Surely opening up now is the least worst option?

[Warhertisuff]

What's the point of continuing to suppress Covid at the moment. All it does it kick the can on the road..

Either we never, ever open up, or we have to accept that, when we do, cases will rise until we've acquired enough immunity through a combination of infection and vaccination.

At the moment, vaccines work pretty well against the current variants.... The more we suppress Covid now, the less immune as a society we'll be when a vaccine evasive variant (and it probably will whatever we do here), and if we can't relax restrictions now, we surely won't be able to over the autumn and winter.

Where we are is admittedly pretty shit, but continuing to suppress Covid now would just be counterproductive. "Letting it rip" sounds callous, but the alternatives seem worse or unworkable.

Yet many people seem determined to persist with the reflex to suppress Covid and continue with restrictions and measures to curtail spread. What's the point?

This. With bells on.

I think you need to look at it as what would more vaccinations do

And when would you prefer the peak?

As I keep saying, I'm in ROI. We've had the longest, harshest lockdown in the western world and a glacially slow reopening. Indoor mixing is not allowed and no indoor hospitality is open (let alone things like arts/sports venues).

Our delta wave is surging merrily ahead regardless.

There is no stopping this thing, short of March 2020 lockdowns (assuming compliance would be as high, which it wouldn't). The middle ground options aren't doing anything for us anymore.

I almost feel as though their options are open now, or stay in lockdown until spring.

I think they’ve picked opening now as compliance will probably be higher for a further lockdown in autumn/winter if we’ve had our ‘summer of fun’ (said tongue in cheek)

If they tried to lock us down now while they vaccine AND get boosters/new vaccines tweaked for delta many won’t comply.

You could have places opening, and face coverings kept for public transport, medical appointments and some other settings. Very few places as of today are actually closed completely.

You could have places opening, and face coverings kept for public transport, medical appointments and some other settings.

Isn’t that what’s actually happening though?

@VanGoSunflowers

I almost feel as though their options are open now, or stay in lockdown until spring.

I think they’ve picked opening now as compliance will probably be higher for a further lockdown in autumn/winter if we’ve had our ‘summer of fun’ (said tongue in cheek)

If they tried to lock us down now while they vaccine AND get boosters/new vaccines tweaked for delta many won’t comply.

We aren't locked down thougn.

We went to a food festival today.

We were fairly careful not to go into anywhere indoor or into a crowd.

But the stalls were doing great business and there was a stage with music.

It's not a lockdown any more.

Wearing masks in supermarkets etc is just common sense, as long as you don't have a reason for exemption of course.

Calling Monday "Freedom Day" won't change the fact that we are still in a pandemic, and the case numbers and hospitalisations and deaths over 7 days are going up.

Removing all mitigations now is the most worst option OP.

As we will all find out in due course.

Almost anything else I can think of would be a better idea.

Still, we'll all get a good long look at what "living with the virus" looks like.

It involves quite a lot less "living" than you might expect.

@PrincessNutNuts

Removing all mitigations now is the most worst option OP.

As we will all find out in due course.

Almost anything else I can think of would be a better idea.

Still, we'll all get a good long look at what "living with the virus" looks like.

It involves quite a lot less "living" than you might expect.

Except you don't list any of the alternatives that would be better, or why.

I like the emotive "a lot less living" line. That'll get people to think.

But come on, what is it you'd actually do?

Well one thing the Government could have insisted on was mandatory face masks in all settings.

Luckily DS’s school continued with this approach anyway but still bubbles have burst left, right and centre. Imagine what it would have been like with no masks at all!

I don’t know what the answer to when it would have been better to open up. Yes, we’ve got to live with Covid but still, there are rising hospital numbers, I don’t want to see the NHS overwhelmed for selfish reasons, FIL with cancer, DS with important hospital apt in the next few wks.

We haven’t got the luxury of private medical care, we need access to our NHS!

I know of one wedding party, just ONE, that’s resulted in three hospital admissions, one of which is in ICU. Imagine next week when this is happening in thousands of locations, with many unvaccinated people, some who think they’re invincible and anti vaccination! The person I mentioned who is in ICU is one of them!

@newnortherner111

You could have places opening, and face coverings kept for public transport, medical appointments and some other settings. Very few places as of today are actually closed completely.

Face coverings aren't working though, are they?

But come on, what is it you'd actually do?

Everyone knows what to do to control covid.

It's what the countries with 150,000 fewer covid funerals are doing.

What the countries that go to gigs with 50,000 people are doing.

What the countries still having massive weddings where nobody's Nan dies afterwards are doing

What the countries protecting their own children are doing.

@PrincessNutNuts

But come on, what is it you'd actually do?

Everyone knows what to do to control covid.

It's what the countries with 150,000 fewer covid funerals are doing.

What the countries that go to gigs with 50,000 people are doing.

What the countries still having massive weddings where nobody's Nan dies afterwards are doing

What the countries protecting their own children are doing.

Which is?

Presumably you mean strict closed borders? Something that most countries simply can't do.

Face coverings aren't working though, are they?

As in ending the pandemic, no they’re not. As in providing a layer of mitigation that slows the spread of aerosol infection, the scientific consensus is yes. I’ve seen reports of their effectiveness from as low as 2% to as high as 25%. As an element of a widespread scheme of infection control they have a part to play and I can’t see the logic of losing this particular element at this point in time.

The argument that the general public don’t use them to the same standard as medical settings doesn’t hold imho. We don’t all wash our hands to the same standards as surgeons but I feel like calling for binning off hand washing wouldn’t be met with quite the same support, although there were plenty of doctors and surgeons who were very strongly opposed hand washing when it was introduced off the back of germ theory.

@Kazzyhoward

Face coverings aren't working though, are they?

I don't buy this argument at all... You could equally say that "vaccines aren't working so let's not bother" or "people still die in hospitals so let's close them down"...

I think they only have a fairly marginal
Impact though in most settings. A heaving sweaty London Underground carriage though

Which is?

Sadly all that’s left is some kind of doom poetry.

@PrincessNutNuts

But come on, what is it you'd actually do?

Everyone knows what to do to control covid.

It's what the countries with 150,000 fewer covid funerals are doing.

What the countries that go to gigs with 50,000 people are doing.

What the countries still having massive weddings where nobody's Nan dies afterwards are doing

What the countries protecting their own children are doing.

Zero covid, like New Zealand, which we haven't done, are not doing and won't do.

It's very easy to talk about hypotheticals that it's clear are not workable in reality. You can always be right about how brilliant the outcome would be because the hypothesis is never tested.

I'm yet to hear an answer to the U.K. supply chain issue. The U.K. can't feed itself and our supply chain relies on thousands of lorries a day (and their accompanying drivers) entering the U.K. Tourist travel is easy to solve, essential travel not so much.

Princess doesn’t have an answer apart from lockdown, very severely, for many months/years to come.

Yesterday she suggested going back to level 2 restrictions, but I pointed out that in Ireland restrictions are at this exact level and their delta cases are soaring also.

Anything else Princess has to say about New Zealand or whatever, involves going back in time. Even if it was viable to begin with (which it wasn’t) it’s not possible now.

I'm yet to hear an answer to the U.K. supply chain issue.

Or the land border with the EU.

I'm yet to hear an answer to the U.K. supply chain issue. The U.K. can't feed itself and our supply chain relies on thousands of lorries a day (and their accompanying drivers) entering the U.K. Tourist travel is easy to solve, essential travel not so much

Tbf that’s restricting itself at the moment with a shortage of HGV drivers due to brexit unless I’ve missed a development somewhere? Covid is hiding a multitude of issues imho.

As for what I’d do differently; I would have kept masks, kept gathering restrictions with incremental rises dependent on the impact of things like changing isolation requirements (due in August) and not promised silly things like ‘save Christmas’ and ‘freedom day’ for circumstances beyond my control. Expectations have been wildly abused. I wouldn’t have chosen this path but as we’re on it the 0-60 nature of lifting measures is crazy, especially when it appears that no thought has been given to things like the impact of the number of contacts isolating. Relatively mild measures work but not at ridiculous case numbers. We can’t currently eradicate covid but we absolutely have the tools and knowledge to slow it and keep infection rates low which benefits everyone in some way.

Economically I would have looked at not delaying the inevitable - no stamp duty holidays, tightening requirements for furlough and business grants after the first wave because ultimately a lot of it has been/is going to be very expensive employment support allowance. There’s a whole department of government available to work out criteria to identify who is likely to stand a decent chance of recovery (and chances for most would be higher with lower infection rates). Part of that is not raising expectations that economic recovery will be like a light switch turning 2019 back on.

Basically I would have treated the population like adults and not pretended to have control of over a situation when I don’t.

Sometimes it’s due to zero Covid posters having relatives in Aus / NZ but not having lived there don't get differences.

Obviously more sensible posters don’t need to live or visit to get it.

You could equally say that "vaccines aren't working so let's not bother"

That's what worries me, now the "They're not making enough difference" is starting to creep in - I believe someone said the BBC had a nice scary headline along the same lines?

For clarity I've never subscribed to the idea they're the be-all and end-all which will save us all, but since they make some difference they seem no bad thing, and it concerns me that more and more will start to say "no more"

I’m not sure what the answer is but my local hospital has started cancelling non urgent appointments and some other outpatient appointments again due to the number of Covid patients.
It does seem worrying when the numbers are already high and hospitalisation are rising. We just have to hope that deaths stay low, but long Covid is a real worry too.

@Puzzledandpissedoff in fairness to Whitty/Vallance (can’t remember which, both possibly) they said back in January that although the vaccines were great news they weren’t a silver bullet. I think this is one of this ridiculous cabinets bets not paying off. I think they heard of the possibility of vaccines vastly reducing transmission and ran with that without changing their strategy when delta hit or when it became very clear the affect on transmission wasn’t as much as the best case scenario.

I don’t recall any amendments to our strategy when Astra Zeneca and Pfizer announced reduced effectiveness (but still high enough to be considered successful) against variants of concern (can’t remember their new names but it includes the ones from South Africa and Brazil).

With the proviso that I am not anti mask in general terms (although I'm also not one of those who thinks they are of no consequence - I don't like wearing one and will stop as soon as I can) this is an interesting perspective, be interesting to see the response from other people with expertise in this area.

apple.news/A2Pu4-hNgSr-ea3Vc8mSvbg

in fairness to Whitty/Vallance (can’t remember which, both possibly) they said back in January that although the vaccines were great news they weren’t a silver bullet

I know, and you're quite right; however it was another media thing (plus, as you say, government running with it) which unfortunately too many placed an awful lot of faith in