New 4-tier system for England

[yorkie]

@TT-ONR-NRN I noticed you cut out the bit where I explicitly said I study computing and that we specifically don't really have to be in a classroom. I understand that most people who study other courses are better off working on site, but for people like me we can manage at home quite well if needs be.
As all we do is look at a lesson online being tought from the classroom to the other half of the class at home anyways. Which is why I question why we even go in as the teacher doesn't engage with any of us in the classroom, so it's basically just a teacher staring at their PC for 3 hours straight and nobody in the classroom says a word. It's really boring and just really depressing.

Many others in my class have also expressed explicit dismay of classroom working on our course.

Sounds like this is more an issue with the teaching in your class and therefore worthy of discussion in a completely separate thread.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Dec 2020 ==

So the risk posed by the new strain is such an insignificant risk to people in Cornwall the county can remain in tier 1 but it is such a high risk to Cornwall that Christmas has to be compressed from 5 days to 1.

There's no real logic behind this!

But I think Tier 1 areas will be reclassified Tier 2 at the next review, if the claims about the transmissibility of the new strain do prove to be true.

Of course, lockdown #3 is a rather convenient diversionary tactic to cover the fact we have no deal. Quite apart from wrecking the economy several times over with the virus response (and p****** the best part of half a trillion quid up the wall while doing so), they'll screw us over again by failing to agree a Brexit deal for the sake of an argument about fish (it's not like fishing is a significant part of the economy).

This is a worthy topic of discussion but it does belong in a different thread.

Some people seem to think that Tier 4 restrictions will stop the new strain from spreading, but if it is more easily transmissible that is a fallacy. We've already seen previously that a new strain will simply take over, if it is more infectious, and this is what happened with G614.

Interesting theory. If this theory is the case then it sounds like the new strain could have been prevented by only discharging patients when they had tested negative twice.

You cannot 'prevent' new strains.

 

[Richard Scott]

The R0 value of the "legacy" virus has been much higher than 1.0 at various times, so I'm really not sure what your point is.

Especially when I was told I was wrong that the natural R value was 3 and not 1.5 as I had believed, so what is natural R of new strain? Seem well below it whatever it is. Again it's a so what scenario. One medic was reported to say the quicker it goes around the less dangerous it is. I appreciate that's one person and one view so is in no way scientific.

 

[philosopher]

YouGov polls are incredibly tedious and tend to be done by people with loads of time on their hands. They are not in any way representative of ordinary working people.

I participated in a few in the Summer but I vowed never to do so again.

Also most of the population are not in tier 4. For them there is a vested interest to support tier 4 as in most cases they do not lose out from it all.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of poll result by region.

 

[hwl]

Interesting theory. If this theory is the case then it sounds like the new strain could have been prevented by only discharging patients when they had tested negative twice.

Patient gives it to doctor/nurse/other hospital staff and it escapes that way would get round that (and possibly more likely?)

 

[Watershed]

Would there be a legal basis to turn people around if they went for a long drive out of the area to partake in outdoor recreation? Say if someone drove from London to something like the Monsal Trail?

In practice if the police are thus inclined, they'll do what they want, and will undoubtedly get away with it regardless of what the law says.

In theory the enumerated reasonable excuses for being outside home are still subject to the proviso that it must be "reasonably necessary" to do what you're doing. Make of that what you will.

 

[Domh245]

But how do we know it was the underlying cause? All we have is numbers....

I'm using the CEBM method from this article. The PHE dashboard in table 7 shows underlying cause of death as put on death certificates - to the last week of data available there were a total of 344,242 deaths where Covid wasn't the underlying cause of death out of the total 428,306 death certificates they've included (94% of the total registered by the ONS) - the difference between those two numbers can be taken as being 'covid as underlying cause of death'

Now, you could try and argue that those 59,791 weren't all covid underlying, possibly some of them were actually the missing ~6000 respiratory disease deaths we'd have expected to see, but you're still talking tens of thousands of covid deaths regardless - if they weren't covid underlying, then that's even more of an issue as you've got then got quite a lot of completely unexplained deaths on your hands

 

[island]

So the risk posed by the new strain is such an insignificant risk to people in Cornwall the county can remain in tier 1 but it is such a high risk to Cornwall that Christmas has to be compressed from 5 days to 1.

Under the tier 1 rules they can still meet indoors in groups of up to 6. Not quite as many as three households perhaps but still.

 

[duncanp]

I don't think you should wait until everyone has been vaccinated before you start to lift restrictions.

If we were to vaccinate most of the clinically vulnerable people, whilst they might comprise a small percentage of the population, it would result in a much bigger percentage fall in hospitalisations and deaths.

We could then start to ease restrictions in a cautious manner.

But I am starting to wonder whether the tier system is part of the problem as well as part of the solution.

If you have a situation where there are different levels of restrictions in different parts of the country, then you create an incentive for people to travel to the areas where the restrictions are lighter, which is exactly the opposite of what you want to happen.

It might be better to have the same level of restrictions everywhere, and then make it the law that you cannot be more than (say) 10 miles from your home without a reasonable excuse.

 

[The Ham]

What you're not considering is that it has been previously reported that up to 80% of infections are asymptomatic, so will never be tested. Unless you have one of the big 3 symptoms, you can't get a test. Yes there has been limited mass testing, but not enough to really be of note.

Which was why I was looking at the numbers who've died vs the rates at which are being suggested to then compare to total population.

Blooming hell, YouGov's polls are getting worse:

- 74% support the introduction of Tier 4 for parts of England vs just 17% say they are opposed

- 67% support the Christmas rules changes vs 25% opposed

- 61% say gov has badly handled covid Xmas rules vs 33% say they have handled it well

The last one is the only one I can agree with there.

Judging by the reactions to a couple of tweets I put up yesterday decrying the new rules (in replies to news articles so there shouldn't be too much bias), the first two should be reversed at least.

The 74% support of tier 4 restrictions are everyone outside that area enjoying London being hit with hard restrictions.

Christmas rule changes I don't get, there's for to be a LOT of people who work Christmas Day (or who are linked to those who do) who would have previously been able to celebrate with people outside of their household who now no longer can.

That's before you consider those who live some distance apart and haven't been able to see each other for months and no that's been made a LOT harder/shorter.

Vaccinating for herd immunity is simply not an option. It's likely to take 2 years and we can't stay in that long. All we can usefully do with a vaccine is vaccinate as many of the vulnerable as possible and hope for the best. A new strain taking the herd immunity threshold from 60% to 70% makes no difference to that at all.

We don't need to vaccinate 60% of everyone before we'd see numbers of cases fall.

That's because there's going to be some who aren't vaccinated who will have some level of protection. Also 60% is assuming no other measures are in place. Even once we start to open up there's likely to be some who will carry on some measures (including WFH and better hand washing) through their own choice.

 

[hwl]

But I think Tier 1 areas will be reclassified Tier 2 at the next review, if the claims about the transmissibility of the new strain do prove to be true.


This is a worthy topic of discussion but it does belong in a different thread.

Yesterday was pretty much holding announcement for the non Tier 4 areas till after Christmas and they have more data on the new strain in general and then how prevalent it is Tier 1-3 areas.

 

[island]

In practice if the police are thus inclined, they'll do what they want, and will undoubtedly get away with it regardless of what the law says.

In theory the enumerated reasonable excuses for being outside home are still subject to the proviso that it must be "reasonably necessary" to do what you're doing. Make of that what you will.

It probably means that anyone doing something that’s borderline or illegal and gets challenged by police will need to pass the attitude test or risk being fined or locked up.

 

[317 forever]

And no doubt the next review of the tiers will put the whole of England into Tier 4.

This will happen on December 30th, so that the government doesn't have the pesky inconvenience of having to justify their reasons before parliament, or have the data they use to make decisions subject to indpendent scrutiny.

If the whole of England is put into Tier 4, the parliament should be recalled as a matter of urgency.

The government should then be forced to specify exit criteria for Tier 4, and give a likely timescale as to when this might happen.

There simply is no way that anywhere can remain in Tier 4 until everyone has been vaccinated - that could take months, and the effect on mental health and the economy is unthinkable.

People might be prepared to endure Tier 4 if they can see an end date.

But there simply is no way that most people will tolerate an open ended lockdown for months on end.

Also, by calling it an extension of areas of England going into tier 4, rather than a new national lockdown for England, they can avoid a vote in Parliament.

 

[hwl]

Which was why I was looking at the numbers who've died vs the rates at which are being suggested to then compare to total population.


The 74% support of tier 4 restrictions are everyone outside that area enjoying London being hit with hard restrictions.

Christmas rule changes I don't get, there's for to be a LOT of people who work Christmas Day (or who are linked to those who do) who would have previously been able to celebrate with people outside of their household who now no longer can.

That's before you consider those who live some distance apart and haven't been able to see each other for months and no that's been made a LOT harder/shorter.



We don't need to vaccinate 60% of everyone before we'd see numbers of cases fall.

That's because there's going to be some who aren't vaccinated who will have some level of protection. Also 60% is assuming no other measures are in place. Even once we start to open up there's likely to be some who will carry on some measures (including WFH and better hand washing) through their own choice.

As I said above, around 20% start should start to see useful reductions especially if you target those who have lots of contacts.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Dec 2020 ==

Also, by calling it an extension of areas of England going into tier 4, rather than a new national lockdown for England, they can avoid a vote in Parliament.

Just keep the Scilly Isles in Tier 1-3 would do it.

 

[island]

Also, by calling it an extension of areas of England going into tier 4, rather than a new national lockdown for England, they can avoid a vote in Parliament.

The regulations passed this morning still require an affirmative vote by both houses of parliament or they will expire 28 days after the houses return from Christmas break.

 

[43096]

Some people seem to think that Tier 4 restrictions will stop the new strain from spreading, but if it is more easily transmissible that is a fallacy. We've already seen previously that a new strain will simply take over, if it is more infectious, and this is what happened with G614.


You cannot 'prevent' new strains.

That's the thing, isn't it? We think humans can play god and that somehow we're "bigger" than the virus. Nature is what it is.

 

[joncombe]

Some people seem to think that Tier 4 restrictions will stop the new strain from spreading, but if it is more easily transmissible that is a fallacy. We've already seen previously that a new strain will simply take over, if it is more infectious, and this is what happened with G614.


You cannot 'prevent' new strains.

It seems then that t3 didn't even slow case growth in Kent. I don't see that T4 will make any difference. Shutting non essential shops will mean more people going into the shops that do remain open instead. Travel restrictions won't be enforced even if they are in law (which I don't think is the case). Pubs & cafes were already closed in tier 3.

 

[317 forever]

It seems then that t3 didn't even slow case growth in Kent. I don't see that T4 will make any difference. Shutting non essential shops will mean more people going into the shops that do remain open instead. Travel restrictions won't be enforced even if they are in law (which I don't think is the case). Pubs & cafes were already closed in tier 3.

Also, if people can't go out and go shopping, they will still go out and not go to those shops. In other words, closing non-essential retail is not an incentive for people to stay at home, rendering it pointless as well as expensive to the economy.

 

[adc82140]

It seems then that t3 didn't even slow case growth in Kent. I don't see that T4 will make any difference. Shutting non essential shops will mean more people going into the shops that do remain open instead. Travel restrictions won't be enforced even if they are in law (which I don't think is the case). Pubs & cafes were already closed in tier 3.

I think the tier rules are based around coronaphobes doing exactly as they are ordered, rather than by enforcement. Let's say 50% are coronaphobes. That means a 50% reduction in the circulation of people, which will satisfy Hancock, without the need to involve the police.

 

[DustyBin]

I'm using the CEBM method from this article. The PHE dashboard in table 7 shows underlying cause of death as put on death certificates - to the last week of data available there were a total of 344,242 deaths where Covid wasn't the underlying cause of death out of the total 428,306 death certificates they've included (94% of the total registered by the ONS) - the difference between those two numbers can be taken as being 'covid as underlying cause of death'

Now, you could try and argue that those 59,791 weren't all covid underlying, possibly some of them were actually the missing ~6000 respiratory disease deaths we'd have expected to see, but you're still talking tens of thousands of covid deaths regardless - if they weren't covid underlying, then that's even more of an issue as you've got then got quite a lot of completely unexplained deaths on your hands

Thanks, I had a read of the link, interesting. Where covid is recorded as the underlying cause of death, how do we know this is accurate? For example, there were various reports of this being an easy way to deal with the paperwork, although I don’t know how true that is. In addition, how many people with weeks (or months) to live did technically die as a result of covid slightly sooner than they otherwise would have? Your point about the 60k(ish) deaths needing to be explained is a good one, but I’d like to know how many people have died as a result of cancelled medical procedures/lack of care. I suspect many people affected by this would also be in the vulnerable category so covid may have been no more than the last straw for them (anecdotally I know myself of one case where this is exactly what happened).

Just to be clear, I’m not being awkward for the sake of it, I would however like to see more scrutiny of the numbers so that they aren’t used to justify damaging restrictions, or indeed to gloss over failings by the government/healthcare system. I accept that the number will be in the tens of thousands too incidentally.

 

[bramling]

YouGov polls are incredibly tedious and tend to be done by people with loads of time on their hands. They are not in any way representative of ordinary working people.

I participated in a few in the Summer but I vowed never to do so again.

I don't buy any of these polls. People are saying one thing but then not doing it in practice.

Also most of the population are not in tier 4. For them there is a vested interest to support tier 4 as in most cases they do not lose out from it all.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of poll result by region.

They may not be in it now, but it's a fair bet they will be within a week or two. It's obvious where this is heading. Announcement by BJ somewhere around the 28th I bet.

 

[DB]

The regulations passed this morning still require an affirmative vote by both houses of parliament or they will expire 28 days after the houses return from Christmas break.

Johnson won't care - he and his cronies will have come out with several new iterations of their bully-boy rules by then!

 

[brad465]

My favourite thing I've seen on the internet in response to this is the following: "Tier 2 on Friday, Tier 3 on Saturday and Tier 4 on Sunday...sounds like a ****ing Craig David song."

 

[Yew]

My favourite thing I've seen on the internet in response to this is the following: "Tier 2 on Friday, Tier 3 on Saturday and Tier 4 on Sunday...sounds like a ****ing Craig David song."

In my head, I went to Lou Begas "Mambo Number 5", unfortunately the chorus breaches the rule of 6.

 

[Domh245]

Thanks, I had a read of the link, interesting. Where covid is recorded as the underlying cause of death, how do we know this is accurate? For example, there were various reports of this being an easy way to deal with the paperwork, although I don’t know how true that is. In addition, how many people with weeks (or months) to live did technically die as a result of covid slightly sooner than they otherwise would have? Your point about the 60k(ish) deaths needing to be explained is a good one, but I’d like to know how many people have died as a result of cancelled medical procedures/lack of care. I suspect many people affected by this would also be in the vulnerable category so covid may have been no more than the last straw for them (anecdotally I know myself of one case where this is exactly what happened).

Just to be clear, I’m not being awkward for the sake of it, I would however like to see more scrutiny of the numbers so that they aren’t used to justify damaging restrictions, or indeed to gloss over failings by the government/healthcare system. I accept that the number will be in the tens of thousands too incidentally.

No way of guaranteeing the accuracy unfortunately, we just have to rely on the certifying doctor to have had integrity and not stuck it on in as a way to speed up the paperwork. Seeing as having covid in and of itself don't kill, but it leads to circulatory and respiratory issues which do kill, I don't think there are (m)any doctors who'd go around to someone who hadn't displayed covid symptoms and had passed and just chalked it up as covid. Certainly not enough to distort the figures (again, 60,000 issue)

As for the non-covid affected, that is a far harder thing to identify I would think, and is probably something we won't see. Noticeably however, if you subtract the covid deaths from the registered number of deaths, the only age group to still have an excess number of deaths is the 45-64 range which in my (admittedly not at all medically professional) opinion could have been down to a lot of cancelled 'immediately life-saving' operations and procedures - the bulk of these excess less covid deaths having occurred around the time of the first peak. It's difficult to tell with younger age groups as generally so few people die anyway that it's very susceptible to noise, and similarly the prohibition of a lot of activities that could have resulted in deaths in younger age groups could have lowered the deaths. It's also a bit of a lagging indicator too, for example people who missed out on cancer treatment may not die for several years yet, but have missed the opportunity to be 'saved'. There may have been a slight harvesting effect amongst the 85+ population as post peak it does drop under the average, but other than that there doesn't seem to have been much impact on the death rates



I do agree about the need for better scrutiny but I would think that any sort of deaths well into the tens of thousands would merit some kind of response. Even with my preferred 'laissez faire' approach I would struggle to justify not doing anything in the face of the numbers

 

[peters]

National Express coaches offering full refunds to anyone affected by new COVID restrictions or who can't travel due to being required to self-isolate. They are also going to be running a limited service on key routes on 25th December, it'll mean for instance you can get a coach arriving in Manchester from Birmingham at 01:15 on 25th December and get a coach back to Birmingham leaving Manchester at 23:00 on 25th December.

If rail companies don't follow suit I can see them losing customers to National Express coaches.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Are there a lot of people walking past outside the building or something?

My nephew said the windows had been sealed shut over the summer, he said it was to prevent suicides by jumping out the window but of course that’s bull because there’s other ways to do that.

A uni housing officer told him personally that it was to stop the virus getting in, so he’s been told two different things

 

[bramling]

I think the tier rules are based around coronaphobes doing exactly as they are ordered, rather than by enforcement. Let's say 50% are coronaphobes. That means a 50% reduction in the circulation of people, which will satisfy Hancock, without the need to involve the police.

Well it seems be working. We just went for a rural walk. On the one hand we’ve never seen so many people, it was oppressive at times on a walk which would normally be pretty deserted even on a Sunday, and as an aside the ground is now properly churned up, so thanks Boris for that.

But more to the point we had countless encounters with terrified types, to the point where it became extremely irritating. Also a good proportion of people were wearing masks even in the countryside. We passed one woman who even wearing a mask and retreating about five metres to the side of us, still held her hand in front of her nose as we passed.

Seems like the new improved Covid 2.0 is working. If this is man-made the Chinese must be watching the news feeds from western countries and laughing their heads off.

What a state of affairs.

 

[scrapy]

And used the phrase "mass vaccination" not just the vaccination of the vulnerable.

Mass vaccination could mean anything, that's why he's used that term because it's totally non committal. Same as mass testing has been used as term even when talking about just a few hundred.

 

[Horizon22]

I do apologise if this question has already been asked/answered, but was last night's travelling really as bad as is being made out in the press / on social media? I am only seeing one video, from one angle, from one station - St Pancras.

Are we sure there wasn't any kind of disruption, or maybe a cancellation that caused some issues locally at STP?

Are there any other similar videos (or indeed, verified claims) that the other London termini were experiencing the same increased traffic?

I saw it first-hand a little busier yesterday at another London terminal with one train especially but that had also been short-formed.

 

[C J Snarzell]

My favourite thing I've seen on the internet in response to this is the following: "Tier 2 on Friday, Tier 3 on Saturday and Tier 4 on Sunday...sounds like a ****ing Craig David song."

The Tiers are like a bad franchise of films - like 'Rocky', 'Mission Impossible', 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' or 'Friday the 13th'.

The first/original film is always the best one - by the time you get to number four or five in the series they are dire.

Therefore Tier 1 is the best although production values could have been better, Tier 2 is okay in parts, Tier 3 is not great and Tier 4 is awful and painful to endure.

Maybe if they do a Tier 5 they could rebrand it as 'T5 - Whitty's Legacy' or 'Assault on Downing St 10' - maybe bring in a new cast to be the PM, Health Secretary, Chief Medical Officer, etc - therefore fresh faces to get the audience (public) on side.

I doubt they would sell many tickets or get any positive reviews in Variety.

CJ