How do you feel about the reopening across the UK?

Thanks Ian. I wonder how many scientists supported what is planned. The warning by Chris Whitty was well publicised.

This rather assumes that all in England will abandon precautions. I will not be among them, and I hope many others will join me.

Perhaps. but as you yourself admit many will assume everything is okay and throw caution to the wind.

I realise that we’re in a very fortunate position, living where we do. I also appreciate that it will be increasingly difficult for single parents with several young children living in flats, especially as summer tends to bring heat waves. But this is a serious disease, with life-limiting after-effects for many.

The problem is not those of us who will continue to take precautions irrespective of what we are allowed to do but those who will be expected to use their own judgement.

Many examples of irresponsible and selfish behaviour have appeared in the news, ever since the first lockdown.

That behaviour has been present right from the beginning, despite the precautions “imposed”.

Another phenomenon deriving from Covid-19 is the dreadful rash of pontificating professors constantly in our face these days. They could be right of course, only time will tell, and then it will be ‘told you so’ time. We need to be aware that, despite the government’s attempts to seek science as an ally, policy is all about politics.

I more than ever wish the daily mortality statistics published in the media were categorised by sex, age, and underlying health condition [if any].

Um. Maybe these ‘pontificating professors’ might, collectively, stand a chance of offering an informed opinion, which might not be the case with (most) government officials, civil servants and the general public.

Well, yes, that would be good . . . if collectively they agree on a common methodology and basis of evidence.

My point, though, is that the government is prepared to take a gamble because it is not exclusively preoccupied with the health of the population but is taking many other factors into account, particularly the public finances. That is not necessarily the wrong policy but it does court opposition from academic interests who can take a more detached view. An Olympian purity of approach is a respectable virtue but not necessarily practical with regard to all relevant circumstances.

I agree that science is not the only consideration for the government, John.

One of the conditions set out for stage 4 of the ‘roadmap’ towards lifting restrictions is:
“Enable the public to make informed decisions through guidance, rather than laws.”

I question whether individual members of the public are in a position to make informed decisions. The decision to lift most restrictions in July was made when we were not facing a third wave of infections.

Agreed. The guidance on its own is too weak in the present circumstances. With a surge in infections, firm direction is required. The government has not adjusted its route to reflect the changing situation. It risks losing control of the public response.

One problem is that there are powerful voices in the media and on the government side of the House of Commons pleading for release from all restrictions and freedom for all. Their constituents might not be so keen. Freedom for some could mean illness — or worse — for others.

In March 2020 there was the bad decision to allow the Cheltenham racing festival to go ahead with large crowds. That is said to have precipitated widespread transmission of the coronavirus that gave rise to Covid-19. This weekend tens of thousands will be at the Open Golf tournament at Sandwich in Kent and at the Formula 1 motor racing Grand Prix at Silverstone. There will also be lots of other mass spectator events around the country in the weeks ahead. A responsible government would issue guidance not to attend but is frightened of doing so. The media will, as usual, boost these events with full coverage and no recommendation to avoid them.

I have absolutely no respect for the media.

They had the power to support the government in their efforts to get us through this pandemic, their influence could have saved many lives, we might be in a much better position to come out of lockdown, maybe we could have come out of lockdown much sooner and events such as those mentioned by John could go ahead with much less risk.

I remember last year the smiles on newsreaders faces as they showed the masses enjoying themselves on the beaches.

Instead, they should have been castigating all mass gatherings not promoting them.

And by supporting the government, they didn’t have to agree with all their decisions. They could also have been a dissenting voice when the government made bad decisions holding them to account, suggesting better alternatives. Their investigative reporting could have been used for good, not the mixed messages they keep sending out that just stir up discontent with the public.

After interviewing individuals for months who think we should be coming out of lockdown, at the last minute the media are doing a u-turn but it’s OK to mock the government doing a u-turn when things have not gone according to plan – a plan that might have worked if the media had supported it.

And giving prime air time to the likes of M O’Leary but without any balancing or informed response exemplifies the irresponsible nature of the media at times.

Cheltenham, Brighton and Bournemouth beaches, Durdle Door, Christmas markets, partying in the streets, vigils, ………. all during lockdown and against restrictions just show how a part of the population have no common sense or appreciation of the possible consequences of their actions. Restrictions, lockdowns, rules didn’t affect them then, and won’t in the future. Just as those who visited India, returned through the back door, and help spread another variant world wide. And the Scots running loose at the world cup – and Scotland in a worse position than England currently. The control of Covid depends primarily upon vaccines and upon people behaving appropriately. No matter how well you perform on vaccinating it is the people element that lets us down.

A pity the media use the government as the whipping boy, and largely ignores real criticism of those who can really make it work – us.

Those who complain that easing the restrictions now is wrong really cannot lose. If the epidemic does get out of control they will tell us “I told you so”. If the result is an increase in cases but fewer hospitalised, less severe symptoms, a much-reduced death rate then they may say how much better things would have been if their advice had been followed. What they don’t examine is the effects on mental health, education, the economy, jobs….. It is far more complex an issue than a simple “lockdown policy” can deal with.

I hope the emphasis in the media and elsewhere will be for us to take common sense precautions – we all should know about those – and to avoid those places and events, including overseas holidays, where the irresponsible who don’t think or don’t care will gather.

Don’t you think that the government must take the blame for allowing foreign travel, Malcolm? Even if permitted for ‘essential purposes’ (whatever that is) those coming into the country could be required to stay in a quarantine hotel.

“Blame”? I put the responsibility on those who chose to travel abroad, whether on holiday or not, those who avoided the requirement to self isolate, knowing the reasons why such travel was deprecated and yet ignored advice – and I repeatedly criticised Which?Travel as I’m sure you noticed for their attitude towards the deprived holidaymakers.

Fine, “blame” government to the exclusion of anyone else, but I do not think that fairly addresses the reality.

The point I was making was simply that the success of a strategy depends very substantially upon the cooperation of us all. As the examples given by me and others show, many people will not cooperate and will defy any rules and regulations set down. University reopening, returning to school, perhaps should have been banned but at what cost; the appalling behaviour of some universities and, worse, students who might be regarded as intelligent, shows the difficulties we face.

So short of running a police state where everyone is monitored, where we spy on our friends, family and neighbours and report them when they transgress, I do not see how we can defeat this section of the community. Travel abroad was just a single instance of defiance; there are many more at home that show how powerless we are to demand appropriate behaviour is observed from a significant part of the population, including getting vaccinated to help protect others.

Yes, the government must partly take the blame, but they are being bombarded with conflicting advice, evidence, the media, businesses and public opinion.

The media reported thousands of Germans enjoying holidays on the Spanish islands but neglected to report whether those holidays increased infections. If the Germans can go on holiday, why can’t the Brits? They egg that on with many interviews from the travel industry who want to reopen for business with little thought to the increase in cases it will bring along with new variants. Reporting a traveller will get where he wants to go by any means necessary just encourages others to do the same.

How many hotels are there that can accommodate plane-loads of travellers coming from foreign countries?

Oh yes the government is bombarded with conflicting advice and there is a great deal of pressure from the travel industry.

Yes there is very restricted capacity in quarantine hotels, so maybe foreign travel does not make much sense at present.

I do believe that travel companies should have been required to return money to their customers promptly, as Which? has suggested.

I suggest blaming the government is more palatable than criticising those who, despite the restrictions and guidance, actually commit the acts that are irresponsible – many of us.

As far as I am aware their have been quite severe restrictions on travel abroad for most of the epidemic, yet the government was criticised when it changed the status of some countries and, as a result, caused holidaymakers inconvenience and extra costs – holidaymakers who should have known they were taking a risk but did not like the consequences.

. The government is now being attacked by some for increasing the status of France at short notice, thus making returning Brits self isolate and undergo test because of a rise in the Beta Variant. Oh dear. Should the government have given them two weeks notice? Do we blame them for taking such action in the light of a significantly increased risk?

In general we often like to find someone or some institution to “blame” rather than look at ourselves and ask whether we could accept some, or even all, of the responsibility?

I hardly think the government should be blamed for allowing foreign travel. It was heavily criticised for severely restricting foreign travel. It could have made life easier for itself by shutting down all travel anywhere outside the UK for the duration and now it is paying the price for being flexible and moving countries up and down the traffic signals. It is not a one-sided decision – it’s no good allowing people to go to country X if country X isn’t going to let them in, or to let people go to country Y if the UK doesn’t have the capacity to quarantine them on their return. In any case it’s a moving target and everybody knew that — the mock outrage that people are being messed about is not a persuasive sentiment.

As an aside, I am surprised that the travel trade is happy to expose its staff to hordes of happy holidaymakers in cramped conditions on aeroplanes and in airports. I don’t think we have to take much notice of what the boss of Ryanair has to say. His company was not a paragon of customer satisfaction when refunds were due at the start of the pandemic.

It would be very good if we all accepted responsibly but not everyone does, hence we need to turn to our government to take responsibility too.

It looks as if most restrictions will be lifted within a couple of days and if that happens, considering the rising number of infections, I will blame the government. As Ian has said, they have received plenty of scientific advice.

There is no doubt that the government has locked itself into a policy straitjacket over the ending of the restrictions and the carte blanche reopening of all public venues. It fears being accused of indecision, but changing your mind is the right thing to do if a change of circumstances makes an earlier decision the wrong one to pursue.

I agree. It’s impossible to accurately predict the future and it is certainly helpful to make provisional plans to lift lockdown, subject to review. The government would have gained my respect if it had announced that the final stage of lifting the lockdown had been delayed until further notice. Had everyone complied with the rules or even taken additional precautions we might be in a better position to proceed but there has been plenty of warning that this was not going to happen.

Some seem averse to placing responsibility on the individual, particularly when they are as informed as they have been. Whatever regulations and restrictions are put in place, a sizeable sector will avoid and ignore them. As we have seen numerous times. I think it would be sad day if we accept that we, as individuals, rely on the government to control our behaviour, even if that were possible. We can think for ourselves and exercise that right. Unfortunately some think for themselves but in different ways. How to bring them “into line”. Not possible in my view.

We have delayed the ending of restrictions already, but those restrictions did not prevent what is currently happening. I hope that sufficient have been vaccinated to limit the adverse effects and that a sufficient proportion of the population have sufficient common sense and responsibility to continue observing the rules that the government has been advising to date. We don’t need effectively unenforceable or unenforced rules for us to use our own judgement. I will wear a mask inside public places, use hand sanitiser, wash hands regularly, not go to crowded places, not go abroad on holiday, not kiss strangers (I could be arrested anyway); will anyone join me?

I do not know anyone here who is averse to placing responsibility on the individual. So far I have had no problem with complying with the rules or doing more to protect myself and others. If the lifting of most of the present rules goes ahead on Monday I suspect that those of us who have been taking precautions may need to be more constrained.

When they choose to direct their criticism only at the government rather than the individual who chooses to transgress.
How you get a whole population to act responsibly, knowing the situation, is an impossibility whatever rules and regulations you impose. We see many individuals who simply defy those rules and regulations and I place responsibility on them for their part in the spread of Covid.

We can both condemn those who have behaved irresponsibly. My concern here is the plan to further relax the guidance issued to us all by moving to Step 4 of the ‘Roadmap’ in two days. In the circumstances, is that wise?

My contention is that whatever plan is laid down, those who want to ignore it will. So in the end it comes down to individual responses. So the individual must take responsibility for their actions, unless they have been misinformed. I don’t think we have been misinformed about the risks of holidaying abroad, for example, but many seem to ignore advice.

I am referring to the planned relaxation of restrictions on Monday. Might it have been sensible to further delay relaxing restrictions in the circumstances?

This thread makes very interesting reading. There seem to be three strands: the media, the government and individual responsibility.

On the media: the media is not a single organism; in the UK, anyway, it has significant leeway to reflect public opinion and report the news. Is it flawed? Of course it is, and massively in some cases. But I’m not sure what the options are.

There is, much as some might like to believe it, no such thing as disinterested and factual news. Each person who sees something reports a different version. The only option appears to be that inherent in a communist or totalitarian state. There, all news has to pass the eyes of the censor. And I wouldn’t want that.

On the government front, however, I feel it’s much more clear cut. There are some simple tests for determining whether the government is being effective or useless.

1. Is this a national emergency? If it isn’t. then fine, and folk can do what they wish, subject to the already heady heap of legislation in place. If it is, then the government has to take the decisions necessary to protect its citizens, and enforce those decisions.

2. Has the government got its priorities right? Well, is it protecting its citizenry? Is it taking the tough decisions? Is it relying wholly on disinterested scientific observations or is it taking decisions based helping the rich become richer?

3. Is it prepared to stand firm in the face of those who demand otherwise, or does it instead prefer to waffle?

4. Does it act on the assumption of freedom with responsibility? In other words, does it assume, like a weak parent, that ‘people will be people’ and sit back, then blame the people for a bad outcome? Or will it impose immediate and stiff penalties on those wilfully putting the health and welfare of the citizens it is supposed to protect at risk?

It’s easy to say that “a sizeable sector will avoid and ignore (the rules)” but we haven’t achieved one of the safest places in the world to drive by leaving it to the individual. The government has strict laws in place, and doesn’t balk at imposing them.

But do we think “it would be sad day if we accept that we, as individuals, rely on the government to control our behaviour”? Well, we all like to think we know how to behave but when I’m driving I like to feel that others are being constrained in doing what they wish by the government. If they weren’t I imagine we’d see far more deaths, far more casualties and many unpleasant incidences from those who believe violence should be the first resort.

If the government feels it’s necessary to determine the speed limits, and enforce them, or prohibit random violence, then I understand it does so to protect me as well as control me. And I have no problem with that. I just wish they would take the same approach to our health.

Part of the reason people drive carefully is self-preservation; they know the financial and injurial consequences of driving recklessly. But that does not stop some driving badly, ignoring speed limits, no insurance and so forth. Whatever regulations are put in place a significant number will ignore them.

Indeed, but they have to suffer the consequences if caught, and I know from friends and relatives that that does give them pause for thought. Take out legislation and we revert to anarchy.

The vigils, weddings, outdoor partying, much self isolation, Christmas markets, as examples were supposedly covered by legislation but many clearly did not pause for thought. Nor was the law enforced, or when it was attempted their were squeals of protest.
Fortunately, the vast majority respect social behaviour without the threat of prosecution and help, in the case of Covid, protect the rest.

One of the problems with a laissez faire approach to protection from infection is that some people are bullies or extremely inconsiderate.

The Prime Minister, declared that people should use their common sense and personal responsibility over whether or not they should wear a face-covering on public transport. As an example, he said that on a late night main-line train with near-empty carriages people could choose not to wear a mask but in a crowded rush-hour Underground train it would be responsible to do so. But if I am standing in a crowded tube train, wearing my mask as I would intend to do in line with my own sense of public responsibility, and the person standing next to me doesn’t wear a face covering, and doesn’t believe they should have to, what rights do I have to any protection? It might be impossible to move to a safer position so until either of us gets off the train viral transmission can take place.

Until the risks of infection are greatly reduced many people will choose not to use public transport at busy times. This could impede the return to normal business and the recovery of the economy — the complete opposite of what the PM wishes to achieve.

The other day the PM was setting out some ‘skeletal ideas’ for devolving more powers to the regions and counties throughout England. He could start by letting the metropolitan mayors and public transport authorities make their own decisions on public health protection on the public transport services for which they are responsible.

I think mayors have made decisions about mask wearing on public transport..
I have not used the tube during the epidemic but reports from those who have say that a number did not wear masks.

Generally it should be possible to avoid those who do not wear masks. I think travelling on a tube train that is crowded is unlikely to be a healthy pursuit with, or without, a mask and best avoided.

Travellers will be required to wear masks on all TfL London transport after 19th July. See:

inews.co.uk – Do we need to wear face masks on public transport after 19th July?
Rules, Advice and TfL Policy Explained

Thank you. Beryl.

When I wrote my comment I was unaware of the separate instructions from Transport for London. Presumably the transport operator has power to make regulations for travel on their networks that override national government regulations. Fair enough, and I support the clarity of the decision, but it would have been better if the PM had explained the situation with equal clarity and told people to do what the operators say. I have some sympathy with those who feel there are mixed messages that make compliance unclear. People will always take the easiest way to take advantage of any inconsistency in the rules.

In the developed world, TB is largely associated with poor living conditions, poor nutrition and other potentially avoidable factors such as smoking.

Precisely. Factors we could avoid if we set our priorities on minimised poor health.

I rang a friend a couple of days ago and found that he had gone to Silverstone. If I was interested in car racing I would watch it on TV.

One more example of an individual making a choice we would disagree with. Just because you can does not mean you should.
I trust you will avoid contact with your friend for the next couple of weeks.

I’ve not seen him since late 2019, but we keep in contact by phone, as I have been keeping in touch with most of my friends. Thanks to the phone and Zoom I am more in contact with some people than I have been for years.

Andrew Marr from BBC TV also caught it after being double vaccinated and was quite poorly but didn’t need hospitalisation.

See: bbc.co.uk – Marr On Catching. Covid After Being Double Vaccinated.

I always had a similar problem with the ‘flu vaccination, mainly caused by science failing to predict the correct strain, which eventually resulted in the introduction of more than one strain with each seasonal vaccination, but then I experienced mild ‘flu symptoms caused by my immune systems over-reaction to the vaccine. I eventually stopped having it.

I sincerely hope he does only get it mildly. As I hope nor does anyone else, double vaccinated, single vaccinated or not.

It does seem those who are vaccinated are very much less likely to suffer severe disease. We have to balance the risks of the effects of the virus against all the other factors that make this a complex problem to resolve. What seems the easy solution – have total lockdown for another few months – when we seem to, on the whole, have less serious reaction to the virus despite rising infections, coupled with the damage to mental health, the economy, education, is the balancing act someone needs to address. Were that to change then I hope appropriate restrictions will be imposed, but what good are they if a sizeable part of the population ignore them, just as they have in the past?

Most people in their 70’s and 80s plus have a pre existing condition, and many are not yet aware of it until they experience a life threatening illness, which is good reason to continue to take extra precautions even after double vaccination if you are in that age group.

I’m sorry to hear about your friend’s son. Did he have a good reason to refuse vaccination or does he now regret not taking up the offer?
I bet his Mum gave him a piece of her mind (I assume she was vaccinated?)
My kids took the vaccine at the very first opportunity, both for their own protection and for their families.

I don’t understand why anyone pays advice to what they read on social media, Phil. A couple of days ago, someone posted something, here on Conversation, to rubbish official advice about coronavirus but it was removed promptly.

I don’t know anyone who has avoided vaccination, though a friend was concerned about the risk that his son could suffer anaphylactic shock since he had a problem with another vaccine in the past. This time he had no problem.

I know of several anti-vaxxers. A friend’s daughter who thinks she will have a thalidomide baby (fakebook) and anyway she has already had the virus – before most of us knew anything about it. Her mother defends her to the hilt.

Already having the virus before most of us knew anything about it seems to be a common theme with anti-vaxxers including a couple of my relatives.

Em, pardon my interruption, but I don’t subscribe to social media as such, simply because there are too many trolls and tribulations lurking behind the confines of unmoderated cyber space. I hope you are OK in your enforced isolation and remain free from all unwelcome manifestations.

@Em – You are right about social media. I mainly visit a site run by a small charity and try to answer questions and acknowledge helpful visitors who post useful information, historic photos, etc.

Yes I’m a member of Which? and am happy to support their efforts, albeit some more than others. A career in research and teaching has helped in many ways – one of which being to appreciate how much I do not know. That’s why many of my posts include guarded statements. I prefer to examine information and advice, and try to establish if it is good or possibly flawed.

I have no Porsche but they don’t do enough miles to the gallon for my liking.

A Porsche was a Which? best buy https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/new-and-used-cars/porsche-taycan-2020 .

Wavechange, I once drove a car about 4 miles with a huge hole in the petrol tank to a local garage. Upon collection, the mechanic queried how I managed to get it there, since the damaged petrol tank was completely empty when they removed it. The car in question belonged to a close relative who had just been taken seriously ill and been admitted to hospital. He later recovered

Sometimes we can be very lucky, Beryl. I once went on holiday with a group of six university friends and one of the drivers lost his specs just before we set off home, and he did not have a spare pair. Fortunately I was able to drive him 200+ miles home but had he lost his specs earlier he might not have enjoyed the week.

Sometimes our expectations exceed reality and we take things for granted Wavechange. Perhaps Stephan Hawking provided inspiration when he said……

“My expectations were reduced to zero when I was 21. Everything since then has been a bonus.

.

I had a great deal of respect for Stephen Hawking and those who helped achieve so much to give hope to severely disabled people, and also for managing to continue his scientific career when the easy option would be to give up.

I have less respect for those who have brought us smart household appliances to encourage us to part with more cash, but there are some positives.

How about those who test and promote smart appliances?

They are what many people want, Malcolm, such is the power of marketing. When choosing a dishwasher recently, avoiding a smart appliance was a key consideration. In future this might not be an option unless you choose a cheap model.

Of course they are, or perhaps in many cases what people are persuaded they want, or think they should have because it is the latest technology. Like many things, what people use their excess income to purchase is down to them.

I was simply questioning, as you presumably gathered, whether Which? in testing and publicising such products is doing the best thing. Should they be more focused on explaining the pros and cons of smart appliances in the reviews to better inform people who are considering what to choose?

I’ll give one answer to my own question. It might matter in principle but is unlikely to matter much in practice because most people will not read a Which? review when they set out to buy something.

Which? has pointed out the potential security risks of smart products. At present we don’t really know about the downsides of buying these products but we might do in the next couple of years. Should Which? be the only target or do the manufacturers deserve criticism? Or, bearing in mind the recent discussion about coronavirus, should the public be to blame for buying the. products?

It is not necessarily about security but whether these products have any actual value that should be included in the report.

As buying these appliances is not a danger to health and others, as far as I know, the only responsibility is with those who can choose on what to spend their money. Should Porsche not make cars? Do we blame people who buy them (why “blame” – what are they to be blamed for). Do we “blame” Porsche for clearly addressing a consumer demand? I see no parallel with Covid.

Bt are not many decisions about how to behave consumer-related? ‘Blame’ is a tricky issue; we can really only apportion blame when something which is clearly foreseeable happens because of a lack of clear and precise rules.

If the government is derelict in terms of setting those rules then surely they’re to blame?

Comment removed 🙂

No, quite a lot fly over my house in helicopters. Inefficient and noisy machines but suitable when you have plenty of disposable income.

Hydrogen powered F1 cars are on the agenda because e-cars do not sufficiently excite the spectators, apparently. Hydrogen is expensive to produce and an inefficient use of energy, but I don’t suppose that is of any consequence.

This will be another example of the power of the media not supporting the country but instead using their influence to create food shortages. They know exactly what will happen if they even hint it. But it makes good news stories doesn’t it. If everyone carried on normally there wouldn’t be too much of a problem.

I’ve just had a Zoom meeting with friends who were referring to the news about supermarket problems. If I put in an order by midnight I could have a delivery for tomorrow morning, so there is no problem round here – so far.

I despair of the press at times.

According to the BBC News there were only 140,000 spectators at Silverstone today, so that’s alright then.

I doubt if more than 1-2% of spectators go to Silverstone by helicopter. I would expect most of the airborne passengers are part of the organisational circus that attends with FIA officials, media, manufacturers’ and suppliers’ representatives [and their favoured parliamentary guests et al], and some VIP’s who mustn’t be delayed on crowded roads.

When you read the eye-watering sums that many football fans paid for entry to the Euro 2020 Championship matches and the Wimbledon tennis tournament, and will have paid to attend today’s F1 Grand Prix and the Open Golf Championship final, it makes you realise how deeply the austerity cuts are biting and what hardships are being endured.

Me? Envious? — Perish the thought!