Covid : Infection rates v death rates and a possible second wave

[Meerkat]

It is interesting that the local restrictions vary by area, e.g. in Bolton hospitality has to close at 10pm, and it's reported this will apply in the North East too. It's reported that the North East restrictions will include public transport being for essential travel only (unclear if this will be a rule or a guideline). I do wonder if there is an element of experimentation going on here to test different combinations of restrictions in different areas, and therefore whichever is most successful becoming a new national restriction.

Whilst I would not like to be part of such an experiment, I can see the sense in it, and it seems a more sensible approach than just adding more places to the list where face coverings must be worn.

Or possibly the different restrictions relate to where the test and trace data suggests the transmission is happening.

 

[AdamWW]

Or possibly the different restrictions relate to where the test and trace data suggests the transmission is happening.

That's what I've seen given as the reason for different restrictions in Rhondda Cynon Taff and Caerphilly.

 

[adc82140]

It's an utter mess. For goodness sake bring back the alert levels. Then say that town x has gone to level 3 for example. It just renders things unenforceable

 

[trebor79]

It's an utter mess. For goodness sake bring back the alert levels. Then say that town x has gone to level 3 for example. It just renders things unenforceable

Agree, it's completely confusing and few people understand what we are meant to be doing now, even in places not subject to local measures. My wife and I were discussing last night whether "bubbles" are still a thing or if that was all scrapped with the rule of 6. We're not sure (not that I paid the blindest bit of attention to that nonsense in the first place).
They should re-emphasis the national alert level system, and produce a similar one for local measures. Then if nationally we are at 3 and you go into an area that's at local level 4 or 5, you know exactly what is expected.

As for people being confined to Caerphilly or RCT or the north east of England, it's completely and utterly unenforceable unless people are spotted with a car full of beach toys and two kids.

 

[Meerkat]

Agree, it's completely confusing and few people understand what we are meant to be doing now, even in places not subject to local measures. My wife and I were discussing last night whether "bubbles" are still a thing or if that was all scrapped with the rule of 6. We're not sure (not that I paid the blindest bit of attention to that nonsense in the first place).
They should re-emphasis the national alert level system, and produce a similar one for local measures. Then if nationally we are at 3 and you go into an area that's at local level 4 or 5, you know exactly what is expected.

As for people being confined to Caerphilly or RCT or the north east of England, it's completely and utterly unenforceable unless people are spotted with a car full of beach toys and two kids.

So you want more restrictions than are necessary, rather than targeted ones?

 

[AdamWW]

So you want more restrictions than are necessary, rather than targeted ones?

I think part of the problem is that the current situation gives the impression of being made up as it goes along. This may not be true, but I'd argue that if that's what people think, they are less likely to comply.

Maybe there could be some half-way house where some level of response includes "targeted restrictions based on local data".

It may also be the case that any benefit from attempting to target restrictions at where it looks as if transmission is ends up being outweighed by people not doing what you want because they are too confused or see the restrictions as being arbitrary despite any attempts to explain.

 

[Meerkat]

I think part of the problem is that the current situation gives the impression of being made up as it goes along. This may not be true, but I'd argue that if that's what people think, they are less likely to comply.

Conversely the tailored restrictions could give people a sense that the restrictions are specific to them, therefore necessary, and need to be obeyed. Unlike the blanket mask wearing in shops.

 

[AdamWW]

Conversely the tailored restrictions could give people a sense that the restrictions are specific to them, therefore necessary, and need to be obeyed. Unlike the blanket mask wearing in shops.

Possibly. I think if so they need to improve the messaging.

This is, of course, why SAGE includes groups looking at human behaviour.

 

[Crossover]

So you want more restrictions than are necessary, rather than targeted ones?

I read it as coherency. So an area in a particular lockdown level would have a single set of restrictions regardless of where in the country it is.

I'm in the group of not really having a clue anymore on what the local restrictions are anymore (despite living near one and I think still working in one, though the latter I haven't heard much mention of for some time)

 

[Meerkat]

I read it as coherency. So an area in a particular lockdown level would have a single set of restrictions regardless of where in the country it is.

I'm in the group of not really having a clue anymore on what the local restrictions are anymore (despite living near one and I think still working in one, though the latter I haven't heard much mention of for some time)

What’s the gain? You have to look up what level your area is and then look up what that means, rather than just going straight to a list of restrictions which can be far more flexible and appropriate to the area.

 

[Crossover]

What’s the gain? You have to look up what level your area is and then look up what that means, rather than just going straight to a list of restrictions which can be far more flexible and appropriate to the area.

Is there currently a centralised public list of the restrictions for each area? I only know of the "score" in our local area because of one of the local councillors posting on Facebook!

 

[jtuk]

I think part of the problem is that the current situation gives the impression of being made up as it goes along. This may not be true, but I'd argue that if that's what people think, they are less likely to comply.

Maybe there could be some half-way house where some level of response includes "targeted restrictions based on local data".

It may also be the case that any benefit from attempting to target restrictions at where it looks as if transmission is ends up being outweighed by people not doing what you want because they are too confused or see the restrictions as being arbitrary despite any attempts to explain.

Final point is very true, but your second comment also needs the caveat of "where necessary" - it's not 100% clear given the current lag in test data (damn those pesky kids going back to school and getting the sniffles), but something Haimes retweeted late yesterday was indicating that positive test rates in the North East are already declining. As such, what is the point in doing anything?

 

[AdamWW]

Final point is very true, but your second comment also needs the caveat of "where necessary"

I would rather hope that could be taken for granted. If not necessary, you shouldn't be on that 'alert level' or whatever you want to call it.

 

[trebor79]

Agree, it's completely confusing and few people understand what we are meant to be doing now, even in places not subject to local measures. My wife and I were discussing last night whether "bubbles" are still a thing or if that was all scrapped with the rule of 6. We're not sure (not that I paid the blindest bit of attention to that nonsense in the first place).
They should re-emphasis the national alert level system, and produce a similar one for local measures. Then if nationally we are at 3 and you go into an area that's at local level 4 or 5, you know exactly what is expected.

As for people being confined to Caerphilly or RCT or the north east of England, it's completely and utterly unenforceable unless people are spotted with a car full of beach toys and two kids.

So you want more restrictions than are necessary, rather than targeted ones?

No, I want a single coherent system. So rather than local authorities being able to make up their own restrictions, they choose the most appropriate from a menu of standardised restrictions/measures.
That way if I go on a business trip to Durham, I just need to know they are at level x, and know what that means. Rather than know they have some local restrictions and have to trawl through the news/gov.uk/some councillors Twitter feed to understand what I'm expected to adhere to.

 

[adc82140]

I think we need a ban on any government policy at any level being announced on Twitter.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think we need a ban on any government policy at any level being announced on Twitter.

I would agree.

Important changes need to be announced on television and radio, ideally simulcasted on all major channels that carry news, plus on gov.uk, at a time when people are watching (8pm was a good idea for the first lockdown).

 

[adc82140]

Each set of local restrictions needs a ministerial statement on TV

 

[AdamWW]

I would agree.

Important changes need to be announced on television and radio, ideally simulcasted on all major channels that carry news, plus on gov.uk, at a time when people are watching (8pm was a good idea for the first lockdown).

While we're wish-listing, I'd like a well publicised web page that gives a simple summary of the rules in each part of the UK (not just one country) so that if you're unsure, there is only one place you have to go.

This should include the various national rules, plus any local modifications.

 

[jtuk]

I would rather hope that could be taken for granted. If not necessary, you shouldn't be on that 'alert level' or whatever you want to call it.

Well, that's kind of my point - more or less every restriction the government has brought in has been so late that it doesn't have any effect whatsoever, ergo not necessary. I can't think of any since the general wash your hands spiel back in February or so that's made any impact at all

 

[DB]

Each set of local restrictions needs a ministerial statement on TV

But only AFTER it's been put to parliament - not the current mess of leaking it in a television interview (or the Telegraph), then pushing through "emergency" legislation a few days later.

 

[AdamWW]

Well, that's kind of my point - more or less every restriction the government has brought in has been so late that it doesn't have any effect whatsoever, ergo not necessary. I can't think of any since the general wash your hands spiel back in February or so that's made any impact at all

Hmm. I think the idea that the lockdown has have no effect on transmission is a minority one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hmm. I think the idea that the lockdown has have no effect on transmission is a minority one.

I think I'd use the phrase "a load of rubbish".

It may have been unnecessary, but to suggest that people staying at home would not have a reducing effect on respiratory illness is so far-fetched that it's just complete and utter nonsense with no basis in science whatsoever.

 

[DB]

I think I'd use the phrase "a load of rubbish".

It may have been unnecessary, but to suggest that people staying at home would not have a reducing effect on respiratory illness is so far-fetched that it's just complete and utter nonsense with no basis in science whatsoever.

It may have reduced the spread a bit in the short term, but is that actually beneficial in the longer term? It just drags the situation out for longer.

 

[Bantamzen]

It may have reduced the spread a bit in the short term, but is that actually beneficial in the longer term? It just drags the situation out for longer.

Exactly, lockdowns are just ways of kicking the can down the road. The virus doesn't care, it just waits patiently to be able to spread it's RNA....

 

[Bletchleyite]

It may have reduced the spread a bit in the short term, but is that actually beneficial in the longer term? It just drags the situation out for longer.

I'm not debating that, I'm just contending that the statement that a lockdown has "no effect whatsoever" is complete rubbish.

 

[Crossover]

No, I want a single coherent system. So rather than local authorities being able to make up their own restrictions, they choose the most appropriate from a menu of standardised restrictions/measures.
That way if I go on a business trip to Durham, I just need to know they are at level x, and know what that means. Rather than know they have some local restrictions and have to trawl through the news/gov.uk/some councillors Twitter feed to understand what I'm expected to adhere to.

Agreed!

 

[jtuk]

Hmm. I think the idea that the lockdown has have no effect on transmission is a minority one.

Even chief government shill Chris Whitty has stated that this is definitely a viable position to hold, and it's clearly calculable from the data. That it's a "minority view" might be the case in both government and media (both for obvious reasons), it doesn't mean it's not correct

 

[AdamWW]

Even chief government shill Chris Whitty has stated that this is definitely a viable position to hold, and it's clearly calculable from the data. That it's a "minority view" might be the case in both government and media (both for obvious reasons), it doesn't mean it's not correct

Are you saying that the data we have clearly show that the lockdown didn't have "any effect whatsoever" on transmission?

That's certainly not what I've seen.

I'd be curious to see what Chris Whitty's actual words were.

 

[adc82140]

The purpose of national lockdown was to buy time to sort out healthcare and testing capacity. "flatten the curve". It did that. For some reason it now seems to be the opinion in many circles that it can be used to make Covid go away. It won't.

The testing shortage now is due to every Tom Dick and Harry with a cold asking for one. And it's not their fault, it's the messaging. New continuous cough? Get a test. Should be "new continuous cough with no runny nose or sneezing-- get a test"

 

[Bletchleyite]

The purpose of national lockdown was to buy time to sort out healthcare and testing capacity. "flatten the curve". It did that. For some reason it now seems to be the opinion in many circles that it can be used to make Covid go away. It won't.

It could be used to knock cases down to a level where they would be controllable by way of traditional, highly invasive contact tracing.