How much longer will social distancing go on for in the UK?

[Class 33]

In recent months we've had all these numerous instances of Johnson "Address the nation" with bad news of further restrictions, further national lockdowns. It needs to start going in the opposite direction fairly soon with Johnson "addressing the nation" with GOOD news of these tough nuisance restrictions being lifted and a route map out of all these restrictions. 2020 was an absolutely dire year because of all this, and so far 2021 is too. But we've got these vaccines now. So far nearly 4 million people have been administered, and millions more over the coming months. Therefore all these restrictions must be lifted soon so we can get this country back to normal.

Some of the things government ministers have said very recently are "These vaccines are our route out of all these restrictions and back to normal life returning." and "If the public can just bear with these restrictions for just a few more months and we'll soon be out of all this.". Well, let's see if that actually happens and they're not just fobbing us off.

There's just no way that all this can drag on into at least 2022! The country would be absolutely ruined by then if that was the case!

 

[yorksrob]

"a few more months" is too long to maintain the current extreme lockdown and "stay at home" restrictions. There needs to be a material relaxation in restrictions earlier than this.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Nadim Zahawi on the TV this morning saying that "it would be a gradual easing, probably through the tier system" and "about 2 to 3 weeks after the middle of February, when we have protected those top 4 cohorts, is when we can look to start easing restrictions".

He did however mention there were caveats such as whether the vaccine actually reduces transmission or not.

So early to mid March looks to be the absolute earliest suggested time that we can start to think about gradually easing things, although my fear is that at that time they will panic about case numbers and transmission instead of deaths.

I suppose the big question on everyone's lips nearer the time will be how quickly that "gradual" easing takes.

 

[yorksrob]

Nadim Zahawi on the TV this morning saying that "it would be a gradual easing, probably through the tier system" and "about 2 to 3 weeks after the middle of February, when we have protected those top 4 cohorts, is when we can look to start easing restrictions".

He did however mention there were caveats such as whether the vaccine actually reduces transmission or not.

So early to mid March looks to be the absolute earliest suggested time that we can start to think about gradually easing things, although my fear is that at that time they will panic about case numbers and transmission instead of deaths.

I suppose the big question on everyone's lips nearer the time will be how quickly that "gradual" easing takes.

And what does he propose if the vaccine doesn't reduce transmission ?

This is the problem, whan they come up with these caveats, they need to be challenged as to what they would do in those circumstances other than more lockdown. What exactly would easing more slowly achieve.

 

[trebor79]

Actually I think there's a real opportunity for the UK to economy to get a head start on the recovery given we are way ahead of the rest of Europe in the vaccination game. If we keep this momentum going we could be back to normal life by summer and focused on the future. I'd actually forgive the Conservatives of their abject failure over the past year if they manage to deliver the vaccination programme and remove all of the restrictions and rules by summer. I'm sure many other natural Tory voters feel the same and I'm sure someone in Conservative central office has had the same thoughts.
I do think most of the nation is OK to go with lockdown for another 6 weeks or so and then for a steady and permanent roll back of restrictions, masks etc and reopening of the economy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jan 2021 ==

Nadim Zahawi on the TV this morning saying that "it would be a gradual easing, probably through the tier system" and "about 2 to 3 weeks after the middle of February, when we have protected those top 4 cohorts, is when we can look to start easing restrictions".

He did however mention there were caveats such as whether the vaccine actually reduces transmission or not.

This really annoys me. So what, even if it had zero effect on transmission, if everyone vulnerable (and eventually everyone) is vaccinated anyway what difference does it make? We've all got millions of harmless bugs living on and in us.

 

[SS4]

And what does he propose if the vaccine doesn't reduce transmission ?

This is the problem, whan they come up with these caveats, they need to be challenged as to what they would do in those circumstances other than more lockdown. What exactly would easing more slowly achieve.

You'll be lucky. Do any of the older members recall a time when the press and the opposition challenged the government on these things? We also need to make sure it's not the poor that pay the brunt of the costs like in 2010.

What we should be given is the underlying data and the model they drew their conclusions from

Actually I think there's a real opportunity for the UK to economy to get a head start on the recovery

It needs to be a recovery for all in which I have negative faith in the Tories to achieve (negative faith meaning they'll actively work against it)

 

[nlogax]

Nadim Zahawi on the TV this morning saying that "it would be a gradual easing, probably through the tier system" and "about 2 to 3 weeks after the middle of February, when we have protected those top 4 cohorts, is when we can look to start easing restrictions".

I'm looking to get some work done in my home and various tradespeople and showroom managers are telling me the that mid Feb is when they will likely re-open premises or restart house visits for surveys and estimates. Not sure where their info is coming from..I am not convinced.

 

[notlob.divad]

Large parts of Brazil, including the Amazonas region this new variant is rampaging, are in a tropical climate where seasons are dry and wet (or wet all year), not summer and winter. I can't find where regional variations in Brazil infections are right now, but the very southern part may have a winter/summer variation, but the tropics definitely don't, so seasonal behaviour is different.

For Dry/Wet you need to refer to your point below, the actual corrolation is the same when you follow the logic through.

South Africa is harder to explain admittingly, but the argument that where it's really hot, spreading indoors is more favourable for sake of sheltering away (which was seen in the South-West US middle of last year) maybe applicable. There definitely appears to be a seasonal correlation in the Northern Hemisphere through Europe, North America and even in North Asia where South Korea and Japan were doing very well so far, are now seeing higher case rates, that maybe simply beyond human control.

Your first point is correct, the spread indoors. However your second is not. People go indoors for different reasons depending on the climate. But the key is they go indoors. In the temperate regions it tends to be to escape the cold, in Arid and Tropical regions people tend to go inside to escape the heat. Modern indoor airconditioning has been shown, by indepth studies and modelling in South Korea, to be a major contributor to widening the spread and the distance over which it spreads. Major outbreaks in ski resorts didn't happen on the slopes, they happened in the hot humid apres-ski bars where people cram in to get out of the cold.

If you missout the middle step you confuse corrolation with causation and thus your final phrase is widely inaccurate. It is entirely within human control to break the chains of transmission once we understand and educate people on the true causation. This is where Witty and Johnson right at the start of this whole debacle made a fundamental error in their statements to the public. They insisted it would be seasonal without taking into account the feedback loops in human behaviour that generate the seasonality.

If some of the lockdown skeptics on here actually took this message to heart they would have a much stronger arguement than their current route which seems to be throw as much mud at the data as they can and see what sticks. Enforcing people to spend time indoors in close proximity is not going to decelerate the spread as effectively as getting people outdoors into the fresh air.

 

[notlob.divad]

Generally, virus rates would decline in summer just like how we don't really get much flu in summer either. South Africa & Brazil are facing new strains so a different situation.

See my response to brad 465. Your corrrolation maybe there if you conveniently exclude the data that has an inverse corrolation. However both can be made to corrolate when viewed through the prism of human behaviour, somehting which we do have control over, and could utilise to break the link.

 

[yorksrob]

For Dry/Wet you need to refer to your point below, the actual corrolation is the same when you follow the logic through.



Your first point is correct, the spread indoors. However your second is not. People go indoors for different reasons depending on the climate. But the key is they go indoors. In the temperate regions it tends to be to escape the cold, in Arid and Tropical regions people tend to go inside to escape the heat. Modern indoor airconditioning has been shown, by indepth studies and modelling in South Korea, to be a major contributor to widening the spread and the distance over which it spreads. Major outbreaks in ski resorts didn't happen on the slopes, they happened in the hot humid apres-ski bars where people cram in to get out of the cold.

If you missout the middle step you confuse corrolation with causation and thus your final phrase is widely inaccurate. It is entirely within human control to break the chains of transmission once we understand and educate people on the true causation. This is where Witty and Johnson right at the start of this whole debacle made a fundamental error in their statements to the public. They insisted it would be seasonal without taking into account the feedback loops in human behaviour that generate the seasonality.

If some of the lockdown skeptics on here actually took this message to heart they would have a much stronger arguement than their current route which seems to be throw as much mud at the data as they can and see what sticks. Enforcing people to spend time indoors in close proximity is not going to decelerate the spread as effectively as getting people outdoors into the fresh air.

All of which suggests that we should be allowing socially distanced hospitality in naturally ventilated settings, however this is always the first out of the window in favour of lockdown.

 

[initiation]

Nadim Zahawi on the TV this morning saying that "it would be a gradual easing, probably through the tier system" and "about 2 to 3 weeks after the middle of February, when we have protected those top 4 cohorts, is when we can look to start easing restrictions".

So much ambiguity....

• "About 2-3 weeks" could easily be pushed to another 4 weeks.
• The "middle of February" could be any period +-10 days from the 14th Feb.
• Then they 'look' to make changes, not actually implement.
• And even then it is only to "start easing".

 

[bramling]

Many love to compare the pandemic with WW2. It's worth noting that rationing lasted 8 years after the 6 year war ended. Compulsory ID lasted a similar length of time. People have a remarkable tolerance to restrictions on their freedom after a while. Many people who are breaking the law are supporters of lockdown. There is an element of needing to feel they are morally right. I have received criticism for going on holiday abroad three times during the pandemic, almost all from people who have broken the law. Some how its wrong to legally go on holiday in tier 2 or 3 but quietly breaking the law when seeing friends and partners is acceptable. That sort of mentality limits the political backlash. I have said before, I don't expect the Covid legislation to be allowed to expire until spring 2022. I am not sure 20,000 deaths from respiratory viruses in a flu + covid season will be politically acceptable now.

Unfortunately, I agree with all this. We all need to do our bit to ensure we don’t end up with a situation where we get people calling for lockdown every winter, simply for virtue-signalling reasons.

The consequences would be ridiculous - for example children having their education constantly disrupted would ultimately lead to a situation where we have undeveloped children. As it is there’s a real danger of that happening already. We cannot allow it.

 

[duncanp]

Nadim Zahawi on the TV this morning saying that "it would be a gradual easing, probably through the tier system" and "about 2 to 3 weeks after the middle of February, when we have protected those top 4 cohorts, is when we can look to start easing restrictions".

He did however mention there were caveats such as whether the vaccine actually reduces transmission or not.

So early to mid March looks to be the absolute earliest suggested time that we can start to think about gradually easing things, although my fear is that at that time they will panic about case numbers and transmission instead of deaths.

I suppose the big question on everyone's lips nearer the time will be how quickly that "gradual" easing takes.

2 - 3 weeks after the middle of February is late February/ early March.

I would expect the first easing of restrictions to coincide with the budget on 3rd March, if only to take our attention away from the tax rises or bad economic news.

If they are going to use the tier system I would expect:-

• Everywhere in England into Tier 3 from Monday 8th March, with the announcement contained in the budget speech or shortly before
• On the anniversary of the first lockdown (March 23rd) or shortly before Easter (April 4th) everywhere in England into Tier 2, possibly without the silly requirement for pubs to serve substantial meals. Internal travel within the UK allowed again.
• In the last week of April, before the bank holiday on May 3rd, everywhere in England into Tier 1, perhaps with a loosening of the rules regarding household mixing.
• Later in May, before the second bank holiday, further loosening of the rules regarding household mixing and masks, with international travel allowed again.

Whilst I want to see restrictions lifted as soon as possible, I could live with a timetable like that above, providing there was a commitment to permanently end all restrictions by late June.

What I could not live with is a return to the tier system as existed before, with Matt Hancock spouting all the usual codswallop about "..being guided by the data.." and "..following the science", and SAGE scientists mouthing off every 5 seconds about the need to tighten restrictions.

When an area is moved down the tiers, that move must be permanent.

The government must then spend the summer preparing the NHS for next autumn and winter, possibly by deciding who in the "everyone under 50 without underlying health conditions" category should be prioritised for vaccination.

 

[DustyBin]

For Dry/Wet you need to refer to your point below, the actual corrolation is the same when you follow the logic through.



Your first point is correct, the spread indoors. However your second is not. People go indoors for different reasons depending on the climate. But the key is they go indoors. In the temperate regions it tends to be to escape the cold, in Arid and Tropical regions people tend to go inside to escape the heat. Modern indoor airconditioning has been shown, by indepth studies and modelling in South Korea, to be a major contributor to widening the spread and the distance over which it spreads. Major outbreaks in ski resorts didn't happen on the slopes, they happened in the hot humid apres-ski bars where people cram in to get out of the cold.

If you missout the middle step you confuse corrolation with causation and thus your final phrase is widely inaccurate. It is entirely within human control to break the chains of transmission once we understand and educate people on the true causation. This is where Witty and Johnson right at the start of this whole debacle made a fundamental error in their statements to the public. They insisted it would be seasonal without taking into account the feedback loops in human behaviour that generate the seasonality.

If some of the lockdown skeptics on here actually took this message to heart they would have a much stronger arguement than their current route which seems to be throw as much mud at the data as they can and see what sticks. Enforcing people to spend time indoors in close proximity is not going to decelerate the spread as effectively as getting people outdoors into the fresh air.

I’m not sure Whitty et al said that this would be a seasonal virus right at the start? Indeed, it was never meant to stay around long enough to be seasonal if you recall. Some of us on here speculated that it would become seasonal and subsequently asked why the experts did not predict this until it was too late. I’m happy to be corrected but that’s my recollection.

In regard to your final point, I don’t think the message is lost on the lockdown sceptics. Most of us are fully aware of this. The problem is, people will spend more time indoors over winter when you have a climate like ours. Unless I’m mistaken, you appear to be suggesting we change normal human behaviour? This is exactly what lockdowns and restrictions do, and yet we find ourselves in the current situation. What are your practical solutions?

 

[Yew]

I am not sure 20,000 deaths from respiratory viruses in a flu + covid season will be politically acceptable now.

Those are low numbers, in recent history we've regularly hit above 50000

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jan 2021 ==

I suppose the big question on everyone's lips nearer the time will be how quickly that "gradual" easing takes.

Legally, under the Public Health Act, the restrictions must be the least restrictive means possible.

 

[joncombe]

The US is a big question mark, other than that some states may lift almost everything fairly soon if they're not having too many problems, but the national picture will be a long wait.

Didn't Biden say he would mandate masks across the US for the first 3 months of his presidency?

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Whilst I want to see restrictions lifted as soon as possible, I could live with a timetable like that above, providing there was a commitment to permanently end all restrictions by late June.

What I could not live with is a return to the tier system as existed before, with Matt Hancock spouting all the usual codswallop about "..being guided by the data.." and "..following the science", and SAGE scientists mouthing off every 5 seconds about the need to tighten restrictions.

When an area is moved down the tiers, that move must be permanent.

The government must then spend the summer preparing the NHS for next autumn and winter, possibly by deciding who in the "everyone under 50 without underlying health conditions" category should be prioritised for vaccination.

I agree. I could live with a gradual easing as you describe however there must not be a return to the old style of tiers where different counties, council areas, towns, boroughs or even wards are moved from tier to tier every week or so with only a moment's notice. This frequent chopping and changing makes planning anything such as a weekend away, trip, visit to family, holiday, or even a meal at a restaurant almost impossible.

 

[DB]

Didn't Biden say he would mandate masks across the US for the first 3 months of his presidency?

Don't believe he has the power to do that - it would be up to individual state governors.

 

[island]

He will make them mandatory in federal buildings, which he can do.

 

[DB]

He will make them mandatory in federal buildings, which he can do.

Yes, no doubt.

Wonder what the excuse will be when it makes absolutely no difference to case numbers?

 

[bramling]

Yes, no doubt.

Wonder what the excuse will be when it makes absolutely no difference to case numbers?

No doubt the usual that we always see - we didn’t do enough of whatever the failed measure was. Or blaming it on non-compliance of course.

I see Priti Patel has been sounding off today, it seems we’re all being set up to take the blame for the current high death / case numbers, as we further sleepwalk towards being an authoritarian state.

 

[Yew]

Yes, no doubt.

Wonder what the excuse will be when it makes absolutely no difference to case numbers?

We're not wearing them in enough places, obviously!

 

[takno]

We're not wearing them in enough places, obviously!

They'll have to change the name if they want us to wear them in more places. I've only got one face!

 

[island]

Yes, no doubt.

Wonder what the excuse will be when it makes absolutely no difference to case numbers?

The usual one – it would have gotten worse but for the measures.

 

[DB]

They'll have to change the name if they want us to wear them in more places. I've only got one face!

Perhaps politicians could start wearing them over the orifice which many of them appear to talk out of?

 

[MikeWM]

Didn't Biden say he would mandate masks across the US for the first 3 months of his presidency?

100 days, which conveniently enough takes us to the end of April, by when we can expect to have seen a massive fall in most places due to seasonality/vaccines/herd immunity. He can then claim they work, and show how much better he is at all this than his predecessor

He still seems keen. He mentioned again on twitter the other day the same rubbish he's been coming out with for months - that if everyone wore one, the 'experts agree' that would save 50,000 lives...

 

[DB]

100 days, which conveniently enough takes us to the end of April, by when we can expect to have seen a massive fall in most places due to seasonality/vaccines/herd immunity. He can then claim they work, and show how much better he is at all this than his predecessor

He still seems keen. He mentioned again on twitter the other day the same rubbish he's been coming out with for months - that if everyone wore one, the 'experts agree' that would save 50,000 lives...

No doubt he's assuming (probably correctly) that the media won't push him to back this up with details of his sources!

 

[6862]

The country would be absolutely ruined by then if that was the case!

I think that boat sailed quite some time ago.

 

[bramling]

I think that boat sailed quite some time ago.

I am increasingly coming to the conclusion the country is already ruined.

We now seem to have a proportion of the population who seem happy to live an existence akin to being a household pet. Namely that in return for not having to get up and go to work, they’re happy to exchange a fulfilled enriched life for a controlled restricted facile existence where their average day will consist of hanging around a beauty spot, beach or local park for a few hours drinking coffee, and the highlight of their life is a day out to the supermarket, garden centre or B&Q.

There’s now a real danger we’re all being dragged down to this level, with a prime minister whose past history consists of writing funny not-particularly-well-researched magazine articles, and who is simply not worldly wise nor strong enough to arrest the sleepwalk.

As it is, the longer this nonsense goes on for the less of the good enriching things we’re going to have left, a process which debases us down to the lowest level anyways.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I am increasingly coming to the conclusion the country is already ruined.

We now seem to have a proportion of the population who seem happy to live an existence akin to being a household pet. Namely that in return for not having to get up and go to work, they’re happy to exchange a fulfilled enriched life for a controlled restricted facile existence where their average day will consist of hanging around a beauty spot, beach or local park for a few hours drinking coffee, and the highlight of their life is a day out to the supermarket, garden centre or B&Q.

There’s now a real danger we’re all being dragged down to this level, with a prime minister whose past history consists of writing funny not-particularly-well-researched magazine articles, and who is simply not worldly wise nor strong enough to arrest the sleepwalk.

As it is, the longer this nonsense goes on for the less of the good enriching things we’re going to have left, a process which debases us down to the lowest level anyways.

There is a massive difference between accepting the current situation and "being happy" with it.
Do not confuse the two.

There is also a massive difference between accepting the current situation for a relatively short period of time (in the grand scheme of things, even the ~18 months or so we are looking at is a short period of time in most people's lives) and accepting the current situation for a longer period of time.
Again, it is important not to confuse the two.