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

[Dent]

I'm starting to wonder whether we're reaching the limit of what a lockdown can achieve. Short of removing all reasons for leaving home, there's not much left that can be done that'll have a significant impact on transmission.

I think it's fairly clear that that point was passed a long time ago.

 

[chris11256]

I think it's fairly clear that that point was passed a long time ago.

Exactly. We're barely a week into this lockdown and it's almost like people expect cases to plumet instantly.

Although given that London & East/South East has been in defacto lockdown since before Christmas, I'd expect these areas to peak soon.

 

[Dent]

Exactly. We're barely a week into this lockdown and it's almost like people expect cases to plumet instantly.

Although given that London & East/South East has been in defacto lockdown since before Christmas, I'd expect these areas to peak soon.

Looking at the case data by specimen date, and the ZOE symptom survey, London and the South East areas have already peaked around the end of December. Cases nationally seem to have peaked in early January, again before the current restrictions came in.

 

[Yew]

Exactly. We're barely a week into this lockdown and it's almost like people expect cases to plumet instantly.

Although given that London & East/South East has been in defacto lockdown since before Christmas, I'd expect these areas to peak soon.

Overall, I think we vastly over-estimate the impact of these measures.

 

[brick60000]

This hits the nail on the head for me.

I appreciate the need for measures but I would like much more focus on ensuring that every measure is going to be effective in making a material difference in reducing transmission.

Given all we know about the virus and how it spreads there is not a problem with people exercising outdoors and yet that is the thing that might be targeted for further measures while other stuff where you actually have groups of people together indoors carries on as before.

Absolutely. Give me hard, cold evidence that your latest set of measures is going to make a difference to transmission, the ways in which that is then going to "protect the NHS & save lives", and the point at which it will have achieved that and will, at the very least, be reviewed - then I will support, fully, any new measures. (I will always comply with the law, because I do not wish to break the law - but there's a difference between compliance & support)

I suspect much of any remaining spread is
(1) workplaces - there’s still a lot of mixing in such settings
(2) people continuing to meet up in indoor household settings
(3) those children who remain at school

And when you tell people that they can't so much as sit, 2m apart, outside drinking a coffee to catch up with their relatives & friends, this is exactly what people are going to continue to do. Humans crave interaction, and after 10 months of restrictions on seeing the people you love, people have of course had enough.

By all accounts, am I wrong in thinking that, except for a brief month or so when the guidance allowed those in "established relationships" to ignore social distancing, anyone that doesn't live with their partner should not have had close interaction with them since last March?

 

[Watershed]

By all accounts, am I wrong in thinking that, except for a brief month or so when the guidance allowed those in "established relationships" to ignore social distancing, anyone that doesn't live with their partner should not have had close interaction with them since last March?

Outdoors, in a public outdoor place, I don't think there's ever been a time that meeting up one-on-one was forbidden.

That being said, there aren't many places that are simultaneously a public outdoor space (within the legal definition), yet don't render you liable to a charge of public indecency if you have a 'close interaction'.

I think the expectation is that those not eligible to form a support bubble have to meet outside or not at all. Quite how realistic that is - another question!

 

[roversfan2001]

By all accounts, am I wrong in thinking that, except for a brief month or so when the guidance allowed those in "established relationships" to ignore social distancing, anyone that doesn't live with their partner should not have had close interaction with them since last March?

Indeed. Me and my partner complied with that for about a month at the start. Precious little thought has been given to people in that situation by the people in power. A cynic would say that as it's an issue that disproportionately affects young people, they aren't interested.

 

[brad465]

Exactly. We're barely a week into this lockdown and it's almost like people expect cases to plumet instantly.

Although given that London & East/South East has been in defacto lockdown since before Christmas, I'd expect these areas to peak soon.

Looking at the case data by specimen date, and the ZOE symptom survey, London and the South East areas have already peaked around the end of December. Cases nationally seem to have peaked in early January, again before the current restrictions came in.

Overall, I think we vastly over-estimate the impact of these measures.

The ONS survey last Friday suggests London peaked around Christmas, with nearly 4% of the population infected at once at that peak and fallen back slightly since. That sort of level would increase community immunity enough to start influencing spread going forward, combined with all the vaccines now being administered.

 

[DannyMich2018]

Overall, I think we vastly over-estimate the impact of these measures.

Looking at the latest figures and despite "Lockdown 3" been in place only a week cases in England appear to have peaked (last Fri was highest, two weeks exactly after Christmas so reflecting mixing on the 25th), yesterday's cases figures for England was lowest for many days so let's hope this stays. Of course much of England was in Tier 3 or 4 for some time before so no doubt helping already. With vaccinations making good progress and vunerable shielding now things will slowly get better with a gradual reduction in cases and resulting hospital admissions.

 

[Bikeman78]

And when you tell people that they can't so much as sit, 2m apart, outside drinking a coffee to catch up with their relatives & friends, this is exactly what people are going to continue to do. Humans crave interaction, and after 10 months of restrictions on seeing the people you love, people have of course had enough.

Exactly this. When you close off all other options, people will meet at home. There is no way this can possibly be policed. Many people are not scared any more. I don't know anyone that has suffered badly, let alone died. Lots of people will be in the same boat. Many thousands more will have had it and survived unharmed. What reason do they have to be scared? Past pandemics have been "over" when the majority cease to be scared and crack on with life as normal. I suspect we'll reach that point early summer.

 

[brick60000]

A cynic would say that as it's an issue that disproportionately affects young people, they aren't interested.

Sadly, it does somewhat feel like this is the case.

There's no obvious demonstration of this, but it's been a repeated theme throughout all of this. Lack of mentioning universities in his latest address, this, student accommodation issues, not considering young people that (I would imagine?) disproportionately live alone and in small, cramped flats. The list goes on.

Exactly this. When you close off all other options, people will meet at home. There is no way this can possibly be policed. Many people are not scared any more. I don't know anyone that has suffered badly, let alone died. Lots of people will be in the same boat. Many thousands more will have had it and survived unharmed. What reason do they have to be scared? Past pandemics have been "over" when the majority cease to be scared and crack on with life as normal. I suspect we'll reach that point early summer.

It's frustrating - because its clear that this is definitely a way that the virus is transmitting, and is thus causing issues for the NHS. But equally, you absolutely cannot blame people for wanting to do this at this point. Branding these people "selfish" as the media and many others so often do, simply will not achieve anything at this point.

Greater emphasis is needed on allowing people to meet in areas that are safe, to discourage interaction in areas that are less safe.

Though I still won't be pointing the finger at anybody that simply doesn't view this as enough, and is no longer prepared to miss out on valuable time with friends & relatives.

I know there's the arguement of "there's time after all this is over", but we simply don't know that. To be pessimistic, nobody really knows what tomorrow will bring. I, for one, would never forgive myself for not having simply hugged my close family for nearly a year if something awful happened. A few weeks, and that's a risk worth taking. Nearly a year? No thank you.

 

[Bikeman78]

Sadly, it does somewhat feel like this is the case.

There's no obvious demonstration of this, but it's been a repeated theme throughout all of this. Lack of mentioning universities in his latest address, this, student accommodation issues, not considering young people that (I would imagine?) disproportionately live alone and in small, cramped flats. The list goes on.


It's frustrating - because its clear that this is definitely a way that the virus is transmitting, and is thus causing issues for the NHS. But equally, you absolutely cannot blame people for wanting to do this at this point. Branding these people "selfish" as the media and many others so often do, simply will not achieve anything at this point.

Greater emphasis is needed on allowing people to meet in areas that are safe, to discourage interaction in areas that are less safe.

Though I still won't be pointing the finger at anybody that simply doesn't view this as enough, and is no longer prepared to miss out on valuable time with friends & relatives.

I know there's the arguement of "there's time after all this is over", but we simply don't know that. To be pessimistic, nobody really knows what tomorrow will bring. I, for one, would never forgive myself for not having simply hugged my close family for nearly a year if something awful happened. A few weeks, and that's a risk worth taking. Nearly a year? No thank you.

I took my children to see my parents last summer and again early December. No doubt against the rules but they were willing to take the risk and see their grandchildren. They didn't want to miss out on them growing up. The kids are both very young so they change a lot in a year.

 

[yorksrob]

We were allowed to visit people in the summer according to the "rule of six" etc.

 

[bramling]

Overall, I think we vastly over-estimate the impact of these measures.

Given schools have been closed since mid-December, if we’re working on the basis that schools are a major place of spread (which seems to be the general feeling on here?) then this would tie in with a drop in infections around now, especially in those areas who were in the higher tiers sooner.

I'd agree with the general view that people do seem to be over-estimating the effectiveness of lockdowns.

 

[initiation]

We were allowed to visit people in the summer according to the "rule of six" etc.

Did places like Leicester have this permitted? I possibly recall they might have gone straight into 'local lockdown' and then rolled into the teirs?
(by visit I mean stay in other peoples houses).

 

[yorksrob]

Did places like Leicester have this permitted? I possibly recall they might have gone straight into 'local lockdown' and then rolled into the teirs?
(by visit I mean stay in other peoples houses).

I think that Bradford had about a month (as an example) then has been in some form of lockdown ever since. I'm not sure what the situation has been in Leicester.

I'm not sure what the situation has been around staying in peoples houses. I've only stayed in hotels outside of my home, so haven't really followed it.

 

[island]

Did places like Leicester have this permitted? I possibly recall they might have gone straight into 'local lockdown' and then rolled into the teirs?
(by visit I mean stay in other peoples houses).

Leicester’s restrictions in July were Rule of 6 outdoors only, no gatherings indoors except for same/linked households etc.

I do not believe indoor gatherings have been allowable in Leicester since last March.

 

[Class 33]

Susan Michie of SAGE being a darn nuisance again today....

SAGE adviser wants lockdown rules to get tougher

Independent adviser to SAGE, Professor Susan Michie, has warned that lockdown restrictions need to be tougher amid higher transmission.

Speaking to BBC Radio Oxford, Prof Michie said: "We've got higher transmission, the NHS collapsing in effect, and colder weather which means that the virus lasts longer and people spend more time indoors," she said.

"So if you put all of these things together it means that to get out of the pandemic level that we're now in we need greater, not fewer, restrictions."

Prof Michie also said that currently, "it's going to take a lot longer to get out of the pandemic, there'll be many avoidable deaths and it will hit the economy harder".

We don't need tougher lockdown rules Susan! It's bad enough as it is now, without even tougher restrictions! Please just bog off and leave us alone!!!

 

[Bantamzen]

I think that Bradford had about a month (as an example) then has been in some form of lockdown ever since. I'm not sure what the situation has been in Leicester.

I'm not sure what the situation has been around staying in peoples houses. I've only stayed in hotels outside of my home, so haven't really followed it.

Yeah Bradford has more or less been in perma-lockdown for almost a year now, and we are sick of it.

 

[bramling]

Susan Michie of SAGE being a darn nuisance again today....



We don't need tougher lockdown rules Susan! It's bad enough as it is now, without even tougher restrictions! Please just bog off and leave us alone!!!

I just don't see what tougher restrictions they can realistically do. The only thing which *might* have some affect on infections is completely closing the remaining schools, however I still think the disbenefits of doing this outweigh the benefit.

Closing all but the bare minimum workplaces I can't see having much effect, as reality is this will simply move interactions from one place to another. There could be some scope to encourage more distancing measures from employers - my place remains half-hearted at best. But it's a bit slamming the door after the horse has bolted.

 

[kez19]

Susan Michie of SAGE being a darn nuisance again today....



We don't need tougher lockdown rules Susan! It's bad enough as it is now, without even tougher restrictions! Please just bog off and leave us alone!!!

Yet moans about people spending time indoors, they moan if you outdoors too (strange that!)

 

[Scotrail12]

Susan Michie reminds me of Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter. Doesn’t seem like a nice person at all.

 

[nlogax]

The UK isn't going to return to a March / April-style lockdown regardless of what SAGE says. I'm entirely unsure why they should it's feasible. I've spent so much time out of the sun and indoors I'm beginning to turn translucent.

 

[yorksrob]

Yeah Bradford has more or less been in perma-lockdown for almost a year now, and we are sick of it.

You have my intense sympathy !

 

[duncanp]

I just don't see what tougher restrictions they can realistically do. The only thing which *might* have some affect on infections is completely closing the remaining schools, however I still think the disbenefits of doing this outweigh the benefit.

Closing all but the bare minimum workplaces I can't see having much effect, as reality is this will simply move interactions from one place to another. There could be some scope to encourage more distancing measures from employers - my place remains half-hearted at best. But it's a bit slamming the door after the horse has bolted.

Looking at the figures overall, it would seem that the lockdown measures are starting to work.

Yesterday there were 46,169 new cases reported, which represents a 21.5% decrease on the figure for the previous Monday of 58,784.

The figure for 10th January (54,940) is lower than the figure for 3rd January (54,990)

And looking at the total number of cases for 5th - 11th January, that is 404,955 which represents a 5.5% increase on the previous 7 day period. A few days ago, the number of cases per 7 day period was rising by more than 20% week on week.

Of course it is far too early to say whether this is part of a long term trend. Only time will tell that. But when the number of cases starts to increase at a slower rate it does suggest that new infections are starting to plateau, as can be seen from earlier in this pandemic.

 

[Dent]

Looking at the figures overall, it would seem that the lockdown measures are starting to work.

Yesterday there were 46,169 new cases reported, which represents a 21.5% decrease on the figure for the previous Monday of 58,784.

The figure for 10th January (54,940) is lower than the figure for 3rd January (54,990)

And looking at the total number of cases for 5th - 11th January, that is 404,955 which represents a 5.5% increase on the previous 7 day period. A few days ago, the number of cases per 7 day period was rising by more than 20% week on week.

Of course it is far too early to say whether this is part of a long term trend. Only time will tell that. But when the number of cases starts to increase at a slower rate it does suggest that new infections are starting to plateau, as can be seen from earlier in this pandemic.

The peak was actually before the current lockdown started, so definitely not "lockdown measures starting to work". You need to look at the positive tests by specimen date, not by reported date, to get an accurate picture of the trend. The ZOE survey also confirms that infections peaked before the current lockdown.

 

[bramling]

The peak was actually before the current lockdown started, so definitely not "lockdown measures starting to work". You need to look at the positive tests by specimen date, not by reported date, to get an accurate picture of the trend. The ZOE survey also confirms that infections peaked before the current lockdown.

I could never see the rate of a week or so again being sustained. Despite all the news moans regarding compliance, in reality there was always going to come a point when the virus simply ran out of networks of people to infect, especially with schools and universities now out of the equation for the time being. Even if one takes workplaces or domestic socialising, for many people this will still revolve around the same coterie of people.

It probably doesn't bode wonderfully well for the schools reopening, though, as that does seem to be what's upsetting the apple cart. There then needs to be a rational debate about what level of spread we're prepared to tolerate as a result of schools, taking in the very valid point that this needs to be balanced up against the real risk of irrepairable damage to childrens' education and development.

My work is suffering mainly with places where there's a roster of people who randomly work together according to the roster. That makes bubbling impossible.

The trouble with all this is that it's going to be a very convenient narrative for people to latch onto "lockdowns work". It's clear they chip away at the edges, however I'm not convinced there's much case for lockdowns given the immense damage they cause. Buying time is possibly a semi-valid reason as a last result, attempting to pursue elimination certain isn't except perhaps in the very early stages of an outbreak.

 

[yorksrob]

It probably doesn't bode wonderfully well for the schools reopening, though, as that does seem to be what's upsetting the apple cart. There then needs to be a rational debate about what level of spread we're prepared to tolerate as a result of schools, taking in the very valid point that this needs to be balanced up against the real risk of irrepairable damage to childrens' education and development.

I'm all for such a discussion, however the quid pro quo according to SAGE etc seems to be that everything else has to be in permanent lockdown. Any solution needs to accommodate everyone's need for human contact/activity.

 

[bramling]

I'm all for such a discussion, however the quid pro quo according to SAGE etc seems to be that everything else has to be in permanent lockdown. Any solution needs to accommodate everyone's need for human contact/activity.

I'd have said prioritising teachers for vaccination followed by full re-opening isn't an unreasonable position. It does then seem to rely on families bubbling themselves and correctly isolating, and of course risks crossover into parents' workplaces. I can't really see how that can be realistically avoided.

 

[yorksrob]

I'd have said prioritising teachers for vaccination followed by full re-opening isn't an unreasonable position. It does then seem to rely on families bubbling themselves and correctly isolating, and of course risks crossover into parents' workplaces. I can't really see how that can be realistically avoided.

If that's a risk that must be borne, then so be it, just so long as the rest of us aren't expected to live in isolation to counterbalance it.