Is the current aim to reduce or eliminate exposure to the virus?

[Chester1]

No, I simply see them needing to impose a 14 day quarantine for any visitors for the foreseeable future. Is that such a hardship?

For countries with huge tourist industries yes. They will have a captive domestic market and trans Tasmin tourism but that will be small compensation. It will hinder trade too, face to face contact is too important for building trust for deals to be entirely replaced by video conferencing. They can seal their borders for a few months, especially during their winter but a year or two would cause huge damage.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It could be a lot longer than 18 months away. There is a lot of blind faith that science will find a way etc. It may very well do but we can't rely on that. I suspect that herd immunity through infection will be what ends the crisis. The government's mistake will then have been relying on it too early, not the decision itself.

New Zealand and Australia are really going to be in an economic mess later this year if there is no vaccine or effective treatments. They were too successful locking down and sealing themselves off from the rest of the world. They maybe able to eradicate the virus in their own countries and it will be politically unacceptable to reopen their borders. Businesses have lobbied for them to allow travel between the two first and it might have to stay that way for a long time, which would have huge economic consequences.

We are hopefully going to learn some useful lessons from the experience in other countries as we certainly don't look like we can test our own population. Can only hope it is not too slow.

I am!!!!

I am not saying young people should break the lockdown! Just that they should not be terrified of catching it! They should be isolating to help those who are vulnerable not out of fear, which is damaging to their mental health.

Fair enough. My fear is that plenty of people will get complacent. You know the "its only me and one person won't make much of a difference" syndrome.

 

[Meerkat]

The horrible point is that if we reduce the R value too much with effective lockdown then we just prolong the period taken for most of the population to have herd immunity.

If you are that successful at dropping R then you squash Covid down to where test and trace is viable, together with quarantine on arrivals

No, I simply see them needing to impose a 14 day quarantine for any visitors for the foreseeable future. Is that such a hardship?

quarantine wouldnt need to be 14 days if we have a test

 

[Peter Sarf]

If you are that successful at dropping R then you squash Covid down to where test and trace is viable, together with quarantine on arrivals

quarantine wouldnt need to be 14 days if we have a test

True but I think the R value would have to go a very long way below 1. That would be ideal though.

 

[edwin_m]

While the number of death per day hasn't fallen the number of cases and the number of people in hospital due to Covid-19 has fallen, just not for long enough to make an impact on number of people dieing each day. The government scientists seem confident that the "R" value is between 0.5 and 1, the problem they have is calculating a precise number and what a package of loosening measures would increase it to.

Looking at the graphs I don't think the number of cases has fallen by much. I imagine three weeks into the lockdown anyone who caught it before and was going to need to go to hospital would have done so by now, but there will still be cases over the next three weeks or so (hence the three-week extension?) when people sharing the same household as that group might progress through infection to hospitalization. At that point R0 may settle down to a lower value that reflects the true steady state for this level of lockdown.

When we look at casualty figures what are we actually looking at though? With the age of most of the fatalities and Covid being a reportable illness it’s difficult to calculate a realistic excess deaths figure.

I agree there are many things we don't know about the true casualty figure, also including deaths outside hospital and those who are infected but not hospitalized. However if the main constraint is the capacity of hospitals, then the number hospitalized is the key figure to watch. Unless hospitals get overwhelmed it is probably a roughly constant proportion of the total cases, but we don't know the constant of proportionality.

The horrible point is that if we reduce the R value too much with effective lockdown then we just prolong the period taken for most of the population to have herd immunity. That is assuming herd immunity is a valid outcome of course. What it does do is keep people out of harms way until a vaccine appears. But that could be 18 months away. So I have to reluctantly conclude that we may need this virus to take its course through the population as fast as we can without the NHS sinking. Which is still going to kill a lot of people and also cost the economy.

It's not a happy conclusion but I fear I have to agree with it. If we were confident in a vaccine we could perhaps keep a heavy lockdown until it arrives, but not for as long as 18 months and probably not even until September which Oxford University are claiming (though maybe for the start of trials rather than mass vaccination?). And if the number infected drops right down then it's difficult to test a vaccine - I think at least one trial in China has failed for that reason.

Also if infection doesn't confer immunity as some are suggesting, then a vaccine may not be very effective anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That would work as demonstrated by Wuhan but only if enforced. The Government's recent statement that parks should stay open indicates they know there are limits to patience and how much it can enforce the lockdown.

The question would be could we do it for 1-2 weeks, with the dates known in advance, and would it have enough of an effect to be useful?

 

[cactustwirly]

Another interesting question is how much further you could reduce it and what measures could reduce it right down. Could we, for instance, by banning going out for any reason at all for 2 weeks barring medical treatment that would be a 999/A&E job in normal circumstances, or if you work for the NHS, Police, Fire Service or a utility, bring the numbers right down? It wouldn't be fun, but it might be worth the effort if it was effective. It'd probably need announcing say 2-3 weeks in advance to allow people to shop and make work plans, though.

I don't see what that would achieve, except for making everyone's mental health worse!
After that 2 weeks the number of cases would increase and we would be back to where we are now.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I don't see what that would achieve, except for making everyone's mental health worse!
After that 2 weeks the number of cases would increase and we would be back to where we are now.

Maybe the goal is for it becoming extinct - runs out of people to infect. After two weeks tracing infected contacts might become feasible but with no lockdown the virus will quickly run away ahead of us again.

 

[cactustwirly]

Maybe he is going for it becoming extinct - runs out of people to infect. Tracing infected contacts might become feasible but with no lockdown the virus will quickly run away ahead of us again.

Which would need to be significantly longer than 2 weeks!

 

[Busaholic]

No, I simply see them needing to impose a 14 day quarantine for any visitors for the foreseeable future. Is that such a hardship?

As should have happened here from at least a month ago, and not just visitors either but residents. Everyone seems to have forgotten those cruise passengers who were put into isolation in Cheshire(?) a few weeks ago. We all know why the measures haven't happened i.e. we haven't got the resources or, frankly, the willpower of those supposedly in charge who guide our destiny.

 

[yorkie]

Maybe the goal is for it becoming extinct - runs out of people to infect...

Yes that's what herd immunity would achieve but the problem is, how do we get there?

The horrible point is that if we reduce the R value too much with effective lockdown then we just prolong the period taken for most of the population to have herd immunity. That is assuming herd immunity is a valid outcome of course. What it does do is keep people out of harms way until a vaccine appears. But that could be 18 months away. So I have to reluctantly conclude that we may need this virus to take its course through the population as fast as we can without the NHS sinking. Which is still going to kill a lot of people and also cost the economy.

Yes this is a possibility.

Young people might well be almost guaranteed to survive *BUT* the problem is they will infect people who have less chance of survival. Also a young person might not be dying of COVID-19 but, if they have an accident and young people do tend to have accidents, they will not get the help they need in an overrun hospital - which could then prove fatal. Talking of overrun hospitals - more people will die of COVID-19 if they cannot get a ventilator.

So lets stay home, protect the NHS and save lives.

Otherwise the actions of the young could prove very dangerous and very selfish.

But as you said above, it could take 18 months. We can't live in a locked down state for that long. The lives of the young and healthy should not be completely sacrificed. It just cannot happen.

Over 90% of deaths from Covid-19 are of either over 70s or people with pre-existing medical conditions. Of the latter the average number of conditions is 3! That means deaths of relatively healthy under 70 year olds (i.e. most of the population) have been about 1000. There is too much fear amongst young healthy people, yes we could die from it but it really is extremely unlikely.

I heard it was over 90% but yes I agree. The question is what balance to strike. I feel there must be a balance; we cannot completely sacrifice our future for young people. I do hope we can find a balance soon.

 

[JonathanH]

For countries with huge tourist industries yes. They will have a captive domestic market and trans Tasmin tourism but that will be small compensation. It will hinder trade too, face to face contact is too important for building trust for deals to be entirely replaced by video conferencing. They can seal their borders for a few months, especially during their winter but a year or two would cause huge damage.

Maybe though, they will just have to realise that tourism isn't a sustainable industry and that people should experience other cultures through books, videos, maybe immersive virtual experiences, that sort of thing.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's not a happy conclusion but I fear I have to agree with it. If we were confident in a vaccine we could perhaps keep a heavy lockdown until it arrives, but not for as long as 18 months and probably not even until September which Oxford University are claiming (though maybe for the start of trials rather than mass vaccination?). And if the number infected drops right down then it's difficult to test a vaccine - I think at least one trial in China has failed for that reason.

Also if infection doesn't confer immunity as some are suggesting, then a vaccine may not be very effective anyway.

If there is even a vaccine, doubt is being cast today as to whether the will even be one. So it may be that we will have to learn to live with this virus and treat it's symptoms.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-523433

Sir Jeremy Farrar, a member of the UK Government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), said he thought the UK was past the peak of the "first wave" of the virus but warned that if lockdown measures were lifted too soon the virus could come back in a few weeks.

The infectious diseases expert was hopeful the restrictions could be eased within about three or four weeks if the number of infections dropped "dramatically".

He told Sky he was "optimistic" about finding a vaccine for Covid-19 but acknowledged: "The truth is we don't have another vaccine for any other human coronavirus."

He added: "It's not a given that we will make a vaccine."

 

[yorkie]

Yes it's always been known there is no guarantee of finding a vaccine

I'm puzzled by the claim it "might" come back... It's not going to go away, surely? I wish it was going to but I see no evidence that it's likely!

 

[Ianno87]

I don't see what that would achieve, except for making everyone's mental health worse!
After that 2 weeks the number of cases would increase and we would be back to where we are now.

Agreed. I'm really at the point of starting to find this exceedingly hard with my young kids. What little 'novelty' there was at first has long worn off.

Some 'underlying' rate of spread is perhaps, sadly, inevitable.

 

[Chester1]

Agreed. I'm really at the point of starting to find this exceedingly hard with my young kids. What little 'novelty' there was at first has long worn off.

Some 'underlying' rate of spread is perhaps, sadly, inevitable.

The strategy of loosening the measures by the largest amount possible while having the "R" at about 0.9 seems to be the most sustainable option unless or until there is a vaccine. Unfortunately the data is too limited both in the UK and worldwide to know what package of measures would achieve this.

 

[Puffing Devil]

No, I simply see them needing to impose a 14 day quarantine for any visitors for the foreseeable future. Is that such a hardship?

Given my last business trip to Sydney was 3 nights, I'd say that would be a mighty thump in the travel economy. How many tourists, not business people, would be willing to spend 14 nights at their own expense confined to a hotel before venturing out?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given my last business trip to Sydney was 3 nights, I'd say that would be a mighty thump in the travel economy. How many tourists, not business people, would be willing to spend 14 nights at their own expense confined to a hotel before venturing out?

Not many, but that's why I think the international leisure (and unnecessary business) travel market will not start to recover for well over a year, and nor should it. It's simply not important.

 

[Chester1]

Given my last business trip to Sydney was 3 nights, I'd say that would be a mighty thump in the travel economy. How many tourists, not business people, would be willing to spend 14 nights at their own expense confined to a hotel before venturing out?

Business travel will drop to nearly zero. Its one thing paying a small team to be quarantined for a deal worth 10s or hundreds of millions but small deals are likely to not happen. A lot of small and medium sized businesses in Australia and New Zealand will struggle in time if the rest of the world has opened up again (with precautions) but they are still determined to have zero cases.

Not many, but that's why I think the international leisure (and unnecessary business) travel market will not start to recover for well over a year, and nor should it. It's simply not important.

Its easy to say that as a Brit, there will be swathes of southern Europe which will be in a (localised) depression without international tourism and push national economies into deep recessions.

 

[Meerkat]

The business Market that really is necessary will be able to cover the cost of testing before every flight, and the health insurance costs to cover weeks of treatment/quarantine if you catch it abroad. Not so sure about the tourism market.
Tested before you go out, tested before you come back (not just for your home country’s peace of mind by so the host country knows you didn’t pass the incoming test whilst incubating.

 

[Meerkat]

Its one thing paying a small team to be quarantined for a deal worth 10s or hundreds of millions but small deals are likely to not happen. A lot of small and medium sized businesses in Australia and New Zealand will struggle in time if the rest of the world has opened up again (with precautions) but they are still determined to have zero cases.

Trade used to happen when markets were months of sailing away from suppliers. It will just bring agents and traders back into the gap, where a company can’t afford a local branch.

Its easy to say that as a Brit, there will be swathes of southern Europe which will be in a (localised) depression without international tourism and push national economies into deep recessions.

Its not just their choice. Greece could say they are happy for British tourists to come, but UKG might put onerous insurance conditions on leaving the country on top of the risk of your holiday turning into a month in hospital and/quarantine.

 

[Chester1]

Trade used to happen when markets were months of sailing away from suppliers. It will just bring agents and traders back into the gap, where a company can’t afford a local branch.

Its not just their choice. Greece could say they are happy for British tourists to come, but UKG might put onerous insurance conditions on leaving the country on top of the risk of your holiday turning into a month in hospital and/quarantine.

It does come across that some members of this site are getting excited by the thought that our globalised world might become very small again. Globalisation has taken a hit but its not going away. The forces that drove it until Coronavirus are still there. The difference will be more precautions on health and hygiene. Any country that seals itself off will be hurt. Why do a deal in a country were you have to go through a third party or spend 14 days in quarantine every time you need to see them face to face? Most businesses will simply not bother and do deal with a company in a country with a relatively open border.

Without a vaccine Coronavirus will become an endemic disease that we adapt our society to live with and accept that it will spread at a low level.

 

[Meerkat]

It does come across that some members of this site are getting excited by the thought that our globalised world might become very small again. Globalisation has taken a hit but its not going away. The forces that drove it until Coronavirus are still there. The difference will be more precautions on health and hygiene. Any country that seals itself off will be hurt. Why do a deal in a country were you have to go through a third party or spend 14 days in quarantine every time you need to see them face to face? Most businesses will simply not bother and do deal with a company in a country with a relatively open border.

Without a vaccine Coronavirus will become an endemic disease that we adapt our society to live with and accept that it will spread at a low level.

The forces are building up against globalisation, and Covid has proved how dangerous it can be (us being reliant on nasty governments in China and Turkey.....). It’s terrible for the environment, the system is being abused by China, and the rise of the Third World and the lack of new industries mean the first world is fast running out of benefits from it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does come across that some members of this site are getting excited by the thought that our globalised world might become very small again.

I wouldn't quite say that, but I would say that globalisation has gone too far, for instance we really need to cut down massively on "food miles" and primarily eat UK produced food, ideally even more locally produced than that. With regard to business, we need to reduce actual travel heavily, replacing it with teleconferencing and videoconferencing.

We could also do with getting our manufacturing industry back.

 

[Meerkat]

I wouldn't quite say that, but I would say that globalisation has gone too far, for instance we really need to cut down massively on "food miles" and primarily eat UK produced food, ideally even more locally produced than that. With regard to business, we need to reduce actual travel heavily, replacing it with teleconferencing and videoconferencing.

We could also do with getting our manufacturing industry back.

Is it physically possible to grow that much food in the UK whilst reducing fertiliser and chemicals?

 

[JonathanH]

Its easy to say that as a Brit, there will be swathes of southern Europe which will be in a (localised) depression without international tourism and push national economies into deep recessions

There is no reason to allow tourism to deal with that - simply stay at home and send the money saved to support the economy of deprived areas.

The same thing applies within the UK. Increases in tax can be used to a) reduce the money people have for holidays that involve travel and b) support the areas where tourism is no longer an industry.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it physically possible to grow that much food in the UK whilst reducing fertiliser and chemicals?

That assumes you think organic is more important than reducing food miles - I don't. But the UK is not short of rural land, anyway, so I would say a tentative yes.

 

[Meerkat]

That assumes you think organic is more important than reducing food miles - I don't. But the UK is not short of rural land, anyway, so I would say a tentative yes.

You assume wrong. Even without going organic we need to massively reduce the environmental impact of farming. I am not convinced this island could self sustain 70m people, certainly not without going vegetarian!
There is also gross conceptual simplification around food miles - it can be less harmful to ship the food from more efficient growing environments abroad

 

[Domh245]

There is also gross conceptual simplification around food miles - it can be less harmful to ship the food from more efficient growing environments abroad

Sure, but on the flip side if you can encourage people to eat seasonally and locally you then don't have to worry about inefficient growing conditions or food miles

 

[Meerkat]

Sure, but on the flip side if you can encourage people to eat seasonally and locally you then don't have to worry about inefficient growing conditions or food miles

Even seasonal produce can be much more efficiently produced abroad.
I agree we should take that direction of travel but with much caution, particularly with climate change’s indeterminate effects.