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

[Nicholas Lewis]

I wouldn’t publish it if I was them either. Hostage to fortune. If you say ‘hospital occupancy needs to be less than 3,000 to enable Step 2’, and on D Day it’s 3,001, what do you do? (Rhetorical question).

Not acceptable they say they say we are led by the data then don't define what it is that's driving their decision making. That will give licence to Whitty/Valence/Hancock to extend moving to next stage on their whims. Personally this is worse than the PPE debacle information not being published.

To address your question above this could have been managed with staying below a threshold level for a period of say 7 days before you move to next stage. It would also have had a counterbalance that if the case level moved above a certain threshold for 7 days you have to return to previous stage.

What we have here is politically driven and has dates that they told us for last month it wouldn't have. All this is to make Boris and his cronies look good and as usual the bulk of the British public have bought it and in doing so driven another nail in the coffin of our freedoms.

Then next week Rishi will come over the hill on another white horse splurging billions more propping up the economy and when they come knocking next year for the repayment it will be the same people that get stitched up not there rich mates.

 

[Bald Rick]

For those with issues about the U.K. (England) lockdown roadmap, don’t read Scotland’s!

 

[birchesgreen]

I can’t imagine trying to force people to wear a facemask in a nightclub, so I would imagine that the day nightclubs open is the day facemasks are no longer mandatory.

Well depends on what kind of nightclub of course...

 

[Bantamzen]

For those with issues about the U.K. (England) lockdown roadmap, don’t read Scotland’s!

I feel sorry for all the pubs in the North West / East having to explain the sudden onrush of Bank of Scotland notes when banking up....

 

[DorkingMain]

It is quite noticeable how much having general "sniffles" have reduced in the last 12 months for example.

Was reading somewhere that suggested that there were no lab confirmed cases of flu this year, and estimated levels of cold and flu were something like 5% of those on a typical year.

Of course I suspect a big factor is that anyone with flu-like symptoms is going to self-isolate and get tested for COVID, so they are out of a position where they could circulate it. Combination of lockdown, masks, cleaning regimes etc. also probably a big factor.

I would be well in favour of the current levels of cleaning continuing on indefinitely. It's the first time in a while that TOCs have put any real effort into cleaning trains, etc.
Think we had normalised things being filthy far too much, and it probably caused a wealth of issues we hadn't considered.

 

[roversfan2001]

We have to be careful not to go *too* clean, maintaining a healthy immune system is one of the most important elements of tackling a pandemic. If we transform into a super-clean society then any virus worse than COVID would be far more deadly.

 

[DorkingMain]

If people going around with colds want to keep a piece of germ-ridden cloth attached to their face rather than follow the far more sensible 'catch it, bin it, kill it' - yes, of course that should be up to them, even though it is rather silly.

Given colds are primarily droplet-based transmission, it does make sense.

A mask shouldn't be any more germ-ridden than your face and mouth are, unless you're one of these people that's too much of a cheapskate to change their masks and walks round with the same disposable one on for three weeks.

I don't advocate it being mandatory all - I think the whole thing has put a lot of undue pressure on those with severe asthma or anxiety, for example - but I don't think it's silly if people want to do so voluntarily.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Was reading somewhere that suggested that there were no lab confirmed cases of flu this year, and estimated levels of cold and flu were something like 5% of those on a typical year.

Of course I suspect a big factor is that anyone with flu-like symptoms is going to self-isolate and get tested for COVID, so they are out of a position where they could circulate it. Combination of lockdown, masks, cleaning regimes etc. also probably a big factor.

I would be well in favour of the current levels of cleaning continuing on indefinitely. It's the first time in a while that TOCs have put any real effort into cleaning trains, etc.
Think we had normalised things being filthy far too much, and it probably caused a wealth of issues we hadn't considered.

Also worth adding that there was a larger take up of the flu vaccine this winter than usual.

 

[DorkingMain]

We have to be careful not to go *too* clean, maintaining a healthy immune system is one of the most important elements of tackling a pandemic. If we transform into a super-clean society then any virus worse than COVID would be far more deadly.

Perhaps, though science is able to adapt to these far more quickly than we used to be 20-30 years ago. We now have a variety of effective treatments for MRSA, for example

 

[MikeWM]

Given colds are primarily droplet-based transmission, it does make sense.

A mask shouldn't be any more germ-ridden than your face and mouth are, unless you're one of these people that's too much of a cheapskate to change their masks and walks round with the same disposable one on for three weeks.

It will be once you've sneezed/coughed into it, which is what you'll be doing if you have cold symptoms. To me it seems the equivalent of sneezing into a handkerchief and then attaching it over your face for a period of time, which I can't imagine anybody with an ounce of sanity doing. That's why we have the 'bin it' part of 'catch it, bin it, kill it'.

I don't advocate it being mandatory all - I think the whole thing has put a lot of undue pressure on those with severe asthma or anxiety, for example - but I don't think it's silly if people want to do so voluntarily.

As I say, if people want to do it, up to them. But I do think it doesn't make a bit of sense.

 

[Mag_seven]

If people going around with colds want to keep a piece of germ-ridden cloth attached to their face rather than follow the far more sensible 'catch it, bin it, kill it' - yes, of course that should be up to them, even though it is rather silly.

I'd much rather the government had followed a policy of educating people to practice rigorous personal hygiene like this rather than lockdowns. I'm sure the death and infection toll wouldn't have been much worse and we wouldn't have had all the economic and mental health damage that goes with lockdowns. Sadly we will never know.

 

[Crossover]

I'd much rather the government had followed a policy of educating people to practice rigorous personal hygiene like this rather than lockdowns

The problem is that when you have, even now, people who don't wash their hands after using the toilet, what chance have we really got of educating such fools?!

 

[Bald Rick]

The problem is that when you have, even now, people who don't wash their hands after using the toilet, what chance have we really got of educating such fools?!

I’m with the late Miles Kington on this. Gentlemen, when using a urinal, use their hands - open to the elements and exposed to all matter of dirt, bacteria and so on - to handle a part of their anatomy that is contained in a protective environment beneath (usually!) two layers of clothing. Therefore, in theory you should wash your hands before you go to the loo.

Of course if you do that, and don’t dry your hands then you tend to get water on your trousers and look like you’ve had an accident.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Just found the article from the 30th of August when the death toll was a whopping one.

Mind you it was a Sunday and of a Bank Holiday weekend.

Can't wait to see figures this low again in the Spring.

 

[brad465]

Just found the article from the 30th of August when the death toll was a whopping one.

Mind you it was a Sunday and of a Bank Holiday weekend.

Can't wait to see figures this low again in the Spring.

At the moment the rate of decline is at a 28.4% for the last 7 days, which is faster than new cases (11.8%) and hospital admissions (20.7%) are declining, so it does appear the vaccine rollout so far is doing enough to take out the severity of it all.

Elsewhere apologies if this has been covered, but there many newspaper sites are reporting the Government wanted to end lockdown by Easter but SAGE influenced them enough against it for fear of an extra 91,000 excess deaths (I'm not sure how that would be possible if by Easter all of 1-4 plus most of 5-9 groups had enough vaccine protection to limit deaths).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Just found the article from the 30th of August when the death toll was a whopping one.

Mind you it was a Sunday and of a Bank Holiday weekend.

Can't wait to see figures this low again in the Spring.

8489 cases today is lowest since 2nd October.

In England hospitalisation rates are a 1/4 of the peak in early January now.

Of course our chief scientific and medical officer will still say its too high.

 

[yorksrob]

At the moment the rate of decline is at a 28.4% for the last 7 days, which is faster than new cases (11.8%) and hospital admissions (20.7%) are declining, so it does appear the vaccine rollout so far is doing enough to take out the severity of it all.

Elsewhere apologies if this has been covered, but there many newspaper sites are reporting the Government wanted to end lockdown by Easter but SAGE influenced them enough against it for fear of an extra 91,000 excess deaths (I'm not sure how that would be possible if by Easter all of 1-4 plus most of 5-9 groups had enough vaccine protection to limit deaths).

Will we ever see a critical analysis of that figure I wonder. Doubt it somehow.

 

[Yew]

Will we ever see a critical analysis of that figure I wonder. Doubt it somehow.

No doubt using dodgy inputs into Fergursons model


A nice critique of this in included below: https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-covid-modellers-have-jumped-shark.html

If the assumption is that nearly everyone gets infected, the 15% of the population who are not vaccinated will die at the normal rate of about 1 in 100. A smaller proportion of the 85% who are vaccinated will die. That's still a lot of deaths.

But there are two big problems.

Firstly, both models underestimate how many people will take the vaccine. So far, 91% of the 80+ cohort have taken it and 96% of those aged 75-79 have taken it. That's a lot more than 85% assumed in these models.

Secondly, and more importantly, the estimates of disease efficacy (the reduction in risk of getting symptomatic disease) are roughy correct, but the authors seem to have overlooked the crucial point about the AstraZeneca vaccine which is that there were 'no severe cases and no hospitalisations' in the trials. The vaccine seems to be 100% effective in preventing death from COVID-19. The Pfizer vaccine is 95% effective in preventing symptomatic disease altogether, so the number of deaths that would occur among the cohort who take it would, presumably, be very low (in Israel, there were 4 severe cases and no deaths among 523,000 vaccinated people).

It is incredible that neither study factors in the effect of the vaccines on severe disease and mortality. You can forgive them for not predicting that so many people would take up the vaccines, but we've known about the AZ vaccine's ability to prevent severe disease and death since November.

Their results seem to be based entirely on transmission and the prevalence of symptomatic disease. The mortality figures they come up with are so enormous, I can only assume they jumped to the conclusion that the fatality rate would be the same for someone who was vaccinated as for someone who wasn't. It seems hard to believe they would make such a basic error.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I wouldn’t publish it if I was them either. Hostage to fortune. If you say ‘hospital occupancy needs to be less than 3,000 to enable Step 2’, and on D Day it’s 3,001, what do you do? (Rhetorical question).

Interesting that SAGE in its minutes of 11/2/21 made this statement

Given the level of uncertainty, changes to measures are best made based on epidemiological data rather than based on predetermined dates. SAGE continues to advise an “adaptive management” approach, responding to data, for example setting levels of infection or hospitalisation that would need to be reached before making changes. It will be important to have effective early warning indicators and JBC should consider the most appropriate indicators now

Clearly disregarded that advice given to them in preparing the roadmap.

 

[Drogba11CFC]

Evidently the rates weren't high enough to be convenient to them.

 

[Yew]

Evidently the rates weren't high enough to be convenient to them.

Indeed, hence the insane 5 week clause.

 

[Philip]

Perhaps once vaccination is complete, including the variant-minded boosters having been given, we should move away from the idea of extra handwashing, hand sanitizing and masks. It is important not to be too hygienic long term; the immune system needs to stay active in regularly fighting bugs.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Perhaps once vaccination is complete, including the variant-minded boosters having been given, we should move away from the idea of extra handwashing, hand sanitizing and masks. It is important not to be too hygienic long term; the immune system needs to stay active in regularly fighting bugs.

I'd consider the three rather different. Handwashing and sanitising are probably fine, providing we don't overdo it. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have at least a background level of hygiene public information and awareness forever.

But masks have inherent major negative consequences and even if they prevented all flu, I wouldn't support them becoming the new normal. There's a reason they weren't normal before this, and there are any number of threads on here discussing that point. They should go in virtually all settings as soon as possible - this will hopefully be recommended as part of the review in June.

 

[Bald Rick]

While there are a number of popular tourist places where a large number of properties are only used as AirBnB, there are also a number of AirBnB properties which aren't self contained or which would only be available while the usual occupant is away.

As the rules are different for Scotland, Bath would probably be a better example than Edinburgh. However, worth remembering at stage 2 that most indoor venues will be closed and while hospitality venues will be able to serve customer sat outdoors the weather in April can be quite unpredictable so someone might end up with a beer glass which keeps refilling itself and contains very watery beer!

Brighton and Bournemouth are chock full of AirBnB properties. As are most traditional, rail accessible, coastal resorts. And whilst at Stage 2, the fact that restaurants / pubs aren’t open indoors makes self catering accommodation as per Air BnB more attractive - that’s the point.

 

[Domh245]

Clearly disregarded that advice given to them in preparing the roadmap.

It'll take some time for changes to have an effect that can then be measured of course..

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It'll take some time for changes to have an effect that can then be measured of course..

Be a start if they told us what they are measuring to review impact of changes.

Looking at SAGE papers, that were released yesterday, it looks like hospital admissions are what the modellers were told to forecast in the various scenarios they tested.

 

[Wychwood93]

It'll take some time for changes to have an effect that can then be measured of course..

At one time we were told that it takes 'a couple of weeks' for the changes to have an impact. It now takes four weeks to see what happens and analyse the data. The data comes in on a daily basis, you analyse as you go and get the feel for it. 'We' out here in forum world can look at broadly the same data and see where various bits are going. I appreciate that I have simplified it somewhat, but..........

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

At one time we were told that it takes 'a couple of weeks' for the changes to have an impact. It now takes four weeks to see what happens and analyse the data. The data comes in on a daily basis, you analyse as you go and get the feel for it. 'We' out here in forum world can look at broadly the same data and see where various bits are going. I appreciate that I have simplified it somewhat, but..........

You haven't simplified it is as simply as that when it comes to the data and my expectation was they would manage the relaxation dynamically when they repeatedly said we will be led by the data. ie on a daily basis against published criteria.

Of course that was a foolish view and should have realised that wouldn't suit BoJos political needs to be seen as the white knight coming over the hill with dates the populous can all latch onto so we've ended up with the dated roadmap.

All i can hope is if the positive data outperforms the modellers forecasts he will take the opportunity to get even more credit for bringing stages forward.

 

[Domh245]

Be a start if they told us what they are measuring to review impact of changes.

Looking at SAGE papers, that were released yesterday, it looks like hospital admissions are what the modellers were told to forecast in the various scenarios they tested.

As per what you quoted, JBC (Joint Biosecurity Centre) are to determine what the measures are. Hospitalisations are the obvious 'critical' one, but case rates and vaccinations (amongst others) will no doubt be monitored (and plugged into models) to help monitor the situation

At one time we were told that it takes 'a couple of weeks' for the changes to have an impact. It now takes four weeks to see what happens and analyse the data. The data comes in on a daily basis, you analyse as you go and get the feel for it. 'We' out here in forum world can look at broadly the same data and see where various bits are going. I appreciate that I have simplified it somewhat, but..........

Data comes in daily, but given we're seeing restrictions being lifted on Mondays, you'd want to allow a full week of 'easing' to occur (to the weekend, particularly later stages at hospitality opens), a further week or so for the cases to move from infection to positive tests being reported, and then time for the trend to be established to a reasonable degree of confidence. Like you say, we were told several times that it takes several weeks for changes to have an impact, so adding one week for full impact of easing to be reached, and then time at the end for decisions to be confirmed, communicated and businesses allowed to prepare. I've no doubt that they can turn the data around pretty quickly when they get it, it's actually getting it that's the issue...

You haven't simplified it is as simply as that when it comes to the data and my expectation was they would manage the relaxation dynamically when they repeatedly said we will be led by the data. ie on a daily basis against published criteria.

Of course that was a foolish view and should have realised that wouldn't suit BoJos political needs to be seen as the white knight coming over the hill with dates the populous can all latch onto so we've ended up with the dated roadmap.

All i can hope is if the positive data outperforms the modellers forecasts he will take the opportunity to get even more credit for bringing stages forward.

It's one thing to be "dynamic" with the relaxation but you obviously need some sort of minimum timeframe to assess things over with regards to noise and particularly when data isn't necessarily available daily (hospital data being a case in point!)

The other thing to bear in mind is that having dates (although the dates will hardly be plucked out of thin air) has some benefits over using just target metrics. Having a 'goal' date (particularly a fairly pessimistically set one so that we can avoid any postponements to the plan) gives people something to aim for, gives a degree of certainty, and will 'click' more with people than a list of criteria around case rates, R, hospital levels, vaccination targets and the rest of it - especially for the no doubt large (if not majority) portion that doesn't avidly follow every detail.

I'm in agreement that I hope the data is so positive that we can bring things forward, but I can absolutely understand why we have the situation we have now

 

[Bald Rick]

The other thing to bear in mind is that having dates (although the dates will hardly be plucked out of thin air) has some benefits over using just target metrics. Having a 'goal' date (particularly a fairly pessimistically set one so that we can avoid any postponements to the plan) gives people something to aim for, gives a degree of certainty, and will 'click' more with people than a list of criteria around case rates, R, hospital levels, vaccination targets and the rest of it - especially for the no doubt large (if not majority) portion that doesn't avidly follow every detail.

Absolutely. One can well imagine the reaction had the announcement been “we’ll open the pubs / restaurants / gyms when the case data is below x”. Those who own / work in said establishments would have found it difficult to plan, and those who use them would have been still in the dark, date wise.

I'm in agreement that I hope the data is so positive that we can bring things forward, but I can absolutely understand why we have the situation we have now

I agree. I think it’s unlikely the dates will be brought forward, however there is a clear indication in yesterday’s report that certain easements could end up being better than currently stated, if further research and evidence supports it.