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

[LAX54]

Not sure that's entirely true - it wasn't unlikely that it would increase in the winter, as most respiratory viruses do.

About this time of year, we are told hospitals are over run with Flu / Pneumonia etc, however this year there appears to have been 'none' !

 

[DB]

About this time of year, we are told hospitals are over run with Flu / Pneumonia etc, however this year there appears to have been 'none' !

And it's a mystery what has happened to those cases - there doesn't seem to be a convincing answer.

 

[kez19]

I wouldn't read too much into this if I were you.

The law which has been extended gives local councils power to close establishments that are breaking COVID restrictions.

On the one hand, you could interpret this to mean that the lockdown is going to last until July.

On the other hand, you could interpret this as meaning that July 17th is the date by which all restrictions will be lifted, and councils will have no more need of those powers after then.

I think it is just an automatic extension of the powers, and the end date of July 17th does not mean that restrictions will not be lifted before then.

If this happens in Scotland it would most likely be dragged out into August, I agree in the wording thats the issue - would it be giving councils control than government instead?

ie York - Tier 2, Newcastle - Tier 2 (?), OK I know there is many councils within areas (using English cities to clarify than Scottish as who knows under Sturgeon)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jan 2021 ==

 

[initiation]

As described above. There is little correlation between the severity of measures and covid deaths. I don't think many people are suggesting we do nothing, just that lockdowns are gross overreactions with huge harms. We could achieve substantially the same benefits for much lower cost.

There are people of all ages needing to be hospitalised for treatment, and I know of people from all age groups (apart from under 18s) who have either ended up with long-Covid, or have passed away.

And I know of people of all ages (far more than who have had covid) who have had their job prospects and businesses ruined, who have had their education decimated, who have been banned by law from being able to see their children, family or friends. This equation is not just one sided and like it or not, we all put a value on life.

It's also easy to not see the impacts the restrictions are having on people's lives when work is in a secure job safely from home. Perhaps not on own your own in a pokey little flat with no outdoor space.

 

[Class 33]

Ridiculous.

Even with no intervention (i.e. vaccines) at all, cases would be dropping considerably from the middle of March simply due to the time of year.

Indeed. By March the cases and all the hospital numbers and deaths will be dropping considerably week on week. And as we go into April and May all these numbers should be very very low, and absolutely no need for any lockdown atall. But if in the event they do drag this out into the summer months when the weather becomes really decent, the government have got another think coming if they think we're all going to "Stay at home", as there'll be many many people heading to the nations parks, beaches and beauty spots to get out and about and enjoy the decent weather!

 

[Yew]

But when furlough was first introduced, no-one could have predicted the timing and extent of the second wave (when schools and universities went back) or the third wave (due to the new variant of the virus)

Despite his faults, fergursons models did predict a massive spike after lockdowns were released.

 

[Yew]

One suggestion I've seen is that it is because of the rapid increase in lateral flow tests being used over the last month; up to 250k per day recently in England.

Official UK Coronavirus Dashboard

GOV.UK Coronavirus dashboard

coronavirus.data.gov.uk

The potential problems with PCR testing have been discussed before so a switch to lateral flow could reduce the number of postive test results.

Perhaps, I wonder if we've been taking on board the guidance on cycle thresholds for the who.

Alternatively, could it be that London is starting to see the effect of community immunity?

 

[yorksrob]

Apologies if this has been addressed earlier in the thread, I've not ploughed all the way through it, but I note a number of you are not in favour of lockdown. I'm no fan of it, but I understand why it's in place. I do share the concerns over the furlough scheme however.

The question I have for those of you who are not in favour of it, if we didn't have lockdown, how do you think the NHS would be coping with what would undoubtedly be even larger numbers requiring care and treatment? Our hospitals are struggling as it is - having seen it first hand when in hospital for something other than Covid recently. There are people of all ages needing to be hospitalised for treatment, and I know of people from all age groups (apart from under 18s) who have either ended up with long-Covid, or have passed away.

I do count myself very fortunate as being someone (who works for Network Rail) who is able to do my job full time from home, so am not having to put myself at risk on a daily basis like so many people are.

There has not been any suggestion that a person of any age group is any more likely to suffer severe consequences from COVID than they were at any other time during the pandemic.

The NHS has had almost a year to prepare for this. When there was that scramble for ventilators etc ten months ago, they should have been training people to operate them during the intervening months.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jan 2021 ==

The current thinking of several SPI-M and NERVTAG members who have looked at the numbers in detail (so can strip out test type impact) suggests that the new strain has higher K value than the older ones i.e. the increase in R value due to the new strain was mostly seen in more super spreader individual /events and reducing those has hence had a larger than expected effect on reducing R.
This of course has important repercussions for the order things get reopened in.

Go on then, enlighten us.

 

[initiation]

I saw this in a Spectator article earlier. They commissioned a company to survey 2000 members of the public.
A plurality think the lockdown should only end when the majority of the population have been vaccinated. Although if you add the first two groups you get 53% OK with once everyone 50+ is done.

When surveyed on when the lockdown should end, 21 per cent say it should end as soon as those over the age of 70 have been vaccinated, 32 per cent think it should end when those over the age of 50 have been vaccinated, while 38 per cent said the current lockdown should only end when the vast majority of the entire population has been vaccinated. On the question of when all non-travel related restrictions should go, a majority – 61 per cent – agreed they should end only once enough vaccinations have been given to the general population. However, 39 per cent think they should end sooner – once enough vaccinations have been given to the vulnerable population.

 

[DB]

I saw this in a Spectator article earlier. They commissioned a company to survey 2000 members of the public.
A plurality think the lockdown should only end when the majority of the population have been vaccinated. Although if you add the first two groups you get 53% OK with once everyone 50+ is done.

Just goes to show how successful Project Fear has beeen - they want to carry on with massively damaging restrictions over the summer, when cases would be very low even without the vaccine.

 

[yorkie]

Apologies if this has been addressed earlier in the thread, I've not ploughed all the way through it, but I note a number of you are not in favour of lockdown. I'm no fan of it, but I understand why it's in place. I do share the concerns over the furlough scheme however.

The question I have for those of you who are not in favour of it, if we didn't have lockdown, how do you think the NHS would be coping with what would undoubtedly be even larger numbers requiring care and treatment? Our hospitals are struggling as it is - having seen it first hand when in hospital for something other than Covid recently.

Research has shown that other voluntary measures, short of actual lockdowns, are sufficient to keep a lid on cases and this has been posted numerous times in previous forum posts.

Also as I've said before I am regularly exposed to viruses and yet rarely get ill, but the things that enable me to avoid being ill are being taken away from me (such as being able to feel positive, being able to exercise sufficiently, and so on); this is no way to fight viruses. We are going to be making the problem far worse.

There is also the elephant in the room that as a society we value keeping people alive for the sake of ticking a box to say they are alive when they have absolutely zero quality of life or dignity; see my previous posts about my grandparents. The media are very keen to publish stories about Covid yet when a child commits suicide the media are silent (apart from local news).

There are people of all ages needing to be hospitalised for treatment, and I know of people from all age groups (apart from under 18s) who have either ended up with long-Covid, or have passed away.

I know a lot of people and yet almost all the people I know who tested positive had very mild symptoms or none at all. I know of people who had post viral fatigue syndrome (which has apparently been renamed!) who do not support onerous restrictions and say the restrictions are slowing down their recovery. You say you know people from all age groups who passed away; you must be incredibly unlucky and I feel for you and those people but the stats do not lie; the average age of a death with Covid is 82, so you must know some real statistical outliers. If we look at deaths from younger people, Covid deaths are tragic of course but far bigger killers are still out there and some of these (e.g. suicides) are made worse through lockdowns. An average of 12 children under 15 die of flu in England alone annually. That's twelve children each year! And yet none of these ever make the news (other than local news). Hundreds of younger people died in the 2009 flu pandemic and yet there were no calls for lockdowns. Why? Because older people had good immunity against that strain, and when hundreds of young people die of something that is already known about, the media don't care.

I do count myself very fortunate as being someone (who works for Network Rail) who is able to do my job full time from home, so am not having to put myself at risk on a daily basis like so many people are.

I do count myself very fortunate as being someone who is not able to do my job full time from home, so am not having to put my mental and physical wellbeing at even more risk like so many people are.

Make no mistake we are facing an epidemic of obsesity, poor mental & physical wellbeing, loss of hope, loss of trust in democracy, loss of livelihoods. People who support lockdowns underestimate the impact.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jan 2021 ==

I saw this in a Spectator article earlier. They commissioned a company to survey 2000 members of the public.
A plurality think the lockdown should only end when the majority of the population have been vaccinated. Although if you add the first two groups you get 53% OK with once everyone 50+ is done.

Never believe these polls.

 

[duncanp]

Never believe these polls.

Yes, and I bet the 38% of people who said that the current lockdown should end only when the majority of the population have been vaccinated are relatively unaffected by the lockdown. (ie they are retired, working from home or on furlough)

 

[Domh245]

And it's a mystery what has happened to those cases - there doesn't seem to be a convincing answer.

The combination of very high flu vaccine uptake compared to usual and the lower natural R0 of influenza viruses compared to SARS CoV 2 (meaning restrictions that bring covid's R to near 1 will bring flu well below it) seems pretty convincing to me.

 

[philosopher]

Apologies if this has been addressed earlier in the thread, I've not ploughed all the way through it, but I note a number of you are not in favour of lockdown. I'm no fan of it, but I understand why it's in place. I do share the concerns over the furlough scheme however.

The question I have for those of you who are not in favour of it, if we didn't have lockdown, how do you think the NHS would be coping with what would undoubtedly be even larger numbers requiring care and treatment? Our hospitals are struggling as it is - having seen it first hand when in hospital for something other than Covid recently. There are people of all ages needing to be hospitalised for treatment, and I know of people from all age groups (apart from under 18s) who have either ended up with long-Covid, or have passed away.

I do count myself very fortunate as being someone (who works for Network Rail) who is able to do my job full time from home, so am not having to put myself at risk on a daily basis like so many people are.

From June to October the NHS was in general was not treating many Covid patients. I do accept that a lockdown in late March was probably necessary to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. However if they had eased restrictions quicker in the spring and early summer, say they opened non essential shops in first half of May and pubs in the second half of May it would have resulted in more infections over the Summer. This would have had two advantages, first the NHS is typically under less pressure during the summer and second due to lower viral loads and / or more vitamin D those with Covid would have probably got less ill and so have needed hospital treatment less.

By the time Autumn came along there would have been more immunity in the population so any second wave would have hopefully not have been as severe and hence there would have been less pressure on the NHS.

So the NHS may have ended up treating more Covid patients, but it would have been more spread out over the year.

 

[nedchester]

Research has shown that other voluntary measures, short of actual lockdowns, are sufficient to keep a lid on cases and this has been posted numerous times in previous forum posts.

Also as I've said before I am regularly exposed to viruses and yet rarely get ill, but the things that enable me to avoid being ill are being taken away from me (such as being able to feel positive, being able to exercise sufficiently, and so on); this is no way to fight viruses. We are going to be making the problem far worse.

There is also the elephant in the room that as a society we value keeping people alive for the sake of ticking a box to say they are alive when they have absolutely zero quality of life or dignity; see my previous posts about my grandparents. The media are very keen to publish stories about Covid yet when a child commits suicide the media are silent (apart from local news).


I know a lot of people and yet almost all the people I know who tested positive had very mild symptoms or none at all. I know of people who had post viral fatigue syndrome (which has apparently been renamed!) who do not support onerous restrictions and say the restrictions are slowing down their recovery. You say you know people from all age groups who passed away; you must be incredibly unlucky and I feel for you and those people but the stats do not lie; the average age of a death with Covid is 82, so you must know some real statistical outliers. If we look at deaths from younger people, Covid deaths are tragic of course but far bigger killers are still out there and some of these (e.g. suicides) are made worse through lockdowns. An average of 12 children under 15 die of flu in England alone annually. That's twelve children each year! And yet none of these ever make the news (other than local news). Hundreds of younger people died in the 2009 flu pandemic and yet there were no calls for lockdowns. Why? Because older people had good immunity against that strain, and when hundreds of young people die of something that is already known about, the media don't care.

I do count myself very fortunate as being someone who is not able to do my job full time from home, so am not having to put my mental and physical wellbeing at even more risk like so many people are.

Make no mistake we are facing an epidemic of obsesity, poor mental & physical wellbeing, loss of hope, loss of trust in democracy, loss of livelihoods. People who support lockdowns underestimate the impact.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jan 2021 ==


Never believe these polls.

I am not a fan of lockdowns but at the current time I do not know what else can be done short term to bring the infection rates down, stop spiralling hospital admissions and get the virus under control.

That said there is absolutely no doubt that there is an epidemic of mental health issue from locking down people for long periods of time in addition not being able conduct their lives normally. This will lead to additional cases of suicide but yes these cases are ignored but the press will flock to a hospital find a “young person” suffering badly from Covid. Whilst these cases are real and tragic in their own right they are rare but the press love them to spread what I term “fear porn” and those who already fragile become more adversely reflected.

And of course there is the long term economic effect of all this that for a while was at the forefront of concerns but now seems to be secondary to everything.

So yes the current lockdown is necessary BUT we are vaccinating the most vulnerable in our society. By Easter at current rates we should have everyone over 50 and vulnerable people vaccinated. We should all be at the very least Tier 1 at that stage.

There may be some who refuse the vaccine but I don’t see why we should all be locked down because of them. If they get Covid tough luck.

 

[Richard Scott]

I am not a fan of lockdowns but at the current time I do not know what else can be done short term to bring the infection rates down, stop spiralling hospital admissions and get the virus under control.

That said there is absolutely no doubt that there is an epidemic of mental health issue from locking down people for long periods of time in addition not being able conduct their lives normally. This will lead to additional cases of suicide but yes these cases are ignored but the press will flock to a hospital find a “young person” suffering badly from Covid. Whilst these cases are real and tragic in their own right they are rare but the press love them to spread what I term “fear porn” and those who already fragile become more adversely reflected.

When will we learn that whatever we we do we cannot control a virus? As you rightly point out there is a mental health issue and, in my opinion, it's far more pressing now. We need to start getting life moving again. School opening cannot wait.

 

[Yew]

From June to October the NHS was in general was not treating many Covid patients. I do accept that a lockdown in late March was probably necessary to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. However if they had eased restrictions quicker in the spring and early summer, say they opened non essential shops in first half of May and pubs in the second half of May it would have resulted in more infections over the Summer. This would have had two advantages, first the NHS is typically under less pressure during the summer and second due to lower viral loads and / or more vitamin D those with Covid would have probably got less ill and so have needed hospital treatment less.

By the time Autumn came along there would have been more immunity in the population so any second wave would have hopefully not have been as severe and hence there would have been less pressure on the NHS.

So the NHS may have ended up treating more Covid patients, but it would have been more spread out over the year.

But Herd immunity is immoral, even if it does reduce the probability of hospitals being overwhelmed, resulting in fewer deaths in the long run.

 

[nedchester]

When will we learn that whatever we we do we cannot control a virus? As you rightly point out there is a mental health issue and, in my opinion, it's far more pressing now. We need to start getting life moving again. School opening cannot wait.

I think the issue is not about controlling a virus but not having our healthcare services in such a state that they cannot cope not only with those with the virus but also those with other healthcare conditions (including mental health).

Of course this does point to the fact that we need more resilience in our health systems and that’s something we need to start doing now.

 

[DB]

The combination of very high flu vaccine uptake compared to usual and the lower natural R0 of influenza viruses compared to SARS CoV 2 (meaning restrictions that bring covid's R to near 1 will bring flu well below it) seems pretty convincing to me.

Sure, that would have an impact - but it seems unlikely that this would be enough to make it almost disappear.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jan 2021 ==

I am not a fan of lockdowns but at the current time I do not know what else can be done short term to bring the infection rates down, stop spiralling hospital admissions and get the virus under control.

They were already coming down before the lockdown could have had any effect.

We cannot 'control' an infectious airborne virus.

 

[Domh245]

Sure, that would have an impact - but it seems unlikely that this would be enough to make it almost disappear.

It goes a lot further than you might think. For most of the autumn the UK had an R for covid of a little over 1 (1.1 - 1.3 from memory), which taking the lower bound of covid's R0 of 3.3 is a reduction of around 2. Assuming that the measures have the same effect on R for influenzas as they do covid, then it's quite easily well below 1 given that even the highly infectious 1918 flu strain was 2.8 upper bound, and most other seasonal strains are 2.1

The fact as well that there have been stringent restrictions globally (and a relative collapse in travel) will have also meant that very little is imported

 

[nedchester]

They were already coming down before the lockdown could have had any effect.

We cannot 'control' an infectious airborne virus.

Were they? Evidence?

I’m not sure airbourne is the right term as it is contained in droplets from other humans. It doesn’t survive very long “in the air”

 

[317 forever]

And this is what’s worrying, there’s no way out of this vicious cycle, for as long as we have politicians who pander to it.

We’d have already for sure have had civil disobedience if the restrictions we have now were actually enforceable / being enforced.

Measures can also prove counter productive. When for example anti-lockdown protests happen, these are events where people are drawn together and can end up spreading the virus through an event that would no have arisen but for lockdown.

Ignoring lockdown can conversely be better for containing the virus. For example, I deliberately had a bus trip in London on November 28th during lockdown knowing they would be less busy than when Christmas shopping resumed post-lockdown.

 

[DB]

Were they? Evidence?

I’m not sure airbourne is the right term as it is contained in droplets from other humans. It doesn’t survive very long “in the air”

Someone posted the graphs on one of these threads within the past day or so.

It is airborne as it is transmitted in the air, as opposited to a virus such as HIV which isn't.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jan 2021 ==

Measures can also prove counter productive. When for example anti-lockdown protests happen, these are events where people are drawn together and can end up spreading the virus through an event that would no have arisen but for lockdown.

That's what they claim, but there's no evidence of any outbreaks actually being linked to such events - which are, after all, outside.

 

[chris11256]

Slightly unsure which thread this belongs in, but if reflected in progress over the next month and a half then we really will be in a really different situation with easing of restrictions and cases.

https://twitter.com/BristOliver/status/1353270197935812608
Been thinking about where we are, where we might be going, what effect vaccines might have and how to tell. This thread may not happen all at once, and will get a bit mathematical in a couple of places (sorry!), but I will put in pictures. It's yet another argument for log scales.

Not quote sure of a better way to quote a tweet, but further down that thread he talks about where cases will end up if they carry on going down at the same rate. He then models the impact on cases that vaccination could start to have, with an optimistic curve and a slightly more pessimistic curve. On the optimistic side, sub 1000 cases a day by early March, on the pessimistic side mid march(picture below). He does say that it's a scenario not a prediction and does explain his maths(not that I understand it very much)


red is current rate that cases are decreasing, not considering the impact of vaccine.


Purely on that basis, I think Easter is a fairly good shot for easing. I have read a number of reports(and said it myself) saying that the Government seems to be going down a route of deliberately under promising and being very pessimistic on lockdown easing/vaccine rollout, having learnt lessons from last year(beat the virus in 12 weeks, normal by November, inhumane to cancel Christmas)

 

[david1212]

That assumes that furlough ends. Will the government ever be able to wean the population off furlough?

...

The furlough scheme is the most anti-Conservative policy I think they've ever used as a Conservative Government. Therefore the longer this goes on, the more uneasy their voter base, media backers and the like will get and the more they'll be inclined to try and stop it, especially if the above text about Corporation tax comes to being.

..

I'm amazed they've kept it going so long, but it is likely it won't last much longer. Not for ideological reasons, but simply cost.


I've seen estimates between 2.5 & 5 million people. Its probably quite hard to nail down exact figures due to the ever changing regulations, but somewhere in that range seems about right.

While furlough continues there is at least the possibility of the role still being required and hence somebody employed. End it or even try to curtail it as proposed then withdrawn at the eleventh hour last autumn and all those currently on it will immediately be added to the numbers who are unemployed and claiming benefit. While for some the benefit payment would be less long term better to try and retain the role both financially and politically.

Yes, there really is no way that the government can keep the lockdown going in its current form until July.

The cost to the economy will be far too great, as will be made painfully clear in the budget on March 3rd. And that is without considering the effect on people's mental health.

I think the government will start to lift restrictions in early March.

As I posted elsewhere yesterday the government are having discussions with the hospitality sector about the restrictions that will be in place when they are allowed to reopen. The report also said that a date for reopening the hospitality sector will become apparent within the next few weeks once the government see the data on vaccination, new cases, hospitalisations and deaths.

So the government are clearly making plans to reopen the economy starting in the spring.

As for reimposing restrictions in the autumn, I just can't see how that can be justified, because the vast majority of the population should have been vaccinated by then. Even if some deadly new strain emerges over the summer, we know that existing vaccines can be modified to cope with the new strain, as happens with the flu vaccine every year.

Any restrictions in the autumn of 2021 are likely to be low key, such as work from home if you are feeling unwell, shielding on a part or full time basis for anyone who is vulnerable, and possibly advice about wearing face coverings in crowded settings such as public, without making them mandatory.

I really do hope this prediction turns out to be broadly correct.

Slightly unsure which thread this belongs in, but if reflected in progress over the next month and a half then we really will be in a really different situation with easing of restrictions and cases.



Not quote sure of a better way to quote a tweet, but further down that thread he talks about where cases will end up if they carry on going down at the same rate. He then models the impact on cases that vaccination could start to have, with an optimistic curve and a slightly more pessimistic curve. On the optimistic side, sub 1000 cases a day by early March, on the pessimistic side mid march(picture below). He does say that it's a scenario not a prediction and does explain his maths(not that I understand it very much)

View attachment 89241
red is current rate that cases are decreasing, not considering the impact of vaccine.


Purely on that basis, I think Easter is a fairly good shot for easing. I have read a number of reports(and said it myself) saying that the Government seems to be going down a route of deliberately under promising and being very pessimistic on lockdown easing/vaccine rollout, having learnt lessons from last year(beat the virus in 12 weeks, normal by November, inhumane to cancel Christmas)

Even taking the worst prediction from this graph by 1st April just over 2000 cases a day is a huge decrease from now. So long as any easing of restrictions does not create a big rise in cases and most critically hospital admissions given the vaccination program returning to Tier 2 would be a big step forward followed by Tier 1.

 

[takno]

Slightly unsure which thread this belongs in, but if reflected in progress over the next month and a half then we really will be in a really different situation with easing of restrictions and cases.



Not quote sure of a better way to quote a tweet, but further down that thread he talks about where cases will end up if they carry on going down at the same rate. He then models the impact on cases that vaccination could start to have, with an optimistic curve and a slightly more pessimistic curve. On the optimistic side, sub 1000 cases a day by early March, on the pessimistic side mid march(picture below). He does say that it's a scenario not a prediction and does explain his maths(not that I understand it very much)

red is current rate that cases are decreasing, not considering the impact of vaccine.

Purely on that basis, I think Easter is a fairly good shot for easing. I have read a number of reports(and said it myself) saying that the Government seems to be going down a route of deliberately under promising and being very pessimistic on lockdown easing/vaccine rollout, having learnt lessons from last year(beat the virus in 12 weeks, normal by November, inhumane to cancel Christmas)

I'm not sure that thread makes any arguments at all, apart from that log graphs are easier to read. The green and blue lines are just reasonable suppositions, rather than being explicitly based on data, and the red line as base case makes some rather reaching assumptions about how the number of daily infections will decline. Nothing wrong with it - it's just more of a maths primer than an argument about lockdown

 

[Class 317]

And it's a mystery what has happened to those cases - there doesn't seem to be a convincing answer.

I saw a report a few weeks ago that the social distancing, WFH, extra cleaning etc have markedly reduced the general level of colds and flu spreading this winter.

Also slot of vulnerable people are not really mixing in in door places much if the local day centre group I help out with IT is anything to go by. Hard to catch flu without meeting others

I'll try to find the article.

 

[duncanp]

Todays figures have just been released.

30,004 cases reported today, which represents a 22.4% fall week on week from the previous 7 days.

Things certainly seem to be moving in the right direction, and if they carry on falling at that rate we will be down to abotu 14,000 cases per day by the time of the lockdown review in the middle of February.

And looking at the age related "heat map" of infection rates for my local area (Sandwell, West Midlands) the colours have definitely started to get lighter in the older age groups, which suggests that the vaccine is starting to have some effect.

 

[brad465]

I saw a report a few weeks ago that the social distancing, WFH, extra cleaning etc have markedly reduced the general level of colds and flu spreading this winter.

Also slot of vulnerable people are not really mixing in in door places much if the local day centre group I help out with IT is anything to go by. Hard to catch flu without meeting others

I'll try to find the article.

Yes I believe all these measures have been very good at reducing prevalence of those viruses. However because Covid-19 is known to have a much higher basic reproduction number, what does a great job at controlling cold and flu cannot control Covid, except slow it down until immunity levels increase to provide some control.

 

[317 forever]

The ones round my way won't even entertain it. The office is lethal, and the train is full of dirty people who don't wash their hands after using the toilet (quote lifted straight from one of the have your say webpages, this one relating to masks).

They're too wedded to their new zombie-existence. Even more so when the inevitable "you can travel an unlimited distance for recreation" easement comes in, and they can all flock to places like Durdle Door and "work" from there...

Mind you, some enthusiasts have taken advantage when we have been allowed unlimited exercise with travel merely advised against rather than banned.