Remaining Effects of Covid

[Magdalia]

Why was 6 chosen then? Surely 5 would be 'safer'?

That's for the policymakers, having taken advice, and balancing the risks of transmission against other risks.

But mathematics did show that reducing transmission had to involve stopping large gatherings. There had to be a limit, a rule of x.

The inquiry may establish how x=6 was chosen, and what the advice was. But quibbling about the number doesn't undermine the credibility of having a limit.

 

[gabrielhj07]

But quibbling about the number doesn't undermine the credibility of having a limit.

Sure, but it was chosen to give the impression of 'doing something', rather than as a result of mathematical analysis.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Sure, but it was chosen to give the impression of 'doing something', rather than as a result of mathematical analysis.

I think the mathematical process went as far as identifying how many possible interactions were bearable before infection could run away. It was not meant to calculate how contagious Covid-19 was. It was meant to arrive at a reasonable level of crowd size.

Let us not forget none of the Covid-19 response was a precise science. I don't think anybody really knew for definite how Covid-19 spread or still does know. We just knew what was a risk. A lot more knowledge than we had during the Spanish Flu of 1918 but still not very good knowledge.

 

[Enthusiast]

I thought about this. Each pair has to be counted in both directions, because it wasn't known who was infected and who wasn't, and transmission could go both ways.

I must disagree with that.

If two people meet with one of them infectious and the other not, there is only one possibility of transmission. Although A can infect B, or B can infect A, it doesn't matter. The calculation is designed to establish how many pairs of people pose a risk of transmission. It doesn't matter who can infect who.

Of course it's more complex than that because if they are either both infectious or both clean there is no danger of transmission so simply counting the pairs is not appropriate. Which further leads me to believe that "6" was not the result of some in-depth statistical calculation - It just seemed a reasonable number!

 

[yorkie]

It was mostly guesswork, based on long-lasting exponential growth, without proper limits being applied.

The theory - which in hindsight was totally ludicrous - was that if we kept levels of the virus low throughout Summer 2020, we would start from a low base in the autumn and therefore not have such a bad winter.

In reality, the opposite was true; the more any given country suppressed the virus in the summer, the worse the winter was for them.

I remember people coming here and trying to lecture us about how Germany kept cases low in Summer 2020 and therefore would have a great winter. In reality their cases absolutely skyrocketed, and it was similar in places like Czech Republic who had (for different reasons) also got off lightly in the Summer.

Remember that the experts who came up with this nonsense were paid a lot of money to do so, but they were not actually virologists; people used to say that epidemiologists were the only people we should trust on how viruses spread (which is laughable) and anyone who questioned those mathematicians was asked "are you an epidemiologist"?

The effects of these mistakes will be long-lasting, but I can only hope lessons have been learned!

 

[Peter Sarf]

All

I must disagree with that.

If two people meet with one of them infectious and the other not, there is only one possibility of transmission. Although A can infect B, or B can infect A, it doesn't matter. The calculation is designed to establish how many pairs of people pose a risk of transmission. It doesn't matter who can infect who.

Of course it's more complex than that because if they are either both infectious or both clean there is no danger of transmission so simply counting the pairs is not appropriate. Which further leads me to believe that "6" was not the result of some in-depth statistical calculation - It just seemed a reasonable number!

All we know is that the bigger the group then the bigger the spread. We know a group that is double the size will be causing more than double the spread. So the motivation might have been to come up with something rather than nothing. What choice would you make no groups allowed, massive groups or something in between ?. Something is better than nothing is all I can come up with.

 

[yorkie]

All we know is that the bigger the group then the bigger the spread. We know a group that is double the size will be causing more than double the spread. So the motivation might have been to come up with something rather than nothing. What choice would you make no groups allowed, massive groups or something in between ?. Something is better than nothing is all I can come up with.

Ah yes if in doubt, do something. No matter what it is, no matter how harmful, and no matter how untried and untested!

 

[gabrielhj07]

So the motivation might have been to come up with something rather than nothing.

Exactly my point

 

[Peter Sarf]

It was mostly guesswork, based on long-lasting exponential growth, without proper limits being applied.

The theory - which in hindsight was totally ludicrous - was that if we kept levels of the virus low throughout Summer 2020, we would start from a low base in the autumn and therefore not have such a bad winter.

In reality, the opposite was true; the more any given country suppressed the virus in the summer, the worse the winter was for them.

I remember people coming here and trying to lecture us about how Germany kept cases low in Summer 2020 and therefore would have a great winter. In reality their cases absolutely skyrocketed, and it was similar in places like Czech Republic who had (for different reasons) also got off lightly in the Summer.

Remember that the experts who came up with this nonsense were paid a lot of money to do so, but they were not actually virologists; people used to say that epidemiologists were the only people we should trust on how viruses spread (which is laughable) and anyone who questioned those mathematicians was asked "are you an epidemiologist"?

The effects of these mistakes will be long-lasting, but I can only hope lessons have been learned!

What you are saying is get it over with in the summer. I mean build up herd immunity during the summer with less restrictions and then perhaps increase restrictions in the winter if things get out of hand. I agree with that but is that with hindsight.

I can imagine they had no clue as to how to predict how fast Covid-19 was spreading. Was it spreading too fast in Summer anyway ?. I know the only way to tell what was going on was to change one restriction at a time then wait a few weeks for the results to show up in hospital admissions. Make it harder by factoring in weather. But I think at the time it was all too easy to ignore the downsides of various Covid-19 precautions. Compare and contrast that with the reckless naivety that allowed old people to be sent to care homes in the early days. A panic to clear the decks at hospitals that was probably a standard card to play (in the manual) anytime a hospital is getting overrun ?.

Ah yes if in doubt, do something. No matter what it is, no matter how harmful, and no matter how untried and untested!

All we know is reducing close contact reduces the spread. Cannot tell by how much. So large groups were more of a risk than small or no groups.
What would you have done - nothing ?.
And would that have caused an outcry eventually ?.

I would have gone for larger groups outside.
I think they settled on six as a likely figure that most would tolerate probably because most groups were smaller than that (just a guess on my part and probably a guess on their part).
No point making rules that no one will adhere to or that make too much resentment.
I don't think it could be much more scientific than that.

 

[gswindale]

The big issue I had with the "rule of six" was that it meant different things in different countries.

England was a strict 6 people, however Wales was 6 adults and as many children under 13(?) as you like. Meant that we could quite happily go on a family holiday in Wales, but trips over the border had dubious legality with a 15 month old in tow who wouldn't exactly be off out socialising on his own.

 

[yorkie]

What you are saying is get it over with in the summer.

No; this idea that it is one extreme or the other is absurd.

It was inevitable that everyone was going to be exposed to Sars-CoV-2 (and will continue to be, on a regular basis), and it was also inevitable that it would spread in the Winter. Countries that had more cases in the Summer tended to do better in the winter.

I mean build up herd immunity during the summer with less restrictions and then perhaps increase restrictions in the winter if things get out of hand.

I don't think that term is appropriate; no-one can agree on what it even means and by a strict definition it can mean sterilising immunity, which is not possible with respiratory viruses.

I agree with that but is that with hindsight.

Did countries like Sweden have the benefit of hindsight?

This country made big mistakes, and we should hold our hands up and admit them.

I can imagine they had no clue as to how to predict how fast Covid-19 was spreading. Was it spreading too fast in Summer anyway ?.

Clearly not.

I know the only way to tell what was going on was to change one restriction at a time then wait a few weeks for the results to show up in hospital admissions. Make it harder by factoring in weather. But I think at the time it was all too easy to ignore the downsides of various Covid-19 precautions. Compare and contrast that with the reckless naivety that allowed old people to be sent to care homes in the early days. A panic to clear the decks at hospitals that was probably a standard card to play (in the manual) anytime a hospital is getting overrun ?.

Clearly mistakes were made in all these areas, and the effects of these mistakes are still being felt today.

All we know is reducing close contact reduces the spread. Cannot tell by how much. So large groups were more of a risk than small or no groups.

It is true that more mixing means a greater rate of spread.

What would you have done - nothing ?.

I've never said that; I've answered this before and my answer remains unchanged.

And would that have caused an outcry eventually ?

No country did "nothing" and no-one is suggesting that; you've just made that up.

I would have gone for larger groups outside.

Indeed, it seems the rate of spread outside was very low, and therefore the restrictions regarding outside activities/gatherings made no sense. In some cases I believe these restrictions had a lasting impact which continues to this day.

I think they settled on six as a likely figure that most would tolerate probably because most groups were smaller than that (just a guess on my part and probably a guess on their part).
No point making rules that no one will adhere to or that make too much resentment.
I don't think it could be much more scientific than that.

It wasn't scientific at all; in any case the "following the science" mantra was a load of rubbish as various scientists had different views.

 

[Bantamzen]

The big issue I had with the "rule of six" was that it meant different things in different countries.

England was a strict 6 people, however Wales was 6 adults and as many children under 13(?) as you like. Meant that we could quite happily go on a family holiday in Wales, but trips over the border had dubious legality with a 15 month old in tow who wouldn't exactly be off out socialising on his own.

It even meant different things in this country. Having started out as a strict maximum for any social gathering, it morphed into how many people you were allowed to socialise with in pubs and restaurants. As @yorkie says, it wasn't scientific at all, there were lots of place where more than 6 people gathered for work and any given time. It was just a nice, round, friendly number to beat people around the head with.

 

[Dent]

What you are saying is get it over with in the summer. I mean build up herd immunity during the summer with less restrictions and then perhaps increase restrictions in the winter if things get out of hand. I agree with that but is that with hindsight.

You don't need hindsight to know that slowing the spread during the summer would lead to less herd immunity being built up during the summer, and that less herd immunity being built up before the peak in infections means the peak in hospital usage being higher.

There is no way that restriction during the summer when infections were already at their lowest were part of a coherent plan to flatten the peaks.

 

[Peter Sarf]

You don't need hindsight to know that slowing the spread during the summer would lead to less herd immunity being built up during the summer, and that less herd immunity being built up before the peak in infections means the peak in hospital usage being higher.

There is no way that restriction during the summer when infections were already at their lowest were part of a coherent plan to flatten the peaks.

We would need the restrictions we had in summer if the rate of infection was going to be too high for the NHS in summer. I think it was. Horribly it then follows that harsher restrictions might be needed in Winter until we ran out of people who had not built up immunity. Then vaccinations came to the rescue anyway.

The risk is I doubt the government wanted to be seen to be repeatedly upping and lowering and then upping again restrictions even though that was probably the ideal. We needed to be getting as many people as we dared infected but the action to achieve that was to stop too many. Probably the restrictions were too blunt an instrument for results to be seen and analysed much more often than every two months.

So four years after Covid-19 started I wonder where we would be now without vaccinations ?.
I suspect there would no longer be much to gain from lockdowns.

Although I have just caught a cold (or is it ?) for the first time in ages. Its just after being on a rammed bus. Does not feel like the last two bouts of Covid I had so fingers crossed - more symptoms. Wonder where my expiring test pack is, we never tested for Flu or colds did we.

 

[Mag_seven]

The big issue I had with the "rule of six" was that it meant different things in different countries.

England was a strict 6 people, however Wales was 6 adults and as many children under 13(?) as you like. Meant that we could quite happily go on a family holiday in Wales, but trips over the border had dubious legality with a 15 month old in tow who wouldn't exactly be off out socialising on his own.

In the case of Wales (and Scotland) it wasn't only "we have to be seen to be doing something" but "we have to be seen to be doing something that isn't what Boris Johnson is doing". The whole thing became political very quickly.

 

[Dent]

We would need the restrictions we had in summer if the rate of infection was going to be too high for the NHS in summer. I think it was.

The rate of infection was by no means "too high for the NHS" in the summer, it was at its lowest in the summer, which is also the time the NHS is under the least pressure.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The rate of infection was by no means "too high for the NHS" in the summer, it was at its lowest in the summer, which is also the time the NHS is under the least pressure.

That is generally true of Flu. But When Covid-19 was new there seemed to be a lot more serious cases in summer than any winter of Flu. I am not saying Winter Covid-19 was not worse than Summer but that at least the first Summer (2020) was bad enough to overrun the NHS.

 

[Dent]

That is generally true of Flu. But When Covid-19 was new there seemed to be a lot more serious cases in summer than any winter of Flu.

You can see the date for yourself at https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/, and you can clearly see that the summer was when infections were at their lowest, the complete opposite of a peak which needed to be flattened.

 

[Peter Sarf]

You can see the date for yourself at https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/, and you can clearly see that the summer was when infections were at their lowest, the complete opposite of a peak which needed to be flattened.

OK. So less cases in summer which we all agree is normal. But was it low enough in summer to avoid overloading the NHS ?.

I notice July 2021 to July 2022 was generally higher so an interesting non-Winter spike in each July. Was that the Omicron variant July 2021 (istr it was around Easter onwards) - less serious but more contagious iirc. On/after the July 2021 spike was when the last restrictions on large events were removed (I remember that being announced in July 2021 having been postponed from June 2021).

Those January spikes are of course alarmingly unflattened !.

 

[Dent]

OK. So less cases in summer which we all agree is normal. But was it low enough in summer to avoid overloading the NHS ?.

Why would the NHS be at risk of being overloaded when cases were at their lowest, but not during the winter peak which would be higher as a result of reducing build up of herd immunity during the summer?

Those January spikes are of course alarmingly unflattened !.

As a result of restrictions in the summer not being planned to flatten the peaks, but reducing herd immunity when it needed to build up to reduce the winter peak.

 

[Lampshade]

It was also Tesco who imposed a rather draconian (and pointless) one way system around each invidual aisle, as if covid could detect which direction it would go in. It was a boom time for sign printers.

This sign is still up on the bridges at Salford Quays:



Because famously, respiratory viruses always keep to the walking direction, and never under any circumstances deviate, especially outdoors.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It was also Tesco who imposed a rather draconian (and pointless) one way system around each invidual aisle, as if covid could detect which direction it would go in. It was a boom time for sign printers.

I can only imagine this works if everyone is moving at the same pace (and in the same direction). So everyone ends up two metres apart because no one can pass near someone going in the opposite direction in narrow isles.

This sign is still up on the bridges at Salford Quays:

View attachment 146565

Because famously, respiratory viruses always keep to the walking direction, and never under any circumstances deviate, especially outdoors.

If everyone walks in the same direction and far enough apart then it would work. A lot less relevant outside I think and pointless if there is plenty of space for people to pass anyway.

I cannot see everyone walking at the same pace though !. One stops and they all stop ? - unlikely.

But it would have reduced the most extreme bunching. I just aimed for more open shops and visited at quieter times.

I am sure various shops started interpreting restrictions in different ways. Furthermore I bet they chose to do what they could easily do and neglected things that were impossible.

It was certainly a time of unknown and fear of Covid-19. Having had Covid-19 myself and suffered more than I have ever before I was relieved I survived and more so my partner who has long Covid and came round to discover she had lost two friends and another person she knew. I went from being hopeful I did not get it because I was reasonably healthy to realising that it was just as serious as expected. I was glad I was now reasonably immune.

I do wonder how many people would have suffered too much fear if no precautions were available to give them a comfort blanket.

With so much more news and social media plus history (from 1918) to look at there was always a risk of panic.

Did the government panic (much) !.

 

[Bikeman78]

Even worse than that (as if it wasn't bad enough) the people who devised and implemented these restrictions were, of course, far too important to have their lives disrupted in this way and we were soon to learn of the social events (disguised as "essential work activities") that were taking place in government offices.

The more cynical amongst us said at the time that the clowns in charge probably weren't following their own rules.

It was also Tesco who imposed a rather draconian (and pointless) one way system around each invidual aisle, as if covid could detect which direction it would go in. It was a boom time for sign printers.

I never understood what you were meant to do if you forgot something. Go back to the beginning and zig zag all the way through the store again? Seems rather counter productive. Fortunately my supermarket of choice never sank to that level of stupidity.

 

[Bantamzen]

I never understood what you were meant to do if you forgot something. Go back to the beginning and zig zag all the way through the store again? Seems rather counter productive. Fortunately my supermarket of choice never sank to that level of stupidity.

That's pretty much what I saw, people wandering up and down one way systems trying to figure out how to reach the isles they wanted. It was truly a brain dead idea, just as was the 2 metre queuing outside in the rain waiting for a slot to clear policy so many supermarkets ran with.

 

[Bikeman78]

That's pretty much what I saw, people wandering up and down one way systems trying to figure out how to reach the isles they wanted. It was truly a brain dead idea, just as was the 2 metre queuing outside in the rain waiting for a slot to clear policy so many supermarkets ran with.

With some of the rules I could at least see the thinking behind them. I genuinely didn't get this one at all. For starters, not everyone shops at the same speed. So people would overtake. I don't need items from every aisle on every visit so if I have to go up and down a one way system I would pass more people than if I just used the aisles I needed. I just don't get it.

 

[nw1]

That's pretty much what I saw, people wandering up and down one way systems trying to figure out how to reach the isles they wanted. It was truly a brain dead idea, just as was the 2 metre queuing outside in the rain waiting for a slot to clear policy so many supermarkets ran with.

It's just as well the spring of lockdown was extremely dry, otherwise this would have happened frequently - thankfully it didn't.

 

[james60059]

I don't need items from every aisle on every visit so if I have to go up and down a one way system I would pass more people than if I just used the aisles I needed. I just don't get it.

I was in our local Morrisons, and this particular aisle myself and my partner was in had to be used to queue for the checkouts too, anyway we were looking for a particular item (pet food) and a middle-aged couple refused to come past us because there wasn't "two metres" thus he decided to hold up the queue and he even made a point to his wife that he wouldn't move because "those two are in the way" - needless to say I seen what was happening and made a point of staying put and taking longer.

 

[brad465]

Starting to see some concrete studies into the effects of lockdown now, with inequality widening as a result:

Gap between haves and have-nots widening, report warns

Report mentions stagnant wages and mental health issues, and says the gap widened in the pandemic.

www.bbc.co.uk

The growing gap between the UK's "haves and have-nots" is in danger of becoming a "chasm", a report has warned.
Research by the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) think tank argues the most disadvantaged are no better off than they were 15 years ago.
It mentioned stagnant wages, family breakdown, poor housing, crime, mental health and other issues, saying the gap widened during the pandemic.
Ministers highlighted the support to help with the rising cost of living.
The report by the CSJ's Social Justice Commission says the country is at risk of slipping back to a social divide not seen since the Victorian era.
In Two Nations: The State of Poverty in the UK, the CSJ says the country is "deeply divided", with the "systemic problems facing those at the bottom of society in danger of becoming entrenched".
"For too many Britain is broken and the gap between the haves and have-nots is in danger of becoming a chasm," the report adds.
It argues the situation worsened as a result of lockdowns during the Covid pandemic, pointing to increased mental health problems among young people, a jump in school absences and a rise in the number of people on working-age benefits.

• Child inequalities widen as a result of pandemic
• Who are the millions of Britons not working?

Andy Cook, chief executive of the CSJ, said: "Lockdown policy poured petrol on the fire that had already been there in the most disadvantaged people's lives, and so far no one has offered a plan to match the scale of the issues.
"What this report shows is that we need far more than discussions on finance redistribution, but a strategy to go after the root causes of poverty - education, work, debt, addiction and family."
The commission behind the report is chaired by former Sunday Times editor Martin Ivens, and includes other figures such as former Bank of England governor Lord King, the Labour mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, and Conservative MP Miriam Cates.
The research included a poll of more than 6,000 people, half of which were on the lowest incomes, conducted by J.L. Partners.
The commission, which will report its policy recommendations next spring, also travelled across the UK to more than 20 towns and cities and heard from some 350 charities, social enterprises and policy experts.

 

[Mag_seven]

Starting to see some concrete studies into the effects of lockdown now, with inequality widening as a result:

Gap between haves and have-nots widening, report warns

Report mentions stagnant wages and mental health issues, and says the gap widened in the pandemic.

www.bbc.co.uk

Yet at the COVID enquiry people were arguing that we should have locked down earlier, harder and longer.

 

[Bikeman78]

Yet at the COVID enquiry people were arguing that we should have locked down earlier, harder and longer.

Has there been any attempt to analyse what did or did not work? Or assess the pros and cons of various decisions?