Covid - coming out of Lockdown 3 - no politics, less opinion and more facts and information.

[Bernard Lamb]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

Interesting thoughts... However... If the majority of over 30s and those at risk have had the vaccine then it's spread around should not take us back to the dark days of 2020, yes it will spread, but the effects on the hospitals will not be the same with most youngsters not needing treatment and the more vulnerable having a reasonable degree of protection. Also our ways of treating the virus in hospitals has changed with the experience they've had and a lot more can be done to lower the risk whilst in there.

 

Quite honestly I don't see any reason to wait until everyone has been vaccinated, in fact if that's the only safe way then we can only open up when everyone in the world has been vaccinated, or do what Aus and NZ have done and ban all people coming in unless they isolate. We have to accept some risk, and we have to accept that the virus will still spread, I feel we are now close to the stage where we can begin to open up properly.

I agree with the use of "most".  However there are several reports in circulation that the Indian variant is a more serious problem in children, with more health threatening symptoms and a large rise in the incidence of long covid with severe problems lasting for over five weeks. Mainly observed in India but going by a report this morning cases are cropping up in Bolton. I still feel a need for caution.

Bernard

[Neil]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

.... I still feel a need for caution.

Bernard

 

It appears that you're not the only one.  From the BBC: A scientist advising the government says lockdown relaxations planned for 21 June in England should be delayed by a "few weeks"

[durham light infantry]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

 

 I would hope that we have had demonstrated those jobs that are key to society functioning, they mostly tend to be those at the low status/low pay end of the spectrum. I'd be pleased to see them get a boost on both counts.

 

Never going to happen, unfortunately.

 

[Nearholmer]

I’m slightly confused about what the intended benefits of the next step, the final step, in releasing precautions are meant to be. 
 

I can see that it would cheer us all up, if we had genuine confidence, to abandon all caution, but I’m less sure I understand what the economic benefits are intended to be, whether they would be all that big. Looking at how things are now, they don’t seem massively restricted compared with normality - some restriction yes, but not massive.

 

I suppose what I’m trying to do is get my head round the cost/benefit balance for the next step - I don’t understand the intended benefits well enough, and the potential cost in terms of people becoming ill, and just how ill, seems not to be fully understood. 
 

So, my instinct says “hold on, let’s not get too eager here; let’s understand both sides of the equation very clearly before doing anything we may live to regret.”.

 

 

Edited May 31, 2021 by Nearholmer

[john new]

16 hours ago, alastairq said:

I was but teasing......although my family tend to take me literally & seriously.

I see Bridlington was fair-to-rammed this weekend?

We used to have a saying, that West Riding folk  used to go to Bridlington, to die.....

Still, wouldn't be any worse than any metropolitan Asda on a weekday?

Certainly, the main roads   are historically somewhere I have avoided for decades, due to the visitor traffic....

As was Weymouth too.

[caradoc]

2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Extend the June deadline till everyone in the UK is vaccinated, then fully open up. (September ?)

 

 

I would add one word to that sentence; 'Extend the June deadline till everyone vulnerable in the UK is vaccinated'.

 

Because there will always be some who can't or won't be vaccinated, and if we lose another summer I fear there will not be much left to fully open up in September, or any other later time. 

 

[APOLLO]

Well if people can't or won't be vaccinated, then why should the 99% who will have had both jabs (by late summer / autumn) suffer ?

 

Protect the vulnerable, leave antivaxers to their own fates and let the fully vacinated get on with life.

 

This milarkey will go on for ever unless common sense is applied.

 

Brit15

[hayfield]

3 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

That is exactly my point John (Hayfield) .  So many, too many are saying summer's coming it's all over until the autumn.  Not the expert though.  Lots of reports of predictions of an early new third wave.

 

I looked at the heat map earlier and have just read on the BBC's website that the infection rate in Bolton is decreasing, likewise if you look at Bedford, the red areas of infection has halved in the past week. The point is unlike the first and second/third spikes we now have many of those who would be most affected either having one or both jabs, may not stop all infections, but has a dramatic effect on serious cases. I would assume like influenza it will be an annual event

[Nearholmer]

6 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Protect the vulnerable, leave antivaxers to their own fates and let the fully vacinated get on with life.

Provided that refuseniks are few enough, and hopefully they will be in the U.K.

 

If too many people refuse, they provide the back door by which disease reaches those who genuinely can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons.

 

Put another way: if too many people refuse, it is impossible to achieve herd immunity.

[caradoc]

12 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Protect the vulnerable, leave antivaxers to their own fates and let the fully vacinated get on with life.

 

This milarkey will go on for ever unless common sense is applied.

 

Agree, but I don't believe we can afford to wait until September, or later, to restore as much normalcy as will be possible after a pandemic - Not to mention that many people would simply not accept restrictions continuing for that long anyway. 

 

[Hobby]

We are already close to vaccinating all the vulnerable (that want it), if not already there. There will always be special cases but the Gov will need to work something out for them, as I am sure they are looking at now, but if you just don't want it, then you take the risk. I do not think we can/should protect those who don't want to be protected, but I also feel that their numbers are small enough not to matter. Just out of interest are there any figures for anti-vaccer numbers? I could guess that we could take the numbers of over 60s that have been vaccinated and the remainder could be anti-v's, but they could also be those who can't have any of the current vaccines.

Edited May 31, 2021 by Hobby

[Hobby]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandwellbeing/bulletins/coronavirusandvaccinehesitancygreatbritain/13januaryto7february2021/previous/v1

[Neil]

Reading through the above survey has been interesting. They key for me was the use of the term 'vaccine hesitancy' rather than anti vax. Looking at the categories it becomes obvious that social, cultural, educational and economic factors have a part to play. Hesitancy implies that we have to work harder to bring these groups on board and also that it's possible to do so. For the best of reasons as well as those of self preservation we should take the time and trouble to bring as many on board with the vaccination programme as we can.

[Hobby]

Agreed. I think they used the word hesitancy as a way of being positive rather than the negative vibe if the word anti! 

[NIK]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

We are already close to vaccinating all the vulnerable (that want it), if not already there. There will always be special cases but the Gov will need to work something out for them, as I am sure they are looking at now, but if you just don't want it, then you take the risk. I do not think we can/should protect those who don't want to be protected, but I also feel that their numbers are small enough not to matter. Just out of interest are there any figures for anti-vaccer numbers? I could guess that we could take the numbers of over 60s that have been vaccinated and the remainder could be anti-v's, but they could also be those who can't have any of the current vaccines.

Hi,

 

The definition of vulnerable will vary depending on the Covid variants in the country at the time.

 

This is because the variants have different characteristics such as transmissibility and symptoms/long term damage/lethality.

 

So originally the UK Covid vaccination programme was said to be a race so that restrictions could be lifted as soon as possible.

 

Any variants that increase transmissibility*, or are more damaging to health or affect people that do not yet qualify for vaccination deserve deep thought and study.

 

* If a variant comes along that increases transmissibility but has dramatically less health effects then the situation is a bit different.

 

Regards

 

Nick

 

 

Edited May 31, 2021 by NIK

[Andy Hayter]

5 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Well if people can't or won't be vaccinated, then why should the 99% who will have had both jabs (by late summer / autumn) suffer ?

 

Protect the vulnerable, leave antivaxers to their own fates and let the fully vacinated get on with life.

 

This milarkey will go on for ever unless common sense is applied.

 

Brit15

 

So here we are - or perhaps rather here you are, 6 months into vaccination and just over 40% have received both vaccinations and 63% have received at least one.  Given that the effectiveness of one jab against the Indian variant looks to be around 33%,  two jabs would look to be essential as a metric by which you would want to relax restrictions.  

https://www.bing.com/search?q=uk+covid+vaccinations&form=ANNTH1&refig=d2183e4e9488455f82eff79189ebf936

 

I think it highly unlikely that in 3 weeks time sufficient people will have received two jabs despite the superb efforts currently happening.  

 

Your 99% is of course utopian but I think we must seriously look to have significantly above 80% double vaccinated before we return to some sort of normality.  Your point that we cannot be constrained by those who won't get vaccinated is however well made. 

[monkeysarefun]

8 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I’m slightly confused about what the intended benefits of the next step, the final step, in releasing precautions are meant to be. 
 

I can see that it would cheer us all up, if we had genuine confidence, to abandon all caution, but I’m less sure I understand what the economic benefits are intended to be, whether they would be all that big. Looking at how things are now, they don’t seem massively restricted compared with normality - some restriction yes, but not massive.

 

I suppose what I’m trying to do is get my head round the cost/benefit balance for the next step - I don’t understand the intended benefits well enough, and the potential cost in terms of people becoming ill, and just how ill, seems not to be fully understood. 
 

So, my instinct says “hold on, let’s not get too eager here; let’s understand both sides of the equation very clearly before doing anything we may live to regret.”.

 

 

 

Does that mean all restrictions and everything are going to be  lifted? Is it all "Well thats that over and done with!" or will  you still at least have the  track and tracing apps on entry to venues, and  social distancing or is it all gone?

 

I had to look up what is still in force here because other than the track and trace app and the 1.5m distancing sticker on shop floors I couldn't think of any. Turns out we still have limits on numbers - I can only have 100 people around to my house before I need to submit a covid management plan, and we obviously still have a long term ban on leaving the island other than to NZ.

 

We are in a different place than you lot though, our limited vaccination numbers mean that we are all just relying on the quarantine system to keep it out, and restrictions can be ramped up over night if it does break out as has happened in Melbourne with their 7 day state wide lockdown happening now. So far 45 cases have been found and they are averaging about 5 or so cases a day, much better than last year when daily case numbers went something like 4, 25, 150, 700.... but that could still happen at anytime.

 

Economically, despite the stop on immigration and overseas tourism and the initial  dire predictions of another great depression everything is going surprisingly ok at the moment, despite the Chinese government  hitting us hard with trade  bans and tarriffs for daring to suggest back in April 2020 that there should be an independent enquiry into the origins of COVID.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-03/heres-what-happened-between-china-and-australia-in-2020/13019242

Edited May 31, 2021 by monkeysarefun

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, monkeysarefun said:

or will  you still at least have the  track and tracing apps on entry to venues, and  social distancing or is it all gone?

The phrase seems to be:

 

The final stage of lifting lockdown would see all legal limits on social contact removed.

 

I always have to look-up what the current legal limits are beyond ‘rule of six or two households’, because many of the things that are currently banned aren’t on my ‘to do’ list these days (e.g. going to a nightclub), but basically the plan is ‘back to normal on 21 June’.

 

Compliance with contact tracing and social distancing are not (SFAIA) legal requirements, but wearing masks in places like shops is, so presumably the intent is to step that down to be a recommendation.

 

We went to the cinema and a restaurant (both operating at reduced seating capacity) this evening, with no masks required once seated in either, for the first time in 18 months, and doing that felt odd/risky, so a return to complete normality would feel very abnormal indeed. 
 

The war-drums of opposing views from worried epidemiologists and eager business persons are already beginning to sound, so by the 14th June, when formal announcements are due, we will all be utterly deafened by the thunder  of contradictory opinions. Newspapers will probably all return to full broadsheet, so that they can fit ever more fevered headlines, in ever bigger type, on their front pages. Hey, ho!

 

 

[Bernard Lamb]

There is a conflict looming between "no legal restrictions" and "what happens in the real world".

I am working on a project to open up meetings for a large group that contains many sub groups and they use a selection of church and other halls. Some will just open but will require a register for track and trace. Some will still limit numbers and where there are two rooms some will only allow the use of one, but will of course charge for the whole building. When it comes to catering and cleaning it seems to be a case of perm any 5 items from a list of about 12. Then there is the attitude to paying for additional cleaning time where demands also vary.

It is not going to be a simple matter if going back to how it was.

Bernard

[APOLLO]

12 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

Economically, despite the stop on immigration and overseas tourism and the initial  dire predictions of another great depression everything is going surprisingly ok at the moment, despite the Chinese government  hitting us hard with trade  bans and tarriffs for daring to suggest back in April 2020 that there should be an independent enquiry into the origins of COVID.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-03/heres-what-happened-between-china-and-australia-in-2020/13019242

 

Nuff said about China - The perpetrators.

 

I am concerned re the lax vaccination rate in Oz though. Thailand did well last year by isolation of the country, but cases are ramping up significantly there. They hove just started any sort of significant vaccination programme - long way to go.

 

Brit15

[hayfield]

11 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

The phrase seems to be:

 

The final stage of lifting lockdown would see all legal limits on social contact removed.

 

I always have to look-up what the current legal limits are beyond ‘rule of six or two households’, because many of the things that are currently banned aren’t on my ‘to do’ list these days (e.g. going to a nightclub), but basically the plan is ‘back to normal on 21 June’.

 

Compliance with contact tracing and social distancing are not (SFAIA) legal requirements, but wearing masks in places like shops is, so presumably the intent is to step that down to be a recommendation.

 

We went to the cinema and a restaurant (both operating at reduced seating capacity) this evening, with no masks required once seated in either, for the first time in 18 months, and doing that felt odd/risky, so a return to complete normality would feel very abnormal indeed. 
 

The war-drums of opposing views from worried epidemiologists and eager business persons are already beginning to sound, so by the 14th June, when formal announcements are due, we will all be utterly deafened by the thunder  of contradictory opinions. Newspapers will probably all return to full broadsheet, so that they can fit ever more fevered headlines, in ever bigger type, on their front pages. Hey, ho!

 

 

 

I get the impression that travel restrictions will continue, otherwise why say only the Spanish and Greek islands may move into the green zone at the next review. So whilst we can potentially go to amber and red countries (if they allow us to do so) there will be requirements upon your return. Plus Heathrow has opened a separate terminal for those returning from red flagged countries and further reviews to re-flag countries

 

I would expect that some form of emergency rules could be used at short notice to deal with new outbreaks, perhaps requiring various actions to be taken (masks, social distancing etc) in locations with outbreaks.

 

Presumably this will continue until covid is downgraded to the risk levels of influenza 

[Nearholmer]

4 minutes ago, hayfield said:

I would expect that some form of emergency rules could be used at short notice to deal with new outbreaks,

 

Logically, one would expect something of that kind, but if it does eventuate, I hope it gets communicated a lot more effectively than many things have up to now - I'd wager that right now a lot of people aren't switched=on to the cautionary advice about travelling into the current hot-spot areas, especially the areas that have had less media attention.

[alastairq]

Will we learn anything from it all?

Aside from a wider realisation of how trivial and superficial much of our current  lifestyle desires really are?

What if, the next virus to escape, also takes advantage of our love/need/desire to travel around the world easily, &  isn't such a potentially 'mild' bit of illness?

What if it's a far more deadly disease?

 

How much of what we 'know' now, is still steeped in dogma?

 

We need to change our understanding of what 'sociable' means, methinks?

 

 

[Pete the Elaner]

19 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Logically, one would expect something of that kind, but if it does eventuate, I hope it gets communicated a lot more effectively than many things have up to now - I'd wager that right now a lot of people aren't switched=on to the cautionary advice about travelling into the current hot-spot areas, especially the areas that have had less media attention.

 

It seems a lots of the mis-understandings are caused by the media smudging things & people ignoring what they do not want to hear.

How many times have we all heard that restrictions will be eased on June 21st? Official announcements have stated no more than this being a target date which depends on the outbreak continuing to ease.

[woodenhead]

40 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Logically, one would expect something of that kind, but if it does eventuate, I hope it gets communicated a lot more effectively than many things have up to now - I'd wager that right now a lot of people aren't switched=on to the cautionary advice about travelling into the current hot-spot areas, especially the areas that have had less media attention.

They aren't switched on to it because the messaging has changed from Government, we've gone from fear to bold because everything that is coming out is that the vaccines work, get vaccinated is the rallying cry.  Seeing Twickenham over the weekend with anyone over 18 queuing to get vaccinated and you can see quite clearly this is the route, the Government is clearly confident it has enough vaccine to get enough people vaccinated and is going hell for leather so that the Indian variant is stopped in it's tracks.

17 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

It seems a lots of the mis-understandings are caused by the media smudging things & people ignoring what they do not want to hear.

How many times have we all heard that restrictions will be eased on June 21st? Official announcements have stated no more than this being a target date which depends on the outbreak continuing to ease.

Because Bojo has been pretty clear the roadmap remains, he has 14 days to vaccinate as many people as possible so he doesn't have to stall the 21st beyond maybe a week or two.  We're at just under half the adult population being fully vaccinated and Indian variant areas are being flooded with doses to get the infection rates down.

 

The noises from the scientific community may though be the start of a change in Government messaging so they continue to show they are science led in all this.