Life after the end of "lockdown" 2.0

[Tomp94]

If we're going to go into another idiotic 3 tier system, surely it would make sense to only strengthen tiers two and three, as tier one, with the least infections, should resemble something closer to the new normal? I.e. it would be stupid to impose a ban on household mixing in tier one. I thought the point of the tiers was to allow loosening of lockdown depending on the number of infections in an area, which is reviewed regularly, so that any given place can move up and down between the tiers depending on the levels of infection, rather than to keep everyone in a state of perpetual fear, gearing them up for the vaccine in the spring*

* oh wait, that's the whole point of the strengthened tiers, to keep us in a state of perpetual fear, to remove our liberties and freedom, so that when the vaccine comes along, we'll all be begging for it. Begging for a vaccine for a virus that has over a 99% survival rate, with no hospitalisation required, in the overwhelming majority of people in the UK, aka a virus which is defeated by ones own immune system!


What a nation of bedwetters we have become!


I for one will be ignoring any household mixing restrictions, sick of being nannied by the state, telling me who's home I can and cannot go to!

 

[hwl]

Lmao long term life is not going to change as a result of this virus.

People will not allow it. People are people and will carry on as they were before. Most already are.

The virus has effectively pressed the fast forward button on changes that were already happening e.g. the permanent shift to internet retail (ignoring higher levels during lockdowns) this year has been equivalent to 4-5 times the 2010-2019 annual market share increases. The late summer / early autumn non lock down level of internet retail is still lower the South Korean 2019 internet retail market share - the largest globally. The non lockdown period level of internet retail market share is unlikely to decrease. Effectively retail will have jumped from 2019 to 2024/5 in 2020.

The level of people working in the office will go back up from current levels but not to the 2019 levels there will be more home working in the future. There will be less travel for meetings.

The clock will not be turned back to the end of 2019.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Apparently the Wuhan may testing of 10 million people found 330 asymptomatic cases. There wasn't a single example of a close contact of an asymptomatic person testing positive.
This suggests it's highly likely that symptomatic people don't spread the virus.

Ive not been convinced from the outset they really understand how this virus transmits fully Instead of pouring money into Test, Track and Isolate they should have put a few quid into a trial. Get a few 100 people and pay them 10k each and run a trial for month with some already known to be infected and monitor how the virus behaves. Im sure the military have a camp they could have put them in complete with naffi shops and bars and accommodation with a bunch of scientists monitoring them on a daily basis knowing all there movements and contacts.

 

[bengley]

The virus has effectively pressed the fast forward button on changes that were already happening e.g. the permanent shift to internet retail (ignoring higher levels during lockdowns) this year has been equivalent to 4-5 times the 2010-2019 annual market share increases. The late summer / early autumn non lock down level of internet retail is still lower the South Korean 2019 internet retail market share - the largest globally. The non lockdown period level of internet retail market share is unlikely to decrease. Effectively retail will have jumped from 2019 to 2024/5 in 2020.

The level of people working in the office will go back up from current levels but not to the 2019 levels there will be more home working in the future. There will be less travel for meetings.

The clock will not be turned back to the end of 2019.

Internet retail was already killing high street names. I still think there's a place for the high street and it's never going to disappear in its entirety.

Not everyone works in office jobs. I appreciate those who worked in offices and now work from home will see big changes, but those of us who don't work in offices won't.

 

[londonteacher]

I for one will be ignoring any household mixing restrictions, sick of being nannied by the state, telling me who's home I can and cannot go to!

Anyone who does not follow the restrictions, whether you believe in them or not, should have their right to free healthcare removed for anything COVID related. You don't follow the rules, you pay!

I don't 100% believe the risks, but I would still follow the rules.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

But will many people take much notice? My recent observations suggest quite a number are just going about their business as normally as they can subject to the obvious restrictions like mask wearing. I think quite a few have no idea what the restrictions mean and just carry on. In the end the Government will just lose control of all this and life will head back towards normality by default?

Yeah lockdown 2.0 very different from 1.0 in terms of people on the streets and activity around shops, garages and garden centres etc yet the tide has turned on cases (alot more than data suggest as test levels up 100k higher so shows positivity levels even lower). What's clear is things were happening already before lockdown 2.0 whether that was tiers will now be lost in the noise of moving to Lockdown 2.0 but based on 1.0 it took 17 days for the tide to turn yet for the last week there has been clear evidence of downturn particularly in NW so to me that shows Tier 3 was doing something. Ive also seen that left unchecked it really achieves greater than 3% penetration of an area before it levels off. Furthermore London has shown clear levels of substantially reduced hospitalisation and death rates to case levels this time round which indicates that once virus has spread through population it has diminished impact on secondary waves.

Im not a scientist and i can see something differrent so its about time there was an independent commissions setup to revaluate all the data and advise government accordingly. Oh and they can have 10 days to do it and then make recommendations.

 

[hwl]

Losing millions of jobs is hardly what I would call "minor adjustments". But hey, so long as you aren't inconvenienced its all OK yeah?

I think you have misunderstood what I'm saying and are shooting the messenger.
The discussion was around restrictions post mass vaccination campaign, the millions of jobs have already or will already have gone before that time. Many potential restrictions or changes post mass vaccination have no or very little effect on jobs e.g. changes to building regs requiring more greater air change rates

 

[Tomp94]

Anyone who does not follow the restrictions, whether you believe in them or not, should have their right to free healthcare removed for anything COVID related. You don't follow the rules, you pay!

I don't 100% believe the risks, but I would still follow the rules.

Nonsense. I pay my taxes therefore I have a right to "free" healthcare.
I believe there should be some restrictions, but the government dictating who can and cannot enter a private home is a red line.

 

[hwl]

Internet retail was already killing high street names. I still think there's a place for the high street and it's never going to disappear in its entirety.

Not everyone works in office jobs. I appreciate those who worked in offices and now work from home will see big changes, but those of us who don't work in offices won't.

Agreed!
Many high street retailers were already in big trouble after a decade or more of asset stripping and minimal investment by private equity owners or equivalents (e.g. Mike A.) and low interest rate avoided any urgent need for change for a long time. Most of the damage was done to Debenhams in 2000-2005.
Similarly many private equity owned restaurant chains were already in trouble and closing branches or brands in Jan/Feb.
But less office working will result in some indirect changes e.g. less demand for sandwiches at lunchtime in city centres so fewer "Pret" type jobs.

 

[87electric]

Internet retail was already killing high street names. I still think there's a place for the high street and it's never going to disappear in its entirety.

Not everyone works in office jobs. I appreciate those who worked in offices and now work from home will see big changes, but those of us who don't work in offices won't.

I would relish the high street to evolve with more open air fruit and veg traders. It would be the last vestige of cash use. As food and drink are necessities, the transition of high street retail outlets to cafes, restaurants and even micropubs in my home town is rife. Internet shopping will become the norm for everything else.

 

[bengley]

Anyone who does not follow the restrictions, whether you believe in them or not, should have their right to free healthcare removed for anything COVID related. You don't follow the rules, you pay!

I don't 100% believe the risks, but I would still follow the rules.

Hmm.

I'm glad you're not in government.

Blindly follow the rules even though you don't 100% believe they're just. I'll carry on using my common sense along with the majority of the population.

I would relish the high street to evolve with more open air fruit and veg traders. It would be the last vestige of cash use. As food and drink are necessities, the transition of high street retail outlets to cafes, restaurants and even micropubs in my home town is rife. Internet shopping will become the norm for everything else.

Indeed! This is a high street I would be happy visiting too.

 

[hwl]

Nonsense. I pay my taxes therefore I have a right to "free" healthcare.
I believe there should be some restrictions, but the government dictating who can and cannot enter a private home is a red line.

The problems is that was the second highest transmission "mechanism" after transmission between those living in homes. You would need lots of other changes to counter act that. The big risk is larger gatherings for long periods so any restrictions should target that.

 

[londonteacher]

Nonsense. I pay my taxes therefore I have a right to "free" healthcare.
I believe there should be some restrictions, but the government dictating who can and cannot enter a private home is a red line.

Hmm.

I'm glad you're not in government.

Blindly follow the rules even though you don't 100% believe they're just. I'll carry on using my common sense along with the majority of the population.

When you have seen close family members who have died because of COVID you probably would feel different. A child in my class in intensive care.

The majority of the population you talk about - are they the idiots who gather in mass crowds across the country protesting against the restrictions?

I don't agree with the need of a national lockdown - however simple measures such as people not mixing, face masks, social distancing do have an impact. Yes they are not 100% pleasant but they are simple measures.

 

[Tomp94]

When you have seen close family members who have died because of COVID you probably would feel different. A child in my class in intensive care.

The majority of the population you talk about - are they the idiots who gather in mass crowds across the country protesting against the restrictions?

I don't agree with the need of a national lockdown - however simple measures such as people not mixing, face masks, social distancing do have an impact. Yes they are not 100% pleasant but they are simple measures.

Of or with COVID? There's a huge difference.
The overwhelming majority of deaths are the elderly and those with very serious underlying health conditions. COVID doesn't kill healthy people (relatively speaking) Whilst I am sorry to hear of your family members dying and of the child being in intensive care, but the survival rate of covid is over 99%.
People die of viral infections every single year.
When we have flu epidemics that cause excess deaths over 50,000 we do not shut down the country, or place any restrictions on peoples livelihoods and businesses.
Banning mixing of households is not a simple restriction. As human beings we naturally mix with other human beings, it's OK for a short time, but we're way past that now. The government potentially want us to stop mixing until Easter! This on top of the months of no mixing we've already had this year.

 

[Yew]

I don't agree with the need of a national lockdown - however simple measures such as people not mixing, face masks, social distancing do have an impact. Yes they are not 100% pleasant but they are simple measures.

Forced isolation from other people, and making normal social interactions illegal is psychological torture and causes disproportionate suffering relative to their supposed benefits.

 

[hwl]

I've not been convinced from the outset they really understand how this virus transmits fully Instead of pouring money into Test, Track and Isolate they should have put a few quid into a trial. Get a few 100 people and pay them 10k each and run a trial for month with some already known to be infected and monitor how the virus behaves. I'm sure the military have a camp they could have put them in complete with naffi shops and bars and accommodation with a bunch of scientists monitoring them on a daily basis knowing all there movements and contacts.

Agreed a big lack of research on the basic science, thankfully there is some good work being done internationally. Unfortunately as due to climatic variations not all of it may be directly applicable to the UK.

The basic government assumption at the beginning to have been assume what we know applies for flu until we learn other wise, unfortunately Covid has a higher proportion of airborne transmission (vs contact) than flu and they hugely emphasis hand washing early on at the expense of other potentially more useful measures. The still over emphasise contact e.g. "Hands, face, space" because it sounds good, it should probably be "space, space, hands, face" to reflect the evidence!

Until earlier this year airborne transmission assumptions for public health still used work done at Harvard's Engineering department in 1934, hence all the confusion about what distance for social distancing when new work started coming through with results the politicians didn't want to hear (MIT engineering and a group of Spanish universities separately coming to virtually the same conclusions).

Plenty of basic research to do and there needs to be funding to do it.

We also lose a huge number of working days to respiratory infections in the UK every year pre covid, reducing that a bit would be good for the economy - it could be simple measures like better ventilation and more automated door opening so less contact.

 

[Yew]

One thing that I'm suprised hasn't reared its head is air ionizers, which cause aerosol and dust particulates to fall out of the air more quickly.

 

[Jamiescott1]

Anyone who does not follow the restrictions, whether you believe in them or not, should have their right to free healthcare removed for anything COVID related. You don't follow the rules, you pay!

I don't 100% believe the risks, but I would still follow the rules.

Does that apply to drug addicts, drink drivers, teen pregnancy?

 

[hwl]

One thing that I'm suprised hasn't reared its head is air ionizers, which cause aerosol and dust particulates to fall out of the air more quickly.

Plenty of ventilation and interior air quality research work to be done especially as to what is more useful and how measures interact...

 

[yorkie]

When you have seen close family members who have died because of COVID you probably would feel different. A child in my class in intensive care.

But what about people who have died of other causes?

The chances of a child being in intensive care due to Sars-Cov-2 is very remote; there are far greater threats to children, so should similar measures not be taken to protect them? If not, why is it different?

I work in a similar environment to you; one of our students committed suicide a few years ago. The restrictions in place to reduce the spread of Sars-Cov-2 have made more people feel suicidal.

I could counter your statement by stating you would feel differently if a student at your school had committed suicide.

If we are considering the overall wellbeing of young people, lockdowns make absolutely no sense. Raising the plight of a tiny minority of young people who are seriously ill with this virus does not change the facts.

There is no getting away from the fact that the effects of measures taken to reduce the spread are far more harmful to the vast majority of young people than the threat of the virus itself; the average age of a Covid19 death is over 80.

Children are more likely to die of 'flu; indeed in England and Wales alone around 12 children under 15 die of 'flu annually. And yet this is not deemed newsworthy. In relative terms, Covid 19 is more of a threat to older people while 'flu is more of a threat to younger people. So let's not pretend the current restrictions are in the best interests of young people. Indeed even those who are keen to advocate restrictions will generally admit they are in place to (ostensibly) protect older people.

The majority of the population you talk about - are they the idiots who gather in mass crowds across the country protesting against the restrictions?

I am totally against these draconian restrictions and I believe the vast majority of people are, however only a small minority of those will go out protesting.

I personally don't agree with these protests but I absolutely understand why people feel inclined to protest.

Going out for a walk today I noticed there are a lot of people out and about; far more so than was the case back in late March. While these people going out for walks are not protesting as such, they clearly are not exactly on board with the whole 'stay at home' mantra either, and are voting with their feet. You can't keep people locked down forever.

I don't agree with the need of a national lockdown - however simple measures such as people not mixing, face masks, social distancing do have an impact. Yes they are not 100% pleasant but they are simple measures.

Let's take the masks debate to the dedicated thread.

As for measures such as not seeing friends/family, ruining livelihoods etc, how long do you think that can go on for?

And what about the effects on mental health, livelihoods, even people's belief in democracy is being eroded. Some people are losing all hope. If this continues for too long, we will face a potentially very dangerous situation. Covid could be the least of our worries...

I don't want to argue with you, but as someone who works in a similar place to you, and who very much cares about the wellbeing and future prospects of young people, I can't come to the same conclusions as you about the imposition of harsh restrictions.

I do think that as time goes on, and more and more people realise how harmful lockdowns are, more people like you will change their minds. I've already seen it happen with so many people. And I totally respect that.

And if and when that does happen, I will very much welcome it. I don't want to disagree with you as I know that both of us want the same things. The offer of a free meal on us is still there once lockdown is over!

 

[Yew]

Because the sample size was only a quarter or less of that needed...

It shows that more work need to be done but there is some benefit (with big error bounds) on the basis of a limited study.

I'm sorry, but that is false, it is impossible to distinguish the benefit from the experimental uncertainty.

 

[Richard Scott]

When you have seen close family members who have died because of COVID you probably would feel different. A child in my class in intensive care.

The majority of the population you talk about - are they the idiots who gather in mass crowds across the country protesting against the restrictions?

I don't agree with the need of a national lockdown - however simple measures such as people not mixing, face masks, social distancing do have an impact. Yes they are not 100% pleasant but they are simple measures.

You may feel different if you knew someone who'd commited suicide because of this. Viruses are transmitted whatever we do, handwashing is actually one of the better preventions but a lot of others are pointless. There's always going to be a skew on your outlook if there's a personal connection. Kids die of flu every year and being run over (but we don't lockdown for flu or ban cars). We can't keep doing this, I bet more kids have died due to suicide due to restrictions than have from the virus. I work with teenagers and a number are quite down at the moment due to all of this. Oh and can you provide evidence for effectiveness of lockdowns and facemasks (in appropriate thread, of course) because we've asked many times an no-one on this forum has come up with anything yet, perhaps you'll be the first? Was I see teenagers handle masks I'd willingly bet they make the problem worse.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Similarly many private equity owned restaurant chains were already in trouble and closing branches or brands in Jan/Feb.
But less office working will result in some indirect changes e.g. less demand for sandwiches at lunchtime in city centres so fewer "Pret" type jobs.

This virus has also exposed that being reliant upon services and poorly paid hospitality jobs isn't much use when society ceases to function. Govt need to have an industrial strategy that onshores jobs back from the Far East as well as an Agricultural strategy that doesn't leave us at the mercy of the EU for nearly 1/3rd of our food.

 

[bramling]

This virus has also exposed that being reliant upon services and poorly paid hospitality jobs isn't much use when society ceases to function. Govt need to have an industrial strategy that onshores jobs back from the Far East as well as an Agricultural strategy that doesn't leave us at the mercy of the EU for nearly 1/3rd of our food.

The point about hospitality is very well made. It's quite clear this country is far too reliant on it. It may offer a way of getting unemployment figures down, but it's not robust nor well-paid work.

 

[DB]

The point about hospitality is very well made. It's quite clear this country is far too reliant on it. It may offer a way of getting unemployment figures down, but it's not robust nor well-paid work.

That's true - but the only way in which manufacturing of consumer goods in this country would work economically is either by a race to the bottom in terms of employment terms (wages are much lower in the far east), or by large import tariffs (which would also make everything more expensive).

I don't know what the answer is, but there's no easy solution.

 

[bramling]

That's true - but the only way in which manufacturing of consumer goods in this country would work economically is either by a race to the bottom in terms of employment terms (wages are much lower in the far east), or by large import tariffs (which would also make everything more expensive).

I don't know what the answer is, but there's no easy solution.

One could say we already have a race to the bottom with hospitality in terms of staff pay and conditions, so if we're going to have that we may as well have jobs which offer a degree of security by way of producing things we need. Not easy though, like you say.

 

[DB]

One could say we already have a race to the bottom with hospitality in terms of staff pay and conditions, so if we're going to have that we may as well have jobs which offer a degree of security by way of producing things we need. Not easy though, like you say.

It'd be even lower than now though - factory workers in much of the far east will be earning way less than our minimum wage.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

That's true - but the only way in which manufacturing of consumer goods in this country would work economically is either by a race to the bottom in terms of employment terms (wages are much lower in the far east), or by large import tariffs (which would also make everything more expensive).

I don't know what the answer is, but there's no easy solution.

Housing costs its what driven up the cost of living and that in turn requires us to need wages above other countries. Our obsession with house prices aided and abetted by successive governments of all hues to buy voter loyalty has got us to this point. This has hugely benefitted the middle classes allowing them to pass on vast inheritances perpetuating the problem. There is some suggestion that Sunak may go looking in this area for tax revenue although there will be apoplectic meltdown amongst most tories if he does.

 

[DB]

Housing costs its what driven up the cost of living and that in turn requires us to need wages above other countries. Our obsession with house prices aided and abetted by successive governments of all hues to buy voter loyalty has got us to this point. This has hugely benefitted the middle classes allowing them to pass on vast inheritances perpetuating the problem. There is some suggestion that Sunak may go looking in this area for tax revenue although there will apoplectic meltdown amongst most tories if he does.

Yep, agree with that. It's hard to see any government taking steps to deflate the housing bubble though - if it looks to be faltering, they intervene to make sure that it carries on inflating (e.g. 'Help to Buy').

 

[bramling]

Housing costs its what driven up the cost of living and that in turn requires us to need wages above other countries. Our obsession with house prices aided and abetted by successive governments of all hues to buy voter loyalty has got us to this point. This has hugely benefitted the middle classes allowing them to pass on vast inheritances perpetuating the problem. There is some suggestion that Sunak may go looking in this area for tax revenue although there will be apoplectic meltdown amongst most tories if he does.

Surely a lot of the problem with housing is simply that demand > supply, especially in areas like London and the home counties? Then there are various reasons why increasing supply is a problem, one of which being that in areas where there's space to do this more readily there aren't the jobs to go with them.

This has only been a problem in the last 20 years or so, for example my previous neighbour bought their house for (IIRC) £160k in about 1997, and sold it for £1.1m in 2016. That's ridiculous by any score, and no they didn't do much to it in the intervening time!