The craziest thing is we keep seeing the phrase "the link between infections and deaths has been broken".<p>So far as I can tell, it has only been broken for the fully vaccinated, but for those not yet vaccinated, or not fully vaccinated, the delta variant is more dangerous than all the variants which came before and the link has not been broken for those people.<p>Even with the UK's good vaccination program, most people are not fully vaccinated yet, and won't be for months because of the time delays between vaccination for best effect, as well as the waiting time after the second one before it reaches maximal protection.<p>There are also people who would like to get their first vaccination, but are currently ill with something else and so rationally have to avoid the first vaccine for a while.<p>So although the <i>overall</i> statistics look better than previous waves, that should not be any comfort to those who are now going to be exposed to greater risk than in previous waves.<p>I would like to see more emphasis on statistics showing the risks to people who are still at risk, not the current presentations which imply a substantial minority of people's lives don't really matter because the overall numbers are down.<p>I worry mostly for the people who are still at risk (though hidden by the aggregate statistics), who will be forced to go back to work in unsafe environments, now that the law will no longer support them working from home, no longer requires others at work to wear masks or keep a distance, and no longer requires adequate ventilation.<p>As for public transport. Let me put it this way. 19th July is the day when I would recommend to <i>stop</i> using public transportation (tube, buses, taxis, trains), because it's the day the air will immediately become more dangerous in enclosed spaces.
The Netherlands just tried reopening, in two weeks they managed to undo seven months of lockdown as far as caseload goes. The infections are overwhelmingly amongst teens and people in their twenties (over 90% of new cases), who have not yet had their second shot or opted for Jansen vaccine, which doesn't protect as well as the others.<p>It would be very unwise for England or any other nation to follow in the Dutch footsteps.
I live in Greater London, Dagenham to be precise. There is no Defacto mask mandate here. About 50% of people wear one in supermarkets. And that's excluding anyone excempt and any kids etc. I took the train to town last Friday. Central line, Bank to Stratford at 5pm, one in 4 weren't wearing a mask. Same on the overground.<p>The same applies to getting people to sign in at restaurants etc. And to social distancing and testing and vaccination programs. I've had younger friends tell me they don't want the vaccine ("I don't know what's in it" says the guy famous for snorting other people's Coke). I had to convince my dad to get the jab.<p>Britian is culturally and politically incapable of anything but the worst possible outcome here. Parts of the US seem to be in the same position.
The DANMASK19 experiment, the only RCT on mask effectiveness so far I believe, found no statistical significance on masks protecting the wearer. I wonder if the English demasking would be a good time for a follow-up: we have climbing infections and the change in the law will mean we can have a cohort in each camp; ENGMASK21 if you like. To not do it would seem to be a missed opportunity. Any takers?
> Peter Bone, a veteran Conservative MP, says: “I wholly welcome this. It goes down the route of personal responsibility. It’s spot on.”<p>Personal responsibility does mean you get to decide when to put <i>others</i> at risk, for example by going near them without a mask. Now, we might argue that there is a trade-off between respecting individual sovereignty on the one hand and lowering the friction of society on the other, but to frame this as a "personal responsibility" move is absurd. The Conservatives should read their intellectual heroes more carefully. Last I checked, Libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle.