• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mintona

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2006
Messages
3,592
Location
South West
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

6862

Member
Joined
3 Dec 2014
Messages
506
A BBC article telling us why lockdown won't end with vaccination of the vulnerable. Further down it tells us that it won't end with vaccination of over 60s or over 50s either. I think if anyone genuinely believes this lockdown will ever end they need to have a serious rethink. I genuinely am beginning to come to the conclusion that this (lockdown) is the new normal.

BBC News - Covid: Why won't vaccinating the vulnerable end lockdown? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55757369

The prime minister says it is too soon to say whether lockdown will be lifted in the spring .

But with the most vulnerable to be offered vaccination by mid-February, what is standing in the way?

The NHS will still be at risk​

Lockdown looks to be having an impact on infection levels with the number of new cases starting to fall.

But there are only tentative signs this has filtered through to a slowing of new admissions to hospital.

And even if they start coming down, the overall number of patients in hospital will remain high as patients are being discharged at a much slower rate than they are coming in.

Chart shows numbers of patients in hospital still increasing

1px transparent line

Chris Hopson of NHS Providers, which represents hospital bosses, predicts hospitals will remain under the current "intense pressure" perhaps until the end of February.

With no headroom in the NHS, ministers will be cautious about lifting many of the restrictions, especially with the threat of the new faster-spreading variant.

Vaccine supply is fragile​

There are no guarantees the government will meet the mid-February target.

The UK has certainly made a good start. Per head of population, only Israel, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have vaccinated more.

Over the past week more than two million people have received their first dose.

Chart showing cumulative total of people who have had a coronavirus vaccine and government target

1px transparent line

That puts the government on track for achieving its aim of offering a vaccine to everyone over 70, the extremely clinically vulnerable and frontline health and care workers.

But the supply chain remains fragile. Pfizer has announced a slowdown in manufacturing for the next couple of weeks to it can upgrade its facilities and ramp up production in the spring.

The UK is less reliant on the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine than other countries, as we manufacture the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine here.

There are millions of doses already made but not all of it has been through the final packaging process or safety checks.

Ensuring this happens will be crucial to allowing the NHS to keep its foot on the accelerator, especially as the vaccination clinics will have to start factoring in giving second doses from late February onwards.

Those close to the programme say it will be "touch and go" especially if extra supplies of the Pfizer vaccine do not come back on stream as quick as the company is saying they will.

There will be lots of vulnerable still at risk​

Even if the supply is good, there will still be lots of vulnerable people.

Nearly 90% of Covid deaths have been in the groups due to get the jab by mid-February.

Chart

1px transparent line

But no vaccine is 100% effective and uptake will not be 100%.

What is more there will still be many vulnerable people in the over-60s age group.

As we get further into spring, everyone over the age of 50, as well as younger adults with health conditions, will be offered a vaccine.

But even that may not be enough, according to some.

Modelling by the University of Warwick suggests that, even with 85% uptake, a complete lifting of restrictions in April could lead to very high levels of deaths.

"Vaccines are not a panacea," says Prof Matt Keeling, who led the research.

And for younger age groups, who are at little risk of dying from the virus, there is still the risk of long-Covid, he says.

Although he acknowledges there is still little hard data to quantify this, some studies have suggested one in 10 suffers long-lasting symptoms from infection.

The big unknown - vaccine and transmission​

The factor that could have a significant impact on spread is whether vaccination stops transmission.

The trials showed the vaccines were good at stopping symptoms developing.

But it is not yet known whether those who have been vaccinated will still be able to pass the virus on.

Most people expect there will be some disruption to transmission but how much is not clear - and will not be for months.

Tough judgements will have to be made​

But on the other side of all this is the huge impact lockdown has.

The first priority will, of course, be the re-opening of schools.

Russell Viner, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, says everything must be done to make this happen.

He says while schools contributed to spread of the virus, they were not a "significant driver", adding schools were closed for the "benefit of the population" but at great expense to children.

Image copyrightPA MEDIA
Pupils wash their hands at school

Once schools are open some tough calls will have to be made - and this is where the debate is going to rage.

Backbench Tory MPs are putting the pressure on the prime minister with the Covid Recovery Group calling for a "gradually unwrapping" of society from early March.

In the end, it is going to come down to what society is willing to tolerate.

UK chief medical adviser Prof Chris Whitty has spoken about "de-risking" Covid.

His point is that we will reach a situation at which the level of death and illness caused by Covid is at a level society can "tolerate" - just as we tolerate 7,000 to 20,000 people dying from flu every year.

Sociologist Prof Robert Dingwall, who advises the government on the science of human behaviour, believes that point will be reached sooner rather than later.

"I think we will see a pretty rapid lifting of restrictions in the spring and summer.

"There are some sections of the science community that want to pursue an elimination strategy - but once you start seeing fatality levels down at the level of flu I think the public will accept that."
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,742
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
A BBC article telling us why lockdown won't end with vaccination of the vulnerable. Further down it tells us that it won't end with vaccination of over 60s or over 50s either. I think if anyone genuinely believes this lockdown will ever end they need to have a serious rethink. I genuinely am beginning to come to the conclusion that this (lockdown) is the new normal.
That article is typical of the rubbish that the BBC are putting out at the moment. Pure tosh designed to scare people unwilling or unable to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Lockdowns won't become the "new normal", we simply cannot afford to keeping paying millions of people to stay at home (the cumulative total is believed to be close to 10 million, with anywhere between 2-5 million furloughed at the moment). Every month we have been adding over £30 billion to the public spending deficit, something that can't be allowed to go on forever.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,018
Location
Yorks
Looking at the article, the university modelling suggests that a complete lifting of restrictions in April will resulting in lots of deaths. As far as I'm aware, no one is proposing a complete lifting of restrictions in April, so it's a meaningless assertion.

Fundamentally either the vaccine works wonderfully - in which case hooray, or it doesn't, in which case we'll have to accept the mortality. People will increasingly vote with their feet on permanent lockdown.

As to vaccine supplies being fragile, I thought we were supposed to be making the stuff. That's what this idiot government should have been putting in place last year.
 

6862

Member
Joined
3 Dec 2014
Messages
506
That article is typical of the rubbish that the BBC are putting out at the moment. Pure tosh designed to scare people unwilling or unable to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Lockdowns won't become the "new normal", we simply cannot afford to keeping paying millions of people to stay at home (the cumulative total is believed to be close to 10 million, with anywhere between 2-5 million furloughed at the moment). Every month we have been adding over £30 billion to the public spending deficit, something that can't be allowed to go on forever.

I totally agree with you that we cannot afford it, but given that we are essentially borrowing against the country's future finances, and the government have clearly shown that they have no capacity for long term planning (or a willingness to consider future ramifications of their actions) I don't think any of this will bother them one bit. Additionally, they're falling into the sunk cost fallacy (we could argue that happened ages ago actually), both financially and in terms of their actions. All of this leads to the conclusion that the government won't end this course of action.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,157
Location
Birmingham
Several front pages are reporting apparent plans to give everybody who tests positive a one-off payment of £500 to self isolate in the hope of slowing spread and getting more people with symptoms to get tested.

My current thinking is I'd welcome this policy if it meant lifting a number of restrictions that make the whole strategy more sustainable, though I doubt they will lift anything in conjunction if this policy is announced.
Yes its a good idea, its nice that the government has finally realised that people on low incomes can't afford to voluntarily give up a couple of weeks wages!
 

joncombe

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2016
Messages
769
Yes its a good idea, its nice that the government has finally realised that people on low incomes can't afford to voluntarily give up a couple of weeks wages!
Or it could lead to people, especially unemployed or perhaps on Furlough to deliberately try to get it for a "free" £500.
 

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
2,093
Looking at the article, the university modelling suggests that a complete lifting of restrictions in April will resulting in lots of deaths. As far as I'm aware, no one is proposing a complete lifting of restrictions in April, so it's a meaningless assertion.

Fundamentally either the vaccine works wonderfully - in which case hooray, or it doesn't, in which case we'll have to accept the mortality. People will increasingly vote with their feet on permanent lockdown.

As to vaccine supplies being fragile, I thought we were supposed to be making the stuff. That's what this idiot government should have been putting in place last year.

I think there’s a worry that some of the vulnerable and over 50+ might not take the vaccine.

My view on this is, why should the rest of us be restricted because some won’t take the vaccine? If you’ve been offered the vaccine you should take it and if not tough if you get Covid.
 

chris11256

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2012
Messages
734
My view is that we'll get to the point where it becomes an acceptable risk(which is what the BBC article talks about at the end of the quote). The government can happily say that all over 50's have been offered the vaccine, while I think they'd be concerned if a majority didn't take it, I believe they'll find it perfectly acceptable to simply have offered them the jab.

I know that Whitty talked about acceptable risks already, but I don't think we'll see politicians talking about it for a few months yet. Not until all probably late April-May time when over 50's have been offered the jab and the effect has filtered through to hospitals & deaths.
 
Last edited:

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
As to vaccine supplies being fragile, I thought we were supposed to be making the stuff. That's what this idiot government should have been putting in place last year.

They are, but unsurprisingly these things don't just pop up overnight.

Government story from May 2020 talking about how the UK's new Vaccine manufacturing & innovation centre will open 12 months early, in Summer 2021 (invoking Informed Sources third law - never trust dates based on the seasons)

Another one from July about a different manufacturing centre due December 2021
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,018
Location
Yorks
I think there’s a worry that some of the vulnerable and over 50+ might not take the vaccine.

My view on this is, why should the rest of us be restricted because some won’t take the vaccine? If you’ve been offered the vaccine you should take it and if not tough if you get Covid.

Quite. For those that choose not to have the vaccine, that's their choice and the rest of us shouldn't face restrictions because of that choice.

I'm aware that there will be a much smaller group who possibly can't take the vaccine - I see that more as a reason for me to take up the vaccine when offered, but not for more restrictions.

They are, but unsurprisingly these things don't just pop up overnight.

Government story from May 2020 talking about how the UK's new Vaccine manufacturing & innovation centre will open 12 months early, in Summer 2021 (invoking Informed Sources third law - never trust dates based on the seasons)

Another one from July about a different manufacturing centre due December 2021

A good reason not to be an import dependant society if ever there were one.
 

initiation

Member
Joined
10 Nov 2014
Messages
432
My view is that we'll get to the point where it becomes an acceptable risk(which is what the BBC article talks about at the end of the quote). The government can happily say that all over 50's have been offered the vaccine,

The problem is the Government have spent the best part of the last year intentionally trying to scare the population. We've been hit with story after story of marathon runners with long covid and young people dying. These people really do think the disease is out to get them as evidenced by people believing the average age of death is much lower than what it actually is.

I fear this has massively changed people's perception of the risk from Covid and what is 'acceptable' in terms of deaths.
 

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
2,093
The problem is the Government have spent the best part of the last year intentionally trying to scare the population. We've been hit with story after story of marathon runners with long covid and young people dying. These people really do think the disease is out to get them as evidenced by people believing the average age of death is much lower than what it actually is.

I fear this has massively changed people's perception of the risk from Covid and what is 'acceptable' in terms of deaths.
And only this morning Sky News reporting of a pregnant woman aged 34 with Covid. There is no doubt these cases are tragic in the extreme but they are on the whole extreme and relatively rare cases.
 

joncombe

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2016
Messages
769
And only this morning Sky News reporting of a pregnant woman aged 34 with Covid. There is no doubt these cases are tragic in the extreme but they are on the whole extreme and relatively rare cases.
Quite, that's is why there are on the news in the first place, because it's an exceptional case.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,071
That's an interesting read, but all it suggests is that the antibody response from the vaccine is reduced a bit when faced with the variants, and quite a lot when faced with all the variants at once. It also observes that the antibody response declines over time. The discussion section makes it clear that the implications are that the vaccine will have to be modified over time to cope with variants, and people will need ongoing vaccinations.

Pretty what we've been assuming for a while - there is no route to elimination through vaccination, and the whole thing is going to be endemic long term, and will end up like something between a common cold and flu.

What it doesn't say is anything that would suggest mutant strains are going to put additional stress on our hospitals or cause high levels of deaths
 

philjo

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2009
Messages
2,892
There was an article in the Telegraph yesterday mentioning that the Oxford Vaccine team are currently working on modifying the vaccine to be just as effective against the known variant strains. that modified vaccine will then need to be assessed by the MHRA for approval.
 
Last edited:

Tezza1978

Member
Joined
22 May 2020
Messages
196
Location
Warrington
That's an interesting read, but all it suggests is that the antibody response from the vaccine is reduced a bit when faced with the variants, and quite a lot when faced with all the variants at once. It also observes that the antibody response declines over time. The discussion section makes it clear that the implications are that the vaccine will have to be modified over time to cope with variants, and people will need ongoing vaccinations.

Pretty what we've been assuming for a while - there is no route to elimination through vaccination, and the whole thing is going to be endemic long term, and will end up like something between a common cold and flu.

What it doesn't say is anything that would suggest mutant strains are going to put additional stress on our hospitals or cause high levels of deaths
Yep I read that paper earlier this week. Looks likely that the vaccines will still work for the South Africa variant, but with a lower efficacy.

Not a major issue - Professor John Bell at AZ said vaccines could be tweaked and remanufactured in a little as 6 to 8 weeks and wouldnt need new trials, just safety checks. If that strain becomes more widespread there will probably be a booster shot in the autumn with new formulation - just like we do each year with flu vaccines
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,683
Location
Redcar
Regardless of how effective this policy is, it highlights why SSP should be higher than it is: being able to self isolate with job and financial security would lead to higher self isolation compliance and if this got infection numbers down meant less other restrictions were possible.

Yes I think the sick pay system is more the issue than anything else, though sorting that is something they can’t really do quickly as an emergency measure, though I suspect patchy self-isolation has almost certainly been an issue from the start of this, and in some cases it will be due to boredom.

I absolutely think that that plays a huge role in all of this. If you're in the gig economy you don't have any sick pay provision at all (you are after all "self-employed"* ha ha :rolleyes:) but even if you do I would gamble that a large proportion of people working in lower paid jobs, or in more casual roles (zero hours contracts, etc) will only be getting the base rate of SSP which is £95.85 per week. Let's assume that your a 30 year old working part time 16 hours per week for minimum wage. You'll usually be getting £139.52 per week. If you're told to self-isolate you'll go down to £95.85 per week or over £40 less. I'm sure some people, perhaps even a lot of people, could eat being £40pw worse off temporarily. But there's going to be plenty of people for whom that's unaffordable. And, of course, it gets worse the more hours you work and/or the higher your base rate of pay is.

Obviously having some provision to ensure that sick employees still get something (inside or outside of a pandemic!) is better than nothing at all but I really do think that this is nettle that needs grasping. Personally I'm in the luxurious position of being able to work from home. So if I get told to self-isolate I can just carry on working. Other people hopefully have better terms and conditions which means there employer would pay them contractual sick pay hopefully at 100% of their usual salary (or certainly above what SSP provides).

But for everyone else? I can completely understand why you'd try and avoid getting tested or ignore instructions to self-isolate if you were faced with losing a big chunk of your income and have no obvious means beyond getting into debt of making it through the self-isolation period.

*You'd be expected to go down the New Style Employment and Support Allowance route (contribution based) or claim Universal Credit (income based) either way both are still likely to work out being less than you were getting from work.

A good reason not to be an import dependant society if ever there were one.

I mean we've been dependant on imports for probably a century or two at least! I'm not sure it's practical to change that particularly, well, unless you want to regress back towards how things were in the 1600s or so...
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,018
Location
Yorks
I mean we've been dependant on imports for probably a century or two at least! I'm not sure it's practical to change that particularly, well, unless you want to regress back towards how things were in the 1600s or so...

I guess it depends on what one means by dependant.

For example we import French wine and New Zealand lamb, but we're not dependant on them.

I think the problems come when you genuinely depend on imports for your vital interests, or you're over-reliant on one particular source of imports.
 

joncombe

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2016
Messages
769
I guess it depends on what one means by dependant.
We're a net importer of food, so I'd says that's pretty dependent as it suggests we might well not be able to feed the population without imports. (Yes there is probably scope to cut wastage etc, but I suspect not to replace all the imports)
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,018
Location
Yorks
We're a net importer of food, so I'd says that's pretty dependent as it suggests we might well not be able to feed the population without imports. (Yes there is probably scope to cut wastage etc, but I suspect not to replace all the imports)

It depends. We could potentially feed ourselves if we switched to a rather bland, plant based diet, however importing food and drink isn't such an issue as there are a wide range of potential countries to import from.

Speak for yourself

I waould say that, as an ale drinker :lol:
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,580
Location
London
A BBC article telling us why lockdown won't end with vaccination of the vulnerable. Further down it tells us that it won't end with vaccination of over 60s or over 50s either. I think if anyone genuinely believes this lockdown will ever end they need to have a serious rethink. I genuinely am beginning to come to the conclusion that this (lockdown) is the new normal.

They show in the same article with a graph that 84% of the deaths caused by Covid would have received at least a first jab within the next month (and probably the 2nd). There's no way that shouldn't reduce deaths significantly to the point that lockdown can be started to be lifted by some point in March.

There will then have to be a discussion about 'acceptable risk' but that is of course subjective and differs depending on who you ask.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,043
Location
Taunton or Kent
Or it could lead to people, especially unemployed or perhaps on Furlough to deliberately try to get it for a "free" £500.
Yes on the face of it all this specific policy will likely cause this, but the issue of unaffordable self-isolation is genuine, so a much better policy would be to raise SSP, which I think should be at least living wage.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,018
Location
Yorks
I've made it clear to my MP that I won't be supporting any parties that support indefinate lockdown beyond the vaccination of the most vulnerable, and I've also expressed that Labour need to pull their weight in demanding alternatives to lockdown.
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
2,412
And whether or not this needs a new thread but in relation to schools being closed and remote lea, some laptops that have been supplied to pupils who are having to learn from home and can't afford their own equipment have been found to contain a virus linked to Russian servers.
Being supplied with even second-hand laptops with viruses on brings in to question who is preparing them, it's not hard to create one fully tested image for duplication.

 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
12,086
Location
UK
They show in the same article with a graph that 84% of the deaths caused by Covid would have received at least a first jab within the next month (and probably the 2nd). There's no way that shouldn't reduce deaths significantly to the point that lockdown can be started to be lifted by some point in March.

There will then have to be a discussion about 'acceptable risk' but that is of course subjective and differs depending on who you ask.
The vaccine will (hopefully) prevent the overwhelming majority of deaths, so Covid will no longer be a "granny killer".

However, this almost makes the problem worse - because suddenly a lot more vulnerable people will be surviving and thus keeping hospital beds occupied whilst recovering.

A similar sort of problem has been precipitated by the advent of improved treatments for Covid - and really, the vaccine is just a highly effective treatment.

For as long as Joe Public (and thus the politicians) think that preventing hospitals from being overwhelmed is more important than anything else in life, we will continue to suffer these restrictions.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,683
Location
Redcar
And whether or not this needs a new thread but in relation to schools being closed and remote lea, some laptops that have been supplied to pupils who are having to learn from home and can't afford their own equipment have been found to contain a virus linked to Russian servers.
Being supplied with even second-hand laptops with viruses on brings in to question who is preparing them, it's not hard to create one fully tested image for duplication.


Most likely, as with so many other contracts handed out of late by the Tories, it'll have been done by a company that didn't have to bid competitively, that was probably set up six months ago (or was doing something else entirely) and is backed by someone who is either a Tory party donor, a friend of a current MP or the partner someone who fits those criteria.
 

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
2,858
Location
Stevenage
Most likely, as with so many other contracts handed out of late by the Tories, it'll have been done by a company that didn't have to bid competitively, that was probably set up six months ago (or was doing something else entirely) and is backed by someone who is either a Tory party donor, a friend of a current MP or the partner someone who fits those criteria.
XMA are a long standing and reputable company, with experience in the area. I have no idea what the bidding process was or if they have any political connections.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top