So what would GransNetters do?

I don't think lockdown is necessary yet, BUT making mask wearing in public indoor places, limiting households/numbers getting together and social distancing mandatory would make a difference. On the passport question, I feel that it would be fairer to have proof of either vaccination or a negative test for entry to indoor events and venues. The big elephant in the room, though, is how do you prove that a LF test has been done, let alone that it was negative? I do them whenever I am meeting people, but only I see the result and can report whatever I like; ergo so can everyone else!

But Rosie does everyone always test before going everywhere, hairdressers for instance? And we know that the lft is by no means infallible even if you can get hold of one.

No.

Germanshepherdsmum

It’s been proven that many people are asymptomatic Rosie, and you can also spread covid if you’re incubating it and the symptoms have yet to show.

If you are asymptomatic a lft should pick this up that's what they are for
If you have symptoms it's a PCR

M0nica

A hospital consultant said in an interview on R4 this morning that 80-90% of those in hospital with COVID were unvaccinated. With vaccination rates rising fast, over 80% of the population having had at least 1 vaccination and over 50% 3, most COVID cases are coming from a small proportion of the population who are not vaccinated.

The best guide to what to do over Christmas socialising is not to go into any place, or meet with anyone who is unvaccinated. Everyone I am seeing over Christmas is triple vaccinated, or in the case of the children has had COVID in the last 2 months.

Like I said, believe what you like.

But fewer than 50% of the population have had the third dose.

But yes, believe whatever you like, including any other stats that you think fit the narrative.

Good to hear reliable information MOnica. When you consider the size of the UK population that percentage represents a lot of people.

It’s been proven that many people are asymptomatic Rosie, and you can also spread covid if you’re incubating it and the symptoms have yet to show.

A hospital consultant said in an interview on R4 this morning that 80-90% of those in hospital with COVID were unvaccinated. With vaccination rates rising fast, over 80% of the population having had at least 1 vaccination and over 50% 3, most COVID cases are coming from a small proportion of the population who are not vaccinated.

The best guide to what to do over Christmas socialising is not to go into any place, or meet with anyone who is unvaccinated. Everyone I am seeing over Christmas is triple vaccinated, or in the case of the children has had COVID in the last 2 months.

We are only responsible for the spread if we are actually infected you can't spread what you don't have

Thanks to all who have mentioned that it’s my choice and LF tests are available.
I’m just pointing out that 3 households sounds good, but could involve a lot of people from different locations, jobs and contacts.
I’ve opted for my own restrictions and we will be a much smaller number, but everyone opting for their own restrictions is partly responsible for the spread.

Mollygo

3 households. I’ve mentioned this before. If I invite 2 (immediate family) households, to ours, there would be 8 adults with one retired and the others all working in various contexts (not from home) including teaching and hospitality, 1 student fresh from Uni, and 2 children. 3 households isn’t any more sensible, no matter how good it sounds.

Mollygo our planned Christmas get-together is also three households: six adults, one 5 year old and one 7 month old. Lunch is booked at the local pub restaurant.

Even if all this is still "allowed" by then, it's not compulsory and if we as individuals aren't comfortable with it we can always impose our own restrictions.
I've opted out of two social meetings recently as they were with people I didn't need or particularly want to see.
I hope you can reach a decision you're all happy with! ?

I would bring in vaccine passports ASAP and make them mandatory for pubs, restaurants, cinemas, , etc. This would surely help the beleaguered hospitality industry - people will be more likely to use such venues if they feel reasonably safe.

People who refuse the vaccine are entitled to do so but would have to accept that certain things will not be denied to them.

I would like to see much stricter enforcement of mask wearing - or perhaps I should say any enforcement - I have yet to see any at all. And people who are genuinely exempt should have to produce something official to confirm it. At the moment anyone can say they’re exempt whether they are or not.

No to a full lockdown but yes to the restrictions mentioned above. People are already taking personal responsibility by cancelling meals out etc. We must do what we have to to protect ourselves and our families. We have the vaccine and now the testing kits and should use them.
As for those who flout Covid guidelines (I am looking at you Number 10) I am hoping that the ire of our collective consciousness will eventually pierce their numb skulls

Apparently when considering lockdown this can mean drinks and cheese for 19 from different households without social distancing.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/19/boris-johnson-and-staff-pictured-with-wine-in-downing-street-garden-in-may-2020?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Whilst this was happening schools, pubs and restaurants were closed and that day Matt Hancock, then health secretary, had gave a press conference urging people to stick to the rules and not take advantage of the good weather over the May weekend to socialise in groups.

Good grief.

Mollygo Lateral flow tests are there for circumstances like those you describe.

Mollygo

3 households. I’ve mentioned this before. If I invite 2 (immediate family) households, to ours, there would be 8 adults with one retired and the others all working in various contexts (not from home) including teaching and hospitality, 1 student fresh from Uni, and 2 children. 3 households isn’t any more sensible, no matter how good it sounds.

I think what everybody is failing to work out is that the restrictions aren't trying to keep you "safe". They aren't trying to make the chance of you catching Covid zero. They're trying to reduce probabilities.

If there are eight people in your house, the chances are reduced compared to if there are 30 people in your house. And especially compared to going to a concert with 1,000 people. That's it.

Think we were the only country that backed down. No leadership at all.

Nope. Canada, I know for a fact. I think France and Switzerland too.

The flood gates didn't matter at all. It was here before we put all those countries on the red list.

No. We all know how to minimise risks in our own circumstances and we have to get on with life. We can't go on hiding away forever.

No

Iam64

I’m being lazy as well. I agree with Maw and Lucca
I wish Johnson had advised people to limit Christmas get to get hers to 3 households and to meet outdoors wherever possible

Talk about a rudderless ship. The govt don’t want to put the necessary financial support in

The thing is, even with a firm rudder people would still do as they pleased, unless it’s mandated in law. Saying that it is well and truly policed in my family’s home town in Germany, still the anti maskers and anti vaxxers are out in force and their numbers are rising. Our problem was letting the flood gates open, under pressure from airlines and African countries, as flight bans were called discriminatory,so all those in quarantine were let out, and wonder how many were positive. Think we were the only country that backed down. No leadership at all .

3 households. I’ve mentioned this before. If I invite 2 (immediate family) households, to ours, there would be 8 adults with one retired and the others all working in various contexts (not from home) including teaching and hospitality, 1 student fresh from Uni, and 2 children. 3 households isn’t any more sensible, no matter how good it sounds.

No. Definitely not.

No to full lockdown. Limit number of households gathering indoors. Reintroduce the table service only rule in pubs etc. Close nightclubs and limit numbers attending indoor sporting and music etc events so as to enable social distancing and proper checking of vaccine passports.

Alegrias1

Lockdown? No.

Lockdown is only leaving your house once a day. Nothing open, even schools. No sitting on benches in the park. Businesses going bust. No meeting anybody outside your household, even outdoors. Not travelling more than a few hundred yards from your house.

2 years in, with effective vaccines, if the only option is confining us to our houses and criminalizing human contact, then what, really, is the point of anything?

I agree with this. I’m not able to accept children’s education being put on hold again, nor the hugely damaging effect on people’s mental health, both adults and children. Our businesses are suffering, many will go to the wall without lockdown, but certainly with lockdown.
I support measures which may mitigate the infection rates such as mask wearing, sanitising, and social distancing where possible. I would also fully support the need for a negative test in order to enter places or events with large numbers of people. I support certain restrictions on travel ie to those countries that have very large numbers of the virus or have a new variant of the virus. However the restrictions should be clear PCRs and quarantine in most cases.

criminalising human contact
I totally agree that this is awful. To criminalise families for seeing one another is absolutely unacceptable. I think people need to assess their own risk about this as many are already doing.

I don't think so. I think we just all need to be as careful and sensible as we can. Masks, sanitise, avoid crowds, etc.
I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions. Whatever they do will be criticised.