Covid restrictions to end on 19th July

[Lampshade]

There will be about as many people wearing the things as there were the day before they were made mandatory - next to none.

Plenty of people were wearing them before they were mandatory.

 

[greyman42]

But people will voluntarily carry on wearing them for some time to come, even if in slowly diminishing numbers. They are not going to evaporate from existence on 19th July, no matter how much you might want them to.

Prepare to be very seriously disappointed.

 

[westv]

Plenty of people were wearing them before they were mandatory.

Not where I was.
Shall we have a poll about what people here are likely to do come 19/7 re masks if the rules are dropped? I'm curious.

 

[Darandio]

Plenty of people were wearing them before they were mandatory.

Not here there weren't. Well, other than the comedian in the full military hazmat desperately trying to get in the local rag.

I'm noticing about the same compliance on public transport but there are still so few people travelling up here overall that it isn't a large number. In terms of where I shop compliance has certainly reduced. One noticeable one is the primary school of my youngest, after Easter they decided everyone should wear them in school grounds as they stand outside waiting to pick up their children and for the first few weeks it was probably something like 90-95% wearing masks. Since the last half term I can count the people wearing them on two hands.

 

[greyman42]

Plenty of people were wearing them before they were mandatory.

Where was this?

 

[Lampshade]

Where was this?

Lancashire, certainly around Easter last year I’d wager than in most shops 1 in 5 were wearing either a mask or a scarf pulled up over their nose.

 

[Ianno87]

Therefore we should have a high bar before introducing such a measure. 'It makes people feel better' (because they've been subject to incessant propaganda for over a year) isn't remotely good enough when it has such an impact on people's lives, and cohesion of society as a whole.



Agreed in that case - though still younger children will have spent a significant proportion of their lives now seeing people (other than their family) masked in many situation. I'm not at all convinced that is good for their healthy development.

Still not true. Most of their time is spent with family, in a playground, or in nursery/school, without a mask to be seen. Masking it just an occasional 'out and about' thing (when they're largely interacting with us anyway)

By far the most damaging thing to them over the last 15 months is going without any structured education or social contact (outside of family) for weeks and weeks on end. Any impact of masks is near enough an irrelevance to their development (the 4 year old actually makes a point of picking out which mask for me to wear before we get on the bus).

Prepare to be very seriously disappointed.

Personally, I'm not bothered either way whether masks die out or not - I'll just carry on wearing whilst others do. I'm saying those who are pinning their hopes on them dying out will be disappointed.

Come 19th July, the one thing I can guarantee is this thread erupting with confirmation bias about how "nobody on my bus was wearing one anymore" because a couple more people weren't wearing them that morning.

 

[Socanxdis]

well it's good news for all the trainees waiting to get through their training.

 

[philosopher]

Obviously very good news if it turns out to happen. Finally!

A short period of celebration will be in order.

However, there is still much to be done. There remains the attitude that all these measures were both effective and justified, when in reality they were neither. And while that attitude prevails, there is every likelihood they will return in the future (whether this winter or the next time something potentially nasty comes along). So unfortunately it isn't enough for those of us who have opposed all of this all along to stop now, we still have an argument to win.

Plus there will still be various things that will remain (restrictions on international travel being the obvious one, but also some elements of track-and-trace for example) so we're not quite back to 2019 territory yet.

One argument I have heard a lot before to justify lockdowns is that there was no alternative. The danger with this argument is that a soon at the potential for the NHS to become overwhelmed, people will argue we have no choice to lockdown to protect the NHS. Until those who object to lockdowns can come up with a good argument against the view that there no alternative to lockdowns I suspect lockdowns in some form will make return in the near future when the NHS comes under pressure.

 

[Class 33]

I think it's highly HIGHLY unlikely there will be any full national lockdowns again in the near future. I think those bad old days are well and truly over. They can't just order another lockdown just because the hospitals get busier with Covid and all sorts of other things! There is more to this country than just "Protecting the NHS"!! For there to be another lockdown, there would have to be a really valid and acceptable reason for there to be, such as another Covid variant that defeats the vaccines, and hospital numbers AND deaths absolutely surging out of control. Those days are long gone I think. Someone on here recently even posted that they feared there would be another full national lockdown during JULY AND AUGUST! Absolutely no chance!

 

[Jamiescott1]

There may be guidance but I think that a lot of emphasis will be put on businesses to do over the top risk assessments on covid with control measures similar to now.
Social distancing and masks may no longer be required by law but they will be forced through risk assessments and overzealous Council health and safety inspectors

 

[Merseysider]

Brilliant news. Sajid Javid has been very strong in the press too - unlike the serial liar Hancock I actually believe him when he says we need to learn to live with it.

Yes, I actually remarked to a family member that Sajid Javid had done more straight talking in a week than the rest of the party had done over a year plus.

But without wanting to get too much into politics, I’ll add that I’ll cease to wear one completely the moment they are no longer mandated. I don’t realistically imagine any kind of conflict between those who continue to wear them, and those who do not.

It is as 3rd rail says - people will simply take their business elsewhere if necessary.

 

[Watershed]

TfL Commissioner Andy Byford has made noises suggesting TfL may keep its own face covering mandate even if the Government scraps the general mandate (from the Evening Standard 4 days ago):

Transport for London bosses will consider defying a Government order to ditch face masks if it helps to reassure passengers to return to the Tube, the Standard can reveal.

Ministers signalled last week that compulsory mask-wearing would be scrapped as part of the ending of lockdown on July 19, though special “guidance” could be proposed for the Underground.

TfL commissioner Andy Byford said he wanted passengers to have the “confidence” to return to the capital’s “safe” public transport network rather than getting back in their cars.

Mr Byford, in an interview with Evening Standard editor Emily Sheffield, said TfL would be guided by two principles – Government advice and the views of passengers.

He said: “We are going to spend the next couple of weeks waiting to see what the Government advice is. If Government advice is to drop masks, we will still take into account what our customers have said.

“What our customers have said is that they want to see a clean, safe, orderly environment.

“It would be bizarre if, for example, you didn’t have to wear a mask on a mainline train but you did on the Tube… I don’t want to give the wrong impression that somehow public transport is unsafe.

“But equally, what we don’t want to do is to kneejerk between ‘masks on’ and ‘masks off’. We are going to think very carefully about this and I want customers to have the confidence to use the system.”

Bear in mind that TfL currently have a notice at each of their stations, purporting to give a "safety instruction" under their Byelaws that requires face coverings to be worn unless exempt.

I wouldn't put it beyond them to try and extend the mandate on the TfL network in this way, meaning they would sidestep any government revocation of the Face Covering Regulations. That said, I'd have thought such a "safety instruction" may be open to legal challenge as to its legitimacy, given the inherent risk assessment in any revocation of the general mandate.

 

[Mike395]

I too don't envisage any real conflict between those wearing masks and those not once no longer mandatory - I've noticed the proportion of people not wearing them has started increasing quite rapidly on my rail journeys over the last couple of weeks particularly (including on some quite busy services), and no-one seemed to be bothered.

Personally - whilst I welcome the removal of restrictions, I'll probably voluntarily keep up with some of the measures such as staying at home when feeling under the weather rather than push myself to go out regardless (which I was terrible with doing pre-pandemic) and possibly mask wearing in enclosed spaces when I feel ill (but don't think that will be particularly regular, per my previous point!), and I think, by and large, the public will decide what suits their situation/personal risk levels and take action accordingly.

 

[edwin_m]

I understand what you are saying about masks protecting others, but after everyone has had the chance to get the vaccine (2 doses), I don't think it is fair that people should be forced to wear masks to protect people who refuse vaccination. You would be protecting people who would not want to be protected.

I have some sympathy with that viewpoint. But at present there are many people who haven't had two doses plus three weeks for it to be fully effective, plus those who have medical reasons why they can't take the vaccine or it isn't effective. And if the numbers of hospitalisations overwhelm the NHS, as they will eventually if present trends continue, then everyone who needs hospital care for any reason will suffer.

I'd be delighted to be convinced that the vaccines have truly broken this link. But at present they haven't, or at least not enough to overcome the exponential increase in new cases.

You've got that the wrong way round.

We should be requiring evidence that something actually works before demanding it, rather than assuming it does and requiring evidence that it doesn't before removing it. Particularly where a perfectly natural activity (such as breathing) is concerned.

This should always have been the same for lockdown restrictions (although if they've any sense they won't even bother considering re-imposing them again this winter).

The precautionary principle says that if there is an evident risk of harm, we should understand things better before going ahead. We don't have people dropping dead at New Street, but there are plenty of people on here using it as a reason to remove diesel trains.

I don't remember if it was you or someone else of similar viewpoint, who said on another thread that nobody was too bothered when there were 40,000 flu deaths in winter 2018-19 compared with 150,000 deaths from Covid since late 2019 (a longer period by the way, so not really comparable). I didn't respond there as it was irrelevant to that topic, but it's relevant here:

Headline flu death statistics seem to be hard to find - I'd be interested to know where that figure came from - but an ONS official report gives these figures on hospitalisation:
Surveillance of influenza and other seasonal respiratory viruses in the UK. Winter 2020 to 2021 (publishing.service.gov.uk)

a total of 40 hospitalised confirmed influenza cases were reported from 56 participating sentinel NHS acute trusts across England from week 40 2020 to week 14 2021, including sentinel sites submitting a nil return. This compares to a total of 4,918 cases from 22 participating trusts in 2019 to 2020, 5,667 cases from 24 participating trusts in 2018 to 2019, and 10,107 cases from 25 participating trusts in 2017 to 2018 (Figure 12). Please note that the hospital admissions data collection ended in week 14 during the 2019 to 2020 season, due to pressures related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

So it's highly likely that the flu deaths last winter were vastly fewer than in previous years. Is that just coincidence, or related to the fact that social activity was severely restricted for most of the winter? This strongly suggests two things:

• Social restrictions are highly effective in reducing incidence of flu, which spreads in a similar way to Covid.
• Even with those restrictions, there were tens of thousands more Covid deaths than flu deaths, so how many would there have been if there had been no restrictions?

Note that I'm referring to all restrictions collectively not just masks, as per my previous post and the subject of this thread.

I accept this is not a definitive statistical analysis, I don't have time to delve through the official statistics to produce something more relevant, and I suspect the people that disagree with me wouldn't accept it anyway.

No more masks for me and on the first weekend after I'm getting a first-class ticket to Norwich because I have never been and I'd like to see what the new trains are like.

An example of the type of behaviour that arises if people are expected to use their own judgment. How many people might you infect on the train if you happen to have been infected yourself a few days before? And will you be using the Tube to get to Liverpool Street?

One argument I have heard a lot before to justify lockdowns is that there was no alternative. The danger with this argument is that a soon at the potential for the NHS to become overwhelmed, people will argue we have no choice to lockdown to protect the NHS. Until those who object to lockdowns can come up with a good argument against the view that there no alternative to lockdowns I suspect lockdowns in some form will make return in the near future when the NHS comes under pressure.

As far as I'm aware no country has kept Covid under control except by lockdown or by very strict border controls which have largely isolated it from the rest of the world, and the latter only works if imposed early before it has taken hold. I've already pointed out that there is a strong case to say relaxing restrictions right now and not being prepared to re-impose them prevents a significant risk of overwhelming the NHS. Again the precautionary principle states that we shouldn't be submitting the population to a giant experiment which could have fatal consequences for many unless there's good evidence it will work, and a Plan B if it doesn't.

 

[Ianno87]

There may be guidance but I think that a lot of emphasis will be put on businesses to do over the top risk assessments on covid with control measures similar to now.
Social distancing and masks may no longer be required by law but they will be forced through risk assessments and overzealous Council health and safety inspectors

I can certainly imagine supermarkets etc still keeping the "Please Wear a Face Covering" signs up, but not necessarily enforcing it.

 

[Darandio]

An example of the type of behaviour that arises if people are expected to use their own judgment. How many people might you infect on the train if you happen to have been infected yourself a few days before? And will you be using the Tube to get to Liverpool Street?

Guilt tripping. Classy.

 

[yorksrob]

I have some sympathy with that viewpoint. But at present there are many people who haven't had two doses plus three weeks for it to be fully effective, plus those who have medical reasons why they can't take the vaccine or it isn't effective. And if the numbers of hospitalisations overwhelm the NHS, as they will eventually if present trends continue, then everyone who needs hospital care for any reason will suffer.

I'd be delighted to be convinced that the vaccines have truly broken this link. But at present they haven't, or at least not enough to overcome the exponential increase in new cases.

The precautionary principle says that if there is an evident risk of harm, we should understand things better before going ahead. We don't have people dropping dead at New Street, but there are plenty of people on here using it as a reason to remove diesel trains.

I don't remember if it was you or someone else of similar viewpoint, who said on another thread that nobody was too bothered when there were 40,000 flu deaths in winter 2018-19 compared with 150,000 deaths from Covid since late 2019 (a longer period by the way, so not really comparable). I didn't respond there as it was irrelevant to that topic, but it's relevant here:

Headline flu death statistics seem to be hard to find - I'd be interested to know where that figure came from - but an ONS official report gives these figures on hospitalisation:
Surveillance of influenza and other seasonal respiratory viruses in the UK. Winter 2020 to 2021 (publishing.service.gov.uk)

So it's highly likely that the flu deaths last winter were vastly fewer than in previous years. Is that just coincidence, or related to the fact that social activity was severely restricted for most of the winter? This strongly suggests two things:

• Social restrictions are highly effective in reducing incidence of flu, which spreads in a similar way to Covid.
• Even with those restrictions, there were tens of thousands more Covid deaths than flu deaths, so how many would there have been if there had been no restrictions?

Note that I'm referring to all restrictions collectively not just masks, as per my previous post and the subject of this thread.

I accept this is not a definitive statistical analysis, I don't have time to delve through the official statistics to produce something more relevant, and I suspect the people that disagree with me wouldn't accept it anyway.

An example of the type of behaviour that arises if people are expected to use their own judgment. How many people might you infect on the train if you happen to have been infected yourself a few days before? And will you be using the Tube to get to Liverpool Street?

As far as I'm aware no country has kept Covid under control except by lockdown or by very strict border controls which have largely isolated it from the rest of the world, and the latter only works if imposed early before it has taken hold. I've already pointed out that there is a strong case to say relaxing restrictions right now and not being prepared to re-impose them prevents a significant risk of overwhelming the NHS. Again the precautionary principle states that we shouldn't be submitting the population to a giant experiment which could have fatal consequences for many unless there's good evidence it will work, and a Plan B if it doesn't.

The precautionary principle might have been justified in a situation without vaccines and an unknown virus. At this stage where the virus has been with us for some time and we know that vaccines are effective, we should be demanding a proper justification of any restrictions on day to day normal life, otherwise we risk returning to a world of 10 o'clock chuck outs, enforced scotch eggs etc (insert example of pointless covid theatre of your choice).

 

[Ianno87]

Guilt tripping. Classy.

But does everybody need to make some silly point of deliberately going 0-60 at the first opportunity? Does strike me as sheer bloody mindedness for the sake of it.

Why not (for example) have your mask off on the train, but wear it while you're passing through the busy tube station?

 

[philosopher]

As far as I'm aware no country has kept Covid under control except by lockdown or by very strict border controls which have largely isolated it from the rest of the world, and the latter only works if imposed early before it has taken hold. I've already pointed out that there is a strong case to say relaxing restrictions right now and not being prepared to re-impose them prevents a significant risk of overwhelming the NHS. Again the precautionary principle states that we shouldn't be submitting the population to a giant experiment which could have fatal consequences for many unless there's good evidence it will work, and a Plan B if it doesn't.

You could however argue that lockdown is giant experiment as we do not yet know the long term consequences of such a policy. What if the cure does end being worse than the disease! Until last year, as far as I know it had not been applied on a nationwide scale for an lengthy amount of time. I know some US cities did impose restrictions during the 1918 flu pandemic, however these were generally measures such as making masks compulsory and closing schools, not forcing people to stay at home almost all the time.

Already now inflation is increasing which may partly be due to increased government borrowing to fund measures such as furlough which is a direct consequence of lockdowns.

 

[greyman42]

I can certainly imagine supermarkets etc still keeping the "Please Wear a Face Covering" signs up, but not necessarily enforcing it.

They don't/can't enforce it now so will not be doing so in the future.

TfL Commissioner Andy Byford has made noises suggesting TfL may keep its own face covering mandate even if the Government scraps the general mandate (from the Evening Standard 4 days ago):

Bear in mind that TfL currently have a notice at each of their stations, purporting to give a "safety instruction" under their Byelaws that requires face coverings to be worn unless exempt.

I wouldn't put it beyond them to try and extend the mandate on the TfL network in this way, meaning they would sidestep any government revocation of the Face Covering Regulations. That said, I'd have thought such a "safety instruction" may be open to legal challenge as to its legitimacy, given the inherent risk assessment in any revocation of the general mandate.

If TfL try and pull such a stunt then you con expect a lot more people to claim exemptions.

 

[yorksrob]

But does everybody need to make some silly point of deliberately going 0-60 at the first opportunity? Does strike me as sheer bloody mindedness for the sake of it.

Why not (for example) have your mask off on the train, but wear it while you're passing through the busy tube station?

With a face covering, you're either wearing it or you're not.

 

[43066]

But does everybody need to make some silly point of deliberately going 0-60 at the first opportunity? Does strike me as sheer bloody mindedness for the sake of it.

Why not (for example) have your mask off on the train, but wear it while you're passing through the busy tube station?

I’d have more respect for that if there was any real evidence that masks made a meaningful difference. As they don’t really, what’s the point of half doing an activity which is pointless even when it’s complied with to the letter?

I've already pointed out that there is a strong case to say relaxing restrictions right now and not being prepared to re-impose them prevents a significant risk of overwhelming the NHS.

I’m sure it would make the NHS’ lines easier if we lockeddown every every winter, because we are told
It’s in its knees and overrun every winter. I’m sick to high heaven of hearing all the hand wringing about the NHS - especially when we read that a high number of Covid deaths have resulted from infections in hospitals - so the NHS’ own poor infection control practices have directly contributed to the death rate.

We are now at the point where all the vulnerable and all adults over the age of 30 have been offered to the vaccine (snd the majority of adults have had two jabs). It isn’t going to get any better than that!

People will still get in and die from Covid - that is just the level of mortality we will have to get used to.

 

[3rd rail land]

TfL Commissioner Andy Byford has made noises suggesting TfL may keep its own face covering mandate even if the Government scraps the general mandate (from the Evening Standard 4 days ago):

Bear in mind that TfL currently have a notice at each of their stations, purporting to give a "safety instruction" under their Byelaws that requires face coverings to be worn unless exempt.

I wouldn't put it beyond them to try and extend the mandate on the TfL network in this way, meaning they would sidestep any government revocation of the Face Covering Regulations. That said, I'd have thought such a "safety instruction" may be open to legal challenge as to its legitimacy, given the inherent risk assessment in any revocation of the general mandate.

Does TfL really want the negative publicity that will inevitably come from enforcing mask usage even if it is no longer legally required? I suspect a lot of staff wouldn't challenge non wearers anyway.

For example I once used the Tube and only when I was halfway to the first stop on my journey did I realise I didn't have my mask on and thus out it on. Nobody said a thing, both staff and passengers.

 

[43066]

Does TfL really want the negative publicity that will inevitably come from enforcing mask usage even if it is no longer legally required? I suspect a lot of staff wouldn't challenge non wearers anyway.

This is much more about politics, and is no doubt coming from the mayor; simultaneously putting clear blue water between himself and the government and playing to his voter base (what’s the betting that Labour voters, at least the London ones, are likely to be pro restriction?).

 

[J-2739]

But does everybody need to make some silly point of deliberately going 0-60 at the first opportunity? Does strike me as sheer bloody mindedness for the sake of it.

Many people will see the 19th July as a (close) return to life as we enjoyed pre-2020, with very little to no significant restrictions placed on them, therefore, I'm not really sure why some are finding a problem with others 'going 0-60', as you put it.

 

[Watershed]

But at present there are many people who haven't had two doses plus three weeks for it to be fully effective

Everyone in priority groups 1-9 has had their chance to get 2 doses at least 2 weeks ago (incidentally 2 weeks, not 3, is the point at which 'vaccine passports' become valid).

All adults have now had their chance to get their first dose (which provides the majority of the protection that 2 doses offer).

Anyone who has not yet had the vaccine is either not at any notable clinical risk, or has chosen not to do so, or as below, is in a tiny minority.

plus those who have medical reasons why they can't take the vaccine or it isn't effective

They are free to choose to remain at home, get deliveries etc. if they so desire. But society cannot remain locked down, or restricted in some form or another, for such a tiny minority.

I'd be delighted to be convinced that the vaccines have truly broken this link. But at present they haven't, or at least not enough to overcome the exponential increase in new cases.

The Times has reported that the ratio of positive cases to hospital admissions has significantly dropped over recent weeks and months:

At the height of the pandemic, hospital admissions ran to around 1 in 10 of reported cases. When England announced an extension of restrictions, after vaccinating most of the vulnerable, it was 1 in 20.

Today, just weeks later, it is 1 in 50. In all age groups, the hospitalisation ratio has plummeted.

...

It is, though, remarkable that in a period when cases have increased ten fold, the number of people in hospital has not even doubled. There are 1,800 Covid beds occupied, down from 38,000 in the winter.

Whilst it is correct to say that the link between cases and hospitalisations is not fully broken, the ratio has substantially reduced.

We are still vaccinating far more people each day than there are cases - currently by a margin of about 6 to 1 (in terms of total doses it's 13 to 1).

Just like all previous waves of Covid and other similar infectious diseases, the exponential increase will subside and therefore you cannot base any assumptions on instantaneous rates of change.

 

[BJames]

My own observations are that in some instances, mask compliance is non existent, in others much more so. It is high in tube stations still, less so actually on the trains themselves. It is relatively high in supermarkets near me, but my local Sainsbury's for example, all of the staff on the shopfloor had them under their chin the other day. Much much less people just wearing them walking down the street. In the cinema, not a single person in my screen wearing it (much easier to get away with - anyone comes in, can just say "I'm eating my popcorn" and there's nothing that can be said).

For what it's worth, I would say the same for both Nottingham and London, the two cities I have been in in the last 5 days.

The 19th July is the right time to end restrictions. Prolonging it for a month is not necessary. And for anyone truly trusting all the scientific advisers, SAGE/iSAGE etc, please read this https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...-labour-scientists-plot-bit-more-restrictions

The Sunday Express has learnt that members of Independent Sage are to be part of the launch of an international group called the World Health Network which will push for a “zero covid” strategy of maintaining lockdowns. The revelation came at an online meeting of the Zero Covid campaign group last week where trade union officials told attendees about how covid is a means of recruiting members and how the ultimate goal has to be “to bring down capitalism.”

Having read that, I will not hear it from people that these advisers all have our best interests at heart. When Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance, who have been pessimistic throughout, have also said that the 19th is the right date, people have suddenly decided they don't trust them anymore. When people say "cases are too high, but in a month's time it will be ok" this is clearly not true. Everyone is mixing in each other's houses near me, and I am not surprised - I'm one of these people. There's not an endgame, if you don't release during the summer you push the surge of cases that actually cause trouble into the winter. So now is the right time.

I suggest if you want to trust any of the advisers you look them up before listening to what they have to say on TV and in the papers...

 

[edwin_m]

The precautionary principle might have been justified in a situation without vaccines and an unknown virus. At this stage where the virus has been with us for some time and we know that vaccines are effective, we should be demanding a proper justification of any restrictions on day to day normal life, otherwise we risk returning to a world of 10 o'clock chuck outs, enforced scotch eggs etc (insert example of pointless covid theatre of your choice).

The justification to be cautious is what happened when lockdowns were imposed too late or lifted too early previously. The statistics were going the wrong way then and they are, in a lesser way, today. I'm not saying this justifies increasing restrictions, and there are some that can probably be lifted, but to me it doesn't justify a free-for-all or government ministers pre-judging the official decision or leaking to friendly newspapers.

You could however argue that lockdown is giant experiment as we do not yet know the long term consequences of such a policy. What if the cure does end being worse than the disease! Until last year, as far as I know it had not been applied on a nationwide scale for an lengthy amount of time. I know some US cities did impose restrictions during the 1918 flu pandemic, however these were generally measures such as making masks compulsory and closing schools, not forcing people to stay at home almost all the time.

Already now inflation is increasing which may partly be due to increased government borrowing to fund measures such as furlough which is a direct consequence of lockdowns.

If lockdown had been imposed promptly it could have been lifted much sooner, helping reduce Covid casualties but also being better for the economy, public finances and everyone's well-being. If we are to believe Cummings, even Bozo understood that when he lamented that the UK would suffer both the worst health effects and the worst economic damage. For once he was right.

We are now at the point where all the vulnerable and all adults over the age of 30 have been offered to the vaccine (snd the majority of adults have had two jabs). It isn’t going to get any better than that!

People will still get in and die from Covid - that is just the level of mortality we will have to get used to.

If this is as good as it gets then there could be a lot more trouble to come. I have based my argument on hospital capacity, not on mortality.

The Times has reported that the ratio of positive cases to hospital admissions has significantly dropped over recent weeks and months:

...


Whilst it is correct to say that the link between cases and hospitalisations is not fully broken, the ratio has substantially reduced.

We are still vaccinating far more people each day than there are cases - currently by a margin of about 6 to 1 (in terms of total doses it's 13 to 1).

Just like all previous waves of Covid and other similar infectious diseases, the exponential increase will subside and therefore you cannot base any assumptions on instantaneous rates of change.

You are correct that the ratio has reduced significantly, but at the moment the rapid rate of increase of cases is outweighing this. You may well also be right that the exponential increase will turn round, but there's no sign of that currently. I don't think anyone really understands the endgame here, which is why I say it's right to be cautious. Based on past performance I have very little confidence in politicians who say otherwise.

 

[yorkie]

I don't think you fully read and fully understood my post did you?

I don't think you fully read and fully understood @big_rig's post did you?

Standard masks are not effective. Anyone who wants effective protection can wear a mask that provides that.

Covid: Masks upgrade cuts infection risk, research finds

Wearing a high grade FFP3 mask can almost entirely protect health workers from Covid, research finds.

www.bbc.co.uk

Wearing a high grade mask known as an FFP3 can provide up to 100% protection.
By contrast, there is a far greater chance of staff wearing standard issue surgical masks catching the virus0

The study found that staff caring for Covid patients on "red" wards faced a risk that was up to 47 times higher than those on "green" or non-Covid wards...

In the weeks following this move, the rate of infections among healthcare workers on red wards dropped spectacularly, quickly falling to the level experienced by staff on green wards where there were no Covid patients.

Given FFP3 masks cannot be mandated for the general public and are clearly not needed, warranted or wanted for the majority, the obvious solution for those who want 100% protection, is to make that choice.

There is nothing stopping you making that choice.