Rods_of_Revolution

I would also recommend this book. I have the original book, which is more of a technical description of the line and its history. This new book is far more story driven and provides an excellent insight into life on and around the railway at Malmesbury. There are also many new images featured, including some reproduced in colour. Overall it's a worthy companion to the original Wild Swan book and if you're interested in the Malmesbury branch and branchline operations of the era, it's provides many interesting and varied stories and anecdotes. All the best, Jack

There is currently a low exposure risk in the UK, the slide says it's applicable to the situation in the UK as of March. The medium exposure risk was applicable to February.

That article (despite being only a day old) is using the slide which is applicable to February (see bottom right corner). If you go to the source of the slides, you'll find one that is applicable to March, which shows that the blood clots are a greater risk than ICU admissions in the 20-29yr group. Slide for March: Source: https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/communicating-potential-benefits-and-harms-astra-zeneca-covid-19-vaccine/

It's purely anecdotal, but I'm not trying to implement a 'vaccination passport' system based upon it. Where as everyone else seems to believe it's obvious that such a scheme would work, despite the fact their evidence is also speculative and anecdotal. What difference does it make? The argument and the person are two different things. If a stupid man says he believes the sky is blue, his stupidity doesn't change the validity of his statement; and yes I might be a stupid man . I think waiting until the safety and efficacy trials conclude in a couple of year's time and the vaccines are approved in the same manner as every other vaccine we take, is a legitimate way of going about vaccination. The other advantage is once all the data is in and there are several vaccines across the market, the safest and most effective can be chosen. Especially with regards to young people, for whom the threat from Coronavirus is so low, that even small differences in the safety of a particular vaccine can completely change whether the risk outweighs the benefit; which is what we have seen with regards to young people and the AZ vaccine. The current vaccines are approved for emergency use and whilst the case can be made for emergency use in the old and vulnerable, for healthy young people there is no such emergency. So why shouldn't we take the time to determine the best and most effective vaccines? It could transpire that contracting coronavirus itself might give the best immunity and those who have already had the virus have no need to risk any vaccine at all; we could test for antibodies and T cells before vaccines are considered. My experience of analysing risk is on the railway in the form of engineering changes. Whilst there are differences between engineering and medicine, the fundementals of analysing risk are no different. I've looked at the data that has been made available for the various vaccines and what I do personally will be based upon that. I'm certainly not going to judge people for wanting to see more data on the vaccines before they decide which vaccine, if any, they want to take. I also won't judge people for defering to the MHRA, FDA, EMA etc, and following the judgement of whichever authority they trust the most. The authorities work in terms of demographics, not individuals, so their recommendations are going to be skewed towards 'one size fits all'. I personally think that each individual taking the time to research the risk as it applies to their individual circumstances, followed by a discussion with their GP who is also aware of their personal circumstances, will produce a better outcome than just following the MHRA, EMA, etc. We know from history that when medical procedures are mandated by the state, things can end up getting very dark, very quickly. Not always. But there are some truly abysmal acts that have been perpetrated against people under the reasoning that 'the greater good' is more important than the freedoms of the individual. In my opinion the level of changes to our society which are currently being undertaken should involve a lot more scrutiny than an afternoon of chatting in parliament. Let's not forget how many years of debate went into Brexit, and there is still no definitive answer as whether it was/is the right thing to do. This is of course just my opinion, albeit based upon the facts at hand.

The 1 in 10000 for surfrace spread is based on a CDC brief: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/science-and-research/surface-transmission.html Refereneces are in included at the bottom of the page. The 1 in 1000 for outdoor transmission has been reported several places and is based on HPSC data, which suggest only 0.1% of cases were caught outdoors. Whilst it's difficult to actually know where any particular case was caught, it's possible to generalise from the data, which is what has been done. Irish Times: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/outdoor-transmission-accounts-for-0-1-of-state-s-covid-19-cases-1.4529036

I think you're under estimating public confidence. Everytime I see a popular public space it's packed, with little regard to social distancing, and almost every venue with outdoor facilities is fully booked for the reopening. Most people are chomping at the bit to go and do things that have been illegal for most of the last year. My experience with most of those who were frightened of the virus, is that since being vaccinated they're no longer worried, even if they have only had the first dose; so the psychological effect on the feeling of safety seems to be significant. You say that the vaccine alone won't save lives, but the government are saying that the vaccine alone has saved over 10,000 lives, plus it wouldn't be much of a vaccine if it required other measures to have any effect. If you're vaccinated then why would you worry about other unvaccinated people, as surely your vaccine protects you? The only scenario where someone may be worried is if they can't take a vaccine and they're worried about catching Coronavirus from someone who isn't vaccinated. But even then, with heard immunity and the majority of people vaccinated, the risk from Coronavirus would drop to be on par with the hundreds of other viruses and bacteria which can also be fatal to those who cannot be vaccinated. The above is in addition to my previous point about there being little to no scientific evidence that a vaccine passport would even work. Where are the studies? Where are the estimates of lives saved and hospitalisations reduced under different types of vaccine passport? You say that we should be guided by the best scientific advice, yet I see very little scientific basis for vaccine passports. This is before we even consider the social, ethical and philosophical issues surrounding such a system. Regarding people taking the vaccine. I know several people who are waiting until 2023 when the safety and efficacy trials conclude and the vaccine is or isn't approved for market in the UK before they take it. Every other vaccine they have taken has been approved for market, so I don't personally see it as an unreasonable position to take. These are people who have the standard vaccines like the flu jab, as well as giving their kids the MMR vaccine, so they're not against vaccines. They just rather wait until the safety and efficacy trials conclude and the vaccine is fully approved, rather than the temporary emergency authorisation that it currently has.

I think 'eat out to help out' showed that very little encouragement is required to get people back to supporting hospitality.

A lot of the unvaccinated are people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons, but they can still contract and spread the virus. So they would be required to take tests all the time in order to socialise with the vaccinated. A spur of the moment trip to the cinema or theatre would be off the cards for someone with a compromised immune system.

Three pubs, each with 30 vaccinated people in and 3 unvaccinated. The chances of those 3 unvaccinated people crossing paths is lower, because there are lots of other people to socialise with, but on this occasion 2 of the unvaccinated cross paths and one gives coronavirus to the other. However, let's now have three pubs with 30 vaccinated people in, the unvaccinated are not allowed because 'vaccine passports' required. We also have one house party where the 9 unvaccinated have met up. The chances of the unvaccinated crossing paths is now 100%. On this occasion, 1 person with coronavirus has now given it to 4 other people at the house party because they're unvaccinated. The next day, in both scenarios everyone goes to the supermarket, as it's exempt from the vaccine passport. In the first scenario 2 people with coronavirus got to the supermarket, in the second 'vaccine passport' scenario 4 people go to the supermarket with coronavirus. Yes, it's simplistic, but it's to illustrate that there are ways 'vaccine passports' could increase the spread. They could also reduce up take in the vaccine due to reactance effect. So it's not a cut and dry case of 'vaccine passports' are beneficial.

Yes, but we don't know. It's also quite a common reaction for people to resist what they perceive as coercion, so it may decrease the uptake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology) My point is, until we have at least a reasonable cost/benefit analysis done, the legislation shouldn't even be presented to parliament. I haven't seen one estimate for how many lives will be saved or cases of hospitalisation reduced by the 'vaccine passports'. I haven't seen anything beyond a YouGov poll as evidence to suggest whether there will be an increase or decrease in vacine uptake because of it.

No it's not. Lockdown is a policy of government. It's also an option to have neither lockdowns or passports. All the options have costs and benefits that have to be weighed up. Seasonality is an example of something we can't control, which is why there is no debate about whether we should or should not have seasonality, because it's not a choice.

I didn't mean outside the pub as in the smoking shelter, I meant the unvaccinated meeting outside the pub as in at someone's house. 10 unvaccinated people in one house is going to spread the virus more than 1 unvaccinated person and 30 vaccinated people in a pub. If you make vaccination or tests a requirement to socialise, then more unvaccinated people will probably socialise together and their peer groups will change to reflect this. Obviously it's a simplistic example and it may not pan out that way, the only point I'm making is these things need to be considered before any policy is implemented.

To illustrate my point above: If you have 1 unvaccinated person in a pub (or cinema etc) with 30 vaccinated people, even if the unvaccinated person has Coronavirus it probably won't spread. If you have 10 unvaccinated people in someone's home socialising (because they can't go to the pub/cinema), if one person has the Coronavirus, it will spread to 2 or 3 others as none of them are vaccinated. In both scenarios, everyone is going to the supermarket the next day, only in one scenario there is one person with Coronavirus, the other scenario there are 3 people with Coronavirus. The vaccination passport will push the unvaccinated to socialise together, this will change how the virus spreads. This is just one example of how the passport could have unintended consequences. The reality is far more complex, so there should be thorough studies conducted before such a policy is implemented. We have the vaccines, we have summer and we have greater immunity overall, so we have a low risk period to undertake such a study.

Because if unvaccinated people can't go to the pub, they are more likely to socialise together outside of the pub, instead of with their vaccinated mates inside the pub, so the virus will spread more easily between them. They then visit a supermarket, which under current plans is expempt from the 'passport'. They also go home to their families and into their places of work. That's just one vector off the top of my head.

People will likely die. But it could turn out that more would have died by implementing the 'passport'. There is a price to pay for due diligence, sometimes that price is in lives. There's a reason that vaccines are tested on small numbers of people first, whilst the illness they seek to address is killing people in much larger numbers. If you get the policy wrong you can do more harm than good. It's better to take the time to develop robust policies that work long term with an understood and measurable benefit.