• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Life after the end of "lockdown" 2.0

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,382
Location
0035
Not sure where TFL sits, but back in the early 2010's the TOC's were still classed as private companies. No idea if they are now classed now as still private or as public sector now has the government had effectively nationalised them all, but I suspect the Treasury would argue they are public sector.
It isn't correct though - East Coast continued to receive payrises throughout despite being state run between 2009 and February 2015. Many operational grades in Network Rail too. London Underground staff were included in the same.

The public sector as in public sector pay only includes those salaries which are directly set by central government themselves. It does not include the railway, London Underground, Local Authorities, TfL, etc.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

317 forever

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Messages
2,544
Location
North West
So it very much seems that we are going to get "let out" for 4 / 5 days over Christmas and then pay for it in January.

Absolutely awful idea all round - and not just because a January lockdown after a very hard Brexit sounds like hell.

I would be watching what happens over Thanksgiving next week in the States before committing to anything. The USA is a dumpster fire right now but they will at least show us what happens when you have mass movement and family gathering.

It is either safe to meet family or it isn't. It doesn't magically change because it is December 25th
A January lockdown is also silly as, while it could limit new infections in January, it will not remove the infection from anyone who caught it over Christmas. If anything it would be better to extend the current lockdown to Christmas Eve or thereabouts, so that the number of people carrying the virus is the lowest possible by the time extra mixing happens from Christmas Day onwards.
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894
A January lockdown is also silly as, while it could limit new infections in January, it will not remove the infection from anyone who caught it over Christmas. If anything it would be better to extend the current lockdown to Christmas Eve or thereabouts, so that the number of people carrying the virus is the lowest possible by the time extra mixing happens from Christmas Day onwards.
That would be another absolute disaster for the economy and would finish many businesses that rely on the the run up to Christmas. We need to remember that furlough covers wages, not profit.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
That would be another absolute disaster for the economy and would finish many businesses that rely on the the run up to Christmas. We need to remember that furlough covers wages, not profit.

I suspect this November “lockdown” is already going to prove catastrophic. The only saviour would be if there’s a mad dash for shops during December, and that will do nothing for hospitality and other businesses like tourist attractions, and of course it will also be bad from a social distancing point of view.

Whichever way one looks at it the decision to do what’s happening now is going to be viewed as a serious strategic error. Yet it looks like we’ll quite likely see more of the same, it seems pretty clear something will happen in January.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
I suspect this November “lockdown” is already going to prove catastrophic. The only saviour would be if there’s a mad dash for shops during December, and that will do nothing for hospitality and other businesses like tourist attractions, and of course it will also be bad from a social distancing point of view.

Whichever way one looks at it the decision to do what’s happening now is going to be viewed as a serious strategic error. Yet it looks like we’ll quite likely see more of the same, it seems pretty clear something will happen in January.

I am not so sure that we will get a month long full lockdown as we are in at the moment.

It will depend to some extent on what happens when university students go back in January, and the figures for this won't become apparent until the second half of January. Hopefully universities will have learnt from this term's experience and try and take some sensible measures to reduce contact between various groups of students.

If there is a spike in cases as a consequence of students returning, you may see a short "circuit breaker" lockdown around the February half term.

Hopefully, if the news is to believed, the vaccine program will be well underway by mid January, which will have some positive effect on cases, hospitalisations and deaths.
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894
I suspect this November “lockdown” is already going to prove catastrophic. The only saviour would be if there’s a mad dash for shops during December, and that will do nothing for hospitality and other businesses like tourist attractions, and of course it will also be bad from a social distancing point of view.
I think that hospitality needs to be opened at the start of December.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,673
A January lockdown is also silly as, while it could limit new infections in January, it will not remove the infection from anyone who caught it over Christmas. If anything it would be better to extend the current lockdown to Christmas Eve or thereabouts, so that the number of people carrying the virus is the lowest possible by the time extra mixing happens from Christmas Day onwards.
No, lockdowns are being shown to be ineffective, we have a trashed economy that people are starting to realise has to be paid for but yet you'd rather trash it further not to mention people's wellbeing being compromised further.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
It wasn’t SAGE who ultimately made the decisions though. The buck stops with Boris Johnson at the end of the day.

His response to this has been utterly dire. Twice he’s done the worst-of-all-worlds thing of not doing a lockdown but then deciding to do it much further down the line. Likewise a chronic lack of attention to detail.

2021 is going to be a dire year, the writing is well and truly on the wall, and this will all be down the the Covid response rather than the virus itself.
Yep, next thing that's going to get cocked up is vaccine rollout. I wouldn't be at all surprised if all these orders for various vaccines turn out to have been "options" or for delivery way into the future.
On top of that they need to seriously get a grip on the anti-vaxxer movement. Even relatively sensible people are now banging on about "it shouldn't be compulsory, my body my choice blah blah blah". The idea of compulsion is a seed down by the anti-vaxxer movement - it's specifically prohibited in law! But it's eroding public confidence in getting vaccinated and that's crucial for it to actually be effective.
 

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,610
I suspect your right. I'm fed up with my liberties being used as some sort of bargaining chip in return for a "normal" Christmas. The government should be planning for a return to permanent normality now not still trying to pretend that lockdowns actually work when its clear they don't.
A big clue was when there was no ‘Tier 0’ consisting of no restrictions to personal liberty. It’s clear they are rather enjoying this control over our lives
 

RomeoCharlie71

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2017
Messages
1,720
Location
Scotland
A big clue was when there was no ‘Tier 0’ consisting of no restrictions to personal liberty. It’s clear they are rather enjoying this control over our lives
Even in level 0 restrictions in Scotland, face coverings are still mandatory, as is physical distancing, and a maximum of 8 people meeting indoors from 3 households. However, it was said when the new levels of protection were announced, that level 0 is the closest to normality we could get without a vaccine or effective treatment.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
9,993
Location
here to eternity
Even in level 0 restrictions in Scotland, face coverings are still mandatory, as is physical distancing, and a maximum of 8 people meeting indoors from 3 households. However, it was said when the new levels of protection were announced, that level 0 is the closest to normality we could get without a vaccine or effective treatment.

Well that is worrying because in the event of no vaccine or effective treatment (low probability but still possible), you could be living with restrictions for ever!
 

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,610
Yep, next thing that's going to get cocked up is vaccine rollout. I wouldn't be at all surprised if all these orders for various vaccines turn out to have been "options" or for delivery way into the future.
On top of that they need to seriously get a grip on the anti-vaxxer movement. Even relatively sensible people are now banging on about "it shouldn't be compulsory, my body my choice blah blah blah". The idea of compulsion is a seed down by the anti-vaxxer movement - it's specifically prohibited in law! But it's eroding public confidence in getting vaccinated and that's crucial for it to actually be effective.
Many people I work with who could not be remotely described as irrational anti-vaxxers are extremely dubious about a vaccine that has been produced so rapidly.
Many have also expressed the fear that whilst having the vaccine may not be made compulsory, there will - at a minimum - be restrictions on foreign travel for those that do not want the jab. This would be blatant coercion (but not compulsion); there is also suspicion that those who refuse could have access to sporting events, concerts etc etc - a further trashing of our freedoms. For a virus with a huge survival rate
:rolleyes:

Even in level 0 restrictions in Scotland, face coverings are still mandatory, as is physical distancing, and a maximum of 8 people meeting indoors from 3 households. However, it was said when the new levels of protection were announced, that level 0 is the closest to normality we could get without a vaccine or effective treatment.
When people are losing their jobs in colossal numbers, I give it a few months of not being able to pay the rent/mortgage and people losing everything they’ve worked for and, when we reach the warmer weather of Spring, those demonstrations in city centres are going to get much bigger and more widespread...
 
Last edited:

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
Many people I work with who could not be remotely described as irrational anti-vaxxers are extremely dubious about a vaccine that has been produced so rapidly.
Many have also expressed the fear that whilst having the vaccine may not be made compulsory, there will - at a minimum - be restrictions on foreign travel for those that do not want the jab. This would be blatant coercion (but not compulsion); there is also suspicion that those who refuse could have access to sporting events, concerts etc etc - a further trashing of our freedoms. For a virus with a huge survival rate
:rolleyes:
I fully expect countries to make vaccination a requirement of entry. That's fine, if you don't want to have the vaccine, don't go to that country.
I can't see their being any restrictions on sports stadia etc in the UK. I'm not sure that would even be legal.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,673
I fully expect countries to make vaccination a requirement of entry. That's fine, if you don't want to have the vaccine, don't go to that country.
I can't see their being any restrictions on sports stadia etc in the UK. I'm not sure that would even be legal.
Afraid I don't agree, it's not fine. This is not smallpox or similar, I still maintain the reaction of a number of countries has been totally over the top and they insist on maintaining this hysteria.
 

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,610
I fully expect countries to make vaccination a requirement of entry. That's fine, if you don't want to have the vaccine, don't go to that country.
I can't see their being any restrictions on sports stadia etc in the UK. I'm not sure that would even be legal.
My friends are fearful that proof of vaccination will be required at the airports in the UK, irrespective of which country you are travelling to. I’m sure someone will be along shortly to say private businesses have the right to set their own entry rules?
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
My friends are fearful that proof of vaccination will be required at the airports in the UK, irrespective of which country you are travelling to. I’m sure someone will be along shortly to say private businesses have the right to set their own entry rules?

Private businesses do have the right to set their own entry rules, except that they cannot discriminate against someone with a protected characteristic (race, gender, sexual orientation, disability etc..) So if someone's disability means that they are unable to take the vaccine, it would be unlawful to deny them entry for that reason alone.

However this does have echos of the face mask rules, where some disabled people are unable to wear a mask, and yet they are still refused entry or hassled, or confronted with No Mask, No Entry signs.

As many businesses have been hard hit over the past eight months, I can't imagine somewhere like a pub refusing entry to someone without proof of vaccination. Especially as it will take several months before everyone has had an opportunity to be vaccinated.

It may be that the government will legislate to make it illegal to bar access to businesses or services to people who haven't been vaccinated.

Quite how they are going to manage large scale events like Glastonbury next year I don't know.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
...

Hopefully, if the news is to believed, the vaccine program will be well underway by mid January, which will have some positive effect on cases, hospitalisations and deaths.
While several vaccines currently show 90+% effectiveness at preventing infections in the vaccinated person, we still have no data on the other important point: the effect on transmission rates.
Prof Sahin's (one of the developers of the "Pfizer" vaccine) "best guess" (his words) just over a week ago was 50% reduction in transmission rate (i.e. 50% of vaccinated people can still spread it after being vaccinated, presumably the 10% who still get infected + 40% of those who haven't shown measurable signs of infection).

The practical effects of assuming 50% transmission reduction for those vaccinated are:
  • The NHS overload criteria is based on potential admission rates from a potentially smaller population: the sum of circa 10% or less of the vaccinated number (at that point in time) and the unvaccinated number (at that point in time). Which will still be a surprisingly large number until you have done lots and lots of vaccination as you are relying on transmission reduction through the recipient not getting infected due to having been vaccinated much more than reducing spreader numbers. (In the early stages assuming no one has lost the immunity they have gained to simplify things)
  • Pushes R down to 1.3-1.5 with every one vaccinated and with no other measures in place, hence some other measure will need to remain in place to get / keep R down below 1.
  • Means you need to vaccinate most of the adult population not just the high risk groups to bring down effective transmission rates, this means the benefits of vaccination don't accrue that quickly
Hence why you see some caution expressed by expert about the time taken to realise the benefits, "summer" was Prof Sahin's estimate.

The data for effectiveness in transmission reduction will most likely come from Phase 1 of the vaccination programme as you need huge number of vaccinated people to do this in short time scale. Hence no public phase 2 plan yet as the government will want to see what the transmission rate reduction actually is before deciding on the scope and detail of phase 2.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,629
Once the over 65s have been vaccinated, what terrifying death rates exist to justify the eternal lockdown are essentially gone.

Which means there will be no political capital in maintaining restrictions, the virus will be allowed to burn through.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
While several vaccines currently show 90+% effectiveness at preventing infections in the vaccinated person, we still have no data on the other important point: the effect on transmission rates.
Prof Sahin's (one of the developers of the "Pfizer" vaccine) "best guess" (his words) just over a week ago was 50% reduction in transmission rate (i.e. 50% of vaccinated people can still spread it after being vaccinated, presumably the 10% who still get infected + 40% of those who haven't shown measurable signs of infection).

The practical effects of assuming 50% transmission reduction for those vaccinated are:
  • The NHS overload criteria is based on potential admission rates from a potentially smaller population: the sum of circa 10% or less of the vaccinated number (at that point in time) and the unvaccinated number (at that point in time). Which will still be a surprisingly large number until you have done lots and lots of vaccination as you are relying on transmission reduction through the recipient not getting infected due to having been vaccinated much more than reducing spreader numbers. (In the early stages assuming no one has lost the immunity they have gained to simplify things)
  • Pushes R down to 1.3-1.5 with every one vaccinated and with no other measures in place, hence some other measure will need to remain in place to get / keep R down below 1.
  • Means you need to vaccinate most of the adult population not just the high risk groups to bring down effective transmission rates, this means the benefits of vaccination don't accrue that quickly
Hence why you see some caution expressed by expert about the time taken to realise the benefits, "summer" was Prof Sahin's estimate.

The data for effectiveness in transmission reduction will most likely come from Phase 1 of the vaccination programme as you need huge number of vaccinated people to do this in short time scale. Hence no public phase 2 plan yet as the government will want to see what the transmission rate reduction actually is before deciding on the scope and detail of phase 2.
The population have had it embedded into their minds that a vaccine is the only way out of all restrictions/normality returning. Even if a vaccine doesn't stop transmission but at least protects those most vulnerable from death/hospitalisation with the virus, more and more people will question the whole strategy if what they've been told for so long doesn't come to fruition. Flu strains collectively are widely circulating every winter, but we only vaccinate the most vulnerable to protect them as much as possible, while we never shut down society every winter because of it.

Many try to compare Covid to Flu, when in reality I think Covid is much more comparable to Pneumonia: in the early stages of Covid's prevalence it was mistaken for Pneumonia, while many who've died with it had other underlying conditions, where the latter is known as "the old man's friend" for a very good reason.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Once the over 65s have been vaccinated, what terrifying death rates exist to justify the eternal lockdown are essentially gone.

Which means there will be no political capital in maintaining restrictions, the virus will be allowed to burn through.
They will still need some lighter touch measures such as to keep some social distancing, masks and no very large gatherings to slow the burn through rate for a while till they get the under 65 programme mostly done. With the over 65s and a 90% effective vaccine you still have 10% or 1.2m who aren't protected as well as effects in younger age groups too albeit at lower rates.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,629
They will still need some lighter touch measures such as to keep some social distancing, masks and no very large gatherings to slow the burn through rate for a while till they get the under 65 programme mostly done. With the over 65s and a 90% effective vaccine you still have 10% or 1.2m who aren't protected as well as effects in younger age groups too albeit at lower rates.

Vaccinating the over 65s with a 95% effective vaccine cuts death rates by 80-90% depending on what fraction of people actually take it.

Given the crumbling political conesnsus on the eternal war on the virus now, how long do you think it will last when we are talking about 30-40 thousand dead, instead of a couple hundred thousand?

And even the people at SAGE are not able to conjure up terrifying modelling of one trillion dead unless they worship the eternal lockdown?
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
The population have had it embedded into their minds that a vaccine is the only way out of all restrictions/normality returning. Even if a vaccine doesn't stop transmission but at least protects those most vulnerable from death/hospitalisation with the virus, more and more people will question the whole strategy if what they've been told for so long doesn't come to fruition. Flu strains collectively are widely circulating every winter, but we only vaccinate the most vulnerable to protect them as much as possible, while we never shut down society every winter because of it.

Many try to compare Covid to Flu, when in reality I think Covid is much more comparable to Pneumonia: in the early stages of Covid's prevalence it was mistaken for Pneumonia, while many who've died with it had other underlying conditions, where the latter is known as "the old man's friend" for a very good reason.
Comparing with flu is a big problem, e.g. covid is ~10x more lethal with the current best treatments available than a new flu strain.

It is too early to say whether vaccines are the end of all restrictions /mitigation measures or just most of them, a complete return to as before is unlikely but some of the mitigation measures may not be noticeable so it may appear like normality despite not being a return to before: E.g. improved building ventilation requirements for office, shops, restaurants, pubs and other public buildings could well remain, limits on seating densities, or encouraging contactless payments.
I can see some other light touch measures e.g. encouraging distancing while queueing in shops etc., greater hand washing, encouraging masks remaining, less of a presenteeism culture so people don't come in work if they are ill, more work from home is some sectors.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
I can see some other light touch measures e.g. encouraging distancing while queueing in shops etc., greater hand washing, encouraging masks remaining, less of a presenteeism culture so people don't come in work if they are ill, more work from home is some sectors.

Given the rather limited evidence in favour of masks, and the general hassle it seems to be causing I'm hoping that's amongst the first things to go!
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Vaccinating the over 65s with a 95% effective vaccine cuts death rates by 80-90% depending on what fraction of people actually take it.

Given the crumbling political consensus on the eternal war on the virus now, how long do you think it will last when we are talking about 30-40 thousand dead, instead of a couple hundred thousand?

And even the people at SAGE are not able to conjure up terrifying modelling of one trillion dead unless they worship the eternal lockdown?
And probably need a single annual booster shot for ever more.

It is to early to say what will happen at this stage as we still have much to learn about covid and vaccines but some light touch measures mitigations remaining is quite likely, but that shouldn't be a hard sell.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
It is too early to say whether vaccines are the end of all restrictions /mitigation measures or just most of them, a complete return to as before is unlikely but some of the mitigation measures may not be noticeable so it may appear like normality despite not being a return to before: E.g. improved building ventilation requirements for office, shops, restaurants, pubs and other public buildings could well remain, limits on seating densities, or encouraging contactless payments.
I can see some other light touch measures e.g. encouraging distancing while queueing in shops etc., greater hand washing, encouraging masks remaining, less of a presenteeism culture so people don't come in work if they are ill, more work from home is some sectors.
I and many others can get on board with most of this, however the mask aspect would absolutely have to an encouragement rather than remain a legal requirement, while for people not to come to work ill would require statutory sick pay to be equal to full pay (maybe for a fixed period to prevent abuse), so nobody loses income will isolating with any illness. It's that last point in particular that is leading to troubles with test and trace and getting some to isolate while having symptoms and/or a positive test.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,629
And probably need a single annual booster shot for ever more
If so this is not any reason to try and impose a total societal reconstruction.
15 million vaccine doses per year is not a significant imposition compared to the sort of things demanded now.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
If so this is not any reason to try and impose a total societal reconstruction.
15 million vaccine doses per year is not a significant imposition compared to the sort of things demanded now.
Where is anyone suggesting societal reconstruction post mass vaccination (inc. phase 2)?
A few minor adjustments in the medium and longer terms is not societal reconstruction. Resetting to things exactly as they were before Feb 2020 isn't going to happen.

Internet retail was taking share from physical any way, it has just done 4-5 years worth of growth in one year (comparing shops open periods). Many restaurant chains were already in trouble pre-covid, the main effect in those cases was pressing the fast forward button on the changes that were already happening.
 

NorthOxonian

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
1,483
Location
Oxford/Newcastle
Where is anyone suggesting societal reconstruction post mass vaccination (inc. phase 2)?
A few minor adjustments in the medium and longer terms is not societal reconstruction. Resetting to things exactly as they were before Feb 2020 isn't going to happen.

Internet retail was taking share from physical any way, it has just done 4-5 years worth of growth in one year (comparing shops open periods). Many restaurant chains were already in trouble pre-covid, the main effect in those cases was pressing the fast forward button on the changes that were already happening.
It's a fringe view here, but seems more common in the US. A lot of people like Fauci seem to genuinely think masks and social distancing should continue even after a vaccine is distributed.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,629
Where is anyone suggesting societal reconstruction post mass vaccination (inc. phase 2)?
A few minor adjustments in the medium and longer terms is not societal reconstruction. Resetting to things exactly as they were before Feb 2020 isn't going to happen.

Internet retail was taking share from physical any way, it has just done 4-5 years worth of growth in one year (comparing shops open periods). Many restaurant chains were already in trouble pre-covid, the main effect in those cases was pressing the fast forward button on the changes that were already happening.

Mandating anything about seating densities in settings like cinemas, restaurants et al, will just ensure that those sectors simply don't survive.
Restaurant margins are too tight across most of the market to accept a reduction in seating density, except at the extreme high end.

A society where restaurants are again merely something enjoyed by the ruling class qualifies as a societal reconstruction in my opinion.

As does de-facto attempting to compel mask wearing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top