New lockdown in England, including school closures, announced by Johnson, 4/1/21

[DB]

Oh here we go again. Front page of the Sky News website, another government advisor calling for the lockdown to be even stricter! And it's Susan Michie yet again! I am absolutely sick of that woman and others like her who keep calling for stricter lockdown/tougher measures. I wish they would all just bog off. We don't need them. We don't need a stricter lockdown. We want all these lockdowns and restrictions ended!

She's saying that we should do what we did in March, but actually that's the same as now - it's simply that fewer people this time are going above and beyond what the government has actually mandated.

And of course the usual claim that Locktivists always use, that the lockdown will be shorter if it's stricter - which is not how it works in practice.

 

[Domh245]

I'm starting to seriously wonder if the medics in charge of our response have any training in statistics whatsoever.

I think they do, but it's becoming abundantly clear that the current government strategy is to try and drive fear into everyone to try and get compliance with restrictions whilst the vaccine rollout does it's work.

At least, that's my hope because the alternative (that they don't have any sort of grasp of statistics, are hopelessly inept, and vaccines aren't the exit strategy) doesn't bear thinking about.

Also, I don't know why there is this derision about 'behavioural scientists' - it's not the tea-leaf reading some people seem to think it is, and being able to understand (and modify) people's behaviour during the pandemic is key to various strategies. The issue here is the behavioural scientist overstepping her area - the first few lines of her interview posted in #1309 up to "But actually, all the data show that the overwhelming number of people are sticking to the rules with one exception which is self-isolation," is her area of expertise. Her going on to talking about making the rules stricter is beyond her remit and she can rightly be criticised for that but criticising the idea of behavioural science because this particular scientist has got an overinflated ego is an odd one

 

[Spamcan81]

A question for the anti lockdown brigade. How do you propose to control the spread of the virus and allow a return to normal activity at the same time?

 

[DB]

A question for the anti lockdown brigade. How do you propose to control the spread of the virus and allow a return to normal activity at the same time?

You can't 'control the spread of the virus', as is demonstrated by the fact that those countries with lockdowns generally don't have better outcomes than those without.

All a lockdown does, at most, is slow it down a bit, which then leads to exponential increase once the restrictions are eased - so net result no benefit. The current situation is slightly different in that there is a vaccine roll-out ongoing which might avoid the exponential increase, but as soon as they've vaccinated most of those at higher risk that justification is removed.

To turn the question round, how do you lockdown enthusiasts think that the increasing issues of mental illness, balooning debt and unemployment, damage to education and other societal impacts can be managed under your preferred eternal lockdown?

 

[duncanp]

A question for the anti lockdown brigade. How do you propose to control the spread of the virus and allow a return to normal activity at the same time?

Vaccination.

 

[Yew]

A question for the anti lockdown brigade. How do you propose to control the spread of the virus and allow a return to normal activity at the same time?

Focused measures to shield the vulnerable until they can be vaccinated. Many of the more restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions have poor evidence for their effectiveness anyway [1].

Personally I could even get behind going to our original plans for pandemic influenza or SARS.


[1] Bendavid E, Oh C, Bhattacharya J, Ioannidis JPA. Assessing Mandatory Stay-at-Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID-19. Eur J Clin Invest. 2021 Jan 5:e13484. doi: 10.1111/eci.13484. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33400268.

 

[yorksrob]

Still better than a 'Social Anthropologist'...

They'll be in charge of the post COVID recovery phase.

Couldn't agree more.

Shall I start a crowdfunding page in order to raise enough money for a one way ticket to a remote island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean for Susan Michie and all the other SAGE scientists? Who would be willing to contribute? Any more suggestions as to who should be given a seat on the plane?

The fact is that the current lockdown is working, as evidenced by the fact that new cases are falling, hospitalisations are falling and test positivity is falling.

The vaccination program seems to be progressing well, and whilst no doubt there will be hiccups along the way, every jab in every arm is another step closer to getting back to some semblance of normality.

Susan Michie can just Foxtrot Oscar.

Why the Pacific ? I hear that South Georgia can be bracing at this time of year.

 

[Spamcan81]

Vaccination.

Vaccination cannot be done overnight so how do you deal with the spread of the virus in the meantime and prior to the vaccine actually becoming available?

You can't 'control the spread of the virus', as is demonstrated by the fact that those countries with lockdowns generally don't have better outcomes than those without.

All a lockdown does, at most, is slow it down a bit, which then leads to exponential increase once the restrictions are eased - so net result no benefit. The current situation is slightly different in that there is a vaccine roll-out ongoing which might avoid the exponential increase, but as soon as they've vaccinated most of those at higher risk that justification is removed.

To turn the question round, how do you lockdown enthusiasts think that the increasing issues of mental illness, balooning debt and unemployment, damage to education and other societal impacts can be managed under your preferred eternal lockdown?

So letting people contract the virus and die in ever increasing numbers until a vaccine became available was your plan then?

 

[Yew]

So letting people contract the virus and die in ever increasing numbers until a vaccine became available was your plan then?

Better than running a campaign of psychological torture on millions, filled with arbitrary and unevidenced measures. Unless a measure is proven to work, and has benefits that outweigh its harms, then we should not implement it.

 

[takno]

Vaccination cannot be done overnight so how do you deal with the spread of the virus in the meantime and prior to the vaccine actually becoming available?



So letting people contract the virus and die in ever increasing numbers until a vaccine became available was your plan then?

I don't think that's the plan at all, but do you have a reference for that "ever-increasing numbers"? The numbers dying every day fairly evidently can't continue to increase indefinitely

 

[6862]

A question for the anti lockdown brigade. How do you propose to control the spread of the virus and allow a return to normal activity at the same time?

We can't 'control' a virus! We can isolate the sick, vaccinate against it, encourage handfasting and other hygiene measures but anything more is arrogance in the extreme.

 

[Bantamzen]

A question for the anti lockdown brigade. How do you propose to control the spread of the virus and allow a return to normal activity at the same time?

Let's flip that around shall we? How do you propose to pay for extended lockdowns?

 

[jtuk]

A question for the anti lockdown brigade. How do you propose to control the spread of the virus and allow a return to normal activity at the same time?

Controlling the spread of the virus is an irrelevance when those who are most "at risk" (and I use those quotes as even those that are the most at risk aren't really in much risk at all) are vaccinated, which they will be within weeks, if not days.

 

[Scotrail12]

So letting people contract the virus and die in ever increasing numbers until a vaccine became available was your plan then?

Waves have peaked and came down again without vaccines. The vast majority of people who get COVID will not die and many won't even have symptoms. You have to weigh up the impact of lockdowns on the economy and health to question whether or not they are actually worth it. There are plenty of ways other than "letting people die" such as the suggestions in The Great Barrington Declaration that states that there should be targeted protection of the vulnerable. That's totally fair and arguably should have been done from the beginning but instead the government has chosen to lock away everyone. How is that a good idea?

 

[DB]

So letting people contract the virus and die in ever increasing numbers until a vaccine became available was your plan then?

Afraid that's the usual simplistic Locktivist response!

Measures can be put in place to protect those most at risk (who are very easy to identify). It has been shown that lighter measures such as this are just as effective as draconian ones (see the paper referenced by Yew above, and also look at the case and death rates across Europe on Worldometers and compare them with the level of restrictions in each country - there is no correlation).

Are you intending to respond to the point which several of us have made about how you deal with the consequences of lockdowns?

Waves have peaked and came down again without vaccines. The vast majority of people who get COVID will not die and many won't even have symptoms. You have to weigh up the impact of lockdowns on the economy and health to question whether or not they are actually worth it. There are plenty of ways other than "letting people die" such as the suggestions in The Great Barrington Declaration that states that there should be targeted protection of the vulnerable. That's totally fair and arguably should have been done from the beginning but instead the government has chosen to lock away everyone. How is that a good idea?

Those in favour of lockdowns generally prefer to ignore the point that any infectious disease will show peaks and troughs. By regularly changing the rules, the government can claim that whatever was in place at the time of a trough was the cause, which it may well not be. If measures don't work, that is of course because we need more of them - whatever happens, they won't concede that the measures are ineffective.

 

[initiation]

So letting people contract the virus and die in ever increasing numbers until a vaccine became available was your plan then?

This works both ways: So locking people in their homes, depriving them of social contact with family and friends, massively disrupting kids education, spending hundreds of billions pounds, and forcibly closing businesses in ever increasing numbers until a vaccine became available was your plan then?

Where is the limit or is it lockdown forever?

As pointed out above there is no correlation betwen countries where the virus is endemic and the severity of lockdown/restrictions. As proposed by the Stanford paper a few weeks ago, more restrictive NPIs do not have a materially higher impact than less restrictive NPIs (a low hanging fruit analogy). There is your answer for what we do, we implement just the less restrictive measures and get pretty much the same benefits covid wise but at vastly lower cost.

I am deeply opposed to lockdown/heavy restrictions but utterly dispise the way people twist that to mean I want to let the virus 'rip'.

 

[hwl]

Controlling the spread of the virus is an irrelevance when those who are most "at risk" (and I use those quotes as even those that are the most at risk aren't really in much risk at all) are vaccinated, which they will be within weeks, if not days.

At risk of death or at risk of ending up in ICU? We are about 3 weeks of vaccinating most of the former i.e. 85+%, then add a time lag for the vaccination to become effective but months away from even vaccinating the later (mean age of covid patients in ICU is 60...).

Waves have peaked and came down again without vaccines. The vast majority of people who get COVID will not die and many won't even have symptoms. You have to weigh up the impact of lockdowns on the economy and health to question whether or not they are actually worth it. There are plenty of ways other than "letting people die" such as the suggestions in The Great Barrington Declaration that states that there should be targeted protection of the vulnerable. That's totally fair and arguably should have been done from the beginning but instead the government has chosen to lock away everyone. How is that a good idea?

Germany did several studies showing that focused protection doesn't really work as covid will still reach the vulnerable any way just at a slower (but still problematic) rate. A large number of those in ICU with Covid aren't classed as vulnerable which also points to it not being as effective as proponents allege.

 

[DB]

Germany did several studies showing that focused protection doesn't really work as covid will still reach the vulnerable any way just at a slower (but still problematic) rate. A large number of those in ICU with Covid aren't classed as vulnerable which also points to it not being as effective as proponents allege.

Given the prevalence of it in care homes, the more stringent measures clearly don't work either!

Have you got some figures for the proportions in intensive care which are under 60 and have no known health conditions?

 

[jtuk]

At risk of death or at risk of ending up in ICU? We are about 3 weeks of vaccinating most of the former i.e. 85+%, then add a time lag for the vaccination to become effective but months away from even vaccinating the later (mean age of covid patients in ICU is 60...).

Stressing the NHS. I do not believe that mean age statistic is a result of anything other than people going into hospital with non-Covid related things, and either catching it there, or being a false positive, in either case Covid not being the reason they are in ICU

 

[Domh245]

Stressing the NHS. I do not believe that mean age statistic is a result of anything other than people going into hospital with non-Covid related things, and either catching it there, or being a false positive, in either case Covid not being the reason they are in ICU

You might have a point with general hospital admission as opposed to ICUs, but even then you'd be looking at a small number of patients each day, there'd still be a huge number of bona fide covid patients. However, bear in mind that anyone unfortunate enough to end up in ICU is not in a good way, them returning a positive test (but not having been admitted to ICU for covid) will almost inevitably result in them needing Intensive Care for covid anyway, so a large number of covid positive ICU patients is an issue regardless of what they were admitted for

And of course, if they aren't bona-fide covid patients, what on earth are they and why are some regions (London, SE, and East of England) running at near double their usual occupancy despite just about all surgery being cancelled (so no post-op admissions) and negligible flu levels this year. If you're right and these are people who are just being admitted to ICU for something else (and catching Covid/returning 'false' positive tests there), there needs to be very urgent questions about why we've got so many people in ICU, even compared to bad flu years like 2017/18

 

[hwl]

Given the prevalence of it in care homes, the more stringent measures clearly don't work either!

Have you got some figures for the proportions in intensive care which are under 60 and have no known health conditions?

There happen to be very detailed stats taken on ICU in general (for the last 25 years) to monitor for problems in certain hospitals, treatments etc. this was extended to cover Covid with weekly updates to the covid stats.
Hence ICU covid admissions are far better understood than just hospital covid admissions.

Yesterday's updated report can be found here (101page pdf):

https://www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/7673eac0-ed5c-eb11-912d-00505601089b

They don't give age and pre existing health break outs but just 9.0% (all age groups) had major existing health issues pre ICU admission due to Covid.

Stressing the NHS. I do not believe that mean age statistic is a result of anything other than people going into hospital with non-Covid related things, and either catching it there, or being a false positive, in either case Covid not being the reason they are in ICU

Have a good look at the above report then.
Nearly a quarter of the covid icu admission are on the day they arrive in hospital so not much chance of catching it in hospital! It typically takes 5 days before you start to see symptoms and over 90% of Covid ICU admissions have been in hospital for 4 or fewer days.

Mean age for Covid ICU admission: 59.0 (has fallen since last week, the week before that and the week before that). Standard Deviation 13.4 years.
Median age 61
25% are under 52
25% are over 70

 

[greyman42]

Agree but the important thing is BoJo is content with current restrictions when pressed by journalists that he should be doing more so despite the doomsday speech he's not changing anything which implies we are at his red line.

Johnson knows (or should) that a significant amount of people are not adhering to current restrictions so introducing more would only result in even more people ignoring them. Many people have had enough and will not return to what we had in March.

 

[yorkie]

So letting people contract the virus and die in ever increasing numbers until a vaccine became available was your plan then?

Conversely, was your plan to lockdown from late January/early February 2020 until Summer 2021?

This works both ways: So locking people in their homes, depriving them of social contact with family and friends, massively disrupting kids education, spending hundreds of billions pounds, and forcibly closing businesses in ever increasing numbers until a vaccine became available was your plan then?

Where is the limit or is it lockdown forever?

As pointed out above there is no correlation betwen countries where the virus is endemic and the severity of lockdown/restrictions. As proposed by the Stanford paper a few weeks ago, more restrictive NPIs do not have a materially higher impact than less restrictive NPIs (a low hanging fruit analogy). There is your answer for what we do, we implement just the less restrictive measures and get pretty much the same benefits covid wise but at vastly lower cost.

I am deeply opposed to lockdown/heavy restrictions but utterly dispise the way people twist that to mean I want to let the virus 'rip'.

Exactly. Well said!

Let's flip that around shall we? How do you propose to pay for extended lockdowns?

Those who advocate long, harsh lockdowns want young people to pay for them, long into the future.

Young people suffer the biggest hardships of lockdowns and experience the least 'benefit'.

It's quite disgraceful and distasteful really.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

At risk of death or at risk of ending up in ICU? We are about 3 weeks of vaccinating most of the former i.e. 85+%, then add a time lag for the vaccination to become effective but months away from even vaccinating the later (mean age of covid patients in ICU is 60...).

With 478k done yesterday if the vaccine supplies are there the medical profession will outperform the current target. All >80 year olds should be done by next week so by early Feb the case stats should be reducing in this age group and then hospitalisations.

The only data im aware of that will guide us of how effective the vaccinations are is the weekly flu survey. As a baseline Week 2's flu survey show a drop in all age categories (case/100k) this week for >80 year olds which is fourth worst age band. In terms of positivity rates >80 year olds are worst age band but in part that's probably a statistical distortion as less >80 year olds will just turn up for a test. In terms of hospitalisation rates >85 year old are running at highest ever rate at 300/100k with 75-84 at 150/100k.

So as we are seeing some natural moderation already in case rates the above metrics should start to respond to the increasing levels of first dosage amongst the population. As long as we see these metrics responding then BoJo should have the confidence to at least map out a relaxation route.

 

[hwl]

With 478k done yesterday if the vaccine supplies are there the medical profession will outperform the current target. All >80 year olds should be done by next week so by early Feb the case stats should be reducing in this age group and then hospitalisations.

The only data im aware of that will guide us of how effective the vaccinations are is the weekly flu survey. As a baseline Week 2's flu survey show a drop in all age categories (case/100k) this week for >80 year olds which is fourth worst age band. In terms of positivity rates >80 year olds are worst age band but in part that's probably a statistical distortion as less >80 year olds will just turn up for a test. In terms of hospitalisation rates >85 year old are running at highest ever rate at 300/100k with 75-84 at 150/100k.

So as we are seeing some natural moderation already in case rates the above metrics should start to respond to the increasing levels of first dosage amongst the population. As long as we see these metrics responding then BoJo should have the confidence to at least map out a relaxation route.

The government has been busy collecting the data to do vaccination analysis but won't publish until there are solid numbers (to avoid the confusion seen in Israel). The first analysis published will be based on vaccinated medical professionals because they have regular PCR tests.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The government has been busy collecting the data to do vaccination analysis but won't publish until there are solid numbers (to avoid the confusion seen in Israel). The first analysis published will be based on vaccinated medical professionals because they have regular PCR tests.

Thats why I believe the weekly flu survey is the best insight we can get from publicly available data.

 

[Class 33]

Someone on here somewhere mentioned that they are seeing a lot more people out and about walking and a lot more traffic about in this national lockdown compared to the first lockdown. Yes that is the case.

In this third lockdown as time goes on I'm noticing a steady increase in people out and about walking, along with a steady increase in more traffic. More and more people are getting sick and tired of all this now being told that we "Must stay at home" apart from just shopping or exercise once a day or going to work, etc. Many people are going out more than once a day.

I'm also noticing a steady increase of groups of young people about who do not appear to live together. There was large scale adherence to the rules back in late March and April. But many of us are getting increasingly restless and sick and tired of all this now. All this has dragged on for 10+ months now, we're in a THIRD national lockdown, and with no real definite end in sight.

If by late March/early to mid April the weather becomes really decent but yet the lockdown in it's current "Stay at home" form is still going, then I really can't see many people sticking to it. There will be loads of people heading to the parks, beaches and beauty spots to get out and about and enjoy the weather.

And I expect then government ministers, SAGE, other so called "experts", etc will all be moaning about it! Too bad on them if that's the case! You can't keep us all locked in our homes for months and months on end!

 

[DannyMich2018]

Someone on here somewhere mentioned that they are seeing a lot more people out and about walking and a lot more traffic about in this national lockdown compared to the first lockdown. Yes that is the case.

In this third lockdown as time goes on I'm noticing a steady increase in people out and about walking, along with a steady increase in more traffic. More and more people are getting sick and tired of all this now being told that we "Must stay at home" apart from just shopping or exercise once a day or going to work, etc. Many people are going out more than once a day.

I'm also noticing a steady increase of groups of young people about who do not appear to live together. There was large scale adherence to the rules back in late March and April. But many of us are getting increasingly restless and sick and tired of all this now. All this has dragged on for 10+ months now, we're in a THIRD national lockdown, and with no real definite end in sight.

If by late March/early to mid April the weather becomes really decent but yet the lockdown in it's current "Stay at home" form is still going, then I really can't see many people sticking to it. There will be loads of people heading to the parks, beaches and beauty spots to get out and about and enjoy the weather.

And I expect then government ministers, SAGE, other so called "experts", etc will all be moaning about it! Too bad on them if that's the case! You can't keep us all locked in our homes for months and months on end!

I agree with what you say, I think by March or April latest we should be in a much better position:-We'll have vaccinated all the most at risk, the warmer weather and longer daylight hours will help too (which Covid doesn't like) plus any herd immunity built up too. I think the media seem to forget that the NHS is always much busier during the winter (not helping that this winter is much more severe than many recent ones), on the Lockdown 1 last March the weather was fantastic with the clocks altered less than a week later so took less than a month for hospital admissions and deaths to peak. Looking at recent figures cases are coming down steadily, hospital admissions too and then deaths will come down too in due course.

 

[david1212]

Someone on here somewhere mentioned that they are seeing a lot more people out and about walking and a lot more traffic about in this national lockdown compared to the first lockdown. Yes that is the case.

In this third lockdown as time goes on I'm noticing a steady increase in people out and about walking, along with a steady increase in more traffic. More and more people are getting sick and tired of all this now being told that we "Must stay at home" apart from just shopping or exercise once a day or going to work, etc. Many people are going out more than once a day.

I'm also noticing a steady increase of groups of young people about who do not appear to live together. There was large scale adherence to the rules back in late March and April. But many of us are getting increasingly restless and sick and tired of all this now. All this has dragged on for 10+ months now, we're in a THIRD national lockdown, and with no real definite end in sight.

If by late March/early to mid April the weather becomes really decent but yet the lockdown in it's current "Stay at home" form is still going, then I really can't see many people sticking to it. There will be loads of people heading to the parks, beaches and beauty spots to get out and about and enjoy the weather.

And I expect then government ministers, SAGE, other so called "experts", etc will all be moaning about it! Too bad on them if that's the case! You can't keep us all locked in our homes for months and months on end!

Now were are into lockdown 3 and despite winter I do not find this surprising. Back last March / April there was the general expectation for restrictions to be significantly reduced from June, a return to something reasonably close to normal by the end of July and by autumn at most minor changes that would be the new normal.

As it turned out August and early September had rather more restrictions plus constant changes for foreign travel. From mid-September downhill again. Most plans for Christmas then got scuppered.

Likewise I think that come April regardless of what rules are people will be out and about even more. Core to this is wanting to escape home. Now there are non of the usual options available - pubs, restaurants, cinema, theatre, bowling alley, museums / heritage etc. Last August when for those that were open there was often need to book and lower capacity more people headed to the beaches and countryside instead.

 

[35B]

Better than running a campaign of psychological torture on millions, filled with arbitrary and unevidenced measures. Unless a measure is proven to work, and has benefits that outweigh its harms, then we should not implement it.

So let's turn the logic around, and for the sake of argument say that the current lockdown measures are the baseline that a change must be measured against. What are the comparable numbers for the measures you propose as a better option, and hence the relative harms?