Should we go back into lockdown at this point?

[yorkie]

The lonelier life with more unemployment and less socialising allowed means that we might be in a safer society (though less safe than before Covid) but certainly not a more sustainable society.

Unfortunately we don't value deaths caused by suicide and deprivation as much as Covid deaths (for which the average age is around 83). It's totally illogical. If we did this for 'flu, society would collapse.

I think a lot of it is down to media reporting (see dedicated thread)

Indeed, yesterday there were protests in central London against these renewed lockdown measures. Ironically, the spread of the virus among protesters could have negated the spared spread by those who did co-operate.

If there are enough such protests, these lockdown measures will on balance prove counter-productive.

There is a separate thread to discuss the protests; see my response there.

I think that as Covid was rampant earlier on in London, there is a greater type of herd immunity there, meaning proportionately fewer people catching it now given how many people many come into close contact with there.

It's true that as more people get it, the rate of spread will reduce. There are some really interesting interviews on the subject on YouTube. There are also some dedicated threads on the subject in this forum section.

Does anyone else have any views on whether or not we should have a second 'lockdown' (or what we terminology people wish to refer to the set of restrictions we had in late March and throughout April and into early May)?

I do think we are covering a lot of ground covered elsewhere, it's all very interesting stuff but I would recommend people view the dedicated threads, rather than repeat the same discussions.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

So basically you are saying that your definition of lockdown is the only correct one. Rather arrogant, perhaps?

And like it or not, your definition does not fit how it has been generally used for many months.

So having not liked the comparison with other countries nor the actual definition, you try another approach? You probably believed Boris's "oven ready" line too along with "Whack a Mole" and "Moonshot".

Again, just so you're in no doubt, and @yorkie is actually closer to what I was saying. The terminology is wrong (and perhaps we were into semantics) but it's the greatest restriction on our civil liberties in our lifetimes. It has been, and remains, awful for us all.

Like many of us, I didn't see my elderly mother for 7 months. Not been able to see friends, let alone have them see me and my better half get married. Save for a trip to Tesco to do the weekly shop, very little 3rd party social interaction. However, we had the ability to leave the house, to walk or cycle if only for an hour at first.

I have no wish to go back to those days and I sincerely hope and don't think we will.

How, exactly? By looking at Facebook Karen’s reaction?

Boris is a born populist. You DON'T think he's keeping an eye on which way the wind is blowing????

 

[DB]

So having not liked the comparison with other countries nor the actual definition, you try another approach? You probably believed Boris's "oven ready" line too along with "Whack a Mole" and "Moonshot".

Ah yes, have another good sneer...

You may not think it's an ideal term, and I don't either, but the fact is that it has been used extensively to describe the UK restrictions (which are not much different from many other European countries). You can argue definitions all you want, but you can't alter how the term is generally understood in this country at the present time.

If you had actually read my previous postings you would be aware that I don't believe anything Johnson says.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Ah yes, have another good sneer...

You may not think it's an ideal term, and I don't either, but the fact is that it has been used extensively to describe the UK restrictions (which are not much different from many other European countries). You can argue definitions all you want, but you can't alter how the term is generally understood in this country at the present time.

If you had actually read my previous postings you would be aware that I don't believe anything Johnson says.

You blithely call someone "arrogant" and if they respond, they're sneering at you! Do unto others....

I'm glad you share my view of Johnson as a charlatan and a chancer. Common ground there at least

 

[adc82140]

Even if we agree to compromise, and call what happened in March a lockdown, what is being suggested now falls far short of that. But still the media persist in calling it a lockdown. The only two places that even remotely come close to measures taken in March are the two Welsh counties. Bolton comes nowhere near.

Remember furlough is ending in October. The government may be incompetent, but they are not mad.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Even if we agree to compromise, and call what happened in March a lockdown, what is being suggested now falls far short of that. But still the media persist in calling it a lockdown. The only two places that even remotely come close to measures taken in March are the two Welsh counties. Bolton comes nowhere near.

Remember furlough is ending in October. The government may be incompetent, but they are not mad.

Fair points

Think even this government have realised that the economy and life in general can't take a return to that but undoubtedly, more restrictions will come

 

[317 forever]

They never told you that the first time around.

They might do now, if they get it into their heads that we might have been near someone who might be infected.

I agree if you test positive it’s quite poor if you don’t, but really if you are asked by track and trace seems a bit harsher

It is, particularly as any claim that we were near an infected person might not even be true. Also, if it takes effect immediately and not even after say 4 hours, we would not even have time to do some urgent food shopping for example.

 

[brad465]

We really need the right wing papers to strongly criticise any lockdown proposals - which the telegraph in particular might. Johnson won't want them against him.

This earlier post of mine highlights the Telegraph are to an extent showing some criticism, although for now it's the implementation procedures rather than the restrictions themselves:

There is a column on the front page of the Sunday Telegraph, and this paywall article, stating Sir Graham Brady is planning to put forward an amendment to the Coronavirus Act that ensures Parliament now gets to vote on any measures linked to lockdown and future restrictions:

Senior Tories plot backlash against PM's emergency curbs on freedoms during pandemic

It's time for Parliamentary scrutiny of Covid-19 restrictions, says chairman of the powerful 1922 Committee of backbench Conservative MPs

www.telegraph.co.uk

Given who is tabling it, there's every possibility if the opposition side with it, the Government will lose, which combined with the backbench revolt brewing anyway is not only potential good news for less restrictions in future, but bad news for Johnson and the cabinet.

 

[317 forever]

Scenario: someone is called by the tracing people, and asked to name their close contacts. They maliciously name someone they don't like. This person is now legally obliged to not leave the house for 14 days, and with no notice to make caring arrangements etc. What protections are there against this?

This is exactly the kind-of scenario I had in mind when I referred earlier to being told whimsically to self-isolate.

 

[Dent]

There is a column on the front page of the Sunday Telegraph, and this paywall article, stating Sir Graham Brady is planning to put forward an amendment to the Coronavirus Act that ensures Parliament now gets to vote on any measures linked to lockdown and future restrictions:

Senior Tories plot backlash against PM's emergency curbs on freedoms during pandemic

It's time for Parliamentary scrutiny of Covid-19 restrictions, says chairman of the powerful 1922 Committee of backbench Conservative MPs

www.telegraph.co.uk

Given who is tabling it, there's every possibility if the opposition side with it, the Government will lose, which combined with the backbench revolt brewing anyway is not only potential good news for less restrictions in future, but bad news for Johnson and the cabinet.

Now reported in the Independent and the Guardian without paywall.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...nson-graham-brady-1922-committee-b505017.html

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ebellion-over-renewal-of-emergency-covid-laws

 

[island]

How, exactly? By looking at Facebook Karen’s reaction?

Very frequent opinion polls, actually.

 

[Richard Scott]

Very frequent opinion polls, actually.

Love to know when these are conducted, no-one I know has ever been asked. Flip side is, though, the government are elected to run the country and should not be influenced by opinion polls. What happened to following the science? This has gone out of the window.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I searched out details of the London protest yesterday, curious why it received minimal coverage (no mention on the BBC News - not even the London page, Guardian or Telegraph website when I looked). Apparently / allegedly 10,000 took part, a serious rag-bag of extremists noted among the crowds, waving their anti-vaccine, conspiracy theory, COVID is a fake, and similar banners.

There was a quite lengthy report about the protest on the BBC News at 22.00 last night ( BBC 1 ).

 

[bramling]

It is. See the following from an unusually calm Sky News:



Within the live feed

Coronavirus news live: Donald Trump announces rollout of 150 million 'rapid' COVID-19 tests

The latest COVID-19 news as millions download the NHS Test and Trace app, the 10pm curfew is enforced and daily cases spike.

news.sky.com

The trouble is no one can take seriously a word they say. Like over masks, one minute Gove comes out and says it’s not happening, then Hancock comes out with the opposite.

So even if they confirm or deny something we’re none the wiser really.

 

[adc82140]

It would be sensible to enforce the rules we have first, before trying new ones. Pre Covid I went to a town council meeting. They were planning new parking restrictions to ease traffic flow. I objected, as did a lot of other people, on the basis that the current regulations were not being enforced. Fast forward a year, there are no new restrictions, the council are a bit more proactive on enforcing the existing regulations, and we have free flowing traffic again. Transfer that to Covid, and it may work.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Love to know when these are conducted, no-one I know has ever been asked. Flip side is, though, the government are elected to run the country and should not be influenced by opinion polls. What happened to following the science? This has gone out of the window.

Just because you don’t know anyone who has (and neither have I), they do definitely occur. The idea that politicians don’t make political decisions but rely entirely on science.... It wasn’t true when Boris said and it ain’t now.

The trouble is no one can take seriously a word they say. Like over masks, one minute Gove comes out and says it’s not happening, then Hancock comes out with the opposite.

So even if they confirm or deny something we’re none the wiser really.

Quite. The moment the whole Cummings debacle came out and the revisionist history began, trust was shot through for many.

Gove is an apologist for the abject failure of the government that he is a member of, typified by the post Cummings LBC interview.

 

[Socanxdis]

Turns out herd immunity was the right approach after all.

 

[Huntergreed]

Turns out herd immunity was the right approach after all.

Of course it is.

Once a virus is established within a population and community transmission is taking place, elimination is basically impossible, meaning herd immunity is the only viable and long term way out of it.

Of course, the government have terrified people, using fear-driven propaganda and saying things like we must “beat the virus” (what does that even mean??), but in reality establishing herd immunity in the population is the only way out of this, be this through a vaccine (looks like, thankfully, we are likely to get one for this virus), or natural immunity (which, for a 99.5% survival rate with this virus, doesn’t seem to be such a bad idea for the least vulnerable demographics at least).

Of course, say that on social media and people will simply accuse you of being a granny killer, but it is true.

 

[thejuggler]

Turns out herd immunity was the right approach after all.

Only by those who don't know what it actually means or how it is achieved.

 

[hwl]

Only by those who don't know what it actually means or how it is achieved.

It very much depends on if you do it with a vaccine or not and how long the immunity lasts.

 

[adc82140]

I don't care really how long the vaccine immunity lasts. If it placates the Karens then good enough for me.

 

[Richard Scott]

Just because you don’t know anyone who has (and neither have I), they do definitely occur. The idea that politicians don’t make political decisions but rely entirely on science.... It wasn’t true when Boris said and it ain’t now.

Exactly, they haven't got my opinion or opinion of anyone I know so how do I know my views are represented? I know they're not following the science but point is they should be and taking economic and social impact into account not just how many people are testing positive, which seems to be their only baseline along with a number of people in this country.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Exactly, they haven't got my opinion or opinion of anyone I know so how do I know my views are represented? I know they're not following the science but point is they should be and taking economic and social impact into account not just how many people are testing positive, which seems to be their only baseline along with a number of people in this country.

They might not have your opinion or anyone you know but without a referendum, they can't consult on everything. Opinion polls have a clear methodology in ensuring, as best they can, that they get a representative cross section of the public.

Clearly, they are taking economic and social impact into account. A narrow scientific, view would have had us locked into our houses as happened in other countries. Instead, they rightly looked at the wider societal and mental health issues. They kept bike shops open and, whilst they closed pubs, they allowed off licenses to remain open.

Of course it is.

Once a virus is established within a population and community transmission is taking place, elimination is basically impossible, meaning herd immunity is the only viable and long term way out of it.

Of course, the government have terrified people, using fear-driven propaganda and saying things like we must “beat the virus” (what does that even mean??), but in reality establishing herd immunity in the population is the only way out of this, be this through a vaccine (looks like, thankfully, we are likely to get one for this virus), or natural immunity (which, for a 99.5% survival rate with this virus, doesn’t seem to be such a bad idea for the least vulnerable demographics at least).

Of course, say that on social media and people will simply accuse you of being a granny killer, but it is true.

Given that there is no evidence that there is no natural immunity, not a great idea for a strategy.

Herd immunity via a vaccine is where the focus is for that very reason.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Something that occurred to me, when reading that Spanish Flu was around for over 2 years, and there was never any vaccine developed, was this:
If Boris has a series of ‘circuit breaker’ restrictions, and no vaccine is found, we could be living like this for a very long time

 

[trebor79]

Given that there is no evidence that there is no natural immunity, not a great idea for a strategy.

Herd immunity via a vaccine is where the focus is for that very reason.

Errm, if there's no natural immunity post infection then a vaccine ain't gonna work either.
Politicians are pinning their hopes on a vaccine because they've cast themselves as saviours of our grannies and therefore made the alternative route politically unacceptable (for now) despite it being the less destructive, costly and socially damaging option.

Something that occurred to me, when reading that Spanish Flu was around for over 2 years, and there was never any vaccine developed, was this:
If Boris has a series of ‘circuit breaker’ restrictions, and no vaccine is found, we could be living like this for a very long time

Exactly. Spanish flu is still circulating, it has never gone away.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect that there's a bit of kite flying as well in the press and the government are keeping a close eye on public opinion.

I've just done a 4 hour drive and was listening to LBC for all of it, and the overwhelming opinion of callers was *against* a lockdown. I think there was one in that time who supported one. The prevailing view was that they work but that the economic and mental health issues caused by one would outweigh the benefit.

With regard to a full lockdown that is where I am tending, to be honest, though I don't strongly oppose a "lockdown lite", i.e. extending the measures applying in Newcastle etc to the whole of England for a shortish period.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Something that occurred to me, when reading that Spanish Flu was around for over 2 years, and there was never any vaccine developed, was this:
If Boris has a series of ‘circuit breaker’ restrictions, and no vaccine is found, we could be living like this for a very long time

Wasn't there some research on Spanish Flu in that people who were infected but recovered did have immunity afforded by the antibodies?

I've just done a 4 hour drive and was listening to LBC for all of it, and the overwhelming opinion of callers was *against* a lockdown. I think there was one in that time who supported one. The prevailing view was that they work but that the economic and mental health issues caused by one would outweigh the benefit.

With regard to a full lockdown that is where I am tending, to be honest, though I don't strongly oppose a "lockdown lite", i.e. extending the measures applying in Newcastle etc to the whole of England for a shortish period.

It's one of those things as to who wants a lockdown? I'd suspect that most people wouldn't. Would people want a strengthening of measures if it avoided a lockdown.... possibly.

Errm, if there's no natural immunity post infection then a vaccine ain't gonna work either.

Think you're mistaken though I confess, I'm no virologist!

If you're infected with the virus, there's no evidence that you gain immunity.

However, vaccines aren't the virus. They have some of the genetic elements of the virus and they act as a prompt that gets the immune system to produce antibodies against a portion of the coronavirus “spike” protein so the virus cannot penetrate human cells.

 

[trebor79]

Think you're mistaken though I confess, I'm no virologist!

If you're infected with the virus, there's no evidence that you gain immunity.

However, vaccines aren't the virus. They have some of the genetic elements of the virus and they act as a prompt that gets the immune system to produce antibodies against a portion of the coronavirus “spike” protein so the virus cannot penetrate human cells.

If a virus doesn't prompt and immune response, a vaccine that contains portions of that virus RNA will not prompt one either.
Vaccines can either be a low dose of a pathogen, an inactivated pathogen, or some engineered fragment of a pathogen.

One of the difficulties with virus vaccines is that viruses tend to mutate quite quickly in ways which make the vaccine ineffective as the bodies immune system does not recognise it.

I don't think there are any vaccines that present something that is not present in the wild pathogen. Indeed, it's difficult to understand how such an approach could actually work.

Being infected with COVID absolutely will prompt an immune response, and will almost certainly confer immunity to that strain. The issue is that if the next time you encounter that virus it has mutated sufficiently then the immune response will not be as strong.

 

[hwl]

Wasn't there some research on Spanish Flu in that people who were infected but recovered did have immunity afforded by the antibodies?

Flu is not a coronavirus, the immune response is different. Traditionally the body has not had long term immune system memory for corona viruses. Comparison can be a bad idea...

Type A Flu viruses are classified into sub types based on 2 glycoprotein variants that the humans /animal can develop antibodies for.
H 16 variants
N 9 variants

Hence 144 combinations but only 12 found in humans so far (all found in birds).
The big problem flu outbreaks are ones where both H and N variants haven't been seen in the population for a while.

Spanish flu was an H1N1 sub type virus as was the 2009 pandemic but the rest of the virus as somewhat different.

With annual flu vaccine they aim for 3 or 4 of the common circulating subtypes with 2 A subtypes and the rest B.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

If a virus doesn't prompt and immune response, a vaccine that contains portions of that virus RNA will not prompt one either.
Vaccines can either be a low dose of a pathogen, an inactivated pathogen, or some engineered fragment of a pathogen.

One of the difficulties with virus vaccines is that viruses tend to mutate quite quickly in ways which make the vaccine ineffective as the bodies immune system does not recognise it.

I don't think there are any vaccines that present something that is not present in the wild pathogen. Indeed, it's difficult to understand how such an approach could actually work.

Being infected with COVID absolutely will prompt an immune response, and will almost certainly confer immunity to that strain. The issue is that if the next time you encounter that virus it has mutated sufficiently then the immune response will not be as strong.

I think the keyword is engineered.

Covid prompts a response from the immune system, that much is true. However, I hadn't realised that Covid antibodies confer immunity. So you're saying that if you have had it, then we almost certainly have immunity from that strain?

Best not bother with the vaccine then.

Flu is not a coronavirus, the immune response is different. Traditionally the body has not had long term immune system memory for corona viruses. Comparison can be a bad idea...

Indeed - tongue was in cheek in that response, and I was alluding to the fact that it wasn't really a valid comparison by the poster above

Were we to have had a flu epidemic, rather than a novel coronavirus one, we might have been in a better place with the stockpile of PPE and drugs that were secreted in warehouses around the UK for the eventuality.