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

[Solent&Wessex]

This rather clearly shows the issues involved with 'following the science'. Many of them don't live in the real world, it seems. Try telling a pub or nightclub owner that physical distancing has no cost. Not to mention the fact that if we all followed physical distancing forever, the human race will go extinct, which seems more than a slight overreaction to a disease that 99.8% or more will survive.

I note the concerted effort over the weekend - stories from scientists and politicians in England, Wales and Scotland - basically saying that we need to keep masks and social distancing forever.

Can we please hurry up and get back to the days when the media called these folks 'boffins' and treated them as detached from the real world? Because, sadly, that stereotype appears to have been true all along.

I also noticed a suspiciously higher than normal number of scientists and "experts" appearing in various forms of media - printed, audible and screen - all proffering stories of doom and gloom about new variants, social distancing etc.

Indeed one of the most recent scare stories yesterday / today is that large events and gatherings such as weddings, football matches, music concerts might need to be banned or have Covid restrictions (which would probably make many of them unviable) for at least a couple of years - Expert warns that large events won't happen for a 'few years' (yahoo.com). The same story is being discussed on Radio 2 just now with an "expert" (Dr Simon Clark, University of Reading) saying that the government needs to manage expectations and stop referring to things getting back to normal as they won't do for years to come, if at all, and suggesting that large events as above may need to be banned or restricted for years if not for ever, and people in involved businesses relying on events and gatherings will need to re-think their business models or find other things to do.

I even see that the NHS is wading in to the mix with the Chief Executive of NHS Providers saying that lockdown should not be eased until we reach 1000 cases per day :

hospital chiefs warned Prime Minister Boris Johnson that there must be fewer than 1,000 coronavirus cases per day before the third national lockdown can be eased.

NHS Providers chief executive Chris Hopson will urge Mr Johnson not to lift the restrictions or risk a potential fourth wave of infections - despite 22 per cent of all over-18s in Britain now having been vaccinated.

His demands mean that daily cases of Covid-19 must fall by a staggering 95 per cent from their current number - 18,262 yesterday - to record fewer than 1,000 per day.

At the current weekly fall in cases of 20 per cent, it would take 14 weeks to record fewer than 1,000 cases

The continued appearance of all these people with such claims and stories is particularly depressing.

Having said that, I still feel more positive than I did a month or so ago.

I get the impression having listened to ministers and others over the last few days that they are beginning to realise that such long term restrictions are unrealistic, too costly and won't be tolerated. It strikes me that they are beginning to realise they will have to take a more balanced approach to things. Indeed if you followed the logic of some of the SAGE people and "experts" who are pontificating on all these things is that you would never ever ever lift restrictions. The calls to keep lockdown until we sort out a vaccine for the South Africa variant is silly, as by time that has happened there will be a French variant, or a Russian variant and then we will have to stay in lockdown until the vaccines have been tweeked to be effective against them. And by time they have done that there will be a Cumbrian variant, or an American variant, and we'll have to stay in lockdown for a bit longer and so it carries on. Obviously that is completely and totally unrealistic. Most of the things that the scientists say we need to continue in lockdown for will never go away. There will always be new variants. There will always be people who are unvaccinated. There will always be people due a booster jab and waiting for it. There will always be a revised vaccine just round the corner, like the flu jab. There will always be people dying from Covid. So if we stayed in lockdown until all these issues went away then we will never get out of lockdown. I am getting the impression that ministers and decision makers are starting to realise this.

The difficult thing will be managing public expectations and the people who are still petrified of going outside and those who say we should stay in lockdown until "it is completely safe". Despite what this forum feels there are still a very high number of these people.

My concerns now don't really relate to the medium term, but the short term - say the next 2 to 6 months, and in particular how quickly (or how slowly!) the government actually start to remove restrictions.

 

[ChrisC]

I'm still at a loss to understand the paranoia around new variants. Mutation does not necessarily equal more dangerous but this seems to be the underlying narrative that the so called experts and government are pedalling. They should come clean with the facts rather than keep trying to instill fear and wreck more people's businesses, education and lives.

The mutations bringing about new variants, such as the South African one, could be just as dangerous as the original virus. The important fact is that although the current vaccines may not be very effective against mild or even moderate infections of these new variants, they are reported to be still very effective against more severe infections. Right from the beginning it has only been a very small percentage of people who ended up in hospital and so if the vaccines protect against the more severe cases, most hospitalisation and ultimately deaths will be prevented. Also the NHS should not be any more overwhelmed than it is during a normal winter. If it just means that a few people have nothing more unpleasant than a mild attack of the flu then as soon as the majority of the population have been vaccinated we need to get back to normal.

Restrictions need to begin to be lifted as soon as possible. People then can do their own personal risk assessments regarding social distancing and mask wearing etc. Once I have had both doses of the vaccine I hope that I can get back to a normal life. I probably won’t have had both of my doses of the vaccine and it be effective until well into July. Until then I will sensibly be careful. I will still go out but avoid crowded places where I feel that there is any risk. With numbers falling as they currently are, I don’t think many places or activities, especially outdoor will have any real risk whatsoever. As soon as they are open I will be going away for a few days and staying overnight in hotels as I did last summer. Until I have had both of my vaccinations I will just choose quieter less busy locations to visit.

 

[yorksrob]

I also noticed a suspiciously higher than normal number of scientists and "experts" appearing in various forms of media - printed, audible and screen - all proffering stories of doom and gloom about new variants, social distancing etc.

Indeed one of the most recent scare stories yesterday / today is that large events and gatherings such as weddings, football matches, music concerts might need to be banned or have Covid restrictions (which would probably make many of them unviable) for at least a couple of years - Expert warns that large events won't happen for a 'few years' (yahoo.com). The same story is being discussed on Radio 2 just now with an "expert" (Dr Simon Clark, University of Reading) saying that the government needs to manage expectations and stop referring to things getting back to normal as they won't do for years to come, if at all, and suggesting that large events as above may need to be banned or restricted for years if not for ever, and people in involved businesses relying on events and gatherings will need to re-think their business models or find other things to do.

I even see that the NHS is wading in to the mix with the Chief Executive of NHS Providers saying that lockdown should not be eased until we reach 1000 cases per day :



The continued appearance of all these people with such claims and stories is particularly depressing.

Having said that, I still feel more positive than I did a month or so ago.

I get the impression having listened to ministers and others over the last few days that they are beginning to realise that such long term restrictions are unrealistic, too costly and won't be tolerated. It strikes me that they are beginning to realise they will have to take a more balanced approach to things. Indeed if you followed the logic of some of the SAGE people and "experts" who are pontificating on all these things is that you would never ever ever lift restrictions. The calls to keep lockdown until we sort out a vaccine for the South Africa variant is silly, as by time that has happened there will be a French variant, or a Russian variant and then we will have to stay in lockdown until the vaccines have been tweeked to be effective against them. And by time they have done that there will be a Cumbrian variant, or an American variant, and we'll have to stay in lockdown for a bit longer and so it carries on. Obviously that is completely and totally unrealistic. Most of the things that the scientists say we need to continue in lockdown for will never go away. There will always be new variants. There will always be people who are unvaccinated. There will always be people due a booster jab and waiting for it. There will always be a revised vaccine just round the corner, like the flu jab. There will always be people dying from Covid. So if we stayed in lockdown until all these issues went away then we will never get out of lockdown. I am getting the impression that ministers and decision makers are starting to realise this.

The difficult thing will be managing public expectations and the people who are still petrified of going outside and those who say we should stay in lockdown until "it is completely safe". Despite what this forum feels there are still a very high number of these people.

My concerns now don't really relate to the medium term, but the short term - say the next 2 to 6 months, and in particular how quickly (or how slowly!) the government actually start to remove restrictions.

Really I get the impression that its the scientific community that needs to have its expectations managed. Unfortunately, we've given them the impression that we're willing to close down society indefinately, however the public will need to force the agenda.

 

[MikeWM]

I also noticed a suspiciously higher than normal number of scientists and "experts" appearing in various forms of media - printed, audible and screen - all proffering stories of doom and gloom about new variants, social distancing etc.

Indeed one of the most recent scare stories yesterday / today is that large events and gatherings such as weddings, football matches, music concerts might need to be banned or have Covid restrictions (which would probably make many of them unviable) for at least a couple of years

Once everyone who wants to be is vaccinated, these 'a couple of years' comments for large gatherings/masks/distancing make no sense. Nothing will be different 2, or 10, or 50 years from now. They mean *forever*, and if we don't realise that soon and push back then we will indeed have them forever.

The difficult thing will be managing public expectations and the people who are still petrified of going outside and those who say we should stay in lockdown until "it is completely safe". Despite what this forum feels there are still a very high number of these people.

I fear the response of the government will be to expand mask mandates as a quid pro quo for loosening lockdowns. Offices ('so you feel safe to go back to the office') and 'crowded' outdoor places seem likely. Hopefully I'm wrong.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

These restrictions really need to be lifted (gradually) no later than 3 weeks after the four most vulnerable groups have been vaccinated.
I am lucky, I have a partner and I’ve had work to go to, so my mental health has not suffered unduly. But many people are still struggling mentally with this isolation, and need to switch off from mainstream media.
Those who are still strongly in favour of lockdown can choose to stay home once lockdown restrictions are lifted. That’s what we need to get back to. A society where we all make our own decisions about what risk we are comfortable with, and behaving accordingly.

 

[Yew]

These restrictions really need to be lifted (gradually) no later than 3 weeks after the four most vulnerable groups have been vaccinated.
I am lucky, I have a partner and I’ve had work to go to, so my mental health has not suffered unduly. But many people are still struggling mentally with this isolation, and need to switch off from mainstream media.
Those who are still strongly in favour of lockdown can choose to stay home once lockdown restrictions are lifted. That’s what we need to get back to. A society where we all make our own decisions about what risk we are comfortable with, and behaving accordingly.

Indeed, if you're not comfortable, we're not forcing people to go out!

 

[VauxhallandI]

Indeed, if you're not comfortable, we're not forcing people to go out!

Yp not sure about Great Resets but the Great Flip needs to happen soon where people can stay in if they like and we can go out. I'd put my house on them lasting less than two weeks before chucking in their supposed safe approach

 

[Cdd89]

I fear the response of the government will be to expand mask mandates as a quid pro quo for loosening lockdowns. Offices ('so you feel safe to go back to the office') and 'crowded' outdoor places seem likely. Hopefully I'm wrong.

I think you’re (hopefully!) wrong. Why? Because if they introduce any mask tightening in the near future, it’ll be portrayed as a U-Turn, and people will (not unreasonably) ask why, if it is so important, it wasn’t done in late December when it could have saved lives.

I personally think the response will be driven by international behaviour and we’ll copy other countries that have led the way on it, especially the US.

 

[yorksrob]

I think you’re (hopefully!) wrong. Why? Because if they introduce any mask tightening in the near future, it’ll be portrayed as a U-Turn, and people will (not unreasonably) ask why, if it is so important, it wasn’t done in late December when it could have saved lives.

I personally think the response will be driven by international behaviour and we’ll copy other countries that have led the way on it, especially the US.

That's a good point. I can't imagine that any Government would want to be a great outlier to what other western countries who have been hard hit, such as the USA and Europe do.

 

[MikeWM]

I think you’re (hopefully!) wrong. Why? Because if they introduce any mask tightening in the near future, it’ll be portrayed as a U-Turn, and people will (not unreasonably) ask why, if it is so important, it wasn’t done in late December when it could have saved lives.

If they want to do it, they'll just say 'because the new variants are more transmissable' or similar gibberish. That's the excuse that will now keep on giving whenever they need an excuse for anything. Indeed, that's apparently why Sage (or some sub-part of Sage) changed their recommendation on outdoor masks a couple of weeks back.

I personally think the response will be driven by international behaviour and we’ll copy other countries that have led the way on it, especially the US.

Depends which part of the US! If we follow Fauci's ideas we'll all be forced to wear two masks...

(It does seem sometimes that they're playing a big psychological game with us, to see just how far we'll comply with utter stupidity).

 

[6862]

That's entirely your choice but you or SAGE are not going to be imposing that on others.

I admire your confidence, but I really don't see how you can be so sure! If the past year has taught us anything, it's that this government is quite prepared to keep families apart for very long periods of time, with scant regard for the emotional and mental consequences of this.

Edited to add: I also think you have to consider that the majority of the population are generally law abiding citizens, who are not accustomed to committing crimes. I have committed some Covid related crimes recently, specifically speaking to a friend who I bumped into on the way back from the shops, and eating a sandwhich outdoors. It's a long way from crimes such as these to a 'big crime' such as visiting my parents or grandparents.

You do realise new variants aren't able to escape the T-Cell response, aren't you? Or are you just saying any random thing you don't understand.

The reason the vaccines need to be tweaked for new variants is to improve the antibody response; the vaccines are still pretty effective against variants, more so than the 'flu jab in a good year!

I agree that there is a decent chance there may be T-Cell activity against the new variants. However this is a moot point, because T-cells (or any other kind of natural immunity) have never featured in any of the government's response (as far as we have seen) apart from the brief window last February where they seemed to be aiming at herd immunity. What makes you think they will suddenly start considering natural immunity now when deciding how long to keep measures in place for? I don't think they will factor in natural immunity ever, because it would be an admission that their strategy was wrong.

Edit: having looked at some of your recent posts, I think you are just being facetious and are worried that these things may happen; trust me, they won't. I don't think this sort of fear is helpful; it is harmful for your own health and it can be harmful for others who read it and may think there is some truth in what you are saying. Having done plenty of research, I am not at all worried that what you say could be true, but others might be.

Once again, I hope you are right and I am wrong. However, I am genuinely concerned by the fact that we live under the most authoritarian government this country has ever seen, and I am specifically concerned that they don't seem to be showing any signs of letting up in their damaging actions against the population. I am not suggesting the government will do anything new, rather that they will maintain the status quo, which I believe is a perfectly plausible outcome of the upcoming review(s), given their track record since March of last year.

 

[brad465]

That's a good point. I can't imagine that any Government would want to be a great outlier to what other western countries who have been hard hit, such as the USA and Europe do.

I'd also like to think our jingoistic Government could use the vaccine rollout so far to try and ease restrictions before other countries do, so they can claim to be "world beating" or simply the best at it all.

 

[DustyBin]

I have committed some Covid related crimes recently, specifically speaking to a friend who I bumped into on the way back from the shops, and eating a sandwhich outdoors.

This really illustrates the absurdity of the situation.... It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious!

 

[yorksrob]

I'd also like to think our jingoistic Government could use the vaccine rollout so far to try and ease restrictions before other countries do, so they can claim to be "world beating" or simply the best at it all.

Well yes, that should obviously appeal to any Government.

I just feel that we're getting trapped down a bit of a worm hole of trying to achieve impossibly (at least in winter) low levels of infection.

 

[bramling]

Really I get the impression that its the scientific community that needs to have its expectations managed. Unfortunately, we've given them the impression that we're willing to close down society indefinately, however the public will need to force the agenda.

I do get the feeling many of these scientists enjoy the spotlight of attention.

 

[kez19]

I do get the feeling many of these scientists enjoy the spotlight of attention.

Oh of course they do, not much reality tv on these days so the media have found their new source of reality, wheel out Devi and the other cohorts!

 

[bramling]

Oh of course they do, not much reality tv on these days so the media have found their new source of reality, wheel out Devi and the other cohorts!

Presumably attention also means money / funding, so that’s another motive.

 

[Jamesrob637]

When the first lockdown ended last Spring / Summer, people did indeed seem reluctant to return to pubs. People only really returned properly in August, perhaps helped by Eat Out to Help Out. However when the second lockdown ended in December last year, people returned pretty swiftly, despite drinks having to be bought with a meal and only households allowed to meet inside.

Colder and wetter weather in December than in summer though!

 

[kez19]

Presumably attention also means money / funding, so that’s another motive.

Oh there is definately motive behind all this, makes sense to me - go to media throw doom/gloom out there - make money, don't say positive things as the money won't come in (i'm a bit cynical in all this but you can put money on it there is something else going on)

Thats why I still question why these scientists in the media ever say positive things, its like they live off fear and the media helps/goes along with it.

When something positive comes out ie vaccine, its let throw something negative to counteract it, vaccines may not work on this variant etc, its becoming a game and their all complicit in it (and again just to re-iterate I don't follow conspiracy theories but I can easily put 2+2 = 4!)

 

[Cdd89]

What makes you think they will suddenly start considering natural immunity now when deciding how long to keep measures in place for?

It’s immaterial whether or not they consider it, or even whether recorded cases increase, the only relevant factor to most people is hospitalisations and NHS capacity. If restrictions are imposed without a corresponding high ICU level there will be anger not just from individuals like ourselves but also from large sections of the press who are already gearing up in that direction.

 

[Mag_seven]

I do get the feeling many of these scientists enjoy the spotlight of attention.

They definitely do - I remember early on in the pandemic one professor of Virology (or was it Epidemiology?) on the radio stating that "they had waited their entire career for a moment like this".

 

[6862]

It’s immaterial whether or not they consider it, or even whether recorded cases increase, the only relevant factor to most people is hospitalisations and NHS capacity. If restrictions are imposed without a corresponding high ICU level there will be anger not just from individuals like ourselves but also from large sections of the press who are already gearing up in that direction.

But as we have seen in recent days, there are many people in powerful positions who are now saying that cases must fall to a certain level before we can remove restrictions. The goalposts have moved before (flatten the curve?) and they will move again - it's inevitable when we are fixated on 'following the science'.

 

[joncombe]

But as we have seen in recent days, there are many people in powerful positions who are now saying that cases must fall to a certain level before we can remove restrictions. The goalposts have moved before (flatten the curve?) and they will move again - it's inevitable when we are fixated on 'following the science'.

It's also worth noting that at least here there is no such thing as "the" science. Different scientist have differing opinions. The Government is only listening to those with the views it wants to hear.

 

[Cdd89]

But as we have seen in recent days, there are many people in powerful positions who are now saying that cases must fall to a certain level before we can remove restrictions. The goalposts have moved before (flatten the curve?) a

Indeed, in which case we’ll find out who the government are more frightened of - a group of scientists, or the tabloid press laying into them. I am not usually a fan of the Sun and the Daily Mail but I think you’ll find them a strong ally on this occasion!

 

[MikeWM]

I just went back and re-read the first couple of pages of this thread, which are now 7 months (!) old. Which was...interesting.

 

[bramling]

It's also worth noting that at least here there is no such thing as "the" science. Different scientist have differing opinions. The Government is only listening to those with the views it wants to hear.

It doesn’t help that the government doesn’t seem to want to specify a benchmark at which point restrictions can be significantly restricted. All we get from Boris is “we need to get this virus down”. To be fair to the scientists it’s hard for them to give advice if they don’t know what they’re supposed to be attempting to achieve.

It probably doesn’t help that the “follow the science” policy will in turn transition to “blame the science”, especially with a shameless loose cannon like BJ at the helm.

 

[Philip]

These restrictions really need to be lifted (gradually) no later than 3 weeks after the four most vulnerable groups have been vaccinated.
I am lucky, I have a partner and I’ve had work to go to, so my mental health has not suffered unduly. But many people are still struggling mentally with this isolation, and need to switch off from mainstream media.
Those who are still strongly in favour of lockdown can choose to stay home once lockdown restrictions are lifted. That’s what we need to get back to. A society where we all make our own decisions about what risk we are comfortable with, and behaving accordingly.

It doesn’t help that the government doesn’t seem to want to specify a benchmark at which point restrictions can be significantly restricted. All we get from Boris is “we need to get this virus down”. To be fair to the scientists it’s hard for them to give advice if they don’t know what they’re supposed to be attempting to achieve.

It probably doesn’t help that the “follow the science” policy will in turn transition to “blame the science”, especially with a shameless loose cannon like BJ at the helm.

The government has already said that 8th March is the date they're looking at, and that 22nd February is the day they will set out the detail as to what will happen. I would like to know now what is going to happen as I'm sure everyone does, but I suppose an advantage of another 2 weeks from now is that hopefully a lot more progress will have been made with cases, hospital numbers and vaccinations; on top of the good progress already made. It gives the government more leverage in setting out the easing of restrictions by leaving the roadmap announcement a bit longer to a point when, hopefully, we'll be in a substantially better situation than we are now.

Examples: 35% of adults vaccinated by 22nd Feb as opposed to the near 25% currently; case numbers averaging 10,000 or less per 7 days as opposed to 18,000 per 7 days currently; people in hospital well under 20,000 compared to just under 30,000 now; admissions at 1000 per day or less compared to around 2000 per day now.

 

[6862]

It's also worth noting that at least here there is no such thing as "the" science. Different scientist have differing opinions. The Government is only listening to those with the views it wants to hear.

I agree, there is no such thing as 'the' science in reality. Science is much more complicated than a single point of view, and it often can't give an exact answer in all situations. However, in the minds of Johnson and co. there is such a thing as 'the' science, and as you say it's whatever they want to listen to at a certain point - to justify their latest raft of restrictions.

 

[duncanp]

and as you say it's whatever they want to listen to at a certain point - to justify their latest raft of restrictions.

....or to justify lifting the restrictions, if that is what the government want to do.

 

[philosopher]

Once again, I hope you are right and I am wrong. However, I am genuinely concerned by the fact that we live under the most authoritarian government this country has ever seen, and I am specifically concerned that they don't seem to be showing any signs of letting up in their damaging actions against the population. I am not suggesting the government will do anything new, rather that they will maintain the status quo, which I believe is a perfectly plausible outcome of the upcoming review(s), given their track record since March of last year.

One thing that should end social distancing in the not too distance future is that simply put, I don’t think the country can afford for it to go for too much longer. The furlough is very costly and there will come a point when Mr Sunak concludes the UK can no longer afford it (it will probably be tapered down first). The same will go for many of the other economic support measures such as the business rate relief. If there is still significant social distancing at that point then there will be a big increase in unemployment which obviously is not going to be popular.