When will restrictions finally end?

[Bald Rick]

I really don't understand why you use the word 'conspiracy'? Where did I claim that all of this was being done for the benefit of the environment? Did I claim the virus wasn't real?

It may well have been cheaper to spend the money on actually decarbonising but the cost would still have been astronomical. Add to that the fact that the policies wouldn't be popular and it's political suicide for whoever starts the ball rolling (in normal times). It may have escaped your notice but countries, including the UK, are bringing forward bans on the sale of new internal combustion engined vehicles whilst all of this is going on for example, which to me suggests there is a new sense of urgency. Lets see how many green policies are introduced on the back of the pandemic, and how things like cheap air travel are affected going forward. I don't think we'll be seeing a government funded 'fly out to help out' scheme, put it that way.

I'm not here to pursuade other people that I'm right as I don't know for sure that I am. I simply have my eyes open to what's happening around me, but you laugh away....

Ok, fair enough you didn’t use the word conspiracy in that context.

As it happens I don’t think that most progressive environmental policies are or will be unpopular. There’s hardly been a national uprising when the national ban on ICE only cars was brought forward. The opposite if anything - in December 44% of new cars sold were battery or hybrids, and 2 of the top 4 models were pure battery EVs. And all sales for the month were only 10% down on last year.

Also, I don’t think the pandemic has caused the government to rethink othese policies, at least not directly. What the pandemic has done is caused politicians to listen to scientists.

 

[The Ham]

I really don't understand why you use the word 'conspiracy'? Where did I claim that all of this was being done for the benefit of the environment? Did I claim the virus wasn't real?

It may well have been cheaper to spend the money on actually decarbonising but the cost would still have been astronomical. Add to that the fact that the policies wouldn't be popular and it's political suicide for whoever starts the ball rolling (in normal times). It may have escaped your notice but countries, including the UK, are bringing forward bans on the sale of new internal combustion engined vehicles whilst all of this is going on for example, which to me suggests there is a new sense of urgency. Lets see how many green policies are introduced on the back of the pandemic, and how things like cheap air travel are affected going forward. I don't think we'll be seeing a government funded 'fly out to help out' scheme, put it that way.

I'm not here to pursuade other people that I'm right as I don't know for sure that I am. I simply have my eyes open to what's happening around me, but you laugh away....

If the goal was to decarbonise then it wouldn't be something which would have made people switch away from public transport.

Likewise why would local governments wouldn't have been aloud to remove the cycle lanes that they put in (sometimes only to be used by parked cars, so not actually providing the capacity called for).

Likewise I suspect that there would have been much tighter restrictions on flying when it all kicked off, as well as bringing in the requirement for testing much sooner. Also I'd imagine that there would have been more restrictions during the summer over international travel. As that would have killed of the airline industry even more and therefore reduced emissions even more.

 

[brad465]

The pessimistic OECD are suggesting lockdowns will be here to stay, even with a vaccine being rolled out:

OECD: Lockdowns here to stay, even with vaccine plan

The economic think-tank tips a better economy in 2021 but success will depend on the vaccine rollout.

www.bbc.co.uk

More lockdowns and social distancing - even with a global vaccine rollout in place.

That's the sobering forecast for 2021 from Laurence Boone, the chief economist of the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development.

"We probably have another six to nine or twelve months of this ahead of us," she told the BBC's Talking Business Asia programme.

"I'm not saying it's easy, I'm saying we've seen that it worked in 2020".

"We must keep going both with the non-pharmaceutical measures, the government support and deploy the vaccine, as long and efficiently as fast as efficiently and securely as possible."

A new strain of the virus has led to fresh lockdowns in many parts of the world - including countries in Asia, such as South Korea, that have up until now managed to constrain new infections.

I can't tell if this is based on whether a successful vaccine rollout will end this, given there are some countries struggling to get their vaccine rollouts going, but I do not see any harsh restrictions being well received if they are in place when, at the very least, all the most vulnerable people (say over 65s) have been vaccinated, and certainly not when at least the majority of the population have been.

 

[Richard Scott]

The pessimistic OECD are suggesting lockdowns will be here to stay, even with a vaccine being rolled out

I'm still failing to understand the obsession with this virus, yes it has killed people but so do lots of things which we don't even bat an eyelid over. Lockdowns don't exactly have a good record for dealing with the virus, wreck the economy and people's lives. I really wish these sort of people would just **** off.

 

[DustyBin]

Ok, fair enough you didn’t use the word conspiracy in that context.

As it happens I don’t think that most progressive environmental policies are or will be unpopular. There’s hardly been a national uprising when the national ban on ICE only cars was brought forward. The opposite if anything - in December 44% of new cars sold were battery or hybrids, and 2 of the top 4 models were pure battery EVs. And goal sales for the month were only 10% down on last year.

Also, I don’t think the pandemic has caused the government to rethink othese policies, at least not directly. What the pandemic has done is caused politicians to listen to scientists.

Ok and apologies if I bit your head off there. I’m not sure I agree with you regarding the popularity of green policies, the point I was trying to make is that people have other things on their minds right now. Plus uprisings aren’t allowed, over anything (I’m being half serious!).... Your final point I essentially agree with; the policies have been there for years, the will to enact them hasn’t.

If the goal was to decarbonise then it wouldn't be something which would have made people switch away from public transport.

Likewise why would local governments wouldn't have been aloud to remove the cycle lanes that they put in (sometimes only to be used by parked cars, so not actually providing the capacity called for).

Likewise I suspect that there would have been much tighter restrictions on flying when it all kicked off, as well as bringing in the requirement for testing much sooner. Also I'd imagine that there would have been more restrictions during the summer over international travel. As that would have killed of the airline industry even more and therefore reduced emissions even more.

Your first question is a good one. Whilst we’ve undoubtedly been encouraged not to use public transport for now, we’re also not commuting as much as we were generally. It’s not like everybody has swapped the bus or train for a private car, many aren’t travelling at all. It remains to be seen how people get to work in future, assuming they need to travel at all.

I’m not familiar with the cycle lanes you refer to, but last summer we did have pedestrianised streets introduced nearby and they only lasted a few weeks. The reason, as far as I can tell, is that they were extremely unpopular and the council felt they had to back down. They clearly wanted to introduce them but didn’t like the backlash, I imagine the same could well apply to the aforementioned cycle lanes?

You make a fair point regarding air travel but again the government know how far they can push in one go. They’re not stupid enough to destroy the industry in one fell swoop, but making air travel inconvenient and expensive will inevitably reduce demand. It’s baby steps towards changing our behaviour. Cheap air travel has been identified as a significant source of pollution for years, but denying voters their week in Benidorm is likely to lose you an election so nothing has been done about it, until now.

 

[Cdd89]

You make a fair point regarding air travel but again the government know how far they can push in one go

No single government has the power to limit air travel, except domestically, and to the extent that they do it may in fact increase emissions. Doing so requires concerted effort between countries that definitionally compete with each other for connecting air travel business. The world is interconnected and people will find the most advantageous routing with any combination of rail and air, factoring in any government taxes or restrictions. The U.K. could fully ban air travel tomorrow and people would just hop on the Eurostar to Charles De Gaulle.

 

[DustyBin]

No single government has the power to limit air travel, except domestically, and to the extent that they do it may in fact increase emissions. Doing so requires concerted effort between countries that definitionally compete with each other for connecting air travel business. The world is interconnected and people will find the most advantageous routing with any combination of rail and air, factoring in any government taxes or restrictions. The U.K. could fully ban air travel tomorrow and people would just hop on the Eurostar to Charles De Gaulle.

I realise that which is why the majority of countries would need to be on board with the policy, which I’m not saying they are, only that I think it’s possible.

This paper explains the thinking:

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/working-paper-342-Fouquet-OGarra.pdf

By 2050, aviation threatens to become the single largest source of carbon dioxide emissions due to rapidly increasing demand. Given the disruption in air travel due to Covid-19, we are faced with a unique opportunity to examine whether reductions in air travel can be sustained beyond the crisis so as to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions. Analysis of the short-run impact of Covid-19 indicates that large reductions in emissions (41.5% for the whole of 2020) can be achieved with relatively low losses in welfare. However, relative impacts on the poorest income quintile are three times greater than impacts on the richest income quintile; more generally, such a drastic approach to reducing demand is not politically acceptable. Examination of potential longer-term policies aimed at curbing carbon dioxide emissions beyond the lifetime of the pandemic indicates that substantial mitigation can be achieved with minimal impacts on welfare. Results show that, compared with a carbon tax, a frequent flyer levy is almost twice as effective (i.e., half the welfare loss for the same emissions reduction), with little impact on lower income quintiles. Such a levy has the potential to be an effective and politically acceptable environmental policy to curb rising emissions from air travel.

 

[Bald Rick]

I can see a harmonised levy being introduced by the EU on intra EU flights, and possibly on all flights that depart the EU, similar in concept to U.K. air passenger duty. The U.K. is already well ahead of the game in that respect though.

 

[6862]

I can't tell if this is based on whether a successful vaccine rollout will end this, given there are some countries struggling to get their vaccine rollouts going, but I do not see any harsh restrictions being well received if they are in place when, at the very least, all the most vulnerable people (say over 65s) have been vaccinated, and certainly not when at least the majority of the population have been.

I think you're forgetting to factor in the way that lockdowns and social distancing have become a 'comfort blanket' for society. I think all of this has damaged us as a society to the extent that we are dependent on them. I must admit I even find myself feeling uncomfortable in a crowd, and I hate all the restrictions. In my case it's not because of a fear of the virus, but because of a fear of the authorities. Effects like this will last even if the government stops its relentless attacks on the population (which I don't think they will, but that's a different point).

 

[Mag_seven]

I think you're forgetting to factor in the way that lockdowns and social distancing have become a 'comfort blanket' for society. I think all of this has damaged us as a society to the extent that we are dependent on them. I must admit I even find myself feeling uncomfortable in a crowd, and I hate all the restrictions. In my case it's not because of a fear of the virus, but because of a fear of the authorities. Effects like this will last even if the government stops its relentless attacks on the population (which I don't think they will, but that's a different point).

Yes I agree - there is going to be long term psychological damage to society as a result of all these restrictions.

 

[yorksrob]

The pessimistic OECD are suggesting lockdowns will be here to stay, even with a vaccine being rolled out:

OECD: Lockdowns here to stay, even with vaccine plan

The economic think-tank tips a better economy in 2021 but success will depend on the vaccine rollout.

www.bbc.co.uk

I can't tell if this is based on whether a successful vaccine rollout will end this, given there are some countries struggling to get their vaccine rollouts going, but I do not see any harsh restrictions being well received if they are in place when, at the very least, all the most vulnerable people (say over 65s) have been vaccinated, and certainly not when at least the majority of the population have been.

This was the organisation which advocated austerity as a result of the financial crisis, so it's record isn't even unblemished in its own field.

 

[Class 33]

The pessimistic OECD are suggesting lockdowns will be here to stay, even with a vaccine being rolled out:

OECD: Lockdowns here to stay, even with vaccine plan

The economic think-tank tips a better economy in 2021 but success will depend on the vaccine rollout.

www.bbc.co.uk

I can't tell if this is based on whether a successful vaccine rollout will end this, given there are some countries struggling to get their vaccine rollouts going, but I do not see any harsh restrictions being well received if they are in place when, at the very least, all the most vulnerable people (say over 65s) have been vaccinated, and certainly not when at least the majority of the population have been.

If lockdowns are here to stay, then that will be the whole country steadily falling to bits then. Indeed a lot of damage has already been done as it is, with all this dragging on for months and months on end. If lockdowns are here to stay, then thousands upon thousands more businesses will go under and be unable to return, millions more unemployed and practically impossible to find another job, millions more suffering mental health problems as a result of all this, and grim as it is, many people will just be unable to take this any longer and committing suicide. This absolutely can NOT happen. As soon as the vaccines are administered to all the vulnerable people, let's get these ridiculous lockdowns and restrictions lifted and get this country back to normal. We just can not carry on with this madness and insanity much longer.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

The pessimistic OECD are suggesting lockdowns will be here to stay, even with a vaccine being rolled out:

OECD: Lockdowns here to stay, even with vaccine plan

The economic think-tank tips a better economy in 2021 but success will depend on the vaccine rollout.

www.bbc.co.uk

I can't tell if this is based on whether a successful vaccine rollout will end this, given there are some countries struggling to get their vaccine rollouts going, but I do not see any harsh restrictions being well received if they are in place when, at the very least, all the most vulnerable people (say over 65s) have been vaccinated, and certainly not when at least the majority of the population have been.

Just had BBC Breakfast on the tele in the background and my ears pricked up when, during the Covid discussion, the two experts (the always pessimistic Linda Bauld from Edinburgh University who the BBC always roll out to spread doom and gloom and the Virologist Chris Smith) were both suggesting that measures such as social distancing, mask wearing, etc would be needed for "quite some months" into the future, and "at least for the foreseeable future".

The justification seemed to be that as there is no evidence the vaccines reduce transmission then current rules need to stay to ensure the virus doesn't spread and infect people who haven't or can't be vaccinated, or someone for the whom the vaccine does not work.

There was a discussion whereby it was said that if the levels of infection dropped significantly to very low levels like last summer, and significant numbers had been vaccinated, then some restrictions could be eased for a bit to allow socialising and contact with relatives such as hugging etc.

 

[Class 33]

Just had BBC Breakfast on the tele in the background and my ears pricked up when, during the Covid discussion, the two experts (the always pessimistic Linda Bauld from Edinburgh University who the BBC always roll out to spread doom and gloom and the Virologist Chris Smith) were both suggesting that measures such as social distancing, mask wearing, etc would be needed for "quite some months" into the future, and "at least for the foreseeable future".

The justification seemed to be that as there is no evidence the vaccines reduce transmission then current rules need to stay to ensure the virus doesn't spread and infect people who haven't or can't be vaccinated, or someone for the whom the vaccine does not work.

There was a discussion whereby it was said that if the levels of infection dropped significantly to very low levels like last summer, and significant numbers had been vaccinated, then some restrictions could be eased for a bit to allow socialising and contact with relatives such as hugging etc.

Social distancing just alone is absolutely killing many businesses, especially in the hospitality and leisure sector. The drastic reduction in how many people they can have in their venues, is making it completely financially unviable for them to operate. Social distancing needs to finally end within a few months. Those "experts" who say it needs to continue for at the least forseeable future, can get stuffed. We need to get the economy up and running again, and the people of this country to get their freedoms back.

 

[Mag_seven]

Just had BBC Breakfast on the tele in the background and my ears pricked up when, during the Covid discussion, the two experts (the always pessimistic Linda Bauld from Edinburgh University who the BBC always roll out to spread doom and gloom and the Virologist Chris Smith) were both suggesting that measures such as social distancing, mask wearing, etc would be needed for "quite some months" into the future, and "at least for the foreseeable future".

The justification seemed to be that as there is no evidence the vaccines reduce transmission then current rules need to stay to ensure the virus doesn't spread and infect people who haven't or can't be vaccinated, or someone for the whom the vaccine does not work.

There was a discussion whereby it was said that if the levels of infection dropped significantly to very low levels like last summer, and significant numbers had been vaccinated, then some restrictions could be eased for a bit to allow socialising and contact with relatives such as hugging etc.

This is where the government really have to come out and say that once X% of the people on the vaccine priority list have been vaccinated then restrictions WILL be lifted. We cannot allow the goalposts to be constantly moved further and further away by doom and gloom academics who don't live in the real world.

 

[samxool]

Just had BBC Breakfast on the tele in the background and my ears pricked up when, during the Covid discussion, the two experts (the always pessimistic Linda Bauld from Edinburgh University who the BBC always roll out to spread doom and gloom and the Virologist Chris Smith) were both suggesting that measures such as social distancing, mask wearing, etc would be needed for "quite some months" into the future, and "at least for the foreseeable future".

The justification seemed to be that as there is no evidence the vaccines reduce transmission then current rules need to stay to ensure the virus doesn't spread and infect people who haven't or can't be vaccinated, or someone for the whom the vaccine does not work.

There was a discussion whereby it was said that if the levels of infection dropped significantly to very low levels like last summer, and significant numbers had been vaccinated, then some restrictions could be eased for a bit to allow socialising and contact with relatives such as hugging etc.

Restrictions will remain place for the rest of the year at least. The vaccine provides immunity against the disease, not the virus. The virus will still rage its way through the population. Even with 90% effectiveness rates, if everyone was given the vaccine today that still means 10% ie 6.8 million people in this country would still suffer from covid.

 

[Philip]

Just had BBC Breakfast on the tele in the background and my ears pricked up when, during the Covid discussion, the two experts (the always pessimistic Linda Bauld from Edinburgh University who the BBC always roll out to spread doom and gloom and the Virologist Chris Smith) were both suggesting that measures such as social distancing, mask wearing, etc would be needed for "quite some months" into the future, and "at least for the foreseeable future".

The justification seemed to be that as there is no evidence the vaccines reduce transmission then current rules need to stay to ensure the virus doesn't spread and infect people who haven't or can't be vaccinated, or someone for the whom the vaccine does not work.

There was a discussion whereby it was said that if the levels of infection dropped significantly to very low levels like last summer, and significant numbers had been vaccinated, then some restrictions could be eased for a bit to allow socialising and contact with relatives such as hugging etc.

Regardless of what has been said here, there is no way the government will prolong the lockdown or harsh tier restrictions any longer than is absolutely necessary, and that is when pressure on the NHS eases in the form of reducing hospital admissions. They know full well the damage it is doing to the economy, to people's livelihoods and mental health wellbeing, and not to mention the damage it will do to them come the next election if they were to continue with restrictions like we have currently even after hospital numbers reduce.

If things are going as well as hoped come 15th February, then that is when the announcement will be made signifying the end of lockdown.

 

[DustyBin]

Regardless of what has been said here, there is no way the government will prolong the lockdown or harsh tier restrictions any longer than is absolutely necessary, and that is when pressure on the NHS eases in the form of reducing hospital admissions. They know full well the damage it is doing to the economy, to people's livelihoods and mental health wellbeing, and not to mention the damage it will do to them come the next election if they were to continue with restrictions like we have currently even after hospital numbers reduce.

If things are going as well as hoped come 15th February, then that is when the announcement will be made signifying the end of lockdown.

I’d like nothing more than for you to be right here. I’m not so sure though, and even if they do end the lockdown in February, what will we go back to? Tiers 3 and 4? It certainly won’t be any kind of normality.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

I’d like nothing more than for you to be right here. I’m not so sure though, and even if they do end the lockdown in February, what will we go back to? Tiers 3 and 4? It certainly won’t be any kind of normality.

That of course is my fear.

We may get released from Lockdown 3, but immediately go in to Tier 4 or 3, both of which are lockdown in all but name with socialising indoors and household mixing banned, pubs and hospitality and events banned etc. Even Tier 2 bans household mixing indoors and restricts pubs etc to meals only.

I suspect there will be a grand announcement, when the time is right, that we will be released into Tier 3 or 4, for which we should all be grateful and hail Boris.

It will still be months and months till household mixing is allowed, and hospitality can open semi normally and people from different households can just go and have a drink, and single people living alone are allowed to actually see another person outside of the small support bubble they may be in.

 

[DustyBin]

That of course is my fear.

We may get released from Lockdown 3, but immediately go in to Tier 4 or 3, both of which are lockdown in all but name with socialising indoors and household mixing banned, pubs and hospitality and events banned etc. Even Tier 2 bans household mixing indoors and restricts pubs etc to meals only.

I suspect there will be a grand announcement, when the time is right, that we will be released into Tier 3 or 4, for which we should all be grateful and hail Boris.

It will still be months and months till household mixing is allowed, and hospitality can open semi normally and people from different households can just go and have a drink, and single people living alone are allowed to actually see another person outside of the small support bubble they may be in.

I think you’re probably right. My other concern is that the February review date is several weeks away, plenty of time for things to get worse....

 

[Philip]

I’d like nothing more than for you to be right here. I’m not so sure though, and even if they do end the lockdown in February, what will we go back to? Tiers 3 and 4? It certainly won’t be any kind of normality.

Depends really on how many have been vaccinated and the subsequent fall in admissions. If, as they're hoping, everyone over 70 and everyone who is 'extremely vulnerable' have been vaccinated by mid-February, then I'm hoping by the end of the first week of March (ie. 2 months from now), we'll see everywhere no higher than tier 2. It won't be so much about case numbers then, rather how hospitals are coping and in theory the above vaccination progress should remove a huge portion of those currently occupying hospital beds.

 

[Class 33]

This is where the government really have to come out and say that once X% of the people on the vaccine priority list have been vaccinated then restrictions WILL be lifted. We cannot allow the goalposts to be constantly moved further and further away by doom and gloom academics who don't live in the real world.

Indeed. In the recent few weeks we've had Johnson and others in the cabinet saying such things as....

"I am highly highly confident that by Easter we will have been able to release all these restrictions.".

"These vaccines are our way out of all these restrictions.".

"Everyone's going to have a fantastic summer, doing what they all enjoy again.".

"The more and more people we continue to get vaccinated, the sooner we can lift all these blasted restrictions.".

and other similar things along those lines.

-----------------------

But once all the most vulnerable people have been vaccinated, if they then drag all this on into summer and then say something like "Well because of the effects of Long Covid, we still need to keep these restrictions going." or "Well we've got the winter cold/flu season coming up soon, so we still need to keep these restrictions going.", this will be just absolutely unforgiveable.

As I said before, those who want "The New Normal" to continue by socially distancing and face mask wearing forever, can do so on their own forever if they so wish. But the vast vast majority of the country wants those restrictions to end and to get back to a normal life again. We just can't stand much more of all this.

 

[DustyBin]

Depends really on how many have been vaccinated and the subsequent fall in admissions. If, as they're hoping, everyone over 70 and everyone who is 'extremely vulnerable' have been vaccinated by mid-February, then I'm hoping by the end of the first week of March (ie. 2 months from now), we'll see everywhere no higher than tier 2. It won't be so much about case numbers then, rather how hospitals are coping and in theory the above vaccination progress should remove a huge portion of those currently occupying hospital beds.

Let’s hope the government doesn’t cave in to pressure from their advisors who seemingly would like restrictions to remain in place for the foreseeable future. We also mustn’t change the focus to infections which will most likely still be very high, especially as we’re doing so many tests.

 

[takno]

Restrictions will remain place for the rest of the year at least. The vaccine provides immunity against the disease, not the virus. The virus will still rage its way through the population. Even with 90% effectiveness rates, if everyone was given the vaccine today that still means 10% ie 6.8 million people in this country would still suffer from covid.

The least successful vaccine has a 90% total success rate, and a significant mitigation rate causing reduced impact amongst the 10% who aren't protected. Of those 10%, we'll likely soon be in the position that 50% will have had it anyway. So essentially 5% of people will be left somewhat vulnerable to a disease which is less serious than what is going round at the moment. What we're left with really is comparable to flu in a light year.

That's no basis for keeping social distancing in place. Obviously masks could still be worn so that people can demonstrate that they care and are good people, but I'd suggest wearing them pinned to the lapel like poppies, which would be more practical and just as effective

 

[The Ham]

Having some restrictions for 12 months is very different to bring in lockdown for 12 months.

I suspect that come Easter we would probably start to see some areas move down the tiers as the lockdown and vaccine start to reduce numbers.

By the end of the summer term it's likely that there would be very few in or above tier 2 and hopefully by the end of the summer holidays it may even be that there's limited numbers even in tier 1.

However even so it could still be that we are advised to try and limit the risk number of people we interact with without their being testing (so for instance the live watching of football or attending a gig could require a negative test within the last 48 hours).

The "problem" with vaccines is that they work very well when there's very low car numbers, however when there's already a lot of cases they don't work so well.

For instance if you've got 10 people with Covid-19 and everyone has 75% protection from the virus then even if those people meet with 50 people you're only going to infect at most 125 people (assuming that they are in close proximity and or near and inside fora long time). However, if you've got 1,000 people with it and they meet 10 people (due to being in lockdown) then that's at most 2,500 new infections.

As such the key is to reduce case numbers (i.e. what we'll be doing between now and Easter/the summer) so that vaccines can do their thing. If there's then outbreaks (i.e. when those 10 people infect 125 people) then that's when you bring in other measures to reduce spread (i.e. what we're likely to be doing from the summer until the end of the year).

However such ongoing measures would likely to be much more regional in nature and so the vast majority may not need to be involved in them.

Some changes due to Covid-19 could be here to stay, for instance:
- The retention of hand sanitizer at the entry to buildings (whether it's used is another matter, but I suspect that it's likely that it's use would still be fairly high) as well as better hand washing in general
- People WFH and/or being more cautious about socialising when they are unwell in any way
- People doing more of their shopping online
- Higher uptake of the flu vaccine

Some may even be mandated by law (such as work places not being able to penilise those who ask to work from home due to being ill if they are able to do their job), and so could be argued that they are a restriction because of Covid-19, yet actually the reality is that (subject to case numbers being more) most restrictions should be fairly limited in scale and geography at some point those year (ideally within 5 months).

 

[UP13]

Yes I agree - there is going to be long term psychological damage to society as a result of all these restrictions.

Reminds me of a staff meeting we had when schools first started reopening, where our head was discussing social distancing and said we had to be careful we weren't raising a generation of people who would have a psychological fear of touching people or even being near them.

 

[Yew]

Restrictions will remain place for the rest of the year at least. The vaccine provides immunity against the disease, not the virus. The virus will still rage its way through the population. Even with 90% effectiveness rates, if everyone was given the vaccine today that still means 10% ie 6.8 million people in this country would still suffer from covid.

The IFR is in the range of 0.2-0.5%, reducing that by 90% would in the vulnerable groups would make it significantly less of a problem than flu.

 

[Bald Rick]

My estimate, based on no evidence other than reading the news, is:

1) restrictions eased w/c 22 Feb. (Schools back, some other easements)
2) back into Tiers a couple of weeks later
3) most of country back to Tier 1 (or less) by easter

 

[DB]

I think there are two issues which will force thre government to end this charade sooner rather than later:

1) Finance - they simply cannot afford to fund furlough indefinitely, and the longer they try the bigger the mess at the end in terms of bankruptcies and redundancies. And they can't afford to have a large proportion of the country on the dole either.
2) non-compliance. It's clear that even with temperatures around freezing and it raining or snowing most days, compliance now is much lower than last April. As the weather warms up, the level of non-compliance is going to shoot up to levels which make many of their rules completely unenforceable.

 

[Yew]

I suspect until this new more infectious strain came up, ending social distancing in April was the plan. I remember quite a few government ministers implying that would be the case. I think this new strain however has probably put plans to end social distancing back by a few months.

It seems like every time this strain in looked at, the additional infectiousness goes down...