• Dear Guest, and welcome to RailUK Forums. Our non-railway discussion forums are currently restricted until members have five or more posts, and you will not be able to make a new thread or reply to an existing one in this section until you have made five or more posts elsewhere on the forum.

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

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
3,711
Perhaps you could answer this. We were told repeatedly last year that vaccines were the way out of this. Now it is quite apparent that they are no longer regarded as the way out of the pandemic by our lords and masters, who are instead keen to further increase mass testing as a prerequisite to some supposed reopening. Why have they made this change?
Answered in another comment, but as a summary:
  • Caution (nothing is certain, we don't know what will happen for certain next month even with a vaccine so it is somewhat naive to think we can plan and not have to potentially change that plan as we get closer to the date - if anything I'd say any plan that says by date x we will be doing y, regardless of anything else is utterly stupid as so much about the situation could have changed by then).
  • To prepare people for the worst (like when we were told last year that a vaccine may be a year or more away).
  • Scientists being scientists (it is their job to focus on the specifics of the spread of the virus - its governments job to take what the scientists say and mix it with input from other experts, it isn't the fault of the scientists that government seems unable to do this due to their incompetency).
  • The current high spread of the virus and high level of deaths, hospitilations and cases (which hopefully will reduce quickly thanks to the vaccine, but it is still pretty high at the moment and has been high since December).
As I've already said, I do agree that some of the scientists are living in cloud coo coo land and probably shouldn't be talking to the media either. So by all means have a go at them for that. But in terms of their advice to government, I see no problems at all as it is governments job to then then take that advice and work out what is doable in the context of economics, other healthcare, education etc etc.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
11,898
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I don't think it is fair to say the government are seeking to keep the population depressed and suppressed at all.
Do you genuinely, actually, honestly, believe the governments goal here is to "keep people depressed and suppressed"?
By all argue that their policies in their goal of trying to control the COVID-19 pandemic has led to that (I'd agree with that argument), but to claim like you have that those specific things are what the government is trying to achieve? Really?

I think there’s two factors:

(1) the government has gone so far down a particular policy route that it’s politically almost impossible to retreat or find another path without admitting failure - which is itself politically a total no-no given the severe economic effects which are the consequence of what has already happened, indeed we’re already seeing them. So this policy *must* succeed, and even if it’s failing it still *must* succeed...

(2) Boris needs to personally disassociate himself from the 100,000 (+) deaths versus 20,000 being “a good outcome”. The “follow the science” policy is his best way to do that, as when the inquiries come Whitty and company can be thrown under the bus. There’s then a negative feedback loop, as the scientists knowing they are heading straight for under the bus will err well on the side of caution. Whilst this won’t save Boris’s premiership, it’s the only way to attempt to save his reputation / ego. The ambitious Eton boy with the gift of the gab has gone well and truly out of his depth, so anything is now on the table to try to allow him to walk away with some element of reputation still intact.

For Britain as a whole, the lesson is to stop electing vacuous Etonians with little life knowledge or experience. Unfortunately for as long as our political system is a circus of career politicians and failed businessmen, we’re not going to lift ourselves out of this rut.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
2,010
Location
Ely
So I'll be able to go on holiday to Woolacombe with my partner, I'll be able to visit my parents in Wales, and I'll be able to see live music in some venues near where I live, I'll be able to see friends in local pubs and be able to go out for a meal (and get money off)? All just before I can get a vaccine (based on what has been announced)? I'd take that.

It would be better than now, but if social distancing and masks are still in place by then for example, or the 'rule of six', there may well not be any hotels or live venues left by the summer. 'No worse than last summer' is not ambitious, and is not what we were told until a few weeks ago.

And if there are still restrictions like those in place by the summer, when all the vulnerable who choose to be vaccinated have been - why would those restrictions *ever* go away?

Partly to prepare people for the worst. Just as when we were being told that a vaccine may be a year or longer away last year.

What worst? And how would more lockdowns or more restrictions help if it came about?

And partly because the people who the government are asking are specifically experts in how to deal with a pandemic, so their thoughts and opinions will often be limited to that goal. Now, by all means I agree with some other comments from this forum about how out of touch some of these scientists are. But focusing on the singular goal of preventing the virus spreading is their job. It is governments responsibility to take that advice, water it down, take into account some advice from economists and experts in other fields, and then create policy that balances all the above as much as possible. You can't blame the scientists for the governments inability to form sensible policy. That is governments fault.

I agree with that, but there is also a clear selectiveness in picking which scientists are being asked to comment, both by government and even moreso by media. Many have different opinions on what measures may help 'prevent the virus spreading' and what measures do not.

And also because we are currently at a much higher rate of cases, deaths' and general spread of the virus than what we were at this time last year. That means that if you ignored the vaccine, it will take longer for that to come back down to similar levels as we saw last summer.

But the graphs currently don't show that at all - this peak appears to actually be collapsing faster than the one last spring, from a starting point two months or so earlier.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
27,586
Location
Yorks
It would be better than now, but if social distancing and masks are still in place by then for example, or the 'rule of six', there may well not be any hotels or live venues left by the summer. 'No worse than last summer' is not ambitious, and is not what we were told until a few weeks ago.

And if there are still restrictions like those in place by the summer, when all the vulnerable who choose to be vaccinated have been - why would those restrictions *ever* go away?



What worst? And how would more lockdowns or more restrictions help if it came about?

Spot on. No point having the same restrictions as last year if half of the businesses that were there have gone bust.

I also agree with your point that the worst case scenario doesn't make lockdown any more of a sustainable long term strategy for living with the virus, so it's pointless pro-lockdown people navel gazing about it.
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
2,214
Same here. I’m also not seeing or hearing about any large scale breaking of rules and mixing of households. In fact I’m not aware of it happening very much at all around here. Perhaps everyone in my village are all in and out of one another’s houses after dark when I am in my house with the curtains closed. On that subject I can’t remember the last time I went out after dark as there’s no reason when everywhere is closed.
Perhaps it does not happen in your village but people do not advertise it if they are doing it. What people are doing in urban areas of cities and towns may well be very different from your village.
 

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
2,263
Location
Leeds
Well yes they've slowed down a bit this week. But chances are they'll pick up a bit again. But even if cases do rise again, then that won't matter too much now as the hospital numbers and deaths will continue to fall week on week. The most vulnerable people have already been vaccinated, and these vulnerable people previously accounted for 90% of hospitalisations and deaths. They won't be going into hospital or dieing from Coronavirus now.
Well. Before they recognised another 2 million ‘most vulnerable’. I’d be careful about assuming that hospitalisation and death rates will fall in that group. There are still many unknowns with the vaccines.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
7,519
Location
nowhere
But the graphs currently don't show that at all - this peak appears to actually be collapsing faster than the one last spring, from a starting point two months or so earlier.

The number of positive tests are coming down at about the same rate as they were during the last post-peak in may (about 4% decrease in rolling avg each day) although the obvious caveat to this is that the testing is far more widespread now, so I think we can safely say we're below the equivalent point we were at last year despite the higher positive test numbers

Perhaps you could answer this. We were told repeatedly last year that vaccines were the way out of this. Now it is quite apparent that they are no longer regarded as the way out of the pandemic by our lords and masters, who are instead keen to further increase mass testing as a prerequisite to some supposed reopening. Why have they made this change?

I'd been under the impression that the mass testing was a 'transitional' stage - in the period between starting to reopen and completing the vaccination programme, there needs to be some level of risk mitigation. Vaccines are the way out, but it's reliant on getting them into arms
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
2,354
Well. Before they recognised another 2 million ‘most vulnerable’. I’d be careful about assuming that hospitalisation and death rates will fall in that group. There are still many unknowns with the vaccines.
But we can't keep doing this. Afraid these people will have to isolate until they are vaccinated and let rest of us help get the economy going again otherwise they'll be nothing for them anyway. We gave got to stop putting barriers in the way, which keeps people who will have almost no chance of serious consequences from this virus stuck in their homes whilst economy collapses, which includes people's businesses and wellbeing gets worse. We'll end up with a much bigger problem in the end.
 

Ediswan

Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
557
Location
Stevenage
Statistics for tests/results are subject to a lot of confounding factors. I look more at the graphs for hospital admissions and deaths.

Because this is an exponential process, comparisons are most easily made to when each figure was previously at the same value (and falling). On that basis, both figures are dropping faster thaan previously. It is to be hoped this will get better still as the vaccination programme takes effect.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
16,928
Perhaps you could answer this. We were told repeatedly last year that vaccines were the way out of this. Now it is quite apparent that they are no longer regarded as the way out of the pandemic by our lords and masters, who are instead keen to further increase mass testing as a prerequisite to some supposed reopening. Why have they made this change?

We were told as recently as this week that vaccination remains the best route out of the pandemic. That message hasn’t changed.

What has changed, of course, is the virus, which as I won’t need to remind anyone makes it substantially more infectious. Had we still been dealing with the old strain, we may well have been seeing many lockdown restrictions ending in the next week or two, assuming the vaccination had progressed in the same way. Now it’s fair to say that it was pretty obvious that the virus would change; it was less obvious that it would change in a way that made it 70% more infectious.

The mass testing is, in my opinion part of the response to keep a lid on infection, particularly in ‘hot spot’ areas, until herd immunity develops.
 

Mintona

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2006
Messages
3,400
Location
South West
Answer this - if this was actually a plan to make restrictions last as long as possible (forever as some people are claiming), then why vaccinate people at all? Why reduce restrictions when they have been?

To keep the population hoping before they crush that hope at some unknown point in the future. To see how far they can stretch people before they blow. A science experiment, as it were.

what a stupid statement,the country wouldnt survive that

We’ll find out I guess won’t we. The falling rate of infection is slowing, nothing except schools will open anytime soon.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
5,157
Location
Nottingham
Now it’s fair to say that it was pretty obvious that the virus would change; it was less obvious that it would change in a way that made it 70% more infectious.
Which is it not, that number has been massively revised down recently.
 

DorkingMain

Member
Joined
25 Aug 2020
Messages
533
Location
London, UK
Sadly, my prediction is the same in that respect.

It's noteworthy that in Northern Ireland it's a reasonable excuse to visit someone else in their house, as long as you do so with no more than 30 people in total. They also permit bubbles between any two households - there is no requirement for one household to be a single-adult household.

I'm sure a maximum even significantly below 30 (say, the rule of 6) would bring massive mental health and wellbeing benefits to the millions of people that are struggling right now. And so, if that rule is good enough for them, with no indication that it is stopping the case rates etc. from dropping as in the rest of the UK, why can it not be adopted in other parts of the UK?

We are just about the only part of Europe (apart from Ireland, which is like Wales on steroids in terms of its locktivism) where you cannot meet with one other household indoors. That basic level of social interaction is a crucial part of being human and remaining sane. I dread to think of the impact this is having on millions of lives.


Yes, due to the exponential nature of the growth and decline of infections, you get the worst of all worlds. Diseases start spreading ever faster, and once you start reducing cases, your 'progress' back to zero takes (in theory) an infinite length of time.

This is just one of many reasons why aspirations for zero Covid are, in the short to medium term, unrealistic and dangerous in their own right.
Same here. I’m also not seeing or hearing about any large scale breaking of rules and mixing of households. In fact I’m not aware of it happening very much at all around here. Perhaps everyone in my village are all in and out of one another’s houses after dark when I am in my house with the curtains closed. On that subject I can’t remember the last time I went out after dark as there’s no reason when everywhere is closed.
I doubt there is any, on a large scale. I could almost guarantee that almost all transmission now will be in workplaces.

The government won't touch that idea or admit it (apparently there has been absolutely zero effort to enforce COVID security violations) because they don't want to upset the economy any further, and they don't want employers to call their bluff and furlough all their staff rather than continuing on.

Much easier to invent the idea that people are going out partying and coughing on each other.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
16,928
Which is it not, that number has been massively revised down recently.

Apologies, I used the BMJ from 8 weeks ago, I hadn’t seen anything since.

 

6862

Member
Joined
3 Dec 2014
Messages
506
What has changed, of course, is the virus, which as I won’t need to remind anyone makes it substantially more infectious. Had we still been dealing with the old strain, we may well have been seeing many lockdown restrictions ending in the next week or two, assuming the vaccination had progressed in the same way. Now it’s fair to say that it was pretty obvious that the virus would change; it was less obvious that it would change in a way that made it 70% more infectious.

This 70% more infectious figure was banded about a lot but that was the upper bound of the possible increased infectiousness. More recent figures put it much closer to 30% more infectious. It still doesn't take away from the fact that the 'cure' is now definitely worse than the disease.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
16,928
This 70% more infectious figure was banded about a lot but that was the upper bound of the possible increased infectiousness. More recent figures put it much closer to 30% more infectious. It still doesn't take away from the fact that the 'cure' is now definitely worse than the disease.

The article I linked to, from 8 weeks ago, ranged 67-75%, with 71% being the central quoted figure. I wouldn’t say the BMJ is known for ‘banding about’ data like this.

Nevertheless, even at 30% (and I haven’t seen that figure quoted anywhere) is the difference between a weekly in cases of 25% like we are seeing now, and over 40%, which would have made the ‘cure’ work much more quickly. That’s my point.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
11,898
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I doubt there is any, on a large scale. I could almost guarantee that almost all transmission now will be in workplaces.

The government won't touch that idea or admit it (apparently there has been absolutely zero effort to enforce COVID security violations) because they don't want to upset the economy any further, and they don't want employers to call their bluff and furlough all their staff rather than continuing on.

Much easier to invent the idea that people are going out partying and coughing on each other.

Agreed. Workplaces and hospitals. And then of course within households when someone brings it back from one of those settings.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
3,473
Location
Northern England
I think it would be an absolutely terrible idea to remove any restrictions without dropping the messaging deterring use of public transport.
It would effectively be the government saying that if those who can afford to own a car are more valuable to society than everyone else. I'm sure there are plenty of Tory party members who hold that (frankly utterly vile) belief, but I think it would be an unacceptable message to be sending.
 

chris11256

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2012
Messages
666
I think it would be an absolutely terrible idea to remove any restrictions without dropping the messaging deterring use of public transport.
It would effectively be the government saying that if those who can afford to own a car are more valuable to society than everyone else. I'm sure there are plenty of Tory party members who hold that belief, but I think it would be an unacceptable message to be sending.
I fear public transport is now down & out for a generation. Too many people believe they’ll be killed by covid by getting on a bus/train. It’ll take a very long time to reverse the mindset.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
27,586
Location
Yorks
I think it would be an absolutely terrible idea to remove any restrictions without dropping the messaging deterring use of public transport.
It would effectively be the government saying that if those who can afford to own a car are more valuable to society than everyone else. I'm sure there are plenty of Tory party members who hold that (frankly utterly vile) belief, but I think it would be an unacceptable message to be sending.

Fortunately the messaging on and aroud public transport seems to be a lot less aggressive than first time around. If the public can bring themselves to turn up on it, they won't find themselves being heavily discouraged.
 

DavidB

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
4,814
I have a feeling that both lockdown sceptics and pro-lockdown people will be disappointed on Monday with what Boris says.

Probably!

He's managed to do that for most of the past year, so no reason to assume that will change now.

They are trying to be in control of the virus. They are not trying to control people specifically so that they can keep people depressed and suppressed.

In which case, why do they carry on with measures which are shown to have little or no effect on controlling a virus like this (as demonstrated by plenty of evidence now, including academic studies of restrictions across Europe, and loads of statistics) - but which do have massive negative effects in other areas?

Why do they even believe that they can 'control' a virus such as this one, when there is no precedent for it, ever?
 
Last edited:

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
1,172
We were told as recently as this week that vaccination remains the best route out of the pandemic. That message hasn’t changed.

What has changed, of course, is the virus, which as I won’t need to remind anyone makes it substantially more infectious. Had we still been dealing with the old strain, we may well have been seeing many lockdown restrictions ending in the next week or two, assuming the vaccination had progressed in the same way. Now it’s fair to say that it was pretty obvious that the virus would change; it was less obvious that it would change in a way that made it 70% more infectious.

The mass testing is, in my opinion part of the response to keep a lid on infection, particularly in ‘hot spot’ areas, until herd immunity develops.
Well if it really is more transmissible, and thats a big if, NPI has bashed it down at a faster rate than wave one so im not convinced. Its not taken off in other countries like we had thats because we had already lost control of the virus last autumn due to govt failure to follow its own rule of moving areas up the tiers early. So govt were never going to admit they got it wrong and failed to follow the science so diverted blame conveniently onto variant B.1.17.
 

DavidB

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
4,814
  • Face covering rules will be extended (currently the regulations for public transport expire on or about 14 June and other places on or about 23 July). The list of places where they will be required will not be added to. They will eventually be revoked sometime in 2022.

Well, if they do that it's almost certainly going to result in suicides because it's so utterly demoralising, and many of those affected are already not very resilient for one reason or another.

Those of us who can't wear masks have had enough of being regarded as toxic effluent. The glares from above the mask are normal now. Within the past few weeks I've had a member of railway staff (off-duty or between duties so far as I could see) shout down the carriage at me 'have you got a mask'. I was wearing the cursed lanyard but he couldn't be bothered to come close enough to see it - I jusr stared at him and he did come a few paces closer, then saw it and backed off. I've been chased from the door of Tesco by the door guardian with 'sir, sir, have you got a mask', then had 'proof' demanded (he backed off too when I pointed at the clearly-visible lanyard') - and this is even when going shopping mostly in the evening (there are only three or four shops I go to - not going to invite hassle by going to different ones), and with the trains nearly empty. With more people out no doubt this will get worse.

And I've had a couple of posters on here implying that I don't have a 'real', 'proper' reason for not wearing a mask (they have no idea what my reason is, but thir thinking seems to be that anyone who is openly critical of masks can't also have a valid reason for not wearing one).

And I know that many have been hassled far more than I have - at least the police force around here seems to keep a low profile.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
1,172
Answered in another comment, but as a summary:
  • Caution (nothing is certain, we don't know what will happen for certain next month even with a vaccine so it is somewhat naive to think we can plan and not have to potentially change that plan as we get closer to the date - if anything I'd say any plan that says by date x we will be doing y, regardless of anything else is utterly stupid as so much about the situation could have changed by then).
  • To prepare people for the worst (like when we were told last year that a vaccine may be a year or more away).
  • Scientists being scientists (it is their job to focus on the specifics of the spread of the virus - its governments job to take what the scientists say and mix it with input from other experts, it isn't the fault of the scientists that government seems unable to do this due to their incompetency).
  • The current high spread of the virus and high level of deaths, hospitilations and cases (which hopefully will reduce quickly thanks to the vaccine, but it is still pretty high at the moment and has been high since December).
As I've already said, I do agree that some of the scientists are living in cloud coo coo land and probably shouldn't be talking to the media either. So by all means have a go at them for that. But in terms of their advice to government, I see no problems at all as it is governments job to then then take that advice and work out what is doable in the context of economics, other healthcare, education etc etc.
Agreed we don't want dates we want the criteria is for each level of relaxation and a daily update not one that runs on fixed intervals like every 3-4 weeks. So as soon as conditions present we move down a level.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
2,120
Location
Maidstone
The Telegraph are reporting on their front page the Pfizer and AZ vaccines reduce transmission by two-thirds in all age groups, even after one dose, which is critical good news as this is part of the major health data Johnson will be using in deciding the roadmap out of lockdown:

1613692828408.png

Amazingly they think Matt Hancock is among those calling for an earlier timetable.
 

A60stock

Member
Joined
26 Aug 2019
Messages
18
Location
London
Forgive me if this has already been discussed somewhere in the forum.

I am definitely very eager to return back to a complete pre march 2020 lifestyle and can't wait for lockdown to be ended. On saying that I am under no illusion that it should be lifted early.

My question is that have people forgotten about what happened last year after the first lockdown (which was stricter btw) when cases per day were literally like close to 0 when lockdown 1 was lifted, yet we somehow went back to where we are now?

With the above in mind, and reading about speculation over what will be restricted, surely cases have to be quite close to 0 in order to avoid the risk of them going back up again? Is that possible by April? Infact last time after lockdown in summer, we didn't ditch social distancing, clubs were shut and mass gatherings were still not possible, yet we still went back to where we were in January 2021.

This is my worry that we ease out too early again and go back into the same cycle? The bottom line is that as long as the figures on the television go up (accurate or not) , we have a problem.

That being said I have no idea how you can continue this madness if that was the case as surely people will screw the whole thing.
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
1,680
Cases don't have to be close to anything. I can't understand why people can't grasp that. It is the effect of the virus that matters. If the vaccine massively reduces the chances of people dying or requiring hospital treatment then cases don't need to be low. Various scientists who want the fantasy known as zero Covid might like to make out cases need to be near zero but it simply isn't true. We could happily live with it if all it does, post-vaccination, is cause a heavy cold like illness for a few days.
 

Freightmaster

Established Member
Joined
7 Jul 2009
Messages
2,458
With the above in mind, and reading about speculation over what will be restricted, surely cases have to be quite close to 0 in order to avoid the risk of them going back up again? Is that possible by April?
That's the infamous "Zero Covid" fallacy which, while admittedly sounding at first glance like the perfect
way to bring the pandemic to a shuddering halt, is in reality utterly impossible in a densely populated,
highly interconnected country like the UK with prevalence as high as it is at present.

Even if all 'non essential' factories, offices and other workplaces were closed down at noon today and reopening
of schools was put back to July, it still wouldn't make much difference as most transmission occurs in places
which cannot be closed: hospitals, private homes and 'essential' workplaces, warehouses and factories.


This is my worry that we ease out too early again and go back into the same cycle?
There will definitely be an 'uptick' in cases as restrictions are eased, but unlike last Summer,
the vast majority of vulnerable people will have been offered a vaccination by then, so there
is no chance of the NHS being overwhelmed as was before the vaccination program started.


That being said I have no idea how you can continue this madness if that was the case as surely people will say screw the whole thing?
You don't!!




MARK
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
6,861
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Forgive me if this has already been discussed somewhere in the forum.

I am definitely very eager to return back to a complete pre march 2020 lifestyle and can't wait for lockdown to be ended. On saying that I am under no illusion that it should be lifted early.

My question is that have people forgotten about what happened last year after the first lockdown (which was stricter btw) when cases per day were literally like close to 0 when lockdown 1 was lifted, yet we somehow went back to where we are now?

With the above in mind, and reading about speculation over what will be restricted, surely cases have to be quite close to 0 in order to avoid the risk of them going back up again? Is that possible by April? Infact last time after lockdown in summer, we didn't ditch social distancing, clubs were shut and mass gatherings were still not possible, yet we still went back to where we were in January 2021.

This is my worry that we ease out too early again and go back into the same cycle? The bottom line is that as long as the figures on the television go up (accurate or not) , we have a problem.

That being said I have no idea how you can continue this madness if that was the case as surely people will screw the whole thing.
First up some clarification is needed, by cases are you referring to people with symptoms & potentially being hospitalised, or are you referring to the numbers of people infected with the virus? You see the two are different, and the overall numbers that make the headlines most days are the latter not the former.

Secondly after all this time there can't surely still people that haven't worked out that along with the vaccine & the various treatments that the risk of becoming seriously ill & potentially dying is being decreased rapidly? It has long been known who are the most vulnerable to the effects of the virus, and we are now over 16 million + first doses to those same people in. That means there are 16 million + people (24%) with additional immune system boosts to help them better fight off the virus, not become seriously ill and need urgent medical attention. And then of course there are an additional number of people already exposed to the virus & who have developed immune responses without the vaccine. Its probably not unreasonable to make a conservative guess that somewhere between 30%-50% of the population have by now been either exposed to the virus, or the vaccine. In reality its probably higher still.

What all this means is that the numbers given out each day by the government are, well kind of meaningless now. Even with the vaccines the virus will continue to spread, we know this. But what the vaccine will mean is that those at risk of becoming seriously ill will be far, far less likely to do so. And for most of the rest of us as yet unvaccinated the worst that we will be at risk from is feeling grotty in the same way we do with flu & heavy colds. What the government should be focusing on now is the impact on the health service. If that is going down in part because of vaccinations, and this is starting to look likely, then there is little reason to keep restrictions in play. The virus is now endemic, it is part of the viral spectrum that we live within. We won't kill it off, nor will we get to zero infections. But we can now offer protection against the worst effects, and that's more than enough to allow us to get back to our lives.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
1,884
Location
Birmingham/Smethwick
The Telegraph are reporting on their front page the Pfizer and AZ vaccines reduce transmission by two-thirds in all age groups, even after one dose, which is critical good news as this is part of the major health data Johnson will be using in deciding the roadmap out of lockdown:

View attachment 90991

Amazingly they think Matt Hancock is among those calling for an earlier timetable.

I think these figures give ground for cautious optimism, as they definitely tip the balance in favour of loosening restrictions, and loosening them sooner, than keeping the lockdown going for longer.

If vaccines reduce infection by two thirds, then that has a downward effect on the "R" value which will reduce the risk associated with each reopening, and increase over time as more people are vaccinated.

The Telegraph are also reporting that the BMA are calling for "the near elimination of COVID before restrictions can be lifted"

In an interview with The Telegraph, Dr Nagpaul (head of the BMA) said: "We really are not in any way out of the woods – the NHS is in a precarious situation and any chance of a rebound surge in Covid could seriously cripple the ability of the NHS to cope."

The union said Monday's roadmap was "the Government's last chance to save the NHS from being pushed to the brink of collapse".

But daily hospital admissions have fallen by 66% since the peak, and the number of patients in hospital has fallen by nearly 50%, so the excuse that the NHS is under pressure and "pushed to the brink of collapse" just will not wash anymore.
 

Top