How much longer will social distancing go on for in the UK?

[Bletchleyite]

Once it is safe then it is safe regardless of what the coronaphobes want or think. If they wish to carry on with their ridiculous way of life then let them get on with it. We should not pander to them.

Safety is never absolute. But the point is that wider testing and quarantining of those who test positive could mean that other measures can be removed while the virus is still "at large". Without it, we may need to wait longer.

 

[Taunton]

Pregnancy is on average 9 months. Therefore quite a few of these babies where likely conceived last year so probably had nothing to do with pandemic.

Maternity hospitals don't just start at the 9 months point. They get involved as soon as you know, just a month or so afterwards. So they have a good pipeline of expectation for what's coming later.

 

[trebor79]

Once it is safe then it is safe regardless of what the coronaphobes want or think. If they wish to carry on with their ridiculous way of life then let them get on with it. We should not pander to them.

I agree, but unfortunately we have a government that has proved that it does and will pander to them, as soon as they start shouting on social media. So, reluctantly, I accept that the Coronaphobes need to come on the journey to normality (or at least most of them, the hardened nut jobs just need to be left to their own devices as you suggest).
That or a change at No. 10 Downing Street.

FWIW I'd go pretty much back to normal tomorrow. In fact I personally am living my life normally and don't give a second thought to COVID.

 

[MikeWM]

FWIW I'd go pretty much back to normal tomorrow. In fact I personally am living my life normally and don't give a second thought to COVID.

But if they did this mass testing you won't be able to. You'll *have* to be tested once a week. You'll *have* to repeatedly show your 'good clean citizen' status in order to do pretty much anything. (Remind anyone of the Chinese 'social credit' system, which we were all so horrified about not so long ago?) And if you get a false positive test, you won't be able to do anything at all for the next week or more.

 

[philosopher]

Why on earth would you not comply to something easy like that which could allow all other measures (including the dreaded masks) to be removed by knowing exactly where the disease is?

Of all the things to object to, I am utterly flummoxed as to why anyone would object to this. Spit in a tube and wait 15 minutes. How's that in any way an imposition?

Personally, I want life to get back to normal ASAP, so I would be willing to be tested every week (providing it was a spit not swab test) if it allowed me live normally.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But if they did this mass testing you won't be able to. You'll *have* to be tested once a week. You'll *have* to repeatedly show your 'good clean citizen' status in order to do pretty much anything. (Remind anyone of the Chinese 'social credit' system, which we were all so horrified about not so long ago?) And if you get a false positive test, you won't be able to do anything at all for the next week or more.

If the tests are easy to get, potentially you could retest in the event of a positive. But that seems a small price to pay, and could happen now.

Personally, I want life to get back to normal ASAP, so I would be willing to be tested every week (providing it was a spit not swab test) if it allowed me live normally.

Yes, this exactly. Testing everyone weekly could allow removal of all measures as you'd find clusters very quickly. By far the lesser of all evils, even including just removing measures with no mitigation.

 

[DB]

I think those of you who reckon that obsessive testing would allow normality to resume are deluding yourselves. It would just aggravate the paranoia of the Karens and lead to more and more demands for rules and restrictions every time there is a sniffle going round.

 

[NorthOxonian]

If the tests are easy to get, potentially you could retest in the event of a positive. But that seems a small price to pay, and could happen now.

Having said that, you'd probably need the two tests to be of different types. Since whatever caused a false positive in the first spit test might well cause a false positive in the second spit test. But you could certainly swab test those who test positive first time (since this would be a far smaller number than those who test negative).

I think those of you who reckon that obsessive testing would allow normality to resume are deluding yourselves. It would just aggravate the paranoia of the Karens and lead to more and more demands for rules and restrictions every time there is a sniffle going round.

It might, but what's your solution? If we get rid of all restrictions without any kind of mitigation, then Piers Morgan and his ilk will just call the government "granny killers", and Boris is terrified of any such backlash (because fundamentally all he cares about is being popular). I would love for us to just resume normality but that isn't realistic with our current leadership.

 

[DB]

Having said that, you'd probably need the two tests to be of different types. Since whatever caused a false positive in the first spit test might well cause a false positive in the second spit test. But you could certainly swab test those who test positive first time (since this would be a far smaller number than those who test negative).



It might, but what's your solution? If we get rid of all restrictions without any kind of mitigation, then Piers Morgan and his ilk will just call the government "granny killers", and Boris is terrified of any such backlash (because fundamentally all he cares about is being popular). I would love for us to just resume normality but that isn't realistic with our current leadership.

Sooner or later, governments are going to have to back down, but none of them wants to be the first. Once one eventually does then others are likely to follow.

 

[MikeWM]

I think those of you who reckon that obsessive testing would allow normality to resume are deluding yourselves. It would just aggravate the paranoia of the Karens and lead to more and more demands for rules and restrictions every time there is a sniffle going round.

Either way, there is nothing 'normal' about being repeatedly tested for a disease when you have no symptoms of being ill.

There's also nothing 'normal' about having to prove repeatedly you've complied with government diktat and are sufficiently 'clean' in order to access public life, which is the inevitable consequence of this plan.

 

[greyman42]

Personally, I want life to get back to normal ASAP, so I would be willing to be tested every week (providing it was a spit not swab test) if it allowed me live normally.

Where is this mass testing going to take place?

 

[NorthOxonian]

Either way, there is nothing 'normal' about being repeatedly tested for a disease when you have no symptoms of being ill.

There's also nothing 'normal' about having to prove repeatedly you've complied with government diktat and are sufficiently 'clean' in order to access public life, which is the inevitable consequence of this plan.

It's more normal than having to constantly assume you, and everyone around you, is infected and dangerous, which is what masks and social distancing is all about. At the moment, we are supposed to assume everyone is "unclean" - surely being able to prove otherwise is a positive step?

Perfect and back to normal? No. But better than the current situation? Yes.

 

[MikeWM]

It's more normal than having to constantly assume you, and everyone around you, is infected and dangerous, which is what masks and social distancing is all about. At the moment, we are supposed to assume everyone is "unclean" - surely being able to prove otherwise is a positive step?

Depends where you start from - I don't assume that anyway, unless someone is clearly showing symptoms of being ill. I absolutely refuse to get into this mindset that other human beings are dangerous or dirty or to be avoided. (And this is coming from someone who is generally rather a loner and often doesn't like other people much!)

I also totally reject these false dichotomies we keep being presented with. It is *not* the case that the choice is to have masks, or we can have an app showing we are 'clean'. We don't have to have either.

I detest masks, but I believe this would be even worse.

 

[DB]

Depends where you start from - I don't assume that anyway, unless someone is clearly showing symptoms of being ill. I absolutely refuse to get into this mindset that other human beings are dangerous or dirty or to be avoided. (And this is coming from someone who is generally rather a loner and often doesn't like other people much!)

I also totally reject these false dichotomies we keep being presented with. It is *not* the case that the choice is to have masks, or we can have an app showing we are 'clean'. We don't have to have either.

I detest masks, but I believe this would be even worse.

Absolutely agree.

 

[Domh245]

Surely with 'whole population testing' you only need to actually test the entire population for a fairly short period of time, theoretically no more than 2 weeks worth. After the initial wave you should have been able to catch all community cases and isolated them and (if T&T do their job properly, admittedly a big if!) their contacts. Once you've caught every single community case, you then only need to test for imported cases, plus a considerably lower level of background testing for monitoring purposes, perhaps one in every hundred households or so.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Testing everyone weekly could allow removal of all measures as you'd find clusters very quickly. By far the lesser of all evils, even including just removing measures with no mitigation.

I would agree to do this too, as I hate a masked society, and if we could go back to a visual normality, it cannot come too soon. Let those who want to carry on wearing a mask do so, but no more of this devisive nonsense.
My only concern is if you get a false positive, who covers your bills whilst you can’t work and your employer says ‘sorry, you’ll have to take unpaid leave’ ??

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2020 ==

Where is this mass testing going to take place?

Within spitting distance of your home ?

 

[bramling]

Depends where you start from - I don't assume that anyway, unless someone is clearly showing symptoms of being ill. I absolutely refuse to get into this mindset that other human beings are dangerous or dirty or to be avoided. (And this is coming from someone who is generally rather a loner and often doesn't like other people much!)

I also totally reject these false dichotomies we keep being presented with. It is *not* the case that the choice is to have masks, or we can have an app showing we are 'clean'. We don't have to have either.

I detest masks, but I believe this would be even worse.

I tend to agree.

Whilst in theory I can see the rationale for testing if it means life can sort of return to some element of normal, I tend to reluctantly agree with the view that this will probably inadvertently feed the paranoia. Careful leadership and management could mitigate against that ... but we don’t have that, we have bull-in-china-shop leadership.

There’s been a complete lack of expectation management, and ultimately that’s going to prove a problem no matter what strategy is adopted.

 

[Failed Unit]

I must admit, the masks wearing is putting me off doing journeys like London - Edinburgh by train. I have a medical exemption. But I can’t be doing with have to justify myself to vigilantes so will drive.

same with going to the shops. I won’t do it unless I have no choice. Hardly encouraging people to help the economy when they need to avoid vigilantes to do so.

 

[jkkne]

I must admit, the masks wearing is putting me off doing journeys like London - Edinburgh by train. I have a medical exemption. But I can’t be doing with have to justify myself to vigilantes so will drive.

same with going to the shops. I won’t do it unless I have no choice. Hardly encouraging people to help the economy when they need to avoid vigilantes to do so.

A very close colleague has the same issue as you and finds justifying not wearing a mask far more exhausting than wearing one, even with her life limiting respiratory condition. It’s really brought out the worst in people

 

[AM9]

Prediction
Likely
Could
Could
Predicted
If
are the important words in that quoted article.

Established couples might have tired of binge-watching TV during lockdown, and a baby-boom may result.
The point I was making was that if humans who aren’t in relationships are fearful of human contact, the longer term effect would be a drop in the birth-rate

So you immediately launch into words:"if humans who aren’t in relationships are fearful of human contact, the longer term effect would be a drop in the birth-rate"
Even if the birth rate does drop as you seem to think, is that such a bad thing? Given that the global population is increasing at an exponential rate, and climate change may be partly a result of that increase, there will be some respite if the human race does take a rain check.

 

[trebor79]

Where is this mass testing going to take place?

Potentially anywhere really. If they go with the app on your smartphone idea, then you could have test stations set up on high streets, shopping centres, stations, office complexes and other places that large numbers of people go such that everyone is likely to pass one at least once a week in the course of their normal day. Each test could have a barcode, scan that with your phone, spit in it and go off and get on with your life. 15 minutes later you get a push notification from the app saying "Negative", or "Positive" and in the latter case asked to isolate and book a swab test pronto.

I must admit, the masks wearing is putting me off doing journeys like London - Edinburgh by train. I have a medical exemption. But I can’t be doing with have to justify myself to vigilantes so will drive.

same with going to the shops. I won’t do it unless I have no choice. Hardly encouraging people to help the economy when they need to avoid vigilantes to do so.

If it's any help I haven't encountered any vigilantes in shops or on transport. I have been asked on one occasion (by a staff member, not a vigilante) and simply said "I am exempt so cannot wear one, unfortunately", and that was the end of that.

 

[Bikeman78]

If it's any help I haven't encountered any vigilantes in shops or on transport. I have been asked on one occasion (by a staff member, not a vigilante) and simply said "I am exempt so cannot wear one, unfortunately", and that was the end of that.

I'd agree with that. I've seen hundreds of people on trains without masks, or with a mask on their chin or only covering their mouth. I'm not seen anyone have a go at these people. Compliance in shops is worse than on trains. I live in Wales so I forgot that wearing them in shops is required in England, not least because most of the other customers weren't wearing them.

 

[Bantamzen]

Depends where you start from - I don't assume that anyway, unless someone is clearly showing symptoms of being ill. I absolutely refuse to get into this mindset that other human beings are dangerous or dirty or to be avoided. (And this is coming from someone who is generally rather a loner and often doesn't like other people much!)

I also totally reject these false dichotomies we keep being presented with. It is *not* the case that the choice is to have masks, or we can have an app showing we are 'clean'. We don't have to have either.

I detest masks, but I believe this would be even worse.

I agree, it might seem a harmless mitigation to allow a return to "normal", but being tested every week for a virus you almost certainly don't have just to be allowed to do normal things is anything but. And where does it end? Until a vaccine becomes available? What if one doesn't? And what about other diseases? Will pressure grow for us to be tested for a whole range of diseases that might pose a threat to others? Will we need weekly certification for these to be allowed to leave our homes and try and live a life again?

It might all sound far fetched, but then so did a months long lock-down just 12 months ago. As a fan of Sci-fi, all this is starting to seem more and more like the seeds of the kind of dystopian society many films of this genre portrayed. Someone earlier mentioned Logans Run (still on of my favourite films), well this portrayed a society that euthanized anyone over 30, presumably for the "greater good". OK we are nowhere near that, but starting to insist that people prove they are "clean" just to function is one small step in that direction.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

So you immediately launch into words:"if humans who aren’t in relationships are fearful of human contact, the longer term effect would be a drop in the birth-rate"
Even if the birth rate does drop as you seem to think, is that such a bad thing? Given that the global population is increasing at an exponential rate, and climate change may be partly a result of that increase, there will be some respite if the human race does take a rain check.

Well one way to halt the exponential growth in population would be to throw off masks and abandon social distancing....

 

[Bantamzen]

Well one way to halt the exponential growth in population would be to throw off masks and abandon social distancing....

Is it? This would suggest that covid is wiping out more people than are being born, which the data doesn't support.

 

[jumble]

That is if your dentist will even see you. It's taken nearly 18 months to get a check up with cancellations, then covid19. They won't do anything unless you're in pain. (Then direct you to A&E.)

This was sent in June ..
View attachment 83030

I've had a number of tries at getting an appointment since then, I wonder what their definition of regular dental care is?

Looks like I'll be changing dentist again...

This has now changed where I am in West London
I had toothache.
Rang my Dentist who said week wait at least but kindly advised that their practice is on 101 emergency list and tell 101 this.
Rang 101 and got a call from my surgery 30 minutes later asking me to attend in 1 hour.
£22.50 for consultation and Xrays to tell me it was gum problem

Dentist told me
NHS is only funding emergency treatment for the foreseeable future
The surgery will reopen soon and indeed I got a call from them yesterday inviting me for a regular appointment but all regular treatment will be private

 

[talldave]

Is it? This would suggest that covid is wiping out more people than are being born, which the data doesn't support.

Hmmm, 2000 births a day vs 12 or 13 Covid deaths? Sounds like a total wipeout!

 

[jumble]

I honestly don't think that constant, repeated mass testing is going to be in the least bit practicable, or even desirable. Targeted testing in hospitals, care homes and ports with arrivals from areas with significantly higher rates of infection / hospitalisation yes, testing for offices, cinemas, sports stadia absolutely no way.

Its worth remembering that people without symptoms are still very unlikely to pass the virus on if they practice basic, simple hygiene such as washing hands. This is partly because there still is a whole lot of evidence that large gatherings represent a much greater risk, but mainly because most people without symptoms, well simply don't have the virus. A sense of perspective and scale is really needed right now, otherwise we could sleepwalk our way into a dystopian future where you can't leave your house without constantly being tested and monitored, and forced to keep away from our fellow human beings.

The Mail will disagree with your assessment as it will enable them to keep telling us that cases are rising and will no doubt carry on scaring the coronaphobes by the nonsense counting each positive weekly test on the same people as distinct case to add to the total as I understand they are doing now thus producing Bogus statistics
I will never go for a test if I am not ill any more than I go to A and E if I am not ill

 

[Domh245]

I agree, it might seem a harmless mitigation to allow a return to "normal", but being tested every week for a virus you almost certainly don't have just to be allowed to do normal things is anything but. And where does it end? Until a vaccine becomes available? What if one doesn't? And what about other diseases? Will pressure grow for us to be tested for a whole range of diseases that might pose a threat to others? Will we need weekly certification for these to be allowed to leave our homes and try and live a life again?

As I posited upthread, it should be possible to get away with a short time period of high frequency testing. After an initial burst of say 2-3 weeks, we'd essentially be in a near-elimination position and the only testing would need to be for those returning into the country and those exhibiting symptoms. Sustained high frequency testing of the entire population is pointless as it means that either the test itself doesn't pick up on all cases (at which point, why bother continuing to use them) or the test and trace system is broken (and would be the better return on investment to fix)

 

[trebor79]

As I posited upthread, it should be possible to get away with a short time period of high frequency testing. After an initial burst of say 2-3 weeks, we'd essentially be in a near-elimination position and the only testing would need to be for those returning into the country and those exhibiting symptoms. Sustained high frequency testing of the entire population is pointless as it means that either the test itself doesn't pick up on all cases (at which point, why bother continuing to use them) or the test and trace system is broken (and would be the better return on investment to fix)

That might work if the test was 100% accurate. But no test is 100% accurate and the rapid tests thus far seem to be less accurate than the swab tests. Even though they are highly accurate, the swab tests are producing perhaps 400 false positives a day (ie a third of the reported cases are false positives at present).
If you scaled the swab tests up to 10,000,000 a day then you could expect something like 20,000 false positives per day. Rapid tests would likely have a false positive rate an order of magnitude higher. So 200,000 "positive" test results every day (1,400,000 per week) from people who don't actually have the virus. How do you manage that?
Even if the spit test was as accurate as the swab test, that's still 140,00 false positives a week.
Similarly, a small proportion of people who do actually have the virus will falsely test negative. This isn't such an issue whilst there is very low incidence in the general population, but if numbers did pick up again then you would have people with a "clean" certificate who are actually infectious.

This is why the government chucked all of the rapid test kits they bought in the spring in a skip. They just weren't accurate enough to be useful.

So wide scale testing to provide an individual "passport" is scientifically flawed - one of the reasons why the WHO do not recommend such approaches. Testing should be used only to confirm suspected cases, people found through contact tracing and to monitor incidence in the population.

As I said upthread - I would actually support such an action for a short period of time if it meant that we could ditch face masks and all of the other ridiculous measures that have been put in place and get back to normal. But I'm under no illusion that it would in itself be a nonsense measure - at least it wouldn't be so intrusive on our lives and would quickly come to an end when either the Facebook Karens finally realised the sky hadn't fallen in and/or when Matt Hancock realised it's completely fruitless to chase your tail in this way.