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

[DB]

"Cautious" refers to the approach of policymakers to the spread of Covid, given the experience of the last year and the number of deaths attached to Johnson's record. As for whether we only need tier 1 restrictions, there are a number of assumptions underlying that and I can see why they might want to be quite careful before acting on those assumptions. I fully expect to see a more phased relaxation of restrictions than on the exit from lockdown 1 last year, with time given to see what impact they have on the incidence and severity of Covid cases.

Why do so many people seem to be ignoring the fact that, irrespective of success of the vaccines, it's going to decline rapidly anyway due to the time of year from March/April?

 

[MikeWM]

I fully expect to see a more phased relaxation of restrictions than on the exit from lockdown 1 last year, with time given to see what impact they have on the incidence and severity of Covid cases.

I suspect that may well happen, but I don't see any point of doing so. If we're looking for a correlation between restrictions removed/added, we already have that information from first time around, and none of the relaxations in May, June or early July had any effect on the continued reduction of cases and deaths.

The first event that had any apparent effect in reversing that trend was, of course, the introduction of mandatory masks in shops on July 24th, after which cases started to climb again. The reaction to that was to require masks in more places! By that logic, if we open up some things and cases start to rise again, clearly we haven't opened up enough things

The alternative is that the explanation for rise and fall in cases is largely down to seasonality, in which case there is also no point in a slow approach to evaluate impact.

 

[35B]

Why so so many people seem to be ignoring the fact that, irrespective of success of the vaccines, it's going to decline rapidly anyway due to the time of year from March/April?

If it does. Seasonality is a reasonable assumption, but incidences elsewhere suggest is an unreliable friend while also being a dangerous enemy.

A slower release than last year is untenable, given the increased immunity in the population.
The question is not, "is it safe to unlock" it is "are these measures the lest restrictive possible". If Boris wants to depart from that, he should enact the Civil Contingencies Act, as the Public Health Act requires any measures to be the "least restrictive means possible".

Define "possible". That leaves quite wide latitude for interpretation of what measures are necessary to achieve the objective, and uncertainty over the impact of vaccination would be an obvious line for the government to take to support a more phased reduction than last year, on the basis that it will avoid leaving or building a reservoir of infection. The silver lining is that such slower phasing might well still result in effective relaxation of restrictions earlier in the year than in 2020.

I suspect that may well happen, but I don't see any point of doing so. If we're looking for a correlation between restrictions removed/added, we already have that information from first time around, and none of the relaxations in May, June or early July had any effect on the continued reduction of cases and deaths.

The first event that had any apparent effect in reversing that trend was, of course, the introduction of mandatory masks in shops on July 24th, after which cases started to climb again. The reaction to that was to require masks in more places! By that logic, if we open up some things and cases start to rise again, clearly we haven't opened up enough things

The alternative is that the explanation for rise and fall in cases is largely down to seasonality, in which case there is also no point in a slow approach to evaluate impact.

Except that one of the data points from 2020 was an association between greater travel and the increased prevalence of different versions - especially Spanish - of the virus. So not just a question of acting directly on case numbers, but of how government considers the long run impact of infections with a view towards next winter.

 

[Yew]

obvious line for the government to take to support a more phased reduction than last year, on the basis that it will avoid leaving or building a reservoir of infection.

Which does not matter once the vulnerable are vaccinated.

 

[MikeWM]

Except that one of the data points from 2020 was an association between greater travel and the increased prevalence of different versions - especially Spanish - of the virus. So not just a question of acting directly on case numbers, but of how government considers the long run impact of infections with a view towards next winter.

I'm not really sure what you can do about that though, short of very draconian bans on international travel (for years to come).

Just thinking about my work colleagues, while some are broadly supportive of the current strategy, if you start telling them they can't see their family and friends in other countries for the forseeable, they're not going to be happy *at all*.

 

[Mag_seven]

"Cautious" refers to the approach of policymakers to the spread of Covid, given the experience of the last year and the number of deaths attached to Johnson's record. As for whether we only need tier 1 restrictions, there are a number of assumptions underlying that and I can see why they might want to be quite careful before acting on those assumptions. I fully expect to see a more phased relaxation of restrictions than on the exit from lockdown 1 last year, with time given to see what impact they have on the incidence and severity of Covid cases.

I suggest the cautious approach whilst applicable last year when we didn't know what we were dealing with is not appropriate now. We know a lot more about the virus now, we now have a vaccine and it is being rolled out with the most vulnerable being vaccinated first, and we have better treatments available to use.

 

[Yew]

and we have better treatments available to use.

That's a good point, will we start seeing the benefits of the recently announced drug combination, dropping ICU times by a week?

 

[bramling]

I'm not really sure what you can do about that though, short of very draconian bans on international travel (for years to come).

Just thinking about my work colleagues, while some are broadly supportive of the current strategy, if you start telling them they can't see their family and friends in other countries for the forseeable, they're not going to be happy *at all*.

I think international travel is a difficult one to crack, for the time being.

Since our central strategy is a vaccine, and since there seems to be concerns that different variants may be less effective with the vaccines we currently have, it does seem that international travel is a potential problem.

Having said that, I don’t see people tolerating being held up under armed guard in a Pritilodge and being served prison food!

I’d be prepared to forego international travel for a time if it means we can get back to normal here. Again this strategy would presumably gamble on further vaccine development, and that we don’t end up at risk of having longer term lower immunity in the population.

I suppose the question may be how far they can reduce the hotel quarantine period by adding in things like reliable testing. There still remains issues like the Irish border.

 

[takno]

I’d be prepared to forego international travel for a time if it means we can get back to normal here. Again this strategy would presumably gamble on further vaccine development, and that we don’t end up at risk of having longer term lower immunity in the population.

I'd probably cope as well, although I have a team abroad who I could really do with meeting up with on a semi-regular basis, and we have pretty large investors overseas who we would benefit a lot from having a face-to-face conversation with.

The most immediate problem is likely to be people with close family abroad who haven't been able to see them, in some cases for nearly a year already.

In all cases the problem is that there is a quite reasonable path to removing internal restrictions, but the government and their advisers don't want to take it, and are hastily erecting every possible roadblock they can find in the way of it. That makes it impossible to decide whether any "potential new problem" like mutations or "foreigners coming over here" or "inconsiderate holidaymakers" are actually an issue, or just another artificial roadblock/bargaining chip.

 

[brad465]

This is unexpected, the ONS infection survey just released thinks infection levels haven't really changed since the previous release and are still around 1 million in England, despite confirmed cases and the ZOE study thinking otherwise:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, UK - Office for National Statistics

Estimates for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

www.ons.gov.uk

• In England, the percentage of people testing positive for the coronavirus (COVID-19) remains high in the week ending 23 January 2021; we estimate that 1,018,700 people (95% credible interval: 976,200 to 1,061,600) within the community population in England had COVID-19, equating to around 1 in 55 people (95% credible interval: 1 in 55 to 1 in 50).
• During the week ending 23 January 2021, London had the highest percentage of people testing positive; we estimate that 2.71% of people in London had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 2.52% to 2.91%), equating to around 1 in 35 people (95% credible interval: 1 in 40 to 1 in 35).
• In Wales, the percentage of people testing positive has remained level over the week ending 23 January 2021; we estimate that 43,600 people in Wales had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 36,100 to 51,600), equating to around 1 in 70 people (95% credible interval: 1 in 85 to 1 in 60).
• In Northern Ireland, the percentage of people testing positive has levelled off in the week ending 23 January 2021; we estimate that 36,800 people in Northern Ireland had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 30,500 to 43,900), equating to around 1 in 50 people (95% credible interval: 1 in 60 to 1 in 40).
• In Scotland, the percentage of people testing positive remained level in the week ending 23 January 2021; we estimate that 48,500 people in Scotland had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 41,900 to 55,700), equating to around 1 in 110 people (95% credible interval: 1 in 125 to 1 in 95).

Figure 1: In England, the percentage of people testing positive remains high in the week ending 23 January 2021​

Official estimates of the percentage of the population in England testing positive for the coronavirus (COVID-19) on nose and throat swabs from 3 May 2020​

However, there are more distinct declines in London, the South East and the North East, which appear to be being offset by rises or no change in levels elsewhere. If this survey is to be taken as gospel then it would show lockdowns don't work for infections as many here believe (certainly not while it's winter), and that the hospitalisations starting to decline could well be attributed to the vaccine rollout so far. Either way, it paints a very confusing picture.

 

[Yew]

Since our central strategy is a vaccine, and since there seems to be concerns that different variants may be less effective with the vaccines we currently have, it does seem that international travel is a potential problem.

I'm not entirely sure those concerns are based in reality though...

 

[MikeWM]

I’d be prepared to forego international travel for a time if it means we can get back to normal here. Again this strategy would presumably gamble on further vaccine development, and that we don’t end up at risk of having longer term lower immunity in the population.

I would too, but I'm trying to be very careful (probably over-careful) to avoid becoming a member of the 'well, I don't do it very much and can live without it for now, so let's do that and never mind the people who need to do it to live a full life' brigade that we've seen far too much of over the past year.

I'm also highly wary of any approach that has no obvious mechanism for exit, which is a large part of the reason I've been opposed to pretty much all 'supression' attempts from day 1.

 

[Bikeman78]

"Cautious" refers to the approach of policymakers to the spread of Covid, given the experience of the last year and the number of deaths attached to Johnson's record. As for whether we only need tier 1 restrictions, there are a number of assumptions underlying that and I can see why they might want to be quite careful before acting on those assumptions. I fully expect to see a more phased relaxation of restrictions than on the exit from lockdown 1 last year, with time given to see what impact they have on the incidence and severity of Covid cases.

I think the public will vote with their feet. Let's see how busy the trains to Barry Island are on the first warm spring day. People were happy to pack on to the trains last year to the extent that extra trains had to be laid on to bring them back.

 

[35B]

I think the public will vote with their feet. Let's see how busy the trains to Barry Island are on the first warm spring day. People were happy to pack on to the trains last year to the extent that extra trains had to be laid on to bring them back.

"The public" is more than the few hundred who can crowd onto individual DMUs, though - they may be a large number of individuals, but don't necessarily represent even a significant minority - the same as a large demo is always represented by its supporters as an overwhelming number, yet even the largest rarely turn the dial on public opinion as a whole.

I suggest the cautious approach whilst applicable last year when we didn't know what we were dealing with is not appropriate now. We know a lot more about the virus now, we now have a vaccine and it is being rolled out with the most vulnerable being vaccinated first, and we have better treatments available to use.

Agreed. But a lot of that knowledge is hard won, and includes experience of the difficulty of containing spread. Whatever we individually might want to see happen, it shouldn't be surprising if governments err on the cautious side before assuming that the modelling that supports relaxation is right, and instead want to see real world evidence of that.

 

[yorksrob]

"The public" is more than the few hundred who can crowd onto individual DMUs, though - they may be a large number of individuals, but don't necessarily represent even a significant minority - the same as a large demo is always represented by its supporters as an overwhelming number, yet even the largest rarely turn the dial on public opinion as a whole.

Agreed. But a lot of that knowledge is hard won, and includes experience of the difficulty of containing spread. Whatever we individually might want to see happen, it shouldn't be surprising if governments err on the cautious side before assuming that the modelling that supports relaxation is right, and instead want to see real world evidence of that.

The knowledge from last year is that outdoor activities didn't produce a spike in infections. Careful reopening of hospitality didn't cause a spike in infections.

Where spikes did occur, they were localised and due to local conditions.

A slower reopening of these activities than last year will have nothing to do with being cautious, and everything to do with SAGE trying to prioritise activities which it thinks are virtuous, by sacrificing everything it doesn't care for.

 

[DB]

A slower reopening of these activities than last year will have nothing to do with being cautious, and everything to do with SAGE trying to prioritise activities which it thinks are virtuous, by sacrificing everything it doesn't care for.

Quite. 'Cautious' seems to be have been redefined in the same way that 'safe' has and now refers solely to measure claimed to reduce spread of this one virus.

If this 'cautious' approach aimed at 'keeping people safe' leads to loads dying from suicide, who cares, etc? Certainly not the government, or the locktivist cheerleaders who applaud every restriction going.

 

[Cdd89]

I suppose the question may be how far they can reduce the hotel quarantine period by adding in things like reliable testing. There still remains issues like the Irish border.

On the other hand, as domestic Covid incidence reduces, we’ll have endless tests lying around which we have no other use for. I imagine we could throw our testing resources at making travel viable again, eg with pre departure testing, and daily testing and confirmation of result for a period of time after arriving back into the country (and similar requirements elsewhere).

 

[35B]

Quite. 'Cautious' seems to be have been redefined in the same way that 'safe' has and now refers solely to measure claimed to reduce spread of this one virus.

If this 'cautious' approach aimed at 'keeping people safe' leads to loads dying from suicide, who cares, etc? Certainly not the government, or the locktivist cheerleaders who applaud every restriction going.

I am defining "cautious" as focused on Covid because, for better or worse, it is the government's performance against Covid that will be measured, not those other, less direct, effects.

It is all very well raging against that, but unless the reality on which policy is based is acknowledged, it's impossible to interpret government policy.

 

[greyman42]

It was never wheeled out every day. It is weekly, was mentioned last Friday, will probably be mentioned this Friday

I did not realise that, as the media would make a great fuss about it every day when it was above 1.

 

[packermac]

I'm not really sure what you can do about that though, short of very draconian bans on international travel (for years to come).

Just thinking about my work colleagues, while some are broadly supportive of the current strategy, if you start telling them they can't see their family and friends in other countries for the forseeable, they're not going to be happy *at all*.

Trouble is that International Travel is that it is of course a two way thing.
I see the Spanish PM, for example, has said he does not want international travellers back in Spain until 70% of the population has been vaccinated, and then a slow reopening. Before the current vaccine spat that was looking like late summer. So you could have the UK allowing people to go, but Spain refusing entry. Then multiply that around all the countries in the world and you end up with a right mess.

 

[DB]

Trouble is that International Travel is that it is of course a two way thing.
I see the Spanish PM, for example, has said he does not want international travellers back in Spain until 70% of the population has been vaccinated, and then a slow reopening. Before the current vaccine spat that was looking like late summer. So you could have the UK allowing people to go, but Spain refusing entry. Then multiply that around all the countries in the world and you end up with a right mess.

They might be saying that now, but will countries like Spain, which are heavily dependent on tourism, stick to it over the summer when cases are likely to plummet anyway?

 

[yorksrob]

The key thing is to get things opened up here as soon as possible.

With progressive vaccinations, different countries will open up to eachother progressively as they get things under control.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

This is unexpected, the ONS infection survey just released thinks infection levels haven't really changed since the previous release and are still around 1 million in England, despite confirmed cases and the ZOE study thinking otherwise:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, UK - Office for National Statistics

Estimates for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

www.ons.gov.uk

However, there are more distinct declines in London, the South East and the North East, which appear to be being offset by rises or no change in levels elsewhere. If this survey is to be taken as gospel then it would show lockdowns don't work for infections as many here believe (certainly not while it's winter), and that the hospitalisations starting to decline could well be attributed to the vaccine rollout so far. Either way, it paints a very confusing picture.

Hospital admissions below 3k for first time since 31/12 and this data is four days old due to infrequent updates we get.

Regionally London and SE are 40% below its highest daily admission and it hasn't been this low since 24/12. Hospitalisations are showing steady decline in London as well down from a peak of 7917 to 6393 on 28/1, SE also showing good reductions.

Other areas are just coming off peaks but were behind L&SE in increasing cases and hospital admissions so not unexpected and the trend is clear to what will happen over the next few weeks.

So with case rates down across the week if you use 7 day average and look at specimen date rather than reporting date of tests there is clear downward trend. So with the benefit of the vaccine rollout progressing extremely well along with some sort of immunity from all those positive cases we will see an improving trend such that govt will have a real problem to defend all the restrictions come the mid Feb review. No one will be against a slow relaxation but why is BoJo holding back til 22/2 to just publish a road map. CRG need to be all over this and demanding the roadmap is bought forward.

 

[david1212]

An advert that really pee'd me off this morning was on the radio was one which said "...can you look a shop assistant in the eyes and tell him your trip to the shops is really essential?..."

I have never heard such utter bovine excrement in all my life.

Trying to make people feel guilty and anxious because they pop to the supermarket to get something that they have forgotten on run out of isn't really going to work.

People will either ignore it or resent it.

Personally I think the public appetite for lockdown compliance is rapidly fading (mine certainly is) and as the figures improve and the weather gets better, compliance is only going to fall further.

I caught this one yesterday.

My reaction is anyone who would go to a shop for just a few cans of beer and a lottery ticket / scratchcard will give it the ' two finger salute ' and go anyway while someone already going beyond the law and guidelines as intended but has run out of milk and tea bags before their next online order is delivered will drink water when before they would have gone to the nearest shop.

I can only think that those who came up with this are very isolated from the real world and society.

Absolutely. They can't keep treating us like children, saying we "Must stay at home" for months on end! But it seems the first easing of lockdown won't be till at least 8th March! So at least another 5 weeks of this yet! But if the "Stay at home" guidance is still going into March and the weather starts warming up nicely, I can guarantee that not many will be sticking to that. Many will be heading to the beaches, parks, and beauty spots to get out and about and enjoying the weather!

I think the public will vote with their feet. Let's see how busy the trains to Barry Island are on the first warm spring day. People were happy to pack on to the trains last year to the extent that extra trains had to be laid on to bring them back.

The lockdown is only holding up as well as it is because of the winter weather. When dry few want to be outdoors for more than an hour. It is very noticeable that when I go for my walk around the estate there are now far more out doing the same than between Christmas and New Year.

I really do not know how families are coping day after day after day with home schooling and working from home then just a local walk, cycle etc. to get away from the same four walls. For break from the same faces and conversation each adult and older child can go out separately and meet one other person for excercise but not recreation. That is all.

 

[philosopher]

There is an article from the Guardian this morning that compares restrictions across various countries. Restrictions for the four largest Western European countries are below. There are several more countries in the article.

From lockdowns to pool parties: how Covid rules vary around the world

Countries have adopted different rules on business activity, education, socialising and travel

www.theguardian.com

France​

Curfews and lockdowns The second lockdown was replaced with a 6pm curfew in mid-December. Bars, restaurants and cultural venues remain closed. A third lockdown is expected next week.
Schools Open since June. Some secondary schools operate a 50-50 split between remote and classroom learning. Masks are obligatory from age six.
Socialising A “rule of six” introduced in October applies up to the 6pm curfew.
Travel Arrivals from non-EU/Schengen countries must present a negative PCR test less than 72 hours old or will be tested on arrival.
Deaths per million 1,096
Vaccinated 1.74%

Germany​

Curfews and lockdowns In hotspots where new cases of Covid exceed 200 per 100,000 inhabitants within a week, residents are not allowed to stray more than 15km (10 miles) beyond the borders of their city, town or rural district. Two of Germany’s 16 federal states, Bavaria and Saxony, have introduced day- and night-time curfews.
Schools Closed until at least 14 February; nurseries offer care for children of essential workers only.
Socialising Gatherings in the home and outside are only allowed with members of one’s own household and one more person from another household, including children.
Travel Arrivals from high-risk areas must digitally register their trip before arrival, carry proof of a negative test result obtained no more than 48 hours before their entry, and self-isolate for 10 days.
Deaths per million 655
Vaccinated 2.38%

Italy​

Curfews and lockdowns A national 10pm-5am curfew is in place, with varying levels of lockdowns across the country’s 20 regions. Most regions are in the medium-risk “orange zone”, where bars and restaurants can open for takeout and all other shops are open.
Schools Infant and primary schools reopened in early January, while the majority of Italy’s high school and university student are doing online learning.
Socialising There are no enforced limits on the number of people who can gather. There is still a ban on inter-regional travel unless for work or emergency reasons.
Travel No entry for those who have been in or transited through the UK within the previous 14 days, unless they have residency in Italy. Those with residency must provide a negative test before leaving the UK, take another on arrival in Italy, and quarantine for two weeks. Similar restrictions are in place for arrivals from Brazil.
Deaths per million 1,441
Vaccinated 2.61%

Spain​

Curfews and lockdowns An overnight curfew was introduced in October, but the government has ruled out a return to the stringent national lockdown imposed in the spring and early summer last year. It has left the 17 self-governing regions to impose further restrictions if they choose, for instance limiting shop and restaurant opening hours.
Schools Open nationwide, with masks mandatory, as elsewhere across the country, and classrooms being ventilated.
Socialising Varies from region to region. In Madrid, private gatherings between households are banned but up to four people can meet in public places such as cafes, bars and restaurants. Valencia and Murcia have banned gatherings of more than two people from different households.
Travel All passengers entering Spain from a high-risk country – such as the UK – must supply a negative test carried out within 72 hours of arrival.
Deaths per million 1,216
Vaccinated 2.9%

Comparing the restrictions in the UK with these other countries, it does seem that the UK has the toughest restrictions of the lot in Europe, particularly when it comes to social gatherings. The four countries above do all permit indoor socialising of some kind with at least one other person. The UK however does not have any curfew and it is mentioned France may go into a third lockdown next week.

 

[Yew]

The UK however does not have any curfew and it is mentioned France may go into a third lockdown next week.

Which is good, as there is no evidence they have any effect on the spread.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Picture of the letter I just received from my MP. The comments on signage refer to my on going saga with my Council in my attempt to stop them picking and choosing which parts of the legislation they want to enforce.

The remainder his statement is on the lifting of restrictions once the vulnerable have been vaccinated

On a side note the swift response was surprising, I must only have emailed on Wednesday

 

[Yew]

@VauxhallandI I think that has your details on, you might consider cropping the photo in this public part of the forum.

 

[VauxhallandI]

@VauxhallandI I think that has your details on, you might consider cropping the photo in this public part of the forum.

Thank you.

 

[35B]

Picture of the letter I just received from my MP. The comments on signage refer to my on going saga with my Council in my attempt to stop them picking and choosing which parts of the legislation they want to enforce.

The remainder his statement is on the lifting of restrictions once the vulnerable have been vaccinated

On a side note the swift response was surprising, I must only have emailed on Wednesday

That is entirely consistent with, and perhaps more moderate on restrictions than, Charles Walker’s public position on restrictions.