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

[Philip]

What evidence makes you think that is in any way necessary or reasonable?

Everyone who is able will have had at least one dose of the vaccine by then.


Why do I get the feeling that Fergurson won't be running to put this data into his models?

They are right to be very cautious about overseas travel at least up until the vaccines are modified in the Autumn; to reduce the risk of a variant being brought in that could overcome the protection offered by the current vaccines. Domestic travel should be encouraged asap to strengthen the tourism, transport and hospitality sectors, and to boost people's wellbeing.

It would be foolish to allow a free-for-all in overseas travel at this stage. Some easements once the vaccines have been tweaked and boosters given, but it shouldn't be and won't be until vaccination is more or less completed globally before this sector returns to pre-pandemic status.

 

[Trackman]

From the number of teenagers now out and about in groups, many seem to be just ignoring it - and who can blame them!

I’ve just counted 12 lads playing football on the back field!

What time is the announcement anyway?

 

[Huntergreed]

I can't imagine being an 18 year old stuck at home with your parents and not being able to legally see friends.

welcome to my life! (Well 19, but close enough, the rest still applies). Parents are quite strict on the rules too so I’m not allowed to go out in group gatherings etc...

I just pray this is over soon. I’ve lost over a year of some of the most important, most free and most valuable time of my life. I’m not sure if I can ever forgive those who took it from me, however I don’t really have a choice.

Today’s announcement confirms my fear that another summer or restrictions and no abroad travel are ahead. 1st and 2nd year summer plans totally ruined once again (I’m being selfish slightly, but it is absolutely frustrating)

 

[Yew]

They are right to be very cautious about overseas travel at least up until the vaccines are modified in the Autumn; to reduce the risk of a variant being brought in that could overcome the protection offered by the current vaccines. Domestic travel should be encouraged asap to strengthen the tourism, transport and hospitality sectors, and to boost people's wellbeing.

It would be foolish to allow a free-for-all in overseas travel at this stage. Some easements once the vaccines have been tweaked and boosters given, but it shouldn't be and won't be until vaccination is more or less completed globally before this sector returns to pre-pandemic status.

Have any variants shown significantly different reactions, in terms of hospitalisations and deaths, to the vaccine? It doesn't matter if people get mild or moderate symptoms, because they are, by definition, mild or moderate.

 

[DB]

They are right to be very cautious about overseas travel at least up until the vaccines are modified in the Autumn; to reduce the risk of a variant being brought in that could overcome the protection offered by the current vaccines. Domestic travel should be encouraged asap to strengthen the tourism, transport and hospitality sectors, and to boost people's wellbeing.

It would be foolish to allow a free-for-all in overseas travel at this stage. Some easements once the vaccines have been tweaked and boosters given, but it shouldn't be and won't be until vaccination is more or less completed globally before this sector returns to pre-pandemic status.

There will always be mutations potentially occurring, so by that logic nobody should be allowed abroad ever again!

 

[Huntergreed]

There will always be mutations potentially occurring, so by that logic nobody should be allowed abroad ever again!

Indeed! I think in the public (and UK government) eye, the virus will just one day magically disappear off the face of the earth, taking all of its “new variants” with it. This will, of course, never happen, so if “new variants” are an excuse for a restriction, then either the excuse is nonsense or the restriction could arguably be required permanently.

 

[DB]

Indeed! I think in the public (and UK government) eye, the virus will just one day magically disappear off the face of the earth, taking all of its “new variants” with it. This will, of course, never happen, so if “new variants” are an excuse for a restriction, then either the excuse is nonsense or the restriction could arguably be required permanently.

It's the zero Covid approach, albeit not explicitly stated as such!

 

[Ivor]

What time is the announcement anyway?

7pm to us lot & announcing to his lot first this afternoon.....

 

[Class 33]

I’ve just counted 12 lads playing football on the back field!

What time is the announcement anyway?

3:30pm announcement in the House of Commons

 

[Philip]

Have any variants shown significantly different reactions, in terms of hospitalisations and deaths, to the vaccine? It doesn't matter if people get mild or moderate symptoms, because they are, by definition, mild or moderate.

There will always be mutations potentially occurring, so by that logic nobody should be allowed abroad ever again!

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.

There'll be plenty to do and visit in the UK for this year...

 

[Huntergreed]

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.

There'll be plenty to do and visit in the UK for this year...

Guess what:

In 2022, the virus will have the potential to mutate and evade the antibody response generated by the vaccine.
In 2023, the virus will have the potential to mutate and evade the antibody response generated by the vaccine.
In 2025, the virus will have the potential to mutate and evade the antibody response generated by the vaccine.
In 2030, the virus will have the potential to mutate and evade the antibody response generated by the vaccine.

Why should we trash our tourism and travel sector now over something which might happen, all whilst using an argument that could both render the industry 'too risky' permanently and shows just how poor our societal risk-perception really is.

 

[DB]

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.

There'll be plenty to do and visit in the UK for this year...

The vaccine will be tweaked to take account of specific mutations - it can't take account of every possible mutation which might occur, hence the flu vaccine gets tweaked every year.

There is no evidence that any mutations so far, or particularly likely, will render the current vaccine completely ineffective, and as no vaccine can ever guard against all mutations which could possibly occur the only logical conclusion of the standpoint you are taking is to ban overseas travel permanently.

 

[Cdd89]

If we were worried about potential viruses mutating, developing or emerging, then the best time to have been putting in place all the restrictions in place for that speculative worry... would have been 2019.

 

[Huntergreed]

If we were worried about potential viruses mutating, developing or emerging, then the best time to have been putting in place all the restrictions in place for that speculative worry... would have been 2019.

Or indeed, the very beginning of time!

 

[kristiang85]

No hotels until June stands out for me. If the governments allows people to vist family from April but forbids overnight stays, opening hotels seems like a no brainer. Otherwise more people will just stay overnight with friends or family.

Exactly. Hotels can regulate their environments; people staying with friends/family most likely won't. It's the same with pubs. It makes no sense to push people socialising 'underground'.

They are right to be very cautious about overseas travel at least up until the vaccines are modified in the Autumn; to reduce the risk of a variant being brought in that could overcome the protection offered by the current vaccines. Domestic travel should be encouraged asap to strengthen the tourism, transport and hospitality sectors, and to boost people's wellbeing.

It would be foolish to allow a free-for-all in overseas travel at this stage. Some easements once the vaccines have been tweaked and boosters given, but it shouldn't be and won't be until vaccination is more or less completed globally before this sector returns to pre-pandemic status.

Last year there were no vaccines at all, and travel did not affect transmission of variants to a significant degree - overseas travel was allowed all summer, yet the issue of the variants only came along in December, and I still maintain this was a political move to get people to accept a Christmas lockdown. There were 13,000 recorded mutations by December 2020, thus many more now, so it doesn't make a jot of difference. Even the worst of the variants was from Kent (supposedly), so a travel ban would have made no difference there. More to the point, official WHO guidance has always said that in a pandemic international borders should operate as normal.

As for the effects on vaccines, all the 'scary' variants (South African, Nigerian, Brazilian, etc.) have so far proved to be fine with vaccines. Which is what many actual immunologists expected, given cornoaviruses don't tend to mutate as dramatically as other viruses. But we've been through all this before on here so I won't regurgitate it...

By your logic, travel would have been restricted for decades due to flu vaccinations needing to be recalibrated every year.

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

There'll be plenty to do and visit in the UK for this year...

At the risk of sounding harsh, so? The vaccines that have been developed are to help people stop becoming seriously ill, not to stop spread (although they do) or to stop milder symptoms. How many variants of flu or cold do you think are knocking about the place? By your reckoning we shouldn't even be even be travelling locally let alone abroad "just in case".

 

[kristiang85]

I hope Boris didn't see the news of the plane malfunction in the states at the weekend. He will ban all planes from flying over the country "Just in case" an engine falls down and squashes someone below

 

[duncanp]

Indeed! I think in the public (and UK government) eye, the virus will just one day magically disappear off the face of the earth, taking all of its “new variants” with it. This will, of course, never happen, so if “new variants” are an excuse for a restriction, then either the excuse is nonsense or the restriction could arguably be required permanently.

I actually think the criteria have been deliberately framed to be subjective, and to give Boris Johnson a bit of wiggle room to decide when and where to reopen:-

Here are my comments on the criteria.

• The vaccine deployment programme continues successfully - This is currently being met, and there is no reason to suggest that it won't be met in the future. Our supplies have been secured for the foreseeable future, and indeed are likely to increase with the delivery of the Moderna vaccine in the Spring. Something would have to go badly wrong for this criteria not to be met at any subsequent review stage.
• Evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those already vaccinated - We already have evidence that vaccines protect against infection and reduce transmission by at least two thirds. This morning's news from Scotland is even better, which suggests that the Pfizer and Oxford Astra Zeneca vaccines cut the risk of hospitalisation and death by 85% and 94% respectively. I think the government are waiting for more data to confirm this finding from England, which should be available by the end of March. In any case, even if the data from England is not so good as the Scottish study, the phrase "sufficiently effective" is subjective, so there a very small likelihood of subsequent data being bad enough to mean that this test is not being met.
• The assessment of risk is not fundamentally changed by new variants of concern - The phrase "fundamentally changed" is subjective. This criteria does not mean that the release from lockdown has to stop if there is a new variant, even if the new variant is more infectious and transmissible than previous ones. A lot would depend on whether existing vaccines are substantially less effective against any new variant of concern, and if so whether existing vaccines could be modified to cope with this. The border controls that the UK has put in place, however regrettable they are, reduce the risk of new variants being imported into the country. So any new variant would have to be really infectious, transmissible AND vaccine resistant for this criteria not to be met in the future.
• Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS - This is the one criteria that could potentially delay things. Every reopening carries a risk that infection rates will rise. However set against this is the fact that mitigating measures (eg masks, social distancing, track & trace, hand sanitiser, advance booking, capacity limits... etc) can reduce the risk associated with a reopening. In addition we know that vaccines help to reduce transmission, serious illness, hospitalisation and death, so as more people are vaccinated, the risk of an increase in infection rates which would overwhelm the NHS gets less and less.

The fact that the government haven't put explicit figures (eg 1,000 cases per day as the SAGE nutcases were demanding) on any of the criteria is a good sign.

I think the first major easing of the lockdown will be announced shortly before MPs have to renew the COVID-19 legislation in Parliament, just to placate restive Conservative MPs.

I think the second major easing of the lockdown will be announced just before the elections, just to placate restive voters.

The criteria have been deliberately worded so that these easings can take place on the dates required.

 

[Bikeman78]

I’ve just counted 12 lads playing football on the back field!

What time is the announcement anyway?

There's usually 15-20 teenagers outside Cardiff Central on skateboards, even at 2200.

 

[Cdd89]

Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS - This is the one criteria that could potentially delay things. Every reopening carries a risk that infection rates will rise. However set against this is the fact that mitigating measures (eg masks, social distancing, track & trace, hand sanitiser, advance booking, capacity limits... etc) can reduce the risk associated with a reopening. In addition we know that vaccines help to reduce transmission, serious illness, hospitalisation and death, so as more people are vaccinated, the risk of an increase in infection rates which would overwhelm the NHS gets less and less.

I think you might not be reading this criterion tightly enough (or perhaps it's more wiggle-room, as you say!).

There is a big difference between:

• Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations
• (Which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS)

and:

• Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS

My reading is the latter: there may be a surge in hospitalisations but it would be within healthcare capacity and would therefore not necessitate a rolling back to lockdowns.

 

[Philip]

At the risk of sounding harsh, so? The vaccines that have been developed are to help people stop becoming seriously ill, not to stop spread (although they do) or to stop milder symptoms. How many variants of flu or cold do you think are knocking about the place? By your reckoning we shouldn't even be even be travelling locally let alone abroad "just in case".

As I said it is about risk management. Travelling domestically is much less of a risk in terms of bringing in new variants than travelling abroad. At the very least the quarantine system will have to stay in place over the Summer if people want a foreign holiday...if they don't like it then they can go somewhere else!

Flu vaccines protect against various mutations over their year-long timeframe, the current coronavirus vaccines are not yet at the stage of development where we can be sure about the protection against mutations. What's more it is still a new virus and natural immunity from previous infection is still low compared to that of flu. But this should be improved on both fronts later in the year.

 

[duncanp]

My reading is the latter: there may be a surge in hospitalisations but it would be within healthcare capacity and would therefore not necessitate a rolling back to lockdowns.

My reading of this criteria is the same as yours.

I am sorry if I did not make this clear.

 

[NorthOxonian]

I think you might not be reading this criterion tightly enough (or perhaps it's more wiggle-room, as you say!).

There is a big difference between:

• Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations
• (Which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS)

and:

• Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS

My reading is the latter: there may be a surge in hospitalisations but it would be within healthcare capacity and would therefore not necessitate a rolling back to lockdowns.

One issue is that "Unsustainable pressure" is quite difficult to define. Ideally that should be quantified as a number of people in hospital (or number of new weekly/daily admissions). It's quite unlikely that any reopening plan the government choose will produce a bigger wave of hospitalisations than we had in the last peak, but we might well end up with half that number - is that sustainable? I'd say so (particularly because it seems something of that magnitude is inevitable at some point no matter how long or hard we lock down), but will the doom mongers at SAGE agree?

 

[Yew]

I think you might not be reading this criterion tightly enough (or perhaps it's more wiggle-room, as you say!).

There is a big difference between:

• Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations
• (Which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS)

and:

• Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS

My reading is the latter: there may be a surge in hospitalisations but it would be within healthcare capacity and would therefore not necessitate a rolling back to lockdowns.

Does it matter is a surge is 'sustainable' the very nature of a 'surge' is that it isn't sustained.

 

[Bantamzen]

As I said it is about risk management. Travelling domestically is much less of a risk in terms of bringing in new variants than travelling abroad. At the very least the quarantine system will have to stay in place over the Summer if people want a foreign holiday...if they don't like it then they can go somewhere else!

Flu vaccines protect against various mutations over their year-long timeframe, the current coronavirus vaccines are not yet at the stage of development where we can be sure about the protection against mutations. What's more it is still a new virus and natural immunity from previous infection is still low compared to that of flu. But this should be improved on both fronts later in the year.

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).

 

[Ianno87]

I hope Boris didn't see the news of the plane malfunction in the states at the weekend. He will ban all planes from flying over the country "Just in case" an engine falls down and squashes someone below

Well.... https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1363849899310276609?s=20

After issues this weekend, Boeing B777s with Pratt & Whitney 4000-112 series engines will be temporarily banned from entering the UK airspace. I will continue to work closely with the
@UK_CAA
to monitor the situation.

Multiple other countries have done the same.

 

[alex397]

I've seen a few people argue for a phased return of schools but I don't understand the logic.

If opening schools is going to cause an increase in cases, then all a phased opening will do is result in a slower increase of cases. But we'll still end up with the same number of cases. In the intervening period there will be more damage to children's education, and more pressure on teachers who will, presumably, have to continue to offer online learning for those who aren't in school, while teaching those who are.

A slower increase of cases will be better than a sudden increase of cases, so we don’t put too much pressure on the NHS. I also don’t want to risk delaying opening up other industries. I will be angry if this government puts us in another lockdown if cases suddenly rise due to schools completely opening in 2 weeks.

Schools need to reopen completely relatively soon. But a staggered few weeks would be better I think, to see how it goes.

 

[Yew]

A slower increase of cases will be better than a sudden increase of cases, so we don’t put too much pressure on the NHS. I also don’t want to risk delaying opening up other industries. I will be angry if this government puts us in another lockdown if cases suddenly rise due to schools completely opening in 2 weeks.

That is an incredibly hypothetical situation, we must be careful to avoid false-dichotomies in our discussions.

 

[Ianno87]

A slower increase of cases will be better than a sudden increase of cases, so we don’t put too much pressure on the NHS. I also don’t want to risk delaying opening up other industries. I will be angry if this government puts us in another lockdown if cases suddenly rise due to schools completely opening in 2 weeks.

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

 

[philosopher]

At the risk of sounding harsh, so? The vaccines that have been developed are to help people stop becoming seriously ill, not to stop spread (although they do) or to stop milder symptoms. How many variants of flu or cold do you think are knocking about the place? By your reckoning we shouldn't even be even be travelling locally let alone abroad "just in case".

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.