That just about sums it up TJ. I'm past caring. Going to an outdoor gathering next week (public/ticketed) and they're having to tape out the ground in squares supposedly for 30 people at a time. Outwith those taped off areas in front of the stage we can of course all mingle willy nilly. I'd imagine that like me, those who are choosing to attempt some sort of normal life won't be spending our time counting the numbers of individuals within taped squares but who knows.

Less scary than putting parents off vaccinating children altogether though. These vaccines are not 100% safe for everyone and it would only take one really bad reaction in one young child to frighten parents and rates of other vaccinations to fall.

It does seem that the vaccination programme has pushed the more severe disease down through the age groups. I’ve seen one expert write that we will eventually push it into the children if we don’t vaccinate them and they’ll become the source of circulation and reinfection. Makes sense. I can see the next big question being whether the vaccine can be considered safe for children. People are forgetting it is still only authorised for emergency use. We are happy enough to sacrifice a few adults for the common good but the risk of vaccine damaged children is a much bigger problem. It could cause vaccine confidence in general to plummet which would be disastrous.

It does appear that the vast majority of hospital cases are the unvaccinated. There will be those in whom the vaccine doesn't work of course and (guessing) those vaccinated who have comorbidities. They'd still be at greater risk of more serious symptoms, just hopefully not as serious as if they had no vaccine protection.

Come on people, be reasonable and believe what they tell you. They're not selling the data, they're just 'charging for access'. Now where else in my life does that happen? Streaming services, phone contracts etc. All making huge profits from not selling me anyhing.

The amber list is a complete waste of time. Either quarantine arrivals under supervision or accept they will mix in the community. My neighbour has hosted a teenager from Spain over half term, her daughter's boyfriend. He has visited multiple times in the past year - not a single check.

That's what it was like at my first one. Ridiculous queueing setup requiring people to push past each other, without doubt the most at risk of catching Covid I have been since this all began. People obviously turning up without booking, sometimes one family member booked and brought others who were allowed through. Got through all of that to be told I should have brought photo ID even though I had the letter in my hand which never mentioned it. When I turned to leave they let me continue 'as a favour'.

Seems Portugal is to lose its green list status and other countries are going from amber to red. All of this done as usual with a notice period to ensure as many travellers as possible are given the chance to come into the country in a short time without enduring enhanced restrictions. Either somewhere does deserve red status or it doesn't and if it does why don't we announce it and immediately restrict access rather than encourage it?

It's a difficult decision. The data for my area doesn't show hospitalisations rising, I am that saddo who checks daily. Case rates may, though they aren't yet (inmy area) but surely case rates aren't important if people aren't getting seriously ill. Medical professional on the radio yesterday was saying that hospitalisations more recently were the younger (not yet vaccinated) age groups and generally required much less intensive care. At some point we are going to have to accept Covid is here to stay, just like flu, and there will be an annual death toll, just like flu.

The whole rushed 'secret' marriage thing is very suspect. I can think of three possible reasons - He knows he's throwing us back into lockdown so wanted to get in while they could still have some guests. He knows he isn't throwing us back into lockdown so wanted to get in while guests are still limited and save money. You can't be made to testify against your spouse.

Interesting what you say about the ten day mark. It would have been at around that time I noticed I became breathless more easily when running. Didn't connect it with the vaccine but suspicious now. It did pass and I got back up to speed after a week or so. Info/warnings about side effects given at my second jab were very different from the first. Really making the point about things you mustn't ignore and saying to be vigilant for 4 weeks.

I gave in to the dreaded AZ vaccine and conducted a bit of personal research. I had zero side effects after the first, had a drink that night as I normally would, thought I'd take one for the team and see whether all the dire warnings about consuming alcohol were of consequence. Not in me. Ran 5k the next morning, rubbish time but I don't think I can put that down to the vaccine however much I'd like to. Did an antibody test after 4 weeks and was +ve - comfortingly but not impressively. The supplier I used gives you the data to see where your levels sit compared with others. Did another a couple of days before the second jab and antibody levels had doubled. I can't know if they'd peaked and were waning or still on the way up. At around £50 a pop it's not exactly available to everyone but with such a complete lack of reaction I was concerned I might be in the percentage (insert today's fudged figure here) who it didn't work for. The second test admittedly was profligate and out of curiousity rather than concern. I do intend to do another one in a couple of weeks to see what difference the second jab has made, again pure curiosity.

Of course nothing is no risk but they don't live in the property, the OP is in a support bubble with them so can take all necessary precautions before visits. There wouldn't be any direct contact between the elderly parents and the LL. Easy enough to ask the LL to flow test on the doorstep before coming in, result in minutes. I'd consider a refusal to that unreasonable and fair grounds to refuse admission.

I understand your concern but presumably your parents are a lot less 'at risk' now as they should be fully vaccinated. It's the unvaccinated who leave themselves at risk - and that's their choice.

I believe you're correct. B2B quote VAT exclusive but private consumers should get quoted a VAT inclusive price.

Probably better. One way or another I was just trying to point out that a court may take context into consideration. Severity of condition is an obvious factor but not the only one. Someone may be able to wear a mask perfectly well for five minutes in a local shop without it causing them distress whereas doing a supermarket ‘big’ shop for a family could be a very different matter.

Fair enough. To me it makes perfect sense that someone with mild anxiety or mild asthma may not have the reasonable excuse that it would cause severe distress to wear a mask whereas those with more severe illness would.

Most of the conditions which can give rise to a reasonable excuse for not wearing a mask are not digital. I know someone with asthma who wears a mask and others who don’t. That doesn’t mean all people with asthma could cope with a mask though plenty do. A court wouldn’t be ignoring official guidance when making an individual decision.

That word 'reasonable' is what makes it all so difficult. A court might find it isn't at all reasonable not to play your part in protecting yourself and others if you could wear a mask even though you have a condition which makes it slightly more difficult than for the person next to you. It isn't easy or pleasant for anyone, it will all come down to a matter of degree.

Which experts? Is this another case of choose your expert depending on your preferred message? In the last couple of days I've seen 'experts' saying it will be fine because children don't get ill with Covid and read a report saying the incidence of children presenting with type 1 diabetes has doubled in some areas and may be a result of Covid infection.

It's really frightening. Any and all scrutiny of govt can be stopped using Covid as the excuse.

For what! People were (and are) dying and it was deemed worthwhile to spend money on a bit of PR. Politics at its very best.

They, like governents, are not interested in whether the vaccine offers any protection on an individual level. There has been a subtle change in quoting AZ stats lately. It has changed to how well the vaccine seems to be working in stopping transmission, not how well it confers protection on the vaccinated. This is far more important in stopping the spread of the vaccine overall - maybe not so much comfort to the individual who gains no advantage by having the jab.

The WHO are not some magical, infallible body. They are individuals subject to the same foibles and bias as any other. How can anyone say that a gap of x, y or z is OK until there's been enough subjects tested to show it? The manufacturers tested within their own parameters and they have proven figures for those. Beyond that we have to wait until enough test subjects have waited twelve weeks to see how that works.

Was there not some amnesty on MOTs through part of 2020? If it applies here the words 'where such regulations require' could be relevant.