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

[yorksrob]

So let's turn the logic around, and for the sake of argument say that the current lockdown measures are the baseline that a change must be measured against. What are the comparable numbers for the measures you propose as a better option, and hence the relative harms?

Why would you take the current lockdown measures as a baseline ?

They are extraordinary and unproven. They should not be a baseline for anything.

 

[Class 317]

To throw a pebble in the pond on whether lock down works.

I work for a new Zealand based company in its UK branch. New Zealand released GDP figures for the year that are only down around 2.2% in 2020 having had strong growth from Sept onwards. In turn their total cases are less than 3k with only 25 deaths in a population of 5m or so.

Because Covid is so low, normal economic and social activities have kept the non Covid consequences of the pandemic on society low with few job loses and little increase in mental health issues.

The difference between their lockdown and the lockdowns presued in many European countries is that they went for local elimination. as a mid term strategy pending vaccines. They kept the lockdown stricter and for longer before being able to open up with very light touch measures except the strict border controls which are nessesary for preventing reimportation of Covid.

Unfortunately most other countries have gone halfway house and moved from lockdown to significantly opening up whilst Covid was still locally endemic in turn leading to surges and further lockdowns and other control measures which have increased the economic harm and social issues.

The poor management of the crisis in the UK with no clear long-term plan or even a plan for a few months ahead has probably led to us having the worst of both worlds in many respects. We have large economic effects of a lockdown that did not have a long-term effect leading to stricter measures in many areas and 2 additional lockdowns increasing the economic, social and mental health issues whilst not tackling Covid issues.

To have implemented the elimination approach in the UK would have been difficult without the benefit of new Zealand's isolation but it's been mentally difficult having conversations with my colleagues out there who have lived normally since July.

I think to go down the lockdown route in March was right at the time with the limited info available but the mistake was not thinking strategically about how to keep Covid surpressed at the end of it.

I get very angry when I think that my job is at risk and the poor decisions made this year by government are to blame. Equally I think a cautious approach to releasing lockdown measures now is the right one to prevent the risk of a poor decision of going to early causing cases to rise and hospital admissions to rapidly rise back to levels seen in recent weeks leading to measures being needed.

 

[Yew]

So let's turn the logic around, and for the sake of argument say that the current lockdown measures are the baseline that a change must be measured against. What are the comparable numbers for the measures you propose as a better option, and hence the relative harms?

I'll try and find the study, and it was suggesting that lockdowns cost about £1,000,000 for every Quality Adjusted Life Year saved, for comparison, the National institute for Clinical Excellence generally has a limit in the range of £20,000-30,000.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The poor management of the crisis in the UK with no clear long-term plan or even a plan for a few months ahead has probably led to us having the worst of both worlds in many respects. We have large economic effects of a lockdown that did not have a long-term effect leading to stricter measures in many areas and 2 additional lockdowns increasing the economic, social and mental health issues whilst not tackling Covid issues.

To have implemented the elimination approach in the UK would have been difficult without the benefit of new Zealand's isolation but it's been mentally difficult having conversations with my colleagues out there who have lived normally since July.

I think to go down the lockdown route in March was right at the time with the limited info available but the mistake was not thinking strategically about how to keep Covid surpressed at the end of it.

I get very angry when I think that my job is at risk and the poor decisions made this year by government are to blame. Equally I think a cautious approach to releasing lockdown measures now is the right one to prevent the risk of a poor decision of going to early causing cases to rise and hospital admissions to rapidly rise back to levels seen in recent weeks leading to measures being needed.

BoJos mistake was to always see this as a short term issue and the need to restore economic activity as fast as possible. The tiering concept was a reasonable strategy but they failed to apply the rules they established in late summer and let transmission run away with itself and then are left with no choice but to use the lockdown sledgehammer in November. The next mistake was to allow shops to trade normally in the run upto Xmas especially in the SE when it was clearly evident that something wasn't adding up in Kent. All these failures just seeded the increased transmission we saw and out came the sledgehammer again. However, im with you and i now feel BoJo is once bitten twice shy and we won't see much in the way of relaxation until April but he won't say that just yet to keep the CRG mob at bay. In reality they have no chance as opposition want more severe restrictions even now when the case rate at hospiatilsations rates have peaked so BoJo will always get it through Commons.

 

[35B]

I'll try and find the study, and it was suggesting that lockdowns cost about £1,000,000 for every Quality Adjusted Life Year saved, for comparison, the National institute for Clinical Excellence generally has a limit in the range of £20,000-30,000.

That would be of interest - though I'd also be interested in the cost of not locking down at whatever assumption of additional cases/hospitalisations/deaths is involved as those will also have a cost per QALY associated with them.

Why would you take the current lockdown measures as a baseline ?

They are extraordinary and unproven. They should not be a baseline for anything.

As I said, for the sake of argument. I find the answers to counterfactual questions are often quite revealing, and shed light on where the real issues are. In this case, we have the current set of measures and the current hospitalisations and deaths; if the policy was changed as @Yew suggests, it is the consequences of the proposed change of policy that would be the visible impact, and it'd be interesting to understand what those are to form a view of those consequences.

In a world where there is necessarily uncertainty in all directions about the impact of this disease, and the trade-offs between various policy responses and lives, lifestyles and livelihoods, the what if is a useful question to layer into data which is by definition backwards looking.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Here we go again...

UK extends councils' lockdown powers until July 17, Telegraph says

The British government has quietly extended coronavirus lockdown laws to give local councils in England the power to close pubs, restaurants, shops and public spaces until July 17, the Telegraph reported on Saturday. https://bit.ly/3p8zwwC

www.reuters.com

 

[geoffk]

Here we go again...

UK extends councils' lockdown powers until July 17, Telegraph says

The British government has quietly extended coronavirus lockdown laws to give local councils in England the power to close pubs, restaurants, shops and public spaces until July 17, the Telegraph reported on Saturday. https://bit.ly/3p8zwwC

www.reuters.com

We can kiss good bye then to most pubs, small shops, cafes and restaurants, heritage railways, theatres, concert halls and cinemas. Anything I've missed? That just about embraces all the things I used to do.

 

[Class 33]

We can kiss good bye then to most pubs, small shops, cafes and restaurants, heritage railways, theatres, concert halls and cinemas. Anything I've missed? That just about embraces all the things I used to do.

Festivals and events industry too. Going to be completely wiped out this year by the looks of it, and many of them may well not return again.

I haven't bothered reading the article, as it would not be good for my mental health. But why has Johnson already extended Coronavirus lockdown laws until July?? They were due to expire at the end of March. With all these vaccinations every week now, things should be much much better by the end of March with the numbers of cases, numbers admitted to hospital, numbers in hospital and deaths. So why the bloody hell has he already extended these laws until July? And will parliament not have the chance to vote on whether they should be extended??

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Mahyar Tousi reports:

Warning: it's quite long but quite interesting...

 

[Domh245]

So why the bloody hell has he already extended these laws until July? And will parliament not have the chance to vote on whether they should be extended??

Because they originally expired on the 17th of January. They've been extended another 6 months (IMO as a reasonable worst case - extending it only 3 months could be a bit touch & go - I think we'll still likely to see some restrictions around Mid April for which these could be useful) but that certainly doesn't mean that they'll be in place until then - just that they're there if necessary.

 

[geoffk]

Festivals and events industry too. Going to be completely wiped out this year by the looks of it, and many of them may well not return again.

I haven't bothered reading the article, as it would not be good for my mental health. But why has Johnson already extended Coronavirus lockdown laws until July?? They were due to expire at the end of March. With all these vaccinations every week now, things should be much much better by the end of March with the numbers of cases, numbers admitted to hospital, numbers in hospital and deaths. So why the bloody hell has he already extended these laws until July? And will parliament not have the chance to vote on whether they should be extended??

Extending Council's lockdown powers means I suppose they don't have to use them. A bit like being told to expect a "no deal" Brexit so that the announcement of a deal, however bad, is seen as an improvement.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Extending Council's lockdown powers means I suppose they don't have to use them.

Councils are cash-strapped despite massive off-shore reserves so I'm sure they would be rubbing their hands with glee for additional income, e.g. fines

 

[Dave91131]

My ex partner has this evening informed me that her daughter's secondary school are, from tomorrow, only allowing children of key workers to attend the school on the days that the key worker parent(s) are at work - and they are asking for employer's contact details as well as requesting that the key worker parent(s) provides copies of a work rota / schedule on a weekly basis to ensure that these new "rules" are being adhered to.

Whatever next.

 

[initiation]

extending it only 3 months could be a bit touch & go

Why is it touch and go? In three months the situation will be substantially different, surely we should make a decision then based on the then current situation not months in advance.



I am honestly getting more depressed about this. The government is committed to lockdown and restricting who we can meet and what we can do. I am now 75% sure we will not see the end of all restrictions this year and next winter we will see some measures reintroduced. I desperately hope I am wrong but us lockdown sceptics are not in the majority of the wider population and the majority do seem to want more lockdown. The people get what they deserve.

 

[nedchester]

Why is it touch and go? In three months the situation will be substantially different, surely we should make a decision then based on the then current situation not months in advance.



I am honestly getting more depressed about this. The government is committed to lockdown and restricting who we can meet and what we can do. I am now 75% sure we will not see the end of all restrictions this year and next winter we will see some measures reintroduced. I desperately hope I am wrong but it seems us lockdown sceptics are not the majority and the majority do seem to want more lockdown.

I am not a lockdown sceptic as I see the need for them at this current time but I do think that some are forgetting what normal life is all about and have got used to being restricted.

This is very worrying.

 

[Domh245]

Why is it touch and go? In three months the situation will be substantially different, surely we should make a decision then based on the then current situation not months in advance.



I am honestly getting more depressed about this. The government is committed to lockdown and restricting who we can meet and what we can do. I am now 75% sure we will not see the end of all restrictions this year and next winter we will see some measures reintroduced. I desperately hope I am wrong but us lockdown sceptics are not in the majority of the wider population and the majority do seem to want more lockdown. The people get what they deserve.

I'm taking a fairly pessimistic view naturally, but I do not believe that in mid-april we will have full normality. We'll be under much less stringent restrictions, but it won't be back to normal. A 3 month extension would have just resulted in a story in 3 months time about "despite ever improving situation, powers are extended" because of the need for a small portion of what the SI allows to be continued for (eg) a month. A 6 month extension means that they can keep on using the powers as long as is necessary until mid July, but I see no reason to think that they would be in use much beyond the end of May. It may even just be the case that 6 months is the 'default' time period that gets used for this sort of emergency legislation, but I do believe there's some method behind it as well - if they're 50% sure they'll need it beyond April but 99.9% sure they won't need it after July, then obviously they'd go for the July window.

I also take a slightly more optimistic view of the government than you do - it would seem quite clear that there isn't much real appetite from on-high to actually lockdowns, which is why they've usually been done last minute and (at least with the first two) eased as soon as they felt practical. I do believe that this is the last lockdown we'll see, and that whilst we may see restrictions into winter these will be as light touch as is possible. Consider it this way: there is no benefit to the government for long sustained lockdowns or harsher restrictions than is necessary, particularly as every passing day sees more and more people vaccinated.

 

[bramling]

I am not a lockdown sceptic as I see the need for them at this current time but I do think that some are forgetting what normal life is all about and have got used to being restricted.

This is very worrying.

Absolutely this is happening. Some people are so engrossed in this that they have lost the ability (if they ever had it in the first place) to rationally analyse a situation.

Lat week I saw a woman literally screaming her head off over someone not wearing a mask on an open-air station platform. Yet ironically she’d approached the person to launch her performance.

 

[yorkie]

I wish I'd been there for that; I'd have given her a right roasting. The legislation doesn't cover open air platforms (except in Scotland I believe) and how does she know they weren't exempt?

This is typical authoritarianism.

 

[Richard Scott]

I wish I'd been there for that; I'd have given her a right roasting. The legislation doesn't cover open air platforms (except in Scotland I believe) and how does she know they weren't exempt?

This is typical authoritarianism.

Me too!

 

[bramling]

I wish I'd been there for that; I'd have given her a right roasting. The legislation doesn't cover open air platforms (except in Scotland I believe) and how does she know they weren't exempt?

This is typical authoritarianism.

I’m sorry to say I wasn’t in a position to do it on this occasion, otherwise I’d have done too.

The nerve of some of these people knows no bounds.

 

[duncanp]

Here we go again...

UK extends councils' lockdown powers until July 17, Telegraph says

The British government has quietly extended coronavirus lockdown laws to give local councils in England the power to close pubs, restaurants, shops and public spaces until July 17, the Telegraph reported on Saturday. https://bit.ly/3p8zwwC

www.reuters.com

This does NOT mean that the government is thinking of keeping pubs closed until July.

The article refers to powers that the local councils have to shut down premises that are not obeying COVID rules that are set by the government.

To take one example, at the moment pubs (in England) are not allowed to sell takeaway alcohol. If a pub sells takeaway alcohol in contravention of these rules, the councils can use these powers to fine the pub or issue a closure order.

If the government subsequently decide to ease the rules to allow pubs to sell takeaway alcohol again, the council can no longer fine or sanction a pub that sells takeaway alcohol.

You could interpret the extension of these powers for six months to mean that the lockdown is going to last until July, and that the rules will stay as they are at the moment until then.

But I think this is unduly pessimistic.

The figures are improving all the time, and I think there is a very good chance that there will be at least some easing of the lockdown rules after the next review in the middle of February, to take effect around the time of the budget.

The government is in discussions with the hospitality industry regarding what restrictions might be in place, and have said that a likely date for reopening of pubs will become apparent within the next few weeks once they have had a chance to look at the data and the long term trends.

It is quite likely that there will be a progressive easing of restrictions in the Spring and early Summer, so that by the time the powers expire in July they will no longer be needed.

Don't forget that whether the lockdown continues is governed by the regulations laid before parliament, which currently have an expiry date of March 31st. It is quite likely that MPs will want to see plan for easing the restrictions put in place before extending the restrictions, or that the restrictions which apply from April 1st onwards will be less onerous than they are now.

I also think the situation is not helped by papers such as The Covid Bedwetter (which used to be known as The Daily Mail) having headlines such as Pubs Could Be Closed Until JULY.

The likelihood of pubs staying closed until July is either vanishingly small or non existent, and something would have to go seriously wrong with the the figures for this to happen. It may well be the case that it is June or July (by which time the vaccination levels will be approaching those at which herd immunity is achieved) before all restrictions on pubs are lifted, and this is why these powers have been extended until then.

 

[kez19]

This does NOT mean that the government is thinking of keeping pubs closed until July.

The article refers to powers that the local councils have to shut down premises that are not obeying COVID rules that are set by the government.

To take one example, at the moment pubs (in England) are not allowed to sell takeaway alcohol. If a pub sells takeaway alcohol in contravention of these rules, the councils can use these powers to fine the pub or issue a closure order.

If the government subsequently decide to ease the rules to allow pubs to sell takeaway alcohol again, the council can no longer fine or sanction a pub that sells takeaway alcohol.

You could interpret the extension of these powers for six months to mean that the lockdown is going to last until July, and that the rules will stay as they are at the moment until then.

But I think this is unduly pessimistic.

The figures are improving all the time, and I think there is a very good chance that there will be at least some easing of the lockdown rules after the next review in the middle of February, to take effect around the time of the budget.

The government is in discussions with the hospitality industry regarding what restrictions might be in place, and have said that a likely date for reopening of pubs will become apparent within the next few weeks once they have had a chance to look at the data and the long term trends.

It is quite likely that there will be a progressive easing of restrictions in the Spring and early Summer, so that by the time the powers expire in July they will no longer be needed.

Don't forget that whether the lockdown continues is governed by the regulations laid before parliament, which currently have an expiry date of March 31st. It is quite likely that MPs will want to see plan for easing the restrictions put in place before extending the restrictions, or that the restrictions which apply from April 1st onwards will be less onerous than they are now.

I also think the situation is not helped by papers such as The Covid Bedwetter (which used to be known as The Daily Mail) having headlines such as Pubs Could Be Closed Until JULY.

The likelihood of pubs staying closed until July is either vanishingly small or non existent, and something would have to go seriously wrong with the the figures for this to happen. It may well be the case that it is June or July (by which time the vaccination levels will be approaching those at which herd immunity is achieved) before all restrictions on pubs are lifted, and this is why these powers have been extended until then.

I hope you are right , I do think that in the press/media its not been said correctly if this is the case but then I forget we live in a time now where all they themselves are looking for is clicks.

 

[island]

I wish I'd been there for that; I'd have given her a right roasting. The legislation doesn't cover open air platforms (except in Scotland I believe) and how does she know they weren't exempt?

Scotland and NI make face coverings a requirement on open-air platforms. England and Wales do not.

This is typical authoritarianism.

It certainly is.

 

[duncanp]

I hope you are right , I do think that in the press/media its not been said correctly if this is the case but then I forget we live in a time now where all they themselves are looking for is clicks.

SAGE have said that you need to vaccinate about 80% of the adult population of the UK to achieve herd immunity.

As of 23rd January 6,353,321 people have received their first dose of the vaccine.

80% of the adult population of the UK is about 53.4 million, so if we vaccinate at the rate of 490,000 per day we will have achieved the vaccination levels required for herd immunity by 29th April, and will have vaccinated the entire UK adult population by 26th May.

It is quite possible that the numbers vaccinated every day will be less than 490,000 per day over the long term, but even if the average is 400,000 per day we will achiever herd immunity by 20th May and have vaccinated the entire population by 23rd June.

OK, these calculations may be a little bit on the back of a fag packet, and you need 3 weeks after vaccination before a reasonable level of protection can be achieved, but I feel quite sure that someone in the government is looking at when herd immunity is likely to be reached, because once this happens there is no case for having any restrictions at all.

Even before then, once vaccination levels get above 50% of the adult population (which at the current rate is around late March) there is a case for releasing restrictions, because any consequent increase in cases will be at a manageable level.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

This does NOT mean that the government is thinking of keeping pubs closed until July.

The article refers to powers that the local councils have to shut down premises that are not obeying COVID rules that are set by the government.

To take one example, at the moment pubs (in England) are not allowed to sell takeaway alcohol. If a pub sells takeaway alcohol in contravention of these rules, the councils can use these powers to fine the pub or issue a closure order.

If the government subsequently decide to ease the rules to allow pubs to sell takeaway alcohol again, the council can no longer fine or sanction a pub that sells takeaway alcohol.

You could interpret the extension of these powers for six months to mean that the lockdown is going to last until July, and that the rules will stay as they are at the moment until then.

But I think this is unduly pessimistic.

The figures are improving all the time, and I think there is a very good chance that there will be at least some easing of the lockdown rules after the next review in the middle of February, to take effect around the time of the budget.

The government is in discussions with the hospitality industry regarding what restrictions might be in place, and have said that a likely date for reopening of pubs will become apparent within the next few weeks once they have had a chance to look at the data and the long term trends.

It is quite likely that there will be a progressive easing of restrictions in the Spring and early Summer, so that by the time the powers expire in July they will no longer be needed.

Don't forget that whether the lockdown continues is governed by the regulations laid before parliament, which currently have an expiry date of March 31st. It is quite likely that MPs will want to see plan for easing the restrictions put in place before extending the restrictions, or that the restrictions which apply from April 1st onwards will be less onerous than they are now.

I also think the situation is not helped by papers such as The Covid Bedwetter (which used to be known as The Daily Mail) having headlines such as Pubs Could Be Closed Until JULY.

The likelihood of pubs staying closed until July is either vanishingly small or non existent, and something would have to go seriously wrong with the the figures for this to happen. It may well be the case that it is June or July (by which time the vaccination levels will be approaching those at which herd immunity is achieved) before all restrictions on pubs are lifted, and this is why these powers have been extended until then.

Typical media chasing headlines without even properly explaining what has actually happened. Key metrics of cases are on a downward trend whether by actual numbers or more importantly positivity. Hospitalisations look like they've peaked across UK and certainly have declined in the areas which had high prevalence pre December. Vaccination levels are growing by the day and we should start to see case levels in >80 year olds start to decline by this time next week. It also should be noted that nearly half of those vaccinated are health care workers. Govt is right to exercise caution given the uncertainties over the vaccination strategy and the deviation from the makers guidance on 2nd dosing but my take is once the data supports the direction of the strategy we will see relaxation begin.

 

[ChrisC]

SAGE have said that you need to vaccinate about 80% of the adult population of the UK to achieve herd immunity.

As of 23rd January 6,353,321 people have received their first dose of the vaccine.

80% of the adult population of the UK is about 53.4 million, so if we vaccinate at the rate of 490,000 per day we will have achieved the vaccination levels required for herd immunity by 29th April, and will have vaccinated the entire UK adult population by 26th May.

It is quite possible that the numbers vaccinated every day will be less than 490,000 per day over the long term, but even if the average is 400,000 per day we will achiever herd immunity by 20th May and have vaccinated the entire population by 23rd June.

OK, these calculations may be a little bit on the back of a fag packet, and you need 3 weeks after vaccination before a reasonable level of protection can be achieved, but I feel quite sure that someone in the government is looking at when herd immunity is likely to be reached, because once this happens there is no case for having any restrictions at all.

Even before then, once vaccination levels get above 50% of the adult population (which at the current rate is around late March) there is a case for releasing restrictions, because any consequent increase in cases will be at a manageable level.

Does the figure of 80% of the adult population vaccinated to achieve herd immunity mean after the first dose of the vaccine or the second? If it’s after the second it’s going to be a lot later than May or June.

If they are currently vaccinating 400,000+ a day, what happens in about 8 weeks time when all the over 80’s who have already had their first jab have to go for their second. My mother had her first jab yesterday and has been given her second appointment for 12.30pm on 17th April. If all these second jab appointments have been booked, which will by then be over 400,000 a day, will they have capacity to continue giving the first jab to younger people at the same time?

I’m hoping that even after all these people have only had their first jab that infection rates, and more importantly death rates, will begin to fall rapidly by Easter and some restrictions can begin to be removed.

 

[Dent]

SAGE have said that you need to vaccinate about 80% of the adult population of the UK to achieve herd immunity.

It would be unwise to put too much trust in any statement beginning "SAGE have said".

 

[yorkie]

Does the figure of 80% of the adult population vaccinated to achieve herd immunity mean after the first dose of the vaccine or the second? If it’s after the second it’s going to be a lot later than May or June.

If you want to get more precise, I think it's too early to say.

We don't need to reach full 'herd immunity' to end the epidemic; simply reaching 'endemic equilibrium' (which we have with hundreds of "common cold" viruses, some of which are coronaviruses) will suffice.

No-one knows for sure what percentage of the population needs to have immunity to reach these threshholds.

People who claim herd immunity will never be achieved typically don't like to mention endemic equilibrium, state the case that the threshhold could be as high as 90% and claim the efficacy of vaccines may not be high enough. Others may argue that around 60% of people having some immunity would suffice.

We don't yet know what the efficacy of the vaccines are in the real world, but preliminary studies put one single dose of the Oxford vaccine as around 61% against symptomatic Covid, but 100% of cases avoided serious illness and there were no deaths. It does take 2-3 weeks for that level of immunity to kick in though. We don't yet know how long one dose of the vaccine would last for and how rapidly the efficacy would reduce over time. We do know a second dose boosts the efficacy but we don't yet know the optimum time between doses, nor the optimum strength. There is some evidence that a weaker first dose and/or a longer gap between doses increases the efficacy and it could reach 90% or more against symptomatic Covid.

We don't yet know if the vaccine will last for decades (however people who had the original Sars-Cov-2 virus still have at least some immunity 17 years later) or if it will become an annual or bi-annual jab.

Edit: and we don't know to what extend the vaccines reduce transmission, but I suspect we will find that they do to a significant extent. More data on that should follow in the coming weeks.

But the exact detail and precise percentages of each of these factors is not particularly important right now; the main aim right now clearly has to be to vaccinate as many people as possible with the first jab initially, and then to commence second jabs once the time is right (currently there is a strong belief among the Chief Medical Officers that around 12 weeks is the right balance) and this will reduce hospitalisations and death rates.

If they are currently vaccinating 400,000+ a day, what happens in about 8 weeks time when all the over 80’s who have already had their first jab have to go for their second. My mother had her first jab yesterday and has been given her second appointment for 12.30pm on 17th April. If all these second jab appointments have been booked, which will by then be over 400,000 a day, will they have capacity to continue giving the first jab to younger people at the same time?

Providing supplies hold up, we should be able to increase that number even further, as new vaccination centres are being brought into use.

I’m hoping that even after all these people have only had their first jab that infection rates and more importantly death rates will begin to fall rapidly by Easter and some restrictions can begin to be removed.

Infection rates started declining before the latest lockdown and are currently in rapid decline, though this is of course nothing to do with the vaccine.

Death rates will therefore decline after another week or two anyway, but even more so once the effect of the vaccine kicks in. The current restrictions must go by 1st of March, by when I hope we can enter T3, but more restrictions should go by Easter, by which time we should be looking at some areas entering T2.

 

[Mintona]

I’ve seen a lot of comments on social media along the lines of ‘just because we have a vaccine doesn’t mean we can lift restrictions. It’s not a magic bullet’. It does make me wonder what the point of the vaccine is then.

I can’t see anything changing this year from the situation we are in now.

 

[yorkie]

I’ve seen a lot of comments on social media along the lines of ‘just because we have a vaccine doesn’t mean we can lift restrictions. It’s not a magic bullet’. It does make me wonder what the point of the vaccine is then.

I can’t see anything changing this year from the situation we are in now.

We will take our lives back from the authoritarians this Spring, mark my words we will.