He did not end the lockdown, he relaxed it. The strict lockdown was breaking down in any case, so some relaxation was inevitable.

From the Evening Standard :

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/coronavirus-uk-live-updates-latest-death-toll-lockdown-a4442976.html

"Boris Johnson’s administration is right to start reopening schools, former Labour prime minister Tony Blair has said.

The Government’s plans to start sending children back to school next month has come under attack from teaching unions and some local authorities, with critics arguing it is too soon to lift the coronavirus-related lockdown restrictions.

In an interview with BBC Newsnight, due to be broadcast on Monday evening, the PM of 10 years said the Government was adhering to scientific advice by preparing schools to open their doors again.

“They’re right, I think, to be reopening the schools,” said Mr Blair.

“I don’t think they would say that they’re putting school opening above health risks. What they’re doing is basing it on the evidence, actually.

“There are countries that have reopened parts, at least, of their school system.”"

 

Still yet to see this 'evidence' 

 

And nurses, doctors, carers, bus drivers, shop workers. Same again.

Yes, they will have to care for those I mentioned. And, if the lock down was about one thing for me it was protecting those who put their lives on the line to care for the ill.

With the second wave they'll be putting their lives on the line more for the irresponsible

 

He did not end the lockdown, he relaxed it. The strict lockdown was breaking down in any case, so some relaxation was inevitable.

 

Look outside. The lockdown is over in essence. Yes, shops etc are closed, but family mixing and friends meeting up again is now widespread. 

And it wasn't strict to begin with. We didn't get the rate down to levels seen in other parts of Europe

 

Still yet to see this 'evidence' 

Yes, Blair is talking nonsense. It doesn't make sense to send young kids back for a few weeks. Why not send older kids back to do their exams if there really is no danger?

 

Yes, Blair is talking nonsense. It doesn't make sense to send young kids back for a few weeks. Why not send older kids back to do their exams if there really is no danger?

 

You obviously do not have children or otherwise you would know of the benefit of getting them back as soon as it is safe to do so

 

You obviously do not have children or otherwise you would know of the benefit of getting them back as soon as it is safe to do so

I have kids. 2 of them. And the key here is the bit in bold. I do not consider it safe for them to go back with the way our numbers are or look to be in a few weeks, with the uncertainty over the impact on a certain % of kids, and without understanding fully their role in transmission. For a few weeks, it just isn't worth it IMO.

 

I have kids. 2 of them. And the key here is the bit in bold. I do not consider it safe for them to go back with the way our numbers are or look to be in a few weeks, with the uncertainty over the impact on a certain % of kids, and without understanding fully their role in transmission. For a few weeks, it just isn't worth it IMO.

I wonder if there will be a rethink if the R rate goes over 1 in the next couple of weeks?

I would like to know what happens to the monkeys afterwards. I hope the Chinese don't turn them into soup

I believe you can buy them; they're on sale in this special market in a city called Wuhan.

Guardian saying the NHS app-ocalypse is delayed:

 

I wonder if there will be a rethink if the R rate goes over 1 in the next couple of weeks?

No.

Science may have been leading a reluctant government when all this kicked off, but now politics is leading the science (and the government has got a team of loyal nodding donkeys to say whatever they're told to say)

 

 

No.

Science may have been leading a reluctant government when all this kicked off, but now politics is leading the science (and the government has got a team of loyal nodding donkeys to say whatever they're told to say)

 

I disagree 100%. If the number of hospital admissions starts to climb in a sustained way then that will result in a re-tightening of restrictions, either nationally or locally depending on the data.

To suggest otherwise is, frankly, bizarre.

 

I disagree 100%. If the number of hospital admissions starts to climb in a sustained way then that will result in a re-tightening of restrictions, either nationally or locally depending on the data.

To suggest otherwise is, frankly, bizarre.

I'm inclined to agree.  The stink would be stupendous  if admissions went up, no action was taken and the NHS was subsequently "bricked"   with all the death and despair that would entail.

It would be end politically for Johnson, Cummings (etc)  - especially now we have  an electable leader of  Labour.

 

I disagree 100%. If the number of hospital admissions starts to climb in a sustained way then that will result in a re-tightening of restrictions, either nationally or locally depending on the data.

To suggest otherwise is, frankly, bizarre.

The proof of the pudding will be in its eating, so we will likely see. The original question was (per my understanding) more relating to schools opening, and previous post today made a similar point about government stooge Harries claiming that schools could reopen on 1st June because by then cases will have halved (I paraphrase).

I think that once schools re-open, they will not be re-shut regardless of the R-rate or hospital admissions. Nor do I think the restriction relaxations will be reversed.

I see that the private equity-owned company that runs Bella Italia, Café Rouge & Las Iguanas has filed for pre-Administration. Hardly a surprise. The pre-cooked, vac-packed crap they served up wasn't great.

The best comment under the BBC article is:

My take on things is the same. These businesses start out operated by keen enthusiasts, start to do well, and are then snapped up by VC's (run by accountants) who milk them for profits (usually buried offshore) and when the whole thing starts to collapse, they pay themselves fat golden parachutes and seek out the next best thing.

 

 

No.

Science may have been leading a reluctant government when all this kicked off, but now politics is leading the science (and the government has got a team of loyal nodding donkeys to say whatever they're told to say)

 

This is one thing that concerns me a little in general, in that 'science' must lead respective Governments. I don't remember voting for some faceless scientific body that dictates to the Government what policy ought or ought not to be. How it it that they have a greater influence over this than the very people who put them there? 

Yes, I know that this is a nit-picky question, but still. 

Still some good news for once. The Russians have come up with a cure for the virus which is why their death rate is so low:-

... they've shut the windows 

 

I wonder if there will be a rethink if the R rate goes over 1 in the next couple of weeks?

The way things have been going, I've been working on the premise that a rethink for those reasons is more than likely. Neither or mine are in the first set of classes due back, in any case.

Spare a thought for these people. Things are going get complicated with this C-19. :(

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/18/india-prepares-to-evacuate-a-million-as-cyclone-amphan-nears. 

I believe you can buy them; they're on sale in this special market in a city called Wuhan.

Other markets are also available worldwide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_meat

Still some good news for once. The Russians have come up with a cure for the virus which is why their death rate is so low:-

 

... they've shut the windows 

Or Priti Patel's immigration Bill will charge foreign nurses and carers £600 to use services. That's enough to make anyone throw themselves out of a window.

And yet these hypocrites will clap them on thursday