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

[brad465]

I could just about tolerate lightweight restrictions over the winter, only on a time-bound basis with a specific objective in mind - for example whilst the NHS is remodelled to be able to cope with Covid as a "business as usual" virus. I'm not sure that includes autumn though.

If the vaccines turn out to be less successful in the medium term than hoped then unfortunately we just have to accept that some people are going to sadly pass away from this virus at times, part of the natural life-cycle. Naturally we should do everything possible to ensure the NHS is set up to do the best it can. Indeed it's likely to turn out to be the case that the billions spent on lockdown and measures like furlough would better have been spent equipping the NHS for this eventuality.

Regardless of whether or not the restrictions were a good idea in the long run (I firmly believe they're not good), what the whole affair has shown is any money, time and management not spent on ensuring essential services function properly will only lead to major costs of the same or worse value being incurred further down the line. In this case not spending such on the NHS to ensure it's properly funded, resourced and efficiently managed has only led to spending double its annual budget in a year, on top of its annual budget, shutting down the economy so it's "protected".

Another problem is the NHS has become, as some call it, a "sacred cow", which cannot be criticised in any way. What this means is that we don't tackle issues within it to make it a better service overall, because mistakes/issues are denied rather than learned, even though nothing is perfect. I strongly believe that, alongside furlough pay, compliance with restrictions exceeded our expectations because restrictions were/are about "protecting the NHS".

 

[kez19]

Saying undoing Lockdown was "irreversible" was just begging the question. The BBC just got in first.


If we have to lock down next Winter, we will have to lock down every Winter.

Boris leaving will hopefully be the sign that thing are starting to improve. Any prospective new leader doesn't want to start by ordering another lockdown. They will want Boris to take as much of the bad news as possible and take over just as things start to improve.

Yet it seems these very people championing the vaccine have no confidence in it... why? (include media too).

To even suggest lockdown in the winter has to be the stupidest thing to do (again), I apologise again on things like we won't closedown for colds/flu but yet we adapt to it with this, it seems in a short time they can bring a vaccine out but seem completely clueless (still) to suggest we must lockdown in the winter again over it and add it strains (strains - media/scientists seem to be clueless in that department as if its never happened but what the hell lets throw the fear into anyone anyway!) - either they are all completely clueless or clever but play stupid to the public.

 

[bramling]

Regardless of whether or not the restrictions were a good idea in the long run (I firmly believe they're not good), what the whole affair has shown is any money, time and management not spent on ensuring essential services function properly will only lead to major costs of the same or worse value being incurred further down the line. In this case not spending such on the NHS to ensure it's properly funded, resourced and efficiently managed has only led to spending double its annual budget in a year, on top of its annual budget, shutting down the economy so it's "protected".

Another problem is the NHS has become, as some call it, a "sacred cow", which cannot be criticised in any way. What this means is that we don't tackle issues within it to make it a better service overall, because mistakes/issues are denied rather than learned, even though nothing is perfect. I strongly believe that, alongside furlough pay, compliance with restrictions exceeded our expectations because restrictions were/are about "protecting the NHS".

Agree with all of the above.

Going forward the misty-eyedness over the NHS needs to be knocked on the head. Notwithstanding the fact that I suspect the “save the NHS” line is the only reason there’s still any widespread acceptance of lockdown (it isn’t that people are scared of Covid otherwise we wouldn’t be seeing the packed beaches or people flocking to save a few quit with eat out to help out), I’m hearing quite a few stories of people who have had some pretty ropey NHS experiences over the last year.

Then there’s the people who have caught Covid within health-care settings. Whilst I accept the latter may well be unavoidable, it does point to the main reasons for lockdown, especially the most recent ones, being (1) that the NHS has proved unfit for purpose in being able to handle a pandemic, and (2) the need to deflect attention from the number of deaths attributable to catching Covid in health-care settings. The governance of the NHS certainly have some questions to answer. Whitty himself has alluded to issues with NHS preparedness and funding.

 

[HSTEd]

Any reasonable health service would be utterly swamped by a major pandemic on the scale of this one.

Unless you want to treble healthcare spending, or more, and build some sort of enormous doomsday stockpile of healthcare capacity, this is simply the way things are.

EDIT:

The endless series of lockdowns and quasi lockdowns will continue until the people accept the necessity of significant casualties.
Unfortunately since this disease overwhelming kills people who are members of society's ruling demographic - this will not happen any time soon.

Just get ready for an endless series of lockdowns for the rest of your lives - or at least until the demographic transition has killed enough Baby Boomers to break their political power.

 

[yorksrob]

Any reasonable health service would be utterly swamped by a major pandemic on the scale of this one.

Unless you want to treble healthcare spending, or more, and build some sort of enormous doomsday stockpile of healthcare capacity, this is simply the way things are.

Whilst that's true to an extent, it seems to be that countries with a greater built in capacity in their health services have been less swamped. We should aim to be towards the higher end of Western European norms in terms of capacity per population.

 

[Bantamzen]

Any reasonable health service would be utterly swamped by a major pandemic on the scale of this one.

Unless you want to treble healthcare spending, or more, and build some sort of enormous doomsday stockpile of healthcare capacity, this is simply the way things are.

EDIT:

The endless series of lockdowns and quasi lockdowns will continue until the people accept the necessity of significant casualties.
Unfortunately since this disease overwhelming kills people who are members of society's ruling demographic - this will not happen any time soon.

Just get ready for an endless series of lockdowns for the rest of your lives - or at least until the demographic transition has killed enough Baby Boomers to break their political power.

We've managed to spend more than double, possibly as much as treble the annual NHS budget on restriction measures in less than 12 months. Hopefully soon enough elements of the media will reawaken from their slumber to pick up on this, especially when the cost starts to creep into their lives. Then we will all be looking at the Boomer element cheerleading on lockdowns....

 

[brad465]

More news showing how unsustainable all these restrictions are:

450,000 families ‘behind on rent because of Covid’

One in 20 private renters say they have been refused rent reductions, a report says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Almost half a million UK families are thought to have fallen behind on rent, as a result of the coronavirus crisis, according to the Resolution Foundation.

It said more than 750,000 had been behind on housing costs last month.

That is 450,000 more than January 2020.

"Despite widespread calls for forbearance in the face of the Covid-19 shock, just 3% of private renting families have been able to negotiate a lower rent over the last 10 months," the think tank said in a report.

Meanwhile, one in 20 private renters in the UK said they had been refused rent reductions.

 

[Simon11]

I wish the articles above would be more balanced to also consider the landlords, who may be struggling just as much as families when no rent comes in. For a good few years and now during covid, all the legislation/ rules has gone in the direction of the renters. I appreciate that we should protect families during this time, reducing evictions however consideration does need to be given for landlords too.

I had an international student renting a flat that I own as a BTL on a 1 year contract until October 2020. In March 2020 when covid struck in the UK, the student left the country and my last rent was in February 2020. Under the regulations, landlords are not able to re-let the property until verbal confirmation has been provided that they have officially left. This meant for three months, I had to keep the place available for my tenant without getting any rent (any I paid all the bills too). Thankfully, the student did respond eventually via e-mail after 3 months and thankfully they left the property in a good state. Thus from June 2020, I was able to advertise a new tenant to rent the flat, however it took until December to find a new tenant!

Legally, they had a contract until October 2020 and should have paid the full rent till then. However I can't get them to stump up the rent (which personally I don't mind, but they should have paid until they confirmed in writing they wanted to finish the tenancy). After losing thousands of pounds, my only option to collect some of the rent is to claim the one month deposit- but after 9 months I am still waiting for this to go through the legal process.

All in all, the current system is very much one-sided. Thankfully, I had the funds to take these loses but a lot of landlords aren't so lucky.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Thankfully, I had the funds to take these loses but a lot of landlords aren't so lucky.

Whilst this is going to sound harsh - being a landlord means you run a business, and if you are buying the property to specifically let it out it also means you are making an investment. Running a business or making an investment are not risk free endeavors.
In recent years, being a landlord has basically been seen as a way to print money. Sure depending on the exact circumstances, it may not be as much money as people usually think, but in general rents have increased by quite a lot in recent years (especially in some places - where I live, Bristol, rents have hugely increased in the last say decade). You could argue what we are just seeing now is the flip side to that, where the business is hitting some issues / the investment is losing money as investments sometimes do.
It is also worth remembering that many landlords have been able to take advantage of mortgage breaks / holidays. There hasn't been a similar official rent break / holiday scheme though you could argue the current situation is essentially an unofficial version of it.

Of course, that is just one view of it.
The other view is that landlords having financial issues is not a good thing for their tenants so I do think there should have been something much more organised done by government, again similar to how mortgage breaks / holidays were in place to help homeowners.

 

[Crossover]

Unless you want to treble healthcare spending

The problem is one can throw money at it left, right and centre (and my understanding is that funding has increased over the years) but if it goes into funding inefficiencies, it is a waste of resources. From some of my experiences with the NHS, significant resources are squandered on inefficiences and without them (a tall order, granted) it could likely do much better

It is a false generalisation to say that all of us "boomers" are in favour of extending lockdown, to the detriment of younger people.

I don't believe anyone is saying all, as such, but there are definitely a number. A number of my family are of a similar age and seem to be happy to continue this craziness to look after, chiefly, themselves (understandable in a way, but seemingly not thinking further)

 

[HSTEd]

We've managed to spend more than double, possibly as much as treble the annual NHS budget on restriction measures in less than 12 months. Hopefully soon enough elements of the media will reawaken from their slumber to pick up on this, especially when the cost starts to creep into their lives. Then we will all be looking at the Boomer element cheerleading on lockdowns....

Would you prefer to treble healthcare spending every single year from now on?
Thats the kind of resources you have to expend to avoid this.

 

[Bantamzen]

Would you prefer to treble healthcare spending every single year from now on?
Thats the kind of resources you have to expend to avoid this.

Its the kind of money you have to spend when the NHS doesn't have enough capacity, as seen year after year (this not being the first NHS crisis). So maybe we spend more on the NHS & then not have to lockdown ever again? I'd rather have spare NHS capacity personally spare for most of the year than panic when respiratory diseases come around.

 

[takno]

The problem is one can throw money at it left, right and centre (and my understanding is that funding has increased over the years) but if it goes into funding inefficiencies, it is a waste of resources. From some of my experiences with the NHS, significant resources are squandered on inefficiences and without them (a tall order, granted) it could likely do much better

I think probably that the NHS does waste significant amounts of money, just because all organisations "waste" significant amounts of money. Lord Guiness is quoted as saying something like "half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, I just don't know which half". Running an organisation well is a process of predicting the future and preparing for eventualities, and more so for an organisation like the NHS where the consequences of getting it wrong are that people die. There will however always be people willing to jump on every penny that turns out not to be required and claim it as a criminal waste.

The fact of the matter is that we spend a significantly smaller fraction of our GDP on healthcare than most other countries, and if the result of that is a slightly worse healthcare system then the NHS is doing more for us than we have any right to deserve.

The problems of Covid have been caused by 10 years of governments underfunding healthcare and not being willing to admit to the consequences, combined with 20-30 years of governments pretending that healthcare is a miracle cure-all that can protect society from death.

 

[kristiang85]

I hope this is a sign that letting people make deicsions for themselves in future, rather than government mandates, will be part of the thinking:

Asked about the prospect of long-term social distancing, Nadhim Zahawi told Sky News: "We all want to hug our children, our grandchildren, our friends. I would say this - we have to be data-driven, rather than just date-driven."

"Our way out of this pandemic is our vaccination programme... but with that, surge testing, tracing and isolation, and other measures whether they be mask-wearing or social distancing. I think we have to be driven by data, rather than just date," he added.

"If we share the evidence, people are able to make those decisions for themselves. The Prime Minister will be saying more about this on February 22 in the roadmap."

(from the Telegraph live feed).

If those who really want to live under their beds in fear want to keep doing so, that's fine, but I'm going to be out there living my life again and restarting the economy.

 

[takno]

I hope this is a sign that letting people make deicsions for themselves in future, rather than government mandates, will be part of the thinking:

(from the Telegraph live feed).

If those who really want to live under their beds in fear want to keep doing so, that's fine, but I'm going to be out there living my life again and restarting the economy.

The trouble with being data-driven is that the data they are choosing to drive them is 0% economic data, doesn't contain indices of deprivation, and doesn't care about desperation. They are just looking at the weaponised drivel coming out of Imperial and Warwick.

 

[duncanp]

I don't believe anyone is saying all, as such, but there are definitely a number. A number of my family are of a similar age and seem to be happy to continue this craziness to look after, chiefly, themselves (understandable in a way, but seemingly not thinking further)

Anyone who is in favour of extending the lockdown without thinking of the consequences for other people is being very selfish, regardless of their age.

This includes all the SAGE scientists and politicians, who don't have to suffer the consequences of their decisions.

 

[kristiang85]

The trouble with being data-driven is that the data they are choosing to drive them is 0% economic data, doesn't contain indices of deprivation, and doesn't care about desperation. They are just looking at the weaponised drivel coming out of Imperial and Warwick.

Well absolutely.

I'm hoping those ridiculous models that show crazy surges this summer will be what makes the goverment realise it's time to stop basing decisions on them.

 

[Class 33]

Well, here's a refreshing change. A top scientist saying that lockdown restrictions should be lifted EARLIER thanks to better than expected vaccine rollout.

Lockdown should be lifted EARLIER thanks to vaccine rollout, top scientist says

PLANS to ease the UK’s lockdown measures should be brought forward because vaccinations are going so well, a leading scientist has said. Professor Mark Woolhouse said the Government should lo…

www.thesun.co.uk

PLANS to ease the UK's lockdown measures should be brought forward because vaccinations are going so well, a leading scientist has said.

Professor Mark Woolhouse said the Government should look at speeding up the rollback of restrictions on the back of "very positive" jabs data.

And he urged ministers not to be tempted to "move the goalposts" on the criteria for ending the lockdown to keep it going for longer.

Prof Woolhouse, who specialises in infectious disease epidemiology at Edinburgh University, said they must be "driven by the data".

He told Times Radio: "The data, of course, can turn out to be better than expected.


"And I would argue that in terms of vaccine rollout coverage and the performance of these vaccines in preventing disease at least, that all the data are very positive.

"So I hope that that will mean that the government is actively considering bringing some of the relaxations forward.

"And it's not the same as last lockdown or the lockdown one that we had in March, for the very simple reason that we have the vaccines."

Prof Woolhouse said hospitalisations should decline rapidly over the next few weeks, further relieving pressure on the NHS.

He said rates are already falling across the country and that should "accelerate" as vaccines are rolled out to ever more people.

The top epidemiologist said: "The stated policy goal from the Prime Minister and everyone else is to protect the NHS.

"And what the vaccination programme does, is de-couple the incidence of new infections from people ending up in hospital or even dying.

"So there's a separation now. There's still a link, but it's a much weaker link than it was.

"The goalposts should not move, that they should remain very firmly with protecting the NHS and the hospitalisation rate. That is coming down.

"And that decrease is baked in as the phrase goes, just as we recognise that when it goes up, it's baked in.

"So I think there's some very positive signs here. And I hope that will translate into at least considering early relaxations."

His remarks come as Boris Johnson prepares for a major speech next Monday in which he will spell out a roadmap for ending the lockdown.

The PM insists many decisions on what will be allowed to reopen haven't yet been taken because scientists are still studying the pandemic data.

Ministers want to reopen schools first on March 8, and are also considering plans to allow al fresco drinking and dining from the beginning of April.

They have been buoyed by early data suggesting the AstraZeneca jab cuts transmission of the disease by as much as two-thirds.

But last night the PM insisted he wants to be cautious and wait for that to be confirmed before pressing ahead with a great unlocking of the country.

And today vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi warned larger venues like nightclubs, theatres, and cinemas, may have to wait until Autumn to reopen.

He said the long-term plan to ensure there isn't another lockdown is to rely on mass rapid testing at large events, such as football matches.

But he warned that will only work once a very high proportion of the population - as much as 90% - has already been vaccinated.

He said: “We want to make sure we reopen the economy as quickly as possible but make sure it’s sustainable.

"The combination of the national vaccination programme really delivering the protection for the whole of the adult population and then rapid testing should help us reopen our economy."

Mr Zahawi said the Governments wants to have "offered the vaccine to the whole of the adult population by September."

[/quote]

A scientist talking sense on restrictions, for once!

However notice the worrying sentence near the end of this article that says the vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi warned larger venues like nightclubs, theatres and cinemas, may have to wait until Autumn to open! This is not good atall. Those businesses shouldn't have to be waiting that long to reopen their venues! And if this turns out to be true, this will also mean this summers festivals and events industry will be destroyed once again.

Let's get this country completely back to normal by early July at the very latest!

 

[Bikeman78]

Indeed. I deeply fear you are right but hope you are wrong.

If you want to visit your family, go for it. Who's going to know? My parents have both had the vaccine so I'll be off to see them in a few weeks. I'm not waiting for permission from Boris.

 

[brad465]

Oh look, they've found another (completely normal) mutation in the virus:

Another new coronavirus variant seen in the UK

It has similar mutations to the South Africa variant, so how worrying is it?

www.bbc.co.uk

Scientists have identified another new variant of coronavirus in the UK with some potentially troubling mutations.

B.1.525 appears similar to the South African variant which prompted door-to-door tests in areas where it has been found.

Researchers from Edinburgh University have found 33 cases so far in samples dating back to December.

It has been seen in other countries too, including Denmark, Nigeria and the US.

UK experts are studying it to understand what risk it poses.

It is too soon to say if it should be added to the UK's list of "variants of concern" and whether mass testing for it should happen.

This obsession is getting ridiculous. Our ancestors did not understand viruses like we do, but in life they 'just got on with it', while in our time we use them as an excuse to hide away with all these restrictions, especially as new variants have been made a condition of how long restrictions last.

 

[Mag_seven]

For discussion of the impact of lockdowns etc on intergenerational fairness see this thread:

(3) The impact of COVID measures on intergenerational fairness. | RailUK Forums (railforums.co.uk)

 

[DB]

I hope this is a sign that letting people make deicsions for themselves in future, rather than government mandates, will be part of the thinking:



(from the Telegraph live feed).

If those who really want to live under their beds in fear want to keep doing so, that's fine, but I'm going to be out there living my life again and restarting the economy.

Interesting that they claim do be data driven, then masks are mentioned in the same sentence (these are clearly not 'data driven' as there is no data showing that they make any difference in reducing infections).

 

[ainsworth74]

Interesting development here:

Covid: Extra 1.7m vulnerable added to shielding list​

There is to be a large expansion of the number of people being asked to shield in England, the government has announced.

An extra 1.7 million people are expected to be added to the 2.3 million already on the list.

Half the group have not yet been vaccinated so will now be prioritised urgently by their local GPs.

It comes after a new model was developed that takes into account extra factors rather than just health.

This calculation includes things like ethnicity, deprivation and weight to work out a person's risk of becoming seriously ill if they were to catch Covid.

...

Covid: Extra 1.7m vulnerable added to shielding list

The move brings the total to 4m in England and means vaccinations will be prioritised more quickly.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Spamcan81]

Oh look, they've found another (completely normal) mutation in the virus:

Another new coronavirus variant seen in the UK

It has similar mutations to the South Africa variant, so how worrying is it?

www.bbc.co.uk

This obsession is getting ridiculous. Our ancestors did not understand viruses like we do, but in life they 'just got on with it', while in our time we use them as an excuse to hide away with all these restrictions, especially as new variants have been made a condition of how long restrictions last.

They may have "just got on with it" but they also died in their millions. The Black Death wiped out more than 30% of Europe's population - some estimates are as high as 60%. Would you be prepared to accept that death toll and all it would entail?

 

[JModulo]

They may have "just got on with it" but they also died in their millions. The Black Death wiped out more than 30% of Europe's population - some estimates are as high as 60%. Would you be prepared to accept that death toll at all it would entail?

What exactly do you propose then? Staying locked up forever?

 

[roversfan2001]

They may have "just got on with it" but they also died in their millions. The Black Death wiped out more than 30% of Europe's population - some estimates are as high as 60%. Would you be prepared to accept that death toll at all it would entail?

SARS-CoV-2 pales into insignificance compared to the bubonic plague, and you know it. Ridiculous to even begin to try to compare the two.

 

[Yew]

They may have "just got on with it" but they also died in their millions. The Black Death wiped out more than 30% of Europe's population - some estimates are as high as 60%. Would you be prepared to accept that death toll at all it would entail?

This isn't the Black Death, the IFR is two orders of magnitude less than that, at around 0.23%. That's around 130-150K deaths in the UK, a number that we're already remarkably close to.

 

[brad465]

They may have "just got on with it" but they also died in their millions. The Black Death wiped out more than 30% of Europe's population - some estimates are as high as 60%. Would you be prepared to accept that death toll at all it would entail?

Where did I talk about the Black Death in my earlier post? Also the plague is bacteria-driven, not virus based. What mean is, and I confess this maybe wasn't clear in that post of mine, that in previous generations, even as recently as the 20th century, they were not capable of defining virus mutations and properties to anywhere near the detail we are now, whether a given virus was involved in a pandemic or not. Our resorting to draconian lockdowns/other restrictions is in part driven by our own technological advances which really need to highlight that sometimes new technology/capabilities are not always good, where in this case we think that's it's okay to shut down society because technology will mitigate it, but what's clear is that technology is not mitigating large aspects of our response, including collateral damage and huge financial costs involved.

 

[kristiang85]

They may have "just got on with it" but they also died in their millions. The Black Death wiped out more than 30% of Europe's population - some estimates are as high as 60%. Would you be prepared to accept that death toll at all it would entail?

They also didn't have antibiotics back then; common varieties easily cure plague.

However, indeed if we had a disease that killed 30-60% of the population despite the availability of modern medicine, then I think most people would be very happy to stay in their homes without the need for government rules.

COVID is not the Disease X we have all been fearing, and maybe if this Disease X does happen soon, there will be an element of 'cry wolf' due to people remembering the overreaction to this and more people will die.

 

[DB]

Interesting development here:

Covid: Extra 1.7m vulnerable added to shielding list

The move brings the total to 4m in England and means vaccinations will be prioritised more quickly.

www.bbc.co.uk

Has this just been done to increase the sense of threat, though? Given that the government is clearly resorting to any scare tactics it can think of at the moment that can't be ruled out.