Why is lockdown being eased when the alert level hasn’t changed?

[Skybluepink123]

Just seen that the CV alert level hasn’t been reduced from 4 to 3 yet the government are easing lockdown measures imminently. At level 4, the virus is widespread and risk is high and restrictions must be in place. Why then has the government been allowed to ease measures when there is still a clear, identifiable risk to our health?

I use that app I think and haven't been able to see where this info is, off for another look

It's not the thing in the top right is it? That's talking about eating healthily etc

The difficulty is there comes a point where we have to be a bit pragmatic. We have the government that we have, that won’t spontaneously change. I didn’t vote for them but lots of people did and they have a big majority and 4 more years in office. Maybe we should have locked down earlier but we didn’t so we are where we are.

Spain are still regularly recording in excess of 1000 cases a day and they began significantly easing their lockdown several weeks ago. The 7000/8000 cases a day figure is extrapolated from the ONS random sampling so it seems reasonable to assume that other countries are missing a similar number of cases in their official testing.

Our testing has been poor previously and should have improved faster but we are now testing large numbers of people and have had consistently low positive numbers as a percentage of those tested for some time.

The R value in the community is lower than the overall R value due to the issues in care homes and hospitals. In my view care homes have been the real and most significant failure and if that has been managed better I think the overall picture would be much more positive.

It may we’ll be too soon to ease lockdown but it is happening. I hope that the test and trace system works better than most people seem to anticipate and we continue to see a fall in infection rates. There have been predictions of Easter spikes and VE Day spikes which were not forthcoming. If infection levels rise we will have to take a step back but probably at regional rather than national level.

they both very readily said that they had absolutely no wish whatsoever to be drawn into political arguments.

They weren’t being drawn into a political argument. They were asked to talk about the rules.

If they had been asked whether DC should resign, that would have been a political argument.

Our testing has been poor previously and should have improved faster but we are now testing large numbers of people

Because the government has deliberately misled people over testing to claim they reached a target, (counting tests posted as tests taken, double counting tests) it’s difficult to trust their figures now.

If it was all about making money then I don't think they would be saying sit in the park with 5 mates. They would just be saying go back to work but don't mix socially.

Probably more to do with deflecting a bad news story ( Cummings) with a worse one ( death rates increasing).

My understanding is that tests were only counted once, when they were sent out. I accept that means they might never be completed and and returned. Even if we disregard a significant number of tests the level of testing is still pretty high now compared to the start of this when we were testing pretty much no one.

The random sampling also provides better data together with the antibody testing.

I think they may be anticipating a tightening in winter, when NHS could get strained by other viruses too. Or because come cold and flu season people will develop coughs and colds which means a lot of people self isolating waiting clear COVID test results, which will strain the economy with kids off school and out of childcare, people off work etc.

So kick start the economy now in preparation, encourage people to get outside and exercise to stay healthy. Now is peak time for healthy eating and exercise, you tend to eat more and more rich in cold months. Barring ice cream.

I agree with Sunshine . The SAGE records suggest that the R could be around 0.5 in the community and the nosocomial/care infections are pushing it up.

Allowing 6 people to meet in a garden at 2 metres is hardly like reopening nightclubs.

The issue is that even the people who are following 2M they are now having BBQs and parties that’s allowing people to spread the disease. I work with people who are having coffee with friends in the garden ‘but we’re 2M apart so what’s the issue’ despite sharing cutlery/serving spoons etc. The risk hasn’t gone away which seems to be what people are thinking. The level is 4 and we were told that measures would change at 3, it would have still been risky but more so given that we are still at 4

How many people even have gardens where 6 people can keep 2 metres apart?

Even the socially distanced walking is really awkward.

In reality people will not be keeping 2m apart, and they will be going inside houses and using toilets and sharing utensils and food. The reality will be normal socialising in smaller groups, outside, or inside if they think nobody will notice.

Perhaps scientists have reviewed the data and confirmed that this will be OK, but given the government's actions over the last fortnight (I too regularly check my eyesight by going for a drive!) I wouldn't bet on it.

My understanding is that tests were only counted once, when they were sent out.

Some people received more than one test and it's very difficult to do the swab test effectively on yourself.

Some tests were counted twice if e.g. the swab was dropped.

How many tests is enough tests? Who knows? The point is that the government set a target, didn't meet it, and then pretended they had.

Effingterrified,
I think this too. I wasn't aware of Dominic Cumming's blogs and things but he has written about eugenics apparently and this is a fine example of how to make that happen.
Lots of people are following the rules to the letter for many weeks but for many it's been a bit half hearted and since last week it's gone full on ' we can do what we want'! If he can get away with it etc etc.
The scientists on bbc this morning were very cautious and think this is all too early to start lifting the restrictions too much.
It's been reported that Mr Cummings would have preferred the herd immunity model.
All this has helped that to happen
We can do nothing apart from be cautious and have some common sense and try our best not to spread the virus around.
The idea of having a bbq for others would feel me with horror as most people I know were fairly neurotic before and this will make them worse I feel but others are maybe a bit more relaxed.
This could turn people against each other I feel as our approaches are so different.
I'm actually a bit depressed at how this may pan out.

It's been reported that Mr Cummings would have preferred the herd immunity model.

You can only create herd immunity safely with a vaccine.

Without a vaccine, and without any confirmation of the length of acquired immunity, he wouldn't be creating herd immunity, he would just be letting people catch the virus - the 1918 'we can't do anything about it' model.

I thought we were following the science but it seems not. The 'Nandos' style chart hasn't been wheeled out at the briefings recently so I'm guessing they hope everyone forgets we're supposed to be at 3 before easing lockdown. The actual numbers tested is also no longer shown. I think this easing of lockdown can only be a distraction from what is going on with Cummings.

By November with repeated localised lockdowns and furlough help stopped completely I estimate 5 million unemployed and then by end of December we have a no deal Brexit. Ripe for USA exploitation and a new tax Haven for the very rich. Rule Brittania! ( Not)

The nando chart was wheeled out, carefully explained, has now been abandoned for no apparent reason and things happening anyway despite the dial not being where it should be for things to happen by govt explanation.

The 5 tests were wheeled out, carefully explained, has now been abandoned for no apparent reason and things happening anyway despite tests not being met the way they should have been for things to be able to happen by govt explanation.

I have vague ideas at this point about designing some kind of nice, simple visual in bright primary colours for BoDom Johnnings, to see if it's possible to communicate back with them in a way they'd understand, with clues such as 'when the dial's on red, there is no one left in the UK who has the faintest idea what you're on about', and 'when the dial is on Blue Screen of Death the electorate will uninstall and re boot government'.

Allowing 6 people to meet in a garden at 2 metres is hardly like reopening nightclubs. (@cathyandclare)

Quite.
People need to go to work if they can't work from home and people need to socialise. Everything isn't opening; most offices are not going back and the pubs are shut. R in the community is low but not negligible, people need to take personal responsibility for their own family's health now. Be careful and you'll be fine, but you're not now being prevented from seeing your mum.

@The80sweregreat Eugenics isn't what would happen here at all. Thats not what eugenics is.

Economy - the rich aren't getting richer.
Herd immunity strategy
Other crap going on that we are not supposed to notice

The whole way this has been handled is shoddy.

The rich may not be getting richer but they can weather the storm better than someone on furlough or now unemployed.
Especially the ones with ' old money'.
I feel it will cause a bigger divide than before.

Michelleoftheresistance

I'd like to know the answer to the OP as well.

@Bubbletwix

What we need is to start hearing from some other experts. Economists. Industrialists. Small business owners. Educators. Mental health experts.

And we need some more tests. Not just the 5 related to whether we have R below 1, saving the NHS etc, but “What % of GDP are we spending on this? What has happened to the tax take? What’s the U.K. credit rating? How do deaths from coronavirus prevented by these measures compare to deaths caused by poverty, mental health issues etc? What is each life saved costing and how does that compare to NICE guidance on funding other kids of medical care? What is this doing to unemployment? Trade? Balance of payments? What will this cost each person age 16 over the course of the rest of their lifetime?” How about some national surveys - choice experiments, that answer questions like “What amount of money will people spend, from their own pocket, to reduce their chance of death by 0.5% 1% etc? What about to save someone else? How does this compare to their actual observed behaviour re smoking, drinking, obesity etc?”

We need a far more balanced conversation than “we must save every possible life from covid”.

This is one of the most sensible comments I’ve read on the entirety of corona!