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

[Watershed]

the public are jaded and tired

A significant proportion are, but a great many are so blind or brainwashed as to still be willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt.

The latter are still happy to swallow whatever twaddle the media and the government come up with, whether that's "there are variants of concern circulating" or "epidemiologist says no-one would get Covid if we all stayed home a bit longer"

No measure can go too far in their eyes, if it supposedly results in a few less people dying of (or with) Covid.

the Chancellor has told us in no uncertain terms that we cannot afford more lockdowns

That's one way of presenting the facts, another would be to simply say "the longer this goes on for, the more debt and inflation we'll have in future". But it's (sadly) not accurate to say we can't afford lockdowns any more. We aren't yet at that stage.

Unfortunately, unless and until both of the above change, we will continue to be vulnerable to the risk of lockdowns being imposed upon us at any moment.

That risk really has very little to do with case rates or anything like that - it is down to whether it is politically acceptable to imprison everyone.

In turn, it will take a seismic U-turn of policy for that to change - one of such magnitude as I can only foresee a major coalition of doom-mongers achieving.

 

[yorksrob]

That's one way of presenting the facts, another would be to simply say "the longer this goes on for, the more debt and inflation we'll have in future". But it's (sadly) not accurate to say we can't afford lockdowns any more. We aren't yet at that stage.

Unfortunately, unless and until both of the above change, we will continue to be vulnerable to the risk of lockdowns being imposed upon us at any moment.

That risk really has very little to do with case rates or anything like that - it is down to whether it is politically acceptable to imprison everyone.

In turn, it will take a seismic U-turn of policy for that to change - one of such magnitude as I can only foresee a major coalition of doom-mongers achieving.

There would need to be a shock at the ballot box to the pro-lockdown parties to achieve this.

I think it might be possible if someone on a specifically anti-lockdown platform made big inroads at the local elections.

 

[Bantamzen]

A significant proportion are, but a great many are so blind or brainwashed as to still be willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt.

The latter are still happy to swallow whatever twaddle the media and the government come up with, whether that's "there are variants of concern circulating" or "epidemiologist says no-one would get Covid if we all stayed home a bit longer"

No measure can go too far in their eyes, if it supposedly results in a few less people dying of (or with) Covid.

This is all anecdotal, but looking across media website comment sections & social media, there is a tangible change in mood. And the remarkably successful vaccination programme in this country, to which a lot of people have staked their hopes, is fuelling this change. Yes there are some significant, pro-lockdown voices close to the government's ear & there is still a serious risk that they will set the agenda, I get the feeling this will be accepted less and less as the weeks pass.

That's one way of presenting the facts, another would be to simply say "the longer this goes on for, the more debt and inflation we'll have in future". But it's (sadly) not accurate to say we can't afford lockdowns any more. We aren't yet at that stage.

Unfortunately, unless and until both of the above change, we will continue to be vulnerable to the risk of lockdowns being imposed upon us at any moment.

That risk really has very little to do with case rates or anything like that - it is down to whether it is politically acceptable to imprison everyone.

In turn, it will take a seismic U-turn of policy for that to change - one of such magnitude as I can only foresee a major coalition of doom-mongers achieving.

As I said, the Chancellor made it clear that we cannot keep up with the levels of rising debt. He has already driven the decision to reduce the pay offer to the NHS, frozen most of the rest of the public sector wages, and stored up 5 years worth of effect tax rises by freezing tax allowances. Once decisions like these are made, that is your indication that the financial situation is locked in, making further lockdowns incredibly difficult to enact without creating a whole range of worsening conditions in the public sector. As I've said elsewhere, when the public sector is getting hit, especially with measures as unpopular as the NHS pay deal, it is a sign that the debt is not palatable.

And all of this is only the opening salvo, the Autumn Statement is absolutely guaranteed to carry even more bad financial news, and all based on the current roadmap. Any extension will force an even harder line.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The comments about government continually extending restrictions, 3 weeks then 12 then November then Christmas. Sorry but if you believed them that is your fault. Nothing at the time indicated they would be the direction of travel. Even when the vaccine was announced most people were making clear that we needed to get all of groups 1-9 immunised before we could go back to near normal. Which I think is effectively what's happening. I might disagree with it but from December the message I've read is, it'll be early summer before we can massively lift restrictions. That seems to be what is happening so my expectations haven't changed at all.

Like I say, not saying I agree with it but my expectations haven't changed since December so what am I reading that's different to everyone else? If it's just what Boris says, think he proved before covid that there is no point listening to him, same with media.

 

[initiation]

Even when the vaccine was announced most people were making clear that we needed to get all of groups 1-9 immunised before we could go back to near normal.

This was Boris' announcement on the third lockdown on Jan 4th. Where does he refer to groups 1-9?

By the middle of February, if things go well and with a fair wind in our sails, we expect to have offered the first vaccine dose to everyone in the four top priority groups identified by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

That means vaccinating all residents in a care home for older adults and their carers, everyone over the age of 70, all frontline health and social care workers, and everyone who is clinically extremely vulnerable.

If we succeed in vaccinating all those groups, we will have removed huge numbers of people from the path of the virus.

We smashed the top 4 group target and protection offered is better than hoped.

He later goes onto refer to a lag for protection to develop which has now already been achieved, and for that to filter through to NHS admissions. Hospital admissions and deaths are down massively.

 

[DB]

This was Boris' announcement on the third lockdown on Jan 4th. Where does he refer to groups 1-9?


We smashed the top 4 group target and protection offered is better than hoped.

He later goes onto refer to a lag for protection to develop which has now already been achieved, and for that to filter through to NHS admissions. Hospital admissions and deaths are down massively.

As usual, the goalposts have moved...

 

[Domh245]

This was Boris' announcement on the third lockdown on Jan 4th. Where does he refer to groups 1-9?


We smashed the top 4 group target and protection offered is better than hoped.

He later goes onto refer to a lag for protection to develop which has now already been achieved, and for that to filter through to NHS admissions. Hospital admissions and deaths are down massively.

Where in that quote does it say a return to normal once Groups 1-4 are done?

We've done brilliantly on groups 1-4, but it's been apparent to those paying attention that in terms of "protecting the NHS" it's key to continue through to group 9, as it's the 50/60 year olds who are most likely to occupy a hospital bed for weeks on end.

Hospital admissions in particularly have been primarily brought down through the lockdown (yet occupancy still remains at high levels, certainly too high to restart 'normal' service in most cases, let alone the sort of catchup that is required from deferring a year of normal service) - there's still a large number of people at-risk of hospital admission that are unvaccinated (or recently vaccinated) hence the caution in opening up.

Also of note is to run the numbers on exactly how much risk there still is post vaccine - taking IFRs from here, mid-2019 population estimates, 85% efficacy against deaths (source), and a 95% takeup - there's still an expected total of ~110,000 more deaths from covid if allowed to spread through the entire population, ie roughly the same again as everything up to now. Hence the importance of getting the vaccine into as many arms as possible and breaking transmission

As usual, the goalposts have moved...

People seeing goalposts where there were none perhaps more accurately..

 

[Lampshade]

People seeing goalposts where there were none perhaps more accurately..

From the start of the year until around early/mid February it was all "the top four priority groups, the over 70s", then as soon as 15th Feburary approached it became "the over 50s, the over 50s".

That's moving goalposts by anyone's definition.

 

[Huntergreed]

From the start of the year until around early/mid February it was all "the top four priority groups, the over 70s", then as soon as 15th Feburary approached it became "the over 50s, the over 50s".

That's moving goalposts by anyone's definition.

And when they’re done, it’ll be “the over 30’s, the over 30’s”, and so on...

 

[Domh245]

From the start of the year until around early/mid February it was all "the top four priority groups, the over 70s", then as soon as 15th Feburary approached it became "the over 50s, the over 50s".

That's moving goalposts by anyone's definition.

Going back and checking, I'll concede slightly there.

Gov press release

The restrictions will come into effect tomorrow, and are expected to last until the middle of February if the situation in hospitals improve. By this point, the NHS hopes to have vaccinated everyone in the top four priority groups identified by the JCVI – including older care home residents and staff, everyone over 70, all frontline NHS and care staff and all those who are clinically extremely vulnerable.

Boris' speech

Then I hope we can steadily move out of lockdown, reopening schools after the February half term and starting, cautiously, to move regions down the tiers.

but my reading (at least now with hindsight, at the time I was trying to avoid all news) is that it's a highly qualified mid-February, and far from a return to normality being proffered.

 

[Class 33]

Well as I mentioned in my post last night, those hospital numbers have really tumbled since the peak in mid January. And by the end of the month, they could well be only around 1000 in hospital. The average number of daily deaths will probably easily be no more than 75 and continuing to fall. All the stats are going down far faster than they thought they would. Absolutely no justification whatsoever to delay any of the upcoming stages of lockdown easing. In my opinion the lockdown/restrictions easing dates really should be the LATEST possible dates, rather than the earliest possible dates. 21s June at the very latest is when all these stupid ridiculous hassly damaging restrictions should be gone, and no later!

 

[Bald Rick]

Well as I mentioned in my post last night, those hospital numbers have really tumbled since the peak in mid January. And by the end of the month, they could well be only around 1000 in hospital. The average number of daily deaths will probably easily be no more than 75 and continuing to fall.

As I posted in#1161, by the end of the month there will be around 3,000 in hospital, and deaths could well be under 50 daily. Infection numbers I’ve changed my mind on, given the level of testing underway. (There have been 4 tests in the household this week, compared to 2 in the last year). I suspect we will still be in the territory of 3-5000 infections daily. Albeit very few of them will get seriously ill.

 

[initiation]

Thanks to the poster above who highlighted the messaging from January.

Also of note is to run the numbers on exactly how much risk there still is post vaccine - taking IFRs from here, mid-2019 population estimates, 85% efficacy against deaths (source), and a 95% takeup - there's still an expected total of ~110,000 more deaths from covid if allowed to spread through the entire population, ie roughly the same again as everything up to now. Hence the importance of getting the vaccine into as many arms as possible and breaking transmission

You say there are no goalposts and then set these measures and that we have to get the vaccine into as many arms as possible. Where was vaccinating all adults discussed as a requirement? You've just invented this. It was never discussed as a requirement until a few weeks ago.

yet occupancy still remains at high levels

The number of people with a positive test for Covid in hospital has dropped by nearly 75%. It is contuing to drop rapidly. The key reason given why we went into lockdown mk.3 was to stopped the NHS being overwhelmed. That is no longer a serious risk.

Another quote from Matt Hancock in January. It's behind a pay wall but I will quote the relevant bit:

‘We’re going to have a great summer’: an interview with Matt Hancock

Hospitals are filling up at a terrifying pace, with more Covid-19 cases now than ever. A new variant is sweeping through the capital and the country, with more than a million of us currently infected. Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, says she is more worried now than she has been at...

www.spectator.co.uk

When Covid hospital cases fall and pressure on the NHS is lifted, he says, ‘That is the point at which we can look to lift the restrictions.’ So what about herd immunity, vaccinating so many people that the virus dies out? ‘The goal is not to ensure that we vaccinate the whole population before that point, it is to vaccinate those who are vulnerable. Then that’s the moment at which we can carefully start to lift the restrictions.’ But at that point the majority would remain unprotected.

No where does it mention a requirement for further groups to be vaccinated to be linked to unlocking.
Infact he says:

But at that point the majority would remain unprotected. Would he — as Health Secretary — still say it’s time to abolish the restrictions? ‘Cry freedom,’ he replies.

 

[packermac]

Remember boys and girls, it's just 3 weeks to flatten the curve, 12 weeks to send the virus packing, normality by September, November then Christmas, then freedom once the vulnerable are vaccinated, then Easter and now mid-summer.

It's always just a few more bloody weeks. The ever shifting goalposts. When did giving everyone immunity become the goal?

If people want to throw away their lives hiding away that is fine, just don't force those who want to get back to actually living to do the same.

Have you never worked anywhere that has a major crisis and the goalposts keep moving sometimes hourly?
Think aviation after 9/11 one and three year plans that lasted about a week, mantra of we are all in it together, staff going on unpaid furlough or taking pay cuts and then being made redundant a few months later.
Major crisis bring out major changes to plans quickly, the governments mistake was not doing enough soon enough and being far too positive, really just pure optimism.

 

[Ianno87]

Have you never worked anywhere that has a major crisis and the goalposts keep moving sometimes hourly?
Think aviation after 9/11 one and three year plans that lasted about a week, mantra of we are all in it together, staff going on unpaid furlough or taking pay cuts and then being made redundant a few months later.
Major crisis bring out major changes to plans quickly, the governments mistake was not doing enough soon enough and being far too positive, really just pure optimism.

Yes, absolutely nothing wrong with changing plans to meet evolving circumstances, where that is a justifiable thing to do.

 

[Crossover]

Personally I wouldn't include LFTs in the positivity calculation as that will give a much lower positivity rate (what do you expect when you are testing asymptomatic, healthy people?), so as per usual it is easy to manipulate statistics to suit one's narrative.

We probably don't have all the stats available, but I have just run the number for 9th March based on
5766 positive cases
286,539 lab samples processed (rather than the 1.3 million tests done overall)

Positivity rate is 2.01% based on those numbers. I think whatever way we look at it, the positivity is well below 5%

 

[Domh245]

You say there are no goalposts and then set these measures and that we have to get the vaccine into as many arms as possible. Where was vaccinating all adults discussed as a requirement? You've just invented this. It was never discussed as a requirement until a few weeks ago.

I'm not setting any measures, just pointing out that even with 'excellent' vaccine numbers there's still a pretty large number of people at risk which is why we've not seen a "jab 1-4 then let it go" approach. I'd love to claim credit for inventing this, but it's something that SAGE have been considering since December (and revising as they go and more numbers come in)

• The impact of immunisation on the epidemic critically depends on the effect of the vaccine on the infectiousness of those who have been vaccinated. This is currently unknown.
• It is very important to get extremely high vaccine coverage in the most vulnerable groups before non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are eased (or adherence to them drops) if we are to avoid a very high death toll.
• To reach herd immunity from vaccination, coverage of the adult population would need to be very high and vaccines would need to be highly efficacious against transmission.
• If vaccines are not highly effective against infection and transmission, then they will not directly lead to herd immunity on their own; further naturally-acquired immunity would be needed as well.
• Once the vaccine has been rolled out to the most vulnerable people, there will be scope for partial relaxation of non-pharmaceutical interventions(or lower adherence to them), but the extent of this scope is highly dependent upon the impact of vaccines on viral transmission.
• Vaccines will prevent more COVID-19 deaths if restrictions are maintained and well-adhered to until a late stage of the vaccine rollout, and if prevalence kept low until that point

It's not been well communicated, but it's quite clearly the aim to vaccinate as many as possible

The number of people with a positive test for Covid in hospital has dropped by nearly 75%. It is contuing to drop rapidly. The key reason given why we went into lockdown mk.3 was to stopped the NHS being overwhelmed. That is no longer a serious risk.

ICUs continue to be well above normal occupancy (and unhelpfully one of the less affected metrics by vaccination to this point). Based on the rate of decline that's been seen the last couple of weeks, it'll be around the 20th of March before we hit normal sorts of levels again and pressure on the NHS can be considered 'eased' (though with staff burnout & significant backlogs, and working practices still impacted by Covid precautions it'll be a while before it's truly eased)

 

[initiation]

Major crisis bring out major changes to plans quickly, the governments mistake was not doing enough soon enough and being far too positive, really just pure optimism.

You say it is optimism but with reference to the quote by Matt Hancock above.
1) Vaccine rollout has been faster than anticipated
2) Vaccine effectiveness has been significantly better than expected.
3) Vaccine takeup has been very high in the vulnerable groups.

So why has it shifted from vaccinating groups 1-4 (the vulnerable) to 1-9 and then to essentially all adults before we have freedoms returned?


---

It's not been well communicated, but it's quite clearly the aim to vaccinate as many as possible

So you admit that the goal posts given to the public have been changed?

there's still a pretty large number of people at risk which is why we've not seen a "jab 1-4 then let it go" approach

If it is so clear why did the health sacretary say in January 2021 (in the midst of the peak, we knew about variants etc..) that this was not the plan:

The goal is not to ensure that we vaccinate the whole population before that point, it is to vaccinate those who are vulnerable. Then that’s the moment at which we can carefully start to lift the restrictions.’ But at that point the majority would remain unprotected. Would he — as Health Secretary — still say it’s time to abolish the restrictions? ‘Cry freedom,’ he replies.

Or in the lockdown press release they say:

The restrictions will come into effect tomorrow, and are expected to last until the middle of February if the situation in hospitals improve. By this point, the NHS hopes to have vaccinated everyone in the top four priority groups

Sure it might be hidden away in some SAGE advisory document but never was this discussed with the public or in parliament. It was not the basis on which lockdown was 'sold'.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not setting any measures, just pointing out that even with 'excellent' vaccine numbers there's still a pretty large number of people at risk which is why we've not seen a "jab 1-4 then let it go" approach. I'd love to claim credit for inventing this, but it's something that SAGE have been considering since December (and revising as they go and more numbers come in)



It's not been well communicated, but it's quite clearly the aim to vaccinate as many as possible



ICUs continue to be well above normal occupancy (and unhelpfully one of the less affected metrics by vaccination to this point). Based on the rate of decline that's been seen the last couple of weeks, it'll be around the 20th of March before we hit normal sorts of levels again and pressure on the NHS can be considered 'eased' (though with staff burnout & significant backlogs, and working practices still impacted by Covid precautions it'll be a while before it's truly eased)

View attachment 92246

People may still be at risk, but it's highly unlikely that all would catch the virus at the same time. They didn't when there weren't any vaccines, so why would they expect this now ?

The impacts of any resurgence in the virus will be considerably less than would have been the case otherwise, particularly now that inroads for first vaccinations are being made into the 50 - 60+ group which is more likely to end up in hospital.

I agree with the aim of vaccinating as many as possible, however restrictions should be being wound down more quickly than they are now. That they aren't is because SAGE see them as their "go-to" solution, rather than something to be used in emergencies only.

 

[Domh245]

So you admit that the goal posts given to the public have been changed?



If it is so clear why did the health sacretary say in January 2021 (in the midst of the peak, we knew about variants etc..) that this was not the plan:

Or in the lockdown press release they say:

Sure it might be hidden away in some SAGE advisory document but never was this discussed with the public or in parliament. It was not the basis on which lockdown was 'sold'.

Like I said before, I've been avoiding the news and public briefings because they get me down and tend to just get on my nerves, so I can't really comment about any goalposts given to the public and if they've changed. I've been under the impression that it'll be a slow easing this time around more or less since the start

Re-read what Hancock actually says (ignoring the odd bit about crying freedom) - and even the press-release accompanying the lockdown

When Covid hospital cases fall and pressure on the NHS is lifted, he says, ‘That is the point at which we can look to lift the restrictions.’ So what about herd immunity, vaccinating so many people that the virus dies out? ‘The goal is not to ensure that we vaccinate the whole population before that point, it is to vaccinate those who are vulnerable. Then that’s the moment at which we can carefully start to lift the restrictions.’

There's a huge qualifier on lifting restrictions (NHS pressure) which, whilst nebulous, is driving the continued restrictions. Even getting beyond that, it's "carefully start to lift restriction" - which is what we're seeing. I think we're seeing an overly cautious easing granted, but that's the direction that the government want to take and rightly so to ensure that we don't have to reimplement them (let's not do the "but we don't have to" argument again because when the government has made clear it's determination to manage the impact of covid on NHS and avoid too many excess deaths, it's clear that they would be reimplemented. It's like designing a building but refusing to acknowledge gravity because it's inconvenient)

Poor government communication & "goalpost moving" will definitely be an interesting chapter of the inquiry if/when they get around to one.

People may still be at risk, but it's highly unlikely that all would catch the virus at the same time. They didn't when there weren't any vaccines, so why would they expect this now ?

The impacts of any resurgence in the virus will be considerably less than would have been the case otherwise, particularly now that inroads for first vaccinations are being made into the 50 - 60+ group which is more likely to end up in hospital.

I agree with the aim of vaccinating as many as possible, however restrictions should be being wound down more quickly than they are now. That they aren't is because SAGE see them as their "go-to" solution, rather than something to be used in emergencies only.

Agreed they obviously won't catch it and die at the same time, but the point was more that there's still a significant body of people who are susceptible. In the scenario where restrictions are significantly eased or entirely removed before herd immunity thresholds are reached, you'd expect to see relatively rapid spread and consequently relatively large numbers of these deaths occurring in a short period of time which is where the trouble sets in. The warwick and imperial papers show this, though the numbers they arrive at are significant overestimates, particularly with the numbers coming out of the vaccine programme as well. Some number of those 110,000 will die of covid 19, but it's making sure that they're dying in the order of 10s/day, not 100s/day

Each day before easing results in a better outcome, but finding the goldilocks point of vaccination coverage, case rates and remaining restrictions remains nigh-on impossible, hence the overcautious approach. I agree that things could, and should, be moved forward. Not shortening the time between easings for example, but moving some things one stage forward I don't think would hurt.

 

[cuccir]

So you admit that the goal posts given to the public have been changed?

I don't think Boris has even tried to be honest. His whole modus operandi is short-termism: worry about the next 3-4 months, don't worry about strategy or what has happened before.

So personally I'd say that the rhetoric from government leadership has changed wildly and will continue to do so, but dig a little deeper and I think the path we're currently on has been fairly locked-in since September, when the reopening of universities and the late-implementation of tier 3 regulations in many places together started a spike in cases. The only differences have been:

• the Kent variant making the current lockdown stricter than I would have expected/hoped - I think we might have gotten away with the old-style tier 3 or 4 since December otherwise, which is more like what we're just starting to move into until mid-April
• the vaccine working better than we might have predicted makes full, limit-free reopening by the end of June likely, whereas a few months ago I might have expected a few residual measures in place for the summer

I don't think there's been any difference beyond that

 

[yorksrob]

Agreed they obviously won't catch it and die at the same time, but the point was more that there's still a significant body of people who are susceptible. In the scenario where restrictions are significantly eased or entirely removed before herd immunity thresholds are reached, you'd expect to see relatively rapid spread and consequently relatively large numbers of these deaths occurring in a short period of time which is where the trouble sets in. The warwick and imperial papers show this, though the numbers they arrive at are significant overestimates, particularly with the numbers coming out of the vaccine programme as well. Some number of those 110,000 will die of covid 19, but it's making sure that they're dying in the order of 10s/day, not 100s/day

Each day before easing results in a better outcome, but finding the goldilocks point of vaccination coverage, case rates and remaining restrictions remains nigh-on impossible, hence the overcautious approach. I agree that things could, and should, be moved forward. Not shortening the time between easings for example, but moving some things one stage forward I don't think would hurt.

It would be a good start if perhaps lockdown restrictions were removed quickly, but the other restrictions (akin to summer last year) remained in place while the remainder of the vaccination programme rolled out.

There just seems to me to be a dislocation between what the modellers are saying will happen now, with the vaccination programme having visited the groups that are most likely to suffer mortality, along with first doses for those who are most likely to be hospitalised, and the sorts of numbers and infections that occurred when no one had been vaccinated. I would have expected that to have been a lot greater and faster, going by what the models are predicting now, yet even when spread was at its height last year, the percentage of people infected turned out to be a small proportion of the country.

 

[cuccir]

but my reading (at least now with hindsight, at the time I was trying to avoid all news) is that it's a highly qualified mid-February, and far from a return to normality being proffered.

My understanding was that mid-February was the date of the review, and that it was always going to be a lag from there to any sort of change because you have to wait until the vaccine kicks in. Indeed if you go further down that speech from mid-February Boris said:

I must stress that even if we achieve this goal, there remains a time lag of two to three weeks from getting a jab to receiving immunity.

And there will be a further time lag before the pressure on the NHS is lifted./

Monday 8th March, when the first changes were made, was indeed three weeks after the 15th Feb review date that was announced so in that sense we are in keeping with that timeline from early January. It's then possible to argue we should be opening up more quickly, or have prioritized other things, but the timeframe to the first lifting of restrictions has been maintained.

 

[MikeWM]

You say it is optimism but with reference to the quote by Matt Hancock above.
1) Vaccine rollout has been faster than anticipated
2) Vaccine effectiveness has been significantly better than expected.
3) Vaccine takeup has been very high in the vulnerable groups.

So why has it shifted from vaccinating groups 1-4 (the vulnerable) to 1-9 and then to essentially all adults before we have freedoms returned?

In my opinion - and I appreciate I'm becoming rather repetitive on this, but it is the most important issue we've faced in decades - this is because they have 'changed' their minds on whether we're going to have 'domestic vaccine passports'.

There's no point in reopening pubs or cinemas, and then some time *later* introducing the idea that you need a 'vaccine passport' to go there, if people have already been going to them without any issues. [Admittedly they did exactly that with masks last year, but I'm not sure this is quite the same].

Equally, for the idea of a 'domestic vaccine passport' to work, you need to press for (almost) everyone to have a vaccine, not just the vulnerable.

As ever, I may be wrong on this. I fear I'm not.

 

[brad465]

I don't think Boris has even tried to be honest. His whole modus operandi is short-termism: worry about the next 3-4 months, don't worry about strategy or what has happened before.

So personally I'd say that the rhetoric from government leadership has changed wildly and will continue to do so, but dig a little deeper and I think the path we're currently on has been fairly locked-in since September, when the reopening of universities and the late-implementation of tier 3 regulations in many places together started a spike in cases. The only differences have been:

• the Kent variant making the current lockdown stricter than I would have expected/hoped - I think we might have gotten away with the old-style tier 3 or 4 since December otherwise, which is more like what we're just starting to move into until mid-April
• the vaccine working better than we might have predicted makes full, limit-free reopening by the end of June likely, whereas a few months ago I might have expected a few residual measures in place for the summer

I don't think there's been any difference beyond that

His short-termism is even more short term than the next 3-4 months, it can be argued with some things it's about getting to tomorrow, or maybe the next few weeks. Either way, I strongly agree he cannot fathom a long-term strategy; this roadmap is probably one of the longest term strategies he's come up with in his entire political career for any given matter.

 

[Tezza1978]

In my opinion - and I appreciate I'm becoming rather repetitive on this, but it is the most important issue we've faced in decades - this is because they have 'changed' their minds on whether we're going to have 'domestic vaccine passports'.

There's no point in reopening pubs or cinemas, and then some time *later* introducing the idea that you need a 'vaccine passport' to go there, if people have already been going to them without any issues. [Admittedly they did exactly that with masks last year, but I'm not sure this is quite the same].

Equally, for the idea of a 'domestic vaccine passport' to work, you need to press for (almost) everyone to have a vaccine, not just the vulnerable.

As ever, I may be wrong on this. I fear I'm not.

There simply isnt going to be any kind of workable "domestic" vaccine passport by the May 17th date. I really don't think it will happen, unless its use is highly restricted - e.g for mass events - because of the huge difficulties in implementing it, discrimination concerns, probably big legal challenges. A more limited "jab or test " proof for mass events is more likely to be acceptable PROVIDING its time limited in law. I would be massively against domestic vaccine passports to go to shops, go to the pub etc and I think its a non starter due to public outcry and the threat of Boris' own backbenchers who would oust him

 

[MikeWM]

There simply isnt going to be any kind of workable "domestic" vaccine passport by the May 17th date. I really don't think it will happen, unless its use is highly restricted - e.g for mass events - because of the huge difficulties in implementing it, discrimination concerns, probably big legal challenges. A more limited "jab or test " proof for mass events is more likely to be acceptable PROVIDING its time limited in law. I would be massively against domestic vaccine passports to go to shops, go to the pub etc and I think its a non starter due to public outcry and the threat of Boris' own backbenchers who would oust him

I hope you're right. I'll be most happy if I'm wrong about this!

 

[DB]

I hope you're right. I'll be most happy if I'm wrong about this!

Well, if they do try it let's hope they put Dido Harding in charge...

 

[Eyersey468]

I don't think Boris has even tried to be honest. His whole modus operandi is short-termism: worry about the next 3-4 months, don't worry about strategy or what has happened before.

So personally I'd say that the rhetoric from government leadership has changed wildly and will continue to do so, but dig a little deeper and I think the path we're currently on has been fairly locked-in since September, when the reopening of universities and the late-implementation of tier 3 regulations in many places together started a spike in cases. The only differences have been:

• the Kent variant making the current lockdown stricter than I would have expected/hoped - I think we might have gotten away with the old-style tier 3 or 4 since December otherwise, which is more like what we're just starting to move into until mid-April
• the vaccine working better than we might have predicted makes full, limit-free reopening by the end of June likely, whereas a few months ago I might have expected a few residual measures in place for the summer

I don't think there's been any difference beyond that

I agree about Boris's (dis) honesty, the only one with any credibility left in my eyes is Sunak

 

[liam456]

Some exerpts from Chris Whitty speaking to the Science and Technology Committee have really mellowed my attitudes towards England's roadmap.
He's articulate and clear and I think some might want to listen to them:

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com