How much longer will social distancing go on for in the UK?

[geoffk]

I've been to the dentist today. Just had a filling but also need two or three crowns. We agreed to defer those for the time being.

 

[BJames]

Progress may be being made. Government potentially planning regular testing of population. Article and key quote (relevant to this thread) below.

Mass weekly Covid-19 testing of population to be trialled in England

Jeremy Hunt says UK should embrace repeat testing as route to more ‘normal life’

www.theguardian.com

Hunt said mass testing was the key tool against the virus before a vaccine was developed. “In fact, if you had population testing there’s no reason why you, theoretically, would need to have social distancing: you could pretty much carry on life as normal because you’d just know that everyone you’d mix with had been tested very, very recently,” he told ITV’s Acting Prime Minister podcast.

I agree with Hunt here (doesn't happen often). Reading the article it suggests that this will be trialled with the entire population of Salford, followed by all NHS staff and teachers every week, followed by hopefully the whole population. If they can get the 20 minute tests up and running this will be made so much easier. If we can test everyone weekly, surely this is the route back to normal life without a vaccine, and trying to win over the most concerned?

Let's hope this could help with getting social distancing scrapped by November, as Johnson said a while back.

Thoughts? Too optimistic? Wait and see?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Progress may be being made. Government potentially planning regular testing of population. Article and key quote (relevant to this thread) below.

I agree with Hunt here (doesn't happen often). Reading the article it suggests that this will be trialled with the entire population of Salford, followed by all NHS staff and teachers every week, followed by hopefully the whole population. If they can get the 20 minute tests up and running this will be made so much easier. If we can test everyone weekly, surely this is the route back to normal life without a vaccine, and trying to win over the most concerned?

Let's hope this could help with getting social distancing scrapped by November, as Johnson said a while back.

Thoughts? Too optimistic? Wait and see?

They're struggling to achieve 200,000 tests a day at the the moment.

What makes them think they can do almost 10,000,000 tests a day?

 

[NorthOxonian]

They're struggling to achieve 200,000 tests a day at the the moment.

What makes them think they can do almost 10,000,000 tests a day?

There do seem to be an increasing number of innovations involving rapid and/or cheap tests. These are not always as accurate as the full swab test, but they could be manufactured at a far greater scale. I was listening to a radio interview with Lord Bilimoria who said that there were already $5 tests in the US, and progress is moving towards even cheaper and more reproducible test kits. He actually mentioned a figure of ten million per day as a value he felt was a reasonable goal.

I'm personally rather sceptical about the huge extent to which we'd have to scale things up to reach such figures, but I think cheaper, easier tests could be the way we do it.

 

[trebor79]

There do seem to be an increasing number of innovations involving rapid and/or cheap tests. These are not always as accurate as the full swab test, but they could be manufactured at a far greater scale. I was listening to a radio interview with Lord Bilimoria who said that there were already $5 tests in the US, and progress is moving towards even cheaper and more reproducible test kits. He actually mentioned a figure of ten million per day as a value he felt was a reasonable goal.

I'm personally rather sceptical about the huge extent to which we'd have to scale things up to reach such figures, but I think cheaper, easier tests could be the way we do it.

One of the thoughts I've had with these rapid tests is that they could be deployed more discreetely than across the entire population.
For example, theatres, cinemas, sports stadia could reopen at full capacity if everyone attending could be tested and proved negative before entry.
For these tests to be at all useful though, they need to have a false negative rate of essentially zero, given the low prevalance of the virus int he population. A low but non-zero false positive is more acceptable, as you would then get a PCR test (albeit be denied entry to your event).

This seems more practical and achievable than test everyone every month.

 

[Bantamzen]

I honestly don't think that constant, repeated mass testing is going to be in the least bit practicable, or even desirable. Targeted testing in hospitals, care homes and ports with arrivals from areas with significantly higher rates of infection / hospitalisation yes, testing for offices, cinemas, sports stadia absolutely no way.

Its worth remembering that people without symptoms are still very unlikely to pass the virus on if they practice basic, simple hygiene such as washing hands. This is partly because there still is a whole lot of evidence that large gatherings represent a much greater risk, but mainly because most people without symptoms, well simply don't have the virus. A sense of perspective and scale is really needed right now, otherwise we could sleepwalk our way into a dystopian future where you can't leave your house without constantly being tested and monitored, and forced to keep away from our fellow human beings.

 

[takno]

Progress may be being made. Government potentially planning regular testing of population. Article and key quote (relevant to this thread) below.

Mass weekly Covid-19 testing of population to be trialled in England

Jeremy Hunt says UK should embrace repeat testing as route to more ‘normal life’

www.theguardian.com

I agree with Hunt here (doesn't happen often). Reading the article it suggests that this will be trialled with the entire population of Salford, followed by all NHS staff and teachers every week, followed by hopefully the whole population. If they can get the 20 minute tests up and running this will be made so much easier. If we can test everyone weekly, surely this is the route back to normal life without a vaccine, and trying to win over the most concerned?

Let's hope this could help with getting social distancing scrapped by November, as Johnson said a while back.

Thoughts? Too optimistic? Wait and see?

I don't think there's any significant chance of this happening by November. You're looking at a 6 month rollout, and at least another 2 months before they were confident enough to roll back any measures. Even then, you're still baking in a costly and inconvenient measure, possibly forever and for no really good reason.

 

[Scrotnig]

I don't think there's any significant chance of this happening by November. You're looking at a 6 month rollout, and at least another 2 months before they were confident enough to roll back any measures. Even then, you're still baking in a costly and inconvenient measure, possibly forever and for no really good reason.

Plus you'd have to make it mandatory and I don't think we have enough prison places....

 

[MikeWM]

I honestly don't think that constant, repeated mass testing is going to be in the least bit practicable, or even desirable.

It's actually a terrible idea. There are many issues with it:

- Cost (in both time and money)
- Proportion (for most, the virus really isn't remotely bad enough to justify anything like this)
- Reliability (no test is reliable enough at this point; if you test the entire population - with the *best* test we currently have - we'd have tens of thousands of false positives every week; we'd also miss some actual cases)
- Enforceability (are you really going to *force* *everyone* to do this *every* week? What happens if you don't?)

A sense of perspective and scale is really needed right now, otherwise we could sleepwalk our way into a dystopian future where you can't leave your house without constantly being tested and monitored, and forced to keep away from our fellow human beings.

Absolutely. I note we haven't mentioned the related quote from Hunt yet : 'I think this mass testing could potentially be linked to an app on your phone so that you could show people on your phone the last time you got tested.' So I guess you need to be prepared to show this everywhere - no doubt it can be updated to show vaccination status too. And if you don't have a recent test, you might as well wear a bell on your arm and go around chanting 'unclean, unclean'. Do we really want to have that sort of society, probably forever? I certainly don't.

Plus this is effectively Tony Blair's idea. That should give anyone significant pause, even if you aren't interested in any of the other arguments!

 

[Bikeman78]

Not quite true. On 170 and 195 units Northern still have out of use labels on the seats nearest the doors. Happily most passengers ignore them, including me!

Fair enough, I didn't pay that much attention. I did notice that most units had the whole section between the cab and the first set of doors out of use. There is a chain between the vertical grab poles.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I honestly don't think that constant, repeated mass testing is going to be in the least bit practicable, or even desirable. Targeted testing in hospitals, care homes and ports with arrivals from areas with significantly higher rates of infection / hospitalisation yes, testing for offices, cinemas, sports stadia absolutely no way.

Its worth remembering that people without symptoms are still very unlikely to pass the virus on if they practice basic, simple hygiene such as washing hands. This is partly because there still is a whole lot of evidence that large gatherings represent a much greater risk, but mainly because most people without symptoms, well simply don't have the virus. A sense of perspective and scale is really needed right now, otherwise we could sleepwalk our way into a dystopian future where you can't leave your house without constantly being tested and monitored, and forced to keep away from our fellow human beings.

Well if these dystopian measures come to fruition, then the birth rate and population will plummet.
The group Extinction Rebellion may have to organise mass ‘love-ins’

 

[takno]

It's actually a terrible idea. There are many issues with it:

- Cost (in both time and money)
- Proportion (for most, the virus really isn't remotely bad enough to justify anything like this)
- Reliability (no test is reliable enough at this point; if you test the entire population - with the *best* test we currently have - we'd have tens of thousands of false positives every week; we'd also miss some actual cases)
- Enforceability (are you really going to *force* *everyone* to do this *every* week? What happens if you don't?)



Absolutely. I note we haven't mentioned the related quote from Hunt yet : 'I think this mass testing could potentially be linked to an app on your phone so that you could show people on your phone the last time you got tested.' So I guess you need to be prepared to show this everywhere

It's glorious. Essentially it's ID cards, but with 20 years of creeping over-application built in from the start, and in addition to paying for your own you now also have to source it and keep it charged.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's actually a terrible idea. There are many issues with it:

- Cost (in both time and money)
- Proportion (for most, the virus really isn't remotely bad enough to justify anything like this)
- Reliability (no test is reliable enough at this point; if you test the entire population - with the *best* test we currently have - we'd have tens of thousands of false positives every week; we'd also miss some actual cases)
- Enforceability (are you really going to *force* *everyone* to do this *every* week? What happens if you don't?)



Absolutely. I note we haven't mentioned the related quote from Hunt yet : 'I think this mass testing could potentially be linked to an app on your phone so that you could show people on your phone the last time you got tested.' So I guess you need to be prepared to show this everywhere - no doubt it can be updated to show vaccination status too. And if you don't have a recent test, you might as well wear a bell on your arm and go around chanting 'unclean, unclean'. Do we really want to have that sort of society, probably forever? I certainly don't.

Plus this is effectively Tony Blair's idea. That should give anyone significant pause, even if you aren't interested in any of the other arguments!

I know there'll be some on here who think some sort of "covid-passport" is a good idea, but there are so many problems around it. For a start unless you make it compulsory to download, it can never be legally enforced. Individual businesses might insist on it, but I suspect they will quickly see business fall away. Then of course there is the small issue of the validity of any test result. The result is only valid for the moment you have the test taken, you could potentially catch the virus minutes after having the test! So someone could walk up to a restaurant coughing away, but wave around a "I am clean" result on an app!

Which is why general testing is less than worthless. Even if it was compulsory on a weekly basis (and it won't) you could still potentially be walking around with it for days in-between. The tests should be their for the most vulnerable, those with symptoms, and if it keeps the kill-joys quiet on arrival from "at risk" countries.

Well if these dystopian measures come to fruition, then the birth rate and population will plummet.
The group Extinction Rebellion may have to organise mass ‘love-ins’

I noted somewhere on a news feed today that a Canadian minister has advised couples to wear masks during sex, or better still not have sex for the duration of the pandemic. Methinks someone needs a refresher in the birds and the bees!

 

[AM9]

Well if these dystopian measures come to fruition, then the birth rate and population will plummet.
The group Extinction Rebellion may have to organise mass ‘love-ins’

I doubt it. There's already a baby boom going on now with maternity hospitals having many more expectant mothers on their books. Apart from actual coal-face evidence that I am privy to (I appreciate that isn't publically available information), there's this link which shows information from Unicef which also include figures for the UK:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ty-services-strain-unicef-study-a9503996.html

The prediction of 643,000 babies born in the UK in nine months represents a noticeable spike in the UK birth rate – in 2018, 731,210 babies were born across the whole year.

While the Unicef forecast for births in 2020 already shows the rate is likely to increase as a result of the pandemic, the actual number of births during this period could be greater; a recent report by the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency (UNFPA) predicted there will be an extra seven million unintended pregnancies if coronavirus disruption carries on for six months.

 

[takno]

I know there'll be some on here who think some sort of "covid-passport" is a good idea, but there are so many problems around it. For a start unless you make it compulsory to download, it can never be legally enforced. Individual businesses might insist on it, but I suspect they will quickly see business fall away. Then of course there is the small issue of the validity of any test result. The result is only valid for the moment you have the test taken, you could potentially catch the virus minutes after having the test! So someone could walk up to a restaurant coughing away, but wave around a "I am clean" result on an app!

Which is why general testing is less than worthless. Even if it was compulsory on a weekly basis (and it won't) you could still potentially be walking around with it for days in-between. The tests should be their for the most vulnerable, those with symptoms, and if it keeps the kill-joys quiet on arrival from "at risk" countries.

It's weird really. The majority of the quote makes sense - it's about weekly testing so that you can stay on top of clusters and keep the numbers down overall. Essentially it's about reduction of prevalence in the population so that the NHS isn't overwhelmed and vulnerable people can go out with a miniscule chance of catching it rather than just a small chance.

So far so good. The disease really isn't serious enough to merit the insane cost, and it's a creeping unacceptable intrusion into normal life, but it at least is logically possible.

But then people suddenly start waxing lyrical about passports and "proof" you don't have it, and demonstrate that they never understood the point in the first place. This isn't about absolute protection, it's fundamentally about flattening curves, keeping numbers low and giving everyone on average more of a chance.

If we keep thinking about safety in absolutes then we are never going to get through this

 

[Bantamzen]

It's weird really. The majority of the quote makes sense - it's about weekly testing so that you can stay on top of clusters and keep the numbers down overall. Essentially it's about reduction of prevalence in the population so that the NHS isn't overwhelmed and vulnerable people can go out with a miniscule chance of catching it rather than just a small chance.

So far so good. The disease really isn't serious enough to merit the insane cost, and it's a creeping unacceptable intrusion into normal life, but it at least is logically possible.

But then people suddenly start waxing lyrical about passports and "proof" you don't have it, and demonstrate that they never understood the point in the first place. This isn't about absolute protection, it's fundamentally about flattening curves, keeping numbers low and giving everyone on average more of a chance.

If we keep thinking about safety in absolutes then we are never going to get through this

Honestly logistics aside (we would need to be able to over nine million tests a day for weekly testing), I'm not even sure that the principle makes sense. Have we ever done anything like this before, I'm not sure anywhere in the world has? So why are politicians now pushing the idea at all, perhaps what we are looking at here is vested interests because I don't believe for a minute that weekly / monthly testing will achieve anything but create more panic and more hysteria.

 

[philosopher]

I doubt it. There's already a baby boom going on now with maternity hospitals having many more expectant mothers on their books. Apart from actual coal-face evidence that I am privy to (I appreciate that isn't publically available information), there's this link which shows information from Unicef which also include figures for the UK:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ty-services-strain-unicef-study-a9503996.html

Pregnancy is on average 9 months. Therefore quite a few of these babies where likely conceived last year so probably had nothing to do with pandemic.

Also what will happen to births a few years from now. Following the social distancing guidelines effectively forbids new relationships from being formed. If new relationships are not formed, then ultimately fewer babies will be born.

 

[MikeWM]

It's glorious. Essentially it's ID cards, but with 20 years of creeping over-application built in from the start, and in addition to paying for your own you now also have to source it and keep it charged.

Indeed - no surprise Tony Blair is keen on the idea.

On a 'of course this isn't related - of course not' note, I see the Government is now going on about 'digital ID cards'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ns-new-digital-ID-cards-British-citizens.html

People will get an online identity that can be used for daily activities such as proving ones age, registering with a GP and buying properties from a different location.

..

Some - such as Tony Blair - called for new digital ID cards to prove their 'disease status' as the world relaxed lockdown measures.

 

[takno]

I doubt it. There's already a baby boom going on now with maternity hospitals having many more expectant mothers on their books. Apart from actual coal-face evidence that I am privy to (I appreciate that isn't publically available information), there's this link which shows information from Unicef which also include figures for the UK:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ty-services-strain-unicef-study-a9503996.html

If you can't share it don't insinuate it. As far as I can see the linked article doesn't make any accurate statements at all - it compares an estimate for a 9 month period this year (when 6 month stats should already be available) to a whole year two years ago, with a suggestion that since one is more than 3/4s of the other there is definitely a boom going on. No seasonality considered, no considering the accuracy of the prediction, no numbers for last year or control for population size.

Most importantly though, virtually all the babies in question were conceived before lockdown, so unless we have figures for current pregnancy we have no actual reason to believe births won't fall off a cliff next month

 

[AM9]

If you can't share it don't insinuate it. As far as I can see the linked article doesn't make any accurate statements at all - it compares an estimate for a 9 month period this year (when 6 month stats should already be available) to a whole year two years ago, with a suggestion that since one is more than 3/4s of the other there is definitely a boom going on. No seasonality considered, no considering the accuracy of the prediction, no numbers for last year or control for population size.

If you don't want to believe it, you are free to ignore, but it won't be long to wait anyway before most of these pregnancies produce actual babies. Then you will have to accept facts that may be inconvenient to your perceptions.

Most importantly though, virtually all the babies in question were conceived before lockdown, so unless we have figures for current pregnancy we have no actual reason to believe births won't fall off a cliff next month

That's the reason why I mentioned the much increased numbers of of expectant mothers on maternity hospital books. There is a spike in the number of women who are between 3 and 5 months pregnant, (i.s. since the quarantine was imposed), so from December/January there will be an upturn in the number of births.
The global bodies seem to have a similar view:

While the Unicef forecast for births in 2020 already shows the rate is likely to increase as a result of the pandemic, the actual number of births during this period could be greater; a recent report by the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency (UNFPA) predicted there will be an extra seven million unintended pregnancies if coronavirus disruption carries on for six months.
An estimated 2.8 million pregnant women and newborns die every year – with one dying every 11 seconds due to factors which were generally preventable – prior to the Covid-19 crisis, but Unicef argues this problem could be exacerbated by the pandemic.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I doubt it. There's already a baby boom going on now with maternity hospitals having many more expectant mothers on their books. Apart from actual coal-face evidence that I am privy to (I appreciate that isn't publically available information), there's this link which shows information from Unicef which also include figures for the UK:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ty-services-strain-unicef-study-a9503996.html

Prediction
Likely
Could
Could
Predicted
If
are the important words in that quoted article.

Established couples might have tired of binge-watching TV during lockdown, and a baby-boom may result.
The point I was making was that if humans who aren’t in relationships are fearful of human contact, the longer term effect would be a drop in the birth-rate

 

[HSTEd]

I doubt it. There's already a baby boom going on now with maternity hospitals having many more expectant mothers on their books. Apart from actual coal-face evidence that I am privy to (I appreciate that isn't publically available information),

Yes, there will be a baby boom because couples who are currently together being stuck in the house together with nothing to do for months.
In the longer run the birth rate will fall because many of the 'traditional' avenues for starting relationships simply don't exist any more.

The latter effect would be expected to become dominant over the longer term.

 

[greyman42]

I know there'll be some on here who think some sort of "covid-passport" is a good idea, but there are so many problems around it. For a start unless you make it compulsory to download, it can never be legally enforced.

Not everyone has a suitable phone or wants one and you cannot exclude these people from society just because they don't have a suitable phone. Also you would be relying on the phone being charged when it is needed to show your covid passport.

 

[brad465]

Yes, there will be a baby boom because couples who are currently together being stuck in the house together with nothing to do for months.
In the longer run the birth rate will fall because many of the 'traditional' avenues for starting relationships simply don't exist any more.

The latter effect would be expected to become dominant over the longer term.

Another factor that, if past recessions are anything to go by, will keep the birth rate down is economic hardship, where couples will likely have no/less children on affordability grounds compared to more prosperous times.

I do wonder if maybe we should have a separate thread on the speculative future impact on population levels?

 

[MikeWM]

Not everyone has a suitable phone or wants one and you cannot exclude these people from society just because they don't have a suitable phone. Also you would be relying on the phone being charged when it is needed to show your covid passport.

I still have a Microsoft phone (yes, I know there's only about 4 of us left

They didn't bother writing the abandoned track and trace app - or the newer version - for M$ phones, so I don't expect they would bother to do so with the putative testing/vaccine app either.

 

[LAX54]

Maybe, if we don't see sense and stop C19 controlling us, we are heading for a 'Logan's Run' type World.... we all have implants to track us... each person is implanted at birth with a "life-clock" crystal in the palm of the hand that changes color as they get older and begins blinking as they approach their "Last Day.”, but those who do not accept their last day and attempt to flee the city are known as "Runners”. An elite team of policemen known as "Sandmen”, outfitted in predominantly black uniforms and serving in an agency of the city called "Deep Sleep”, are assigned to pursue and terminate Runners as they try to escape.[/QUOTE]

 

[Bletchleyite]

Plus you'd have to make it mandatory and I don't think we have enough prison places....

Why on earth would you not comply to something easy like that which could allow all other measures (including the dreaded masks) to be removed by knowing exactly where the disease is?

Of all the things to object to, I am utterly flummoxed as to why anyone would object to this. Spit in a tube and wait 15 minutes. How's that in any way an imposition?

 

[packermac]

I know there'll be some on here who think some sort of "covid-passport" is a good idea, but there are so many problems around it. For a start unless you make it compulsory to download, it can never be legally enforced. Individual businesses might insist on it, but I suspect they will quickly see business fall away. Then of course there is the small issue of the validity of any test result. The result is only valid for the moment you have the test taken, you could potentially catch the virus minutes after having the test! So someone could walk up to a restaurant coughing away, but wave around a "I am clean" result on an app!

Which is why general testing is less than worthless. Even if it was compulsory on a weekly basis (and it won't) you could still potentially be walking around with it for days in-between. The tests should be their for the most vulnerable, those with symptoms, and if it keeps the kill-joys quiet on arrival from "at risk" countries.



I noted somewhere on a news feed today that a Canadian minister has advised couples to wear masks during sex, or better still not have sex for the duration of the pandemic. Methinks someone needs a refresher in the birds and the bees!

Well originally the Canadians (and I believe NY State) were suggesting sex with a screen between couples, so I guess this is a loosening of that restriction.

 

[trebor79]

Why on earth would you not comply to something easy like that which could allow all other measures (including the dreaded masks) to be removed by knowing exactly where the disease is?

Of all the things to object to, I am utterly flummoxed as to why anyone would object to this. Spit in a tube and wait 15 minutes. How's that in any way an imposition?

I agree. If it meant the government was able to convince the coronaphobes that it was "safe again" to get rid of distancing, ridiculous rules on transport, one way systems, masks and all the other nonsense we've had to put up with since the end of lockdown I'm all for it.
I wouldn't want it to be permanent, from a cost factor and a "thin end of the wedge fear", but if it's part of a pathway back to normality, bring it on.

Ideally the government wouldn't have scared the masses to the extent it's necessary, but we are where we are.

 

[greyman42]

I agree. If it meant the government was able to convince the coronaphobes that it was "safe again" to get rid of distancing, ridiculous rules on transport, one way systems, masks and all the other nonsense we've had to put up with since the end of lockdown I'm all for it.

Once it is safe then it is safe regardless of what the coronaphobes want or think. If they wish to carry on with their ridiculous way of life then let them get on with it. We should not pander to them.