Restrictions on large gatherings likely to be in place 'for next few years'

[vera99]

Gulp. This is pretty bleak if true.

Experts have warned that restrictions on large gatherings could remain in place for "the next few years" as the world learns to live with the coronavirus.

Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at King's College London, told Times Radio that he "can't see us suddenly having another Cheltenham Festival with no regulations again".

"I can't see us having massive weddings with people coming from all over the world, I think for the next few years those days are gone," he added.

Prof Spector also suggested that basic infection control measures - including physical distancing, face masks and handwashing - should remain in place as they "don't cost really anything to do".

"I think we need to get used to that and that will allow us to do the things we really want to do more easily and more readily," he said.

On a more positive note Prof Spector, who created the Zoe Covid Symptom Study, said the infection survey indicates that coronavirus rates are "generally much lower everywhere" in the country, with around one in 170 people infected on average.

He suggested that reinstating the rule of six allowing people to meet outdoors should be "definitely encouraged" around the same time as primary schools begin to return.

Follow the latest updates below.

www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-news-uk-covid-vaccine-lockdown-end-latest-cases/

It’s all supposition at the moment. Please try to stay positive and enjoy what you can. Spring is just around the corner, crocus and snowdrops are popping through. Appreciate the little joys in life and we will get through this with our mental health intact.

@user1467048527

Why did I click on this depressing thread... just to read more of the confident statements that life is never going back to the way it was. And who cares anyway, because the poster doesn’t personally like Cheltenham or whatever.

I’m not a fan of mass gatherings either, but I can sympathise with posters who are missing them. Yes, I want to return to 2019. Frankly even the more minor restrictions like queuing to get into Tesco can get lost if this can be brought down to the same threat level as colds and the flu. Why are some people so keen to embrace cumbersome restrictions like one-way systems, masks, restricted numbers when this becomes more manageable.

I don’t see it as being analogous to the ban on liquids on planes or wearing a seatbelt at all. If the threats those things protect against we’re eradicated we surely could do without them (the liquids thing is rather irritating), but it’s hard to imagine how that could happen. So we accept them. But why retain COVID restrictions once the threat that made COVID riskier than other viruses has gone?

You need o read the latest posts. The telegraph misrepresented what was said and the headline was misleading.

@vera99

What are we not being told though that makes this true? That the disease is incurable and unvaccinatiable for years? I refuse to believe given the progress to date how that can be so.

Well from what I understand it has been confirmed to be presently incurable and unpreventable. You can still contract the illness once vaccinated. The vaccine does not offer a complete defence, merely a protection against the severity of illness suffered should you contract it. And because there are new strains/mutations popping up all over the shop, even once vaccinated an individual may need regular top ups to maintain their level of protection against becoming dangerously ill. So far there is no claimed complete immunisation from the illness. Sometimes I wonder why we don’t just take our chances and go back to living normal lives.

I haven’t even read the article @merrymouse - it’s the enjoyment some posters (thankfully a minority) seem to get envisaging ever-lasting lifestyle restrictions that’s getting me down! We know the harm this is doing to well-being and the economy, and I just don’t know what the doom-mongers get out of increasing anxiety.

Nobody knows how this is going to pan out, but there doesn’t seem to be any particular reason for thinking that restrictions will be normal from now on. So I wish people would pack it in with the more negative predictions.

@Lei8133
"Sometimes I wonder why we don’t just take our chances and go back to living normal lives."

Because aside from a proportion of the population being unwilling to take their "chances" no politician would ever agree to it because the other proportion of the population would then ask "if you are going to take that approach then why the hell didn't you do it from the beginning and avoid all the economic, individual, emotional, educational etc impacts of the restrictions. "

So from a political perspective it is far safer to just take your time on relaxing the restrictions. Yes it will cost money but when you are already £300 billion down what difference does another £100 billion make.

[quote Lowkeyloopy]I haven't read the whole thread so don't know if this has already been said, but Tim Spector has since clarified his comments and they are less dire than how they were spun in the media! Don't know if the link will work, but it's his Twitter feed.

twitter.com/timspector/status/1358853553683578883?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet[/quote]
That clarification isn't one

He is still saying "measures". What measures? If he includes physical distancing, did he really say that was low cost? The financial cost is massive so I'm hoping he didn't say that...

Lei8133 tge vaccines almost certainly reduce transmission. Not to zero, but by a decent amount.

I just don’t know what the doom-mongers get out of increasing anxiety.

The chief doom monger here is the person who wrote the Telegraph headline above an article that was just a confusing and misleading rehash of an interview for a different organisation.

Their reward was clicks.

@StealthPolarBear

Lei8133 tge vaccines almost certainly reduce transmission. Not to zero, but by a decent amount.

Oh, well that confuses me ever more... just another thing that the vaccine doesn’t do. So it reduces transmission, but does not prevent it... The more I try to keep up the less sense it makes.

@1dayatatime - You are so right.

One poster on here said we should stop watching the news, avoid threads such as this and try to stay positive and I think I’ll be taking that advice from now on. It’s a bloody minefield otherwise!

Sorry I don't follow. It reduces transmission by some amount, let's say 60% for the sake of argument, but not 100% which would prevent transmission entirely.
So transmission rates are down by 60% of what they otherwise would be.

Because aside from a proportion of the population being unwilling to take their "chances" no politician would ever agree to it because the other proportion of the population would then ask "if you are going to take that approach then why the hell didn't you do it from the beginning and avoid all the economic, individual, emotional, educational etc impacts of the restrictions.

The chief driver of decisions to lock down has been the fear that the health service would have been overwhelmed. We do know that vaccines at the very least protect against death and severe illness, and that will greatly reduce pressure on the health service. It will take time to gather data on transmission.

It is not true to say that decisions on restrictions going forward with the benefit of vaccines will be the same as decisions made in the past.

I really hope masks are not here to stay I am deaf and lipread and they are making it nearly impossible for me to go out alone, and yea I know we are ment to be staying at home and am doing so but when lockdown was lifted last time this was still a problem especially as supermarkets requested shopping alone.

@StealthPolarBear

Sorry I don't follow. It reduces transmission by some amount, let's say 60% for the sake of argument, but not 100% which would prevent transmission entirely. So transmission rates are down by 60% of what they otherwise would be.

Sadly not - it depends on what % of people take up the vax. If it's 60% effective at blocking transmission but 75% take it up, it will only reduce transmission by 35% which is not enough to get us out of this mess.

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. The point I waskaing is they reduce transmission. Not to zero, but they do. And that will have a positive impact.

If it's 60% effective at blocking transmission but 75% take it up, it will only reduce transmission by 35% which is not enough to get us out of this mess.

But 75% take up can greatly reduce hospitalisation and death.

It will take time to get answers to many questions - best gap between doses, protection against transmission, efficacy of different vaccines. However that doesn’t mean that we will never get any answers or that the status quo is fixed or that there will be no more medical advances or that ‘they’ are trying to enforce unnecessary restrictions for the sake of it.

Didn't Matt Hancock say yesterday that vaccine take up has exceeded expectations? Especially among the elderly, high-risk groups?

@IcedPurple

Didn't Matt Hancock say yesterday that vaccine take up has exceeded expectations? Especially among the elderly, high-risk groups?

It has been high so far but they expect it to drop as the groups expand.

In my area (rural east anglia, not far from Matt Hancock’s constituency) they’ve reported a 95% vaccination rate in Groups 1-4, equating to about 15,000 people.

It has been high so far but they expect it to drop as the groups expand.

Yes, I remember him saying that. So long as take up is high in the most high-risk groups, that's less of a problem.

@Donoteatthekittens

Hmmm I’ve also read today “that the Cabinet office is planning lockdown from November 2021 to February 2022.” There isn’t a source listed so take from that what you will.

Also: “ October-April every year from now on will be total lockdown and from April/May-September would be "tiers.”

Although reading the posts here, a lot of people would be happy with lockdown half the year and tiers for the foreseeable.

If this is correct, it's totally bloody depressing..

so not able to travel to see only remaining elderly parent for Christmas for years..

think I'll give up job, use savings, and go live in a van in valley somewhere..

I got the impression the Gvt felt this would be the last lockdown

Which it kind of has to be anymore and society/economy would crumble.

6 months every year in lockdown is complete fiction

This thread hurts my head. I used to devour Covid news, watch for new developments, read the articles. Now I just look at bare minimum headlines. It’s so confusing and depressing.

@Frenchdressing I agree. It’s all getting on top.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/covid-doom-mongers-hope-pandemic-end

@jac67

I really hope masks are not here to stay I am deaf and lipread and they are making it nearly impossible for me to go out alone, and yea I know we are ment to be staying at home and am doing so but when lockdown was lifted last time this was still a problem especially as supermarkets requested shopping alone.

Do you need to speak to shop staff? I go into a shop, get what I need, use the self-serve and leave.

I am not minimising the difficulties you have, but don't think it stops you going shopping altogether. In any event "shop alone" doesn't mean that you can't go out with someone else if you need assistance. If you asked me to accompany you and some security guard started being bolshy I would put him straight and I am sure anyone accompanying you would?