UK SPORT WELCOMES VACCINE PASSPORTS FOR FANS RETURN

That was the original plan that Dom came up with heard immunity let the old die,

Not quite sure how you get letting the old die from protecting and isolating the vulnerable?

Protecting and isolating the vulnerable - OK how?

Much of what we have done just inverted.

It really wouldn't have been that hard to have reinforced the shielding program and provide financial and practical assistance for those within the program keeping them isolated as was the whole point of the program.

If the whole point of lockdown was to protect those particularly vulnerable to it, why try to protect those who are highly unlikely to have severe symptoms?

Thats just illogical. It makes far more sense to focus attention and resources on a smaller, more manageable demographic.

To your other points, as I mentioned in my other post the NHS would have been under less burden if there was less panic - use of the 111 system, more effective hospital management and a different communication approach could all have mitigated that burden, my earlier post covered that in detail so I won't cover that ground again but point you back there.

Final point, slight correction you say 127,000 dead so far, to be accurate that should be up to 127k who died with not of COVID.

Again it is the simple matter of perspective. 127k dead sounds like a big scary number, the reality is it is evidently inflated by the government's own admission of what is classed as a Covid death.

Problem is isolating the most vulnerable and trusting the rest just wouldn’t work. It would get to those most vulnerable.

The measures taken were to limit the spread. They can never stop the spread.

Mac - I think this is where we meet an impasse regarding differing views in how it could have been handled - but totally respect yours and other's position and accept I'm in the minority on this

The way I see it if we really boil it down to its barest elements there are only really two approaches that have been adopted.

On one side it is the authoritarian approach that has leveraged fear, that we and most nations have adopted. It is the ultimate expression of the nanny state. We cannot trust you to do the right thing, so we will make rules to keep you in check. It is how you deal with children.

On the other hand there was the more trust-based approach adopted by Sweden and some US states like Florida. Which fostered a similar approach to what I would have advocated for more along the lines of we are in this together if we are all sensible, we can beat this together. It treats the citizens as adults.

I honestly believe that there was a definite moment where we could have taken something akin to the second approach after the initial lockdown and we would have suffered less and established a truly incredible level of social cohesion and togetherness. Instead, for various reasons, we are now perhaps more divided as a society than we have ever been in my lifetime.

Perhaps we're not sensible enough as a society here in the UK to have adopted such an approach, the Swedes do have a natural understanding of collective responsibility - it is why they have one of the best welfare systems in the world yet it is rarely abused like it enough is here.

I just think that if the government gave us a bit of responsibility for our own lives, and had grown-up discussions with us, trusted us they would have been surprised.

Remember there were hundreds of thousands of volunteers (myself included) turned away by the NHS because they weren't needed as there were hundreds of thousands already there to help. The same goes for fruit picking jobs, which the government deemed to be beneath the British citizen so they shipped in Eastern European labour instead - but the volunteers were there.

I totally accept I'm potentially being naively idealistic on this, but I just can't help believe we would have responded better than most expect if the messaging had been different.

Anyway, derailed this off the original topic of Vaccine Passports by accident so my apologies for that chaps.

That was the original plan that Dom came up with heard immunity let the old die,

Not quite sure how you get letting the old die from protecting and isolating the vulnerable?

Protecting and isolating the vulnerable - OK how?

Much of what we have done just inverted.

It really wouldn't have been that hard to have reinforced the shielding program and provide financial and practical assistance for those within the program keeping them isolated as was the whole point of the program.

If the whole point of lockdown was to protect those particularly vulnerable to it, why try to protect those who are highly unlikely to have severe symptoms?

Thats just illogical. It makes far more sense to focus attention and resources on a smaller, more manageable demographic.

To your other points, as I mentioned in my other post the NHS would have been under less burden if there was less panic - use of the 111 system, more effective hospital management and a different communication approach could all have mitigated that burden, my earlier post covered that in detail so I won't cover that ground again but point you back there.

Final point, slight correction you say 127,000 dead so far, to be accurate that should be up to 127k who died with not of COVID.

Again it is the simple matter of perspective. 127k dead sounds like a big scary number, the reality is it is evidently inflated by the government's own admission of what is classed as a Covid death.

Problem is isolating the most vulnerable and trusting the rest just wouldn’t work. It would get to those most vulnerable.

The measures taken were to limit the spread. They can never stop the spread.

Mac - I think this is where we meet an impasse regarding differing views in how it could have been handled - but totally respect yours and other's position and accept I'm in the minority on this

The way I see it if we really boil it down to its barest elements there are only really two approaches that have been adopted.

On one side it is the authoritarian approach that has leveraged fear, that we and most nations have adopted. It is the ultimate expression of the nanny state. We cannot trust you to do the right thing, so we will make rules to keep you in check. It is how you deal with children.

On the other hand there was the more trust-based approach adopted by Sweden and some US states like Florida. Which fostered a similar approach to what I would have advocated for more along the lines of we are in this together if we are all sensible, we can beat this together. It treats the citizens as adults.

I honestly believe that there was a definite moment where we could have taken something akin to the second approach after the initial lockdown and we would have suffered less and established a truly incredible level of social cohesion and togetherness. Instead, for various reasons, we are now perhaps more divided as a society than we have ever been in my lifetime.

Perhaps we're not sensible enough as a society here in the UK to have adopted such an approach, the Swedes do have a natural understanding of collective responsibility - it is why they have one of the best welfare systems in the world yet it is rarely abused like it enough is here.

I just think that if the government gave us a bit of responsibility for our own lives, and had grown-up discussions with us, trusted us they would have been surprised.

Remember there were hundreds of thousands of volunteers (myself included) turned away by the NHS because they weren't needed as there were hundreds of thousands already there to help. The same goes for fruit picking jobs, which the government deemed to be beneath the British citizen so they shipped in Eastern European labour instead - but the volunteers were there.

I totally accept I'm potentially being naively idealistic on this, but I just can't help believe we would have responded better than most expect if the messaging had been different.

Anyway, derailed this off the original topic of Vaccine Passports by accident so my apologies for that chaps.

No apologies great debate.

Sadly, I think you over estimate the British people.

We can be massive knobs and can’t be trusted.

Sweden now think they made mistakes with their policy.

Our biggest mistake was treating it like flu rather than the actual disease it was.

That was the original plan that Dom came up with heard immunity let the old die,

Not quite sure how you get letting the old die from protecting and isolating the vulnerable?

Protecting and isolating the vulnerable - OK how?

Much of what we have done just inverted.

It really wouldn't have been that hard to have reinforced the shielding program and provide financial and practical assistance for those within the program keeping them isolated as was the whole point of the program.

If the whole point of lockdown was to protect those particularly vulnerable to it, why try to protect those who are highly unlikely to have severe symptoms?

Thats just illogical. It makes far more sense to focus attention and resources on a smaller, more manageable demographic.

To your other points, as I mentioned in my other post the NHS would have been under less burden if there was less panic - use of the 111 system, more effective hospital management and a different communication approach could all have mitigated that burden, my earlier post covered that in detail so I won't cover that ground again but point you back there.

Final point, slight correction you say 127,000 dead so far, to be accurate that should be up to 127k who died with not of COVID.

Again it is the simple matter of perspective. 127k dead sounds like a big scary number, the reality is it is evidently inflated by the government's own admission of what is classed as a Covid death.

Problem is isolating the most vulnerable and trusting the rest just wouldn’t work. It would get to those most vulnerable.

The measures taken were to limit the spread. They can never stop the spread.

Mac - I think this is where we meet an impasse regarding differing views in how it could have been handled - but totally respect yours and other's position and accept I'm in the minority on this

The way I see it if we really boil it down to its barest elements there are only really two approaches that have been adopted.

On one side it is the authoritarian approach that has leveraged fear, that we and most nations have adopted. It is the ultimate expression of the nanny state. We cannot trust you to do the right thing, so we will make rules to keep you in check. It is how you deal with children.

On the other hand there was the more trust-based approach adopted by Sweden and some US states like Florida. Which fostered a similar approach to what I would have advocated for more along the lines of we are in this together if we are all sensible, we can beat this together. It treats the citizens as adults.

I honestly believe that there was a definite moment where we could have taken something akin to the second approach after the initial lockdown and we would have suffered less and established a truly incredible level of social cohesion and togetherness. Instead, for various reasons, we are now perhaps more divided as a society than we have ever been in my lifetime.

Perhaps we're not sensible enough as a society here in the UK to have adopted such an approach, the Swedes do have a natural understanding of collective responsibility - it is why they have one of the best welfare systems in the world yet it is rarely abused like it enough is here.

I just think that if the government gave us a bit of responsibility for our own lives, and had grown-up discussions with us, trusted us they would have been surprised.

Remember there were hundreds of thousands of volunteers (myself included) turned away by the NHS because they weren't needed as there were hundreds of thousands already there to help. The same goes for fruit picking jobs, which the government deemed to be beneath the British citizen so they shipped in Eastern European labour instead - but the volunteers were there.

I totally accept I'm potentially being naively idealistic on this, but I just can't help believe we would have responded better than most expect if the messaging had been different.

Anyway, derailed this off the original topic of Vaccine Passports by accident so my apologies for that chaps.

Good reply I agree in principle but it's a bit simplistic, this virus spreads as soon as people meet and overwhelms the health service, we are getting somewhere now due to the very good vaccination programme, if we didn't have that even with lockdowns we would still be in the shit like Macron and the French.

it will probably be with us forever, so the only way out for the next decade looks like massive and continuing vaccination programmes, with updated versions Astra Zeneca ios21.5 later this year and Pfizer ios22 next year as Covid will fight back and constantly mutate, we will need to stay one step ahead!

Sadly, I think you over estimate the British people.

We can be massive knobs and can’t be trusted.

You may well be right mate, I guess my take on it is we will never be able to grow beyond that if the government keeps treating us as too stupid to take responsibility for ourselves and each other.

We've fallen a hell of a long way from the golden generation.

Covid will fight back and constantly mutate, we will need to stay one step ahead!

Trimmed the quote down to make it easier on the page but thanks for reply

This is another part of the prevailing narrative that just doesn't sit right with me.

Viruses do constantly mutate that bit is true but generally, but a virus with a droplet-based transmission like COVID will generally mutate towards becoming more benign not more virulent.

Viruses are rudimentary forms of life, potentially the earliest forms of life that predate cellular lifeforms on Earth. Like all forms of life no matter how complex, their key driver is to replicate. There is a balance the virus has to strike between infecting the host sufficiently to replicate and causing a mode for transmission to a new host.

For example, a virus like cholera which is water transmissible doesn't need to worry about harming its host as it is transmitted through human waste and as it causes diahoerrea the cholera virus can replicate and spread that way.

Covid19 on the other hand, which is droplet-based, has to be much more careful about the balance between virulence and increasing chances of transmission. If it is too virulent (i.e kills its hosts too effectively) it of course massively reduces its opportunity to spread from host to host.

A virus variant that has mutated to become more benign, until the infection is largely asymptomatic, will be spread far greater and become the dominant variant. This is fundamental Darwinian evolutionary theory and it is not new thinking.

Yet, all we hear about on the news is that there might be a new super-variant that will be resistant to the vaccine and will kill us all. Google COVID mutations and the headlines are all alarmist talk of 'super covid', and an 'army of covid'.

Why is there no counterpoint to this in the news? Where is the sensible discussion? Where are the scientists that have long understood the history of the law of declining virulence, evolutionary biology, and the trade-off theory of virulence? Why are they not there to reign in the sensationalist shite that passes for journalism these days?

Yes, there could be a super-strain that emerges more virulent and more transmissible to wipe us all out, but that would be an anomaly and not in line with our general understanding of regular viral evolutionary behavior. It can happen, (this is why we have had flu pandemics in the past for example) there are always outliers in nature that is how evolution progresses.

However, such a mutation is far, far, far less common. The more likely mutation will be the virus evolving towards becoming just another variant of the common cold, which is also a coronavirus.

Again, there could be a much more balanced and less hyperbolic message than that which we are fed. I guess common sense doesn't sell papers as well as fear porn though - so they just keep ramping up the rhetoric as much as they can.

(either that or it's all part of a global plan for domination by the lizard people - my guess is it is something in between the two)

Anyway back to work for the rest of the day now. Have a good day chaps and chimps

Covid will fight back and constantly mutate, we will need to stay one step ahead!

Trimmed the quote down to make it easier on the page but thanks for reply

This is another part of the prevailing narrative that just doesn't sit right with me.

Viruses do constantly mutate that bit is true but generally, but a virus with a droplet-based transmission like COVID will generally mutate towards becoming more benign not more virulent.

Viruses are rudimentary forms of life, potentially the earliest forms of life that predate cellular lifeforms on Earth. Like all forms of life no matter how complex, their key driver is to replicate. There is a balance the virus has to strike between infecting the host sufficiently to replicate and causing a mode for transmission to a new host.

For example, a virus like cholera which is water transmissible doesn't need to worry about harming its host as it is transmitted through human waste and as it causes diahoerrea the cholera virus can replicate and spread that way.

Covid19 on the other hand, which is droplet-based, has to be much more careful about the balance between virulence and increasing chances of transmission. If it is too virulent (i.e kills its hosts too effectively) it of course massively reduces its opportunity to spread from host to host.

A virus variant that has mutated to become more benign, until the infection is largely asymptomatic, will be spread far greater and become the dominant variant. This is fundamental Darwinian evolutionary theory and it is not new thinking.

Yet, all we hear about on the news is that there might be a new super-variant that will be resistant to the vaccine and will kill us all. Google COVID mutations and the headlines are all alarmist talk of 'super covid', and an 'army of covid'.

Why is there no counterpoint to this in the news? Where is the sensible discussion? Where are the scientists that have long understood the history of the law of declining virulence, evolutionary biology, and the trade-off theory of virulence? Why are they not there to reign in the sensationalist shite that passes for journalism these days?

Yes, there could be a super-strain that emerges more virulent and more transmissible to wipe us all out, but that would be an anomaly and not in line with our general understanding of regular viral evolutionary behavior. It can happen, (this is why we have had flu pandemics in the past for example) there are always outliers in nature that is how evolution progresses.

However, such a mutation is far, far, far less common. The more likely mutation will be the virus evolving towards becoming just another variant of the common cold, which is also a coronavirus.

Again, there could be a much more balanced and less hyperbolic message than that which we are fed. I guess common sense doesn't sell papers as well as fear porn though - so they just keep ramping up the rhetoric as much as they can.

(either that or it's all part of a global plan for domination by the lizard people - my guess is it is something in between the two)

Anyway back to work for the rest of the day now. Have a good day chaps and chimps

I agree generally they tend to become less harmful over time for the reasons you state and hopefully over the years that will happen.

This one so far is acting slightly different, it's jumping from animals to humans and then back to animals in less than a year. It seems to be mutating to allow it to continue to spread and adapting the protein spike that the vaccines use to promote an immune response.

So far it hasn't been getting more or less deadly, it stays the same just finds new ways to spread, and the longer it continues to spread the greater the chance it will mutate and change, making the current vaccines immune response less effective.

The majority of medical experts predict it will be around for years, but that with vaccines we will be able to live with it just like flu, it will probably still kill and and take up hospital beds but at a much more acceptable level.

It was a real problem twelve months ago and we didn't know how it would end but now we do, vaccinate as any as we can as quickly as possible!

So back to the topic, bring on the vaccination certificates as quickly as possible to speed up the doubters, so we can all get back to normal

Covid will fight back and constantly mutate, we will need to stay one step ahead!

Trimmed the quote down to make it easier on the page but thanks for reply

This is another part of the prevailing narrative that just doesn't sit right with me.

Viruses do constantly mutate that bit is true but generally, but a virus with a droplet-based transmission like COVID will generally mutate towards becoming more benign not more virulent.

Viruses are rudimentary forms of life, potentially the earliest forms of life that predate cellular lifeforms on Earth. Like all forms of life no matter how complex, their key driver is to replicate. There is a balance the virus has to strike between infecting the host sufficiently to replicate and causing a mode for transmission to a new host.

For example, a virus like cholera which is water transmissible doesn't need to worry about harming its host as it is transmitted through human waste and as it causes diahoerrea the cholera virus can replicate and spread that way.

Covid19 on the other hand, which is droplet-based, has to be much more careful about the balance between virulence and increasing chances of transmission. If it is too virulent (i.e kills its hosts too effectively) it of course massively reduces its opportunity to spread from host to host.

A virus variant that has mutated to become more benign, until the infection is largely asymptomatic, will be spread far greater and become the dominant variant. This is fundamental Darwinian evolutionary theory and it is not new thinking.

Yet, all we hear about on the news is that there might be a new super-variant that will be resistant to the vaccine and will kill us all. Google COVID mutations and the headlines are all alarmist talk of 'super covid', and an 'army of covid'.

Why is there no counterpoint to this in the news? Where is the sensible discussion? Where are the scientists that have long understood the history of the law of declining virulence, evolutionary biology, and the trade-off theory of virulence? Why are they not there to reign in the sensationalist shite that passes for journalism these days?

Yes, there could be a super-strain that emerges more virulent and more transmissible to wipe us all out, but that would be an anomaly and not in line with our general understanding of regular viral evolutionary behavior. It can happen, (this is why we have had flu pandemics in the past for example) there are always outliers in nature that is how evolution progresses.

However, such a mutation is far, far, far less common. The more likely mutation will be the virus evolving towards becoming just another variant of the common cold, which is also a coronavirus.

Again, there could be a much more balanced and less hyperbolic message than that which we are fed. I guess common sense doesn't sell papers as well as fear porn though - so they just keep ramping up the rhetoric as much as they can.

(either that or it's all part of a global plan for domination by the lizard people - my guess is it is something in between the two)

Anyway back to work for the rest of the day now. Have a good day chaps and chimps

It will eventually mutate to a sniffle. Well that’s what the experts have said anyway.

Covid will fight back and constantly mutate, we will need to stay one step ahead!

Trimmed the quote down to make it easier on the page but thanks for reply

This is another part of the prevailing narrative that just doesn't sit right with me.

Viruses do constantly mutate that bit is true but generally, but a virus with a droplet-based transmission like COVID will generally mutate towards becoming more benign not more virulent.

Viruses are rudimentary forms of life, potentially the earliest forms of life that predate cellular lifeforms on Earth. Like all forms of life no matter how complex, their key driver is to replicate. There is a balance the virus has to strike between infecting the host sufficiently to replicate and causing a mode for transmission to a new host.

For example, a virus like cholera which is water transmissible doesn't need to worry about harming its host as it is transmitted through human waste and as it causes diahoerrea the cholera virus can replicate and spread that way.

Covid19 on the other hand, which is droplet-based, has to be much more careful about the balance between virulence and increasing chances of transmission. If it is too virulent (i.e kills its hosts too effectively) it of course massively reduces its opportunity to spread from host to host.

A virus variant that has mutated to become more benign, until the infection is largely asymptomatic, will be spread far greater and become the dominant variant. This is fundamental Darwinian evolutionary theory and it is not new thinking.

Yet, all we hear about on the news is that there might be a new super-variant that will be resistant to the vaccine and will kill us all. Google COVID mutations and the headlines are all alarmist talk of 'super covid', and an 'army of covid'.

Why is there no counterpoint to this in the news? Where is the sensible discussion? Where are the scientists that have long understood the history of the law of declining virulence, evolutionary biology, and the trade-off theory of virulence? Why are they not there to reign in the sensationalist shite that passes for journalism these days?

Yes, there could be a super-strain that emerges more virulent and more transmissible to wipe us all out, but that would be an anomaly and not in line with our general understanding of regular viral evolutionary behavior. It can happen, (this is why we have had flu pandemics in the past for example) there are always outliers in nature that is how evolution progresses.

However, such a mutation is far, far, far less common. The more likely mutation will be the virus evolving towards becoming just another variant of the common cold, which is also a coronavirus.

Again, there could be a much more balanced and less hyperbolic message than that which we are fed. I guess common sense doesn't sell papers as well as fear porn though - so they just keep ramping up the rhetoric as much as they can.

(either that or it's all part of a global plan for domination by the lizard people - my guess is it is something in between the two)

Anyway back to work for the rest of the day now. Have a good day chaps and chimps

It will eventually mutate to a sniffle. Well that’s what the experts have said anyway.

Hopefully one day

Covid will fight back and constantly mutate, we will need to stay one step ahead!

Trimmed the quote down to make it easier on the page but thanks for reply

This is another part of the prevailing narrative that just doesn't sit right with me.

Viruses do constantly mutate that bit is true but generally, but a virus with a droplet-based transmission like COVID will generally mutate towards becoming more benign not more virulent.

Viruses are rudimentary forms of life, potentially the earliest forms of life that predate cellular lifeforms on Earth. Like all forms of life no matter how complex, their key driver is to replicate. There is a balance the virus has to strike between infecting the host sufficiently to replicate and causing a mode for transmission to a new host.

For example, a virus like cholera which is water transmissible doesn't need to worry about harming its host as it is transmitted through human waste and as it causes diahoerrea the cholera virus can replicate and spread that way.

Covid19 on the other hand, which is droplet-based, has to be much more careful about the balance between virulence and increasing chances of transmission. If it is too virulent (i.e kills its hosts too effectively) it of course massively reduces its opportunity to spread from host to host.

A virus variant that has mutated to become more benign, until the infection is largely asymptomatic, will be spread far greater and become the dominant variant. This is fundamental Darwinian evolutionary theory and it is not new thinking.

Yet, all we hear about on the news is that there might be a new super-variant that will be resistant to the vaccine and will kill us all. Google COVID mutations and the headlines are all alarmist talk of 'super covid', and an 'army of covid'.

Why is there no counterpoint to this in the news? Where is the sensible discussion? Where are the scientists that have long understood the history of the law of declining virulence, evolutionary biology, and the trade-off theory of virulence? Why are they not there to reign in the sensationalist shite that passes for journalism these days?

Yes, there could be a super-strain that emerges more virulent and more transmissible to wipe us all out, but that would be an anomaly and not in line with our general understanding of regular viral evolutionary behavior. It can happen, (this is why we have had flu pandemics in the past for example) there are always outliers in nature that is how evolution progresses.

However, such a mutation is far, far, far less common. The more likely mutation will be the virus evolving towards becoming just another variant of the common cold, which is also a coronavirus.

Again, there could be a much more balanced and less hyperbolic message than that which we are fed. I guess common sense doesn't sell papers as well as fear porn though - so they just keep ramping up the rhetoric as much as they can.

(either that or it's all part of a global plan for domination by the lizard people - my guess is it is something in between the two)

Anyway back to work for the rest of the day now. Have a good day chaps and chimps

It will eventually mutate to a sniffle. Well that’s what the experts have said anyway.

Hopefully one day

A hope we can all agree on

Covid will fight back and constantly mutate, we will need to stay one step ahead!

Trimmed the quote down to make it easier on the page but thanks for reply

This is another part of the prevailing narrative that just doesn't sit right with me.

Viruses do constantly mutate that bit is true but generally, but a virus with a droplet-based transmission like COVID will generally mutate towards becoming more benign not more virulent.

Viruses are rudimentary forms of life, potentially the earliest forms of life that predate cellular lifeforms on Earth. Like all forms of life no matter how complex, their key driver is to replicate. There is a balance the virus has to strike between infecting the host sufficiently to replicate and causing a mode for transmission to a new host.

For example, a virus like cholera which is water transmissible doesn't need to worry about harming its host as it is transmitted through human waste and as it causes diahoerrea the cholera virus can replicate and spread that way.

Covid19 on the other hand, which is droplet-based, has to be much more careful about the balance between virulence and increasing chances of transmission. If it is too virulent (i.e kills its hosts too effectively) it of course massively reduces its opportunity to spread from host to host.

A virus variant that has mutated to become more benign, until the infection is largely asymptomatic, will be spread far greater and become the dominant variant. This is fundamental Darwinian evolutionary theory and it is not new thinking.

Yet, all we hear about on the news is that there might be a new super-variant that will be resistant to the vaccine and will kill us all. Google COVID mutations and the headlines are all alarmist talk of 'super covid', and an 'army of covid'.

Why is there no counterpoint to this in the news? Where is the sensible discussion? Where are the scientists that have long understood the history of the law of declining virulence, evolutionary biology, and the trade-off theory of virulence? Why are they not there to reign in the sensationalist shite that passes for journalism these days?

Yes, there could be a super-strain that emerges more virulent and more transmissible to wipe us all out, but that would be an anomaly and not in line with our general understanding of regular viral evolutionary behavior. It can happen, (this is why we have had flu pandemics in the past for example) there are always outliers in nature that is how evolution progresses.

However, such a mutation is far, far, far less common. The more likely mutation will be the virus evolving towards becoming just another variant of the common cold, which is also a coronavirus.

Again, there could be a much more balanced and less hyperbolic message than that which we are fed. I guess common sense doesn't sell papers as well as fear porn though - so they just keep ramping up the rhetoric as much as they can.

(either that or it's all part of a global plan for domination by the lizard people - my guess is it is something in between the two)

Anyway back to work for the rest of the day now. Have a good day chaps and chimps

It will eventually mutate to a sniffle. Well that’s what the experts have said anyway.

This Indian one sounds like a step in the wrong direction, spreading quicker, they think it's more deadly and affecting younger people.

Add it to the red list close the borders we have so many people in and out of India this could slow down our vaccine gains, no movement in or out of India or South Africa!!!

Personally I would close the borders and stop overseas travel until everyone in the UK has been offered a vaccine at the earliest.