Exit strategy predictions

[LittleAH]

One of the things about this saga I do not understand is the way 'necessary shopping' is defined by items but not by actual needs. My mum keeps going shopping but it's fine because she is buying 'essential items', but yet theres loads of food she could cook in the house. Governments have sent out blanket laws and recommendations but little thought has gone into them.

But how do you police that? With cupboard police?!

In the weeks leading up to the government semi-lockdown, I got enough tins/frozen food in for two weeks in case I had to self-isolate. I could use that, but would much rather keep buying fresh for now once a week. Admittedly, I didn't leave my property for 10 days when I had annual leave last month as my local greengrocer delivers.

So should I eat all my tinned food first before I'm allowed to shop again? Even though I could potentially be struck down with this virus for weeks without anyone to shop for me.

 

[111-111-1]

I think it would. In the absence of hairdressers, such equipment would almost certainly be viewed as "supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household,". These regulations are supposed to allow people out when they have a "reasonable excuse". A non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses is provided into which I believe hair clippers would fit. But even if they don't, it is not reasonable to expect people to have to endure hair that is too long for their liking - especially when no end date for the restrictions is forthcoming. I would suggest it is perfectly reasonable to venture out to buy hair clippers. Though I'm quite sure most people could combine it with a trip for "essentials".

No-ones hair grows that quickly that the need to purchase such items becomes that urgent that a special trip to purchase them becomes necessary even if they do fit into the categories listed above. It may be uncomfortable but there are very few people for whom it would be essential to have a hair cut for either health or H&S reasons.

 

[111-111-1]

One of the things about this saga I do not understand is the way 'necessary shopping' is defined by items but not by actual needs. My mum keeps going shopping but it's fine because she is buying 'essential items', but yet theres loads of food she could cook in the house. Governments have sent out blanket laws and recommendations but little thought has gone into them.

The guideline is "as infrequently as possible". For most that probably in practical terms is once or twice a week. The big problem is of course there are still shortages of some key ingrediants which mean visiting multiple outlets or possibly an extra trip. (my self induced problem is avoiding busy times and queuing meaning lots of items have sold out) I think the guidelines that, in my view should be part of the law, were made to keep things tight but allow some flexibility to cover things such as shortages of key items.

 

[3141]

Coming back to the ideas set out by the OP, I am 80 and my wife is 79. We're both in good health and I can walk for six or seven miles without a problem. But I don't want to get the virus because the statistics for males of my age are menacing. So I could be living a socially restricted life until there's a reliable and widely-available vaccine. Is that eighteen months ahead, two years, three years? Or, when most people are again living "normally" (whatever that may turn out to mean) I could visit my daughter and her family (including our granddaughters), friends, go to a restaurant, take a train trip, and every time I'd be risking getting the virus from someone who is asymptomatic or in the earlier stages before the symptoms develop. As the months pass and I get older the risk that it might be fatal will gradually increase. There's also the consideration that if I get it I'll pass it to my wife, and we'd be lucky if neither of us had it seriously. The only bright side to this prospect is that at least the NHS should have room for us in intensive care!

I can imagine that as time goes on I'll be tempted to take the risk, in much the same way that younger people may be apprehensive about going back to work in the earlier stages of the lifting of restrictions, but will probably get used to the situation quite quickly because the risk for them will be much smaller. We'll all have to make decisions, and accepting a level of risk will be part of the new "normality".

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think we have to accept it's rushed guidance / legislation, and as such didn't have the time to be really heavily thought through.

The whole thing does to some extent rely on people being sensible, and in *some* cases this clearly hasn't been happening. Boris did say "as infrequently as possible", however evidently this isn't clear enough for some people.

There are two things - the law and the recommendations. As is usual in the UK, to allow for a bit of discretion, the law is weaker than the advice. However, that doesn't mean people should ignore the advice.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The guideline is "as infrequently as possible". For most that probably in practical terms is once or twice a week. The big problem is of course there are still shortages of some key ingrediants which mean visiting multiple outlets or possibly an extra trip. (my self induced problem is avoiding busy times and queuing meaning lots of items have sold out) I think the guidelines that, in my view should be part of the law, were made to keep things tight but allow some flexibility to cover things such as shortages of key items.

I think people also need to be flexible. If, for example, you can get rice but not pasta, eat rice for a week (or potatoes, or whatever). What you need is reasonable combinations of protein and carbs, not the specific ones you want.

 

[Greybeard33]

Secondly, everyone is talking today about the future app, which will apparently build a list of everyone who also has the app and where their phones have been close together for more than a few minutes. If someone has symptoms then the app can alert all those contacts from recent days. If it works reliably then it would allow people to self-isolate if they had a strong indication they had been exposed, which could then be confirmed or otherwise by testing if that was ramped up too. It might then allow other restrictions to be relaxed more, perhaps only for people carrying their phones with the app loaded. My concern about this is the level of false positives, especially as it relies on Bluetooth which can work through walls so will potentially alert for people like neighbours who haven't had any contact (and then presumably cascade on through their contacts like the neighbours on the other side...).

Yes, there was a WHO guy on the radio this morning saying that everyone needs to "learn new behaviours" in order to live with this virus and reduce transmission. Basically to self isolate for two weeks whenever you learn you have been in contact with anyone who has since developed symptoms (even if they have not been tested). He also departed from previous WHO guidance on face masks, saying they should become the norm whenever out of the home (although with the proviso it is up to national governments to set their rules, and, while the good masks are in short supply, healthcare workers must have priority).

I can see this causing lots of issues in workplaces, with whole departments going off into isolation en masse. This might be mitigated by changes in working practices, e.g. more jobshares and shift working, and partial homeworking with different members of a department going into the office on different days of the week. But people might well be willing to accept the "Big Brother" aspects of location monitoring if it meant that restrictions on social contacts could be relaxed somewhat, e.g. restaurants, pubs, clubs, gyms etc. reopening.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, there was a WHO guy on the radio this morning saying that everyone needs to "learn new behaviours" in order to live with this virus and reduce transmission. Basically to self isolate for two weeks whenever you learn you have been in contact with anyone who has since developed symptoms (even if they have not been tested). He also departed from previous WHO guidance on face masks, saying they should become the norm whenever out of the home (although with the proviso it is up to national governments to set their rules, and, while the good masks are in short supply, healthcare workers must have priority).

I can see this causing lots of issues in workplaces, with whole departments going off into isolation en masse. This might be mitigated by changes in working practices, e.g. more jobshares and shift working, and partial homeworking with different members of a department going into the office on different days of the week. But people might well be willing to accept the "Big Brother" aspects of location monitoring if it meant that restrictions on social contacts could be relaxed somewhat, e.g. restaurants, pubs, clubs, gyms etc. reopening.

It's probably a decent stop-gap until a vaccine becomes widely available.

 

[Meerkat]

I can see this causing lots of issues in workplaces, with whole departments going off into isolation en masse.

For important teams you split them across floors. Awkward but means you don’t lose a whole team at a time.
I expect shop/office fitters are getting a lot of work putting in Perspex screening to separate floors into zones like big cubicles. Then insist on good separation, gel outside the toilets and by doors.
Obviously not foolproof but should be at a level where you reduce the number of people needing to isolate when one goes down.

 

[philosopher]

Here are the two options in detail. Which one would you prefer and what do you think would be the most feasible? Obviously either strategy could be refined.

Continued social distancing

Here, sometime in the summer the lockdown restrictions would be relaxed to allow all shops and services like hairdressers to reopen, however social distancing regulations would be maintained. Places where social distancing can’t be guaranteed would remain closed. This would mean restaurants and coffee shops would be open for takeaways only and pubs would remain closed. Gatherings in public spaces and in private homes would be restricted to a maximum of two households. Those who can work from home would have to continue doing so. On public transport people would have to sit apart from each other if possible. Any travellers from overseas would be quarantined for two weeks. Restrictions would remain in place until the vast majority have been vaccinated. Schools would return after the summer break.

Semi compulsory contact tracing app

In this strategy, the lockdown restrictions would gradually be eased from the summer, with all restrictions except large gatherings such as football matches and concert attendances being removed. Schools would go back in September. To prevent the virus from spreading again, everyone who wants to go somewhere where social distancing can’t be maintained would have to install a contact tracing app on their phone. The app would either show a red or green status. Red indicates you have been in contact with someone with the virus over the past two weeks and you have to self isolate for two weeks, with fines for those who break the isolation. Green means you are OK. Pubs, restaurants, offices, etc would only be allowed to admit people if the app status is green. On public transport there would be checks of your app’s status. If you do not have the app, the restrictions would remain the same as they are now. For those without a smartphone, there would a government scheme where they could buy or rent a device cheaply with the contact tracing app. Travellers from overseas would be allowed in if they can somehow prove they are virus free, most likely from a similar app. When most people are vaccinated these restrictions would be removed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think a combination of those two things is likely.

 

[The_Train]

Are we talking here of an app that would know if you've been in contact with someone who has the virus without the need for any sort of medical testing on either parties involved?

 

[hwl]

Here are the two options in detail. Which one would you prefer and what do you think would be the most feasible? Obviously either strategy could be refined.

Continued social distancing

Here, sometime in the summer the lockdown restrictions would be relaxed to allow all shops and services like hairdressers to reopen, however social distancing regulations would be maintained. Places where social distancing can’t be guaranteed would remain closed. This would mean restaurants and coffee shops would be open for takeaways only and pubs would remain closed. Gatherings in public spaces and in private homes would be restricted to a maximum of two households. Those who can work from home would have to continue doing so. On public transport people would have to sit apart from each other if possible. Any travellers from overseas would be quarantined for two weeks. Restrictions would remain in place until the vast majority have been vaccinated. Schools would return after the summer break.

Semi compulsory contact tracing app

In this strategy, the lockdown restrictions would gradually be eased from the summer, with all restrictions except large gatherings such as football matches and concert attendances being removed. Schools would go back in September. To prevent the virus from spreading again, everyone who wants to go somewhere where social distancing can’t be maintained would have to install a contact tracing app on their phone. The app would either show a red or green status. Red indicates you have been in contact with someone with the virus over the past two weeks and you have to self isolate for two weeks, with fines for those who break the isolation. Green means you are OK. Pubs, restaurants, offices, etc would only be allowed to admit people if the app status is green. On public transport there would be checks of your app’s status. If you do not have the app, the restrictions would remain the same as they are now. For those without a smartphone, there would a government scheme where they could buy or rent a device cheaply with the contact tracing app. Travellers from overseas would be allowed in if they can somehow prove they are virus free, most likely from a similar app. When most people are vaccinated these restrictions would be removed.

More than either will be needed as neither alone can keep R0 under 1 without other measures too.

Look at the limited Spanish reopening announced today for what stage 1 of relaxation may look like in the UK: limited manufacturing and construction (building site only not in home) return to work

 

[7Paul7]

with regards to contact tracing, do all kids have to now have a phone? If someone from a family of a child in my child's school contracts the virus, is every family from the school now in isolation until they can be tested?

 

[philosopher]

Are we talking here of an app that would know if you've been in contact with someone who has the virus without the need for any sort of medical testing on either parties involved?

The app would only alert if you have been in contact with someone who has tested postive for the virus. This strategy would require a lot of testing for it work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Look at the limited Spanish reopening announced today for what stage 1 of relaxation may look like in the UK: limited manufacturing and construction (building site only not in home) return to work

The Spanish locked down tighter than us, both of those things are presently permitted in the UK anyway.

 

[The_Train]

The app would only alert if you have been in contact with someone who has tested postive for the virus. This strategy would require a lot of testing for it work.

So if I was medically tested and tested negative, that info would be input into the app and I would, in essence, carry a green light around with me on the app? Surely if I have a medical test and I test positive, I shouldn't then be out and about anyway and should be isolating for 2 weeks so the app is pointless in that regard. Guess it would work well for people who have had it and recovered from it........once we know for sure that we generate immunity from it once we've fought it off once

 

[greyman42]

Many people do not have smart phones and don't want one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So if I was medically tested and tested negative, that info would be input into the app and I would, in essence, carry a green light around with me on the app? Surely if I have a medical test and I test positive, I shouldn't then be out and about anyway and should be isolating for 2 weeks so the app is pointless in that regard. Guess it would work well for people who have had it and recovered from it........once we know for sure that we generate immunity from it once we've fought it off once

It'd be about contact tracing - that is, not only you would need to isolate, but so would anyone recorded as being in contact with you.

With wider testing, tests could be offered to such people and on testing negative be released again.

Many people do not have smart phones and don't want one.

Then their choice will be to remain with the present restrictions.

 

[The_Train]

It'd be about contact tracing - that is, not only you would need to isolate, but so would anyone recorded as being in contact with you.

With wider testing, tests could be offered to such people and on testing negative be released again.

Oh so in essence the app is more about your movements as opposed to showing whether you have the illness or not? Sounds like something George Orwell would be proud of to be honest

 

[philosopher]

So if I was medically tested and tested negative, that info would be input into the app and I would, in essence, carry a green light around with me on the app? Surely if I have a medical test and I test positive, I shouldn't then be out and about anyway and should be isolating for 2 weeks so the app is pointless in that regard. Guess it would work well for people who have had it and recovered from it........once we know for sure that we generate immunity from it once we've fought it off once

Yes, if you tested postive you shouldn't be out. But the system would alert those who you had been in contact for two weeks before you tested postive to self isolate.

 

[The_Train]

Yes, if you tested postive you shouldn't be out. But the system would alert those who you had been in contact for two weeks before you tested postive to self isolate.

Yeah I see that now. I see the logic behind it as it allows targeted testing but it has definitely got an Orwell feel to it

 

[philosopher]

Yeah I see that now. I see the logic behind it as it allows targeted testing but it has definitely got an Orwell feel to it

Yes I agree this contact tracing system would have to be quite orwellian to work. Ultimately how I see is, it is a choice between maintaining privacy versus being able to return to a relative normal life.

 

[JonathanP]

It may sound Orwellian, but it can be implemented in a way that isn't. This topic is of great importance in Germany, since a police state is within living memory here.

The app detects 'contact' by communicating with nearby phones using the same technology used for wireless earphones and fitness tracking watches, and it stores a list of the devices. If symptoms then occur then the list of devices is sent to the provider who then notify the corresponding users. So "Big Brother" never has any movement tracking data, it just performs a mapping between device and user.

 

[bramling]

It may sound Orwellian, but it can be implemented in a way that isn't. This topic is of great importance in Germany, since a police state is within living memory here.

The app detects 'contact' by communicating with nearby phones using the same technology used for wireless earphones and fitness tracking watches, and it stores a list of the devices. If symptoms then occur then the list of devices is sent to the provider who then notify the corresponding users. So "Big Brother" never has any movement tracking data, it just performs a mapping between device and user.

I just can't see it working. As I see it success would require a high degree of people "doing the right thing", and thusfar in this affair we've seen too much evidence of people doing the opposite of what they've needed to do.

I think there would be too much temptation one way or other, some would no doubt like the idea of isolating on the whim as it could give them a couple of weeks at home, whilst how many will be told to isolate but not wish to cancel their engagement? Too much of a liability for something so important, IMO.

It still doesn't resolve some of the social distancing issues either. Even if we made people who are negative go round with big placards above their heads, how do we know someone hasn't just picked one up to give them the chance of a day out?

Too many pitfalls IMO.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It may sound Orwellian, but it can be implemented in a way that isn't. This topic is of great importance in Germany, since a police state is within living memory here.

The app detects 'contact' by communicating with nearby phones using the same technology used for wireless earphones and fitness tracking watches, and it stores a list of the devices. If symptoms then occur then the list of devices is sent to the provider who then notify the corresponding users. So "Big Brother" never has any movement tracking data, it just performs a mapping between device and user.

The UK does seem to have said the app will be "open source", which should mean that people would know about any "back doors" to an Orwellian approach.

 

[yorkie]

I just can't see it working. As I see it success would require a high degree of people "doing the right thing", and thusfar in this affair we've seen to much evidence of people doing the opposite of what they've needed to do.

The reality is not as you portray it; there is an extremely high level of compliance. There will always be some who don't comply, but nowhere near the extent to which you claim.

However back to whether a contact tracing app might work, there are some flaws detailed here:

Contact Tracing in the Real World – Light Blue Touchpaper

..Anyone who’s worked on abuse will instantly realise that a voluntary app operated by anonymous actors is wide open to trolling. The performance art people will tie a phone to a dog and let it run around the park; the Russians will use the app to run service-denial attacks and spread panic; and little Johnny will self-report symptoms to get the whole school sent home...

 

[Meerkat]

Many people do not have smart phones and don't want one.

They don’t need everyone to use it for it to keep transmission low enough.
re gaming it, AIUI you would need to have done more than walk past a ‘red’ person for it to trigger - it would monitor how long the contact was.

 

[bramling]

The reality is not as you portray it; there is an extremely high level of compliance. There will always be some who don't comply, but nowhere near the extent to which you claim.

I don't doubt compliance has been high (although I wouldn't go so far as to say extremely), but it only takes a proportion of people to do the wrong thing and quickly things will fall apart.

I'd suggest compliance with the current measures is particularly poor in London suburbs. By contrast my home town doesn't seem too bad at all to be fair.

I can see how an app might be a good tool to have, but to make it a central component of any exit strategy seems to be a few steps too far IMV.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It depends waht you mean by "compliance". Some people may not be complying with the letter of the rules, but the impact on the actual number of cases will be more driven by whether what they're doing encourages spread or not. For instance, a person sunbathing in the park alone is breaking the law, but isn't substantially more at risk of spread than doing so in their own garden if they had one, and quite possibly *lower* risk than doing so on a small balcony with others doing so above, below and to the side of them.