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

[Solent&Wessex]

Encouragingly the minister James Cleverly, who was doing the broadcast rounds this morning, was saying that plans to ease the lockdown will take into account the needs of the economy, people's mental health and the education of our children, which contradict's Jeremy Hunt's ludicrous assertion that we need to wait until new cases are below a completely arbitrary 1,000 per day before we can ease restrictions.

At long last, there seems to be a recognition in government circles that they need to think about other things rather than just the figures relating to COVID-19.

The killer quote there is "those decisions will be guided by the science". Which Science? If it is the SAGE version of science we will have restrictions and lockdown of some form all year!

 

[birchesgreen]

Well the government usually does what it wants and then finds the experts and science to agree with it. Its about time they started doing this again.

 

[duncanp]

The killer quote there is "those decisions will be guided by the science". Which Science? If it is the SAGE version of science we will have restrictions and lockdown of some form all year!

Whatever Science fits the government's political agenda, presumably.

It would seem that the government is planning on vaccinating everyone over the age of 50 by early May, according to the report below from the Daily Telegraph live feed.

This would be politically advantageous, for the government, because they could either lift all restrictions, or announce a date for the lifting of all restrictions, in advance of the local and national elections.

And if they can lift some restrictions before then, especially the reopening of the hospitality sector, the feelgood factor will pay dividends for them at the polls.

All adults aged 50 and over will have had a coronavirus vaccine by early May, the Government has inadvertently revealed.

Ministers thus far have been avoiding putting any timeframe on the next stage of the vaccination programme, saying only that the target was "spring" - but Number 10 has repeatedly refused to define this further.

However, while confirming the local elections will take place on May 6, the Cabinet Office said the aim was to have reached all nine priority cohorts before that point.

It is not clear whether the plans also include a lag time to allow for protection to be built up, estimated to be two-to-three weeks, which would make the target date even earlier.

Constitution minister Chloe Smith said: “As the Government rolls out the vaccine to the most vulnerable, we will be able to leave lockdown and open our country up safely again."

 

[yorksrob]

In my experience, local elections are generally fairly "socially distanced" anyway !

 

[philosopher]

I find it so bizarre Labour were pushing for things like taxes or bans on disposable coffee cups and likewise. Things like bans on straws. Now we have them pushing for "everyone must use a disposable single-use mask". It's odd. I am sure it won't be long before it becomes 2 masks (Anthony Fauci in the US is already pushing for that). And what then. 4 masks better than 2. 8 masks better than 4!

Masks will become the new razor blades!

It does sound like the first easing of lockdown on 8th March will simply be just schools reopening! Is that it? Whilst I understand the importance of schools reopening and kids getting their education back, there are still a lot of other important businesses in this country that need to be allowed to start reopening!

Also hope that on the first easing of lockdown the "Stay at home" messaging is dropped. What would then be 9 weeks after the lockdown started, people really need to be allowed to get out for at least a few hours out somewhere, rather than officially only be allowed out to get shopping, short exercise locally, or going to work. But I think if the "Stay at home" message does still remain and the weather really starts warming up next month(very possible going by previous years), then I think a lot of people won't be sticking to that, they'll be heading out to the nations parks, beaches and beauty spots to enjoy the nice weather!

At the very least they should allow unlimited outdoor recreation and replace the Stay Home message with the Stay Alert or Hands, Face, Space message. This would then be similar to the first lockdown easing in May last year.

 

[duncanp]

Masks will become the new razor blades!


At the very least they should allow unlimited outdoor recreation and replace the Stay Home message with the Stay Alert or Hands, Face, Space message. This would then be similar to the first lockdown easing in May last year.

Yes, I agree that the first lockdown easing for the general population will be similar to what happened in May last year, and will probably happen around the same time that schools reopen.

The "Stay at Home" message will be dropped, along with the "essential travel only" message.

This will allow people to go on longer day trips, but shops and pubs will still be closed.

I think that when the roadmap out of lockdown is published, there will be dates given as to when various businesses can reopen, which will enable them to plan in advance.

More extensive easing of restrictions, probably similar to the old Tier 3, could take place at the end of March, with a move to Tier 2 sometime in April, and Tier 1 in May.

 

[Yew]

Yes, I agree that the first lockdown easing for the general population will be similar to what happened in May last year, and will probably happen around the same time that schools reopen.

The "Stay at Home" message will be dropped, along with the "essential travel only" message.

This will allow people to go on longer day trips, but shops and pubs will still be closed.

I think that when the roadmap out of lockdown is published, there will be dates given as to when various businesses can reopen, which will enable them to plan in advance.

More extensive easing of restrictions, probably similar to the old Tier 3, could take place at the end of March, with a move to Tier 2 sometime in April, and Tier 1 in May.

Tier three by the end of March is unacceptably slow.

 

[Jamiescott1]

Tier three by the end of March is unacceptably slow.

I agree but think we'll be disappointed.

 

[duncanp]

Tier three by the end of March is unacceptably slow.

When I said at the end of March, I really meant the second half of March.

I still think there will be a significant easing of restrictions around the first anniversary of the lockdown on 23rd March.

This could be similar to, but not necessarily identical to, the old Tier 3.

Reports in the papers today suggest that outdoor activities will be allowed to restart first, so you could see open air markets and pubs with beer gardens reopening, plus some relaxation of the rules on households mixing outdoors.

Indoor hospitality and shops could then follow in the first half of April.

There is obviously a lot of speculation about what is going to happen, and different people have different ideas about what they want to open first, and what is most likely to open first.

There is also a lot of lobbying going at the moment, as the SAGE scientists seem to realise that once the lockdown exit plan and the budget are published, it is going to be difficult for the government to change it retrospectively.

 

[brad465]

ONS Infection Survey today now joins the rest with a marked fall in infections to 846,000 active cases in England a week ago, down from just over a million the week before that (I expect it to be lower for this week). It'll be interesting to see how much, if at all, Whitty and Valence strain their vocal cords trying to spin this into a negative, having tried to use the survey in the past to contradict the rapid decline in confirmed cases.

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) decreased in the week ending 30 January 2021 but remains high; we estimate that 846,900 within the community population in England had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 806,500 to 886,700), equating to around 1 in 65 people.
• In Wales, the percentage of people testing positive remained level in the week ending 30 January 2021; we estimate that 42,700 people in Wales had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 36,200 to 49,500), equating to around 1 in 70 people.
• In Northern Ireland, the percentage of people testing positive decreased in the week ending 30 January 2021; we estimate that 28,700 people in Northern Ireland had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 23,600 to 34,400), equating to around 1 in 65 people.
• In Scotland, the percentage of people testing positive decreased in the week ending 30 January 2021; we estimate that 46,100 people in Scotland had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 39,600 to 53,100) equating to around 1 in 115 people.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think I've been saying for a few months now (certainly before the current lockdown anyway) that I'd expect Easter to be the start of significant loosening of restrictions (going back to things like the Rule of Six, all retail being open with face coverings and social distancing, pubs and restaurants being open but table service only, basically how it was last summer) but with March seeing some easing of restrictions (Rule of Six outdoors, no "stay at home" messaging but still restrictions on hospitality) including, if not before(!), re-opening of schools and education.

I've seen very little to persuade me that my gamble is not going to pay off.

 

[35B]

Encouragingly the minister James Cleverly, who was doing the broadcast rounds this morning, was saying that plans to ease the lockdown will take into account the needs of the economy, people's mental health and the education of our children, which contradict's Jeremy Hunt's ludicrous assertion that we need to wait until new cases are below a completely arbitrary 1,000 per day before we can ease restrictions.

At long last, there seems to be a recognition in government circles that they need to think about other things rather than just the figures relating to COVID-19.

Not sure I regard a particular number of cases - 1,000 or any other - as any more arbitrary than a timeline that is not at all connected to prevalence. Indeed, I'd rather a specific goal with anticipated timeline than setting arbitrary timelines regardless of how we're doing - after all, that worked so well at Christmas, didn't it...

 

[Bantamzen]

I think it is just that morbidity and health outcomes vary so much with age that those bands give the best compromise between showing the trend and showing the data, but yes skewing of data will always be an issue to some extent. It'll definitely be interesting to see in the inquiries if vaccine priority should have been changed to one that tries to ease pressure on healthcare over removing deaths. I don't think that politically it's a viable strategy, or indeed one that would have sped up easing of restrictions.

I think it would still be useful to see a year-by-year comparison at this point, even if that was just a dataset published on gov.uk for anyone interested to view. We know that as we get older we become more susceptible to becoming seriously ill, and I expect that the data at that level would show a steady rise through the ages. This is part of the problem of using imbalanced groupings like this, it can give the impression to the media & by proxy the public that there is a cliff edge in edge that once passed makes you massively more susceptible, which is a massive over-simplification. And all of this is before we factor in any underlying conditions that may be having an effect on those becoming ill & dying.

As a data guy, I've always been about transparency, letting anyone who wanted it have sight of the data driving decisions. But the government handling of this is making me rethink. I've started to wonder if this public micro-managing the data is actually making high level decision making more difficult. It is absolutely right that the data be carefully analysed, but certainly where I work that is done by people that understand what the data is saying, with their findings being translated for wider consumption for the higher level decisions makers. Just throwing it all out to the public has created an additional & potentially skewed viewpoint, which puts unqualified pressure onto the process.

 

[Domh245]

I think it would still be useful to see a year-by-year comparison at this point, even if that was just a dataset published on gov.uk for anyone interested to view. We know that as we get older we become more susceptible to becoming seriously ill, and I expect that the data at that level would show a steady rise through the ages. This is part of the problem of using imbalanced groupings like this, it can give the impression to the media & by proxy the public that there is a cliff edge in edge that once passed makes you massively more susceptible, which is a massive over-simplification. And all of this is before we factor in any underlying conditions that may be having an effect on those becoming ill & dying.

Presumably you're referring to covid deaths here? That data does exist at 5year intervals on the weekly ONS death bulletin, which allows you to plot this graph (Covid-19 Weekly occurrences)


Second graph is on a log scale, and is (relatively) straight, so you can describe the age/death relation with everyone's favourite buzzword - exponential!

That just gives you the raw numbers of death though, it doesn't correct for population size (which probably just keeps the gradient straight on the log graph if I had to guess)

 

[Bertie the bus]

Not sure I regard a particular number of cases - 1,000 or any other - as any more arbitrary than a timeline that is not at all connected to prevalence. Indeed, I'd rather a specific goal with anticipated timeline than setting arbitrary timelines regardless of how we're doing - after all, that worked so well at Christmas, didn't it...

You might be comfortable with people coming up with arbitrary, meaningless targets which are almost impossible to hit before we are allowed out of our homes but I’m not. Last year it took until mid-June before cases dropped to below 1,000 and we were only performing 1/10th of the tests we are now. 1,000 cases per day would take literally months of hard lockdown to achieve. The target is also meaningless because if the vast majority have no or mild symptoms, which is likely following mass vaccination, it doesn’t matter whether there are 1,000 or 20,000 cases per day. It is the effect of the cases that is important, not the quantity.

 

[duncanp]

The target is also meaningless because if the vast majority have no or mild symptoms, which is likely following mass vaccination, it doesn’t matter whether there are 1,000 or 20,000 cases per day. It is the effect of the cases that is important, not the quantity.

Hear, hear!!

The whole point of the vaccination program is that the effect of cases is reduced, so that what would have resulted in death previously will now result in recovery and discharge from hospital, and what would have resulted in hospitalisation previously will result in self isolation and recovery at home.

 

[greyman42]

It does sound like the first easing of lockdown on 8th March will simply be just schools reopening! Is that it? Whilst I understand the importance of schools reopening and kids getting their education back, there are still a lot of other important businesses in this country that need to be allowed to start reopening!

Also hope that on the first easing of lockdown the "Stay at home" messaging is dropped. What would then be 9 weeks after the lockdown started, people really need to be allowed to get out for at least a few hours out somewhere, rather than officially only be allowed out to get shopping, short exercise locally, or going to work. But I think if the "Stay at home" message does still remain and the weather really starts warming up next month(very possible going by previous years), then I think a lot of people won't be sticking to that, they'll be heading out to the nations parks, beaches and beauty spots to enjoy the nice weather!

Many people are already going out for a few hours or more and you can exercise locally for as long as you wish to. A lot of people are already ignoring the rules and i am sure the government know this.

 

[Jamiescott1]

Many people are already going out for a few hours or more and you can exercise locally for as long as you wish to. A lot of people are already ignoring the rules and i am sure the government know this.

You can excercise any location outdoors, it doesn't have to be "locally"

My fear is that Johnson (im not on first name terms with him) will ease restrictions that are not actually restrictions. What i mean by that is there are lots of things that are not legislation but just things the media or government say. Such as during the first lockdown it was believed that outdoor exercise could only be once a day for 30 minutes (it could be as many times and as long as you wanted).

 

[HLE]

It's baffling that schools are considered for re-opening before outdoor sports facilities.

 

[greyman42]

It's baffling that schools are considered for re-opening before outdoor sports facilities.

I agree. I don't play golf any more but i cannot see any reasonable reason why people are not allowed to play it.

 

[Domh245]

It's baffling that schools are considered for re-opening before outdoor sports facilities.

Getting children back into school should absolutely be the number 1 priority IMO. Outdoor sports facilities should open at the same time ideally, but if I were forced to choose one of them between the two then it should be schools

 

[greyman42]

Getting children back into school should absolutely be the number 1 priority IMO. Outdoor sports facilities should open at the same time ideally, but if I were forced to choose one of them between the two then it should be schools

The schools can be the number one priority but how does that stop opening outdoor sports facilities first?

 

[bramling]

The schools can be the number one priority but how does that stop opening outdoor sports facilities first?

They should just open everything, even if that’s with stringent distancing measures. The more is open, the more people will be spread thinly.

If they go for allowing outdoor recreation whilst keeping things like non essential shops closed then we will just get a repeat of silliness like Durdle Door as everyone piles to the same places.

 

[packermac]

I think I've been saying for a few months now (certainly before the current lockdown anyway) that I'd expect Easter to be the start of significant loosening of restrictions (going back to things like the Rule of Six, all retail being open with face coverings and social distancing, pubs and restaurants being open but table service only, basically how it was last summer) but with March seeing some easing of restrictions (Rule of Six outdoors, no "stay at home" messaging but still restrictions on hospitality) including, if not before(!), re-opening of schools and education.

I've seen very little to persuade me that my gamble is not going to pay off.

It will depend on the view of first vaccination vs the second.
My wife has her first next Friday and the second early May, she is 71 so the 70 years olds are behind her. Not sure the government plan to release too much before the over 70's have had both doses. 50-69 maybe different, but who knows at the moment.

 

[py_megapixel]

It's baffling that schools are considered for re-opening before outdoor sports facilities.

I agree. I don't play golf any more but i cannot see any reasonable reason why people are not allowed to play it.

I strongly disagree. The thing is, outdoor sports generally create gatherings, which are banned anyway. Golf is something of an outlier in this respect.

This isn't necessarily a reason to keep golf courses closed, but in my opinion the benefit to the tens or even hundreds of people who can enjoy use of any given golf course's land (or at least the public rights of way thereon) without the usual danger of being hit by golf balls, during this time when they can't really do much other than exercising outdoors, is far greater than the benefit to the few who could play golf on there.

Also, without wishing to tar all with the same brush, I imagine the average wealth of a golf club member is relatively high. As many members on here have correctly identified, the richest are the best shielded from the effects of this pandemic, and opening golf clubs without opening, for example, publicly owned pools and sports halls, looks like a clear attempt to favour the rich over the poor.

And that's before we get into how acute the need to get kids back into school is at this point.

 

[Jimini]

This uplifting vehicle is driving around these parts today (South Woodford and Wanstead) blaring out prerecorded messages about staying at home, trying to not kill your grandparents etc. Most relaxing and not at all oppressive.

 

[Domh245]

The schools can be the number one priority but how does that stop opening outdoor sports facilities first?

Like I said, my preference would be for both to return at the same time, but the government has to choose what it reopens with the associated impact on spread to try and get the balance right. Reopening schools will cause a significant uptick in spread and if the government is of the opinion that schools opening (with the projected case rates) will lead to healthcare capacity issues, then other things cannot reopen until we reach the point where there's either enough vaccinated people/low enough case rates & hospitalisations that we can. I would then say that it is also better for those facilities to stay closed until that point than reopen, close again when schools go back, then reopen once we reach the later easing point. Hopefully the roadmap will make things clearer on this front

 

[takno]

It will depend on the view of first vaccination vs the second.
My wife has her first next Friday and the second early May, she is 71 so the 70 years olds are behind her. Not sure the government plan to release too much before the over 70's have had both doses. 50-69 maybe different, but who knows at the moment.

It's not really clear that the second dose adds all that much to the equation based on the latest figures. I'm not saying they won't try and wait around til may, but there really isn't a lot of justification for it

 

[greyman42]

Like I said, my preference would be for both to return at the same time, but the government has to choose what it reopens with the associated impact on spread to try and get the balance right. Reopening schools will cause a significant uptick in spread and if the government is of the opinion that schools opening (with the projected case rates) will lead to healthcare capacity issues, then other things cannot reopen until we reach the point where there's either enough vaccinated people/low enough case rates & hospitalisations that we can. I would then say that it is also better for those facilities to stay closed until that point than reopen, close again when schools go back, then reopen once we reach the later easing point. Hopefully the roadmap will make things clearer on this front

I cannot see any significant rise in infections from playing golf.

 

[duncanp]

This uplifting vehicle is driving around these parts today (South Woodford and Wanstead) blaring out prerecorded messages about staying at home, trying to not kill your grandparents etc. Most relaxing and not at all oppressive.

On the side of the bus it says "Cases in Redbridge are rising steeply"

I take it they haven't looked at the latest data for Redbridge (see below) which shows that cases are, er, falling steeply.

This is pure scaremongering - nothing more.