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

[yorksrob]

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.

From a practical point of view, it does bump a lot of people up the priority list for vaccinations.

There have been recent reports that people with learning difficulties are being very badly affected by the virus, yet don't seem to have been prioritised as much, for example. Hopefully this will help to bear down on those cases that are more likely to be severe.

 

[brad465]

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.

Not to mention over half of them already have a first vaccine dose (900k) and I imagine the remainder can be vaccinated in less than a week if the will and planning is there. I imagine while I see a need for it that they shouldn't need to shield for long in the current circumstances.

 

[DB]

Not to mention over half of them already have a first vaccine dose (900k) and I imagine the remainder can be vaccinated in less than a week if the will and planning is there. I imagine while I see a need for it that they shouldn't need to shield for long in the current circumstances.

If it's such a risk though, why has it suddenly become an issue now when it hasn't been up until now?

 

[35B]

If it's such a risk though, why has it suddenly become an issue now when it hasn't been up until now?

You may want to look at the combination of statistics showing that 60% of deaths have occurred to those registered disabled, and the interview with Jo Whiley on this morning's Today programme. Something must be done and, lo, something has been done.

 

[DB]

You may want to look at the combination of statistics showing that 60% of deaths have occurred to those registered disabled, and the interview with Jo Whiley on this morning's Today programme. Something must be done and, lo, something has been done.

So if it's so significant why have they suddenly decided this part-way through the vaccination programme, rather than months ago?

 

[Bertie the bus]

You may want to look at the combination of statistics showing that 60% of deaths have occurred to those registered disabled, and the interview with Jo Whiley on this morning's Today programme. Something must be done and, lo, something has been done.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting Jo Whiley is an eminent scientist? As for the 60% of deaths being registered disabled that is a meaningless statistic. Very old people are far more likely to be disabled than younger people, therefore as the virus kills the very old it is hardly surprising a fairly high percentage are registered disabled. If they did some proper research and compared like for like and found the disabled are more at risk I would take it seriously but they haven't.

 

[nedchester]

I'm sorry, are you suggesting Jo Whiley is an eminent scientist? As for the 60% of deaths being registered disabled that is a meaningless statistic. Very old people are far more likely to be disabled than younger people, therefore as the virus kills the very old it is hardly surprising a fairly high percentage are registered disabled. If they did some proper research and compared like for like and found the disabled are more at risk I would take it seriously but they haven't.

Maybe if you'd heard the interview then that's not what is being suggested. Her sister (53) has learning difficulties and she was concerned about her level of risk as oppsoed to her own.

Jo Whiley was merely highlighting the issue.

 

[Ediswan]

You may want to look at the combination of statistics showing that 60% of deaths have occurred to those registered disabled, and the interview with Jo Whiley on this morning's Today programme. Something must be done and, lo, something has been done.

I saw that reported https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56033813

The definition of 'disabled' used is 'having their day-to-day activities "limited a lot" by their health'. For starters, that includes all care home residents.

 

[35B]

You may want to look at the combination of statistics showing that 60% of deaths have occurred to those registered disabled, and the interview with Jo Whiley on this morning's Today programme. Something must be done and, lo, something has been done.

So if it's so significant why have they suddenly decided this part-way through the vaccination programme, rather than months ago?

I'm sorry, are you suggesting Jo Whiley is an eminent scientist? As for the 60% of deaths being registered disabled that is a meaningless statistic. Very old people are far more likely to be disabled than younger people, therefore as the virus kills the very old it is hardly surprising a fairly high percentage are registered disabled. If they did some proper research and compared like for like and found the disabled are more at risk I would take it seriously but they haven't.

Do I have to spell it out? Really? But as it seems that you've failed to detect the intent, I'll try.

First, a set of statistics have come out that show the disabled have suffered particularly as a result of Covid, quite possibly for precisely the reasons given by @Bertie the bus, but without being disaggregated. That has put the government on the back foot over who are vulnerable

Second, a high profile relative has gone public about how worried she is about her disabled sister, and the government have decided that the politics of facing down this group of relatively more vulnerable people are worse than sticking rigorously to the original plan.

Personally, my hunch is that it fixes a misjudgement in the original plan and is a reasonable adaptation, but then I've been around enough projects where the project manager has stuck rigidly to the original plan and failed dismally to have some respect for those who tune their plans.

I saw that reported https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56033813

The definition of 'disabled' used is 'having their day-to-day activities "limited a lot" by their health'. For starters, that includes all care home residents.

Indeed - when I saw the report, I thought that "disabled" must have been being used in a very broad sense of the word, far more so than is associated with normal usage.

 

[DB]

Do I have to spell it out? Really? But as it seems that you've failed to detect the intent, I'll try.

First, a set of statistics have come out that show the disabled have suffered particularly as a result of Covid, quite possibly for precisely the reasons given by @Bertie the bus, but without being disaggregated. That has put the government on the back foot over who are vulnerable

Second, a high profile relative has gone public about how worried she is about her disabled sister, and the government have decided that the politics of facing down this group of relatively more vulnerable people are worse than sticking rigorously to the original plan.

Personally, my hunch is that it fixes a misjudgement in the original plan and is a reasonable adaptation, but then I've been around enough projects where the project manager has stuck rigidly to the original plan and failed dismally to have some respect for those who tune their plans.


Indeed - when I saw the report, I thought that "disabled" must have been being used in a very broad sense of the word, far more so than is associated with normal usage.

But of these 'disabled' who are at risk, what proportion of these were already judged at risk anyway due to the specific conditions which make them disabled (e.g. someone with severe COPD would be disabled, and would also be at particular risk).

There are many disabilities which are unlikely to increase risk - e.g. someone who is autistic is unlikely to be at particular risk because of that.

 

[duncanp]

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.

You can look at this development in a positive or negative way.

The negative way is to say that the government are trying to scare people into thinking that there are so many dangerous variants out there that the people who have been asked to shield are in danger of dying, and need to be protected.

The positive way, which I prefer, is to say that the shielding is to provide additional protection for these people on a temporary basis until they can be vaccinated. If some of the most vulnerable people can be protected, then that provides an additional justification for lifting restrictions.

How many times have you heard the statement "..we should shield the most vulnerable, and just let the rest of us get on with our lives..." over the past year. Maybe the government are deliberately doing this in advance of publishing the lockdown easing roadmap next week.

 

[DB]

How many times have you heard the statement "..we should shield the most vulnerable, and just let the rest of us get on with our lives..." over the past year. Maybe the government are deliberately doing this in advance of publishing the lockdown easing roadmap next week.

Don't disagree, but I have no confidence that this is what they are doing given that's suddenly appeared at a time when compliance is declining. Certain disabilities do put people at more risk, but not all disabilities, and those who do are likely to have been identified months ago.

There is also little evidence that most of these variants pose any greater level of danger.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Maybe if you'd heard the interview then that's not what is being suggested. Her sister (53) has learning difficulties and she was concerned about her level of risk as oppsoed to her own.

Jo Whiley was merely highlighting the issue.

How are Jo Whiley's concerns in any way important to anybody except her and her family? If she is concerned for her sister then I sympathise but to try and make out some DJ's opinion is of any consequence is pretty desperate. There are always people who are personally affected by something who say things, e.g. people who have lost family members in rail accidents demanding seat belts on trains. Being personally affected by something doesn't make you an expert.

 

[35B]

But of these 'disabled' who are at risk, what proportion of these were already judged at risk anyway due to the specific conditions which make them disabled (e.g. someone with severe COPD would be disabled, and would also be at particular risk).

There are many disabilities which are unlikely to increase risk - e.g. someone who is autistic is unlikely to be at particular risk because of that.

I have no idea, and hearing the statistic raised the same questions in my mind.

 

[bramling]

But of these 'disabled' who are at risk, what proportion of these were already judged at risk anyway due to the specific conditions which make them disabled (e.g. someone with severe COPD would be disabled, and would also be at particular risk).

There are many disabilities which are unlikely to increase risk - e.g. someone who is autistic is unlikely to be at particular risk because of that.

Could an autistic person be at risk through, for example, having poorer situational judgement / risk awareness compared to a neurotypical person, though?

Don't disagree, but I have no confidence that this is what they are doing given that's suddenly appeared at a time when compliance is declining. Certain disabilities do put people at more risk, but not all disabilities, and those who do are likely to have been identified months ago.

There is also little evidence that most of these variants pose any greater level of danger.

Compliance is off a cliff in my locality this week. My town centre is utterly heaving, which notwithstanding that it’s half term is still quite an achievement with most shops still closed. Pretty much every shop had a long queue when I walked through this morning, WH Smith (of all places) was about 20 deep!

Having said that, I paid a visit to a garden centre yesterday and it was surprisingly quiet; I was dreading there being a queue but not only was it straight in, but the place was almost deserted - perhaps with the all-important cafe closed and it being February there isn’t that much reason to visit a garden centre at the moment.

 

[35B]

How are Jo Whiley's concerns in any way important to anybody except her and her family? If she is concerned for her sister then I sympathise but to try and make out some DJ's opinion is of any consequence is pretty desperate. There are always people who are personally affected by something who say things, e.g. people who have lost family members in rail accidents demanding seat belts on trains. Being personally affected by something doesn't make you an expert.

The interview highlighted a concern over a particular group of people; we relate to individuals rather than statistics, so a case study such as that will resonate. I've no idea what the relative risk of someone with those particular conditions relative to the population at large is. That said, on the basis that a measure of the quality of a society is how it looks after the weakest, I've also no problem with those in care homes being prioritised.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Could an autistic person be at risk through, for example, having poorer situational judgement / risk awareness compared to a neurotypical person, though?


Compliance is off a cliff in my locality this week. My town centre is utterly heaving, which notwithstanding that it’s half term is still quite an achievement with most shops still closed. Pretty much every shop had a long queue when I walked through this morning, WH Smith (of all places) was about 20 deep!

Having said that, I paid a visit to a garden centre yesterday and it was surprisingly quiet; I was dreading there being a queue but not only was it straight in, but the place was almost deserted - perhaps with the all-important cafe closed and it being February there isn’t that much reason to visit a garden centre at the moment.

Empty in our high street only ever queue is for M&S never know why 2mins round the corner you can just walk into Morrisons. The local garden centre have been on reduced hours since Xmas which is probably sensible for the time of the year and suspect they will do that every year now and trade longer in the spring/summer months.

 

[HSTEd]

Empty in our high street only ever queue is for M&S never know why 2mins round the corner you can just walk into Morrisons.

Because M&S food is nice?

 

[bramling]

Because M&S food is nice?

My local M&S pretty much *always* has a long queue, from right from when this all started.

Happily (for me!) I don’t get the attraction of M&S. I tried it once at London Bridge station recently when I couldn’t be bothered to walk elsewhere, and was utterly shocked to pay £25 for what was really only a few small bits, and which were no better or nicer than one could have got elsewhere. Once bitten, twice shy, and I won’t be repeating the experience!

 

[HSTEd]

My local M&S pretty much *always* has a long queue, from right from when this all started.

Happily (for me!) I don’t get the attraction of M&S. I tried it once at London Bridge station recently when I couldn’t be bothered to walk elsewhere, and was utterly shocked to pay £25 for what was really only a few small bits, and which were no better or nicer than one could have got elsewhere. Once bitten, twice shy, and I won’t be repeating the experience!

Their Lasagnas and things like that are really nice though, and I have a soft spot for their lime pickle.

 

[DB]

My local M&S pretty much *always* has a long queue, from right from when this all started.

Happily (for me!) I don’t get the attraction of M&S. I tried it once at London Bridge station recently when I couldn’t be bothered to walk elsewhere, and was utterly shocked to pay £25 for what was really only a few small bits, and which were no better or nicer than one could have got elsewhere. Once bitten, twice shy, and I won’t be repeating the experience!

The one here does as well, apart from on rainy evenings.

I did used to go in there quite often, but rarely bother now - Tesco doesn't have a queue!

 

[nedchester]

The interview highlighted a concern over a particular group of people; we relate to individuals rather than statistics, so a case study such as that will resonate. I've no idea what the relative risk of someone with those particular conditions relative to the population at large is. That said, on the basis that a measure of the quality of a society is how it looks after the weakest, I've also no problem with those in care homes being prioritised.

That saved me from replying to the rather crass remark.

If a celebrity can highlight the plight of a certain group then why should we be bothered.

 

[Class 33]

According to the front page of tomorrow's Telegraph, lockdown will continue until cases drop below 1,000 per day. If this is the case, this is absolutely ridiculous. Because we may well never get to below 1,000 cases per day!

 

[brad465]

According to the front page of tomorrow's Telegraph, lockdown will continue until cases drop below 1,000 per day. If this is the case, this is absolutely ridiculous. Because we may well never get to below 1,000 cases per day!

I don't know how much this will catch on with the population, but if the majority have enough of all this and Johnson officially confirms this 1,000 per day target to be a requirement, all we need is an increasing number of people with symptoms to refuse to have a test. June, July and August last year did see testing results bring back long periods with under 1000 cases so it is possible to get that far, however the question is what's needed to end social distancing and masks for something that can't be eradicated?

 

[NorthOxonian]

According to the front page of tomorrow's Telegraph, lockdown will continue until cases drop below 1,000 per day. If this is the case, this is absolutely ridiculous. Because we may well never get to below 1,000 cases per day!

I'd ignore any of these leaked stories - they're there to provoke a reaction and not to actually inform the public.

Though for what it's worth, weekly cases are falling fairly fast - 1,000 cases a day is probably only a couple of months away, ignoring any vaccine effects. I think we'll ease significantly before then, but exponential decline is just as formidable a force as exponential growth.

 

[chris11256]

Based on the current trend we’ll be 1000 cases a day or less by the first week of April.

 

[HSTEd]

I'd ignore any of these leaked stories - they're there to provoke a reaction and not to actually inform the public.

Though for what it's worth, weekly cases are falling fairly fast - 1,000 cases a day is probably only a couple of months away, ignoring any vaccine effects. I think we'll ease significantly before then, but exponential decline is just as formidable a force as exponential growth.

Unfortunately even last summer we barely got below 1000 cases per day, with considerably less testing.

7day average was at a minimum on about the 4th of July at about 586

Given we have five times the testing output we had then, it seems unlikely we would show under 1000 cases.

 

[yorksrob]

If they drag it out too long, the Tory party will be history.

 

[johntea]

The Daily Mail reckon they've got their hands on an outline of the so called 'blueprint'

Leisure businesses may not return to ‘broadly normal’ until July under a roadmap out of lockdown.

The blueprint being discussed by ministers and industry leaders would allow restrictions to be eased only at four-weekly intervals.

The gradual approach means traders will have to wait until at least Easter – early April – for a limited restart. This is likely to include the reopening of holiday lets and larger hotels, with dining rooms still closed. Sports such as golf and tennis could resume.

Pubs, bars and restaurants will have to wait until early May under the plans, with a maximum of two households allowed to sit together indoors and the rule of six applying outside. The next stage, in early June, would see the rules for pubs and restaurants relaxed with the rule of six extended indoors.

The hospitality and domestic holiday industries could be allowed to return to normal in July – with social distancing.

The Mail can also reveal that office staff are expected to be told to keep working from home when the Prime Minister unveils his roadmap. He is not expected to set a firm date for when employees should return to their desks, meaning that the ‘work from home if you can’ message will continue for the foreseeable future.

Roadmap out of lockdown: Blueprint for UK's future

The gradual approach means traders will have to wait until at least Easter - early April - for a limited restart.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Basically, it sounds as if summer will be groundhog day of summer 2020 and it doesn't sound too hopeful for social distancing to vanish before the end of 2021 either!

 

[HSTEd]

If they drag it out too long, the Tory party will be history.

No it won't.

The public love the restrictions and want them to continue.