Why is the PM saying he will open shops, schools etc, almost back to normal, when the 5 tests have not been met?

[5TestsNotMet]

Ignoring the Cummings saga, which is clearly taking up all the headlines, and which will likely lead to reduced adherence to the current rules, why on earth is Johnson proposing to virtually end the lockdown in just 3 weeks?

Of the 5 tests he said would have to be met first, none of them could really be claimed to have been met.

This seems a guaranteed way to have a massive second wave.

I really hope I'm wrong - but all other countries which are successfully ending lockdown without a second wave are countries which HAVE met those tests, eg. Germany, Ireland, Denmark. We can't realistically compare ourselves to these countries when we have the highest death rate in Europe.

We should not be ending lockdown when ANY of these 5 tests remain unmet:

1. making sure the NHS can cope and continues to have sufficient capacity across the UK - not the case in eg Somerset at the moment.
2. a ‘sustained and consistent’ fall in daily deaths - in some parts of the UK they are not showing sustained falls. And recent changes to rules may soon show up in a rise in the overall death rate, it's too early to say.
3. solid data showing the rate of infection is decreasing to ‘manageable’ levels across the board - ditto to number 2.
4. ensuring that supply of tests and personal protective equipment (PPE) can meet future demand - this is still not the case. And opening up schools and workplaces will require vastly more PPE to be safe - where is this coming from? Testing numbers are still tiny compared to the total population.
5. be confident that they will avoid a second peak that would risk overwhelming the NHS - with 1-4 not fully met, a second peak seems inevitable.

It's hard to escape the idea that Johnson is using the Cummings saga to bring forward ending the lockdown - which polls showed the British public wanted to stay - as a way of returning to his preferred 'herd immunity' (ie culling the elderly and vulnerable) strategy.

Let's not forget that far more people died in the second wave of the 1918-19 flu pandemic -
due to lifting lockdowns too early - than died in the first wave. It is too early to be complacent.

@allfalldown47

"He's opening up shops to distract us from the whole Cummings disaster!"

Possibly, or possibly the whole Cummings disaster is being used to distract us from the dangerous and unnecessary policy of lifting the lockdown too early.

Which is even more frightening.

Totally agree with you. There's no real control strategy apart from lockdown so if cases start to spiral we'll all have to go back inside again. Which is going to get harder and harder to enforce.

We still don't know enough about the virus to say whether a second peak is likely. For example some people may have natural immunity. I'd like to think there's some magic way out of this but it's not guaranteed and I can't understand why BJ thinks this is a conservative approach.

It's a disgrace that an advanced country like ours still hasn't got test, track and trace in place. It's not that hard, but our government chose to go with outsourcing rather than local environmental health and medical professionals, for example. Centralise and control simply takes too long in emergency situations like this.

Short answer: the country's on the verge of insolvency.

@longearedbat

"Why are you so sure a second wave CAN happen?"

It's a highly infectious disease. Even in London, at most around 17% of the population have had it. Elsewhere it's around 5% of the population.

There is no way that allowing everyone to mix again will not bring about a return to an exponential rise in cases.

You might not like it - and I certainly don't - but that's science (and maths) for you.

I can't see any way that ending lockdown without the 5 tests met will end in anything other than a huge second wave.

There is likely to be a resurgence and second peak in the winter months where there will be a series of lockdowns. The government wants to put as much money back into the economy before then. Make hay while the sun shines and all that!

The weather and NHS pressures are such that now is the time to try easing. I think the universal positive experience of other countries easing out of lockdown is informative. Given the diversity of management between countries it points to something about the nature of the virus itself I think.

Of course a bad second wave may happen but that would remain a risk for years to come. The harm from lockdown is extensive and manifests in many ways. Any discussion about continuing lockdown that does not balance that fact is short sighted to the point of uselessness.

I believe we have met the five tests, however I do think we are also in for a second wave as a very large minority have not been adhering to the guidelines, particularly in the last couple of weeks when the government said people can travel for a day out. The only good thing is if we get it in autumn/winter when people aren't so likely to want to go out.

The hospital in Somerset is tiny, goodness knows why they didn't just send potential covid patients to Bristol anyway. There were very few cases until recently too so I'm guessing that people have come into the area!

But that's stupid.

There doesn't need to be a huge second wave if we follow countries like Germany or South Korea and have a relentless track and trace system in place.

Our government can't even get its act together to start this yet less alone roll it out effectively everywhere due to its insistence on developing its own data stealing app rather than using the one all the other countries are using.

WhatATimeToBeAlive - we have NOT met the 5 tests.

On what planet are you on if you think we have an effective test and trace strategy?

How can you claim numbers are low enough to reopen when we still have thousands of new cases??

@effingterrified

"Other countries have vastly lower case numbers and death rates.
They are not comparable."

Not true. Not true at all.

I agree that the five tests will be abandoned as swiftly as possible in the same way that all that ‘containment delay mitigation’ nonsense was swiftly dismissed in mid March.

It's a highly infectious disease
No, it's not quite as infectious as was thought originally, at least not in the general population. It seems as if most clusters can be traced back to a few sources - what is known as superspreaders, and larger public events, for the most part those held indoors. Most importantly, innate immunity seems to protect many people, especially younger people.
I can't see any way that ending lockdown without the 5 tests met will end in anything other than a huge second wave
Do some proper research then.

People need to take personal responsibility. You know if you’re on one of the at risk groups, so protect yourself

I take it that means that if you are in the vulnerable group and you catch Covid and die then you have only yourself to blame?

How people are supposed to protect themselves if they have no financial help to stay home, and are being forced back to work in a society which is rapidly refusing even to take physical distancing seriously, let alone mask wearing or providing hand washing/cleaning facilities in most public places because these are too complicated or expensive to implement.

CherryValanc - not true.

Polls showed lockdown was very popular with the public, creating a problem for Johnson as policies to eg open schools were robustly opposed by parents as well as teachers and unions.
Of course people want life back to how it was. They want the pandemic to go away.
Parents and teachers don't want just schools to open. Open everything and it eases that. It also gives a nice comforting belief that because everything is opening life is back as it was and the virus is no longer an issue. (It doesn't matter that this won't be the case.)

Yes, a second wave is highly likely, especially if everything is opened up too quickly. Mostly because It gives a nice comforting belief that because everything is opening life is back as it was and the virus is no longer an issue.

1. 12% of ICU beds are currently in use by COVID patients. None of the Nightingale Hospitals was used in the way we feared, and some were never used at all. At no point was the NHS overwhelmed.

1. Every graph, from the government graphs to the ONS graphs shows a steady and sustained fall in deaths. If you don't see this, OP, then I suggest you learn how to read graphs.

1. Same with this. We are doing more tests now than we were, and there are fewer infections. Proportionately, this is significant. It's difficult to compare data from before as there were fewer tests being done, but in terms of a percentage of tests being done/positive tests, the number of infections is small and is reducing every day. The same is happening with hospital admissions and deaths.

1. Tests are there. People are not necessarily asking for them to be done, and it is apparently inconvenient (I would have to drive over 20 miles or have one sent to my home, so not instantly convenient) but they exist. Not sure about PPE as it's fallen out of the news.

1. The NHS has never been overwhelmed and there is no evidence that a second wave might do that. Stop comparing it to the spanish flu of 1918 - our circumstances were vastly different then. WW1 had just ended and the general population was malnourished, exhausted and lacking resources and knowledge. And this virus is different.

The five tests were always a bit vague and open to interpretation - I suspect they did this on purpose. But I believe they have been met, and I, for one, cannot wait to get back to work (teacher) and for things to move on.

Have you read how many secondary children can go back on 15th June. It’s a quarter of a cohort in total every day. So not very many!

@EvilTwins

The NHS was not overwhelmed because it’s everyday services were essentially cancelled for the vast majority of the population. Do you know this or are you being facetious?

Where are you getting virtually end the lockdown from - in 3 weeks all you can expect is:

• schools very partially reopened with all sorts of social distancing measures
• some non essential retail opened but you can't touch or try anything on
• maybe be able to meet a group of up to 10 but only outside and adhering to social distancing

-pubs, restaurants, etc all still closed or open for takeaway only

• leisure businesses like gyms, hotels closed

That is far from "normal" or an ending of the lockdown.

feelingverylazytoday - what an appropriate name.

R for the disease (when not held in check by lockdown) is about 4.

So you do the maths - if every person (of the tens of thousands) who currently has it infects 4 people who in turn infect 4 people and so in, how many days do you think it will take to infect hundreds of thousands of new cases and kill tens or hundreds of thousands?

Breathtakingly dangerous complacency.

But we're not relaxing the restrictions that have the biggest effect on the R rate. As long as people are sensible allowing non essential shopping will not have much effect on the R rate as people will maintain social distancing and contamination points will not be available.

R for the disease (when not held in check by lockdown) is about 4

Regardless of what the actual R was before lockdown it's not logical to say that it will suddenly jump back up to that level. We are in a very different world now, one where everyone knows how to minimise their risk, where the most vunerable will continue to shield and the availability of testing will mean that those who do think they have symptoms can take isolating action.

Let's not forget that far more people died in the second wave of the 1918-19 flu pandemic -

Can people please, please educate themselves on the history of the 1918 flu pandemic before trotting this one out?

In answer to your original question, the economy desperately needs shops and businesses to reopen. Things will be tough enough as it is, cowering behind closed doors for months and months isn't an option without causing catastrophic damage. I don't really know what the best answer is though as another lockdown later on could also be catastrophic.