected to carry out the testing at home, after three tests in school'. Home testing for secondary pupils will be twice weekly. Highly unlikely to achieve this, given the numbers involved. Moreover, lateral flow tests can be unreliable. 2. Not so. There is a significant risk amongst secondary school pupils. Both Wales and Scotland have recognised this and have delayed their return. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-520038043. The latest 'R' rate has dropped to between 0.6 and 0.9 whilst schools have been shut. SAGE have modelled an increase of anything up to 0.5 once all schools in England are reopened. 4. Ridiculous to compare teachers with high risk professions such as nurses and care workers. There is clearly a significant risk to teachers - hence the pressure to have them all vaccinated. petition.parliament.uk/petitions/554316
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Feb 23, 2021 13:35:29 GMT 1
Getting all pupils back on the same day is a risky way to start the "plan" - risks jeopardising the whole of the rest of the plan right at the start. Should not even be considered until all school staff have been offered vaccination. Make space in the vaccine appointments calendar by not vaccinating people who can work at home until after customer facing workers.
|
|
|
Post by Mortgagehound on Feb 23, 2021 13:39:01 GMT 1
Prof Whitty has also been on the record at a previous Downing Street briefing on 3 February as saying: “We consider school is a safe place for children to be as well as the right place for children to be.” He gave four reasons why he considers schools to be safe: 1. 'Universally accepted' Prof Whitty said: “It is absolutely universally accepted that there are huge advantages for children to be at school from a health point of view – mental and physical – as well as educational… if you keep children out of school, every single one of them you keep out of school is disadvantaged” 2. 'Incredibly low' Covid risk Prof Whitty cited the “incredibly low” risk of children catching Covid-19, whether at school or not. “Therefore we are confident that given the huge benefits of school, the very small residual risk is strongly in favour of children primary or secondary going to school.” 3. R rate 'headroom' He cited the UK’s latest reproduction “R” rate of between 0.6 to 0.9, which being below 1.0 means the outbreak is not growing exponentially. As a result, Prof Whitty said there is “headroom” to pursue the “first priority” of reopening schools. He added there will be a “natural fire break” in the form of the Easter holidays from 29 March which could mitigate the impact reopening schools has on infections, while also pointing to the wider use of testing and masks in schools. 4. Relatively low risk for teachers Prof Whitty pointed out: “Relative to many of the professions that continue to wor2. 'Incredibly low' Covid risk Prof Whitty cited the “incredibly low” risk of children catching Covid-19, whether at school or not. “Therefore we are confident that given the huge benefits of school, the very small residual risk is strongly in favour of children primary or secondary going to school.” 3. R rate 'headroom' He cited the UK’s latest reproduction “R” rate of between 0.6 to 0.9, which being below 1.0 means the outbreak is not growing exponentially. As a result, Prof Whitty said there is “headroom” to pursue the “first priority” of reopening schools. He added there will be a “natural fire break” in the form of the Easter holidays from 29 March which could mitigate the impact reopening schools has on infections, while also pointing to the wider use of testing and masks in schools. 4. Relatively low risk for teachers Prof Whitty pointed out: “Relative to many of the professions that continue to work through this, [such as] nurses and care home workers, teachers are not high risk professions in the way that those kinds of professions are high risk.” through this, [such as] nurses and care home workers, teachers are not high risk professions in the way that those kinds of professions are high risk.” AOL. 1. Nothing whatsoever to do with covid safety. Admittedly, 'there will be mass Covid testing in secondary schools - with parents expected to carry out the testing at home, after three tests in school'. Home testing for secondary pupils will be twice weekly. Highly unlikely to achieve that one. Moreover, lateral flow tests can be unreliable. 2. Not so. There is a significant risk amongst secondary school pupils. Both Wales and Scotland have recognised this and have delayed their return. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-520038043. The latest 'R' rate has dropped to between 0.6 and 0.9 whilst schools have been shut. SAGE have modelled an increase of anything up to 0.5 once all schools in England are reopened. 4. Ridiculous to compare teachers with high risk professions such as nurses and care workers. There is clearly a significant risk to teachers - hence the pressure to have them all vaccinated. petition.parliament.uk/petitions/554316 So now the Scientist is wrong....as well as Boris
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Feb 23, 2021 13:43:26 GMT 1
And the flaws in my observations are?
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Feb 23, 2021 13:44:50 GMT 1
Prof Whitty has also been on the record at a previous Downing Street briefing on 3 February as saying: “We consider school is a safe place for children to be as well as the right place for children to be.” He gave four reasons why he considers schools to be safe: 1. 'Universally accepted' Prof Whitty said: “It is absolutely universally accepted that there are huge advantages for children to be at school from a health point of view – mental and physical – as well as educational… if you keep children out of school, every single one of them you keep out of school is disadvantaged” 2. 'Incredibly low' Covid risk Prof Whitty cited the “incredibly low” risk of children catching Covid-19, whether at school or not. “Therefore we are confident that given the huge benefits of school, the very small residual risk is strongly in favour of children primary or secondary going to school.” 3. R rate 'headroom' He cited the UK’s latest reproduction “R” rate of between 0.6 to 0.9, which being below 1.0 means the outbreak is not growing exponentially. As a result, Prof Whitty said there is “headroom” to pursue the “first priority” of reopening schools. He added there will be a “natural fire break” in the form of the Easter holidays from 29 March which could mitigate the impact reopening schools has on infections, while also pointing to the wider use of testing and masks in schools. 4. Relatively low risk for teachers Prof Whitty pointed out: “Relative to many of the professions that continue to wor2. 'Incredibly low' Covid risk Prof Whitty cited the “incredibly low” risk of children catching Covid-19, whether at school or not. “Therefore we are confident that given the huge benefits of school, the very small residual risk is strongly in favour of children primary or secondary going to school.” 3. R rate 'headroom' He cited the UK’s latest reproduction “R” rate of between 0.6 to 0.9, which being below 1.0 means the outbreak is not growing exponentially. As a result, Prof Whitty said there is “headroom” to pursue the “first priority” of reopening schools. He added there will be a “natural fire break” in the form of the Easter holidays from 29 March which could mitigate the impact reopening schools has on infections, while also pointing to the wider use of testing and masks in schools. 4. Relatively low risk for teachers Prof Whitty pointed out: “Relative to many of the professions that continue to work through this, [such as] nurses and care home workers, teachers are not high risk professions in the way that those kinds of professions are high risk.” through this, [such as] nurses and care home workers, teachers are not high risk professions in the way that those kinds of professions are high risk.” AOL. 1. Nothing whatsoever to do with covid safety. Admittedly, 'there will be mass Covid testing in secondary schools - with parents expected to carry out the testing at home, after three tests in school'. Home testing for secondary pupils will be twice weekly. Highly unlikely to achieve that one. Moreover, lateral flow tests can be unreliable. 2. Not so. There is a significant risk amongst secondary school pupils. Both Wales and Scotland have recognised this and have delayed their return. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-520038043. The latest 'R' rate has dropped to between 0.6 and 0.9 whilst schools have been shut. SAGE have modelled an increase of anything up to 0.5 once all schools in England are reopened. 4. Ridiculous to compare teachers with high risk professions such as nurses and care workers. There is clearly a significant risk to teachers - hence the pressure to have them all vaccinated. petition.parliament.uk/petitions/554316 So now the Scientist is wrong....as well as Boris Not so much wrong as prepared to take a "very small residual risk" as he himself said - would it not make more sense to offer vaccinations to school, and other, customer facing staff to really minimise that "very small residual risk"? Those who have the benefit of being able to work from home, and are not in the vulnerable categories, would just have to wait a little longer to be offered vaccination.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Feb 23, 2021 13:47:15 GMT 1
Most of the reopening plans outlined seemed sensible and workable to me. The most annoying thing is those unscientific politicians and media folk pushing for a quicker lockdown exit. Has the experience of the last 12 months still not registered with them?
One thing I don't understand is why there isn't a strategy for vaccinating all school and college workers before those institutions reopen. It seems risky not to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Feedo Gnasher on Feb 23, 2021 13:48:26 GMT 1
Schools have to be the first thing back, it’s unthinkable that people could be in pubs, restaurants or gyms whilst kids are still homeschooling.
Whether bringing them all back at once if sensible we’ll see, but a phased return would’ve only seen all the other dates moved back. I suspect that’s Plan B if there is a huge spike.
Although there’s inconsistencies in parts I support this lockdown exit plan more than any other part of the government’s actions in the last twelve months.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Feb 23, 2021 13:49:01 GMT 1
Getting all pupils back on the same day is a risky way to start the "plan" - risks jeopardising the whole of the rest of the plan right at the start. Should not even be considered until all school staff have been offered vaccination. Make space in the vaccine appointments calendar by not vaccinating people who can work at home until after customer facing workers. i dont see why they should all go back at the same time , it makes more sense to vaccinate all the teachers first and let the number of cases to fall to a lower number 22 hours ago the covid new cases stood at 10,641
|
|
|
Post by Feedo Gnasher on Feb 23, 2021 13:55:01 GMT 1
Most of the reopening plans outlined seemed sensible and workable to me. The most annoying thing is those unscientific politicians and media folk pushing for a quicker lockdown exit. Has the experience of the last 12 months still not registered with them? One thing I don't understand is why there isn't a strategy for vaccinating all school and college workers before those institutions reopen. It seems risky not to do that. The vast majority of those complaining are the usual vocal bellends (Nigel Farage, Julia Hartley-Brewer, the Daily Mail) who want the country opened up but offer no sensible explanation of how this can be done safely. Thankfully, I think most people have accepted the announcement with relief, businesses have been given months to prepare (still need to be supported financially until then though), and all the public have those dates to aim for and help them through the bad times. If things take a turn for the worse though it really will be unthinkable.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Feb 23, 2021 14:00:46 GMT 1
Most of the reopening plans outlined seemed sensible and workable to me. The most annoying thing is those unscientific politicians and media folk pushing for a quicker lockdown exit. Has the experience of the last 12 months still not registered with them? One thing I don't understand is why there isn't a strategy for vaccinating all school and college workers before those institutions reopen. It seems risky not to do that. The vast majority of those complaining are the usual vocal bellends (Nigel Farage, Julia Hartley-Brewer, the Daily Mail) who want the country opened up but offer no sensible explanation of how this can be done safely. Thankfully, I think most people have accepted the announcement with relief, businesses have been given months to prepare (still need to be supported financially until then though), and all the public have those dates to aim for and help them through the bad times. If things take a turn for the worse though it really will be unthinkable. Which makes taking a "very small residual risk" at the very start of the rollout of the plan seem all the more stupid. Some of the vaccines don't need fantastic storage facilities and can be administered even at home, so get mobile teams out to schools and offer staff the vaccine at work now.
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Feb 23, 2021 14:38:30 GMT 1
Yes I’m afraid I will never be satisfied with the handling of all this until this stupid government realise that, if they want schools to stay open, staff need to be vaccinating ASAP. They missed a golden opportunity to do it during half term (presumably because it was suggested by the Labour Party). It is just so short sighted if, as they allege, schooling is so important.
I would also add to the list of moaners all these utterly stupid Tory backbenchers who can’t see beyond their profit margins as well. Another bunch who could do with a dose of the virus to realise how serious it can be.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Feb 23, 2021 14:44:04 GMT 1
news.sky.com/story/covid-19-calls-to-deport-australian-woman-who-refused-covid-tests-during-28-day-new-zealand-hotel-quarantine-12226359"There are calls to deport an Australian woman who refused to take a COVID test while spending 28 days in quarantine at a New Zealand hotel.Lucinda Baulch travelled to New Zealand as a foster carer last month with three children who were moving into the care of local families.The children tested negative and were allowed to leave isolation on time - but Ms Baulch refused all tests during her stay, and has now been released from the managed isolation facility.She told New Zealand news website Stuff on her departure from Wellington's Grand Mercure on Tuesday that she still had not taken a test but she had answered a "series of questions" about her health." "Under New Zealand's strict anti-COVID laws, arrivals in the country must stay 14 days in a government-chosen hotel to make sure they are not carrying the virus.During their stay they are tested two or three times, depending on where they have come from.If a person refuses to take the day 12 test, they are offered a test each day of their extended stay to a maximum of 28 days - Ms Baulch refused every one of them."
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Feb 23, 2021 14:50:33 GMT 1
it looks as if New Zealand track and trace, prompt action in the auckland lockdown may have contained the spread, the policy of managed qurantine has resulted in a number of case been contained.let us hope tha they have stopped it www.health.govt.nz/news-media/media-releases/6-border-cases-and-1-linked-community-case-already-managed-isolation"There are 6 new cases of COVID-19 in managed isolation, four of which are historical. There is one new community case, linked to the Auckland February cases, who is already in quarantine. The new community case of COVID-19 is linked to the existing Auckland February cases and the individual has been in quarantine since Friday. The latest case is a household contact of previous cases D, E, F and G. This person (Case H) had previously been tested, returned a negative result and was isolating at home since Monday last week. The person was transferred to the Auckland quarantine facility on Friday 19 February as a precaution. Due to the steps already taken in identifying, testing and tracing individuals linked to the February cases, as well as Case H isolating at home since Monday and then being in quarantine for the last two days, the public health risk is considered very low" " due to Case H being in isolation while infectious there are no additional contacts to report. Some casual plus contacts at the school are required to have a second PCR test – 4 teachers and 28 students where a record to the test result isn’t available or a more recent test is required. Close contacts are expected return to school on Wednesday 24 February or when advised by Auckland Regional Public Health Service. Contact tracing has identified a total of 125 close contacts associated with all cases in this cluster, aside from the positive cases which have previously been reported. Three previously reported close contacts have been ruled out on further investigation and one infant is not required to be tested. Of the remainder, 122 of the close contacts have returned a negative test result. We are awaiting test results for two people - all of whom are from the medical clinic and relate to Case C, which is considered a low risk exposure event. As at 8.00am this morning, a total of 31 close contacts and 1,416 casual plus contacts have been identified at Papatoetoe High School. The number of casual plus contacts has increased by three following further investigation. Of the casual plus contacts (that is other students and staff at the school), 1,402 have returned negative results, there is one positive (Case E), and 13 results are still to come. "
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Feb 23, 2021 15:21:06 GMT 1
news.sky.com/story/covid-19-calls-to-deport-australian-woman-who-refused-covid-tests-during-28-day-new-zealand-hotel-quarantine-12226359"There are calls to deport an Australian woman who refused to take a COVID test while spending 28 days in quarantine at a New Zealand hotel.Lucinda Baulch travelled to New Zealand as a foster carer last month with three children who were moving into the care of local families.The children tested negative and were allowed to leave isolation on time - but Ms Baulch refused all tests during her stay, and has now been released from the managed isolation facility.She told New Zealand news website Stuff on her departure from Wellington's Grand Mercure on Tuesday that she still had not taken a test but she had answered a "series of questions" about her health." "Under New Zealand's strict anti-COVID laws, arrivals in the country must stay 14 days in a government-chosen hotel to make sure they are not carrying the virus.During their stay they are tested two or three times, depending on where they have come from.If a person refuses to take the day 12 test, they are offered a test each day of their extended stay to a maximum of 28 days - Ms Baulch refused every one of them." I wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Feb 23, 2021 15:26:14 GMT 1
To be honest I think that most of the re-opening plan is quite good, with the 5 weeks between stages. I do have concerns about the blanket re-opening of schools, colleges and universities and the chances of students picking up the virus and spreading it throughout the rest of the population that haven't had the vaccine. I fully understand that kids need to get back into places of learning and that many parents and kids are struggling, but there are over 4.5m kids in primary education, nearly 3m in secondary and a further 4+m in college and university so all of those potential carriers and spreaders could be disastrous for the prospect of a return to normality.
I don't have the answer and maybe it is a risk that will pan out, but I remain a least somewhat skeptical. Hopefully it will not be a major problem.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Feb 23, 2021 16:09:31 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Feb 23, 2021 16:14:19 GMT 1
To be honest I think that most of the re-opening plan is quite good, with the 5 weeks between stages. I do have concerns about the blanket re-opening of schools, colleges and universities and the chances of students picking up the virus and spreading it throughout the rest of the population that haven't had the vaccine. I fully understand that kids need to get back into places of learning and that many parents and kids are struggling, but there are over 4.5m kids in primary education, nearly 3m in secondary and a further 4+m in college and university so all of those potential carriers and spreaders could be disastrous for the prospect of a return to normality.
I don't have the answer and maybe it is a risk that will pan out, but I remain a least somewhat skeptical. Hopefully it will not be a major problem.
Think the other factor with schools reopening is how people with school age children stick to the wider lockdown regulations Broadly speaking families of school aged children are likely to be under 50 or less in most cases, so statistically if they did get Covid the symptoms are likely to be relatively mild and not require hospital admissions. So if they stay in their family bubble the impact of infection is relatively low But if family members are also having to go out to work, use public transport, care for other relatives; or are ignoring restrictions and meeting other people indoors or in groups who haven’t been vaccinated the potential for the virus to spread increases significantly. I think that’s why there is a reasonable gap between schools opening and the stage 2 reopening starting, and could see stage 2 put back if infection rates start getting closer to the r1 rate
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Feb 23, 2021 16:17:33 GMT 1
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scotland-lockdown-nicola-sturgeon-reopen-april-b1806156.htmlScotland’s economy will begin a “phased reopening” from the last week of April, as the country moves to a regional level system of coroanvirus restrictions, Nicola Sturgeon has announced. She said that relaxations from 26 April will include the phased reopening of non-essential retail, pubs and restaurants, gyms and hairdressers. So, a longer wait in Scotland for a hairdresser, but a shorter wait to be in a pub! Maybe. The word 'phased' is there!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2021 16:20:51 GMT 1
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scotland-lockdown-nicola-sturgeon-reopen-april-b1806156.htmlScotland’s economy will begin a “phased reopening” from the last week of April, as the country moves to a regional level system of coroanvirus restrictions, Nicola Sturgeon has announced. She said that relaxations from 26 April will include the phased reopening of non-essential retail, pubs and restaurants, gyms and hairdressers. So, a longer wait in Scotland for a hairdresser, but a shorter wait to be in a pub! That will help with alcoholism pandemic that is more rife in Scotland than anywhere else in the modern world. See she addresses what will buy her dwindling support in Scotland back up a bit more eh!! :-)
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Feb 23, 2021 16:32:34 GMT 1
Yes I’m afraid I will never be satisfied with the handling of all this until this stupid government realise that, if they want schools to stay open, staff need to be vaccinating staff ASAP. They missed a golden opportunity to do it during half term (presumably because it was suggested by the Labour Party). It is just so short sighted if, as they allege, schooling is so important. I would also add to the list of moaners all these utterly stupid Tory backbenchers who can’t see beyond their profit margins as well. Another bunch who could do with a dose of the virus to realise how serious it can be. 'Staff need to be vaccinating staff' ![???](//storage.proboards.com/1258782/images/ZEjvtQKOmLArVPumuTsh.png) ![???](//storage.proboards.com/1258782/images/ZEjvtQKOmLArVPumuTsh.png) ![???](//storage.proboards.com/1258782/images/ZEjvtQKOmLArVPumuTsh.png) ?
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Feb 23, 2021 16:33:42 GMT 1
Vaccine passports are a step too far for me. If you need one to go on holiday outside the UK that is one thing, because it is also telling the destination country that you are safe. If you demand them for pubs, restaurants and theatres where do you draw the line? Will we need one to get a Starbucks or to sit in at McDonalds? Will we need them to catch a bus or train to work? Will companies make it a requirement when they recruit new staff? Will companies be demanding all of their current staff be vaccinated? Will we need it to pop to the shops? It could feasibly be used as a back door to a national ID card which is something that I am very much against.
I will be getting the vaccine as soon as it becomes available for my age group, but this is not where we should be heading. Let's leave the draconian laws in the past.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2021 16:38:20 GMT 1
Having a covid passport to go overseas, I'm absolutely fine with. To gain access domestically to things I'm less keen on, it doesn't bother me personally from a sharing data perspective, I just feel a bit uneasy with it but maybe thats partially driven by this being the sort of thing the conspiracy theorists claiming the gov't would try and implement but were shouted down as being nutters/paranoid. But there's some immediate things/questions that spring to mind. Firstly, how does it work in practice & when from? For example, I'm unlikely to be fully vaccinated until September, does that mean I'd be restricted from going places until then and in effect being penalised for being low risk? Secondly, we hear that zero covid is not possible and we need to live with it like the flu (or measles), are we saying we will need to show this to gain access on a permanent basis, particularly if the vaccine is not a one time thing. I saw a (very cynical) poster on social media claiming that the likelihood of a domestic covid pass is very low and the talk of it is simply a drive to force more people to take the vaccine.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Feb 23, 2021 16:39:15 GMT 1
As usual through-out the pandemic Blair's been spot on with his analysis and plans. If he's as 'spot on with his analysis and plans' as he was in discovering Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, we'll all be fine.
|
|
|
Post by sheltonsalopian on Feb 23, 2021 16:55:16 GMT 1
As usual through-out the pandemic Blair's been spot on with his analysis and plans. If he's as 'spot on with his analysis and plans' as he was in discovering Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, we'll all be fine. As I said to someone else who completely missed the point, just because you don't like Blair and are stuck in 2005 doesn't mean his points are incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Feb 23, 2021 17:10:39 GMT 1
Yes I’m afraid I will never be satisfied with the handling of all this until this stupid government realise that, if they want schools to stay open, staff need to be vaccinating staff ASAP. They missed a golden opportunity to do it during half term (presumably because it was suggested by the Labour Party). It is just so short sighted if, as they allege, schooling is so important. I would also add to the list of moaners all these utterly stupid Tory backbenchers who can’t see beyond their profit margins as well. Another bunch who could do with a dose of the virus to realise how serious it can be. 'Staff need to be vaccinating staff' ![???](//storage.proboards.com/1258782/images/ZEjvtQKOmLArVPumuTsh.png) ![???](//storage.proboards.com/1258782/images/ZEjvtQKOmLArVPumuTsh.png) ![???](//storage.proboards.com/1258782/images/ZEjvtQKOmLArVPumuTsh.png) ? Ooops edited!!
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Feb 23, 2021 17:24:33 GMT 1
Having a covid passport to go overseas, I'm absolutely fine with. To gain access domestically to things I'm less keen on, it doesn't bother me personally from a sharing data perspective, I just feel a bit uneasy with it but maybe thats partially driven by this being the sort of thing the conspiracy theorists claiming the gov't would try and implement but were shouted down as being nutters/paranoid. But there's some immediate things/questions that spring to mind. Firstly, how does it work in practice & when from? For example, I'm unlikely to be fully vaccinated until September, does that mean I'd be restricted from going places until then and in effect being penalised for being low risk? Secondly, we hear that zero covid is not possible and we need to live with it like the flu (or measles), are we saying we will need to show this to gain access on a permanent basis, particularly if the vaccine is not a one time thing. I saw a (very cynical) poster on social media claiming that the likelihood of a domestic covid pass is very low and the talk of it is simply a drive to force more people to take the vaccine. Can't see it, what about people who may have had Covid and may have built up their own resisrance? What about people who cannot be vaccinated because of other health problems? Anyway, Goves looking into it now and a company is working on a facial recognition solution. Can see it being used for visiting other countries as there is a precedent there for having to have certain vaccines to go to some countries.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Feb 23, 2021 17:57:10 GMT 1
After people are inoculated against Covid-19, some venues might require customers to carry an official certification, likely to be digital, which states they have had a vaccine. The electronic certificates would be verified by the NHS and stored in a digital wallet on a smartphone, according to IT firm Verifiable Credentials – which claims to have already agreed a deal with at least one UK theatre and cinema complex. The document, combined with a purchased ticket, would generate a QR code that allows prospective customers entry into a venue. Not an attractive option for those of us who don't own a smartphone. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/covid-vaccine-proof-cinema-venues-b1802729.html
|
|