22nd February - Roadmap out of the pandemic, lifting of restrictions.

[takno]

The additional data we now have actually confirms fullfact's point about herd immunity: the major outbreak in December 2020 pretty conclusively demonstrates that we hadn't reached herd immunity and consequently that herd immunity cannot explain the reduction in cases we saw in the first lockdown.

Can I ask, do you believe the lockdowns were not responsible for the reductions in cases and deaths seen after their introductions? If so, what do you think caused these reductions?

We had a significant reduction in social contact prior to the first lockdown which will have had an effect. We were also reaching the end of the normal flu season, so a seasonal disease such as Covid will naturally also decline. There was much better awareness of the symptoms and existence of the disease so symptomatic people were largely isolating. Sick people started avoiding hospitals, which are always huge spreaders of infection.

Take your pick really - the point is that it isn't a binary choice between lockdown and doing absolutely nothing.

Herd immunity likely had an impact later on in lockdown and over the summer and autumn, reducing the speed of the second peak considerably, but it won't have had a lot of effect prior to or in the first couple of weeks of the first lockdown. I don't think anybody apart from you was really suggesting that it had.

There are some fairly reasonable hypotheses around immunity and the December peak. Obviously if you are approaching the immunity threshold, and a much more contagious variant such as the Kent one comes along and raises the threshold, then you are going to have a peak. In the case of the Kent one it also appears to have been able to reinfect some people, particularly those with weak or fading immunity, which again takes you further away from the herd threshold. It spread very aggressively however, so the natural herd immunity effects will equally have grown quickly.

 

[DustyBin]

The additional data we now have actually confirms fullfact's point about herd immunity: the major outbreak in December 2020 pretty conclusively demonstrates that we hadn't reached herd immunity and consequently that herd immunity cannot explain the reduction in cases we saw in the first lockdown.

Can I ask, do you believe the lockdowns were not responsible for the reductions in cases and deaths seen after their introductions? If so, what do you think caused these reductions?

I didn't say we had reached herd immunity, we're not there yet even with the vaccines.

To answer your question, I cannot ignore the data which clearly shows infections subsiding prior to lockdown(s) being imposed. I'll concede that the data from the first lockdown may not be reliable as it's relatively limited, and as per my previous post I can see there is an argument that the second lockdown may have brought down infections, or at least prevented them increasing (an issue in itself). When it comes to the third though I'm not convinced at all.

I think it's entirely possible that the following combination of factors led to the reduction in infections and deaths; social distancing, people shielding, people isolating following infection, a reduced 'pool' of vulnerable hosts, localised immunity.

Can I ask, what do you think would have happened last year if they hadn't imposed the first lockdown?

 

[quantinghome]

Can I ask, what do you think would have happened last year if they hadn't imposed the first lockdown?

Depends what the reaction of the population would have been without an instruction to stay at home, what other interventions the government would have made and how effective they would have been in interrupting transmission of the virus.

If people had carried on without any change in behaviour then we would have seen an exponential spread until the whole population was infected, and at least half a million, perhaps a million dead due to Covid within a couple of months, and more due to the knock-on effect of a breakdown in the health service.

But I don't think that's realistic. People were already entering self-imposed lockdown prior to 23 March. This would have reduced the rate of growth but probably not below 1, particularly as millions of people would have had to carry on working in non-Covid safe workplaces in the absence of a furlough scheme, so it would have carried on spreading. Result would have been half a million to a million dead but over a longer period. Plus millions more affected by long Covid.

Do we consider the sacrifices over the last year worth it? All I can say is that in a few weeks' time I hope to be able to hug my parents and my 101 year-old Nanna again without the risk of giving them a potentially fatal disease, and I'm glad they're still here for me to do that.

 

[HSTEd]

and more due to the knock-on effects of a breakdown in the health service.

The health service wouldn't really "break down" as such.

All that would happen is people over 65 who presented with coronavirus would probably be sent to a very lightly manned extemporised ward like the one built at the Excel Centre.

 

[takno]

Depends what the reaction of the population would have been without an instruction to stay at home, what other interventions the government would have made and whether they would have been effective as interrupting transmission of the virus.

If people had carried on without any change in behaviour then we would have seen an exponential spread until the whole population was infected, and at least half a million, perhaps a million dead due to Covid within a couple of months, and more due to the knock-on effects of a breakdown in the health service.

But I don't think that's realistic. People were already entering self-imposed lockdown prior to the government announcement. This would have reduced the rate of growth but probably not below 1, particularly as millions of people would have had to carry on working in non-Covid safe workplaces in the absence of a furlough scheme, so it would have carried on spreading. Result would have been half a million to a million dead but over a longer period.

So you would have expected 2% population mortality in spite of reasonably robust international estimates putting the infection fatality rate at below 0.5%?

 

[Richard Scott]

Depends what the reaction of the population would have been without an instruction to stay at home, what other interventions the government would have made and whether they would have been effective as interrupting transmission of the virus.

If people had carried on without any change in behaviour then we would have seen an exponential spread until the whole population was infected, and at least half a million, perhaps a million dead due to Covid within a couple of months, and more due to the knock-on effects of a breakdown in the health service.

But I don't think that's realistic. People were already entering self-imposed lockdown prior to the government announcement. This would have reduced the rate of growth but probably not below 1, particularly as millions of people would have had to carry on working in non-Covid safe workplaces in the absence of a furlough scheme, so it would have carried on spreading. Result would have been half a million to a million dead but over a longer period.

No all of that is massively overstated. If the virus had spread rapidly then would have had nowhere near half a million dead, it's not that serious in younger people. In actual fact if had allowed younger people to get it we may have been better off as there would have been barriers to transmission. Older and more at risk people could have imposed isolation on themselves; absolutely no need to lockdown the whole country. Could have had a furlough scheme that you applied for based on your health. Rest of the country carries on.

 

[quantinghome]

So you would have expected 2% population mortality in spite of reasonably robust international estimates putting the infection fatality rate at below 0.5%?

Since widespread testing started in the UK (from around September-October 2020) we have had 4 million reported infections and 85,000 reported deaths which works out at just over 2%. Even if we assume testing is only picking up half of cases that gives 1% mortality, giving in the order of 0.5 to 1 million deaths for the UK if the virus reached everyone.

International estimates include countries with a more youthful population distribution which reduces the mortality rate. A country like the UK with a higher than average proportion of elderly people would see a higher mortality rate.

Older and more at risk people could have imposed isolation on themselves; absolutely no need to lockdown the whole country. Could have had a furlough scheme that you applied for based on your health. Rest of the country carries on.

Nice idea in theory but impossible to achieve in practice.

 

[Richard Scott]

Nice idea in theory but impossible to achieve in practice.

Why? Of course lockdown was such a success for everyone. Just because that's what was done doesn't mean it's necessarily the right solution.

 

[initiation]

Since widespread testing started in the UK (from around September-October 2020) we have had 4 million reported infections and 85,000 reported deaths which works out at just over 2%. Even if we assume testing is only picking up half of cases that gives 1% mortality, giving in the order of 0.5 to 1 million deaths for the UK if the virus reached everyone.

You previously post about lockdown sceptic's (mid) use of data then go and post that you think the death rate is 2% using some hand-wavium assumptions with no references. Good stuff.

 

[Philip]

Using Avanti services between Manchester and London today, some of you would have absolutely loved the train managers and their attitudes today towards face masks and social distancing.
I am being sarcastic...the guard who has just made an announcement now must have had a bad day, as his 'instructions' were ridiculously aggressive, and the guard earlier was overbearing with her announcements and was sarcastic.

 

[Huntergreed]

Using Avanti services between Manchester and London today, some of you would have absolutely loved the train managers and their attitudes today towards face masks and social distancing.
I am being sarcastic...the guard who has just made an announcement now must have had a bad day, as his 'instructions' were ridiculously aggressive, and the guard earlier was overbearing with her announcements and was sarcastic.

Wouldn't surprise me at all.

Having a 'bad day' is no excuse for showing an aggressive attitude towards paying customers, nor is it an excuse to ignore genuine disability legislation in a vain attempt to increase mask compliance.

I always have, and will, complain about instances like this, it's simply not acceptable.

 

[Cdd89]

There are two competing points on lockdowns and roadmaps:

Point 1 = “lockdowns are not necessary and the whole think could have been managed in some other way with [less/same/not much more] net loss of life”. I have some time for this point but it is controversial and arguably best set aside.

Point 2 = “lockdowns do massive damage and should only be exercised at the most critical points, where the NHS is at the point of being overwhelmed and death rates are at their highest”. This shouldn’t be controversial. “Long tail” lockdowns are the pursuit of a zero Covid policy by the back door.

Anyone not arguing for Zero Covid needs to clarify the metrics under which they would want lockdowns to start and end (the metric should be the same; barring a small hysterisis tolerance). People tend not to do this, instead resorting to platitudes like “it’s better to stay cautious” and “let’s take it slow”. That is not a logical policy unless your aim is zero Covid.

 

[initiation]

People tend not to do this, instead resorting to platitudes like “it’s better to stay cautious” and “let’s take it slow”.

Cabinet member Liz Truss said this multiple times in an interview on talkradio this morning. There is nothing cautious about the extreme harm these restrictions cause.

Can you imagine if we had the same level of supposed rigour and delay for entering lockdown as leaving it.

 

[Class 33]

Using Avanti services between Manchester and London today, some of you would have absolutely loved the train managers and their attitudes today towards face masks and social distancing.
I am being sarcastic...the guard who has just made an announcement now must have had a bad day, as his 'instructions' were ridiculously aggressive, and the guard earlier was overbearing with her announcements and was sarcastic.

That's what puts me off doing some train journeys for leisure. Train managers frequently babbling on the PA systems about "You must wear face masks at all times" and "You must socially distance" and with fairly aggressive attitudes. I see on here that LNER, Cross Country and Avanti seem to be the worst offenders for this. I won't be forking out money to travel with them whilst this nonsense still continues. Social distancing due to supposedly end on 21st June. I really hope compulsory face mask wearing ends then or very soon after.

Though I did a couple of journeys on South Eastern a couple of weeks ago and was pleasantly surprised that for the duration of both journeys there wasn't a single pre-recorded or "live" PA announcements about having to wear face masks and having to socially distance! Other operators could learn a thing or two from them!

 

[philosopher]

Likewise. Not even so much on other forums either. I must say that yesterday on the Starmer thread I was rather taken aback by the level of anger too, which in turn made me feel angry.

I regularly attend hiking meet-ups and I would say on these meet-ups there is a roughly 50 : 50 split between those who are pro lockdown and those who are sceptical. For example one meet-up I attended last July there were two people on the same meet-up who believed the whole thing was a hoax. On the flip side, the meet-up I went this Sunday, there was one guy who said vaccine passports should be required to visit pubs, another who said that even 95% of the population being vaccinated would not be enough to end restrictions and another who suggested there may no alternative to annual winter lockdowns. Obviously a lot have views that are more in the middle.

Interestingly, people seemed to have been more pro lockdown on the meet-ups I have been on over the last month than the ones I went on last summer. It may be that last summer those who were pro lockdown were still reluctant to be attending such events.

 

[quantinghome]

You previously post about lockdown sceptic's (mid) use of data then go and post that you think the death rate is 2% using some hand-wavium assumptions with no references. Good stuff.

Not at all. The numbers were taken straight from the government dashboard and are very easy to check: Daily summary | Coronavirus in the UK (data.gov.uk)

Take the number of cases and number of deaths from end of September (when the testing regime was well up and running), up to now. Best to use the cumulative charts. Dividing number of deaths by number of cases gives a 2% mortality rate.

Now I accept that the rate is likely to be lower than that, as the testing regime won't have picked up every case, some of which are asymptomatic. But even if half of cases are not identified, that STILL means you have a 1% mortality rate. You would have to assume a huge proportion of unidentified cases for the mortality rate to be lower than that.

This estimate is consistent with scientific research by Imperial College: 2020-10-29-COVID19-Report-34.pdf (imperial.ac.uk) which gives an infection fatality ratio of 1.15% for a high income country like the UK.

 

[kez19]

That's what puts me off doing some train journeys for leisure. Train managers frequently babbling on the PA systems about "You must wear face masks at all times" and "You must socially distance" and with fairly aggressive attitudes. I see on here that LNER, Cross Country and Avanti seem to be the worst offenders for this. I won't be forking out money to travel with them whilst this nonsense still continues. Social distancing due to supposedly end on 21st June. I really hope compulsory face mask wearing ends then or very soon after.

Though I did a couple of journeys on South Eastern a couple of weeks ago and was pleasantly surprised that for the duration of both journeys there wasn't a single pre-recorded or "live" PA announcements about having to wear face masks and having to socially distance! Other operators could learn a thing or two from them!

Thanks for the heads up on LNER for me in mid June this will be a fun journey for me! Mind you last time I was in first class there wasn't much in announcements other than someone going round with a trolley offering tea/crisps(biscuits)?, if need be i'll just put on my mp3 player on both journeys and block out the world!

 

[Darandio]

Neil Ferguson has now said we are unlikely to see another lockdown. Given his track record as an 'expert' in this field, that means we are doomed.

Another Covid lockdown unlikely, says scientist

The UK is "likely to be on a steady course now out of this pandemic", Prof Neil Ferguson says.

www.bbc.co.uk

It is unlikely that there will be more lockdowns in the UK, the scientist whose modelling led to the first nationwide restrictions has said.

Prof Neil Ferguson told the BBC the UK is "likely to be on a steady course now out of this pandemic".
However, he said there could be a "roll back" of some freedoms if any new variants proved resistant to vaccines.
Ministers have said further lockdown easing will go ahead in England if the data supports it.
Prof Ferguson, an expert on the spread of infectious diseases who sits on the government's New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag), said that data on falling Covid cases, hospitalisations and deaths was encouraging.
He told BBC Health Editor Hugh Pym that while another lockdown "can't be completely ruled out", he has become increasingly "optimistic" over recent months.
"In the worst case scenario, if we have a new variant pop up which does manage to evade the vaccines, say late summer early autumn, there may be a need to roll back on some of these measures at least temporarily until we can boost people's immunity," he said.
"Do I think it's likely to happen? No, I don't. I think we are much more likely to be on a steady course now out of this pandemic, at least in this country."
Prof Ferguson said variants would need to be monitored "carefully", but the UK has gone from a "terrible situation" in January to a "remarkably good situation now".
Life would "feel a lot more normal" by early summer, he said, although questions remain over whether summer holidays abroad would be possible.
"We will have many fewer restrictions. Whether we have none at all it's too early to say," he added.

 

[Purple Orange]

That's my feeling on this too. I'm not angry but genuinely perplexed that obviously intelligent people can look over the last year's events and conclude that lockdowns were not necessary.

Until now I've seen a lot of anger directed at Starmer for failing to back the government - from the 'Boris is doing his best' demographic.

I've also seen anger towards Starmer from people saying he's not been sufficiently critical of the government's failure to lockdown early or hard enough, accusing him of allowing the Tories to get away with hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

To this I must now add a third group angry with Starmer for being too "pro-lockdown" and not standing up for people's personal liberty.

So three groups angry with Starmer for entirely contradictory reasons!

It seems that way. Johnson obviously has his detractors too, but he has an additional fan club where it appears he can do no wrong, because “it’s just Boris being Boris”.

 

[kez19]

Neil Ferguson has now said we are unlikely to see another lockdown. Given his track record as an 'expert' in this field, that means we are doomed.

Another Covid lockdown unlikely, says scientist

The UK is "likely to be on a steady course now out of this pandemic", Prof Neil Ferguson says.

www.bbc.co.uk

I bet the BBC wet themselves over this announcement from one of these scientists that they have head hunted throughout this whole thing, I doubt the likes of Ferguson have seen the light but maybe they know that their media cycle life is coming to an end so hence now being "optimistic" as before its all been about fear but still its been good for the likes of the BBC and those at SAGE to continuingly ramp up fear and if I think (opinion here) tables are indeed turning and quite possibly this is them preparing to jump ship before things catch up with them all.

 

[brad465]

Neil Ferguson has now said we are unlikely to see another lockdown. Given his track record as an 'expert' in this field, that means we are doomed.

Another Covid lockdown unlikely, says scientist

The UK is "likely to be on a steady course now out of this pandemic", Prof Neil Ferguson says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Professor Pantsdown must be trying to absolve himself of responsibility when trying to justify lockdowns while we all suffer the fallout in future, by claiming in effect they've worked to the point of no longer being needed.

 

[yorksrob]

I think it is meant to be due to vaccination. More people protected therefore less people to put pressure on the NHS when cases inevitably emerge. That is certainly my takeaway from the various press conferences as for the justification.

For what it's worth I think we should be opening indoor now as the rates in hospital and deaths are below when we reopened last year.

Yes, I suppose that's conceivable to an extent. I've never accepted the narrative that we unlocked too quickly last year. If we'd left it any longer, we'd never have unlocked.

 

[Mojo]

Going back to the topic of the Roadmap, a Twitter account I follow (fact_covid) has posted this interesting reminder of what the Roadmap on 22nd February actually said about the next step which is due in less than a fortnight.

Indoors, people will be able to meet socially in a group of 6, or with 1 other household, though it may be possible to go further than this at Step 3 depending on the data.

Given that the legislation has already been published, I’m doubting any further easements will be published, but it’s interesting how they did sort of forsee the fact the data may actually be better than the forecasts suggested and write this in to the plan.

 

[yorkie]

Since widespread testing started in the UK (from around September-October 2020) we have had 4 million reported infections and 85,000 reported deaths which works out at just over 2%. Even if we assume testing is only picking up half of cases that gives 1% mortality, giving in the order of 0.5 to 1 million deaths for the UK if the virus reached everyone.

The true number infected is surely at least 16, maybe 20 million! No way is it only 8 million! You are looking at 4 to 5 times the official number.

By the way mortality is heavily skewed towards older people (average age of a Covid death is 82), the vast majority are now vaccinated.

The additional data we now have actually confirms fullfact's point about herd immunity: the major outbreak in December 2020 pretty conclusively demonstrates that we hadn't reached herd immunity and consequently that herd immunity cannot explain the reduction in cases we saw in the first lockdown.

It's a seasonal virus. In order to have this conversation, when you refer to "herd immunity" you'll need to explain what you mean by that. I would point out that levels of a virus absolutely can and do decrease without reaching any definition of "herd immunity". The term is best avoided as people tend to use it to mean different things, often getting very confused and talking at cross purposes.

I'm struggling to take an article like the Full Fact one seriously when it contains silly statements like this:

1. The virus never went away.... (and never will do)
2. Cases did continue declining well after the original lockdown ended.

The article discusses a whole load of side issues not relevant to the question being asked, such as false positives and herd immunity.


This point is entirely separate to the question on did lockdowns coincide with peak infections.


And I'm perplexed that obviously intelligent people can look at data and not at least question if lockdowns were 'necessary' and come with enormous harms which can easily outweigh the lives they are supposed to save. Or that people can look at the decision to have substantial meals only and 10pm closing and can honestly say they were an effective way to combat spread.

If lockdowns (rather than some less severe NPIs) were 'necessary' to save lives then we would expect to see that those parts of the world that did not impose lockdowns would have vastly higher death tolls than those that did. Take the US for example - how would the assertion that lockdowns are needed to save lives square up with this? Not just a single data point, many diverse states etc...

Exactly; "full fact" is more like "no fact" as far as I'm concerned!

I'm fine with have a rational discussion. But some on here (not yourself) seem to be coming straight out of Dr. Strangelove - "10, 20 million deaths - tops!"

What does this post even mean?

Who said that? It sounds like a strawman to me, which is not helpful to the rational discussion you claim to be "fine with".

Agreed

 

[Purple Orange]

The true number infected is surely at least 16, maybe 20 million! No way is it only 8 million! You are looking at 4 to 5 times the official number.

If you are gong to quote numbers like that with certainty, perhaps you should link a source.

 

[Freightmaster]

...the interpretation has to take into account that, especially for the third lockdown, social contact was already falling significantly when the formal measures were imposed, meaning that an analysis based solely on the date of lockdown misses part of the trend.

This is a really good point which many people gloss over, particularly in respect to the first lockdown;
I vividly remember roads/pubs/shops/public transport being eerily quiet for several weeks before March 23rd
last year and big office-based companies began the switch to working from home in early March too.

So when people say that "we should have locked down a couple of weeks earlier than we did",
I don't think that would have made anywhere near as much difference as people believe as a
large proportion of the population were locking themselves down out of fear of the unknown!





MARK

 

[Bald Rick]

The true number infected is surely at least 16, maybe 20 million! No way is it only 8 million! You are looking at 4 to 5 times the official number.

I’m genuinely interested where those numbers have come from? A quick canter through a couple of sites hasn’t thrown up any modelled or semi-official data of how many cases have been estimated over and above the official report. Clearly the 4m is a significant underestimate due to the lack of testing in the first few months and asymptomatic carriers who weren’t tested (many were though).

 

[yorkie]

If you are gong to quote numbers like that with certainty, perhaps you should link a source.

Well, the original claim was preposterous and provided without any source; someone who comes out with such a bizarre claim really ought to be backing that claim up.

It's trivial to disprove the claim that only 8m people in the UK were exposed to the virus.

As is well known, detectable antibody levels wane over time. Nevertheless, in the 28 days up to 18 Jan, 8 million people in England alone ( 1 in 7 out of 56m) had detectable levels of antibodies:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ctionsurveyantibodydatafortheuk/3february2021

In England, an estimated 1 in 7 people (95% confidence interval: 1 in 7 to 1 in 6) would have tested positive for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 on a blood test in the 28 days up to 18 January 2021, suggesting they had the infection in the past.

This obviously excludes anyone infected subsequently, as well as many of those infected in the original seasonal "wave" of the virus, whose antibody levels had since waned (note: they still have immunity through memory B & C cells)

Looking back to mid-July 2020, this article states:

SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence in England following the first peak of the pandemic - Nature Communications

REACT-2 is a large-scale community study of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in England. Here, the authors estimate that 6% of adults in England had been infected by mid-July 2020, with health and long-term care workers and those of Black or South Asian ethnicity disproportionately affected.

www.nature.com

An estimated 3.4 million people had developed antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 by mid-July 2020.

Again, this was in England alone.

Also I am not sure that everyone who is exposed to this virus gets a detectable level of antibodies, so I don't think you can conclude that people who test negative for antibodies definitely didn't get exposed to the virus in a recent time period. Again, there are multiple sources suggesting this; here is one:

Are we underestimating seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2?

Current antibody tests fail to identify people who had mild infections Testing for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes covid-19, is complex and politically sensitive. Seroprevalence studies use antibodies as markers of pathogen exposure to estimate the proportion...

www.bmj.com

Considerable variation has been observed in the results of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies.1 A recent survey in Spain suggested that a small fraction of the population was seropositive, despite the country being severely affected by the virus.2 However, within-individual variation has been observed in immune responses to viral exposure, particularly in those with mild or asymptomatic disease. For example, a pilot study from the Karolinska Institute found the percentage of people mounting T cell responses after mild covid-19, asymptomatic disease, or exposure to infected family members, consistently exceeded the percentage mounting detectable IgG serological responses against the virus.3 Such discordant results could have major implications for epidemiological modelling of disease transmission and herd immunity.

Seroepidemiological studies may underestimate the true seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 for several reasons. Accuracy demands the use of an assay sensitive enough to reliably detect antibody responses to mild infection across different post-exposure scenarios. The selection of target antigen is critical, with recent data showing that the trimeric spike glycoprotein offers superior detection to the nucleocapsid in people with low level antibody responses.4 Of the 24 serological diagnostic tests that the FDA initially authorised for emergency use, six consider only the nucleocapsid, including high throughput tests in widespread use.

In other words, we have detected antibody levels that already far exceed the figures quoted by @quantinghome, which is compounded by the fact that these antibody levels decline over time and that relying on antibodies vastly underestimates seroprevalence.

 

[Bald Rick]

This obviously excludes anyone infected subsequently, as well as many of those infected in the original seasonal "wave" of the virus.

It would surely include some (most?) of those infected the first time round, many of whom would have retained detectable levels of antibodies.

It would also have included the 2-3m people who had had the first dose of the vaccine and had time to develop antibodies (4.27m had had a first dose by 18 Jan, it was 2.4m a week earlier).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Going back to the topic of the Roadmap, a Twitter account I follow (fact_covid) has posted this interesting reminder of what the Roadmap on 22nd February actually said about the next step which is due in less than a fortnight.



Given that the legislation has already been published, I’m doubting any further easements will be published, but it’s interesting how they did sort of forsee the fact the data may actually be better than the forecasts suggested and write this in to the plan.

Interesting but they never declared what data thresholds they were using for any of the steps. The only facts we have is that the modelling they used to drive the roadmap have proved to over pessimistic and in some sense a right side failure was better then being behind the curve but there has been no reforecasting based on real data to improve the models. This has always been about the politics once Boris nailed himself to it being irreversible that set the scene. He can afford to play long game and the better the outturn the more he can see the massive political opportunity he can realise from this. Everyone else affected indirectly this be it treatment delays, mental health issues loss of jobs are just collateral damage.