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

[Yew]

Picture of the letter I just received from my MP. The comments on signage refer to my on going saga with my Council in my attempt to stop them picking and choosing which parts of the legislation they want to enforce.

The remainder his statement is on the lifting of restrictions once the vulnerable have been vaccinated

On a side note the swift response was surprising, I must only have emailed on Wednesday

The question is, does he mean groups 1-4 or 1-6?

 

[Class 33]

Hospital admissions below 3k for first time since 31/12 and this data is four days old due to infrequent updates we get.

Regionally London and SE are 40% below its highest daily admission and it hasn't been this low since 24/12. Hospitalisations are showing steady decline in London as well down from a peak of 7917 to 6393 on 28/1, SE also showing good reductions.

Other areas are just coming off peaks but were behind L&SE in increasing cases and hospital admissions so not unexpected and the trend is clear to what will happen over the next few weeks.

So with case rates down across the week if you use 7 day average and look at specimen date rather than reporting date of tests there is clear downward trend. So with the benefit of the vaccine rollout progressing extremely well along with some sort of immunity from all those positive cases we will see an improving trend such that govt will have a real problem to defend all the restrictions come the mid Feb review. No one will be against a slow relaxation but why is BoJo holding back til 22/2 to just publish a road map. CRG need to be all over this and demanding the roadmap is bought forward.

Yes, things are much at a turning point in the right direction now. Cases rates have been steadily heading down for a few weeks. And now deaths and hospital numbers are heading down now. By the due review date of 15th February, things should be a fair bit better again. In any upcoming Downing Street News Conferences now, Whitty won't be able to stand there with all his charts and graphs and saying "Things are very much heading in the wrong direction." any more! The lockdown and restrictions really should be progressively and intensely relaxed over the next few months.

By mid summer, I and millions of other people will want to get out and about on the trains for leisure day trips. And without having to wear ridiculous face masks for the journeys and this social distancing nonsense. And we don't to be hearing horrible PA announcements such as "You must wear a face mask at all times for the duration of this journey. This must cover your mouth and nose. If you fail to do, you will be fined. The British Transport Police will be patrolling this train this morning. Anyone found not wearing a face mask and refusing to do so, will be ejected from this train.". It will be beyond ridiculous if by mid summer when probably over 40 million people would have been vaccinated and hospital numbers and deaths will be extremely low, if this face mask wearing and social distancing nonsense is still dragging on. No silly excuses, both of these must be scrapped by then.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

There is an article from the Guardian this morning that compares restrictions across various countries. Restrictions for the four largest Western European countries are below. There are several more countries in the article.



Comparing the restrictions in the UK with these other countries, it does seem that the UK has the toughest restrictions of the lot in Europe, particularly when it comes to social gatherings. The four countries above do all permit indoor socialising of some kind with at least one other person. The UK however does not have any curfew and it is mentioned France may go into a third lockdown next week.

Data from European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for last w/e 24/1 had the following 7 day case rates

Spain 547
UK 377
Sweden 225
France 213
Italy 142
Germany 122

Not sure you can draw much conclusion from case rates vs restrictions except in Spain which is the laxest. The majority of Europe has had the quoted restrictions on for some time so they were already keep a lid on cases and had the Kent variant not been allowed to get a grip we would have been in the same situation. At least this variant does appear to have been dampened down with lockdown 3 reasonably well (although i would also say that January is already lowest time of year for socialisation as well) with case rates falling across the UK and with many areas already below the threshold for Tier 2 particularly Devon with even Exeter experiencing very low rates.

 

[DB]

Data from European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for last w/e 24/1 had the following 7 day case rates

Spain 547
UK 377
Sweden 225
France 213
Italy 142
Germany 122

Not sure you can draw much conclusion from case rates vs restrictions except in Spain which is the laxest. The majority of Europe has had the quoted restrictions on for some time so they were already keep a lid on cases and had the Kent variant not been allowed to get a grip we would have been in the same situation. At least this variant does appear to have been dampened down with lockdown 3 reasonably well (although i would also say that January is already lowest time of year for socialisation as well) with case rates falling across the UK and with many areas already below the threshold for Tier 2 particularly Devon with even Exeter experiencing very low rates.

So Spain, which for a lot of last year had some of the most draconian restrictions anywhere, is at the top of the list. And people still claim that lockdowns are a good idea...

There is no evidence that the lockdown is responsible to any great degree for dropping cases in this country - they were already beginning to drop before the lockdown, and the vaccines will also now be having an increasingly significant effect.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

So Spain, which for a lot of last year had some of the most draconian restrictions anywhere, is at the top of the list. And people still claim that lockdowns are a good idea...

There is no evidence that the lockdown is responsible to any great degree for dropping cases in this country - they were already beginning to drop before the lockdown, and the vaccines will also now be having an increasingly significant effect.

Indeed but Spain is now conducting a policy which isn't promoting lockdowns at all although given its neighbour Portugal is experiencing a breakout of the Kent variant and its case rate is way higher at 775 so depends if they contain it within there borders or not as to whether Spain has to change tack.

 

[philosopher]

Indeed but Spain is now conducting a policy which isn't promoting lockdowns at all although given its neighbour Portugal is experiencing a breakout of the Kent variant and its case rate is way higher at 775 so depends if they contain it within there borders or not as to whether Spain has to change tack.

It would be interesting to see what restrictions Portugal have, unfortunately the article did not mention Portugal. I think if it were not for this new variant, most of England would either be in Tier 2 or 3, which would be more in line with the restrictions that other European countries have.

 

[packermac]

Picture of the letter I just received from my MP. The comments on signage refer to my on going saga with my Council in my attempt to stop them picking and choosing which parts of the legislation they want to enforce.

The remainder his statement is on the lifting of restrictions once the vulnerable have been vaccinated

On a side note the swift response was surprising, I must only have emailed on Wednesday

Well at least you got a response. I have contacted my MP three times in the past year (once on a Covid related matter) and each time received an automated email saying he was too busy working on Covid issues to respond, but my email would probably be read.

 

[35B]

So Spain, which for a lot of last year had some of the most draconian restrictions anywhere, is at the top of the list. And people still claim that lockdowns are a good idea...

There is no evidence that the lockdown is responsible to any great degree for dropping cases in this country - they were already beginning to drop before the lockdown, and the vaccines will also now be having an increasingly significant effect.

But if as @Nicholas Lewis states Spain is now not running a lockdown policy, the absence of those measures could easily help explain the prevalence of the virus in Spain given that it has not been eliminated in Spain. After all, varieties of the virus tracked back to mutations first identified in Spain were implicated in the spread of Covid here over summer and autumn.

 

[DB]

But if as @Nicholas Lewis states Spain is now not running a lockdown policy, the absence of those measures could easily help explain the prevalence of the virus in Spain given that it has not been eliminated in Spain. After all, varieties of the virus tracked back to mutations first identified in Spain were implicated in the spread of Covid here over summer and autumn.

It does rather highlight the futility of lockdowns though, if all they have done is delay the spread so that it all hits at the worst time of year.

 

[bramling]

But if as @Nicholas Lewis states Spain is now not running a lockdown policy, the absence of those measures could easily help explain the prevalence of the virus in Spain given that it has not been eliminated in Spain. After all, varieties of the virus tracked back to mutations first identified in Spain were implicated in the spread of Covid here over summer and autumn.

Does that not suggest either that border control was weak (though that’s not a long-term strategy), or that for lockdowns to be effective they have to be permanent, which is also not viable?

At the moment there’s only really one long-term strategy, if one can call it that, which is hope the vaccines work and expectation management if they don’t.

 

[DorkingMain]

We've got no chance then, they will keep chucking out new variants for forever and a day, and the evidence will be marginal at best.

I have to agree with this.

I don't believe Johnson and co. love this situation - they're having to hand out free cash like they've won the lottery, their mates in big business + commercial premises ownership are losing billions. However, the science of any virus says that it will mutate over time - viruses replicate at an astonishing rate and the chances of a mutation in that replication process are therefore quite high on the scale of the virus spreading. This doesn't of course mean that these new variants are any different, or more deadly, or more transmissible - in a lot of cases they just exist. However, the idea of a new variant is alarming, makes everyone panic about whether vaccines work, whether they can get the virus again etc.

Because this government are too feckless to make any sort of long-term decision, they've defaulted to "relying on the science" - science of course is generally not conducted on the basis of socioeconomic nuance, and will just say "Deaths are going up" "There's a new variant". Because Boris and co are the dregs of the Tory party (most of the more effective politicians left the party over Brexit / their ties to the May government) we've now got people in government who are incapable of anything beyond one track thinking, and will just think "NEW VIRUS VARIANT, NEW VIRUS VARIANT, GRAPH GOING UP, LOCKDOWN MUST RETURN" without giving the slightest consideration as to the impacts of their decision or the timing of it.

Does that not suggest either that border control was weak (though that’s not a long-term strategy), or that for lockdowns to be effective they have to be permanent, which is also not viable?

At the moment there’s only really one long-term strategy, if one can call it that, which is hope the vaccines work and expectation management if they don’t.

I suspect the public mood about lockdowns might change if they find vaccines don't work, and the entire exit strategy we've been sold is useless.

However, early evidence suggests they might actually be more effective than first thought - data from Israel apparently suggested that so far only 0.02% people who have had the vaccine + time to let it set in have tested positive.

It does rather highlight the futility of lockdowns though, if all they have done is delay the spread so that it all hits at the worst time of year.

The crux of it is that lockdowns are a fig leaf for the state of the NHS, which was cut progressively to run at absolute minimum capacity and then is overwhelmed if there's any sort of spike in admissions.

In a country of 67 million people, 40,000 of them in hospital should not be "overwhelming" our health service, realistically.

 

[35B]

It does rather highlight the futility of lockdowns though, if all they have done is delay the spread so that it all hits at the worst time of year.

Or, alternatively, that releasing a lockdown too early allows spread from a very low base, and that a policy of containment can never be especially effective.

Does that not suggest either that border control was weak (though that’s not a long-term strategy), or that for lockdowns to be effective they have to be permanent, which is also not viable?

At the moment there’s only really one long-term strategy, if one can call it that, which is hope the vaccines work and expectation management if they don’t.

We know that border controls (including quarantining after travel) were both weak and lightly enforced last summer. As for permanent lockdown, I suggest the experience of the likes of Australia or New Zealand shows that if lockdown measuers are given time to work in conjunction with border closures, the infection reservoir can be brought to such a low level that life within borders can be something like normal. For obvious geographical reasons, I rather doubt that such a policy could be effective in the UK, though I note the very low numbers in a number of countries which lack the ocean sized moats protecting Australia and New Zealand.

As it happens, I tend to agree that we are reliant on vaccination being effective because the alternatives of either perpetual restrictions or the very large numbers (NB - I'm talking absolute numbers, not percentages) of serious illnesses and deaths due to the combination of Covid itself and the disruptive effect of very high demand on healthcare will be unacceptable, politically and emotionally.

For that reason, and absolutely as a lesser evil, this parent of teenage children is giving the benefit of the doubt to the current lockdown and distancing measures, and especially not wishing to rush government into relaxing them.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Well at least you got a response. I have contacted my MP three times in the past year (once on a Covid related matter) and each time received an automated email saying he was too busy working on Covid issues to respond, but my email would probably be read.

Anne you should respond and ask how it takes mine three days to respond and that’s by post

 

[35B]

In a country of 67 million people, 40,000 of them in hospital should not be "overwhelming" our health service, realistically.

Possibly, though many hospitals have reported a level of cases that goes well beyond normal spikes. However, fixing that is realistically going to take years rather than weeks or months given the time required to train medical professionals. That does though take us into a different layer of policy question, particularly around how much long term funding governments are going to give healthcare and whether using the NHS is the best way to achieve this - I note that some other systems appear to have coped better on capacity.

 

[Class 317]

When looking at the effectiveness of lockdowns I think it's important to look at the policies surrounding them and also remember the term lockdown is used to describe quite a wide level of restrictions from at 1 extreme of not being allowed to leave the house except to buy food to November's lockdown lite at the other extreme.

To be an effective policy lockdowns need to have a clear objective they are trying to achieve and their success or otherwise measured against this.

New Zealand, Singapore and Australia are good examples of where the objective of a lockdown was local elimination and their lock downs seemed to have worked well and have been backed up by strong policies to prevent reimportation of cases and strong test and trace to crack down on local outbreaks and so have had near normal lives.

In the UK and most European countries, the lockdowns have been aimed at suppression to a level to prevent health services being overwhelmed. The policy of what to do afterwards has in most instances not been a strong and consistent one and has failed to prevent cases rising to levels where additional lockdowns were needed again to prevent health services being overwhelmed.

If policies post lockdown were implemented to keep cases surpressed at a low level that track and trace can prevent local outbreaks they may have been more effective in the UK.

Of course we have had a very ineffective set of policies in the UK, changing every few weeks with no clear sense of purpose or end game.

I think lockdowns are effective but only if the what happens after is properly thought few otherwise they are ineffective.

We have ended up with the worst of both worlds.

 

[35B]

When looking at the effectiveness of lockdowns I think it's important to look at the policies surrounding them and also remember the term lockdown is used to describe quite a wide level of restrictions from at 1 extreme of not being allowed to leave the house except to buy food to November's lockdown lite at the other extreme.

To be an effective policy lockdowns need to have a clear objective they are trying to achieve and their success or otherwise measured against this.

New Zealand, Singapore and Australia are good examples of where the objective of a lockdown was local elimination and their lock downs seemed to have worked well and have been backed up by strong policies to prevent reimportation of cases and strong test and trace to crack down on local outbreaks and so have had near normal lives.

In the UK and most European countries, the lockdowns have been aimed at suppression to a level to prevent health services being overwhelmed. The policy of what to do afterwards has in most instances not been a strong and consistent one and has failed to prevent cases rising to levels where additional lockdowns were needed again to prevent health services being overwhelmed.

If policies post lockdown were implemented to keep cases surpressed at a low level that track and trace can prevent local outbreaks they may have been more effective in the UK.

Of course we have had a very ineffective set of policies in the UK, changing every few weeks with no clear sense of purpose or end game.

I think lockdowns are effective but only if the what happens after is properly thought few otherwise they are ineffective.

We have ended up with the worst of both worlds.

Agree completely - lockdown is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Which is why I challenge the idea that lockdown in itself is ineffective, or proven to be so by the statistics - it's the use of lockdown in isolation that is ineffective.

 

[DB]

If policies post lockdown were implemented to keep cases surpressed at a low level that track and trace can prevent local outbreaks they may have been more effective in the UK.

But that is only feasible when starting from a low base - once it's achieved wide spread it simply doesn't work. As quite a few European countries have demonstrated.

Agree completely - lockdown is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Which is why I challenge the idea that lockdown in itself is ineffective, or proven to be so by the statistics - it's the use of lockdown in isolation that is ineffective.

Seems to be another of the many variations of the 'restrictions aren't working because we need more of them' argument. This has no end-point, as the answer is always more restrictions.

 

[Yew]

If policies post lockdown were implemented to keep cases surpressed at a low level that track and trace can prevent local outbreaks they may have been more effective in the UK.

Could you give me an example of a country with the virus in widespread endemic circulation where this has been sucsessfully achieved? because outer wise your comment is basically "I think we should risk the lives, freedoms and livelihoods of millions of people on a roll of the dice to see if we can do this thing that's never been done before"

 

[yorkie]

It would be interesting to see what restrictions Portugal have, unfortunately the article did not mention Portugal. I think if it were not for this new variant, most of England would either be in Tier 2 or 3, which would be more in line with the restrictions that other European countries have.

It may be worth creating a thread to discuss the different measures in other countries; if anyone wishes to do this I will see if I can get some people in a variety of countries to reply.

New Zealand, Singapore and Australia are good examples of where the objective of a lockdown was local elimination and their lock downs seemed to have worked well and have been backed up by strong policies to prevent reimportation of cases and strong test and trace to crack down on local outbreaks and so have had near normal lives.

Did they have 1300 uniquely identifiable strains enter their countries before the end of March?
Did they have around 1 million citizens abroad who may have had to be repatriated?
Are NZ/Aus international travel hubs? Do they have a land border, like we do?
Do NZ/Aus have loads of goods arrive by lorries driven by drivers who have come from other countries?
Do NZ/Aus have a similar population density to us?

Their strategies were never viable here.

In the UK and most European countries, the lockdowns have been aimed at suppression to a level to prevent health services being overwhelmed. The policy of what to do afterwards has in most instances not been a strong and consistent one and has failed to prevent cases rising to levels where additional lockdowns were needed again to prevent health services being overwhelmed.

Coronaviruses go away in the Summer anyway and that is exactly what happened. Only around 2.5% of seasonal Coronavirus infections occur during the Summer months. As it's a seasonal virus, it's hardly surprising it was going to return in the winter!

If policies post lockdown were implemented to keep cases surpressed at a low level that track and trace can prevent local outbreaks they may have been more effective in the UK.

Like Germany's track and trace? Even that didn't work!

The idea that a virus for which many people are asymptomatic and most of those with symptoms have very mild symptoms can be controlled by track & trace is, quite frankly, absurd.

True track & trace can have some effect, but there is no way it can keep a virus of this nature suppressed.

I think lockdowns are effective but only if the what happens after is properly thought few otherwise they are ineffective.

What would you do then?

We have ended up with the worst of both worlds.

We have, by locking down, and imposing authoritarianism.

I was in Sweden a few months ago and they have a far better approach than we do.

Agree completely - lockdown is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Which is why I challenge the idea that lockdown in itself is ineffective, or proven to be so by the statistics - it's the use of lockdown in isolation that is ineffective.

Well I suppose we could have locked down from 1st Feb 2020 until Summer 2021 if the only aim was to reduce Covid deaths and to hell with mental & physical wellbeing etc..

 

[35B]

But that is only feasible when starting from a low base - once it's achieved wide spread it simply doesn't work. As quite a few European countries have demonstrated.



Seems to be another of the many variations of the 'restrictions aren't working because we need more of them' argument. This has no end-point, as the answer is always more restrictions.

No, it’s an acknowledgment of what places like Oz and NZ have achieved through focusing their policies very clearly, with lockdowns part of a larger strategy. Whether it’s achievable once endemic at acceptable political, medical or economic cost is a different question; one that IMHO no European nation has begun to test the boundaries of.

 

[DB]

No, it’s an acknowledgment of what places like Oz and NZ have achieved through focusing their policies very clearly, with lockdowns part of a larger strategy. Whether it’s achievable once endemic at acceptable political, medical or economic cost is a different question; one that IMHO no European nation has begun to test the boundaries of.

It would first be necessary to get it down to sufficiently low levels, and no European lockdowns have come anywhere close to that.

 

[35B]

It would first be necessary to get it down to sufficiently low levels, and no European lockdowns have come anywhere close to that.

Indeed.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed.

So what's your strategy then ?

 

[35B]

So what's your strategy then ?

Now vaccines exist, they need to be used as fully as possible.

With hindsight, I would have preferred the March lockdown to have been earlier, more robustly enforced at the border, and focused on elimination.

 

[yorksrob]

Now vaccines exist, they need to be used as fully as possible.

With hindsight, I would have preferred the March lockdown to have been earlier, more robustly enforced at the border, and focused on elimination.

Agree about the vaccines.

March is ancient history, what's your strategy now ?

 

[DorkingMain]

I honestly have no idea what this country's obsession with allowing international travel is. If we'd been quicker off the draw at the start of all of this, there's a good chance we might not have ever needed restrictions

 

[yorksrob]

I must admit, international travel seems the least of my concerns at the moment. It seems pointless when you can't even travel to the next county.

 

[HSTEd]

I honestly have no idea what this country's obsession with allowing international travel is. If we'd been quicker off the draw at the start of all of this, there's a good chance we might not have ever needed restrictions

Unless you propose to dramatically reduce the supply of food and manufactured goods to the people of Britain, international travel by substantail numbers of people is entirely required.

We are not New Zealand where you only need a few dozen entries and exits daily to keep all the goods required moving.

Also, how do you propose to maintain order in NI if you close the border?

 

[yorksrob]

Unless you propose to dramatically reduce the supply of food and manufactured goods to the people of Britain, international travel by substantail numbers of people is entirely required.

We are not New Zealand where you only need a few dozen entries and exits daily to keep all the goods required moving.

Also, how do you propose to maintain order in NI if you close the border?

That's fine, but why are we closing down the whole country then.

 

[Richard Scott]

I honestly have no idea what this country's obsession with allowing international travel is. If we'd been quicker off the draw at the start of all of this, there's a good chance we might not have ever needed restrictions

I have no idea what the obsession with this virus is but pretty sure international travel hasn't made a huge difference. We rely on imports so any mutations could have got in via numerous methods and need to remember a mutation isn't always a bad thing. To answer the point some of us enjoy international travel, it broadens the mind. If you don't that's up to you.