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

[brad465]

I saw that flying around too, but I don't see the point when he has a fairly cast-iron majority until May 2024.

Where have these rumours originated from? What possible reason would he have for calling an election when he already has a large majority and the next one isn't due for nearly 4 years?

Could what be to do with Steve Baker? Do you think he wants a spell on the opposition benches? I suspect these "rumours" emanated from nobodies on Facebook and Twitter. There are no reasons a single Tory MP would want an election, they can't call one without Labour's support anyway and Labour would also not want an election at the moment.

It will be much more likely that Johnson goes for any future election happens. As quoted plenty I don't see why the Tories would, especially as recent opinion polling suggests they'd lose their majority were an election imminent.

 

[takno]

Could what be to do with Steve Baker? Do you think he wants a spell on the opposition benches? I suspect these "rumours" emanated from nobodies on Facebook and Twitter. There are no reasons a single Tory MP would want an election, they can't call one without Labour's support anyway and Labour would also not want an election at the moment.

It's more likely to be a threat to Steve Baker - a back me or I'm destroying the party strategy. In practice I'd be amazed if he went through with it, but Boris might just be spiteful enough to do it rather than resign and let Gove take over

As a matter of principle I'm fairly sure Labour would back an election at almost any time they weren't behind in the polls. In June they might well fancy their chances of being able to draw a massive red line under Covid, and then spend 5 years doing what they like and blaming the Boris for leaving the country broken - basically the same thing Cameron did after 2010.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Very illuminating.

So essentially it's Care homes, work and "other" (in the home perhaps ?).

This very much suggests to me that this lockdown is unjustified.

This is very poor given the ring of protection that supposedly been put around care homes! Anyhow these are only notifiable outbreaks because of the setting and the majority of cases are unfortunately occurring elsewhere probably peoples houses but could easily be anywhere.

Separately from 5PM briefing I observed that BoJo being much more cautious about changing anything when the Priority 1-4 group are vaccinated than he was a few weeks back almost intimating we need whole population done now as its younger age groups that are now being hospitalised. What happened to 90% of the problem was from people over 70? However, good to see Whitty was still confident of improvements by Easter so perhaps BoJo is just being cautious now so he's criticised.

 

[Richard Scott]

Separately from 5PM briefing I observed that BoJo being much more cautious about changing anything when the Priority 1-4 group are vaccinated than he was a few weeks back almost intimating we need whole population done now as its younger age groups that are now being hospitalised. What happened to 90% of the problem was from people over 70? However, good to see Whitty was still confident of improvements by Easter so perhaps BoJo is just being cautious now so he's criticised.

They seem to always move the goalposts so we never get out of this. It is getting beyond stupid now. At some of point they've surely got to say enough is enough and now we learn to live with it. It isn't smallpox for goodness sake.

 

[bramling]

It's more likely to be a threat to Steve Baker - a back me or I'm destroying the party strategy. In practice I'd be amazed if he went through with it, but Boris might just be spiteful enough to do it rather than resign and let Gove take over

As a matter of principle I'm fairly sure Labour would back an election at almost any time they weren't behind in the polls. In June they might well fancy their chances of being able to draw a massive red line under Covid, and then spend 5 years doing what they like and blaming the Boris for leaving the country broken - basically the same thing Cameron did after 2010.

The main issue on Conservative benches will be if MPs feel they are at risk of shedding votes in any forthcoming election - especially those in more marginal seats.

I've certainly made it crystal clear to my MP that he will not be getting any votes from my household whilst BJ remains leader, and that even then they will need to seriously buck their ideas up. I am utterly disgusted with the way this has been handled, and my vote should not be taken for granted.

 

[yorksrob]

This is very poor given the ring of protection that supposedly been put around care homes! Anyhow these are only notifiable outbreaks because of the setting and the majority of cases are unfortunately occurring elsewhere probably peoples houses but could easily be anywhere.

Separately from 5PM briefing I observed that BoJo being much more cautious about changing anything when the Priority 1-4 group are vaccinated than he was a few weeks back almost intimating we need whole population done now as its younger age groups that are now being hospitalised. What happened to 90% of the problem was from people over 70? However, good to see Whitty was still confident of improvements by Easter so perhaps BoJo is just being cautious now so he's criticised.

I've not read anything to suggest that the new varient from Kent affects the age groups proportionally any differently from the older strains. There is no scope for locking down until the younger groups are vaccinated. They will have to change something (not just schools).

 

[bramling]

Lockdown has never been intended to eradicate the virus in UK

I'm not sure that's true. Sturgeon for a start has - at times - pretty strongly intimated that an elimination strategy was being followed (how convenient that this fits into a pro-independence narrative that Scotland could have successfully eliminated if it wasn't for England). As for England, Boris never really told us what the measurables were for the first lockdown.

 

[brick60000]

I've not read anything to suggest that the new varient from Kent affects the age groups proportionally any differently from the older strains. There is no scope for locking down until the younger groups are vaccinated. They will have to change something (not just schools).

I'm not advocating that lockdown measures should be kept until the young have been vaccinated, I'd argue for exactly the opposite (as a young person myself).

But not doing so could create some very interesting discussion if young people are now being more adversely affected by the virus in terms of hospitalisations than before.

Government to the young: Lose your youths to save the lives of older generations, and be saddled with the debt that results for the rest of your lives.

Also: We've vaccinated those you lost your youths to save, and now they're all safe. Even though it now seems more of you are becoming very ill from this virus, we're now going to "let the virus rip".

I hate that phrase - and I'm only using it facetiously....
(the above is also not my opinion, but an arguement that you could very feasibly see coming about)

Not a difficult path to be treading, and I really don't see how the government can come out of this smelling of roses, whatever route they go down.

 

[takno]

I'm not sure that's true. Sturgeon for a start has - at times - pretty strongly intimated that an elimination strategy was being followed (how convenient that this fits into a pro-independence narrative that Scotland could have successfully eliminated if it wasn't for England). As for England, Boris never really told us what the measurables were for the first lockdown.

Nicola goes back onto it occasionally. At one point she was getting most of her "scientific" advice from Devi Shridhar, who's always been an absolute elimination zealot, and seems to have lost all grasp of science. I get the impression Nicola is now depending more on people like Linda Bauld, who may be constantly depressing, but is at the very least science-adjacent.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not advocating that lockdown measures should be kept until the young have been vaccinated, I'd argue for exactly the opposite (as a young person myself).

But not doing so could create some very interesting discussion if young people are now being more adversely affected by the virus in terms of hospitalisations than before.

Government to the young: Lose your youths to save the lives of older generations, and be saddled with the debt that results for the rest of your lives.

Also: We've vaccinated those you lost your youths to save, and now they're all safe. Even though it now seems more of you are becoming very ill from this virus, we're now going to "let the virus rip".

I hate that phrase - and I'm only using it facetiously....
(the above is also not my opinion, but an arguement that you could very feasibly see coming about)

Not a difficult path to be treading, and I really don't see how the government can come out of this smelling of roses, whatever route they go down.

The way to solve that is to continue vaccinating the whole of the adult population by descending clinical need, but not lock down.

 

[Domh245]

almost intimating we need whole population done now as its younger age groups that are now being hospitalised

It's been fairly obvious that this has been the case for a while. The phase 1 issues solve the deaths issue, but people have been warning that the age of hospitalisations (and ICU admissions) has been lower than average deaths age for a while. Phase 2 working through the 50-65 year olds will be the group that solves the pressure on healthcare (see graph)

But not doing so could create some very interesting discussion if young people are now being more adversely affected by the virus in terms of hospitalisations than before.

Younger isn't the same as young. The hospitalisation rate may show an alarming number of 18-64 year olds being hospitalised, but that will be heavily weighted towards the older end of that range. Odds of hospitalisation for under 50s are still tiny. This graph from independent sage (possibly the first good thing I've seen from them) shows the issue quite well. Once "phase 1" (everyone 50+) is done and the time lag to allow for immunity to build, there's little justification for any bar the least stringent restrictions

 

[takno]

It's been fairly obvious that this has been the case for a while. The phase 1 issues solve the deaths issue, but people have been warning that the age of hospitalisations (and ICU admissions) has been lower than average deaths age for a while. Phase 2 working through the 50-65 year olds will be the group that solves the pressure on healthcare (see graph)

In terms of hospital admissions I'd say that this graph shows vaccinating the over 80s as knocking these down by a third. Since we'll also be rapidly heading towards spring by the time those vaccinations are done anyway then I'd say that's probably enough.

While ICU admissions have a lot more under-75s in them, a lot of the under 75s going in to intensive care aren't actually getting much in the way of intensive care treatment - with relatively quiet ICU wards in October and November they were probably taking in a lot of people as a precaution who are being left in the mainstream wards at the moment.

 

[Ediswan]

The way I read that graphic is that a high proportion of 85+ and a substantial proportion of 75-84 are going straight from 'Hospital admissions' to 'Deaths' without going via 'ICU admissions'.

 

[HSTEd]

It's been fairly obvious that this has been the case for a while. The phase 1 issues solve the deaths issue, but people have been warning that the age of hospitalisations (and ICU admissions) has been lower than average deaths age for a while. Phase 2 working through the 50-65 year olds will be the group that solves the pressure on healthcare (see graph)

Cutting ICU admissions in half still pretty much ends the crisis I would argue.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

It's been fairly obvious that this has been the case for a while. The phase 1 issues solve the deaths issue, but people have been warning that the age of hospitalisations (and ICU admissions) has been lower than average deaths age for a while. Phase 2 working through the 50-65 year olds will be the group that solves the pressure on healthcare (see graph)



Younger isn't the same as young. The hospitalisation rate may show an alarming number of 18-64 year olds being hospitalised, but that will be heavily weighted towards the older end of that range. Odds of hospitalisation for under 50s are still tiny. This graph from independent sage (possibly the first good thing I've seen from them) shows the issue quite well. Once "phase 1" (everyone 50+) is done and the time lag to allow for immunity to build, there's little justification for any bar the least stringent restrictions

What this shows to me is that once the effects of the current (up till mid-February) vaccination plan have taken hold we should see:

Hospital Admissions reduce by around 50%

ICU Admissions reduce by around 35%

Deaths reduce by around 80%.

The NHS should then well be able to cope in a more normal way and I can see no reason why restrictions could not be lifted from early / mid March onwards.

 

[Yew]

What this shows to me is that once the effects of the current (up till mid-February) vaccination plan have taken hold we should see:

Hospital Admissions reduce by around 50%

ICU Admissions reduce by around 35%

Deaths reduce by around 80%.

The NHS should then well be able to cope in a more normal way and I can see no reason why restrictions could not be lifted from early / mid March onwards.

Especially as the increased immunity will have an effect on the unrestricted R; between post infection immunity, and vaccinated immunity we could be looking at around 50% of adults with some level by the middle of February, which is a stones throw from the mythical 60-70%.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

What this shows to me is that once the effects of the current (up till mid-February) vaccination plan have taken hold we should see:

Hospital Admissions reduce by around 50%

ICU Admissions reduce by around 35%

Deaths reduce by around 80%.

The NHS should then well be able to cope in a more normal way and I can see no reason why restrictions could not be lifted from early / mid March onwards.

Especially as the increased immunity will have an effect on the unrestricted R; between post infection immunity, and vaccinated immunity we could be looking at around 50% of adults with some level by the middle of February, which is a stones throw from the mythical 60-70%.

I should point out that the figures I used assume 100% efficacy, which is clearly not the case, so we could knock say 10 - 20% off those figures, which doesn't make them look so good, but still - combined with other factors such as better weather (hopefully!), the effects of lockdown, and continuing to vaccinate those below 70 at a good rate, should still see the NHS able to cope if restrictions started to be relaxed from March onwards.

 

[chris11256]

If the vaccine rollout does go as planned, or as well as is speculated, we'll be in a very very different place mid march than we are now. Realistically I don't think anything is going to change mid February, possibly primary schools reopening. But mid to late march we'll be in a very different situation and having to answer the question on what is lockdown for. As those vulnerable and over 50 will have been vaccinated and hospital admissions should be much much lower. Those that remain should be at levels easily manageable by hospitals.

I'm not reading too much into Boris' comments today, at this moment in time I think the government wants all focus on staying home, rather than people thinking we're nearly done and it's safe to go mad.

It does look promising if the figures coming out of Israel are accurate and the vaccine does indeed have a substantial effect on transmission. Plus from a political angle the current lockdown legislation only runs until the end of March and if I'm not mistaken, the emergency coronavirus act also expires and would need renewing.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It's been fairly obvious that this has been the case for a while. The phase 1 issues solve the deaths issue, but people have been warning that the age of hospitalisations (and ICU admissions) has been lower than average deaths age for a while. Phase 2 working through the 50-65 year olds will be the group that solves the pressure on healthcare (see graph).

Maybe but it was BoJo who told us on 7/1 by vaccinating cohorts 1-4 we would

And just to remind you of the importance of these groups for fighting the disease they account for 88 per cent of all those who have sadly lost their lives.

plenty of MPs have latched onto this number as key reason why they supported the current lockdown and expect to see some relaxation come late Feb.

What is now being suggested is the virus has somehow broadening its target beyond the elderly with comorbidities as being the most vulnerable so we must keep lockdown in place? Where is the evidence for this?

Also the sudden switch to an all out overseas travel ban is also a 180 turn on policy so another indicator the strategy is changing. Personally im quite happy to see that and im in no doubt when the enquiry is written on this a lack of controls on travelling will be seen as a key reason why we lost control of this not once but twice.

 

[Yew]

Also the sudden switch to an all out overseas travel ban is also a 180 turn on policy so another indicator the strategy is changing. Personally im quite happy to see that and im in no doubt when the enquiry is written on this a lack of controls on travelling will be seen as a key reason why we lost control of this not once but twice.

Unfortunately, I'm not certain it's changing for the better..

 

[takno]

Also the sudden switch to an all out overseas travel ban is also a 180 turn on policy so another indicator the strategy is changing. Personally im quite happy to see that and im in no doubt when the enquiry is written on this a lack of controls on travelling will be seen as a key reason why we lost control of this not once but twice.

There isn't an overseas travel ban - they're just removing all the travel corridors so that people have to isolate for 10 days on return, and introducing some tedious rules about getting tests before you come back. I'm not keen on that, but I can't see some justification for it in the period while we are still vaccinating the very vulnerable. After that we need to open back up as much as possible and as far as possible.

There is no evidence that international travel made any difference over the summer - the disease was hanging about on these shores continuously for the summer period, and then we stirred the pot with school and university returns to get it spreading again. Even leading up to the March lockdown, it's likely that the vaccine was already spreading in the country long before people were looking at Italy and shouting pandemic. We might have been slightly further back on the curve if we'd responded faster, but unless you are suggesting that international travel should always require isolation on return then I don't see how it would have made a lot of difference

 

[yorksrob]

What is now being suggested is the virus has somehow broadening its target beyond the elderly with comorbidities as being the most vulnerable so we must keep lockdown in place? Where is the evidence for this?

I've not seen any. I think that what they might be inferring is that as the new strain is more transmissable, more in the slightly less elderly age group are getting it, so more are ending up in hospital. That doesn't mean that an individual who catches it at any age is more likely to end up in hospital with it than previously.

 

[Richard Scott]

Also the sudden switch to an all out overseas travel ban is also a 180 turn on policy so another indicator the strategy is changing. Personally im quite happy to see that and im in no doubt when the enquiry is written on this a lack of controls on travelling will be seen as a key reason why we lost control of this not once but twice.

Why do some still think a travel ban early on would have solved everything? Whilst we are an island we rely heavily on import so virus would easily have got in. We never lost control, it's a fallacy that some people like to put around that we can control a virus, no we can't.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

There isn't an overseas travel ban - they're just removing all the travel corridors so that people have to isolate for 10 days on return, and introducing some tedious rules about getting tests before you come back. I'm not keen on that, but I can't see some justification for it in the period while we are still vaccinating the very vulnerable. After that we need to open back up as much as possible and as far as possible.

There is no evidence that international travel made any difference over the summer - the disease was hanging about on these shores continuously for the summer period, and then we stirred the pot with school and university returns to get it spreading again. Even leading up to the March lockdown, it's likely that the vaccine was already spreading in the country long before people were looking at Italy and shouting pandemic. We might have been slightly further back on the curve if we'd responded faster, but unless you are suggesting that international travel should always require isolation on return then I don't see how it would have made a lot of difference

Yoiks didn't read the small print to see what he was actually saying at the time so thanks for putting me right as I had thought its was an extension the air travel ban to/from St.America/Portugal but its just a month removal of travel corridors. It will act as some deterrent but without a tighter quarantine policy its effectiveness will be muted. Even OZ and NZ who have pretty well eliminated the virus still permit air travel but have a proper quarantine system administered by the state rather than this self isolation trust the individual approach. OK the negative test certificate does give another extra layer of mitigation but still standby my assessment that once the virus for depressed last summer allowing overseas travel didn't help.

 

[takno]

Yoiks didn't read the small print to see what he was actually saying at the time so thanks for putting me right as I had thought its was an extension the air travel ban to/from St.America/Portugal but its just a month removal of travel corridors. It will act as some deterrent but without a tighter quarantine policy its effectiveness will be muted. Even OZ and NZ who have pretty well eliminated the virus still permit air travel but have a proper quarantine system administered by the state rather than this self isolation trust the individual approach. OK the negative test certificate does give another extra layer of mitigation but still standby my assessment that once the virus for depressed last summer allowing overseas travel didn't help.

The really big mistake was depressing the virus at all last summer, but that's a whole different debate

 

[Bertie the bus]

I'm not advocating that lockdown measures should be kept until the young have been vaccinated, I'd argue for exactly the opposite (as a young person myself).

But not doing so could create some very interesting discussion if young people are now being more adversely affected by the virus in terms of hospitalisations than before.

Government to the young: Lose your youths to save the lives of older generations, and be saddled with the debt that results for the rest of your lives.

Also: We've vaccinated those you lost your youths to save, and now they're all safe. Even though it now seems more of you are becoming very ill from this virus, we're now going to "let the virus rip".

I hate that phrase - and I'm only using it facetiously....
(the above is also not my opinion, but an arguement that you could very feasibly see coming about)

Not a difficult path to be treading, and I really don't see how the government can come out of this smelling of roses, whatever route they go down.

More young people aren't being hospitalised. The absolute number might be higher but that is because the number of cases is currently very higher. Proportionally they are at no greater risk of being hospitalised than they were.

What is going to happen is, as older and clinically vulnerable people get vaccinated, the proportion of young and younger people ending up in hospital is going to grow. That is an obvious and predictable consequence of vaccinating the vulnerable first. As 25% of those ending up in hospital are currently over 85 their numbers will drop but the number of younger people won't and so they will make up a higher proportion but the numbers will be the same, e.g. if 1000 end up in hospital and 10 are young they make up 1% of the hospitalisation figures but as the number of more vulnerable people going into hospital comes down it could be 250 in hospital of which still 10 are young but they now make up 4% of the total. Unfortunately when it happens the media will make out that younger people are now suffering more when they are not. Hopefully the government will resist media pressure to keep restrictions longer than necessary.

 

[Richard Scott]

More young people aren't being hospitalised. The absolute number might be higher but that is because the number of cases is currently very higher. Proportionally they are at no greater risk of being hospitalised than they were.

What is going to happen is, as older and clinically vulnerable people get vaccinated, the proportion of young and younger people ending up in hospital is going to grow. That is an obvious and predictable consequence of vaccinating the vulnerable first. As 25% of those ending up in hospital are currently over 85 their numbers will drop but the number of younger people won't and so they will make up a higher proportion but the numbers will be the same, e.g. if 1000 end up in hospital and 10 are young they make up 1% of the hospitalisation figures but as the number of more vulnerable people going into hospital comes down it could be 250 in hospital of which still 10 are young but they now make up 4% of the total. Unfortunately when it happens the media will make out that younger people are now suffering more when they are not. Hopefully the government will resist media pressure to keep restrictions longer than necessary.

The numbers will drop as some people have already been infected the number left to be infected will drop. Proportional the number of younger verses older will increase and expect the media will make something of this without giving the simple reasons why.

 

[david1212]

Allowing us as much freedom to do things as they dared is how I'd put it.

I also support the tier system approach rather than full lockdown.

It's because the silly media get hooked up on the rules having to cover off every possible eventuality when over zealous plods and their actions are front page. No wonder it's now over 100 pages!

The constant rhetoric of 'people are confused' trotted out by TV presenters is crap, and designed to reinforce their opinion that more restrictions are needed. A minority may be confused, probably from reading so called experts on Facebook.

Exercise is the best one; Stay local, meet only one person you don't live with in a public place and keep your 2m distance. Local further defined as village, town or city. Seems fairly clear to me.

There are drink drive laws, but that doesn't mean I have to drink and then drive. There is guidance on support bubbles but it doesn't mean I need to form one.

Appreciate some people are thick, travelling to Wales from Leicester being one of them.

The only problem with the stay in your village, town or city message is that for many villages in particular staying in the village might not be an option. There are many with few, if any amenities, and so people living there have no option but to leave them or struggle for online delivery slots. Even defining a local radius could be problematic for many places. Better just to ask people to stay as local as possible.

Completely agree with you there. People just need to be left to use a bit of common sense and to stay as local as is practical and possible. I live in a village with no shop and as I’m only in my 60’s with no serious underlying health issues, I found it impossible to get online food deliveries during the first lockdown as I was not a priority customer. I was able to walk or drive 2 miles to a small Co op in a neighbouring village, but if the rules had been taken to an extreme that may not have been permitted because it is over the border in a different local council area. The difficult thing for those without a car was that the bus service through the village was suspended for almost 3 months but that hasn’t happened this time. My village is fairly close to a town with other shops but some rural areas are miles from the nearest shop.

As I have posted before 30+ years ago I used to live in a village. There were shops. Between them it was possible to by enough to live but limited choice and expensive. I would consider it reasonable to go either of the nearest towns 10 & 12 miles away once a week. Between them most essential items could be obtained even if ordered for collection a day or two later e.g. a plumbing or heating spare part. Now direct home delivery would mostly cover this.

For exercise driving anywhere would not be keeping local.

From where I now live there are two supermarkets within two miles and suppliers of virtually everything essential within 5 miles hence hard to justify going further. I am fortunate to have various options for exercise without driving anywhere.

However if I lived within a mile of where I work while suppliers of virtually everything essential within at most 3 miles to reach open space large enough to exercise for an hour would require driving away from the area like the two women did in Derbyshire.

 

[3141]

Here is a new peer reviewed paper on lockdowns and cases which concludes the following:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13484

Perhaps you can point to a recent peer reviewed paper showing that heavy restrictions have a large positive effect?

Thank you for drawing attention to that article. Because I don’t look at this thread regularly I didn’t see your post till yesterday evening.

You asked if I knew of a recent peer-reviewed paper showing that heavy restrictions have a large positive effect? The article itself refers to two, in notes 15 and 18, though the authors of this article reach different conclusions. It seems likely that those articles were peer reviewed as they were published in Nature.

Of course, peer review does not guarantee that any conclusions are infallible, and as there is still very much to be learned about the Covid virus this latest article is unlikely to be the final word on the effectiveness of different kinds of intervention.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

More young people aren't being hospitalised. The absolute number might be higher but that is because the number of cases is currently very higher. Proportionally they are at no greater risk of being hospitalised than they were.

What is going to happen is, as older and clinically vulnerable people get vaccinated, the proportion of young and younger people ending up in hospital is going to grow. That is an obvious and predictable consequence of vaccinating the vulnerable first. As 25% of those ending up in hospital are currently over 85 their numbers will drop but the number of younger people won't and so they will make up a higher proportion but the numbers will be the same, e.g. if 1000 end up in hospital and 10 are young they make up 1% of the hospitalisation figures but as the number of more vulnerable people going into hospital comes down it could be 250 in hospital of which still 10 are young but they now make up 4% of the total. Unfortunately when it happens the media will make out that younger people are now suffering more when they are not. Hopefully the government will resist media pressure to keep restrictions longer than necessary.

This is exactly the outcome we want in that total numbers being hospitalised reduces to manageable levels and then the restrictions can slowly be relaxed as the NHS will have the capacity to treat those unfortunate enough to need hospitalisation. This is the strategy postulated by BoJo and Van Tam a week so back but tonight my take was BoJo was rowing back on that. Maybe thats sensible as he has habit of over promising.