22nd February - Roadmap out of the pandemic, lifting of restrictions.

[Philip]

So basically you are advocating at the very least restricting foreign travel indefinitely, which means you really ought to be advocating never travelling out of your local area? Because variants could pop up any time between now and the end of life on this planet, anywhere, including right here in the UK (which has already happened).

Please read what I said properly or stop twisting it. I have said that there needs to be caution in the present circumstances because of the reasons I outlined above. This will be different when the vaccines have been modified, indeed it was reported over the weekend that a vaccine is being developed which should protect to some degree against all variants. We're not at this stage yet.


Yes any kind of travel increases the risk of mutations, but as I said above there needs to be a balance of risk management. The risk is much greater with overseas travel and that is why there needs to be more caution in this sector.

 

[alex397]

Although from March 8th there are only 3 full school weeks until the Easter Holidays, which might act as a natural "circuit breaker" anyway.

That is a good point.

It will be more simple to reopen fully (teachers not having to teach a mix of class/online, parents not having to drop one child off but staying with another). I still think it is a valid concern though.

 

[Freightmaster]

No, but the current vaccines don't seem to be very effective in preventing mild or moderate illness with the South Africa variant. In itself this isn't a problem since cutting hospitalisations and deaths is the important thing. But it does show that the virus can mutate to a point where it evades at least some vaccine/antibody response and the danger is that another variant could make the vaccine totally ineffective. This will be much less of a problem once the vaccines have been tweaked to strengthen them against mutations, but for now it's about risk management and being pragmatic. never ending whataboutery from zero covid advocates

Fixed that for you!





MARK

 

[Lampshade]

Although from March 8th there are only 3 full school weeks until the Easter Holidays, which might act as a natural "circuit breaker" anyway.

Which begs the question why the huge push to get the schools back on the 8th? Leave until after Easter when cases have dropped even further and 2/3m more have had their first jab.

 

[Bantamzen]

If viruses mutating were as big an issue as some make out, then no viral pandemic would have ever ended. The fact that every pandemic has at some ended to me suggests mutations cannot be as scary as they are being made out to be.

Indeed. A lot of the problem with this one is that politicians have weaponised scientific data to force compliance, and have chosen . So instead of scientists just working working away in the background testing vaccines against any new strains & tweaking them accordingly, they are now trotted (some a little too eagerly it seems) in front of the cameras to re-enforce political decisions.

Please read what I said properly or stop twisting it. I have said that there needs to be caution in the present circumstances because of the reasons I outlined above. This will be different when the vaccines have been modified, indeed it was reported over the weekend that a vaccine is being developed which should protect to some degree against all variants. We're not at this stage yet.

But that is exactly what you are saying, even if you may not think so. Basically you arguing that we cannot travel internationally until more is known about the variants and how well they will be tackled by current and future vaccines. But a vaccine-busting mutation could literally happen at any time, so by that logic we should never mix as a species again.

Yes any kind of travel increases the risk of mutations, but as I said above there needs to be a balance of risk management. The risk is much greater with overseas travel and that is why there needs to be more caution in this sector.

Why is it? We've already shown they can happen on our shores, so why is the risk greater?

 

[alex397]

Which begs the question why the huge push to get the schools back on the 8th? Leave until after Easter when cases have dropped even further and 2/3m more have had their first jab.

Yes, you have said it better than I was trying to.
We have got this far, and we are getting close to approaching a bit of normality. So let’s not spoil it !

 

[Bantamzen]

but for now it's about risk management and being pragmatic. never ending whataboutery from zero covid advocates

Exactly.

 

[Ianno87]

Which begs the question why the huge push to get the schools back on the 8th? Leave until after Easter when cases have dropped even further and 2/3m more have had their first jab.

Yes, you have said it better than I was trying to.
We have got this far, and we are getting close to approaching a bit of normality. So let’s not spoil it !

Because kids are miserable, and home-schooling full time working parents are running themselves into the ground (7 hours per day working, plus 3 hours per day home schooling, and hopefully finding some time to eat/sleep/wash in all of this)

 

[Lampshade]

Because kids are miserable, and home-schooling full time working parents are running themselves into the ground (7 hours per day working, plus 3 hours per day home schooling, and hopefully finding some time to eat/sleep/wash in all of this)

For the sake of three more weeks?

 

[Ianno87]

For the sake of three more weeks?

Try doing it yourself, and find out... Switching between work/school/work/school all day is mentally exhausting. Work deadlines don't move either.

Forget any idea of having any relaxation or "me" time. AT ALL. And you get the idea.

 

[Philip]

Indeed. A lot of the problem with this one is that politicians have weaponised scientific data to force compliance, and have chosen . So instead of scientists just working working away in the background testing vaccines against any new strains & tweaking them accordingly, they are now trotted (some a little too eagerly it seems) in front of the cameras to re-enforce political decisions.


But that is exactly what you are saying, even if you may not think so. Basically you arguing that we cannot travel internationally until more is known about the variants and how well they will be tackled by current and future vaccines. But a vaccine-busting mutation could literally happen at any time, so by that logic we should never mix as a species again.


Why is it? We've already shown they can happen on our shores, so why is the risk greater?

How would you feel if a variant brought in from Spain over Summer, as a result of mass uncontrolled holiday overseas travel, completely by-passed the current vaccines only a month before the due roll out of the modified strengthened vaccines, and caused another health crisis and put the country back into lockdown for months? The above scenario is possible with a reckless approach, but very reasonably preventable.

 

[Huntergreed]

How would you feel if a variant brought in from Spain over Summer, as a result of mass uncontrolled holiday overseas travel, completely by-passed the current vaccines only a month before the due roll out of the modified strengthened vaccines, and caused another health crisis and put the country back into lockdown for months? The above scenario is possible with a reckless approach, but very reasonably preventable.

What if this happened next year, or the year after, or the year after?

It's preventable, but it's preventable at an unreasonably high cost. Using your arguments, overseas travel should never have been allowed in history whatsoever due to this 'risk'.

 

[yorksrob]

On a personal note, not being able to stay in hotels until June will be a great nuisance. Quite apart from the domestic tourist trade, it will prevent me from visiting close relatives elsewhere in the country. This needs to be reconsidered.

 

[Bantamzen]

How would you feel if a variant brought in from Spain over Summer, as a result of mass uncontrolled holiday overseas travel, completely by-passed the current vaccines only a month before the due roll out of the modified strengthened vaccines, and caused another health crisis and put the country back into lockdown for months? The above scenario is possible with a reckless approach, but very reasonably preventable.

How would you feel if a variant was brought into Manchester from Liverpool over Summer.....??

You are not answering my final question. I could draw conclusions as to why you think a variant from abroad would be worse than one from the UK but I am not going to. But regardless, my point remains. We have vaccines that mean serious illness can be countered. If we do not accept this then we may as well barricade ourselves in our homes until we keel over, because what you are proposing is not risk management, its outright hysteria.

 

[philosopher]

How would you feel if a variant brought in from Spain over Summer, as a result of mass uncontrolled holiday overseas travel, completely by-passed the current vaccines only a month before the due roll out of the modified strengthened vaccines, and caused another health crisis and put the country back into lockdown for months? The above scenario is possible with a reckless approach, but very reasonably preventable.

I have a question for you, if variants are so dangerous and continually evading vaccines, how does this pandemic end? After all every other pandemic in history has ended.

 

[Philip]

What if this happened next year, or the year after, or the year after?

It's preventable, but it's preventable at an unreasonably high cost. Using your arguments, overseas travel should never have been allowed in history whatsoever due to this 'risk'.

The point I am making is that next year we will be much prepared because of much improved vaccines and more natural immunity. At this point and for most of this year it is too early to allow uncontrolled overseas travel, if we want to do what we reasonably can to avoid another situation like these last couple of months.

 

[HSTEd]

If a variant arrives only a month before the second vaccine rollout commences, it can't possibly infect enough people to matter, even with no restrictions in place.

It took months to go from the first likely case in the UK to a serious healthcare risk.

As we have demonstrated we are capable of vaccinating millions of people per week.

 

[roversfan2001]

How would you feel if a variant brought in from Spain over Summer, as a result of mass uncontrolled holiday overseas travel, completely by-passed the current vaccines only a month before the due roll out of the modified strengthened vaccines, and caused another health crisis and put the country back into lockdown for months? The above scenario is possible with a reckless approach, but very reasonably preventable.

Classic whataboutery. What if a variant that evaded the modified vaccine appeared in 2022?

As has been said by others, if you had your way no one would ever board a plane again.

 

[Ianno87]

How would you feel if a variant was brought into Manchester from Liverpool over Summer.....??

You are not answering my final question. I could draw conclusions as to why you think a variant from abroad would be worse than one from the UK but I am not going to. But regardless, my point remains. We have vaccines that mean serious illness can be countered. If we do not accept this then we may as well barricade ourselves in our homes until we keel over, because what you are proposing is not risk management, its outright hysteria.

Is it fair to say there is a risk of transferring the virus from the UK to other countries, who do seem to be (in general) lagging behind in their rates of vaccination?

 

[Huntergreed]

The point I am making is that next year we will be much prepared because of much improved vaccines and more natural immunity. At this point and for most of this year it is too early to allow uncontrolled overseas travel, if we want to do what we reasonably can to avoid another situation like these last couple of months.

What will be 'much improved' about the new vaccines? Yes they'll be adapted to deal with the main mutations expected in new variants, but. it is absolutely not 'too early' to do anything. Remember all these decisions are made by politicians (and poor ones at that). This is just nonsense that would cost the travel industry millions. If people were allowed overseas last year, with no immunity or vaccines, why would we be banned this year, with working vaccines which no variants can evade thus far?

 

[Philip]

How would you feel if a variant was brought into Manchester from Liverpool over Summer.....??

You are not answering my final question. I could draw conclusions as to why you think a variant from abroad would be worse than one from the UK but I am not going to. But regardless, my point remains. We have vaccines that mean serious illness can be countered. If we do not accept this then we may as well barricade ourselves in our homes until we keel over, because what you are proposing is not risk management, its outright hysteria.

You are just talking nonsense now, I think I have explained clearly and reasonably why I think there should be caution this year about overseas travel, so that's that.

Is it fair to say there is a risk of transferring the virus from the UK to other countries, who do seem to be (in general) lagging behind in their rates of vaccination?

A good point.

 

[Huntergreed]

You are just talking nonsense now

He really isn't, if your argument is logical (which it is not), his is just as logical and reasonable.

I think I have explained clearly

Yes

and reasonably

No

why I think there should be caution this year about overseas travel

You've explained your reasoning, but it's illogical and a poor argument.

 

[Bantamzen]

Is it fair to say there is a risk of transferring the virus from the UK to other countries, who do seem to be (in general) lagging behind in their rates of vaccination?

Well infection rates are falling away here, so that risk drops with every passing day.

You are just talking nonsense now, I think I have explained clearly and reasonably why I think there should be caution this year about overseas travel, so that's that.

So you are not attempting to answer, fair enough.

 

[kristiang85]

Please read what I said properly or stop twisting it. I have said that there needs to be caution in the present circumstances because of the reasons I outlined above. This will be different when the vaccines have been modified, indeed it was reported over the weekend that a vaccine is being developed which should protect to some degree against all variants. We're not at this stage yet.


Yes any kind of travel increases the risk of mutations, but as I said above there needs to be a balance of risk management. The risk is much greater with overseas travel and that is why there needs to be more caution in this sector.

I refer you to the WHO's findings from a systematic review following the 2009 Swine flu pandemic. https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92/12/14-135590/en/

Here are some of the highlights I've chosen, but I encourage you to read the whole thing (especially the bit at the bottom about limitatations). And - don't forget - COVID-19 is supposedly much more transmissable than this, and it is often stated that the measures are less effective the higher the transmission rate is. It also mentions that the collatoral effects (social/economic) need to be taken into consideration too.

Overall, I don't think your statement 'the risk is much greater with overseas travel' stands up to much scrutiny, especially given influenza has much higher risks of dramatic vaccine-resistant variants and we have lived happily alongside that for decades.

International travel restrictions: general observations

• Have limited effectiveness – e.g. 90% air travel restriction in all affected countries may delay spread of pandemics by 3–4 weeks
• Have minimal impact on the magnitude of pandemics, typically reducing attack rates by less than 0.02%
• May prolong the seasonal influenza season
• May result in higher epidemic peak if resultant delay causes pandemic wave to coincide with seasonal influenza wave
• Simulated impact particularly weak in scenarios that involve strains with high transmissibility
• Extensive restriction of international air travel might delay introduction of a pandemic into a country by up to 2 months and delay pandemic spread by 3–4 months
• Would not prevent introduction of a pandemic into any given country
• May give time for other interventions – e.g. the production and distribution of effective vaccines and antiviral drugs
• Social and economic impacts need to be evaluated

Internal travel restrictions appeared to have limited effectiveness in the containment of influenza at local level ... With pandemic influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 in Mongolia, the estimated delay of the pandemic peak varied between 1.0 and 1.5 weeks when 50% road and rail travel restrictions over 2–4 weeks were simulated.26 The corresponding impact on the attack rate was minimal – e.g. 95% travel restrictions led to a reduction of just 0.1%.26 A study set in the USA revealed similar findings – e.g. a delay in spread of 2–3 weeks if travel restrictions were 99% effective and implemented in conjunction with border restrictions that prevented the entry of infected travellers.28 Travel restrictions alone could delay spread by 1 week but only if implemented within 2 weeks of the first case.28

Another study in the USA presented analogous results – e.g. a 90% restriction on long-distance flights led to delays in the epidemic peak that ranged between a few days and a few weeks.27 Effectiveness of travel restrictions decreased as the transmissibility of the strain increased; travel restrictions reduced the incidence of new cases by less than 3%.

However, in a recent review, it was estimated that a combination of internal and international travel restrictions could help to stagger the impact of a pandemic within a country such as the United Kingdom, by desynchronizing localized outbreaks.21 In Australia, it was reported that the impact of 80–99% restriction of air travel between major city hubs was less when varying transmissibility rather than constant transmissibility was simulated. 29 In the same investigation, effectiveness fell when strain transmissibility was increased.29 In the Republic of Korea, restriction of travel between cities by more than 50% reduced the epidemic peak by less than 0.01% when constant transmissibility was modelled.23 When variations in transmissibility were simulated, such travel had to be restricted by more than 90% for the epidemic peak to be delayed significantly.23

In a more recent review, it was estimated that introduction of pandemic influenza into the United Kingdom could be delayed by up to 2 months if there was an almost complete – e.g. 99.9% – ban on air travel.20 However, the size of the effect was considerably reduced, to just 1–2 weeks, if the level of restriction was lowered to 90%.

By restricting air travel by 95%, it should be possible to delay pandemic spread across the USA – of an infection originating in Sydney or Hong Kong SAR – by 2–3 weeks.31 However, there was no corresponding impact if the geographical origin of the pandemic was London because of London’s high flight densities and interconnectivity.31 The selective cancellation of a quarter of all connection flights between 500 major cities worldwide could be more effective than the closure of all of the cities’ airports – reducing the number of infected travellers by an additional 19%.32

If air travel from all affected countries was restricted by 90.0% and 99.9%, the pandemic wave would be delayed by 3–4 weeks and up to 4 months, respectively,21,28 but such intensive restrictions would clearly have negative social and economic impacts. A systematic review found that extensive air travel restrictions – e.g. restrictions of more than 90% – could delay the spread of pandemics by up to 4 months if the strains involved had low to moderate transmissibility.7 However, such restrictions appeared ineffective if the strains involved had high transmissibility – i.e. if R0 was 2.4.7 In general, a combination of interventions appeared to be more effective than the implementation of travel restrictions in isolation.7

Often, in the context of pandemic preparedness and response, travel restrictions – especially at points of entry – have intuitive appeal to policy-makers because they demonstrate that a tangible attempt is being made to prevent the ingress of a novel virus or prevent onward spread. However, such an attempt is not always effective. WHO interim protocol: rapid operations to contain the initial emergence of pandemic influenza is implicitly focused on the creation of geographical cordons within a country and places more emphasis on the restriction of travel by land than on restrictions of air or sea travel.1 However, the relevant data that are available seem to indicate that restrictions on land travel would have a limited impact on containment or even on the slowing of transmission.34

 

[Philip]

What will be 'much improved' about the new vaccines? Yes they'll be adapted to deal with the main mutations expected in new variants, but. it is absolutely not 'too early' to do anything. Remember all these decisions are made by politicians (and poor ones at that). This is just nonsense that would cost the travel industry millions. If people were allowed overseas last year, with no immunity or vaccines, why would we be banned this year, with working vaccines which no variants can evade thus far?

Overseas travel was to blame for the Spanish variant which caused the second wave in Autumn, and there is a strong chance it was this surge in infections which caused the Kent variant.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Overseas travel was to blame for the Spanish variant which caused the second wave in Autumn, and there is a strong chance it was this surge in infections which caused the Kent variant.

Could you provide evidence regarding this, please? This is the first I've heard of this.

 

[roversfan2001]

Overseas travel was to blame for the Spanish variant which caused the second wave in Autumn, and there is a strong chance it was this surge in infections which caused the Kent variant.

You're just making stuff up now.

 

[Philip]

Could you provide evidence regarding this, please? This is the first I've heard of this.

The more a virus replicates, ie. the more people it infects, the greater the likelihood of a mutation.

No vaccine is 100% foolproof, what I am trying to explain is that the next batch of vaccines currently being developed will provide much better protection against new variants than what we currently have, and so the risks from overseas travel reduce accordingly. At the moment that risk is too much.

 

[kristiang85]

On the topic of the roadmap, Boris is making his statement to the commons at 3.30pm (in 20 mins), so probably worth having the news on for that if you don't want to waste your evening listening to him.

 

[Dent]

The point I am making is that next year we will be much prepared because of much improved vaccines and more natural immunity. At this point and for most of this year it is too early to allow uncontrolled overseas travel, if we want to do what we reasonably can to avoid another situation like these last couple of months.

Why is most of this year "too early" even after the entire population has been vaccinated (due to be done long before "most of this year!")?

Please explain exactly what your criteria for ending this state of "too early" are and why you think these criteria are reasonable.