If Boris goes will we reverse covid rules?

[Puppylucky]

Just that really. If the abolition of self isolation /testing etc is a ruse by Boris Johnson to divert press attention /stay in power and is a dangerous rejection of science, will this strategy be reversed by a new prime minister? I think it may be.

@Glitterandunicorns

I am horrified by the number of people talking about going back to normal or freedom or how this is just a cold. 314 people died in the last 24 hours from it.

I have clinically vulnerable people in my family who would definitely not fare well if they caught it, (if they survived it), and the sheer number of people who believe that it's a sniffle for everyone affected shocks and horrifies me. There is absolutely no consideration for those who are disabled or clinically vulnerable here.

Of it or with it?

@Giveaschitt

Conversely the figures do NOT include people who died died directly as a result of covid 29, or e.g. 150 days after their test result. There are far more of those people than people dying in car crashes within the 28 day window.

Acutally, the government dashboard includes data for those who had covid on their death certificate, so who did in fact die directly as a result of covid. Those numbers are now actually lower than the official "within 28 days" number that is reported, so in fact we are now seeing the 'incidental' covid deaths overtake those actually dying because of it.

The 21st of January is actually a good day to demonstrate this - its the only day this year where deaths 'with covid' was over 300 - 305 in fact. But on that same day only 224 people died with covid listed on their death certificate as a contributing factor.

That 224 will not yet include all the death certs for 21/01/22, some take longer to come in.

224 is still a high number really, if we take away the numbing we have had due to a) protracted exposure to data b) shockingly high figures in the early peaks.

I should change 'will not' to 'may not' really, it may include them all

224 is still a high number really, if we take away the numbing we have had due to a) protracted exposure to data b) shockingly high figures in the early peaks.

I don't think it really is though. In our population, with approx 1500 people dying each day anyway.

Also, 'excess deaths' (horrible term but the official one - apologies to anyone who sees it as insensitive) are down by the latest government figures - see here

@AlexaShutUp

I agree that the restrictions need to go at some point. I'm happy for them to go now. I just wish that I had confidence that the decision was being taken for the right reasons, but instead, I'm convinced that it's about Boris trying to secure his job.

You know though, this kind of calculation isn't always inappropriate in politics.

The idea that restrictions are completely science based is a real misunderstanding both of science and politics. Leaving aside real scientific controversies (do masks really help, what kind, etc, are other areas of health going to be affected - and frankly a lot of health bodies making recommendations about covid have been crap at addressing that) science can only give information about certain things. Political decisions can and should also include wider concerns like economics, education, social effects. And even just what people want. If people do not think the effects of restrictions really outweigh the benefits, that's a valid decision and in a democracy has to be taken into account.

The idea that there won't be politics in these decisions has mainly been a way for political types to avoid taking responsibility for decisions, or a way to ram through decisions that people may question.

That should be a pinned post santa.

It's all political. All of it. The decisions you agree with, and the decisions you don't. It couldn't possibly be otherwise, especially not in a society with regular elections. This is simply one of the more blatant examples. There is no The Science, it's always been about tradeoffs and value judgements. That's as true today as it was in March 2020.

@TheKeatingFive

Here in the UK the quotes from SAGE are that it was a political decision.

What quotes?

Sorry missed this - a SAGE member said on Peston last night the committee had not discussed it, therefore had not advised it, it was a political choice made by Johnson.

@ClaudiaWankleman

224 is still a high number really, if we take away the numbing we have had due to a) protracted exposure to data b) shockingly high figures in the early peaks.

I don't think it really is though. In our population, with approx 1500 people dying each day anyway.

Also, 'excess deaths' (horrible term but the official one - apologies to anyone who sees it as insensitive) are down by the latest government figures - see here

It means covid is still one of the leading causes of death, the numbers are pretty high.

You might not want to change the numbers, but I think you are wrong to say that covid are not high.

Anything that is in the leading causes of death will deliver high numbers of death.

No. Why would we?

Sorry missed this - a SAGE member said on Peston last night the committee had not discussed it, therefore had not advised it, it was a political choice made by Johnson.

Well it may be of interest to note that in other countries, with higher current rates of covid, dropping of restrictions had been expressly sanctioned by Sage equivalents.

Have we heard any concern from Sage for example?

As I keep saying, this is not an outlier decision. It's entirely in line with other countries with high rates but past omicron peak.

I just find it all very bizarre that in a matter of weeks, between December and January the official guidance has gone from regular LF testing, PCR tests if you have symptoms, Plan B, mask wearing, isolation for ten days, work from home if you can to...

Nothing. Nada. No, you don't need to do anything now. It's over. Back to normal. Off you pop.

A big part of that was to do with uncertainty over the impact of omincron. Lots of the measures brought in in early December were precautionary when not much was known. We can now see that the impact on hospitals is much less than feared.

It looks like hospital admissions, though they have gone down a bit, are roughly the same as this time last year, when we were in full lockdown and were subjected to sustained and frightening advertising campaigns.

No. Restrictions are going now, and not before time.

No to what?

@Rosehugger

No to what?

If you read the thread title you will see what it is in answer to.

@Rosehugger

I just find it all very bizarre that in a matter of weeks, between December and January the official guidance has gone from regular LF testing, PCR tests if you have symptoms, Plan B, mask wearing, isolation for ten days, work from home if you can to...

Nothing. Nada. No, you don't need to do anything now. It's over. Back to normal. Off you pop.

The big difference is the booster vaccine. Take up was great, pretty much everyone who wants it has now had a chance to get it (even if they had covid in between, it's been long enough to be eligible now) and it's providing a good level of protection against serious illness and hospitalisation.

Personally I do think it would still be reasonable to ask people to isolate when they are ill - we do for other illnesses. While covid is mild for many, it is also massively more transmissible than flu for example so has a much bigger impact in that sense. I'm not particularly looking forward to sitting on packed public transport with no one wearing masks and a few people in each carriage spreading their snotty covid around...

It looks like hospital admissions, though they have gone down a bit, are roughly the same as this time last year, when we were in full lockdown and were subjected to sustained and frightening advertising campaigns.

At that point they could see from the data that relaxing restrictions would have caused huge issues very quickly. Now with vaccines, boosters and omincron they know that's not the case, the peak has passed, it was manageable.

@VikingOnTheFridge

That should be a pinned post santa.

It's all political. All of it. The decisions you agree with, and the decisions you don't. It couldn't possibly be otherwise, especially not in a society with regular elections. This is simply one of the more blatant examples. There is no The Science, it's always been about tradeoffs and value judgements. That's as true today as it was in March 2020.

Absolutely.

People did not want to hear that prior to partygate though. Other than the lottery of catching Covid (which is strongly influenced by underlying health) most of the issues we've had e.g. isolations and their impacts have been political choices. So much of the modelling was disproportionately gloomy with reality frequently better than even the best-case scenarios. The only decent science has been the impressive progress at vaccine development and treatments.

I've found it strange how people accepted things like isolation length/ contact isolation policy/ two-tier education depending on parental occupation etc etc as science and what Covid is (some were best-guess compromises more than others) rather than the actual politics it's been. Countries/ states have rarely made identical descions, but one way or another we all end up in the same place with variations of timescale (i.e. population exposed with natural immunity, high vaccination)

I'm not particularly looking forward to sitting on packed public transport with no one wearing masks and a few people in each carriage spreading their snotty covid around...

Yes me neither.

@TheKeatingFive

Sorry missed this - a SAGE member said on Peston last night the committee had not discussed it, therefore had not advised it, it was a political choice made by Johnson.

Well it may be of interest to note that in other countries, with higher current rates of covid, dropping of restrictions had been expressly sanctioned by Sage equivalents.

Have we heard any concern from Sage for example?

As I keep saying, this is not an outlier decision. It's entirely in line with other countries with high rates but past omicron peak.

I thought Johnson said we would be the most free country in Europe which would suggest we are at the far end of the spectrum.

UK has been an outlier right the way through.

I think the vast majority of the population/voters want restrictions to end.

@Blubells

I think the vast majority of the population/voters want restrictions to end.

Do you? I think you think that because it is what you want.

Polling from Yougov shows 17% want these latest restrictions to end.

That means the vast majority do not support the changes>

@Rosehugger

It looks like hospital admissions, though they have gone down a bit, are roughly the same as this time last year, when we were in full lockdown and were subjected to sustained and frightening advertising campaigns.

But they had come down from a high of 4000+ last year and we in a lockdown where I think we could meet one person outside and much higher cases.

I thought Johnson said we would be the most free country in Europe which would suggest we are at the far end of the spectrum.

Denmark has been talked about as first to lift restrictions too, swiftly followed by Sweden, Norway. So no, not outlying.