Exit strategy predictions

[HH]

I predict the following; based on what other countries have done/may do subject to retaining increased NHS Bed capacity and ensuring test capacity to test everyone with symptoms.
Stage 1 (two weeks of falling new cases);
Hairdressers/babers/beaty salons/tattooists/body piercers can reopen.

Impossible to do most of these things without being in each others air space for a lengthy period of time and hairdressers (for example) have a lot of hot air circulating. Can't see these being in phase 1.

 

[C J Snarzell]

To be honest I've noticed a slight increase in traffic going to/from work.
Around the time the police was using drones in Derbyshire I noticed a massive drop(virtually nothing on the road), slowly it's crept up.
Don't get me wrong it's nowhere near the levels of a normal day but it's gone from roughly 1 or 2 cars waiting at traffic lights to 4 or 5.
Suspect it's just people going for a drive (possibly after having been shopping or dare I say going to a store further away to pass the time).

To put it into context, when running parallel with the Motorway on the train it was still largely logistics lorries and not much else and the trains are totally empty.

The figures in yesterday's Downing Street briefing did confirm a slight rise in the use of private vehicles in the last few days. Theres been nothing in the press recently about Derbyshire Police's activities towards the Peak District visitors but GMP were on the news targeting speeders who have been using the M60 as a race track.

CJ

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was thinking more of a project amongst the politicians, scientists & industry leaders on some sort of agreed consensus on how to get perhaps even a limited number of our pubs & restaurants re opened soon.

I would be absolutely amazed if this was not ongoing. To me the obvious measures are:
- Tables spaced out more than 2m (fortunately in the good weather people can spread into the beer garden)
- Advance reservation
- A request (not enforceable, I know) of only one household per table, so it still won't really work to meet your mates but that's off the agenda for a while anyway
- Table service only, no bar service
- No cash

I don't see that there'd be a huge risk at all with all of those in place.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Impossible to do most of these things without being in each others air space for a lengthy period of time and hairdressers (for example) have a lot of hot air circulating. Can't see these being in phase 1.

I could see some sort of limited service from barbers/hairdressers as possible. Hairdresser wears full PPE (client masks not viable) and only single-number clipper cuts available so they are very quick. Pre-booked only so no waiting inside.

 

[AM9]

Is there? Why then would supermarkets be keeping people 2 metres apart? Most people are not going to be standing next to the same person for 15 minutes in a shop either. So why is it necessary?

I don't know about your area -you did say "in a shop" though, but round here, all supermarkets are inside buildings, so whatever reduction in the risk of transmission occurs when outside doesn't apply. Also sometimes, queueing outside a supermarket can at times exceed 15 minutes, and as there is no queue jumping taking place, each person may be exposed to the same two people (one in front and one behind) for considerably longer than 15 minutes.

 

[nedchester]

As interesting as this all is, there seems little realism or pragmatism evident. Except perhaps this:

And that will be the view of increasing numbers of people as time goes on. Initially the lockdown was a novelty. Now it is becoming a bind. There is no way that sixty-odd million people are going to remain locked down for any prolonged period and there’s no way the authorities will prevent them from breaking out. This will become increasingly evident as the summer progresses. Many people, especially in large towns and cities, do not have gardens. They will be going out and it won’t be solely with a “reasonable excuse.” There is also no way that owners of businesses – especially the smaller ones - will watch the fruits of the labours disappear up the Swanee. They will begin to resume work. Most of all, the government cannot continue to pay people’s wages indefinitely. A couple of months is about as much as the economy will stand, and that’s a stretch.

Yes, they can keep licensed premises and those subject to Local Authority control closed. They can forbid gatherings for sporting and social events. But they won’t stop people going out in the summer. Talk of the current circumstances becoming the “new norm” is fanciful. This is especially so when there are reports of 60 or more aircraft a day landing at Heathrow, many of them containing visitors and businessmen. I can’t visit my neighbour a few doors along the road but people from Iran, Iraq and elsewhere continue to arrive, with no checks, to “visit family.”

Talk of a vaccine being developed in short order are hopelessly optimistic. Ditto a cure. To suggest that people will remain locked down until one or the other is developed is ludicrous. It ain’t gonna happen and the government needs to develop a strategy to end this farcical situation. If it’s not ended with agreement it will end without. At present most people are compliant. But that’s not going to last and I believe that by about the end of May their patience will be exhausted. People who want to remain locked down will be perfectly free to do so. Those who don’t won’t.

I don't know the answer, I only know the question. And the question is, what does the government do when people become tired of being locked down? Because they will as sure as eggs is eggs. Best the question is addressed now rather than in a month's time because to simply assume that everybody will continue as they are now with no "end game" forthcoming is simply naive.

This is absolutely my view. I suspect that anything beyond mid-June is unsustainable. People will start to break 'the rules'. This may be considered by some as 'selfish' but the reality is that to effectively imprison 66 million people goes against human nature.

There are other issues as well. I am concerned about other health conditions. It is now establish that many screening for cancers and other conditions has effectively stopped as has treatment. How many deaths from that? I had to go to A&E yesterday (don't ask!) and was in and out in 45 mins, how many heart attacks or strokes are happening with people not wishing to go to A&E resulting in deaths. Then there's the mental health of the nation leading to suicides. I suspect deaths from these incidents could well far exceed those from Covid-19.

Then there is the economic damage. I am talking about businesses and personal economics. People cannot live forever without income and government cannot furlough people for ever. I have been fortunate to have worked (so far) throughout this crisis but some who were working in perfectly viable businesses 2 months ago find themselves with no income to pay to put food on the table for themselves or their families.

We will sadly have to get to a point where there will be an 'acceptable' level of deaths until a vaccine or treatment is found. And one with which the NHS can cope with and continue to treat and screen other conditions; we are not there yet. For cancers, heart attacks and other conditions there is an 'accepted' death rate. The same will sadly have to happen for Covid-19 until a working vaccine or treatment is available.

 

[Smidster]

As interesting as this all is, there seems little realism or pragmatism evident. Except perhaps this:

And that will be the view of increasing numbers of people as time goes on. Initially the lockdown was a novelty. Now it is becoming a bind. There is no way that sixty-odd million people are going to remain locked down for any prolonged period and there’s no way the authorities will prevent them from breaking out. This will become increasingly evident as the summer progresses. Many people, especially in large towns and cities, do not have gardens. They will be going out and it won’t be solely with a “reasonable excuse.” There is also no way that owners of businesses – especially the smaller ones - will watch the fruits of the labours disappear up the Swanee. They will begin to resume work. Most of all, the government cannot continue to pay people’s wages indefinitely. A couple of months is about as much as the economy will stand, and that’s a stretch.

This is an interesting view and it will be really interesting to see how it plays out as the Summer goes on.

Right now the Public at large seems to be pretty much on board with what is going on - for now the loss of life is outweighing the personal loss of liberty - and indeed there are no shortage of people who want to go further. Will there be a point at which that starts to break down? I am not entirely sure it will as long as people remain fearful of the virus. You might get slightly more people testing the extent of the rules (or flat out flouting them) but most people will continue to comply because most people are law abiding (and SD broadly works if you keep most people on-side)

I agree that the next review will probably see some amendments - maybe opening some non-essential businesses / gradual reopening of Schools or some easement on restriction 10 (Stay at Home) - say more than 1 period of exercise. Providing those businesses can prove they can adhere to SD guidelines etc (though I do wonder how many people will want to go to a "non-essential" business if they have to queue for ages outside and can only do it with members of the household) I would also expect stronger advice for particular groups (I accept I was wrong to talk about the virus "targeting" of certain groups...I meant in terms of outcomes where we do know that certain groups are more vulnerable to getting badly ill)

Someone talked about Football earlier - I completely agree that the EPL and probably Championship could get away with playing behind closed doors. I am less sure about the lower leagues - Sure you can have a streaming service but is that really going to replicate the gates these clubs get week to week? Is a typical lower league club going to get double / triple the amount of people who normally turn up to the ground to pay £10 for a webcast? Most of these grounds are half empty most of the time anyway - where does the demand come from. And how do you keep people coming back. The first time might be an interesting experiment but after that, and without an atmosphere which is the essence of sport, I fear people won't come back.

 

[trebor79]

Is there? Why then would supermarkets be keeping people 2 metres apart? Most people are not going to be standing next to the same person for 15 minutes in a shop either. So why is it necessary?

I don't know. They seem to be implementing the government guidance, which goes above and beyond the WHO guidance. This is probably sensible.
But it doesn't mean people need to panic the instant someone steps within their 2m bubble.

 

[edwin_m]

I'd certainly not put tattoo parlours and piercings in the same category as barbers/hairdressers. Most people need their hair cutting and some can't get it done by a family member, but nobody really needs a tattoo or a piercing, both of which carry some extra risk of transmission.

 

[JonathanH]

Then there is the economic damage. I am talking about businesses and personal economics. People cannot live forever without income and government cannot furlough people for ever. I have been fortunate to have worked (so far) throughout this crisis but some who were working in perfectly viable businesses 2 months ago find themselves with no income to pay to put food on the table for themselves or their families.

We are going to have to go somewhere reasonably extreme on this. Effectively work out something like taking all disposable income from those who can work and use it to support those who can't (but at the same time try and find economic work for these people, for example assisting with the healthcare effort).

 

[Bletchleyite]

We are going to have to go somewhere reasonably extreme on this. Effectively work out something like taking all disposable income from those who can work and use it to support those who can't (but at the same time try and find economic work for these people, for example assisting with the healthcare effort).

That absolutely won't happen, though I think heavy income tax increases are necessary and will happen. I could see something like basic rate to 30% (potentially with a higher personal allowance to take minimum wage earners out entirely) and higher rate to 50, perhaps with a "super tax" rate for those earning a lot of maybe 70-80, but we will see.

Another option would be to merge National Insurance in with Income Tax, removing the earnings cap by doing so. That would be a good tax simplification anyway.

 

[6862]

We are going to have to go somewhere reasonably extreme on this. Effectively work out something like taking all disposable income from those who can work and use it to support those who can't (but at the same time try and find economic work for these people, for example assisting with the healthcare effort).

I imagine that communism is a relatively unlikely outcome (in the UK at least). I think an economic depression is likely, but I can't see a UK government adopting such policies in response.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

I would be absolutely amazed if this was not ongoing. To me the obvious measures are:
- Tables spaced out more than 2m (fortunately in the good weather people can spread into the beer garden)
- Advance reservation
- A request (not enforceable, I know) of only one household per table, so it still won't really work to meet your mates but that's off the agenda for a while anyway
- Table service only, no bar service
- No cash

I don't see that there'd be a huge risk at all with all of those in place.

I agree that pubs should be allowed to open sooner but I think the measures you list would be too impractical to be maintained and would mean in the case of most pubs (particularly micropubs) it simply wouldn't be viable to reopen. Also, as I think I've mentioned previously, visiting a pub tends to be a spontaneous decision and few people would want the hassle of advance booking to simply enjoy a swift pint after work or halfway through a walk.

If social distancing makes some pubs and restaurants unviable then in such situations social distancing guidelines will have to be relaxed. If the establishment puts up signs saying "social distancing not practiced here; enter at your own risk", potential customers will have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they wish to enter.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If social distancing makes some pubs and restaurants unviable then in such situations social distancing guidelines will have to be relaxed. If the establishment puts up signs saying "social distancing not practiced here; enter at your own risk", potential customers will have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they wish to enter.

The problem is that that can't work, because it's not about infecting you, it's about infecting your Nan.

I would not be locking down if the only effect of me getting infected would be <1% chance of me dying with no effect on others. But that's not how it is.

 

[Huntergreed]

Scotland are announcing their exit strategy today, roughly around lunchtime, that should give us a clearer idea of the path that we might take.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Scotland are announcing their exit strategy today, roughly around lunchtime, that should give us a clearer idea of the path that we might take.

If that isn't being co-ordinated between the UK's countries, could we see border closures?

 

[nedchester]

We are going to have to go somewhere reasonably extreme on this. Effectively work out something like taking all disposable income from those who can work and use it to support those who can't (but at the same time try and find economic work for these people, for example assisting with the healthcare effort).

That will never happen. How do you work out what is disposable income. Tax / NI rises are what are most likely.

 

[chris11256]

I wonder if Scotland are preannouncing something thats already been discussed/agreed at UK level?

 

[AM9]

... If social distancing makes some pubs and restaurants unviable then in such situations social distancing guidelines will have to be relaxed. If the establishment puts up signs saying "social distancing not practiced here; enter at your own risk", potential customers will have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they wish to enter.

So that would mean that those who for some reason can't live without visiting a pub could carry the COVID-19 virus, asyptomatically to anybody else that they might come into contact with, (older relatives/friends, work colleagues, emergency services workers, shop assitants, children, anybody who might be approached for health issues, ...) - and all that just because a few people aren't prepared to forgo a visit to a pub. Mmmm, doesn't seem like a responsible move to me.

 

[takno]

We are going to have to go somewhere reasonably extreme on this. Effectively work out something like taking all disposable income from those who can work and use it to support those who can't (but at the same time try and find economic work for these people, for example assisting with the healthcare effort).

We may currently all be suffering under a wild overreaction to a relatively minor pandemic which is increasingly seeming morally unjustifiable, but state slavery isn't a next step that anybody is going to take.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

So that would mean that those who for some reason can't live without visiting a pub could carry the COVID-19 virus, asyptomatically to anybody else that they might come into contact with, (older relatives/friends, work colleagues, emergency services workers, shop assitants, children, anybody who might be approached for health issues, ...) - and all that just because a few people aren't prepared to forgo a visit to a pub. Mmmm, doesn't seem like a responsible move to me.

Ok. So your proposal is to keep the lockdown in place for several years until there's absolutely zero risk of anyone catching the virus?

There will always be an element of risk in life. Long before anyone had heard of COVID-19 you ran the risk of catching potentially serious illnesses off anyone you came into contact with but we all took that risk because the benefits of doing the things we enjoyed outweighed the risks of us becoming ill. For the sake of the economy and for people's quality of life we need to lift the lockdown and get businesses open again as soon as the risk is down to a manageable level.

 

[HH]

I could see some sort of limited service from barbers/hairdressers as possible. Hairdresser wears full PPE (client masks not viable) and only single-number clipper cuts available so they are very quick. Pre-booked only so no waiting inside.

Yes, I was thinking something similar - cuts only, customers would have to be spaced and hairdresser would need PPE (I thought mask, gloves and some sort of gown would suffice, but these might need to be changed regularly).

 

[HH]

We may currently all be suffering under a wild overreaction to a relatively minor pandemic which is increasingly seeming morally unjustifiable, but state slavery isn't a next step that anybody is going to take.

You think that governments the world over are wrong and that this pandemic is mild? Would you care to justify this assertion? How many deaths does it take to reach moderate, for example, let alone severe?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You think that governments the world over are wrong and that this pandemic is mild? Would you care to justify this assertion? How many deaths does it take to reach moderate, for example, let alone severe?

I'd say moderate. Severe would be something like SARS-1 or Ebola.

 

[HH]

If social distancing makes some pubs and restaurants unviable then in such situations social distancing guidelines will have to be relaxed. If the establishment puts up signs saying "social distancing not practiced here; enter at your own risk", potential customers will have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they wish to enter.

The point is that it's not just your own risk. If only it were...

 

[HH]

I'd say moderate. Severe would be something like SARS-1 or Ebola.

SARS caused 774 global deaths; Ebola 11,325. Slightly puzzled why you think that they are severe and yet covid-19 is moderate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

SARS caused 774 global deaths; Ebola 11,325. Slightly puzzled why you think that they are severe and yet covid-19 is moderate.

I suppose it depends on what measure you're looking at. On a risk assessment you typically have two columns - severity and likelihood. Often a risk will be accepted if the severity is high but the likelihood low, e.g. driving a car there is a risk of death but the likelihood is low. This would be why we didn't lock down for SARS-1 and Ebola.

With COVID19 what you've got is moderate severity (<1% death risk, which is significant but not as high as the other two diseases under discussion) but high likelihood. This gives a figure high enough to make mitigation necessary - hence the lockdown.

 

[Tom B]

I don't know. They seem to be implementing the government guidance, which goes above and beyond the WHO guidance. This is probably sensible.
But it doesn't mean people need to panic the instant someone steps within their 2m bubble.

I would suggest that the publicising of the 6'6 / 2m rule was probably done in the knowledge that it is greater than the WHO guidance, but that if everyone aims for 6'6 / 2m as the ideal - if they can't, and dip below that, they will know it's not ideal and seek to space out as soon as possible. Even so, there's a good margin built in for safety.

 

[6862]

SARS caused 774 global deaths; Ebola 11,325. Slightly puzzled why you think that they are severe and yet covid-19 is moderate.

I suspect the OP was meaning that while these diseases are severe for people who are infected by them, they are so deadly that the carriers die quickly (especially in the case of ebola, you start bleeding uncontrollably) and so the disease can't keep up sustained transmission for a long time. The reason why this current virus is so 'succesful' is that it isn't really very likely to kill, or even completely incapacitate, the vast majority of people it infects, so they can carry it around for days/weeks and infect a load of other people in that time. So for the average person, this disease is not severe, but overall its effect on a population of individuals seems to be greater.

 

[Mogster]

You think that governments the world over are wrong and that this pandemic is mild? Would you care to justify this assertion? How many deaths does it take to reach moderate, for example, let alone severe?

The jury is still out...

It all depends how long the virus circulates at this level for and how virulent it remains.

So far around 10,000 people have Covid on their death certificates. Since January around 30,000 people have alternative influenza like illness (ILI) on their death certificate. Covid still has some way to go to catch up with this years very mild flu season, of course the Covid deaths have all come in a short period so far. Then there’s the problem of death with/from Covid.

It’s a very difficult situation. it’s not clear cut that the current response will be viewed as proportional when we look back on this.