New lockdown in England, including school closures, announced by Johnson, 4/1/21

[Watershed]

The legislation will define what you legally can or cannot do. Its not been published yet but should be available via this link when it is:

Coronavirus Legislation

That link has been a few days behind for most of the last year's restrictions. Once the SI number is identified you will be able to see the legislation sooner by navigating directly to the link.

In any case if the legislation of the last two lockdowns is anything to go by, business restrictions will be clearly defined but restrictions on leaving home will be left more open due to the system of non-exhaustive lists of "reasonable excuses".

 

[Class 317]

Gove just confirmed lockdown until March.

In BBC live feed.

 

[Simon11]

Wow. So many medical experts on here. How about everyone just following the rules for 6 weeks? It’s people not following the rules that’s caused this. For those saying “The other lockdowns didn’t help”... once again it’s people not following the rules that’s caused this. Pure and simple. And yes, I do have a source. It’s called “Common Sense”.

For 6 weeks.......


I count that I am already on week 9 of a lockdown here and another 6 weeks is going to make a big difference to our numbers?

I got covid in mid December through my partner who is a teacher and I had mild symptom for 7 days. The bigger issue was the isolating and boredom..... I can't believe that along with so many young people we have given up a whole year of our life for this!

I am so tempted to get on a flight and get back to enjoying my life otherwise its not worth living. Over in Dubai, life is normal, with lots of covid cases but there are hardly any deaths- mostly due to their low population age.

 

[duncanp]

Gove just confirmed lockdown until March.

In BBC live feed.

The relevant paragraph from the live feed is.

March should mark the point at which restrictions can start to be eased, Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove has said.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson previously said it was possible lockdown measures could be eased in mid-February if the top four priority groups were vaccinated by that point.

Gove told Sky News earlier: "We will keep these constantly under review but you are absolutely right, we can't predict with certainty that we will be able to lift restrictions in the week commencing 15-22 February.

"What we will be doing is everything that we can to make sure that as many people as possible are vaccinated, so that we can begin to progressively lift restrictions.

"I think it is right to say that as we enter March we should be able to lift some of these restrictions but not necessarily all."

The restrictions are due to be reviewed on 15th February, with any changes likely to take effect a week later.

So 22nd February is more or less the beginning of March.

I don't think anyone is expecting all restrictions to be lifted at the beginning of March, but there should be a gradual easing of restrictions over March and April.

 

[Class 33]

Meanwhile, exactly as I predicted earlier in this thread, a "SAGE scientist" has warned that staying at home and waiting for the vaccine is not enough to beat the virus. In his words, "..we need to be bearing down on it..", although unsurprisingly he doesn't say what that means.

I wish all the "SAGE Scientists" would just shut up, dig a hole and die for once.

It is bad enough that we are all facing these restrictions for an indeterminate period of time, with this further speculation about yet more tightening of the rules.

This all has an extremely adverse effect on people's mental health and must stop immediately.

Yes I too am absolutely sick to death of all these SAGA scientists, other scientists, "former government advisors", etc with all their stupid doom mongering warnings. I wish they would all just bog off(to put it more politely) and leave us alone.

Also even though it was announced that this lockdown would last until at least mid February(though it turns out it actually means at least 22nd February), already this morning Michael Gove has been on the morning news programmes saying it it likely to last until March and not February!!

Another 7 weeks at least of this hellish third national lockdown. Like many others, I really don't think I'll be able to take this.

 

[Mag_seven]

The relevant paragraph from the live feed is.

Ah Michael "you can only exercise for one hour a day" Gove.

Why should I listen to anything he says?

 

[kristiang85]

But unlike a cold, cough or the flu this one can cause organ failure, septic shock, heart failure, liver damage, seizure, stroke, muscle weakness, nerve damage and long term fatigue and breathing issues. Now, most wont get those complications but when they all sit there as an option if YOU (or someone you care about) gets it it's not exactly like a cold we just let circulate round the office.

In a normal year, around 8% of care home deaths are attributed to the "common cold" (which is a blanket term for various rhinoviruses and coronaviruses, and this will become one of them as it will become endemic).

Also flu is a very serious illness for some, but most will be fine too.

 

[Bantamzen]

Wow. So many medical experts on here. How about everyone just following the rules for 6 weeks? It’s people not following the rules that’s caused this. For those saying “The other lockdowns didn’t help”... once again it’s people not following the rules that’s caused this. Pure and simple. And yes, I do have a source. It’s called “Common Sense”.

Common sense says that many countries have tried multiple lockdowns, and many countries have failed to stop the virus. In many as soon as lockdowns are eased, the virus spreads. Just like all other viruses.

Common sense also says that constantly wracking up more & more public spending deficits will, sooner or later, cause serious funding issues for essential services, which in turn will put the lives of those who contract the virus & those that don't for years, maybe decades to come.

 

[Spamcan81]

Wow. So many medical experts on here. How about everyone just following the rules for 6 weeks? It’s people not following the rules that’s caused this. For those saying “The other lockdowns didn’t help”... once again it’s people not following the rules that’s caused this. Pure and simple. And yes, I do have a source. It’s called “Common Sense”.

Here, here. As for those say "lockdowns didn't help," they do. They may not eliminate the virus entirely but they sure as hell put downward pressure on the R number. Lockdowns may be a PITA but I'd rather follow the rules than go mingling and contract Covid. Some friends of mine have caught it - fortunately all have survived - but they sure has hell wish they had managed to avoid it.

 

[duncanp]

Yes I too am absolutely sick to death of all these SAGA scientists

A little bit of a freudian slip there

I wouldn't necessarily get worried at the moment about how long the lockdown is going to last.

The government has said the measures will be reviewed on 15th February, and Michael Gove saying "March" on the BBC this morning doesn't change that.

In reality, what actually happens will depend entirely on the figures.

 

[py_megapixel]

In reality, what actually happens will depend entirely on the figures.

And seemingly, what Boris feels like he fancies doing on the day a review is due.

 

[35B]

And the NHS will collapse if there is no economy - a healthy economy is essential to fund a working NHS.

Indeed it is. But if the fear of contagion means that people don't undertake economic activities, the results may be worse than a controlled lockdown as people change their behaviour to reduce their personal risk. We saw that happening in March last year, and again in education in the run up to yesterday's announcement - fear and uncertainty were running ahead of the government's ability to persuade people that the risk was manageable.

There are trade-offs, and there is too little data in circulation for us as individual members of the public to be as sure as we'd like to be. But if we're seeing this "seasonal respiratory virus" blocking hospitals like in the worst of flu seasons, but also transmitting more freely and having significantly more serious effects in those who get it badly, there's a bit of Hobson's choice. Government "locks down" (actually, far from a lock down) which imposes one set of costs, or doesn't and imposes another set of costs. And as I've yet to see anyone seriously suggest that the cost of lockdown measures would exceed the ~75k excess deaths that have already occurred despite lockdowns and other measures, my utilitarian view is that measures like lockdowns, distancing, etc. are a lesser evil than the alternatives.

As for the most vulnerable isolating themselves while society at large continues more normally, I've never quite understood how that's expected to work in practice given the minor issue that those in care homes, with acute vulnerabilities, etc. will still be reliant on those in the wider community. Other than glib one liners, I've yet to see anyone articulate how that might work in practice.

 

[DustyBin]

Here, here. As for those say "lockdowns didn't help," they do. They may not eliminate the virus entirely but they sure as hell put downward pressure on the R number. Lockdowns may be a PITA but I'd rather follow the rules than go mingling and contract Covid. Some friends of mine have caught it - fortunately all have survived - but they sure has hell wish they had managed to avoid it.

The impact of lockdowns is debatable, but even if they do drive down the R number it always goes back up again. How many lockdowns are you willing to tolerate before you say enough is enough? If you’d rather follow the rules that’s down to you, I don’t know your risk profile so it may well be sensible for you to avoid interaction with others where possible. For millions of people like myself however, the impact of putting life on hold, cancelling (important) plans and worrying about employment and financial security poses a far greater danger than the virus.

 

[Bantamzen]

Here, here. As for those say "lockdowns didn't help," they do. They may not eliminate the virus entirely but they sure as hell put downward pressure on the R number. Lockdowns may be a PITA but I'd rather follow the rules than go mingling and contract Covid. Some friends of mine have caught it - fortunately all have survived - but they sure has hell wish they had managed to avoid it.

And what happens after lockdowns? The virus spreads. You see the problems with political solutions like these is that nobody notifies the virus about them. If you want lockdowns to work, you need near total lockdowns, no leaving your homes for anything, all but the most essential of critical services closed, and for long enough to reduce the virus's spread to practically zero. Otherwise even just a handful of interactions afterwards could restart the spread as we have seen all so often.

And that of course assumes that a newer strain hasn't developed in the meantime which is potentially more capable of spreading more quickly.....

 

[RuralRambler]

As for the most vulnerable isolating themselves while society at large continues more normally, I've never quite understood how that's expected to work in practice given the minor issue that those in care homes, with acute vulnerabilities, etc. will still be reliant on those in the wider community. Other than glib one liners, I've yet to see anyone articulate how that might work in practice.

Same here. Vulnerable people are catching it in hospitals and care homes (and their own homes from their carers). The problem is that the hospital staff and carers ARE out in the community, going shopping, socialising, etc., and infecting those they are "caring" for. PPE etc is all about the wearer not catching it from their patients - it's not working the other way round as they don't change their gowns, gloves, etc between patients. My OH has regular infusions at a cancer day treatment unit - she constantly has to tell the staff to wipe the blood pressure cuff and oxymeter and change their gloves as they glibly go from patient to patient.

 

[kristiang85]

The impact of lockdowns is debatable, but even if they do drive down the R number it always goes back up again. How many lockdowns are you willing to tolerate before you say enough is enough? If you’d rather follow the rules that’s down to you, I don’t know your risk profile so it may well be sensible for you to avoid interaction with others where possible. For millions of people like myself however, the impact of putting life on hold, cancelling (important) plans and worrying about employment and financial security poses a far greater danger than the virus.

Exactly. Most will trade a week in bed with a nasty virus over a whole year of their lives lost to boredom and misery, maybe more if they've lost their career because of it (as has happened to many).

Those who know they are in a risk group can make their own risk assessments; as happens fairly subconsciously with any serious illness outbreak.

If the lockdowns showed a non-debatable postive effect on virus mitigation, then I would say they could be worth it, as it wouldn't last as long as they have. But now we've had three lockdowns and nearly a year of restrictions, and in not one country has it been shown to work.

 

[DustyBin]

Indeed it is. But if the fear of contagion means that people don't undertake economic activities, the results may be worse than a controlled lockdown as people change their behaviour to reduce their personal risk. We saw that happening in March last year, and again in education in the run up to yesterday's announcement - fear and uncertainty were running ahead of the government's ability to persuade people that the risk was manageable.

There are trade-offs, and there is too little data in circulation for us as individual members of the public to be as sure as we'd like to be. But if we're seeing this "seasonal respiratory virus" blocking hospitals like in the worst of flu seasons, but also transmitting more freely and having significantly more serious effects in those who get it badly, there's a bit of Hobson's choice. Government "locks down" (actually, far from a lock down) which imposes one set of costs, or doesn't and imposes another set of costs. And as I've yet to see anyone seriously suggest that the cost of lockdown measures would exceed the ~75k excess deaths that have already occurred despite lockdowns and other measures, my utilitarian view is that measures like lockdowns, distancing, etc. are a lesser evil than the alternatives.

As for the most vulnerable isolating themselves while society at large continues more normally, I've never quite understood how that's expected to work in practice given the minor issue that those in care homes, with acute vulnerabilities, etc. will still be reliant on those in the wider community. Other than glib one liners, I've yet to see anyone articulate how that might work in practice.

Those who support lockdowns are very quick to blame the people breaking the rules, which they wouldn’t be doing if there was widespread fear of contagion. You can’t have it both ways. The only people fearful at this stage are the vulnerable (rightly so) and those who don’t understand the risk. You can’t compare the current situation with that of March last year when we knew very little about the virus. Back then I was cautious if not quite fearful, as we didn’t know what we were dealing with and things like SARS and Ebola naturally spring to mind....

In regard to shielding/isolating the most vulnerable, I honestly can’t see why it’s not possible. If by those in the wider community you mean their carers, ask them to do the same. Provide them with accommodation if necessary and allow them to form bubbles, test them regularly and provide them with proper, effective PPE for when they do need to venture out into the wider world. Of course, you’d have to offer them a generous remuneration package for their troubles. The thing is, when it comes to dealing with this virus, money is no object. That said, I really do believe the cost of pursuing a targeted shielding/isolation policy would be a fraction of what we’ve spent so far....

 

[Bantamzen]

Same here. Vulnerable people are catching it in hospitals and care homes (and their own homes from their carers). The problem is that the hospital staff and carers ARE out in the community, going shopping, socialising, etc., and infecting those they are "caring" for. PPE etc is all about the wearer not catching it from their patients - it's not working the other way round as they don't change their gowns, gloves, etc between patients. My OH has regular infusions at a cancer day treatment unit - she constantly has to tell the staff to wipe the blood pressure cuff and oxymeter and change their gloves as they glibly go from patient to patient.

This is the side of the spread nobody wants to talk about. This is not an anti-NHS / care system post, they do incredible work but hospitals & care homes are major areas of the spread, and this should surprise nobody. Yet we (as a society) have flip-flopped between trying to blame kids, people going to pubs, football matches and even Bournemouth beach. But until we (as a society) come to terms with the fact that the virus cannot simply be supressed by hiding from it, human interactions will continue and especially so in places like these. And healthcare workers do not live in isolation, they can't, they need to shop, they need to travel, they live with their families. So the virus will spread, locking down simply slows it down, and even potentially gives new variants a foothold over previous ones (as we might be seeing right now).

What we do have is a potential end game, the vaccines and the growing understanding of treating those that fall ill. The one thing the government have got right thus far is the complete prioritisation of the vaccine to the clinically vulnerable & those that care for them. The government must not be distracted from this, it is vital. But they will also have to make it clear to one and all that this is the strategy and that once this first goal is approached, restrictions must be started to be lifted to allow the economy to start to recover and get much needed taxation flowing back into the system to ensure no future budget crisis risks health strategies. Beyond that there must be no return to further damaging lockdowns, and given the prioritisation of the vaccines no attempts to restrict business or travel based on any passsporting.

 

[DustyBin]

Same here. Vulnerable people are catching it in hospitals and care homes (and their own homes from their carers). The problem is that the hospital staff and carers ARE out in the community, going shopping, socialising, etc., and infecting those they are "caring" for. PPE etc is all about the wearer not catching it from their patients - it's not working the other way round as they don't change their gowns, gloves, etc between patients. My OH has regular infusions at a cancer day treatment unit - she constantly has to tell the staff to wipe the blood pressure cuff and oxymeter and change their gloves as they glibly go from patient to patient.

I’ve heard similar stories elsewhere unfortunately. However, you appear to be answering your own question to a certain extent!

 

[Cdd89]

But if the fear of contagion means that people don't undertake economic activities, the results may be worse than a controlled lockdown as people change their behaviour to reduce their personal risk.

Come off it. There may be reasons to support a lockdown depending on your social priorities but that one is massively disingenuous. It was true in March when people were terrified but it hasn’t been true since then.

Pret A Manger was packed in the lead up to both Lockdown 2 and Tier 3 in London. Far more than 20% of the population too, which is the YouGov figure for people who don’t support lockdowns.

I understand from others that Sweden had relatively busy restaurants even during its worst peaks.

I’ve seen first hand that Mexico has high death rates and yet the restaurants are packed, even indoors.

Also Florida has high death rates and healthcare that has reached the point of overwhelm and yet people are out and about in large numbers and restaurants are fairly busy.

And the thing is you know what you’re saying is disingenuous, because if it were true, we wouldn’t need lockdowns anyway: people would be cowering at home by default.

 

[Bertie the bus]

So far we haven’t heard anything about sport. Tonight’s football fixtures appear to be unaffected at the moment. So the government message is stay at home, unless you are involved in such crucial activities as Mansfield Town playing Salford City.

 

[roversfan2001]

So far we haven’t heard anything about sport. Tonight’s football fixtures appear to be unaffected at the moment. So the government message is stay at home, unless you are involved in such crucial activities as Mansfield Town playing Salford City.

They've said that 'Elite Sport' can continue; which for English football means everything from the Premier League to the National League North/South.

 

[Class 33]

Downing Street News Conference today at 5pm with Boris Johnson, along with Whitty and Valance. Oh god, not those two again. Sick of the sight and sound of both of them. But will still watch to see what they've got to say this time. But no doubt, it will be the usual doom mongering from both of them. There will also probably be pointless questions from the media again as usual.

 

[Bertie the bus]

They've said that 'Elite Sport' can continue; which for English football means everything from the Premier League to the National League North/South.

Good to see that we are in such a dire situation that outdoor leisure activities, which have been permitted since last May (including the November lockdown and in Tier 4 areas), are banned again without any explanation but "elite" sports can continue.

 

[Mag_seven]

Good to see that we are in such a dire situation that outdoor leisure activities, which have been permitted since last May (including the November lockdown and in Tier 4 areas), are banned again without any explanation but "elite" sports can continue.

I believe that the teams plus support staff are all in "bubbles" and are tested regularly. Several matches have been called off due to positive COVID cases.

 

[Darandio]

Good to see that we are in such a dire situation that outdoor leisure activities, which have been permitted since last May (including the November lockdown and in Tier 4 areas), are banned again without any explanation but "elite" sports can continue.

I'm okay with the Premier League continuing as they have their weekly testing protocols at their own cost, although recent transgressions with certain players should be punished harshly. I don't believe the EFL downwards should be continuing as they quite simply aren't testing until cases appear and it's too late.

That said i'm still confused as to why a non-contact sport such as golf cannot continue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jan 2021 ==

I believe that the teams plus support staff are all in "bubbles" and are tested regularly. Several matches have been called off due to positive COVID cases.

At Premier League level yes, it's not happening below that.

 

[35B]

Those who support lockdowns are very quick to blame the people breaking the rules, which they wouldn’t be doing if there was widespread fear of contagion. You can’t have it both ways. The only people fearful at this stage are the vulnerable (rightly so) and those who don’t understand the risk. You can’t compare the current situation with that of March last year when we knew very little about the virus. Back then I was cautious if not quite fearful, as we didn’t know what we were dealing with and things like SARS and Ebola naturally spring to mind....

In regard to shielding/isolating the most vulnerable, I honestly can’t see why it’s not possible. If by those in the wider community you mean their carers, ask them to do the same. Provide them with accommodation if necessary and allow them to form bubbles, test them regularly and provide them with proper, effective PPE for when they do need to venture out into the wider world. Of course, you’d have to offer them a generous remuneration package for their troubles. The thing is, when it comes to dealing with this virus, money is no object. That said, I really do believe the cost of pursuing a targeted shielding/isolation policy would be a fraction of what we’ve spent so far....

Your comparison on compliance/contagion doesn't logically work - fear can be widespread, but people still break rules; widespread is not the same as universal. As for the risk, I have a reasonable understanding of risk, know that my risk of a severe outcome is low, but know enough from acquaintances who have had Covid that it is a disease I want even less than I want flu, and will manage my lifestyle to reasonably minimise that risk for myself and my family.

Meanwhile, I see the logic in your suggestion about shielders. However, I then apply it to the context of someone I know (late 80s, early stage COPD, generally frail) who is in a small care home, well out in the country. There isn't the space in the home for staff to have accommodation, and they aren't all full time - they have their own personal responsibilities to consider. Those are challenges that money can't necessarily solve or buy off, and I'm sure - in different flavours - will apply in most cases. It's noticeable that reports of health workers who isolated themselves from their families are exceptions, not the rule.

 

[Bertie the bus]

I believe that the teams plus support staff are all in "bubbles" and are tested regularly. Several matches have been called off due to positive COVID cases.

They're not in bubbles though are they? They are still living at home with their families. As you say, several fixtures have been postponed due to COVID cases. It will circulate in those bubbles and then the families of the people in those bubbles, then the work colleagues of their spouses, etc. I would take no pleasure in football being cancelled just for the sake of it but my point is if we are in such a dire situation outdoor leisure activities, which they have stressed time and time again are very low risk, which affect millions are banned there is no case whatsoever for football to continue. I don't want football banned, I want safe activities enjoyed by far more people to be permitted.

 

[35B]

Come off it. There may be reasons to support a lockdown depending on your social priorities but that one is massively disingenuous. It was true in March when people were terrified but it hasn’t been true since then.

Pret A Manger was packed in the lead up to both Lockdown 2 and Tier 3 in London. Far more than 20% of the population too, which is the YouGov figure for people who don’t support lockdowns.

I understand from others that Sweden had relatively busy restaurants even during its worst peaks.

I’ve seen first hand that Mexico has high death rates and yet the restaurants are packed, even indoors.

Also Florida has high death rates and healthcare that has reached the point of overwhelm and yet people are out and about in large numbers and restaurants are fairly busy.

And the thing is you know what you’re saying is disingenuous, because if it were true, we wouldn’t need lockdowns anyway: people would be cowering at home by default.

You presume that I said "will", whereas I wrote "may"; the perception of risk will vary based on many factors and, as has been discussed, what is true of one place may not be true of another - different societies are not fully comparable. Meanwhile, whatever did/didn't happen before Lockdown 2 and Tier 3 in London, the fear effect was beginning to kick in in the last few days around education, and was showing signs of becoming contagious.

 

[bramling]

Those who support lockdowns are very quick to blame the people breaking the rules, which they wouldn’t be doing if there was widespread fear of contagion. You can’t have it both ways. The only people fearful at this stage are the vulnerable (rightly so) and those who don’t understand the risk. You can’t compare the current situation with that of March last year when we knew very little about the virus. Back then I was cautious if not quite fearful, as we didn’t know what we were dealing with and things like SARS and Ebola naturally spring to mind....

In regard to shielding/isolating the most vulnerable, I honestly can’t see why it’s not possible. If by those in the wider community you mean their carers, ask them to do the same. Provide them with accommodation if necessary and allow them to form bubbles, test them regularly and provide them with proper, effective PPE for when they do need to venture out into the wider world. Of course, you’d have to offer them a generous remuneration package for their troubles. The thing is, when it comes to dealing with this virus, money is no object. That said, I really do believe the cost of pursuing a targeted shielding/isolation policy would be a fraction of what we’ve spent so far....

It doesn’t help that we still seem to have a situation where a considerable number of people over-estimate the severity of Covid.

To be fair, one can’t entirely blame them given the constant diet of government and media doom-mongering, but surely stats like the survival rate and median death age speak for themselves?