No new measures in England before New Year

[Jourdain11]

Has just been announced by the Health Secretary and reported across BBC etc.

@Wrongkindofovercoat

I guess if you were Boris, you would look at what happened last Winter, which was very bad in terms of mortality, but then you had Spring and Summer for people to forget about it , maybe he is hoping he can make the same 'mistake' with the same outcome and get away with it again ?

Boris only ever brings in restrictions as a last resort. We're not at that point. Even last January the schools went back for one day, despite how bad things were.

His back benches won't stomach more restrictions unless the data is catastrophic and they have Boris by the balls.

But people getting vaccines because it helps society as a whole is part of this debate (particularly seen in debates about child vaccines) . Our good record on this - at least in adults- might be showing us up as more of a collective than research sates . Or at least rather muddled!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10349531/China-Covid-Xian-residents-starving-lockdown-rules-tightened.html

I'm sure some people on here would be happy to live like this to chase zero COVID

Who, @vickyc90? Which posters, exactly, have said anything that remotely indicates this is what they are wishing for?

@vickyc90

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10349531/China-Covid-Xian-residents-starving-lockdown-rules-tightened.html

I'm sure some people on here would be happy to live like this to chase zero COVID

Who? I think you have created mythical 'lockdown lovers' as a straw man.

I know nobody - have never known anyone - who WANTS to lock down.

I have known many - in fact at different points in the pandemic the vast majority - who have acknowledged that at certain times, a UK-style lockdown has been, though terrible, the least worst option.

There are many things short of a lockdown that we could be choosing to do, to reduce the chance of a lockdown. It is the failure to do these things - much cheaper, and much less inconvenient or damaging than a lockdown - that i blame the government for.

I agree that it is easier to shout 'lockdown lover' than it is to engage with the delicate balance of risk and reward that a middle way represents, or even engage with the causes of our relative failure as a nation, though.

Not on this thread but to be fair I have seen posters going on about how well the Chinese are doing as if their methods should be used as a shining example.

@PinkSparklyPussyCat

Not on this thread but to be fair I have seen posters going on about how well the Chinese are doing as if their methods should be used as a shining example.

But then that is no different from those holding up various countries as shining examples without mentioning the measures that they have put in place.

I agree that there are huge numbers of posts in which caveats are not used:

'Chinese cases are low, but some of the methods they have used to achieve this are unacceptably cruel'
'Cases in some countries appear to be low, but that is due to limited testing'
'Schools should be open because Covid is of low risk to children, but this does mean that the adults in schools are placed at much higher risk'
'Sweden did not have the same lockdown rules as other countries in 2020, but the voluntary behaviour of their citizens was very different from that in other countries too'
'America has a better funded health service, but many aspects of it are only available for those with insurance'

It is a long step from failure to caveat to saying that those who think slightly differently from yourself want all of China's methods.

@cantkeepawayforever

I agree that there are huge numbers of posts in which caveats are not used:

'Chinese cases are low, but some of the methods they have used to achieve this are unacceptably cruel'
'Cases in some countries appear to be low, but that is due to limited testing'
'Schools should be open because Covid is of low risk to children, but this does mean that the adults in schools are placed at much higher risk'
'Sweden did not have the same lockdown rules as other countries in 2020, but the voluntary behaviour of their citizens was very different from that in other countries too'
'America has a better funded health service, but many aspects of it are only available for those with insurance'

It is a long step from failure to caveat to saying that those who think slightly differently from yourself want all of China's methods.

My point is softer measures are only ever designed to flatten the curve not change the area under it (I.e. the number infected). If you are calling for a lockdown or mitigation sufficient to prevent the cases ever occurring the your calling for a zero COVID strategy.

This is what a zero COVID strategy looks like. It's not masks, it's not testing, it's not social distancing. It hard lockdown until your cases reach zero, then mitigation repeat every time you get a break through infection.

Say we go for softer measures which means it takes 20 weeks to reach granny she is still in the same position as if we do nothing, stop all isolation to prevent services being over run due to staffing and it reaches her in 2 weeks time.

I would argue the death toll from either strategy would be much the same it's the time it takes to reach that death toll which changes.

@vickyc90, I'll ask again: which posters are advocating hard lockdown on this thread (or any others)?

I don't agree. What you are saying is that e.g. Australia will eventually have the same death toll as us, which is clearly untrue. By keeping cases so low for so long, they have missed a whole load of the pandemic while the rest of us worked out treatments and vaccines and mitigations.

Even in a much smaller way, thinking of my particular elderly relatives - if they catch Omicron in 2 weeks time, their local hospital will have no capacity. They will receive worse treatment at all points from ambulance to ICU, and are much more likely to die.

In 20 weeks time a) they may not catch it, because they will be able to meet others outside, b) their local hospital will have capacity, c) if numbers are spread out, there will be more doctors and nurses working, d) the variants may have mutated further to be even more mild, and treatment will have moved on further.

I'd absolutely take them catching it in May not January, thanks.

Australia has geographic advantages, the variables are different.

My parents are there and it was very easy to see, even at the beginning, that the impact on Aus and the U.K. would be different.

Marsha,

I think you have misunderstood my point.

She is saying that there is no point - presumably has never been any point - in slowing spread, because catching Covid in 2 weeks is the same as catching it in 20 weeks, as the outcome will inevitably the same.

The reason for mentioning Australia is that this is an obvious counter-example. they have pushed the 'start date' of their pandemic back a very long way, and thus have reduced the death toll very substantially. For them, having a big surge in 2021/22 is going to result in a MUCH lower death toll than starting a surge in 2020.

They were able to do this because of their geographical position, exactly as you say - but if vicky was right, this should have gained them nothing, because her contention is that the death toll is the same, whatever the time frame of infection.

True the advantage has been to close borders whilst vaccines were developed and that will help with numbers overall.

Delay post vaccine is less important, as Whitty mentioned in summer iirc

Out of interest, those who are anti lockdown, what would an acceptable outcome look like to avoid lockdown?

You'll be vindicated if hospitalisations and deaths stay ticking along at current rates but what would a bad outcome look like?

As context:

we had ~44k Covid deaths Jan-March 2021 even with lockdown.

Normally flu kills about 10k people in Jan-March A very bad flu year sees ~20k deaths from flu Jan-March so Covid was pretty brutal.

I think Boris has blood on his hands for making the wrong decision not to lockdown quickly if covid deaths go much past 25k Jan- March 2022.

At the moment it looks like we won't see that. In January cases hit 60k a day and deaths peaked at 1359 a day.
Now with the vaccine (& before a milder omicron variant) cases hit 50k in October but deaths peaked at just 185. By that logic we'd need 200k cases a day to be touching 25k deaths. Very back of fag packed maths though (& I'm not a scientist!).

But it looks to me possible the gamble will pay off (though If I was in charge it's not a gamble I would take).

But I'm interested to know what 'acceptable losses' would be to those celebrating the government's call?

@theemperorhasnoclothes

The fact is, enough people I think will stay away to the point many business may struggle regardless.

Totally agree. I'm doing 70% less trading than I should in December. Luckily there are just about enough who are not scared so I may just stay afloat but my god it's stressful. Lockdown would be better for me financially but don't actually think it's needed

Those who are anti lockdown are not having to work extra hours/days/having their holiday cancelled to help look after others/keep others safe

Again ridiculous my high numbers of people who will now half to self isolate

But as long as some can have a party all is ok

But as long as some can have a party all is ok

For me it's not about partying, it's about being able to see family and friends in my own home. I'm seeing my elderly family on New Years Day and to be honest would have done so regardless of a lockdown (if they were happy to of course!) as we had to postpone seeing them at Christmas.

@MarshaBradyo

True the advantage has been to close borders whilst vaccines were developed and that will help with numbers overall.

Delay post vaccine is less important, as Whitty mentioned in summer iirc

I think 'post vaccine' is not an absolute now, as it may have been seen in the summer, though.

The benefit of delay is still there, in that we are finding out more about which vaccines work the best (both against cases and about hospitalisations and deaths), the best intervals, and also potentially tweaking the vaccines to work better against more highly mutated variants.

So I do think further delay to a point where an 'optimised vaccination regime' has been worked out and as far as possible implemented is a further incremental benefit - so for example I have benefitted from the fact that I did not catch it before my Pfizer booster topped up my AZ vaccines, and I hope equally that my elderly relatives do not catch it before there has been a decision on the best direction for those whose boosters were so early that their immunity has waned substantially.

That’s if a booster is offered - it might not be all ages anyway.

And delay has a cost, the methods used are not cost free. So no I don’t think it’s always delay is better.

Delay post vaccine is less important, as Whitty mentioned in summer iirc Not so much with Omicron given the need for boosters and vaccine escape. Delay would be very useful right now to get more boosters/vaccines administered.

@rrhuth

Delay post vaccine is less important, as Whitty mentioned in summer iirc Not so much with Omicron given the need for boosters and vaccine escape. Delay would be very useful right now to get more boosters/vaccines administered.

Not really with the data re waning.

I hope equally that my elderly relatives do not catch it before there has been a decision on the best direction for those whose boosters were so early that their immunity has waned substantially

Very serious concern given the 10 week waning protection issue.

Not really with the data re waning waning makes delay more useful, not less.

Treatment in hospitals is going to be very stretched through January.