Next week's announcement won't be the good news we think it'll be

[likeamillpond]

Listening to the news and reading between the lines regarding the latest variant that's supposed to be resistant to the vaccine, I don't think it's going to be brilliant news next week.
I dont think it'll be a case of, We've got this. You can all go out now.
Im hoping theyll say for certain that schools can go back. At least.
I think we are still in the shit. They just haven't told us.
I'm prepared to be told I'm worrying over nothing.

@MaxNormal

So selfish, we are all living under restrictions

Given that we were made to sacrifice our income entirely I'm a bit bored of "selfish" being chucked at me.

Same here @MaxNormal. DH is new self employed hairdresser with 44 years of PAYE behind him but no help at all from central government. IMHO most on furlough would be quite happy to extend lockdowns on and on. DH needs to work. He’s found some cash in hand jobs that he won’t be putting through the books and the govt (and anyone else) can just sod off with any sanctimonious preaching about that’s why the SE haven’t received any help. We’ve been driven to it by their ridiculous SEISS rules.
If only the government had stuck to the plans laid out already in a paper published in 2011 about how the country would deal with a pandemic. But they didn’t. They bottled it, threw the paper away and have been winging it ever since.
I am beyond fed up and angry.

A lot will change their tune when furlough ends
There are going to be riots and civil unrest

@kwest oh I am so sorry, that so so hard and unfair. And people just assume it isn't happening because they read about all the help given out and think everyone must be absolutely fine.

And to then have people who aren't in the same boat go on about selfish and granny killer and GLOBAL pandemic donacha'know is about the final straw really.

I really really hope that there's good news on hairdressers re-opening soon, and for your sakes that your're in England where it's more likely to happen sooner. I really hope you get a glimmer of hope from Monday's announcement.

@MrsFezziwig

Just relieved I haven't fallen for the fear propaganda and have been able to see through this The mood is changing, there will be riots soon

Are you planning to riot @Beaniecats? Or do you prefer to just sit on Mumsnet peddling the same tired old conspiracy theories every few posts?

Yes I am I feel angry enough

@TwelvePaws

It’s practically irrelevant to me as I’m planning to meet family indoors as soon as my parents have received their immunity from the first dose of vaccine. They had it 2.5 weeks ago so not long to wait!

For doing this, I think you’re a bit silly. For having to tell people, I think you’re a twat.

But that's daft. One dose gives any individual about a 50/50 chance of being protected. So it's a coin toss as to whether they are protected or not. At least wait until the booster. www.bbc.com/future/article/20210114-covid-19-how-effective-is-a-single-vaccine-dose

@nonono1

It’s practically irrelevant to me as I’m planning to meet family indoors as soon as my parents have received their immunity from the first dose of vaccine. They had it 2.5 weeks ago so not long to wait!

You do realise you can still catch and pass on Covid even AFTER you've had the vaccine, right? It shouldn't kill your DPs, even after only one dose of the vaccine, but they can still get it from you. It really would be much safer for you all if waited until after they'd had their 2nd dose and waited three weeks from that.

Yes I am
I feel angry enough

🤣

@Beaniecats

A lot will change their tune when furlough ends There are going to be riots and civil unrest

You didn’t even bother to change the wording from your other post. Give it a rest.

But if you're going to allow 20+ households to mix in classrooms 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, then I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to allow households to mix indoors with limits.

This misunderstanding is at the root of much that is wrong with people's approach to Covid - and the fact it is so prevalent is an indication of the total failure of the government's communication, right from the start.

We know that schools contribute around 0.3-0.4 to R, a measure of Covid spread. We also know that indoor mixing contributes significantly to R, though I am afraid i don't have a figure on that.

The point that the government fails to communicate clearly is that there is a choice as to how we 'spend' this rise in R, or if you prefer, this amount of risk. If the two activities are the same in terms of actual risk, the effect of doing both is additive.

So, for the sake of argument, say that schools raise R by 0.3, and so does indoor mixing in groups of a particular size. And say R is currently 0.69.

If we open schools alone, R becomes 0.99, and the pandemic continues to shrink.

If we allow indoor mixing alone, R becomes 0.99, and the pandemic continues to shrink.

However, if we allow both - even though they are exactly the same level of risk, so people say 'well if I can do X, then surely I must be able to do Y, it's no more risky' - then R rises to 1.29 and the pandemic starts growing rapidly again.

That's why the government has to make choices - it can't open 'everything that is perceived to be of the same risk', which is what many people assume, because the effects are additive.

@cantkeepawayforever nicely put

Cant yes well explained.

There probably will still be if I can do this why not that posts but maybe will help some

Precisely

It’s cumulative. We can afford a certain amount of mixing but no more. The question is what do we choose to “spend” that amount on. If we spend it on schools we can’t also have (say) rule of 6. Not yet.

I know @cantkeepawayforever. In fact I have made the same points about pubs vs gyms vs schools vs retail. We DO only have a certain amount to spend (or as I put it, only a certain amount of resources).

Which is why I qualified my post - "with limits". I'm not advocating for raves or house parties. I would advocate for people to be able to meet one other household indoors with a maximum of 4 people, say.

Unfortunately we are heading into a massive mental health and societal crisis due to restrictions on socialising with loved ones (not to mention the knock-on effects of delayed medical treatment, which although significant are not directly relevant to this particular post) and now we have vaccines which we are making good progress with, we need to consider the nations health and future holistically, and stop the laser focus on covid only.

For example, birth rates around the world have plunged, including in the UK. This will not be helped by the many women who will now have lost their chance to meet someone and have a child, nor those couples whose relationships have been paused because they can't meet. This will ultimately have significant ramifications as there will be a "hole" in the population.

So yes, you are right, but only if you're thinking in covid terms exclusively. There is a much bigger picture to think of.

What in all honesty do you expect a riot to achieve?
I don't think it'll happen because I haven't heard anyone else say that. Just remember riots will spread Covid!

So yes, you are right, but only if you're thinking in covid terms exclusively. There is a much bigger picture to think of.

The problem is that none of what you describe is helped by any measure that puts us back into an exponential growth curve for Covid - for example, all the things you seek were available between September and November 2020, but because of the exponential growth of Covid during that period, nobody seems to feel that had a hugely positive effect.

Equally, the last thing you want is a further lockdown - but with a daily case rate still around 10,000 per day, we are only 3 doubling periods (which could be as short as 5-7 days each) away from 80,000 cases per day and if we return to exponential growth, we will be back into that territory too rapidly for anything that you want to be achieved.

At the moment, too few people have bee vaccinated for us to be able to say 'I don't care about cases, it can double all it likes'.

On the other hand, if we drive case numbers down to 1000 per day, then we have 6 doubling periods to 64,000 cases - long enough to take the measures short of lockdown to bring R down.

So there are two trade-offs - how do we spend our precious R 'headroom' now (accepting the slower decline in cases to gain something seen to be of sufficient value to warrant that), AND how do we trade off future longer term freedoms against the shorter term pain of prolonging many restrictions?

I would, on a personal level, take a harder short-term hit and spend as little R as possible (so would only suggest a very very limited further opening of schools beyond the current vulnerable and keyworker provision) and then be able to open more things in parallel because we have more headroom. That seems to me to be fairer, in that it would give more people more of what they want (rather than maintaining restrictions on the childless to allow children to return to school). However, that is a personal view.

I agree with the above

Do you have a source please for your statement that riots spread covid?

There was a scientist on tv today discussing the ‘rammed beach Scenes’ last summer. Everyone was horrified and judgemental that so many people were on the beach, however, he stated that there has never been one single documented case of covid being spread from being near other households on a beach.

Reminds me of your riot statement.

Yep I read the beach report. Just reinforces what I suspected that outdoors transmission is minuscule.

Probably did them all the world of good getting some vitamin D..

Italy had outdoor nightlife venues with 1000 + people. These got closed last summer as implicated in a large surge of infection.

I think outdoor is safer than indoor but I wouldn't risk close outdoor contact either, especially as the newer variants are more contagious.

I'd imagine that riots involve more physical contact with strangers - holding hands to form barricades, physical fighting, bleeding, sweat, saliva when you shout etc With the beach you might breathe on people in the queue for ice creams or bump into them while swimming but it's not going to be as risky.

Italy had outdoor nightlife venues

And I think we all know what happens in nightlife venues that might result in transmission. It’s a bit different to a day at the beach.

I think people on mn taking about rioting are more likely to attend a protest March.

I don't think there'll be riots, people will just make the decision for themselves to mix with family and friends again in eachother's homes and gardens. Parks or the beach in nice weather. I don't blame them.

If a majority choose to do that there's no way it can be policed.

[quote Katie517]@OnceUponANightmare don’t be ridiculous rule of 6 outdoor public place has been leaked by several newspapers already. You can’t have kids cramming into classrooms but keep everyone else pretty much in isolation people won’t stand for it.[/quote]
Ha! Ok. What will they do about it??

@cantkeepawayforever

But if you're going to allow 20+ households to mix in classrooms 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, then I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to allow households to mix indoors with limits.

This misunderstanding is at the root of much that is wrong with people's approach to Covid - and the fact it is so prevalent is an indication of the total failure of the government's communication, right from the start.

We know that schools contribute around 0.3-0.4 to R, a measure of Covid spread. We also know that indoor mixing contributes significantly to R, though I am afraid i don't have a figure on that.

The point that the government fails to communicate clearly is that there is a choice as to how we 'spend' this rise in R, or if you prefer, this amount of risk. If the two activities are the same in terms of actual risk, the effect of doing both is additive.

So, for the sake of argument, say that schools raise R by 0.3, and so does indoor mixing in groups of a particular size. And say R is currently 0.69.

If we open schools alone, R becomes 0.99, and the pandemic continues to shrink.

If we allow indoor mixing alone, R becomes 0.99, and the pandemic continues to shrink.

However, if we allow both - even though they are exactly the same level of risk, so people say 'well if I can do X, then surely I must be able to do Y, it's no more risky' - then R rises to 1.29 and the pandemic starts growing rapidly again.

That's why the government has to make choices - it can't open 'everything that is perceived to be of the same risk', which is what many people assume, because the effects are additive.

Exactly. I am not sure why this is so difficult for people to grasp. I agree that the Government messaging has been woeful but this is basic maths and should not need to be explained to a fully functioning adult!