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

[Horizon22]

When am I allowed to go on a train rover again then?

It does say on 29th "Stay at home order ends but people encouraged to stay local wherever they can", which is practically unenforcable as an "encouragement" so I'd imagine from then people will be travelling places across the country.

As for those talking about social distancing being reduced the BBC reports from 21st June (4 months earliest...) "All legal limits on social contact removed with ambition to reopen final closed sectors of the economy such as nightclubs"

 

[JakeMurphy]

That was my thoughts yes. Hopefully it won't have to be too local!

And rail companies need passengers again soon!!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

If I understand everything correctly 'stay at home' ends at the end of March.

correct 29th march

Also four reviews to be held

1. removal of facemasks
2. international travel
3. covid safe certification for opening venues
4. major events

 

[WelshBluebird]

So he starts by saying he isn't going to be guided by dates but by data, but then goes and gives dates anyway. Seems somewhat counter productive to me.
I can understand the need for some kind of goal, both for people's sanity but also as a point at which people can question to government on "you said by now we could do X". But giving exact dates seems a bit silly considering how quickly so much of this changes, and how many times over the last year the government have had to backtrack on dates already announced.

However, in general the dates announced, whilst potentially a little too far out for some of the smaller things, seem somewhat sensible to me. Especially if we do want this to be a irrepressible removal of restrictions (otherwise we'd just end up having to pull the breaks right away if we start too quickly). Better to plan to be cautious and if things continue to go well (especially around vaccinations etc) then there's the potential to pull forward some of the dates.

Though some of the specifics for each date seem a bit odd, especially if you compare with some of the other things allowed - take after May 17th, I can go to a football stadium but not meet in a group of 3 people in a pub where those 3 people come from different households? Doesn't really make sense!

There are two issues here - most obviously vaccination, plus natural peaks and troughs.

You are forgetting the lockdown.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Considering the feelings for last few days, 21st June as potentially everything released is fairly big. I assume that is related to by then almost everyone who would be likely to get seriously ill being vaccinated.

 

[DB]

You are forgetting the lockdown.

Not convinced that's having a major impact - evidence suggests that they don't (see Stanford University paper on the subject).

 

[dk1]

Is there any point in the news briefing at 19:00 if everything is leaked out beforehand?

 

[DB]

Considering the feelings for last few days, 21st June as potentially everything released is fairly big. I assume that is related to by then almost everyone who would be likely to get seriously ill being vaccinated.

But that's four months away, and well beyond both the end of winter and the time when those at most risk will have been offered a vaccine. It's far, far too slow and is going to do massive damage to the hospitality, events, leisure and arts industries, and to mental health, for no good reason - it's basically pandering to the likes of SAGE and to those who the government have suceeded in terrifying.

 

[matt]

Is there any point in the news briefing at 19:00 if everything is leaked out beforehand?

It wasn't leaked. It was announced in the House Of Commons this afternoon.

 

[Darandio]

Is there any point in the news briefing at 19:00 if everything is leaked out beforehand?

It wasn't leaked. It was announced in the House Of Commons this afternoon.

Indeed. Tonight is just to interfere with the soaps.

 

[DB]

Is there any point in the news briefing at 19:00 if everything is leaked out beforehand?

Is so that Johnson can do his 'statesman' routine with an 'address to the nation'.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Govt have published the roadmap

COVID-19 RESPONSE − SPRING 2021

 

[dk1]

It wasn't leaked. It was announced in the House Of Commons this afternoon.

Well yeah I know but that’s what I mean too. Switch the live feed off so we actually get to hear it in the briefing. I’m trying to avoid the parliament channel and the news else I might as well just watch The One Show as usual.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I think that the government needs to review the Public Health Act 1984 and introduce a new bill which (a) Repeals the Coronavirus Act 2020 and (b) Sets out how we manage a pandemic like this in the future.

There must be far greater parliamentary scrutiny of any measures, with none of this "too urgent to consult parliament" bovine excrement unless there are truly exceptional circumstances.

That I absolutely agree with (although I think you can probably forgive the government in the first case in March last year as IMO a global pandemic of this nature is a pretty exceptional circumstance).

Not convinced that's having a major impact - evidence suggests that they don't (see Stanford University paper on the subject).

So the correlation between the 3 lockdowns and rates going down through them is just all pure coincidence?
One lockdown doing that I would agree with you. But all 3? Each lockdown we have had has been followed by a decrease in cases and eventually deaths. And as each lockdown was lifted and restrictions removed, you see the increase again. That happened during and after each of the 3 lockdowns - that is not coincidence.

 

[DB]

So the correlation between the 3 lockdowns and rates going down through them is just all pure coincidence?
One lockdown doing that I would agree with you. But all 3? Each lockdown we have had has been followed by a decrease in cases and eventually deaths. And as each lockdown was lifted and restrictions removed, you see the increase again. That happened during and after each of the 3 lockdowns - that is not coincidence.

That's the 'correlation = causation' argument. And in the case of the current lockdown at least, it didn't start to drop 'immediately after' - it actually started to drop before the lockdown could have had any effect.

A graph of deaths in Sweden compared to the UK was posted on here a week or two ago, normalised for population, and showed a pretty much identical trajectory for the whole of the past year. Also, comparing the Worldometers stats for European countries with the severity fo measures shows absolutely no correlation (the Stanford University study also looked at this), and a similar lack of correlation can be seen in the USA when comparing states in the same climate zone.

There is bound to be a correlation in this country because the lockdowns were imposed when the peak was being reached - and the argument that without the lockdown it would have kept going upwards doesn't really hold water.

 

[WelshBluebird]

That's the 'correlation = causation' argument. And in the case of the current lockdown at least, it didn't start to drop 'immediately after' - it actually started to drop before the lockdown could have had any effect.

A graph of deaths in Sweden compared to the UK was posted on here a week or two ago, normalised for population, and showed a pretty much identical trajectory for the whole of the past year. Also, comparing the Worldometers stats for European countries with the severity fo measures shows absolutely no correlation (the Stanford University study also looked at this), and a similar lack of correlation can be seen in the USA when comparing states in the same climate zone.

There is bound to be a correlation in this country because the lockdowns were imposed when the peak was being reached - and the argument that without the lockdown it would have kept going upwards doesn't really hold water.

It would be a 'correlation = causation' argument if it was just one case - but it is the case for each of the 3 lockdowns.
The peak for each of the 3 has just so happened to match roughly when lockdown started. That happens once maybe, but not three times in a row unless there is a link.
So either you are arguing that the government knew that we were just about at the peaked and timed lockdowns specifically to match that, or you are arguing that is blind chance that it happened, and I don't buy either of those arguments.

In terms of the current lockdown, the peak was January 8th for cases I believe, which is after the lockdown started.

 

[clagmonster]

When am I allowed to go on a train rover again then?

Just put on SKY NEWS, has he mentioned transport use?

what about a local day Ranger? I presume it will be when stay at home goes?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/963491/COVID-19_Response_-_Spring_2021.pdf

The response document has 'minimise travel' in both stages 1 and 2, which would suggest waiting until stage 3 for such fun. Not sure whether that will be guidance or law though - 17th May is certainly later than I was hoping to be out and about.

 

[DB]

It would be a 'correlation = causation' argument if it was just one case - but it is the case for each of the 3 lockdowns.
The peak for each of the 3 has just so happened to match roughly when lockdown started. That happens once maybe, but not three times in a row unless there is a link.
So either you are arguing that the government knew that we were just about at the peaked and timed lockdowns specifically to match that, or you are arguing that is blind chance that it happened, and I don't buy either of those arguments.

No it's not - in the case of the current one, Johnson dithered so much that the peak had passed, hence if you look at the numbers they are already declining before the lockdown could have caused that. In the case of the previous two he was a bit quicker and the decline coincided more directly.

If you believe that the lockdown caused it, you need to explain why Sweden has seen a very similar trajectory with no lockdowns, including at the current time.

 

[Ianno87]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/963491/COVID-19_Response_-_Spring_2021.pdf

The response document has 'minimise travel' in both stages 1 and 2, which would suggest waiting until stage 3 for such fun. Not sure whether that will be guidance or law though - 17th May is certainly later than I was hoping to be out and about.

Though Stage 2 activities (such as overnight stays being permitted in your household) are somewhat at odds with "minimise travel".

If somebody can travel to a wedding or effectively go on holiday, why can't I go for a train ride?

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/963491/COVID-19_Response_-_Spring_2021.pdf

The response document has 'minimise travel' in both stages 1 and 2, which would suggest waiting until stage 3 for such fun. Not sure whether that will be guidance or law though - 17th May is certainly later than I was hoping to be out and about.

Given that Stay at Home is to be abolished from March 29th, I can safely assume that "minimise travel" will be guidance and not law.

 

[Andy Pacer]

Though Stage 2 activities (such as overnight stays being permitted in your household) are somewhat at odds with "minimise travel".

If somebody can travel to a wedding or effectively go on holiday, why can't I go for a train ride?

And I guess it's unlikely to be challenged but personally I'd rather be in the knowledge that I'm doing the right thing.

 

[TheSel]

Seems like Eddie Cochrane was wrong (and Showaddywaddy, for that matter). There are actually FOUR steps to Heaven!

 

[WelshBluebird]

No it's not - in the case of the current one, Johnson dithered so much that the peak had passed, hence if you look at the numbers they are already declining before the lockdown could have caused that. In the case of the previous two he was a bit quicker and the decline coincided more directly..

The current one started on January 5th but was announced on January 4th and rumored for a few days before that.
From the data I can see, the peak of cases was January 8th, with the peak of deaths being a few weeks later in January as expected.

Now, you can absolutely argue that cases peaking then meant people must have caught it earlier so the "true" peak was earlier, maybe. But I don't believe there's any actual data showing that. And in any case, as it was announced a day before and rumored for a few days before that, some people would have been paying attention to it before the 5th anyway even if it wasn't law at the time.

And even if I buy your argument about the current one, that still leaves the first two lockdowns which you are claiming were just complete coincidences that they matched the peak and cases then fell after they started. That is one hell of a coincidence is it not? For not just one, but two of them to do exactly the same? Obviously you disagree but if an action looks like it has a result and that data is repeated more than once, it kind of suggests that it did have that result. Certainly it looks like more so than just blind chance anyway.

 

[Class 33]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/963491/COVID-19_Response_-_Spring_2021.pdf

The response document has 'minimise travel' in both stages 1 and 2, which would suggest waiting until stage 3 for such fun. Not sure whether that will be guidance or law though - 17th May is certainly later than I was hoping to be out and about.

Indeed. I want to get out for a train ride soon, or even just a bus journey of about an hour or so out to the countryside, for the sake of my mental health. I've not been out of the city now since late October! Waiting till 17th May, would mean nearly 7 months of not being out of the city! That is just crazy!

It's absolutely ridiculous that the "Stay at Home" rule will stay beyond 8th March. When by then hospital numbers should easily be below 10,000 and continueing to still fall. And also also the numbers of deaths will be much lower by then. The "Stay at Home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives" slogan just will not cut it then.

But I think if the weather starts really warming up next month(before 29th March), I think many people will ignore this "Stay at Home" rule.

 

[DB]

The current one started on January 5th but was announced on January 4th and rumored for a few days before that.
From the data I can see, the peak of cases was January 8th, with the peak of deaths being a few weeks later in January as expected.

Now, you can absolutely argue that cases peaking then meant people must have caught it earlier so the "true" peak was earlier, maybe. But I don't believe there's any actual data showing that. And in any case, as it was announced a day before and rumored for a few days before that, some people would have been paying attention to it before the 5th anyway even if it wasn't law at the time.

And even if I buy your argument about the current one, that still leaves the first two lockdowns which you are claiming were just complete coincidences that they matched the peak and cases then fell after they started. That is one hell of a coincidence is it not? For not just one, but two of them to do exactly the same? Obviously you disagree but if an action looks like it has a result and that data is repeated more than once, it kind of suggests that it did have that result. Certainly it looks like more so than just blind chance anyway.

A lockdown cannot have an impact in three days - so the peak was before it could have had any effect.

How do you explain the correlation with Sweden? or the fact that a Stanford University study has concluded that lockdowns have little or no impact?

 

[Mag_seven]

Given that Stay at Home is to be abolished from March 29th, I can safely assume that "minimise travel" will be guidance and not law.

"Minimise Travel" is not the law (in England at least ) now!

 

[peters]

And rail companies need passengers again soon!!

What are they going to do on 8 March? In my area some of the services school and college pupils need aren't currently operating but we won' exactly need trains running at around 11pm if pubs, restaurants, nightclubs and the like are all closed.

It does say on 29th "Stay at home order ends but people encouraged to stay local wherever they can", which is practically unenforcable as an "encouragement" so I'd imagine from then people will be travelling places across the country.

Current stay local advice means stay in your village, town or the part of the city you live in unless you have a reasonable excuse for leaving. When things are relaxed a bit more I might venture into a neighbouring town to be able to pick up some items which aren't on sale more locally to me but items I'm not going to die without. I guess that's one of the intentions of the relaxation, the other perhaps being those in cities travelling to countryside. Although, as you say some people will use it to travel as far as they can get away with.

Is there any point in the news briefing at 19:00 if everything is leaked out beforehand?

The Speaker told Boris Johnson off for not following proper procedure in the past. He's supposed to allow parliament to debate before his announcements/press conferences, not afterwards. Today's announcement to MPs and subsequent debate was done at 15:30 this afternoon, ahead of a press conference at 19:00.

 

[Ediswan]

21st June is the Summer Solstice. Maybe Boris is a Druid and wants to deny English Heritage a convenient excuse for banning access to Stonehenge.

 

[clagmonster]

Though Stage 2 activities (such as overnight stays being permitted in your household) are somewhat at odds with "minimise travel".

If somebody can travel to a wedding or effectively go on holiday, why can't I go for a train ride?

I agree with the premise. Like a lot of things in the past year, this seems a huge contradiction.

 

[peters]

A graph of deaths in Sweden compared to the UK was posted on here a week or two ago, normalised for population

What do you mean by 'normalised for population'? Do you mean that it takes into account the difference in population density, the difference in common blood group types, the high proportion of UK residents who have health or medical conditions like obesity, the different types of jobs undertaken, how far people commute, how crowded or not public transport is etc.? If not, how are the two comparable?