Just days after it led the public into believing that plans for vaccine passports were off the table, the Government has announced that they will be introduced – along with mask mandates and potentially another full lockdown – if booster jabs and vaccines for healthy teenagers fail to keep Covid infections down this winter. Laying out its new plans, the Government said it is “committed to taking whatever action is necessary to protect the NHS”. MailOnline has the story.
Fronting a press conference alongside Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance, the Prime Minister insisted that the U.K. was “incomparably” better placed to deal with the disease this year.
He said he hoped the situation could be kept stable with more jabs and the public behaving sensibly – although ministers have made clear another lockdown cannot be completely ruled out.
Professor Whitty gave a more downbeat assessment saying that infections were “high” relative to last year, and the NHS was under “extreme pressure” even though vaccines were helping significantly.
Meanwhile, Sir Patrick seemed to send a thinly-veiled message to Mr. Johnson by saying that when it comes to measures to stem cases the lesson was “you have to go earlier than you want to, you have to go harder than you want to”. …
Earlier, Sajid Javid was heckled by Tories admitting that ministers can only give Britons the “best possible chance” of avoiding brutal curbs.
In a statement to MPs, he stressed that vaccines can help “build defences’ against the disease, with boosters for the over-50s and jabs for under-16s starting next week.
But Mr Javid was hit with howls of rage from Conservatives in the Commons as he said the blueprint includes the ‘Plan B’ of making masks compulsory “in certain settings”, more working from home and social distancing if the NHS is under threat.
Vaccine passports will be kept “in reserve” and could be introduced in England with a week’s notice, even though they will not go ahead from next month as originally intended. …
The Winter Plan document lays out the details of ‘Plan A’ and ‘Plan B’. But although it does not go into detail about other contingencies, it states that further steps cannot be ruled out.
“While the Government expects that, with strong engagement from the public and businesses, these contingency measures should be sufficient to reverse a resurgence in autumn or winter, the nature of the virus means it is not possible to give guarantees,” the document says.
“The Government remains committed to taking whatever action is necessary to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed but more harmful economic and social restrictions would only be considered as a last resort.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“demand employers offer IVF”
Fake news headline to get people worked-up about Gen Z. It’s clear from the article content that it’s about what might attract employees, not what they demand.
“family benefits are important or very important for retaining employees”. Is that any different from recent generations?
I tend to agree. I’d love it if my employer could afford to offer private healthcare so I wouldn’t need to use the NHS, but we looked into it and it’s pretty expensive unless your workforce is predominantly young – and of course there’s no opt-out from paying for the NHS so it’s double bubble.
“A survey from family health company Maven Clinic revealed an ever-increasing list of demands including…….”
A marketing punt by Maven as predictive programming to soften up the employers and encourage the employees by normalising this. I am no longer an employer – glad I don’t have to deal with this nonsense. Most people are reasonable and appreciate some leeway when they need it. Support of co-workers through the absence of someone in need is the key – the business has to function and its co-workers who take up the slack.
Why would any company wish to provide a benefit that would encourage staff absences such as IVF treatments?
Load of boll ox.
I’m OK with providing benefits that make good workers want to stay with the firm and where flexibility from the employer is repaid in kind by the staff. That has generally been the case where I work, but we may be exceptional. I think there’s an issue with providing a benefit that not everyone can take advantage of equally though so I prefer to give people flexibility when they need it and pay people a decent wage which they can decide to spend on whatever is best for them.
I thought the same. A survey from family health company … looks awfully like this family health company seeking to market its own products.
The employer can always refuse.
Too many covid
? Can’t get pregnant?
This is a completely unscientific observation but all of my duly multi-perforated relatives seem to have a much harder time with whatever the next ‘variant’ happens to be than I do. They’re still getting really sick because of it in periodic intervals while this has meanwhile developed to being (sometimes very annoying) nuisance for me.
Adam Smith pointed out that all wages are the same.
You either get your IVF, but less money in your pay packet, and reduced holiday entitlement, or no IVF and more pay and holidays. You choose.
In the high tax1960s/70s (thanks to Labour then and coming back again thanks to Labour) company cars became popular, as at the time they were not a taxable benefit.
Employees accepted lower wages plus car because overall it worked out better for them. Similarly, days off in lieu of payment for working overtime, or in teased holiday entitlement instead of pay increase were popular as this could not be taxed.