When will restrictions finally end?

[Ted633]

Wasn't sure where to put this as the mask thread is locked and I'm don't really want to read through 210 pages to see if its come up before.

I've just be contacted by my manager at work to say a colleague who I was working with on Thursday has tested positive. I'm an aircraft engineer and my close contact with him was sitting next to him on the flight deck running functions for about an hour. At all times, we were both wearing face masks. Therefore, it was my belief that I don't need to self isolate. However, I have just read the Test & Trace definition of a close contact and these bits stand out

• having face-to-face contact with someone less than 1 metre away (this will include times where you have worn a face covering or a face mask)
• spending more than 15 minutes within 2 metres of someone
• travelling in a car or other small vehicle with someone (even on a short journey) or close to them on a plane
• if you work in – or have recently visited – a setting with other people (for example, a GP surgery, a school or a workplace). The use of face masks and other forms PPE does not exclude somebody from being considered a close contact, unless they are providing direct care with patients or residents in a health and care setting

(My Bolds)
So, by definition, I now have to self isolate for 10 days if I have interpreted this correctly. This says to me that they are admitting that face masks don't make a jot of difference. I know the science of face masks are questionable, but this is a complete joke

 

[bramling]

It's an easy path, politically, you get to claim you've saved lives, and damage can be blamed on the virus.

And/or blamed on non-compliance. It seems quite clear aim is being taken for that one already.

 

[yorksrob]

I suspect the issue with BJ is that 80,000 figure, which seems almost certain to surpass the 100,000 milestone. Unfortunately the word legacy will be etched into BJ’s mind, and that is going to inform his decision making.

True.

And realistically there are a few other peer group countries that aren't far behind.

It's a shame for the country (and Boris) that we start from a position of a big bulge in covid related deaths.

But it shouldn't distort future policy.

 

[TechDan2002]

Indeed, I know of three households that have had an infected person in them isolating and no other members of the household have caught it (tested negative)

That was the case with me in May/June last year, both my parents tested positive yet despite me living in the same house and not making any effort to distance from them I never came down with any symptoms and tested negative twice.
17th May 2020: My father (who works security in a hospital) comes down with symptoms and gets a test. Entire household starts self isolating.
19th May 2020: Fathers test comes back Positive. Mother and I go for tests ourselves and both test negative.
29th May 2020: Mother comes down with symptoms so we both go for retesting. Mother tests positive and I test negative.
12th June 2020: I finish self isolation after not coming down with any symptoms.

 

[bengley]

Wasn't sure where to put this as the mask thread is locked and I'm don't really want to read through 210 pages to see if its come up before.

I've just be contacted by my manager at work to say a colleague who I was working with on Thursday has tested positive. I'm an aircraft engineer and my close contact with him was sitting next to him on the flight deck running functions for about an hour. At all times, we were both wearing face masks. Therefore, it was my belief that I don't need to self isolate. However, I have just read the Test & Trace definition of a close contact and these bits stand out

• having face-to-face contact with someone less than 1 metre away (this will include times where you have worn a face covering or a face mask)
• spending more than 15 minutes within 2 metres of someone
• travelling in a car or other small vehicle with someone (even on a short journey) or close to them on a plane
• if you work in – or have recently visited – a setting with other people (for example, a GP surgery, a school or a workplace). The use of face masks and other forms PPE does not exclude somebody from being considered a close contact, unless they are providing direct care with patients or residents in a health and care setting

(My Bolds)
So, by definition, I now have to self isolate for 10 days if I have interpreted this correctly. This says to me that they are admitting that face masks don't make a jot of difference. I know the science of face masks are questionable, but this is a complete joke

You do not need to self isolate unless you've been contacted by test and trace.

 

[TheBeard]

"https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586" The curious case of the Danmask study, which didnt really show any benefit. So, mask restrictions lifted- I think it is dehumanising, particularly to ladies wearing lipstick, and is part of the psychology of subduing us. It may help some people, and hinder others. But the case for the extension of this is well and truly put to bed.

 

[duncanp]

You do not need to self isolate unless you've been contacted by test and trace.

I would phone NHS 111 for advice in your situation, and definitely go and get a test.

 

[6862]

So, by definition, I now have to self isolate for 10 days if I have interpreted this correctly.

Also your sentence is not 10 days from now, but 10 days from Thursday when you had contact with him.

 

[317 forever]

I see David Davis on the radio this morning says the lockdown will last until late March or April.

And you guys laughed at me when I said restrictions won’t be completely removed until next April! We’ll be lucky if it’s then to be quite honest. Buckle up for the long haul.

Given that it's going to get colder yet, which helps the virus thrive, I doubt the lockdown would be lifted before March. This also provides time for many more people to be vaccinated first.

 

[The Ham]

These numbers make some unlikely assumptions, that no-one has had it and that all will get it. We had some cases at work, we all work within a reasonable proximity of those that had it and only 1 out of 10 actually got it.

Indeed, which is why I said upto. However the ratio between the two sets of numbers would likely remain broadly the same.

The BBC live feed is now running with comments from a couple of health psychologists, which is apparently a job now, that the lockdown should be tightened. They're pearl-clutchingly terrified that schools are 30-50% full of key worker children (sounds like rubbish to me), and have a whole list of people they have determined themselves qualified to say are non-essential.

They even have the cheek to say that the government decision not to lock these people indoors is "political", without any apparent insight into just how political their own opinions are.

They're dangerous people, some of these trick-cyclists passing themselves off as scientists and experts.

My local school (in an area where there's few children in low income households and key workers such as public sector workers tend to be lower than the national average) has 25% of students in and are expecting more. As such I would expect that 30-50% would be fairly typical.

That would allow us to sustain rather higher infection levels than now, especially with these drugs shortening the ICU stay.
That would mean the wave would burn out fairly quickly simply because it would run out of people to infect.

We are at 1-in-45 now, at double that it's going to run out of targets quite quickly.

Even if reinfection becomes an issue it would buy us several months at least whilst we are still going to be administering ~2m doses a week.

Be interesting to see what a study of vaccination priorities optimising for reduced ICU-days occupied would look like.

That 1:45 is current infections rates (at least in some areas) and so those who have had it are likely to be higher than that.

 

[317 forever]

If I had a pound.......

When lockdown one happened people on here predicted civil unrest within a month. When masks were mandated civil unrest was predicted. When the tier system was introduced people predicted civil unrest. Lockdown two? You guessed it, civil unrest and here we are again.

I'm not saying it's never going to happen but I still think it's unlikely purely based on how the restrictions have played out with many people still just going about their business. If restrictions ever came to the point of people being forced to stay indoors with a massive police or army presence actively monitoring people leaving their houses then maybe it would be triggered.

Most people are peaceful and, except in extreme and unprecedented situations, law-abiding. As a result, very few people will protest. Where someone totally an utterly disagrees for example with a law forbidding a visit to a relative, they will just visit the relative anyway without fuss or fanfare.

 

[Bald Rick]

Hopefully by autumn we will have covered the over 50s as well,

On current plans they’ll all be done by July

Do people really think we when we come out of lockdown some regions will go into tiers 3 or 4 and others into tier 2?

It might sound biased, but it would feel very unfair if, for example, Greater Manchester had to endure another month or longer of the toughest tiers after lockdown finishes, whereas other cities are allowed much more freedom, simply based on case or admission numbers, particularly since Greater Manchester has been under restrictions of some form since July, and has been either in lockdown or tier 3-4 restrictions since late October.

Once this lockdown finishes, the concept of regional restrictions has to be scrapped and besides, compliance would be much lower if certain regions are 'punished' for having bad numbers.

It might seem unfair, but then different areas were entering different tiers at different times. If, say, the north of England has hospital admissions almost back to normal and the NHS is not under threat, but the South East is still seeing high levels of infection and hospitals struggling, they can’t derestrict the South East. It would be unfair to do so!

 

[317 forever]

Restrictions will remain place for the rest of the year at least. The vaccine provides immunity against the disease, not the virus. The virus will still rage its way through the population. Even with 90% effectiveness rates, if everyone was given the vaccine today that still means 10% ie 6.8 million people in this country would still suffer from covid.

Not at all. Even before the vaccine millions of us did not suffer from Covid. So it is extremely unlikely anywhere near 10% of us would still suffer Covid. At worst the 10% could still be susceptible to it but would by no mean necessarily catch it.

 

[DustyBin]

Indeed - and to be honest antisocial distancing is a non-starter for the hospitality and events industry too once the furlough scheme ends - there's no way many of them could operate profitably under those conditions.

In terms of pubs, the original ‘covid secure’ requirements last summer weren’t actually a disaster. Many saw takings increase believe it or not, in part due to the built up demand but also in part because a lot of people enjoyed the slightly more civilised environment. Table service was also a big hit! This is why the tiers and the blanket closures are so frustrating, we did what was asked, made it work commercially, and were then used as a scapegoat. The government still haven’t produced any evidence to show hospitality’s contribution to transmission is in any way statistically significant. In fact the only evidence available, i.e. the industry’s own records, shows exactly the opposite; it’s even less than you might think.

 

[Class 33]

Restrictions will remain place for the rest of the year at least. The vaccine provides immunity against the disease, not the virus. The virus will still rage its way through the population. Even with 90% effectiveness rates, if everyone was given the vaccine today that still means 10% ie 6.8 million people in this country would still suffer from covid.

Absolute rubbish! With all these vaccinations being ramped up now, there's no way restrictions can or will last for the rest of the year at least! Whilst the healthcare and deaths stats situation is absolutely dire at the moment, there will come a turning point in the next few weeks when all these stats will come tumbling down week on week. And by a few months time, all the stats will be incredibly low and then there's now way the NHS can then be moaning and groaning that their hospitals are overloaded with Covid patients, and that we've got to "Stay Home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives.". All these silly restrictions will then have to be eased and scrapped altogether to get this country back up and running again and the people of this country to enjoy a return to normal life again.

Snippet from the Sky News website....

Restrictions 'lifted in the spring'

Hancock says that restrictions will be able to be lifted "in the spring"... but won't be any more specific because "we don't yet know the effect of the vaccine on transmission". Adds the restrictions officially end on 31 March but they "hope to make progress" before then

 

[317 forever]

I suspect the issue with BJ is that 80,000 figure, which seems almost certain to surpass the 100,000 milestone. Unfortunately the word legacy will be etched into BJ’s mind, and that is going to inform his decision making. Economic armageddon, your or my wellbeing will barely register as it will be someone else’s problem.

With these most recent 10,000 deaths having been announced in just 15 days, just before the likely coldest period of winter, I think we could easily see the total exceed 100,000. At best, the vaccinations could slow deaths sufficiently to delay that grim day until later in Feburary.

 

[Journeyman]

Wasn't sure where to put this as the mask thread is locked and I'm don't really want to read through 210 pages to see if its come up before.

I've just be contacted by my manager at work to say a colleague who I was working with on Thursday has tested positive. I'm an aircraft engineer and my close contact with him was sitting next to him on the flight deck running functions for about an hour. At all times, we were both wearing face masks. Therefore, it was my belief that I don't need to self isolate. However, I have just read the Test & Trace definition of a close contact and these bits stand out

• having face-to-face contact with someone less than 1 metre away (this will include times where you have worn a face covering or a face mask)
• spending more than 15 minutes within 2 metres of someone
• travelling in a car or other small vehicle with someone (even on a short journey) or close to them on a plane
• if you work in – or have recently visited – a setting with other people (for example, a GP surgery, a school or a workplace). The use of face masks and other forms PPE does not exclude somebody from being considered a close contact, unless they are providing direct care with patients or residents in a health and care setting

(My Bolds)
So, by definition, I now have to self isolate for 10 days if I have interpreted this correctly. This says to me that they are admitting that face masks don't make a jot of difference. I know the science of face masks are questionable, but this is a complete joke

My wife is a driving instructor. Current rules are windows open, masks on, and disinfecting touch points between lessons. She managed to contract it from an asymptomatic pupil, which is how I then came to get it.

 

[Yew]

Given that it's going to get colder yet, which helps the virus thrive, I doubt the lockdown would be lifted before March. This also provides time for many more people to be vaccinated first.

Do they need to be? The PHA requires the least restrictive measures possible.

 

[Ianno87]

Absolute rubbish! With all these vaccinations being ramped up now, there's no way restrictions can or will last for the rest of the year at least! Whilst the healthcare and deaths stats situation is absolutely dire at the moment, there will come a turning point in the next few weeks when all these stats will come tumbling down week on week. And by a few months time, all the stats will be incredibly low and then there's now way the NHS can then be moaning and groaning that their hospitals are overloaded with Covid patients, and that we've got to "Stay Home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives.". All these silly restrictions will then have to be eased and scrapped altogether to get this country back up and running again and the people of this country to enjoy a return to normal life again.

Snippet from the Sky News website....

Restrictions 'lifted in the spring'

Difference is when "some" restrictions get lifted as opposed to "all" are lifted

 

[hwl]

"https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586" The curious case of the Danmask study, which didnt really show any benefit. So, mask restrictions lifted- I think it is dehumanising, particularly to ladies wearing lipstick, and is part of the psychology of subduing us. It may help some people, and hinder others. But the case for the extension of this is well and truly put to bed.

They made some silly assumptions to cut the cost of the study to match the available funding and screwed the whole thing up. Assuming a min. 50% reduction in transmission was rather a optimistic starting assumption.

Difference is when "some" restrictions get lifted as opposed to "all" are lifted

Yep. Boris even said tapered approach this week. There is a very big difference between some and all.

Absolute rubbish! With all these vaccinations being ramped up now, there's no way restrictions can or will last for the rest of the year at least! Whilst the healthcare and deaths stats situation is absolutely dire at the moment, there will come a turning point in the next few weeks when all these stats will come tumbling down week on week. And by a few months time, all the stats will be incredibly low and then there's now way the NHS can then be moaning and groaning that their hospitals are overloaded with Covid patients, and that we've got to "Stay Home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives.". All these silly restrictions will then have to be eased and scrapped altogether to get this country back up and running again and the people of this country to enjoy a return to normal life again.

Snippet from the Sky News website....

Restrictions 'lifted in the spring'

The UK Government definition of "Spring" is March, April, May so that gives them until May 31st.
Roger Ford also has stuff to say about government and seasons...

The death stats will come down first but hospital stats will take quite a lot longer as 40% are under 65 and several months away from vaccination removing significant levels of restrictions with the new strain will see lots more hospitalisation in absolute numbers in the unvaccinated under 65s group.

 

[317 forever]

They made some silly assumptions to cut the cost of the study to match the available funding and screwed the whole thing up. Assuming a min. 50% reduction in transmission was rather a optimistic starting assumption.


Yep. Boris even said tapered approach this week. There is a very big difference between some and all.


The UK Government definition of "Spring" is March, April, May so that gives them until May 31st.
Roger Ford also has stuff to say about government and seasons...

The death stats will come down first but hospital stats will take quite a lot longer as 40% are under 65 and several months away from vaccination removing significant levels of restrictions with the new strain will see lots more hospitalisation in absolute numbers in the unvaccinated under 65s group.

Talking of which, May 31st is the Spring Bank Holiday. So the government could soon pledge to lift some restrictions "in the Spring" but not actually have the lifting of any start until that Bank Holiday.

 

[DustyBin]

I fully expect things to get worse before they get better. Disparage the Mail all you like (they generally deserve it!) but they have an uncanny ability to see into the future where restrictions are concerned:

Britain must go into an 'Asia-style' lockdown NOW, experts warns

Former WHO director Anthony Costello said only 'a total clampdown' would succeed in stopping the mutant strain of coronavirus ripping through the country.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Britain must go into an 'Asia-style' lockdown now with nurseries and places of worship closed, hotels commandeered as isolation centres and masks worn in every public space, experts have warned.

Former WHO director Anthony Costello said only 'a total clampdown' would succeed in stopping the mutant strain of coronavirus ripping through the country.

Professor of operational research at UCL Christina Pagel added that she thinks the current lockdown restrictions are likely to fail and measures seen in China and Vietnam should be brought in.

In Wuhan, where the virus originated, authorities would go door-to-door to monitor people and made sure people with Covid self-isolated.

Meanwhile in Vietnam people who were infected and those going into the country had to quarantine for two weeks.

Despite around 90 per cent of the UK population sticking to regulations, the streets and public transport have remained busy this week, allowing the virus to spread.

As a result, ministers are considering introducing tougher measures as part of the crackdown, including possibly making face masks mandatory in busy outdoor areas.

 

[hwl]

Talking of which, May 31st is the Spring Bank Holiday. So the government could soon pledge to lift some restrictions "in the Spring" but not actually have the lifting of any start until that Bank Holiday.

With a special "pass out to help out" to help pubs!

 

[yorksrob]

I will be asserting my freedom once the vulnerable have been vaccinated, whatever SAGE think.

 

[samxool]

Absolute rubbish! With all these vaccinations being ramped up now, there's no way restrictions can or will last for the rest of the year at least! Whilst the healthcare and deaths stats situation is absolutely dire at the moment, there will come a turning point in the next few weeks when all these stats will come tumbling down week on week. And by a few months time, all the stats will be incredibly low and then there's now way the NHS can then be moaning and groaning that their hospitals are overloaded with Covid patients, and that we've got to "Stay Home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives.". All these silly restrictions will then have to be eased and scrapped altogether to get this country back up and running again and the people of this country to enjoy a return to normal life again.

Snippet from the Sky News website....

Restrictions 'lifted in the spring'

You're quoting a politician. If you really think all restrictions will be lifted by spring, You're living in a deluded fantasy world.
End of discussion.

 

[Huntergreed]

I'm frankly appalled at the attitude of people on here that say restrictions must say 'because it's not safe' or saying there's 'no way' restrictions will be going anytime soon. I think you ought to remember there is more in this world than just COVID, and once the vaccine has been rolled out to the most vulnerable, that will prevent a significant number of hospitalisations. It will be a gradual relaxation, as the vaccine rollout will have a gradual effect on hospital capacity, and I would expect the easing to follow this model. My guess would be

Lockdown -> Everywhere Tiers 3/4

Individual relaxations/tightening dependant on hospital capacity in certain areas.

When vaccine has enough impact on this, we will eventually all be in tier 1 (or thereabouts), and the government will finally call it a day on these restrictions once and for all.

There is NO such thing as a risk free society, and you will ALWAYS face certain risks when you leave your home. It is not the job of government to mitigate risks like this. The justification for the third full lockdown is due to hospital capacity, NOT due to people dying from COVID (despite what they say). It is not the duty of the state to protect us against respiratory viruses, that's a risk we choose to take in society, and frankly it needs to stay that way, or there will be a gross imbalance of prioritising quantity of life over quality of life.

 

[kristiang85]

I'm frankly appalled at the attitude of people on here that say restrictions must say 'because it's not safe' or saying there's 'no way' restrictions will be going anytime soon. I think you ought to remember there is more in this world than just COVID, and once the vaccine has been rolled out to the most vulnerable, that will prevent a significant number of hospitalisations. It will be a gradual relaxation, as the vaccine rollout will have a gradual effect on hospital capacity, and I would expect the easing to follow this model. My guess would be

Lockdown -> Everywhere Tiers 3/4

Individual relaxations/tightening dependant on hospital capacity in certain areas.

When vaccine has enough impact on this, we will eventually all be in tier 1 (or thereabouts), and the government will finally call it a day on these restrictions once and for all.

There is NO such thing as a risk free society, and you will ALWAYS face certain risks when you leave your home. It is not the job of government to mitigate risks like this. The justification for the third full lockdown is due to hospital capacity, NOT due to people dying from COVID (despite what they say). It is not the duty of the state to protect us against respiratory viruses, that's a risk we choose to take in society, and frankly it needs to stay that way, or there will be a gross imbalance of prioritising quantity of life over quality of life.

Hear hear. I agree with every word of this.

Frankly, it would be disgusting if there are any restrictions still in place by mid May. What has happened should remain an absolutely exceptional response to a crisis, and not the norm. I fear many are starting to regard it as normality and that it should stay like that if even a whiff of risk is present.

 

[Ec91109]

I'm frankly appalled at the attitude of people on here that say restrictions must say 'because it's not safe' or saying there's 'no way' restrictions will be going anytime soon. I think you ought to remember there is more in this world than just COVID, and once the vaccine has been rolled out to the most vulnerable, that will prevent a significant number of hospitalisations. It will be a gradual relaxation, as the vaccine rollout will have a gradual effect on hospital capacity, and I would expect the easing to follow this model. My guess would be

Lockdown -> Everywhere Tiers 3/4

Individual relaxations/tightening dependant on hospital capacity in certain areas.

When vaccine has enough impact on this, we will eventually all be in tier 1 (or thereabouts), and the government will finally call it a day on these restrictions once and for all.

There is NO such thing as a risk free society, and you will ALWAYS face certain risks when you leave your home. It is not the job of government to mitigate risks like this. The justification for the third full lockdown is due to hospital capacity, NOT due to people dying from COVID (despite what they say). It is not the duty of the state to protect us against respiratory viruses, that's a risk we choose to take in society, and frankly it needs to stay that way, or there will be a gross imbalance of prioritising quantity of life over quality of life.

Totally agree. It’s always the people with secure jobs and plenty of income who demand further restrictions. The fact is, lots of these people are absolutely loving being on furlough and don’t want it to end. But they need to get back to reality and look at the bigger picture.

 

[hwl]

I'm frankly appalled at the attitude of people on here that say restrictions must say 'because it's not safe' or saying there's 'no way' restrictions will be going anytime soon. I think you ought to remember there is more in this world than just COVID, and once the vaccine has been rolled out to the most vulnerable, that will prevent a significant number of hospitalisations. It will be a gradual relaxation, as the vaccine rollout will have a gradual effect on hospital capacity, and I would expect the easing to follow this model. My guess would be

Lockdown -> Everywhere Tiers 3/4

Individual relaxations/tightening dependant on hospital capacity in certain areas.

When vaccine has enough impact on this, we will eventually all be in tier 1 (or thereabouts), and the government will finally call it a day on these restrictions once and for all.

There is NO such thing as a risk free society, and you will ALWAYS face certain risks when you leave your home. It is not the job of government to mitigate risks like this. The justification for the third full lockdown is due to hospital capacity, NOT due to people dying from COVID (despite what they say). It is not the duty of the state to protect us against respiratory viruses, that's a risk we choose to take in society, and frankly it needs to stay that way, or there will be a gross imbalance of prioritising quantity of life over quality of life.

Mostly agreed, but I would point out that vaccination is going to take longer to have the impact than most people think especially when the new strain is effectively the only strain in an area - most people have yet to get their head around this last bit. School reopening is likely to be near the front of the queue which puts everything else further back.

 

[Tezza1978]

Totally agree. It’s always the people with secure jobs and plenty of income who demand further restrictions. The fact is, lots of these people are absolutely loving being on furlough and don’t want it to end. But they need to get back to reality and look at the bigger picture.

100%. The lockdown fanatics, who are calling for Asian style lockdowns with people welded into their homes don't give a toss about people's livelihoods, the economy and mental health.
We all know the restrictions can't start to be lifted just yet, but the peal-clutching from Corbynistas and "DOOM! DOOMMMMM! comments from random "experts" every 5 minutes that things need to be stricter and stricter, is just ridiculous. We know this is a very serious situation but there is no balance whatsoever.