From the various rumours in the press, it sounds like Tuesday it will be announced that:
The Coronavirus Act 2020 will be repealed
This is a good thing largely. For those people panicking we still have the Health & Social Care Act 2008 and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 which have some pretty far reaching and draconian powers should they be needed over the winter. The repeal restricts the power of the executive from being even more draconian and unable to be held to account. I broadly support as it doesn't rule out Autumn / Winter restrictions (or even a lockdown imo). Instead it has an effect of stopping the government use powers in the future for non-covid reasons. Its a democratic rather than covid issue. (The gap in this I think is going to relate to what financial support may be available if restrictions are reintroduced in anyway - make of that what you will). Both the existing Act retain the power to close things like schools on the grounds of public health - and my suspicion is that Tory Backbenchers would prefer to use these acts rather than the covid act which they've always hated.
Vaccine Passports won't be implimented.
I know that lots of people won't like this, however in terms of pushing vaccinations, there's a lot of evidence that they are actually counterproductive because they increase distrust - particularly amongst groups at higher risk of covid often have higher levels of distrust in the state to begin with and this merely amplifies this. Instead, its thought that more sympathetic and sensitive approaches to increase vaccine uptake are generally more effective because they tackle mistrust/fears better. I think the threat of passports was used to increase uptake and political / legal opposition to vaccine passports has rendered the issue hard to push through too. I suspect if they did get put through, there'd be legal challenges for discrimination. This is also different from a mandatory workplace vaccination policy, which I still think could happen (and may still cause issues with legalities). I personally favour a more softly softly approach on this tbh because of the counter productive issues.
A vaccine programme for 12 - 15 year olds will be announced
I have mixed feelings about this. The JVCI opposed this for a reason. The argument about whether catching covid or getting vaccinated in this age group is still on going. Early evidence is that vaccination carries a higher risk - particularly for boys - in this group than covid itself and that long covid concerns have been disproportionate to actual cases. (I'd argue that still lots of work to do on this research area so early findings might not kept to this). Word is that because the early evidence suggests the risk with boys and pfizer is greater after 2 doses, that this age group will only get one dose not two. So this doesn't solve the political issue brewing over differing policy and international travel, that many will have hoped a vaccination programme for 12 - 15 year olds would help solve.
I think it will be popular with many though. There is an arguable case for it being of benefit for society as a whole.
Announcement of a 'Winter Plan'
Whatever the hell this may mean. There's some talk of reintroduction of some mask restrictions (will believe that when I see it). So far I've not really seen much concrete on this apart from the words 'guidance' and 'advise' which will be as much use as a chocolate teapot. Far too many people simply won't do something unless backed by law. I fear a lack of concrete proposals may force u-turns further on. I think this is pointless gesturing to appease those worried about other announcements due on Tuesday. Putting the burden of 'choice' onto individuals and business only works to a point. If there is a real 'need' for reducing social interaction - guidance is not going to be sufficient and will harm the most vulnerable first.
Axing of needing PCRs to return to the UK after travelling
Mixed feelings on this one too. On the one hand, the current exortion of passengers is dreadful and its crippling the travel industry. On the other hand the problem is that this leaves us more at risk of missing new variants coming in and being detecting as lateral flows aren't as reliable and I worry about legal reporting of cases dropping as a result of switching from PCRs to lateral flows. It does have to happen at some point. I just wonder whether doing it before Spring was the right time to do it.
HOWEVER as much as this might reduce costs to travellers, there's still the question of what airlines will require (which could still be a PCR and what destinations will still require - so people are still likely to have to test prior to travel, so the policy is going to have limited overall effect).
Booster Program Formally Launched
This one has been waivering for a bit. I think there is clear evidence of a need for it in the oldest age groups and the most clinically vulnerable. BUT I think we could still be on for a row about who gets and who doesn't get. Healthy people in their 50s may yet be excluded, at least initially. Which won't be popular. And there will be a row from people with some conditions which are off the list.
By all accounts this is going to be Pfizer only. Research seems to give a strong argument that AZ followed by Pfizer gives greatest benefits to immunity and there's always been concerns that AZ isn't quite as effective as Pfizer (though latest seems to suggest AZ immunity is longer lasting that Pfizer so the effectiveness argument is starting to falter over a longer period).
I think we are starting to fall behind on this one. We announced we had plans for this very early on, but this hasn't been pushed through at all and I think we are behind where we should be with this.
Financial impacts
It sounds benefits for isolation are going to remain. The last of furlough is set to end soon, and there's particular fears over the travel industry - hence why it looks like the relaxation of PCRs with travel is going on. I think this is the area to keep a close eye on, as I think its possibly the one going under the radar a fair amount. Politically, I think extending furlough whilst slashing UC top ups and raising NI is impossible. But its not going to go down well, if we do face another lockdown (which is still part of contigency planning - if only for prudence and worst case scenarios).
What else to look out for
I think curve projections are the thing to look out for. There are concerns things are not quite going as well as hoped. HOWEVER anyone who has been following moderate commentary on twitter, may be aware of talk of the ceiling of cases/transmission due to vaccines. This is one guy who has been following it a while:
twitter.com/video4me/status/1436723127380291586
His 'gold line theory' has held out more or less about how transmission rates will fluxuate but gradually decrease. Its broadly been following that with blips in both directions, and we look like once we pass a 'back to school' spike to start to get into R being below 1 very soon if he's right.
I also think talk about flu vaccines will come up. The HGV shortage has apparently hit this years programme forcing cancellations already. I think this may be an area of concern.
And I think the big elephant in the room, is how the NHS are going to cope with this years winter peak and just how much covid and backlog of other conditions is going to impact on that. Another lockdown is going to impact on other health conditions - but so is high caseload. This still looks like an impossible equation to calculate. Whitty said this winter could be 'very difficult' previously. I start to fear that the calculation is that restrictions will only increase non-covid deaths but no restrictions will potentially increase covid deaths meaning that both options are problematic and there's now effectively 'no way out' of the dilema and that theres a car crash immenient whatever we do and the only choice we have is to 'pick our poison' (and that probably has to fall to supporting the economy and trusting vaccines to protect the highest number of people - the most vulnerable in society are probably most at risk from both options anyway sadly)
Overall I am very much aware we have to move now from crisis management into long term management. I'm not totally convinced thats we are ready for the lap on all fronts before March. But we do need a change in tone and language and prepping parts of the public for that. I don't think we are really going to get much honesty about the NHS car crash incoming though. (This is why we've just had a big announcement about NI payments btw so they can see look what we need to do to save the NHS. It will silence many NI criticisms from the lower middle income quarters).
So I'm kinda on board and support what seems likely to happen - purely because its a rock and a hard place situation and there really are limits as to how much more can be done, post population vaccine and what is possible now in practical terms (not least from a compliance POV). Its reasonable given the mess we've ended up in - rightly or wrongly.
But yeah. I think this is probably where we are at and its comments about just how shitty this winter is going to be for the NHS is where this is really going to be and how thats framed / sold to the public.