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

[MikeWM]

Though the UK Cinema Association has suggested it will oppose plans to wear face masks in cinema showings....

Taken from this article....

Boris Johnson urged to speed up the end of lockdown by fed up Tory MPs

BORIS Johnson has been told to “get on with it” and end lockdown faster after Britain recorded its lowest death toll in nine months. Restless Tory MPs want the PM to speed up parts of h…

www.thesun.co.uk

The UKCA have been very good recently at pushing the idea that we just need to get back to proper normal. Their statement on 'passports' was excellent too:

The Association does not believe that it appropriate to ask someone to prove they have undertaken a medical procedure or to undergo a medical test to access what is supposed to be a place of entertainment and enjoyment. This would introduce a significant barrier between the sector and its customers at a time when members are trying to rebuild a business which has over the last 12 months experienced a massive financial impact, losing some £2 billion in income.

It is a significant shame that other industry bodies (eg. theatres) have taken the opposite view and actively called for the introduction of 'passports'.

 

[quantinghome]

Or, alternatively, the peak in deaths occurred pretty much exactly when you would expect it to following the peak in infections? I'm not sure we have accurate infection data for the early stages of the pandemic though so it's difficult to prove the point either way.

We do however have accurate infection data for the periods before and after the second and third lockdowns:

View attachment 95498

Cases | Coronavirus in the UK (data.gov.uk)

If you follow the link and study the graph you'll see that infections were already subsiding at the time both lockdowns were imposed, with deaths peaking a couple of weeks later....

Could it be that fullfact.org is actually presenting partial facts to support a particular narrative?

Not something fullfact tends to do.

Given the spikes in the data it's difficult to determine precisely which day infections peaked, but it appears to be around the time lockdown was instigated which is what you'd expect a lockdown to do. Also large parts of the country were effectively in lockdown from before Christmas. It's not as if someone flicked a switch on January the 3rd; restrictions had been tightening for a week or two beforehand.

 

[westv]

Though the UK Cinema Association has suggested it will oppose plans to wear face masks in cinema showings....

And impossible to enforce in a dark cinema.

 

[MikeWM]

And impossible to enforce in a dark cinema.

Most have some sort of 'night-vision' equipment, either installed in the screen or for the staff to use (or both). So they *could* enforce, though I didn't ever see this happen at any point last year.

 

[initiation]

That's not the case though:

Can we believe the lockdown sceptics? - Full Fact

View attachment 95492

The peak in deaths occurred pretty much exactly when you would expect it to under a lockdown.

Scepticism is important, but at some point Ockham's Razor comes into play - the most obvious explanation of the data is usually the correct one.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/biom.13462

Here is a peer reviewed published paper evidencing that infections linked to deaths were in decline at the point of all three lockdowns.

Here is a good discussion on the matter with the author of the paper and (relatively) well known scientist Tim Spector from the ZOE survey app.

Interesting comment here from Purple Orange

However I am more inclined to trust the experts that were involved in the current plan as opposed internet forumers and daily mail columnists.

The same could be applied to quantinghome's comment - why should we trust Leo Benedictus - a guaradian columnist who writes for FullFact!


A reminder these were the same experts who proposed we could see 4000 deaths per day in November and that re-opening schools would lead to a surge in cases.

 

[DustyBin]

Not something fullfact tends to do.

Perhaps not, but it very much appears to be what they're doing here.

Given the spikes in the data it's difficult to determine precisely which day infections peaked, but it appears to be around the time lockdown was instigated which is what you'd expect a lockdown to do. Also large parts of the country were effectively in lockdown from before Christmas. It's not as if someone flicked a switch on January the 3rd; restrictions had been tightening for a week or two beforehand.

It's not really that difficult though, infections had already peaked and were subsiding on a more-or-less daily basis. There's a clear trend. Bear in mind as well that the graph I posted is by specimen date; you don't lock down one day and see a reduction in infections the next (or the day after, or the day after that.... I'm sure you see what I'm getting at!).

In regard to the the Christams period, yes many places were already under tight restrictions and infections peaked under those conditions, not following the Christmas free for all. In fact, there's no compelling evidence that these restrictions achieved much either!

 

[Purple Orange]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/biom.13462

Here is a peer reviewed published paper evidencing that infections linked to deaths were in decline at the point of all three lockdowns.

Here is a good discussion on the matter with the author of the paper and (relatively) well known scientist Tim Spector from the ZOE survey app.

Interesting comment here from Purple Orange

The same could be applied to quantinghome's comment - why should we trust Leo Benedictus - a guaradian columnist who writes for FullFact!


A reminder these were the same experts who proposed we could see 4000 deaths per day in November and that re-opening schools would lead to a surge in cases.

By experts, I’m referring to the teams informing government decisions.

 

[greyman42]

I'm not so sure it would be so good if you have hayfever and a runny nose, and you know that it is through a non-infectious cause.



Going by the reports, why bother with masks if you're going to be taking them off to eat/drink?

People continuing to wear masks may well prolong the requirement. If the vast majority just refused to wear them and claimed an exemption then the requirement would be quietly dropped. The balls in our court.

 

[quantinghome]

I've not actually encountered lockdown scepticism in any meaningful way over the last year, so these discussions have been quite an eye-opener I must say.

I'm afraid I'm not convinced. From the brief interactions on here lockdown scepticism appears to show all the hallmarks of other sceptic movements: cherry-picking of statistics; focusing on minutiae rather than the big picture; referencing the minority of scientists or scientific papers which back up the sceptical view and ignore all the others; and attribution of ulterior motives to people with opposing views.

Doubt we're going to get any meeting of minds on this.

 

[Purple Orange]

I've not actually encountered lockdown scepticism in any meaningful way over the last year, so these discussions have been quite an eye-opener I must say.

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.

 

[Bantamzen]

I've not actually encountered lockdown scepticism in any meaningful way over the last year, so these discussions have been quite an eye-opener I must say.

I'm afraid I'm not convinced. From the brief interactions on here lockdown scepticism appears to show all the hallmarks of other sceptic movements: cherry-picking of statistics; focusing on minutiae rather than the big picture; referencing the minority of scientists or scientific papers which back up the sceptical view and ignore all the others; and attribution of ulterior motives to people with opposing views.

Doubt we're going to get any meeting of minds on this.

I guess a lot depends on your social and work circles. I know some people who have lost their jobs, some even lost their businesses as a direct result of restrictions. They are angry about it. I know others who haven't been able too see family and friends for months on end. They are angry too.

Worst of all my wife had a cancer scare but had to wait months for testing and the result, months which could have been critical had she been positive. Thankfully she wasn't but it made us both angry. I'm sure if you looked you would find many others, but it will depend on where you look.

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.

So you got angry because some of us are not happy with Starmer? If so, there are far more important things to get angry about.

 

[Purple Orange]

So you got angry because some of us are not happy with Starmer? If so, there are far more important things to get angry about.

No, the topic of discussion was actually about lockdown and lockdown sceptiscm, but on the starmer thread before it got closed. And I’m saying I was surprised by the level of anger that was shown on that thread (and on this one).

I’ve mostly encountered anger the other way, in the sense that Johnson had not done enough and what he did do was too little, too late. The government’s approach to blaming the public made me angry, as well as issues like Barnard Castle and the PPE screw up.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Worst of all my wife had a cancer scare but had to wait months for testing and the result, months which could have been critical had she been positive. Thankfully she wasn't but it made us both angry. I'm sure if you looked you would find many others, but it will depend on where you look.

I also suspect it depends where exactly you are in the country. You mention about cancer - I personally know people who have had cancer scares too this year and have had their tests and have started treatment in that time too. Some hospitals / trusts seem to be dealing with things a lot better than others.

 

[Bantamzen]

No, the topic of discussion was actually about lockdown and lockdown sceptiscm, but on the starmer thread before it got closed. And I’m saying I was surprised by the level of anger that was shown on that thread (and on this one).

I’ve mostly encountered anger the other way, in the sense that Johnson had not done enough and what he did do was too little, too late. The government’s approach to blaming the public made me angry, as well as issues like Barnard Castle and the PPE screw up.

Like I say, the perception of people's anger will depend on who you encounter and what their experience of restrictions. People who have lost their jobs, or missed out on vital health treatment, or missed family are much more likely to be angry at the level of restrictions, not angry that there were not enough.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Only 4 reported deaths today which means fewer than 20 over the long weekend. An average of 6.33 per day.

Cases well down too - their seven-day rolling average is 2,024, whereas it was closer to 2,500 last week.

All great news for the next stage of reopening in a fortnight.

 

[DustyBin]

I've not actually encountered lockdown scepticism in any meaningful way over the last year, so these discussions have been quite an eye-opener I must say.

I'm afraid I'm not convinced. From the brief interactions on here lockdown scepticism appears to show all the hallmarks of other sceptic movements: cherry-picking of statistics; focusing on minutiae rather than the big picture; referencing the minority of scientists or scientific papers which back up the sceptical view and ignore all the others; and attribution of ulterior motives to people with opposing views.

Doubt we're going to get any meeting of minds on this.

It's up to you what you choose to believe, however I do take exception to the above accusation. I presented you with data from an official source, you presented us with a graph from fullfact.org which appears to deal in anything but. I find it incredible that you'd dismiss what I posted as "cherry picked statistics or minutiae" when in fact this is the level of detail required if we are to understand what's really happening. I could just as easily point out that using that fullpartialfacts.org graph to support your argument is facile, to say the least....

If you disagree with the official data or my interpretation of it, tell me why as I'm interested.

 

[Purple Orange]

Like I say, the perception of people's anger will depend on who you encounter and what their experience of restrictions. People who have lost their jobs, or missed out on vital health treatment, or missed family are much more likely to be angry at the level of restrictions, not angry that there were not enough.

I don’t think that is restricted to the anger on this forum concerning lockdown sceptics, which is the issue that surprised me. I too have not been able to see my family, lost a significant amount of income over the last 12 months, had mental health issues and have had family with hospital treatment delayed. My anger isn’t at the lockdown itself, but at the actions of our government surrounding decisions of when to lockdown and when not to lockdown, their tactics of blame and the double standards throughout the pandemic. I can’t forgive them for that.

 

[takno]

No, the topic of discussion was actually about lockdown and lockdown sceptiscm, but on the starmer thread before it got closed. And I’m saying I was surprised by the level of anger that was shown on that thread (and on this one).

I’ve mostly encountered anger the other way, in the sense that Johnson had not done enough and what he did do was too little, too late. The government’s approach to blaming the public made me angry, as well as issues like Barnard Castle and the PPE screw up.

I think it's the intensity which which this has been turned into a simplistic two-sided argument culture war that makes me really angry. Being insistently mocked as somehow anti-science because I'm more widely-read on the fast developing science than the Guardian's science editor appears to be. Being condemned as a "covidiot" for wanting some actual evidence and nuance on masks. Being marked as a "Covid-denier" for wanting less lockdown than Starmer.

Basically in February last year some of us were trying to have intelligent conversations and work out what was a sensible path through a fast-emerging and very serious situation. It feels by mid-march we'd thrown science, rational analysis, and any involvement of economists or ethicists out completely. The whole thing has almost continually been a psychological war since, where the toxic nudge unit on SAGE have co-opted a large proportion of the population into a braying mob, just to prove how powerful and important they are.

I was angry about Barnard Castle, and PPE, and blaming the public, but I am also angry about a poorly evidenced lockdown, and the replacement of a well-run government with a popularity contest designed to make everybody either Team Covid or Team Lockdown.

 

[35B]

Or, alternatively, the peak in deaths occurred pretty much exactly when you would expect it to following the peak in infections? I'm not sure we have accurate infection data for the early stages of the pandemic though so it's difficult to prove the point either way.

We do however have accurate infection data for the periods before and after the second and third lockdowns:

View attachment 95498

Cases | Coronavirus in the UK (data.gov.uk)

If you follow the link and study the graph you'll see that infections were already subsiding at the time both lockdowns were imposed, with deaths peaking a couple of weeks later....

Could it be that fullfact.org is actually presenting partial facts to support a particular narrative?

And 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.

 

[Purple Orange]

I think it's the intensity which which this has been turned into a simplistic two-sided argument culture war that makes me really angry. Being insistently mocked as somehow anti-science because I'm more widely-read on the fast developing science than the Guardian's science editor appears to be. Being condemned as a "covidiot" for wanting some actual evidence and nuance on masks. Being marked as a "Covid-denier" for wanting less lockdown than Starmer.

Basically in February last year some of us were trying to have intelligent conversations and work out what was a sensible path through a fast-emerging and very serious situation. It feels by mid-march we'd thrown science, rational analysis, and any involvement of economists or ethicists out completely. The whole thing has almost continually been a psychological war since, where the toxic nudge unit on SAGE have co-opted a large proportion of the population into a braying mob, just to prove how powerful and important they are.

I was angry about Barnard Castle, and PPE, and blaming the public, but I am also angry about a poorly evidenced lockdown, and the replacement of a well-run government with a popularity contest designed to make everybody either Team Covid or Team Lockdown.

Polarisation of the issues is problem I agree. Yet this is the internet and you’ll be able to find someone who also claims to be very well read on the fast developing science and takes a completely opposite view to you.

 

[MikeWM]

I'd strongly recommend everyone should read this post by the ever-excellent Dr Malcolm Kendrick. I'm having great difficulty extracting a few paragraphs from it because it is all really good and I pretty much agree with every word. (And he mentions the, let's say 'selectivity', of the fact-checkers, so it is somewhat germane to the current discussion

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/04/24/covid19-taking-stock/

...essentially, it is very clear that the COVID narrative has been written. It has been written by those in charge, who have far too much to lose if it is found to be nonsense. So, it is not going to change.
...
The decision to lockdown was so massive, that it became impossible to question. If it was the wrong decision, all of those involved in making it would inevitably be held responsible for economic chaos, hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths, massive job losses and unprecedented social upheaval.
...
Can’t quite see anyone admitting to having made the greatest mistake in the history of the world. So now, everything is directed to the cause of ensuring that lockdown was seen to be the best thing to do, the only possible action that could have been taken. We had to the stop the infection spreading or everything would have been worse.

Anything, or any country, that does not follow that narrative has been attacked or explained away.
...
...nothing is going to alter the direction of the narrative right now. It has the support of everyone in positions of power, almost everywhere around the world. Science is being bent to fit the narrative, and you can see it happening, if you know what to look for.

 

[DustyBin]

And 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.

See my subsequent posts to the one you've quoted; infections went up and down under those same conditions. We also didn't see the post-Christmas catastrophe (in terms of new infections) predicted by some.

One could argue that the second lockdown succeeded in bringing infections down, but if it did this only resulted in a 'double peak' which brings me back to my assertion that strategically speaking we can't control let alone beat the virus.

 

[quantinghome]

It's up to you what you choose to believe, however I do take exception to the above accusation. I presented you with data from an official source, you presented us with a graph from fullfact.org which appears to deal in anything but. I find it incredible that you'd dismiss what I posted as "cherry picked statistics or minutiae" when in fact this is the level of detail required if we are to understand what's really happening. I could just as easily point out that using that fullpartialfacts.org graph to support your argument is facile, to say the least....

If you disagree with the official data or my interpretation of it, tell me why as I'm interested.

I included the link to the full fullfacts article in the hope that forum members might read it, with the graph acting as a brief pointer to the arguments within the main article. Ah well.

I was angry about Barnard Castle, and PPE, and blaming the public, but I am also angry about a poorly evidenced lockdown, and the replacement of a well-run government with a popularity contest designed to make everybody either Team Covid or Team Lockdown.

Which government are you referring to? Don't think we've had one of them for a while...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I have never been able to understand the need to use the word "roadmap" with regards to the discussion on hand. Do the more technologically gifted prefer to use the "SatNav" variety, even though some directions have you driving off a cliff. Or does the word "roadmap" signify that there will be police monitoring?

 

[DustyBin]

I included the link to the full fullfacts article in the hope that forum members might read it, with the graph acting as a brief pointer to the arguments within the main article. Ah well.

I for one did read it, and it's exactly what you say i.e. "arguments". In fairness we now know more and have more data than the author did at the time, but that does nothing for it's credibility as a source, quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Ediswan]

I'd strongly recommend everyone should read this post by the ever-excellent Dr Malcolm Kendrick.

I would certainly agree with the first few paragraphs you quoted. TPTB have too much to lose if their narrative is found to be false.

Whether that narrative actually is false is whole different argument (which I have no intention of joining).

 

[quantinghome]

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.

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!

 

[packermac]

I have never been able to understand the need to use the word "roadmap" with regards to the discussion on hand. Do the more technologically gifted prefer to use the "SatNav" variety, even though some directions have you driving off a cliff. Or does the word "roadmap" signify that there will be police monitoring?

Roadmap is consultant and FTSE 100 company speak. Used a lot where I worked.

 

[quantinghome]

I for one did read it, and it's exactly what you say i.e. "arguments". In fairness we now know more and have more data than the author did at the time, but that does nothing for it's credibility as a source, quite the opposite in fact.

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?

 

[initiation]

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

Sadly, when lockdown ended, it also explains why the virus returned.

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.

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.

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

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.

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...