Share this content

Anyone worried about another lockdown/furlough?

Received an email from AAT regarding preparing for the possibility for another lockdown

Didn't find your answer?

Just received an email from AAT regarding preparing for the possibility for another lockdown.

Just got me wondering whether anyone is worried about the possibility for another lockdown and/or more furlough/CJRS claims?

The above seems unlikely as hospital admissions and deaths are not dramatically rising but you never quite know what the effect Christmas shopping and gatherings could potentially have on hospital admissions/deaths come January 2022.

I think the worse case scenario is the Government brings back social distancing and closes schools for January 2022 but no full on lockdown of businesses.

Replies (45)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By mbee1
09th Dec 2021 15:37

I'm going to be controversial here and say lockdown the unvaccinated like some other European countries so the "sensible" vaccinated people can get on with their lives. Bring on vaccine passports, not only for large venues, but for shops, supermarkets and offices.
It won't affect us as a business as the majority of staff are still working at home.

Thanks (8)
Replying to mbee1:
avatar
By jwill76
09th Dec 2021 16:02

Controversial indeed. I'd say some more research is needed on your behalf as to how the vaccination is not a preventive for spreading the disease

Thanks (6)
Replying to jwill76:
Caroline
By accountantccole
09th Dec 2021 16:17

French app suggests 10x more likely to be in intensive care if unvaccinated...

Thanks (2)
Replying to accountantccole:
avatar
By SXGuy
09th Dec 2021 16:50

We're not French.

I wonder if your app told you that Dr hillary Jones had to retract his statement that 90% in hospital were unvaxxed because it was actually 35%?

And I thought accountants were good at analysing numbers instead of just believing what they are told.

Thanks (4)
Replying to SXGuy:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
09th Dec 2021 18:58

SXGuy wrote:

We're not French.

I wonder if your app told you that Dr hillary Jones had to retract his statement that 90% in hospital were unvaxxed because it was actually 35%?

And I thought accountants were good at analysing numbers instead of just believing what they are told.

I think you are mixing your statistics.

If we assume you have a 1 in 100 chance of being in hospital with the vax, but a 1 in 10 chance without (ie 10 times higher).

In a population of 10,000 with 80% vaxed, if there are 500 cases, then out of the 400 vaxed cases there would be 4 in hospital. But out of the 100 unvaxed, 10 go to hospital. So we have 14 in hospital. 10 (71%) with no vax and 29% with the vax.

So it is true (in my example) that there is a 10 times higher chance of being in hospital with the needle phobia AND that 29% of people in hospital have been vaxxed. This is not contradictory.

Thanks (7)
Replying to jwill76:
RLI
By lionofludesch
09th Dec 2021 18:23

jwill76 wrote:

Controversial indeed. I'd say some more research is needed on your behalf as to how the vaccination is not a preventive for spreading the disease

Have we time for that ?

Thanks (1)
Replying to jwill76:
avatar
By Mr_awol
09th Dec 2021 20:21

Care to recommend a particular Facebook page, meme, or conspiracy theorist crackpot group where we should ‘research’ this? I’m worried if we use reputable sources we won’t be able to selectively take the data out of context and will be led to the ‘wrong’ conclusion by my the full facts and balanced data

Thanks (7)
Replying to Mr_awol:
avatar
By jwill76
10th Dec 2021 09:32

Yeah sure, it came from the same tin foil page your quality knowledge and data came from

Thanks (1)
Replying to mbee1:
avatar
By SXGuy
09th Dec 2021 16:48

So you only want to allow the vaccinated to catch and spread covid.

Wow you're a genius. Congrats.

Thanks (0)
Replying to SXGuy:
By Ruddles
09th Dec 2021 20:35

Sounds reasonable to me. There is undeniable evidence that the vaccinated can catch, and transmit, the virus. There is also undeniable evidence that vaccinated people are far less likely to end up in hospital and are in fact less likely to spread it. It follows that if it is allowed to circulate only in the vaccinated population it will die away more quickly than would otherwise be the case.

It is also thought to be the case that mutations are more likely to occur in the non-vaccinated population.

The point here is that it is not about protecting the individual - it is about reducing hospitalisation and freeing up resources to deal with those non-COVID patients that have been chucked to the side.

I am not in favour of mandatory vaccination. I am though in favour of people recognising that while vaccination is for most people a choice, people need to recognise that choices come with consequences. If it so happens that non-jabbed people are denied access to certain events and venues etc, then tough.

The more people that resist the vaccination, the sooner we will run out of Greek letters and the longer we’re going to have to deal with a stop-starting economy with more businesses going down the pan with each iteration.

Thanks (8)
Replying to SXGuy:
avatar
By meadowsaw227
10th Dec 2021 10:11

You come across as a sarcastic *** but hey we are all different and allowed our opinions.

Thanks (1)
Replying to mbee1:
avatar
By creamdelacream
09th Dec 2021 18:22

That's asking for trouble here and no real way to police. You can't check 70 million people to see if they can be outside or not

Thanks (0)
Replying to creamdelacream:
By Ruddles
09th Dec 2021 20:38

You can’t check everyone, but you can check a fair number at entry to various locations etc. Anything that reduces the spread has to be welcomed. If it means that the vax refuseniks aren’t able to enjoy the freedoms of the rest of us, tough.

Thanks (3)
Replying to mbee1:
avatar
By bernard michael
10th Dec 2021 09:29

mbee1 wrote:

I'm going to be controversial here and say lockdown the unvaccinated like some other European countries so the "sensible" vaccinated people can get on with their lives. Bring on vaccine passports, not only for large venues, but for shops, supermarkets and offices.
It won't affect us as a business as the majority of staff are still working at home.


Not sure who/how a lockdown of the unvaccinated will/could be policed
Thanks (0)
Replying to bernard michael:
avatar
By Mr_awol
10th Dec 2021 10:34

bernard michael wrote:

Not sure who/how a lockdown of the unvaccinated will/could be policed

Snipers with tranquiliser darts full of vaccine.

If an anti-vaxxer is spotted outside, rather than rounding them up or fining them, just shoot them with a dart full of Moderna. Problem solved (unless they're genuinely allergic, in which case you might have issues)

Thanks (3)
Replying to mbee1:
avatar
By bernard michael
10th Dec 2021 09:29

mbee1 wrote:

I'm going to be controversial here and say lockdown the unvaccinated like some other European countries so the "sensible" vaccinated people can get on with their lives. Bring on vaccine passports, not only for large venues, but for shops, supermarkets and offices.
It won't affect us as a business as the majority of staff are still working at home.


Not sure who/how a lockdown of the unvaccinated will/could be policed
Thanks (0)
avatar
By SXGuy
09th Dec 2021 16:47

I think hospital admissions are falling, not slowly rising.

In any case, am I worried? No. Simply because it doesn't matter what Boris says anymore, I don't listen to any of it.

It should only worry those who continue to nod in agreement with the whole fiasco

Thanks (3)
Replying to SXGuy:
By Duggimon
10th Dec 2021 09:43

I agree, thanks to the increasing number of people getting vaccinated, and those getting their boosters now, the hospital admissions are not increasing as fast as they could be, so thanks to all those ignoring the crazies railing against it, I expect we'll all be ok.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Leywood
09th Dec 2021 17:13

Worried about a lockdown and furlough needing to re-start. No. Why worry about something that might not happen, worry about it when it does, if you need to. Worring is bad for you.

Thanks (4)
VAT
By Jason Croke
09th Dec 2021 17:16

Doubt there will be any more lockdowns or furloughs.

Vaccinated or not, the virus is still transmitted in the air between people. Vaccination simply means you are unlikely to have severe illness - it doesn't stop transmission.

Masks remains controversial, but they must reduce transmission in the context that a covered mouth is less dangerous than an uncovered mouth and seeing as cultures across the globe have always put a hand to their mouth when coughing, it suggests that even without scientific evidence, covering your mouth when coughing is both polite and helps prevent transference of mouth based viruses.

Remember that Winter is traditionally a time of increased flus and other ailments and hospitals are always full during Winter even before Covid, appreciate Covid does add more pressures to the NHS and vaccinated people are unlikely to need hospitalisation and the recent stats indicate the majority of those in ICU are unvaccinated.

I think the world has tried lockdown and it didn't really work, it slowed down the attack rate of the virus to allow hospitals to catch a breath, but it didn't in reality, the hospitals were still full and people still died, I think that is why we're seeing across Europe solutions that are anything but lockdown - such as the French Covid passport, the Germans locking down the unvaccinated, mandatory vaccinations and making air travel difficult with PCR's tests and quarantine...expect more like that and less like lockdowns in the future.

Thanks (7)
avatar
By Jim100
09th Dec 2021 17:20

I am more concerned at the free give ways and crooks that will take advantage again. Hope this time round it goes to people who actually need the cash like the hospitality industry. Certain industries don't need any help like construction and that's the area where the fraud was rife.

Thanks (5)
avatar
By mbee1
10th Dec 2021 09:54

Nothing controversial about masks at all. Me, my wife and two adult daughters have never stopped wearing them when in shops, restaurants, etc. In my mind it was foolish of the Government to stop mandating wearing them.
As to vaccine passports - bring them in. Keep the unvaccinated out of social places such as pubs and restaurants and extend this to other shops. When it comes to food shopping they should wear a mask or starve.
I went into my local B7Q the other day and, all credit to them, there was a security guy on the door with a box of masks ensuring that you put one on if you were not wearing one. Most supermarkets have security at the door so they should be able to do this job. No mask no entry.
I'm sorry but civil liberties have to go out of the window here.

Thanks (1)
Replying to mbee1:
By Duggimon
10th Dec 2021 10:16

There is nothing in the mandating of masks that impacts civil liberties. Civil liberties do not and have never extended to the right to endanger others.

Making people wear a face mask is not an attack on civil liberties in the same way making them wear clothes in general or drive at a reasonable speed is not an attack on civil liberties.

Thanks (4)
Replying to Duggimon:
avatar
By Calculatorboy
11th Dec 2021 00:41

Many cannot wear masks due to health issues and there are no serious independant studies to suggest they are any use . Remember I said "independant"

*This post has been moderated

Thanks (1)
Replying to Calculatorboy:
By Duggimon
13th Dec 2021 10:38

Here's one https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

How many do you want, I bet there's more.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Michael Davies
10th Dec 2021 10:30

It is reported Rishi is dead against it;we are already bust.Plus the indications are that the booster provides good protection ,and that the symptoms are sufficiently mild from Omnicron that there is not a vast increase in hospitalisations.Just be careful out there.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By JD
10th Dec 2021 14:54

I would be interested in knowing how the current rate of hospitalisations and deaths compare to a normal flu year as that would provide a good bench mark.

Personally I am more concerned by the current (and ongoing) outbreak of hysterical and rather silly journalism - what happen to kindness from a few week ago.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Calculatorboy
10th Dec 2021 23:12

There is complete ignorance even amongst so called experts ... of the distinction between virus infection and virus disease , the one doesnt necessarily follow the other , this was recognised long ago even by pasteur.

The stats are total nonsense, firstly simply recording mortalities that were virus +ve ..irrespective of whether virus disease was a major factor in death .

So we don't know how many deaths were due to virus disease , nor do we know the true mortality rate

This could have been reliably estimated by proper representative sampling of the population as a whole, whether symptomatic or not ,

sadly the mortality rate was stupidly and often stated as: - those were virus +ve at death divided by those who were symptomatic requiring hospital treatment .
which is complete nonsense .

We have become obsessed with microbes,its pseudo religious and we will soon be burning those not vaccinated at the stake.

Remember every time you breath you inhale viruses , bacteria, foreign proteins , fungus, parasites etc etc..and the lung cillia with mucous, then your immune system, deals with it ....and you aren't even aware of it.

There is no known species that became extinct due to an infectious agent ( I qualify that statement , I recall a study of a French Polynesian snail where an infectious agent played a major but not total part in its extinction)

So the message , dont be a narcassist , forget coronavirus and get on with your life , because soon you will surely be dead

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Cylhia66
11th Dec 2021 06:32

It sounds like a few people have done some serious research on this page.

What do these people think of countries like Vietnam where the number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths arose immediately after they started the vaccination campaign? I haven't got the exhaustive list here but there are other countries in the world where this happened. I have no doubt people who claim that vaccination programmes offer population immunity have taken the time to analyse this sort of data too. What about Israel? What can we learn from their experience?

Thanks (1)
Replying to Cylhia66:
By Duggimon
13th Dec 2021 09:22

Cylhia66 wrote:

It sounds like a few people have done some serious research on this page.

What do these people think of countries like Vietnam where the number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths arose immediately after they started the vaccination campaign?

I think that, like the rest of the "data" put about by anti-vaccination people, it is in fact not "data" but "made up".

I did check before posting, and Vietnam's serious outbreak began prior to any significant proportions of vaccination within the population.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Duggimon:
avatar
By Cylhia66
13th Dec 2021 09:44

I'll give you the courtesy to share my "made up" data with you.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

As well as Vietnam you can check Greece, Mongolia, Israel, etc...

Will you give me the courtesy to share your proper data with me?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Cylhia66:
By Duggimon
13th Dec 2021 10:36

I checked your link, it very clearly shows in Vietnam a massive drop off in infections and deaths shortly after the first big spike in vaccines administered. It's almost as if you looked at the data and deliberately read it wrongly, or picked out the bits that made some point you had already decided was true, then ignored all the rest.

There's a big rise in vaccine uptake at almost the same time as a big rise in cases, though of course the rise in cases precedes the rise in doses administered slightly, as I'm sure you already noted.

Perhaps, just possibly, swathes of people suddenly dying of this disease that had only just started spreading suddenly prompted people to get a vaccine they had previously had no pressing reason to get? I mean that's just my reading of the data but it matches all the numbers and the data doesn't lie, so it's as good an interpretation as any, and better than yours.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
avatar
By Cylhia66
13th Dec 2021 10:59

I appreciate that you stopped insinuating the data I refer to is made up. That's a start.
I didn't quite catch how you interpret the number of cases and deaths going up from 31st of October 2021 in Vietnam? What about Greece and the increase of cases and deaths from 18th of July 2021?
I know I am talking to an accountant, someone good at analysing data, figures and graphs. So I trust this conversation can be sensible, just about commenting the facts, without feeling the need to use personal investives.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Cylhia66:
By Duggimon
13th Dec 2021 14:55

When I said your data was made up, what I meant was that any data showing that the outbreaks followed the vaccines must be made up, however what you actually have is either misinterpretation or a wilful misrepresentation of actual factual data that does not say what you say it says.

What about just looking at the trends across all the data instead of picking little bits and pieces that you assert are evidence of some sort of ludicrous theory.

Are you suggesting these extremely restricted portions of data support the idea that vaccines are causing Covid. Because it sounds like that's what you're suggesting and if it is you ought to at least be honest and say so. I wouldn't need to rebut you then with statistical analysis.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
avatar
By Cylhia66
13th Dec 2021 15:35

I find it both interesting and intriguing that you put these words in my mouth. I do not "support the idea that vaccines are causing Covid" at all. It appears you are the one making hasty assumptions, not me, so less of giving me this tone please.

I note you choose to ignore the fact that in some cases we see cases an deaths going up after a vaccination campaign. That's your prerogative to choose to ignore that this can happen. And you say I pick and choose when I'm the one considering the whole set of data. I don't leave out what doesn't suit my narrative you see.

I also note you chose to not reply to the simple question I was asking.

It's fair to say the one who is intellectually honest in this conversation is me, not you.
I will not tell you what conclusion I make from the data at hand because you don't deserve it, precisely because you are not intellectually honest. This could have been an interesting exchange where both could have learnt. You turned this into unjustified personal investives. That's poor. You're just not very interesting.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Cylhia66:
RLI
By lionofludesch
13th Dec 2021 16:24

Cylhia66 wrote:

You're just not very interesting.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Cylhia66
13th Dec 2021 16:49

lionofludesch. When I say someone is not interesting I have the decency to explain why.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Cylhia66:
RLI
By lionofludesch
13th Dec 2021 19:58

Cylhia66 wrote:

lionofludesch. When I say someone is not interesting I have the decency to explain why.

They're just crackpot ideas you have.

If there is anything interesting, it would be that you open your response to Duggimon by saying it's interesting and end it by saying it's not interesting.

Come back when you've made your mind up. Although I doubt if you'll be swaying many folks' views.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Cylhia66
13th Dec 2021 20:58

Could you please give us all a favour and try to articulate when expressing yourself?

(I say that and I'm French. I feel for you).

Thanks (0)
Replying to Cylhia66:
By Duggimon
15th Dec 2021 11:45

I apologise, I didn't realise there was a language barrier. Your first post says the deaths and hospitalisations arose after the vaccinations began. That means they started then, not increased then, and was the basis of my presuming you to be a crackpot, because crackpots espouse theories about vaccines causing diseases. If that's not what you meant then I can only apologise, your English is otherwise good enough I had no idea you were not a native speaker.

If what you meant was that they increased then, the simple answer to your question is I make nothing in particular of that statistic, the vaccination does not stop people dying, needing hospitalisation, or catching the disease, only makes all of these things less likely.

In countries where outbreaks coincided with mass vaccine rollout, the data shows the deaths and hospitalisations increasing while vaccine takeup increases but that's irrelevant when considering vaccine effectiveness, the relevant statistic as regards vaccine effectiveness is how much worse each of these metrics would be without the vaccine. Of course it's not possible to be 100% certain about this but all the analysis I've seen shows the vaccines significantly reduce each of these metrics.

You can't however draw any conclusion at all by comparing the graphs showing numbers of infections, hospitalisations and deaths with graphs showing numbers of people vaccinated, the comparison is largely meaningless because we don't have data for a control group of a statistically identical population with no vaccines.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
RLI
By lionofludesch
15th Dec 2021 11:57

It needs to be recognised that the time that the infection is reported is not necessarily the time that thed infection happens.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
avatar
By Cylhia66
19th Dec 2021 11:35

I think we now have this data. See below. If you refer back to my initial post, I was implying that mass vaccination within a given country does not make that population immune. New variants can go through this population anyway, regardless. And this is what I believe the graphs I shared with you tend to demonstrate.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00258-1/fulltext?s=08&fbclid=IwAR0_yIKo2FogpdPKSWJG6ze39rjiPVS8D3qq0XjBt41PEhyUu6cQWDtuWH0#

Thanks (0)
Replying to Cylhia66:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
19th Dec 2021 15:48

"If you refer back to my initial post, I was implying that mass vaccination within a given country does not make that population immune"
... I don't know anyone (politician, medic, person in the street, etc) who is claiming that mass vaccination makes a population immune - and to be frank that's not what you appeared to be saying in your original post either.

In your post you posit that some people are claiming that and then challenge us to provide proof/data to support such a claim.
This is what is known as a strawman argument - where an informal fallacy gives the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted but instead replaced with a false one.

I presume you don't disagree that:
* vaccinations have been shown to reduce both transmission to the vaccinated and severity of any infection that gets past the vaccination - subject to a) waiting a few weeks for the vaccination to take effect, and b) the number of vaccinations to 'top-up' an individual's defences.
* no-one is claiming that any vaccination (of any particular make or whether 1st / 2nd / booster frequency) guarantees immunity.
* those with the least vaccinations (especially those who have had none) lead the stats for new infections and, particularly, those then requiring hospitalisation.

So I fail to see what point you are trying to make - or with whom you think you are arguing.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By Cylhia66
19th Dec 2021 16:21

"Mass vaccination within a given country does not make that population immune" is the only point I was trying to make on this occasion and I used the graphs published by John Hopkins to support that statement. It seemed like a relevant point to make in my opinion. I disagree with you. I think a lot of people were under the illusion that this would be the case because that's what they were told in the news all along. It's only recently some people started to realise this is not happening as planned.

I'm hoping that once people have realised that the vaccine is not a miracle cure to the situation we are facing, that they still have the responsibility to be cautious, just as much as someone who hasn't had the vaccine, they will stop treating the non vaccinated like they have the plague.

Who am I arguing with? No one. I'm not arguing. I'm merely humbly expressing myself in this ocean of confusion.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By neiltonks
13th Dec 2021 09:04

I'm not worried about it: I can't do anything about it and there's no point in worrying about things I can't influence. I'll deal with it if/when it happens.

As to whether it will happen, there's no way to be sure. It all depends on how the new variant affects hospitalisations, and since people being hospitalised always lags behind an increase in infections, it's simply not known yet what will happen.

Last time there was a large number of infections (at the start of this year) there was a big increase in hospitalisations which, so far, hasn't happened this time. Why? Well, on the face of it the only factor that's changed materially is that many people are vaccinated now. So maybe that's the reason, or maybe there's another explanation that's not yet understood.

Another complication is that we don't know for certain how the new variant affects vaccinated people, because it's so new there hasn't been enough time, or cases, for it to be studied properly.

So basically it just isn't t known yet whether a new lockdown will be required and speculating that it will happen, like some media outlets seem to be doing, isn't really helpful.

Thanks (1)
Share this content