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

[Philip]

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"



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.

To be fair he is probably including all factors such as the huge backlog of non-covid operations and treatments that have been put on hold and the long waiting lists. And whilst hospital numbers are going nicely in the right direction, the numbers are still high and with a large percentage of the people who make up the bulk of the hospital admissions, still not vaccinated. Once it has been offered to everyone over 50 and those with pre-existing conditions, then we should be in a much much better position, particularly because of the good news about the effect on transmission.

I'm still hopeful that there will be some cautious easements from 8th March, along with schools going back.

 

[yorksrob]

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



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.

Then the BMA are living in cloud cukoo land. COVID is not going to be near eliminated.

 

[duncanp]

To be fair he is probably including all factors such as the huge backlog of non-covid operations and treatments that have been put on hold and the long waiting lists. And whilst hospital numbers are going nicely in the right direction, the numbers are still high and with a large percentage of the people who make up the bulk of the hospital admissions, still not vaccinated. Once it has been offered to everyone over 50 and those with pre-existing conditions, then we should be in a much much better position, particularly because of the good news about the effect on transmission.

I'm still hopeful that there will be some cautious easements from 8th March, along with schools going back.

At current rates of vaccination, even accounting for second doses, everyone in priority groups 1 - 9 should be vaccinated around Easter, give or take a week.

So there is a good argument for opening non essential retail around the end of March beginning of April as well.

We should also get rid of the tiresome and thoroughly irritating "Stay At Home, Protect The NHS, Save Lives" message around the time that children go back to school.

Also at current rates of vaccination, we should be rapidly approaching herd immunity by the first week in May, which leads me to suspect that this is when hospitality will reopen, albeit with restrictions at first.

 

[initiation]

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

I've noticed an attempt over the last few weeks to try and re-write history from last year to say (or imply) that cases shot up as soon as we unlocked. This is simply not true.

In May the stay at home message was dropped, we could meet other people, then schools partially reopened, then shops, pubs and restaurants, hairdressers etc... There was no noticable increases in prevalance after any of these events.

Total prevelance (as per ZOE/ONS) continued declining or were flat into July/August and only started picking up in September, months after the stay at home messaging ended.

yet we somehow went back to where we are now?

Perhaps that should tell you something about the pointlessness of lockdowns rather than the answer some people seem to clamour for which is, we must have more lockdown.

 

[Carlisle]

Then the BMA are living in cloud cukoo land. COVID is not going to be near eliminated.

Such a strategy would be entirely the fault of our senior politicians who’ll have chosen to do nothing whilst the medical & scientific communities continually shift the goalposts under their noses.

 

[Domh245]

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

The BMA are a medical professional trade union: of course they'll be calling for whatever makes their easier for their members (see also furore about the change to 12 week interval between vaccines, or indeed teaching unions making demands for vaccines for teachers and staggered returns to school) - doesn't mean we should pay them any attention!

 

[py_megapixel]

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.

But that doesn't mean that people who don't own a car and are happy to use it should be prevented from doing so!

"You don't matter unless you own a four-wheeled metal box with a noisy polluting engine in it" is a horrible message to send.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The BMA are a medical professional trade union: of course they'll be calling for whatever makes their easier for their members (see also furore about the change to 12 week interval between vaccines, or indeed teaching unions making demands for vaccines for teachers and staggered returns to school) - doesn't mean we should pay them any attention!

This is what a lot of people are missing in a lot of these discussions.
From the scientists advising harsh restrictions, to teaching unions wanting to not open schools fully, to the BMA.
These groups have very specific jobs around giving very specific advise / protecting the interests of a very specific group of people.
That doesn't mean that what those groups say should be taken for gospel and translated directly into government policy - indeed it is specifically governments job to take all of this discussion and try to balance it together with other important factors, and then come up with policy that somehow manages to find a sensible way forward.
But because government is failing to do the above, people seem to be jumping on what the various groups say without considering the context that the comments are made in.

 

[chris11256]

But that doesn't mean that people who don't own a car and are happy to use it should be prevented from doing so!

"You don't matter unless you own a four-wheeled metal box with a noisy polluting engine in it" is a horrible message to send.

I agree completely, I just think that for a long time going forward people will avoid public transport if they have another option. There'll still be the perception that they'll catch covid by getting on one.

 

[Ianno87]

This is what a lot of people are missing in a lot of these discussions.
From the scientists advising harsh restrictions, to teaching unions wanting to not open schools fully, to the BMA.
These groups have very specific jobs around giving very specific advise / protecting the interests of a very specific group of people.
That doesn't mean that what those groups say should be taken for gospel and translated directing into government policy - indeed it is specifically governments job to take all of this discussion and try to balance it together with other important factors, and then come up with policy that somehow manages to find a sensible way forward.
But because government is failing to do the above, people seem to be jumping on what the various groups say without considering the context that the comments are made in.

This x1000.

Frankly, I'm of the view that, whilst transparency is good, half of this stuff should not be being out in the public domain, as people pick and choose to highlight individual pieces just to suit their own argument.

 

[WelshBluebird]

This x1000.

Frankly, I'm of the view that, whilst transparency is good, half of this stuff should not be being out in the public domain, as people pick and choose to highlight individual pieces just to suit their own argument.

The problem then is you'd have the "what are they hiding" lot all in a fit - so you just can't win really.
What I do agree with though is some of the criticism here of certain people talking to the media when perhaps they shouldn't be.

 

[Freightmaster]

"You don't matter unless you own a four-wheeled metal box with a noisy polluting engine in it" is a horrible message to send.

Ahem. I own a four-wheeled metal box with a quiet, non polluting electric motor in it - do I "matter"?





MARK

 

[Ianno87]

The problem then is you'd have the "what are they hiding" all in a fit - so you just can't win really.

If one were getting *really* conspiratorial/ tin-hatted, throwing ridiculous stuff out into the public domain could be a deliberate distraction from what "they" don't want us to know.

(OK, tin hat removed now...)

 

[Watershed]

The problem then is you'd have the "what are they hiding" all in a fit - so you just can't win really.
What I do agree with though is some of the criticism here of certain people talking to the media when perhaps they shouldn't be.

There is nothing wrong with people talking to the media. Neither is there anything wrong with the media publishing viewpoints endorsing longer lockdowns - they're simply exercising their right to free speech.

But there is a massive issue with the unbalanced and undue promotion of doom and gloom, of "the scientists" (as if there is a single body of opinion on something as complex as this) saying we need to lock down longer and harder.

I'm sure that public opinion would be rather different if every pro-lockdown article was accompanied by an article giving a contrary viewpoint, illustrating the harms of lockdown.

It's difficult to stop this imbalance without interfering with free speech, but in reality this is a longer term issue, and perhaps requires some sort of regulation of the press, being most people's access to free speech, to ensure that contrary viewpoints are given due prominence on big issues.

That is the only way that people can fairly make their own mind up, but of course it inherently involves restrictions on free speech, which are thus problematic. The next best thing would probably just be for the government to stop promoting doom and gloom and "them and us" narratives.

 

[WelshBluebird]

There is nothing wrong with people talking to the media. Neither is there anything wrong with the media publishing viewpoints endorsing longer lockdowns - they're simply exercising their right to free speech.

But there is a massive issue with the unbalanced and undue promotion of doom and gloom, of "the scientists" (as if there is a single body of opinion on something as complex as this) saying we need to lock down longer and harder.

I'm sure that public opinion would be rather different if every pro-lockdown article was accompanied by an article giving a contrary viewpoint, illustrating the harms of lockdown.

It's difficult to stop this imbalance without interfering with free speech, but in reality this is a longer term issue, and perhaps requires some sort of regulation of the press, being most people's access to free speech, to ensure that contrary viewpoints are given due prominence on big issues.

That is the only way that people can fairly make their own mind up, but of course it inherently involves restrictions on free speech, which are naturally problematic.

With talking to the media - of course that is their choice. But take a step back and ask should someone advising the government of something really then be talking to the media to push their view, especially when you consider it is governments job to round of advise from experts of different topics and pull all of that together to form somewhat sensible policy? I doubt we'd see say military intelligence officials talking to the press about potential policy decisions and in my view the pandemic is just as dangerous to us, if not more so (both in terms of the virus itself and the consequences of it) than any kind of terrorism or attack.

And as for what the press print - we already have quite a lot of rules surrounding that, rules that are often used by the rich and famous to stop tabloids publishing stories about them. I'm not convinced we need more rules there. Though we do need some kind of consequence for printing utter rubbish that is more than just being forced to print a tiny correction on page 40 when the initial story was a front page headline).

In terms of giving contrary viewpoints prominence, the problem with that is that left unchecked, it leads to things like climate change deniers being given an equal footing with actual experts on BBC news interviews, or creationism being taught alongside (or instead of) evolution in schools in some parts of the US - which are pretty dangerous places to be heading.

 

[MikeWM]

It's difficult to stop this imbalance without interfering with free speech, but in reality this is a longer term issue, and perhaps requires some sort of regulation of the press, being most people's access to free speech, to ensure that contrary viewpoints are given due prominence on big issues.

I agree with your description of the problem, but what you've described here sounds pretty much like how the BBC is supposed to work. I think we'd agree that the BBC has been one of the worst doom-mongering outfits over the past year, so I'm not convinced it would help much.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I agree with your description of the problem, but what you've described here sounds pretty much like how the BBC is supposed to work. I think we'd agree that the BBC has been one of the worst doom-mongering outfits over the past year, so I'm not convinced it would help much.

The BBC is supposed to be politically neutral.
That does not mean it should give equal airtime to opposite arguments - indeed that is the exact trap it has fallen into over recent years and has resulted in things like climate change deniers being given equal airtime in interviews compared to actual experts. Not a place we should want to be surely.

Also, we are in a global pandemic (and have been for almost a year now) and we have just made a massive change to our international relations that at the moment is causing negative rather than positive effects (I'm not going to turn this into a Brexit thread - just what the current right now situation is). It is tough to admit - but are you really surprised the news is doom and gloom? I'm not!

 

[Ianno87]

The BBC is supposed to be politically neutral.
That does not mean it should give equal airtime to opposite arguments - indeed that is the exact trap it has fallen into over recent years and has resulted in things like climate change deniers being given equal airtime in interviews compared to actual experts. Not a place we should want to be surely.

Let's not forget Br*x*t. "Balancing" the head of global economics (or whatever) from a multi-national corporation against a Vox Pop with Barry from the Dog and Duck whilst drinking on a Tuesday lunchtime who reckoned we should "go WTO".

 

[Watershed]

With talking to the media - of course that is their choice. But take a step back and ask should someone advising the government of something really then be talking to the media to push their view, especially when you consider it is governments job to round of advise from experts of different topics and pull all of that together to form somewhat sensible policy? I doubt we'd see say military intelligence officials talking to the press about potential policy decisions and in my view the pandemic is just as dangerous to us, if not more so (both in terms of the virus itself and the consequences of it) than any kind of terrorism or attack.

That's absolutely true: it comes down to whether the government has social media/press policies in their agreements with their advisers (you'd like to hope so), and if so, why they are not enforcing them. I think the latter gives you your answer really - the government doesn't really mind if some of their advisors do some pro-lockdown fearmongering. It has plausible deniability and they can always contradict them if the policy position changes, but right now it quite suits their agenda of shifting the blame to certain groups of the public.

And as for what the press print - we already have quite a lot of rules surrounding that, rules that are often used by the rich and famous to stop tabloids publishing stories about them.

Yes, but those are rules to do with defamation and the accuracy of stories. There is no regulation on the prominence of different viewpoints, and TBH it would probably be inappropriate to impose that on smaller outlets. But some regulation of larger outlets is probably needed.

In terms of giving contrary viewpoints prominence, the problem with that is that left unchecked, it leads to things like climate change deniers being given an equal footing with actual experts on BBC news interviews, or creationism being taught alongside (or instead of) evolution in schools in some parts of the US - which are pretty dangerous places to be heading.

Free speech is a fundamental right. You are only truly protecting it when you allow people whose views you disagree with to speak. Obviously schools will always have an agenda of saying who is right and wrong, and that will be determined by the government of the time. But for the general public, we shouldn't try and silence those we disagree with. If they are wrong then people should be able to work that out for themselves when they hear both sides of the argument!

 

[nlogax]

Let's not forget Br*x*t. "Balancing" the head of global economics (or whatever) from a multi-national corporation against a Vox Pop with Barry from the Dog and Duck whilst drinking on a Tuesday lunchtime who reckoned we should "go WTO".

I'm reminded of Mitchell and Webb's "Why not tell us what you reckon?" sketch. Barry and his mates get a lot of airtime at the moment.

 

[MikeWM]

The BBC is supposed to be politically neutral.
That does not mean it should give equal airtime to opposite arguments - indeed that is the exact trap it has fallen into over recent years and has resulted in things like climate change deniers being given equal airtime in interviews compared to actual experts. Not a place we should want to be surely.

I don't think the BBC should give much airtime to people pushing things which are objectively untrue, and obviously not equal.

But in the climate change case I'd say 'political balance' would be between people who agree that climate change is happening but differ in what to do about it (including the argument we shouldn't be doing anything about it). That's a political argument.

Covid would be the same, because unfortunately it has become a political issue (in my opinion it ought not to have done, but we are where we are). There should be a wide range of people with different ideas about what to do about it, treated equally by the interviewers. That would be political neutrality. I don't think anyone could argue that the BBC has delivered that.

 

[Domh245]

I don't think the BBC should give much airtime to people pushing things which are objectively untrue, and obviously not equal.

But in the climate change case I'd say 'political balance' would be between people who agree that climate change is happening but differ in what to do about it (including the argument we shouldn't be doing anything about it). That's a political argument.

Covid would be the same, because unfortunately it has become a political issue (in my opinion it ought not to have done, but we are where we are). There should be a wide range of people with different ideas about what to do about it, treated equally by the interviewers. That would be political neutrality. I don't think anyone could argue that the BBC has delivered that.

The problem though is that one persons "obviously untrue and not equal" is someone else's "perfectly reasonable opposing viewpoint". Even with the climate change 'political' example you've given, presenting them as equal is rather misleading as there's a pretty large scientific consensus that something needs to be done about it, so unless you have 9 pro-doing something and 1 pro-not-doing-anything (example numbers) then you're creating false equivalence. Trying to force (or at least, give impressions of) equal views, political or otherwise, sounds very simple until you start to run through the permutations!

The issue with Covid seems to have been solely considering the physical health aspect - a more balanced approach would have been to have more stories around mental health, economy, etc, but you're still then stuck with what balance you strike between those (something the government also seems to not be sure of!)

 

[MikeWM]

The problem though is that one persons "obviously untrue and not equal" is someone else's "perfectly reasonable opposing viewpoint". Even with the climate change 'political' example you've given, presenting them as equal is rather misleading as there's a pretty large scientific consensus that something needs to be done about it, so unless you have 9 pro-doing something and 1 pro-not-doing-anything (example numbers) then you're creating false equivalence. Trying to force (or at least, give impressions of) equal views, political or otherwise, sounds very simple until you start to run through the permutations!

I'd agree it isn't a remotely easy thing to do, however simple 'politically neutral' sounds in theory.

However, while I'd agree that on climate change there is a 'pretty large scientific consensus that something needs to be done about it', I'd also argue that this isn't the role of scientists at all. Scientists should show it is happening and give a reasoned analysis of the likely consequences of various forms of action or inaction. But it is then a *political* question as to whether something should actually be done about it or not - the two things should be kept entirely separate.

The issue with Covid seems to have been solely considering the physical health aspect - a more balanced approach would have been to have more stories around mental health, economy, etc, but you're still then stuck with what balance you strike between those (something the government also seems to not be sure of!)

Obviously there is never going to be a balance that everyone is comfortable with. But I think there is a lot that could be done to improve matters. Interviewers doing proper interviews rather than blatantly bringing their own biases to the table wouldn't be a bad start.

 

[philosopher]

This is what a lot of people are missing in a lot of these discussions.
From the scientists advising harsh restrictions, to teaching unions wanting to not open schools fully, to the BMA.
These groups have very specific jobs around giving very specific advise / protecting the interests of a very specific group of people.
That doesn't mean that what those groups say should be taken for gospel and translated directly into government policy - indeed it is specifically governments job to take all of this discussion and try to balance it together with other important factors, and then come up with policy that somehow manages to find a sensible way forward.
But because government is failing to do the above, people seem to be jumping on what the various groups say without considering the context that the comments are made in.

I agree entirely. The problem is that since November the government only seem to have been listening to those who for whatever reason advocate harsh restrictions. Those with opposing views have largely been ignored.

 

[bramling]

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.

The trouble is I’m not sure this view would prove helpful in removing restrictions.

A narrative has built up that public transport is dangerous and infectious, and the mitigation for this has been to attempt to drive down usage such that people don’t have to get too close to one another.

It really isn’t going to help if we suddenly see surges for the beaches or whatever, that will simply feed the “we need restrictions as it’s otherwise too unsafe for me to go to work” narrative.

I would simply go for an “open as much as possible” approach. We won’t then get the beach crowds as more people will be at work, and of course kids back at school too. With many more ways for people to use their spare time, hopefully there wouldn’t then be any issues.

Any “you can travel wherever you want however you like” would be a shambles while there’s still so many people not at work, especially if it were to happen before the schools go back.

 

[yorksrob]

The trouble is I’m not sure this view would prove helpful in removing restrictions.

A narrative has built up that public transport is dangerous and infectious, and the mitigation for this has been to attempt to drive down usage such that people don’t have to get too close to one another.

It really isn’t going to help if we suddenly see surges for the beaches or whatever, that will simply feed the “we need restrictions as it’s otherwise too unsafe for me to go to work” narrative.

I would simply go for an “open as much as possible” approach. We won’t then get the beach crowds as more people will be at work, and of course kids back at school too. With many more ways for people to use their spare time, hopefully there wouldn’t then be any issues.

Any “you can travel wherever you want however you like” would be a shambles while there’s still so many people not at work, especially if it were to happen before the schools go back.

I suppose you could count the number of people onto the train at Waterloo (do they still have those concertina platform gates you can slam shut) and tell people to wait for the next one or go somewhere else instead.

 

[Jamesrob637]

How about the Government finally implementing what I have advocated since summer:

Every other year at school every other week. Until at least May, with a full return in early June for the final push to the summer holidays.

 

[Tomp94]

Furlough being extended to at least the summer, or to the autumn, depending on the report you read.
This is proof that we are NOT going back to normal life any time soon, and that restrictions will remain on our lives for many, many months to come.
We were told that when the vulnerable had received their vaccine, hospital admissions fell, and the number of infections fell, we'd steadily return to normal. This self evidently is not the case, the goalposts have switched from hospital admissions and deaths back to cases again, ,with the added caveat of "vaccine dodging variants" ... at which point will we find a vaccine that covid cannot evolve to dodge? The answer is never. That's why a new flu vaccine is offered every year, because it, like all viruses, evolves,adapts and mutates.
At what exact point do we stop becoming a nation of obedient bedwetters? When do we tell the idiots in the government who're getting their advice from the "scientists" at SAGE, that enough is enough?
I think we need a riot to regain out freedoms, and to end the nanny state!

Edit: Also, the scruffy oaf in charge of Wales had laid the groundwork for restrictions in Wales to last all year, he's convinced of a third wave and "nasty surprises" from covid

 

[Richard Scott]

How about the Government finally implementing what I have advocated since summer:

Every other year at school every other week. Until at least May, with a full return in early June for the final push to the summer holidays.

No, definitely not. They all need to be in full time or at least exam classes full time. Can't have an on/off approach.

 

[Jamesrob637]

No, definitely not. They all need to be in full time or at least exam classes full time. Can't have an on/off approach.

Exam-orientated years possibly every week but if we send all kids back in a fortnight the R rate and cases (if not so much deaths) will increase again.